Saturday, May 25, 2013
A Proposal
My high school English teacher used to teach that it was not considered good literary practice to make reference to self. My guess was that she felt that writers were to remain as objective as possible, which isn’t easily done when one puts himself into the picture. And so from that day forward we were forbidden to use the pronoun ‘I’ in anything we wrote. A good while later, though, she read an article to us wherein the author was criticizing this understood rule in the literary world. He argued that by forbidding writers to make reference to self they were being robbed of the single greatest source of information they have available to them. It made a lot of sense to me at the time, for using ‘I’ was the best way that I, as a young teenager, could express a thought or an opinion.
What the accepted rule on this is today I do not know. If it is considered best to refrain from mentioning self when writing, I shall promptly ignore it. Having contributed on this blog for quite some now, and having thought about its potential benefits, the time has come for me to write specifically on my own experiences in the Primitive Baptist church. Motivated by others who have likewise been ostracized when they came to see the truth on important bible doctrines, I use this as an opportunity to present my own spiritual journey. In this series of postings which I propose to do I shall not only speak of doctrinal matters, but also some of the things that I noticed as a young member and minister within the church. As I consider this, I can’t help but be reminded of the first time I read Brother Stephen’s own chapter on this topic. My experience was so similar that I felt I could complete his sentences most of the time.
My desire in contributing to this site has never been about grinding an ax. I’ve wanted to say this for an awful long time. It’s probably the common lot of those engaged in apologetic ministries that they are charged with having some personal vendetta, so I guess I should expect this. That being said, I understand perfectly well that there will always be some measure of animosity between myself and those whom I left. We all struggle with our carnality, so I would be lying if I said that I didn’t have any emotional scars from how I and my family were treated. When I look within though, and see the hope that I have in Christ, I am able to lay aside any ill will. If I could have my wish, it would be for the Primitive Baptist churches to flourish everywhere. My reputation among the people matters very little. I am more than willing to be considered an afterthought as long as they will simply come to see their error and repent. Many of them are hoping and praying for growth, yet fail to recognize that their own doctrinal position is working against them, and is largely responsible for the demise and, saddest of all, closing of church doors.
So expect some postings from me in the near future in which I share my experience in the Primitive Baptist Church, including observations, lessons learned, and especially what I saw in scripture. I am not sure of the direction I shall take. I shall simply go where I’m led.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Hardshell Pelagianism VI
Chapter 143
Thus far in this series of chapters I have shown how Hardshells have imbibed the Pelagian idea that biblical commands imply ability to obey the commands. I have shown that such an idea has led many of them to affirm that Gospel commands are limited to those who are already spiritually alive or regenerated. I have shown how they have not spoken as a unified voice on this issue however. Elder Hassell affirmed that the command to "repent" and to "seek" God, so as to "find him," as Paul preached in Acts chapter seventeen to the Athenian pagans, was to "all men," just as the text affirms. Very few Hardshells today would agree with Hassell, however, because they believe the Pelagian idea that a Gospel command implies ability to obey. Most Hardshells limit Gospel commands to those already regenerated because, as Elder Beebe asserted, such commands imply ability. In those chapters under the series "Addresses to the Lost," it was clearly shown that Gospel commands are directed towards all men. I have shown how many Hardshells, especially since the start of the twentieth century, have been in error on the nature of man's inability, believing that man's inability is not strictly moral, but physical, affirming that man could not obey the Lord even if the will was directed to do so; And, it is this error that has led many of them to believe that regeneration gives a physical ability and involves a change in the substance or essence of the soul.
John Gill wrote:
"It is raised a spiritual body: not as to substance, but as to its quality; it will not be changed into a spirit; our Lord's risen body, to which ours will be conformed, was not a spirit, but, as before, consisted of flesh and bones: but the body will then be subject to the spirit and soul of man; it will be employed in spiritual service, for which it will be abundantly fitted and assisted by the Spirit of God; and it will be delighted with spiritual objects; it will be like the angels, those excellent spirits; it will live as spirits do, without natural helps and means, as meat, drink, clothes, sleep, and, as they, will never die..." (Commentary upon I Corinthians chapter 15)
This citation is important because Elder Sarrels argued that the soul undergoes a physical change in substance in the same manner in which the body will undergo a physical change in the resurrection. But, here, Gill denies that a physical change in substance occurs to the body in the resurrection.
Gill also wrote:
"and afterwards that which is spiritual; yea, even Christ's animal, or natural body, was before his spiritual one; his body taken from the virgin, and formed in her womb, and in which he lived here on earth, was an animal body, as before observed; and upon his resurrection, it commenced a spiritual one; being the same in substance as the former, only different in qualities; and just so it is, and will be, with the bodies of the saints'; which is the apostle's design and view, in observing this order; the natural body is first, and then the spiritual; it is first a natural body, as generated and nourished, as weak and dying, and it is afterwards a spiritual one, when raised from the dead." (Ibid)
Again, just as Gill believed about the change that occurs to the soul in regeneration, so he also believes about the change to the body in the resurrection. Neither the soul nor the body undergoes any change in substance. Thus, the argument of Sarrels that there is a change in the substance of soul and body is not reflective of what the Old Baptists taught on the subject.
Gill also wrote:
"This image also lies in the freedom of the will, and the power of it. As God is a free agent, so is man; and as the freedom of the divine will does not lie in an indifference and indetermination to good and evil, but is only to that which is good; so was the will of man in his state of integrity: as likewise the will of the good angels and glorified saints. And man had a power to obey the will of God, and do his commands; and as he had not only a positive law given him to abstain from the forbidden fruit, as a trial of his obedience; so he had the moral law written on his heart, as the rule of his obedience, and had power and ability to keep it; for as it was required of him to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and soul, and strength; so he could, if he would, have performed the same; and such strength and ability were due unto him, from the laws of creation; for if God required of him obedience to his holy law, it was but fit and right that he should give him a conformity of nature and will to it, and power to obey it; though, he was not obliged to give him grace and strength to persevere, nor to render him impeccable and immutable; wherefore, leaving him to the mutability of his will, he sinned, and fell from his former estate, which on that account is called "vanity" (Ps. 39:5)." (A BODY OF DOCTRINAL DIVINITY Book 3—Chapter 3 OF THE CREATION OF MAN, 4b2c)
This is important because Sarrels and other Hardshells have erroneously argued that God's making man a "natural" person made him incapable to doing what is "spiritual." Yet, as has been previously shown, the law of God is "spiritual" (Rom. 7: 14) and therefore obedience to it would be spiritual. It seems that the view of Sarrels and other Hardshells who teach that man has no natural ability to do spiritual acts, either now or originally, are teaching that God commands men to do what they have never had the ability to do, the very proposition that some of them find repugnant.
In an 1842 Circular Letter of the South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (see here), the writers addressed these issues and wrote the following.
"WHAT ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND by being born again?"
"It surely cannot mean, a mere external reformation from gross immortality; nor a change from one system of religion to another; nor even from heathen idolatry to the Christian faith; nor in submission to the ordinance of Baptism; nor yet in firm persuasion that we are the children of God; zealously doing the work of our heavenly Father. The memorable instance of Simon Magus and Saul of Tarsus illustrates these remarks; the former believed historically, but the latter by the power of the word and spirit of God, working on the dark powers of the soul and diffusing life divine. Then the expression born again, and all other [parallel] phrases found in the word of God, are too strong and distinct to admit of any consistent meaning, less than a radical change in the disposition of the soul."
The word "mere" is important to notice in the above words. It shows that the first Hardshells were not denying that being "born again" involved "eternal reformation from gross immorality," or of being converted to the Christian faith, but simply affirmed that being "born again" included more than this. Yet, it is to be remembered how today's Hardshells exclude conversion from what it means to be "born again." These first Hardshells however included conversion. They did not believe that Simon Magus was truly born again nor that Paul was born again prior to his conversion experience on the Damascus road. In fact, these first Hardshells affirmed that Paul's being "born again" included his being made a believer in Jesus. They aslso affirmed that being "born again" was by "the word and spirit of God," just as the old London Confession affirmed but which is denied by today's Hardshells. They also affirm that the new birth was "a radical change in the disposition," not in the substance, "of the soul."
The circular continues:
"We say a change or renewal in the disposition of the soul, because no new facilities are imparted to man in the new birth, none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration; the carnal mind or disposition of sinful man is enmity against God, and in the new birth a spiritual mind or disposition is given to man under the power and influence of the spirit of God, in which the powers and faculties of the soul receive a new and spiritual direction; the moral image of God was defaced in man by his apostasy. This image is restored in the new birth, by the word and spirit of God."
Clearly these first Hardshells denied that the substance of the soul was changed in the new birth, affirming that "no new faculties are imparted to man in the new birth," affirming that "none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration." This is contrary to the Hardshells cited in previous chapters, such as Elder Sarrels. Sarrels denied that the new birth was simply a giving of a new and spiritual direction to the soul. Also, again, these first Hardshells affirmed that the new birth was "by the word and spirit of God."
The circular continues:
"This change or renewal is radical. It reaches to the thoughts and dispositions; the aims and ends of the new born soul are to glorify God, in the gift of his grace and spirit. All this is effected by the same mighty power and energy of God, which first gave life and form to man; and which alone can rectify and restore that part of man, which was lost and disordered. Hence those who were the children of wrath, have now become the children of God by the blood of the covenant, and adopted heirs of Christ into the grace of life, and are said to be born again, or translated from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and Satan into the kingdom of Christ."
Again, the authors of the circular deny that the new birth or regeneration changes the substance of the soul, but rather define it in terms of what is called conversion. They had no qualms calling the new birth a rectification and restoration, a truth denied by Sarrels and the other modern Hardshells previously cited.
The circular continued:
"For it is the office of the spirit to illuminate the dark faculties of the soul, and to give it that faith which works by love and purifies the heart. And so wonderfully develops itself in the new born soul, that it shows it all the beauty and graces of Jesus, and enables the creature to receive the Saviour as their prophet, priest, and king. This is to be born again. There the regenerated soul is said to be God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. As such old things are done away, behold all things become new."
Notice again how the first Hardshells defined what it meant to be "born again." It involved being illuminated in the Christian faith, of having faith in Christ. It involves receiving Christ. Rather than giving new faculties to the soul, it rather illuminates the existing dark faculties of the soul.
