Holiness Requires Truth

"Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth." (John 17: 17)

If any Christian desires more holiness, to increase in sanctification, he must learn more truth. The saints are they who have been sanctified by the truth of the word of God, the truth of the gospel. 

"Without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12: 14). 

"God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (II Thess. 2: 13).

Wrote the hymn writer:

"Take time to be holy, speak oft with thy Lord; 

Abide in Him always, and feed on His Word."

Would Men Accuse You Of That?

"Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." (Eccl. 12: 12)

With regard to the bible, the word of God, can one accuse you of studying too much? Have you ever been fatigued by deep study of the word of God?

"Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you art beside yourself; much learning makes you crazy." (Acts 26: 24)

Would anyone have any reason to think you were "mad" or "crazy" because of "much learning"? 

I cannot think of a better way for a man to choose to spend his time than in either studying the word of God or communicating it to others. What a noble occupation! What a privilege and delight! Enjoying God's presence in contemplation of his word! What a way to spend one's time! 

Paul said that those who "labor in the word and doctrine" should be highly esteemed. (I Tim. 5: 17) It is labor, it is tiring, but it is rewarding, both now and forever. 

The exhortation to believers is "give attendance to reading" and "to doctrine" ( I Tim. 4: 13); And, to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom" (Col. 3: 16).

Knowledge of the holy scriptures contains spiritual vitamins for the soul, fortifying their minds and spirits, giving them a preventative against moral failings, against sin. Said the Psalmist:

"Your word I have hidden in my heart that I might not sin against you." (Psa. 119: 11)

One must question the salvation of any professed believer who does not have a love for the word of God.

God's Elect or World's Elite? XXVI

As we have seen, the Corinthians, including believers in Corinth, put a lot of importance upon rhetoric and the art and science of persuasion. This was due to Greek culture and Sophist influence. We have seen how Paul in Corinthians (and elsewhere also) has much to say about logos, about speech and rhetoric, about oratory. We have seen how Paul teaches that believers, God's elect, though not trained in public speaking, and though coming generally from the poor unsophisticated classes, are nevertheless superior in speech in comparison to unbelievers, including the world's best speakers. The believer is superior to the world's elite as much in logos as they are in power, riches, wisdom, and knowledge, as we have seen. Believers are "enriched in all logos."

We have already seen how there is tremendous power in words and speech to effect human belief and behavior. "Death and life are in the power of the tongue." Words can do much harm and they likewise can do much good. In this chapter we will begin by looking at "corrupt communication," the speech of con men and deceivers, of the Sophists, and then we will look further at the good and healthy speech, the sanctified conversation, the rhetoric, of believers in Jesus, of those who speak and teach the truth, especially about God, his works, about human existence, and about salvation through the promised "seed of the woman."  

The Heart The Source Of Speech

"O generation of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things (in his speech): and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word (Greek 'rhema' meaning a verbal communication) that men shall speak, they shall give account (logos) thereof in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words (logos) you shall be condemned." (Matt. 12: 34-37)

"Evil men," which is a description of all who are not believers, of men who have an "evil heart," reveal themselves to be such by their speech. Likewise, "good men" with "good hearts" reveal themselves to be good men by their speech. In the above teaching of our Lord focus is on the most important aspect of good speech and that is to have a good heart. Correct the heart and the speech will also be steadily corrected. The heart should control the tongue.

Notice the two ways in which the KJV translators translated the Greek word logos in the above, i.e. as "give account," that is, give a verbal defense and explanation, and as "words" (logoi, plural form of logos). Notice also the addition of other Greek words for speech, "laleo" ('speak'), "rhema" ('word'), "logos" ('give account' and 'words'). 

Further, the above words of the Lord about the speech of evil men versus that of good men are in keeping with the words of Solomon that we have cited more than once - "death and life are in the power of the tongue." Jesus said both justification and condemnation were in the power of one's words. Words reflect the condition of the heart and reveal belief or unbelief and thus determine eternal destiny.

Bridled Tongues

"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridles not his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is vain." (Jam. 1: 26)

"Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasts great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindles! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." (Jam. 3: 5-12)

The world's best elite speakers and orators, though they often choose their words carefully when they speak publicly, yet it is not always so. Their private conversation is often not so. They may bridle what they say when speaking publicly (when it is in their best interest to do so) but even the best rhetoricians of the unbelieving world cannot bridle or tame their tongue. They often lack self control in what they say, especially in private talk. The best infidel orators were very good at blasphemy and evil speaking. Hitler is a good example. In his public orations he could be very self controlled and deliberate. Yet, in private and small group settings he would rant with unbridled tongue, having no self control over what he said. Passion often takes control of the tongue. 

There are others of the more vulgar and baser sort of persons who regularly curse and swear and speak in the most unbridled manner. They also have no self control or restraint over their speech. They spontaneously utter whatever they are thinking, and without little fear of the consequences. Their thoughts being evil, so too are their unrestrained words. They become provocative in speech, bullies with words. Said the Psalmist: "Who sharpen their tongue like a sword, and bend their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words." (Psa. 54: 3)

The believer is one who has been given divine power to bridle his tongue (although he fails in completely exercising that power in control of his words). Believers, like all men, must battle with being careless in speech, with being too hasty to speak, with speaking without thinking. So James admonished believers, saying "be swift to hear" but "slow to speak" and "slow to wrath." (James 1: 19) Solomon asked: "Do you see someone who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for them." (Prov. 29: 20) To speak without thinking, to speak spontaneously from emotional excitement, is not wise but foolish. Intellect and knowledge should control the tongue, not the emotions. On this too we will have more to say later.

Consider how the above words of James, about the unbridled nature of the tongue of evil men and of its power to destroy, reminds us again how death, destruction, and condemnation, are in the determining power of the tongue. 

Corrupt Speech

"Let no corrupt communication (logos) proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." (Eph. 4: 29)

The Sophists were famous for their argumentative skills, their "ability to make the weaker (worse) argument appear the stronger (better)." They were so good that they could convince the naive that black was white and good was evil, and vise versa. They could justify any vice or crime, being good at making excuses. They could debate one side of a question just as well as the other. They were advocates for hire, paid spokesmen for schools, governments, lofty persons, causes, etc. 

They were very good at circumlocution, at the use of "red herrings" and other diversionary tactics to divert the attention of an audience. They were very good at using flattery in persuasion. They were very good at choosing "emotive" words in their audience addresses, at appealing to emotion (pathos) rather than to logical argument (logos). 

