The Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 say this concerning Justification:
“God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time actually apply Christ unto them."
And they give these verses as proof:
( Galatians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 4:25; Colossians 1:21,22; Titus 3:4-7 )
The question at hand is - when were the Elect justified? In answer to this question there are three views.
1) In eternity past, when God decreed or determined to justify certain persons, such as those denominated by the terms "elect" or "believer." This is the view commonly called the Hyper Calvinistic view, and was taught and believed by such great Baptist Calvinists as Samuel Richardson (signatory to the 1644 London Confession), John Gill and John Brine (two giants among the 18th century Particular Baptists), and many today among the "Primitive Baptists."
2) At the Cross when Christ died and paid the penalty for those he represented. The resurrection of Christ being the proof that such a justification took place upon his sacrificial death.
3) At the time when a sinner first believes in Christ and is converted.
Many have written on this subject and anyone who wants to study it thoroughly will want to read from those who defend each of the three views. The debate over this question has produced voluminous writings on the topic. My job in this series of postings on the question will be to give a concise summation of each point of view, striving as much as possible towards brevity and against verbosity.
Though I have studied this issue in depth over the years, at various times, I was led to review it once again as a result of reading Hardshell David Pyles' writing on the subject titled "Justification in Baptist History and Scripture
(First Revision)." It can be found HERE. It is rather a lengthy writing and he gives a lot of citations from Baptists of former times who taught that the elect were justified in eternity past, such as from the men I have already mentioned as holding that view. Pyles accepts that view and he seems to speak for his Hardshell brothers.
He admits that the view expressed in the 1689 London Confession is against eternal justification and rather upholds the view that sinners are not justified until they are united to Christ by faith. This is the confession that the Hardshells endorsed in the Fulton Convention of Primitive Baptists in 1900 as being the confession of their forefathers who began the denomination in the 1830s. So, the view that was once "primitive" or "original" Baptist doctrine was not the eternal justification view of Pyles and today's Hardshells. They can hardly claim therefore to be primitive or original on this issue. Further, Pyles does not state this fact; not only did his Baptist forefathers of the 17th century reject both views, either that the elect were justified in eternity past or at the cross, but that most of his forefathers in the 1830s also rejected it and believed what the London Confession stated on the issue.
The point is simply this: the view of Pyles, though held to by some Baptist scholars, such as Richardson, Gill, and Brine, it has nevertheless only been accepted by but a few, nor has it ever been made into an official article in any Baptist or Protestant confession of faith. The accepted creedal majority position of Baptists, Particular or General, has been to affirm just what the Confession cited at the outset affirms. No one is justified until he believes and this is what is meant in scripture as being "justified by faith."
One must ask why Pyles and today's Hardshells want to grab hold of the idea of eternal justification? Having been a Hardshell I can tell you why. It is because they are firmly intent on divorcing faith from having anything to do with being eternally saved in heaven. They are resolved to uphold the late 19th century statement of Elder Waters who said - "Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith." Of course, anyone who seeks to defend that idea, as Pyles, will want to deny that sinners are actually justified when they believe. But, the effort to prove that faith is not essential to actual justification is an impossible task. Pyles does not add anything to the argumentation already given in favor of eternal justification by such men as Gill. Neither does he refute the arguments made against it and in favor of justification at the point of faith. I recently wrote on how the Hardshells of today decry the importance and necessity of faith for salvation and Pyles simply reinforces that accusation.
In Pyle's writing he is willing to accept the view that the elect were justified on the cross, a view that some of his brethren accept. He is willing to accept either the eternal justification view or the justification at the cross view, but not the justification upon faith view. And why? Because the first two views do not require faith for justification! So, either one of those two views are acceptable. What he cannot tolerate is any view that makes faith in Christ essential for justification or for eternal salvation. He and his Hardshell brethren are so dedicated to the idea that many unbelievers will be saved that they will fight the idea that actual justification occurs through the instrumentality of faith. That is sad indeed.
In closing this introductory chapter on this topic I want to add this observation on men like Richardson, Gill, and Brine, men who held to the view that the elect were justified in eternity past when God purposed or decreed their justification. Though these men erred on this topic, yet they can hardly be seen as upholding the Hardshell notion that gospel or evangelical faith was not required to be saved in heaven. All these men believed that faith was necessary to be saved in heaven and that all who die without such faith in Christ, via the gospel, would be eternally lost.
In the next several postings we will give reasons why the view that justification has occurred either in eternity past or at the cross is false and show why the traditional teaching of Baptists and of the Protestant reformers concerning "justification by faith" is correct.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Incorrect Grammar in the KJV
There are lots of proofs that the KJV is not a perfect translation of the Bible. Let me give one small example of it in this short posting. In this example the error is in incorrect grammar!
Recently I made a posting on Romans 16: 7 and I cited the KJV which reads as follows:
"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
May I use the Socratic method here and ask - "where is the faulty grammar in this verse?" Can you spot it? Which is correct; to say "before me" or "before I"? Though most people incorrectly say "before me," the correct way is to say "before I." One way to help people to see why "before me" is incorrect is to ask them to finish the thought. In the case of Paul's words in the above verse the thought is "who were in Christ before I was in Christ." It is easy to see how the use of "me" instead of "I" is incorrect. It would be wrong to say "who was in Christ before me was in Christ."
Thankfully this incorrect grammar is not found in some other English translations. Notice these:
"...and they were in Christ before I was." (NIV)
"...and they were in Christ before I was." (Berean Study Bible)
"They belonged to the Messiah before I did." (International Standard Version)
There are other translations that also give the incorrect grammar, such as NASB, English Standard Version, Young's literal translation, etc.
Now, I realize that the Greek possessive first person singular pronoun "emou" is in the text and that this pronoun is often translated "me." But, we are not talking about how the pronoun is used in the Greek, or about the Greek grammar. Rather, we are talking about how to express the thought in English grammar. And, proper English grammar, to convey the meaning of the Greek, would be to say "before I" and not "before me."
If we wanted to simply try to keep the word "me" and use correct English grammar we would say something like this - "as it relates to me, or concerns me, they were in Christ first."
No translation is perfect. That is the point.
Recently I made a posting on Romans 16: 7 and I cited the KJV which reads as follows:
"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
May I use the Socratic method here and ask - "where is the faulty grammar in this verse?" Can you spot it? Which is correct; to say "before me" or "before I"? Though most people incorrectly say "before me," the correct way is to say "before I." One way to help people to see why "before me" is incorrect is to ask them to finish the thought. In the case of Paul's words in the above verse the thought is "who were in Christ before I was in Christ." It is easy to see how the use of "me" instead of "I" is incorrect. It would be wrong to say "who was in Christ before me was in Christ."
Thankfully this incorrect grammar is not found in some other English translations. Notice these:
"...and they were in Christ before I was." (NIV)
"...and they were in Christ before I was." (Berean Study Bible)
"They belonged to the Messiah before I did." (International Standard Version)
There are other translations that also give the incorrect grammar, such as NASB, English Standard Version, Young's literal translation, etc.
Now, I realize that the Greek possessive first person singular pronoun "emou" is in the text and that this pronoun is often translated "me." But, we are not talking about how the pronoun is used in the Greek, or about the Greek grammar. Rather, we are talking about how to express the thought in English grammar. And, proper English grammar, to convey the meaning of the Greek, would be to say "before I" and not "before me."
If we wanted to simply try to keep the word "me" and use correct English grammar we would say something like this - "as it relates to me, or concerns me, they were in Christ first."
No translation is perfect. That is the point.
Bible Teaching Using the Socratic Method
Recently I advised a young preacher friend to practice teaching his congregation more often by what is called "the Socratic method." I want to elaborate on this in this posting. First, just what is the "Socratic method"?
Though it is not so easy to define, there being various ways to teach in the Socratic way, yet according to criticalthinking.org, we have this simple definition (emphasis mine):
"In Socratic teaching we focus on giving students questions, not answers. We model an inquiring, probing mind by continually probing into the subject with questions." (see here)
If one stops to think about the teaching ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ he will have to admit that he sure did ask a lot of questions, both of his disciples and of his antagonists. What was the reason for this? Yes, sometimes it was to interrogate, like a prosecutor, or inquisitor, yet at other times it seems clear that it was done as a teaching method.
Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio, in discussing this topic, said this (emphasis mine):
"Have you ever had a teacher who drones on and on? Fact upon fact, argument upon argument. The teacher’s mistake is that he or she is providing a long and complicated answer to a question that hadn’t even occurred to you, a question you’re not really curious about. So the next day, you’ve forgotten the facts, the argument, and even the point.
On the other hand, have you ever had a teacher who intrigues you with a fascinating question that really makes you think? You strain your brain and–voila! You figure it out for yourself. You put the pieces together and see a clear picture. And you never forget it.
This is often called the Socratic Method, but it was not unique to Socrates. It is often the way Middle Eastern teachers, including the authors of the Bible, do their thing." (see here)
The Socratic Method is one of the best ways to teach a person because it requires that the pupil make attempts to solve problems, mathematical or analytical, before being comprehensively shown how to do so.
Said one writer:
"Socrates believed that the highest benefit of his art was to help people do their own thinking in a way that lead to the birth of their own new ideas. In Socratic dialogues, the primary focus is on the original thinking of the respondent as they try to answer Socrates' questions."
When people figure out the answers for themselves, rather than just being told the answers, the answers become more impressed upon the mind and memory.
