The Title "Reverend"

"strive not about words to no profit" 

(II Tim. 2: 14

Brother and Reverend Ken Mann, blog contributor, queried, in my recent post on John Leland, about Leland using the word or title of "reverend" when he wrote a letter to a fellow preacher. I made comment to his comment and stated that I did not know the history of using that term among Baptists but did know that many Baptists have objected to it, some vehemently, as the Hardshell Baptists, and that I thought it was straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, especially in their case, or was making mountains out of molehills. 

When brother Mann raised the question about the origin and history of this word's use among Baptists, I at first thought in my mind how I knew I had seen other old Baptists (of the 17th and 18th centuries and later) use the term in their writings and correspondence. So, I decided to do a Google search and turned up some information I wish to share with our readers and whoever in the future may find this web page. 

Britannica (here) says of the term "Reverend": 

"reverend, the ordinary English prefix of written address to the names of ministers of most Christian denominations. In the 15th century it was used as a general term of respectful address, but it has been habitually used as a title prefixed to the names of ordained clergymen since the 17th century."

Thus, as I stated in my comment to brother Mann, women are to reverence their husbands and call them lord, which was a show of respect.

I then found this article, titled "WHAT TITLE SHOULD MINISTERS USE?"  by Elder H. C. Vanderpool, Th. D., of Hendersonville, TN (See here). I will cite from this article now. In it he also cites from a paper by fellow minister F. R. Bingham, pastor of Jordan Baptist Church in Illinois, and Editor of the Baptist Instructor. I recommend that the whole article be read. Here are some excerpts that reflect my view.

Says Elder Vanderpool (emphasis mine):

"A few days ago I received a phone call, and a friend of the caller wanted me to send him the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, and when they began to use the title "Reverend" for ministers. 

 

First, the S.B.C. was organized at Augusta, Georgia in 1845. The information on it is found in Twentieth Century Baptists, pp. 308-322. This will also be in Twentieth Century Baptists - Volume Two, which I hope to have written, printed and ready for distribution in the Fall of 1996. 

 

The truth is, Baptists were using the name "Reverend" 150 years and more before the S.B.C. was organized. The convention did not begin that title, but those we call Old Time Baptists (The oldest ones in America) began the use of that title.

The Philadelphia Baptist Association was organized on the 27th day of the 7th month, on the 7th day of the week in the year 1707 (which would be July 17, 1707). All our true Baptists today trace our history back through that Association. The ministers of those days were well educated and most of them were called "Reverend" or "Doctor". Some used "Brother". These titles were used for almost a century, and on their records for 1790, they began to use "Elder" along with the other titles. So, "Reverend" was used over a hundred years back into the Baptists before coming to America; before they used the title "Elder."

Note: I doubt all Baptists will agree with the statement "all our true Baptists today trace our history back through" the Philadelphia Association. 

Wrote Vanderpool:

"In the History of the Philadelphia Association, pp 254-255, "Elder" was used along with "Reverend," "Brother," and "Doctor." All four titles were used on these two pages."

"When I began to prepare this material for the Brother who had asked for it, I remembered that Brother F. R. Bingham, pastor of Jordan Baptist Church in Illinois, and Editor of the Baptist Instructor, had written an article on this subject. I found the Article in the Baptist Banner files of July 1968, over 27 years ago. I agree with Pastor Bingham, and wish our people, especially our preacher Brethren would study their Hebrew and Greek and find out the truth before becoming so critical of what actually is the truth in God's Word." 

 

"I have never preached out of any Bible except the King James Version. However, the Bible was rewritten and revised 14 times before the King James Version was written in 1611. So, Baptists preached out of other versions over 1600 years before the KJV was written." 

This comment is a little off the subject, but I think the purpose is to caution Baptists about speaking too rigidly about traditions within our Baptist family. I do agree with his comment, however. 

Wrote Vanderpool:

"Now here is the article by Pastor Bingham which I agree with: 

SHOULD A PREACHER BE REFERRED TO AS REVEREND? 

by Pastor F. R. Bingham 

 

"The other day I received a communication from a brother who objected strongly to being addressed as "Rev. (so and so). He said, "I am not a reverend." I have heard this objection for all the years of my ministry (35 of them) from various preachers, and almost as if it were sinful and blasphemous for a minister to use this title. The objection is always based on Psalm 111:9, where it said "....Reverend is his name," meaning, of course, the Lord. And this would mean for anyone else to use this name is to appropriate unto himself the name of deity, with the identity of being God."

"But there have always been those who strain at gnats and swallow camels; who are pharisaically hyper-critical of others over little things of no real consequence after all; and I suppose there will always be such among us."

This article by brother Bingham was published in the Baptist Banner, July 1968, of which Elder H. C. Vanderpool was Editor.

It is interesting that brother Bingham saw what I later also saw, how it was a case, many times, of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Excerpts from Leland

In a follow up to the preceding post on Elder John Leland, I wish to add some things that elder Leland wrote to a brother Cone. It was sent to Cone who sent it to be published in a periodical. (See here) It is dated Dec. 10, 1826. In the citations given, all emphasis is mine. It was addressed to - 

"Rev. Spencer H. Cone, living in the city of regeneration, Grace Street - Penitent Alley - at the Sign of the Cross, next door to glory."

 He writes to Cone thusly:

"MY GOOD BROTHER CONE, - 

 

I, John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the city of Albany last August, where I formed a momentary acquaintance with yourself and brother Maclay. The Christian kindness which you and your elect lady expressed at our parting, fixed a soft affection in my heart, which I wish to indulge in a letter of friendship.

From a septennarian, whose sun is declining on the western hills, you will not expect energy of mind, logical argument, coherent reasoning, nor pomp of diction; but contrary-wise, a sickening dose of egotism.

You will judge best of my health, by hearing that I breathe, in common, twenty-four times each minute, and my pulses beat three times as often: which health and strength I have employed, the summer past, in travelling and preaching; which, by the bye, has been my constant practice for more than fifty-two years, with a few small exceptions. Since the first of June last, I have attended three associations, seen eighty-six Baptist preachers, and tried to preach eighty-one times. In retrospecting my life, I do not much reproach myself for not giving myself to the work, as far as domestic duties admitted; but the lack of divine love - little care for the souls of men - weakness in handling the word of life - mangling heavenly truths with an unhallowed tongue - a proud desire to make God's stream turn my own mill, &c., sink me in the dust, and fill my soul with shame before God and man."

I would that our Hardshell brethren would confess the same!

Wrote Leland:

"It has, in the course of my ministry, been a question of no small magnitude, to know how to address a congregation of sinners, as such, in gospel style. When I turn my eyes to the upper book, (the eternal designs of God,) I there read that God's work is before him, and that he works all things according to the counsel of his own will; that neither a sparrow, nor a hair of the head, can fall without our Heavenly Father; that providence and grace are the agents to execute his purposes. But when I look into the lower book, (the freedom of the human will,) I find that condemnation is conditional: "Oh that thou hadst hearkened unto me, then had your peace been as a river; - seeing ye judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo! we turn to the Gentiles," &c. If I do not read and believe the upper book, I impeach the omniscience and wisdom of Jehovah. And if do not likewise read and believe the lower book, I deny the possibility of guilt or blame. I must, therefore, believe both; and where I cannot comprehend, I will adore; where I cannot read, I will spell; and what I cannot spell out, I must skip. If the human mind should be so enlarged that it could solve every difficulty that has hitherto appeared, that same enlargement of thought would unfold a thousand difficulties more, so subtile and minute, that it never felt their weight before; so that there would be no getting through!"