They often relied much on "ethos" in their persuasive speaking, affirming that their credibility as popular speakers was sufficient reason to believe the speaker's message. Ethos, as we will see, does often lend credibility to the speaker's message or discourse. Thus, a doctor may say something about medicine and say "I'm a doctor, you can believe what I say." This can be a powerful argument though it should never be relied upon by itself. Doctors can be wrong. The audience hearing discourse should rely mostly on the logos, the rational and logical argument, for deciding the truthfulness of the discourse and its propositions. 

"Corrupt logos," therefore, denotes unhealthy and unwholesome talk, useless speech, deceiving words, vain talk, etc. It is "filthy talk." Paul speaks of it in these words: "Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks." (Eph. 5: 4) "Foolish talking" is from the Greek word "morologia" and it is the only time used in the new testament. It means silly or stupid talk, "moronic logos." "Filthiness" is from the Greek word "aischrotes" and is also the only time it is used in the new testament. It denotes filthy talk, obscene language, indecent conversation, a rotten word, and such like. It denotes shameful talk, what is deformed and deranged. Such talk does not "edify," that is, it does not build up or construct, but rather destroys. It is "profitless speech," discourse that is no good, does not produce good, is not productive. It is "vain talk," what is of no use, empty of substance. 

Good speech, on the other hand, says the apostle, "ministers grace to the hearers." We will have more to say about "grace" and "graciousness," along with charm and charisma, in the next chapters, but for now we may say that Paul is affirming by the above words that good Christian speech imparts grace, that is, it seeks to give to the audience a quality that adds delight or pleasure, a winning quality, an attractiveness that invites a favorable reaction. Good speech produces good thoughts, ideas, and feelings, and its purpose is to improve people, not to tear them down.

Sophistic Smooth Talk

"by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." (Rom. 16: 18 NIV)

Two of the "rhetorical devices" used by successful (popular) speakers among the Sophists are "smooth talk" and "flattery." "Smooth words" is from the Greek "chrestologia" (from "chrestós" meaning "kind, obliging" with "lego" meaning "to say") and means "fair or kind speaking," or "smooth and plausible address which simulates goodness, mixed with eloquent and attractive speech involving pleasing rhetorical devices." We may well call it "fancy talk."  

"Flattering speech" is from the Greek "eulogia" from eú (good, well) with logos (word) and is the word that gives us our English word “eulogy.” Thayer defines it as "praise, laudation, panegyric, fine discourse, polished language." The speech of the Sophist con artists was in "language artfully adapted to captivate the hearer." The effect is to "deceive" or fool an audience.

By "hearts of the naive" he means the "simple minded," the innocent and unsuspecting listeners. In modern language we speak in a similar manner about the gullibility of common folk in saying "there is a sucker born every minute." People are vulnerable and easily duped by smooth talkers. Such professional speakers see the population as unwary, as "easy prey."  

Believers, speaking from good hearts made so by the power of the word and Spirit of God, speak good things, things that edify, and have no intention to deceive but rather to undeceive. Believers and honest men do not use "rhetorical devices" as do the Sophists. Said Paul: "For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness." (I Thess. 2: 5) But, the Sophists and spokesmen for hire do in fact have many pretexts behind their words. They are very good at flattery, at "buttering up" an audience. Of this practice we have a description in the Psalms. "His speech was smooth as butter, yet war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords." (Psa. 55: 21)

No one should be able to hear a sermon by a gospel minister and conclude that they are flatterers. They tell people that they are born evil, that they are evil in their thoughts and lives, that they are doomed to eternal torment unless they repent. That is anything but flattery. In Ben Franklin's autobiography we have this observation on the preaching of the revivalist George Whitefield:

"In 1739 arriv’d among us from England the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, who had made himself remarkable there as an itinerant Preacher. He was at first permitted to preach in some of our Churches; but the Clergy taking a Dislike to him, soon refus’d him their Pulpits and he was oblig’d to preach in the Fields. The Multitudes of all Sects and Denominations that attended his Sermons were enormous and it was [a] matter of Speculation to me who was one of the Number, to observe the extraordinary Influence of his Oratory on his Hearers, and how much they admir’d and respected him, notwithstanding his common Abuse of them, by assuring them they were naturally half Beasts and half Devils. It was wonderful to see the Change soon made in the Manners [behavior] of our Inhabitants; from being thoughtless or indifferent about Religion, it seem’d as if all the World were growing Religious; so that one could not walk thro’ the Town in an Evening without Hearing Psalms sung in different Families of every Street." (See here)

Thus, preachers do not flatter sinners but are rather "frank" (bold) with them. Sophists on the other hand are "mealy-mouthed," meaning they are afraid to speak frankly and straightforwardly. They are deceptive and devious in their speech. That is because their words are intended as traps for gullible people. Said Solomon: 

"A man that flatters his neighbor spreads a net for his feet." (Prov. 29: 5) He also warned that "a flatterer works much ruin." (Prov. 26: 28) 

Lots of popular impostors in the pulpit are very good at flattering an audience, unlike Whitefield, unlike the apostles. Paul spoke of the corrupt speech of the world's elite talkers, of the Sophist rhetoricians and their "rhetorical devices," their deceptive talk, in these words:

"And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words." (Col. 2: 4 kjv)

What is meant by "enticing words"? Other translations give "fine sounding arguments" (NIV), "well crafted arguments," (NLT) "smooth rhetoric," (Berean) "persuasiveness of speech," (American Standard) "fancy talk," (Contemporary English) "nice sounding rhetoric." (International Standard) 

Sophistic Debating

We in earlier chapters have already spoken much about Paul's reference to the "disputers of this age." In chapter four I wrote how the Greek word for "disputers" is "syzētētēs," being the only time it is used in the new testament, and meant "a learned disputant, sophist." We saw how the world's elite talkers have been put to silence by God, by the preaching of salvation through the gospel of Christ. We saw how very few of this class of the world's elect, its elite, became believers, and how they generally opposed most vehemently the preaching of the gospel. 

We have seen how Paul confronts the Sophist debaters, along with elitist philosophy, in his Corinthian epistles, especially the first. He was able to confound these wise men and their lofty beguiling speech, and to leave them speechless. Many of them, because they could not resist the wisdom of God's spokesmen, ended debate and took to the use of physical force and violence to stop the speech of the apostles and the church's first evangelists. The same is true in our day. People who cannot win the debate try to destroy their opponents and to shut their mouths. 

