Many Christians believe that the Book of Acts describes the Christian community, or church, in its pristine condition, and that it should be our "pattern" for what a church is, and what it believes and practices. I have no problem with deriving truth in doctrine and practice from the Book of Acts, but I question why those who point to the Book of Acts as our pattern (such as many in the "church of Christ," in "reformed" and "hardshell" churches), forget that the Book of Acts describes the first Christian ministry as
"A tongue-speaking, cripple-healing, dead-raising, demon-expelling, liar-slaying, prison-breaking, house-shaking, sorcerer-cursing, vision-seeing, future-predicting, miracle ministry." (Vincent Cheung, in his Systematic Theology, see here)
I have enjoyed a lot of Cheung's writings over the years. His writings on the error of strict cessationism is close to my own view. His defense of the doctrines of grace and of Supralapsarianism are superb. You can visit Cheung's web page HERE) His books and writings are available for free. Warning: he speaks frankly, bluntly, and sarcastically, when battling errorists and heretics. My manner is a good bit more mild than his.
"And Gideon said unto him, “Oh my lord, if the Lord be with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?’" (Judges 6: 13)
Should we not be asking the same questions today?
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
When Will The Saints "Reign on the Earth"?
"And hath made us kings (Greek a "kingdom") and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev. 1:6 KJV)
"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:10 KJV)
What is it, in these verses, that has been fulfilled already? What has not been fulfilled?
When I was a Hardshell Baptist, I was confronted with the "anti" mentality of the PBs against Premillenialism and I was not ever able to understand this spirit of opposition. In order to oppose such ideas as of a future kingdom on earth, where the saints reign over it and upon it, the Amillenialist Hardshell had to give up a literal interpretation of prophetic scriptures and to "spiritualize" or "allegorize" bible statements about a new heaven and earth, and about the saints reigning upon it. They were forced to aver that this reign of saints upon the earth pertains to the here and now, and is what is experienced by those who enter "the one true church" (aka "Primitive Baptist"). Those in the Hardshell church are "reigning on the earth" now, and enjoying the promised kingdom of God, and the new heavens and the new earth, being now in the Millennium. Of course, in order to espouse these views, it requires that they make the Hardshell church the fulfillment of the prophecies about the kingdom of God on earth, and the reign of Christ and the saints on earth.
In the Hardshell church (and no where else) do we find the fulfillment of the prophecy "we shall reign of the earth"? How does "the new heavens and earth" become "the church of the present age"? That is truly handling the word of God in a deceitful and dishonest way! "Earth," "heaven," "1000 year reign," "kingdom of God," etc., all take on strange new definitions!
The problems with such a handling of the word of God are numerous and the false hermeneutics of such perverters of the word of God are easily refuted. Does the text in Revelation not put the reign of the saints on earth in the future? If the Hardshell view were correct, then the text would say "and we have reigned on the earth."
Further, "on the earth" does not mean "in the church." If one can make "earth" to mean the "church," then he can make the bible to mean anything!
Maybe it is me, but I just don't feel like I have been reigning on the earth over the past 62 years! Nor did I feel like I was reigning on the earth while in the Hardshell church. To make the promise about the future reign of the saints in the new heavens and earth to deal with "time salvation," or to the special joys that only Hardshells supposedly have, is to cheapen the great promise.
In my studies of Hardshell history I do not find this anti Premillenial mindset among the first Hardshells. Elder Sylvester Hassell certainly opposed this type of biblical interpretation.
"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:10 KJV)
What is it, in these verses, that has been fulfilled already? What has not been fulfilled?
When I was a Hardshell Baptist, I was confronted with the "anti" mentality of the PBs against Premillenialism and I was not ever able to understand this spirit of opposition. In order to oppose such ideas as of a future kingdom on earth, where the saints reign over it and upon it, the Amillenialist Hardshell had to give up a literal interpretation of prophetic scriptures and to "spiritualize" or "allegorize" bible statements about a new heaven and earth, and about the saints reigning upon it. They were forced to aver that this reign of saints upon the earth pertains to the here and now, and is what is experienced by those who enter "the one true church" (aka "Primitive Baptist"). Those in the Hardshell church are "reigning on the earth" now, and enjoying the promised kingdom of God, and the new heavens and the new earth, being now in the Millennium. Of course, in order to espouse these views, it requires that they make the Hardshell church the fulfillment of the prophecies about the kingdom of God on earth, and the reign of Christ and the saints on earth.