The circular continued:
"But again, how or what is the effect on the sinner’s heart? When wrought to a knowledge of sin, the dead soul is quickened and made alive to feel and see its lost and ruined state, and to feel the condemning power of God’s holy law and the justice of God in damning or banishing it from his presence forever. And thus the soul or sinner is brought to mourn on account of his sin, and to dread the terrors of God’s wrath, while God by his spirit sends his word into the hearts as a sharp two-edged sword, piercing or dividing asunder of soul and spirit; that spirit which defaced the glorious image of God, and put enmity between God and the sinner. And now he is brought to a knowledge of his sin by the power of the law, the sinner is now converted, convinced, and convicted, and sees himself a just monument of God’s wrath, while the thunders of Mount Sinai rolls against the guilty soul, and it is the schoolmaster, the Law, that takes the sinner and brings him to Christ."
Though I would disagree with the idea that mere conviction of sin is a result of being born again (see previous chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction"), nevertheless they did not limit their definition of what it means to be "born again" to mere conviction of sin but affirmed that it included being "converted" and being brought to Christ.
The circular continued:
"And here, brethren, is the last blow the ax or the Law gives the sinner, it fells him and lays him at the foot of the cross, where that glorious fountain runs down. There is the time and place that Jesus comes with pardon, and applies his atoning blood. And now the sinner is enabled to look up to Jesus by faith, and see the streaming blood; this is the time of agonizing with soul, there the time of godly sorrow, that worketh repentance, unto salvation, not to be repented of. And then is the time that Jesus applies the water by the word and sanctifying graces of his spirit; and there it is that the soul is regenerated and born again."
When does Jesus apply his atoning blood, according to this first Primitive Baptist periodical? When Jesus comes to the convicted soul "with pardon." It is a description of Gospel conversion when Jesus applies his atoning blood by "the water by the word." It is when the soul is thus converted to Jesus that the soul "is regenerated and born again."
The circular continued:
"Jesus is formed in the soul, the hope of glory. Then it is mercy and truth meet together in the soul; then it is that righteousness and peace kiss each other in the soul; and then the sinner is justified and reconciled to God through the faith of Christ, and the soul filled with that joy that is unspeakable and full of glory: then it is that a new song is put into the mouth, even praise to God."
When is the soul justified and reconciled to God? When is Jesus "formed in the soul" as the "hope of glory"? Is it not when the sinner comes to faith in Christ?
Today's Hardshells who make the new birth to be a change in the soul substance without a conversion to Christ are not even in agreement with their own founding fathers. When they make man's inability to be natural and physical, they are in disagreement with the great Calvinist authors and with their own leading founding fathers.
Thus far in this series of chapters I have shown how Hardshells have imbibed the Pelagian idea that biblical commands imply ability to obey the commands. I have shown that such an idea has led many of them to affirm that Gospel commands are limited to those who are already spiritually alive or regenerated. I have shown how they have not spoken as a unified voice on this issue however. Elder Hassell affirmed that the command to "repent" and to "seek" God, so as to "find him," as Paul preached in Acts chapter seventeen to the Athenian pagans, was to "all men," just as the text affirms. Very few Hardshells today would agree with Hassell, however, because they believe the Pelagian idea that a Gospel command implies ability to obey. Most Hardshells limit Gospel commands to those already regenerated because, as Elder Beebe asserted, such commands imply ability. In those chapters under the series "Addresses to the Lost," it was clearly shown that Gospel commands are directed towards all men. I have shown how many Hardshells, especially since the start of the twentieth century, have been in error on the nature of man's inability, believing that man's inability is not strictly moral, but physical, affirming that man could not obey the Lord even if the will was directed to do so; And, it is this error that has led many of them to believe that regeneration gives a physical ability and involves a change in the substance or essence of the soul.
John Gill wrote:
"It is raised a spiritual body: not as to substance, but as to its quality; it will not be changed into a spirit; our Lord's risen body, to which ours will be conformed, was not a spirit, but, as before, consisted of flesh and bones: but the body will then be subject to the spirit and soul of man; it will be employed in spiritual service, for which it will be abundantly fitted and assisted by the Spirit of God; and it will be delighted with spiritual objects; it will be like the angels, those excellent spirits; it will live as spirits do, without natural helps and means, as meat, drink, clothes, sleep, and, as they, will never die..." (Commentary upon I Corinthians chapter 15)
This citation is important because Elder Sarrels argued that the soul undergoes a physical change in substance in the same manner in which the body will undergo a physical change in the resurrection. But, here, Gill denies that a physical change in substance occurs to the body in the resurrection.
Gill also wrote:
"and afterwards that which is spiritual; yea, even Christ's animal, or natural body, was before his spiritual one; his body taken from the virgin, and formed in her womb, and in which he lived here on earth, was an animal body, as before observed; and upon his resurrection, it commenced a spiritual one; being the same in substance as the former, only different in qualities; and just so it is, and will be, with the bodies of the saints'; which is the apostle's design and view, in observing this order; the natural body is first, and then the spiritual; it is first a natural body, as generated and nourished, as weak and dying, and it is afterwards a spiritual one, when raised from the dead." (Ibid)
Again, just as Gill believed about the change that occurs to the soul in regeneration, so he also believes about the change to the body in the resurrection. Neither the soul nor the body undergoes any change in substance. Thus, the argument of Sarrels that there is a change in the substance of soul and body is not reflective of what the Old Baptists taught on the subject.
Gill also wrote:
"This image also lies in the freedom of the will, and the power of it. As God is a free agent, so is man; and as the freedom of the divine will does not lie in an indifference and indetermination to good and evil, but is only to that which is good; so was the will of man in his state of integrity: as likewise the will of the good angels and glorified saints. And man had a power to obey the will of God, and do his commands; and as he had not only a positive law given him to abstain from the forbidden fruit, as a trial of his obedience; so he had the moral law written on his heart, as the rule of his obedience, and had power and ability to keep it; for as it was required of him to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and soul, and strength; so he could, if he would, have performed the same; and such strength and ability were due unto him, from the laws of creation; for if God required of him obedience to his holy law, it was but fit and right that he should give him a conformity of nature and will to it, and power to obey it; though, he was not obliged to give him grace and strength to persevere, nor to render him impeccable and immutable; wherefore, leaving him to the mutability of his will, he sinned, and fell from his former estate, which on that account is called "vanity" (Ps. 39:5)." (A BODY OF DOCTRINAL DIVINITY Book 3—Chapter 3 OF THE CREATION OF MAN, 4b2c)
This is important because Sarrels and other Hardshells have erroneously argued that God's making man a "natural" person made him incapable to doing what is "spiritual." Yet, as has been previously shown, the law of God is "spiritual" (Rom. 7: 14) and therefore obedience to it would be spiritual. It seems that the view of Sarrels and other Hardshells who teach that man has no natural ability to do spiritual acts, either now or originally, are teaching that God commands men to do what they have never had the ability to do, the very proposition that some of them find repugnant.
In an 1842 Circular Letter of the South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (see here), the writers addressed these issues and wrote the following.
"WHAT ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND by being born again?"
"It surely cannot mean, a mere external reformation from gross immortality; nor a change from one system of religion to another; nor even from heathen idolatry to the Christian faith; nor in submission to the ordinance of Baptism; nor yet in firm persuasion that we are the children of God; zealously doing the work of our heavenly Father. The memorable instance of Simon Magus and Saul of Tarsus illustrates these remarks; the former believed historically, but the latter by the power of the word and spirit of God, working on the dark powers of the soul and diffusing life divine. Then the expression born again, and all other [parallel] phrases found in the word of God, are too strong and distinct to admit of any consistent meaning, less than a radical change in the disposition of the soul."
The word "mere" is important to notice in the above words. It shows that the first Hardshells were not denying that being "born again" involved "eternal reformation from gross immorality," or of being converted to the Christian faith, but simply affirmed that being "born again" included more than this. Yet, it is to be remembered how today's Hardshells exclude conversion from what it means to be "born again." These first Hardshells however included conversion. They did not believe that Simon Magus was truly born again nor that Paul was born again prior to his conversion experience on the Damascus road. In fact, these first Hardshells affirmed that Paul's being "born again" included his being made a believer in Jesus. They aslso affirmed that being "born again" was by "the word and spirit of God," just as the old London Confession affirmed but which is denied by today's Hardshells. They also affirm that the new birth was "a radical change in the disposition," not in the substance, "of the soul."
The circular continues:
"We say a change or renewal in the disposition of the soul, because no new facilities are imparted to man in the new birth, none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration; the carnal mind or disposition of sinful man is enmity against God, and in the new birth a spiritual mind or disposition is given to man under the power and influence of the spirit of God, in which the powers and faculties of the soul receive a new and spiritual direction; the moral image of God was defaced in man by his apostasy. This image is restored in the new birth, by the word and spirit of God."
Clearly these first Hardshells denied that the substance of the soul was changed in the new birth, affirming that "no new faculties are imparted to man in the new birth," affirming that "none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration." This is contrary to the Hardshells cited in previous chapters, such as Elder Sarrels. Sarrels denied that the new birth was simply a giving of a new and spiritual direction to the soul. Also, again, these first Hardshells affirmed that the new birth was "by the word and spirit of God."
The circular continues:
"This change or renewal is radical. It reaches to the thoughts and dispositions; the aims and ends of the new born soul are to glorify God, in the gift of his grace and spirit. All this is effected by the same mighty power and energy of God, which first gave life and form to man; and which alone can rectify and restore that part of man, which was lost and disordered. Hence those who were the children of wrath, have now become the children of God by the blood of the covenant, and adopted heirs of Christ into the grace of life, and are said to be born again, or translated from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and Satan into the kingdom of Christ."
Again, the authors of the circular deny that the new birth or regeneration changes the substance of the soul, but rather define it in terms of what is called conversion. They had no qualms calling the new birth a rectification and restoration, a truth denied by Sarrels and the other modern Hardshells previously cited.
The circular continued:
"For it is the office of the spirit to illuminate the dark faculties of the soul, and to give it that faith which works by love and purifies the heart. And so wonderfully develops itself in the new born soul, that it shows it all the beauty and graces of Jesus, and enables the creature to receive the Saviour as their prophet, priest, and king. This is to be born again. There the regenerated soul is said to be God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. As such old things are done away, behold all things become new."