Sophist disputers and debaters are guilty of arguing for things that they did not generally believe in. They lacked conviction for what they were paid to advocate and defend. They were good at manipulating facts, like many high paid lawyers in our day. For their professional "sales jobs" they are highly paid. Sophists taught young men "the dark arts of argument and rhetoric." They were skilled in "rhetorical trickery." One modern confessed Sophist, one who teaches debate and argumentation, wrote (emphasis mine):

"In a weird way I’ve ended up being the modern equivalent of a Sophist. I teach young people how to argue for a living, seeking to make them more persuasive with no regard to truth. I even sell it to them on the basis it will allow them to bluff their way through interviews and meetings. Competitive debating makes people better and better at manipulating the truth to whatever end they are assigned. We train people to never compromise on a position, to treat an argument as about winning and losing, not the pursuit of truth. So am I a bad person? Is everyone who engages in debating?" (here)

That is a good definition of the Sophist mentality as it regards the purpose of persuasive speech. The best Sophists today are in marketing and they are highly paid for their ability to persuade people to buy products that they really do not need and are told not much about in the sales pitches. Politicians also are very good at being "sophistic" in their retorts and speeches. They can "talk people into" things with ease and cunning. The good Sophist has an arsenal of rhetorical and argumentative devices at his disposal and there are many books explaining them and imparting knowledge of how to use them skillfully. 

The same author says:

"Rhetoric in the classical sense includes stylistic elements entirely separate from the content of a speech. Speaking in the right tone and rhythm, clever turns of phrase, being charismatic, being funny, stirring up the anger of a crowd, etc. Using which one could make a bad argument, delivered well, seem better than a good argument delivered badly."

Hitler was very good at "tone and rhythm" as any professor in oratory and speech communication will acknowledge. So too are many preachers. And, as far as "stylistic elements" are concerned, the Sophist is an expert in their use. They generally have a wide vocabulary and are skilled in the choice of words, much like a poet. They know how to "turn a phrase," how to appear "charismatic," how to stir the emotions with humor, or to incite anger with emotive words and symbols. They also use "stagecraft" as a very useful aid in persuasive speaking. Examples can be seen in Hitler's massive rallies, such as the ones at Nuremberg, where all kinds of paraphernalia, pomp and circumstance, pageantry, flags, symbols, mottoes, music, etc. were used to "set the stage" for the oration. We see the same kind of rhetorical means used by politicians at rallies, and of some preachers in crusades and revival meetings.

The Christian & Debating

Many Christians think that the bible condemns debating. The only time in the KJV bible that the new testament speaks of "debate" it is in a negative context (Rom. 1: 29), in a list of sins. But, this is unfortunate for the bible does not condemn proper debate, argumentation, and heated discussion. In fact the bible is filled with examples of believers debating with their opponent's. So also did the Lord himself, although his debates were short lived because his opponents could not answer him and took to violence as a way to overcome his mighty words. In fact, it can well be proven how the bible actually commands the believer to give rational verbal defense (apologia) for his beliefs, as we have seen. Jude admonished believers to "contend earnestly for the faith" (1:3) which may be translated as "strive or contend in debate." Contend implies an opponent and the arena is in speech or debate, what we gentlemanly prefer to call "discussion." 

"Debate" in Romans 1: 29 is from the Greek word "eris" and is better translated as "verbal strife," with the negative idea of "contentiousness," cantankerousness, quarrelsomeness, disagreeableness, and manifesting hostility by "arguing" via hollering and yelling, by attacking the character of one's opponent (ad hominems), by deflection, by the use of "red herrings" and other ways of fallacious reasoning. That type of debate and argumentation is what is condemned. But, it does not condemn all debate. 

Paul was a mighty debater. Luke says that Paul on one occasion "vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." (Acts 18: 28) What did he do? He answered all the objections and arguments against what he was teaching and proclaiming and left them silenced. "Vigorously" means with force, with power. The Greek word is only used here in the new testament. The word "publicly" refers obviously to public debate, where both sides speak and answer each other. 

In the next chapter we will look at the good speech of believers, and of charisma, and at ethos, pathos, and logos as parts of the persuasion art. 

God's Elect or World's Elite? XXV

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." (Acts 4: 13)

The word "boldness" is from the Greek word "parresia" and means "freedom in speaking, unreservedness in speech," to speak "openly, frankly, i.e without concealment" and "without ambiguity or circumlocution," and "without the use of figures and comparisons." It also often denotes "free and fearless confidence, cheerful courage, boldness, assurance." It includes the idea of "deportment," of "commanding presence," of courageous appearance, that thing "by which one becomes conspicuous or secures publicity." (Strong) 

"Seeing then that we have such hope (confident expectation)," said Paul, "we use great plainness of speech (parresia)." (II Cor. 3: 12) The apostles, yea, all believers, especially those believers who have much studied the word of God, have been able to speak boldly, frankly, honestly, confidently, to discourse as they who "know what they are talking about," as they who "speak as having authority," that authority coming from God and his word of commission.   

This boldness is seen too in the forcefulness of their logic, in the irresistible power of their reasoning when confronting their opponent's speeches and accusations, in their defenses when in trials for heresy, when commanding men to repent and to believe the gospel upon threat of eternal doom. This boldness includes courage and fearlessness when believers have been threatened and persecuted, when they have boldly declared their allegiance to Christ while they were hanging on crosses or while being burned at the stake or while being thrown to the hungry lions. Of deacons in the church Paul wrote:

"For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness (parresia) in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (I Tim. 3: 13)

This great boldness in discourse comes from knowing "the faith which is in Christ Jesus." They who know little of that faith cannot speak with too much conviction or with power of persuasion. Deep conviction of a highly important truth will produce convincing talk. Lacking conviction and full assurance (that comes from being well schooled in knowledge of the subject) produces hesitancy, reluctance, vagueness, incoherence, timidness, doubt and disbelief, etc. Many believers have spoken without fear, have spoken with courage and confidence, and oftentimes with great grace and with a bold and commanding presence, with a divine or heavenly comportment. It is owing to the presence of the Holy Spirit and of the holy scriptures in the heart, soul, and mind that believers are able to so speak. So the record is: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak (laleo) the word (logos) of God with boldness (parresia)." (Acts 4: 31)

The presence of the Spirit and of "great grace" caused the apostles to not only discourse well in substance but also in style and delivery. The apostles by the Spirit and grace of God had what is called a "commanding presence," a presence and aura that attracted attention. They had "charisma" in the most noblest of senses. But, on this we will enlarge in the next chapters.