In the Hardshell church (and no where else) do we find the fulfillment of the prophecy "we shall reign of the earth"? How does "the new heavens and earth" become "the church of the present age"? That is truly handling the word of God in a deceitful and dishonest way! "Earth," "heaven," "1000 year reign," "kingdom of God," etc., all take on strange new definitions!
The problems with such a handling of the word of God are numerous and the false hermeneutics of such perverters of the word of God are easily refuted. Does the text in Revelation not put the reign of the saints on earth in the future? If the Hardshell view were correct, then the text would say "and we have reigned on the earth."
Further, "on the earth" does not mean "in the church." If one can make "earth" to mean the "church," then he can make the bible to mean anything!
Maybe it is me, but I just don't feel like I have been reigning on the earth over the past 62 years! Nor did I feel like I was reigning on the earth while in the Hardshell church. To make the promise about the future reign of the saints in the new heavens and earth to deal with "time salvation," or to the special joys that only Hardshells supposedly have, is to cheapen the great promise.
In my studies of Hardshell history I do not find this anti Premillenial mindset among the first Hardshells. Elder Sylvester Hassell certainly opposed this type of biblical interpretation.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
From Elder James Osbourn's Hymnal
Hymn # 341 (see here)
Third Stanza
The gospel bids the dead revive,
Sinners obey the voice and live;
Dry bones are raised and clothed afresh,
And hearts of stone are turned to flesh.
That is primitive Baptist doctrine.
Third Stanza
The gospel bids the dead revive,
Sinners obey the voice and live;
Dry bones are raised and clothed afresh,
And hearts of stone are turned to flesh.
That is primitive Baptist doctrine.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Job 12:2 - An Example of Sarcasm
All sarcasm is not sinful. The bible is full of it. Many bible students, when reading the words of prophets, apostles, and even of the Lord Jesus Christ, often fail to realize that some words are spoken sarcastically, and therefore cannot be taken as statements of fact. I believe Job is one of the prophets who spoke sarcastically to his "miserable comforter" friends and the following words are evidence of it. Said Job to his three friends:
"No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible (emphasis mine)
No doubt but ye are the people - That is, the only wise people. You have engrossed all the wisdom of the world, and all else are to be regarded as fools. This is evidently the language of severe sarcasm; and it shows a spirit fretted and chafed by their reproaches. Job felt contempt for their reasoning and meant to intimate that their maxims, on which they placed so much reliance, were common-place, and such as every one was familiar with.
And wisdom shall die with you - This is ironical, but it is language such as is common perhaps every where. "The people of the East," says Roberts, "take great pleasure in irony, and some of their satirical sayings are very cutting. When a sage intimates that he has superior wisdom or when he is disposed to rally another for his meagre attainments, he says, 'Yes, yes, you are the man! ' 'Your wisdom is like the sea.' 'When you die, whither will wisdom go?'"
I use irony and sarcasm in dealing with Hardshells and other cults. Using the language of Job, as a retort to all the Hardshell rhetoric about how they are all right and others all wrong, I could say -
"No doubt you all are the theological experts, and the church and the truth will die with you."
I do not make that statement to affirm what is actually the case, or true, but being sarcasm, it is rather a denial of it.
Of course, using sarcasm for good takes some art and skill, and so those who use it should know when and how to use it. God help us to follow the example of Christ and the prophets and apostles.
"No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible (emphasis mine)
No doubt but ye are the people - That is, the only wise people. You have engrossed all the wisdom of the world, and all else are to be regarded as fools. This is evidently the language of severe sarcasm; and it shows a spirit fretted and chafed by their reproaches. Job felt contempt for their reasoning and meant to intimate that their maxims, on which they placed so much reliance, were common-place, and such as every one was familiar with.
And wisdom shall die with you - This is ironical, but it is language such as is common perhaps every where. "The people of the East," says Roberts, "take great pleasure in irony, and some of their satirical sayings are very cutting. When a sage intimates that he has superior wisdom or when he is disposed to rally another for his meagre attainments, he says, 'Yes, yes, you are the man! ' 'Your wisdom is like the sea.' 'When you die, whither will wisdom go?'"
