No One Wants To Defend It

Like Bob L. Ross, my dear departed brother, I have fought long against the "born again (or regenerated) before faith" error. For many years I have challenged many Calvinists who affirm such a proposition to defend it in reasoned debate. I challenged James White to debate it but he ignored the challenge, though we had some exchanges on the subject. He simply accused me of being a follower of Bob Ross who was his nemesis on this issue (Bob and Charles took him to task often in their blog "The Calvinist Flyswatter"). Nobody who espouses this proposition wants to debate it. What does that say? They will often be willing to debate other points, but why not this one? Will anyone come forward to defend it in discussion here in the Old Baptist Test? 

I have no fear of such a discussion. I am confident that what I teach on the subject (that faith precedes the new birth) is expressly taught in scripture and can show how the other side can find no express statement to the contrary. They rather rely on inference and deductive reasoning rather than plain statements of scripture to support their unbiblical proposition. If, however, I am wrong, I am willing to be corrected. Anyone want to help me out here? 

Spirit Of Adoption

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons (huio) of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children (tekna) of God: And if children (tekna), then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together...And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." (Rom. 8: 14-17; 23-25)

How can anyone logically affirm that our birth of the Spirit or of God is our adoption and then say that adoption is yet future? What part of adoption is future? Are we but partially adopted? How can that be? We are either adopted or not. If the completion of adoption is yet future, then how can anyone now be legal children? Is the final act of the adoption process not the time when the adoptee becomes the son of the adopter? Further, if we are adopted when born of the Spirit, then what need is there for us to wait for to be adopted? If our birth of the Spirit is our adoption, and we are waiting for the adoption, then we are waiting for our spiritual birth. Commentators often fail to see these incongruities. 

Most commentators affirm that "adoption" is both a present and future experience even though this involves them in gross contradictions and absurdities. They believe that Paul's affirmation that believers now "receive the spirit of adoption" denotes that they are adopted now, at the moment the Spirit is received, or at least that the adoption process has been initiated. But, this is a non sequitur, what is not logically deducible from the text. "Receiving the spirit of adoption" cannot be equated with "adopted by receiving the Spirit." In adoption (as it is practiced today), no one speaks of being adopted in such language. When someone asks an adoptee "have you been adopted," the adoptee never says "yes, I received the spirit of adoption." We can envision a candidate for adoption who "eagerly awaits" his adoption, because it is favorable to him, and thus possesses a hopeful and joyous "spirit" in expectation of it; And we can also envision another prospective adoptee who dreads his planned adoption, and has a foreboding "spirit," all because he does not desire to be adopted (either not at all or not by a particular prospective parent). But, we cannot see how the words "received the spirit of adoption" means "to be adopted." To suggest that this is the meaning of the words is to read such an interpretation into the text, however.  

The Adoption Is Future

Commentators who believe in God adopting children cannot deny that adoption is stated to be a future happening by the apostle, or at least not yet finalized. He says that believers are "eagerly awaiting the adoption," and then tells us what "the adoption" is, saying it is all the same as "the redemption of the body."

As we stated earlier, to put any part of the "adoption process" into the future is to put adoption itself in the future because adoption is not adoption till the process is completed. No one is considered adopted who is but half way through the process. Don't you see? An uncompleted adoption is no adoption at all. Paul says not that "we are waiting for the final act of competing adoption" (that would be adding to the text) but says "we are waiting for the adoption." Even though most commentators say that Paul's words mean what the former paraphrase or interpretation expresses, they do not mean the same thing. The former paraphrase of Paul's words are necessary because such commentators have wrongly interpreted "receiving the spirit of adoption" to mean "adopted in receiving the spirit." If adoption, in some sense or degree, occurred when the spirit of adoption was received, then of course the commentators must so paraphrase the words "waiting for the completion of adoption." But, the problem is, that is not what the text says. It would be better to take Paul's words at face value, and accept the fact that "the adoption," whatever it is, is entirely in the future, and then take that fact back to verse 15 and interpret verse 15 in light of that fact, rather than vise versa. 

