"they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." (Gal. v. 24)
Here is another passage to add to the list of scripture texts that prove to be insurmountable to overcome for promoters and defenders of the leading tenets of Hardshellism. Let us see why. Let us analyze the words of the apostle by using the rhetorical or Socratic method.
Let us ask the text, and ourselves, some questions.
First, do not the words "they who belong to Christ" equate with "they who are saved"?
Answer: yes. It could mean "all the elect who belong to Christ via the everlasting covenant" or "all elect who have been regenerated or born again via conversion." The latter, however, is the obvious choice here, because this act of crucifying the flesh is something that "they who are Christ's" personally do, and therefore not something done for them in eternity past.
Second, is the predicate "have crucified the flesh..." a universal or limited categorical proposition?
Answer: It is clearly a universal proposition. All s is p. In other words, all "they" have "crucified the flesh." Paul does not say "some who belong to Christ have crucified..."
Third, to what point in time does the apostle point, in the experience of "they who belong to Christ," when they crucify the flesh? Is it conversion? Regeneration?
Will our Hardshell brethren gives us their answer to these questions on this text?
Possessed By Christ
Means that Christ has taken possession of the person, that he comes into the very heart and soul of a person, and "takes over." When men speak of "demon possession" they interpret that as meaning that a demon spirit has entered into the psyche and takes control. So, when we speak of "Christ possession," we mean that Christ enters into the psyche and takes control. That is what Paul is talking about when he speaks of "they who are Christ's."
To whom do you belong?
Have you experienced Christ's crucifixion? You cannot experience his resurrection without experiencing his death. If you have not crucified the flesh, then you cannot be among those who belong to Christ. That is against Hardshellism.
In other passages Paul refers to the believer's crucifixion.
"knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin." (Rom. 6: 6)
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me." (Gal 2: 20)
Does this not refer to conversion and make conversion necessary for being one who belongs to Christ?
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Friday, December 14, 2018
Sophist Preachers
Introduction
It is my intention to write a new series with the above title and this first posting will be an introduction. It is my intention to finish my series on "Redemption," this being a priority, and to also continue my commentary on the "Apocalypse." In this series we will look at the history of the Sophists in Greek and Roman society in the time of the Apostles and how the apostle Paul in particular, in his Corinthian epistles, spoke against the beliefs, values, and tactics of the Sophists prevalent in Corinth. We will see that the beliefs and practices of the ancient Sophists are still prevalent in the world today.
The worldview of the Sophists, with their values and recipes for living life, are accepted, taught, and practiced by nearly the whole world today. Christians, however, cannot accept the basic beliefs and practices of the Sophists. To the degree that professing Christians accept and practice the teachings of the Sophists, to that degree they are yet "carnal" and "think (or reason) as natural men," as Paul stated in his opening words of his first epistle to the Corinthian Christians. For them to become more "spiritual," and less "carnal," they would have to rid themselves of the philosophy of the Sophists and of all worldly thinking.
In this Introduction I wish to cite from Dr. Henry B. Waiters and his article "What preachers have become" (see here). Wrote Waiters (emphasis mine):
"During the Classical period of Ancient Greece, the Sophists (a class of teachers of rhetoric, philosophy and the art of successful living) perfected the art of speech writing and public speaking. Central to their study was rhetoric which is defined as the skill of using language and speech effectively and persuasively.
Sophists were experts, professors, teachers and authorities on presenting arguments, earning a reputation of “extravagant displays of language for astonishing audiences with their brilliant styles, colorful appearances and flamboyant personalities.” Frequently a Sophist, as a professional orator, would offer his services for pay, generally for legal purposes or entertainment in the public square. They razzled and dazzled the audience with their mastery of persuasive discourse.
The Sophists became controversial for several reasons, particularly for their view of truth. For them, truth was not found in transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality, but in the persuasive power of words projected, rather than objective truth. In other words, skilled Sophists became the source of — as opposed to the tools or bearers — of truth. In this sense truth is not transcendent, but subjective intervention.
There is a sense that the majority of current preachers have become modern-day Sophists, concerned with the use of flattering words in the pulpit, as opposed to gospel truth, with the intent to entertain an audience that would rather have amusing discourse than preaching that “Convicts, Converts and Subverts.”
With the “platform grandstanding and showmanship” adorned in polished rhetoric, they preach to itching ears rather than wounded hearts. At the end of the day preaching becomes an act of entertainment in the interest of delighting the audience. Truth is dressed up with lavish garments of eloquence and style, turning it into something else.
Preaching is not to amuse but to amend the hearers. It is not manipulating the crowd using techniques that excite and stir and move people’s emotions to achieve results, but being the messenger of God with God’s Word and God’s Wisdom in God’s Power preaching the Scriptures."
Well, amen to all that!
Where do we see the Sophists today? Are they still not seen in colleges and universities? Are these professors not generally liberal in their thinking as the Sophists of old? Do they not think that absolute truth, like Christians believe is found in the Bible, is a myth? Do they not think that truth is relative? Like those judges who deny divine or natural law, in favor of the Realist view (in legal philosophy) that right (or law) is "whatever the judge says it is," Sophists believe that "truth" is whatever they say it is, or at least is what they can convince the majority is "truth." They convince people that they, because of their education and speaking skills, are the experts and know best, and that people should simply believe them for that reason. Sound familiar today?
Not only do we find Sophists in teaching positions, where they are paid for their sophistic teaching, but we find them in the legal profession still today. An eloquent and artful attorney has often been able to sway a jury and subvert truth and justice. Not only do we find Sophists plenty in teaching positions in schools and colleges, and in the legal profession, but in politics. How many politicians are Sophists?
We could multiply the list of occupations where Sophists are prevalent. But, it is not my intention to focus on Sophists in the secular world, but on how Sophist thinking is prevalent even among Christians, and certainly among those who make it a living to preach. We will contrast Sophist ideas with those of the Scriptures, as did Paul in his first Corinthian epistle.
I graduated college with a double major, in Sociology and Communication. I studied rhetoric, persuasion, debate, and other such subjects that are part of the core curriculum of a Communication's major. But, all students, whatever their major, had to take classes in speech and communication. The idea is that you cannot succeed if you do not learn to speak well.
I am not condemning speaking well. I am condemning the abuse of the thing, not the thing itself. I am not condoning a preacher butchering the king's English either. Preachers have a need to be "skilled in the word of righteousness" (Hebrews 5:13) and to have "the tongue of the learned" (Isa. 50:4). Some of this is "art," the result of being gifted by God, while some is "science," being a skill that is learned.
I also do not want to focus on merely how preachers today have become Sophists in their teaching and practice, but also on how ordinary Christians remain carnal and do not become more spiritual because of their acceptance of Sophistic thought.