These are similar words to those which would later be said by Charles Spurgeon. It seems that both Leland and Spurgeon would be called "Compatibilists."

Wrote Leland:

"It has been rather trying times for Baptist preachers, who have travelled and labored day and night for the good of souls: like the mules which Agelastus saw, they have been loaded with figs, and feeding upon thistles. What the new order of missionary funds and exertions will do, I cannot say; whether there is goodness enough in men to be pampered without growing indolent and haughty, is a question." 

This shows that Leland had sympathies with many of the objections the Hardshells had against missionary efforts but he shows a willingness to be open on the subject and to allow God to show which side he favored. 

Elder Leland Was Not Hardshell

Elder John Leland

(1754–1841)

Though Elder Leland was a part of the "anti-mission" side (Old School or Hardshell) in the 1830s, he did not hold to the anti means view of regeneration, but preached to the lost in order that they might, by the preaching of the gospel, be converted or born again. When Leland identified with the anti-mission side it was because he opposed mission societies which were not under the supervision of churches, and against theological seminaries, and certain revival methods, and Arminian principles. It was not because he rejected a belief in means. One of the chapters in the book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" is Chpt. 49 - Elder Leland's Preaching (here) and the following are some citations from that chapter. 

"The Gillite mode of addressing sinners, seemed a little different from the New Testament mode. The Hopkinsian method appeared as if it took all the wisdom of God to devise a way for an honorable pretence to damn men. Dr. Fuller only cast another bundle of straw on the fire. So that the great query which has agitated my mind for more than thirty years, 'How is a congregation of sinners to be addressed?' at the time I am speaking of, fell with such distress upon my mind, that I could hardly contain myself. But in the midst of my difficulties, I had a meeting at a school house; in the time of service my soul got into the trade winds, and without consulting Gill, Hopkins, Fuller, or Wesley, without comparing our translation with the Septuagint, Chaldee, or the King of Spain's Bible, I addressed the scholars and young people in a way I never can without God helps me. The spirit of the Lord fell upon them. Very soon after this, five of them came forward and confessed Christ." (Continuation of MS. 1807)

Here is what Elder Leland wrote in a letter to Elder John Taylor:

"It brings fresh to my mind the winter of 1779 and '80, which, was the coldest winter that America pas ever known; and yet, to me, it was the warmest that ever I knew. At several other periods of my life, I have had more success than I had at that time, but never had the spirit of prayer and travail for souls, to an equal degree."

"Your travels have been great, your success encouraging. "They that turn many to righteousness, shall shine as the stars forever and ever." When the ministers of Jesus shall be called to give an account of their stewardship, if, like their masters, they can each say, "behold I, and the children which God hath given me -- here, Lord, are the proofs of my ministry -- the seals of my faithfulness -- the souls thou hast given me." I t will be a crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord. But, notwithstanding success is very desirable, yet the promise is made to the faithful. Noah, a preacher of righteousness, was very unsuccessful; all his hearers but seven were destroyed; but, as he was faithful, he obtained the promise, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."

Leland writes further, in his letter, saying:

"Whenever I had evidence that God had blessed my imperfect labors for the salvation of sinners, it has given me much more joy than the favors of the rich, or the applauses of the great."

I love how Elder Leland closed out his letter to Elder Taylor.

"Rev. John Taylor, who lives, or ought to live, in the town of Regeneration, Grace-street, Penitent alley, at the sign of the cross, and next to glory."

Said one source on the biography of Leland (See here):

"1. Leland was an active and productive pastor. From the age of 18 until his death at 86, he preached approximately 8,000 sermons, wrote numerous hymns, published about 30 pamphlets, and baptized 1,524 people. He also personally knew 962 pastors, out of which 303 he heard preach and 207 who visited him at his home."

2. Leland had an outsized influence on the establishment of religious liberty in America through his relationship with James Madison, the primary author of the U.S. Constitution. Leland, who was considered the “leader of the Virginia Baptists,” helped Madison get elected both as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and to the first Congress. Madison repaid Leland and the other Baptists by keeping his campaign promise to support a Bill of Rights that included the Establishment Clause. 

3. For much of his early career Leland rarely spoke publicly about one of the key issues of his day—slavery. However, on returning to his home state of Massachusetts in 1791, he began to forcefully champion the emancipation of slaves. Leland thought the cause of freedom for Black Americans would be an opportunity for Christian youth:

Although he continued to oppose slavery, Leland later in life began to denounce abolitionists as troublemakers. Many slaveholders, he said, “in heart are opposed to slavery, and would gladly set their slaves free, if they could be provided for.”

"When he arrived in the capitol, Leland was invited to preach a message of religious liberty before Congress." 

 5. According to L. H. Butterfield, Leland was “dubious about seminaries and campaigns for [missionary] funds.” Although Leland, who was self-educated, was not opposed to secular education, he purportedly stuck “to the primitive Baptist principle that the power to evangelize is bestowed by divine rather than human means.” 

“In these things, however, I may be wrong,” Leland told a friend, “for I claim neither infallibility nor the spirit of prophecy. — May I, may you, may every one pray and search for himself, and believe, and act, and follow the clearest light." (emphasis mine)

This confession "I may be wrong" is similar to the later thinking of Elder John Taylor of Kentucky, who at first was an anti missionary but later became sympathetic towards mission societies.

If Leland could see how the "Primitive Baptist Church" has evolved since his day, he surely would denounce them as a cult.

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xxii)

"but now he is comforted and you are tormented" 

(Luke 16: 25)

At the end of the book of Daniel, an angel speaks of Daniel’s death, saying, “You will rest.” (Dan. 12:13) In the preceding chapter while looking at some of the ways in which death is described in the bible, by idioms and euphemisms, we ended with thoughts about how the believer enters into "rest" when he or she dies. There is one kind of rest for the body and another kind of rest for the spirit. In this chapter let us look at one other important text dealing with the rest entered by the believer upon dying. Wrote the prophet Isaiah:

"The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil. He shall enter into peace; They shall rest in their beds, Each one walking in his uprightness." (Isa. 57: 1-2 nkjv)

First, notice how death is variously described in the above text. It is described first by the word "perishes." Of course, a spirit does not perish, so the reference is to the house (body) in which a spirit dwells. However, not all agree. Those who believe in the perishing of spirit will often cite verses such as we looked at from Ecclesiastes, or from such texts as this one from the Psalms: 

"His spirit departs, he returns to his earth; In that very day his plans ('thoughts' kjv) perish." (Psa. 146: 4 nkjv) 

But, the thoughts that perish are 1) all wrong thoughts, 2) all purposes relating to life in the flesh/body, to the world known as the "land of the living." It is not a perishing of the mental faculty of spirit, nor of all conscious thought. Notice how the verse speaks of the spirit departing, which indicates that it did not perish as the body, which "returns to his earth." Dust returns to dust (down) while spirit returns to God (up). 

Notice also how death is not only described as a perishing, but also as a being "taken away" or "gathered." We have already spoken of that way of describing death from other scriptures. Stephen's spirit was taken and received by Christ into heaven. So too the above text not only speaks of being taken away in death (exiting) but also of "entering" another state or place. "They shall enter into peace," which we stated at the end of the previous chapter was well described by the promise made to believers that they each shall "sit under his own vine and fig tree and none will make them afraid." The body does not "enter into peace." Enjoying peace can only be what a disembodied conscious spirit does. 