Had Paul believed that believers were in the process of being adopted, adoption having been begun but not yet having been completed, he would not have said that we are waiting for the adoption. If he meant to convey the idea that adoption had already been accomplished by receiving the spirit of adoption, then why would he have said that it is yet a thing to wait for? If he meant what the commentators say he meant (waiting for the completion of adoption), then why did he not say so? The fact that he did not say that, saying rather that believers are waiting for the adoption, forces us to conclude that Paul did not affirm that believers were in any sense now adopted or son placed. 

We have "the spirit of" many things that are yet future for us as believers. We have the spirit of Christ's parousia, or second coming. We enjoy "the powers of the world to come" (Heb. 6: 5) and this would include enjoying the spirit of that coming age of peace. It is therefore a baseless argument to argue that the receiving of the adoption spirit denotes the act of being adopted. Paul seems to associate "spirit" with "mind" in these verses. A person who has the spirit of a slave has the mind of a slave. He has the spirit, disposition, and attitude of a slave. A person who has the "spirit of son placement" has the mind of a liberated or emancipated believer. 

A good analogy is to think of "the Christmas spirit." This spirit begins to show itself in the late fall season and keeps becoming more fervent as Christmas Day approaches. Yet, entering into the spirit of Christmas (in November for instance, or in the weeks leading up to Christmas Day) is not the same thing as entering into the enjoyment of that  actual holiday. The spirit of the event precedes the event. Prophecy of future things also produces a joyful spirit in believers who contemplate it. 

Therefore, when Paul says that believers "receive (or take to themselves, being a verb in the active voice) the spirit of huiothesia" he does not mean that they then experience the adoption, but that they possess the spirit of it in the same way one possesses the spirit of Christmas before Christmas. Likewise, we might think of a birth son who is waiting for his emancipation from youth and adolescence, to the time when he will be formally declared a "man." In such a case the son is filled with a spirit of anxiousness, a spirit of eager anticipation, and would have a "spirit of sonship" (RV translation for "spirit of adoption"). It is that kind of "spirit" that initiates, and those nearing a "rite of passage" experience. It is what they begin to feel as the time draws near for the ceremonial rite. A boy nearing his Bar Mitzvah or Toga Virilis (the "white Toga of manhood") will be filled with the "spirit" of manhood, the spirit of the coming ceremony, before the ceremony occurs. 

The Meaning Of "Spirit"

Paul says that believers "have received the Spirit of adoption" (KJV) but the definite article (the) is absent in the Greek text. Therefore it should be translated as "adoption spirit." The "spirit" in this verse does not refer to the Holy Spirit for it nearly always occurs with the definite article. Though it is the common view of commentators, it is not correct. In the passage "spirit of bondage" is set against "spirit of adoption (huiothesia)" and the former likewise is without the definite article. As "spirit" in the former is not a reference to a spiritual being, so too "spirit" in the latter does not refer to the Holy Spirit. "God is Spirit" is different than "God is the Spirit." So too is "God is a Spirit" different than "God is Spirit." 

Daniel B. Wallace has these comments on the definite article:

"Consequently, the article is one of the most fascinating areas of study in NT grammar. It is also one of the most neglected and abused...In the least, we cannot treat it lightly, for its presence or absence is the crucial element to unlocking the meaning of passages in the NT...In short, there is no more aspect of Greek grammar than the article to help shape our understanding of the thought and theology of the NT writers. As a side note, it should be mentioned that the KJV translators often erred in their treatment of the article. They were more comfortable with the Latin than with the Greek. Since there is no article in Latin, the KJV translators frequently missed the nuances of the Greek article. Robertson points out: The translators of the King James Version, under the influence of the Vulgate, handle the Greek article loosely and inaccurately." (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, Grand Rapid: Zondervan, 1996, p.207-208)

The absence of the definite article is just as important as is the presence of the article. Its absence emphasizes the quality or character of the person or thing designated in the context. It is an interesting study to observe how Paul in Romans chapter eight sometimes speaks of both "flesh" and "spirit" with and without the definite article. But, that is beyond the scope of this present discourse. I only wish to point out the absence of the article in "spirit adoption." 