Notice again how the first Hardshells defined what it meant to be "born again." It involved being illuminated in the Christian faith, of having faith in Christ. It involves receiving Christ. Rather than giving new faculties to the soul, it rather illuminates the existing dark faculties of the soul.
The circular continued:
"But again, how or what is the effect on the sinner’s heart? When wrought to a knowledge of sin, the dead soul is quickened and made alive to feel and see its lost and ruined state, and to feel the condemning power of God’s holy law and the justice of God in damning or banishing it from his presence forever. And thus the soul or sinner is brought to mourn on account of his sin, and to dread the terrors of God’s wrath, while God by his spirit sends his word into the hearts as a sharp two-edged sword, piercing or dividing asunder of soul and spirit; that spirit which defaced the glorious image of God, and put enmity between God and the sinner. And now he is brought to a knowledge of his sin by the power of the law, the sinner is now converted, convinced, and convicted, and sees himself a just monument of God’s wrath, while the thunders of Mount Sinai rolls against the guilty soul, and it is the schoolmaster, the Law, that takes the sinner and brings him to Christ."
Though I would disagree with the idea that mere conviction of sin is a result of being born again (see previous chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction"), nevertheless they did not limit their definition of what it means to be "born again" to mere conviction of sin but affirmed that it included being "converted" and being brought to Christ.
The circular continued:
"And here, brethren, is the last blow the ax or the Law gives the sinner, it fells him and lays him at the foot of the cross, where that glorious fountain runs down. There is the time and place that Jesus comes with pardon, and applies his atoning blood. And now the sinner is enabled to look up to Jesus by faith, and see the streaming blood; this is the time of agonizing with soul, there the time of godly sorrow, that worketh repentance, unto salvation, not to be repented of. And then is the time that Jesus applies the water by the word and sanctifying graces of his spirit; and there it is that the soul is regenerated and born again."
When does Jesus apply his atoning blood, according to this first Primitive Baptist periodical? When Jesus comes to the convicted soul "with pardon." It is a description of Gospel conversion when Jesus applies his atoning blood by "the water by the word." It is when the soul is thus converted to Jesus that the soul "is regenerated and born again."
The circular continued:
"Jesus is formed in the soul, the hope of glory. Then it is mercy and truth meet together in the soul; then it is that righteousness and peace kiss each other in the soul; and then the sinner is justified and reconciled to God through the faith of Christ, and the soul filled with that joy that is unspeakable and full of glory: then it is that a new song is put into the mouth, even praise to God."
When is the soul justified and reconciled to God? When is Jesus "formed in the soul" as the "hope of glory"? Is it not when the sinner comes to faith in Christ?
Today's Hardshells who make the new birth to be a change in the soul substance without a conversion to Christ are not even in agreement with their own founding fathers. When they make man's inability to be natural and physical, they are in disagreement with the great Calvinist authors and with their own leading founding fathers.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Hardshell Sabellianism IV
Elder Samuel Trott, early Hardshell leader, in his continued defense of his Sabellian views, and in answer to the charges of Elder John Clark's charge of Arianism, wrote the following in a Signs of the Times article titled "CALM REPLY TO A COMMUNICATION OF ELD. JOHN CLARK WRITTEN ORIGINALLY FOR THE "SIGNS" BUT PUBLISHED IN THE "PRIMITIVE BAPTIST," APRIL 30, 1853, WITH THAT COMMUNICATION INSERTED." (1854) (see here)
"Again, on page 114, Elder C., though he names no one in this letter, yet he evidently refers to those named in the accompanying communication, says:
"I have preached and written against their doctrine concerning the Son of God, and charged that it is Arianism – and I here repeat it."
In the foregoing paragraph, he speaks of being in readiness to prove upon us the sentiments with which he charges us: yes, just as he proved me an Arian, in the specimen I gave of his manner of proving it, on a preceding page...But we will come to the charge which Elder Clark boasts of having made against us. I entreat Elder C., and any others who unite with him in these charges, to follow me in the inquiry as to the truth of this charge, with candor. As to what Arius actually believed, I know not; but in speaking of Arianism, I speak of it as described by those who wrote of it. Elder C., and others with him, generally, will, I presume, admit that Athanasians, and Tri-personalists, generally, hold that the Son no otherwise exists as God, than as he is the Son of God, or than as he was begotten of the Father; that in his Godhead, therefore, as well as a person in the Godhead he was begotten of the Father; whilst they hold that he is of the same substance coequal and coeternal with the Father. They will, also, I think, admit that Arius occupied exactly the same starting ground with the other party, viz: that the Son no otherwise existed than as he was the Son of God, or begotten of the Father. But here they split in their conclusions from this common position. Arius drew the conclusion, that as the Son only existed in his Sonship, he, from the nature of that relation to the Father, and from the fact that his existence was a begotten existence, must necessarily be posterior in his individual existence to the Father who begat him, and hence was not coequal and coeternal with the Father. I must confess, if I had not the Scriptures for my guide, but had to take the same leading position which Athansius and Arius both occupied in the forming an opinion of the being of the Son of God, that I must take Arius' side of the question, as being far more consistent than the other. But I, and those with me, do not occupy the same original position with them, at all: hence, I have offered to prove, if any of those accusers would meet me in arguments on the point, that they are far more assimilated to Arianism than we are: but they have never consented to meet me on that point. The position which we occupy, and the ground on which we stand, is, that what God has revealed of himself in the Scriptures, we are safe in receiving as truth; what He has not revealed, it is presumption in mortals, and would be in angels, to attempt to inquire into; that God has revealed himself as three, as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one; that they are so three, that there are points of distinction by which they are severally declared in the Scripture; and so one, that to us there is but one God. Hence, when either of the three is spoken of as God, we understand it to be that one God in all his fullness of attributes and glory."
Is the view of Clark and other Trinitarians who affirm the eternal sonship of Christ more akin to the views of the heretic Arius or is the view of Trott more akin to them? Trott thinks that those who affirm that Christ always existed as the Son of God in the Godhead is similar to Arianism because both affirm that Christ no otherwise existed except as the Son of God. But, the likeness is only slight, for Arius did not believe that the sonship of Christ was eternal, just as the Fatherhood of God. On the other hand, Arius and the view of Trott are much more alike in that they both affirm that the sonship of Christ is not eternal, but denotes a creation. The difference is that Arius did not believe Christ existed in any sense prior to his becoming the Son of God while Trott believes that Christ existed as God before he became the Son of God. The view of Trott is similar to those who say Christ was the eternal Word, or God, before his incarnational sonship via the virgin. But, Trott can say that Christ was God before he became the Son of God because he believes that God is one person, the sonship only being a mode in which the one person God reveals himself.
Trott continued:
"Hence our conclusion is, that if God exists absolutely independent of any one, or of any act by which he is brought into existence, then each of the three must alike so exist as God: and as we find it not declared in the Scriptures that God exists as three distinct persons, or that one of these persons was begotten of the other, and that the third is breathed into existence, we reject the whole, as fabulous. Again: we find the Son of God declared in the Scriptures, and all those characteristics, or attributes of Sonship, so ascribed to him, that we feel bound to believe that he is actually the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. We further find this Son of God so identified with the Word, that we believe that the Son is the Word, in all his fullness of the Godhead. Hence, as we believe the Godhead cannot be changed from its absolutely independent self-existence, so as truly to sustain the relation and characteristics of Sonship, we believe the Word has that in himself, and has had from the beginning, which enables him fully to sustain this relation of Sonship, and of being begotten of the Father, without diminishing, or changing the attributes of his essential Godhead, or ceasing to be the one God. In reference to what his characteristics of Sonship consist in, I shall have to speak more fully in another place. But I have more summed up, in as definite and clear words I can, my belief of God, as existing in Trinity, for I do believe in a Trinity, but not in tripersonality; and in the Son of God, as being in his person, truly, both God and the Son of God."
Trott confesses that he denies the historic doctrine of the Trinity, that God is three persons, and favors the Sabellian economic or modalistic Trinity. In doing so, he goes against the Old Baptist confessions and can hardly claim to be an Old Baptist.
Trott continued:
"I will now pass to notice the idea of creatureship as applied to Christ in the Scriptures, in distinction from his being made flesh. It will, I presume, be admitted that in God's Son being made of a woman, the idea of creatureship is ascribed to him in person, and that without derogating from his Godhead or making him a "created God;" strange, then, that such a general alarm should be produced at the idea of creatureship being applied to him, as he is the life of his people. But surely, if men inspired of God have, without reserve, in giving their testimony of Jesus, attached this idea to him, I think I need not be afraid to do it, though opposed by friends and foes. But I have never represented that as the Son he is inferior to the Father because God created him, as Elder C. has stated. I have based his subordination to the Father upon his relation as Son, as well as upon the testimony of Scripture, showing that he sustained such inferior relation. Elder C. admits that we have such expressions as these: "The beginning of the creation of God," – "The first born of every creature," to sustain our views; but he appears not to admit them to be Scripture. They, however, will be found Rev. 3:14, and Col. 1:15. How is Christ The beginning of the creation of God, according to the proper import of the words, if he was not in some sense the first of God's creating? And how the first born of every creature, if not in some sense a creature?"
It is easy to see how Elder Clark would charge Elder Trott with Arianism based upon Trott's remarks upon Rev. 3: 14 and Col. 1: 15. They are the same views that Arius and his followers took upon the passages and the same views modern Arians also take upon them, such as "Jehovah's Witnesses." Of course, these passages do not teach that the Son of God was begotten in time or created. These passages speak of Christ being, besides the eikon (image) of God the Father, but as being the "prōtotokos" (firstborn) of every creature and the "archē" (beginning) of God's creation. These terms do not denote origin but rank. They do not denote being first made but first in rank. Christ, the Son of God is "prōtotokos" because he is the rightful heir of all things. Not only were all things created by him but "for him." He is "the heir of all things." (Heb. 1: 2) Further, if Christ being "the beginning" ("archē") means that he had a beginning in time, then his being "the ending" or "the last" (Rev. 1: 8, 11; 21: 6; 22: 13) means that Christ will have an end, will one day be no more. Also, as Elder Clark argued, Paul explains what he means by saying that Christ is the "prōtotokos" by saying "for by him were all things created." If the view of Arius or Trott were true, Paul should have said "for God created him first."