Also, the righteous person not only enters into peace when dead, but also "rest in their beds." That description sounds like what the body does when it is laid in a coffin. In fact, many tombstone monuments have the words "rest in peace" on them. However, as previously stated, there is rest for the both body and soul, and the rest for the one is not exactly like the rest for the other. 

Rest for spirit is unlike rest for a body (which has become dust and ashes). The rest or sleep of the body (death) is not recuperative, for one thing. Only a resurrection of the body can restore life to it, and in order for it to be resurrected and fully regenerated the spirit that exited the body at death must re-enter it for it to live again. The rest for the spirit that comes at death does involve a recuperation, and renewed vigor. The spirit and its faculties and attributes are liberated and become supra natural once it leaves the body of the heaven bound person. 

Rest for the body comes to both righteous (saved) and unrighteous (unsaved). Even the bodies of the wicked dead cannot feel pain. When they are raised from the dead when Christ returns and brings on the judgment of the living and the dead, their wicked spirits will be reunited with their resurrected bodies and then sent body and spirit into the "everlasting fires" of "Gehenna," and they will once again feel pain in their physical bodies. 

The body is not "enjoying" its rest, for it is unconscious (brain dead), and enjoying rest implies conscious emotion.  

What kind of "bed" will the righteous lie in when they die? Is a coffin, sepulcher, casket, bier, alluded to? Or, is it a "couch" in which the righteous dead, in their spirits and temporary bodies, lay? Or, could it include both ideas? Notice that the text does not say "they shall sleep in their beds" but "they shall rest in their beds." I spend a lot of time in my bed while I am awake and watching television, meditating, musing, etc. The Hebrew word for "bed" is miškāḇ and does not always denote a place of sleeping, nor does the word "bedchamber" always denote what we call today a "bedroom." One of its meanings is "couch," or we might say "sofa," and as noted in previous chapters, Oriental peoples, as the Hebrews, often ate supper on couches around a table. Thus, the apostle John was able to recline on the bosom of Jesus while at the supper table. (John 13: 33) It is also what we envision in the scene in Hades where Lazarus is reclining in the bosom of father Abraham. Further, Jesus said: “many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 8: 11)

So, the words "they rest in their beds" could easily be translated as "they shall rest on their sofas." Keep in mind that the rest entered to by the believer at his or her death involves "rest from labors," and a "taking it easy," or a living on "easy street." So the Lord said to Moses - "Soon you will lie down with your ancestors." (Deut. 31: 16) So, the promise that the righteous, in dying, would "rest in their beds," may not be applicable only to the body, and the "beds" not equivalent to "coffins." Consider that resting in beds or couches is equated with "entering into peace." 

It seems to me that this language cannot be confined to the body experiencing peace. Is it mental peace? Is such language appropriate for a dead brain that has become dust and ashes? I think not. Therefore, entering into peace at death, and resting on sofas (as a disembodied spirit in a temporary body in the intermediate state) cannot be limited to what the body experiences in being dead and decomposing. Mental peace seems to imply that the mind is consciously enjoying a state of mind.

That the state of the righteous dead is viewed as a conscious state, though the body is dead, is furthered proved by the fact that the text says that each of the righteous dead would be "walking in his uprightness." It is a picture of a soul walking in the afterlife. Surely Abraham and Lazarus walked in the afterlife in their righteousness (uprightness). Surely every saint now in Heaven also continues to walk in righteousness. 

The righteous and merciful person perishes, is killed and what reaction does it get from people in the land of the living? The observation is that "no man takes it to heart" and "no one considers."

When rich and famous men and women of power (who are almost universally of the class of unrighteous and unmerciful people, rather than of the righteous poor and lowly) die, they are not often ignored by the people but rather praised and have lavish funerals and monuments. Many of them insure that they are not ignored when dead by naming landmarks, highways, etc., after them. But, what about the poor believer as Lazarus? The record seems to indicate that he did not even have a proper burial. Of the rich man it was said "he died and was buried." But we do not read where Lazarus was buried. Lazarus perished and no one probably noticed, except of course, the Lord, for "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." It is also no doubt a valid inference to say that all the occupants of heaven also took notice of the death of Lazarus (and of course of every righteous and merciful person). The Lord said that heaven rejoices over one sinner who repents and surely they rejoice also when they welcome that penitent believer into heaven. The angels did carry Lazarus to the place of rest and peace and joy. 

Falling Asleep

In a previous chapter we stated that the scriptures that speak of dead people as being "asleep" is not language that is true of the spirit (or soul). But, why is death called sleep?

Said Dr. Henry Morris of Creation Research Institute (here):

"The Bible uses the term “sleep” to describe death only in the case of Christians—never for non-Christians (see John 11:11; etc.)." 

However, this is not true. Notice Daniel 12: 2:

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Here "sleep" in the words "sleep in the dust of the earth" means "dead" or "not living" and it is a reference to the physical body and not the spirit, for the spirit of a human does not go down into the dust but rather up to God, unlike the spirits of brute animals. (Eccl. 3: 20-21)  Further, it refers to both righteous and wicked "sleeping in the dust of the earth." I have a lot of respect for Dr. Morris, a great bible teacher, but he surely got this wrong. 

Men are said to be asleep when dead for this is how they generally look when their bodies have been prepared for burial and laid in a coffin. Further, the bible calls death sleep because the state of death for the body is temporary. There will be a time for the dead to "awake" from the sleep of death and this is what is also called "the resurrection of the dead." Several new testament passages also teach what is taught in Daniel 12: 2 and affirm that there will be a resurrection of both saved and lost. (See John 5: 28-29; Acts 24: 15) 

This awakening, involving a reunification of body and spirit, is described also in the Apocalypse.

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20: 13-15)

Here "death" speaks to the grave, whether in dust or in the sea, to the place where the body or bodily ashes are located. On the other hand, "Hades" ('hell') speaks to the place of departed spirits of the dead, and in this case, those who will be in Hades at the time of Christ' return and the resurrection day. So, when Hades "delivers up" the dead, it means the spirits of the dead (all who are wicked since the resurrection of Christ as we have seen in previous chapters) while Death "delivers up" the bodies of the wicked dead. The spirit reenters the bodies of the damned and they stand, body and spirit, before Judge Jesus, who will condemn them and send them, body and spirit, into Gehenna, to "the lake of fire," which is "the second death."

No doubt the wicked spirits in Hades dread the resurrection day for their bodies will begin to suffer the torments of the lake of fire. Recall that Jesus said that God was able to "destroy both body and soul in Gehenna." (Matt. 10: 28) "Destroy" does not mean "annihilation" either, but "ruin," the loss of all good.

The great preacher Charles Spurgeon said (taken from Morning and Evening, emphasis mine):

"Let us not imagine that the soul sleeps in insensibility. “Today you will be with me in paradise” is the whisper of Christ to every dying saint. They sleep in Jesus, but their souls are before the throne of God, praising Him day and night in His temple, singing hallelujahs to Him who washed them from their sins in His blood. The body sleeps in its lonely bed of earth, beneath the coverlet of grass...But what is this sleep? The idea connected with sleep is “rest,” and that is the thought that the Spirit of God would convey to us. Sleep makes each night a sabbath for the day." 