The worldly elite who heard Peter and John speak, and who saw their strong and commanding presence, "marvelled," that is, they were stunned, shocked, and surprised. Such powerful speech from “ordinary” folk was not something anyone would expect. That men of higher learning could speak well and stir an audience with their oratory and rhetoric, is no surprise, but the Jewish elite judged Peter and John to be "ignorant" (Greek idiotai) and "unlearned" (Greek agrammatos), the former word denoting commoners, mere laymen, the untrained, and the latter denoting "unlettered" men, men not formally schooled in the sciences, including rhetoric, men without formal higher education degrees (letters). They were viewed as "idiots," not in the sense of being "stupid" or mentally handicapped, but in the sense of having no formal higher education, and therefore were viewed as "low class" as a result. 

Though Peter and John had no letters of learning from the schools of higher learning they nevertheless were not really ignorant and unlearned. Quite the contrary. Besides synagogue education that they had received as children Peter and John "had been with Jesus" and therefore had a dramatic increase in knowledge due to their discipleship under his direct tutoring for three years. 

The apostles spoke perfect grammar and therefore show that they were not "agrammatos." The four times the Greek word "grammatos" is found in the new testament it is translated (kjv) as "letter," as in "letter of the law" (Rom. 2: 27; also Rom. 7: 6; II Cor. 3: 6)  The proof of their being "learned" and "lettered" as opposed to their being "unlearned" and "unlettered" is seen in looking at what they wrote and said. Not only their grammar, but their reasoning and persuasive skills also show them to be real men of learning. The discourses of the apostles conclusively show this to be the case. 

Luke records that they not only spoke with "boldness" (parresia) but also "with great power" (mega power, dunamis) as they gave "witness" to the truth of the resurrection. They bore testimony with words of confident authority, not in timidity and fear, just as their Lord who "taught as one having authority and not as the scribes." (Matt. 7: 29) The tone of the Lord's voice exuded power and authority as he spoke of the weightiest of matters. It was forceful and boldly spoken in confidence of the truth of what he said. So too may believers speak. 

The apostle Peter addressed all believers, saying "if anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies..." (I Peter 4: 11) The content of a believer's speaking should be what is in keeping with "the oracles of God," with his written word. The "ability" and skill needed to speak as God wills that we speak must come from God. This is one of the ways in which believers "serve" God and they are promised divine help in doing so, "with the ability (Greek ischys) that God gives" (or supplies), which fact shows that good public speaking for the Lord is an art as well as a skill. "Ischys" refers to force, power, might, or strength. Job said "how forcible are right words!" (Job 6: 25) How powerful to convict are words of truth and right! The Hebrew word for "forcible" carries the idea of penetration or to goad, "used here of penetrating speech" and of "words which keep the straight way to truth, go to the heart." (Keil & Delitzsch). 

The right words of holy scripture when properly discoursed are irresistible. Jesus promised to give his apostles, and other believers too, "a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist" (Luke 21: 15); And in the Book of Acts we read of Stephen's logos, or discourse, with this observation by Luke: "And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake." (Acts 6: 10)

There is so much instruction in the scriptures about how to speak and discourse in a manner which is pleasing to the Lord, as we are seeing and will yet see further. We have already noticed how conversion in itself alters the language and verbiage of the sinner. His tongue was once "full of cursing and bitterness" but after his conversion his tongue becomes a tongue of the learned, a tongue of praise, a tongue of witness. 

The apostle Paul asked for the prayers of the saints in regard to the grace and gift of speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He wrote:

"And (pray) for me, that utterance (logos) may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly (parresia) to make known the mystery of the gospel." (Eph. 6: 19)

"Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance (logos), to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds." (Col. 4: 3)

Paul prays for both parresia and for logos, and so should every believer. Paul desires divine help and blessing, enabling, so that he might deliver the message of the gospel and to discourse upon the teachings of holy scripture. Well trained disciples of Christ also have grace in a measure given to them to speak for truth and for God. 

Said Dr. John MacArthur (emphasis mine):

"We have all the speech and knowledge necessary to accomplish all God wants us to do. We will always be able to say everything God wants us to say and to know everything He wants us to know. His will is concurrent with His enablement. The particular speech in mind here is that of telling God’s truth. God gives every believer the capacity to speak for Him. We do not all have eloquence, an impressive vocabulary, or a captivating personality. But we all have the necessary God-given ability, the same capability and the same capacity, to speak for Him in the unique way that He wants us to speak. Besides lack of holiness, I believe the most common failure of Christians is in not speaking for their Lord. The most frequent excuses are “I don’t know what to say” or “I don’t know how to say it” or “I just don’t think I can do it."" (As cited here)

Peter exhorted believers in regard to their being able to reason well in defending the truth, and of their being able to "discourse" (logos) upon bible teaching.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer (Greek 'apologia' or rational defense) to every man that asks you a reason (logos) of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." (I Peter 3: 15)

This exhortation is made to all believers. Each is to "be always ready" to "give an answer," that is, give a verbal defense, a "logos," that is, a discourse, talk, or speech, for the Christian hope and faith. That exhortation shows that Peter thought that Christians were both able and duty bound to improve their speaking and communication skills. 

He also marks a distinction between the speech of believers as opposed to the speech of the Sophist infidels. Christian speakers speak "with meekness and fear." The Sophists, with their skill in lofty language, and with their elitist arrogance, did not speak "with meekness and fear." They spoke rather "great swelling words of vanity" (II Peter 2: 18; Jude 1: 16), being "the speech of them which are puffed up" (I Cor. 4: 19). But on this we will have more to say shortly. But, let us now see further how all believers are called to become good speakers for the Lord, in both what they say and how they say it. Wrote Paul:

"For when for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that uses milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe." (Heb 5: 12-13)

This admonition is applicable to all believers. It is addressed to those believers whom he styles as "babes" in the faith, denoting believers who are newly come to the faith, or else who have not yet matured in their faith and knowledge, and exhorts them to "be teachers," and this of course involves speaking orally, though it would of course include writing communication. All believers are called to be teachers, though not all are called to be pastors or elders, they having the greater role in teaching. All believers should be prepared to speak of "the first principles of the oracles of God." Each should be a witness to the gospel. Certainly all Christian parents have a duty and a privilege to teach the oracles to their children. But, not to them only, but to the other members of their family, to their neighbors, friends, community, etc. 

