Sometime back I made a posting regarding the fact that we had been getting lots of readers from Russia due to some Hardshells doing "mission work" there. ("Interest From Russia?" - see here) We continue to get huge amounts of hits on this and my BaptistGadfly blog from Russia. I believe it is because many Baptists in Russia are investigating the Hardshells. The same thing has occurred in the past by some in the Philippines. Just recently this was posted on the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church web page:
"Pastor Justin will be traveling to Russia this March in order to train indigenous pastors in the churches there." (see here)
Others have also made such trips. For instance, Elder Herb Hatfield wrote about his trip in "Pray for My Upcoming Ukraine and Russia Trip" - Aberdeen Primitive Baptist Church (see here).
Not only is Cincinnati and Aberdeen churches involved in such work but Elder David Pyles and others have also been involved in such work.
In a "Letter from David Pyles" (see here) we find this information from Pyles:
"In March 2006, several Baptist churches in Russia requested dialogue with Primitive Baptists of America. They initially made contact with me, but later contacted several other Primitive Baptists after finding information about them on Internet. These churches had formerly been members of the Russian Baptist Union, but because of sharp and growing differences over doctrine and practice, they made a break with the union, with some churches leaving late in 2005 and
others leaving only weeks prior to their contact of me."
Thankfully many of these brethren in Russia are also finding information on the Internet about the Hardshells in reading our blogs. Interesting is the fact that the Hardshells continue to do proselyting work rather than true mission work.
Pyles writes further:
"I have continued correspondence with the Russians since initial contact, and made a trip there along with other ministers in July 2006. In all of this we have found them to be remarkably
sound. They firmly adhere to the doctrines of grace. They reject Fullerism -- a corrupted variation of these doctrines that has lately become prevalent in this country. Our greatest surprises concerning them were that they reject gospel regeneration, affirming rather that
regeneration is by the direct and unaided work of the Holy Spirit, and they reject the idea that the preached word is a cause or means in rendering the elect righteous before God. With respect to the latter, they affirm that the elect were rendered righteous by the death of Christ alone -- and as of the time He died -- and that the role of faith is to declare and certify this fact in the experience of the elect. These are of course points where other believers in the doctrines of grace almost invariably differ from Primitive Baptists, and for this reason, we were not expecting the Russians to agree with us either. After persistently querying them (even to the point of annoying them), we became satisfied there was in fact
agreement. As far as I know, nothing like this has ever happened in the evangelical efforts of Primitive Baptists, and I would be pleasantly surprised were it to ever happen again."
How true this is to the facts only the Russian brethren can tell us. I could perhaps say more but will forego doing so at this time.
Pyles wrote further:
"The greatest point in need of correction is baptism. I and all other Primitive Baptists dealing with the Russians would strongly prefer to see them rebaptized, and we have attempted to cast our influence in that direction. However, we can offer no assurance that such an objective will ever be achieved. This movement is large and growing, both in terms of churches and members, and it covers a large geographic region. Persuading the Russians to rebaptize all these
people could be a formidable task. It could also be a very delicate task, because some of the older Russians were baptized by ministers who were executed for their convictions. In the event we fall short of attaining official fellowship, our hopes are to achieve conformity on all else, and as already indicated, this evidently will involve very little, and should be an easily-achievable objective given the blessings of God. Even on the point of baptism there seems to be a great deal of agreement. As of our visit in 2006, they were still receiving the baptisms of churches in the Baptist union, but seemed to agree with our contention that a change in policy had to be made. My understanding is that at least one of their churches has
implemented a policy of rebaptism in the last year."
I just have to laugh at all this! The whole idea of "rebaptism" is a difficult issue for the Hardshells. They cannot defend this practice and it is one of the things that shows them to be a cult. The old Baptists who published the first London confession of 1644 would not agree with them on this issue and if the Russian brethren are imitators of those old London brethren, then they will resist the idea that their baptisms are not valid. Perhaps in the future I can write further on this but we have already written much on it in our series titled "Hardshell Landmarkism" (see August, 2008 archives at the hardshellism blog - see here, and here and here).
Pyles wrote:
"The Russians seem to be elated over the discovery of Primitive Baptists in America, and I have seen nothing from them but utmost respect for our people."
That may be so with some of them, but I suspect that there are many of them not so elated.
I suspect that some of the foreign interests in Hardshells may be due to some hoping for pecuniary support from the Hardshells, who have begun to send money oversees to poor preachers in Africa, India, and in Russia.
Why don't the Hardshells send preachers to places where there are no Christians?
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Monday, May 8, 2017
Hardshells and Eschatology
I have over the years stated the fact that most Hardshells, both today and in the past, have been grossly ignorant of eschatology and the doctrine of the second coming. I repeat that truth at this time. I do it because my time is getting shorter and I may not have much time left in which to reiterate the fact. I also do it because I am convinced that their ignorance makes them vulnerable to the things that are coming on the earth.
The fact that they are generally anti Premillenial and allegorizers of second coming prophecy, and totally ignorant of the Book of Revelation, and of the career of the Antichrist, ill prepares them for what is coming on the earth.
I believe that the world is now in the condition foretold by the prophets of old, and of the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. Antichrist could appear at any time, the days of whose career will bring tribulation such as has not been since the world began. Are you ready for it, my Hardshell brethren? Are you helping your brethren to prepare for it? What will you do when the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are set loose? What will you do when the seven apocalyptic angels blow their trumpets of woe and judgment? What will you do when pestilence, plague, and devastation are wreaking havoc upon population masses? Will you continue to put your head in the sand? Will you continue to refuse fellowship with other Christians?
You can go on telling yourself that the things in the Book of Revelation have already been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and that you have nothing to worry about. But, be warned that this is your naivete.
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2:28)
"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares." (Luke 21:34)
My Hardshell brethren, if you do not change your views and attitude about eschatology, you will likely find yourself ill prepared for that awful day when the Lord comes to judge all who are living upon the earth.
The fact that they are generally anti Premillenial and allegorizers of second coming prophecy, and totally ignorant of the Book of Revelation, and of the career of the Antichrist, ill prepares them for what is coming on the earth.
I believe that the world is now in the condition foretold by the prophets of old, and of the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. Antichrist could appear at any time, the days of whose career will bring tribulation such as has not been since the world began. Are you ready for it, my Hardshell brethren? Are you helping your brethren to prepare for it? What will you do when the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are set loose? What will you do when the seven apocalyptic angels blow their trumpets of woe and judgment? What will you do when pestilence, plague, and devastation are wreaking havoc upon population masses? Will you continue to put your head in the sand? Will you continue to refuse fellowship with other Christians?
You can go on telling yourself that the things in the Book of Revelation have already been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and that you have nothing to worry about. But, be warned that this is your naivete.
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2:28)
"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares." (Luke 21:34)
My Hardshell brethren, if you do not change your views and attitude about eschatology, you will likely find yourself ill prepared for that awful day when the Lord comes to judge all who are living upon the earth.