Asleep In Jesus

Jesus referred to Lazarus' death as "sleep." The record of scripture is: "After saying this, He told them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going there to awaken him. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead." (John 11: 11-14)

In the earlier chapters in this study I asked the question - "where was Lazarus' spirit during the four days his body was dead?" I stated that it was in Sheol or Hades, in that place in the heart of the earth where all departed spirits went prior to the resurrection of Christ. The Lazarus of the above text, who was brother of Mary and Martha, went to the same place where another man named Lazarus went in the story of the rich man (Dives) and Lazarus. If that is not the case, then the spirit of Lazarus either went to heaven or stayed on earth (invisibly to mortal eyes) near his grave. So then, his spirit, in his bodily resurrection, either left Heaven, or the upper blissful side of Hades, or left lingering around the body in the ether.

"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." (I Thess. 4: 13-14)

This passage shows that the righteous dead are asleep as respects their bodies but their spirits are not asleep but are with Jesus as they wait reunion with their new bodies in the resurrection. He will bring the sleeping dead with him. They will accompany him. That is because when he leaves Heaven to come to earth in the day of judgment and resurrection the "spirits of just men made perfect" (Heb. 12: 23) will come with him, for they are "registered as citizens in heaven" (Amplified). When Christ comes from Heaven he will "bring with him" all the sleeping saints who are with him in spirit and he will come "for" their bodies, calling them to life when he comes to the first heaven and utters his command "come forth." This is the way he comes "with" and "for" believers. He comes with them before he comes for them in this sense. For instance, Stephen the martyr, who was received in his spirit into Heaven, will come with Christ for his spirit is now with the Lord. 

When Christ comes again he will be met by the resurrected believers "in the air." It is in the air, as a foyer, where reunification of spirit and body occur, and when the saints will be glorified. Then Christ will "come with" all the saints, and they will come the rest of way, body and spirit, to ground level with their Lord and conquering King. At that time they will join with the angels in executing the Lord's agenda for that great day. This is what the following text affirms: 

"Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the Lord." (Psalm 149: 5-9)

All attempts for Christians to do this now, apart from the presence of Christ, would be wrong. It can only be interpreted eschatologically as what will occur in the end of time at the day of judgment and vengeance. 

1 Asleep in Jesus! blessed sleep,
From which none ever wakes to weep!
A calm and undisturbed repose,
Unbroken by the last of foes.

2 Asleep in Jesus! O how sweet
To be for such a slumber meet!
With holy confidence to sing
That death has lost his venomed sting.

3 Asleep in Jesus! peaceful rest,
Whose waking is supremely blest!
No fear, no woe, shall dim that hour
That manifests the Savior's power.

4 Asleep in Jesus! O for me
May such a blissful refuge be!
Securely shall my ashes lie,
waiting the summons from on high.

Strange Happenings in Revival-Out of Order?

    As I was reading my never ending list of Baptist history, I stumbled across yet another thing I wasn't even searching for. The role of women in Baptist life in the 1700's and early 1800's. Perhaps the Lord plopped it my lap, as this was a subject I had questioned in the past, but more recently, some have attacked me because I was optimistic about the happenings at the Asbury Revival. Some have said that the revival cannot be of God, because of "pentecostal style activity" and because the Wesleyans and Methodists have women preachers. Some of these same people will make remarks in sermons about the Wesleys that are totally positive, yet do they not know the Wesleys licensed women to preach?  Do they not know of the emotional shouts heard at their meetings? And of course they don't know how Baptists of that time conducted themselves! I suppose they will turn in their Baptist ID cards when they read this!

   In the history of Big Stevens Creek Baptist Church, founded by Daniel Marshall, brother-in-law of Shubal Stearns, it mentions this " “Separate Baptists” – a sect characterized as highly emotional, noisy, suspected of Arminianism and disposed to allow women prominence in religious work."

     In 1766, the Congaree Baptist Church, who had a branch or "arm" in South Carolina, grew tired of waiting for Shubal Stearns to send Separate Baptist elders to ordain a pastor for them, so that they could constitute a church.  They then called on Oliver Hart and Evan Pugh, Regular Baptists from the Charleston Association to facilitate ordination. John Newton and Joseph Reese were ordained, and Shubal Stearns led the Sandy Creek Association to censure them and bar them from preaching for acting independently of the Association. Reese apologized and was taken back in, but Newton said he had done nothing wrong. Sandy Creek declared being ordained by Regular Baptists, "who derided fervency, happy shouts, and the wailing of those being made aware of their sinful state, and who had so low a view of women that they dare not pray, exhort or testify" was highly irregular, but there is no record of them refusing to see the ordinations as valid. However, it does denote that the Separates allowed women to speak in church, while evidently, the Regulars did not. 

   See what the author Don Pucik of equppingsaints.com says about Separate Baptists;

    Shubal Stearns emphasized revivalism and leadership of the Holy Spirit. Writing in 1772, Morgan Edwards stated “I believe a preternatural and invisible hand works in the assemblies of the Separate Baptists.” Visiting the 1759 annual meeting at Sandy Creek, Regular Baptist John Gano was convinced that “the power of God was among them.” Separate Baptists became known for regularly reporting “signs, wonders, and divine communications.” Heartfelt cries and falling down were common elements of the services. Visions and dreams were shared, especially as part of the conversion narratives given before baptism. John Waller reported the healing of a minister’s wife who suffered from “violent spasms” after he had anointed her with oil and prayed. Dutton Lane shared that when authorities were on their way to arrest church leaders at his church at Dan River, they were “struck temporarily blind by a flash of light followed by a thick darkness” and went home—the authorities never returned to Dan River.

    Stearns afforded women greater involvement in worship and church life than any other religious group in the colonial period. In the Separate Congregational and Baptist churches following the Great Awakening, women were free to share their conversion testimonies and exhorted others to repent. In New England, Daniel Marshall’s sister was jailed during a pregnancy for preaching Baptist doctrines. Martha (Stearns) Marshall was described as her husband’s “Priscilla, a helper in the gospel.” When she spoke to the church, she presented herself as “a lady of good sense, singular piety, and surprising elocution” who routinely “melted a whole concourse into tears by her prayers and exhortations.” In Virginia, Margaret Meuse Clay often spoke and prayed publicly, once being arrested for unlicensed preaching with eleven Baptist men. Sentenced to a public whipping, she was released when someone anonymously paid her fines. In roles unique to Separate Baptists at the time, women were serving as eldresses and deaconesses in a few of the churches, baptizing and teaching women exclusively. As Separates merged with Regular Baptists in the closing years of the eighteenth century, women were increasingly restricted from public speaking and church offices.

    Between 1740 and 1790, Regular Baptists only managed to start ten churches in Virginia—Separate Baptists formed several hundred. Baptists in the South owe their remarkable growth and influence to Shubal Stearns and the Separate Baptists. (Could it be that people went to see a "show" and ended up getting converted, and for this reason the Separate Baptists expanded rapidly?) To read David Pucik's experience at Asbury, read here: https://equippingsaints.com/2023/02/26/my-asbury-journey/

    Wow! "signs, wonders, divine communications, cries, falling down, anointing with oil, healings, visions, dreams, women exhorting and baptizing..."  All the very same things that some frown upon in Baptist circles, actually owe their existence to these phenomena! Sounds like the Baptists were way ahead of the modern Pentecostal movement in seeing the power of God to move as He pleases.

   In his book "The Roots of Appalachian Christianity",Elder John Sparks, a United Baptist, says the following. "Daniel Marshall, never developed the leadership and organizational capabilities of his wife's oldest brother (Shubal Stearns)...when Marshall pastored churches, he may have depended on his redoubtable Martha, not only for testifying, exhorting, singing, and leading in prayer,, but for private counsel as well."