Trott continued:
"How Christ is the begotten Son of God, may, I conceive, be illustrated by his second begetting as the Son of God; for there are evidently two begettings spoken of in the Scripture to him. John says, speaking of the Word being made flesh, "We beheld (not shall behold,) his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, &c." And at the baptism of Jesus, and in his transfiguration on the mount, the voice from heaven was, "This is (not shall be,) my beloved Son, &c." Thus he was declared to be already the begotten Son of God. But the begetting of which I speak as a second begetting, was an after event to these. It is named in Psalms 2:7, "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee." This was spoken prophetically, and therefore though spoken in the present tense, had a future reference. So an inspired Apostle applied it (Acts 13:33,) when he said, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The apostle makes this begetting to be the same with his being "The first begotten of the dead." Rev. 1:5."
Christ did not have multiple "begettings." He has always been the Son of God, eternally the only begotten of the Father. The begetting from the womb of the virgin and his being begotten from the dead did not make him the Son of God but only revealed him to be such.
Trott continued:
"Thus it appears to me that the terms only begotten Son of God are according to their proper import, strictly descriptive of that relation which Christ as Mediator sustains to God. But as this exaltation of Christ was a being glorified with that glory which he as Son had with the Father before the world was, (See John, 17:1-5,) we may conclude that his relation as Son was the same before the world was."
Though Trott affirms that Christ was the Son of God before his incarnation and prior to his being begotten via the virgin and from the dead, yet he does not believe that the Son of God is eternally the Son of the Father. Again, the views of Trott are a mixing of Arianism and Sabellianism.
Trott continued:
"But still, this life being in the Word imparted to him a distinct and compound personality, as has been noticed. This complex person could not as noticed, be in the station of a servant under the law, without being made under it, in an additional nature, neither could he in his complex person, though in that person he was God, sustain the relation of the absolute God, but was exactly adapted to sustain the relation of a Son, and was therefore set up, and brought forth in the everlasting covenant as the Son of God; and the same mighty power of God was manifested in thus bringing him forth as the Son of God and Head of his church and people, and they in him in that Life which was embraced in his distinct personality, as was manifested in raising Christ from the dead. See Eph., 1:19,20."
Here Trott seems to affirm that Christ was the eternal Son of God, but not so in actuality but only in the mind and purpose of God, or theoretically. Trott is affirming that there would be no Son of God without creation or redemption.
Trott continued:
"Again, the manhood of Christ was made of the seed of the woman; but we are not warranted to believe that the life was made of any created substance. The account we have is, that the new man, which must be the life, or Christ, in us, was After God created in righteousness and true holiness. From the testimony of Scripture, I conclude that the Word as the Son, occupied the same exalted station at the right hand of the Father, having the immediate government in his own hands, before the foundation of the world as after his exaltation from the dead. Hence the glory which he now has is the same that he had with the Father before the world was; and the Word was with God. Hence it is declared, that "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
But these relative terms by no means imply that God did not exist antecedent to his being a Father; yea, the very relation implies that the Father had an existence independent of his paternity.
So of the Son, when we take into consideration the character given of him in the Scriptures, we must believe that he existed as God independently of his Sonship."
In these words Trott denies the eternal relation of God as Father and Son, affirming that God was once neither Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. It is because of creation and redemption that God takes on the existences as such. This is Sabellianism, or the affirmation of a modalistic or economic trinity.
In closing it must be understood that these views of Trott were widespread among the first generation Hardshells and it was not till many years later, when the views of Clark prevailed. One must wonder how Hardshells will deal with the fact that their ancestors held such views. What does this do to their Landmarker views about church succession?
"Again, on page 114, Elder C., though he names no one in this letter, yet he evidently refers to those named in the accompanying communication, says:
"I have preached and written against their doctrine concerning the Son of God, and charged that it is Arianism – and I here repeat it."
In the foregoing paragraph, he speaks of being in readiness to prove upon us the sentiments with which he charges us: yes, just as he proved me an Arian, in the specimen I gave of his manner of proving it, on a preceding page...But we will come to the charge which Elder Clark boasts of having made against us. I entreat Elder C., and any others who unite with him in these charges, to follow me in the inquiry as to the truth of this charge, with candor. As to what Arius actually believed, I know not; but in speaking of Arianism, I speak of it as described by those who wrote of it. Elder C., and others with him, generally, will, I presume, admit that Athanasians, and Tri-personalists, generally, hold that the Son no otherwise exists as God, than as he is the Son of God, or than as he was begotten of the Father; that in his Godhead, therefore, as well as a person in the Godhead he was begotten of the Father; whilst they hold that he is of the same substance coequal and coeternal with the Father. They will, also, I think, admit that Arius occupied exactly the same starting ground with the other party, viz: that the Son no otherwise existed than as he was the Son of God, or begotten of the Father. But here they split in their conclusions from this common position. Arius drew the conclusion, that as the Son only existed in his Sonship, he, from the nature of that relation to the Father, and from the fact that his existence was a begotten existence, must necessarily be posterior in his individual existence to the Father who begat him, and hence was not coequal and coeternal with the Father. I must confess, if I had not the Scriptures for my guide, but had to take the same leading position which Athansius and Arius both occupied in the forming an opinion of the being of the Son of God, that I must take Arius' side of the question, as being far more consistent than the other. But I, and those with me, do not occupy the same original position with them, at all: hence, I have offered to prove, if any of those accusers would meet me in arguments on the point, that they are far more assimilated to Arianism than we are: but they have never consented to meet me on that point. The position which we occupy, and the ground on which we stand, is, that what God has revealed of himself in the Scriptures, we are safe in receiving as truth; what He has not revealed, it is presumption in mortals, and would be in angels, to attempt to inquire into; that God has revealed himself as three, as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one; that they are so three, that there are points of distinction by which they are severally declared in the Scripture; and so one, that to us there is but one God. Hence, when either of the three is spoken of as God, we understand it to be that one God in all his fullness of attributes and glory."
Is the view of Clark and other Trinitarians who affirm the eternal sonship of Christ more akin to the views of the heretic Arius or is the view of Trott more akin to them? Trott thinks that those who affirm that Christ always existed as the Son of God in the Godhead is similar to Arianism because both affirm that Christ no otherwise existed except as the Son of God. But, the likeness is only slight, for Arius did not believe that the sonship of Christ was eternal, just as the Fatherhood of God. On the other hand, Arius and the view of Trott are much more alike in that they both affirm that the sonship of Christ is not eternal, but denotes a creation. The difference is that Arius did not believe Christ existed in any sense prior to his becoming the Son of God while Trott believes that Christ existed as God before he became the Son of God. The view of Trott is similar to those who say Christ was the eternal Word, or God, before his incarnational sonship via the virgin. But, Trott can say that Christ was God before he became the Son of God because he believes that God is one person, the sonship only being a mode in which the one person God reveals himself.
Trott continued:
"Hence our conclusion is, that if God exists absolutely independent of any one, or of any act by which he is brought into existence, then each of the three must alike so exist as God: and as we find it not declared in the Scriptures that God exists as three distinct persons, or that one of these persons was begotten of the other, and that the third is breathed into existence, we reject the whole, as fabulous. Again: we find the Son of God declared in the Scriptures, and all those characteristics, or attributes of Sonship, so ascribed to him, that we feel bound to believe that he is actually the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. We further find this Son of God so identified with the Word, that we believe that the Son is the Word, in all his fullness of the Godhead. Hence, as we believe the Godhead cannot be changed from its absolutely independent self-existence, so as truly to sustain the relation and characteristics of Sonship, we believe the Word has that in himself, and has had from the beginning, which enables him fully to sustain this relation of Sonship, and of being begotten of the Father, without diminishing, or changing the attributes of his essential Godhead, or ceasing to be the one God. In reference to what his characteristics of Sonship consist in, I shall have to speak more fully in another place. But I have more summed up, in as definite and clear words I can, my belief of God, as existing in Trinity, for I do believe in a Trinity, but not in tripersonality; and in the Son of God, as being in his person, truly, both God and the Son of God."
Trott confesses that he denies the historic doctrine of the Trinity, that God is three persons, and favors the Sabellian economic or modalistic Trinity. In doing so, he goes against the Old Baptist confessions and can hardly claim to be an Old Baptist.
Trott continued:
"I will now pass to notice the idea of creatureship as applied to Christ in the Scriptures, in distinction from his being made flesh. It will, I presume, be admitted that in God's Son being made of a woman, the idea of creatureship is ascribed to him in person, and that without derogating from his Godhead or making him a "created God;" strange, then, that such a general alarm should be produced at the idea of creatureship being applied to him, as he is the life of his people. But surely, if men inspired of God have, without reserve, in giving their testimony of Jesus, attached this idea to him, I think I need not be afraid to do it, though opposed by friends and foes. But I have never represented that as the Son he is inferior to the Father because God created him, as Elder C. has stated. I have based his subordination to the Father upon his relation as Son, as well as upon the testimony of Scripture, showing that he sustained such inferior relation. Elder C. admits that we have such expressions as these: "The beginning of the creation of God," – "The first born of every creature," to sustain our views; but he appears not to admit them to be Scripture. They, however, will be found Rev. 3:14, and Col. 1:15. How is Christ The beginning of the creation of God, according to the proper import of the words, if he was not in some sense the first of God's creating? And how the first born of every creature, if not in some sense a creature?"
It is easy to see how Elder Clark would charge Elder Trott with Arianism based upon Trott's remarks upon Rev. 3: 14 and Col. 1: 15. They are the same views that Arius and his followers took upon the passages and the same views modern Arians also take upon them, such as "Jehovah's Witnesses." Of course, these passages do not teach that the Son of God was begotten in time or created. These passages speak of Christ being, besides the eikon (image) of God the Father, but as being the "prōtotokos" (firstborn) of every creature and the "archē" (beginning) of God's creation. These terms do not denote origin but rank. They do not denote being first made but first in rank. Christ, the Son of God is "prōtotokos" because he is the rightful heir of all things. Not only were all things created by him but "for him." He is "the heir of all things." (Heb. 1: 2) Further, if Christ being "the beginning" ("archē") means that he had a beginning in time, then his being "the ending" or "the last" (Rev. 1: 8, 11; 21: 6; 22: 13) means that Christ will have an end, will one day be no more. Also, as Elder Clark argued, Paul explains what he means by saying that Christ is the "prōtotokos" by saying "for by him were all things created." If the view of Arius or Trott were true, Paul should have said "for God created him first."
