In my writings against the absurdities of Hardshellism I have often shown how the Hardshell understanding of "regeneration" (in relation to being convicted of sin) makes the Holy Spirit into a liar. This argument was made by brother Throgmorton against Hardshell debater John R. Daily, as I shall show. First, however, let me cite from chapter 18 of my book on the Hardshell cult to remind the reader of the argument
Sarrels says again:
"True conviction is exclusively the experience of the quickened or regenerate man. Like conversion to which, under the working of the Holy Spirit, it leads, conviction results from regeneration. He who is convicted of sin sees himself to be a guilty sinner (BUT IS HE REALLY?) in the sight of God, and perceives that his own righteousness is as "filthy rags." He knows and feels that if he is ever saved it can be only by the grace of God. With no righteousness of his own to plead, this broken, penitent wretch--wretch in his own sight, but not in God's sight--is ready to turn to God." (ibid)
Did you notice that? "Not in God's sight." In other words, the convicted soul is not really what the Holy Spirit is convincing him that he is! One senses that Sarrels felt the weight of such a "reductio ad absurdum," for he writes in closing these words.
"...the quickened person in conviction sees himself NOT as he actually is, but as he would be without the grace of God." (ibid)
Can you believe that bunk? A man under conviction is being convicted of only hypothetical sin! He is not being convicted of actual sin! The Holy Spirit is telling the convicted soul a lie when he tells him he is lost and condemned! The Holy Spirit lies when he convinces such an one that he is unclean and in need of pardon and justification! Unbelievable!
Notice this from Dr. Danbury.
"Dr. Danbury on the Daily-Throgmorton Debate" (emphasis mine SG)
"The Daily-Throgmorton debate has come and gone, and I, having had the privilege of hearing every word of the same, thought it might be of some use to those who did not hear it, to say something of my impressions of the same.
As to the men, Mr. Daily is a fine appearing man, and speaks with force, as well as eloquence. He impresses one with the thought that he wants to be known as a scholar and to this end he endeavors to make it appear that what he says is not to be called in question. He is not clear however in his statement of the position he takes, nor does he appear to get the force of his opponent's arguments. He frequently misquotes, as well as misapplies the argument of his opponent. He does not seem to care for the rules of controversy, as he did not, in this discussion, attempt to define his position at any time. His affirmative speeches were delivered principally from manuscript which he read quite well.
Brother Throgmorton on the other hand is clear in statement, quick to comprehend an argument, logical from first to last. He does not deal in sophistry, but from the start goes to the question in debate telling what he means by each term in the proposition that all may know what the point at issue is.
Mr. Daily in this debate gave more time to what was not in the questions being debated than he did to the questions under consideration. It appeared to me that he was not satisfied with the questions as stated. It frequently occurred that he would state what ought to have been the question instead of trying to prove his position.
Yet he had signed both propositions as satisfactory and spent four days trying to make the people believe that he should have been allowed to discuss something else. It frequently seemed he made statements that would involve him in the most absurd positions.
As to the arguments on each side it was in my judgment one of the greatest victories for the position held by Brother Throgmorton that could have been gained. Some of the positions taken by Mr. Daily were that the Gospel was to call out those for whom Christ died, and to make known to them the fact that they were God's children by exciting in them a conviction for sin and making them know that they were vile sinners, while at the same time they were really born of God and the elect of God.
Brother Throgmorton showed that if this was the case that the Holy Spirit made them believe a lie, to which Daily did not reply. I wish that all of our Baptist people could have heard this discussion for themselves as I did." (From the book section titled "FIFTY DEBATES," page 119.
"to which Daily did not reply"! Says it all, does it not?
And what about Sarrel's attempt to solve the difficulty? Laughable, is it not? Very sad too to see such blindness and deception. It is the mindset of cult members.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
More Evidence From Zion's Landmark (1887)
Elder P. D. Gold was a most influential second generation minister and apologist for the newly formed "Primitive Baptist" denomination. A synopsis of his bio is as follows (highlights mine):
"A prominent publisher and religious leader, Pleasant Daniel Gold was born in 1833 to Milton and Martha Fortune Gold in what in now Cleveland County, North Carolina. An ambitious young man, P. D. Gold sought to attend school and move beyond his agrarian upbringing. As such, he borrowed money and went to school, studied law, and received his license in 1856. He began to practice law in Shelby as a partner with future governor John W. Ellis. Soon after establishing himself in Shelby, Gold decided to enter the ministry. He then attended Furman University and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His educational pursuits were interrupted by the Civil War when he enlisted in the Confederate army, serving as a chaplain and nurse until a fever ended his military service.
In the late 1860s, Gold decided to change his church affiliation and switched from the Missionary Baptist Church, or “New School,” to the Primitive Baptist Church, or the “Old School.” He joined the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Church of Halifax, home of the state’s most active Primitive Baptist organization. Gold was such a dynamic personality in his new calling that he joined the church, was baptized, ordained, and preached a sermon all in the same day. As part of his new mission, he co-founded a newspaper called Zion’s Landmark in 1867 with L. I. Bodenheimer. Gold became associate editor in 1871 and served as editor from 1872 until 1920. The paper became the leading publication of the Primitive Baptist Church."
Here are some additional citations that every Hardshell today should know exists. It is more evidence that as late as 1887 it was still acceptable to believe that being born again was equivalent to evangelical conversion.
A TRUE CHRISTIAN (page 338)
"Every one that has "passed from death unto life," has had his burden of sin and guilt removed, feels and can realize that there has been some kind of miraculous change from some source, but after this change there is necessarily something else ahead. But in order to scrutinize this subject closely I will briefly enumerate some of the changes and conflicts through which God's children have to pass."
"2nd. We believe that all believers are born again of an incorruptible seed, and as I have herein before stated that sinners are convicted and quickened into life thus pass from death unto life; but now I will try to explain more explicitly in a brief way what I know by experience of the travail from nature to grace."
"Firstly there is a begetting or quickening, then the sinner has a knowledge he is a sinner before God because his blinded eyes have been opened, and his deaf ears are unstopped, and then he is cognizant of his true condition. — Secondly, there is a travail of soul, and as I have said he probably mourns for weeks, months or years. Thirdly, then at an unexpected and appointed time he is delivered of his load of sin and guilt, and is freed from the law of sin and death, "old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." I possibly might say more on these points, but this I consider enough for the present. My dear brethren, If we are worthy to be called christians, Hardshells, Iron Jackets, or anything else for the sake of Jesus let us glory in such stigmas."
see here
"A prominent publisher and religious leader, Pleasant Daniel Gold was born in 1833 to Milton and Martha Fortune Gold in what in now Cleveland County, North Carolina. An ambitious young man, P. D. Gold sought to attend school and move beyond his agrarian upbringing. As such, he borrowed money and went to school, studied law, and received his license in 1856. He began to practice law in Shelby as a partner with future governor John W. Ellis. Soon after establishing himself in Shelby, Gold decided to enter the ministry. He then attended Furman University and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His educational pursuits were interrupted by the Civil War when he enlisted in the Confederate army, serving as a chaplain and nurse until a fever ended his military service.