The same writer also said:
"In these conversations, Socrates became the student and made those he questioned the teacher. Socrates rejected any attempts to pass off another person's ideas or the beliefs of the majority as truth. Socrates was not interested in the talk of others. He only wanted to focus on the respondents own thinking. Through the respondent's process of answering Socrates' questions, they experienced their own original thinking in the context of examining their own ideas and themselves. The brilliance of the Socratic method is in the character developing power it has through the exercise of a person's love of asking and answering questions in the pursuit of knowledge." ("Introduction to the Socratic Method and its Effect on Critical Thinking" by Max Maxwell - see here)
That is well stated. The Socratic method is one I have often used in my efforts to teach others. Of course, it is most beneficial in teaching in smaller groups, or in one on one, rather than in larger groups, as in preaching to a large congregation. The reason for this is because there is opportunity for the students to actually answer the questions and for there to be more of a dialogue or conversation. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient teachers, often taught their disciples (students or learners) in a dialogue. Thus we read of "the dialogues of Socrates," or "the dialogues of Plato," etc.
The Socratic method involves what well may be called "creative questioning." This is one reason why I think that catechetical instruction has been so often used by church teachers throughout the centuries in teaching doctrine to disciples. The use of catechisms is a good tool for teaching or for conveying important information because it uses a question and answer format.
At lifeway.com there is an article by Aaron Earls titled "6 Preaching Methods Jesus Used That You Should Too" (see here) in which he gives the Socratic method as one of those methods. He wrote this under "Jesus Asked Questions" (emphasis mine):
"Rather than tell everyone the answer right away, Jesus used the Socratic Method. He led His audience to conclusions by asking a lot of questions. For examples check out Matthew 16:26, or 22:20-21, or look at this resource. Questions are a powerful teaching method, especially when teaching a hostile crowd (like unbelievers). Questions stimulate critical thinking. Asking good questions makes the audience hungry to find the answers. If you want to preach like Jesus, ask a lot of questions. Do not reveal the answer immediately. Help your audience use their own brains."
Parents ought to learn how to teach their children in this manner! Ask your children questions about ideas and things! Get them to use their brains! To think rationally! To help them to "figure things out" for themselves rather than just "telling them."
The Dialogues of Jesus
I can picture Jesus, in the manner of Socrates or Plato, walking about with his disciples, and in an informal way teaching them through conversation and dialogue. I can visualize the disciples at the feet of their Master and hearing him, and asking him questions. I can see him as he asks them questions and how he challenges them in regard to their thinking. I see him using the Socratic method. Let me give some examples of it.
This method can be seen in those times when Jesus would ask "How think ye?" (Matt. 18:12); or, when he asked "But what think ye?" (Matt. 21:28); And, in one powerful example of this method we hear Christ ask "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?"; And, their answer led him to ask further questions. Notice the rest of the dialogue:
"They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." (Matt. 22: 42-46)
Now, Jesus could have simply said - "Christ is both the son and Lord of David." But, he rather led the disciples to that conclusion by his method of asking the right questions.
Another example of Christ teaching in this manner is found in these examples:
"Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?" (Luke 13:4)
In other words, what do you think?
"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?" (Matt. 21: 25)
Notice how the questions of the master teacher caused the people to "reason with themselves," and this is what we also ought to be provoking in those who hear us by our use of the art of asking questions.
"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (Matt. 21: 28-32)
"What do you think?" Which do you think "did the will of his father?" He wanted people to see things for themselves, to draw the answers out of them, rather than just dictate to them. God help us to emulate him in this so that we might ourselves become better teachers!
Though it is not so easy to define, there being various ways to teach in the Socratic way, yet according to criticalthinking.org, we have this simple definition (emphasis mine):
"In Socratic teaching we focus on giving students questions, not answers. We model an inquiring, probing mind by continually probing into the subject with questions." (see here)
If one stops to think about the teaching ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ he will have to admit that he sure did ask a lot of questions, both of his disciples and of his antagonists. What was the reason for this? Yes, sometimes it was to interrogate, like a prosecutor, or inquisitor, yet at other times it seems clear that it was done as a teaching method.
Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio, in discussing this topic, said this (emphasis mine):
"Have you ever had a teacher who drones on and on? Fact upon fact, argument upon argument. The teacher’s mistake is that he or she is providing a long and complicated answer to a question that hadn’t even occurred to you, a question you’re not really curious about. So the next day, you’ve forgotten the facts, the argument, and even the point.
On the other hand, have you ever had a teacher who intrigues you with a fascinating question that really makes you think? You strain your brain and–voila! You figure it out for yourself. You put the pieces together and see a clear picture. And you never forget it.
This is often called the Socratic Method, but it was not unique to Socrates. It is often the way Middle Eastern teachers, including the authors of the Bible, do their thing." (see here)
The Socratic Method is one of the best ways to teach a person because it requires that the pupil make attempts to solve problems, mathematical or analytical, before being comprehensively shown how to do so.
Said one writer:
"Socrates believed that the highest benefit of his art was to help people do their own thinking in a way that lead to the birth of their own new ideas. In Socratic dialogues, the primary focus is on the original thinking of the respondent as they try to answer Socrates' questions."
When people figure out the answers for themselves, rather than just being told the answers, the answers become more impressed upon the mind and memory.
The same writer also said:
"In these conversations, Socrates became the student and made those he questioned the teacher. Socrates rejected any attempts to pass off another person's ideas or the beliefs of the majority as truth. Socrates was not interested in the talk of others. He only wanted to focus on the respondents own thinking. Through the respondent's process of answering Socrates' questions, they experienced their own original thinking in the context of examining their own ideas and themselves. The brilliance of the Socratic method is in the character developing power it has through the exercise of a person's love of asking and answering questions in the pursuit of knowledge." ("Introduction to the Socratic Method and its Effect on Critical Thinking" by Max Maxwell - see here)
That is well stated. The Socratic method is one I have often used in my efforts to teach others. Of course, it is most beneficial in teaching in smaller groups, or in one on one, rather than in larger groups, as in preaching to a large congregation. The reason for this is because there is opportunity for the students to actually answer the questions and for there to be more of a dialogue or conversation. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient teachers, often taught their disciples (students or learners) in a dialogue. Thus we read of "the dialogues of Socrates," or "the dialogues of Plato," etc.
The Socratic method involves what well may be called "creative questioning." This is one reason why I think that catechetical instruction has been so often used by church teachers throughout the centuries in teaching doctrine to disciples. The use of catechisms is a good tool for teaching or for conveying important information because it uses a question and answer format.
At lifeway.com there is an article by Aaron Earls titled "6 Preaching Methods Jesus Used That You Should Too" (see here) in which he gives the Socratic method as one of those methods. He wrote this under "Jesus Asked Questions" (emphasis mine):
"Rather than tell everyone the answer right away, Jesus used the Socratic Method. He led His audience to conclusions by asking a lot of questions. For examples check out Matthew 16:26, or 22:20-21, or look at this resource. Questions are a powerful teaching method, especially when teaching a hostile crowd (like unbelievers). Questions stimulate critical thinking. Asking good questions makes the audience hungry to find the answers. If you want to preach like Jesus, ask a lot of questions. Do not reveal the answer immediately. Help your audience use their own brains."
Parents ought to learn how to teach their children in this manner! Ask your children questions about ideas and things! Get them to use their brains! To think rationally! To help them to "figure things out" for themselves rather than just "telling them."
The Dialogues of Jesus
I can picture Jesus, in the manner of Socrates or Plato, walking about with his disciples, and in an informal way teaching them through conversation and dialogue. I can visualize the disciples at the feet of their Master and hearing him, and asking him questions. I can see him as he asks them questions and how he challenges them in regard to their thinking. I see him using the Socratic method. Let me give some examples of it.
This method can be seen in those times when Jesus would ask "How think ye?" (Matt. 18:12); or, when he asked "But what think ye?" (Matt. 21:28); And, in one powerful example of this method we hear Christ ask "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?"; And, their answer led him to ask further questions. Notice the rest of the dialogue:
"They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." (Matt. 22: 42-46)
Now, Jesus could have simply said - "Christ is both the son and Lord of David." But, he rather led the disciples to that conclusion by his method of asking the right questions.
Another example of Christ teaching in this manner is found in these examples:
"Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?" (Luke 13:4)
In other words, what do you think?
"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?" (Matt. 21: 25)
Notice how the questions of the master teacher caused the people to "reason with themselves," and this is what we also ought to be provoking in those who hear us by our use of the art of asking questions.
"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (Matt. 21: 28-32)
"What do you think?" Which do you think "did the will of his father?" He wanted people to see things for themselves, to draw the answers out of them, rather than just dictate to them. God help us to emulate him in this so that we might ourselves become better teachers!
Monday, August 7, 2017
What Meaneth This?
Chapter 31 of the London Confession has this statement:
"...and whatsoever the saints, any of them do possess or enjoy of God in this life, is only by faith."
What are the implications of such a statement? Perhaps this can best be answered by asking these questions.
1. Is spiritual life, or regeneration and new birth, something that the saints enjoy in this life? If yes, then it must be "by faith."
2. What does this statement say about the confession's stance on the "ordo salutis," or on whether faith precede or follow regeneration/new birth?
3. What does it say about the Hardshell idea that regeneration and eternal life are not by faith? As I wrote in a recent posting, the Hardshells ascribe very little to faith. Yet, the scriptures, and this statement from the historic confession, wants to ascribe all to faith.
Paul laid down this premise bearing on this issue: "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14:23) But, in Hardshell soteriology, very little is "of faith." Regeneration or the new birth is not "of faith." And, this being the case, their "regeneration" must be "sin." Preservation or abiding in Christ is also not by or of faith, by Hardshell thinking.
The above article from the London Confession shows just how far the Hardshells have removed from the faith of the fathers.
"...and whatsoever the saints, any of them do possess or enjoy of God in this life, is only by faith."
What are the implications of such a statement? Perhaps this can best be answered by asking these questions.
1. Is spiritual life, or regeneration and new birth, something that the saints enjoy in this life? If yes, then it must be "by faith."
2. What does this statement say about the confession's stance on the "ordo salutis," or on whether faith precede or follow regeneration/new birth?
3. What does it say about the Hardshell idea that regeneration and eternal life are not by faith? As I wrote in a recent posting, the Hardshells ascribe very little to faith. Yet, the scriptures, and this statement from the historic confession, wants to ascribe all to faith.
