Effectual Conviction?

Arminians greatly object to the doctrine of effectual calling (or "irresistible grace") because they think that this amounts to coercion, to forcing a man to be saved against his will.  Sometimes the equivocation is simply stated as though the equating of calling with coercion is enough to dispute it.  But, such an argument assumes that all coercion is evil and unethical.  But, all compulsion is not so.  Jesus himself said that sinners are to be "compelled."  (Luke 14: 23)  It matters not that the kind of "compelling" be special, of a certain kind, as done with words only, in overthrowing the supposition that all coercion is unethical.  Parents daily compel their children.  Generals daily compel soldiers. 

To compel is to force.  Thus, when Arminians decry the idea of conversion being "forced," they are decrying sinners being "compelled."  But, Jesus said - "compel (or force) them to come."  Further, Paul says - "For the love of Christ constraineth us."  (II Cor. 5: 14) 

I once heard an Arminian preacher condemning effectual calling by grabbing his shirt collar and pulling it and saying - "God does not grab and pull us like this."  But, I thought to myself - "does he not believe that the shepherd's crook is designed to do this very thing?"  Does the shepherd not coerce and force the sheep back into the safety of the fold?  Would a parent not force a child to save the child?

I once heard another Arminian preacher saying that God was like a magnet and sinners were like nails.  The magnet was "drawing" and pulling, exerting force against force, on sinners.  But, said he, some sinners have hardened their hearts so that they have become like big railroad spikes, while other sinners, those who have not been sinners long, are like small tacks, and therefore easier for God to "draw" and pull to himself.  So, though God was drawing all, some men's resistance is greater than the power pulling them, and this is the reason why they are not effectually drawn.  The Calvininst sees the problem with the Arminian's making the magnet too small and insufficient in power. 

Is the magnet "forcing" the thing it draws?  Who can deny it?  Who can deny that the thing being drawn is resisting by the force of its weight?  Who can deny that the thing drawn will be effectually drawn if enough force is exerted by the magnet?

Some Arminians, seeing the "force" of the argument from the word "draw" (John 6: 44; 12: 32), how it denotes a dragging, or compelling, resort to saying - "but it may not always mean that."  They never deny that it is a forcing or compelling when the word is used for "drawing" water or fish, but they insist that when it is used of the drawing power of love, then it does not mean to compel or force. 

But, who can deny that when "attraction" is superior to resistance, even in the case of "falling in love," a compelling has taken place?  How many spouses have exclaimed of this experience - "I found him/her irresistibile"? 

Is God not able to successfully "woo" a heart?  Does he lack the necessary attraction?  Does he lack knowledge of what the object of his attraction will find irresistible?  By the Arminian scheme God lacks the power and wisdom to win a heart that he is determined to win.

Arminians often speak of how conviction of sin is that preparation of heart that precedes faith and salvation, and rightly so.  But, I have never heard one of them affirm that the experience of conviction may not be effectual and irresistible.  Does God ask the sinner for his permission to bring him under conviction of sin?  Does he not do this without such permission?  Further, can the sinner resist being convicted?  Can he say, "God has convicted me, but I will stop him"? 

As God works powerfully, and sometimes irresistibly, in convicting of sin, so he does in also convicting of righteousness and judgment.  (John 16: 8)

The above is an article I wrote for The Baptist Gadfly in June, 2012. (see here)

John 3:3,5 and Hyper Calvinism

The following is from chapter 81 of my book on The Hardshell Baptists which I printed in my Baptist Gadfly blog (which preceded this blog). I felt it good to post it here. Any discussion on it from my Hardshell brothers is welcome.

The chapter was published in Sept. 2008. There are a couple of good comments from others in the comment box.

Besides John 1: 12, 13, and I John 5: 1, John 3: 3,5 is also used by the Hardshells and other Hyperists in order to attempt to prove that one is born again prior to faith and repentance.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3: 3 KJV)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (vs. 5)

The argument of the Hardshells, and others who promote the view that puts the new birth prior to faith, from the above words of Christ, affirms that these words teach that the new birth must occur before one believes, or repents, or savingly hears, or receives Christ, or experiences conversion.

But, this verse does not teach such an unscriptural notion.

