The following is from "Chapter 30 - Hot Shots Returned (5th Volley)" of my ongoing book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."
ISAIAH, PAUL & BARNABAS - GOD'S MEANS IN BRINGING SALVATION
"And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49: 5,6)
"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. (Acts 13: 46-49)
"And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and (to turn) from the power of Satan unto God, THAT they may receive forgiveness of sins, and (in order that they may receive) inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 14-18)
It is very clear that Isaiah, Paul and Barnabas, yea, every gospel minister who "brings glad tidings of good things," were and are predestined and made by God to be his "servants" in order "to bring salvation." God had determined to make Isaiah a preacher of the good tidings, and by him, as a means, to "bring again the captivity" of his people, to effect their "return" to the Lord, and to work and effect their "salvation."
There is no way to distort or twist these verses as to make them concern only a "salvation" from temporal trials and errors but to a "salvation" which, by its description in the above verses, can be only that which delivers and rescues from sin and eternal condemnation, of that "salvation" which the Scriptures overwhelmingly speak, and which brings with it the "forgiveness of sins." People, in the "salvation" under consideration in the above passages of scripture, are delivered from the "power of Satan," from his bondage, and who were therefore not "free," nor "saved," nor "born again," prior to hearing and believing the gospel.
In this "salvation" sinners were brought to see and confess their sins and their need of Christ, and were "effectually drawn" to him as a suitable Savior. This "salvation" includes, as the above passages show, "receiving the forgiveness of sins," and "receiving an inheritance among the saints." How anyone can make this "salvation" something unconnected with eternity, and to refer strictly and simply to only some "timely deliverances," of those who are already eternally saved, is to pay absolutely no attention to the "context" and to shut ones eyes to what is obvious in the language of the passages cited.
It is by means of the gospel and gospel ministers that the Lord "gathers" his "sheep," and by which he "calls" and "brings" them into the "sheepfold." This was the view that Elder Watson expressed, in his book, "The Old Baptist Test," as being both his and the truly "Old Baptist position." It is by the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that sinners are brought to faith and repentance, by which they are converted and changed, and whereby they truly come to "know God" and to "know Christ," and whereby they are instructed in the truth about Christ and his salvation.
Dr. Gill wrote:
"...thus what was decreed and resolved on by God the Father, and was declared by him to his Son, is applied to his ministers and ambassadors, who represented him; so that what they did, he may be said to do; and who by them was to go, and did go to the Gentiles, and enlighten them with the light of the Gospel, and became salvation to them; so that this prophecy is produced by the apostles, to vindicate their conduct, as well as to show the agreement between the command of Jesus Christ to his disciples, and the decree of God the Father; as also to illustrate and confirm the particular order, which the Apostle Paul had, to go to the Gentiles, and to which he may have a regard here; see Ac 26:17." (Commentary on Acts 13)
Dr. Gill believed the reference in Isaiah referred first to Christ and secondarily to the ministers of the gospel. Paul definitely cites the passage in Isaiah in order to authenticate his ministry and to show that it was the "work of the Lord" and the result of his making his own appointed means effectual.
Hardshells, in excluding gospel ministers and gospel preaching, a "belief of the truth," as the God ordained "means" he uses to accomplish his salvation, are clearly against these plain facts from inspired witnesses.
TAKING THEM OUT BY THE GOSPEL
"Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: THAT the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning." " (Acts 15: 14-20)
This "taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name" is connected with the work of conversion through the preaching of the Apostles. God was "saving" and "calling out from among" the Gentiles those whom he had "chosen to salvation." Christ sent his ambassadors to offer the "conditions of pardon" to "every man." Those whom the Lord had thus "taken out," by the ministry of the Apostles and gospel preachers, from among the Gentiles, were those who had received that gospel and who had, thereby, sought, called upon, and found the Lord.
This work of "converting" sinners, of "making disciples," is part and parcel of that "salvation" and "regeneration" that God promised to bring by the hands of those whom he sends with the message, "Be ye reconciled to God."
It is interesting too that the Apostle James calls this "work" of "calling out" the Gentiles by the gospel, of "taking out from among them a people for his name," is the "work of God." But, it is Hardshell "logic" that says that such a work cannot possibly be the "work of God" because it involved means! If the Hardshells make the "salvation" and "conversion" of this passage to be a "time salvation," then they are forced to accept the Absoluter argument and position that says "conversion," like "regeneration," is always "effectual" and "irresistable," because it is the "WORK OF GOD." Conditionalists, the predominant sect within the Hardshell cult, will not, however, accept this position. These have staked it out, as their position, that "conversion" is the result of the free will choice and work of the child of God himself, and is, therefore, not certain nor "irresistably" the "work of God."
Dr. Gill wrote:
"James speaking to an assembly of Hebrews...observes, that he (Peter) had given a very clear and distinct narrative, how God at the first preaching of the Gospel, quickly after the day of Pentecost, was pleased to look upon the Gentiles, and show favour to them, and visit them in a way of grace and mercy, by sending the Gospel to them, and his Spirit to make it effectual: this was a gracious visit; he came and looked upon them, quickened them, and spoke comfortably to them, and bestowed special favours upon them; the set time for such a visit being come..." (Commentary Acts 15)
THAT expresses truly the Old Baptist position on this matter, does it not? Neither Dr. Gill, nor the truly Old Baptists, saw it as detracting from the glory of God in salvation, in the least, for God to use the means of his own gospel and the means of his own created witnesses to it! They certainly did not see the idea of regeneration, by the "means of the gospel," as a "blasphemous," teaching, as do those who arrogantly and wrongly claim to be "Old Baptists"!
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Friday, May 8, 2015
Who Gets The Credit in Time Salvation?
In
three of my recent postings I have 1) refuted an anti-means article from a
leading Primitive Baptist elder (Here), 2)
shown how this order advocates Pelagianism (Here), and
3) shown how they tolerate contradictory views of faith, as long as
it’s an anti-gospel view (Here).
Each of these were responses to articles in The Banner of Love periodical,
one of the leading publications spreading heresy via snail mail.
Today I
demonstrate a non-sequitur.
Don
Richards, publisher and editor of this same paper, wrote in the latest issue:
"Man
cannot take credit for his, or others, eternal salvation. Neither can
we take credit for our timely salvation of comfort, security and peace which
comes from believers hearing the foolishness of preaching" ("Foolish
things...", April 2015)
While
all the glory and praise certainly redound unto God for a sinner’s eternal
salvation, it simply does not follow what the editor states next. If my
deceived brethren are consistent within their own system (and many times they
are not) they cannot claim that God receives all the credit for what they
call gospel time salvation. To affirm that He does engages
the Conditionalist in the worst of contradictions, denying the
very premises he uses to uphold his heretical notions. To say that God
gets all the credit for this “second unnecessary salvation” which they affirm
does involve the means of the gospel, my Hardshell brethren end up affirming
the following, whether aware or not.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which involves gospel instrumentality.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which involves human instrumentality.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which involves human action.
The Lord receives the credit for that which depends on man.
The Lord receives the credit for that which depends on man.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which is affected by free-will.
The Lord receives the credit for that which He did not ordain.
The
Lord receives the credit for that which He does not do.
NOTE:
Hardshells argue from Acts 2:40 that gospel conversion is where the regenerate
child of God “SAVES HIMSELF”. Yet somehow the Lord receives credit for
that which He does not do??? Laughable!
The
Lord receives credit for that in which he requires "help".
NOTE:
Hardshells claim that preaching is helping God.
These
are the conclusions, a couple of them absurd, which result from an affirmation
that God gets all the credit for a transaction involving means, in
light of the premises that the Conditionalists take in advance
to the scriptures (eisegesis). Yet when these premises are individually considered,
my deceived brethren cry out in bitter opposition. They affirm that
instruments and human action do rob God of the credit! Why, this is one of the
main premises that they use to erect their own anti-means system and distance
themselves from Calvinism and Arminianism!!
So let me try and understand. The editor may affirm that God gets all the credit despite human action…despite
gospel instrumentality…despite human instrumentality. But when a
Calvinist does the same thing in his system, all of a sudden, he’s a
heretic out trying to rob God of His glory!!! I need only refer to a statement made by another elder just a
few issues back in the exact same periodical who asserts that gospel/human
instrumentality DO rob God of the credit:
“It is not the WORD MEANS that I or my
people object to but the unscriptural use which is made of it in dividing the
honor of our salvation and giving credit for something outside the purpose of
God in the salvation of sinners” (Elder Ricky Harcrow, The Banner of Love,
January 2015)
Now these words, in reality an erroneous
conclusion about the gospel means position, do in fact follow from the
Hardshell premises. If it were correct to say that God gets all the
credit only when He operates in what we might call a direct manner,
then it would be true to say that administration through instrumentality
divides it. But if God receives the credit as well when instrumentality
IS involved, as the editor’s words imply, then what's the problem with the gospel means pattern of salvation?