Friday, May 5, 2017
Hardshell Uriah Heep Humility III
Anyone familiar with Hardshell literature and language, as well as Hardshell behavior and social psychology, will agree that they place a high value on being humble. Members, especially preachers, are judged by how humble they appear to be; And, the Hardshells consider themselves expert judges on the matter, having the gift of "discernment of spirits" in this area. They work hard at giving the appearance of being humble and many converts to their cult often confess that Hardshell humility was one of the things that attracted them to the group. One can say that they, like the Colossian cult, "delight in humility." They even advertise themselves in this matter. For instance, on the Internet web page of one leading Hardshell church this is what is written:
"Come join us in worshipping our Lord in a humble traditional atmosphere of singing, preaching and praying as taught in the scriptures." ("Welcome to the website of "Beulah Primitive Baptist Church" known as "Midland Primitive Baptist Church"- see here)
What do they mean by a "humble traditional atmosphere"? Humble buildings? Humble language? Humble behavior?
In a section titled "Proud Preaching to Proud Preachers" Elder Jeff Winfrey, Pastor of Dawson Springs (Ky.) Primitive Baptist Church, wrote the following in "Confronting Our Culture Without Confrontation," a lesson he prepared to deliver to the "preacher's school" at the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church (see here - emphasis mine):
"As I begin, I hope that this section is not my attempt to prove to you how proud I am of my humility. I realize that in our Primitive Baptist culture the right words to begin any message with are the presumed-proper words of self-expressed humbleness. I am sure that at times these words have come from the heart. And I am equally sure that at other times they are as shallow as the superficial humility they attempt to exalt. I fear that we sometimes attempt to flaunt before others the greatness of our humbleness. And when all is said and done, we proudly wear our self-proclaimed, self-proven, self-given and self-received humble badges with all the false and hypocritical honors connected therewith."
Many Hardshells will dismiss anything I say on this subject as they have judged that I am not humble and that I have an ax to grind against them. But, they can hardly reject it when I give substantiating evidence from Hardshells themselves. Such is the case with what Elder Winfrey has written. The words highlighted in the above citation help prove what I have said in this polemic on Hardshell humility. Some of those who read this blog may recall how Hardshell apologist Jason Brown attempted to justify my ill treatment by the Hardshells, when I was a young Hardshell preacher, by judging that I was not "humble."
Winfrey says that Hardshells are, like he was, "proud I am of my humility" and says "in our Primitive Baptist culture the right words to begin any message with are the presumed-proper words of self-expressed humbleness." How true! He also refers to "the superficial humility they attempt to exalt." That makes them Uriah Heep types. He says "we sometimes attempt to flaunt before others the greatness of our humbleness" and "we proudly wear our self-proclaimed, self-proven, self-given and self-received humble badges with all the false and hypocritical honors connected therewith."
I could rest my polemical case now, but let me add to the evidence by citing Winfrey further. He wrote (and preached to the preachers):
"So after that hypocritical attempt to prove to you that I know the difference between false and true humility, let me now state that my intended purpose for this initial section of the booklet is hopefully not to prove to you how great my humility is. Instead my hope is that this section will serve the purpose of allowing you to see that we all need to deal with the besetting sin of pride. Some need to deal with it more than others do. But even in the best of us, self seems to be the forefront of our concerns. And as you proceed to the next paragraphs where you find that I claim to be overwhelmed by preaching to preachers and preaching before God, be reminded that my pride has proved to be a far greater problem in my life than my self-declared humbleness. I have sinned many times by being too proud. I doubt very much that I have sinned nearly as often by being too humble. And perhaps it is the same with you."
This is all good. Confession is good for the soul. But, what he needs to do is to discover what it is in the Hardshell group that promotes this kind of fake humility. He writes further:
"And I say with much regret that I do believe that I am not the only Primitive Baptist preacher who has a problem with pride. Regretfully I fear that a spirit of pride and arrogance is generally found among many Primitive Baptist preachers in our land. As a matter of observation it seems to me that Primitive Baptist preachers have a strong tendency to be a group of proud men. I shamefully admit that I am among the chief of sinners in this category. But I regretfully observe that I am not alone in possessing too much self-worth."
What an honest confession! Remember that I got my undergraduate degree in sociology, which is a study of group behavior. I can testify to the truth of what Winfrey has written. But, again, why are many of the cults guilty of such? Is it not because they have the "we be the only ones" mentality? Is it not because they have exalted opinions of their own little group?
Winfrey said: "I fear that a spirit of pride and arrogance is generally found among many Primitive Baptist preachers in our land." And, "Primitive Baptist preachers have a strong tendency to be a group of proud men." Now, if I say this, or brother Kevin, we are dismissed. But, here we have one who is still in the group confessing all! How can Hardshells ignore this? He writes further:
"So as we attempt to honestly examine ourselves, we might ask if there is something about us as a group that accounts for this tendency toward pride. And the answer to such an honest quest for right and wrong always lies in the scriptures. The scriptures clearly declare that knowledge puffs up. (1 Corinthians 8:1) Do we have particular and unusual knowledge? I fear that most of us would quickly (and I fear arrogantly) answer that we do have special knowledge above the crowd."
Bingo! Cults cannot have real humility as long as they pride themselves in being the elite among Christians! If we do as Winfrey asks, and "ask if there is something about us as a group that accounts for this tendency toward pride," then what answer would the typical Hardshell give? Winfrey seemed to get it, for he said - "I fear that most of us would quickly (and I fear arrogantly) answer that we do have special knowledge above the crowd." Again, bingo! All cults claim to have "special knowledge" in which they pride themselves. It is a shame, however, that Winfrey does not rid himself of that "special knowledge"! For that is not really "special knowledge" but a heresy.
He writes further:
"According to God’s word man surely has a strong tendency to be proud of his knowledge. And I fear that we as a people are proof of the tendency. But regretfully pride in knowledge is not our only problem. Further observation seems to show that we as a people are very proud of being the people we are. It is the same problem that Jesus encountered in many of the Jews of His day. (John 8:39) They claimed to have a special status due to heritage and lineage. I fear that in addition to pride in our knowledge we as a people seem to have an inordinate pride in our heritage and lineage. The list could go on and further illustrations given, but perhaps this is sufficient to make the point."
What Winfrey has here been saying is what I have been saying for many years. And, not I alone, but many others before me. I ask my Hardshell brothers to simply take a good look at themselves. I could comment further on Winfrey's words, but will let them speak for themselves. His testimony is:
1. "And I fear that we as a people are proof of the tendency. But regretfully pride in knowledge is not our only problem."
2. "we as a people are very proud of being the people we are...claimed to have a special status"
3. "we as a people seem to have an inordinate pride in our heritage and lineage"
Now, my Hardshell brethren can ignore such words if they like, but I hope they will rather seriously consider them.
Winfrey said further:
"And if perhaps you do not believe that we have a problem with pride, I again go to the scriptures for answers. The proof of our pride seems to lie in the words of the scriptures, “Only by pride cometh contention…” (Proverbs 13:10) Is pride a significant problem among our people? In answer to the question concerning our pride let us first look at our state of contention. It seems that we live in a time that we can easily observe many contentions among our people. Across our land you can find heated discussions concerning our contentions. Our contentions are often the topic of conversation as we gather for worship. They are time and again the subjects of discussion at the lunch table after worship. And worst of all, our sermons are sometimes filled with slurs and innuendos about our brethren along with a so-called message of Christ and Him crucified."