First, the context shows how Christ interpreted the birth of the Spirit to be synonymous with coming to trust in Christ and in his atoning death.

Secondly, the "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom is not to be equated with believing or receiving Christ, nor with repenting, but with coming to experience the life of a child of God, in his Christian life now, but superlatively so in the world to come.

"See" does not mean to "believe," but to "experience," probably, to fully experience. Certainly no one can experience the spiritual life, either here and now, or in the world to come, unless he is first born of the Spirit through the word. Besides, is there no "seeing" or "entering" experienced IN the very act of being born?

Let us substitute some other words for "see" and "enter" and discover if it be scriptural or not.

"Except a man be born again he cannot experience God in salvation."
"Except a man be born again he cannot go to heaven."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be spiritually alive."
"Except a man be born again he cannot have Ezekiel's new heart."
"Except a man be born again he cannot please God."
"Except a man be born again he cannot have fellowship with God."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be translated into the kingdom."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be transformed."

Now, for the term "born again," in all the above examples, substitute the words "have faith" and see if it as scriptural.

Certainly "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom is Jewish. From the Old Testament, the believing Jew looked forward to the coming of an eternal kingdom where he would enjoy, in a glorified human body and spirit, the fullness of "life." It is therefore chiefly "eschatological." Peter referred to this eschatological "seeing" (experiencing) and "entering" the "eternal kingdom" of Christ, when he wrote:

"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 11 KJV)

The context clearly shows that Peter is addressing those who have been born again and who, in some limited way, have experienced the kingdom of the Messiah. Yet, this present enjoyment of the kingdom is limited, being only a foretaste or earnest deposit, while the fullest enjoyment will not be till after the return of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom.

D.A. Carson wrote (emphasis mine):

“To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, “to see the kingdom of God” was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life. The same equivalence is found in the Synoptics (cf. Mk. 9:43, 45 ‘to enter life’, parallel to 9:47 ‘to enter the kingdom of God/); it is particularly strong in the Fourth Gospel, where ‘kingdom’ language crops up only here (3:3, 5) and at Jesus’ trial (18:36) while ‘life’ language predominates. One of the most startling features of the kingdom announced in the Synoptics is that it is not exclusively future. The kingdom, God’s saving and transforming reign, has in certain respects already been inaugurated in the person works and message of Jesus.” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According To John, P. 188)

So, it is a very weak argument, or none at all, to say that the words of Christ teach that one must be born again in order that he may later believe, repent, or be converted. Such a view, as I have said, eliminates faith, repentance, and a change of heart and mind from the very experience of the new birth.

Why can't the Hyperist see that part of the "deadness" of the alien depraved sinner is his "unbelief" and his "impenitence"? If they saw correctly that "spiritual death" involves unbelief and impenitence of heart, then they could see how coming to spiritual "life" involves coming out of dead faith, and dead thinking, and dead repentance, and dead works.

These same folks will affirm that the "new heart" must be first given before that heart can exercise faith and repentance. But, such a view divorces faith and repentance from being essential elements of the "new heart." If the "new heart" and "new life" do not include faith and repentance, then the "heart" is still unbelieving and impenitent, and so, how could it be said to be a "new" heart?

Jesus shows that he has primary allusion to an "eschatological" realization of "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom (to that which will not be experienced till the kingdom of Christ is established upon earth), when he says "whoever believes on him will have eternal life." (vs. 15, 16)

Surely this latter statement of Christ is eschatological, for the most part, is it not? Do those who argue erroneously on the words "seeing" and "entering," as the Hardshells and "Reformed" crowd, also see these words ('believe to eternal life') as not referring to "regeneration"? If they did, would they not have faith before regeneration?

So, the context shows that the "seeing" and "entering" into "eternal life," and into the "kingdom of God," are what is to be realized at the return of Christ. But, even if we allow it to refer to what takes place at the moment one is born again, or comes to faith, it still does not uphold the view that says the birth is completed without the creation of faith.

Besides, if the new life that is created by the new birth does not include faith, then how was the word a means in the birth? And, in our earlier chapters in this book, we looked at those passages that teach regeneration by the means of the word of God and faith in it, and overthrew the Hardshell objections to them. But, if faith is after the new birth, then the word of God cannot be a means in the giving of the life itself.