Trott continued:
"How Christ is the begotten Son of God, may, I conceive, be illustrated by his second begetting as the Son of God; for there are evidently two begettings spoken of in the Scripture to him. John says, speaking of the Word being made flesh, "We beheld (not shall behold,) his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, &c." And at the baptism of Jesus, and in his transfiguration on the mount, the voice from heaven was, "This is (not shall be,) my beloved Son, &c." Thus he was declared to be already the begotten Son of God. But the begetting of which I speak as a second begetting, was an after event to these. It is named in Psalms 2:7, "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee." This was spoken prophetically, and therefore though spoken in the present tense, had a future reference. So an inspired Apostle applied it (Acts 13:33,) when he said, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The apostle makes this begetting to be the same with his being "The first begotten of the dead." Rev. 1:5."
Christ did not have multiple "begettings." He has always been the Son of God, eternally the only begotten of the Father. The begetting from the womb of the virgin and his being begotten from the dead did not make him the Son of God but only revealed him to be such.
Trott continued:
"Thus it appears to me that the terms only begotten Son of God are according to their proper import, strictly descriptive of that relation which Christ as Mediator sustains to God. But as this exaltation of Christ was a being glorified with that glory which he as Son had with the Father before the world was, (See John, 17:1-5,) we may conclude that his relation as Son was the same before the world was."
Though Trott affirms that Christ was the Son of God before his incarnation and prior to his being begotten via the virgin and from the dead, yet he does not believe that the Son of God is eternally the Son of the Father. Again, the views of Trott are a mixing of Arianism and Sabellianism.
Trott continued:
"But still, this life being in the Word imparted to him a distinct and compound personality, as has been noticed. This complex person could not as noticed, be in the station of a servant under the law, without being made under it, in an additional nature, neither could he in his complex person, though in that person he was God, sustain the relation of the absolute God, but was exactly adapted to sustain the relation of a Son, and was therefore set up, and brought forth in the everlasting covenant as the Son of God; and the same mighty power of God was manifested in thus bringing him forth as the Son of God and Head of his church and people, and they in him in that Life which was embraced in his distinct personality, as was manifested in raising Christ from the dead. See Eph., 1:19,20."
Here Trott seems to affirm that Christ was the eternal Son of God, but not so in actuality but only in the mind and purpose of God, or theoretically. Trott is affirming that there would be no Son of God without creation or redemption.
Trott continued:
"Again, the manhood of Christ was made of the seed of the woman; but we are not warranted to believe that the life was made of any created substance. The account we have is, that the new man, which must be the life, or Christ, in us, was After God created in righteousness and true holiness. From the testimony of Scripture, I conclude that the Word as the Son, occupied the same exalted station at the right hand of the Father, having the immediate government in his own hands, before the foundation of the world as after his exaltation from the dead. Hence the glory which he now has is the same that he had with the Father before the world was; and the Word was with God. Hence it is declared, that "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
But these relative terms by no means imply that God did not exist antecedent to his being a Father; yea, the very relation implies that the Father had an existence independent of his paternity.
So of the Son, when we take into consideration the character given of him in the Scriptures, we must believe that he existed as God independently of his Sonship."
In these words Trott denies the eternal relation of God as Father and Son, affirming that God was once neither Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. It is because of creation and redemption that God takes on the existences as such. This is Sabellianism, or the affirmation of a modalistic or economic trinity.
In closing it must be understood that these views of Trott were widespread among the first generation Hardshells and it was not till many years later, when the views of Clark prevailed. One must wonder how Hardshells will deal with the fact that their ancestors held such views. What does this do to their Landmarker views about church succession?
Friday, May 10, 2013
Regeneration vs. New Birth
From the Signs of the Times of June 1851.
"The life and death of the dear Redeemer, met all the claims of the divine law, and satisfied the demands of timmutable justice. But it must be seen by all intelligent christians that redemption did not impart divine life to his subjects, without which none can "know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent." This is the effect of regeneration, from whence springs the new birth, or "being born again." (Elder Thomas P. Dudley - see here)
In my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult, I have given evidence that a large majority of first generation Hardshells believed that regeneration and being born again were not the same thing, that they argued for a three stage model of spiritual birth, arguing that "regeneration" was equivalent to the implanting of the male seed (as in natural conception), and that conviction of sin was equivalent to being in the womb, or in darkness and prior to being "delivered" from the womb, and that the "birth" was the emergence from the womb of darkness and comparable to being converted by the Gospel. Here is more evidence that such a view was again asserted. Such a view does not make Gospel conversion optional, but necessary for being eternally saved. When Jesus said - "you must be born again" - the first Hardshells believed, as their articles of faith stated, that the elect must be both regenerated AND converted.
"The life and death of the dear Redeemer, met all the claims of the divine law, and satisfied the demands of timmutable justice. But it must be seen by all intelligent christians that redemption did not impart divine life to his subjects, without which none can "know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent." This is the effect of regeneration, from whence springs the new birth, or "being born again." (Elder Thomas P. Dudley - see here)
In my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult, I have given evidence that a large majority of first generation Hardshells believed that regeneration and being born again were not the same thing, that they argued for a three stage model of spiritual birth, arguing that "regeneration" was equivalent to the implanting of the male seed (as in natural conception), and that conviction of sin was equivalent to being in the womb, or in darkness and prior to being "delivered" from the womb, and that the "birth" was the emergence from the womb of darkness and comparable to being converted by the Gospel. Here is more evidence that such a view was again asserted. Such a view does not make Gospel conversion optional, but necessary for being eternally saved. When Jesus said - "you must be born again" - the first Hardshells believed, as their articles of faith stated, that the elect must be both regenerated AND converted.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Other "Elect" or Other "Salvation"?
I hardly know what title to give to this posting. Several seem fitting. I could borrow that of Brother Garrett's post Fanciful Interpretation because the quote I pen below certainly falls into that category. I could name it A Common Contradiction because the writer is guilty of committing one that I have seen numerous times from within his order. I have settled, however, on the one which it has as I want of focus on one particular error made.
2 Thes. 2:10 is a key passage in scripture which shows that God's decree of election is compatible with evangelism. The Apostle Paul did not let his allegiance to the former hinder him from preaching the gospel in its fullness.
He writes:
"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10).
Since this passage is an obvious gospel means passage it is necessary for the Conditional Hardshells to go to work in explaining it away so as to fit within their paradigm. One in particular, Elder Kerry Lathrop, has this to say on the passage in an article called The Middle Phase Of Salvation (a contradictory title for his system, by the way):
"It is also clear who the recipients of this salvation is, the elect. Paul rather dwells on the subject of obtaining another phase of salvation. He makes it clear by stating he has endured all things so that the elect may ALSO obtain this salvation. The using of the words 'also' and 'with' implies that it is associated with something else. The salvation that Paul is speaking of here is a timely salvation for the elect of God who are eternally secure in Christ."
So, according to the author the ALSO has nothing to do with Paul's desire for OTHER of God's elect to experience the eternal salvation he received, but for the elect to receive ANOTHER salvation in addition to the one they already had.
Fanciful interpretation?
Check.
Ignoring the context?
Check.
Approached with a preconceived gird?
This interpretation would not have been reached otherwise.
How come other writers, commentators, and theologians don't see Paul expressing his desire to see the elect get saved a second time? The learned John Gill comments on the phrase:
"that they may also obtain; as well as himself, and other chosen vessels of salvation, who were called by grace already; for the apostle is speaking of such of the elect, who were, as yet, in a state of nature:"
As well as HIMSELF, not as well as ANOTHER salvation! Gill correctly sees the true intent of the Apostle Paul's inscription as intending to convey his utmost desire to see other members of the elect family come to salvation.
Matthew Henry comments as well:
"Next to the salvation of our own souls we should be willing to do and suffer any thing to promote the salvation of the souls of others."
Let's see. The salvation is said to be the salvation which is "in Christ Jesus". If Lathrop is correct, then why are not all who are united to Christ in the new birth made definite recipients, but only the relative few who get to hear the gospel preached? Is there a salvation "in Christ" not conveyed to those who are made partakers of Christ?
The salvation is singular: THE salvation in Christ Jesus. If this qualifier has reference to time salvation then is Paul contrasting this with an eternal salvation which is NOT in Christ Jesus?
Since Paul is considering God’s elect as in their state of nature, as Gill correctly notes, the salvation he desires for them to see must be that particular one received in regeneration: that one great eternal salvation in Christ. Hardshells never speak of gospel time salvation forthcoming for the unregenerate. It is strictly a post-regeneration experience. Only if the Apostle was treating the elect as already regenerated could Lathrop’s theory gain any footing.
And should not a passage which explicitly clarifies the salvation under consideration is associated with "eternal glory" be interpreted as pertaining to eternal salvation? Do not the addition of these words stand in defiance of the reader who is trying to squeeze it into a temporal framework? In such a case, would not "temporal glory" be a more fitting expression? Only one who has an a priori commitment to anti-means could stare "eternal glory" in the face and continue with a temporal application!
Paul is not expressing in this place his desire to see those of God's elect, already saved, get saved yet again. He was no Hyper-Calvinist, but rightly understood himself as an instrument through whom God would administer salvation to those of His whom He had yet to call. The "also" is not to be associated with "something else", but SOMEONE else.
2 Thes. 2:10 is a key passage in scripture which shows that God's decree of election is compatible with evangelism. The Apostle Paul did not let his allegiance to the former hinder him from preaching the gospel in its fullness.
He writes:
"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10).
Since this passage is an obvious gospel means passage it is necessary for the Conditional Hardshells to go to work in explaining it away so as to fit within their paradigm. One in particular, Elder Kerry Lathrop, has this to say on the passage in an article called The Middle Phase Of Salvation (a contradictory title for his system, by the way):
"It is also clear who the recipients of this salvation is, the elect. Paul rather dwells on the subject of obtaining another phase of salvation. He makes it clear by stating he has endured all things so that the elect may ALSO obtain this salvation. The using of the words 'also' and 'with' implies that it is associated with something else. The salvation that Paul is speaking of here is a timely salvation for the elect of God who are eternally secure in Christ."
