A brother recently wrote to me about how it seems that more and more "Primitive Baptists" are returning to the old Baptist faith in contending that all the elect will be brought to faith in Christ. He gave me several examples, but I will not mention names or churches. What I want to do is to cite a few words from the letter I got from this brother who is well informed about Hardshell history and of their present condition.
This brother wrote to me, saying (highlighting mine):
"I forgot to say that of course your ministry has had an effect! You've ruffled their feathers and forced them to take a look. Some dig in even deeper into the "cave" and some see the light. That's true with any group we try to reach."
So glad to hear this! I have little time left on this earth and yet I hope to see a genuine revival and growth among the "Primitive Baptists." The more they return to the faith of their fathers the more they will see revival and the blessing of God upon their labors.
The brother wrote:
"they told me about their journey away from the hard shells, and have now come to the belief that all the elect WILL be converted in THIS lifetime. they told me there are at least 10 churches in their area who have adopted this belief as well...they agree that all the original baptists believed this doctrine, and that most PB's went into error."
Oh such good news!
He wrote further:
"I have no idea of you directly or indirectly had an influence, but I firmly believe that you put a spark in someone, somewhere that led to this in some of these churches. There seems to be a movement in this direction in many area of the country. The hard shells are diggin in the heels even harder tho, but that may be a good thing."
May that "spark" become a blaze!
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Making Jesus A Sinner and A Fool?
I have pointed out over the years how Hardshellism's ideas and propositions cannot be true because they logically make Jesus into a sinner or a fool. Let me give some examples.
Hardshells affirm that:
Christ has no love for the non elect.
First, this makes Jesus a sinner. This is because Jesus was "born under the law" and "kept the law" and was under obligation to "keep the law"; And, the law demanded love for one's neighbor (Mark 12:31). Thus, Jesus, if he did not love his neighbor, some of whom were not elect, then he did not keep the law, and thus is a sinner. This is how Hardshellism's contention that "God does not love the non elect" makes Jesus into a sinner.
This stated belief forces them to say that men like the rich young ruler, who chose not to follow Christ, was a child of God and born again even in that condition. And why? Because it is said that Jesus "loved him"; And, since Jesus loved him, he must therefore be elect, even though not a follower of Christ. This shows how accepting an unbiblical proposition affects how one interprets scripture.
Notes
Dr. John Piper in his excellent words on this subject said:
"God’s love for the non-elect consists in genuine acts of kindness and generosity and patience and invitation." ("Does God Love The Non Elect?" - see here)
Christ Preached To The Spiritually Dead
Hardshells are infamous for saying that "Arminians" and others who preach to the dead, and who command and invite them in regard to their soul's salvation, are fools for doing so. They say that is as foolish as preaching to a brick wall. Yet, Jesus did this very thing! He preached the gospel to the spiritually dead and even told them what they must do to be saved!
(See my series "Addresses To The Lost" on my blog that posts the chapters of my book on the Hardshells at www.hardshellism.blogspot.com)
Thus, they make Christ into a fool for preaching to the dead. They make him a sinner in preaching to the dead because foolishness is sin (Prov. 24:9).
In conclusion let me also say that
Hardshellism also makes the Holy Spirit into a liar!
(See my posting Hardshells Make The Spirit A Liar and What Do You Say?)
Hardshells affirm that:
Christ has no love for the non elect.
First, this makes Jesus a sinner. This is because Jesus was "born under the law" and "kept the law" and was under obligation to "keep the law"; And, the law demanded love for one's neighbor (Mark 12:31). Thus, Jesus, if he did not love his neighbor, some of whom were not elect, then he did not keep the law, and thus is a sinner. This is how Hardshellism's contention that "God does not love the non elect" makes Jesus into a sinner.
This stated belief forces them to say that men like the rich young ruler, who chose not to follow Christ, was a child of God and born again even in that condition. And why? Because it is said that Jesus "loved him"; And, since Jesus loved him, he must therefore be elect, even though not a follower of Christ. This shows how accepting an unbiblical proposition affects how one interprets scripture.
Notes
Dr. John Piper in his excellent words on this subject said:
"God’s love for the non-elect consists in genuine acts of kindness and generosity and patience and invitation." ("Does God Love The Non Elect?" - see here)
Christ Preached To The Spiritually Dead
Hardshells are infamous for saying that "Arminians" and others who preach to the dead, and who command and invite them in regard to their soul's salvation, are fools for doing so. They say that is as foolish as preaching to a brick wall. Yet, Jesus did this very thing! He preached the gospel to the spiritually dead and even told them what they must do to be saved!
(See my series "Addresses To The Lost" on my blog that posts the chapters of my book on the Hardshells at www.hardshellism.blogspot.com)
Thus, they make Christ into a fool for preaching to the dead. They make him a sinner in preaching to the dead because foolishness is sin (Prov. 24:9).
In conclusion let me also say that
Hardshellism also makes the Holy Spirit into a liar!
(See my posting Hardshells Make The Spirit A Liar and What Do You Say?)
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Kehukee Association Circular Letters
The following citations
are taken from a few of the Kehukee Association’s Circular Letters written in
the early 1800s. They can be found here.
"They are invited by the ministers, to come to Christ; but they will not have him to reign over them. Life and death are by the gospel presented to their choice;"
Second, from 1830.
"And should not this method of preaching, and writing, by Christ and his apostles, teach us that we are to preach the gospel to every creature, to all sinners in general? Should it not teach us, that it is a secret with God, for whom Christ died? Should it not teach us, that we are to preach the gospel to sinners in the general, and leave it to God to make the application to the persons he has chosen, or when and where he pleases?"
Our forefathers believed in the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel, and that the results should be left up to God!
From 1831.
XII. "We believe, baptism and the Lord's Supper are gospel ordinances, both belonging to the converted, or true believer; and that persons who were sprinkled or dipped whilst in unbelief, were not regularly baptized according to God's word; and that such ought to be baptized after they are savingly converted into the faith of Christ."
Savingly converted? What new language is this? How dare they couple together salvation with conversion! And converted into the faith of Christ, not to a heathen God, or simple belief in higher power of some sort?
Ah, but this is the doctrine of Old Baptists, decades before conversion would take on an entirely different, unnecessary, place in soteriology by their supposed descendants.
Facts are stubborn things aren't they?
First, from 1828.
"What is the doctrine of Election? It is
simply this; that God has determined, to make some of the human race, willing
to embrace the Gospel."
This is clear evidence that the early association felt the gospel
necessary for salvation, and that election guaranteed its success.
"But a question
might here arise; if God has an elect number, how can this be reconciled
to the universal call, which you give in the gospel? As you are commanded
to preach to every creature. We answer, that as man's disability, is of a
moral, or intellectual, and not of a physical character; that our preaching or
exhortations are directed to his mental, and not his natural powers, if man was
physically, or corporeally, disqualified, from the service of God; then we
admit, that it would be as reasonable, to preach to the dead, in their graves,
as to preach to the living but as they possess all the powers, of both
soul and body, requisite for the service of God* and as they were bestowed
upon them for that end, we therefore direct our observations, to the
rational powers of the soul, which governs the will. In a sinner's conversion to God, there is no new
faculty, either of mind or body, bestowed upon him; it is only changing,
and giving a proper direction, to those which he originally possesses. It
is, "clothing of him in his right mind;" in the doing of this,
therefore, we discharge the mandate directed to us as ministers, and look to God, to bless it,
without which we know it to be in vain."
The things to note here
are that our forefathers held to
1) A universal call of the gospel.
2) A proper understanding of depravity.
2) A proper understanding of depravity.
3) Conversion as regeneration, more or less.
4) Preaching to the spiritually dead.
4) Preaching to the spiritually dead.
"They are invited by the ministers, to come to Christ; but they will not have him to reign over them. Life and death are by the gospel presented to their choice;"
Second, from 1830.
"On these he maketh
known the riches of his grace; these vessels of mercy, these foreknown,
these beloved, these chosen, these predestinated, these appointed to
obtain salvation, these ordained to eternal life believe; these foreknown
sheep believe; these called, these justified, these shall be saved in the Lord, by his atonement; (the whole tenor of scripture shews;)
with an everlasting salvation, they shall not be ashamed nor confounded,
world without end. Yet all this, does not supercede the necessity of God's
means to accomplish his ends? For the means is as well ordained, and
appointed of God, as the rest."
Our forefathers believed…
1) The sheep DO believe.
2) Means are employed in salvation.
3) These means are ordained, as well as the
end.
"And should not this method of preaching, and writing, by Christ and his apostles, teach us that we are to preach the gospel to every creature, to all sinners in general? Should it not teach us, that it is a secret with God, for whom Christ died? Should it not teach us, that we are to preach the gospel to sinners in the general, and leave it to God to make the application to the persons he has chosen, or when and where he pleases?"
Our forefathers believed in the indiscriminate preaching of the gospel, and that the results should be left up to God!
From 1831.
XII. "We believe, baptism and the Lord's Supper are gospel ordinances, both belonging to the converted, or true believer; and that persons who were sprinkled or dipped whilst in unbelief, were not regularly baptized according to God's word; and that such ought to be baptized after they are savingly converted into the faith of Christ."
Savingly converted? What new language is this? How dare they couple together salvation with conversion! And converted into the faith of Christ, not to a heathen God, or simple belief in higher power of some sort?
Ah, but this is the doctrine of Old Baptists, decades before conversion would take on an entirely different, unnecessary, place in soteriology by their supposed descendants.
X. "We believe,
that such as are converted,
justified, and called by grace, shall persevere in holiness, and never fall
finally away."
There’s that word again.
Conversion! Mentioned in place of
regeneration. Could it be that the real
Old Baptists thought of conversion as essentially depicting the same experience
as regeneration?
And there’s the
expression persevere in holiness. Again.
Hmm.
"Again, 2 Thessalonians, ii chap. 13th
verse: 'But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you brethren, beloved
of the Lord, because God hath from the
beginning chosen to salvation through sanctification of the spirit, and belief
of the truth.' If the word beginning, has the same meaning here, as it has
where it is mentioned in the first of the gospel of St. John: and if
sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth, mean the same, as holy
and without blame before him in love, then there is a perfect agreement between
this passage and that which is mentioned above. Holiness is not the cause of God's election, but God has decreed it to
be the way of salvation. 'Without holiness none shall ever see the Lord.'
See Hebrews xii chap. 14th verse."
