In this second posting in this series on the question - "when are sinners justified?" - I will first begin looking at the arguments put forward in support of the doctrine of justification from eternity. Following this procedure, I will begin (in future postings) to give arguments that will prove that sinners are not justified until they believe in Jesus and in the gospel. In this procedure I will be showing how the view that says that sinners were justified in eternity past, or at the cross of Calvary, is false, a serious error that begets other errors. Before this, however, let me make some preliminary observations.
Definition of Justification
Justification is a legal or forensic act of a judge or court authority in which a declaration is made respecting an accused or arrested person and which declaration or act thereby acquits or otherwise exonerates the person from the accusation or guilt of the crime(s) spelled out in an indictment.
The declaration or verdict, by design, brings certain effects, or has its intended consequences. Simply put, "justification" declares or announces that the accused has been found to be "not guilty," being declared legally just or righteous, as respects the law and the accusations made against the accused. The best antonym for the word "justification" is "condemnation." The former term denoting a "not guilty" verdict or judgment and the latter denoting a "guilty" verdict and judgment.
How "Imputation" relates to "Justification"
According to Law.com the verb "impute" means "to attach to a person responsibility (and therefore financial liability) for acts or injuries to another, because of a particular relationship, such as mother to child, guardian to ward, employer to employee or business associates."
And, according to uslegal.com - "Impute means attribute. Imputation refers to the act or instance of imputing something especially a fault or crime to a person. It can also be an accusation or charge."
Easton's Bible Dictionary, in giving the biblical meaning of "imputation" says:
"Imputation is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our "law-place," undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same ( Romans 5:12-19 ; Compare Philemon 1:18 Philemon 1:19 )."
Thus, imputation is the means or ground for either condemnation or justification. The imputation of Adam's sin is the cause of condemnation, first and foremost, and the imputation of a sinner's sins to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to the believer, is the cause of justification. Other words used in scripture to speak of this legal transaction are reckoning and accounting.
If I was justified in eternity past or at the cross, then we can deduce or infer these things:
1) I was justified before I was born or actually existed, and
2) I was justified even before I actually sinned or was personally condemned
3) I have never actually been under condemnation, under sin, or under wrath
4) I was not actually justified by faith
Arguments against eternal justification
1. Scripture never speaks of it
2. The reasoning used to prove a justification from eternity would also prove that creation, incarnation, regeneration, sanctification, etc. are also eternal.
3. It would affirm that the death of Christ is not what justifies
4. It has justification preceding faith
5. It has justification before union with Christ
6. It has justification before imputation
Other Questions to be Addressed
1. If actual justification took place in eternity past when God decreed to justify the ungodly, or took place when Christ died upon the cross, then what is meant by "justified by faith"?
2. If actual justification took place in eternity past when God decreed to justify the ungodly, or took place when Christ died upon the cross, then what is meant by "justified by works"?
3. Is justification a process that has stages, steps, or phases? Or, is it a one time single act? Is the day of judgment the final phase of justification?
The Arguments In Support of Eternal Justification
Dr. John Gill, one of the foremost advocates of the doctrine of justification from eternity, wrote the following in his Body of Divinity, in the section on "Justification" (emphasis mine). I have in previous writings dealt with what Gill said on this topic (see here) but will write more critically of his views in this posting. Said Gill:
"...for though pardon and justification agree in some things, in others they differ. In some things they agree.
5. In their commencement and completion: pardon and justification commence together, and both are finished at once, "simul" and "semel"; and are not carried on in a gradual and progressive way, as sanctification is, #Col 2:13 Ac 13:39.
6. In the manner of actual enjoying them, which is in a way of receiving, and that by faith; it is by faith men receive the forgiveness of sins; and by it they receive abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness to justification of life; and, this is what the Scriptures call justification by faith, #Ac 26:18 #Ro 5:1,17,18. But though they agree in these things, in others they differ."
If one only had these words from Dr. Gill on the subject, he would not think that Dr. Gill believed in justification from eternity, but believed that sinners were not pardoned or justified until they believed or had evangelical faith. But, as we will see from the citations to follow, from another section in his Body of Divinity, he clearly contradicts what he says here. I have the highest respect for Dr. Gill, but no man is perfect, and on this topic he has surely contradicted himself. From the above words he clearly sees faith as the instrument of actual justification and forgiveness. He says that it is "by faith" that men enjoy, or receive, 1) forgiveness of sins, 2) abundance of grace, and 3) the gift of righteousness to justification.
Gill next wrote:
"I have, in a former part of this work, see "Justification" 853, treated of justification, as an immanent and eternal act in God; and so it may be said to be from eternity, and before faith; and in what sense it is so, with a removal of objections, has been shown in the place referred to; and therefore shall only now discourse concerning justification, as it terminates in the conscience of a believer; and which the scriptures style justification by faith."
In the section Dr. Gill referenced in the above citation, in Chapter 5 titled "Of Other Eternal And Immanent Acts In God, Particularly Adoption And Justification," he wrote (emphasis mine):
"I shall not here treat of these as doctrines, in the full extent of them; or as blessings of grace actually bestowed upon, and enjoyed by believers, with all the privileges and advantages arising from thence; or as transient acts passing on them, and terminating in their consciences at believing; but as internal and immanent acts, taken up in the mind of God from eternity, and which abide in his will; in which they have their complete "esse", or being, as eternal election has, being of the same kind and nature, and are ranked with it as of the same date, and as branches of it, #Eph 1:4-6."