In the late 1860s, Gold decided to change his church affiliation and switched from the Missionary Baptist Church, or “New School,” to the Primitive Baptist Church, or the “Old School.” He joined the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Church of Halifax, home of the state’s most active Primitive Baptist organization. Gold was such a dynamic personality in his new calling that he joined the church, was baptized, ordained, and preached a sermon all in the same day. As part of his new mission, he co-founded a newspaper called Zion’s Landmark in 1867 with L. I. Bodenheimer. Gold became associate editor in 1871 and served as editor from 1872 until 1920. The paper became the leading publication of the Primitive Baptist Church."
Here are some additional citations that every Hardshell today should know exists. It is more evidence that as late as 1887 it was still acceptable to believe that being born again was equivalent to evangelical conversion.
A TRUE CHRISTIAN (page 338)
"Every one that has "passed from death unto life," has had his burden of sin and guilt removed, feels and can realize that there has been some kind of miraculous change from some source, but after this change there is necessarily something else ahead. But in order to scrutinize this subject closely I will briefly enumerate some of the changes and conflicts through which God's children have to pass."
"2nd. We believe that all believers are born again of an incorruptible seed, and as I have herein before stated that sinners are convicted and quickened into life thus pass from death unto life; but now I will try to explain more explicitly in a brief way what I know by experience of the travail from nature to grace."
"Firstly there is a begetting or quickening, then the sinner has a knowledge he is a sinner before God because his blinded eyes have been opened, and his deaf ears are unstopped, and then he is cognizant of his true condition. — Secondly, there is a travail of soul, and as I have said he probably mourns for weeks, months or years. Thirdly, then at an unexpected and appointed time he is delivered of his load of sin and guilt, and is freed from the law of sin and death, "old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." I possibly might say more on these points, but this I consider enough for the present. My dear brethren, If we are worthy to be called christians, Hardshells, Iron Jackets, or anything else for the sake of Jesus let us glory in such stigmas."
see here
An Important Historical Snapshot
"...natural birth is a figure of spiritual birth."
"But such a thing cannot be; for there cannot be a child without a father and mother, and there cannot be a father and mother without a child." ("Being Born Again," in "Zion's Landmark, page 1, Dec. 15, 1887)
I have previously shown in my historical writings on the development of the Hardshell denomination that the common view of the first Hardshells was to view "regeneration" as distinct from being "born again," the former being compared to the planting of the male seed in natural birth and the coming forth out of the womb to the new birth. From the above citation it is clear that this view was still being believed and taught. It was not a view that had as yet in 1887 been totally discarded.
It was about this time, however, that Potter had his debate with Throgmorten, a debate which helped to change the new denomination's view on regeneration and the new birth. It was about 1890 when Elder Clark died, and when a serious debate over means began. Those leading the "modern innovators" or "ultraist" Hardshells, in addition to Potter, were men like Dr. C.H. Waters, T.S. Dalton, John Daily, C.H. Cayce, Walter Cash, and Sylvester Hassell.
I want every neo Hardshell to know that the above view was the view of his founding fathers. If the Hardshells were baptized by these men, and they were heretics, how can they say their baptisms today are valid?
I have for years asked today's Hardshells to tell us who is the mother in spiritual birth. Do they not have a birth without a mother?
"But such a thing cannot be; for there cannot be a child without a father and mother, and there cannot be a father and mother without a child." ("Being Born Again," in "Zion's Landmark, page 1, Dec. 15, 1887)
I have previously shown in my historical writings on the development of the Hardshell denomination that the common view of the first Hardshells was to view "regeneration" as distinct from being "born again," the former being compared to the planting of the male seed in natural birth and the coming forth out of the womb to the new birth. From the above citation it is clear that this view was still being believed and taught. It was not a view that had as yet in 1887 been totally discarded.
It was about this time, however, that Potter had his debate with Throgmorten, a debate which helped to change the new denomination's view on regeneration and the new birth. It was about 1890 when Elder Clark died, and when a serious debate over means began. Those leading the "modern innovators" or "ultraist" Hardshells, in addition to Potter, were men like Dr. C.H. Waters, T.S. Dalton, John Daily, C.H. Cayce, Walter Cash, and Sylvester Hassell.
I want every neo Hardshell to know that the above view was the view of his founding fathers. If the Hardshells were baptized by these men, and they were heretics, how can they say their baptisms today are valid?
I have for years asked today's Hardshells to tell us who is the mother in spiritual birth. Do they not have a birth without a mother?
Sunday, April 5, 2015
A Serious Hardshell Heresy
"Every effort to impart spiritual knowledge to the natural man must prove abortive." ("Zion's Landmark," Dec. 1st, 1887 - see here)
This was stated in one of the leading Hardshell periodicals after the Civil War. In reading this I was taken aback by the utter nonsense uttered by second generation Hardshells. No leading Baptist apologist prior to the birth of the Hardshell cult would have uttered such utter unscriptural propositions, There are a number of things I want to say about this man-made proposition.
First, it is certainly true that "every effort to impart spiritual knowledge" to "the natural man," will fail where that "effort" lacks the spiritual influence and blessing of the Spirit of God. The word of God by itself cannot "impart spiritual knowledge" of course, But, a denial of the "word alone" view of the Campbellites and Pelagians does not force one into the Hardshell "spirit alone" view.
These Scriptures uphold this view of things:
"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psa' 127:1)
"So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (I Cor. 3:7)
So, indeed yes, every effort to impart spiritual knowledge to the non-spiritual apart from the blessing of God will prove abortive.
Second, we must accept the implied truth that affirms that EVERY EFFORT, WITH THE BLESSING OF GOD, RATHER THAN BEING A CERTAIN FAILURE, MUST PROVE A SUCCESS.
If all effort (at anything) must prove a failure ("in vain"), or be futile, when that effort lacks God's blessing, as taught from the above passages, then it must be true that all effort, with God's blessing and the special influence of the Spirit, must be successful (the opposite of what it means to be in vain). But, the Hardshells will not likely want to face such a logical fact.
Third, accepting such a man made and unscriptural proposition puts the Hardshells into great difficulty when they read passages where a prophet, teacher, or Christ himself, was involved in the act of imparting "spiritual knowledge" to lost souls. In such a case, the Hardshell heretic must go to work on such passages and do one of these things.
1) Deny that in a given passage (where it seems that spiritual knowledge is being imparted) that it is "spiritual" knowledge being imparted (in cases where it is clear that unregenerate or natural men were being addressed or taught). For instance, if a Hardshell says that the moral law is to be imparted to all men, then he must deny that the law contains spiritual knowledge.
2) Deny that in a given passage it is "natural," rather than "spiritual," men who are being taught. (And what is "teaching" but a way to "impart" knowledge?)
3) Deny that there is any case example in scripture where God, directly or indirectly, put forth effort to impart knowledge to men who were devoid of the Spirit (which is what it means to be a 'natural' man).