  As I have said at other times, be very careful what you condemn as being "out of order" for your group's very existence may be due to things you would not consider to be "in order". Of course we should also be very careful about what we endorse, use discernment and pray for guidance, because we don't want to embrace something that is not of God. The Methodists of today have grown so cold that they can hardly even be called Christian any more. They are "orderly" now, even liturgical in their worship, not to mention many heresies being embraced. I am sure they would frown on their own forbears if they were able to see their genuine worship. We dare not fall in to the same boat as they.

 

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xxi)

"For when a few years are past, I shall go the way of no return." 

(Job 16:2) 

In the above words from Job, in the oldest book of the bible, we see one of the ways that primitive believers in the God of scripture described dying, or death. The above words of Job are similar to the words of king David who, when close to death, said to his son prince Solomon - "I go the way of all the earth." (I Kings 2: 2) This is clearly one of the bible's "euphemisms" for the death experience or phenomenon. A euphemism is a milder word or phrase used in place of a stronger one. It also makes use of "idioms," especially in the Hebrew old testament, in a similar to the way we say "nothing is as sure as death and taxes," or "kill two birds with one stone."

How does the bible describe the phenomenon of death and dying? Likewise, what words or phrases do people use today to describe someone who has died? What terms, euphemisms, or idioms do you choose to use to convey the news or fact that someone has died?

Some common euphemisms used for death are “he passed away,” “he’s passed on,” “he’s left us,” “he’s gone,” “he’s no longer with us,” “he’s been taken away from us,” “he’s among the dear departed,” “he’s gone to the great beyond,” etc. Some are more vulgar and harsh, such as saying someone "bit the dust" or "kicked the bucket" or "croaked," etc. There are literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of euphemisms for death and dying. If you do an Internet search on this, you will see, for instance -"Euphemisms for Death: 200+ Ways to Describe Death & Dying" by Daniel Szczesniak (here). He lists all under four categories; 

1. Synonyms and descriptions of death 

2. Polite euphemisms for death

3. Old-fashioned and quaint euphemisms for death

4. Snarky and humorous euphemisms for death

Others give far more than two hundred. In this section of our series on the afterlife we will look at the way the bible writers described, and thus defined, the death experience.

Gathered Unto His People

In the earlier chapters I called attention to how the words "gathered unto his people" was a common primitive expression among the people of God and his prophets to describe one who had died. Though there are many times in which it is used in the old testament scriptures, let us notice the following examples.

"Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people." (Gen. 25:17)

"When Jacob had finished giving instructions to his sons, he drew his feet up into the bed, breathed his last and was gathered to his people." (Gen. 49: 33)

What is implied in the words "gathered unto his people" is what we see in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which we have previously examined. The picture of the afterlife in that story showed how Lazarus was gathered unto his people, signified by his being with Abraham, and how Dives (rich man) also was gathered to his people. Each went to be with his kind (those of like faith and character). There is also the idea of being in a festive paradisaical family environment for Lazarus and his people (who are on the upper side of the Underworld of Hades). Happy gatherings or assemblies is what we envision from the language used. However, when Dives died, though he also was gathered to his people, nevertheless "the gathering" of the damned is the very opposite of festive gathering of believers in paradise. In the above text we see two euphemisms used to describe the death of Jacob; 1) "breathed his last" and 2) "was gathered to his people."

We can also see how death is a kind of harvesting, of being cut down and harvested, of being reaped by the scythe of death, of being "gathered" by the gatherers. We see this metaphorical picture in the story of the sowing of both wheat and tares in a field (Matt. 13). Both the wheat and the tares were harvested and gathered, one into the barn (place of storage for future use) and the other gathered "in bundles" to be burned in the fire.

"Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Go in, tread, for the winepress is full. The vats overflow, for their evil is great." (Joel 3: 13)

"And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” (Rev. 14: 15)

In both these passages death is viewed as a being cut down by a sickle, or scythe, and by an angel. This brings to our minds the angel of death in the old testament who was most visibly seen working in Egypt in the death of the firstborn of Egypt by the hand of Moses. Notice these texts:

"For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you." (Exo. 12: 23)

"And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite." (1 Chronicles 21:15)

"He sent upon them His burning anger, Fury and indignation and trouble, A band of destroying angels." (Psa. 78: 49 NASB)

The "Grim Reaper" is made in the image of this angel of destruction and death. The scythe is an image that reminds us that Death, personified, reaps the souls of sinners like the peasant who harvests corn in his field. Notice these texts about being "cut down" in death:

"He comes forth like a flower, and is cut down: he flees also as a shadow, and continues not." (Job 14: 2)

"For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb." (Psa. 37: 2)

Job uses two euphemisms to describe death; 1) being cut down (as by a sickle/scythe), and 2) "fleeing away as a shadow." The latter is similar to the description of death given by James, brother of our Lord, who spoke of how one's life and death are "like a vapor (or mist) that appears for a moment and then vanishes away." (James 4: 14) Another euphemism he gives for dying is a "vanishing away" or a "disappearing." This is not an annihilation of the whole person, however, as we have seen. The wheat that is cut down is harvested and made into bread. So Jesus, in describing his coming death, said:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain." (John 12: 24)

Further, it is the body that is "cut down" and not the spirit that occupies the body. Recall Jesus' words about men being able to kill the body but not the soul or spirit.

Though we do not see the words "gathered unto his people" in the following verses, the idea is there. Said the Lord to Abraham: "And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age." (Gen. 15: 15) Also, we read: "The LORD said to Moses, "Soon you will lie down with your ancestors." (Deut. 31: 16) Also, when king David's infant son died, he said to those with him: "But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." (II Sam. 12: 23)

Again, such language cannot be reasonably applied to the body and of going to a family cemetery. There is the idea of a dying individual going to be with dead family members in a living conscious state so that he or she is enjoying existence with his or her kind of people. 

Giving Up The Ghost

"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people." (Gen. 25: 8)

In this text we have three euphemisms for describing death and dying. Notice first how Abraham was "gathered unto his people." We have already made observations on that expression in earlier chapters. The text refers to this as being another way of saying that Abraham "died," a second euphemism. Finally, he says that Abraham, in dying and going to be with his people, "gave up the ghost" (or "spirit").

To "give up the ghost" may simply mean to breathe out the breath (for the last time), thus to "expire." But, in scripture, as we have seen, the departing of the "breath," "spirit," or "wind" (air) is not the only thing intended. Oftentimes "the spirit" speaks to the inner incorporeal self or soul, however. It is the spirit that is the life force for the body, or for the brain. It is the part of the human being that is the source of knowledge, as Paul indicated when he said: "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (I Cor. 2: 11) Also, when the Spirit of God communicates with a person, it is to the inner spirit that the words are addressed. So we read that the Spirit bears witness with the spirits of believers. (Rom. 8: 16) 

When Jesus died, the apostle John described his death as a "giving up of the ghost" or spirit. So the text reads: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19: 30 kjv) Luke also wrote: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23: 46)

The spirit of Christ, the human spirit and soul, was commended into the hands of the Father when the spirit was "given up." The meaning is "into your care I put my spirit." When the spirit of Christ exited his body, it did not cease to exist but was conscious and intellectually and emotionally vibrant. The above language also leads our minds to recall the words of Solomon who said: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Eccl. 12: 7) It also is an example of the words of James, who said - "The body without the spirit is dead." (James 2: 26) Jesus' body was dead, but his spirit, as we have seen, did not die, but was vibrantly alive, so much so that he made proclamations to spirits of the dead. 

Now, let us notice the words describing the death of Stephen the martyr. 