Believers receive "the spirit of adoption." Does this genitive tell us something about the "spirit" or something about "adoption"? Which is the noun and which is the adjective? Does Paul mean "adoption/adopting spirit" or "spirit adoption"? We must decide what kind of Genitive is "pneuma huiothesian." It certainly is not a Genitive of source, for that would mean "spirit that comes from adoption." Those who think that "spirit" is a referent to the Holy Spirit will find this unacceptable. I also reject the supposition that the Genitive is such, but not because I believe "spirit" refers to the Holy Spirit but to the state of mind of the believer who is nearing manhood. Such a "spirit" does not come "from" adoption, for that is yet future as Paul says, except in the sense in which it is a spirit of anticipation of the coming event, like in the Christmas spirit of which I have already spoken. 

It seems best to view "adoption" as adjectival, as describing "spirit." This being so, does the adjective "huiothesian" tell us something about the Holy Spirit or something about the "spirit" or state of mind of the believer who is anxious to reach manhood, to attain the status of "son"? Surely the latter is the case. Seeing "adoption" as an adjective describing the person of the Holy Spirit is ambiguous and out of place. It does seem best to see "huiothesian" as an adjective describing a kind of "spirit" or state of mind. Certainly "spirit of bondage" denotes a state of mind, attitude, or disposition, or thing that animates a slave. The sinner who is without the Spirit and salvation lives in an air or atmosphere of fear and bondage. The believer lives in an air of freedom from fear, having "an air of confidence," a liberating spirit. 

What is an adoption or huiothesian spirit? It is a spirit of "sonship," a spiritual state of mind that longs to be fully grown into the image of manhood in Christ. It is the spirit of an "heir" who, though a child, is about to obtain to full age and be permitted to possess his full inheritance. Going from adolescence to adulthood is liberating and liberation is integral to Paul's concept of adoption as is redemption, and redemption is integrally connected with obtaining one's full inheritance. One can see how these concepts are intertwined in Romans eight. 

Is the "spirit of adoption" the kind of spirit that is possessed by adoptees after the fact or before the fact? What is it in either case? Many adoptees refuse to accept their adopted parents, the adoption not being the result of their choice. This is true both before and after the fact as respects adopting children old enough to know what is happening to them in being adopted. The spirit of such adoptees produces fear. Those children who approve of their anticipated adoption will obtain a happy eager and hopeful spirit, a spirit freed from fear. 

To receive the spirit of adoption is not the same thing as being adopted, as I have stated. "Receiving" is active voice, but adopted is passive voice. Further, adopted children do not "receive" adoption. Boys who are growing towards manhood do "receive" status and identity as "full grown sons" when they experience their Bar Mitzvah or Toga. They are active and anxious towards their ordained "son placement" and are glad to receive that status. By receiving the "spirit of son placement" the believer comes to realize his future ordained status and eschatological destiny as "sons" of God (at his future "coming of age" or perfection in the day of redemption). The children of God become mature adult sons in Christ at the resurrection. 

In this next posting I will summarize what I now post. I would refer all readers to my series "Waiting For The Huiothesia."

Spurgeon On Born Again By Faith

The following citations are from Charles Spurgeon's sermon "DESPISED LIGHT WITHDRAWN" (here). In it he shows that he believed that sinners are born again by faith. His text is the following:

“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.” John 12:36 

On this text Spurgeon said (emphasis mine):

"The point is, how to come to a practical decision. Spirit of the Living God, make this the day and this the hour when many shall believe in the great light, and shall be made the children of light once and for all!"

"We have always with us the Gospel of Jesus Christ that you can read in this Book whenever you will, but the Holy Ghost must go with the Gospel to make it the power of God unto salvation. You cannot see the light that is in the Word unless the Holy Ghost reveals it to you. Some of you have been under the influence of the Holy Ghost in some measure and degree." 

"Now, secondly, I take you a little further into our theme. Here is AN ACT OF GRACE COMMENDED—“While ye have the light, believe in the light.” This believing is the most essential act of a man’s life. Therefore our Lord said, “Believe in the light.” 