It is amazing to me how any serious and honest Bible student can read the Bible and make such a statement.
The whole old testament was addressed to the Jews, and most of these were unregenerate men. The book of Proverbs is addressed to all rational men and Wisdom, or spiritual knowledge, is there viewed as the responsibility of all to receive.
The ministry of the Baptist, of Christ, of the apostles and new testament evangelists, all make it their mission to impart the Gospel (which is true spiritual knowledge) to all men. Did not Paul write the following?
"Whom we preach , warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col. 1:28)
Will the Hardshells say that it was not "spiritual knowledge" that Paul labored to impart? Will they deny that this teaching was to "every man"?
The above Hardshell proposition is not only grossly anti scripture, but it makes Jesus and the Bible teachers all fools for trying to do the impossible in their efforts to teach the lost spiritual truth.
Further, who can doubt that the Hardshells who invented this anti biblical premise have used it as an excuse for their being "anti effort" Baptists? For their lack of effort in imparting spiritual knowledge?
Also, my own experience is against this Hardshell proposition. Others (thank God for them) made "efforts" to get me to think about God and his word while I was a natural man. God blessed that effort and I received that knowledge and was saved just like the first Christians.
This was stated in one of the leading Hardshell periodicals after the Civil War. In reading this I was taken aback by the utter nonsense uttered by second generation Hardshells. No leading Baptist apologist prior to the birth of the Hardshell cult would have uttered such utter unscriptural propositions, There are a number of things I want to say about this man-made proposition.
First, it is certainly true that "every effort to impart spiritual knowledge" to "the natural man," will fail where that "effort" lacks the spiritual influence and blessing of the Spirit of God. The word of God by itself cannot "impart spiritual knowledge" of course, But, a denial of the "word alone" view of the Campbellites and Pelagians does not force one into the Hardshell "spirit alone" view.
These Scriptures uphold this view of things:
"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psa' 127:1)
"So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (I Cor. 3:7)
So, indeed yes, every effort to impart spiritual knowledge to the non-spiritual apart from the blessing of God will prove abortive.
Second, we must accept the implied truth that affirms that EVERY EFFORT, WITH THE BLESSING OF GOD, RATHER THAN BEING A CERTAIN FAILURE, MUST PROVE A SUCCESS.
If all effort (at anything) must prove a failure ("in vain"), or be futile, when that effort lacks God's blessing, as taught from the above passages, then it must be true that all effort, with God's blessing and the special influence of the Spirit, must be successful (the opposite of what it means to be in vain). But, the Hardshells will not likely want to face such a logical fact.
Third, accepting such a man made and unscriptural proposition puts the Hardshells into great difficulty when they read passages where a prophet, teacher, or Christ himself, was involved in the act of imparting "spiritual knowledge" to lost souls. In such a case, the Hardshell heretic must go to work on such passages and do one of these things.
1) Deny that in a given passage (where it seems that spiritual knowledge is being imparted) that it is "spiritual" knowledge being imparted (in cases where it is clear that unregenerate or natural men were being addressed or taught). For instance, if a Hardshell says that the moral law is to be imparted to all men, then he must deny that the law contains spiritual knowledge.
2) Deny that in a given passage it is "natural," rather than "spiritual," men who are being taught. (And what is "teaching" but a way to "impart" knowledge?)
3) Deny that there is any case example in scripture where God, directly or indirectly, put forth effort to impart knowledge to men who were devoid of the Spirit (which is what it means to be a 'natural' man).
It is amazing to me how any serious and honest Bible student can read the Bible and make such a statement.
The whole old testament was addressed to the Jews, and most of these were unregenerate men. The book of Proverbs is addressed to all rational men and Wisdom, or spiritual knowledge, is there viewed as the responsibility of all to receive.
The ministry of the Baptist, of Christ, of the apostles and new testament evangelists, all make it their mission to impart the Gospel (which is true spiritual knowledge) to all men. Did not Paul write the following?
"Whom we preach , warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col. 1:28)
Will the Hardshells say that it was not "spiritual knowledge" that Paul labored to impart? Will they deny that this teaching was to "every man"?
The above Hardshell proposition is not only grossly anti scripture, but it makes Jesus and the Bible teachers all fools for trying to do the impossible in their efforts to teach the lost spiritual truth.
Further, who can doubt that the Hardshells who invented this anti biblical premise have used it as an excuse for their being "anti effort" Baptists? For their lack of effort in imparting spiritual knowledge?
Also, my own experience is against this Hardshell proposition. Others (thank God for them) made "efforts" to get me to think about God and his word while I was a natural man. God blessed that effort and I received that knowledge and was saved just like the first Christians.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Wilson Thompson's Fall
The following is an excerpt from my series on Hardshells and the Great Commission" (chapter 72). I think it needs to be read and studied by every Hardshell.
Elder Wilson Thompson, a leading Hardshell "founding father," and of whom I will have much to say in future chapters, said:
"When I was raised from the water the first thought that I recollect was, “O! that sinners could but see and feel the beauties of a Savior’s love!” Such a weighty and painful sense of their blind and dead condition came over me that I felt a strong desire to speak of the glorious plan of salvation." (Autobiography, chapter three)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1193/36/
That is wonderful to read! A precious story! Sad, however, that this evangelistic spirit was soon lost by this brother! How did he lose this zeal? What happened?
Before I answer those questions, from citations from his "Autobiography," I want to cite statements from him where this early missionary spirit was at work in his heart and conscience. After that I will cite him on the great "ephiphany" that he experienced one day on a lonely dusty road in the wilderness of Kentucky.
From Chapter twelve, a chapter titled - "Conflict and Deliverance," this Elder writes:
"...for I had viewed the missionary scheme only as being a benevolent plan for promoting the spread of the gospel. Whether or not it was a scriptural plan, I had not examined, nor once questioned.
My mind became greatly impressed with the vast importance of preaching the gospel to ALL nations. And as these poor heathen savages were among us (Indians - SG), and we had their land, and had greatly reduced their numbers, I felt that I would seize the opportunity now offered for carrying the gospel among them."
I must stop at this point and ask every Hardshell to answer this simple question about what Thompson has written about his early desires to be a missionary. Was he at this time being led by the Spirit and word of God or by the devil? This is a very important question! They must answer it! If they say yes, then they will not be able, justly or consistently, to say that his later experience, wherein he lost this missionary spirit, was also of God rather than, as I believe, was of the devil and of the flesh.
Thompson continues:
"I soon made my resolution known to the churches, but I met with strong opposition from all the members. My house soon became crowded, day and night, with my best friends, often pleading with tears in their eyes for me NOT to go. They presented their own destitute condition, if I should leave them; and then they would point out all the horrors and privations that I must endure in spending a life among these superstitious and cruel barbarians. Elder William Jones, whom I regarded as an able teacher in Israel, came, with several others, and stayed most of two days and one night. He labored hard to persuade me to abandon the undertaking, but all to no effect. No one said a word about the enterprise being wrong or anti-scriptural; all seemed to admit that the wonderful movements, the zeal and perseverance now so suddenly and so simultaneously springing up in the United States and Europe did surely give some strong indications that the time was at hand when the gospel was to be preached to every nation. All this was admitted, but I must not leave them to engage in this work."