Harcrow's words, though an error, are consistent with his own paradigm. Not so with Richards. One of
two things must be true. He is either unaware that his words
contradict the Hardshells’ belief that means rob God of the
credit, or he simply does not want to admit the conclusion which results
from gospel time salvation. After all, who would want to
openly announce to their readers that since time salvation involves
gospel means, human action/free-will,and works, this means we are robbing God of
His glory and taking credit for our conversion experience.
Better to just tell the deceived audience that though time
salvation requires these things, we nevertheless affirm in
contradiction that all the credit goes to God. But when Calvinists assert
that regeneration is all of grace through the instrumentality of the gospel,
let’s just make sure that we call them all heretics, and that they’re trying to
“help” God save his people and take some credit for it!!!
If God
receives the credit for that which flows through the gospel, then means cannot
be cited as the reason why He would not. To what then must the Hardshells
defer as to why they blast Calvinism if it can no longer be claimed that the
involvement of men and gospel preaching rob God of the credit? What
scheme of salvation must it require for them to continue identifying Calvinists as being
basically the same thing as Arminians, it if isn't their view that the preaching
of the gospel is instrumental in salvation? It would have to be something else
which causes them to see the two as one in the same. There's only one thing which my deceived
friends could possibly say at this point. They could only say that the
Calvinist is referring to eternal salvation, whereas they are
referring to time salvation. In other words, Hardshells
reserve the right to say God gets all the credit given their position on means,
but Calvinists may not do so in their system. It boils down to the following
proposition which they would have to set forth and prove.
God gets all the credit for MEANS
transactions when the matter is of a temporal nature, but He doesn't when the
matter is of an eternal nature.
Is this what my confused friends are
wanting to affirm?
Ridiculous and laughable! It is not
the duration of the consequence which determines whether something is all of
God, but the act itself. Administration through means either robs God of
the credit, or it doesn't. If it does then you can't say this out of one side
of your mouth, only to turn around and utter an obvious non-sequitur in order
to hide the shame of admitting that your beloved time salvation doctrine is
an Arminian system. If administration through means does not rob God of
the credit then quit claiming Calvinists are "helping God" and
desirous of the credit themselves.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Look And Be Saved!
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isaiah 45: 22)
This is another difficult passage for Hardshells. How and why?
Problem for Neo Hardshells - God exhorts the unsaved to be saved
A) It is not a sufficient reply to say that the command/exhortation is to "Israel"
because
1) "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6)
2) it includes all the Gentiles or "the ends of the earth" (the command is thus universal)
B) It is not a sufficient reply to say that it is a "time salvation"
because
1) The context shows that it is not a mere time salvation. Verse 17 says this:
"But Israel shall be saved by the LORD with an everlasting salvation; you shall not be ashamed or disgraced forever and ever."
It is not some temporary or physical deliverance, but rather an "everlasting salvation." It is set against everlasting disgrace.
2) Those designated by the "ends of the earth" are those who are unsaved, but exhortations for obtaining "time salvation" are for those already saved (in neo hardshellism)
Hardshell Presuppositional Stance
1. Those already chosen and regenerated are the only ones being addressed
2. These only are being exhorted to a time salvation and this salvation is by works and not by grace
But, clearly such a stance subverts the clear teaching of the passage.
The Hardshell thinks that the salvation cannot be eternal salvation because it is conditioned upon a person "looking" to the Lord, or upon belief. Any salvation that results from looking to the Lord, or coming to Christ, etc., cannot be eternal salvation according to Hardshell reasoning. But, clearly this verse overthrows such Hardshell reasoning and presuppositionalism.
John Calvin in his Commentary on this verse wrote:
He invites the whole world to the hope of salvation, and at the same time brings a charge of ingratitude against all the nations, who, being devoted to their errors, purposely avoided, as it were, the light of life; for what could be more base than to reject deliberately their own salvation? He therefore commands all “to look to him,” and to the precept adds a promise, which gives it greater weight, and confirms it more than if he had made use of a bare command.
And ye shall be saved. Thus we have a striking proof of the calling of the Gentiles; because the Lord, after having broken down “the partition-wall” (Ephesians 2:14) which separated the Jews from the Gentiles, invites all without exception to come to him. Besides, we are here reminded also what is the true method of obtaining salvation; that is, when we “look to God,” and turn to him with our whole heart. Now, we must “look to him” with the eye of faith, so as to embrace the salvation which is exhibited to all through Christ; for “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish.” (John 3:16.)
Said Spurgeon:
"Look," this is all he demands of thee, and even this he gives thee.
So a sinner believes in a moment; and the moment that sinner believes and trusts in his crucified God for pardon, at once he receives salvation in full through his blood.
A Sermon (No. 60) Delivered on Sabbath Morning, January 6, 1856
Further, Hardshells do not believe that it is sin, or a thing to be condemned, for men to refuse to look to the Lord for salvation. They do not believe it man's duty or responsibility to do so. But, if it is not his duty, then he cannot be charged with sin for not doing so.
This is another difficult passage for Hardshells. How and why?
Problem for Neo Hardshells - God exhorts the unsaved to be saved
A) It is not a sufficient reply to say that the command/exhortation is to "Israel"
because
1) "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6)
2) it includes all the Gentiles or "the ends of the earth" (the command is thus universal)
B) It is not a sufficient reply to say that it is a "time salvation"
because
1) The context shows that it is not a mere time salvation. Verse 17 says this:
"But Israel shall be saved by the LORD with an everlasting salvation; you shall not be ashamed or disgraced forever and ever."
It is not some temporary or physical deliverance, but rather an "everlasting salvation." It is set against everlasting disgrace.
2) Those designated by the "ends of the earth" are those who are unsaved, but exhortations for obtaining "time salvation" are for those already saved (in neo hardshellism)
Hardshell Presuppositional Stance
1. Those already chosen and regenerated are the only ones being addressed
2. These only are being exhorted to a time salvation and this salvation is by works and not by grace
But, clearly such a stance subverts the clear teaching of the passage.
The Hardshell thinks that the salvation cannot be eternal salvation because it is conditioned upon a person "looking" to the Lord, or upon belief. Any salvation that results from looking to the Lord, or coming to Christ, etc., cannot be eternal salvation according to Hardshell reasoning. But, clearly this verse overthrows such Hardshell reasoning and presuppositionalism.
John Calvin in his Commentary on this verse wrote:
He invites the whole world to the hope of salvation, and at the same time brings a charge of ingratitude against all the nations, who, being devoted to their errors, purposely avoided, as it were, the light of life; for what could be more base than to reject deliberately their own salvation? He therefore commands all “to look to him,” and to the precept adds a promise, which gives it greater weight, and confirms it more than if he had made use of a bare command.
And ye shall be saved. Thus we have a striking proof of the calling of the Gentiles; because the Lord, after having broken down “the partition-wall” (Ephesians 2:14) which separated the Jews from the Gentiles, invites all without exception to come to him. Besides, we are here reminded also what is the true method of obtaining salvation; that is, when we “look to God,” and turn to him with our whole heart. Now, we must “look to him” with the eye of faith, so as to embrace the salvation which is exhibited to all through Christ; for “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish.” (John 3:16.)
Said Spurgeon:
"Look," this is all he demands of thee, and even this he gives thee.
So a sinner believes in a moment; and the moment that sinner believes and trusts in his crucified God for pardon, at once he receives salvation in full through his blood.
A Sermon (No. 60) Delivered on Sabbath Morning, January 6, 1856
Further, Hardshells do not believe that it is sin, or a thing to be condemned, for men to refuse to look to the Lord for salvation. They do not believe it man's duty or responsibility to do so. But, if it is not his duty, then he cannot be charged with sin for not doing so.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Hardshell Founder Gregg Thompson A Mason
In an article titled "AN ERROR CORRECTED," Elder R. W. Thompson wrote on the debate that took place between him and Hardshell great C. H. Cayce. Here is what he wrote in his paper "The Primitive Monitor":
"UNDER the caption, “Was he a Mason?” appears an editorial by Elder C. H. Cayce, in his paper, The Primitive Baptist, Vol. 32, page 8, September 11, 1917, in which he calls in question some statements made by Elder Chastain in his late book, A Discussion on the Worship of God. He quotes from his book as follows:
“Elder Gregg M. Thompson, who lived in Georgia for years and who was one of the ablest debaters our people have ever had, and who met Elder Burgess, a Campbellite and a champion debater, and made a grand defense of our people and doctrine, which debate is down in history as one of the grandest victories for our people that has ever been won was a Mason, so I have been told. Yet, the Georgia Baptists did not non-fellowship him. But this would not make Masonry right, understand. I am not saying this in defense of any secret order, but to show that this is no test of soundness of doctrine.”