2 Thes. 2:13 pertains to eternal salvation?
Election is UNTO holiness, and not at the expense of it?
God elected his people to become holy in this life?
Holiness is the way of salvation?
Election is UNTO holiness, and not at the expense of it?
God elected his people to become holy in this life?
Holiness is the way of salvation?
This is nothing more than the teaching of the Bible itself.
"It would be well for the brethren and churches generally, to
bear in mind, that these are the principles, or articles of faith, that
our Association was established on, and every church that has been since
received in her, tacitly subscribed to on their reception; that if any of them
since, 'have got wise above that which is written,' it is high time for them to
retreat, or withdraw from the camps of Israel, and let it be seen, 'who is
on the Lord's side,' and no longer intrude themselves upon Zion's soldiers
— and let our ranks be clear of stories."
To depart
from these articles is an attempt to become wise above that which is written?
Facts are stubborn things aren't they?
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Redemption (III)
In my first posting in this series I put forth my thesis. I said:
"Redemption does not consist merely, however, in the one act of Christ paying the redemption price, in his sacrificial death upon the cross, but includes actual deliverance of the redeemed from the effects of their debt or imprisonment."
I think that such has been proven and shown to be in keeping with what sound bible teachers have said on the subject of redemption. What needs to change in people's minds, however, is their lack of understanding and realization in regard to how the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the saints completes redemption. They need to understand that redemption is not yet accomplished, that it is largely still a matter of hope and expectation.
In my second posting I cited from the learned J.A. Seiss on this point, and showed how redemption is largely a future reality, though it has its basis in the past, in the work of Christ in paying the price of redemption as the sinner's near kinsman.
Redemption (Greek apolutrosis) is dealt with in over 150 different passages of Scripture, in both the old and new testaments. Reference has already been to a couple of the major OT passages. In ancient times it was primarily a secular word that was in everyday use. Our English word is derived from the Latin, "a buying back," which is its primitive meaning in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary says (emphasis mine):
"In the Old Testament, redemption involves deliverance from bondage based on the payment of a price by a redeemer...Redemption means to free someone from bondage. It often involves the paying of a ransom, a price that makes redemption possible...Redemption always means the payment of a price to secure release. People who sin become slaves of sin (John 8:34); they cannot free themselves from that slavery. Christ’s death on the cross was the payment of a ransom price (Mark 10:45) by which sinners are set free. Now that they are redeemed they must live as free people (1 Cor. 6:19-20; Gal. 5:1)."
That is what I am emphasizing, that "redemption involves deliverance from bondage," and seeing that salvation is progressive, or in stages, then so is redemption. Baker gives a simple and yet accurate definition of what is redemption, yet I would dissent from saying that "redemption always means payment of a price to secure release." It does often denote payment, but it also often denotes the actual "release" of the redeemed. People are said to be redeemed both when
1) their release from bondage and restoration of loss is affected, and
2) when the price for that release has been paid.
These do not occur at the same time, though both are acts of redemption. Redemption is "accomplished" if we view it as the payment that secures freedom and salvation. Redemption is not "accomplished" if we view it as that actual freedom and salvation. Redemption is not all objective, so far as the sinner is concerned, but is also subjective.
We have already noticed that Jeremiah 32 and the story of Ruth and Boaz are places where the elements of redemption are seen. The former passage shows how "sealed" scrolls are involved in the work of redeeming. Another passage from the OT is Leviticus 25: 23-28 where God says:
"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it; Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return unto his possession. But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession."
When Lord God says "the land shall not be sold for ever" he means "the inheritance shall not be lost for ever." The reason for this gracious provision is because Lord God did "grant a redemption for the land." This "redemption," gained either by payment or by the coming Jubilee, involved salvation from the loss of possessions, and from bondage and poverty, where the redeemed one may "return unto his possession" and all be "restored."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says - "The land belonged to Yahweh, and it was He who allotted it among the families of Israel for their use. No estate could therefore be alienated in perpetuity, by any human authority, from the family to whose lot it might fall."
Redemption means recovery by expenditure or liberation through payment. It brings restoration and involves reclaiming, repossessing, and deliverance. It implies dispossession, some loss of property or inheritance. Also implied is the idea of previous possession (thus a "buying back" as stated). Likewise, some kind of bondage is implied.
This loss involves
- loss of rights and privileges
- a dispossession and a foreclosure on what was originally given
- forfeiture of the land (being now a squatter) and a disinheritance
- losing freedom and becoming a slave under hard bondage
- loss of all joy and pleasure
All temporal good is an act of mercy and intended to give man opportunity for redemption and do not disprove the proposition. Although man is not dispossessed from the earth, yet he is dispossessed of much. His present possession of earth and blessing is not his due, but is an act of mercy.
"For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money." (Isa. 52: 3 KJV)
What we have lost by sin is not only possessions, of both body and soul, but have lost ourselves. We are "lost" souls who are bankrupt and in debtor's prison. We got ourselves into this condition - "you sold yourselves." But, it will take the goodness, power, and riches of another to redeem and deliver them. Sinners are "sold under sin." (Rom. 7: 14)
Redemption and Atonement
How is redemption connected with atonement? Through sacrifice! The price paid for release from sin's losses is the life of the sacrificial victim, Jesus "the Lamb of God." As there is no remission or forgiveness of sin apart from "shedding of blood" (Heb. 9:22) so there is no redemption without payment in blood by a competent redeemer.
In scripture it is redemption that secures forgiveness. But, though the legal requirements for redemption and salvation have been met, the effects of such a transaction are not immediate. Not till there is actual release from the bondage and the recovery of what was lost or disinherited is redemption fully effected.
When Christ said "it is finished" while expiring on the cross, he did not mean to imply that redemption or salvation was then completed. Redemption and salvation is first a legal matter, something objective, being something done for the person, but then it is subjective, something done to the person. Both the objective and subjective elements of redemption and salvation create change. In the one case there is a change of legal standing and state, but in the other there is a change of the person's soul or spirit, and eventually of the body. Notice how redemption and forgiveness are tied together in these words from Isaiah the prophet.
"I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee." (Isa. 44: 22)
In what sense is redemption past or already accomplished? In what sense is redemption not yet accomplished? Let us elaborate further.
Redemption is just like salvation in that there is a past, present, and future aspect to it. Several verses in the NT demonstrate this truth.
Instances of deliverance are often styled as instances of redemption.
1. The salvation of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage was an act of redemption.
(Exodus 15: 13; Deut. 7: 8; 13: 5; 15: 15; Psa. 106: 10; Micah 6: 4)
2. Individual deliverance from various troubles
(II Sam. 4: 9; I King 1: 29; Job 5: 20; Psa. 25: 22; Psa. 44: 26; Psa. 72: 14; Isa. 63: 9)
"Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2: 14 KJV)
"Redemption does not consist merely, however, in the one act of Christ paying the redemption price, in his sacrificial death upon the cross, but includes actual deliverance of the redeemed from the effects of their debt or imprisonment."
I think that such has been proven and shown to be in keeping with what sound bible teachers have said on the subject of redemption. What needs to change in people's minds, however, is their lack of understanding and realization in regard to how the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the saints completes redemption. They need to understand that redemption is not yet accomplished, that it is largely still a matter of hope and expectation.
In my second posting I cited from the learned J.A. Seiss on this point, and showed how redemption is largely a future reality, though it has its basis in the past, in the work of Christ in paying the price of redemption as the sinner's near kinsman.
Redemption (Greek apolutrosis) is dealt with in over 150 different passages of Scripture, in both the old and new testaments. Reference has already been to a couple of the major OT passages. In ancient times it was primarily a secular word that was in everyday use. Our English word is derived from the Latin, "a buying back," which is its primitive meaning in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary says (emphasis mine):
"In the Old Testament, redemption involves deliverance from bondage based on the payment of a price by a redeemer...Redemption means to free someone from bondage. It often involves the paying of a ransom, a price that makes redemption possible...Redemption always means the payment of a price to secure release. People who sin become slaves of sin (John 8:34); they cannot free themselves from that slavery. Christ’s death on the cross was the payment of a ransom price (Mark 10:45) by which sinners are set free. Now that they are redeemed they must live as free people (1 Cor. 6:19-20; Gal. 5:1)."
That is what I am emphasizing, that "redemption involves deliverance from bondage," and seeing that salvation is progressive, or in stages, then so is redemption. Baker gives a simple and yet accurate definition of what is redemption, yet I would dissent from saying that "redemption always means payment of a price to secure release." It does often denote payment, but it also often denotes the actual "release" of the redeemed. People are said to be redeemed both when
1) their release from bondage and restoration of loss is affected, and
2) when the price for that release has been paid.
These do not occur at the same time, though both are acts of redemption. Redemption is "accomplished" if we view it as the payment that secures freedom and salvation. Redemption is not "accomplished" if we view it as that actual freedom and salvation. Redemption is not all objective, so far as the sinner is concerned, but is also subjective.
We have already noticed that Jeremiah 32 and the story of Ruth and Boaz are places where the elements of redemption are seen. The former passage shows how "sealed" scrolls are involved in the work of redeeming. Another passage from the OT is Leviticus 25: 23-28 where God says:
"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it; Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return unto his possession. But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession."
When Lord God says "the land shall not be sold for ever" he means "the inheritance shall not be lost for ever." The reason for this gracious provision is because Lord God did "grant a redemption for the land." This "redemption," gained either by payment or by the coming Jubilee, involved salvation from the loss of possessions, and from bondage and poverty, where the redeemed one may "return unto his possession" and all be "restored."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says - "The land belonged to Yahweh, and it was He who allotted it among the families of Israel for their use. No estate could therefore be alienated in perpetuity, by any human authority, from the family to whose lot it might fall."
Redemption means recovery by expenditure or liberation through payment. It brings restoration and involves reclaiming, repossessing, and deliverance. It implies dispossession, some loss of property or inheritance. Also implied is the idea of previous possession (thus a "buying back" as stated). Likewise, some kind of bondage is implied.
Although the use of the word "redeem" and "redemption" have largely gone out of fashion in common everyday language, the concepts behind those words are still very much still with us as previously observed, but the concepts behind the words are not as well understood today as they did in ancient times. Commercial practice, like other aspects of life, became fitting symbols of religious concepts, made use of by God to teach people about sin and salvation.