In the next chapter I will be continue looking at verses in the gospel of John that supposedly teach that one is born again before and apart from faith, as the Hardshells teach.

"Bearing Fruit In Old Age"

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing; To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him." (Psa. 92:12-15 KJV)

Here is another verse that disproves the position of Elder Winslett and his Hardshell brothers who deny perseverance.

Gill on verse 12 (highlighting mine):

"...so truly righteous persons are upright ones in heart and life, grow up into their head, Christ, and rise up heavenwards in their desires and affections; and, like the Israelites, the more they are pressed with the weight of afflictions, the more they grow; their grace and strength, their life and rigour, lie in their head, Christ; from whom was it possible they could be separated, as it is not, they would instantly die; they flourish under him, the sun of righteousness, and his warming beams of love, and bring forth the fruits of righteousness by him, to the glory of God; their leaf of profession does not wither, but is always green; the grace of God, which is in them, being an incorruptible and never dying seed..." (Commentary)

he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon;

"where the best, tallest, largest, and strongest cedars grow; (See Gill on Isaiah 37:24) to which the righteous are compared, who grow up by degrees higher and higher, even to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; and, stronger and stronger in him, go from strength to strength, having their spiritual strength renewed by him; and cast forth their roots in him, like Lebanon, and the cedars there; and spread their boughs and branches, like them, in the exercise of grace and discharge of duty; and grow in every grace, of faith, hope, love, humility, self-denial, and submission to the will of God, and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ; and are durable as the cedar, never die, their life being hid with Christ in God. Kimchi refers this to the days of the Messiah."

They shall still bring forth fruit in old age

"Being thus planted and watered, they shall not only bring forth the fruits of righteousness, but shall continue, and go on to do so, and even when they are grown old; contrary to all other trees, which, when old, cease bearing fruit; but so do not the righteous; grace is often in the greatest vigour when nature is decayed; witness Abraham, Job, David, Zachariah, and Elisabeth, and good old Simeon, who went to the grave like shocks of corn, fully ripe..."

That is Old Baptist doctrine. Winslett and his brothers do not believe what their forefathers believed. Further, their controversies have not perfected them in doctrine as he supposes.

I'll take the words of David (who Winslett said died in a worse state than when God first saved him!) rather than the speculations of the Hardshells.

One's "latter end" and Perseverance

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning." (II Peter 2:20 KJV)

This verse overthrows the reasoning of our Hardshell brothers who oppose the doctrine of the sure and certain perseverance of the saints. How so?

To demonstrate this, let me quote from a Hardshell elder with whom we have had some interaction over the past few months.

In "Avoiding Extremes" by Elder Ben Winslett (see here), Winslett wrote:

"While controversy often results in precision in how theology is expressed, we must be careful not rush to the opposite extreme of that which we disagree. There is a ditch on each side of the road. Opposing an idea by swerving to the opposite extreme renders one in just as much error as he initially and rightly rejected.

Example:

Error 1 - Every born again person - bar none - will grow in sanctification and holiness to the extent that they are effectively "supersaints" by the time they die."

Winslet thinks that if one's "latter end" of life is not better, but is the same or worse than at first conversion, that this does not mean he is not one of the elect. If there is little or no growth during the Christian life of a professor, then we should not conclude that this is evidence that the person was never truly saved.

The position of Winslett and the Hardshells is that many of those who are "elect and called" actually fit the description of those false professors as given by Peter, whose "latter end" is worse than when they were first converted.

He doesn't believe that the elect will be made to persevere in allegiance to Jesus, and thus, many of the elect live in sin and do not persevere, and in fact leave this world in a worse state than when they were first converted. But what does Peter say? "The latter end is worse than the beginning" with those described as "washed pigs" and "vomit eating dogs." But, if this is likewise true of the truly called, then Peter's reasoning amounts to nothing.

What think ye?

The Great Commission "hot potato"

The term "hot potato" has become a familiar metaphor to describe tense or urgent, often political, "hot topics" of dispute, ones that people would rather avoid dealing with if they could. 