“The reader will notice that Elder Chastain emphasizes the statement that Elder Gregg M. Thompson was a Mason, and then adds, ‘“so I have been told.”’ To this we wish to say that Elder Chastain should have better informed himself before making such a statement, if he did not know. Elder Thompson has gone to his reward, and is not here now to defend himself. It seems to us that this great man had enough to contend with while he was living, without a thing of this kind being published to the world about him when he has gone to his long eternal home, and is not here to defend his own practice. But, fortunately, Elder Thompson left on record his position and principles as to how a member of the church should live, and what the church member should belong to.”
"We doubtless should have made no reference to the above through the MONITOR had it not been for the unfavorable reflection cast on Elder Chastain. Since we are, perhaps, mainly responsible for the statement made by him, which Elder Cayce criticizes; “that, Elder Gregg M. Thompson was a Mason,” is correct. The late Elder Gregg M. Thompson was my father’s oldest brother. We very well remember him and have heard him speak of his membership in the Masonic order. Elder Chastain is correct when he says he was a Mason when he resided in Georgia, and “the Georgia Baptists did not non-fellowship him.” And now we adopt and subscribe to the following statement made by Elder W. A. Chastain: “But this would not make Masonry right, understand.” He, too, was a fallible man. We all need to be reminded of this."
"Before closing this article we will give a quotation from Elder Gregg M. Thompson which will not be called in question. We quote him directly from his published debate with Elder O. A. Burgess: (Debate page 258.)
“Good, benevolent institutions may be gotten up among men and great good may be effected by them. No one can see the great improvement in agriculture, that has been made in the last few years, but what will acknowledge that agricultural societies have had much to do with it. If the intoxicating bowl is driven from the sideboard, and a man feels degraded to be seen in a tippling-shop, the temperance movement has, doubtless, had much to do with it. Many poor widows have been fed, and orphans educated and reared to respectability by the Masons. These, as worldly institutions, may be called good; I have nothing to say against them. But they have no power to impose their laws upon the church of Christ, neither has the church any power to adopt their laws, or to form an alliance with them. If it is true that John the Baptist and John the Divine were Masons (which I am inclined to credit), they were such as individuals, as citizens of the world, and did not attempt to impose the laws of that institution upon the church, or to form a union and communion between the two institutions. This would have been a violation of the laws of the King, and would have destroyed the distinct visibility of the church. For the church to become united with any of these worldly institutions, and to adopt their laws and government, changes her organization, and she ceases to be the church of Christ.”
"We give these facts in support of truth and right, and to the injury of no man dead or living. Truth will stand and will win its own fame. We all should be careful not to misjudge the motives of our brother and put him in an unfavorable light before the world. If we all could be more charitable one to another, be sure we have just cause for censure before we accuse him of willful wrong, how much smoother the world would then run. Judge no man rashly. We all need more of Paul’s charity— “Charity suffereth long and is kind.” O that we were all filled with that spirit! Wrongs in doctrine and practice can often-times be more easily corrected through the spirit of kindness than otherwise, “and a soul saved from death;” saved to a useful life in the church."
by R. W. T." (http://www.salvationbygracealone.com/anerrorcorrected.html)
I have already shown how Gregg's father, Wilson, was a heretic, Sabellianism being one of his grave errors. Now we see how Gregg was a Mason, and Hardshells do not accept such. Thus two of the Hardshell founding fathers would not be fellowshipped by today's Hardshells.
"UNDER the caption, “Was he a Mason?” appears an editorial by Elder C. H. Cayce, in his paper, The Primitive Baptist, Vol. 32, page 8, September 11, 1917, in which he calls in question some statements made by Elder Chastain in his late book, A Discussion on the Worship of God. He quotes from his book as follows:
“Elder Gregg M. Thompson, who lived in Georgia for years and who was one of the ablest debaters our people have ever had, and who met Elder Burgess, a Campbellite and a champion debater, and made a grand defense of our people and doctrine, which debate is down in history as one of the grandest victories for our people that has ever been won was a Mason, so I have been told. Yet, the Georgia Baptists did not non-fellowship him. But this would not make Masonry right, understand. I am not saying this in defense of any secret order, but to show that this is no test of soundness of doctrine.”
“The reader will notice that Elder Chastain emphasizes the statement that Elder Gregg M. Thompson was a Mason, and then adds, ‘“so I have been told.”’ To this we wish to say that Elder Chastain should have better informed himself before making such a statement, if he did not know. Elder Thompson has gone to his reward, and is not here now to defend himself. It seems to us that this great man had enough to contend with while he was living, without a thing of this kind being published to the world about him when he has gone to his long eternal home, and is not here to defend his own practice. But, fortunately, Elder Thompson left on record his position and principles as to how a member of the church should live, and what the church member should belong to.”
"We doubtless should have made no reference to the above through the MONITOR had it not been for the unfavorable reflection cast on Elder Chastain. Since we are, perhaps, mainly responsible for the statement made by him, which Elder Cayce criticizes; “that, Elder Gregg M. Thompson was a Mason,” is correct. The late Elder Gregg M. Thompson was my father’s oldest brother. We very well remember him and have heard him speak of his membership in the Masonic order. Elder Chastain is correct when he says he was a Mason when he resided in Georgia, and “the Georgia Baptists did not non-fellowship him.” And now we adopt and subscribe to the following statement made by Elder W. A. Chastain: “But this would not make Masonry right, understand.” He, too, was a fallible man. We all need to be reminded of this."
"Before closing this article we will give a quotation from Elder Gregg M. Thompson which will not be called in question. We quote him directly from his published debate with Elder O. A. Burgess: (Debate page 258.)
“Good, benevolent institutions may be gotten up among men and great good may be effected by them. No one can see the great improvement in agriculture, that has been made in the last few years, but what will acknowledge that agricultural societies have had much to do with it. If the intoxicating bowl is driven from the sideboard, and a man feels degraded to be seen in a tippling-shop, the temperance movement has, doubtless, had much to do with it. Many poor widows have been fed, and orphans educated and reared to respectability by the Masons. These, as worldly institutions, may be called good; I have nothing to say against them. But they have no power to impose their laws upon the church of Christ, neither has the church any power to adopt their laws, or to form an alliance with them. If it is true that John the Baptist and John the Divine were Masons (which I am inclined to credit), they were such as individuals, as citizens of the world, and did not attempt to impose the laws of that institution upon the church, or to form a union and communion between the two institutions. This would have been a violation of the laws of the King, and would have destroyed the distinct visibility of the church. For the church to become united with any of these worldly institutions, and to adopt their laws and government, changes her organization, and she ceases to be the church of Christ.”
"We give these facts in support of truth and right, and to the injury of no man dead or living. Truth will stand and will win its own fame. We all should be careful not to misjudge the motives of our brother and put him in an unfavorable light before the world. If we all could be more charitable one to another, be sure we have just cause for censure before we accuse him of willful wrong, how much smoother the world would then run. Judge no man rashly. We all need more of Paul’s charity— “Charity suffereth long and is kind.” O that we were all filled with that spirit! Wrongs in doctrine and practice can often-times be more easily corrected through the spirit of kindness than otherwise, “and a soul saved from death;” saved to a useful life in the church."
by R. W. T." (http://www.salvationbygracealone.com/anerrorcorrected.html)
I have already shown how Gregg's father, Wilson, was a heretic, Sabellianism being one of his grave errors. Now we see how Gregg was a Mason, and Hardshells do not accept such. Thus two of the Hardshell founding fathers would not be fellowshipped by today's Hardshells.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Samuel Trott & A.W. Pink
A. W. Pink, I am told, flirted with the idea of joining the Hardshells. If he did, I am sure that he could fellowship with the old Hardshell view (as expressed below by Elder Trott) but not with today's Hardshells who have rejected the view of their founders.
I do not accept the view of either Pink or Trott, but it is far more scriptural and less dangerous than today's Hardshell paradigm.
Hardshell founding father, Elder Samuel Trott, wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth.