"But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”...And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep." (Acts 7: 55-56, 59-60) 

It is clear that Stephen expected to be killed by the mob and expected the "Lord Jesus," to "receive" (take or welcome) his "spirit." Therefore, he went to "the heavens," to the place where Christ was "standing at the right hand of God," that is, to Paradise or the Third Heaven. For these reasons we cannot believe that the spirit of Stephen "fell asleep," but rather believe that only his body "fell asleep" in death. Stephen's "giving up the ghost" involves his rational spirit exiting his body and entering Heaven to be with Christ. Such is the way for all the saved. The spirits of the unsaved also exit their bodies, but they are rather welcomed in Hades, which now holds only condemned souls. 

It is interesting that the words "gave up the ghost" come from a single Greek word. Also, that the Greek word "ekpsychō" (combination of "ek"/out and "psycho"/soul) is used only of hypocrites, such as Ananias and his wife Sapphira and of Herod (who was eaten of worms for his blasphemy). (See Acts 5: 5,10; 12: 23) However, a similar Greek word, "ekpneō" is used three times for Christ' giving up the ghost. (Mark 15: 37, 39; Luke 23: 46) It means he breathed his last, or expired. 

"God will redeem my life from the grave; he will surely take me to himself" (Psalm 49:15), said the Psalmist, and they were certainly fulfilled, not only when the Psalmist flew away in spirit, but also when the martyr Stephen also flew away. God was taking to himself his beloved saints. Recall the words also of the Psalmist - "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." (Psa. 116: 15) 

Exiting The Body

The giving up of the spirit entails the exit of spirit from the body. But, it is also emphatically stated in scripture that people "depart" or "exit" the body when they die, and that they leave "the land of the living" and go to the land of the dead, to the spirit world, to either Heaven or Hades. With that idea in mind, let us notice some scripture, particularly what was said on "the mount of transfiguration" when Christ spoke with both Moses and Elijah. 

"And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem." (Luke 9: 30-31) 

In this text the Greek word for "decease" is "exodus." Isn't that interesting? It is also used in these verses:

"By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing (exodus) of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones." (Heb. 11: 22) 

"...knowing that shortly I must put off my tent (tabernacle - kjv), just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease (exodus) to have these things always in remembrance." (II Peter 1: 14-15)

In the Hebrews passage, the "departing" of the Israelites from Egypt was their "exodus" or "departure." 

That is also what happens when a person dies. The person in spirit departs from the body, leaves this world, the physical world, and goes to the spirit world. The spirit "flies away" as Moses said (Psa. 90: 10) and as the Egyptian hieroglyphs depicted. The soul or spirit leaves its place in the body (tent or tabernacle because it houses the real you, your inner self, your spirit being) and enters into another world, space, realm, or dimension. 

So, in connection with Peter's "decease" or "exodus" from the tent which is his body he says he must "put it off." The body is like both a house or tent, and like clothing. The body is exited, just as one exits a house or a country as Egypt. Or we might say that the body, like clothes, are "put off" and another set of clothing put on. This was what Paul affirmed, a text we introduced in the early chapters of this series. 

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." (II Cor. 5: 1)

Now let us notice some other verses on the exodus of the spirit, especially of believers.

"For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand." (II Tim. 4: 6)

Interesting is the fact that the word "departure" is from the Greek word "analysis" and means "an unloosing" (as of things woven), "a dissolving into separate parts" (Eng., "analysis"), is once used of "departure from life," 2 Ti 4:6, where the metaphor is either nautical, from loosing from moorings (thus used in Greek poetry), or military, from breaking up an encampment; cp. kataluo in 2 Cr 5:1 (cp. DEPART, No. 16)." (Vine) 

I can see where both metaphors are applicable to the death experience. The idea of being "loosed" from our moorings (loosed from the flesh) makes me think of the words of Solomon about death in Ecclesiastes where he spoke of various causes of death under various metaphors, one of which was the "loosing" of the "silver cord." (12: 6) 

"For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." (Phl. 1: 23-24)

The Greek word for "depart" here is a similar word to analysis, being "analyo," and also means to unloose, being only used two times in the new testament, where it is translated (kjv) as "return" (Luke 12: 36) and "depart" in the above text of Paul. This word was used by the Greeks when referring to the "break up" of a group, assembly, or congregation. Each person in the group departs from the others. 

Paul, in departing this world, and exiting his tent body, is breaking away from this world, this sphere of existence. He will no longer be here in his rational spirit. Only his decaying body or ashes will remain in the physical world he is leaving. 

Entering Rest

"Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’ ” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them.” (Rev. 14: 13)

In this passage we are told that the righteous dead, those who "die in the Lord," enter into rest from their labors, which cannot refer to what the body alone experiences, nor be equated with unconscious soul sleep, but is rather an enjoyable conscious rest. The Greek word for "rest" is "anapauo," and involves refreshment, and to repose, much like what we saw was involved in Lazarus reclining on a couch with Abraham in a place of comfort. In Luke's gospel the KJV translators translated the same Greek word as "take thine ease." 

"And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." (Luke 12: 19) 

In several other places in the new testament it is translated by the word "refreshed." So Paul writes: "For they have refreshed my spirit and yours." (I Cor. 16: 18)

So, when those who are "in the Lord" die, they go to rest, to a place where they can take it easy, find refreshment from their earthly labors. It is the same word also in this text from the Book of Revelation:

"And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." (Rev. 6: 11)

The interesting thing about this text, in regard to the rest entered to at death, is that it is a word spoken in heaven by the Lord to disembodied spirits, for they were they who had been martyred (beheaded) "for the witness of Jesus." 

The kind of restive enjoyment experienced in heaven, and certainly in the "new heavens and new earth," is given us in these oft repeated words in the old testament:

"And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon." (I Kings 4: 25)

"But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it." (Micah 4: 4)

"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree." (Zech. 3: 10)

It is a picture of prosperity, peace, and security. 

THEORIES ON THE AMBIGUITY OF BAPTIST ARTICLES OF FAITH

    For the third time, someone has contacted me concerning many Baptist articles of faith, and why they seem so confusing to us today. A reader asked me about my articles " Sunday School Unions In The History of the Pleasant Grove Baptist Association" as well as "David Benedict's History - Another View".

   In both of these articles, it is mentioned that many old Baptist articles of faith are interpreted as being Calvinistic as defined today, yet at the time they were written they were not necessarily seen as such by those who originally adhered to them. In this article, I will attempt to explain why this is the case, and how some Baptists interpreted "calvinistic phrases". The confusion which came from many articles of faith, is also one reason (I believe) that the Campbellites refused to have them. 

   All historical Baptists that I know of, clearly stated that the Scriptures alone are the final authority for doctrine and practice. However, all Baptist associations usually adopted articles of faith (now known mostly as "Statement of Faith). Many individual churches also had them, even if they were part of a larger association of Baptists, yet some were content on simply using articles or confessions of the larger body. Many associations who adhered to the Philadelphia Confession, also adopted their own more concise Articles of Faith. The same is true today. Some churches in the Southern Baptist Convention simply use the "Baptist Faith and Message" (BF&M), while other SBC churches adopt their own articles or statement of faith. Why the variance? Because some churches and associations within the SBC wish to make a clear statement of being non Calvinist, while others wish to be clear that they are Calvinists. Many who use the BF&M see it as too ambiguous, but others like the ambiguity because there are both Calvinists and non Calvinists within the same association. Churches that belong to the SBC may adopt any statement so long as it does not contradict the BF&M. For instance the BF&M has no opinion on end times views, so there are Amillenials, Premillenials, Post, Pre Trib, Mid Trib, Post Trib and NO Trib views. However the BF&M is clear about eternal security, so Free Will Baptists would be excluded from the SBC. I think this may have also been true in the 18th and 19th centuries, more than is thought by many historians. 