I must here pause and emphasize several important points from these words of the great "Father Thompson."
First, observe how Thompson, by his narration of the discussions among the Baptists concerning his stated "resolution" to go fulfill the "Great Commission," by going to Indiana and preaching the gospel, with the great Missionary Baptist, Elder Isaac McCoy, that he gives us a picture of what the Baptists believed about missions and the "Great Commission."
Thompson basically admits that there was not an anti-mission Hardshell Baptist in existence! There was no opposition to the sending of missionaries, by the church, to heathens who had never heard the gospel! The only opposition was from friends who wanted him to stay because they wanted him as pastor!
Anyone reading this story, thus far, must be awestruck with the missionary zeal that filled the heart of Wilson Thompson! He came out of the waters of baptism wanting to preach the gospel to dead sinners, and believed that their salvation depended upon it.
He believed, and who can doubt it, that he had been providentially prepared for this mission trip to the Indians, and to join Elder McCoy!
Who can doubt that he was being led by the Spirit of God to do as he had been prepared to do and had been inspired to do? Well, what happened to quench this missionary Spirit that was sent to him by the Lord? Are we not all now anxious to see the "end of the story"?
He continues:
"This, I thought, looked selfish in them; for if the time had come for the gospel to be preached to those heathen people, some one must go and preach it, and I believed then, as I do now, that God fixes the field of labor for each of His called ministers, and in that place alone will they be profitable. And when He is about to move one of His ministers from one place to another, circumstances and impressions will open up the way. My mind was not decided as yet, as to whether I should finally engage as a missionary or not; this should depend on my impressions and their evidence respecting my duty as presented to my mind. I must be satisfied what was the Lord’s will, and that should govern me without regarding ease or toil, privation or plenty; and for this knowledge I was seeking and praying, fully believing that God would direct me, for I was submissive to His will. This I told to all that talked to me."
I must here pause again to emphasize certain points from his testimony. First, he clearly was not of the view, at this state in his life and ministry, that the "Great Commission" had been fulfilled! So, even though he had fellowship with another Hardshell "founding father," with Elder Gilbert Beebe, he nevertheless disagreed with Beebe, who promoted the idea that it had been fulfilled. Thompson may have later changed his views on the "Great Commission," after he became an "anti-mission" or Hardshell Baptist, but he did not believe such things at the first, nor did the Baptists with whom he was associated.
Second, about going to preach the gospel to the "heathen," he says - "someone must go and do it." Oh that the Hardshells of today would heed these words of their beloved founder!
Third, he says that his "mind was not decided as yet as to whether he should engage as a missionary or not." Obviously then Thompson, at the start, did not believe it was against the bible or Baptist beliefs for him to be a missionary to the heathen!
Thompson continues:
"My contemplated winter tour to Raccoon Station and thence though the Indian tribes in the Wabash Valley, and so on to Fort Wayne, where Elder McCoy designed a location, would probably show, by the next spring, what the prospect of success was, and what the path of duty would probably be. I met their arguments on privations and hardships by saying: “I was born in the new settlements of Kentucky, which the Indians called the ‘‘bloody ground’’, in the year 1788, and I had been raised to the use of the rifle; the chase of the deer, the bear, the panther, and other wild animals, was the sport of my leisure hours; I had learned most of the habits of the Indians, and was used to camp life; I was a woodsman that could not lose my compass, and I did not know but the Omnipotent Disposer of events might have been superintending my education in the forest as a college far more suitable for an Indian missionary than any school of science could be. These matters time would doubtless develop.” I further told my friends that I hoped to be found submissively waiting and observing the openings of Providence, prayerfully seeking for wisdom to understand them, and for the leadings of the Holy Spirit to guide me in the right way that I might not go astray, for “it was not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”
Thompson was clearly in the Spirit with these thoughts! The Holy Spirit was definitely laying out to him clearly his duty. How can anyone reading these words today and not see a beautiful picture of how God both prepares and calls a missionary! But, what happens to stop him?
He continues:
"I started home alone on foot, and as I was walking fast and in a thinking mood, suddenly these words came to my mind: “Who hath required this at your hand? ” It thrilled through my whole frame and set me all of a shiver. I stood motionless, except a shaking from head to foot, with eyes bent toward the ground. I could not answer the interrogation, but this inquiry started calmly in my mind: “God ‘‘worketh all things after counsel of His own will"; if He intends to send the gospel to the Indians, or to any other heathen nation, He has not only fixed the time for it but has arranged the system. And have you the evidence that this is either the time or the system which He hath appointed?” I saw myself on the verge of a precipice, and, like a blind man, was about to leap I knew not whither. I stood without moving hand or foot, and trembling with solemn awe! In my mind I said: “Lord, shall I know what Thy system is and whether this is it or not? O, Lord, teach me, and let not my feet be taken in the snare of the crafty.” The reply to my mind was quick and satisfactory: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.’’ Search it carefully and you will find the Lord’’s plan.”
During all this time I stood like a statue in the road. It seemed to me that I must have stood there half an hour without raising my eyes from the ground or moving a limb. I often look back to that time as the most solemn period in all my life. When the last-mentioned text came so forcibly to my mind, I was fully satisfied that this new system of missions was of human origin. It was new, and I knew but very little about it; but the text relieved me, by fully convincing me that I would find the Lord’s plan plainly set out in the Scriptures. My trembling left me at once. I felt calm, but still I was anxious to discover the Divine system for the spread of the gospel among the heathen. I proceeded homeward with my mind at ease, and I have never felt that sort of mission fever since."
Lost his "mission fever"! A mission fever that clearly was of the Lord! Here is the story of the Hardshell denomination exemplified in the experience of one man! If one knows the history of this denomination, and of their affection for dreams, visions, and such experiences as The following Thompson had on that lonely road, he will agree with this observation.
I have already written much about Elder Wilson Thompson and his son Elder Grigg Thompson, and also his descendents and other relatives, Elders R.W. Thompson and Elder J. M. Thompson, all Hardshell debaters and apologists.
If the reader wants to see some things I have written previously on Wilson Thompson, he should read chapter 57 titled "The Original Paradigm." In that chapter I also show how Wilson Thompson seemed to hold to the "Three Stage Model" of the "new birth" as fellow Kentuckian, Elder William Conrad. So, we have Beebe, Trott, Thompson, and Conrad who clearly taught this view.
My dad (Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr.) told me recently that when he first came among the Hardshells, and when he had spent a lot of time with Elder S. T. Tolley (editor of the "The Christian Baptist" and whom I know personally, having been in his home several times, and whom both Brother Ross and myself have cited in our writings on the Hardshells), that he asked Elder Tolley about the view that there were "stages" in the new birth after the model I have discussed. He apparently was considering that view when seeking out the Hardshells. He said to me - "Elder Tolly told me - 'the Old Baptists will not have that.'"