It is my intention to write a new series with the above title and this first posting will be an introduction. It is my intention to finish my series on "Redemption," this being a priority, and to also continue my commentary on the "Apocalypse." In this series we will look at the history of the Sophists in Greek and Roman society in the time of the Apostles and how the apostle Paul in particular, in his Corinthian epistles, spoke against the beliefs, values, and tactics of the Sophists prevalent in Corinth. We will see that the beliefs and practices of the ancient Sophists are still prevalent in the world today.
The worldview of the Sophists, with their values and recipes for living life, are accepted, taught, and practiced by nearly the whole world today. Christians, however, cannot accept the basic beliefs and practices of the Sophists. To the degree that professing Christians accept and practice the teachings of the Sophists, to that degree they are yet "carnal" and "think (or reason) as natural men," as Paul stated in his opening words of his first epistle to the Corinthian Christians. For them to become more "spiritual," and less "carnal," they would have to rid themselves of the philosophy of the Sophists and of all worldly thinking.
In this Introduction I wish to cite from Dr. Henry B. Waiters and his article "What preachers have become" (see here). Wrote Waiters (emphasis mine):
"During the Classical period of Ancient Greece, the Sophists (a class of teachers of rhetoric, philosophy and the art of successful living) perfected the art of speech writing and public speaking. Central to their study was rhetoric which is defined as the skill of using language and speech effectively and persuasively.
Sophists were experts, professors, teachers and authorities on presenting arguments, earning a reputation of “extravagant displays of language for astonishing audiences with their brilliant styles, colorful appearances and flamboyant personalities.” Frequently a Sophist, as a professional orator, would offer his services for pay, generally for legal purposes or entertainment in the public square. They razzled and dazzled the audience with their mastery of persuasive discourse.
The Sophists became controversial for several reasons, particularly for their view of truth. For them, truth was not found in transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality, but in the persuasive power of words projected, rather than objective truth. In other words, skilled Sophists became the source of — as opposed to the tools or bearers — of truth. In this sense truth is not transcendent, but subjective intervention.
There is a sense that the majority of current preachers have become modern-day Sophists, concerned with the use of flattering words in the pulpit, as opposed to gospel truth, with the intent to entertain an audience that would rather have amusing discourse than preaching that “Convicts, Converts and Subverts.”
With the “platform grandstanding and showmanship” adorned in polished rhetoric, they preach to itching ears rather than wounded hearts. At the end of the day preaching becomes an act of entertainment in the interest of delighting the audience. Truth is dressed up with lavish garments of eloquence and style, turning it into something else.
Preaching is not to amuse but to amend the hearers. It is not manipulating the crowd using techniques that excite and stir and move people’s emotions to achieve results, but being the messenger of God with God’s Word and God’s Wisdom in God’s Power preaching the Scriptures."
Well, amen to all that!
Where do we see the Sophists today? Are they still not seen in colleges and universities? Are these professors not generally liberal in their thinking as the Sophists of old? Do they not think that absolute truth, like Christians believe is found in the Bible, is a myth? Do they not think that truth is relative? Like those judges who deny divine or natural law, in favor of the Realist view (in legal philosophy) that right (or law) is "whatever the judge says it is," Sophists believe that "truth" is whatever they say it is, or at least is what they can convince the majority is "truth." They convince people that they, because of their education and speaking skills, are the experts and know best, and that people should simply believe them for that reason. Sound familiar today?
Not only do we find Sophists in teaching positions, where they are paid for their sophistic teaching, but we find them in the legal profession still today. An eloquent and artful attorney has often been able to sway a jury and subvert truth and justice. Not only do we find Sophists plenty in teaching positions in schools and colleges, and in the legal profession, but in politics. How many politicians are Sophists?
We could multiply the list of occupations where Sophists are prevalent. But, it is not my intention to focus on Sophists in the secular world, but on how Sophist thinking is prevalent even among Christians, and certainly among those who make it a living to preach. We will contrast Sophist ideas with those of the Scriptures, as did Paul in his first Corinthian epistle.
I graduated college with a double major, in Sociology and Communication. I studied rhetoric, persuasion, debate, and other such subjects that are part of the core curriculum of a Communication's major. But, all students, whatever their major, had to take classes in speech and communication. The idea is that you cannot succeed if you do not learn to speak well.
I am not condemning speaking well. I am condemning the abuse of the thing, not the thing itself. I am not condoning a preacher butchering the king's English either. Preachers have a need to be "skilled in the word of righteousness" (Hebrews 5:13) and to have "the tongue of the learned" (Isa. 50:4). Some of this is "art," the result of being gifted by God, while some is "science," being a skill that is learned.
I also do not want to focus on merely how preachers today have become Sophists in their teaching and practice, but also on how ordinary Christians remain carnal and do not become more spiritual because of their acceptance of Sophistic thought.
Robert Hall On Means, Perseverance
The following citations from the writings of Robert Hall show what the Old Baptists believed at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century about salvation. His circular letters were to the Northamptonshire Association.
On Perseverance
Wrote Robert Hall on the work of the Holy Spirit (circular letter - see here).
"It belongs to him to seal us to the day of redemption; to put that mark and character upon us, which distinguishes the children of God, as well as to afford a foretaste and an earnest of the future inheritance. And hereby, saith an apostle, we know that we are of God, by the Spirit which he hath given us. It is his office to subdue the corruption of our nature, not by leaving us inactive spectators of the combat, but by engaging us to a determined resistance to every sinful propensity, by teaching our hands to war, and our fingers to fight, so that the victory shall be ours, and the praise his. To help the infirmities of saints, who know not what to pray for as they ought, by making intercession for them with groanings which cannot be uttered, is an important branch of his office." (pg. 438)
Salvation is by grace, but salvation involves winning the battle with personal sin. Today's Hardshells in denying perseverance and the necessity of progressive growth and sanctification for final salvation have departed from the Old Baptist faith and are not entitled to be called "primitive."
Conviction Is Not Evidence Of Regeneration
Wrote Hall:
"Wherever the Spirit of God is in reality, he will convince of sin; but conviction is produced in thousands who still remain destitute of saving grace.—That influence of the Spirit by which a change of heart is effected, is essentially different from the distress and alarm which may be resolved into the exercise of mere natural conscience. For a man to be convinced that he is a sinner, and to tremble at the apprehension of wrath to come, is certainly something very distinct from becoming a new creature. Real Christians have not only perceived their danger, but have fled for refuge; have not only been less or more troubled with a sense of guilt, but, in consequence of coming to Christ, have found rest for their souls. On a review of your past life, you perceive innumerable transgressions, it may be, and are perfectly convinced that you have been “walking according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” So far it is well : your apprehensions are just, and well founded; and your situation more replete with danger than you have ever conceived it to be. Do not however rest here. Let the views you entertain excite you the more earnestly to press into the kingdom of God. Let them engage you to a more diligent use of the means of grace, and, above all, let them lead you to fix your hope and trust on the Redeemer, whose blood alone can cleanse you from all sin, and whose intercession is able to save “to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.” Heb. vii. 25. Apply to him with humble faith and ardent prayer, and though you may be tempted to cherish doubts of the extent of his power and grace, say with him of old, “Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.” (pg. 455-56)
That is real "Old Baptist" doctrine! Today's Hardshells are not what they claim to be, but ironically, are the real "new schoolers" or as R.B.C. Howell styled them, "new test men."
