"Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." (2 Corinthians 13:10)
"This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." (Titus 1:13)
What does it mean for a speaker (preacher) to "use sharpness" as the apostle did on occasion? How do we "rebuke" heretics "sharply"? Let us study on the matter.
The other time the Greek term is used in the new testament it is translated as "severity" in the KJV. Wrote Paul:
"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." (Rom. 11:22)
Barnes' Notes on the Bible (emphasis mine):
"Sharply - ἀποτόμως apotomōs - "cuttingly, severely" - from ἀποτέμνω apotemnō, "to cut off." The word is used here in the sense of severity, meaning that the reproof should be such as would be understood, and would show them plainly the wickedness of such traits of character. He was not to be mealy-mouthed, but he was to call things by their right names, and not to spare their faults. When men know that they are doing wrong, we should tell them so in few words; if they do not know it, it is necessary to teach them, in order to convince them of their error."
That is what I have tried to do in this blog when addressing the heresy of hardshellism. I made a posting on this awhile back titled "Cockleburs, Gadflys, & Rubbing The Wrong Way.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
"sharply—Gentleness would not reclaim so perverse offenders."
Though many Hardshells use "gentleness" to try to win converts to their cult, or to reclaim a brother who has rejected hardshellism (as some have towards Kevin and me), it is not the way we attempt to convict and convert Hardshell heretics. "Gentleness" will not reclaim those who are in the habit of perverting scripture.
Matthew Poole's Commentary:
"Wherefore rebuke them sharply; if thou meetest with any such, reprove or convince them apotomwv, cuttingly, that is, sharply, severely: the metaphor possibly is fetched from surgeons, who cut out dead flesh to the quick."
Vincent's Word Studies:
"Sharply (ἀποτόμως) Only here and 2 Corinthians 13:10 (note). Paul has ἀποτομία severity, Romans 11:22 (note). lxx, ἀποτόμως severely, only Wisd. 5:22; ἀποτόμος severe (not in N.T.), Wisd. 5:20; 11:10; 12:9. From ἀποτέμνειν to cut off. It signifies abrupt, harsh, summary dealing."
If some think that I have been "abrupt" and "harsh" and have "summarily dealt" with Hardshells, then let them consider that I am doing just as Paul instructed.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
"they must be rebuked "sharply": rebukes ought to be given according to the nature of offences, and the circumstances of them, and the offenders...with some degree of severity, at least with great plainness and faithfulness; laying open the nature of the evils guilty of in all their aggravated circumstances, without sparing them in the least; doing, as surgeons do by wounds, though they take the knife, and use it gently, yet cut deep, to the quick, and go to the bottom of the wound, and lay it open: and so the phrase may be rendered here, "rebuke them cuttingly"; cut them to the quick, and spare them not; deal not with them as Eli with his sons, 1 Samuel 2:23 but speak out, and expose their crimes, severely reprove them, that others may fear."
I know that my words have often been "cutting" to the heretics, but I am trying to cut away the cancer.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
More Good Acapella Singing
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Regenerated While In Diapers?
Wrote Bob L. Ross, well known Baptist teacher and author (see here - emphasis mine):
"Consequently, those who follow this view have a very poor grasp of what is taught in the Bible on the subject of the new birth. If they believe the superstition that infants are "regenerated" when they are still in diapers, they cannot be depended upon to know very much about this subject."
Well, amen to that!
"Consequently, those who follow this view have a very poor grasp of what is taught in the Bible on the subject of the new birth. If they believe the superstition that infants are "regenerated" when they are still in diapers, they cannot be depended upon to know very much about this subject."
Well, amen to that!
Thursday, May 17, 2018
More Hardshells Becoming Real Old Baptists
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)