Well, Tolley was wrong! In fact, that was the common first view of the Hardshells! Stay tuned! More to come!
Elder Wilson Thompson, a leading Hardshell "founding father," and of whom I will have much to say in future chapters, said:
"When I was raised from the water the first thought that I recollect was, “O! that sinners could but see and feel the beauties of a Savior’s love!” Such a weighty and painful sense of their blind and dead condition came over me that I felt a strong desire to speak of the glorious plan of salvation." (Autobiography, chapter three)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1193/36/
That is wonderful to read! A precious story! Sad, however, that this evangelistic spirit was soon lost by this brother! How did he lose this zeal? What happened?
Before I answer those questions, from citations from his "Autobiography," I want to cite statements from him where this early missionary spirit was at work in his heart and conscience. After that I will cite him on the great "ephiphany" that he experienced one day on a lonely dusty road in the wilderness of Kentucky.
From Chapter twelve, a chapter titled - "Conflict and Deliverance," this Elder writes:
"...for I had viewed the missionary scheme only as being a benevolent plan for promoting the spread of the gospel. Whether or not it was a scriptural plan, I had not examined, nor once questioned.
My mind became greatly impressed with the vast importance of preaching the gospel to ALL nations. And as these poor heathen savages were among us (Indians - SG), and we had their land, and had greatly reduced their numbers, I felt that I would seize the opportunity now offered for carrying the gospel among them."
I must stop at this point and ask every Hardshell to answer this simple question about what Thompson has written about his early desires to be a missionary. Was he at this time being led by the Spirit and word of God or by the devil? This is a very important question! They must answer it! If they say yes, then they will not be able, justly or consistently, to say that his later experience, wherein he lost this missionary spirit, was also of God rather than, as I believe, was of the devil and of the flesh.
Thompson continues:
"I soon made my resolution known to the churches, but I met with strong opposition from all the members. My house soon became crowded, day and night, with my best friends, often pleading with tears in their eyes for me NOT to go. They presented their own destitute condition, if I should leave them; and then they would point out all the horrors and privations that I must endure in spending a life among these superstitious and cruel barbarians. Elder William Jones, whom I regarded as an able teacher in Israel, came, with several others, and stayed most of two days and one night. He labored hard to persuade me to abandon the undertaking, but all to no effect. No one said a word about the enterprise being wrong or anti-scriptural; all seemed to admit that the wonderful movements, the zeal and perseverance now so suddenly and so simultaneously springing up in the United States and Europe did surely give some strong indications that the time was at hand when the gospel was to be preached to every nation. All this was admitted, but I must not leave them to engage in this work."
I must here pause and emphasize several important points from these words of the great "Father Thompson."
First, observe how Thompson, by his narration of the discussions among the Baptists concerning his stated "resolution" to go fulfill the "Great Commission," by going to Indiana and preaching the gospel, with the great Missionary Baptist, Elder Isaac McCoy, that he gives us a picture of what the Baptists believed about missions and the "Great Commission."
Thompson basically admits that there was not an anti-mission Hardshell Baptist in existence! There was no opposition to the sending of missionaries, by the church, to heathens who had never heard the gospel! The only opposition was from friends who wanted him to stay because they wanted him as pastor!
Anyone reading this story, thus far, must be awestruck with the missionary zeal that filled the heart of Wilson Thompson! He came out of the waters of baptism wanting to preach the gospel to dead sinners, and believed that their salvation depended upon it.
He believed, and who can doubt it, that he had been providentially prepared for this mission trip to the Indians, and to join Elder McCoy!
Who can doubt that he was being led by the Spirit of God to do as he had been prepared to do and had been inspired to do? Well, what happened to quench this missionary Spirit that was sent to him by the Lord? Are we not all now anxious to see the "end of the story"?
He continues:
"This, I thought, looked selfish in them; for if the time had come for the gospel to be preached to those heathen people, some one must go and preach it, and I believed then, as I do now, that God fixes the field of labor for each of His called ministers, and in that place alone will they be profitable. And when He is about to move one of His ministers from one place to another, circumstances and impressions will open up the way. My mind was not decided as yet, as to whether I should finally engage as a missionary or not; this should depend on my impressions and their evidence respecting my duty as presented to my mind. I must be satisfied what was the Lord’s will, and that should govern me without regarding ease or toil, privation or plenty; and for this knowledge I was seeking and praying, fully believing that God would direct me, for I was submissive to His will. This I told to all that talked to me."
I must here pause again to emphasize certain points from his testimony. First, he clearly was not of the view, at this state in his life and ministry, that the "Great Commission" had been fulfilled! So, even though he had fellowship with another Hardshell "founding father," with Elder Gilbert Beebe, he nevertheless disagreed with Beebe, who promoted the idea that it had been fulfilled. Thompson may have later changed his views on the "Great Commission," after he became an "anti-mission" or Hardshell Baptist, but he did not believe such things at the first, nor did the Baptists with whom he was associated.
Second, about going to preach the gospel to the "heathen," he says - "someone must go and do it." Oh that the Hardshells of today would heed these words of their beloved founder!
Third, he says that his "mind was not decided as yet as to whether he should engage as a missionary or not." Obviously then Thompson, at the start, did not believe it was against the bible or Baptist beliefs for him to be a missionary to the heathen!
Thompson continues:
"My contemplated winter tour to Raccoon Station and thence though the Indian tribes in the Wabash Valley, and so on to Fort Wayne, where Elder McCoy designed a location, would probably show, by the next spring, what the prospect of success was, and what the path of duty would probably be. I met their arguments on privations and hardships by saying: “I was born in the new settlements of Kentucky, which the Indians called the ‘‘bloody ground’’, in the year 1788, and I had been raised to the use of the rifle; the chase of the deer, the bear, the panther, and other wild animals, was the sport of my leisure hours; I had learned most of the habits of the Indians, and was used to camp life; I was a woodsman that could not lose my compass, and I did not know but the Omnipotent Disposer of events might have been superintending my education in the forest as a college far more suitable for an Indian missionary than any school of science could be. These matters time would doubtless develop.” I further told my friends that I hoped to be found submissively waiting and observing the openings of Providence, prayerfully seeking for wisdom to understand them, and for the leadings of the Holy Spirit to guide me in the right way that I might not go astray, for “it was not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”
Thompson was clearly in the Spirit with these thoughts! The Holy Spirit was definitely laying out to him clearly his duty. How can anyone reading these words today and not see a beautiful picture of how God both prepares and calls a missionary! But, what happens to stop him?