Paul laid down this premise bearing on this issue: "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14:23) But, in Hardshell soteriology, very little is "of faith." Regeneration or the new birth is not "of faith." And, this being the case, their "regeneration" must be "sin." Preservation or abiding in Christ is also not by or of faith, by Hardshell thinking.
The above article from the London Confession shows just how far the Hardshells have removed from the faith of the fathers.
Hardshells & The Adultery Question II
This is the second posting in this series. The first posting can be read here. In that posting I sought first to give my own views on the matter by citing from Dr. Phil Johnson. I stated how PBs are divided on this issue and that my father was very strict on the matter, believing that a person who divorced for reasons other than fornication, and then remarried, was "living in adultery" and could not be a member of the church unless 1) that person put away his/her new wife/husband and went back to his/her first wife/husband, or 2) that person's first spouse died. Also, in that first posting I stated: "To my knowledge, I would guess that father's view represents the majority view, unless things have changed since I was with them in the 1970s and early 80s." Since that first article I have talked to my nephew, Elder John Davenport, who now pastors the church which father pastored. John told me that things had indeed changed with the PBs on this issue since the time I was with them and that he believed that most PBs now do not agree with father. Of course, all this is simply surmising because no one has polled the Hardshells on the matter.
In this posting I wish to cite from some Hardshells on this issue. I will first cite from Elder Claud McKee and his article "Church Discipline (Concerning Gross sins as opposed to trespasses)" (see here all emphasis mine).
"Many, but not all, the Primitive Baptists I was raised around believed that the sins of fornication and adultery were tantamount to selling a person's birthright; thus preventing them from joining or being restored to membership during their natural life. I had respect for those faithful Baptist I observed who held to that belief. I watched their stand in action and I am submissive to that practice, especially for unfaithfulness in marriage and the sin of adultery as described by the Lord in Matthew 19:9. Would it not be true that any child of God denied membership or excluded by the church is being denied their birthright to commune with the saints of God in a Church capacity? Whether that denial is for a life time depends on whether God will or has granted repentance. Members excluded for fornication or adultery among the Primitive Baptist has (sic) traditionally never been restored to membership even among those that didn't believe the birthright was forfeited by these two sins."
Notice how Elder McKee believes that the majority takes father's strict view on the subject, saying that "many" hold to it. I stated that father's view was that such a person had committed the "sin unto death" in relation to church membership, and here McKee says basically the same thing, that it was equivalent to persons "selling" their "birthright" as respects church membership. Elder McKee states that the strict view allows that one "living in adultery," that is, "living in an unlawful marriage," may become a member if God grants repentance. But, one does not know what McKee means by this. Father and others of the strict view believed that just confessing the sin, and feeling sorry for it, was not enough to grant membership. They believed that the person had to quit the unlawful marriage and resume marriage with the unlawfully divorced spouse. McKee does state that, from his observation and knowledge of the Hardshells, PBs have "traditionally NEVER restored to membership" such persons.
McKee continued:
"As previously mentioned most Liberal/Progressive movements are lax in church discipline. Their liberal views on adultery and fornication offend sister churches by harboring these sins in the church."
If McKee is right, then the issue is still a divisive and hot topic among the Hardshells. Further, if the Liberals and Progressives are a minority, then we must say that the majority view on the "adultery question" is the strict view of McKee, father, and the conservatives.
McKee continued:
"This always leads to division and the Nashville peace meeting addressed this, problem in item 10 of their report. They said "Each and every local church has the right to dispose of her local affairs as she deems proper; that is, she has the right to discipline her own members; but no church has the right to harbor and protect heretics, liars, fornicators, and the like, to the hurt and annoyance of sister churches." A liberal argument I've heard is that the church is sovereign and no other church can tell them how to discipline their members. Another argument is that if a person commits fornication or adultery but is not NOW living in that condition they should be retained in the church. That reasoning could and has lead to situations where a member gave in to temptation and committed fornication and immediately felt remorse and petitioned the church for forgiveness. Under the liberal view, the person should be retained in the church. The scriptures give no such option; they clearly say that a brother or sister that is a fornicator should not be retained in church fellowship. The 'not now living in' argument is just a ploy that is used to distort established Primitive Baptist practice which is to exclude adulterers and fornicators and in most cases were not restored to membership."
Notice that "no church has the right to harbor and protect...fornicators...to the hurt and annoyance of sister churches." That was the view of father and was the view of the Nashville peace meeting. So, if most of the Hardshell churches today do not take the strict view on the "adultery question," then they have indeed changed.
Since McKee cited from the "National Peace Meeting," let me cite further from it. It can be found on the Internet under this title "A NATIONAL PEACE MEETING OF THE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS HELD AT HARMONY CHURCH, DONALDSON, ARKANSAS JULY 13, 14, 15, 1953." (see here - all emphasis mine)
8. Neither husband or wife should put the other away and marry another, except for the cause of fornication. If husband and wife are unable to remain peaceably together, and decide to quietly separate from each other, they may do so for peace only, but not to marry again. In such case, if either should marry again, he or she becomes an adulterer and the other is thereby released. The discipline herein refers to members of the church, but we believe the moral law of God governing marriage and prohibiting adultery is binding upon the unregenerate as well as the regenerate. The church should not retain a person or persons living in adultery.
24. We further state and believe that fornicators and adulterers should not be retained in the church of Christ. All such offenders must be excluded and repent on the outside of the church -This is one of the chief glories of the gospel church over the law: that repentance is evidence of godly sorrow, not only by individuals but of churches and should be recognized by the church of God. No church should restore a member for any offense knowing that it will cause trouble, confusion or disturb sister churches.
Now, I do not know of any church that would consent to retaining in membership anyone who was in fact "living in adultery." The question is, however, just what precisely is "living in adultery"? Of course persons who are married and leave their spouses without just cause and then "shack up" with others are "living in adultery." But, is it also a case of "living in adultery" when a spouse enters into a second marriage without just cause? Also, no one denies that the unjust marrying again is sin, but the question is this - "does it continue to be a sin"? And, does the second marriage have to be dissolved in order for the sin to stop?
So, just what has been the historical and traditional view of the Hardshells on this question? Based upon the citations from the Nashville document the strict view of father was that view. Of course, I believe the strict view to be wrong, but it has clearly been the majority view among the PBs.
In "Adultery: An Act or a State?" (see here - emphasis mine) the author wrote these observations on the topic:
"A basic but often unidentified issue involved in discussions about what a person who has committed adultery should do in order to repent is this: was his sin of adultery only an act, or is it considered to be an ongoing state of sin? If it was an act of sin only, then the person may acknowledge his sin, be forgiven, and be careful not to repeat it again. This allows one to continue in the remarriage relationship. If, however, adultery is a continuous state of sin until the present partner is put away, complete repentance and full assurance of God's forgiveness do not exist until the adulterous union is discontinued."
"Was his sin of adultery only an act, or is it considered to be an ongoing state of sin?" Yes, that is the chief question! What is the correct answer to this all important question?
The writer continued:
"Both positions have very serious implications. If adultery is an act only, then to require separation is to needlessly break up homes and to lay a heavy and unnecessary burden on persons who desire to repent. It could also result in placing a stumbling block in the path of earnest seekers. If adultery is a state; however, then to assure persons of forgiveness while living with their partner (with the first spouse still living) is to give them a false hope of salvation and to sanction their going to hell since no adulterers will enter the kingdom of heaven (I Cor. 6:9). It also undermines the foundations of marriage and weakens the will to work through marriage difficulties."
Here the writer states the heart of the issue in debate very clearly. Those who see adultery in remarriage as an "act" see it as forgivable and therefore as no bar to church membership upon confession of wrong. Those however like McKee, father, and the endorsers of the Nashville document, who see such marriages as a "state," there is no forgiveness and such a state becomes a "sin unto death" and a "selling of one's birthright."
The article continued:
"How does God view adultery...as an act or a state? We believe the Bible clearly present adultery as an ongoing state of sin until the adulterous union is discontinued. Read and meditate on the following passages: Genesis 20 As long as Abimelech had another man's wife under his roof, he was a "dead man" until he released her to go back to her rightful husband, even though he had not yet touched her. This was true for even a pagan king. Ezra 9 & 10 Though a somewhat different situation, i.e. marrying foreign women, their unions were illicit and their sin was considered to be removed only when they separated themselves from their wives. (10:2-4, 10, 11) Jer. 7:8-11 (Note preceding context) The Israelites were committing adultery and then going to the Temple saying "We are safe'--safe to do all these detestable things..." God said they were trusting in deceptive, worthless words. Mal. 2:13-17 God hates divorce, the breaking faith with the wife of one's youth. Can He accept in our time that which He once hated? Is it only the act of breaking faith that He hates, or does He hate both the act and the ongoing state of breaking faith?"
This writer takes the view of father and many of the Hardshells and of many Campbellites. He believes that when one enters into a marriage without just cause (for fornication), then that person is "living in adultery" and cannot be forgiven until the sin is stopped, i.e., until the unlawful marriage is dissolved. The cases that are brought forth to prove the case, however, do not necessarily prove it. Let me explain.
If a person puts away his wife for an unlawful reason and marries another, that person continues to sin while in that marriage, or to "live in adultery," under one scenario only. It is when the first wife, who was unjustly divorced, remains committed to the marriage, forgiving her husband of his infidelity. This however is not the case generally. Most often the innocent wife considers the marriage lawfully ended and marries again herself. So, whether the man is living in adultery is conditioned upon the attitude and decision of the innocent spouse. If that innocent spouse continues to forgive her husband and continues to plead with him to return to her, then that man may be said to be "living in adultery." I believe the cases cited in the article are of this nature.
In the case of Abimelech, the unlawful wife never gave her consent to the marriage. She was forced into it and would leave it if she could. So, of course, in such a case, Abimelech was "living in adultery" with this "wife."