"He had not only believed in Christ, but he had believed Christ. I want you, dear friend, if you are sincerely seeking salvation, to believe Christ. Believe Him to be what He says He is—believe that everything He says is true—believe that He Himself does save, and can save, and will save you. So believe Him as to hand yourself over to Him and take Him to be your Savior. In a word, as our text says, “While ye have light, believe in the light.”"

"I want you now to advance another step. I have almost anticipated this third point—“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.” Here is, A RESULT OF FAITH MENTIONED."

"They who believe in Christ receive a change of nature. They were born heirs of wrath, but by grace they become children of the light of God. “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord,” as soon as you have believed in Jesus Christ. This new birth, this regeneration, is a great puzzle to many poor sinners."

"One asks, “How can I make myself a new creature in Christ?” Of course, you can do nothing of the kind. This is a miracle—it is as much a work of God to make us children of light as it was to make light at the first. Only God can work this miracle, but mark you this, there never was a soul yet that truly believed in Christ, but at the same time it underwent the change called the new birth or regeneration." 

"Christians have often been asked about which is first, faith or regeneration, belief in Christ or being born again. I will tell you when you answer me this question—When a wheel moves, which spoke moves first? “Oh, they all start together!” say you. So these other things all start together, whether it is the hub of the wheel, which is regeneration, or the spokes of the wheel, which are faith, and repentance, and hope, and love, and so on—when the wheel moves, it all moves at once."

"If you believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, in the moment that you believe, this great change of nature is effected in you, for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power. It is a fact in everyday experience that, when a man comes to believe in his master, he becomes at once a better servant. A person whom I disliked, because I suspected him, becomes at once pleasing to me as soon as I trust him. So, faith towards God in itself produces a total change of mind in the man who has it...But beside that, there goes with faith a divine energy which changes the heart of man."

"Now, that is exactly what God can do for you. If you believe in Jesus Christ, you shall receive a new and childlike nature. There shall be created in you something better than what is called the primitive innocence of infancy—it shall be a really pure and holy life that shall be given to you and you shall become a new creature in Christ Jesus."

I do not want anyone to say that Spurgeon taught regeneration before faith!

Cursed With Evil Rulers

Our rulers today, in America and in other nations, are idiots and are a curse upon us! God, in his providence, often gives a nation wicked rulers as a judgment upon the people. Wrote John Calvin:

Indeed, he says that those who rule for the public benefit are true patterns and evidences of this beneficence of his; that they who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by him to punish the wickedness of the people; that all equally have been endowed with that holy majesty with which he has invested lawful power. I shall proceed no farther until I have added some sure testimonies of this thing. Yet, we need not labor to prove that a wicked king is the Lord’s wrath upon the earth [Job 34:30, Vg.; Hos. 13:11; Isa. 3:4; 10:5; Deut. 28:29], for I believe no man will contradict me; and thus nothing more would be said of a king than of a robber who seizes your possessions, of an adulterer who pollutes your marriage bed, or of a murderer who seeks to kill you. For Scripture reckons all such calamities among God’s curses. 

(Book four, chapter 20, section 25 of the Institutes - See here)

"When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan." (Prov. 29: 2)

"Like a roaring lion and a rushing bear Is a wicked ruler over a poor people." (28: 15)

Today we have "the blind leading the blind." God help us!

W.E. Vine On Adoption vs. Birth

Said Vine (emphasis mine):

"In Ephesians 1:5 they are said to have been foreordained unto "adoption as sons" through Jesus Christ, RV; the AV, "adoption of children" is a mistranslation and misleading. God does not "adopt" believers as children; they are begotten as such by His Holy Spirit through faith. "Adoption" is a term involving the dignity of the relationship of believers as sons; it is not a putting into the family by spiritual birth, but a putting into the position of sons. In Romans 8:23 the "adoption" of the believer is set forth as still future, as it there includes the redemption of the body, when the living will be changed and those who have fallen asleep will be raised. In Romans 9:4 "adoption" is spoken of as belonging to Israel, in accordance with the statement in Exodus 4:12, "Israel is My Son." Cp. Hosea 11:1. Israel was brought into a special relation with God, a collective relationship, not enjoyed by other nations, Deuteronomy 14:1; Jeremiah 31:9, etc." (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