"We might go on to notice the effect of the conception of this incorruptible seed, how it produces faith in God, quickens the man to a sense of his relations, and accountability to God, of the spirituality and broadness of the law, and of the sin in his acts, thoughts, and nature; of the distress occasioned thereby; of the darkness that covers the whole operation within, hiding all excepting certain external effects from the individual view, so that he is a mystery to himself, and can tell no more why he is thus, than he can tell of the wind whence it cometh or whither it goeth. We might show that whilst the soul is thus quickened to such a deep sense of the law or of sin as being against God, that it still evidently is not changed from a natural to a spiritual soul, and therefore it cannot receive the things of the Spirit, or the things freely given us of God, but entirely looks to the deeds of the law as the way of acceptance with God. But we forbear, and come to the BIRTH...The name Isaac therefore and Sarah’s being said to laugh, is strikingly expressive of that joy which is experienced when a person is first born again, or brought by faith to behold the light of the Sun of Righteousness into liberty. It is all joy and excitement at beholding the way of pardon and acceptance with God." ("THE NEW BIRTH" From "SIGNS of the TIMES" - Vol.21 - 1853 - Writings of Elder Samuel Trott, pages 404 - 409)
He said:
"...I feel sorry to see the children of God so bewildered as to their deliverance (new birth - SG), and as having no clearer evidence to their minds, to refer to at times, of their having passed from death to life. I know how to pity them, having been in like situation; from not having been conversant with clear, experimental persons, and not having heard discriminating, experimental gospel preaching, when Christ was revealed in me to the apprehending of Him by faith as a Saviour suiting my case, I had no idea that the exercise I had at that time was a being born again, or a first believing in Christ with that faith which is the gift of God."
"A coming to Christ is admitted as necessary by all professors. I will, therefore, here show that Christ has said that none can come unto Him except they are taught of God. The words are, "No man can come to Me except the Father which hath sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me, etc.," (John 6:44-45). Thus He evidently represents the drawing and teaching as the same thing."
"But God's teaching is not like man's, a mere enlightening of the head whilst the heart is untouched. It is a revelation of truth in the heart, so that the affections are arrested; there is a heart-feeling of the truth taught, and a heart-love for it. To come to Christ, or to be believers on Him, we must know Him in His true character as the Saviour of sinners; as said he that had been blind: "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on Him?" (John 9:36)."
"The Spirit had probably implanted in Brother Burroughs the principle of life, causing a desire after God before the exercises he speaks of; but it may not have been till some time after this that he was truly drawn to Christ. I think if he will review his past experience there will be brought to his recollection a time when the awful depravity of his heart was so laid open to his view as to make him feel the justice of his condemnation, and the utter impossibility of anything good or acceptable to God coming from him; so that all idea of seeking salvation on his part was excluded; "Lord, save or I perish", was his cry in substance. Again, that in reading the Scriptures, or in hearing preaching, or in some passage of Scripture being presented and opened to his mind, he had a view of Christ crucified as a foundation just suited for such a condemned and helpless sinner to lean upon and trust to for salvation..."
"The position I have taken relative to this subject will, I think, be admitted by every reflecting Christian as the Scriptural one when he considers that the promises of salvation run alone through faith in Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 and Mark 16:16). And that faith implies a knowledge of Christ, and this knowledge evidently is only from being taught of God. "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22). I hope this brother, on a re-examination, will be able to tell us something of what he has learned of Jesus and of His saving power."
(Elder Samuel Trott, 1845, Centreville, Fairfax County, VA)
See here
See also here
Pink wrote:
"We shall now confine ourselves to the initial operation of the Spirit within the elect of God. Different writers have employed the term "regeneration" with varying latitude: some restricting it unto a single act, others including the whole process by which one becomes a conscious child of God. This has hindered close accuracy of thought, and has introduced considerable confusion through the confounding of things which, though intimately related, are quite distinct. Not only has confusion of thought resulted from a loose use of terms, but serious divisions among professing saints have issued therefrom. We believe that much, if not all, of this would have been avoided had theologians discriminated more sharply and clearly between the principle of grace (spiritual life) which the Spirit first imparts unto the soul, and His consequent stirrings of that principle into exercise.
Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit
In earlier years we did not ourselves perceive the distinction which is pointed by John 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:23: the former referring unto the initial act of the Spirit in "quickening" the spiritually-dead soul, the latter having in view the consequent "birth" of the same. While it is freely allowed that the origin of the "new creature" is shrouded in impenetrable mystery, yet of this we may be certain, that life precedes birth. There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter. Birth is neither the cause nor the beginning of life itself: rather is it the manifestation of a life already existent: there had been a Divine "quickening" before the child could issue from the womb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit "quickens" the soul, or imparts spiritual life to it, before its possessor is "brought forth" (as James 1:18 is rightly rendered in the R.V.) and "born again" by the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23).
James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, and parallel passages, refer not to the original communication of spiritual life to the soul, but rather to our being enabled to act from that life and induced to love and obey God by means of the Word of Truth—which presupposes a principle of grace already planted in the heart. In His work of illumination, conviction, conversion, and sanctification, the Spirit uses the Word as the means thereto, but in His initial work of "quickening" He employs no means, operating immediately or directly upon the soul. First there is a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10), and then the "new creature" is stirred into exercise. Faith and all other graces are wrought in us by the Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word, but not so with the principle of life and grace from which these graces proceed.
Quickening Imparts Life
In His work of "quickening," by which we mean the impartation of spiritual life to the soul, the Spirit acts immediately from within, and not by applying something from without. Quickening is a direct operation of the Spirit without the use of any instrument: the Word is used by Him afterwards to call into exercise the life then communicated. "Regeneration is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit. It is the action of Spirit upon spirit, of a Divine Person upon a human person, whereby spiritual life is imparted. Nothing, therefore, of the nature of means or instruments can come between the Holy Spirit and the soul that is made alive. God did not employ an instrument or means when He infused physical life into the body of Adam. There were only two factors: the dust of the ground and the creative power of God which vivified that dust. The Divine omnipotence and dead matter were brought into direct contact, with nothing interposing. The dust was not a means or instrument by which God originated life. So in regeneration there are only two factors: the human soul destitute of spiritual life, and the Holy Spirit who quickens it.
"The Word and Truth of God, the most important of all the means of grace, is not a means of regeneration, as distinct from conviction, conversion and sanctification. This is evident when we remember that it is the office of a means or instrument to excite or stimulate an already existing principle of life. Physical food is a means of physical growth, but it supposes physical vitality. If the body is dead, bread cannot be a means or instrument. Intellectual truth is a means of intellectual growth, but it supposes intellectual vitality. If the mind be idiotic, secular knowledge cannot be a means or instrument. Spiritual truth is a means of spiritual growth, in case there be spiritual vitality. But if the mind be dead to righteousness, spiritual truth cannot be a means or instrument."The unenlightened understanding is unable to apprehend, and the unregenerate will is unable to believe. Vital force is lacking in these two principal factors. What is needed at this point is life and force itself. Consequently, the Author of spiritual life Himself must operate directly, without the use of means or instruments; and outright give spiritual life and power from the dead: that is, ex nihilo. The new life is not imparted because man perceives the truth, but he perceives the truth because the new life is imparted. A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated" (W. T. Shedd, Presbyterian, 1889).
First the Work of the Spirit, Then the Word
Under the guise of honoring the written word, many have (no doubt unwittingly) dishonored the Holy Spirit. The idea which seems to prevail in "orthodox" circles today is that all which is needed for the salvation of souls is to give out the Word in its purity, God being pledged to bless the same. How often we have heard it said, "The Word will do its own work." Many suppose that the Scriptures are quite sufficient of themselves to communicate light to those in darkness and life to those who are dead in sins. But the record which we have of Christ’s life ought at once to correct such a view. Who preached the Word as faithfully as He, yet how very few were saved during His three and a half years’ ministry?!
The parable of the Sower exposes the fallacy of the theory now so widely prevailing. The "seed" sown is the Word. It was scattered upon various kinds of ground, yet notwithstanding the purity and vitality of the seed, where the soil was unfavorable, no increase issued therefrom. Until the ground was made good, the seed yielded no increase. That seed might be watered by copious showers and warmed by a genial sum, but while the soil was bad there could be no harvest. The ground must be changed before it could be fertile. Nor is it the seed which changes the soil: what farmer would ever think of saying, The seed will change the soil! Make no mistake upon this point: the Holy Spirit must first quicken the dead soul into newness of life before the Word obtains any entrance.
To say that life is communicated to the soul by the Spirit’s application of the Word, and then to affirm that it is the principle of life which gives efficacy to the Word, is but to reason in a circle. The Word cannot profit any soul spiritually until it be "mixed with faith" (Heb. 4:2), and faith cannot be put forth unless it proceeds from a principle of life and grace; and therefore that principle of life is not produced by it.
...the deadly enmity of the sinner must be removed by the immediate operation of the Spirit, communicating life, before the Word enters and affects him.
"It is said the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended unto the things that were spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14). It would be a contradiction, and very absurd, to say that God’s Word spoken by Paul was that by which her heart was opened; for she knew not what he did speak, until her heart was opened to attend to his words and understand them. Her heart was first opened in order for his words to have any effect or give any light to her. And this must be done by an immediate operation of the Spirit of God on her heart. This was the regeneration now under consideration, by which her heart was renewed, and formed unto true discerning like the single eye" (Samuel Hopkins, 1792).