Unbelievers Lost
Wrote Hall to the brethren:
"If you ask how you may know whether you are partakers of the special grace of God we reply, This will be best ascertained by its fruits. When you feel a fixed hatred of sin, an intense thirst after holiness and perfection, and a delight in the word and ways of God, when you are habitually disposed to dwell on the thoughts of Christ and heaven, when the Saviour appears unspeakably precious, as the pearl of great price, and you are habitually ready to part with every thing for his sake, you may be certain that you are born of God. These are the fruits of the Spirit, which sufficiently demonstrate the influence and presence of that blessed Agent. Till you have experienced effects of this kind, you are in a wretched state, though surrounded with all the brightest earthly prospects, because you are estranged from God, and exposed to his eternal wrath and displeasure." (456)
Notice that Hall affirms that sinners, though under some conviction of sin, and somewhat "awakened" to their lost state, are still in a wretched unregenerate state until they have experienced a genuine union with Christ by faith.
Gospel The Means Of Regeneration
In the circular "ON HEARING THE WORD," addressed to the Northamptonshire Association (1813), Hall wrote:
"Though the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, where the gospel is not preached the effects of his operation are rarely to be discerned, and we witness few or no indications of a renewed character out of the bounds of Christendom. From the history of religion, in all ages, it appears that the Spirit is accustomed to follow in the footsteps of his revealed Word; and that, wherever his work lies, he prepares his way by first communicating the Oracles of God. When he proposed to take out a people for his name from among the Gentiles, the first step he took was to commission the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature. To this St. Paul most solemnly directs our attention, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, as the grand instrument of human salvation:- When, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased him, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe. So intimate by divine appointment, is the connexion betwixt the salvation of man and the ministry of the Word, that the method of salvation, under the gospel, derives from the latter its distinguishing appellation, being denominated the hearing of faith. St. James, in like manner, asserts it to be the instrumental cause of our regeneration. Of his own will begat he us, by the Word of Truth. And to the same purpose St. Peter reminds the Christians, whom he was addressing, that they were born not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God; which word, he adds, is by the gospel preached unto you. The written Word, we are told, indeed, from the highest authority, is able to make us wise unto salvation, and many pleasing instances of its saving efficacy might be produced to confirm this position; but, as the gospel was preached before it was penned, it is certain that most of the passages which speak on this subject are to be referred to its public ministry, and that, in subsequent ages, God has put a distinguishing honour upon it, by employing it as the principal means of accomplishing his saving purposes. There is every reason to suppose that the far greater part of those who have been truly sanctified and enlightened, will ascribe the change they have experienced principally to the hearing of faith." (461-64)
Is that clear? Where are the writings of the Hardshells from that period of time that taught contrary to this? We have called upon today's Hardshells to give us the writings of men in the 18th century who taught the no means view of regeneration and they have remained silent as the grave. We all know the reason. There is no such writings because Hardshell no means view is a new and novel view among Baptists, not being propounded till the rise of the Hardshells in the mid 19th century.
In addition to the above words of Hall, he also wrote these words:
"When we see men attentive under the ministry of the Word, and evidently anxious to comprehend its truths, we cannot but entertain hopes of their salvation; for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” (465)
"Establish in your minds the highest reverence and esteem of the glorious gospel...Recollect that on its acceptance or rejection, on the effects which it produces on the heart and life, depends our state for eternity..." (467)
"It is not merely the incorruptible seed of regeneration; it is also the mould in which our souls must be cast, agreeable to the apostle's beautiful metaphor: "You have obeyed from the heart that form (or mould) of doctrine into which ye were delivered." (468)
"To tremble at God's Word is also mentioned as one of the most essential features in the character of him to whom God will look with approbation." (468)
There used to be a TV show called "To Tell The Truth" and the famous line was "will the real (name inserted) please stand up." In a similar way we ask the question "will the real Old Baptists please stand up." Today's Hardshells who do not believe what Hall wrote are not the real Old Baptists but are imposters.
On Perseverance
Wrote Robert Hall on the work of the Holy Spirit (circular letter - see here).
"It belongs to him to seal us to the day of redemption; to put that mark and character upon us, which distinguishes the children of God, as well as to afford a foretaste and an earnest of the future inheritance. And hereby, saith an apostle, we know that we are of God, by the Spirit which he hath given us. It is his office to subdue the corruption of our nature, not by leaving us inactive spectators of the combat, but by engaging us to a determined resistance to every sinful propensity, by teaching our hands to war, and our fingers to fight, so that the victory shall be ours, and the praise his. To help the infirmities of saints, who know not what to pray for as they ought, by making intercession for them with groanings which cannot be uttered, is an important branch of his office." (pg. 438)
Salvation is by grace, but salvation involves winning the battle with personal sin. Today's Hardshells in denying perseverance and the necessity of progressive growth and sanctification for final salvation have departed from the Old Baptist faith and are not entitled to be called "primitive."
Conviction Is Not Evidence Of Regeneration
Wrote Hall:
"Wherever the Spirit of God is in reality, he will convince of sin; but conviction is produced in thousands who still remain destitute of saving grace.—That influence of the Spirit by which a change of heart is effected, is essentially different from the distress and alarm which may be resolved into the exercise of mere natural conscience. For a man to be convinced that he is a sinner, and to tremble at the apprehension of wrath to come, is certainly something very distinct from becoming a new creature. Real Christians have not only perceived their danger, but have fled for refuge; have not only been less or more troubled with a sense of guilt, but, in consequence of coming to Christ, have found rest for their souls. On a review of your past life, you perceive innumerable transgressions, it may be, and are perfectly convinced that you have been “walking according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” So far it is well : your apprehensions are just, and well founded; and your situation more replete with danger than you have ever conceived it to be. Do not however rest here. Let the views you entertain excite you the more earnestly to press into the kingdom of God. Let them engage you to a more diligent use of the means of grace, and, above all, let them lead you to fix your hope and trust on the Redeemer, whose blood alone can cleanse you from all sin, and whose intercession is able to save “to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.” Heb. vii. 25. Apply to him with humble faith and ardent prayer, and though you may be tempted to cherish doubts of the extent of his power and grace, say with him of old, “Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.” (pg. 455-56)
That is real "Old Baptist" doctrine! Today's Hardshells are not what they claim to be, but ironically, are the real "new schoolers" or as R.B.C. Howell styled them, "new test men."