God is my real Father, not my adopted Father. I am his by a birth. My "son placement" will be my "Bar Mitzvah" at the time of the second coming and resurrection, when I will become "full grown," perfected and mature, and given my adult responsibilities and privileges. It will be that "time appointed by the Father" for me to be no longer a child under tutors and governors, but will become fully as my Father. (See Gal. 4)

As I showed in my series on "the huiothesia," that term does not denote "adoption" but son placing. I showed how many ancient cultures had a "rite of passage" for boys who exited childhood and entered into manhood. The Jews had the Bar Mitzvah and the Romans had the Toga ceremony. In these the boy is "placed" or "set" at the side of the father and given the emblems of manhood. This is what will happen to those born of God when Christ returns and we experience all that is connected with "the redemption of our bodies."

For further information on this see my posting "Teknon, Huios & Huiothesia" (here).

We Are Not Adopted Children Of God

The following is an excerpt from my fourth posting in the series "Waiting For The Huiothesia." (here) It bothers me when I hear Bible teachers speak of how they became children of God by adoption. Well, brothers, I am one who was born of God and have no need to be adopted. Here is what I said along that line:

So, just how did Israel become God's son? Was it by adoption? If so, then Israel was not begotten. Was it by being begotten? If so, then it was not by adoption. Or, was Israel, like many commentators affirm, somehow God's son by both birth and adoption? Where is the proof of it?

Many Bible interpreters and expositors will first presume that God adopts people to be his children, based primarily upon translating "huiothesia." as "adoption." Next, they will admit that adoption falls short of making a child "like" his adopted parents. This, they affirm, requires a birth. There are several serious flaws with this way of thinking.

First, why first presuppose adoption as necessary to birth? Second, if birth is first presupposed, what need is there of being adopted? Adoption would not, in such a case, give one additional identifying quality towards what it means to be a "child," "offspring," "son," "daughter," etc. Adoption cannot make the begotten child any more "like" his father genetically. He cannot become any more in "nature" a child to his father by being adopted. He cannot receive any more inheritance or ruling family authority by being adopted, for he has all this by virtue of birth.

Which comes first, birth or adoption in the scheme of most theologians who accept the idea of adoption as a way in which people become the children of God? If one insists that God first adopts and then gives birth, then why the birth? The reason can't be to make the adopted person a child, for he is already so by adoption. Such a view forces one who holds to this scheme to affirm that the new birth is not what makes one a child of God, for he is already such by adoption. That is simple reductio ad absurdum. This scheme leads to a slim view of what it means to be born of God. In such a scheme the birth becomes almost meaningless theologically. On the other hand, one who says that God first begets and then adopts has the problem of making adoption meaningless, for it does nothing for the child that the birth has not already done. Also, to say that God gives birth to take up deficiencies owing from mere adoption, begs the question.

Are there sons of God who were adopted but were never born? Are there some who are born but not adopted? Is the family of God so divided? As stated in the Introduction, going into error on the meaning of "the huiothesia" has given rise to sects who have so divided the family of God. After all, it is reasonable to assume that one who has been adopted may die before he is born, and so could not possibly be equal to other children of God who had been both adopted and born.

Those who accept that both adoption and birth are ways in which God produces children have many difficulties over which to overcome, as is evident. Is the person who is adopted but not born an equal heir to those who are both? Is the mere adopted child but half a child?

The adoption (huiothesia) has not yet occurred! Paul says we are waiting for the adoption! No one has been adopted as yet! Further, adoption is not the right translation. It should be "son placement." We are waiting for our installation as perfected sons of God.