Dr. Gill again seems to speak contradictorily on this subject. He divides justification into two aspects, the one from eternity, a result of an internal act of God's mind and will, and another occurring in time as a result of a transient act of God, at the point when one believes. Thus, justification, both precedes and follows faith! If we only had the above words, we would conclude that justification was not completed until a person believed, for he clearly says that both adoption and justification are not "actually" bestowed upon, or enjoyed, until a person becomes a believer in Christ. Justification "terminates" in the consciences upon coming to faith.
Now notice these words of Gill:
1. Adoption; as predestination to it stands next to election, #Eph 1:5 which is no other than his will to adopt the chosen ones, which is his adoption of them; for as the will of God to elect any is his election of them, so his will to adopt the same is his adoption of them; and the complete essence of it lies in his will, and is as such an eternal immanent act of it; in like manner as election is, and may be considered as a branch of it, at least of the same nature with it;
Now, I do not agree with Gill and most bible commentators on the subject of adoption, having written on this extensively. "Adoption" is not the best translation of the Greek word "huiothesia." Gill thinks that God's will and purpose to "adopt" was his will and purpose to have children. And, when did God will to have children? From eternity past. Okay, that is alright. But, notice the inferences and deductions that Dr. Gill makes of this fact. He argues that his will to have children is his actually having them! His will to adopt is adoption itself! By this reasoning we may say, as have the Hardshell believers in "Two Seedism" and "Eternal Vital Unionism," that the elect have always existed as God's children! But, it is very clear that God's eternal purpose to have children is not the actual making or producing of them. The begetting or birthing of children takes place in time! After they have come into existence! To be born again requires that one be first born once. One is first born into the world, or comes into existence, and then, if one of the elect, is born a second time, and this is when he becomes a child of God. That second birth was purposed by God in eternity past, but that purpose did not actually make them children. The immanent act in purposing to have children did not make children, rather, the transient act in time in "begetting" is what makes children.
Gill continued:
1a. First, It did not begin in time, but commenced from eternity; it is an act of God's will, and has its complete essence in it; and the will of God is eternal, no new will, nor any new act of will, arises in God in time; or otherwise he would not be the unchangeable God he is.
1a1. It is an act that does not first take place at believing; indeed the saints are "all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus", openly and manifestatively, #Ga 3:26 but then it is not faith that makes them children, but what makes them appear to be so; adoption is the act of God, and not of faith;
What "did not begin in time"? Adoption and justification? By his use of the words "begin" and "commenced," he makes justification into a process, with a beginning and ending to it. It does not by this language make justification into a simple declaration or single act. Also, notice how Gill argues that God's decree, in eternity past, to have children, is the actual producing of children. Again, this is what the "Two Seed" Baptists, followers of Daniel Parker, taught! Gill says that the words "you are all the children of God by faith" means "you are all manifestly the children of God by faith." Who gave him the authority to alter the text in this manner? To add a word to the text that is not there? If Paul meant to say "manifestly" he would have said "manifestly." Further, by the reasoning of Dr. Gill one is not only not "actually" made a child of God by faith, but neither by a spiritual birth in time! What he says about "faith" in these words may also be said about being "begotten" of God. Neither faith or being begotten make one a child of God. And why? Because he was already a child of God from eternity past!
Now, I have great respect for Dr. Gill and for most of his doctrinal positions, but his doctrine of eternal justification has led him into the most absurd consequences.
Dr. Gill continued:
"Now, as before observed, as God's will to elect, is the election of his people, so his will to justify them, is the justification of them; as it is an immanent act in God, it is an act of his grace towards them, is wholly without them, entirely resides in the divine mind, and lies in his estimating, accounting, and constituting them righteous, through the righteousness of his Son; and, as such, did not first commence in time, but from eternity."
Gill's reasoning here is not sound. Further, he bases his whole case on eternal justification on such reasoning rather than upon a clear statement of scripture! Why does he not simply cite verses of scripture that expressly say that the elect were justified in eternity past? It is because he has no scriptures that say so, and therefore he must use logic to prove his case. In other words, his defense of justification from eternity is totally based upon inference and logical deduction. Further, because he accepts that both adoption (acquiring children) and justification are events from eternity past, he is forced to alter the NT statements that speak of people becoming children and being justified "by faith." What he should have done, was to let those NT statements alter his views on God's immanent acts, regarding adoption and justification, rather than vise versa.
Not only does Gill teach that the elect were actually children of God and justified from eternity, but he says that they were actually made righteous from eternity! But, again, such a view leads to the most absurd consequences as we will see.
Even if we grant as true the statement - "God's will to elect, is the election of his people" - it does not necessitate that the statement - "his will to justify them, is the justification of them" is true. Dr. Gill's assertion of such is no proof. Can we also say "God's will to regenerate and birth is the regeneration and birth of them"? Can we say "God's will to sanctify and glorify is his sanctification and glorification of them"?
Gill continued:
2a. First, It does not begin to take place in time, or at believing, but is antecedent to any act of faith.
But, where is the scripture that teaches this? Would it not have been proper for Gill to simply have cited verses that said that justification preceded faith? So, instead of reading in the NT, "justified by faith," we should rather find verses that said "faith by justification." Also, notice again Gill's use of the word "begin." Justification only begins in eternity past. Justification is then a process? Also, when, according to Gill, does justification end? Does it both begin and end in eternity past? Remember he is already on record as saying that it "terminates" at the point when one is made a believer. But, he seems at times to forget that he has said such, and rather argues that justification both begins and ends in eternity past.