I use irony and sarcasm in dealing with Hardshells and other cults. Using the language of Job, as a retort to all the Hardshell rhetoric about how they are all right and others all wrong, I could say -
"No doubt you all are the theological experts, and the church and the truth will die with you."
I do not make that statement to affirm what is actually the case, or true, but being sarcasm, it is rather a denial of it.
Of course, using sarcasm for good takes some art and skill, and so those who use it should know when and how to use it. God help us to follow the example of Christ and the prophets and apostles.
Saved Before Faith - Hardshell Fundamental Premise
The following is from "Cayce's Editorials" under the heading "SALVATION BEFORE FAITH" and published October 30, 1906 (emphasis mine):
"ELDER C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother - Which is first-salvation or faith? I ask this so you can answer through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, as I want to show it to those who say “faith precedes salvation.” I write like I know you see it as I do - that a child must be born first, which is life, and life is salvation, and it is to the living that God gives gifts, and faith, I think, is a gift. If I am wrong and you see differently, I hope you can make it plain to me.
We most assuredly think you are correct in saying salvation precedes faith. If faith is used in the sense of belief, then it is a mental act, an act of the mind. The unregenerate man is in possession of a carnal mind, and the carnal mind is enmity against God. He is not in possession of a spiritual mind, or the mind of Christ. For one to be in possession of a natural mind, or carnal mind, be must necessarily be in possession of the natural life."
Where in all the bible does the bible say that salvation precedes faith? Why did Cayce not give those texts that say that? Instead, he uses arguments based upon reasoning, and such reasoning that first accepts an unscriptural premise and then builds upon it. The reasoning used by Cayce supposes that by "carnal mind" is meant some physical, rather than moral, condition. Further, to him, a man has a spiritual mind first and then he believes, which argumentation assumes that a mind can be spiritual when it lacks faith in God and in his Son the Lord Jesus! I wrote on this in my book on the Hardshell cult, talking about how spiritual mindedness cannot be divorced from faith, and also how carnal mindedness cannot be divorced from unbelief. (see here for that posting)
Not only do the Hardshells teach that sinners are "saved before faith" but also "without faith."
In Zion’s Advocate for August, 1898, page 225, Elder (Dr.) Charles Waters stated:
"Every saved child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith; infants and idiots must be so saved for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated, faith (belief) therefore is not necessary to eternal salvation.”
How anyone can come up with such a proposition from reading the scriptures is bewildering.
"ELDER C. H. Cayce: Dear Brother - Which is first-salvation or faith? I ask this so you can answer through THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST, as I want to show it to those who say “faith precedes salvation.” I write like I know you see it as I do - that a child must be born first, which is life, and life is salvation, and it is to the living that God gives gifts, and faith, I think, is a gift. If I am wrong and you see differently, I hope you can make it plain to me.
We most assuredly think you are correct in saying salvation precedes faith. If faith is used in the sense of belief, then it is a mental act, an act of the mind. The unregenerate man is in possession of a carnal mind, and the carnal mind is enmity against God. He is not in possession of a spiritual mind, or the mind of Christ. For one to be in possession of a natural mind, or carnal mind, be must necessarily be in possession of the natural life."
Where in all the bible does the bible say that salvation precedes faith? Why did Cayce not give those texts that say that? Instead, he uses arguments based upon reasoning, and such reasoning that first accepts an unscriptural premise and then builds upon it. The reasoning used by Cayce supposes that by "carnal mind" is meant some physical, rather than moral, condition. Further, to him, a man has a spiritual mind first and then he believes, which argumentation assumes that a mind can be spiritual when it lacks faith in God and in his Son the Lord Jesus! I wrote on this in my book on the Hardshell cult, talking about how spiritual mindedness cannot be divorced from faith, and also how carnal mindedness cannot be divorced from unbelief. (see here for that posting)
Not only do the Hardshells teach that sinners are "saved before faith" but also "without faith."
In Zion’s Advocate for August, 1898, page 225, Elder (Dr.) Charles Waters stated:
"Every saved child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith; infants and idiots must be so saved for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated, faith (belief) therefore is not necessary to eternal salvation.”
How anyone can come up with such a proposition from reading the scriptures is bewildering.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
The Fight For "Dominant Power" within the Cult
Wrote Elder Walter Cash of Missouri in his periodical "Messenger of Peace" (1925):
"Along about the year 1900 a movement began in the Primitive Baptist ranks that culminated in much distress, and division in some localities, before it's close."