Unbelievers Lost
Wrote Hall to the brethren:
"If you ask how you may know whether you are partakers of the special grace of God we reply, This will be best ascertained by its fruits. When you feel a fixed hatred of sin, an intense thirst after holiness and perfection, and a delight in the word and ways of God, when you are habitually disposed to dwell on the thoughts of Christ and heaven, when the Saviour appears unspeakably precious, as the pearl of great price, and you are habitually ready to part with every thing for his sake, you may be certain that you are born of God. These are the fruits of the Spirit, which sufficiently demonstrate the influence and presence of that blessed Agent. Till you have experienced effects of this kind, you are in a wretched state, though surrounded with all the brightest earthly prospects, because you are estranged from God, and exposed to his eternal wrath and displeasure." (456)
Notice that Hall affirms that sinners, though under some conviction of sin, and somewhat "awakened" to their lost state, are still in a wretched unregenerate state until they have experienced a genuine union with Christ by faith.
Gospel The Means Of Regeneration
In the circular "ON HEARING THE WORD," addressed to the Northamptonshire Association (1813), Hall wrote:
"Though the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, where the gospel is not preached the effects of his operation are rarely to be discerned, and we witness few or no indications of a renewed character out of the bounds of Christendom. From the history of religion, in all ages, it appears that the Spirit is accustomed to follow in the footsteps of his revealed Word; and that, wherever his work lies, he prepares his way by first communicating the Oracles of God. When he proposed to take out a people for his name from among the Gentiles, the first step he took was to commission the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature. To this St. Paul most solemnly directs our attention, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, as the grand instrument of human salvation:- When, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased him, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe. So intimate by divine appointment, is the connexion betwixt the salvation of man and the ministry of the Word, that the method of salvation, under the gospel, derives from the latter its distinguishing appellation, being denominated the hearing of faith. St. James, in like manner, asserts it to be the instrumental cause of our regeneration. Of his own will begat he us, by the Word of Truth. And to the same purpose St. Peter reminds the Christians, whom he was addressing, that they were born not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God; which word, he adds, is by the gospel preached unto you. The written Word, we are told, indeed, from the highest authority, is able to make us wise unto salvation, and many pleasing instances of its saving efficacy might be produced to confirm this position; but, as the gospel was preached before it was penned, it is certain that most of the passages which speak on this subject are to be referred to its public ministry, and that, in subsequent ages, God has put a distinguishing honour upon it, by employing it as the principal means of accomplishing his saving purposes. There is every reason to suppose that the far greater part of those who have been truly sanctified and enlightened, will ascribe the change they have experienced principally to the hearing of faith." (461-64)
Is that clear? Where are the writings of the Hardshells from that period of time that taught contrary to this? We have called upon today's Hardshells to give us the writings of men in the 18th century who taught the no means view of regeneration and they have remained silent as the grave. We all know the reason. There is no such writings because Hardshell no means view is a new and novel view among Baptists, not being propounded till the rise of the Hardshells in the mid 19th century.
In addition to the above words of Hall, he also wrote these words:
"When we see men attentive under the ministry of the Word, and evidently anxious to comprehend its truths, we cannot but entertain hopes of their salvation; for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” (465)
"Establish in your minds the highest reverence and esteem of the glorious gospel...Recollect that on its acceptance or rejection, on the effects which it produces on the heart and life, depends our state for eternity..." (467)
"It is not merely the incorruptible seed of regeneration; it is also the mould in which our souls must be cast, agreeable to the apostle's beautiful metaphor: "You have obeyed from the heart that form (or mould) of doctrine into which ye were delivered." (468)
"To tremble at God's Word is also mentioned as one of the most essential features in the character of him to whom God will look with approbation." (468)
There used to be a TV show called "To Tell The Truth" and the famous line was "will the real (name inserted) please stand up." In a similar way we ask the question "will the real Old Baptists please stand up." Today's Hardshells who do not believe what Hall wrote are not the real Old Baptists but are imposters.
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
More On "Lead Us Not Into Temptation"
In "Pope Francis, The Lord’s Prayer, and Bible Translation," by Daniel B. Wallace (Dec. 12, 2017) we read the following regarding the translation of "lead us not into temptation." (emphasis mine - see here)
"It is important to recognize, however, that all translation is interpretation. The reason is that the syntax and lexical mapping in one language never match exactly that of another language. The context determines the meaning. A so-called “word-for-word” translation is quite impossible for anything more than a short phrase or sentence."
This is what I have stressed many times over the years when in discussion about "KJV Onlyism" and on issues of bible translations. Twisting of scripture happens not only when interpreting the words of a given translation of a text, but also in translation itself.
Wrote Wallace:
"Not only is the Greek in both Matt 6.13 and Luke 11.4 textually certain (variants for “do not lead us into temptation” are trivial amounting to minor spelling differences), but the syntax is clear. The verb in the petition “lead” is an aorist active subjunctive (εἰσενέγκῃς); with the negative particle, “do not lead” is the idea. The pope wants it to mean “allow” which speaks instead of God not permitting something rather than him actively leading us. And the pontiff seems to have assumed that the Greek “lead into temptation” means “permit to fall into temptation.” Several lexical, syntactical, and interpretive shifts are seen here.
The broader context of Matthew’s Gospel may give us a clue as to why the Lord said, “Do not lead us into temptation.” Immediately after Jesus’ baptism, we are told that he “was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4.1). The Greek text indicates that the purpose of the Spirit’s leading Jesus into the wilderness was so that he would be tempted by the devil (“to be tempted” [πειρασθῆναι] is an infinitive of purpose, giving the purpose of the Spirit’s leading). Mark words this even more starkly: “Immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness” (Mark 1.13)."
Exactly! We have an example of what it means to be led into temptation by the Lord in the temptation of Christ! To say that God does not do what he clearly does do is no mean sin.
Continued Wallace:
"Evidently, there is a sense in which Jesus was delivered into the hands of the evil one, by the Holy Spirit himself, to be tempted. But the Greek here makes an interesting point about who is responsible for what. Two passive verbs are used in Matt 4.1— ἀνήχθη (“he was led”) and πειρασθῆναι (“to be tempted”). The agents are listed with identical prepositions: ὑπό. This is the preposition used especially for ultimate agent. It is rare to see ὑπό followed by πνεύματος (“Spirit”) in the NT (only five passages). Doing so here, Matthew shows that the Spirit is not subordinate to the devil but is the agent ultimately responsible for leading Jesus into the wilderness, while the devil is the ultimate agent of the temptation. The Spirit is not responsible for that. The Spirit did not tempt Jesus, but he did lead him to be tempted. The balance is intentional: leading into temptation is not the same as tempting. God the Holy Spirit led Jesus into temptation, but he did not tempt him. Wrestling with the implications of this requires more than a little reflection.