It should become apparent, after this series has been completed, how fitting a metaphor is this term to represent the history of the discussion of the "Great Commission" among the "Ant-Mission," "Hardshell," "Primitive," "Old School," or "Old Regular Baptists." 

This topic was a leading stated cause of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists separating themselves from the main body of the Baptist denomination.

The questions discussed and debated were - "to whom was the Great Commission given?" Is it still binding upon any? Upon the present day ministry? Upon the church? Upon the individual disciple? 

Standing in an imaginary circle of hot potato game players, are the leading apologists of the Hardshell Denomination. The "hot potato" is the subject of the "Great Commission." Each of these "apologists" have passed around this "hot potato" for the past two hundred years, each giving forth a different reason for "passing on to someone else" the responsibility and duty of the "Great Commission." They all seem to hope that it does not "fall upon" them to personally fulfill the great command of Christ!

These are the words that begin my discussion of the Great Commission as it relates to the division with the Hardshells (from chapter 66). Several chapters were devoted to this subject and the above words were from the first chapter on that series.

From The Charleston Baptist Catechism

The following is from the Charleston Association's catechism for 1813 (see here) and shows what the Old Baptist belief was before the rise of the Hardshells. This shows that the Hardshells are new school and not worthy of the name "primitive" or "original" Baptists! (emphasis mine)

Q. How doth the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us (Eph. 1:13, 14; John 6:37, 39; Eph. 2:8), and thereby uniting us to Christ, in our effectual calling (Eph. 3:17; 1 Cor. 1:9).

Now, my Hardshell brothers, this is the faith of your fathers! You may call it "Arminianism" but it is a false charge. Calling brothers who believe this "Arminian" stems either from ignorance or from wilful dishonesty.

Q. What is effectual calling?

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14), whereby convincing us of our sin and misery (Acts 2:37), enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ (Acts 2:18), and renewing our wills (Ez. 36:26, 27), he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel (John 6:44, 45; Phil. 2:13).

Notice that effectual calling does not consist in mere conviction of sin but must include an embracing of Jesus Christ in the gospel!

Q. What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?

A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life (Acts 20:21), with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption (Pr. 2:1-6, 8:33 to the end; Is. 55:2, 3).

Q. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

How would are modern Hardshell innovators answer?

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace (Heb. 10:39), whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel (Jn. 1:12; Is. 26:3, 4; Ph. 3:9; Gal. 2:16).

Q. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, baptism, the Lord's supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Mt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 46, 47).

Q. How is the word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation (Neh. 8:8; Acts 26:18; Ps. 19:8; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1: 15, 16, 10: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 15:4; 1 Cor. 14:24, 25; 1 Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; ).

Those who believe these principles are the real "Old Baptists" like we are here at the Old Baptist Test blog!

"I Didn't Have Anything On My Mind"

This is what I recently heard a Hardshell preacher say when he entered the pulpit! I have heard it many times before!

After saying this, the preacher begins to simply speak off the top of his head, saying whatever comes into his mind. If what is said blesses someone, then it is judged as being a message God is giving in a kind of preaching inspiration. If the preacher stumbles and has no "liberty" to preach, then who do you think gets the blame? God? The preacher? The church?

Thankfully not all of today's Hardshells have this idea about blessed preaching. But, none will deny that this has been fairly typical of their ministers since their beginning. Did not this idea infect the thinking of men like Elder Daniel Parker?

My father used to condemn this type of thinking. So did men like Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr. He used to advise me as a young preacher to always be ready to deliver a message, to always take a text when beginning to teach or preach. Good advice!

No preacher should ever enter the pulpit to preach and say "I have nothing on my mind" or "I don't know if I will be blessed to be able to preach or not."

Peter said "be ready always" in regard to preaching and teaching others. (I Peter 3:15)

Said I

"Oh what a great joy to see the cold Hardshells come to see the truth as this old sister! To see them become on fire, as old Elder John Leland, with a burning desire to win souls for Christ! To see them throw off that "spirit" that refuses to believe that the gospel is the power of God to save!" (SEE HERE)

Will I see it in my lifetime?

But, just as it is a joy to see one delivered from the cult of hardshellism, so it is a great sadness to see so many in the Hardshell cult remaining deceived.

What think ye?