"But I thought that if the Yellow Creek dropped correspondence this would practically cut them off from the Primitive Baptists of the state, and it would encourage the leaders in the "progressive" movement to double their energy to try to become the dominant power." (see here)
I find Cash's remark about trying "to become the dominant power" within the "Primitive Baptist" denomination very interesting in light of 1) the history of factionalism among the PBs throughout the 19th century, and 2) the outcome of those faction wars as it was manifested at the start of the 20th century, and 3) the political machinations of the PB cult via their factional leaders that yet characterize this aberrant sect.
Well might we ask these questions:
1) Who were the "dominant" parties among the primitives and old schoolers at the beginning of the 20th century?
2) Which party won the place of "dominant power"?
3) What happened to the factions that lost out to the "dominant power"?
We know that Elder Walter Cash was on the side of that faction that has come to be called "Conditionalist" and which has come to represent more than 90% of Hardshells today. Did he compete in this war for "dominant power"? Here is what he said in regard to that "jockeying for position" of the various factions of "Primitive Baptists."
"In December, 1904, at the request of leading members in the Salem association, I visited some of the churches and arrived at an understanding with them that steps should be taken to stop "progressive" preachers from visiting the churches, and that the churches would take steps to let it be known where they intended to stand. To this end I was to attend the next session of the association, which I did. At this meeting I laid the matter before the brethren plainly, explaining the situation, and telling them of the purpose I had in view all along in not dropping the correspondence, but that I could go no farther unless they acted decisively. I said, "You must say now which way you are going. If you say your are going to stay with our churches and associations on the old line, and will show that you mean it, the correspondence will be continued; otherwise not."
Cash was one to "force the issue," and worked to promote division (what he and other PBs would call "purifying" the ranks). He pressured churches to take a stand with him and with his faction.
I have seen it in modern times, in the time I was among the Hardshells. You have preachers today who want to be the "dominant power" among the PBs, or at least among their faction. Will it ever end?
"Along about the year 1900 a movement began in the Primitive Baptist ranks that culminated in much distress, and division in some localities, before it's close."
"But I thought that if the Yellow Creek dropped correspondence this would practically cut them off from the Primitive Baptists of the state, and it would encourage the leaders in the "progressive" movement to double their energy to try to become the dominant power." (see here)
I find Cash's remark about trying "to become the dominant power" within the "Primitive Baptist" denomination very interesting in light of 1) the history of factionalism among the PBs throughout the 19th century, and 2) the outcome of those faction wars as it was manifested at the start of the 20th century, and 3) the political machinations of the PB cult via their factional leaders that yet characterize this aberrant sect.
Well might we ask these questions:
1) Who were the "dominant" parties among the primitives and old schoolers at the beginning of the 20th century?
2) Which party won the place of "dominant power"?
3) What happened to the factions that lost out to the "dominant power"?
We know that Elder Walter Cash was on the side of that faction that has come to be called "Conditionalist" and which has come to represent more than 90% of Hardshells today. Did he compete in this war for "dominant power"? Here is what he said in regard to that "jockeying for position" of the various factions of "Primitive Baptists."
"In December, 1904, at the request of leading members in the Salem association, I visited some of the churches and arrived at an understanding with them that steps should be taken to stop "progressive" preachers from visiting the churches, and that the churches would take steps to let it be known where they intended to stand. To this end I was to attend the next session of the association, which I did. At this meeting I laid the matter before the brethren plainly, explaining the situation, and telling them of the purpose I had in view all along in not dropping the correspondence, but that I could go no farther unless they acted decisively. I said, "You must say now which way you are going. If you say your are going to stay with our churches and associations on the old line, and will show that you mean it, the correspondence will be continued; otherwise not."
Cash was one to "force the issue," and worked to promote division (what he and other PBs would call "purifying" the ranks). He pressured churches to take a stand with him and with his faction.
I have seen it in modern times, in the time I was among the Hardshells. You have preachers today who want to be the "dominant power" among the PBs, or at least among their faction. Will it ever end?
Hardshells Declare Non Fellowship Against Gospel Preaching
In Cayce's Editorials, we find the following under title "OUR WORK ENDORSED" for October 10, 1905 (emphasis mine):
"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:
By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."