So, according to the author the ALSO has nothing to do with Paul's desire for OTHER of God's elect to experience the eternal salvation he received, but for the elect to receive ANOTHER salvation in addition to the one they already had.
Fanciful interpretation?
Check.
Ignoring the context?
Check.
Approached with a preconceived gird?
This interpretation would not have been reached otherwise.
How come other writers, commentators, and theologians don't see Paul expressing his desire to see the elect get saved a second time? The learned John Gill comments on the phrase:
"that they may also obtain; as well as himself, and other chosen vessels of salvation, who were called by grace already; for the apostle is speaking of such of the elect, who were, as yet, in a state of nature:"
As well as HIMSELF, not as well as ANOTHER salvation! Gill correctly sees the true intent of the Apostle Paul's inscription as intending to convey his utmost desire to see other members of the elect family come to salvation.
Matthew Henry comments as well:
"Next to the salvation of our own souls we should be willing to do and suffer any thing to promote the salvation of the souls of others."
Let's see. The salvation is said to be the salvation which is "in Christ Jesus". If Lathrop is correct, then why are not all who are united to Christ in the new birth made definite recipients, but only the relative few who get to hear the gospel preached? Is there a salvation "in Christ" not conveyed to those who are made partakers of Christ?
The salvation is singular: THE salvation in Christ Jesus. If this qualifier has reference to time salvation then is Paul contrasting this with an eternal salvation which is NOT in Christ Jesus?
Since Paul is considering God’s elect as in their state of nature, as Gill correctly notes, the salvation he desires for them to see must be that particular one received in regeneration: that one great eternal salvation in Christ. Hardshells never speak of gospel time salvation forthcoming for the unregenerate. It is strictly a post-regeneration experience. Only if the Apostle was treating the elect as already regenerated could Lathrop’s theory gain any footing.
And should not a passage which explicitly clarifies the salvation under consideration is associated with "eternal glory" be interpreted as pertaining to eternal salvation? Do not the addition of these words stand in defiance of the reader who is trying to squeeze it into a temporal framework? In such a case, would not "temporal glory" be a more fitting expression? Only one who has an a priori commitment to anti-means could stare "eternal glory" in the face and continue with a temporal application!
Paul is not expressing in this place his desire to see those of God's elect, already saved, get saved yet again. He was no Hyper-Calvinist, but rightly understood himself as an instrument through whom God would administer salvation to those of His whom He had yet to call. The "also" is not to be associated with "something else", but SOMEONE else.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Elder Clark on Faith & Rebirth
Elder John Clark, first generation leader in the anti mission movement, and of the newly formed "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist denomination, was one in agreement with Elder John Watson in affirming that the Gospel was the means God employed in the regeneration of sinners, as I have shown previously. He started the famous periodical in the early 1850s called "Zion's Advocate." Here is another couple citations which show his thinking on this topic.
"And as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that to please Him we must be born of the Spirit – born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever (1 Pet. i. 23). In this change, the faith, without which we cannot please God, is given, which is the fruit of the Spirit, and the vic tory that overcomes the world; and hence those who have faith are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, for “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.” (1 John 1.)"
The "faith" that is given in regeneration is not the non cognitive faith that today's Hardshells describe as being given in regeneration because Elder Clark cites I John 5:1 which shows that it is evangelical faith that he has in mind. This faith involves "believing" that Jesus is the Christ.
Clark also said:
"The people of God were in Christ before the world was, according to that choice, and they are in him in time by faith – become children of God by faith in Christ; and hence, some are in Christ, in this sense, before others, as the apostle stated on a particular occasion. (Rom. xvi. 7.)" ("EXPOSURE OF HERESIES PROPAGATED BY SOME OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS," CHAPTER SIXTH REGENERATION - see here)
Here Clark says, without equivocation, that sinners become the children of God by faith in Christ, just as Paul affirmed in Galatians 3: 26.
"And as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that to please Him we must be born of the Spirit – born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever (1 Pet. i. 23). In this change, the faith, without which we cannot please God, is given, which is the fruit of the Spirit, and the vic tory that overcomes the world; and hence those who have faith are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, for “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.” (1 John 1.)"
The "faith" that is given in regeneration is not the non cognitive faith that today's Hardshells describe as being given in regeneration because Elder Clark cites I John 5:1 which shows that it is evangelical faith that he has in mind. This faith involves "believing" that Jesus is the Christ.
Clark also said:
"The people of God were in Christ before the world was, according to that choice, and they are in him in time by faith – become children of God by faith in Christ; and hence, some are in Christ, in this sense, before others, as the apostle stated on a particular occasion. (Rom. xvi. 7.)" ("EXPOSURE OF HERESIES PROPAGATED BY SOME OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS," CHAPTER SIXTH REGENERATION - see here)
Here Clark says, without equivocation, that sinners become the children of God by faith in Christ, just as Paul affirmed in Galatians 3: 26.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Thoughts On Acts 17:30-31
Elder C.H. Cayce, probably the foremost pioneer of the modern time salvation paradigm, stated of the Apostle Paul’s preaching to the idol-worshipping Greeks at Athens (Acts 17:22-34):
“Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word."
This is a horrible take on the narrative, one which is sadly repeated by some today. His conclusions were all wrong, because his starting point was wrong. Cayce disagreed with Elder James Oliphant on the passage, who rightly understood that the “offspring of God” was a reference to all mankind as God’s creatures, and not exclusively the regenerate elect (see here). This of course fit perfectly well with his soteriological scheme. Interpreting the passage this way, he was allowed to deny the existence of duty-faith and could claim that gospel exhortations are to be addressed only to the regenerate elect. Having then adopted a system which said the post-regeneration experience had no bearing on salvation, all of a sudden, God’s requirement of repentance becomes no requirement at all. It is optional for the elect to repent, but not essential.
Notwithstanding the absurdity of this conclusion, the greater question is not whether the Athenians were already saved or not, but whether the text has eternal or only temporal implications. If Cayce and those of like mind are correct in saying that Paul is only suggesting that a temporal salvation is available for those “unconverted regenerates” who choose to repent of their sins, then what we should see is the Apostle Paul threatening the people with a temporal judgment upon their failure to do so. Instead, we read:
“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead (v.31).”
If the judgment threatened upon failure to repent is eternal, then the repentance Paul mentions must be connected to the salvation which delivers a person from that day. Now what salvation is it which will rescue a person from God’s wrath on the day of judgment? An eternal one or a temporal one?
What change in a person’s life rescues him from the judgment of God revealed on that day? Going from death in sins to a life in Christ, or a hypothetical regenerated yet unconverted state to a converted one?
Indeed, what class of people will be standing on that day? The regenerate and the unregenerate, or (to use the spin created by Cayce), the regenerate who repented and the regenerate who did not?
Will God pronounce eternal woe upon those regenerate souls who failed to save themselves with a time salvation?
Will God declare temporal judgment on his elect on that day, or is there a temporal day of judgment which Paul has in mind?
On these issues, let our moderns answer.
If Cayce and his fellow heretics will admit that the judgment mentioned in v.31 is eternal, then they are faced with a major problem as repentance is here demonstrated as a necessary ingredient for salvation. The usual escape at such places in the Bible is to reduce the requirement to be something of a subconscious nature. Such argumentation fails in this place, for the repentance spoken of is evangelical, and thus cognitive.
In one sense, however, it does not matter if we decide if the Athenians were already regenerated or not. The job of the gospel proclaimer is not to busy himself with figuring out who is saved and not saved. He is to launch out into the deep, spreading the seed, letting if fall where it may. If he sees anyone who is engaged in sin, he is to exhort them to repentance. If that person is already regenerated, his words will contribute to that soul attaining to final salvation. If he is unregenerate, with God’s blessings it will be the means of their original conversion. The problem with Cayce and many of like mind is in thinking that if a person is already regenerated, that this does away with the necessity of continued gospel exhortations and warnings. It doesn’t. Men must still go on to final salvation, proving themselves not false professors. The unguarded expression “once saved, always saved”, however, together with a denial of perseverance has probably contributed not a little to this problem of viewing regeneration as the only sine qua non of salvation.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Hardshell Sabellianism III
Elder Samuel Trott, in response to the objections of Elder John Clark, regarding charges of Arianism, wrote (emphasis mine) the following in an article titled "Son of God and Godhead" (1850):
"Now to come to the points of difference. They contend that God exists as three persons and one God, that these three persons are alike equal and alike the self-existent God, but that they exist by distinct modes of existence, that the Father exists of Himself that the Word or Son exists by the generation of the Father, being begotten of Him, and that the Holy Ghost exists as He proceeds from the Father and the Son. This I presume will be admitted to be a simple and candid representation of their views. Now to this system I conscientiously object, that it presents palpable contradictions, and that as they represent this as the revelation of God, they charge Him with these contradictions. They say that the three are alike eternal, self-existent and independent, and yet that the Father alone has an underived existence, and that the other two exist by a derived existence and depend on the existence of the other; the Son on the existence of the Father, and the Holy Ghost on the existence of the Father and the Son. Can they then be alike independent in their existence? If I say of two persons, one is the father and the other is the son, do I not distinctly convey the idea that the one existed as a person before the other, and that the latter's existing as a person is a consequence of the previous existence and action of the former; and hence while the father's existence did not depend on the previous existence of the son, the son's existence did depend on the previous existence of the father?"
Clearly this is more evidence of how many Hardshells in the 1830s through the 1850s denied the doctrine of the Trinity, that God exists in three persons. They denied an ontological Trinity in favor of the Sabellian economic Trinity. They also did not believe in the eternal Sonship of Christ, not connecting sonship with his divinity. They did not understand the doctrine of Christ's sonship. The Athanasians do not believe that the Son of God derived his divinity from the Father, but that the term "Son of God" was not in all respects the same as when men use the term "son of" so and so. Christ is the "only" begotten Son, his Sonship being unique and unlike that of creatures. If the sonship of Christ was in all respects the same as sonship among humans, then his sonship would not be unique. It was this failure to connect sonship with divinity that led Trott and other Hardshells to deny that Christ was the eternal Son of God. If he was not the eternal Son of God, then when did he first become the Son? If the sonship of Christ was in every respect like sonship among men, then Christ must have a divine mother, for who, among men, has a father but not a mother?