Believers are not only called to teach others the truth of scripture but they are exhorted to become "skilled in the word (logos) of righteousness."  

The Greek word for "unskilful" is "apeiros" and means inexperienced and is only used here. It is the negative of "peira" meaning a "trial or experiment" (Vine). Paul implies that improvement in speech will come as a result of practice and habit. The more a person speaks for the Lord the better speaker he will become. "Practice makes perfect." Also, it shows how Paul viewed good public speaking as a skill, something learned, something involving training. He is not denying the art aspect of good public speaking, for the believer, by his speaking of it as being a skill. As we have said, it is both an art (or gift from God and grace) and a science or skill.

Logos & Speech

In its basic meaning "logos" means "word." But, that is its most basic meaning. That single English word does not give a proper equivalent meaning for every passage where "logos" is used in the Greek new testament. The King James Version has various English words used in different texts where logos is used. 

According to Strong the KJV translators have used these English words as substitutes: word (218x), saying (50x), account (8x), speech (8x), Word (Christ) (7x), thing (5x), not translated (2x), miscellaneous (32x). Among the miscellaneous are the words communication, cause, sayings, speaker, mouth, reason, give account, exhortation, speech, work, utterance, preaching, etc. 

This fact should be sufficient to show us how broad are the uses of logos. Vine says logos also denotes speech, a word, what is uttered by a living voice, what embodies a conception or idea, what someone has said, being used for the "sayings" of someone, including God. It can also carry the idea of a decree, mandate or order. It is often used in the sense of "discourse" or "speech," to the act of speaking, and sometimes even to the faculty of speech itself. It represents "a skill and practice in speaking" or "a kind or style of speaking," a "continuous speaking discourse" or "instruction." It also involved ability to reason, to use logic. In fact our word "logic" is derived from logos. 

Wrote Dr. Gordon Clark:

"Statistics may not provide the most interesting type of introduction, but it does not burden the brain nor injure the intellect to know that John’s Gospel uses the term Logos forty times. What is more surprising, indeed disconcerting, is that the Greek term logos can be translated by forty different English words. Liddell and Scott’s great lexicon has more than five columns, each ninety lines long, of its various meanings. The word word is hardly ever the correct translation. Liddell and Scott say explicitly that it “rarely means a single word” (page 1058, column 2)." (here)

"I have not listed all the meanings, nor shall I read you my abbreviated list. Just survey it from your seats: computation, reckoning, accounts, measures, sum, total, esteem, consideration, value, reputation, relation, fashion, ratio, proportion, rule, pretext, reason(ing), case (at law), theory, argument, principle, law, thesis, hypothesis, formula, definition, debate, reflection, narrative, story, speech, oration, phrase, message, tradition, dialogue, oracle, proverb, language, sentence, and the Wisdom of God."

Again, this just emphasizes how logos has a wide variety of nuanced meanings in the various places where it is used in the Greek new testament.

Of course it is also used as a divine title of the Son of God, the second named person of the Tri-Unity, who is "the Logos of God." (John 1: 1; etc.) This is because he is the one who reveals and communicates the will and mind of the Godhead or for the whole deity. He also as Logos is the truth, the only reality, pure reason and revelation, one in whom are "hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col. 2: 3)

Paul says in his opening words to the Corinthian believers that they had been "enriched in all utterance." Notice the word "all" (Greek pas) in "all utterance." This shows that Paul is thinking of logos in its widest extent of meaning. The word "utterance" is from the Greek word logos. "All logos" therefore includes 1) the message, topic, or substance, or knowledge that is intended to be communicated orally and 2) the speaking of words designed to communicate that message. We may therefore appropriately speak of "the word of the word," which means "talk about speech or public speaking." Not only is the usage of logos varied in the new testament but so too is the word "word" in every day English usage. 

To be "enriched in all logos" includes the idea of being enriched in what to say as well as in how to say it. A speaker who has much knowledge of his topic will discourse upon it with more than average boldness and forcefulness of expression. Many Christians cannot speak as well as they should on spiritual things and the reason is because they have so little discipleship learning of the scriptures. It seems that most leave in depth study of the bible to the clergy and trust them to tell them what to believe about its teachings and to answer questions regarding the Christian faith for them. Yet, as we have seen, Peter admonishes all believers, not just the clergy, to be prepared, equipped, and trained to speak to others of "the oracles of God" and to give a defense (apologia - logos being the root) to all who ask questions about the Christian's hope and belief.

Concerning what the biblical writers say further about Christian speech and communication we will address in the next chapters.

How the world judges the verbal discoursing and teaching of the Christian is not the standard for what is good speaking. Of the apostle Paul, who spoke most forcefully and with authority, the Sophists and professional speakers and lecturers had a different opinion, saying "his speech (logos) is contemptible" (II Cor. 10: 10). Paul would add - "But though I be rude (idiotes) in speech (logos), yet not in knowledge" (II Cor. 11: 6) By this he means "but though I be judged by the world's elite as an idiot in logic and speaking ability" (which was a false view of Paul's speaking abilities), yet he emphatically denies that he could be legitimately charged as being an idiot in knowledge.

Paul said that those who would be set apart as pastors or elders in the church must have, as one of their qualifications, an "aptness to teach." (I Tim. 3: 2; II Tim. 2: 24) The English words are the translation of the Greek word "didaktikos" meaning "skilled in teaching" (didactic). But, all Christians should develop an aptness to speak in teaching others of the truth. 

Light Speed Disproves Young Earth?

Many argue that the earth must be billions of years old because the light we see from distant stars has been traveling a very long time, for millions and billions of years, or else we could not see them. This all being true, the earth cannot be young, or only six thousand years old, as many Christians affirm. Wrote one on the issue: 

"One of the most serious scientific problems for young earth creationism is that of distant starlight and the time it would take that starlight to reach the earth. The crux of the problem is that light travels at a set speed and nearly all the objects in the universe are farther from the earth than the young earth proposed 6,000 year age for the universe. If the young earth model for the universe is correct, we should not be able to see any other galaxies in the universe or even the majority of stars in our own Milky Way galaxy. Obviously, we can see those objects, so young earth creationists are forced to do something radical with light travel times. Numerous individuals have proposed that the speed of light has changed, light was created in transit, light travels infinitely fast when coming toward the earth, among others. Young earth creationists ignore the most obvious solution to the problem—light from objects billions of light years away has been traveling for billions of years." (See here)

I am a young earth creationist. I believe the earth is about 6,000 years old. One of the arguments against this is the light travel problem described above. Over the years I have thought about this problem. There are some good articles on the Internet by young earth believers and some good videos on the subject also. 