He continues:
"I started home alone on foot, and as I was walking fast and in a thinking mood, suddenly these words came to my mind: “Who hath required this at your hand? ” It thrilled through my whole frame and set me all of a shiver. I stood motionless, except a shaking from head to foot, with eyes bent toward the ground. I could not answer the interrogation, but this inquiry started calmly in my mind: “God ‘‘worketh all things after counsel of His own will"; if He intends to send the gospel to the Indians, or to any other heathen nation, He has not only fixed the time for it but has arranged the system. And have you the evidence that this is either the time or the system which He hath appointed?” I saw myself on the verge of a precipice, and, like a blind man, was about to leap I knew not whither. I stood without moving hand or foot, and trembling with solemn awe! In my mind I said: “Lord, shall I know what Thy system is and whether this is it or not? O, Lord, teach me, and let not my feet be taken in the snare of the crafty.” The reply to my mind was quick and satisfactory: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.’’ Search it carefully and you will find the Lord’’s plan.”
During all this time I stood like a statue in the road. It seemed to me that I must have stood there half an hour without raising my eyes from the ground or moving a limb. I often look back to that time as the most solemn period in all my life. When the last-mentioned text came so forcibly to my mind, I was fully satisfied that this new system of missions was of human origin. It was new, and I knew but very little about it; but the text relieved me, by fully convincing me that I would find the Lord’s plan plainly set out in the Scriptures. My trembling left me at once. I felt calm, but still I was anxious to discover the Divine system for the spread of the gospel among the heathen. I proceeded homeward with my mind at ease, and I have never felt that sort of mission fever since."
Lost his "mission fever"! A mission fever that clearly was of the Lord! Here is the story of the Hardshell denomination exemplified in the experience of one man! If one knows the history of this denomination, and of their affection for dreams, visions, and such experiences as The following Thompson had on that lonely road, he will agree with this observation.
I have already written much about Elder Wilson Thompson and his son Elder Grigg Thompson, and also his descendents and other relatives, Elders R.W. Thompson and Elder J. M. Thompson, all Hardshell debaters and apologists.
If the reader wants to see some things I have written previously on Wilson Thompson, he should read chapter 57 titled "The Original Paradigm." In that chapter I also show how Wilson Thompson seemed to hold to the "Three Stage Model" of the "new birth" as fellow Kentuckian, Elder William Conrad. So, we have Beebe, Trott, Thompson, and Conrad who clearly taught this view.
My dad (Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr.) told me recently that when he first came among the Hardshells, and when he had spent a lot of time with Elder S. T. Tolley (editor of the "The Christian Baptist" and whom I know personally, having been in his home several times, and whom both Brother Ross and myself have cited in our writings on the Hardshells), that he asked Elder Tolley about the view that there were "stages" in the new birth after the model I have discussed. He apparently was considering that view when seeking out the Hardshells. He said to me - "Elder Tolly told me - 'the Old Baptists will not have that.'"
Well, Tolley was wrong! In fact, that was the common first view of the Hardshells! Stay tuned! More to come!
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Pink Overthrows Hardshell Principles
Having come to a more sound position in the Bible one of the
great joys that I now receive as a lover of books, particularly old ones, is to read a powerful quotation which goes against what I used to believe and
teach. It may not directly address the thing
as a whole yet refutes its principles, apart from
which the system cannot exist. It always puts a
smile on my face for I am reminded of the time when the Lord taught me the very
same truths.
Hardshell
Conditionalism did not originate until the latter part of the 19th
century. Consequently, you will not find
the heresy directly addressed by any of the great theologians of the past. Refutations exist when they affirm principles
or subordinate doctrines which run contrary to it. Once you know what to look for (and I do), it’s
a piece of cake to prove that no one espoused this system prior to the 19th
century.
I’m currently reading through Arthur W. Pink’s Gleanings in Joshua and am at the
chapter entitled ‘Victory at Jericho’.
I came across the following quote from the gifted writer which serves as a
powerful rebuttal to many of the building blocks necessary to erect Conditionalism.
He writes:
"And ye shall
compass the city: all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus
shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven
trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven
times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come to pass,
that when they have made a long blast with the rams’ horns, when ye hear the
sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the
wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man
straight before him" (vv. 3-5). In view of the preceding verse, that may
strike some of our readers as a very strange requirement. If the Lord had
definitely given Jericho into the hands of Joshua, why were such elaborate
preparations as these necessary for its overthrow? Let those who feel the force
of any such difficulty weigh attentively what we are about to say. In reality,
those verses exemplify and illustrate a principle which it is most important
for us to apprehend. That principle may be stated thus: the disclosure of God’s
gracious purpose and the absolute certainty of its accomplishment in no wise
renders needless the discharge of our responsibilities. God’s assuring us of
the sureness of the end does not set aside the indispensability of the use of
means. Thus, here again, as everywhere, we see preserved the balance of Truth.
So far from the
Divine promises being designed to promote inactivity on our part, they are
given as a spur unto the same, to assure us that if our efforts square with the
Divine Rule, they will not be in vain. The gracious declaration that God had
given Jericho into the hand of Israel did not discharge them from the
performance of their duty, but was to assure them of certain success in the
same. That principle operates throughout in the accomplishment of the Divine
purpose. The truth of election is not revealed in order to license a spirit of
fatalism, but to rejoice our hearts by the knowledge that the whole of Adam’s
race is not doomed to destruction. Nor are the elect mechanically delivered
from destruction apart from any action of theirs, for though they be
"chosen to salvation," yet it is "through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the Truth" (2 Thess. 2:13)—unless the Truth be
embraced by them no salvation would be theirs, for "he that believeth not
shall be damned." Likewise the revealed truth that Christ will yet
"see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied" (Isa. 53), that
"all that the Father giveth Him shall come to Him" (John 6:37), does
not render needless the preaching of the Gospel to every creature, for that
preaching is the very means which God has appointed and which the Holy Spirit
makes effectual in drawing unto Christ those for whom He died. We must not divide
what God has joined together.
It is the sundering
of those things which God has connected—wherein He has made the one dependent
upon another—which has wrought so much evil and caused so many useless
divisions among His people. For example, in the twin truths of Divine
preservation and Christian perseverance. Our assurance of glorification in no
wise sets aside the need for care and caution, self-denial and striving against
sin on our part. There is a narrow way to be trodden if Life is to be reached (Matthew
7:14), a race to be run if the prize is to be secured (Heb. 12:1; Philippians
3:14). We are indeed "kept by the power of God,’ yet "through
faith" (1 Pet. 1:5) and not irrespective of its exercise; and faith eyes
and makes use of the Divine precepts equally with the Divine promises, and
heeds God’s admonitions and warnings as well as appropriates His comforts and
encouragements. God has nowhere declared that He will preserve the reckless and
presumptuous. He preserves in faith and holiness, and not in carnality and
worldliness. Christ has guaranteed, the eternal security of a certain company,
but He was careful to first describe the marks of those who belong to it:
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and they
shall never perish" (John 10:27, 28), but no such assurance is given unto
any who disregard His voice and follow a course of self-will and self-pleasing.
God’s promise of Heaven to the believer is far from signifying that he will not
have to fight his way there.
The appointed means
must never be separated from the appointed end.”