Although Satan’s purpose was to destroy Jesus before he ever went to the cross, God’s purpose in using Satan was painted on a broader canvas. God tests; Satan tempts. The Son of God went through similar testing as the children of Israel in the wilderness. They were there for forty years; he was there for forty days. Where they failed he succeeded.
Further, the temptation that the Lord faced was the ultimate temptation—the offer of the entire world on a platter. Jesus can ask the disciples to pray that the Father would not lead them into temptation and that God would deliver them from the evil one precisely because Jesus himself faced the ultimate temptation by the evil one. Whereas the Spirit led Jesus to be tempted, Jesus asks the Father not to lead his disciples into temptation; whereas Jesus was delivered over to Satan for tempting (testing from the Father’s perspective), Jesus prays that his followers will be delivered from the evil one. It is precisely because of Jesus’ substitutionary death and life that this prayer can be recited today by Christians with the full assurance that God will answer us.
Pope Francis’s translation, however, subverts all this: “do not let us fall into temptation.” The original text speaks clearly of God leading, not permitting. To tamper with the wording misses the connection with the Lord’s temptation."
Well, amen to that!
"It is important to recognize, however, that all translation is interpretation. The reason is that the syntax and lexical mapping in one language never match exactly that of another language. The context determines the meaning. A so-called “word-for-word” translation is quite impossible for anything more than a short phrase or sentence."
This is what I have stressed many times over the years when in discussion about "KJV Onlyism" and on issues of bible translations. Twisting of scripture happens not only when interpreting the words of a given translation of a text, but also in translation itself.
Wrote Wallace:
"Not only is the Greek in both Matt 6.13 and Luke 11.4 textually certain (variants for “do not lead us into temptation” are trivial amounting to minor spelling differences), but the syntax is clear. The verb in the petition “lead” is an aorist active subjunctive (εἰσενέγκῃς); with the negative particle, “do not lead” is the idea. The pope wants it to mean “allow” which speaks instead of God not permitting something rather than him actively leading us. And the pontiff seems to have assumed that the Greek “lead into temptation” means “permit to fall into temptation.” Several lexical, syntactical, and interpretive shifts are seen here.
The broader context of Matthew’s Gospel may give us a clue as to why the Lord said, “Do not lead us into temptation.” Immediately after Jesus’ baptism, we are told that he “was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4.1). The Greek text indicates that the purpose of the Spirit’s leading Jesus into the wilderness was so that he would be tempted by the devil (“to be tempted” [πειρασθῆναι] is an infinitive of purpose, giving the purpose of the Spirit’s leading). Mark words this even more starkly: “Immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness” (Mark 1.13)."
Exactly! We have an example of what it means to be led into temptation by the Lord in the temptation of Christ! To say that God does not do what he clearly does do is no mean sin.
Continued Wallace:
"Evidently, there is a sense in which Jesus was delivered into the hands of the evil one, by the Holy Spirit himself, to be tempted. But the Greek here makes an interesting point about who is responsible for what. Two passive verbs are used in Matt 4.1— ἀνήχθη (“he was led”) and πειρασθῆναι (“to be tempted”). The agents are listed with identical prepositions: ὑπό. This is the preposition used especially for ultimate agent. It is rare to see ὑπό followed by πνεύματος (“Spirit”) in the NT (only five passages). Doing so here, Matthew shows that the Spirit is not subordinate to the devil but is the agent ultimately responsible for leading Jesus into the wilderness, while the devil is the ultimate agent of the temptation. The Spirit is not responsible for that. The Spirit did not tempt Jesus, but he did lead him to be tempted. The balance is intentional: leading into temptation is not the same as tempting. God the Holy Spirit led Jesus into temptation, but he did not tempt him. Wrestling with the implications of this requires more than a little reflection.
Although Satan’s purpose was to destroy Jesus before he ever went to the cross, God’s purpose in using Satan was painted on a broader canvas. God tests; Satan tempts. The Son of God went through similar testing as the children of Israel in the wilderness. They were there for forty years; he was there for forty days. Where they failed he succeeded.
Further, the temptation that the Lord faced was the ultimate temptation—the offer of the entire world on a platter. Jesus can ask the disciples to pray that the Father would not lead them into temptation and that God would deliver them from the evil one precisely because Jesus himself faced the ultimate temptation by the evil one. Whereas the Spirit led Jesus to be tempted, Jesus asks the Father not to lead his disciples into temptation; whereas Jesus was delivered over to Satan for tempting (testing from the Father’s perspective), Jesus prays that his followers will be delivered from the evil one. It is precisely because of Jesus’ substitutionary death and life that this prayer can be recited today by Christians with the full assurance that God will answer us.
Pope Francis’s translation, however, subverts all this: “do not let us fall into temptation.” The original text speaks clearly of God leading, not permitting. To tamper with the wording misses the connection with the Lord’s temptation."
Well, amen to that!
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
"Lead Us Not Into Temptation" An Error?
Pope Francis has affirmed that "lead us not into temptation" is a mistranslation and conveys false doctrine and thinks the text should rather be translated as "abandon us not into temptation."
No, it is not a false translation and neither does it convey a false idea about God and his providence. God does lead into temptation, but he does not tempt. The great C.H. Spurgeon in "Lead Us Not Into Temptation" (May 17, 1863, Scripture: Matthew 6:13- see here) seems to have anticipated this controversy, or which shows that it is not new. Said Spurgeon:
"A great many persons have been troubled by that passage in James, where it is expressly said, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” It has been found very difficult to reconcile that express declaration of the apostle with this prayer of our Saviour; and some good, but very ignorant men, have gone the length of altering our Lord's words. I have heard of one who was won’t always to say, “Leave us not in temptation” — a most unwarrantable and unjustifiable alteration of Holy Scripture. Because sometimes a learned minister ventures, in all honesty and discretion, to give a more correct translation of the original, can this justify a foolish unlettered man in altering the original itself, and perverting the sense of a passage? There is an end to Scripture altogether, if license be given to alter its teachings according to our will. To teach perfect wisdom how to speak is too great a task to be ventured upon by any but the presumptuous and foolish. When our version is incorrect, then it is a duty to present the proper rendering, if one be able to find it out; but to give translations out of our whimsied heads, without having been taught in the original tongue, is impertinence indeed. There can be no better translation of the Greek than that which we have before us. The Greek does not say “ Leave us not in temptation,” nor anything like it ; it says, as nearly as English language can convey the meaning of the original, “ Lead us not into temptation," and no sort of pinching, twisting, or wresting, can make this prayer convey any other sense than that which our version conveys in so many words. Let us always be afraid of attempting improvements on God's perfect Word, and when our theories will not stand with divinely revealed truth let us alter our theories, but let us never attempt for one single moment to put one word of God out of its place.