The soul, then, is quickened into newness of life by the direct and supernatural operation of the Spirit, without any medium or means whatever. It is not accomplished by the light of the Word, for it is His very imparting of life which fits the heart to receive the light. This initial work of the Spirit is absolutely indispensable in order to have spiritual illumination. It is depravity or corruption of heart which holds the mind in darkness, and it is in this that unregeneracy consists. It is just as absurd to speak of illumination being conveyed by the Word in order to have a change of heart, or the giving of a relish for spiritual things, as it would be to speak of giving the capacity to a man to taste the sweetness of honey while he was devoid of a palate.
No, men are not "quickened" by the Word, they must be quickened in order to receive and understand the Word. "And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God" (Jer. 24:7): that statement would be quite meaningless if a saving knowledge of or experimental acquaintance with God were obtained through the Word previous to the "new heart" or spiritual life being given, and was the means of our being quickened. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7); the "fear of the Lord" or Divine grace communicated to the heart (spiritual life imparted) alone lays the foundation for spiritual knowledge and activities." ("THE HOLY SPIRIT," Chapter 11 - "The Spirit Quickening")
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Holy_Spirit/spirit_11.htm
I do not accept the view of either Pink or Trott, but it is far more scriptural and less dangerous than today's Hardshell paradigm.
Hardshell founding father, Elder Samuel Trott, wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted, and then a quickening by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth.
"We might go on to notice the effect of the conception of this incorruptible seed, how it produces faith in God, quickens the man to a sense of his relations, and accountability to God, of the spirituality and broadness of the law, and of the sin in his acts, thoughts, and nature; of the distress occasioned thereby; of the darkness that covers the whole operation within, hiding all excepting certain external effects from the individual view, so that he is a mystery to himself, and can tell no more why he is thus, than he can tell of the wind whence it cometh or whither it goeth. We might show that whilst the soul is thus quickened to such a deep sense of the law or of sin as being against God, that it still evidently is not changed from a natural to a spiritual soul, and therefore it cannot receive the things of the Spirit, or the things freely given us of God, but entirely looks to the deeds of the law as the way of acceptance with God. But we forbear, and come to the BIRTH...The name Isaac therefore and Sarah’s being said to laugh, is strikingly expressive of that joy which is experienced when a person is first born again, or brought by faith to behold the light of the Sun of Righteousness into liberty. It is all joy and excitement at beholding the way of pardon and acceptance with God." ("THE NEW BIRTH" From "SIGNS of the TIMES" - Vol.21 - 1853 - Writings of Elder Samuel Trott, pages 404 - 409)
He said:
"...I feel sorry to see the children of God so bewildered as to their deliverance (new birth - SG), and as having no clearer evidence to their minds, to refer to at times, of their having passed from death to life. I know how to pity them, having been in like situation; from not having been conversant with clear, experimental persons, and not having heard discriminating, experimental gospel preaching, when Christ was revealed in me to the apprehending of Him by faith as a Saviour suiting my case, I had no idea that the exercise I had at that time was a being born again, or a first believing in Christ with that faith which is the gift of God."
"A coming to Christ is admitted as necessary by all professors. I will, therefore, here show that Christ has said that none can come unto Him except they are taught of God. The words are, "No man can come to Me except the Father which hath sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me, etc.," (John 6:44-45). Thus He evidently represents the drawing and teaching as the same thing."
"But God's teaching is not like man's, a mere enlightening of the head whilst the heart is untouched. It is a revelation of truth in the heart, so that the affections are arrested; there is a heart-feeling of the truth taught, and a heart-love for it. To come to Christ, or to be believers on Him, we must know Him in His true character as the Saviour of sinners; as said he that had been blind: "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on Him?" (John 9:36)."
"The Spirit had probably implanted in Brother Burroughs the principle of life, causing a desire after God before the exercises he speaks of; but it may not have been till some time after this that he was truly drawn to Christ. I think if he will review his past experience there will be brought to his recollection a time when the awful depravity of his heart was so laid open to his view as to make him feel the justice of his condemnation, and the utter impossibility of anything good or acceptable to God coming from him; so that all idea of seeking salvation on his part was excluded; "Lord, save or I perish", was his cry in substance. Again, that in reading the Scriptures, or in hearing preaching, or in some passage of Scripture being presented and opened to his mind, he had a view of Christ crucified as a foundation just suited for such a condemned and helpless sinner to lean upon and trust to for salvation..."
"The position I have taken relative to this subject will, I think, be admitted by every reflecting Christian as the Scriptural one when he considers that the promises of salvation run alone through faith in Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 and Mark 16:16). And that faith implies a knowledge of Christ, and this knowledge evidently is only from being taught of God. "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22). I hope this brother, on a re-examination, will be able to tell us something of what he has learned of Jesus and of His saving power."
(Elder Samuel Trott, 1845, Centreville, Fairfax County, VA)
See here
See also here
Pink wrote:
"We shall now confine ourselves to the initial operation of the Spirit within the elect of God. Different writers have employed the term "regeneration" with varying latitude: some restricting it unto a single act, others including the whole process by which one becomes a conscious child of God. This has hindered close accuracy of thought, and has introduced considerable confusion through the confounding of things which, though intimately related, are quite distinct. Not only has confusion of thought resulted from a loose use of terms, but serious divisions among professing saints have issued therefrom. We believe that much, if not all, of this would have been avoided had theologians discriminated more sharply and clearly between the principle of grace (spiritual life) which the Spirit first imparts unto the soul, and His consequent stirrings of that principle into exercise.
Quickening Is the Initial Operation of the Spirit
In earlier years we did not ourselves perceive the distinction which is pointed by John 6:63 and 1 Peter 1:23: the former referring unto the initial act of the Spirit in "quickening" the spiritually-dead soul, the latter having in view the consequent "birth" of the same. While it is freely allowed that the origin of the "new creature" is shrouded in impenetrable mystery, yet of this we may be certain, that life precedes birth. There is a strict analogy between the natural birth and the spiritual: necessarily so, for God is the Author of them both, and He ordained that the former should adumbrate the latter. Birth is neither the cause nor the beginning of life itself: rather is it the manifestation of a life already existent: there had been a Divine "quickening" before the child could issue from the womb. In like manner, the Holy Spirit "quickens" the soul, or imparts spiritual life to it, before its possessor is "brought forth" (as James 1:18 is rightly rendered in the R.V.) and "born again" by the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23).
James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, and parallel passages, refer not to the original communication of spiritual life to the soul, but rather to our being enabled to act from that life and induced to love and obey God by means of the Word of Truth—which presupposes a principle of grace already planted in the heart. In His work of illumination, conviction, conversion, and sanctification, the Spirit uses the Word as the means thereto, but in His initial work of "quickening" He employs no means, operating immediately or directly upon the soul. First there is a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10), and then the "new creature" is stirred into exercise. Faith and all other graces are wrought in us by the Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word, but not so with the principle of life and grace from which these graces proceed.
Quickening Imparts Life
In His work of "quickening," by which we mean the impartation of spiritual life to the soul, the Spirit acts immediately from within, and not by applying something from without. Quickening is a direct operation of the Spirit without the use of any instrument: the Word is used by Him afterwards to call into exercise the life then communicated. "Regeneration is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit. It is the action of Spirit upon spirit, of a Divine Person upon a human person, whereby spiritual life is imparted. Nothing, therefore, of the nature of means or instruments can come between the Holy Spirit and the soul that is made alive. God did not employ an instrument or means when He infused physical life into the body of Adam. There were only two factors: the dust of the ground and the creative power of God which vivified that dust. The Divine omnipotence and dead matter were brought into direct contact, with nothing interposing. The dust was not a means or instrument by which God originated life. So in regeneration there are only two factors: the human soul destitute of spiritual life, and the Holy Spirit who quickens it.
"The Word and Truth of God, the most important of all the means of grace, is not a means of regeneration, as distinct from conviction, conversion and sanctification. This is evident when we remember that it is the office of a means or instrument to excite or stimulate an already existing principle of life. Physical food is a means of physical growth, but it supposes physical vitality. If the body is dead, bread cannot be a means or instrument. Intellectual truth is a means of intellectual growth, but it supposes intellectual vitality. If the mind be idiotic, secular knowledge cannot be a means or instrument. Spiritual truth is a means of spiritual growth, in case there be spiritual vitality. But if the mind be dead to righteousness, spiritual truth cannot be a means or instrument."The unenlightened understanding is unable to apprehend, and the unregenerate will is unable to believe. Vital force is lacking in these two principal factors. What is needed at this point is life and force itself. Consequently, the Author of spiritual life Himself must operate directly, without the use of means or instruments; and outright give spiritual life and power from the dead: that is, ex nihilo. The new life is not imparted because man perceives the truth, but he perceives the truth because the new life is imparted. A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated" (W. T. Shedd, Presbyterian, 1889).