Historically, many have denied Christ's eternal Sonship and advocated that Christ, The Word, became the Son of God either at his birth, his baptism (adoptionism), or at his resurrection. Even modern Hardshells had a small squabble over this in the early 1980s as Elders Conrad Jarrell and Ben Mott began to teach that Christ became the Son of God by his incarnation. This led to the above named elders being disfellowshipped by the Hardshells. But, the view of Trott was that Christ became the Son of God by an act of the Father before the foundation of the world. It was this view that led Elder John Clark and others to accuse Trott of Arianism. Elder James Osbourn correctly noted rampant Sabellianism among the Hardshells and Clark accused Trott of Arianism. What is the difference? Was the charge of Clark justified? How can one be both an Arian and a Sabellian?
When Trott said "they say," he refers to Elder Clark and the trinitarian Hardshells. But, the question must be asked - "who was keeping to the Old Baptist faith as expressed in the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith?" Or, "who were the real Old Baptists on this point?"
Trott continued:
"Now when they say there are three persons in the Godhead, and of these three, as persons, one of them is the Father, and of another, He is the only begotten Son of this Father, what reason is there that the same declaration made concerning these two divine persons does not tend to convey the same idea, as to the previous existence of the one, and the subsequent and dependent existence of the other, as in the case of two men? When, therefore, they contend that the one is the Father, and the other His Son in relation to their personal existence in the Godhead, how can they, without a plain contradiction to that declaration, say in reference to the same personal existence, that they are alike eternal and independent in their existence? Is this letting God be true, but every man a liar, in charging these, and several other contradictions in this system, to God's Word? Again, I object to this system because that by making the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost three persons in the Godhead, they make them to be three distinct individuals, for what less does the term person mean, than an individual being?
Again, Trott is plain enough, as was Wilson Thompson, in his denial of the historic doctrine of the Trinity, which is what all Baptists who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of faith believed. Trott and Thompson cannot claim to be "primitive" Baptists in their denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. So what if the Trinity makes God into "three distinct individuals"? Is a "person" an individual? Recently in some debates I have had with a local Baptist church over Sabellianism, I often heard them retort with the words - "God is not three selves." So, whether Sabellians use the term "self" or the term "individual," they are affirming that it is ridiculous to say that God is three selves, or three individuals, and that this is what is being said when one says that God is three "persons." Yet, they say such things in spite of the fact that Jesus often referred to the Father by the word "your self" and referred to himself by the term "my self," and often in the same sentence. That makes two selves! God is three persons, yet he is one in essence and substance, one in nature and attributes.
Trott continued:
"This, I think, at best is dividing the Godhead more than I believe the scriptural revelation of the one God will admit. But when we carry it out, that they contend that each of these persons is distinctively God, as each is a distinct individual, there must be three individuals existing by distinct modes of existence, and, of course, three Gods. Brother Clark says of the Apostles, that they were not afraid of making a plurality of gods by maintaining that the Son of God was Jehovah. Neither am I; but the Apostles never taught that the Son of God in His Godhead was a distinct person from the Father, so that his remarks are altogether out of place."
Again, this is clear Sabellianism. Sabellians typically argue that belief in three persons as God means that one believes in three Gods (tritheism). Yet, the Bible does use the word "Elohim" in reference to God, which is a plural. God is Gods and God is God. He is one and yet he is three. John said - "these three are one." (I John 5: 7) Trott says that the the Son of God is the Father. But, who was ever the father of himself? Trott likes to make divine sonship in all respects the same as sonship among men, but has he ever met a person who was either the son or father of himself? Trott thinks that it is ridiculous to believe in eternal sonship and yet his view is not free of such ridiculousness. Jesus used language in regard to himself and to his Father that necessarily imply distinct persons. For instance, he says of him and his Father - "WE will come in and dwell in him who believes." (John 14: 23) Can I say of myself - "we are going to the store"? Is it not ridiculous for me to say that I am my own father? Or, I am my own son?
Trott continued:
"When I was led to look at these inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Nicene system, I turned to an examination of the Scriptures on that head, and I found that they by no means sustained that system. I found that God has revealed Himself as three, and so as three, that distinct things are affirmed of each; but not so as three as to infringe upon the unity of God. Hence it is said, "These three are one." Hence, whenever God is spoken of He is spoken of as the one God, that is absolutely God, whether in reference to the Father, the Word or Son, or the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I conclude that each in His distinct relation is the one God, having all the fullness of the Godhead in that relation, whether as Father, as Son, or as the Holy Ghost."
So, according to Trott's modalism, God is one person. The Father is the Son and the Son is the Holy Spirit. The terms Father, Son, and Spirit are but three modes or roles that the one person God manifests his singular person. But, how can one person talk to himself or send himself? How can one person be the son or father of himself? "One" God does not mean "one person." That is the error of Trott and the Sabellians. As I have shown before in my writings against Modalism (in the Gadfly blog), Jesus said that all believers will be "one" in the same way that he and his Father are "one." (John 17: 21) But, surely no one will say that all believers are the same person!
Trott continued:
"The views which I have advanced have been charged with Sabellianism. But any candid reader of what I have written will see the falsity of such charge. They will see that I believe just what the Scriptures say, that "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" I John 5:7; that is, that God exists as three, but so as three, as to be absolutely one, and therefore, not three persons or individuals."
Though Trott denies being a Sabellian, he clearly is nonetheless. When he denies that God is three persons, he is a Sabellian. When he says that God is one person, he is a Sabellian. When he says that the Father is the Son and Spirit, he is a Sabellain. When he says that the terms Father, Son, and Spirit simply denotes roles or modes of the one person God, then he is a Sabellian. The charge that Trott, Beebe, and Thompson were Arians was not as accurate as the charge that they were Sabellians. But, more on this shortly.
Trott continued:
"I have been charged with Arianism, so brother Clark charges me with denying the divinity of the Son of God. He says he has made it deliberately, but I must say he has made it wantonly. I cannot view it in any other light, though I presume he designed no such looseness. What I have written will, I think, show the entire incorrectness of the charge. I will, however, add that brother Clark, I think, will admit that the Word was made flesh, or became a perfect man, without in the least destroying His essential Godhead. Why then could He not exist with the life of His people, and therefore a begotten life in Him, and as personally one with Him without destroying His divinity? However, it is enough to sustain me against such a charge, that, in the same declaration of Him, in which it is said, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men," it is also said, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." John l:1 & 4."
The reason for Elder John Clark charging Trott with Arianism is because he says that Christ became in time, by an act of the Father, the Son of God. To Trott, as with traditional Baptist views on the Trinity, the term "Son of God" was a term that spoke of the divinity of Christ, just as the term "son of man" spoke of the humanity of Christ. To say that Christ was made the Son of God is equivalent, in the mind of Clark, with affirming that Christ became God, or was made God. And, this is Arianism. The charge is not exactly accurate, since Trott does not deny that Christ was God before he became the Son of God. Trott believes that God existed as a one person God before he took the roles or modes of Father, Son, and Spirit. Still, the view of Trott is in many ways like the views of Arius. Trott was a true Sabellian, not a true Arian.
Trott continued:
"Again he appears to think there is nothing in the Scriptures to warrant the idea of Christ's being anything else than God and man. Strange! Does brother Clark harbor the idea that God in His word has carelessly used descriptive and distinctive names and terms, where there are no distinctions designed? Is not the Lord Jesus Christ in the Scriptures declared to be God and Jehovah, and the Son of God, and man? Are not these three distinctive names, and is there nothing distinctive intended by them? Does not the name Jehovah imply absolute, independent, and self-existence? Does not the term Son, as used among men, and generally in the Scriptures, distinctively imply a begotten, and therefore dependent existence? And does not the term, man, imply a fleshly existence? Was He not a Son before He was made of a woman and made under the law? I cannot believe that our Lord is revealed to be what He is not. Why then are these three distinctive terms so often used of our Lord if He does not possess the three distinct existences thereby designated? Can brother Clark answer these enquiries so as to make them harmonize with the truth of Scripture declarations and yet so as to deny His distinct existence as the Son of God? In John 1st, as already noticed, we have the three natures, "The Word was God;" again, "In Him was life;" again, "The Word was made flesh," verse 1,4 & 14. In Isa. 9:6, we have A child born and a Son given, are not these distinct? And again, His names are The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. Are not these names descriptive? I presume brother Clark could not say that the name Everlasting Father being given to the child born and the son given implies He is distinctively the Father in the Godhead."
Trott says that Christ was God before he was the Son of God. That is, he was the one person God before he manifested himself in the role or mode as the Son of God. Also, even though he says that Christ was the Son of God before his virgin birth (a denial of incarnational sonship), yet he does not believe that Christ has eternally been the Son of God. So, when does Trott believe that Christ became the Son of God? He believed that there was an instance before the world began when Christ was begotten or made the Son of God. It was this view that made Elder Clark associate the views of Trott and of the Signs of the Times periodical with Arianism.
The idea of Trott that Christ had "three natures" is most ridiculous.
Further, the argument that Christ being called "everlasting father" (Isa. 9: 6) proves that he is the Father has been answered by Trinitarians just as has been the argument made from the words of Jesus where he says "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14: 9) and where he says "I and my Father are one." These verses do not prove that the Son is the Father. How can one be the father of himself? How can one be the son of himself?
Trott continued:
"Brother Clark will probably shuffle these queries off by saying the subject of God's existence is a mystery. True it is a mystery, but does this imply that we should, by our constructions put upon God's word, involve it in contradictions? There is a material difference between mystery and contradictions. It is nowhere written, great are the contradictions of godliness. Contradictions in his system I have already pointed out, the above hint therefore will be sufficient. I have thus presented my views as contrasted with the popular system, by which it will be seen that I, in common with the advocates of that system, hold that God exists as three, and that these three are one, and so one, that either of the three is, in His distinct relation, the one God. They hold that there are three persons in the Godhead. I deny that, but say that the Son is a proper and distinct person from the Father and the Holy Ghost, in relation to His sonship; but that He does not exist in His sonship separate from His Godhead, any more than He does as man, so that in His distinct personality He is God, Son of God, and Man. They hold that His sonship relates to His Godhead, so that He is no otherwise God than as He is begotten of the Father; I deny this as contradictory to His being equal with the Father, and to His being the independent and self-existent God; and in distinction, I hold that His sonship consists in His being begotten of the Father as the Head of His church and life of His people and that they thus, in their spiritual life, were begotten in Him and proceed from Him, and that He is the "first born among many brethren" Rom.8:29."