In many of my writings I have called attention to the fact that the Hardshells, more than almost any other aberrant Christian group, are schismatic and that such is a sign of their cult and heretical status and of this Winfrey says: "concerning our pride let us first look at our state of contention" and "we live in a time that we can easily observe many contentions among our people."
Coming from me or Kevin, these words would be easily dismissed. However, as they come from one still inside the group, they cannot be so easily dismissed.
Hardshell Humble Jargon
Here are some of the words that one will hear often from the lips of the Hardshells, and which give the pretense of humility.
"If I be not deceived"
"If I know my heart"
"I hope"
"I am so full of sin"
"I am just a poor sinner"
"I am not worthy"
"Your humble servant"
"God's humble people"
"I am not educated"
"I am not a trained seminary preacher"
Humble Practices
washing feet
congregational singing
kneeling in prayer
meeting houses
An Example
Elder T. L. Webb, Sr. in his book "Little Things" (born 1874 - son of preacher J. G. Webb), published from Marshville, NC in 1941, wrote the following under "Biographical" on pages six and seven (emphasis mine):
"But, even in this, I seem to know very little that I can claim as evidence in my behalf. I wonder sometimes, after all these years of service, sacrifices and toils, if indeed I have ever been taught of God; and were I not allowed to supply the word hope, it seems that I would have nothing to offer, for when I sum it all up, about all I can say is that "Wherein I was once blind I can now see." But one thing encourages me to write, and that is, I think I might reach some poor, little one who, like myself, has such little assurance of these things that he has to go in doubts and fears...Yet I am not sure that I can recall the moment, the hour, the day or even the year, when I first became conscious of my depraved nature or when I was changed from nature to grace, if indeed I ever was."
This is typical of the way Hardshells talk. And, if you do not talk like this, you will be judged as being proud, and being judged as such, you will be shunned.
He wrote again:
"I have wondered if a consciousness of one's sinful condition, which causes him to mourn and beg for mercy, is evidence of a gracious state with the Lord, and if so, if it could be possible that I was changed at some early moment in life when I did not know what it meant? How I wish sometimes that I knew more about what it means to be born again. I can recall occasions in early life when it seemed that I trusted in Jesus with unaccountable joy, but did I not love Him and confidingly beg Him for mercy before this?" (page seven)
"So, after all, about all I know about a call to the work of the ministry is an impression of mind, over which I had no control, that has lingered with me all these years, and unless I have at some time really preached I do not suppose I have ever made my calling sure with anyone." (page seven)
"If I am not mistaken, I love the doctrine and order of God's house too well to sacrifice them..." (page 45)
"Precious brethren, may I, the poorest of the flock, if one at all, "beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ" to pray for me that I may be more kind and gentle." (page 230)
"If not deceived, I still love the precious cause so ably represented by Elder Cayce and the paper..." (page 258)
Another Hardshell preacher, now living, corresponded with me a little over a year ago and he said to me - "I know I don't preach well, but maybe one day I'll do good."
Well, to my mind, these are evidences that the Hardshells, like the Colossian cult, "delight in humility and self deprecation" under a mask, but are really very proud and think more highly of themselves than their language at times seems to say. What say ye?
"Come join us in worshipping our Lord in a humble traditional atmosphere of singing, preaching and praying as taught in the scriptures." ("Welcome to the website of "Beulah Primitive Baptist Church" known as "Midland Primitive Baptist Church"- see here)
What do they mean by a "humble traditional atmosphere"? Humble buildings? Humble language? Humble behavior?
In a section titled "Proud Preaching to Proud Preachers" Elder Jeff Winfrey, Pastor of Dawson Springs (Ky.) Primitive Baptist Church, wrote the following in "Confronting Our Culture Without Confrontation," a lesson he prepared to deliver to the "preacher's school" at the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church (see here - emphasis mine):
"As I begin, I hope that this section is not my attempt to prove to you how proud I am of my humility. I realize that in our Primitive Baptist culture the right words to begin any message with are the presumed-proper words of self-expressed humbleness. I am sure that at times these words have come from the heart. And I am equally sure that at other times they are as shallow as the superficial humility they attempt to exalt. I fear that we sometimes attempt to flaunt before others the greatness of our humbleness. And when all is said and done, we proudly wear our self-proclaimed, self-proven, self-given and self-received humble badges with all the false and hypocritical honors connected therewith."
Many Hardshells will dismiss anything I say on this subject as they have judged that I am not humble and that I have an ax to grind against them. But, they can hardly reject it when I give substantiating evidence from Hardshells themselves. Such is the case with what Elder Winfrey has written. The words highlighted in the above citation help prove what I have said in this polemic on Hardshell humility. Some of those who read this blog may recall how Hardshell apologist Jason Brown attempted to justify my ill treatment by the Hardshells, when I was a young Hardshell preacher, by judging that I was not "humble."
Winfrey says that Hardshells are, like he was, "proud I am of my humility" and says "in our Primitive Baptist culture the right words to begin any message with are the presumed-proper words of self-expressed humbleness." How true! He also refers to "the superficial humility they attempt to exalt." That makes them Uriah Heep types. He says "we sometimes attempt to flaunt before others the greatness of our humbleness" and "we proudly wear our self-proclaimed, self-proven, self-given and self-received humble badges with all the false and hypocritical honors connected therewith."
I could rest my polemical case now, but let me add to the evidence by citing Winfrey further. He wrote (and preached to the preachers):
"So after that hypocritical attempt to prove to you that I know the difference between false and true humility, let me now state that my intended purpose for this initial section of the booklet is hopefully not to prove to you how great my humility is. Instead my hope is that this section will serve the purpose of allowing you to see that we all need to deal with the besetting sin of pride. Some need to deal with it more than others do. But even in the best of us, self seems to be the forefront of our concerns. And as you proceed to the next paragraphs where you find that I claim to be overwhelmed by preaching to preachers and preaching before God, be reminded that my pride has proved to be a far greater problem in my life than my self-declared humbleness. I have sinned many times by being too proud. I doubt very much that I have sinned nearly as often by being too humble. And perhaps it is the same with you."
This is all good. Confession is good for the soul. But, what he needs to do is to discover what it is in the Hardshell group that promotes this kind of fake humility. He writes further:
"And I say with much regret that I do believe that I am not the only Primitive Baptist preacher who has a problem with pride. Regretfully I fear that a spirit of pride and arrogance is generally found among many Primitive Baptist preachers in our land. As a matter of observation it seems to me that Primitive Baptist preachers have a strong tendency to be a group of proud men. I shamefully admit that I am among the chief of sinners in this category. But I regretfully observe that I am not alone in possessing too much self-worth."
What an honest confession! Remember that I got my undergraduate degree in sociology, which is a study of group behavior. I can testify to the truth of what Winfrey has written. But, again, why are many of the cults guilty of such? Is it not because they have the "we be the only ones" mentality? Is it not because they have exalted opinions of their own little group?