As far as the case of the Israelites marrying pagan wives, and then being told by God to divorce them, because (it is argued and supposed) that they were in unlawful marriages and therefore "living in adultery," the case is unique. The author of the article even admits this. It involves the special covenant that God had with Israel and with his command for the men not to marry heathen wives. Further, in the OT it was allowed that men could have more than one wife. Would the strict advocates of this issue not see having more than one wife as a case of "living in adultery"? Further, in the case cited from Ezra and Jeremiah, there is no mention of the Israeli men divorcing their Hebrew wives in order to marry the pagan women.
Next, the writer of the article says:
"Mt. 14:3,4 (NAS) John the Baptist rebuked Herod for taking his brother Philip's wife. He did not say: "It is not lawful for you to have taken her" but rather "It is not lawful for you to have her". Some say the sin was that of incest. Actually, Herod had committed two sins: adultery and incest. The only way to repent of both was to release the woman. John was rebuking a sinner, which shows that immorality is sin, not only for the saint, but also for the sinner. If adultery were merely an act, John died in vain. He should have been more discreet and sensitive, calling only for Herod to say he was sorry and giving permission to continue on with Herodias. Instead, Jesus commended John as being the greatest man born of women. Note also in Mk. 6:18 John's warning to Herod was repeated, continuous action: "For John had been saying..." This is why Herodias nursed a grudge against John. If he had said, "Just recognize you sinned, but stay with her and don't commit adultery again with another woman", Herodias wouldn't have had reason to be so upset with John."
Again, the reason why the case of Herod is a case of "living in adultery" may be due to 1) Philip still considered the woman taken by Herod to be his wife, and 2) the woman was forced (by threat or otherwise) against her will to become the slave wife of Herod. Further, the sin or illegality of the marriage may be because it was against the OT laws on incest. Further, the present tense "it is not lawful" may actually mean "it was not lawful." Things may be said in the present tense when reference is made to the past. There is what is called the "historical present." Further, John the Baptist would have recognized that Moses and the law allowed for divorce and remarriage.
The writer continues:
"The fruit of both approaches. Viewing adultery merely as an act fills churches with adulterous unions, undermines existing marriages, justifies having leaders that are divorced and remarried, and shuts the mouths of Christians and church leaders from speaking out against adultery in a society that is becoming more immoral and perverse. Today, many churches are very little different from the surrounding society in their morals."
That was the view of father and of the authors of the Nashville document on the issue. Though I disagree with father and the strict view, I nevertheless see their concern.
The writer continues:
"Viewing adultery as an ongoing state, however, promotes a life of holiness and purity in churches which take this Scriptural position, and provides solid foundations for marriages, a basis for facing difficulties in marriage, and courage and authority to confront sin both in the church and in the society. This approach best harmonizes Scripture passages on the topic and follows the practice of the Early Church in the first centuries."
That is my concern. It was the concern of Dr. Phil Johnson (who I cited in the first article). It is the concern of those who are in the Liberal or Progressive wing of the PBs. I just don't believe that in most cases that God wants people to break up existing marriages, even if entered into wrongly.
The writer wrote:
"Surely if the act of marrying is unauthorized, the marriage is also unauthorized. If the act of marrying is unauthorized, why would the consequences of that act, the marriage, be authorized? It wouldn’t."
A marriage may indeed have been adulterous when begun, but it does not necessarily continue to be adulterous as this writer affirms. The only way it continues to be so is if the spouse that was unlawfully divorced continues to seek a reconciliation. But, that case is not general.
The question that must be asked in all this is this: "Does the act of adultery in remarriage not automatically void the previous lawful marriage?" I believe it generally does. The only exception being the case where the innocent spouse forgives, remains unmarried, and continues to seek a reconciliation with the adulterous spouse.
In the next posting we will continue to look at what the Scriptures say on this topic.
In this posting I wish to cite from some Hardshells on this issue. I will first cite from Elder Claud McKee and his article "Church Discipline (Concerning Gross sins as opposed to trespasses)" (see here all emphasis mine).
"Many, but not all, the Primitive Baptists I was raised around believed that the sins of fornication and adultery were tantamount to selling a person's birthright; thus preventing them from joining or being restored to membership during their natural life. I had respect for those faithful Baptist I observed who held to that belief. I watched their stand in action and I am submissive to that practice, especially for unfaithfulness in marriage and the sin of adultery as described by the Lord in Matthew 19:9. Would it not be true that any child of God denied membership or excluded by the church is being denied their birthright to commune with the saints of God in a Church capacity? Whether that denial is for a life time depends on whether God will or has granted repentance. Members excluded for fornication or adultery among the Primitive Baptist has (sic) traditionally never been restored to membership even among those that didn't believe the birthright was forfeited by these two sins."
Notice how Elder McKee believes that the majority takes father's strict view on the subject, saying that "many" hold to it. I stated that father's view was that such a person had committed the "sin unto death" in relation to church membership, and here McKee says basically the same thing, that it was equivalent to persons "selling" their "birthright" as respects church membership. Elder McKee states that the strict view allows that one "living in adultery," that is, "living in an unlawful marriage," may become a member if God grants repentance. But, one does not know what McKee means by this. Father and others of the strict view believed that just confessing the sin, and feeling sorry for it, was not enough to grant membership. They believed that the person had to quit the unlawful marriage and resume marriage with the unlawfully divorced spouse. McKee does state that, from his observation and knowledge of the Hardshells, PBs have "traditionally NEVER restored to membership" such persons.
McKee continued:
"As previously mentioned most Liberal/Progressive movements are lax in church discipline. Their liberal views on adultery and fornication offend sister churches by harboring these sins in the church."
If McKee is right, then the issue is still a divisive and hot topic among the Hardshells. Further, if the Liberals and Progressives are a minority, then we must say that the majority view on the "adultery question" is the strict view of McKee, father, and the conservatives.
McKee continued:
"This always leads to division and the Nashville peace meeting addressed this, problem in item 10 of their report. They said "Each and every local church has the right to dispose of her local affairs as she deems proper; that is, she has the right to discipline her own members; but no church has the right to harbor and protect heretics, liars, fornicators, and the like, to the hurt and annoyance of sister churches." A liberal argument I've heard is that the church is sovereign and no other church can tell them how to discipline their members. Another argument is that if a person commits fornication or adultery but is not NOW living in that condition they should be retained in the church. That reasoning could and has lead to situations where a member gave in to temptation and committed fornication and immediately felt remorse and petitioned the church for forgiveness. Under the liberal view, the person should be retained in the church. The scriptures give no such option; they clearly say that a brother or sister that is a fornicator should not be retained in church fellowship. The 'not now living in' argument is just a ploy that is used to distort established Primitive Baptist practice which is to exclude adulterers and fornicators and in most cases were not restored to membership."
Notice that "no church has the right to harbor and protect...fornicators...to the hurt and annoyance of sister churches." That was the view of father and was the view of the Nashville peace meeting. So, if most of the Hardshell churches today do not take the strict view on the "adultery question," then they have indeed changed.
Since McKee cited from the "National Peace Meeting," let me cite further from it. It can be found on the Internet under this title "A NATIONAL PEACE MEETING OF THE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS HELD AT HARMONY CHURCH, DONALDSON, ARKANSAS JULY 13, 14, 15, 1953." (see here - all emphasis mine)
8. Neither husband or wife should put the other away and marry another, except for the cause of fornication. If husband and wife are unable to remain peaceably together, and decide to quietly separate from each other, they may do so for peace only, but not to marry again. In such case, if either should marry again, he or she becomes an adulterer and the other is thereby released. The discipline herein refers to members of the church, but we believe the moral law of God governing marriage and prohibiting adultery is binding upon the unregenerate as well as the regenerate. The church should not retain a person or persons living in adultery.
24. We further state and believe that fornicators and adulterers should not be retained in the church of Christ. All such offenders must be excluded and repent on the outside of the church -This is one of the chief glories of the gospel church over the law: that repentance is evidence of godly sorrow, not only by individuals but of churches and should be recognized by the church of God. No church should restore a member for any offense knowing that it will cause trouble, confusion or disturb sister churches.
Now, I do not know of any church that would consent to retaining in membership anyone who was in fact "living in adultery." The question is, however, just what precisely is "living in adultery"? Of course persons who are married and leave their spouses without just cause and then "shack up" with others are "living in adultery." But, is it also a case of "living in adultery" when a spouse enters into a second marriage without just cause? Also, no one denies that the unjust marrying again is sin, but the question is this - "does it continue to be a sin"? And, does the second marriage have to be dissolved in order for the sin to stop?
So, just what has been the historical and traditional view of the Hardshells on this question? Based upon the citations from the Nashville document the strict view of father was that view. Of course, I believe the strict view to be wrong, but it has clearly been the majority view among the PBs.
In "Adultery: An Act or a State?" (see here - emphasis mine) the author wrote these observations on the topic:
"A basic but often unidentified issue involved in discussions about what a person who has committed adultery should do in order to repent is this: was his sin of adultery only an act, or is it considered to be an ongoing state of sin? If it was an act of sin only, then the person may acknowledge his sin, be forgiven, and be careful not to repeat it again. This allows one to continue in the remarriage relationship. If, however, adultery is a continuous state of sin until the present partner is put away, complete repentance and full assurance of God's forgiveness do not exist until the adulterous union is discontinued."
"Was his sin of adultery only an act, or is it considered to be an ongoing state of sin?" Yes, that is the chief question! What is the correct answer to this all important question?
The writer continued:
"Both positions have very serious implications. If adultery is an act only, then to require separation is to needlessly break up homes and to lay a heavy and unnecessary burden on persons who desire to repent. It could also result in placing a stumbling block in the path of earnest seekers. If adultery is a state; however, then to assure persons of forgiveness while living with their partner (with the first spouse still living) is to give them a false hope of salvation and to sanction their going to hell since no adulterers will enter the kingdom of heaven (I Cor. 6:9). It also undermines the foundations of marriage and weakens the will to work through marriage difficulties."