First the Work of the Spirit, Then the Word
Under the guise of honoring the written word, many have (no doubt unwittingly) dishonored the Holy Spirit. The idea which seems to prevail in "orthodox" circles today is that all which is needed for the salvation of souls is to give out the Word in its purity, God being pledged to bless the same. How often we have heard it said, "The Word will do its own work." Many suppose that the Scriptures are quite sufficient of themselves to communicate light to those in darkness and life to those who are dead in sins. But the record which we have of Christ’s life ought at once to correct such a view. Who preached the Word as faithfully as He, yet how very few were saved during His three and a half years’ ministry?!
The parable of the Sower exposes the fallacy of the theory now so widely prevailing. The "seed" sown is the Word. It was scattered upon various kinds of ground, yet notwithstanding the purity and vitality of the seed, where the soil was unfavorable, no increase issued therefrom. Until the ground was made good, the seed yielded no increase. That seed might be watered by copious showers and warmed by a genial sum, but while the soil was bad there could be no harvest. The ground must be changed before it could be fertile. Nor is it the seed which changes the soil: what farmer would ever think of saying, The seed will change the soil! Make no mistake upon this point: the Holy Spirit must first quicken the dead soul into newness of life before the Word obtains any entrance.
To say that life is communicated to the soul by the Spirit’s application of the Word, and then to affirm that it is the principle of life which gives efficacy to the Word, is but to reason in a circle. The Word cannot profit any soul spiritually until it be "mixed with faith" (Heb. 4:2), and faith cannot be put forth unless it proceeds from a principle of life and grace; and therefore that principle of life is not produced by it.
...the deadly enmity of the sinner must be removed by the immediate operation of the Spirit, communicating life, before the Word enters and affects him.
"It is said the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended unto the things that were spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14). It would be a contradiction, and very absurd, to say that God’s Word spoken by Paul was that by which her heart was opened; for she knew not what he did speak, until her heart was opened to attend to his words and understand them. Her heart was first opened in order for his words to have any effect or give any light to her. And this must be done by an immediate operation of the Spirit of God on her heart. This was the regeneration now under consideration, by which her heart was renewed, and formed unto true discerning like the single eye" (Samuel Hopkins, 1792).
The soul, then, is quickened into newness of life by the direct and supernatural operation of the Spirit, without any medium or means whatever. It is not accomplished by the light of the Word, for it is His very imparting of life which fits the heart to receive the light. This initial work of the Spirit is absolutely indispensable in order to have spiritual illumination. It is depravity or corruption of heart which holds the mind in darkness, and it is in this that unregeneracy consists. It is just as absurd to speak of illumination being conveyed by the Word in order to have a change of heart, or the giving of a relish for spiritual things, as it would be to speak of giving the capacity to a man to taste the sweetness of honey while he was devoid of a palate.
No, men are not "quickened" by the Word, they must be quickened in order to receive and understand the Word. "And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God" (Jer. 24:7): that statement would be quite meaningless if a saving knowledge of or experimental acquaintance with God were obtained through the Word previous to the "new heart" or spiritual life being given, and was the means of our being quickened. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7); the "fear of the Lord" or Divine grace communicated to the heart (spiritual life imparted) alone lays the foundation for spiritual knowledge and activities." ("THE HOLY SPIRIT," Chapter 11 - "The Spirit Quickening")
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Holy_Spirit/spirit_11.htm
Listen to Simmons, my Hardshell Brothers
Hardshells should go to school on the Bible teaching of effectual calling. T. P. Simmons wrote the following in his systematic theology (emphasis mine).
"The Outward and Inward Calls has to do with the purposing and planning of salvation. The atonement has to do with the provision of it. We come now to study the application and communication of salvation to the elect.
I. THE OUTWARD CALL The Scripture clearly speaks of two different calls. The first one in the order of occurrence is known generally as the outward or external call. The following Scriptures refer to this call: Isa. 45:22; 55:6; Matt. 9:13; 11:28; 22:14; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; Rev. 22:17. There are other Scriptures that evidently refer to both calls. These are reserved until we take up the inward call.
1. THE CALL IS THROUGH THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL. It was by means of the gospel that Jesus called sinners to repentance. Today every presentation of the gospel is a call to men to forsake sin and trust Christ. The preaching of the gospel is also properly attended by a setting forth of man’s need of salvation and of his duty and responsibility under God to repent and believe (Acts 17:30). There should also be the earnest entreaty to men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20) and an invitation to all that labor (Matt. 11:28), and are athirst (Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; Rev. 22:17).
2. THIS CALL IS AN INDIRECT CALL OF THE SPIRIT. See the discussion of the indirect work of the Spirit in the lost in Chapter IX.
3. THIS CALL, THEREFORE, IS GENERAL. By this we mean that it is not confined to the elect (Matt. 22:14). We are commanded to preach the gospel to all. This call is intended for all men, though all do not hear it. This is true just as all men are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30), even though all men do not hear this command.
4. THIS CALL, OF ITSELF, IS ALWAYS INEFFECTIVE. To Israel God said: "When I called, ye did not answer" (Isa. 65:12). The call referred to here was an outward call similar to the call now under discussion. Because of man’s depravity, the preaching of the gospel alone is never sufficient to bring him to Christ. He needs more than an outward call. The gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16); but "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged" (1 Cor. 2:14). Man must be enabled to turn from sin and believe on Christ. Jer. 13:23; John 12:39, 40; 6:44, 65. Nevertheless it is the immediate duty of all to accept this call. Acts 17:30.
5. THIS CALL IS SINCERE.
Arminians object that the Calvinistic system of doctrine makes a general call insincere. Sincere means "being in reality as in appearance. Intending precisely what one says or what one appears to intend." Having defined the term under discussion, we are now prepared to examine into the exact grounds of this objection. Three Calvinistic teachings are pointed out as rendering a general call insincere. They are: (1) The teaching that man by nature is unable to turn from sin to Christ. Arminians say if the case with the natural man were such as Calvinists represent it, and this were fully known to God, then God could not be sincere in inviting men to come to Christ. But there is nothing in the general call that makes it appear that all men are able to respond to it. This is nothing more than an unwarranted inference. And it has its foundation, not in the call itself, but in an erroneous conception of man’s state by nature. Hence this call is not insincere.
"God’s call to all men to repent and to believe the gospel is no more insincere than His command to all men to Love Him with all the heart. There is no obstacle in the way of men’s obedience to the gospel, that does not exist to prevent their obedience to the law. If it is proper to publish the commands of the law, it is proper to publish the invitations of the gospel. A human being may be perfectly sincere in giving an invitation which he knows will be refused. He may desire to have the invitation accepted, while yet he may, for certain reasons of justice and personal dignity, be unwilling to put forth special efforts, aside from the invitation itself, to secure the acceptance of it on the part of those to whom it is offered" (Strong).
Does God’s invitation or call to all men any more appear to indicate that all men can accept it than His command to all men to love Him supremely appears to indicate that all men can do it?
(2) The teaching as to God’s elective purpose to save only a portion of Adam’s race.
Arminians say if God has purposed to save only a portion of Adam’s race, then He cannot sincerely invite all men to come to Christ for salvation. Let it first be remarked as to this phase of the objection that the objector, to have even the semblance of consistency, must deny the foreknowledge of God. For, if God foreknew everything, then He certainly foreknew that all men would not believe the gospel, since we see that all do not. And certainly no evangelical would say that God purposed to save those who reject the gospel. So, if the foreknowledge of God be true, then God purposed to save only a part of Adam’s race, believers. Hence consistency demands that the Arminian surrender either this phase of the objection or else surrender the foreknowledge of God. He cannot be logical and hold both.
(3) The doctrine of a limited atonement.
This was touched on in relation to the sincerity of God’s general call through the gospel in the previous chapter. However we give it further brief notice. If one is going before a large number of people to offer to each one of them a ten-dollar bill, and he has inerrant knowledge before hand that only a hundred out of that number will accept his offer, need he in order to make a sincere offer to all have more than one hundred ten-dollar bills? Surely not. Knowing that he has a sufficient number to supply all that will accept the offer, he can most freely and sincerely say, "Let every one of you that desires a ten-dollar bill come to me and I will give you one." Is it not manifest to all who can think logically that, in a case such as is described above, the failure of all the people except the hundred to receive a ten-dollar bill would be due to their refusal of the offer, and not to lack of provision? God’s general call is in appearance no more than it is in reality. And He appears to intend no more than He does actually intend. This does not appear as something that all men can respond to nor as something that will enable men to come to Christ or that will necessarily impel them to come. Nor does this call appear to affirm that God has made a futile provision of salvation for those who persist in unbelief. In this call God appears to intend that all men are welcome if they will come; that all who come will be received. He actually intends just this. It is just as much a Bible truth that all who come to Christ will be saved as it is that only the elect will be saved. We can heartily and gladly subscribe to the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith in saying that "nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth except his own inherent depravity and voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ."