Redemption has four basic components:
1. Bondage or loss
2. Redeemer
3. Ransom
4. Freedom from bondage (salvation and restoration)
Sin has brought man eternal loss of all good
1. Bondage or loss
2. Redeemer
3. Ransom
4. Freedom from bondage (salvation and restoration)
Sin has brought man eternal loss of all good
This loss involves
- loss of rights and privileges
- a dispossession and a foreclosure on what was originally given
- forfeiture of the land (being now a squatter) and a disinheritance
- losing freedom and becoming a slave under hard bondage
- loss of all joy and pleasure
All temporal good is an act of mercy and intended to give man opportunity for redemption and do not disprove the proposition. Although man is not dispossessed from the earth, yet he is dispossessed of much. His present possession of earth and blessing is not his due, but is an act of mercy.
"For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money." (Isa. 52: 3 KJV)
What we have lost by sin is not only possessions, of both body and soul, but have lost ourselves. We are "lost" souls who are bankrupt and in debtor's prison. We got ourselves into this condition - "you sold yourselves." But, it will take the goodness, power, and riches of another to redeem and deliver them. Sinners are "sold under sin." (Rom. 7: 14)
Redemption and Atonement
How is redemption connected with atonement? Through sacrifice! The price paid for release from sin's losses is the life of the sacrificial victim, Jesus "the Lamb of God." As there is no remission or forgiveness of sin apart from "shedding of blood" (Heb. 9:22) so there is no redemption without payment in blood by a competent redeemer.
In scripture it is redemption that secures forgiveness. But, though the legal requirements for redemption and salvation have been met, the effects of such a transaction are not immediate. Not till there is actual release from the bondage and the recovery of what was lost or disinherited is redemption fully effected.
When Christ said "it is finished" while expiring on the cross, he did not mean to imply that redemption or salvation was then completed. Redemption and salvation is first a legal matter, something objective, being something done for the person, but then it is subjective, something done to the person. Both the objective and subjective elements of redemption and salvation create change. In the one case there is a change of legal standing and state, but in the other there is a change of the person's soul or spirit, and eventually of the body. Notice how redemption and forgiveness are tied together in these words from Isaiah the prophet.
"I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee." (Isa. 44: 22)
In what sense is redemption past or already accomplished? In what sense is redemption not yet accomplished? Let us elaborate further.
Redemption is just like salvation in that there is a past, present, and future aspect to it. Several verses in the NT demonstrate this truth.
Instances of deliverance are often styled as instances of redemption.
1. The salvation of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage was an act of redemption.
(Exodus 15: 13; Deut. 7: 8; 13: 5; 15: 15; Psa. 106: 10; Micah 6: 4)
2. Individual deliverance from various troubles
(II Sam. 4: 9; I King 1: 29; Job 5: 20; Psa. 25: 22; Psa. 44: 26; Psa. 72: 14; Isa. 63: 9)
"Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2: 14 KJV)
Walvoord On The Coming Kingdom
In a short article titled "The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament" the late John F. Walvoord (former President and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary - SEE HERE), says several things that are worth citing and to which I would like to offer my "amen" and comments.
Wrote Walvoord (emphasis mine):
"The masterful chapter on “The Kingdom Concept in the Old Testament” by J. Dwight Pentecost in his work, Things to Come, sets forth in a comprehensive way the doctrine of the kingdom of God in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, in spite of the comprehensive presentation in this chapter, as well as numerous other books that set forth the doctrine of the kingdom in the Old Testament, amillenarians have repeatedly stated that the Bible nowhere teaches a future kingdom on earth. Rather than leave such statements unchallenged, it seems best to review briefly the specific contribution of the Old Testament to the premillennial interpretation of a future kingdom on earth."
Of course, with few exceptions, today's "Primitive Baptists" are Amillenial, and hold to the proposition that affirms "that the Bible nowhere teaches a future kingdom on earth." It is part of Premillenialism to affirm a "future kingdom on earth."
Wrote Walvoord:
"The problem is by no means simplistic. Many varying definitions of the kingdom of God are given. As Pentecost states, “Through this maze of interpretations it is almost impossible to make one’s way.”
Yes it is a "maze of interpretations," and this is certainly true when one looks at how the typical Hardshell Baptist "interprets" prophecy and the Book of Revelation. The persevering Bible student and honest seeker of truth will, however, make his way through it.
Wrote Walvoord:
"The question remains whether there is a future form of the kingdom that will also be theocratic, political, and on earth."
That is indeed the chief question! That the form of the promised Messianic kingdom will be "theocratic," having Messiah present on earth and ruling, and "political," having "the government upon his shoulders," when "the kingdoms of this world" become the possession "of our Lord and of his Christ." (Rev. 11: 15)
Wrote Walvoord:
"This is the point of tension between premillennial and amillennial interpretation. Obviously for an amillenarian to say summarily that no verse in the Bible teaches a future earthly kingdom is a dogmatic statement that needs to be examined. The purpose of this discussion is to refer primarily to what the Scriptures actually state and then raise the question as to the proper interpretation of these passages."
It not only "needs to be examined," but exposed and overthrown. Walvoord gives some of the evidence which overthrows the proposition of the Amillenialist which avers "that no verse in the Bible teaches a future earthly kingdom."
Walvoord begins with "The Prophecies of Isaiah," saying:
"As a casual reading of the Book of Isaiah demonstrates, the prophet Isaiah speaks repeatedly on the subject of a future earthly kingdom. In his book he predicts a future kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital and involving the tribe of Judah."
That is what Isaiah literally says! The question is, do we take Isaiah literally when he speaks of such a coming kingdom?
Walvoord then cites these words from the prophet Isaiah:
"In the last days, the mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways, and that we may walk in His paths. For the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples, and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war." (Isa 2:2-4, NASB)
He then says:
"This prophecy has had no literal fulfillment in the past, but a future kingdom on earth could fulfill precisely these predictions of Isaiah."
Who can deny that this prophecy has not had a literal fulfillment? What do the Amillenialists say? They say it has been fulfilled "spiritually," and that God never intended for people to take him literally. He was, say the Amillenialists, giving prophecy about spiritual events using figurative speech, and making use of symbols and metaphors. Thus we see how important it is to discover whether it is proper hermeneutics to interpret prophecy non-literally.
Walvoord continued:
"One of the better known of Isaiah’s pronouncements concerning the future kingdom is his prediction of Christ’s birth.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this (9:6-7 ).
Again this passage refers to an earthly government. The child will be born on earth; the throne will be that of David; rule will be characterized by justice and righteousness; and it will be accomplished by the power of God rather than the power of men. His birth has been fulfilled, but the establishment of His earthly government has not."
Who can deny that the parts of the prophecy that have been fulfilled (by universal agreement), such as the birth and first coming of Christ, his death and resurrection, the gospel proclamation and Gentile ingathering, etc., have all been literally fulfilled? And, if this is granted, then does this not tell us that the other parts of the prophecy are also to be fulfilled literally? Yes! And, if the unfulfilled aspects of the prophecy, about the kingdom or reign of Christ on earth, are fulfilled literally, then they obviously yet wait a future fulfillment. All fulfilled prophecy has been literally fulfilled.
Wrote Walvoord:
"One of the most extensive passages by Isaiah refers to Christ’s coming and the characteristics of His reign on the earth:
Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear; but with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist. And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze; their young will lie down together; and the lion will eat straw like the ox. And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea (11:1-9 ).
These characteristics of Christ’s reign obviously refer to earth. The righteousness of His rule, the destruction of the wicked, the accompanying tranquility in nature does not correspond to anything in history nor anything in the future in heaven, but refers to the earth. Verse 9 refers to “My holy mountain” and “the earth” being “full of the knowledge of the LORD.” To these prophecies Isaiah adds the graphic picture of judgment on earth in chapter 24 in connection with His earthly reign, He concludes, “Then the moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, for the LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and His glory will be before His elders” (24:23 )."
Well, "amen" to that! More to come, the Lord willing.
Wrote Walvoord (emphasis mine):
"The masterful chapter on “The Kingdom Concept in the Old Testament” by J. Dwight Pentecost in his work, Things to Come, sets forth in a comprehensive way the doctrine of the kingdom of God in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, in spite of the comprehensive presentation in this chapter, as well as numerous other books that set forth the doctrine of the kingdom in the Old Testament, amillenarians have repeatedly stated that the Bible nowhere teaches a future kingdom on earth. Rather than leave such statements unchallenged, it seems best to review briefly the specific contribution of the Old Testament to the premillennial interpretation of a future kingdom on earth."
Of course, with few exceptions, today's "Primitive Baptists" are Amillenial, and hold to the proposition that affirms "that the Bible nowhere teaches a future kingdom on earth." It is part of Premillenialism to affirm a "future kingdom on earth."
Wrote Walvoord:
"The problem is by no means simplistic. Many varying definitions of the kingdom of God are given. As Pentecost states, “Through this maze of interpretations it is almost impossible to make one’s way.”
Yes it is a "maze of interpretations," and this is certainly true when one looks at how the typical Hardshell Baptist "interprets" prophecy and the Book of Revelation. The persevering Bible student and honest seeker of truth will, however, make his way through it.
Wrote Walvoord:
"The question remains whether there is a future form of the kingdom that will also be theocratic, political, and on earth."
That is indeed the chief question! That the form of the promised Messianic kingdom will be "theocratic," having Messiah present on earth and ruling, and "political," having "the government upon his shoulders," when "the kingdoms of this world" become the possession "of our Lord and of his Christ." (Rev. 11: 15)
Wrote Walvoord:
"This is the point of tension between premillennial and amillennial interpretation. Obviously for an amillenarian to say summarily that no verse in the Bible teaches a future earthly kingdom is a dogmatic statement that needs to be examined. The purpose of this discussion is to refer primarily to what the Scriptures actually state and then raise the question as to the proper interpretation of these passages."
It not only "needs to be examined," but exposed and overthrown. Walvoord gives some of the evidence which overthrows the proposition of the Amillenialist which avers "that no verse in the Bible teaches a future earthly kingdom."
Walvoord begins with "The Prophecies of Isaiah," saying:
"As a casual reading of the Book of Isaiah demonstrates, the prophet Isaiah speaks repeatedly on the subject of a future earthly kingdom. In his book he predicts a future kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital and involving the tribe of Judah."
That is what Isaiah literally says! The question is, do we take Isaiah literally when he speaks of such a coming kingdom?