Trip To Ohio & PB Meetings

It has been my desire for a few years now to visit the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists, an association of semi Calvinistic Primitive Baptists of which brother Ken Mann and I have written about. They have 36 churches in their association in four states (Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio). This year the Association was held at a church near my sister's house (she lives in Lebanon, Ohio, the old stomping ground of Hardshell founding father Wilson Thompson). They have 48 ministers, including "licentiates." I have also wanted to visit Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church and see Elder Lasserre Bradley once again (it has been over forty years since I last saw him). I also wanted to meet Elder Jeremiah Bass, the new senior pastor at Cincinnati. He and I have exchanged some e-mail correspondence and I have recommended many of his writings since he became pastor there. I have also not seen my sister since father passed away back in March, 2016. So, with this one short visit of 5-6 days I was able to do all three. This is a record of this trip.

I left this past Thursday (Sept. 30) on a flight from Charlotte, N.C. and arrived in Dayton, Ohio around noon. My brother in law, Bob Jaster, picked me up and took me to his and my sister's house (Judy). I spent a delightful day with them both. I have not seen them since father passed away. We talk regularly on the phone. Both are now retired and enjoying their "golden years." Judy is my younger sister and we have always been close since we were siblings. She is a devoted Christian, a member of father's church (now called "New Hope Primitive Baptist Church" in Franklin, Ohio). 

We spent the day (the whole time together too) talking about our lives, about our parents, about the poverty of our upbringing, our hard times as children. We also talked a lot about father (Elder Eddie K. Garrett Sr.). Though I came to see some things differently than father, yet I respected him for his convictions. We agreed on much more than we disagreed upon. He was a diligent student of the bible. Had he not had to support himself as a pastor he would have had much more time to study and no doubt would have advanced further in his theological studies. Such is the hindrance that many preachers face, having to work full time jobs and yet find time to study, visit the sick, comfort and counsel members, witness, etc. But he made the most of the time he had as a pastor who had to work a secular job. He had a huge library (donated to SBTS library by Judy). 

He had been saved in a "Missionary Baptist" church, went to a Missionary Seminary (Springfield, Mo. where Judy was born when father was there). While in seminary he came to believe in "the five points of Calvinism," though this was not the stated belief of Springfield fellowship (Baptist Bible Fellowship, where Jerry Falwell attended, and who father said was a year ahead of him). He also seems to have embraced "Landmarkism" at this time. He left Springfield, returned to Hamiliton, Ohio, and started a mission church and became a sovereign grace Baptist with the help of Calvary Baptist Church of Ashland, Kentucky. This was in the start of the decade of the sixties. It was called "New Testament Baptist Church" and located at 953 Walnut Street, Hamilton, Ohio. 

You can go to the archives of "The Baptist Examiner," published in Ashland for many years and sponsored by that church. (For the archives of the Baptist Examiner see here) Elder John R. Gilpin was the pastor and Bob L. Ross, my dear friend (who passed away the past year), married Gilpin's daughter and became editor of the paper. You can see a picture of our family along with founding members of the church father began (here - go to page six on this issue ). I am the little boy at the bottom of the pic, my sister Judy is to my right, and my older sister Brenda (deceased) is on her right. My older brother Eddie Jr. is the other child. My mother is the second from the right in the row of four women. Father's sister (my aunt) is on the far left. It is in the Oct. 3rd, 1959 issue and I would have been almost four (two days later on Oct. 5th). Father is second from left and there is another picture of him on the same page in the writing that Bob Ross wrote of the constitution of New Testament Baptist Church. 

You can see a picture of father on the front page of the Examiner for April 16, 1960 (here) at the top of his article in a series titled "Amillennialism Examined." In this article he was defending Premillennialism. "God's Eternal Purpose" (here) for August 13, 1960. Another picture of father can be seen in this issue where he is pictured with another elder (father is on the left - see here) It was for November 24, 1960 and on page five. "Free Will? - No!" (Feb. 4th, 1961 - here) "Faith-The Gift Of God's Grace" (here and in the March 25th issue for 1961) with his picture. "Assurance vs. Assumption" (June 24, 1961 here); "Why Preach The Gospel" (here); "Bible Doctrine Of Election" (here - for Dec. 23, 1961); "Contend For The Faith" (May 5th, 1962 - here); "The Unscripturalness of "Religious Socialism" (June 2, 1962 - here); Another picture of father can be seen in this issue on page five (Sept. 19, 1959 - here);