   The next thing to remember, is that certain words may have the sound of a certain view to us today, but Baptists have always been people of the Book, so many Baptists, both then and now refuse to refrain from using words that are "Bible words". So terms like "predestination", "election", "foreknowledge" are all words found in Scripture, so there was no reason to refrain from using them in their eyes. Baptists were the first to say "Bible words for Bible things" which the Campbellites later adopted as well. Very few Baptist articles of faith use the word "trinity" for example, because that word isn't found in the Bible. Yet all articles and confessions clearly teach the concept.

   As an example, let's take the word "predestination". Some Baptists saw this as God actively controlling all that comes to pass, while others saw it as all that God would foresee coming to pass, and by not intervening to change what He foresaw, He had determined that those things would happen by refusing to change it or intervene. Some would see individuals as being predestined, while others would say that your predestination does not begin until you believe the Gospel. Some see predestination as corporate (the Church), so one could choose whether or not to be a part of the corporate body, without changing the fact that the thing predestined would still come to pass. As an example, the Eastern District PB's, the Hiwassee PB's and the Original Tennessee PB's all have a phrase in their Articles of Faith that says "We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God".  A Calvinist might see Calvinism in this phrase, while a non Calvinist might not. The Calvinist would think to himself "those God knew (loved) before hand are predestined by Him to eternal life". The non Calvinist would think "Election is the process decreed by God and all those who place their names on the ballot will be elected because God has already cast His "vote" in favor of any who willingly place their names on the ballot of God's grace." To them, this in no way takes away their belief that those not elected could have placed their names on the ballot, but refused to do so, even tho they may have been called, yet they refused God's call (conviction). Most Calvinists would deny that a non elect person would ever come under "conviction", but not all.

   Now if you are a Baptist historian who has no knowledge of a certain group, but only had their articles of faith, look at this article of faith from the Bethel Association of United Baptists, and ask yourself how you would interpret such an article. 

"13. We believe converted, born-again believers in Jesus Christ must be faithful in their stewardship until death or until the Lord returns in order to be eternally saved. (Matt 10:22,24,13; Mark 13:13; I Cor. 4:2; Rev 2:10,22:14)."

 This article certainly is meant to convey "perseverance". Would you say this article describes it as a Calvinist or as an Arminian view? Does this sound as though the Bethlehem Association believes a believer is eternally secure, or does it sound as though salvation may be lost? United Baptists hold to eternal security, yet when I presented this article to a Free Will Baptist, who had no knowledge of what group it belonged to, he viewed it as being in total agreement with what the Free Will Baptists believe. So you can see how a sloppy historian may group the United Baptists in with Calvinists or Arminians based on his own perception of how he views it, and not necessarily based on how the group itself means it to be understood. If I preached that "repentance" was required for salvation, one person may see repentance to mean that someone must walk away from sin in order to be saved, while another may see that you merely see your sin for what it really is, which causes you to know beyond doubt that you have no hope unless Christ saves you. "Repentance" sometimes means "to have a change of mind" and sometimes it means "to turn around". I believe the former, that the repentance that is required, means you know without a doubt, you have no hope of saving yourself, because you have no power to turn from sin, until AFTER you have been born again. Once born again however, you must "repent" everyday, or turn from the flesh on a daily basis, but the failure to do so will not cast you into a lost state, but will most certainly cast you into broken fellowship with the Father, who will indeed discipline the child of God. The "perseverance" within a saint is that constant reminder of who you belong to, and a desire to do His will. But the will of the flesh is also present, and just one step away from God's will places you in a position to heed whatever the flesh desires. The true believer however, will never forget whose child he is, and his conscience will be tormented until he returns to fellowship, or until the chastisement of God brings him to repentance or even death.

   The next question I was asked was how could a non Calvinist interpret articles that most see clearly as Calvinistic, such as the Articles of Faith of the Pleasant Grove Association, which is non calvinist, yet may have been at one time, this is unclear. Now however they are not, yet use articles of faith that sound very Calvinistic to many, me included. So how do the Pleasant Grove Association churches interpret these articles? I will attempt to "explain" how a non Calvinist could see these articles. I will focus on the three articles which one could question.

Article 3 states "We believe in the fall of Adam and the imputation of his sin to his posterity in the corruption of the human nature and the impotency of man to recover himself by his own free will and ability." The non Calvinist could say that by the phrase "corruption of the human nature" means we inherit imperfection just as a baby inherits defects because its mother drank while pregnant, without being guilty of the mother's sin. So the non Calvinist might say that Adam's fall caused the whole human race to become corrupted and defective without necessarily being counted guilty of Adam' s sin. They would say each person is held guilty of their own sin, and not the sin of their father, as stated in Ezekiel 18:20. This corruption does ensure that we will sin, because of our weakness, thus "imputation", but the fathers guilt is not necessarily transferred to us. Calvinists believe we inherit not only a nature inclined to sin, but we are actually held guilty of Adam's sin because he is the federal head of the human race. Officially, the Catholic Church and her daughter churches still affirm that we are born guilty, hence infant baptism, which "washes away Adam's guilt". At one time, these churches did teach unbaptized infants go to hell, but most have back tracked on that belief. Some Calvinists do affirm that many who die in infancy go to hell, because they are "born guilty", and Augustine did teach this belief.. Some Calvinists reject the idea of infants being in hell, but still affirm that all are born guilty.  (Non Calvinists are divided on the issue of whether we inherit Adam's "guilt", but none would take it to the point that an infant could go to hell). 

Article 4 states "We believe in the everlasting love of God to His people and the eternal election of a definite number of the human race to grace and glory, and there was a covenant of grace and redemption made between the Father and Son before the world began in which their salvation is secure and they in particular are redeemed." A non Calvinist could say of course the Father and Son agreed that Christ would die for us before the foundation of the world, because He knew we would fall. Thus the covenant of grace had already been decided. Also, because the Father and Son always knew who the bride of Christ would be (the Church), that God has an everlasting love for her, yet the corporate body of the Church is still open to all who willingly believe. Also, since God knows when time will end, the number of the elect is already fixed, because none can come to Him after the final judgement. Even tho I was raised in a non Calvinist Baptist church, my pastor used to always say, "when the last lost one comes, it's all over. Is He waiting for you?" The phrase "they in particular are redeemed" is one that appears in almost all Calvinist articles of faith, yet to a non Calvinist, it could be taken to mean, that while Christ did atone for the sins of all, the "particular" ones are those that believe. The non Calvinist would see this word as synonymous with "especially". This (to them) echoes the meaning of 1 John 2:2 which says "He is the propitiation for OUR sins (particularly, especially) and not for OURS only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article 6 states " We believe that all those chosen in Christ will be effectually called by the spirit and power of God so that they shall persevere in grace and not one of them be finally lost." A non Calvinist would agree that to be "chosen" in Christ, one must be effectually called. But they would also say "many are called, but few are chosen", which to the non Calvinist means many who fall under conviction of sin will willingly refuse God's offer of salvation, but those who accept it, come into a GROUP that has already been chosen, the corporate body or the Church. The bride has been chosen or the "team" has been chosen to win, but anyone is free to join that team. Their acceptance or refusal of God's offer to be on His team does not in any way negate the victory that the team will one day win, which has already been decided. If the non Calvinist were writing this article to convey what a Calvinist means, he would say "We believe the ONE chosen in Christ..." to refer to the belief that God singularly chooses who will be saved.