But, why must the light "rays" of a distant star reach my eye before I can see it? If an object is coming towards me, is it proper to say that I cannot see it coming till it hits me? Maybe I am being too simplistic in my thinking here, so I ask for any opinions. If I see a light instantly turned on in the dark from a distant lighthouse, can I not see it shining before its rays reach me? 

What think ye?

God's Elect or World's Elite? XXIV

"enriched in all utterance"

"I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance (logos), and in all knowledge." (I Cor. 1: 4-5)

"Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance (logos), and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also." (II Cor. 8: 7)

Having seen how the believer is "enriched" in riches, wisdom, knowledge, and power, and is therefore the truly elite, God's elect, we will next focus our attention on how the believer is "enriched in all utterance." They are not chosen because they made themselves elite, but they are elite because they have been chosen by God, yea, chosen from among the poor, the base, the weak and powerless, of this present evil age. This shows that elect status with God is not determined by merit. Paul's message in Corinthians may be summed up as follows:

Christ, who was rich as the Son of God, became poor to make believers rich

Christ who is the very Power of God became weak to make believers strong

Christ who is immortal became mortal to make believers immortal (died so we can live)

Christ who is righteous and holy became sin to make believers righteous and holy

The Greek word (ploutizo) translated “enriched” gives us our English word "plutocrat," meaning “a very wealthy person,” or a person whose power is due to their wealth. We have shown how believers, though often poor in this present world, are nevertheless rich in Christ. We have shown how this richness of believers is in several areas, those areas being ingredients of lofty status among peers. We have looked at wealth in general, which is an important criterion for elevated status in the world. We have looked at wisdom and knowledge as other aspects of status and have shown where God's elect are superior. We have shown also how the believer is superior in power and authority, though not fully and not as respects the present world. In this chapter we will focus on how believers are enriched in "all utterance." 

Knowledge and speaking ability were both highly esteemed attributes in the cultural mindset at Corinth as they are today. A man's status is judged not only by his wealth and social position but by his ability to speak, to persuade, to enunciate his beliefs. The elite in Paul's day, especially in cities like Corinth, were well trained in rhetoric and in "smooth talking." The Sophists were highly paid for their lectures and orations by their followers and from schools that supported them (much like today). 

Sophists & Rhetoric

In chapter one in this series I cited from a scholarly article from "Philo and Paul Among The Sophists" (here) I want to cite now once again from this article as a way of summing up what has already been said and also to prepare for our look into how the believer is enriched in his speech.

The author of the article (unknown) wrote:

"Paul deals with three crucial issues raised by the sophistic tradition, namely; status, imitation; and boasting."

It is concerning "status" that we have mostly focused our attention in the preceding chapters, a thing of importance to the Corinthians, and the framework for Paul's opening remarks to them. We have spoken of the elements of "high status," of being "elite," namely wealth, knowledge, wisdom, and power. Not only is power nearly always connected with wealth, wisdom, and knowledge, but it is also generally connected with speaking ability. Included in speaking ability is skill in argumentation and debate, and on how to use "the power of words" to obtain power and influence. 

Word Power & The Tongue

"Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof." (Prov. 18: 21)

Words are powerful, and especially powerful when uttered by one trained in speech or public speaking. Many powerful rulers have come to their positions due to their speaking abilities. In democracies the leaders are they who can convince the majority of citizens to follow or vote for them. These well spoken people are often called "charismatic leaders," people who have "charisma" (of which we will have more to say). It is defined as "a special power that some people have naturally that makes them able to influence other people and attract their attention and admiration." (Cambridge Dictionary) The world's elite are people who are judged to have been favored by the gods (or God) with superior talents and gifts, and were therefore "graced," or became "graceful," meaning "showing grace or elegance." Kings and great leaders were often addressed as "your grace." Grace is associated with what is beautiful, well adorned, pleasing to the sight, attractive. 

Believers, because they have the Holy Spirit and the word of God (written revelation), become "enriched" in "utterance," in what they say, in their speaking abilities. This is especially true with some of them, with those who become teachers, pastors, evangelists, etc. as a result of some spiritual gift received. Even the believer with very little ability to speak well, when first saved, will no doubt grow in ability to speak for the Lord in communicating his word. This was true with many in the church of Corinth as Paul acknowledges. They all had to some degree been "enriched in speech," enriched in their communications with others. The believer is taught how to use his tongue in speaking well and will be given divine help and blessing in doing so, and upon this we will yet enlarge in the present chapters.

Speaking is both art and skill. This is both true in the world of natural men and in the body of believers in general, of the world of spiritual men. In the natural realm people have talents, creative gifts, and natural abilities in certain areas of human activity and know how. Some people, for instance, have a natural talent for mathematics more than does the average person. Others have ability in the various arts, such as painting, sculpturing, music, etc., abilities that others do not have naturally. For these people excelling in these things comes "naturally," being much easier for them to grasp the knowledge of those arts and skills. 

The same is true in the Christian community, or body of the church. Members are recipients of divine gifts, some in common with other believers, and some peculiar to each. Some of these gifts involve superior speaking abilities. Many of the first believers were enabled to speak in languages they had never known how to speak, yea, even in "tongues of angels" in addition to "tongues of men." Some were enabled by the Spirit of God to speak fluently and eloquently without any training in rhetoric or public speaking. Notice what Luke records in the Acts of the Apostles:

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2: 4)

What a message to the Sophist rhetoricians was this display of the powers of speech and language! By this display the Lord showed who was truly elect, truly elite, truly superior, as respects powers of speech and persuasion. But, upon this I will enlarge as we proceed with our study.