I have already shown how the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists believed that it was their duty to preach to dead sinners, and to call upon them to believe and repent for salvation. But, notice, that from 1833 till 1905 things had changed! Now, it is heresy to preach to "alien sinners" and to "admonish" them to "repent and believe the gospel."
Now, who was right? The founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist" (1833) or Cayce and his fellow reformers at the start of the 20th century? Further, if it is heresy to preach to alien sinners and to call upon them to repent and believe, then today's Hardshells must admit that the founders of their denomination were heretics! How then can they claim to have an unbroken chain of non heretical churches?
Further, by such an evil declaration of non fellowship, they condemn the prophets and apostles, and even the Lord Jesus Christ himself! Such men did in fact admonish dead sinners!
"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:
By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."
I have already shown how the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists believed that it was their duty to preach to dead sinners, and to call upon them to believe and repent for salvation. But, notice, that from 1833 till 1905 things had changed! Now, it is heresy to preach to "alien sinners" and to "admonish" them to "repent and believe the gospel."
Now, who was right? The founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist" (1833) or Cayce and his fellow reformers at the start of the 20th century? Further, if it is heresy to preach to alien sinners and to call upon them to repent and believe, then today's Hardshells must admit that the founders of their denomination were heretics! How then can they claim to have an unbroken chain of non heretical churches?
Further, by such an evil declaration of non fellowship, they condemn the prophets and apostles, and even the Lord Jesus Christ himself! Such men did in fact admonish dead sinners!
Monday, June 11, 2018
A "Hollow Log" Regeneration
"But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26:16-18 KJV)
Why was Paul sent as a preacher to the Gentiles? It was in order that these things might be experienced by them:
1. To open their eyes
2. To turn them from darkness to light
3. To turn them from the power of Satan unto God
4. To have them obtain forgiveness of sin
5. To have them obtain inheritance among those sanctified by faith
Because the Hardshells have denied that preachers are means in the regeneration and eternal salvation of the elect, and denied that conversion is essential to regeneration, they have therefore forced themselves into redefining the experience of regeneration or the new birth. Anything connected with conversion and with the means of gospel preaching must be excluded from the experience of regeneration; And, what is the consequence of that? Is it not a watered down, or "hollow log" regeneration? I have written on this before. For instance, see the posting "Is It Regeneration?".
What kind or regeneration is it that does not open a person's eyes? That does not make him see anything? What kind of rebirth is it that does not save a man from darkness, or does not turn him from the power of Satan to the power of God? What kind of regeneration or saving experience is it that does not impart forgiveness of sins? That does not give one title to God's inheritance?
Another Thought
Many Hardshells at the start of the 20th century were teaching that God's elect are regenerated by the personal preaching of Jesus to a sinner. I plan to write much upon this in the future, but let me say a few things now in this context.
If Jesus first appears to these Gentiles, before Paul preaches to them, then why did not the preaching of Jesus do the things enumerated above? Further, why even send Paul to preach to them if Jesus is doing the preaching himself?
Why was Paul sent as a preacher to the Gentiles? It was in order that these things might be experienced by them:
1. To open their eyes
2. To turn them from darkness to light
3. To turn them from the power of Satan unto God
4. To have them obtain forgiveness of sin
5. To have them obtain inheritance among those sanctified by faith
Because the Hardshells have denied that preachers are means in the regeneration and eternal salvation of the elect, and denied that conversion is essential to regeneration, they have therefore forced themselves into redefining the experience of regeneration or the new birth. Anything connected with conversion and with the means of gospel preaching must be excluded from the experience of regeneration; And, what is the consequence of that? Is it not a watered down, or "hollow log" regeneration? I have written on this before. For instance, see the posting "Is It Regeneration?".
What kind or regeneration is it that does not open a person's eyes? That does not make him see anything? What kind of rebirth is it that does not save a man from darkness, or does not turn him from the power of Satan to the power of God? What kind of regeneration or saving experience is it that does not impart forgiveness of sins? That does not give one title to God's inheritance?
Another Thought
Many Hardshells at the start of the 20th century were teaching that God's elect are regenerated by the personal preaching of Jesus to a sinner. I plan to write much upon this in the future, but let me say a few things now in this context.
If Jesus first appears to these Gentiles, before Paul preaches to them, then why did not the preaching of Jesus do the things enumerated above? Further, why even send Paul to preach to them if Jesus is doing the preaching himself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)