Gill continued:
"2a1. Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; it is not the cause of it in any sense; it is not the moving cause, that is the free grace of God; "Being justified freely by his grace", #Ro 3:24 nor the efficient cause of it; "It is God that justifies", #Ro 8:33 nor the meritorious cause, as some express it; or the matter of it, that is the obedience and blood of Christ, #Ro 5:9,19 or the righteousness of Christ, consisting of his active and passive obedience; nor even the instrumental cause; for, as Mr. Baxter {5} himself argues, "If faith is the instrument of our justification, it is the instrument either of God or man; not of man, for justification is God's act; he is the sole Justifier, #Ro 3:26 man doth not justify himself: nor of God, for it is not God that believes..."
Every thing Gill here says about how faith is not a "cause" of justification is correct, except in his denial that faith is an "instrumental cause" of it. This is clear, as we will see more fully in future postings, from the NT teaching and its express statements affirming that justification is "by faith." God has willed to justify every believing sinner and not to justify any unbeliever. Of course, faith is not a legal means or instrument in effecting justification, but it is the means of determining who shall be justified.
In my posting "Hardshells and Justification II" (see here) I wrote this on how faith is a "cause" of justification.
Dr. A. H. Strong, in the "Relation of Justification to Faith," wrote:
A. We are justified by faith, rather than by love or by any other grace:
(a) not because faith is itself a work of obedience by which we merit justification, for this would be a doctrine of justification by works,
(b) nor because faith is accepted as an equivalent of obedience, for there is no equivalent except the perfect obedience of Christ,
(c) nor because faith is the germ from which obedience may spring hereafter, for it is not the faith which accepts, but the Christ who is accepted, that renders such obedience possible, but
(d) because faith, and not repentance or love or hope is the medium or instrument by which we receive Christ and are united to him. Hence we are never said to be justified dia pistin, = on account of faith, but only dia pisteos, = through faith, or ek pisteos, = by faith. Or, to express the same truth in other words, while the grace of God is the efficient cause of justification and the obedience and sufferings of Christ are the meritorious or procuring cause, faith is the mediate or instrumental cause." (pg. 160, 161)
Gill continued:
"nor is it a "causa sine qua non", as the case of elect infants shows; it is not in any class of causes whatever; but it is the effect of justification: all men have not faith, and the reason why some do not believe is, because they are none of Christ's sheep; they were not chosen in him, nor justified through him; but justly left in their sins, and so to condemnation; the reason why others believe is, because they are ordained to eternal life, have a justifying righteousness provided for them, and are justified by it, and shall never enter into condemnation: the reason why any are justified, is not because they have faith; but the reason why they have faith, is because they are justified; was there no such blessing of grace as justification of life in Christ, for the sons of men, there would be no such thing as faith in Christ bestowed on them; precious faith is obtained through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, #2Pe 1:1 nor, indeed, would there be any room for it, nor any use of it, if a justifying righteousness was not previously provided."
But, the "case of elect infants" does not disprove justification by faith nor prove justification without it, or from eternity. There has been so much false teaching produced by false reasoning on the "case of the infants" and the case of the mentally incapacitated. Hardshells use it to teach their version of a "hollow log," or meaningless "regeneration" or divine "birth." They use the "case of the infant" to try to prove that faith, repentance, coming to Christ, etc., are not necessary for being born again, justified, sanctified, or saved in Heaven. But, "with God all things are possible," and he certainly is able to increase the mental powers of infants before they die in infancy so that they can believe by the teaching of the Spirit in an extraordinary manner.
Further, it is not denied that election is the cause of faith, and not vise versa. But, we cannot say similarly that justification is the cause of faith. Yes, the righteousness of Christ is the cause of faith. But saying such is not the same thing as saying that "the imputation of the righteousness of Christ precedes faith," for that would contradict other clear statements of scripture, such as this: "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." (Rom. 4:24)
Gill continued:
"2a5. All the elect of God were justified in Christ, their Head and Representative, when he rose from the dead, and therefore they believe: Christ engaged as a Surety for all his people from eternity, had their sins imputed to him, and for which he made himself responsible; in the fulness of time he made satisfaction for them by his sufferings and death, and at his resurrection was acquitted and discharged: now as he suffered and died, not as a private, but as a public person, so he rose again, and was justified as such, even as the representative of his people; hence when he rose, they rose with him; and when he was justified, they were justified in him; for he was "delivered for their offences, and was raised again for their justification", #Ro 4:25"
Gill clearly contradicts himself in these words. How? He has already argued that justification was an accomplished fact from eternity past, because it is the immediate result of God's will or decree. But, here he says that the elect were justified "when" Christ rose from the dead. If justification took place when Christ rose from the dead, then it did not take place in eternity past! Of course, not only does the bible not teach that actual justification took place in eternity past, but it also does not teach that it actually took place when Christ died and rose again. But, more on that in upcoming postings.
Gill continued:
"2b. Secondly, Justification is not only before faith, but it is from eternity, being an immanent act in the divine mind, and so an internal and eternal one; as may be concluded..."Justified then we were," says Dr. Goodwin "when first elected, though not in our own persons, yet in our Head, as he had our persons then given him, and we came to have a being and an interest in him.""
Notice his words "as may be concluded." See how he attempts to prove his doctrine by logic and by inference rather than by express statements of scripture. Notice also how the justification in eternity past was not a justification "in our own persons"! Further, if justification took place in eternity past, then it did not occur when Christ died and rose again! But, more on that in upcoming postings, the Lord willing.