Father had gone to Calvary to seek membership and support for his mission work in Hamilton. Mother and father both joined Calvary and began a mission church. There are lots of articles of father in those years, other than the ones mentioned above, and I have read some of them. What father believed at that time is what I believe now (for the most part). He was then a believer in absolute predestination of all things (all things come to pass by the will of God), a believer in means in rebirth, in the necessity of faith and repentance for salvation, in the necessity of perseverance in faith and holiness, and in Premillennialism. 

He was also blessed to have about fifteen years of pretty good retirement years and this time was spent in preaching, study, etc. I have thanked God for giving him this time in his golden years. I could go on an on about father, but will forbear the reader. Needless to say we talked much about him whom we both loved dearly. We recalled his words and sage advice. His good example in many things. Thank you Father for our father!

My sister is a good cook! She fed me well. Bob and Judy show much Christian hospitality. They enjoy life every day in the Spirit of the Lord, giving God thanks for all they have. Judy has been used by the Lord in her life to help so many sick and dying family and church members, including father. Full of good works. Helping to raise an orphan family member, giving money to those in need, etc. 

Eastern District Primitive Baptist Association

I attended this association on Friday and Saturday morning. They had lively enthusiastic worship and praise! They felt their religion. They identified with the words of the hymns and spiritual songs. There was much testifying, exhorting, shouting, lots of amens, etc. They also had several prayer requests for lost family members, the thing I recently wrote about as not characterizing the Hardshell variety of prayer requests. (See Hardshell Prayer Requests) 

The preachers I heard were like many of the ones I heard among the Hardshells in certain geographical areas. They got excited, very excited. One preacher jumped upon two chairs and I thought he was going to fall! Many had that rhythmic chanting style of preaching. One was very good, singing in a melodious tone, like many of the Hardshell preachers of the past. One preacher said something that has made me laugh a lot since I heard it. He said that he had a "big mouth" when he was in sin and when the Lord saved him he heard the Lord saying to him "come now and use that big mouth for me." These preachers could mix doctrinal preaching with experimental preaching. 

After the Friday morning service, I walked to the front to speak to Elder Burnace Sybert, the one that brother Ken Mann has spoken to about the history of this group of Primitive Baptists. Elder Sybert knew from these conversations that I was a Calvinist. When I introduced myself as Stephen Garrett, associate of brother Mann, elder Sybert mentioned my being Calvinist (they are not five point Calvinists). I responded by saying that I believed as Spurgeon. I said that Southern Baptists have one point, two point, three point, four point, and five point Calvinists and yet they get along fairly well. Others were crowding around the front where we were speaking, some wanting to speak to him, and so we did not talk any more. He was scheduled to preach on Saturday morning and yet failed to show because of kidney stones. I pray he is recovering. I guess he was around 80 years old. He was for many years the clerk of the association and is supposed to know most about the history of the Eastern District, which began in 1848. 

On Saturday after the morning service I got to speak with the Moderator of the Association, elder Sizemore. I told him that I would like to have information on the history of the Association from 1848 to 1880, the period when there are no records. Elder Sizemore said I should talk to Sybert. Elder Sizemore had a nice sing song style of preaching, the kind I often heard among the Hardshells.

In talking with Sybert in that short few minutes I said that the Eastern brethren seem to be a non Hardshell type of Primitive Baptist. One sister who I knew from her YouTube page (giving many videos of Eastern Association meetings) I was glad to meet. She heard my remark about being primitive but not Hardshell and said to me that she had been called Hardshell by others. I then told her what I meant. I said that the Hardshells don't believe that sinners are saved or regenerated by the gospel and denied perseverance to be necessary for salvation. The Eastern brothers do believe in means (articles of faith expressly say this), I said, and are therefore not Hardshell. She then spoke of God "speaking" to an individual and my mind immediately went to the Hardshell idea of "direct speaking." I told her that there was both an inward and an outward call. The word is preached and the external call given to come to Christ, to believe and repent, and yet it requires the inward call of the Spirit to attend the outward call and make it effectual. This internal call is the inner work of the Spirit in saying to the sinner "this is right." 