Here the writer states the heart of the issue in debate very clearly. Those who see adultery in remarriage as an "act" see it as forgivable and therefore as no bar to church membership upon confession of wrong. Those however like McKee, father, and the endorsers of the Nashville document, who see such marriages as a "state," there is no forgiveness and such a state becomes a "sin unto death" and a "selling of one's birthright."
The article continued:
"How does God view adultery...as an act or a state? We believe the Bible clearly present adultery as an ongoing state of sin until the adulterous union is discontinued. Read and meditate on the following passages: Genesis 20 As long as Abimelech had another man's wife under his roof, he was a "dead man" until he released her to go back to her rightful husband, even though he had not yet touched her. This was true for even a pagan king. Ezra 9 & 10 Though a somewhat different situation, i.e. marrying foreign women, their unions were illicit and their sin was considered to be removed only when they separated themselves from their wives. (10:2-4, 10, 11) Jer. 7:8-11 (Note preceding context) The Israelites were committing adultery and then going to the Temple saying "We are safe'--safe to do all these detestable things..." God said they were trusting in deceptive, worthless words. Mal. 2:13-17 God hates divorce, the breaking faith with the wife of one's youth. Can He accept in our time that which He once hated? Is it only the act of breaking faith that He hates, or does He hate both the act and the ongoing state of breaking faith?"
This writer takes the view of father and many of the Hardshells and of many Campbellites. He believes that when one enters into a marriage without just cause (for fornication), then that person is "living in adultery" and cannot be forgiven until the sin is stopped, i.e., until the unlawful marriage is dissolved. The cases that are brought forth to prove the case, however, do not necessarily prove it. Let me explain.
If a person puts away his wife for an unlawful reason and marries another, that person continues to sin while in that marriage, or to "live in adultery," under one scenario only. It is when the first wife, who was unjustly divorced, remains committed to the marriage, forgiving her husband of his infidelity. This however is not the case generally. Most often the innocent wife considers the marriage lawfully ended and marries again herself. So, whether the man is living in adultery is conditioned upon the attitude and decision of the innocent spouse. If that innocent spouse continues to forgive her husband and continues to plead with him to return to her, then that man may be said to be "living in adultery." I believe the cases cited in the article are of this nature.
In the case of Abimelech, the unlawful wife never gave her consent to the marriage. She was forced into it and would leave it if she could. So, of course, in such a case, Abimelech was "living in adultery" with this "wife."
As far as the case of the Israelites marrying pagan wives, and then being told by God to divorce them, because (it is argued and supposed) that they were in unlawful marriages and therefore "living in adultery," the case is unique. The author of the article even admits this. It involves the special covenant that God had with Israel and with his command for the men not to marry heathen wives. Further, in the OT it was allowed that men could have more than one wife. Would the strict advocates of this issue not see having more than one wife as a case of "living in adultery"? Further, in the case cited from Ezra and Jeremiah, there is no mention of the Israeli men divorcing their Hebrew wives in order to marry the pagan women.
Next, the writer of the article says:
"Mt. 14:3,4 (NAS) John the Baptist rebuked Herod for taking his brother Philip's wife. He did not say: "It is not lawful for you to have taken her" but rather "It is not lawful for you to have her". Some say the sin was that of incest. Actually, Herod had committed two sins: adultery and incest. The only way to repent of both was to release the woman. John was rebuking a sinner, which shows that immorality is sin, not only for the saint, but also for the sinner. If adultery were merely an act, John died in vain. He should have been more discreet and sensitive, calling only for Herod to say he was sorry and giving permission to continue on with Herodias. Instead, Jesus commended John as being the greatest man born of women. Note also in Mk. 6:18 John's warning to Herod was repeated, continuous action: "For John had been saying..." This is why Herodias nursed a grudge against John. If he had said, "Just recognize you sinned, but stay with her and don't commit adultery again with another woman", Herodias wouldn't have had reason to be so upset with John."
Again, the reason why the case of Herod is a case of "living in adultery" may be due to 1) Philip still considered the woman taken by Herod to be his wife, and 2) the woman was forced (by threat or otherwise) against her will to become the slave wife of Herod. Further, the sin or illegality of the marriage may be because it was against the OT laws on incest. Further, the present tense "it is not lawful" may actually mean "it was not lawful." Things may be said in the present tense when reference is made to the past. There is what is called the "historical present." Further, John the Baptist would have recognized that Moses and the law allowed for divorce and remarriage.
The writer continues:
"The fruit of both approaches. Viewing adultery merely as an act fills churches with adulterous unions, undermines existing marriages, justifies having leaders that are divorced and remarried, and shuts the mouths of Christians and church leaders from speaking out against adultery in a society that is becoming more immoral and perverse. Today, many churches are very little different from the surrounding society in their morals."
That was the view of father and of the authors of the Nashville document on the issue. Though I disagree with father and the strict view, I nevertheless see their concern.
The writer continues:
"Viewing adultery as an ongoing state, however, promotes a life of holiness and purity in churches which take this Scriptural position, and provides solid foundations for marriages, a basis for facing difficulties in marriage, and courage and authority to confront sin both in the church and in the society. This approach best harmonizes Scripture passages on the topic and follows the practice of the Early Church in the first centuries."
That is my concern. It was the concern of Dr. Phil Johnson (who I cited in the first article). It is the concern of those who are in the Liberal or Progressive wing of the PBs. I just don't believe that in most cases that God wants people to break up existing marriages, even if entered into wrongly.
The writer wrote:
"Surely if the act of marrying is unauthorized, the marriage is also unauthorized. If the act of marrying is unauthorized, why would the consequences of that act, the marriage, be authorized? It wouldn’t."
A marriage may indeed have been adulterous when begun, but it does not necessarily continue to be adulterous as this writer affirms. The only way it continues to be so is if the spouse that was unlawfully divorced continues to seek a reconciliation. But, that case is not general.
The question that must be asked in all this is this: "Does the act of adultery in remarriage not automatically void the previous lawful marriage?" I believe it generally does. The only exception being the case where the innocent spouse forgives, remains unmarried, and continues to seek a reconciliation with the adulterous spouse.
In the next posting we will continue to look at what the Scriptures say on this topic.
Sunday, August 6, 2017
Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists
As noted previously, Kenny Mann and I have researched the history of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Due to the seeming less Calvinistic or Predestinarian characteristics of the Eastern Primitives, our attention as historians of the "Primitive Baptists" was stirred and we were curious to find the root historical causes of this "unusual" phenomenon, at least among the white or Caucasian "Primitive Baptist" churches. We discovered that the Eastern District Association of churches was formed in 1848 from churches that came out of the Mulberry Gap Association of United Baptists. This led us to research the history of the Mulberry Gap Association and to discover what led to the breach in 1848.
In looking at the articles of faith of the Mulberry Gap Association, and the original articles of the Eastern District Association, one cannot discern any major difference. What is certain, however, is that at the time of the division, and the constitution of the Eastern District Association, that differences regarding various organizations and practices associated with the "mission movement" were the cause. Why else would the Eastern District take the name "Primitive Baptist" in 1848? Surely it was to identify with other "Primitive Baptist" churches in their protestations and declarations of non fellowship against those who became styled as "Missionary Baptists."
But, the thing that must be kept in mind is that nearly all "Primitive Baptists" in 1848 still believed that the Gospel was the means that God employed in the eternal salvation of the elect, and that many of them still passionately preached to the unregenerate and called upon them to repent and believe the gospel. Many of them retained their evangelistic zeal in preaching and exhorting the lost. The loss of such belief and preaching among the Hardshells would not occur to after the Civil War.
The Eastern District churches seem to have fought going along with other PB churches, in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, in rejecting means, and in losing their desire to preach evangelistically to lost sinners. As previously written about, the Alabaha Association of Primitive Baptists also did not go along with the other Hardshell churches who were changing their beliefs about means in the new birth, preaching to the lost, perseverance of the saints, and who were inventing a new doctrine called "time salvation."
As we will see from the following information about the founder of the Mulberry Gap Association, Elder James Gilbert, the Mulberry Gap were only mildly Calvinistic and Predestinarian, retaining more of their likeness to the Separate Baptists than to the Regular Baptists. In "Sketches Of Tennessee's Pioneer Baptist Preachers" (see here) we learn this about Gilbert. (emphasis mine)
"James Gilbert, son of Hiram Gilbert, was born on Walker's Creek, in Giles County, Virginia, in the year of our Lord 1787. The family moved to Lee County, Virginia, when James was quite a lad. In 1813 he was converted and united with the Thompson Settlement Church.
James Gilbert enjoyed few advantages of a school education, and never was a man of many books. But as a preacher of the old-school type he was mighty in the Scriptures, one of the ablest preachers of his day.
His ministry was largely in Virginia, where he was pastor of the Thompson Settlement Church, and did successful work as missionary and evangelist. In Tennessee, the larger part of his labors was in Hancock, Claiborne, Sullivan, and one or two other counties. Dr. I. B. Kimbrough, who as "secretary" and "agent" went almost everywhere, used to say that when he struck Powell's Valley and Lee County, Virginia, "where old Jimmy Gilbert preached," he found "nobody but Baptists." He was the founder and builder of the Mulberry Gap Church, and was pastor of Sneedville, Beech Grove, Little Sycamore, and other churches.
Of the Mulberry Gap Association he was moderator for sixteen years in succession: He presided over the conference or convention at the organization of the association (1835), and was for years the leading spirit, the "big preacher," of the association. He fought long and hard against the "anti-mission" heresy in the association: Frequently he would call some brother to occupy the moderator's chair while he went down into the arena, to "hew to pieces" the bold and defiant spirit of anti-Christ, which thus dared to lift its head among Baptists."