This
is rock solid truth, so I give a huge amen to everything Pink says here! But it’s not as if similar statements do not
exist in other Calvinistic writings that I must choose this particular one. It’s just that this one contains
so many individual lessons and the inseparable connection between them. Each progression of thought is a refutation
of some principle or doctrine upholding Conditionalism,
and is a lesson that its proponents need to learn.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Pelagianism in The Banner of Love
"I will say that there is no gospel in telling
men what they must do or can do to be saved and if they fail they will be
damned for their lack of doing it. To call on dead sinners to repent and
believe the gospel implies there is an ability in them to perform such
acts." (Ricky Harcrow, "If salvation is by free grace why preach the
Gospel?", Banner of Love Feb. 2015)
When I read these words from the current issue of The
Banner of Love for the first time my first impulse was to do as usual. I
would rebut this anti-gospel nonsense by asserting that warnings and
exhortations are an essential component of the gospel of Christ, and that the
second statement is blatant Pelagianism, pure and simple! But then my mind
turned to where it often goes nowadays. I began to think of all the indoctrinated souls that would be receiving this teaching in the mail and accept it without question.
This happens a lot.
Ever since the Lord delivered me from the heretical
position I used to occupy, I think of my former acquaintances quite
often. Most of the time I am overcome with sadness for I know the things that they are being taught. I think of the
many friends I made while among them; and how they, not being as learned in the
deeper things of theology as they ought, are simply unaware that these words are condoning one of the major errors that faced the early church! They will swallow this 'command implies ability' teaching
hook, line, and sinker. Oh, how sorrowful I become when I think of the
hundreds of souls who are being taught Pelagianism and know it not!!
And one stands in wonder how anyone could assert that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ contains
no exhortations to being saved or warnings if they fail to comply with its
terms! How much of the teachings of Jesus and that of Paul are immediately cast
into the wastebasket when such a position is maintained? Why, they are
both full of exhortations and warnings! The New Testament would essentially
have to be re-written were such the case.
What we’re seeing is the full germination of what began as a small seed in the mid-19th century. A ministry concerned only with “feeding the sheep” and comforting those “already regenerated” took off about this time. Elder John Watson took notice of this sad omission in the ministry of his contemporaries, writing:
“But the worst deviation of all is, that of our not
exhorting both saint and sinner as enjoined in the word of God. A gospel
without exhortations may not be 'another gospel' but it is not a full one; it
would want many things which the Lord has ordained for the good of his
people. Our cold doctrinal, non-exhorting way of preaching, has doubtless
already produced bad results.”
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the
sinner to repent and believe; a gospel
which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which
Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his 'other sheep'."
Much of this anti-evangelistic spirit results from the belief that effectual calling through the means of the gospel is not compatible with the depravity of man. It naturally follows then that the elder's next statement would be to assert that calling upon the lost to repent and believe implies they are capable of doing so:
"To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies there is an ability in them to perform such acts."
This is nothing but sheer unadultered Pelagianism for it is clearly affirmed that commands imply ability!
"To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies there is an ability in them to perform such acts."
This is nothing but sheer unadultered Pelagianism for it is clearly affirmed that commands imply ability!
Excuse me but they most certainly do not. A
command only illuminates what a person is obligated to perform, and not what
they are able to do. To command the lost to come to Christ “no more
implies that fallen man has the power (in himself) to come, than ‘Stretch forth thine hand’ implied that
the man with the withered arm had ability (in himself) to comply” (Arthur W.
Pink).
I suspect that my deceived “Primitive” Baptist friends
are totally oblivious to the fact that they are regurgitating the same
philosophy as the 16th century Dutch humanist Erasmus.
However, instead of using it to deny the total depravity of man as he did, they
opt for the only perceived alternative by shifting the gospel call to this side of regeneration where the man is now able to comply. Though
the end result is different, they both stem from the faulty reasoning that
ability is the limit of obligation. It is for that very reason why Martin Luther, who thoroughly refuted the claims of Erasmus, can be of help to them. His grand work The Bondage of the Will is just as much a refutation of
Hardshell Pelagianism as it is of Erasmus’s version. Here’s a recommended
sampling.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Deniers of God's Universal Love
Hyper Calvinists deny God's universal love to all men. They affirm that "God loves only his elect." This is a fundamental tenet. But, if this is so, then we can state the same proposition in negative form, i.e., "God does not love the non-elect." Or, "God has no love for the non-elect."
Further, if such a proposition be true, then other facts can be deduced from it. For instance, these negative propositions:
"God does not desire the salvation of the non-elect," And,
"God does not call the non-elect to salvation."
The cure for this serious error of Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism is to first administer a dose of Scripture which overthrows the proposition assumed to be true. Next in the treatment, is to show how God's universal love for all men does not negate the fact of his unconditional love and choice of but a small portion of men.
God's Universal Love for All
This is positively stated in Scripture, and absolutely inferred or implied in others. For instance:
"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3: 16)
What "world" is this? Is it not a reference to the entire race of men? Is it not the same world that is condemned and in need of salvation? (vs. 17) The same world of men into which Christ entered?
Further, God is said to be "good" and "kind" to all (Psa. 145: 9), and this cannot be said to be void of love, that is, that they are not acts of love. In fact, the Scriptures affirm that God's goodness towards all is an intended incentive to bring men to repentance and salvation. (Rom. 2: 4) The testimony of Scripture is:
"Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14: 17)
This "witness" is God's goodness and kindness to men. And, to what does it bear witness? Is it not to the person and character of God? Further, creation may witness to God's power and essential divinity (Rom. 1: 17), but his goodness to men is a particular witness to the moral character of God, showing him to be Omni benevolent, merciful, and gracious.
Paul, in preaching to fallen unregenerate sinners, in Athens, bore witness to God's general love for men. Paul not only affirmed that God was the Creator of all men, but the benefactor of all and this in spite of their enmity towards him. All along God has been a giving God, giving to all "life and breath and all things." Surely these gifts are from divine grace, love, and mercy. And, again, what is the purpose of showing such love to his fallen creatures? "That they might seek the Lord and find him." (Acts 17: 24-28) In this God shows himself to be "a faithful Creator" (I Peter 4: 19).
"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17: 31)
According to Paul, God has given man "all things," so that no man can say that what he has was not a gift of God. Now, God either gives these things in love or in hate. But, the Hyper Calvinist cannot confess that God gives "all things" to men from a principle of love, nor of grace and mercy. Further, he must even deny that God's showing temporal mercies to the lost are acts of love.
Further, Paul looks at a special and particular gift that God has "given" to all men in addition to "life, and breath, and all things." What is that gift? "He has given assurance to all men" by his raising up Christ from the dead.
The word "assurance."
It is interesting that the Greek word translated "assurance" is translated "faith" or "belief" elsewhere. Thus, the passage says that God has given faith to all men.
"If the gift be the nature of a proof or ground for faith, then it is a kind of witness, and greater than the witness of God's goodness in giving rain and fruitful seasons. But, a witness or testimonial is given in order that men might be persuaded of a truth. Thus, since "all men," and not merely the elect or regenerated, have been "given" evidence to believe, then it must be the duty of all men to receive the proof. Thus, those who deny it to be the duty of all the believe the Gospel must face these facts."