Gill continued:
"Now if God could, and actually did, justify some, three or four thousand years before the righteousness of Christ was actually wrought out, taking his Son's word and bond as their Surety, and in a view of his future righteousness; why could he not, and why may it not be thought he did, justify all his elect from eternity, upon the word and bond of their Surety, and on the basis of his future righteousness, which he had engaged to work out, and which he full well knew he would most certainly work out? and if there is no difficulty in conceiving of the one, there can be none in conceiving of the other."
But, again, notice how he relies on logical reasoning to prove his doctrine of eternal justification! Ought he not rather to rely upon plain declarations of scripture? It is not necessary to hold to justification from eternity to explain how God could justify men like Abraham even before Christ had come and had the sins of Abraham actually imputed to him. Gill even gives the answer. God could justify Abraham, upon his believing, based upon the contractual promise of the Son of God to come and suffer for the sins of Abraham.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Saturday, August 12, 2017
It Surprises Me A Little
As an editor for The Old Baptist Test blog, I often check my statistical information as to which articles are being read the most, which are the most popular. Over the past week I was able to make several entries on various topics. I was not too surprised that my articles on "Hardshells and the Adultery Question" and the first posting on "The Error of Eternal Justification" were popular. But, I was surprised that a couple other postings were not so popular, such as the one on "Incorrect Grammar in the KJV" and "Biblical Teaching Using the Socratic Method." Personally, I thought they were two good articles. Shows you what I know, hey? Perhaps they will become popular in the future. Sometimes articles I write don't get much attention immediately but become more read later as Internet surfers find the postings.
I am hoping that I can get the following postings completed in the next month. I continue to work on these postings, gathering notes and citations, and arranging the material. I also try to pray over most of the articles and get insight and leading from the Spirit.
Old Baptist Test blog
1. Finish the series on Hardshells and the Adultery Question
2. Finish the series on The Error of Eternal Justification
3. Post several one or two entries on various subjects.
Baptist Gadfly blog
1. Finish my series on The Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse
2. Finish my series on Waiting For The Huiothesia (on the doctrine of adoption)
If I can get these finished, I have an interest to write on several other topics in both of these blogs. I hope to write on the Book of Revelation and on Eschatology.
On the Future of these Blogs
I am thankful that Elders Kevin Fralick and Jeremy Sarber have become associated editors for the Old Baptist Test blog. Kevin has been with me from the beginning. I hope that there will be some others who will join. I want these editors to act as trustees for the blog and for all the writings in it. I am not getting any younger and should I depart I want to believe that these writings will be in good hands.
I hope those of you who regularly read this blog will keep the editors in your prayers that the Lord will use what we write to edify the people of God and to help build them up in the most holy faith. It takes a lot of work to study the various topics that we discuss on this blog and I am thankful that God has given me the time over the past few years to labor in writing.
I believe we have more followers than are shown. People can follow anonymously and I believe we have several who follow this way.
We average about 1500-1800 hits per month on this blog, about the same for the Baptist Gadfly. I also have a couple other blogs that get visitors. We get little comment, however. Sometimes I think that is bad, and sometimes I think it is good. I just don't know how to interpret that fact.
I am thankful for all the people we have helped by this blog and our writings. We get e-mails and phone calls from time to time from folks who tell us that we have been a great help and this gives us strength to continue.
I am hoping that I can get the following postings completed in the next month. I continue to work on these postings, gathering notes and citations, and arranging the material. I also try to pray over most of the articles and get insight and leading from the Spirit.
Old Baptist Test blog
1. Finish the series on Hardshells and the Adultery Question
2. Finish the series on The Error of Eternal Justification
3. Post several one or two entries on various subjects.
Baptist Gadfly blog
1. Finish my series on The Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse
2. Finish my series on Waiting For The Huiothesia (on the doctrine of adoption)
If I can get these finished, I have an interest to write on several other topics in both of these blogs. I hope to write on the Book of Revelation and on Eschatology.
On the Future of these Blogs
I am thankful that Elders Kevin Fralick and Jeremy Sarber have become associated editors for the Old Baptist Test blog. Kevin has been with me from the beginning. I hope that there will be some others who will join. I want these editors to act as trustees for the blog and for all the writings in it. I am not getting any younger and should I depart I want to believe that these writings will be in good hands.
I hope those of you who regularly read this blog will keep the editors in your prayers that the Lord will use what we write to edify the people of God and to help build them up in the most holy faith. It takes a lot of work to study the various topics that we discuss on this blog and I am thankful that God has given me the time over the past few years to labor in writing.
I believe we have more followers than are shown. People can follow anonymously and I believe we have several who follow this way.
We average about 1500-1800 hits per month on this blog, about the same for the Baptist Gadfly. I also have a couple other blogs that get visitors. We get little comment, however. Sometimes I think that is bad, and sometimes I think it is good. I just don't know how to interpret that fact.
I am thankful for all the people we have helped by this blog and our writings. We get e-mails and phone calls from time to time from folks who tell us that we have been a great help and this gives us strength to continue.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Hardshells & The Adultery Question III
In beginning this third posting in this series I want to add some additional thoughts regarding the case of king Herod and his marriage to Herodias, the woman who was previously married to Herod's brother Philip. The reason why a study of Herod's case of adultery is pertinent is because his case is put forth as an example of people "living in adultery" when they have entered a marriage for unlawful reasons. The question then is this: "did Herod commit a single act of adultery in marrying Herodias, or was he in a continual state of sinning, or 'living in adultery,' as long as he was married to her?" Further, when John the Baptist said to Herod "it is not lawful for you to have her" as a wife, was he speaking of the law that forbade incest or that forbade adulterous marriage?