In other words, these are the things that send the sinner to Hell.
II. THE INWARD CALL
The following Scriptures refer to the inward call: Acts 2:39; Rom. 1:6; 8.28, 30; 9:11,24; 1 Cor. 1:1,26; 7:15; Gal. 1:15; 5:8; Eph. 4:4; Col. 3:15; 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1.15; 2:9; 3:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3,10; Jude 1. Some of these Scriptures, as has been indicated already, seem to allude to both the inward and outward call.
1. THIS CALL IS A DIRECT CALL THROUGH THE SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit takes the preached gospel and opening the heart of the sinner (Acts 16:14), applies the word to the heart in regenerating power. It is then, and only then, that man is able to understand and receive the things of the Spirit of God. Thus the inward call is also through the gospel, but it is through the gospel as applied by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures touching on this work of the Spirit through the word will be given when we study regeneration.
2. THIS CALL IS PARTICULAR. By means of it the chosen objects of God’s saving grace are singled out. The difference here between the outward and the inward calls may be imperfectly illustrated by the difference between a general invitation extended by a church to the people of a community to attend its services and the personal invitations that are extended to particular individuals by the membership of the church. Of course, as we have said, this only imperfectly illustrates the difference between God’s two calls. Rom. 8:30 shows the particularity of this call.
3. THIS CALL IS ALWAYS EFFECTIVE. It is manifest that the Scriptures given at the beginning of the discussion of this call refer to an effective and efficient call. This call is never resisted; yet, in responding to it, man acts voluntarily and freely. See chapter on "The Free Agency of Man." The effectiveness of this call is shown by Rom. 8:28, 30; 1 Cor. 1:24.
"The Outward and Inward Calls has to do with the purposing and planning of salvation. The atonement has to do with the provision of it. We come now to study the application and communication of salvation to the elect.
I. THE OUTWARD CALL The Scripture clearly speaks of two different calls. The first one in the order of occurrence is known generally as the outward or external call. The following Scriptures refer to this call: Isa. 45:22; 55:6; Matt. 9:13; 11:28; 22:14; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; Rev. 22:17. There are other Scriptures that evidently refer to both calls. These are reserved until we take up the inward call.
1. THE CALL IS THROUGH THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL. It was by means of the gospel that Jesus called sinners to repentance. Today every presentation of the gospel is a call to men to forsake sin and trust Christ. The preaching of the gospel is also properly attended by a setting forth of man’s need of salvation and of his duty and responsibility under God to repent and believe (Acts 17:30). There should also be the earnest entreaty to men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20) and an invitation to all that labor (Matt. 11:28), and are athirst (Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; Rev. 22:17).
2. THIS CALL IS AN INDIRECT CALL OF THE SPIRIT. See the discussion of the indirect work of the Spirit in the lost in Chapter IX.
3. THIS CALL, THEREFORE, IS GENERAL. By this we mean that it is not confined to the elect (Matt. 22:14). We are commanded to preach the gospel to all. This call is intended for all men, though all do not hear it. This is true just as all men are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30), even though all men do not hear this command.
4. THIS CALL, OF ITSELF, IS ALWAYS INEFFECTIVE. To Israel God said: "When I called, ye did not answer" (Isa. 65:12). The call referred to here was an outward call similar to the call now under discussion. Because of man’s depravity, the preaching of the gospel alone is never sufficient to bring him to Christ. He needs more than an outward call. The gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16); but "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged" (1 Cor. 2:14). Man must be enabled to turn from sin and believe on Christ. Jer. 13:23; John 12:39, 40; 6:44, 65. Nevertheless it is the immediate duty of all to accept this call. Acts 17:30.
5. THIS CALL IS SINCERE.
Arminians object that the Calvinistic system of doctrine makes a general call insincere. Sincere means "being in reality as in appearance. Intending precisely what one says or what one appears to intend." Having defined the term under discussion, we are now prepared to examine into the exact grounds of this objection. Three Calvinistic teachings are pointed out as rendering a general call insincere. They are: (1) The teaching that man by nature is unable to turn from sin to Christ. Arminians say if the case with the natural man were such as Calvinists represent it, and this were fully known to God, then God could not be sincere in inviting men to come to Christ. But there is nothing in the general call that makes it appear that all men are able to respond to it. This is nothing more than an unwarranted inference. And it has its foundation, not in the call itself, but in an erroneous conception of man’s state by nature. Hence this call is not insincere.
"God’s call to all men to repent and to believe the gospel is no more insincere than His command to all men to Love Him with all the heart. There is no obstacle in the way of men’s obedience to the gospel, that does not exist to prevent their obedience to the law. If it is proper to publish the commands of the law, it is proper to publish the invitations of the gospel. A human being may be perfectly sincere in giving an invitation which he knows will be refused. He may desire to have the invitation accepted, while yet he may, for certain reasons of justice and personal dignity, be unwilling to put forth special efforts, aside from the invitation itself, to secure the acceptance of it on the part of those to whom it is offered" (Strong).
Does God’s invitation or call to all men any more appear to indicate that all men can accept it than His command to all men to love Him supremely appears to indicate that all men can do it?
(2) The teaching as to God’s elective purpose to save only a portion of Adam’s race.
Arminians say if God has purposed to save only a portion of Adam’s race, then He cannot sincerely invite all men to come to Christ for salvation. Let it first be remarked as to this phase of the objection that the objector, to have even the semblance of consistency, must deny the foreknowledge of God. For, if God foreknew everything, then He certainly foreknew that all men would not believe the gospel, since we see that all do not. And certainly no evangelical would say that God purposed to save those who reject the gospel. So, if the foreknowledge of God be true, then God purposed to save only a part of Adam’s race, believers. Hence consistency demands that the Arminian surrender either this phase of the objection or else surrender the foreknowledge of God. He cannot be logical and hold both.
(3) The doctrine of a limited atonement.
This was touched on in relation to the sincerity of God’s general call through the gospel in the previous chapter. However we give it further brief notice. If one is going before a large number of people to offer to each one of them a ten-dollar bill, and he has inerrant knowledge before hand that only a hundred out of that number will accept his offer, need he in order to make a sincere offer to all have more than one hundred ten-dollar bills? Surely not. Knowing that he has a sufficient number to supply all that will accept the offer, he can most freely and sincerely say, "Let every one of you that desires a ten-dollar bill come to me and I will give you one." Is it not manifest to all who can think logically that, in a case such as is described above, the failure of all the people except the hundred to receive a ten-dollar bill would be due to their refusal of the offer, and not to lack of provision? God’s general call is in appearance no more than it is in reality. And He appears to intend no more than He does actually intend. This does not appear as something that all men can respond to nor as something that will enable men to come to Christ or that will necessarily impel them to come. Nor does this call appear to affirm that God has made a futile provision of salvation for those who persist in unbelief. In this call God appears to intend that all men are welcome if they will come; that all who come will be received. He actually intends just this. It is just as much a Bible truth that all who come to Christ will be saved as it is that only the elect will be saved. We can heartily and gladly subscribe to the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith in saying that "nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth except his own inherent depravity and voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ."
In other words, these are the things that send the sinner to Hell.
II. THE INWARD CALL
The following Scriptures refer to the inward call: Acts 2:39; Rom. 1:6; 8.28, 30; 9:11,24; 1 Cor. 1:1,26; 7:15; Gal. 1:15; 5:8; Eph. 4:4; Col. 3:15; 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1.15; 2:9; 3:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3,10; Jude 1. Some of these Scriptures, as has been indicated already, seem to allude to both the inward and outward call.
1. THIS CALL IS A DIRECT CALL THROUGH THE SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit takes the preached gospel and opening the heart of the sinner (Acts 16:14), applies the word to the heart in regenerating power. It is then, and only then, that man is able to understand and receive the things of the Spirit of God. Thus the inward call is also through the gospel, but it is through the gospel as applied by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures touching on this work of the Spirit through the word will be given when we study regeneration.
2. THIS CALL IS PARTICULAR. By means of it the chosen objects of God’s saving grace are singled out. The difference here between the outward and the inward calls may be imperfectly illustrated by the difference between a general invitation extended by a church to the people of a community to attend its services and the personal invitations that are extended to particular individuals by the membership of the church. Of course, as we have said, this only imperfectly illustrates the difference between God’s two calls. Rom. 8:30 shows the particularity of this call.