Walvoord then cites these words from the prophet Isaiah:
"In the last days, the mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains, and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways, and that we may walk in His paths. For the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples, and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war." (Isa 2:2-4, NASB)
He then says:
"This prophecy has had no literal fulfillment in the past, but a future kingdom on earth could fulfill precisely these predictions of Isaiah."
Who can deny that this prophecy has not had a literal fulfillment? What do the Amillenialists say? They say it has been fulfilled "spiritually," and that God never intended for people to take him literally. He was, say the Amillenialists, giving prophecy about spiritual events using figurative speech, and making use of symbols and metaphors. Thus we see how important it is to discover whether it is proper hermeneutics to interpret prophecy non-literally.
Walvoord continued:
"One of the better known of Isaiah’s pronouncements concerning the future kingdom is his prediction of Christ’s birth.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this (9:6-7 ).
Again this passage refers to an earthly government. The child will be born on earth; the throne will be that of David; rule will be characterized by justice and righteousness; and it will be accomplished by the power of God rather than the power of men. His birth has been fulfilled, but the establishment of His earthly government has not."
Who can deny that the parts of the prophecy that have been fulfilled (by universal agreement), such as the birth and first coming of Christ, his death and resurrection, the gospel proclamation and Gentile ingathering, etc., have all been literally fulfilled? And, if this is granted, then does this not tell us that the other parts of the prophecy are also to be fulfilled literally? Yes! And, if the unfulfilled aspects of the prophecy, about the kingdom or reign of Christ on earth, are fulfilled literally, then they obviously yet wait a future fulfillment. All fulfilled prophecy has been literally fulfilled.
Wrote Walvoord:
"One of the most extensive passages by Isaiah refers to Christ’s coming and the characteristics of His reign on the earth:
Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear; but with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist. And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will graze; their young will lie down together; and the lion will eat straw like the ox. And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea (11:1-9 ).
These characteristics of Christ’s reign obviously refer to earth. The righteousness of His rule, the destruction of the wicked, the accompanying tranquility in nature does not correspond to anything in history nor anything in the future in heaven, but refers to the earth. Verse 9 refers to “My holy mountain” and “the earth” being “full of the knowledge of the LORD.” To these prophecies Isaiah adds the graphic picture of judgment on earth in chapter 24 in connection with His earthly reign, He concludes, “Then the moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, for the LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and His glory will be before His elders” (24:23 )."
Well, "amen" to that! More to come, the Lord willing.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Answering Elder Ben Winslet
Elder Ben Winslet left a comment the other day on Elder Fralick's Posting regarding the change in Flint River Primitive Baptist Church's articles of faith. To this comment Elder Fralick has already responded. Additionally, after making his comment, Winslet made a posting regarding Fralick's post and Winslet's comment thereon at his marchtozion web page (see here). In this posting I want to reply both to his comment and to his posting about the matter. First, to his article titled "Accusation Answered." Wrote Winslet (emphasis mine throughout):
"I generally refrain myself from acknowledging the disgruntled gossip blog "Old Baptist Test." If you're unfamiliar with the site, it's basically a home for people who were once Primitive Baptist to criticize us and write negative things about us. Over the years, several misrepresentations about what we believe have been published there. I usually just keep walking. But not today."
That sounds like a statement that a prosecutor would make as part of an "opening statement" to a jury in a trial of fact; And, of course, as all know, an "opening statement" sets forth the charges to be proven later as the facts are presented in support of the case. Will brother Winslet only give us a list of the charges, an opening statement, and not the proof behind his charges and or claims? Is he going to "rest his case" without any proof and expect the jury (in this case all who read this exchange) to agree? That is what the typical Hardshell does when visiting this blog. Hardshells practice, as I have previously observed (in my post "Hit And Run"), such tactics. I don't think the Holy Spirit is influencing them to behave in such a manner.
There is a lot to respond to in regard to what Winslet wrote! Perhaps I should follow the example of Winslet and "keep walking" and "refrain myself"? Should I ignore him as he has in the past tried to ignore us here at the OLD BAPTIST blog? Perhaps I should just take "pot shots" as he seems prone to do? His tactic resembles that of today's cultural and political "liberals" who do not want open discussion of the issues, but simply want to "label" their opponents and to slander them, to shut them up.
A "Disgruntled Gossip Blog"?
This blog is a "disgruntled gossip blog"? What an opening statement! Will we now get the proof for such a charge? Especially seeing how ludicrous it is?
We deal in facts here! Bible facts and facts of history. What Winslet calls "gossip" we call "facts."
In fact it is the Hardshells who have been promoters of gossip in regard to me (and to Kevin as well I'm sure). Did not Elder Ellis spread the awful gossip that I had been excluded from the Primitive Baptists for adultery? Not only was that "gossip," but of the worst kind. Actually, it was slander. I had to remind all of the facts, My wife was excluded from the Primitive Baptist church for adultery. Just the other way around!
It is also highly ironic that Winslet would call such a serious blog as the Old Baptist Test a "gossip" print medium. No, Ben, all know, and so do you in reality, that this blog is anything but a place for gossip. In fact, people who read this blog know how far fetched is your charge. The irony? Just read Winslet's posting at marchtozion and see if it is not a classic case of "gossip" in some instances! He is spreading "gossip" about our supposed gossip! It would laugh one to death if it were not so serious a matter. Further irony is seen in the fact that Winslet, though attempting to "answer" what he calls an "accusation," makes unfounded accusations against the authors of this blog.
Rather than hurt our readership, such comments and tactics actually help in that regard. Lots of people, including our Hardshell brothers, cannot resist hearing or spreading gossip. I am sure that some of marchtozion's readers, who read Winslet's posting, will want to check us out! Thanks for the help Ben!
So too will the honest readers of Ben's web page want to check us out, being like the noble Bereans of the Book of Acts, they will want "to see if those things are so."
Gossip includes the use of innuendo, insinuation, ridicule, casting suspicion, demeaning, etc., in addition to the basic idea of spreading rumors, or falsehoods and unproven facts. The history of this blog shows no such, but the history of the Hardshell denomination in general and of the several Hardshell leaders who have visited here and left comments, does in fact show such.
Surely all can agree that to make such representations of this blog and its authors is at least provocative? Surely Winslet knew that what he said in his comment to Kevin, and in the separate posting on his web page, would provoke us to respond? Was that intentional?
Thanks for stopping your practice of ignoring us here! We believe lots of Hardshells read our writings, many of them following us anonymously or privately. We believe that most do as Ben has been in the practice of doing. They try to ignore us. But, this time, Ben cannot resist and cannot ignore any longer. My hope is that others will also come to the point of concluding that ignoring us is not the best policy. We just wish that more would come here and have a true discussion of the issues and the facts and quit the kind of hit and run tactics that have characterized their visits here in the past.
When Winslet speaks of us in the manner he does at the outset of his article, he is using two common tactics of Sophists and people who are not really interested in the truth or the facts. First, he employs the tactic known as "poisoning the well." What is that? And, how does he do that?
"Poisoning the well" occurs when negative information that is irrelevant is presented ahead of time to discredit the argument. Said one expert on the topic (see here):
"To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim."
So, to begin a posting about our blog with charges of us being spreaders of gossip and deceptive writers who "mislead" people, is truly an example of both ad hominem and poisoning of the well logical fallacies. (It is ironic that Hardshells, who rely on the use of logic so much in their apologetics, would be so awful in their use of it) But, this is not all, for we also see how Winslet is guilty of the "red herring" fallacy. "Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue." It is also sometimes known as "beside the point," or a "misdirection," a "changing of the subject," etc. We see such misdirection in Winslet's article.
Reading Winslet's post is a good example of these three logical fallacies. It is certainly not the way to begin honorable discussion. But, discussion, really, is not what the Hardshells of Winslet's ilk really want, is it? It seems clear to me that Winslet responded because what we are presenting here in this blog is causing great harm to the Hardshell cult and their most zealous leaders are getting "hot under the collar." Their irritability with the information presented in this blog is quite evident. And just what is it to be a Sophist and to practice "sophistry"? One professor wrote (emphasis mine):
"Sophistry means trying to persuade others using arguments that you yourself would not find persuasive. It means treating debate and teaching like war, like the goal is to make sure that you leave with the same views you entered the dialogue with. Instead of activities that are meant to help uncover the truth wherever it is found." (What Are Sophists And- Sophistry)
Walking away from all honest discussion, making derogatory remarks about an author, poisoning the well, frequent ad hominem attacks, and labeling people who disagree with you with unbecoming nouns and adjectives, and such like behavior, shows that "the goal" is not "truth wherever it is found." The goal with the Sophists is to defend a position, right or wrong, so long as it helps me win the debate in the end.
Paul dealt with the teachings of the Sophists in his Corinthian epistles. Sophists are rarely sincere, unless, of course, that they think being sincere, in a given instance, serves them in their ends. Heretics have a problem with honesty and sincerity. This the scriptures show. They are not honest in their interpretation of the word of God nor with themselves and others. I wonder if brother Winslet would be convinced of his Hardshell errors on soteriology (that we have pointed out here hundreds of times over the years) if we use the kind of fallacious reasoning he uses, or the kind of arguments he uses?
Hardshells have been trying to "discredit" us for years now and yet we keep going, keep converting Hardshells back to the faith of their fathers, keep contending for the faith. It takes a lot of time to clean up the Hardshell historical and doctrinal mess, besides the smaller messes made by men like Ben Winslet, Mike Green, etc. Why not simply try, like Jason Brown, to have a scholarly discussion?
Notice how Winslet styles Kevin and me as "disgruntled." And, is Winslet not, ironically? The word according to the dictionaries involves being "angry or dissatisfied, discontented, aggrieved, resentful, fed up, displeased, unhappy." Some of those things are undoubtedly true of myself in regard to heresies and heretics. So what? How does that prove or disprove a single thing? Is it not "beside the point"? "Irrelevent"? Does not saying such a thing divert attention from the real issue? Sophist tactics! He appeals to the emotions of his audience, not to their intellect or reasoning skill.
Now, though I may be disgruntled with the Hardshells and with other heretics with which God in his providence has brought me face to face (so to speak), I am not unhappy or discontented in regard to my personal walk with God. I enjoy God. I think of him every hour of the day. I can't even walk unless he holds my hands. I am rich in the Lord. I have more than heart could wish, things more valuable and lasting than silver, gold, or things of earth.