General vs. Special Love
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Timothy 4: 10)
God is the Savior of all men generally speaking. The question must be asked - "Is saving men an act of love?" Is God's deliverance and preservation of men gracious or not? Solomon said that "safety is of the LORD" (Prov. 21: 31). All the safety and escape from danger is of the Lord. Are these daily deliverances not acts of goodness and love towards all? Who can deny it? Will the deniers of God's universal love say that all the good men receive from God originates in God's hatred and wrath?
But notice that God is "specially" the Savior of "those that believe." Thus, it is Paul who taught a general salvation for all and a special salvation for believers, or for the elect.
Further, the sentiment expressed by the Apostle is not altered in the least if we substitute the word "Savior" with other words, such as Benefactor. In other words, "He is the Benefactor of all men, specially of those who believe." Though God is good to all, he is specially good to his own. We could substitute the word "Lover" for "Savior" and read "He is the Lover of all men, specially of those who believe."
Even though God "hated" Esau, this does not eliminate God from having any love for him.
In Deuteronomy 23:5 we are told that because God loved Israel, he refused to curse them. In this context, God's love was for his covenant people. The covenant people certainly contained both elect (e.g. Moses, Joshua, etc.) and reprobate individuals (cf. Deut. 29:4).
In Matthew 5:44-46 Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies in order to be sons of the Father. That is, by loving our enemies we emulate God. The example Jesus provided for God's love of even the unrighteous was that God sends rain on the crops of the unrighteous.
Common vs. Special Grace
The discussion over the issue of general versus special love is about the same as that concerning common grace versus special grace and over common operations of the Spirit versus special operations.
Did Christ Love All Men?
It is said in the law that men are to love their neighbors, that is, they are to love all men. Further, Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies. Is God commanding men to do what he himself does not do?
Did Christ Love His Enemies?
Further, to deny that Christ loved all men is to deny that he fulfilled the law. Yet, Christ kept the law, which means that he loved his neighbor as himself, and loved his enemies. But, these are facts which the deniers of God's universal love must deny. Is what is true of Christ the Son not true of God the Father?
Further, if such a proposition be true, then other facts can be deduced from it. For instance, these negative propositions:
"God does not desire the salvation of the non-elect," And,
"God does not call the non-elect to salvation."
The cure for this serious error of Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism is to first administer a dose of Scripture which overthrows the proposition assumed to be true. Next in the treatment, is to show how God's universal love for all men does not negate the fact of his unconditional love and choice of but a small portion of men.
God's Universal Love for All
This is positively stated in Scripture, and absolutely inferred or implied in others. For instance:
"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3: 16)
What "world" is this? Is it not a reference to the entire race of men? Is it not the same world that is condemned and in need of salvation? (vs. 17) The same world of men into which Christ entered?
Further, God is said to be "good" and "kind" to all (Psa. 145: 9), and this cannot be said to be void of love, that is, that they are not acts of love. In fact, the Scriptures affirm that God's goodness towards all is an intended incentive to bring men to repentance and salvation. (Rom. 2: 4) The testimony of Scripture is:
"Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14: 17)
This "witness" is God's goodness and kindness to men. And, to what does it bear witness? Is it not to the person and character of God? Further, creation may witness to God's power and essential divinity (Rom. 1: 17), but his goodness to men is a particular witness to the moral character of God, showing him to be Omni benevolent, merciful, and gracious.
Paul, in preaching to fallen unregenerate sinners, in Athens, bore witness to God's general love for men. Paul not only affirmed that God was the Creator of all men, but the benefactor of all and this in spite of their enmity towards him. All along God has been a giving God, giving to all "life and breath and all things." Surely these gifts are from divine grace, love, and mercy. And, again, what is the purpose of showing such love to his fallen creatures? "That they might seek the Lord and find him." (Acts 17: 24-28) In this God shows himself to be "a faithful Creator" (I Peter 4: 19).
"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17: 31)
According to Paul, God has given man "all things," so that no man can say that what he has was not a gift of God. Now, God either gives these things in love or in hate. But, the Hyper Calvinist cannot confess that God gives "all things" to men from a principle of love, nor of grace and mercy. Further, he must even deny that God's showing temporal mercies to the lost are acts of love.
Further, Paul looks at a special and particular gift that God has "given" to all men in addition to "life, and breath, and all things." What is that gift? "He has given assurance to all men" by his raising up Christ from the dead.
The word "assurance."
It is interesting that the Greek word translated "assurance" is translated "faith" or "belief" elsewhere. Thus, the passage says that God has given faith to all men.
"If the gift be the nature of a proof or ground for faith, then it is a kind of witness, and greater than the witness of God's goodness in giving rain and fruitful seasons. But, a witness or testimonial is given in order that men might be persuaded of a truth. Thus, since "all men," and not merely the elect or regenerated, have been "given" evidence to believe, then it must be the duty of all men to receive the proof. Thus, those who deny it to be the duty of all the believe the Gospel must face these facts."
General vs. Special Love
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Timothy 4: 10)
God is the Savior of all men generally speaking. The question must be asked - "Is saving men an act of love?" Is God's deliverance and preservation of men gracious or not? Solomon said that "safety is of the LORD" (Prov. 21: 31). All the safety and escape from danger is of the Lord. Are these daily deliverances not acts of goodness and love towards all? Who can deny it? Will the deniers of God's universal love say that all the good men receive from God originates in God's hatred and wrath?
But notice that God is "specially" the Savior of "those that believe." Thus, it is Paul who taught a general salvation for all and a special salvation for believers, or for the elect.
Further, the sentiment expressed by the Apostle is not altered in the least if we substitute the word "Savior" with other words, such as Benefactor. In other words, "He is the Benefactor of all men, specially of those who believe." Though God is good to all, he is specially good to his own. We could substitute the word "Lover" for "Savior" and read "He is the Lover of all men, specially of those who believe."
Even though God "hated" Esau, this does not eliminate God from having any love for him.
In Deuteronomy 23:5 we are told that because God loved Israel, he refused to curse them. In this context, God's love was for his covenant people. The covenant people certainly contained both elect (e.g. Moses, Joshua, etc.) and reprobate individuals (cf. Deut. 29:4).
In Matthew 5:44-46 Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies in order to be sons of the Father. That is, by loving our enemies we emulate God. The example Jesus provided for God's love of even the unrighteous was that God sends rain on the crops of the unrighteous.
Common vs. Special Grace
The discussion over the issue of general versus special love is about the same as that concerning common grace versus special grace and over common operations of the Spirit versus special operations.
Did Christ Love All Men?
It is said in the law that men are to love their neighbors, that is, they are to love all men. Further, Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies. Is God commanding men to do what he himself does not do?
Did Christ Love His Enemies?
Further, to deny that Christ loved all men is to deny that he fulfilled the law. Yet, Christ kept the law, which means that he loved his neighbor as himself, and loved his enemies. But, these are facts which the deniers of God's universal love must deny. Is what is true of Christ the Son not true of God the Father?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)