   Now is it wise to promote Articles of Faith that one must constantly have to explain? Not in my opinion. But many Baptists of the 19th century were so worried that they might be thought of as "Arminian", that they used language that many Arminians would not use. Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries were in the extreme minority about the eternal security of the believer, as all churches, except the Presbyterians (Reformed/Congregational), were Arminian. The Baptists (except for the Free Wills) wished to be clear that they were not Arminian. Even the calvinistic Baptists wished to distance themselves from the Covenant Theology taught by Reformed churches, hence their rejection of infant baptism, and the rejection of a "church" replacing Israel. Over the years, many non Calvinist Baptists would get more clear in how they stated what they believed, but they would always refuse to do away with words clearly found in Scripture. 

   Many Baptist confessions, such as the New Hampshire Confession, uses the word "our" as way of speaking of those who are already saved and in the church. In this way, both the Calvinist and non Calvinist could agree "whose" sin is covered without causing dissension between those who accept general atonement versus particular atonement. Notice how it states the following:

"We believe that the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace; through the Mediatorial
offices of the Son of God; who by the appointment of the Father freely took upon him OUR
nature, yet without sin; honored the divine law by his personal obedience, and by his
death made a full atonement for OUR sins;"

So the Calvinist could see this as an expression of limited atonement, but the non Calvinist could see this as an agreement among those already saved, that we have laid claim to that atonement for ourselves. If a non Calvinist wanted to go further, he could add "but not for ours only, but the sins of the whole world". If a Calvinist wanted wanted to go further, he could add "in particular".

   In the end, we should be clear about what we believe, while also being clear of what views we can fellowship, while not necessarily embracing. Too much ambiguity leaves room for charlatans to sneak in and preach a doctrine we don't believe, and causing havoc in the church. I for one, would not be too detailed about end time views, as that is not super important to me, even within the same church, yet another church may find dispensationalism or the denial of it so important, that they would include a specific end time view.

  When stating what we believe in statements or articles of faith, confessions, etc, we need to be very clear in my opinion. No room should be left for someone to sneak in and try to take over a church. If your church is fine with more than one view, spell out the views that you are willing to accept, and be clear that those who have differing views will never be excluded from teaching or holding positions within the church. Many Baptist associations in the 1700's and 1800's  who were majority Calvinist, were indeed willing to accept churches which did not hold those views. They adopted statements that said "the teaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion" as a footnote to their articles of faith, which were calvinistic. 

   I suspect that if you could go back in time to the early 1800's, the average person could discern very little difference between a Calvinist and a non Calvinist Baptist preacher when hearing them. I suspect that many associations, while stating what they believed, were more concerned about preaching the Gospel than in splitting hairs. Why else would a Regular Baptist Association accept a church like those started by the Campbells, knowing full well they did not accept many articles stated in the Philadelphia Confession? Why else would some Separate Baptist associations who were largely non Calvinist, merely state their belief that one must believe and accept the Gospel to be saved, while never stating who is to be saved? Even among the Free Will Baptists, the variance is not as large as many historians portray them. Are the major differences? Yes, of course. But the Free Will Baptists are just barely over the border into Arminianism. Most of them do not believe salvation can be lost as easily as is portrayed by those who write about them. The ones I know, do not believe salvation may be lost due to a long period of backsliding as most Arminians do. They believe one must formally and consciously renounce faith in Christ, after of course, a period of sin and rebellion against God. Notice this statement in their articles of faith.

"We believe  there are strong grounds to hope that the saved will persevere unto the end and be saved because of the power of divine grace pledged for their support."

   It almost seems they are leaving the door open on the eternal security issue. If you omitted the words  "there are strong grounds to hope" then the rest of the article could be included in any other Baptist confession. 

   In closing, let me just say that we need to go beyond what our eyes read before making a determination about others' beliefs. Especially to those of us who value history, we must be diligent to not automatically see what we want to see, or what has been told to us by others. If you love history, you should also love the truth, even if it is not what we had hoped it would be. After all, history is a study of the past, and does not negate or nullify what we may now believe. People in the past have been wrong. People in the future at times, will be wrong. For the present though, we cannot control those things, but we can control our pursuit of truth, proclaim what we believe the Scripture to teach, and leave the rest in God's sovereign hands.

  

THE ANCIENT GODS HAVE RETURNED

    As the world continually descends into chaos and evil, we must conclude that forces that we have not experienced before are at work. Yes we have always had to fight Satan and his minions, but today we face this evil on a level not seen in centuries. BUT the world has seen this level of evil before. However, now that the world has grown smaller because of technology, this evil has encompassed the whole planet at one time.

   The recent murders of Christian children by a person who was "transgender" at Covenant Christian School, shows how evil and low this force is.  This person deliberately targeted a Christian school and it's children. This person had been playing a video game created by another trans person, which allows players to "kill" anti-trans persons, including priests and ministers (you get extra points for that). And just who is it that stands against this evil? Christians.

   A "Day of Vengeance" was planned by the trans community. There was no public mourning for the children and their adult loved ones. There was no outrage over the "hate crimes" committed against Christians. Instead, Christians were vilified because this trans woman had been taught the truth by Christians.

   The shedim (Hebrew for demon) who were behind all the false gods of the ancient civilizations, have as their primary goal death. Not always bodily death, but death of the personhood of those they possess, death of their gender, their personality, their dreams. The possessed person becomes a danger to himself and others. The shedim were behind the gods of the ancient world from Persia, to Egypt, to Rome and everything in between. They were behind the gods who demanded the sacrifice of infants who were burned to death on brazen altars.With the rise of Christianity, the shedim who were behind the false gods were cast out of western civilization for the most part. Even during the dark days where Catholicism reigned, there was still enough truth and light of Christ, that the shedim could not rule as they had before. Remember that false gods ruled the whole world before Jesus came, except for a tiny speck of land we call Israel. Any culture that has cast off these demons, and then turn away from God, allowing them to come back, faces a bleak future. Whenever demons are cast out, and allowed to return, they come back with a vengeance, and their revengeful focus will be upon those who who had cast them out, namely, Christians. 

   One of the gods which have returned, is the "enchantress", also known in Sumeria as Inana, and Greece as Hermaphroditus and Ishtar in Mesopotamia, and Checomecoatl in the Aztec empire,that ancient god who turned women into men, and men into women. Her cult had various names, but perversion and prostitution were always practiced in her temples. Her male priests had their sex organs cut off and dressed as women. Her holy month was June, where parades were held by pride filled demoniacs. Sound familiar? In Luke 8:26-39, Jesus cast out demons from a man, and while the man was thankful, the town asked Jesus to leave. They were evidently more afraid of being changed by Jesus, than they were fearful of the demons.  The demoniac man dwelt in the hollows and caves, and attacked anyone who came by. Demon forces seek out dark places both spiritually and physically when possessing a person. The name of the shooter at Covenant School was Audrey Hale. "Hale" means "one who dwells in the hollows, the caves".

   As anyone knows, whether Christian or not, the satanic number is 666. Audrey Hale killed 6 people, the 3 adults were all around 60 years old, and I see 666. The children were all aged 9. Satanic forces like to invert symbols both to deceive and to mock. When you take the ages of the 3 children and invert them it is another 666. Maybe I read too much, Maybe I've seen too many movies. But maybe I am correct.