Neither can we get out of the difficulty by supposing that the word “temptation” does not mean “temptation,” but must be restricted to the sense of “trial.” Now, we grant at once that the use of the word temptation in our translation of Scripture is somewhat liable to mislead. The word temptation has two meanings, to try, and to entice. When we read that God did tempt Abraham, we are by no means to understand that he enticed Abraham to anything that was evil; the meaning of the word in that place, doubtless, is simply and only that God tried him; but permit me to say, that this interpretation will not stand with this particular text now before us. The word here used for “temptation,” is not the word constantly written when trial is meant. It is just the very word which one would employ if temptation to sin were intended, and I cannot believe that any other translation can meet the case. Doddridge's paraphrase is a happy one: “Do not bring us into circumstances of pressing temptation lest our virtue should be vanquished and our souls endangered by them; but if we must be thus tried, do thou graciously rescue us from the power of the evil one.” I grant you that the word includes trial, as all temptation does, for all temptation, even if it be temptation from Satan, is in fact trial from God. Still there is more than trial in the text, and you must look at it just as it stands. As Alford, says, “The leading into temptation must be understood in its plain literal sense.” Take the text just as you find it. It means literally and truly, without any diminution, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
“Well,” says one, “if God does not tempt men, how can it be proper to pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation.’” Dear brethren, do but notice the text does not say, “ Tempt us n o t i f it did, then there would be a difficulty ; it does not say, “ Lord, tempt us not,” but it says, “ Lead us not into temptation ; ” and I think I shall very rapidly be able to show you that there is a vast difference between leading into temptation and actually tempting. God tempts no man. For God to tempt in the sense of enticing to sin were inconsistent with his nature, and altogether contrary to his known character; but for God to lead us into those conflicts with evil which we call temptations, is not only possible, but usual. Full often the Great Captain of Salvation leads us by his Providence to battle fields where we must face the fell array of evil, and conquer through the blood of the Lamb; and this leading into temptation is by divine grace overruled for our good, since by being tempted we grow strong in grace and patience. Our God and Father may, for wise ends, which shall ultimately subserve his own glory and our profit, lead us into positions where Satan, the. world, and the flesh may tempt us, and the prayer is to be understood in that sense of a humble self-distrust which shrinks from the conflict. There is courage here, for the suppliant calmly looks the temptation in the face, and dreads only the evil which it may work in him. but there is also a holy fear, a sacred self-suspicion, a dread of contact with sin in any degree. The sentiment is not inconsistent with “all joy” when the divers temptations do come, it is akin to the Saviour's “ If it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” which did not for a moment prevent his drinking the cup even to its dregs.
Let me observe that God in no sense so leads men into temptation as to have any share in the blame of their sin if they fall into it. God cannot possibly by any act of his, become co-partner with man in his crime. As good old Trapp well observes, “God tempts men for PROBATION, but never for PERDITION. The devil tempts men that he may ruin them; God tries men, and puts them where Satan may try them, but he leads them into temptation for probation, that the chaff may be sifted from the wheat, that the dross may be separated from the fine gold. By these trials hypocrites fall, being discovered in the hour of temptation; just as the rough March wind sweeps through, the forest, and finding out the rotten boughs snaps them from the tree, the fault being not in the wind but in the decayed branch. James alludes to the actual solicitation to evil in which the most holy God can have no part, but our text deals with the providential bringing about of the temptation which I think you can clearly see may be the Lord’s work without his holiness in any degree being stained thereby. When the Lord leadeth us into temptation, it is always with a design for our good. He leads us to battle, not that we may be wounded and worsted, but that we may win glorious victories which shall crown the head of our gracious Leader with many crowns, and prepare us for future deeds of valour. Temptations overcome are inestimable blessings, because they make us lie the more humbly at his feet, bind us more firmly to our Lord, and train us to help others. Tempted men can lift up the hands that hang down, and confirm the feeble knees; they have been tempted in the same manner, and can therefore succour their brethren. Yet, while the benefit which God bringeth out of our being led into temptation is very great, still, temptation in itself is a thing so dangerous, trial and distress in themselves are so perilous, that it is right for the Christian to pray, “Lead us not into temptation.” Though, as Martin Luther says, “ Temptation is the best school into which the Christian can enter ; yet, in itself, apart from the grace of God, it is so doubly hazardous, that this prayer should be offered every day, ‘Lead us not into temptation; ' or if we must enter into it, ‘Lord, deliver us from evil.’”
I do not know whether I have met the objection. Perhaps, in the exposition that is to follow I may be able to make it a little more clear. I wish to say, that although God does not tempt men—that is affirmed in Scripture, and reason, and God's own character, all prove it to be the fact—yet he may, and certainly does, lead us into positions in his providence, where it is absolutely certain that we shall be tempted ; and therefore, our consciousness of weakness should constrain to plead for escape from the terrible contest, and deliverance out of it if come it must."
Well, amen to that! Please read the remainder of Spurgeon's commentary on this passage via the link provided.
No, it is not a false translation and neither does it convey a false idea about God and his providence. God does lead into temptation, but he does not tempt. The great C.H. Spurgeon in "Lead Us Not Into Temptation" (May 17, 1863, Scripture: Matthew 6:13- see here) seems to have anticipated this controversy, or which shows that it is not new. Said Spurgeon:
"A great many persons have been troubled by that passage in James, where it is expressly said, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” It has been found very difficult to reconcile that express declaration of the apostle with this prayer of our Saviour; and some good, but very ignorant men, have gone the length of altering our Lord's words. I have heard of one who was won’t always to say, “Leave us not in temptation” — a most unwarrantable and unjustifiable alteration of Holy Scripture. Because sometimes a learned minister ventures, in all honesty and discretion, to give a more correct translation of the original, can this justify a foolish unlettered man in altering the original itself, and perverting the sense of a passage? There is an end to Scripture altogether, if license be given to alter its teachings according to our will. To teach perfect wisdom how to speak is too great a task to be ventured upon by any but the presumptuous and foolish. When our version is incorrect, then it is a duty to present the proper rendering, if one be able to find it out; but to give translations out of our whimsied heads, without having been taught in the original tongue, is impertinence indeed. There can be no better translation of the Greek than that which we have before us. The Greek does not say “ Leave us not in temptation,” nor anything like it ; it says, as nearly as English language can convey the meaning of the original, “ Lead us not into temptation," and no sort of pinching, twisting, or wresting, can make this prayer convey any other sense than that which our version conveys in so many words. Let us always be afraid of attempting improvements on God's perfect Word, and when our theories will not stand with divinely revealed truth let us alter our theories, but let us never attempt for one single moment to put one word of God out of its place.