Notice that Gilbert was an opponent of "the anti-mission heresy" and that there were, in the early days of the Mulberry Gap Association, Hardshells or "Iron Jackets," people who opposed missionary work outside of the local church, theological education, etc. Further, the fight with those Hardshells was "long and hard." This fight no doubt went on till 1848 when the Hardshells finally split off from the Mulberry and formed the Eastern District Association. I am sure that Elder Gilbert won a lot of Hardshells over by his efforts. Yet, his efforts were not completely successful. Notice how the writer speaks of Gilbert's belief that the "spirit" that motivated the Hardshells was "of anti-Christ," and which had newly "lift its head among Baptists."
However, a look at the present belief and practice of the Eastern District Association shows how they are far less possessed of such a Hardshell anti-mission spirit as they were in 1848. If Elder Gilbert were alive today, he would no doubt be pleased about this.
This article continues:
"At other times he would turn the association into a protracted meeting: When the association met at Little Sycamore, he preached and called for penitents. The vast throng, as if moved by one impulse, came forward. Only two sinners in all the crowd were unmoved. On another occasion the association met at a private house. After the regular sermon, Brother Gilbert was called on to "conclude" the service, according to the custom of those days. The preacher arose and said, "I have a headache, brethren; and, what is worse, I have a cold heart" - but before he had talked ten minutes the fire had kindled and he was launching out on an exhortation. The audience was stirred. One woman, a "hard-shell," shouted. She had broken her iron jacket, and was shouting herself hoarse, as she came out from among the "antis" to join the "missionaries.""
I have no doubt that many of the first Hardshells also "preached and called for penitents." We have proven that such was the practice in the Kehukee Association long before the division over hardshellism occurred in 1827. The type of preaching and "exhortation" that characterized Gilbert's preaching at one time characterized the preaching of the first PBs. Elder John Watson spoke about the decline in this kind of preaching among the Hardshells at the time of the Civil War. He wrote this about it in his book "The Old Baptist Test":
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86 - see here for more such citations from Watson on the subject)
Oh what a great joy to see the cold Hardshells come to see the truth as this old sister! To see them become on fire, as old Elder John Leland, with a burning desire to win souls for Christ! To see them throw off that "spirit" that refuses to believe that the gospel is the power of God to save!
The sketch about Gilbert continued:
"As a visitor to the Holston Association, when that body met with the Muddy Creek Church, Elder Gilbert was appointed to preach out of doors. His text was, "I have a message from God unto thee." In the midst of the sermon it began to rain. The preacher told his hearers they had better find shelter, but they said, "Go on!" The few umbrellas at hand were lifted. The preacher preached and the rain poured. Most of the audience were drenched, but still they listened. More than one offered to hold an umbrella over the preacher, but he said, "No; if you can listen in the rain, I can preach without a shelter."
What motivated such men? Was it not his belief that souls were stake in his preaching efforts?
The sketch continues:
"Brother Gilbert's special gift was that of an evangelist. His greatest work was in revival meetings. He was instrumental in the conversion of more than 2,000 souls, who were added to the Lord through his ministry."
When I think of how many souls many of the Hardshell preachers could have been instrumental in saving, had it not been for their anti mission, anti means, spirit, I weep. Men of the past, like elders C.H. Cayce, John R. Daily; And, men of the present, like Sonny Pyles, Lasserre Bradley Jr.; Oh how many souls they could have saved by preaching to the unregenerate and pleading with them!
The article continues:
"East Tennessee and the mountains have had few men, if any, who had greater power over an audience than James Gilbert. Under the lightning strokes of his fiery denunciations of sin hard-hearted sinners would quake and tremble -would sometimes fall to the floor, crying out, "Pray for me! I am a lost sinner!" A noted preacher and competent critic said of James Gilbert, that "when the spirit of exhortation, was upon him he was simply irresistible."
When the "Primitive Baptist" lost that "spirit of exhortation" that Watson spoke about, they died! You just do not see sinners coming to PB meetings! You don't see sinners trembling under Hardshell preaching! Why? Because they have no faith in their preaching! They have no faith in the gospel being the power of God to save. They have no desire to be used of God in saving sinners! Have they forgotten such verses as these?
"And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." (Dan. 12: 3)
"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise." (Prov. 11:30)
Elder Gilbert believed that he could, through preaching God's gospel, "turn many to righteousness," and that he could "win souls." But, our modern Hardshells do not believe that the gospel they preach will save anyone. Further, they don't want to be such a means! Thankfully the Eastern Association preachers of today have not imbibed such a belief and spirit! God bless them for that!
The sketch write up on Gilbert continued:
"In personal appearance, Elder Gilbert has been described by those who knew him as a man of "portly mien, tall and commanding, eyes dark and flashing, voice powerful and trumpet-like, as if given to awaken sinners and call them to judgment. His manner was grave and impressive. He had a fine delivery, and was a persuasive, melting preacher." He was also a great singer, and had a voice not only of great power but of wonderful melody and sweetness, both in preaching and singing the gospel.
Of all the things that I could wish said of me after I am gone, by either God or men, is that he was used by God to awaken sinners! That God used him to save sinners! That would be far more desirable than having been used in correction of erring saints or in fighting the heretics.
The article continues:
"January 21, 1858, this noble servant of God passed to his reward, at the age of 71. His brethren memorialized him in their Associational Minute as "an able minister of the gospel," and his death as removing "one of the few remaining ancient pillars of the sanctuary among the Baptists of East Tennessee."
Notice that Elder Gilbert labored in the Association about ten years after the time when the Eastern District formation in 1848. It is obvious that the Eastern District was formed by Hardshells within the Mulberry Association who opposed the preaching of Gilbert and of his efforts to support mission societies.
The sketch continues:
"Slightly smaller is the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists (over six thousand members), which was organized in 1848 and which is still found mainly in the Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee and Virginia. Though it allows musical instruments in worship and has a modified view of predestination, it holds to traditional Primitive Baptist attitudes towards camps, beneveloent institutions, foreign mission programs, and similar extra-congregation activities."
Let it be observed that 1) the Eastern District does not now oppose the same things she opposed when she was first formed, having been mostly cured of that "anti mission spirit," and 2) that she has not lost her belief in means and in evangelistic appeals to the unconverted. She does not now "hold to traditional Primitive Baptist attitudes" in many ways and she is to be praised for this.
Now let me cite from the famous Baptist Jeremiah Jeter, in his book on Virginia ministers, concerning James Gilbert. He wrote:
"For somethings like ten years Elder Gilbert engage with characteristic zeal and fidelity in preaching the gospel in the counties of Southeastern Virginia. Having exercised a blessed influence among the churches of this region, it was reserved for him to be still more useful in a new field. He removed to Mulberry Gap, Tennessee, in 1832, and here, in this new country, comparatively sparse in its population, he patiently toiled until it became his privilege to see numerous churches rising up mainly as the result of his instrumentality. In 1843 the Mulberry Gap Association was organized. Of this body he may be properly considered the father. It now contains thirty-two churches, some of which are large and flourishing. Up to the year 1853 he was regularly chosen the presiding officer of the Association, and, as such, commanded the respect of his brethren. The church at Mulberry Gap, of which he was the efficient pastor, rose to a condition of marked efficiency, being the largest in the Association."
"The subject of this sketch took a noble part in defence of the missionary enterprise at the time when some of the churches and ministers took ground against it. He entertained enlarged views of Christian duty. Because salvation is of grace he could not, therefore, conclude that the use of appropriate means in the sending out of Christ's gospel was wrong or unnecessary. He regarded such instrumentality as a solemn duty, and was unwilling to be found a loiterer in his Master's vineyard. He suffered much opposition and reproach from the anti-mission party on this account."
It was doubtless due to "opposition and reproach from the anti-mission party" that churches split off in 1848 and formed the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Would to God that all Hardshells today would "conclude" as did Gilbert "that the use of appropriate means in the sending out of Christ's gospel" was right and necessary! Thank God the Eastern District brethren feel this way!
Jeter continued:
"As a speaker," says one who knew something of his influence, "he was ardent and earnest, yet meek and calm. His speech, though plain, was always with grace, seasoned with salt. There was fire, holy fire in his eye and in his head, and much unction in his matter and manner. He was a true, God-made man. As a theologian he was neither a hard-shell nor a soft-shell, iron-jacket nor blue-jacket, high nor low-not lop-sided in any way, but a true gospel spiritualist." (see here)
The thing here said of Gilbert may well be said now of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists - that they are neither Arminian nor Calvinist, neither Hardshell or Softshell!
In looking at the articles of faith of the Mulberry Gap Association, and the original articles of the Eastern District Association, one cannot discern any major difference. What is certain, however, is that at the time of the division, and the constitution of the Eastern District Association, that differences regarding various organizations and practices associated with the "mission movement" were the cause. Why else would the Eastern District take the name "Primitive Baptist" in 1848? Surely it was to identify with other "Primitive Baptist" churches in their protestations and declarations of non fellowship against those who became styled as "Missionary Baptists."
But, the thing that must be kept in mind is that nearly all "Primitive Baptists" in 1848 still believed that the Gospel was the means that God employed in the eternal salvation of the elect, and that many of them still passionately preached to the unregenerate and called upon them to repent and believe the gospel. Many of them retained their evangelistic zeal in preaching and exhorting the lost. The loss of such belief and preaching among the Hardshells would not occur to after the Civil War.
The Eastern District churches seem to have fought going along with other PB churches, in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, in rejecting means, and in losing their desire to preach evangelistically to lost sinners. As previously written about, the Alabaha Association of Primitive Baptists also did not go along with the other Hardshell churches who were changing their beliefs about means in the new birth, preaching to the lost, perseverance of the saints, and who were inventing a new doctrine called "time salvation."