Believers were given special gifts to teach and to preach, as were the prophets, apostles, teachers, and evangelists. This gift of speech is spoken of in several places in scripture. Let us first mention Isaiah. He said:

"The Lord GOD has given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakens morning by morning, he wakens my ear to hear as the learned."  (Isa. 50. 4)

"By the tongue of the learned is meant, an ability of speaking plainly, convincingly, persuasively, and in all points, so as becomes a person taught of God, and filled with all divine and heavenly wisdom and knowledge." (Benson Commentary)

"The tongue of the learned - Hebrew, 'The tongue of those who are instructed;' that is, of the eloquent; or the tongue of instruction (παιδείας paideias, Septuagint); that is, he has qualified me to instruct others." (Barnes)

Isaiah in being gifted was divinely taught to the point of becoming an expert in both what to teach and how to teach it. He became an able communicator of the word of God by the special gifting he received from God as an act of grace. Earlier Isaiah gave a similar description regarding speaking ability, saying "he has made my mouth like a sharp sword." (Isa. 49: 2)

Moses had his limited speaking abilities when the Lord first commissioned and gifted him to speak.

"And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since you have spoken unto your servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the LORD said unto him, Who has made man's mouth? or who makes the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." (Exo. 4: 10-12)

Moses is like most of the people of God when they are converted; they lack confidence in speaking. By his adoption into Egyptian family and life, Moses was not "of low degree," and thus not lacking higher education and training in public speaking. The record is:  "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." (Acts 7: 22) If Moses was "mighty in words" as a result of his being "learned" in the art of rhetoric and discourse, how then did he complain of being "slow of speech" and having a "slow tongue"? Commentators give different answers to the seeming contradiction. Moses says he cannot speak well, being of a "slow tongue," or "slow of speech," and yet Stephen in the Acts passage affirms that Moses was "mighty in words." So, which way was it? 

Many think that Moses was simply being humble and accounts for his low appraisal of his speaking abilities. But, there are problems with this view. Even though Moses acted out of humility (good motive), yet in doing so he was being deceitful with the Almighty, saying things about his inability which he knew was not really the case. This is a possible interpretation. After all, Moses stated fairly eloquently his case for not being eloquent! After all the record of Moses is: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." Thus, it could be that Moses was somewhat shy and timid, not very bold.  

I do believe that Moses' speaking ability was not as great at that time as it was later in his life. After all, the Lord did promise to give him greater ability to speak. Therefore it is right to think that Moses spoke better after having been gifted and trained by the Lord. Further, we must not forget the reaction of the Lord to Moses' complaint and objection. The record says:

"So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and He said: “Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And look, he is also coming out to meet you. When he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." (Exo. 4: 14-15)

Was the Lord displeased with Moses' humility? With his purposeful depreciation of himself? Probably. But also the Lord was angry at his lack of faith in the Lord. Moses' excuse condemned the wisdom of God in choosing and calling him. 

Therefore, I am sure that when Stephen says that Moses was a man "mighty in words and deeds" he is referring to the speaking and doings of Moses after this commissioning of the Lord. His mighty deeds certainly came after this initial encounter, when Moses was instrumental in causing the ten plagues, when he divided the Red Sea, when he performed miracles in the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. Therefore, since Moses' "mighty deeds" allude to the time period after the Lord's promise to be with Moses and with his mouth, so too would his "mighty words" also be in that same time period. Moses was not mighty in words or deeds prior to Exodus chapter four. He was so afterward. 

Not only Isaiah and Moses, but many of the Lord's people have been gifted to be able to speak well, to speak with power and authority, with boldness and courage, with confidence. Not only are they gifted but they are regularly trained in the skill of oral communication. Sometimes this divine gifting and training is miraculous and drastic (as we saw in the example of speaking in tongues). So it was in one recorded case in the Gospel of Mark.

"And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him. And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue; And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain." (Mark 7: 32-35)

Many Christian pastors and evangelists in the history of the Christian church have had such experiences. There have been many who when converted and called to preach were men who could not speak well and yet, after their calling and gifting were able to speak freely, fluently, and with boldness, and people were amazed.

In the old testament God had foretold of this new testament enrichment in speech by the Spirit. 

"The fearful heart will know and understand, and the stammering tongue will be fluent and clear." (Isa. 32: 4)

The Christian who is thus gifted and trained of the Lord sees great improvement in his ability to discourse, especially concerning the teachings of the holy scriptures. His tongue, while he was living in sin and unconverted, is described in these words:

“Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit”; “The poison of asps is under their lips”; “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” (Rom. 3: 13-14)

After conversion however the tongue, mouth, and lips of the believer undergo a radical change. The mouth no longer curses, but blesses. The mouth is no longer destructive but constructive. The content of the convert's conversation is changed, and so is the style and delivery. Notice these verses on the tongue of the righteous.

"The tongue of the just is as choice silver: the heart of the wicked is little worth. The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom." (Prov. 10: 20-21)

"The mouth of the just brings forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out. The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaks frowardness." (Prov. 10: 31-32)

"There is that speaks like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health. The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment." (Prov. 12: 18-19)

"A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit." (Prov. 15: 4)

In the next chapter we will continue our look at how the believer, God's elect, is superior to the world's elite, to its elect, in its ability to speak truth.

WHAT ABOUT THE OLD REGULAR BAPTISTS?

    The Old Regular Baptists are another primitive sect of Baptists. Mainly found in the Appalachian region of Kentucky, where in some rural counties they are the predominant group among all churches, except Missionary Baptists. Where did they come from and how are they different from other Primitives? Let's take a look. 

   Originally, they were called "Old Regular Primitive Baptists". This name lasted until the 1890's. They dropped "Primitive" from their name in response to new doctrines and extremes that other Primitive Baptists were beginning to embrace. These extremes include the new teaching among Hardshell PB's that  hearing and believing Gospel has nothing to do with eternal salvation, as well as absolute predestination of all things among some Old Liners. Until this time, most Old Regulars had correspondence with other PB's, yet they were always distinct from them in many ways. The Old Regulars are a remnant of the Regular and Separate Baptist union, and they have always allowed for differing views on the atonement. There seems to have been 3 different streams of them in the beginning. One was calvinistic, one was like the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists being neither Calvinist nor Arminian and holding to a general atonement, and another believing in limited atonement, yet rejecting individual predestination. In other words anyone can be saved, but because of God's foreknowledge, Christ only died for those God knew would accept His invitation. The first faction is all but gone, as most of those churches split when the Old Liners began preaching their new doctrines, with some going with them, and others joining  one of the other two factions, having been "convinced that it is of no use to hold to this extreme Calvinism, and if we are to err, it will be on the side, of inviting all to come to repentance and let our great and mighty God deal with the consequences". This seemed to be agreeable to the other Old Regulars, so there may have been more than one view in the same church.