Winfrey said: "I fear that a spirit of pride and arrogance is generally found among many Primitive Baptist preachers in our land." And, "Primitive Baptist preachers have a strong tendency to be a group of proud men." Now, if I say this, or brother Kevin, we are dismissed. But, here we have one who is still in the group confessing all! How can Hardshells ignore this? He writes further:
"So as we attempt to honestly examine ourselves, we might ask if there is something about us as a group that accounts for this tendency toward pride. And the answer to such an honest quest for right and wrong always lies in the scriptures. The scriptures clearly declare that knowledge puffs up. (1 Corinthians 8:1) Do we have particular and unusual knowledge? I fear that most of us would quickly (and I fear arrogantly) answer that we do have special knowledge above the crowd."
Bingo! Cults cannot have real humility as long as they pride themselves in being the elite among Christians! If we do as Winfrey asks, and "ask if there is something about us as a group that accounts for this tendency toward pride," then what answer would the typical Hardshell give? Winfrey seemed to get it, for he said - "I fear that most of us would quickly (and I fear arrogantly) answer that we do have special knowledge above the crowd." Again, bingo! All cults claim to have "special knowledge" in which they pride themselves. It is a shame, however, that Winfrey does not rid himself of that "special knowledge"! For that is not really "special knowledge" but a heresy.
He writes further:
"According to God’s word man surely has a strong tendency to be proud of his knowledge. And I fear that we as a people are proof of the tendency. But regretfully pride in knowledge is not our only problem. Further observation seems to show that we as a people are very proud of being the people we are. It is the same problem that Jesus encountered in many of the Jews of His day. (John 8:39) They claimed to have a special status due to heritage and lineage. I fear that in addition to pride in our knowledge we as a people seem to have an inordinate pride in our heritage and lineage. The list could go on and further illustrations given, but perhaps this is sufficient to make the point."
What Winfrey has here been saying is what I have been saying for many years. And, not I alone, but many others before me. I ask my Hardshell brothers to simply take a good look at themselves. I could comment further on Winfrey's words, but will let them speak for themselves. His testimony is:
1. "And I fear that we as a people are proof of the tendency. But regretfully pride in knowledge is not our only problem."
2. "we as a people are very proud of being the people we are...claimed to have a special status"
3. "we as a people seem to have an inordinate pride in our heritage and lineage"
Now, my Hardshell brethren can ignore such words if they like, but I hope they will rather seriously consider them.
Winfrey said further:
"And if perhaps you do not believe that we have a problem with pride, I again go to the scriptures for answers. The proof of our pride seems to lie in the words of the scriptures, “Only by pride cometh contention…” (Proverbs 13:10) Is pride a significant problem among our people? In answer to the question concerning our pride let us first look at our state of contention. It seems that we live in a time that we can easily observe many contentions among our people. Across our land you can find heated discussions concerning our contentions. Our contentions are often the topic of conversation as we gather for worship. They are time and again the subjects of discussion at the lunch table after worship. And worst of all, our sermons are sometimes filled with slurs and innuendos about our brethren along with a so-called message of Christ and Him crucified."
In many of my writings I have called attention to the fact that the Hardshells, more than almost any other aberrant Christian group, are schismatic and that such is a sign of their cult and heretical status and of this Winfrey says: "concerning our pride let us first look at our state of contention" and "we live in a time that we can easily observe many contentions among our people."
Coming from me or Kevin, these words would be easily dismissed. However, as they come from one still inside the group, they cannot be so easily dismissed.
Hardshell Humble Jargon
Here are some of the words that one will hear often from the lips of the Hardshells, and which give the pretense of humility.
"If I be not deceived"
"If I know my heart"
"I hope"
"I am so full of sin"
"I am just a poor sinner"
"I am not worthy"
"Your humble servant"
"God's humble people"
"I am not educated"
"I am not a trained seminary preacher"
Humble Practices
washing feet
congregational singing
kneeling in prayer
meeting houses
An Example
Elder T. L. Webb, Sr. in his book "Little Things" (born 1874 - son of preacher J. G. Webb), published from Marshville, NC in 1941, wrote the following under "Biographical" on pages six and seven (emphasis mine):
"But, even in this, I seem to know very little that I can claim as evidence in my behalf. I wonder sometimes, after all these years of service, sacrifices and toils, if indeed I have ever been taught of God; and were I not allowed to supply the word hope, it seems that I would have nothing to offer, for when I sum it all up, about all I can say is that "Wherein I was once blind I can now see." But one thing encourages me to write, and that is, I think I might reach some poor, little one who, like myself, has such little assurance of these things that he has to go in doubts and fears...Yet I am not sure that I can recall the moment, the hour, the day or even the year, when I first became conscious of my depraved nature or when I was changed from nature to grace, if indeed I ever was."
This is typical of the way Hardshells talk. And, if you do not talk like this, you will be judged as being proud, and being judged as such, you will be shunned.
He wrote again:
"I have wondered if a consciousness of one's sinful condition, which causes him to mourn and beg for mercy, is evidence of a gracious state with the Lord, and if so, if it could be possible that I was changed at some early moment in life when I did not know what it meant? How I wish sometimes that I knew more about what it means to be born again. I can recall occasions in early life when it seemed that I trusted in Jesus with unaccountable joy, but did I not love Him and confidingly beg Him for mercy before this?" (page seven)
"So, after all, about all I know about a call to the work of the ministry is an impression of mind, over which I had no control, that has lingered with me all these years, and unless I have at some time really preached I do not suppose I have ever made my calling sure with anyone." (page seven)
"If I am not mistaken, I love the doctrine and order of God's house too well to sacrifice them..." (page 45)
"Precious brethren, may I, the poorest of the flock, if one at all, "beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ" to pray for me that I may be more kind and gentle." (page 230)
"If not deceived, I still love the precious cause so ably represented by Elder Cayce and the paper..." (page 258)
Another Hardshell preacher, now living, corresponded with me a little over a year ago and he said to me - "I know I don't preach well, but maybe one day I'll do good."
Well, to my mind, these are evidences that the Hardshells, like the Colossian cult, "delight in humility and self deprecation" under a mask, but are really very proud and think more highly of themselves than their language at times seems to say. What say ye?
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Hardshell Uriah Heep Humility II
"Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God...These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." (Colossians 2: 18-19, 23 NASB)
These verses have two instances where Paul speaks of "humility" or "lowliness of mind," yet not in a positive way, but in a negative way. In these words the apostle Paul alludes to an early Christian cult and one of the descriptions given of it is that it θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ or is "delighting in humility." But, why would delighting in humility and lowliness of mind be viewed negatively, as a cult characteristic? Would not "delighting in humility" rather be characteristic of real Christians who are not cultic, aberrant, or heretical?
In order to convey the seeming negativity of "delighting in humility," translators have sought the need to add some additional word to "humility." So, the kjv translates verse 18 as "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility" (vs. 18 kjv). However, the word "voluntary" is not in the Greek text. Further, the translation omits the word "thelon" meaning "delighting." To the kjv translators, "delighting in humility" connotes "voluntary humility." But, this is an interpretation, not a literal translation. It may indeed connote such a humility, but it does not denote it. A literal translation is "delighting in humility." Interesting is the fact that the kjv translators do not translate ταπεινοφροσύνῃ as "voluntary humility" in verse 23, but as "a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility."