As we will see from the following information about the founder of the Mulberry Gap Association, Elder James Gilbert, the Mulberry Gap were only mildly Calvinistic and Predestinarian, retaining more of their likeness to the Separate Baptists than to the Regular Baptists. In "Sketches Of Tennessee's Pioneer Baptist Preachers" (see here) we learn this about Gilbert. (emphasis mine)
"James Gilbert, son of Hiram Gilbert, was born on Walker's Creek, in Giles County, Virginia, in the year of our Lord 1787. The family moved to Lee County, Virginia, when James was quite a lad. In 1813 he was converted and united with the Thompson Settlement Church.
James Gilbert enjoyed few advantages of a school education, and never was a man of many books. But as a preacher of the old-school type he was mighty in the Scriptures, one of the ablest preachers of his day.
His ministry was largely in Virginia, where he was pastor of the Thompson Settlement Church, and did successful work as missionary and evangelist. In Tennessee, the larger part of his labors was in Hancock, Claiborne, Sullivan, and one or two other counties. Dr. I. B. Kimbrough, who as "secretary" and "agent" went almost everywhere, used to say that when he struck Powell's Valley and Lee County, Virginia, "where old Jimmy Gilbert preached," he found "nobody but Baptists." He was the founder and builder of the Mulberry Gap Church, and was pastor of Sneedville, Beech Grove, Little Sycamore, and other churches.
Of the Mulberry Gap Association he was moderator for sixteen years in succession: He presided over the conference or convention at the organization of the association (1835), and was for years the leading spirit, the "big preacher," of the association. He fought long and hard against the "anti-mission" heresy in the association: Frequently he would call some brother to occupy the moderator's chair while he went down into the arena, to "hew to pieces" the bold and defiant spirit of anti-Christ, which thus dared to lift its head among Baptists."
Notice that Gilbert was an opponent of "the anti-mission heresy" and that there were, in the early days of the Mulberry Gap Association, Hardshells or "Iron Jackets," people who opposed missionary work outside of the local church, theological education, etc. Further, the fight with those Hardshells was "long and hard." This fight no doubt went on till 1848 when the Hardshells finally split off from the Mulberry and formed the Eastern District Association. I am sure that Elder Gilbert won a lot of Hardshells over by his efforts. Yet, his efforts were not completely successful. Notice how the writer speaks of Gilbert's belief that the "spirit" that motivated the Hardshells was "of anti-Christ," and which had newly "lift its head among Baptists."
However, a look at the present belief and practice of the Eastern District Association shows how they are far less possessed of such a Hardshell anti-mission spirit as they were in 1848. If Elder Gilbert were alive today, he would no doubt be pleased about this.
This article continues:
"At other times he would turn the association into a protracted meeting: When the association met at Little Sycamore, he preached and called for penitents. The vast throng, as if moved by one impulse, came forward. Only two sinners in all the crowd were unmoved. On another occasion the association met at a private house. After the regular sermon, Brother Gilbert was called on to "conclude" the service, according to the custom of those days. The preacher arose and said, "I have a headache, brethren; and, what is worse, I have a cold heart" - but before he had talked ten minutes the fire had kindled and he was launching out on an exhortation. The audience was stirred. One woman, a "hard-shell," shouted. She had broken her iron jacket, and was shouting herself hoarse, as she came out from among the "antis" to join the "missionaries.""
I have no doubt that many of the first Hardshells also "preached and called for penitents." We have proven that such was the practice in the Kehukee Association long before the division over hardshellism occurred in 1827. The type of preaching and "exhortation" that characterized Gilbert's preaching at one time characterized the preaching of the first PBs. Elder John Watson spoke about the decline in this kind of preaching among the Hardshells at the time of the Civil War. He wrote this about it in his book "The Old Baptist Test":
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86 - see here for more such citations from Watson on the subject)
Oh what a great joy to see the cold Hardshells come to see the truth as this old sister! To see them become on fire, as old Elder John Leland, with a burning desire to win souls for Christ! To see them throw off that "spirit" that refuses to believe that the gospel is the power of God to save!
The sketch about Gilbert continued:
"As a visitor to the Holston Association, when that body met with the Muddy Creek Church, Elder Gilbert was appointed to preach out of doors. His text was, "I have a message from God unto thee." In the midst of the sermon it began to rain. The preacher told his hearers they had better find shelter, but they said, "Go on!" The few umbrellas at hand were lifted. The preacher preached and the rain poured. Most of the audience were drenched, but still they listened. More than one offered to hold an umbrella over the preacher, but he said, "No; if you can listen in the rain, I can preach without a shelter."
What motivated such men? Was it not his belief that souls were stake in his preaching efforts?
The sketch continues:
"Brother Gilbert's special gift was that of an evangelist. His greatest work was in revival meetings. He was instrumental in the conversion of more than 2,000 souls, who were added to the Lord through his ministry."
When I think of how many souls many of the Hardshell preachers could have been instrumental in saving, had it not been for their anti mission, anti means, spirit, I weep. Men of the past, like elders C.H. Cayce, John R. Daily; And, men of the present, like Sonny Pyles, Lasserre Bradley Jr.; Oh how many souls they could have saved by preaching to the unregenerate and pleading with them!
The article continues:
"East Tennessee and the mountains have had few men, if any, who had greater power over an audience than James Gilbert. Under the lightning strokes of his fiery denunciations of sin hard-hearted sinners would quake and tremble -would sometimes fall to the floor, crying out, "Pray for me! I am a lost sinner!" A noted preacher and competent critic said of James Gilbert, that "when the spirit of exhortation, was upon him he was simply irresistible."
When the "Primitive Baptist" lost that "spirit of exhortation" that Watson spoke about, they died! You just do not see sinners coming to PB meetings! You don't see sinners trembling under Hardshell preaching! Why? Because they have no faith in their preaching! They have no faith in the gospel being the power of God to save. They have no desire to be used of God in saving sinners! Have they forgotten such verses as these?
"And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." (Dan. 12: 3)
"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise." (Prov. 11:30)
Elder Gilbert believed that he could, through preaching God's gospel, "turn many to righteousness," and that he could "win souls." But, our modern Hardshells do not believe that the gospel they preach will save anyone. Further, they don't want to be such a means! Thankfully the Eastern Association preachers of today have not imbibed such a belief and spirit! God bless them for that!
The sketch write up on Gilbert continued:
"In personal appearance, Elder Gilbert has been described by those who knew him as a man of "portly mien, tall and commanding, eyes dark and flashing, voice powerful and trumpet-like, as if given to awaken sinners and call them to judgment. His manner was grave and impressive. He had a fine delivery, and was a persuasive, melting preacher." He was also a great singer, and had a voice not only of great power but of wonderful melody and sweetness, both in preaching and singing the gospel.
Of all the things that I could wish said of me after I am gone, by either God or men, is that he was used by God to awaken sinners! That God used him to save sinners! That would be far more desirable than having been used in correction of erring saints or in fighting the heretics.
The article continues:
"January 21, 1858, this noble servant of God passed to his reward, at the age of 71. His brethren memorialized him in their Associational Minute as "an able minister of the gospel," and his death as removing "one of the few remaining ancient pillars of the sanctuary among the Baptists of East Tennessee."
Notice that Elder Gilbert labored in the Association about ten years after the time when the Eastern District formation in 1848. It is obvious that the Eastern District was formed by Hardshells within the Mulberry Association who opposed the preaching of Gilbert and of his efforts to support mission societies.
The sketch continues:
"Slightly smaller is the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists (over six thousand members), which was organized in 1848 and which is still found mainly in the Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee and Virginia. Though it allows musical instruments in worship and has a modified view of predestination, it holds to traditional Primitive Baptist attitudes towards camps, beneveloent institutions, foreign mission programs, and similar extra-congregation activities."
Let it be observed that 1) the Eastern District does not now oppose the same things she opposed when she was first formed, having been mostly cured of that "anti mission spirit," and 2) that she has not lost her belief in means and in evangelistic appeals to the unconverted. She does not now "hold to traditional Primitive Baptist attitudes" in many ways and she is to be praised for this.
Now let me cite from the famous Baptist Jeremiah Jeter, in his book on Virginia ministers, concerning James Gilbert. He wrote:
"For somethings like ten years Elder Gilbert engage with characteristic zeal and fidelity in preaching the gospel in the counties of Southeastern Virginia. Having exercised a blessed influence among the churches of this region, it was reserved for him to be still more useful in a new field. He removed to Mulberry Gap, Tennessee, in 1832, and here, in this new country, comparatively sparse in its population, he patiently toiled until it became his privilege to see numerous churches rising up mainly as the result of his instrumentality. In 1843 the Mulberry Gap Association was organized. Of this body he may be properly considered the father. It now contains thirty-two churches, some of which are large and flourishing. Up to the year 1853 he was regularly chosen the presiding officer of the Association, and, as such, commanded the respect of his brethren. The church at Mulberry Gap, of which he was the efficient pastor, rose to a condition of marked efficiency, being the largest in the Association."
"The subject of this sketch took a noble part in defence of the missionary enterprise at the time when some of the churches and ministers took ground against it. He entertained enlarged views of Christian duty. Because salvation is of grace he could not, therefore, conclude that the use of appropriate means in the sending out of Christ's gospel was wrong or unnecessary. He regarded such instrumentality as a solemn duty, and was unwilling to be found a loiterer in his Master's vineyard. He suffered much opposition and reproach from the anti-mission party on this account."
It was doubtless due to "opposition and reproach from the anti-mission party" that churches split off in 1848 and formed the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Would to God that all Hardshells today would "conclude" as did Gilbert "that the use of appropriate means in the sending out of Christ's gospel" was right and necessary! Thank God the Eastern District brethren feel this way!
Jeter continued:
"As a speaker," says one who knew something of his influence, "he was ardent and earnest, yet meek and calm. His speech, though plain, was always with grace, seasoned with salt. There was fire, holy fire in his eye and in his head, and much unction in his matter and manner. He was a true, God-made man. As a theologian he was neither a hard-shell nor a soft-shell, iron-jacket nor blue-jacket, high nor low-not lop-sided in any way, but a true gospel spiritualist." (see here)
The thing here said of Gilbert may well be said now of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists - that they are neither Arminian nor Calvinist, neither Hardshell or Softshell!