I had no discussion of doctrine with any preachers and members except the above. I did not go there to fight and debate. I went there to see and observe them for myself. I hopefully will get to attend again, possibly when they meet in Virginia or East Tennessee. 

Cincinnati Church

On Sunday morning I drove to Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church's meeting house. I had not been there since about 1979 when I filled in for Elder Bradley on one Sunday. The church paid for me to fly up there. I went the year after this (maybe two) when they held their Annual Meeting. I drove up with several of my church members. The meeting was held in a large gymnasium back in those days as the crowds were so large. When I was there I guess there were at least five hundred people in attendance. I used to go to Cincinnati church on Wednesdays (they then had services Sunday morning and night, and on Wednesdays) and this would have been in the years 1972-1976 (I moved to NC in March, 1976). 

Elder Bradley introduced services after singing and the new pastor, Elder Jeremiah Bass, delivered the discourse. He is going through the Book of Hebrews and was in chapter five. I have been listening to his Sunday discourses since he became pastor back in the Spring. He is a sound exegete. I expect great things from him in the years to come, if the Lord tarries his return.

After service I immediately went to Elder Bradley who I had not seen in the past forty plus years. "Father Bradley," I said, "it is so good to see you after all these years" (paraphrase). We spoke of several things in those few minutes. I told him that I believed that the church did very well in selecting Jeremiah. He agreed and felt as though the Lord had been in the decision. I pray for them all. Father Bradley spoke of his having had Covid (his wife Emily also). As he spoke he had that gleam in his eye that I always remember. He also looked you in the eye as he talked and I like that. Jeremiah also had this trait. I pray God they will look sinners in the eyes as they preach to and counsel sinners. The Methodist minister that the Lord used to convert Charles Spurgeon also looked him in the eye as he addressed him saying "You look like a miserable man." He told him all he had to do was "look" to Christ and the Father to be saved. 

I met elder Jeremiah Bass when I first arrived at the church house. Was so glad to have had the opportunity to meet him. We talked together a good bit, especially during lunch (I stayed for it). I also had intentions of speaking to elder Bradley some more but we did not get a chance as he was sitting with church members. Really, it was a precious sight to see such an aged minister still ministering, giving counsel, comfort, and encouragement to the saints. Elder Bass and I got to talk about several things and will not relate the precise topics but simply say it was quite enjoyable.

Staying for lunch after morning services I was able to enjoy good fellowship with several, some who knew father from back in the sixties when father joined Cincinnati church. I spoke to one who knew him well and spoke highly of father.

I asked Elder Bradley to think about writing his memoirs. I told him how important this would be. He could dictate on tape and others could write it down. He should be able in them to document his time with the PBs, his experiences, his going away from means and to hardshellism, his battles with the PBs, and give advice for the future, for young ministers. I also told Jeremiah of this and encouraged him to do this. I think they plan to have a special service at their October meeting to highlight father Bradley's ministry.

I also requested of elder Bradley a copy of the cassette of the quartet that had him singing with Paul Trautner, brother Prather, and another brother. I asked him "didn't you sing bass?" He nodded yes. I said that is amazing (he does not have a deep bass voice). I asked "was it a Trio or Quartet?" He said there were four of them. I said "Elder Trautner and brother Prather were two, who was the fourth?" He could not recall right fast (and others were crowding towards the dining hall). I also asked Jeremiah to help me get that tape and to encourage Bradley to write his memoirs in which he could give advice, tell of his experiences in ministry, and give direction for the future of the Primitive Baptists of his affiliations.

All in all it was a wonderful trip! I thank God for it. I hope I can have opportunities in the future to do the same. Pray for us.

Another Good Spiritual Song

 I love this song by Michael Lining's family.

"I Have Not Forgotten" (here)