I have had Hardshells insinuate such things about me before. Oh how miserable is Stephen Garrett outside of the old PB church! How angry he is! How unhappy! See him judged because of his sins against the PBs! My response? I am still learning to lean on Jesus, still learning how to be happy and content, still struggling with doubt, unbelief, and sin. But, I am a soldier of Jesus and I will win the war! My salvation depends upon my winning. But, I will win. I cannot fail to win. The Father has predestined it. The Son has guaranteed it by his death and resurrection, and the Spirit executes it all without fail. Christ prays for me that my faith fail not. And, if I am truly elect and called, it will not fail. If I have truly been born of God, then I will overcome the world. I rest on these promises. They are the rock upon which my life is built. No man will take me off that solid foundation as long as I live.
I'll tell you this, I am both angry and sad when I think about my Hardshell brothers. Is that sin? Is it prompted by a spirit that is not the Holy Spirit? If, my Hardshell brothers, it was your intention (in pointing out to me my anger and misery), to bring me to deeply ponder the matter and prayerfully consider the observation, then let me assure you that I have indeed done so over these many years. When I write, I weigh my words, as any decent writer will do. I know when I am using a harsh tone, or being straight-forward and blunt, and I use such language at times because I have judged it necessary and practical. I try to let my subject matter dictate the tone. Also, if my writing is a critical analysis of some writing by an author (Hardshell or other), then the nature of such writing will dictate that reason is appealed to and not emotion. Facts are what is important in such writings, as is interpretation of those facts.
Am I an angry man? Is such anger unrighteous? Is the judgement of many of my Hardshell brethren in regard to anger justified? Correct? If it is not, then how do I respond to the insinuation and accusation? Am I damned if I do and damned if I don't? (But, of course, all the talk about my character, my holiness, my walk with the Lord, is really besides the point, is it not?)
I have about said enough on the subject of my supposed life of bitterness, anger, discontent, etc. It is all beside the point! It proves nothing about whether the Hardshells have changed their beliefs and articles of faith over the past two hundred years! THAT IS THE POINT. Lets quit all the smoke and mirrors. Let us stop getting people "off track" by placing dead fish (red herrings) in the path of truth! Let us not lose our focus in discussion and deal with what is irrelevant.
All anger is not sinful. Jesus got angry. We are commanded to be angry, as a matter of fact. "Be ye angry and sin not." (Eph. 4: 26) I am angry at those who "handle the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2) and "who corrupt the word of God" (2:17).
Winslet said that The Old Baptist Blog was "basically a home for people who were once Primitive Baptist to criticize us and write negative things about us."
What a "caricature"! Not entirely true, either. We are indeed a "home" for converts from Hardshellism and we have no regrets about that! More people "coming home" every day to the "old Baptist faith"! We are also a "home" for people who come into contact with the Hardshell cult for the first time and need guidance. We have helped people in all parts of the world where Hardshell proselyte makers have gone. The Philippines, Russia, etc. We also welcome all Hardshells to our "home" here! I am glad that Elder Winslet visited us. Glad he finally "gave in" and left us a comment. We want you to return brother Winslet, and we want to talk about our honest differences. Is that not what Hardshells say that they want to do with everyone? So, we are a "home" to a lot more people than the ones described by Winslet.
Also, people who leave the so called Primitive Baptists, seeing their errors, actually become the real "primitive" or "old" Baptists! Brother Kevin and I are the real old Baptists! When will the Hardshells stop saying that we are no longer "primitive"? It is Winslet and his quasi Universalist Hardshell brothers who are not "primitive."
And what is wrong with someone "criticizing" the Hardshell Baptists? Are they "beyond criticism"? Further, what is wrong with giving "critical analysis" to Hardshell beliefs, practices, and claims? By the words of Winslet you would think that Kevin and I had committed the unpardonable sin in criticizing the Hardshells. Friends, is that not a "cult tactic"? Further, what is wrong with being "negative"? How are we any more "negative" in our writings than are the Hardshells in their writings against other denominations? And oh the irony once again! He derides our supposed "negativity" (the bad kind) but his opening paragraph is nothing but negative!
Being negative, in regard to our anti Hardshell writings, is just what one would expect, right? Gee whiz! How can I be "positive" in regard to a dangerous heresy and cult? And yet, the fact is, we have not all been "negative" here in our postings on Hardshells. We have commended them in regard to several things.
Winslet said "over the years, several misrepresentations about what we believe have been published there." Is that so? Is that not negative? Is it again not ironic and hypocritical? He misrepresents us about our supposed misrepresentation of Hardshellism!
Would not common decency, and Christian ethics, demand that Winslet not only make such a charge but prove it? Is this not the proverbial "pot shot"? I wonder - was he "disgruntled" when he said that? Did he feel any anger or animosity? Are his motives all pure while ours are all evil?
Wrote Winslet:
"The only problem with Fralick's point, is that he's comparing the Flint River monument with the Articles of Faith of Marchtozion.com, which are not the same!! The "link to the church's website" isn't a link to the church's website at all. It's a link to the Marchtozion.com Statement of Faith."
"They are not the same"! I am glad that he admits at least this fact! The pastor of Flint River has a different and altered confession of faith than has Flint River church herself! Let us ask brother Winslet
1) Has Flint River changed her articles since 1808? If yes, on which articles and why?
2) Does she believe that all the elect will be regenerated and converted as she did in 1808?
3) What did she define as being "converted" in 1808?
4) Does she believe that all the elect will persevere in grace and never finally fall away?
5) How did she define "persevere in grace" in 1808?
6) What did "fall" and "finally fall" mean to those Baptists in 1808?
How would we decide on the right answers to these questions? Would not the writings of Flint River's first representatives on these subjects tell us how they defined those terms in the articles? Have we not given a large amount of historical evidence from the writings of the period to show what the first particular Baptists believed throughout the South about regeneration, conversion, and perseverance? What does all that evidence say? It says that Elder Winslet and Flint River church does not believe the same things about the fundamentals of salvation as did their forefathers who founded the church on Flint River and in the Alabama territory. We are tired of ("fed up" or "disgruntled") hearing Hardshells of today tell us what they think their forefathers believed about this and that statement of faith, but we want to know what they actually believed. Their writings tell us and it is not the Hardshell teaching of Ben Winslet and Flint River PBC. Hardshells have shown how they can twist the writings of their forefathers to make them agree with the changes in doctrine that they have experienced in the past 150 years or so. They did this infamously in the "Fulton Confession" as we have shown here in this "gossip blog."
Winslet wrote:
"I left the comment on the blog, but wanted to publish it here because otherwise, their admins might not approve it and refuse to actually publish it (comments on that site must be approved by admins)."
More irony! He decries how we (like many other bloggers) must approve comments first and yet he allows none on his web page! Can't respond at all to his slanderous posting! Further, the chief reason for such restrictions are due to 1) Hardshells in the past who left the most vicious comments and which decency would not allow me to approve, and 2) the possibility of people leaving unwarranted advertisements, links to perverted web pages, etc.
Since when have we ever refused to publish comments by our Hardshell brothers? Do we not rather encourage them to communicate with us and respond to what we write?
Finally, Winslet ends his web posting with these words:
"Why share this on Marchtozion.com and waste your time and mine even bothering a reply? Because I wanted to reply with a truthful post about a misrepresentation made by the folks over at Old Baptist Test. I don't intent to offer any further dialogue with them. Nor do I intend to answer such here again. This time I didn't feel I had much choice."
So, we are judged and convicted of being unworthy of dialogue and discussion? We are not worth anyone's time to hear us or respond to what we say? That is surely casting us in a bad light! More poisoning of the well too. He also sarcastically insinuates that our posts in this blog are not "truthful," saying that he, Winslet the truthful one, will "reply with a truthful post."
"The folks over at the Old Baptist Test"? Do you notice how we are not ever addressed as "brother"? Kevin and I are "the folks"? This reminds me of the first time that Jason Brown and I started our discussion. He too referred to me as "sir" (as did Ben to Kevin) but not as "brother." I finally pointed out the striking irony of this in view of the fact that his belief says that most people will go to Heaven, and that most heathen worshipers were "regenerated." All these people are "brothers" to the Hardshells, but not Steve Garrett? Finally, Brown started addressing us as "brother."
"I do not intend to answer"! Says it all, doesn't it? Hit and run! Sucker punch and run!
Wrote Elder Winslet in his comment to Elder Fralick:
"So to compare the link I shared to the granite monument and insinuate that Flint River is changing her articles of faith is misleading."
"Misleading"? Is it not, ironically, a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"? How does Winslet mislead? Chiefly in implying that Flint River Primitive Baptist church has 1) not changed her articles of faith at all, and 2) still believes in those original articles concerning conversion and perseverance.
Winslet admits that the Flint River's articles of faith have been changed! That is the very thing that Kevin was showing! The only thing that was in error was in regard to the article regarding conversion! It was true in regard to perseverance, for the church did change that! So, is this really not a quibble?" A "straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel"? A "making mountains out of mole hills"?
In this posting we have been "forced" (as Winslet says he was "forced" to respond to Kevin's posting - see below) to give evidence of this ugly fact. Also, Winslet himself has been misleading in both his comment to Kevin and in the posting he made at his marchtozion web page. Not only are his words misleading but also hypocritical and contradictory.
Would the average reader, visiting the web page that Kevin visited, not assume that the articles of faith of Flint River's pastor was the same as the church he pastors, either now or originally? Would he say that Flint River agrees with him on the two articles in question? Or, with the first members of Flint River? Surely he will say that they agree with him and with the rest of his Hardshell brethren who support the changes to those articles that their late 19th century forefathers made? So, though they may have retained the original article about conversion, they do not believe it. That is the major point, is it not?
Why is the elder so ticked off about the charge of PBs changing their articles of faith? Is it because he is jealous for seeing that they are not changed? Does he believe that they ought not to be changed? Will he condemn himself then for changing them? Flint River may not have changed the article on conversion but Winslet and his fellow Hardshells have done so in probably 90% or more of the time. Will he call on his fellow Hardshells who have changed their original articles of faith to return to the original? That is what Kevin and I are doing here. Glad to have you join us in this call!
I suppose then that Flint River church still believes that all the elect will be regenerated and converted? Does she still believe that the elect will all persevere in grace?