Kevin Pendergrass has written extensively on this subject, having numerous articles on all aspects of this subject. I can say that his views are sound and generally represent my thinking. In one of those articles titled "WHY HEROD WAS WRONG" (see here) he wrote (emphasis mine):
"In Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18 and Luke 3:19-20, Herod was rebuked by John because Herod had married his brother’s wife, among other sins he committed (Lk. 3:19-20). The current understanding of the Jewish law at that time allowed for subsequent marriages and multiple wives (Deut. 24:1-4; 21:15-17; Judg. 8:30-32; 1 Sam. 1:2-3; 2 Sam. 12:7-8; etc.), even though polygamy was no longer a common practice by this time."
These are important facts to consider in the discussion of the particular violations of the Mosaic law that John the Baptist was alluding to when he said "it is not lawful for you to have her (as wife)." If Jewish law allowed for divorce, even when fornication was not the cause, then John would not be charging that the divorce and remarriage of either Herod or Herodias was illegal. Therefore, we must agree with Pendergrass and say that the violation of the law that John referred to was the law that forbade a man from marrying his brother"s wife.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"One of the condemnations that fell under this category was taking your brother’s wife in marriage:
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness” (Lev. 18:16).
“If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness They shall be childless” (Lev. 20:21).
The “taking” of someone encompasses the idea of marriage (See also: Lev. 20:14, 21; same word is used for “take”). This law began after Israel was led out of Egyptian bondage. Prior to the writing of Leviticus, there are no Old Testament passages that condemn incest. In the whole book of Genesis, incest is a common practice. Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and both Isaac and Jacob married kinsmen (Genesis 22:20ff; 24:4; 24:43). Of course, all of Shem, Ham, and Japheth’s children, Jacob, all of Adam and Eve’s grandchildren, Isaac, Esau, etc. would have been in incestuous relationships. The people of the Patriarchal Period, therefore, were not under the specific regulations of the Mosaic Code.
While Herod the Great and Herod Antipas were Idumeans (Edomites), Herod Antipas (being the client King of the Jews) would have been subjected to the Jewish law. The Idumeans were subjugated by the Jews and forced to convert to Judaism around the time of the Maccabean wars. Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee, the part of the kingdom assigned to him. Thus, Herod Antipas clearly and publicly violated the very law he was supposed to be upholding and following as a Jewish king when he took his brother’s wife in marriage.
Here is the chronology of Herod and Herodias’s marriage: Herodias was the granddaughter of Herod the Great through his son Aristobulus IV through his wife Miriamne I, Herod’s 2nd wife. Philip (Herod II) was the son of Herod the Great through Miriamne II, Herod’s 3rd wife. So Philip and Herodias were uncle and niece. While the Law did not prohibit an uncle from marrying his niece (e.g., Judges 1:12-13), it did prohibit a nephew from marrying his aunt (Lev. 18:12-14), and it prohibited a man from marrying his brother’s wife (Lev. 18:16; 20:21). [It should be noted that there is an exception to this found in Deuteronomy 25:5, but this wasn’t applicable to the Herod-Philip-Herodias case].
Some have attempted to argue that, even though divorced by the law of the land, Herodias was still married to Philip in “God’s eyes” because John used the phrase “your brother’s wife” when referring to Herodias (Mk. 6:18)."
It is possible that the present tense "your brother's wife" may be another example of what is called the "historical" present tense. But, more on that shortly. Pendergrass continues:
"There are a couple of explanations to this objection and each would fit the context of Scripture (perhaps even both). According to Josephus, Herodias had divorced Philip (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.3 136). Some have argued that Herod was wrong because he married Herodias who had unlawfully divorced Philip instead of Philip divorcing Herodias upon Jewish law.
Under Jewish law, a man could divorce a woman, but a woman could not divorce a man (Deut. 24:1-4; Rom. 7:1-4). However, the Greco-Roman culture had influenced society where women were divorcing their husbands. Instead of the man (Phillip) treating his wife treacherously, the woman (Herodias) treated her husband treacherously by unlawfully divorcing him to marry Herod. Therefore, this could possibly be what John was referring to (Mal. 2:14-17).
The second explanation would have to do in understanding how the phrase, “your brother’s wife” can be used. This phrase can just as easily be understood as a former wife. This is one of the common usages in the Bible when speaking of a former spouse (See: 2 Samuel 12:9; Deut. 25:5; Mark 12:19; Lk. 20:28; Acts 5:10-11; etc.). Often times in the Bible, the words husband and wife are in reference to former husbands and wives. In fact, this is even the common way of speaking today.
We often refer to someone’s former husband and wife as simply their husband or wife. We don’t mean to imply they are still married, we are only recognizing the fact that they once were. Furthermore, the Levitical law to which John was referring uses the phrase “brother’s wife” to include the brother’s former wife (Lev. 20:21; As do other passages when speaking of former spouses; Deut. 25:5).
Under the heading "WHAT REPENTANCE DEMANDED" Pendergrass wrote:
"We have to be careful with self-imposed repentance. That is, we have to be careful when we teach what we believe one has to do in order to repent, especially if the Bible doesn’t say it. Some assume that because John told Herod that it wasn’t lawful for him to take/have his brother’s wife, then that meant he had to repent by divorcing her. However, we must consider the context and other passages of Scripture. Consider the same type of wording when it came to David taking Bathsheba to be his wife. The Bible says that David sinned because he:
“…killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife…” (2 Sam. 12:9). “…because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife” (2 Sam. 12:10).