Neither can we get out of the difficulty by supposing that the word “temptation” does not mean “temptation,” but must be restricted to the sense of “trial.” Now, we grant at once that the use of the word temptation in our translation of Scripture is somewhat liable to mislead. The word temptation has two meanings, to try, and to entice. When we read that God did tempt Abraham, we are by no means to understand that he enticed Abraham to anything that was evil; the meaning of the word in that place, doubtless, is simply and only that God tried him; but permit me to say, that this interpretation will not stand with this particular text now before us. The word here used for “temptation,” is not the word constantly written when trial is meant. It is just the very word which one would employ if temptation to sin were intended, and I cannot believe that any other translation can meet the case. Doddridge's paraphrase is a happy one: “Do not bring us into circumstances of pressing temptation lest our virtue should be vanquished and our souls endangered by them; but if we must be thus tried, do thou graciously rescue us from the power of the evil one.” I grant you that the word includes trial, as all temptation does, for all temptation, even if it be temptation from Satan, is in fact trial from God. Still there is more than trial in the text, and you must look at it just as it stands. As Alford, says, “The leading into temptation must be understood in its plain literal sense.” Take the text just as you find it. It means literally and truly, without any diminution, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
“Well,” says one, “if God does not tempt men, how can it be proper to pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation.’” Dear brethren, do but notice the text does not say, “ Tempt us n o t i f it did, then there would be a difficulty ; it does not say, “ Lord, tempt us not,” but it says, “ Lead us not into temptation ; ” and I think I shall very rapidly be able to show you that there is a vast difference between leading into temptation and actually tempting. God tempts no man. For God to tempt in the sense of enticing to sin were inconsistent with his nature, and altogether contrary to his known character; but for God to lead us into those conflicts with evil which we call temptations, is not only possible, but usual. Full often the Great Captain of Salvation leads us by his Providence to battle fields where we must face the fell array of evil, and conquer through the blood of the Lamb; and this leading into temptation is by divine grace overruled for our good, since by being tempted we grow strong in grace and patience. Our God and Father may, for wise ends, which shall ultimately subserve his own glory and our profit, lead us into positions where Satan, the. world, and the flesh may tempt us, and the prayer is to be understood in that sense of a humble self-distrust which shrinks from the conflict. There is courage here, for the suppliant calmly looks the temptation in the face, and dreads only the evil which it may work in him. but there is also a holy fear, a sacred self-suspicion, a dread of contact with sin in any degree. The sentiment is not inconsistent with “all joy” when the divers temptations do come, it is akin to the Saviour's “ If it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” which did not for a moment prevent his drinking the cup even to its dregs.
Let me observe that God in no sense so leads men into temptation as to have any share in the blame of their sin if they fall into it. God cannot possibly by any act of his, become co-partner with man in his crime. As good old Trapp well observes, “God tempts men for PROBATION, but never for PERDITION. The devil tempts men that he may ruin them; God tries men, and puts them where Satan may try them, but he leads them into temptation for probation, that the chaff may be sifted from the wheat, that the dross may be separated from the fine gold. By these trials hypocrites fall, being discovered in the hour of temptation; just as the rough March wind sweeps through, the forest, and finding out the rotten boughs snaps them from the tree, the fault being not in the wind but in the decayed branch. James alludes to the actual solicitation to evil in which the most holy God can have no part, but our text deals with the providential bringing about of the temptation which I think you can clearly see may be the Lord’s work without his holiness in any degree being stained thereby. When the Lord leadeth us into temptation, it is always with a design for our good. He leads us to battle, not that we may be wounded and worsted, but that we may win glorious victories which shall crown the head of our gracious Leader with many crowns, and prepare us for future deeds of valour. Temptations overcome are inestimable blessings, because they make us lie the more humbly at his feet, bind us more firmly to our Lord, and train us to help others. Tempted men can lift up the hands that hang down, and confirm the feeble knees; they have been tempted in the same manner, and can therefore succour their brethren. Yet, while the benefit which God bringeth out of our being led into temptation is very great, still, temptation in itself is a thing so dangerous, trial and distress in themselves are so perilous, that it is right for the Christian to pray, “Lead us not into temptation.” Though, as Martin Luther says, “ Temptation is the best school into which the Christian can enter ; yet, in itself, apart from the grace of God, it is so doubly hazardous, that this prayer should be offered every day, ‘Lead us not into temptation; ' or if we must enter into it, ‘Lord, deliver us from evil.’”
I do not know whether I have met the objection. Perhaps, in the exposition that is to follow I may be able to make it a little more clear. I wish to say, that although God does not tempt men—that is affirmed in Scripture, and reason, and God's own character, all prove it to be the fact—yet he may, and certainly does, lead us into positions in his providence, where it is absolutely certain that we shall be tempted ; and therefore, our consciousness of weakness should constrain to plead for escape from the terrible contest, and deliverance out of it if come it must."
Well, amen to that! Please read the remainder of Spurgeon's commentary on this passage via the link provided.
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Robert Hall Condemns Hyper Calvinism's Reasoning
The great English Particular Baptist leader, Robert Hall (1764-1831), in his famous book "Help to Zion's Travellers: Being an Attempt to Remove Various Stumbling Blocks Out of the Way, Relating to Doctrinal, Experimental, and Practical Religion" (see here), said some things that I feel would be good to quote here at The Old Baptist Test blog together with some comments.
Is prayer (or faith) a duty or obligation upon all men, even upon the unregenerate? We have written upon this subject many times and have shown that the neo Hardshell view, which denies duty faith and repentance, and duty prayer, for all men, including the unregenerate, is against scripture, reason, and the teachings of our Baptist forefathers. Those who deny that the unregenerate are duty bound to pray, seek God, love God, believe God, etc., cannot condemn them for not doing those things. Wrote Hall on this matter (emphasis mine):
"If he (the unregenerate - SG) ought not to pray, an aversion to pray is not a criminal, but a commendable disposition; for surely a person is much to be commended for being averse to what he ought not to do. If it be said, an unregenerate man ought not to pray, because while in such a state they are incapable of spiritual actions, such objectors ought to point out what duties the unconverted can perform acceptably, or allow that they are not bound to the performance of any; and if not under obligation to obedience, they are not chargeable with sin, and consequently are in a state of safety, not being exposed to punishment; for whoever are not culpable need not fear the Divine displeasure." (PART II. EXPERIMENTAL DIFFICULTIES, page 120)
Well, amen to that! It would be great if our modern Hardshell brothers could see their great error and repent of it. It is antinomianism. For further study on this topic see my series on "Hardshell Pelagianism" and "Hardshell Antinomianism."