By the way, what does it mean to "persevere in grace"? The way the elder explains the meaning is not a thirty second cousin to the way the original authors of the articles explained the words. The way the elder wants to explain that is to twist the words to make them mean "grace will persevere," "stay in grace," etc. But, you see, it is not God or grace that is persevering, but it is the born again soul who perseveres. Let us ask Winslet (even though he says he will not answer or talk any more) - if one falls from grace, did he persevere in grace? (Gal. 5:4) If one "fails" of the grace of God (Heb. 12: 15), did he "persevere in grace"? In Acts 13: 43 we are told that Paul and Barnabas "persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."
Wrote Winslet:
"The only word, to my knowledge, that actually HAS been changed in the FR AofF is the word persevere, to preserve."
How ironic! How hypocritical! He decries Fralick's observation that Flint River (like nearly all her fellowship of churches) has changed her articles of faith and then admits that she has changed them! "Oh consistency thou art a jewel." The only issue (the mountain made from the mole hill) is whether the article on effectual calling had been changed. The issue of whether the articles had been changed is settled. Fralick was right that they have been changed, at least on the article dealing with perseverance. Fralick, it seems, was wrong on the change about conversion. But, several questions arise at this point.
1. Does Flint River still believe that all the elect will be converted?
2. Does Elder Winslet still believe that all the elect will be converted?
3. If Flint River church and elder Winslet reject that article, why don't they change it?
Wrote Winslet:
"This is not the first example of a misleading post I've read on this blog either. But since you're quoting ME, I can't let it stand without correction."
Honor demands that Winslet substantiate his charges.
Wrote Winslet:
"The entire point of your post is built on this faulty premise. You err, sir. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it was a simple mistake, answering a matter before you hear it."
"The entire point"? It is clear that Winslet missed the main point! What "faulty premise"? The "entire point" was not built upon the point regarding the change of the articles regarding conversion.
Wrote Winslet:
"We still believe and teach that saints shall persevere in GRACE. This is why the phrase “shall not finally fall away” is a part of our articles. Any and every PB I know believes that saints stay (persevere) in a state of grace. The reason for the change is twofold:
1. Men such as yourself used the word to teach Lordship salvation, a cruel, hideous, Pharisaical doctrine which yields men over to either bondage or pride.
2. “Preserve” is a more biblical word. Anyone who doubts me can look up both words in a dictionary."
Kevin has already more than adequately responded to this. So have I to some extent. But, why not have a discussion about what the forefathers meant by "persevere in grace" and "persevere in holiness"?
In closing, let me cite from both the original 1808 articles and the present articles in regard to those articles that have been changed.
Under "Our Beliefs" (18 June 2012) we have this heading "Articles of Faith, adopted 1808" (see here)
- We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice. (King James Translation only)
- We believe that God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
- We believe that the saints shall be preserved in grace and never fall finally away.
This is all "misleading"! The church's web page says that the articles above were adopted in 1808. However, here is what the articles actually said in 1808.
2. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of god, and the only rule of faith and practice.
7. That God's elect shall be called, converted, and regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
8. That the saints shall persevere in grace and never fall finally away.
Articles 2 and 8 were changed! Further, though article 7 has not been changed, it is not believed by either the pastor, Flint River Church, nor the fellowship of churches to which Flint River church is connected! All, or nearly all, of these other churches in her fellowship have eliminated "converted" from the articles, just like her pastor!
"I generally refrain myself from acknowledging the disgruntled gossip blog "Old Baptist Test." If you're unfamiliar with the site, it's basically a home for people who were once Primitive Baptist to criticize us and write negative things about us. Over the years, several misrepresentations about what we believe have been published there. I usually just keep walking. But not today."
That sounds like a statement that a prosecutor would make as part of an "opening statement" to a jury in a trial of fact; And, of course, as all know, an "opening statement" sets forth the charges to be proven later as the facts are presented in support of the case. Will brother Winslet only give us a list of the charges, an opening statement, and not the proof behind his charges and or claims? Is he going to "rest his case" without any proof and expect the jury (in this case all who read this exchange) to agree? That is what the typical Hardshell does when visiting this blog. Hardshells practice, as I have previously observed (in my post "Hit And Run"), such tactics. I don't think the Holy Spirit is influencing them to behave in such a manner.
There is a lot to respond to in regard to what Winslet wrote! Perhaps I should follow the example of Winslet and "keep walking" and "refrain myself"? Should I ignore him as he has in the past tried to ignore us here at the OLD BAPTIST blog? Perhaps I should just take "pot shots" as he seems prone to do? His tactic resembles that of today's cultural and political "liberals" who do not want open discussion of the issues, but simply want to "label" their opponents and to slander them, to shut them up.
A "Disgruntled Gossip Blog"?
This blog is a "disgruntled gossip blog"? What an opening statement! Will we now get the proof for such a charge? Especially seeing how ludicrous it is?
We deal in facts here! Bible facts and facts of history. What Winslet calls "gossip" we call "facts."
In fact it is the Hardshells who have been promoters of gossip in regard to me (and to Kevin as well I'm sure). Did not Elder Ellis spread the awful gossip that I had been excluded from the Primitive Baptists for adultery? Not only was that "gossip," but of the worst kind. Actually, it was slander. I had to remind all of the facts, My wife was excluded from the Primitive Baptist church for adultery. Just the other way around!
It is also highly ironic that Winslet would call such a serious blog as the Old Baptist Test a "gossip" print medium. No, Ben, all know, and so do you in reality, that this blog is anything but a place for gossip. In fact, people who read this blog know how far fetched is your charge. The irony? Just read Winslet's posting at marchtozion and see if it is not a classic case of "gossip" in some instances! He is spreading "gossip" about our supposed gossip! It would laugh one to death if it were not so serious a matter. Further irony is seen in the fact that Winslet, though attempting to "answer" what he calls an "accusation," makes unfounded accusations against the authors of this blog.
Rather than hurt our readership, such comments and tactics actually help in that regard. Lots of people, including our Hardshell brothers, cannot resist hearing or spreading gossip. I am sure that some of marchtozion's readers, who read Winslet's posting, will want to check us out! Thanks for the help Ben!
So too will the honest readers of Ben's web page want to check us out, being like the noble Bereans of the Book of Acts, they will want "to see if those things are so."
Gossip includes the use of innuendo, insinuation, ridicule, casting suspicion, demeaning, etc., in addition to the basic idea of spreading rumors, or falsehoods and unproven facts. The history of this blog shows no such, but the history of the Hardshell denomination in general and of the several Hardshell leaders who have visited here and left comments, does in fact show such.
Surely all can agree that to make such representations of this blog and its authors is at least provocative? Surely Winslet knew that what he said in his comment to Kevin, and in the separate posting on his web page, would provoke us to respond? Was that intentional?
Thanks for stopping your practice of ignoring us here! We believe lots of Hardshells read our writings, many of them following us anonymously or privately. We believe that most do as Ben has been in the practice of doing. They try to ignore us. But, this time, Ben cannot resist and cannot ignore any longer. My hope is that others will also come to the point of concluding that ignoring us is not the best policy. We just wish that more would come here and have a true discussion of the issues and the facts and quit the kind of hit and run tactics that have characterized their visits here in the past.
When Winslet speaks of us in the manner he does at the outset of his article, he is using two common tactics of Sophists and people who are not really interested in the truth or the facts. First, he employs the tactic known as "poisoning the well." What is that? And, how does he do that?
"Poisoning the well" occurs when negative information that is irrelevant is presented ahead of time to discredit the argument. Said one expert on the topic (see here):
"To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim."
So, to begin a posting about our blog with charges of us being spreaders of gossip and deceptive writers who "mislead" people, is truly an example of both ad hominem and poisoning of the well logical fallacies. (It is ironic that Hardshells, who rely on the use of logic so much in their apologetics, would be so awful in their use of it) But, this is not all, for we also see how Winslet is guilty of the "red herring" fallacy. "Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue." It is also sometimes known as "beside the point," or a "misdirection," a "changing of the subject," etc. We see such misdirection in Winslet's article.
Reading Winslet's post is a good example of these three logical fallacies. It is certainly not the way to begin honorable discussion. But, discussion, really, is not what the Hardshells of Winslet's ilk really want, is it? It seems clear to me that Winslet responded because what we are presenting here in this blog is causing great harm to the Hardshell cult and their most zealous leaders are getting "hot under the collar." Their irritability with the information presented in this blog is quite evident. And just what is it to be a Sophist and to practice "sophistry"? One professor wrote (emphasis mine):
"Sophistry means trying to persuade others using arguments that you yourself would not find persuasive. It means treating debate and teaching like war, like the goal is to make sure that you leave with the same views you entered the dialogue with. Instead of activities that are meant to help uncover the truth wherever it is found." (What Are Sophists And- Sophistry)
Walking away from all honest discussion, making derogatory remarks about an author, poisoning the well, frequent ad hominem attacks, and labeling people who disagree with you with unbecoming nouns and adjectives, and such like behavior, shows that "the goal" is not "truth wherever it is found." The goal with the Sophists is to defend a position, right or wrong, so long as it helps me win the debate in the end.
Paul dealt with the teachings of the Sophists in his Corinthian epistles. Sophists are rarely sincere, unless, of course, that they think being sincere, in a given instance, serves them in their ends. Heretics have a problem with honesty and sincerity. This the scriptures show. They are not honest in their interpretation of the word of God nor with themselves and others. I wonder if brother Winslet would be convinced of his Hardshell errors on soteriology (that we have pointed out here hundreds of times over the years) if we use the kind of fallacious reasoning he uses, or the kind of arguments he uses?
Hardshells have been trying to "discredit" us for years now and yet we keep going, keep converting Hardshells back to the faith of their fathers, keep contending for the faith. It takes a lot of time to clean up the Hardshell historical and doctrinal mess, besides the smaller messes made by men like Ben Winslet, Mike Green, etc. Why not simply try, like Jason Brown, to have a scholarly discussion?
Notice how Winslet styles Kevin and me as "disgruntled." And, is Winslet not, ironically? The word according to the dictionaries involves being "angry or dissatisfied, discontented, aggrieved, resentful, fed up, displeased, unhappy." Some of those things are undoubtedly true of myself in regard to heresies and heretics. So what? How does that prove or disprove a single thing? Is it not "beside the point"? "Irrelevent"? Does not saying such a thing divert attention from the real issue? Sophist tactics! He appeals to the emotions of his audience, not to their intellect or reasoning skill.