Hardshell Anti Faith Preaching
When I was a young Hardshell pastor, I had a Missionary Baptist laymen say to me while we were all gathered together in a home - "you (PBs) emphasize grace and we emphasize faith." My answer then was - "without grace there would be no faith. As the Scriptures say in Acts 'helped them much which had believed through grace." At this answer I recall the brother simply nodding in agreement, but with his judgment seemingly still intact about the PBs and their attitude and belief regarding "faith." Had I known then what I do now, however, I would have simply agreed with him. In fact, I would have even been more radical in my observation about the Hardshells and what they teach and say about faith, at least in this day and time.
I have read a great deal about what Hardshells of bygone years, as well as of present day, have said about faith. Oftentimes the tenor of their remarks on the subject is to decry it, to speak of what it cannot do, of what it is not a means, condition, or end unto. Many of them say that faith is a work! And, having come to believe such about "faith," they say "the bible says we are not saved by works and faith is a work." Their constant message is "we are not saved by faith." How ironic! The scriptures conversely repeat the message "by faith you are saved and not by works." So Paul wrote - "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace." (Rom. 4: 16)
It seems clear that the writers of scripture, when talking about "faith," cannot exalt it enough. Simply read Hebrews chapter eleven as an example! And yet, ironically, the Hardshells cannot seem to stop belittling faith! They even back themselves into a corner in such denunciations regarding evangelical faith. They have so often insisted that faith plays no part in the eternal salvation of sinners that they find themselves unable to explain numerous scriptures that clearly show otherwise. So, what do they do? Do they not reinvent the definition of "faith"? When they are faced with a text that clearly links faith to eternal salvation, they then give to faith a weird and strange definition. Zach Guess, present day Hardshell apologist, for instance, affirmed that "faith" in these texts simply means "ability to have faith." Others do the same. But, this is all simply stupid, to be blunt. By this reasoning we may say that "repentance" also simply means, not actual repentance, but the "ability to repent." And, again, with other such words denoting things necessary for salvation.
Why should "faith" be decried when it is realized that God is the author of it? That those who believe do so by the "working of his mighty power"? (Eph. 1: 19)
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5:4)
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)
These verses, and others like them, certainly say things about faith that the Hardshells do not say.
Wrote Hardshell leader Elder Charles Waters
"I do believe that all who are regenerated will and do have faith, but deny that the "faith" -- that is, the believing response to God -- is in all cases "cognitive" or "informed" faith -- for cognitive faith necessarily depends on hearing the rational proclamation of the gospel..." (See my posting here)
He also in Zion's Advocate (June 1890) wrote:
"Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith. Infants and idiots must be so saved; for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated. Faith, therefore, is not necessary to eternal salvation."
Then he wrote later in the same periodical (June 1891):
"Spiritual and eternal life may exist, then, apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration; and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of His grace from this time state ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river." (See my posting here for more on this)
Why do the Hardshells not see the harm they are doing in telling sinners that they can be saved "faith or no faith"? Why do they not rather tell sinners "except you believe" that Christ is the Lord and Savior, the Messiah, "you shall die in your sins"? (John 8: 24) Why do they not warn them of the eternal consequences for disbelieving Christ?
Just as Hardshell errors led them to drastically alter their ideas as to the change that takes place in regeneration and the new birth, making it into a "hollow log" experience, a minor, as opposed to a radical change, so their errors in soteriology have led them into a "hollow" and meaningless idea about what constitutes true "faith." In Hardshellism both regeneration and faith lose all their biblical definitions and sense.
I have read a great deal about what Hardshells of bygone years, as well as of present day, have said about faith. Oftentimes the tenor of their remarks on the subject is to decry it, to speak of what it cannot do, of what it is not a means, condition, or end unto. Many of them say that faith is a work! And, having come to believe such about "faith," they say "the bible says we are not saved by works and faith is a work." Their constant message is "we are not saved by faith." How ironic! The scriptures conversely repeat the message "by faith you are saved and not by works." So Paul wrote - "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace." (Rom. 4: 16)
It seems clear that the writers of scripture, when talking about "faith," cannot exalt it enough. Simply read Hebrews chapter eleven as an example! And yet, ironically, the Hardshells cannot seem to stop belittling faith! They even back themselves into a corner in such denunciations regarding evangelical faith. They have so often insisted that faith plays no part in the eternal salvation of sinners that they find themselves unable to explain numerous scriptures that clearly show otherwise. So, what do they do? Do they not reinvent the definition of "faith"? When they are faced with a text that clearly links faith to eternal salvation, they then give to faith a weird and strange definition. Zach Guess, present day Hardshell apologist, for instance, affirmed that "faith" in these texts simply means "ability to have faith." Others do the same. But, this is all simply stupid, to be blunt. By this reasoning we may say that "repentance" also simply means, not actual repentance, but the "ability to repent." And, again, with other such words denoting things necessary for salvation.
Why should "faith" be decried when it is realized that God is the author of it? That those who believe do so by the "working of his mighty power"? (Eph. 1: 19)
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5:4)
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)
These verses, and others like them, certainly say things about faith that the Hardshells do not say.
Wrote Hardshell leader Elder Charles Waters
"I do believe that all who are regenerated will and do have faith, but deny that the "faith" -- that is, the believing response to God -- is in all cases "cognitive" or "informed" faith -- for cognitive faith necessarily depends on hearing the rational proclamation of the gospel..." (See my posting here)
He also in Zion's Advocate (June 1890) wrote:
"Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith. Infants and idiots must be so saved; for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated. Faith, therefore, is not necessary to eternal salvation."
Then he wrote later in the same periodical (June 1891):
"Spiritual and eternal life may exist, then, apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration; and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of His grace from this time state ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river." (See my posting here for more on this)
Why do the Hardshells not see the harm they are doing in telling sinners that they can be saved "faith or no faith"? Why do they not rather tell sinners "except you believe" that Christ is the Lord and Savior, the Messiah, "you shall die in your sins"? (John 8: 24) Why do they not warn them of the eternal consequences for disbelieving Christ?
Just as Hardshell errors led them to drastically alter their ideas as to the change that takes place in regeneration and the new birth, making it into a "hollow log" experience, a minor, as opposed to a radical change, so their errors in soteriology have led them into a "hollow" and meaningless idea about what constitutes true "faith." In Hardshellism both regeneration and faith lose all their biblical definitions and sense.
Friday, August 4, 2017
Romans 16:7 & Hyper Calvinism
"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Romans 16: 7 kjv)
This verse is a death blow to several opinions of the Hyper Calvinists.
First, it is against the notion that all the elect were "in Christ" before the world began, or from eternity. If all were in Christ from eternity, then no one would be in Christ before another. All would be in Christ from the same point of time.
Second, it is against those, like the Hardshells, who suppose that regeneration, which places one in Christ, in vital union with Christ, is something done long before there is any evidence of it, on the subconscious level. In this scheme it is practically unknowable when a person came to be "in Christ." Most Hardshells claim that they, and nearly all who are regenerated, do not know exactly when they were "regenerated" and put "in Christ."
Paul, in order to say of Andronicus and Junia, that they "were in Christ before me" would have to know two things: 1) when he himself came to be "in Christ," and 2) when Andronicus and Junia came to be "in Christ." And, the only way he could know this is to see that "regeneration" occurred when conversion occurred, and that they are the same. Paul certainly knew when he first believed and was converted. And, he also knew when Andronicus and Junia first believed and were converted. Ergo, Paul is saying that Andronicus and Junia believed and were converted before I was. Ergo, conversion is the time when one is regenerated and placed "in Christ."
Now, how is my reasoning wrong? How will the Hyper Calvinist respond? He might add to the words of the apostle and say that it really means "whose being in Christ was revealed before my being in Christ was revealed." But, this is to pervert what the apostle says. And, once one starts changing the words of a text of scripture in this manner, he will do it again, and again, and again, and it will become habit. It is a grave sin to twist the words of scripture. I could give other examples where such people will add a word to a text, saying that the word being added is implied. But, I will forego such examples.
When was I "in Christ"? It was when I first believed and received Christ as my Lord and Savior. That was now over forty five years ago!
This verse is a death blow to several opinions of the Hyper Calvinists.
First, it is against the notion that all the elect were "in Christ" before the world began, or from eternity. If all were in Christ from eternity, then no one would be in Christ before another. All would be in Christ from the same point of time.
Second, it is against those, like the Hardshells, who suppose that regeneration, which places one in Christ, in vital union with Christ, is something done long before there is any evidence of it, on the subconscious level. In this scheme it is practically unknowable when a person came to be "in Christ." Most Hardshells claim that they, and nearly all who are regenerated, do not know exactly when they were "regenerated" and put "in Christ."
Paul, in order to say of Andronicus and Junia, that they "were in Christ before me" would have to know two things: 1) when he himself came to be "in Christ," and 2) when Andronicus and Junia came to be "in Christ." And, the only way he could know this is to see that "regeneration" occurred when conversion occurred, and that they are the same. Paul certainly knew when he first believed and was converted. And, he also knew when Andronicus and Junia first believed and were converted. Ergo, Paul is saying that Andronicus and Junia believed and were converted before I was. Ergo, conversion is the time when one is regenerated and placed "in Christ."
Now, how is my reasoning wrong? How will the Hyper Calvinist respond? He might add to the words of the apostle and say that it really means "whose being in Christ was revealed before my being in Christ was revealed." But, this is to pervert what the apostle says. And, once one starts changing the words of a text of scripture in this manner, he will do it again, and again, and again, and it will become habit. It is a grave sin to twist the words of scripture. I could give other examples where such people will add a word to a text, saying that the word being added is implied. But, I will forego such examples.
When was I "in Christ"? It was when I first believed and received Christ as my Lord and Savior. That was now over forty five years ago!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)