Hall also said:
"if he (unregenerate) ought to believe he is pardoned before he repents, then he ought to believe a lie."
This is what we have stated many times before. If a soul is convicted by the Spirit's testifying to him that he is lost, when he is not really lost, then the Spirit bears false witness. This has been pointed out by others. Elder Throgmorton did this in his debate with Hardshell debate champion John Daily. For instance, see these postings:
What Do You Say?
Hardshells Make The Spirit A Liar
Wrote Hall:
"There is no preventive bar in the sinner's way to the Saviour, but what arises from a carnal heart; such as impenitency for sin, an attachment to self-righteousness, and an avowed aversion to the holy perfections of God and his sovereign methods of grace. But let it be observed, that a grant to come to Christ does not support a claim, or give a right to conclude they shall be saved by him. No, such a conclusion is only inferable from our having really believed in his name; a right to go to Christ is no proof we have done so.” What evidences a person's being a true believer is quite distinct from what warrants his applying to the Saviour: the latter arises from what God in his word says to him; the former appears from the change which is wrought in him. To put persons, therefore, upon examining themselves whether they have faith, before they believe, is extremely injudicious; and to encourage professors in the persuasion they are believers, without Scripture evidence of an internal change, is awfully dangerous."
Hardshells are guilty of the "extremely injudicious" and "awfully dangerous" belief and practice that Hall condemns as most surely contrary to the teachings of Scripture.
Continued Hall:
"It would be a great advantage to inquiring souls, and discouraged Christians, as well as presumptuous professors, to have right ideas of the nature of faith, or what it is to believe to the saving of the soul. Faith is a believing the Divine testimony. For he that believeth not maketh God a liar. Faith in Christ is a crediting what the Scriptures assert concerning him...true faith, with which salvation is connected, consists in believing likewise, what he is...He gives credit to the Divine testimony, not only in respect of its reality, but likewise its holy nature and spiritual tendency. The tidings concerning the person of Christ, and his infinite fulness of merit and grace, are declared to be good, as well as true; the renewed soul believes them to be so, even the only satisfying portion that an immortal mind can possess.
He receives them as every way suited to his present circumstances, as guilty and impure; being divinely adapted to render him holy and happy for ever. This is what the Scripture calls an embracing, when true faith is the subject under immediate consideration. See Heb. xi. 13. Saving faith is differently denominated in Scripture, but always exactly corresponding with the various representations of Christ in the gospel. Is he lifted up as an object to be beheld?
Believers “look to him” as the wounded Jews did to the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness for their relief. Is he a “gift”? Faith as such “receives” him. As he is called the “bread of life,” believing is termed an “eating or living upon” him.
Considering him as a support, faith is described as a leaning upon him.
He is called a faithful friend; and faith is then denominated a “confiding or trusting” in him.
He is set forth as a “refuge,” and faith is then termed a “running or flying” to him for safety.
He is represented as the husband of his people, and then their faith is called giving themselves to him.
Many more instances might be produced of the diversification of believing in Christ, according as its object is represented; for the purpose of setting forth the various infinite blessings in him, and benefits flowing from him, who is the real believers's all in all."
Yes, Hardshells do not give a scriptural definition of "faith." They create a whole new definition for it, just as they do other key words dealing with the doctrine of salvation.
Friday, December 7, 2018
What The 1689 Signatories Believed
Though the "footnotes" made by the Hardshells (in 1900 A.D. in Fulton, Kentucky) to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith pretend to properly "explain" portions of that confession, they rather corrupt the text of the confession by trying to make it say what it clearly does not say, all in an attempt to try to show how it supports Hardshellism. This we have substantiated many times over the years. We had a series of articles on "Hardshells and the London Confession" and we cited from Hardshell leaders themselves who admit that their forefathers corrupted that confession by their "footnotes."
But, if one really wanted to know what the signatories of that confession were saying (not that the confession itself is not clear), all he would have to do is to read the writings of those men who wrote and produced that old confession. I have done that and have cited from their writings many times to show that the Hardshell "interpretation" (or misinterpretation) of the 1689 Confession is a perversion, an attempt to deceive the simple minded and the uninformed.
What think ye?
But, if one really wanted to know what the signatories of that confession were saying (not that the confession itself is not clear), all he would have to do is to read the writings of those men who wrote and produced that old confession. I have done that and have cited from their writings many times to show that the Hardshell "interpretation" (or misinterpretation) of the 1689 Confession is a perversion, an attempt to deceive the simple minded and the uninformed.
What think ye?
Monday, December 3, 2018
Let Every Heart Prepare Him Room?
Here is another song that is found in many Hardshell hymn books (and in nearly all other Christian hymn books) that testifies of truth that is denied by today's Hardshells.
Hardshells do not say to all men without distinction - "let everyone prepare him room" in their hearts and lives! They have great reluctance to saying to lost sinners - "receive Christ into your heart".
Joy To The World
1 Joy to the world, the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King!
Let ev'ry heart prepare Him room,
and heav'n and nature sing,
and heav'n and nature sing,
and heav'n, and heav'n and nature sing.
All men in the world are called upon to receive Christ as their king. Further, if they do not do so, it will be their damning sin. Yet, Hardshells do not believe that it is sin to reject Christ!
Here are some other articles that Kevin and I have written about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Hardshells in singing the hymns of their forefathers when they do not believe them.
More Theology From Old Hymns
Means Hymn #1
Old Pb Hymnal Theology
Let All Crown Him Lord
Songs Of Perseverance
Come Ye Sinners?
From Elder James Osbourn's Hymnal
What Think Ye?
The Lone Pilgrims Perseverance Denied!
Hardshells do not say to all men without distinction - "let everyone prepare him room" in their hearts and lives! They have great reluctance to saying to lost sinners - "receive Christ into your heart".
Joy To The World
1 Joy to the world, the Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King!
Let ev'ry heart prepare Him room,
and heav'n and nature sing,
and heav'n and nature sing,
and heav'n, and heav'n and nature sing.
All men in the world are called upon to receive Christ as their king. Further, if they do not do so, it will be their damning sin. Yet, Hardshells do not believe that it is sin to reject Christ!
Here are some other articles that Kevin and I have written about the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Hardshells in singing the hymns of their forefathers when they do not believe them.
More Theology From Old Hymns
Means Hymn #1
Old Pb Hymnal Theology
Let All Crown Him Lord
Songs Of Perseverance
Come Ye Sinners?
From Elder James Osbourn's Hymnal
What Think Ye?
The Lone Pilgrims Perseverance Denied!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)