The sin that took place with David is that he unlawfully took Bathsheba to be his wife. He lied, cheated and killed in order to have Bethsheba. The sin that took place with Herod is that he unlawfully took Herodias to be his wife. Since repentance didn’t demand that David divorce Bathsheba, it shouldn’t be automatically assumed that repentance demanded that Herod divorce Herodias."
Pendergrass wrote:
"If a man took his brother’s wife in marriage, it was a sin but the Bible assumes the couple would naturally continue in their marriage. Consider Leviticus 20:21:
“If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They will be childless.”
While it was a sin to marry your brother’s wife, it simply says that they would suffer the consequence of being childless in their marriage.
Whether the rebuking was due to Herod unlawfully taking Herodias because she unlawfully divorced Phillip (thus violating the Jewish divorce law), or whether it was due to the incestuous union (or perhaps a combination of both; Lk. 3:19-20), nothing in this context would prove that repentance demanded divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). Of course, even if one did attempt to argue that repentance demanded a divorce, it would not have been on the basis of a subsequent marriage since the law allowed for such (Deut. 24:1-4). Rather it would be on the basis of an incestuous union."
Recall that the major argument of those who teach that a marriage entered into without scriptural grounds creates a situation where the parties in such a marriage continue to sin or to "live in adultery" while the marriage is in place; And, in regard to the case of Herod and Herodias, it is argued that John the Baptist's repeatedly saying to Herod "it is not lawful for you to have her," using the present tense, proves it. The argument is made that John's use of the present tense "is" denotes continuous action, and thus Herod's adultery was not an initial act in marrying Herodias, but was a continuous state. John, it is argued, would have said "it was not lawful for you" had he in mind only a past act.
It is further argued that John's call to Herod to repent involved him divorcing Herodias. Pendergrass answers, in regard to the latter argument, that the scriptures do not teach such. The scriptures teach that marriages that were entered illegally were still binding marriages and should not be dissolved. The sin was in the initial act, not in the continuing union. As regards the first argument, about the use of the present tense "is," I stated in the previous posting that such is no conclusive argument because there is such a thing as an "historical present." In cases where an historical present is used, it is the past that is referred to even though a present tense verb is used.
Richard Nordquist (see here) says this about the English "historical present" (emphasis mine):
"In English grammar, the historical present is the use of a verb phrase in the present tense to refer to an event that took place in the past. In narratives, the historical present may be used to create an effect of immediacy. Also called the historic present, dramatic present, and narrative present."
When John said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife," he was stating what was the present law, not what was the supposed present ongoing sin. Take the case of a person who, in the past, committed the criminal offence of speeding. He stands before the judge and the judge says "the law is (present tense) 55 miles per hour and you were (past tense) going 75." Or, "it is not lawful for you to go over 55." Now, certainly the judge could have said "the law was 55 and you were..." But, the message is the same.
Herod had violated the law in marrying Herodias because it was incest, not because he had married a divorced woman, because, as already observed, such was "lawful" by the Mosaic law. Granted, it was against the teaching of Jesus, but that teaching would come later.
John was not saying that the marriage was to be annulled. As stated previously, the law of Moses allowed such adulterous marriages. So, the sin that John is condemning is not the adultery, but the incest, the kind specifically forbidden in the OT. It was not till Jesus gave correction to the Mosaic law, after John's imprisonment and death, that such marriages would be styled as adulterous in their inception. Had John been condemning Herod for an adulterous marriage, rather than for incest, he would not have singled out Herod, for there were many Jewish men, at the time, in marriages begun by an act of adultery.
The Case of the Woman at the Well
"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." (John 4:16-18 kjv)
When Jesus talked with the Samaritan woman he told her she had had five husbands. Unless all of them died she must have been divorced at times. Each time she remarried it was considered marriage by the Lord for he told her she had had five husbands. They would not have been husbands if she were not married to them. Jesus said the man she was presently living with was not her husband. Why? Because she had never been married to him. Jesus did not tell her she had only been married one time, to the first husband. Thus, in the "eyes of the Lord" this woman was married five times. Our teaching that one cannot remarry is not in harmony with what Jesus taught.
Wrote Kevin Pendergrass in "Marriage Is Dissolved By Divorce" (see here):
"Jesus also taught that marriage can be dissolved. In John 4:17-18, Jesus recognized that the woman at the well had been married to 5 husbands and was currently living with someone she wasn’t even married to.
“The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”
Due to the fact that she was currently living with a man to whom she was not married would certainly give way to the fact that her past 5 husbands didn’t just all die naturally. As she admitted, her moral living was not above par. He didn’t tell her that she was “still married in the eyes of God to her first husband.” In fact, He acknowledged that these men had been her husbands and that she currently had no husband.
If marriage was not dissolved through divorce, then Jesus would have told the woman to return to her original spouse, or He would have told her to return to the last man to whom she was scripturally married. However, that wasn’t what Jesus said. Instead, Jesus acknowledged that the woman had been married 5 times. Jesus taught that the woman had no husband (Jn. 4:17). Divorce, even unlawfully, dissolves marriage according to Jesus."