Other translators do the same as the kjv, adding adjectives to the word "humility" to convey the idea that the humility is not the good kind that the scriptures elsewhere promote. So Barclay's translation gives "walking in ostentatious humility" as the translation of "delighting in humility." In Lightfoot's translation - we have "an officious humility." In Wuest's translation we have "taking delight in a self-imposed humility." In this translation we at least still retain the Greek word "thelon" or "delight." Yet, it also adds the adjective "self-imposed" to the word "humility." In Young's translation, which seeks to keep to the literal and leave the interpreting to the Bible teacher, we have "delighting in humble-mindedness."
As noted, the word "humility" (kjv) or "self-abasement" (nasb) is from the Greek word tapeinophrosynē and is translated as follows in the kjv:
humility (3x), humbleness of mind (1x), humility of mind (1x), lowliness (1x), lowliness of mind (1x).
In the two passages in Colossians the word has a negative connotation and is unique in that respect. It is because "humility" in these verses is viewed negatively by the apostle, as a characteristic of a cult, that many translators translate the Greek word here as denoting "false humility." However, the word itself does not "denote" false humility, but humility, which is a positive thing. Here is an example where the denotation of a word is different from its connotation.
So, what is it, in the context of the Colossian verses, that makes us view the kind of humility promoted by the cult (that Paul is condemning) to be a false humility? Is it not in the fact that it is delighted in? If one stops and thinks about the matter, why would any one delight in humility and self abasement and self deprecation? Obviously, when one delights in humility it then ceases to be genuine humility and becomes pride instead. It is pride cloaked in humility.
As many Bible commentaries note, the Greek word for "humility" is literally, "lowliness of mind," and is set against the parallel words "puffed up by his fleshly mind."
Eadie says (emphasis mine):
We give thelo its common meaning. Let no man beguile you—wishing to do it by his humility...The preposition en ("in" self-abasement) denotes the means of deception, or the sphere in which the deceiver moves. The humility referred to, as may be seen from the last verse of the chapter, is a spurious humility (see Col 2:23-note). Fanatical pride is often associated with this humility, as when, for show, the beggar's feet are washed; and the friar in his coarse rags walks barefooted and begs. And men become proud of their humility—glory in the feeling of "self-annihilation". The spirit of the false teacher, with all its professed lowliness, would not bend to the Divine revelation, but nursed its fallacies with a haughty tenacity, and preached them with an impious daring, for he was “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.” (A Commentary on the Greek Text)
When one delights in humility it ceases to be genuine humility and becomes pride. "The idea in context seems to be that the individual in question loves to talk on and on about his spiritual experiences, but in reality they are only coming out of his own sinful flesh..." (ibid)
"Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it is thinking of yourself less" - C S Lewis
If you’re working hard at acting humble, you’re not actually humble. Putting humility on display is not true humility.
In the next concluding article I will show how the Hardshell cult, like the Colossian cult, possesses a false humility.
These verses have two instances where Paul speaks of "humility" or "lowliness of mind," yet not in a positive way, but in a negative way. In these words the apostle Paul alludes to an early Christian cult and one of the descriptions given of it is that it θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ or is "delighting in humility." But, why would delighting in humility and lowliness of mind be viewed negatively, as a cult characteristic? Would not "delighting in humility" rather be characteristic of real Christians who are not cultic, aberrant, or heretical?
In order to convey the seeming negativity of "delighting in humility," translators have sought the need to add some additional word to "humility." So, the kjv translates verse 18 as "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility" (vs. 18 kjv). However, the word "voluntary" is not in the Greek text. Further, the translation omits the word "thelon" meaning "delighting." To the kjv translators, "delighting in humility" connotes "voluntary humility." But, this is an interpretation, not a literal translation. It may indeed connote such a humility, but it does not denote it. A literal translation is "delighting in humility." Interesting is the fact that the kjv translators do not translate ταπεινοφροσύνῃ as "voluntary humility" in verse 23, but as "a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility."
Other translators do the same as the kjv, adding adjectives to the word "humility" to convey the idea that the humility is not the good kind that the scriptures elsewhere promote. So Barclay's translation gives "walking in ostentatious humility" as the translation of "delighting in humility." In Lightfoot's translation - we have "an officious humility." In Wuest's translation we have "taking delight in a self-imposed humility." In this translation we at least still retain the Greek word "thelon" or "delight." Yet, it also adds the adjective "self-imposed" to the word "humility." In Young's translation, which seeks to keep to the literal and leave the interpreting to the Bible teacher, we have "delighting in humble-mindedness."
As noted, the word "humility" (kjv) or "self-abasement" (nasb) is from the Greek word tapeinophrosynē and is translated as follows in the kjv:
humility (3x), humbleness of mind (1x), humility of mind (1x), lowliness (1x), lowliness of mind (1x).
In the two passages in Colossians the word has a negative connotation and is unique in that respect. It is because "humility" in these verses is viewed negatively by the apostle, as a characteristic of a cult, that many translators translate the Greek word here as denoting "false humility." However, the word itself does not "denote" false humility, but humility, which is a positive thing. Here is an example where the denotation of a word is different from its connotation.
So, what is it, in the context of the Colossian verses, that makes us view the kind of humility promoted by the cult (that Paul is condemning) to be a false humility? Is it not in the fact that it is delighted in? If one stops and thinks about the matter, why would any one delight in humility and self abasement and self deprecation? Obviously, when one delights in humility it then ceases to be genuine humility and becomes pride instead. It is pride cloaked in humility.
As many Bible commentaries note, the Greek word for "humility" is literally, "lowliness of mind," and is set against the parallel words "puffed up by his fleshly mind."
Eadie says (emphasis mine):
We give thelo its common meaning. Let no man beguile you—wishing to do it by his humility...The preposition en ("in" self-abasement) denotes the means of deception, or the sphere in which the deceiver moves. The humility referred to, as may be seen from the last verse of the chapter, is a spurious humility (see Col 2:23-note). Fanatical pride is often associated with this humility, as when, for show, the beggar's feet are washed; and the friar in his coarse rags walks barefooted and begs. And men become proud of their humility—glory in the feeling of "self-annihilation". The spirit of the false teacher, with all its professed lowliness, would not bend to the Divine revelation, but nursed its fallacies with a haughty tenacity, and preached them with an impious daring, for he was “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.” (A Commentary on the Greek Text)
When one delights in humility it ceases to be genuine humility and becomes pride. "The idea in context seems to be that the individual in question loves to talk on and on about his spiritual experiences, but in reality they are only coming out of his own sinful flesh..." (ibid)
"Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it is thinking of yourself less" - C S Lewis
If you’re working hard at acting humble, you’re not actually humble. Putting humility on display is not true humility.