   There are some doctrinal distinctives exclusive to them (more or less). One is the belief that "doubting" your salvation is both healthy and evidence that one is born again. They hold to eternal security of the believer, yet there is constancy in testing "to see if you be in the faith". Most are in doctrinal harmony with the United Baptists, which are also common in Kentucky. Like other Primitives they observe footwashing. There is some disagreement among them as to when a person is born again, some holding it begins at the beginning of their "travail" and others at the end of it. In my church we would call this being under "conviction".They always issue an invitation at the end of the sermon.The following are the Articles of Faith common to most, copied directly from the Old Regular website.

We believe in the one true and living God, and not withstanding there are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet there is but one in substance, equal in power and glory, not to be divided and impossible to change in principle and practice.

---

We believe the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the true written words of God and were given by inspiration of God and there is a sufficiency in them contained for our instruction and they are the only rule of our faith and practice.

---

We believe the doctrine of original sin, and that man sinned since the fall, and that men are by nature the children of wrath.

---

We believe in the impotency or inability of men to recover themselves out of the state they are in; therefore, a Savior is absolutely needed.

---

We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

---

We believe in the perseverance of the Saints. That by grace through faith they are born again and adopted into the family of Heaven; that they will become equal heirs with Jesus Christ in glory, and that He will raise them up at the last day.

---

We believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Gospel Ordinances; that true believers are the proper subjects and we admit no other.

---

We believe that the true mode of baptism is by immersion, to baptize a person by their own consent, back foremost in the water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

---

We believe that washing of one anothers feet is a commandment of Christ, left on record with His disciples, and ought to be practiced by His followers.

---

We believe in the resurrection of the dead and general judgment when all will be judged according to their deeds done in the body.

---

We believe the punishment of the wicked will be everlasting and the joys of the righteous will be eternal after death.

---

We believe that no one has the right to administer the Gospel Ordinances but such as are legally ordained and qualified there unto.

---

We believe it to be the duty of all church members to attend church meetings, and that it is the duty of the church to deal with them for neglecting same.

---

We believe it to be the duty of all church members to contribute to the support of the church by defraying all reasonable expenses of same, never neglecting the poor, according to their several abilities.

---

We believe that any doctrine that goes to encourage or indulge the people in their sins or cause them to settle down on anything short of saving grace in Christ for salvation is erroneous and such doctrine will be rejected by us.

---

None of the above articles shall be construed as to hold with particular election or reprobation as to make God partial directly or indirectly so as to injure children of man.

   Like other Primitives, they rejected Sunday Schools, instruments, and mission societies and paid ministers. Unlike other Primitives, they only baptize in "living water", meaning lakes or rivers. I believe this has to do with symbolism more than doctrine though, as they are "liberal" in accepting others into their fellowship those who were baptized in other Baptist churches which use indoor baptistries. Unlike other Primitives, some of them have a strain of legalism, whereby women do not cut their hair and wear only dresses well below the knees, and makeup is frowned upon. This however is beginning to change, as a new crop of them has come up who became alarmed at the dwindling numbers in their churches. In the last 10 to 15 years, a younger generation has begun to plant new churches, even way beyond the borders of their associations located in Kentucky, in North Carolina, Florida, Michigan and Arkansas which reject this legalism. Most, whether legalistic or not, have no issue with observing holidays like Christmas and Easter in their churches.

   If you visited one of their churches, you would find much similarity with other Primitives. No music, with some singing lined-out style, and others singing the more familiar tunes but with no music. The newer churches even sing contemporary Christian songs, altho with no musical instruments. One note of difference though, is that they are the only sect I know of where the style of preaching is exclusively done in "holy tone", a style of preaching that is almost sung or chanted. While their doctrine has not changed, recently they have begun to reach out more, establishing new churches, and being more open on "optional" things like dress, hair etc. Most are very warm and would welcome any to visit, and the elders I have spoken with have been very kind and forth right in the info they have given me. Although they are small in numbers, if their current rate of establishing new churches continues, they will outnumber the Old Line PB's within a generation, and as long as they are preaching the Gospel to all, and extending the invitation to all, I wish them much blessing and success. Ken Mann

A Debate Experience

In my second debate with Bruce Reeves of the "Church of Christ" on the subject of eternal security, apostasy, falling from grace, perseverance, etc., mentioned in a recent posting, I was able on several occasions to really put Bruce in a difficult spot regarding his interpretations of bible texts. One such case occurred in our debate concerning the rocky or shallow ground hearer in the parable of the sower and the seed, or of the four soils. I affirmed that the persons represented by this type of hearer of the word were not genuine true believers, but were what we call "nominal," "temporary," "shallow," believers. They were what the old Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century called "leaves only" believers, believers who did not last long, falling away not long after their profession of faith and bearing no fruit. Bruce argued that these were real believers, people who had truly been saved or born again and having proved this, he proves that believers can lose their salvation since the text says that the fate of the temporary believer is to be destroyed ('withered away'). One of his arguments for these believers being true believers was in this form:

1. Receiving the gospel (seed) "with gladness" (as did the shallow ground believer) denotes salvation

2. The shallow ground hearer (believer) received the word "with gladness"

3. Therefore the shallow ground hearer was saved (a true born again believer)

One of my retorts put him in a tight spot. He never responded to it. I said "Bruce, by that reasoning you must say that I am a true believer and born again for I have received the gospel with gladness." 

Some of you might not know that the Campbellites don't believe Baptists are saved, or true believers. Therefore, he was saying that Baptists have not received the gospel with joy. He was forced into that position because of his contention that the shallow ground hearer must have been saved since he received the gospel with gladness. "The legs of the lame were not equal" here. 

Since he believed that only true believers, only ones born again, were members of his own denomination (those who call themselves "Church of Christ"), he must then believe that they and they alone have received the gospel with gladness!

I of course had other arguments to prove that the shallow ground believer who "fell away" from the faith was not saved. I also had other arguments to show how receiving the gospel with joy upon initially hearing it was no sure proof of regeneration. Herod rejoiced in the preaching of the Baptist I showed. But, he was not saved. Of those who rejected him, our Lord said that they were "willing for a season to rejoice in his (John Baptist) light" (John 5: 35). That of course did not mean that they were saved.

Was he not in a tight spot?

P.S. Both Campbellism and Hardshellism hold serious errors on the parable of the soils. I have written on this extensively in other posts. Also, there was a lot more argumentation on this parable than I mention now.