Now, though I may be disgruntled with the Hardshells and with other heretics with which God in his providence has brought me face to face (so to speak), I am not unhappy or discontented in regard to my personal walk with God. I enjoy God. I think of him every hour of the day. I can't even walk unless he holds my hands. I am rich in the Lord. I have more than heart could wish, things more valuable and lasting than silver, gold, or things of earth.
I have had Hardshells insinuate such things about me before. Oh how miserable is Stephen Garrett outside of the old PB church! How angry he is! How unhappy! See him judged because of his sins against the PBs! My response? I am still learning to lean on Jesus, still learning how to be happy and content, still struggling with doubt, unbelief, and sin. But, I am a soldier of Jesus and I will win the war! My salvation depends upon my winning. But, I will win. I cannot fail to win. The Father has predestined it. The Son has guaranteed it by his death and resurrection, and the Spirit executes it all without fail. Christ prays for me that my faith fail not. And, if I am truly elect and called, it will not fail. If I have truly been born of God, then I will overcome the world. I rest on these promises. They are the rock upon which my life is built. No man will take me off that solid foundation as long as I live.
I'll tell you this, I am both angry and sad when I think about my Hardshell brothers. Is that sin? Is it prompted by a spirit that is not the Holy Spirit? If, my Hardshell brothers, it was your intention (in pointing out to me my anger and misery), to bring me to deeply ponder the matter and prayerfully consider the observation, then let me assure you that I have indeed done so over these many years. When I write, I weigh my words, as any decent writer will do. I know when I am using a harsh tone, or being straight-forward and blunt, and I use such language at times because I have judged it necessary and practical. I try to let my subject matter dictate the tone. Also, if my writing is a critical analysis of some writing by an author (Hardshell or other), then the nature of such writing will dictate that reason is appealed to and not emotion. Facts are what is important in such writings, as is interpretation of those facts.
Am I an angry man? Is such anger unrighteous? Is the judgement of many of my Hardshell brethren in regard to anger justified? Correct? If it is not, then how do I respond to the insinuation and accusation? Am I damned if I do and damned if I don't? (But, of course, all the talk about my character, my holiness, my walk with the Lord, is really besides the point, is it not?)
I have about said enough on the subject of my supposed life of bitterness, anger, discontent, etc. It is all beside the point! It proves nothing about whether the Hardshells have changed their beliefs and articles of faith over the past two hundred years! THAT IS THE POINT. Lets quit all the smoke and mirrors. Let us stop getting people "off track" by placing dead fish (red herrings) in the path of truth! Let us not lose our focus in discussion and deal with what is irrelevant.
All anger is not sinful. Jesus got angry. We are commanded to be angry, as a matter of fact. "Be ye angry and sin not." (Eph. 4: 26) I am angry at those who "handle the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2) and "who corrupt the word of God" (2:17).
Winslet said that The Old Baptist Blog was "basically a home for people who were once Primitive Baptist to criticize us and write negative things about us."
What a "caricature"! Not entirely true, either. We are indeed a "home" for converts from Hardshellism and we have no regrets about that! More people "coming home" every day to the "old Baptist faith"! We are also a "home" for people who come into contact with the Hardshell cult for the first time and need guidance. We have helped people in all parts of the world where Hardshell proselyte makers have gone. The Philippines, Russia, etc. We also welcome all Hardshells to our "home" here! I am glad that Elder Winslet visited us. Glad he finally "gave in" and left us a comment. We want you to return brother Winslet, and we want to talk about our honest differences. Is that not what Hardshells say that they want to do with everyone? So, we are a "home" to a lot more people than the ones described by Winslet.
Also, people who leave the so called Primitive Baptists, seeing their errors, actually become the real "primitive" or "old" Baptists! Brother Kevin and I are the real old Baptists! When will the Hardshells stop saying that we are no longer "primitive"? It is Winslet and his quasi Universalist Hardshell brothers who are not "primitive."
And what is wrong with someone "criticizing" the Hardshell Baptists? Are they "beyond criticism"? Further, what is wrong with giving "critical analysis" to Hardshell beliefs, practices, and claims? By the words of Winslet you would think that Kevin and I had committed the unpardonable sin in criticizing the Hardshells. Friends, is that not a "cult tactic"? Further, what is wrong with being "negative"? How are we any more "negative" in our writings than are the Hardshells in their writings against other denominations? And oh the irony once again! He derides our supposed "negativity" (the bad kind) but his opening paragraph is nothing but negative!
Being negative, in regard to our anti Hardshell writings, is just what one would expect, right? Gee whiz! How can I be "positive" in regard to a dangerous heresy and cult? And yet, the fact is, we have not all been "negative" here in our postings on Hardshells. We have commended them in regard to several things.
Winslet said "over the years, several misrepresentations about what we believe have been published there." Is that so? Is that not negative? Is it again not ironic and hypocritical? He misrepresents us about our supposed misrepresentation of Hardshellism!
Would not common decency, and Christian ethics, demand that Winslet not only make such a charge but prove it? Is this not the proverbial "pot shot"? I wonder - was he "disgruntled" when he said that? Did he feel any anger or animosity? Are his motives all pure while ours are all evil?
Wrote Winslet:
"The only problem with Fralick's point, is that he's comparing the Flint River monument with the Articles of Faith of Marchtozion.com, which are not the same!! The "link to the church's website" isn't a link to the church's website at all. It's a link to the Marchtozion.com Statement of Faith."
"They are not the same"! I am glad that he admits at least this fact! The pastor of Flint River has a different and altered confession of faith than has Flint River church herself! Let us ask brother Winslet
1) Has Flint River changed her articles since 1808? If yes, on which articles and why?
2) Does she believe that all the elect will be regenerated and converted as she did in 1808?
3) What did she define as being "converted" in 1808?
4) Does she believe that all the elect will persevere in grace and never finally fall away?
5) How did she define "persevere in grace" in 1808?
6) What did "fall" and "finally fall" mean to those Baptists in 1808?
How would we decide on the right answers to these questions? Would not the writings of Flint River's first representatives on these subjects tell us how they defined those terms in the articles? Have we not given a large amount of historical evidence from the writings of the period to show what the first particular Baptists believed throughout the South about regeneration, conversion, and perseverance? What does all that evidence say? It says that Elder Winslet and Flint River church does not believe the same things about the fundamentals of salvation as did their forefathers who founded the church on Flint River and in the Alabama territory. We are tired of ("fed up" or "disgruntled") hearing Hardshells of today tell us what they think their forefathers believed about this and that statement of faith, but we want to know what they actually believed. Their writings tell us and it is not the Hardshell teaching of Ben Winslet and Flint River PBC. Hardshells have shown how they can twist the writings of their forefathers to make them agree with the changes in doctrine that they have experienced in the past 150 years or so. They did this infamously in the "Fulton Confession" as we have shown here in this "gossip blog."
Winslet wrote:
"I left the comment on the blog, but wanted to publish it here because otherwise, their admins might not approve it and refuse to actually publish it (comments on that site must be approved by admins)."
More irony! He decries how we (like many other bloggers) must approve comments first and yet he allows none on his web page! Can't respond at all to his slanderous posting! Further, the chief reason for such restrictions are due to 1) Hardshells in the past who left the most vicious comments and which decency would not allow me to approve, and 2) the possibility of people leaving unwarranted advertisements, links to perverted web pages, etc.
Since when have we ever refused to publish comments by our Hardshell brothers? Do we not rather encourage them to communicate with us and respond to what we write?
Finally, Winslet ends his web posting with these words:
"Why share this on Marchtozion.com and waste your time and mine even bothering a reply? Because I wanted to reply with a truthful post about a misrepresentation made by the folks over at Old Baptist Test. I don't intent to offer any further dialogue with them. Nor do I intend to answer such here again. This time I didn't feel I had much choice."
So, we are judged and convicted of being unworthy of dialogue and discussion? We are not worth anyone's time to hear us or respond to what we say? That is surely casting us in a bad light! More poisoning of the well too. He also sarcastically insinuates that our posts in this blog are not "truthful," saying that he, Winslet the truthful one, will "reply with a truthful post."
"The folks over at the Old Baptist Test"? Do you notice how we are not ever addressed as "brother"? Kevin and I are "the folks"? This reminds me of the first time that Jason Brown and I started our discussion. He too referred to me as "sir" (as did Ben to Kevin) but not as "brother." I finally pointed out the striking irony of this in view of the fact that his belief says that most people will go to Heaven, and that most heathen worshipers were "regenerated." All these people are "brothers" to the Hardshells, but not Steve Garrett? Finally, Brown started addressing us as "brother."
"I do not intend to answer"! Says it all, doesn't it? Hit and run! Sucker punch and run!
Wrote Elder Winslet in his comment to Elder Fralick:
"So to compare the link I shared to the granite monument and insinuate that Flint River is changing her articles of faith is misleading."
"Misleading"? Is it not, ironically, a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"? How does Winslet mislead? Chiefly in implying that Flint River Primitive Baptist church has 1) not changed her articles of faith at all, and 2) still believes in those original articles concerning conversion and perseverance.
Winslet admits that the Flint River's articles of faith have been changed! That is the very thing that Kevin was showing! The only thing that was in error was in regard to the article regarding conversion! It was true in regard to perseverance, for the church did change that! So, is this really not a quibble?" A "straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel"? A "making mountains out of mole hills"?
In this posting we have been "forced" (as Winslet says he was "forced" to respond to Kevin's posting - see below) to give evidence of this ugly fact. Also, Winslet himself has been misleading in both his comment to Kevin and in the posting he made at his marchtozion web page. Not only are his words misleading but also hypocritical and contradictory.
Would the average reader, visiting the web page that Kevin visited, not assume that the articles of faith of Flint River's pastor was the same as the church he pastors, either now or originally? Would he say that Flint River agrees with him on the two articles in question? Or, with the first members of Flint River? Surely he will say that they agree with him and with the rest of his Hardshell brethren who support the changes to those articles that their late 19th century forefathers made? So, though they may have retained the original article about conversion, they do not believe it. That is the major point, is it not?
Why is the elder so ticked off about the charge of PBs changing their articles of faith? Is it because he is jealous for seeing that they are not changed? Does he believe that they ought not to be changed? Will he condemn himself then for changing them? Flint River may not have changed the article on conversion but Winslet and his fellow Hardshells have done so in probably 90% or more of the time. Will he call on his fellow Hardshells who have changed their original articles of faith to return to the original? That is what Kevin and I are doing here. Glad to have you join us in this call!