In the next concluding article I will show how the Hardshell cult, like the Colossian cult, possesses a false humility.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Hardshell Uriah Heep Humility I
This polemic is aimed at Hardshell "humility." It is the result of years of study and meditation upon the subject. It is also the result of recent months of literary and research work. I have gathered the material that relates to the subject over many years of reading Hardshell literature and from many years of personal experience as a former Hardshell elder and pastor. It has been a challenge to categorize the material into an organized and edifying whole. Even the choice of a title required much thought. What is the thesis of the writing? What arguments and evidence will be presented in support of it? What division should be made of the material? What chapters, if more than one? What will be the theme and title to these subsections? Who is my audience? What is the purpose of the polemical writing? To persuade and convict? To warn? To instruct? How shall the material be presented? Strictly forensic and logical? Appealing only to reason? Or, to the emotions as well?
Of all the things to study and write about, why choose such a topic? Especially when it concerns such a small unknown sect? Could your time not be better spent on some other topic? Does this polemic not manifest that you are simply writing out of anger and hatred towards the Hardshells?
In considering these questions my mind has made a diligent search and I feel a need to preface this polemic with some answers to them, especially knowing my audience, as I do.
First, I am not sure that I chose this topic, per se. I think it rather chose me. The subject has been on my mind many times over the years, often being provoked by examples of what I call "Uriah Heep" type Hardshell "humility." Recently, after encountering more examples of such, I finally decided to put on paper what was already in my inner thoughts.
Second, though a small sect, yet this has been where I have had the most experience, and believe that God wants me to use that experience in fighting the errors of the Hardshells, for their salvation, and for the glory of God. Also, there are still thousands and thousands of Hardshells still in existence today. Finally, the kind of "false humility" that is often seen in the Hardshell cult is the same that is found in other heretical sects and so the polemic on the topic will be applicable to other heretical groups.
As far as the writing being simply a "diatribe" produced out of anger towards the Hardshells, I feel no need to reply, other than to say that it makes me think that I should perhaps follow up this posting on the true meaning of humility with one on "anger." God and the reader will need have to judge whether this booklet is in accordance with his will and sentiment or not.
"The Humble" and "The Proud"
It is true that "the humble" are generally viewed as being in possession of the nature and life of God, or as being "the people of God." And, it is true that "the proud" are they who are not the people of God. Indeed, the terms have come to be identifying adjectives for the "two seeds," in historical "Primitive Baptist" jargon, the humble being the seed of Christ and the proud being the seed of the devil.
In Hardshell thinking, there is more genuine humility and lowliness of spirit among the Hardshell populace than anywhere else. To them, "the Arminian world," or "the religious world," are proud, and their system of "salvation by works" shows it. On the other hand, to them, Hardshell "grace" teaching alone produces humility. As we will show, this is all imaginary on their part, and actually is a "cloak" for their denominational pride. We will point to the irony of it all, and show how the Hardshells have a Uriah Heep type humility, a false humility, being proud of their humility.
Who was Uriah Heep? He was a fictional character in Charles Dicken's novel "David Copperfield" and who was known for his "sweet talk" but which was insincere. As one writer has said: "The character of Uriah Heep is known for his unduly overt humility who keeps referring to his “umbleness” through out the novel. In fact his name can be used synonymously to that of a yes man." (SEE HERE)
Another writer in an article titled "False humility and Christians" wrote:
"When Charles Dickens wrote the classic novel “David Copperfield”, he created an unattractive character called Uriah Heep – a greedy, insincere, ambitious manipulator who constantly proclaimed his “humbleness”. But Uriah Heep was not humble. He was proud, and self-absorbed and self-serving. The words that came out of his mouth were false. Someone who is really humble is not even aware of their humility. They aren’t absorbed with themselves at all." (SEE HERE)
Of all the things to study and write about, why choose such a topic? Especially when it concerns such a small unknown sect? Could your time not be better spent on some other topic? Does this polemic not manifest that you are simply writing out of anger and hatred towards the Hardshells?
In considering these questions my mind has made a diligent search and I feel a need to preface this polemic with some answers to them, especially knowing my audience, as I do.
First, I am not sure that I chose this topic, per se. I think it rather chose me. The subject has been on my mind many times over the years, often being provoked by examples of what I call "Uriah Heep" type Hardshell "humility." Recently, after encountering more examples of such, I finally decided to put on paper what was already in my inner thoughts.
Second, though a small sect, yet this has been where I have had the most experience, and believe that God wants me to use that experience in fighting the errors of the Hardshells, for their salvation, and for the glory of God. Also, there are still thousands and thousands of Hardshells still in existence today. Finally, the kind of "false humility" that is often seen in the Hardshell cult is the same that is found in other heretical sects and so the polemic on the topic will be applicable to other heretical groups.
As far as the writing being simply a "diatribe" produced out of anger towards the Hardshells, I feel no need to reply, other than to say that it makes me think that I should perhaps follow up this posting on the true meaning of humility with one on "anger." God and the reader will need have to judge whether this booklet is in accordance with his will and sentiment or not.
"The Humble" and "The Proud"
It is true that "the humble" are generally viewed as being in possession of the nature and life of God, or as being "the people of God." And, it is true that "the proud" are they who are not the people of God. Indeed, the terms have come to be identifying adjectives for the "two seeds," in historical "Primitive Baptist" jargon, the humble being the seed of Christ and the proud being the seed of the devil.
In Hardshell thinking, there is more genuine humility and lowliness of spirit among the Hardshell populace than anywhere else. To them, "the Arminian world," or "the religious world," are proud, and their system of "salvation by works" shows it. On the other hand, to them, Hardshell "grace" teaching alone produces humility. As we will show, this is all imaginary on their part, and actually is a "cloak" for their denominational pride. We will point to the irony of it all, and show how the Hardshells have a Uriah Heep type humility, a false humility, being proud of their humility.
Who was Uriah Heep? He was a fictional character in Charles Dicken's novel "David Copperfield" and who was known for his "sweet talk" but which was insincere. As one writer has said: "The character of Uriah Heep is known for his unduly overt humility who keeps referring to his “umbleness” through out the novel. In fact his name can be used synonymously to that of a yes man." (SEE HERE)
Another writer in an article titled "False humility and Christians" wrote:
"When Charles Dickens wrote the classic novel “David Copperfield”, he created an unattractive character called Uriah Heep – a greedy, insincere, ambitious manipulator who constantly proclaimed his “humbleness”. But Uriah Heep was not humble. He was proud, and self-absorbed and self-serving. The words that came out of his mouth were false. Someone who is really humble is not even aware of their humility. They aren’t absorbed with themselves at all." (SEE HERE)
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
A Hardshell Facebook Discussion on Faith
Just this morning I was scrolling down my Facebook page and
saw where someone, an apparent Hardshell, shared a photo with an important
Christian message stemming from Ephesians 2:8.
There was nothing unique about its content, but it was simply making a
typical evangelical appeal to sinners who are lost and without God.
Not a problem.
Ah, but it is a problem to the Hardshells. To make an appeal to sinners means that “salvation
by grace” is being denied and the Christian is not “rightly dividing the word of
truth” when he reads the evangelical appeals in the Bible. In order to be set straight one
must hear them butchered…I mean, “rightly divided”…using Hardshell
hermeneutics.