3. THIS CALL IS ALWAYS EFFECTIVE. It is manifest that the Scriptures given at the beginning of the discussion of this call refer to an effective and efficient call. This call is never resisted; yet, in responding to it, man acts voluntarily and freely. See chapter on "The Free Agency of Man." The effectiveness of this call is shown by Rom. 8:28, 30; 1 Cor. 1:24.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Potter Also Said
Potter also said:
"I think myself, that if a man believes a thing, he has a right to preach it, but I have my serious doubts about any man, even if he is a minister in the Regular Baptist church, having the right to make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held by that church, and fighting it to the grief of those who do believe and preach just what the church has always believed, and what she still believes. I believe, and the Old School Baptist church believes, the doctrine of the following pages, and in order to set forth the Baptist doctrine, and defend it against the assaults of those who do not believe it, and to teach our people what the doctrine of the church is on this subject, this little book is offered to the public." ("Regeneration, Christian Warfare, and State of the Dead", CHAPTER 1 - see here)
I find it bewildering that Potter and neo Hardshells of his ilk would say that no Baptist had "the right to make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held by that church...just what the church has always believed" and yet begin to preach that
1. Men can be saved and regenerated who remain heathen in belief
2. The new testament, when speaking of "believers," may allude to many heathen idolaters
3. Man must have faith in God and Christ before he can have knowledge of God and Christ
4. That the preaching of the Gospel by heaven sent men is no means for producing faith and regeneration
Where is Potter's evidence that the Baptists believed such things prior to the rise of the anti mission Hardshells? The truth is, Potter was as much an "innovator" in doctrine as Alexander Campbell.
Potter may have had mission methods, Sunday Schools, and seminaries in mind when he said what he did, thinking that such things were entirely new, when in fact they were not, but his statement indicts himself for he cannot, nor can his followers today, show that their aberrant and novel views are the historic teaching of his Baptist forefathers.
No wonder then that Potter would give his doubts about the London Confession. Notice these words:
"THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689. In chapter 23, of that confession, we have the following..."
Why was he questioning the confession that his predecessors all endorsed? Further, Potter wrote these words and was dead prior to the Fulton Convention wherein his fellow Hardshells endorsed the Confession as having been the document that their churches were all founded upon.
As stated above, Potter preached the novel view that one must have faith (belief) before he can hear the Gospel or receive knowledge of Christ. Notice these words of his:
"Those who hear the gospel profitably must first have faith. If the gospel must necessarily be preached to them before they have faith, then it follows that they must of necessity hear the gospel unprofitably before they can have faith. If this preaching must be done in order that a man have faith, then we have it that a man must hear the gospel unprofitably in order that he may have faith, after which he will hear the gospel profitably. Now the truth taught in this text is that a man must have faith to enable him to hear the gospel in a profitable manner. This faith is the fruit, of the Spirit of God. Gal. v, 22 : "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.'' If faith is the fruit of the Spirit, and a man must have faith in order to hear the gospel profitably, then a direct or immediate operation of the Spirit upon the heart is necessary; for man believes with the heart, and the Spirit is not likely to bear fruit where it is not. If it produces faith in the sinner's heart it must be in his heart. This must take place before he receives the gospel. If this is not so, tell us what is, and how you know." (Labors and travels of Elder Lemuel Potter, pages 325-326 - see here)
"If the gospel must necessarily be preached to them before they have faith"?
"If this preaching must be done in order that a man have faith"?
Potter's New Doctrine (Neo-Hardshellism)
Faith does not come by hearing the Gospel preached by preachers
Apostle Paul's Doctrine
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
"I think myself, that if a man believes a thing, he has a right to preach it, but I have my serious doubts about any man, even if he is a minister in the Regular Baptist church, having the right to make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held by that church, and fighting it to the grief of those who do believe and preach just what the church has always believed, and what she still believes. I believe, and the Old School Baptist church believes, the doctrine of the following pages, and in order to set forth the Baptist doctrine, and defend it against the assaults of those who do not believe it, and to teach our people what the doctrine of the church is on this subject, this little book is offered to the public." ("Regeneration, Christian Warfare, and State of the Dead", CHAPTER 1 - see here)
I find it bewildering that Potter and neo Hardshells of his ilk would say that no Baptist had "the right to make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held by that church...just what the church has always believed" and yet begin to preach that
1. Men can be saved and regenerated who remain heathen in belief
2. The new testament, when speaking of "believers," may allude to many heathen idolaters
3. Man must have faith in God and Christ before he can have knowledge of God and Christ
4. That the preaching of the Gospel by heaven sent men is no means for producing faith and regeneration
Where is Potter's evidence that the Baptists believed such things prior to the rise of the anti mission Hardshells? The truth is, Potter was as much an "innovator" in doctrine as Alexander Campbell.
Potter may have had mission methods, Sunday Schools, and seminaries in mind when he said what he did, thinking that such things were entirely new, when in fact they were not, but his statement indicts himself for he cannot, nor can his followers today, show that their aberrant and novel views are the historic teaching of his Baptist forefathers.
No wonder then that Potter would give his doubts about the London Confession. Notice these words:
"THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689. In chapter 23, of that confession, we have the following..."
Why was he questioning the confession that his predecessors all endorsed? Further, Potter wrote these words and was dead prior to the Fulton Convention wherein his fellow Hardshells endorsed the Confession as having been the document that their churches were all founded upon.
As stated above, Potter preached the novel view that one must have faith (belief) before he can hear the Gospel or receive knowledge of Christ. Notice these words of his:
"Those who hear the gospel profitably must first have faith. If the gospel must necessarily be preached to them before they have faith, then it follows that they must of necessity hear the gospel unprofitably before they can have faith. If this preaching must be done in order that a man have faith, then we have it that a man must hear the gospel unprofitably in order that he may have faith, after which he will hear the gospel profitably. Now the truth taught in this text is that a man must have faith to enable him to hear the gospel in a profitable manner. This faith is the fruit, of the Spirit of God. Gal. v, 22 : "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.'' If faith is the fruit of the Spirit, and a man must have faith in order to hear the gospel profitably, then a direct or immediate operation of the Spirit upon the heart is necessary; for man believes with the heart, and the Spirit is not likely to bear fruit where it is not. If it produces faith in the sinner's heart it must be in his heart. This must take place before he receives the gospel. If this is not so, tell us what is, and how you know." (Labors and travels of Elder Lemuel Potter, pages 325-326 - see here)
"If the gospel must necessarily be preached to them before they have faith"?
"If this preaching must be done in order that a man have faith"?
Potter's New Doctrine (Neo-Hardshellism)
Faith does not come by hearing the Gospel preached by preachers
Apostle Paul's Doctrine
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Potter's Contradiction
Lemuel Potter may have been a man of little physical stature, yet he stood tall among Hardshell debaters and apologists of the second half of the 19th century. In my mind he is to be credited with leading the Hardshells further into error, being one of the founding fathers of the neo Hardshells who Elder Watson called "ultraists" and "modern innovators." In debate Potter said (emphasis mine):
"I do not worship a God that tries to do things and cannot. I do not worship a God that does not know what he is about. I do not serve a God that has any purposes or plans the results of which he does not know. I do not serve a God that, when he does know the results of his plans for which he made them will never be brought about, will trust in them. I do not serve a God who will invent a plan for the salvation of his people that he knows will fail and never save them." (Discussion on Foreign Missions, page 538)
Now notice this from him:
"I will make a statement of our religious principles. That is this, our faith is, that if the church and minister will teach exclusively what the Bible teaches, and practice just precisely what it requires, that all the good results that God intended to accomplish by that means will be brought about." (see here)
Notice how Potter here makes an "if...then" argument relative to one of the purposes of God. If the "minister will teach," then "all the good results that God intended to accomplish by that means will be brought about."
Questions
What if the minister does not teach?
Is it God's purpose to teach and convert to faith in Christ all the elect?
"I do not worship a God that tries to do things and cannot. I do not worship a God that does not know what he is about. I do not serve a God that has any purposes or plans the results of which he does not know. I do not serve a God that, when he does know the results of his plans for which he made them will never be brought about, will trust in them. I do not serve a God who will invent a plan for the salvation of his people that he knows will fail and never save them." (Discussion on Foreign Missions, page 538)
Now notice this from him:
"I will make a statement of our religious principles. That is this, our faith is, that if the church and minister will teach exclusively what the Bible teaches, and practice just precisely what it requires, that all the good results that God intended to accomplish by that means will be brought about." (see here)
Notice how Potter here makes an "if...then" argument relative to one of the purposes of God. If the "minister will teach," then "all the good results that God intended to accomplish by that means will be brought about."
Questions
What if the minister does not teach?
Is it God's purpose to teach and convert to faith in Christ all the elect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)