I suppose then that Flint River church still believes that all the elect will be regenerated and converted? Does she still believe that the elect will all persevere in grace?
By the way, what does it mean to "persevere in grace"? The way the elder explains the meaning is not a thirty second cousin to the way the original authors of the articles explained the words. The way the elder wants to explain that is to twist the words to make them mean "grace will persevere," "stay in grace," etc. But, you see, it is not God or grace that is persevering, but it is the born again soul who perseveres. Let us ask Winslet (even though he says he will not answer or talk any more) - if one falls from grace, did he persevere in grace? (Gal. 5:4) If one "fails" of the grace of God (Heb. 12: 15), did he "persevere in grace"? In Acts 13: 43 we are told that Paul and Barnabas "persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."
Wrote Winslet:
"The only word, to my knowledge, that actually HAS been changed in the FR AofF is the word persevere, to preserve."
How ironic! How hypocritical! He decries Fralick's observation that Flint River (like nearly all her fellowship of churches) has changed her articles of faith and then admits that she has changed them! "Oh consistency thou art a jewel." The only issue (the mountain made from the mole hill) is whether the article on effectual calling had been changed. The issue of whether the articles had been changed is settled. Fralick was right that they have been changed, at least on the article dealing with perseverance. Fralick, it seems, was wrong on the change about conversion. But, several questions arise at this point.
1. Does Flint River still believe that all the elect will be converted?
2. Does Elder Winslet still believe that all the elect will be converted?
3. If Flint River church and elder Winslet reject that article, why don't they change it?
Wrote Winslet:
"This is not the first example of a misleading post I've read on this blog either. But since you're quoting ME, I can't let it stand without correction."
Honor demands that Winslet substantiate his charges.
Wrote Winslet:
"The entire point of your post is built on this faulty premise. You err, sir. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it was a simple mistake, answering a matter before you hear it."
"The entire point"? It is clear that Winslet missed the main point! What "faulty premise"? The "entire point" was not built upon the point regarding the change of the articles regarding conversion.
Wrote Winslet:
"We still believe and teach that saints shall persevere in GRACE. This is why the phrase “shall not finally fall away” is a part of our articles. Any and every PB I know believes that saints stay (persevere) in a state of grace. The reason for the change is twofold:
1. Men such as yourself used the word to teach Lordship salvation, a cruel, hideous, Pharisaical doctrine which yields men over to either bondage or pride.
2. “Preserve” is a more biblical word. Anyone who doubts me can look up both words in a dictionary."
Kevin has already more than adequately responded to this. So have I to some extent. But, why not have a discussion about what the forefathers meant by "persevere in grace" and "persevere in holiness"?
In closing, let me cite from both the original 1808 articles and the present articles in regard to those articles that have been changed.
Under "Our Beliefs" (18 June 2012) we have this heading "Articles of Faith, adopted 1808" (see here)
- We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice. (King James Translation only)
- We believe that God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
- We believe that the saints shall be preserved in grace and never fall finally away.
This is all "misleading"! The church's web page says that the articles above were adopted in 1808. However, here is what the articles actually said in 1808.
2. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of god, and the only rule of faith and practice.
7. That God's elect shall be called, converted, and regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
8. That the saints shall persevere in grace and never fall finally away.
Articles 2 and 8 were changed! Further, though article 7 has not been changed, it is not believed by either the pastor, Flint River Church, nor the fellowship of churches to which Flint River church is connected! All, or nearly all, of these other churches in her fellowship have eliminated "converted" from the articles, just like her pastor!
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Regarding my last posting
I wish to make a correction and apology regarding my last
posting. I mistook the name of a
website, marchtozion.org, for being just that, and not a church in
Alabama. As a result, its articles of
faith were not combined into one from Flint River church’s earlier stated position,
and so did not itself ‘change’ its article of faith.
“And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” (Col. 1:20-23)
“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13).
“But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:6)
"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul" (Heb. 10:39).
“Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5)
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:" (Heb. 12:14)
The general abandonment of the word perseverance today is the inevitable consequence of the conditional time salvation heresy:
“The new birth is something that happens in the life of a child of God, and he is forever changed. If any man be in Christ, he is what? A new creature. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. A big difference happens with the new birth.
The doctrine of perseverance gets redefined (with conditional time salvation - KF). In fact, many Primitive Baptist churches today are eliminating the word perseverance from their articles of faith. It blows my mind; it just absolutely blows my mind.
Now the word perseverance means that a person will persevere; he will hang in there, in a state of grace until death. He will continue, at least to some degree, in the way of righteousness; that if he sins, he repents. The just man falls down seven times, and rises again. Prov. 24:16.
That’s the doctrine of perseverance. Many of our churches today have eliminated the word perseverance. A pastor recently was visiting someone who was all upset about this. They said it should be preservation, not perseverance, which is true too. Preservation is...let me put it this way. Yesterday I held Casey's hand. It was the sweetest thing. She went to sleep in church. It's all right when you're four years old, not 40. She went to sleep in church at four years old with her hand in mine. You know how we held hands? Like Hannah and I hold hands; that is, her fingers were woven into mine.
Now, her hand was tiny in mine. I don't have a real, real big hand, but it was gargantuan beside of hers. Perseverance is having my little teeny, tiny, infinitesimally small hand in God’s hand. That's perseverance. Preservation is God's great, big, massive hand that holds up universes, holding mine. Both are right! Both are true! Both are taught in the Bible. It's blowing my mind that people want to eliminate half of the picture or part of that picture.” (Elder Thomas Mann - Rethinking My Position on Conditional Time Salvation)
Pertinent Articles:
I have written a fair amount on this blog and have never
intentionally misrepresented anyone. We
are all human, and sometimes make mistakes.
Though doctrinal differences will remain, I hope it can at least be
agreed upon that it was simply that, an honest mistake.
However, for the sake of the truth I stand by my claim that
perseverance is an acceptable…yeah, preferable term depicting the security of
the saints. It serves as a safeguard
against antinomianism and easy-believism.
The inclusion of conversion in the old articles of faith proves that the
original position was that all the elect would come to believe in Jesus Christ,
and that it was not an optional supplement to regeneration accomplished by the
free-will of men supposedly already born-again.
Regarding perseverance, there are certain key passages in the Bible which demonstrate that the security of the elect involves their responsibility in which the subjective side of salvation is coupled together with the objective, two things divorced by the conditional time salvation framework. One can do all the redefining of words and reinterpreting of scriptures that he wants. The insurmountable fact is that many of them establish that eternal salvation/damnation are under consideration.
“And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me” (Jer. 32:40)
“For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again” (Prov. 24:16).
“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13).
“But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:6)
"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul" (Heb. 10:39).
“Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5)
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:" (Heb. 12:14)
The general abandonment of the word perseverance today is the inevitable consequence of the conditional time salvation heresy:
“The new birth is something that happens in the life of a child of God, and he is forever changed. If any man be in Christ, he is what? A new creature. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. A big difference happens with the new birth.
The doctrine of perseverance gets redefined (with conditional time salvation - KF). In fact, many Primitive Baptist churches today are eliminating the word perseverance from their articles of faith. It blows my mind; it just absolutely blows my mind.
Now the word perseverance means that a person will persevere; he will hang in there, in a state of grace until death. He will continue, at least to some degree, in the way of righteousness; that if he sins, he repents. The just man falls down seven times, and rises again. Prov. 24:16.
That’s the doctrine of perseverance. Many of our churches today have eliminated the word perseverance. A pastor recently was visiting someone who was all upset about this. They said it should be preservation, not perseverance, which is true too. Preservation is...let me put it this way. Yesterday I held Casey's hand. It was the sweetest thing. She went to sleep in church. It's all right when you're four years old, not 40. She went to sleep in church at four years old with her hand in mine. You know how we held hands? Like Hannah and I hold hands; that is, her fingers were woven into mine.
Now, her hand was tiny in mine. I don't have a real, real big hand, but it was gargantuan beside of hers. Perseverance is having my little teeny, tiny, infinitesimally small hand in God’s hand. That's perseverance. Preservation is God's great, big, massive hand that holds up universes, holding mine. Both are right! Both are true! Both are taught in the Bible. It's blowing my mind that people want to eliminate half of the picture or part of that picture.” (Elder Thomas Mann - Rethinking My Position on Conditional Time Salvation)
Pertinent Articles:
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Flint River: Then and Now
I just happened to stumble upon a video broadcast on Facebook from Flint River Primitive Baptist Church in which the speaker made reference to the original Articles of Faith when the church was constituted in 1808. A picture is shown of them chiseled in stone in the churchyard. The interesting thing is that the bottom of the video contained a link to the church's website in which one can read those Articles of Faith as they stand today.
Lo and behold, they are not the same!
Notice these two articles from 1808.
7. That God's elect shall be called, converted, and regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
8. That the saints shall persevere in grace and never fall finally away.
Now let us notice how those articles, combined into one, read today!
Article 6. We believe that God's elect shall be effectually called, regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost and shall be preserved in grace and never finally fall away.
1) Are the original articles substantially the same as the current?
Lo and behold, they are not the same!
Notice these two articles from 1808.
7. That God's elect shall be called, converted, and regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
8. That the saints shall persevere in grace and never fall finally away.
Now let us notice how those articles, combined into one, read today!
Article 6. We believe that God's elect shall be effectually called, regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Ghost and shall be preserved in grace and never finally fall away.
The rewriting of Articles of Faith is nothing new among the Hardshells. It is something I have written about on several occasions. I wonder if the gatekeepers responsible for the rewrite do the honest thing and tell their flock that they no longer believe as their forefathers did; that either they were wrong and we are right, or vice versa. That it suggests that they can't trace their lineage back to the first century after all. Not even to the 18th century!
Several things are to be noted from this most obvious, embarrassing change among those who claim to have never changed, but rather go all the way back through the Anabaptists, the Lollards, the Donatists, the Novations, etc.
So let us ask some questions at this point.
1) Are the original articles substantially the same as the current?
2) Why did the article originally say God's elect would all be converted?
3) Why has it been omitted today?
4) Why did the article originally say converted, regenerated, and sanctified in that order?
5) Why did the article originally say persevere?
6) Why has it been replaced with preserved?
7) Why has sanctification likewise not been removed since holiness is not necessary for salvation? Or is it?
I know why, and so does my fellow blogger. Of course these questions will not even be confronted, much less addressed. Instead the blind will continue to lead the blind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)