The below conversation, with the parties’ last name removed,
ensued in the comments section. I could
not let escape an opportunity to call attention to such brutal handling of the
word of God. Let the following serve as
an example of how absolutely ingrained they are in their heretical doctrine of
time salvation, and how practically everything in the scriptures revolves
around this one “key” to its interpretation.
It really needs no comments.
It speaks for itself as to the lengths to which men will go when they
refuse to submit to the plain teachings of scripture. What is happening right now, to these my
former church family and friends, is a systematic butchering of the word of God masquerading as “rightly dividing the word of truth”.
At first I laughed.
But then I sorrowed.
In response to the photo...
Ann: “Where
did this come from?”
Keith: “Amen brother. Too many can not
separate the two salvations. Pretty simple actually, if you earn it it's
salvation during your life. If it was given to you before the world began it's salvation after your death. You don't even have to accept your after death
salvation.”
Jacob: “It is very simple! There's no way you
can accept anything if you are dead. The only way we can believe, accept, have
faith, be baptized is if we are, passively, made alive by the Grace of God. I
pray that God will open up the hearts of all of His children so that they may
see that.”
Ann: “I'm going to go controversial and say I
do not believe we are saved through our faith in God at all. I also believe
that verse is only speaking of the eternal. The faith spoken of, in my opinion
is Christ's faithfulness to the covenant of love in his willingness to be
crucified and in his following through with suffering, bearing our sin burden,
and death. Even though our faith in God is a gift from God, it is still a work.
All righteousness is a gift from God. In my view, faith is no different. Only
God's righteousness justifies us.”
Keith: “I agree with you. But I believe we can
be "saved" to a closer walk with God while we are in this old world
through our faith and works. But our faith and works has nothing to do with our
eternal destination.”
Ann: “Keith, Yes, but my controversy is that I
disagree with those who say that verse is instructing us about temporal as well
as eternal salvation and I believe it is only about the latter. His grace saved
us, by the mechanism of the death, burial and resurrection. So it is THROUGH
faith that grace has saved us. Christ's faith; ergo the 'gift of God'.
So yes, we are saved to a closer walk with God
through our faith but I don't believe that's what this verse is referring to.”
Jacob: “Sister Ann. You are right. I don't believe that the
faith here in Ephesians 2 is talking about our faith. It took a perfect work
for our salvation. You have to divide the word of truth here like Timothy said.
It can't be our faith because our faith wavers everyday. So it must be God's
faith, but He doesn't put his faith, here, in us because once again, we are not
perfect. It was Him placing His faith in the Son.”
Keith: “I agree. I just brought that up to show how some
people use the works salvation as eternal. I believe you are correct about
these verses.”
Ann: “Thank you. Have you not heard people in our church say
this verse is teaching about both types of salvation? I have heard it said but
I just disagree.”
Keith: “My comments were directed more at the photo and not
the verses Brother Jacob listed. Sorry about the confusion.”
Ann: “Keith, I wasn't really reacting to you, but to the
verses because I have too often heard it interpreted the way I was bringing up.”
Jacob: “I have heard it preached both temporal and eternal.
I'm not going to agree or disagree with that, but I do know that it is eternal.
I've been trying to see for myself if this is talking about temporal as well,
just haven't seen it. I do agree with Brother Keith's statement, but not sure
if this verse in particular is referring to a temporal salvation. Scripture
will interpret scripture. God reveals it unto us in His own time.”
Joseph: “Ephesians 2:4-9 KJVS But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith
he loved us, [5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together
with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) [6] And hath raised us up together, and
made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: [7] That in the ages
to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward
us through Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should
boast.
Just my Interpretation but I believe verse 5 refers to
eternal salvation by Christ alone. I believe verse 8 refers to our faith, given
freely of God. The context of verse 8 is showing something through the ages to
come. Faith shows us salvation. It also is a grace of the Lord.”
Ann: “Are we saved eternally through our faith? Every
righteous act on our part is a gift of God, but none of them have any action
toward our eternal salvation. I don't see how faith is any different no matter
where we get it from.
I am a word maven. A result brought about
"through" some action means that action is the mechanism by which it
is accomplished. I don't believe any human work, no matter where it comes from
is the mechanism of our salvation.
I am not answering in an argumentative spirit, only
explaining why I believe what I believe. We don't know each other well and I
want to be clear that I am not disagreeing just to be disagreeable.”
Ann: “Oh, I left out that the death, burial and resurrection
is that mechanism of the grace by which we are saved.”
Jacob: “Thank you Brother Joe. This is good information and
a great study. As I stated before, I will not agree or disagree. God reveals
His word to each of His children in His own time. Either way, it IS by the
unmerited favor of Christ that we are delivered FROM a dead state of sin TO a
life of perfectness.”
Joseph: "The salvation referred to in verse 8, in my opinion, is not
eternal redemption, but a temporal salvation that can only come to pass because
of the eternal salvation referenced in v.5.
Jacob: Amen! I do see that Brother Joe. That is good.
I can see that faith as an eternal sense. However one views that in an eternal
sense, there is no way that can be the faith of man, for our faith is
imperfect. That can only be God's faith in His Son. Our faith can be used here
in a temporal sense, saving us from the trials of this life, and other
situations that are not in an eternal sense. I see that from verse 7 mentioned.
That you mentioned, "That in the ages to come He might shew the exceeding
riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." The
ages to come are now and He shows the riches of His grace through Jesus Christ
whether it be in His word or other life situations.
Joseph: The faith of man is not at all
instrumental in the eternal redemption of the elect. If in fact the 8th verse
has an eternal application, it would have to be the faithfulness of God under
consideration. However, this interpretation is awkward considering the context,
IMHO. It just does not seem to be referring to God's faith in His Son (which is
a very valid concept according to Rom ch 3)
Jacob: “I can see that. Thankful we agree of the faith of
man is not instrumental in eternal salvation. But if verse 8 were eternal,
wouldn't it have to be Gods faith in His Son? How else could it be?”
Joseph: "I agree."
These comments remind me very much of my own articles where I bring
to light this mass confusion on “faith” in the Bible:
The Latest Invention on Ephesians 2:8
Were I to join this conversation (an idea very tempting), it would be about
10 against 1 so I abstain. If I did,
however, I would show how these new interpretations of Ephesians 2:8 are
different, not only from their ministers of the distant past, but it is not
even the position of the denomination 20 years ago! Many of the current big-name preachers among them utterly deny God's faith in His Son as that which is under consideration in this passage. Rather, they defer to "seed faith" to get around their objections to gospel means.
In short, Hardshells started with the correct view of “evangelical,
personal faith” in the 19th century. But due to a growing opposition
towards “gospel means” the predominate view of the 20th century became
a “subconscious, seed faith” planted within the sinner at regeneration. And now in the 21st century, in
order to even further distance themselves from the notion that a sinner must at
least have “something” to be saved, a growing number are embracing the “faith of Christ” as
a further alternative. In the above
conversation, however, I do wonder why none of them bring up the notion of “seed faith” as
a possible interpretation of Ephesians 2:8.
Why, it served as a rebuttal to Calvinists and Arminians alike for almost the entirety of the 20th century! What has changed that they choose to no longer use this erroneous teaching as their rebuttal to gospel means, but have adopted yet another novelty: the faith God has in His Son? The fact that none suggest this possibility in the above conversation proves that after dusk the night only gets darker. In their continuing evolution of doctrine the
Hardshells are plunging themselves further and further into error.