That is the way I see the case of the woman at the well and I do not believe that those who promote the idea that a marriage entered without scriptural grounds becomes a case of "living in adultery" have any proof of their position from either the case of Herod or from the case of the woman at the well.
Kevin Pendergrass has written extensively on this subject, having numerous articles on all aspects of this subject. I can say that his views are sound and generally represent my thinking. In one of those articles titled "WHY HEROD WAS WRONG" (see here) he wrote (emphasis mine):
"In Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18 and Luke 3:19-20, Herod was rebuked by John because Herod had married his brother’s wife, among other sins he committed (Lk. 3:19-20). The current understanding of the Jewish law at that time allowed for subsequent marriages and multiple wives (Deut. 24:1-4; 21:15-17; Judg. 8:30-32; 1 Sam. 1:2-3; 2 Sam. 12:7-8; etc.), even though polygamy was no longer a common practice by this time."
These are important facts to consider in the discussion of the particular violations of the Mosaic law that John the Baptist was alluding to when he said "it is not lawful for you to have her (as wife)." If Jewish law allowed for divorce, even when fornication was not the cause, then John would not be charging that the divorce and remarriage of either Herod or Herodias was illegal. Therefore, we must agree with Pendergrass and say that the violation of the law that John referred to was the law that forbade a man from marrying his brother"s wife.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"One of the condemnations that fell under this category was taking your brother’s wife in marriage:
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness” (Lev. 18:16).
“If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness They shall be childless” (Lev. 20:21).
The “taking” of someone encompasses the idea of marriage (See also: Lev. 20:14, 21; same word is used for “take”). This law began after Israel was led out of Egyptian bondage. Prior to the writing of Leviticus, there are no Old Testament passages that condemn incest. In the whole book of Genesis, incest is a common practice. Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and both Isaac and Jacob married kinsmen (Genesis 22:20ff; 24:4; 24:43). Of course, all of Shem, Ham, and Japheth’s children, Jacob, all of Adam and Eve’s grandchildren, Isaac, Esau, etc. would have been in incestuous relationships. The people of the Patriarchal Period, therefore, were not under the specific regulations of the Mosaic Code.
While Herod the Great and Herod Antipas were Idumeans (Edomites), Herod Antipas (being the client King of the Jews) would have been subjected to the Jewish law. The Idumeans were subjugated by the Jews and forced to convert to Judaism around the time of the Maccabean wars. Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee, the part of the kingdom assigned to him. Thus, Herod Antipas clearly and publicly violated the very law he was supposed to be upholding and following as a Jewish king when he took his brother’s wife in marriage.
Here is the chronology of Herod and Herodias’s marriage: Herodias was the granddaughter of Herod the Great through his son Aristobulus IV through his wife Miriamne I, Herod’s 2nd wife. Philip (Herod II) was the son of Herod the Great through Miriamne II, Herod’s 3rd wife. So Philip and Herodias were uncle and niece. While the Law did not prohibit an uncle from marrying his niece (e.g., Judges 1:12-13), it did prohibit a nephew from marrying his aunt (Lev. 18:12-14), and it prohibited a man from marrying his brother’s wife (Lev. 18:16; 20:21). [It should be noted that there is an exception to this found in Deuteronomy 25:5, but this wasn’t applicable to the Herod-Philip-Herodias case].
Some have attempted to argue that, even though divorced by the law of the land, Herodias was still married to Philip in “God’s eyes” because John used the phrase “your brother’s wife” when referring to Herodias (Mk. 6:18)."
It is possible that the present tense "your brother's wife" may be another example of what is called the "historical" present tense. But, more on that shortly. Pendergrass continues:
"There are a couple of explanations to this objection and each would fit the context of Scripture (perhaps even both). According to Josephus, Herodias had divorced Philip (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.3 136). Some have argued that Herod was wrong because he married Herodias who had unlawfully divorced Philip instead of Philip divorcing Herodias upon Jewish law.
Under Jewish law, a man could divorce a woman, but a woman could not divorce a man (Deut. 24:1-4; Rom. 7:1-4). However, the Greco-Roman culture had influenced society where women were divorcing their husbands. Instead of the man (Phillip) treating his wife treacherously, the woman (Herodias) treated her husband treacherously by unlawfully divorcing him to marry Herod. Therefore, this could possibly be what John was referring to (Mal. 2:14-17).
The second explanation would have to do in understanding how the phrase, “your brother’s wife” can be used. This phrase can just as easily be understood as a former wife. This is one of the common usages in the Bible when speaking of a former spouse (See: 2 Samuel 12:9; Deut. 25:5; Mark 12:19; Lk. 20:28; Acts 5:10-11; etc.). Often times in the Bible, the words husband and wife are in reference to former husbands and wives. In fact, this is even the common way of speaking today.
We often refer to someone’s former husband and wife as simply their husband or wife. We don’t mean to imply they are still married, we are only recognizing the fact that they once were. Furthermore, the Levitical law to which John was referring uses the phrase “brother’s wife” to include the brother’s former wife (Lev. 20:21; As do other passages when speaking of former spouses; Deut. 25:5).
Under the heading "WHAT REPENTANCE DEMANDED" Pendergrass wrote:
"We have to be careful with self-imposed repentance. That is, we have to be careful when we teach what we believe one has to do in order to repent, especially if the Bible doesn’t say it. Some assume that because John told Herod that it wasn’t lawful for him to take/have his brother’s wife, then that meant he had to repent by divorcing her. However, we must consider the context and other passages of Scripture. Consider the same type of wording when it came to David taking Bathsheba to be his wife. The Bible says that David sinned because he:
“…killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife…” (2 Sam. 12:9). “…because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife” (2 Sam. 12:10).