But what do we say for those among them who continue to say that Eph. 2:8 is talking about "seed faith"? Are they wrong? If so, should it brought before the church? Carried to the association? Should they be osctracized?
If they would simply go back and look at the faith discussed in chapter one they would see what "kind" the Apostle Paul had under consideration. But the opposition to gospel means is so strong, this won't happen. And so, Hardshell hermeneutics rule the day!
But what do we say for those among them who continue to say that Eph. 2:8 is talking about "seed faith"? Are they wrong? If so, should it brought before the church? Carried to the association? Should they be osctracized?
If they would simply go back and look at the faith discussed in chapter one they would see what "kind" the Apostle Paul had under consideration. But the opposition to gospel means is so strong, this won't happen. And so, Hardshell hermeneutics rule the day!
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Will All The Elect Hear The Gospel?
Do you know how the first Hardshell generation (1820's through 1860's) would have answered that question? Is there anyone among the Hardshells of today who can prove that they would have answered it like most of today's Hardshells? Most of today's Hardshells would say "no," and yet the first Hardshells would have said "yes." Anyone want to disprove it? I predict that there will not be one Hardshell who will come forward with proof that the first Hardshells generally denied that men must be converted by the gospel to be finally saved in heaven. Why? Because there is no such evidence! If they had it, they would produce it. This blog and my writings are filled with historical evidence to show that they affirmed that all the elect would hear and believe the gospel and persevere in that faith.
Monday, January 16, 2017
My Visit At Nancy's Creek PB Church
Shortly after my second wife and I married in 1985, I took her to some Primitive Baptist meetings. We went to the Smoky Mountain Meeting for a day and we also took two trips to Nancy's Creek Primitive Baptist church, the first with Elder Charles Smith. This was the first time I had met Elder Harvey Fulmer, the pastor of the church at that time. The second time is when another elder of our mission church and I had a four night debate at the church with an elder from the "Church of Christ" on the subject of free will and predestination.
I want to share some thoughts about these visits here, tidbits of which have gone before in talking about Fulmer and Smith.
Tidbits
1. At this time I was still coming out of Hardshellism, accepting gospel means.
2. Elder Smith at this time was seemingly friendly to the gospel means position.
3. Elder Fulmer gave or sold me my copy of Elder Watson's "Old Baptist Test"
4. Elder Fulmer and Nancy Creek Church gave the use of their building for the debate
5. Spent lots of time talking with Elder Fulmer and Smith about Scripture and the church
6. Spent lots of time talking with a few members of Nancy Creek church about doctrine, especially eschatology and gospel means.
7. Was surprised that at least one leading member of the church believed in gospel means
8. The same leading member opposed me seeing prophecy fulfilled via newspaper reports of events
Anti Prophecy Preaching
I had already seen the error of Amillenialism and was heavy into studying unfulfilled prophecy, especially that of the New Testament. I was a firm Premillenialist, though not a Dispensationalist. Now I have forgotten many things, but one thing I remember this brother saying to me, about seeing prophecy being fulfilled in present day events, "you think," wagging his head in incredulity at the thought, "that by reading the newspaper you can see prophecy being fulfilled?" (paraphrase) I said "yes I do." And, if not mistaken, I may have said something like "it is called the 'signs of the times'." What I saw behind the words of this brother was an opposition to preaching or teaching on eschatology and unfulfilled prophecy. It reminds me of Paul's word of warning - "despise not prophesyings." ( I Thess. 5: 20 kjv)
Watch The Trees!
"And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees..." (Luke 21:29 kjv)
By the "fig tree" in the parable is meant the nation of Israel, as all acknowledge. All disciples are to "behold" or "watch" or "look at" the nation of Israel. And, just what does it mean to watch the nation? Is it not to keep up with her ongoing history, to observe meaningful events in it? And, is this not done by reporting those events by some means? If I read the newspaper and become informed of some current event pertaining to Israel the fig tree, especially one particularly mentioned in the NT, then so what? Why is that bad or to be rejected as nonsense I queried.
By "all the trees" is meant "all the nations" for "trees" are symbols of "nations" in the parable. So, Jesus not only tells us to watch the history and ongoing of the nation of Israel, but also of all the nations, especially the leading ones, or ones mentioned in Scripture.
The "signs of the times" or "sign of his coming," are not only physical and social, but also political. Many of the signs of the times given in Scripture of the "end of time" are political. So, watch the nations! By whatever medium of obtaining information about those nations and their dealings with each other, stay informed!
I want to share some thoughts about these visits here, tidbits of which have gone before in talking about Fulmer and Smith.
Tidbits
1. At this time I was still coming out of Hardshellism, accepting gospel means.
2. Elder Smith at this time was seemingly friendly to the gospel means position.
3. Elder Fulmer gave or sold me my copy of Elder Watson's "Old Baptist Test"
4. Elder Fulmer and Nancy Creek Church gave the use of their building for the debate
5. Spent lots of time talking with Elder Fulmer and Smith about Scripture and the church
6. Spent lots of time talking with a few members of Nancy Creek church about doctrine, especially eschatology and gospel means.
7. Was surprised that at least one leading member of the church believed in gospel means
8. The same leading member opposed me seeing prophecy fulfilled via newspaper reports of events
Anti Prophecy Preaching
I had already seen the error of Amillenialism and was heavy into studying unfulfilled prophecy, especially that of the New Testament. I was a firm Premillenialist, though not a Dispensationalist. Now I have forgotten many things, but one thing I remember this brother saying to me, about seeing prophecy being fulfilled in present day events, "you think," wagging his head in incredulity at the thought, "that by reading the newspaper you can see prophecy being fulfilled?" (paraphrase) I said "yes I do." And, if not mistaken, I may have said something like "it is called the 'signs of the times'." What I saw behind the words of this brother was an opposition to preaching or teaching on eschatology and unfulfilled prophecy. It reminds me of Paul's word of warning - "despise not prophesyings." ( I Thess. 5: 20 kjv)
Watch The Trees!
"And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees..." (Luke 21:29 kjv)
By the "fig tree" in the parable is meant the nation of Israel, as all acknowledge. All disciples are to "behold" or "watch" or "look at" the nation of Israel. And, just what does it mean to watch the nation? Is it not to keep up with her ongoing history, to observe meaningful events in it? And, is this not done by reporting those events by some means? If I read the newspaper and become informed of some current event pertaining to Israel the fig tree, especially one particularly mentioned in the NT, then so what? Why is that bad or to be rejected as nonsense I queried.
By "all the trees" is meant "all the nations" for "trees" are symbols of "nations" in the parable. So, Jesus not only tells us to watch the history and ongoing of the nation of Israel, but also of all the nations, especially the leading ones, or ones mentioned in Scripture.
The "signs of the times" or "sign of his coming," are not only physical and social, but also political. Many of the signs of the times given in Scripture of the "end of time" are political. So, watch the nations! By whatever medium of obtaining information about those nations and their dealings with each other, stay informed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)