The sin that took place with David is that he unlawfully took Bathsheba to be his wife. He lied, cheated and killed in order to have Bethsheba. The sin that took place with Herod is that he unlawfully took Herodias to be his wife. Since repentance didn’t demand that David divorce Bathsheba, it shouldn’t be automatically assumed that repentance demanded that Herod divorce Herodias."
Pendergrass wrote:
"If a man took his brother’s wife in marriage, it was a sin but the Bible assumes the couple would naturally continue in their marriage. Consider Leviticus 20:21:
“If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They will be childless.”
While it was a sin to marry your brother’s wife, it simply says that they would suffer the consequence of being childless in their marriage.
Whether the rebuking was due to Herod unlawfully taking Herodias because she unlawfully divorced Phillip (thus violating the Jewish divorce law), or whether it was due to the incestuous union (or perhaps a combination of both; Lk. 3:19-20), nothing in this context would prove that repentance demanded divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). Of course, even if one did attempt to argue that repentance demanded a divorce, it would not have been on the basis of a subsequent marriage since the law allowed for such (Deut. 24:1-4). Rather it would be on the basis of an incestuous union."
Recall that the major argument of those who teach that a marriage entered into without scriptural grounds creates a situation where the parties in such a marriage continue to sin or to "live in adultery" while the marriage is in place; And, in regard to the case of Herod and Herodias, it is argued that John the Baptist's repeatedly saying to Herod "it is not lawful for you to have her," using the present tense, proves it. The argument is made that John's use of the present tense "is" denotes continuous action, and thus Herod's adultery was not an initial act in marrying Herodias, but was a continuous state. John, it is argued, would have said "it was not lawful for you" had he in mind only a past act.
It is further argued that John's call to Herod to repent involved him divorcing Herodias. Pendergrass answers, in regard to the latter argument, that the scriptures do not teach such. The scriptures teach that marriages that were entered illegally were still binding marriages and should not be dissolved. The sin was in the initial act, not in the continuing union. As regards the first argument, about the use of the present tense "is," I stated in the previous posting that such is no conclusive argument because there is such a thing as an "historical present." In cases where an historical present is used, it is the past that is referred to even though a present tense verb is used.
Richard Nordquist (see here) says this about the English "historical present" (emphasis mine):
"In English grammar, the historical present is the use of a verb phrase in the present tense to refer to an event that took place in the past. In narratives, the historical present may be used to create an effect of immediacy. Also called the historic present, dramatic present, and narrative present."
When John said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife," he was stating what was the present law, not what was the supposed present ongoing sin. Take the case of a person who, in the past, committed the criminal offence of speeding. He stands before the judge and the judge says "the law is (present tense) 55 miles per hour and you were (past tense) going 75." Or, "it is not lawful for you to go over 55." Now, certainly the judge could have said "the law was 55 and you were..." But, the message is the same.
Herod had violated the law in marrying Herodias because it was incest, not because he had married a divorced woman, because, as already observed, such was "lawful" by the Mosaic law. Granted, it was against the teaching of Jesus, but that teaching would come later.
John was not saying that the marriage was to be annulled. As stated previously, the law of Moses allowed such adulterous marriages. So, the sin that John is condemning is not the adultery, but the incest, the kind specifically forbidden in the OT. It was not till Jesus gave correction to the Mosaic law, after John's imprisonment and death, that such marriages would be styled as adulterous in their inception. Had John been condemning Herod for an adulterous marriage, rather than for incest, he would not have singled out Herod, for there were many Jewish men, at the time, in marriages begun by an act of adultery.
The Case of the Woman at the Well
"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." (John 4:16-18 kjv)
When Jesus talked with the Samaritan woman he told her she had had five husbands. Unless all of them died she must have been divorced at times. Each time she remarried it was considered marriage by the Lord for he told her she had had five husbands. They would not have been husbands if she were not married to them. Jesus said the man she was presently living with was not her husband. Why? Because she had never been married to him. Jesus did not tell her she had only been married one time, to the first husband. Thus, in the "eyes of the Lord" this woman was married five times. Our teaching that one cannot remarry is not in harmony with what Jesus taught.
Wrote Kevin Pendergrass in "Marriage Is Dissolved By Divorce" (see here):
"Jesus also taught that marriage can be dissolved. In John 4:17-18, Jesus recognized that the woman at the well had been married to 5 husbands and was currently living with someone she wasn’t even married to.
“The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”
Due to the fact that she was currently living with a man to whom she was not married would certainly give way to the fact that her past 5 husbands didn’t just all die naturally. As she admitted, her moral living was not above par. He didn’t tell her that she was “still married in the eyes of God to her first husband.” In fact, He acknowledged that these men had been her husbands and that she currently had no husband.
If marriage was not dissolved through divorce, then Jesus would have told the woman to return to her original spouse, or He would have told her to return to the last man to whom she was scripturally married. However, that wasn’t what Jesus said. Instead, Jesus acknowledged that the woman had been married 5 times. Jesus taught that the woman had no husband (Jn. 4:17). Divorce, even unlawfully, dissolves marriage according to Jesus."
That is the way I see the case of the woman at the well and I do not believe that those who promote the idea that a marriage entered without scriptural grounds becomes a case of "living in adultery" have any proof of their position from either the case of Herod or from the case of the woman at the well.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
The Error of Eternal Justification
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.
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)