It is ironic that Trott should decry contradictions in the Trinitarian scheme and yet contradict himself when he says that there are not three persons in the Godhead and yet says that the Son is a distinct person from the Father and Holy Ghost. Trott denies that the sonship of Christ "relates to His Godhead." Yet, in affirming this he is against the Old Baptist faith. He certainly rejects the clear teaching of Dr. Gill on this matter, and Dr. Gill reflected the traditional Old Baptist faith. Further, Trott holds that God begat himself! But, in the realm of men, who ever begat himself? Does Trott not frequently point to human begetting as being all the same as divine begetting?
Trott continued:
"And now brethren, is there anything heretical, anything anti-scriptural in those points wherein I differ from you, anything contradictory to the Son of God's being absolutely the Jehovah, whilst He is the Son of God, and Man, possessing these existences distinct from His Godhead, yet inseparable from it, and personally one with it; any diminishing of His capacity to act as the one Mediator between God and men? If there is, then clear yourselves from the heresy by separating from me. But beware how you encourage splits among us, when that from which you would separate is sustained by the word of God. I am willing to join issue with brother Clark in an appeal to the saints of the most high God, which it is that denies that the Son of God is the Jehovah, he who says He is begotten of the Father as God, or I in contending that He is unbegotten, unproduced in His Godhead; and whether I any more diminish His essential Godhead by contending that He exists as the life of His people as well as man in His personal union with His Godhead, that he does in admitting that He exists as proper man in like union with His Godhead. Whilst having joined in this appeal to the saints, I would not forestall their decision, but wish them to consider and speak candidly if they are disposed to do so, and say which more denies the idea of absolute self-existence, he who contends that it is an unbegotten, underived existence, for this is the point; I would beg indulgence to lengthen this communication by stating what I believe to be the actual difference between me and brother Clark and other brethren whom I could name, and that reduced to the shortest span. It is simply this, that I believe that Christ actually existed from before the foundation of the world, in union with His Godhead as the Head and life of His people, and they deny His so existing, and therefore in effect, deny His actual existence as the Christ and Mediator until He was born of Mary. Also, we differ in the reference of His sonship, they referring it to His Godhead and I referring it to His existence as Head and life of His people. This is the amount on this subject; it, to be sure, extends itself to the subject of regeneration as to what constitutes that. Whether this be a sufficient ground for a split I leave them to judge for themselves. My opinion and my feelings are that it is no cause for a split or for hard feelings; but as I do not wish to intrude upon their fellowship after what brother Clark has developed by crowding myself upon their churches, or associations, I shall stand aloof, till invited." (see here)
These views of Trott are radical and a mixture of Sabellianism and Arianism. It is good that modern Hardshells have rid themselves of these errors. However, it is to be noted that they come from this stock and is a monkey wrench in their Landmarker views of link chain succession.
Concerning the eternal Sonship of Christ, Dr. John Gill wrote:
"X. When the Reformation began in the sixteenth century, and spread throughout many nations in Europe, great evangelical light broke forth among the Reformers; and Satan fearing his kingdom would greatly suffer hereby, went to his old game again, which he had played with so much success in the first ages of Christianity, namely, to stir up an opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the person of Christ...but the contrary has been maintained by all sound divines and evangelical churches, from the Reformation to the present time, as appears by their writings and harmony of confessions: so that upon the whole it is clear, that the church of God has been in the possession of this doctrine of the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ, from the beginning of Christianity to the present age, almost eighteen hundred years; nor has there been any one man who professed to hold the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the three distinct divine persons in the unity of the divine essence, that ever opposed it, till the latter end of the seventeenth century: if any such person in this course of time can be named, let him be named: none but the followers of Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Carpocrates, the Gnosticks, etc. in the two first centuries, and then by the Sabellians, Samosatenians, Arians, Photinians, Mahometans, Socinians, and more lately by the Remonstrants, such as are Antitrinitarians."
"Now since it appears that all the sound and orthodox writers have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ in all ages, and that those only of an unsound mind and judgment, and corrupt in other things as well as this, and many of them men of impure lives and vile principles, have declared against it, such must be guilty of great temerity and rashness to join in an opposition with the one against the other; and to oppose a doctrine the Church of God has always held, and especially being what the scriptures abundantly bear testimony unto, and is a matter of such moment and importance, being a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, and indeed what distinguishes it from all other religions, from those of Pagans, Jews and Mahometans, who all believe in God, and generally in one God, but none of them believe in the Son of God: that is peculiar to the Christian religion." ("Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Shewing By Whom It Has Been Denied And Opposed, and By Whom Asserted And Defended In All Ages Of Christianity" - see here)
"Now to come to the points of difference. They contend that God exists as three persons and one God, that these three persons are alike equal and alike the self-existent God, but that they exist by distinct modes of existence, that the Father exists of Himself that the Word or Son exists by the generation of the Father, being begotten of Him, and that the Holy Ghost exists as He proceeds from the Father and the Son. This I presume will be admitted to be a simple and candid representation of their views. Now to this system I conscientiously object, that it presents palpable contradictions, and that as they represent this as the revelation of God, they charge Him with these contradictions. They say that the three are alike eternal, self-existent and independent, and yet that the Father alone has an underived existence, and that the other two exist by a derived existence and depend on the existence of the other; the Son on the existence of the Father, and the Holy Ghost on the existence of the Father and the Son. Can they then be alike independent in their existence? If I say of two persons, one is the father and the other is the son, do I not distinctly convey the idea that the one existed as a person before the other, and that the latter's existing as a person is a consequence of the previous existence and action of the former; and hence while the father's existence did not depend on the previous existence of the son, the son's existence did depend on the previous existence of the father?"
Clearly this is more evidence of how many Hardshells in the 1830s through the 1850s denied the doctrine of the Trinity, that God exists in three persons. They denied an ontological Trinity in favor of the Sabellian economic Trinity. They also did not believe in the eternal Sonship of Christ, not connecting sonship with his divinity. They did not understand the doctrine of Christ's sonship. The Athanasians do not believe that the Son of God derived his divinity from the Father, but that the term "Son of God" was not in all respects the same as when men use the term "son of" so and so. Christ is the "only" begotten Son, his Sonship being unique and unlike that of creatures. If the sonship of Christ was in all respects the same as sonship among humans, then his sonship would not be unique. It was this failure to connect sonship with divinity that led Trott and other Hardshells to deny that Christ was the eternal Son of God. If he was not the eternal Son of God, then when did he first become the Son? If the sonship of Christ was in every respect like sonship among men, then Christ must have a divine mother, for who, among men, has a father but not a mother?
Historically, many have denied Christ's eternal Sonship and advocated that Christ, The Word, became the Son of God either at his birth, his baptism (adoptionism), or at his resurrection. Even modern Hardshells had a small squabble over this in the early 1980s as Elders Conrad Jarrell and Ben Mott began to teach that Christ became the Son of God by his incarnation. This led to the above named elders being disfellowshipped by the Hardshells. But, the view of Trott was that Christ became the Son of God by an act of the Father before the foundation of the world. It was this view that led Elder John Clark and others to accuse Trott of Arianism. Elder James Osbourn correctly noted rampant Sabellianism among the Hardshells and Clark accused Trott of Arianism. What is the difference? Was the charge of Clark justified? How can one be both an Arian and a Sabellian?
When Trott said "they say," he refers to Elder Clark and the trinitarian Hardshells. But, the question must be asked - "who was keeping to the Old Baptist faith as expressed in the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith?" Or, "who were the real Old Baptists on this point?"
Trott continued:
"Now when they say there are three persons in the Godhead, and of these three, as persons, one of them is the Father, and of another, He is the only begotten Son of this Father, what reason is there that the same declaration made concerning these two divine persons does not tend to convey the same idea, as to the previous existence of the one, and the subsequent and dependent existence of the other, as in the case of two men? When, therefore, they contend that the one is the Father, and the other His Son in relation to their personal existence in the Godhead, how can they, without a plain contradiction to that declaration, say in reference to the same personal existence, that they are alike eternal and independent in their existence? Is this letting God be true, but every man a liar, in charging these, and several other contradictions in this system, to God's Word? Again, I object to this system because that by making the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost three persons in the Godhead, they make them to be three distinct individuals, for what less does the term person mean, than an individual being?
Again, Trott is plain enough, as was Wilson Thompson, in his denial of the historic doctrine of the Trinity, which is what all Baptists who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of faith believed. Trott and Thompson cannot claim to be "primitive" Baptists in their denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. So what if the Trinity makes God into "three distinct individuals"? Is a "person" an individual? Recently in some debates I have had with a local Baptist church over Sabellianism, I often heard them retort with the words - "God is not three selves." So, whether Sabellians use the term "self" or the term "individual," they are affirming that it is ridiculous to say that God is three selves, or three individuals, and that this is what is being said when one says that God is three "persons." Yet, they say such things in spite of the fact that Jesus often referred to the Father by the word "your self" and referred to himself by the term "my self," and often in the same sentence. That makes two selves! God is three persons, yet he is one in essence and substance, one in nature and attributes.
Trott continued:
"This, I think, at best is dividing the Godhead more than I believe the scriptural revelation of the one God will admit. But when we carry it out, that they contend that each of these persons is distinctively God, as each is a distinct individual, there must be three individuals existing by distinct modes of existence, and, of course, three Gods. Brother Clark says of the Apostles, that they were not afraid of making a plurality of gods by maintaining that the Son of God was Jehovah. Neither am I; but the Apostles never taught that the Son of God in His Godhead was a distinct person from the Father, so that his remarks are altogether out of place."
Again, this is clear Sabellianism. Sabellians typically argue that belief in three persons as God means that one believes in three Gods (tritheism). Yet, the Bible does use the word "Elohim" in reference to God, which is a plural. God is Gods and God is God. He is one and yet he is three. John said - "these three are one." (I John 5: 7) Trott says that the the Son of God is the Father. But, who was ever the father of himself? Trott likes to make divine sonship in all respects the same as sonship among men, but has he ever met a person who was either the son or father of himself? Trott thinks that it is ridiculous to believe in eternal sonship and yet his view is not free of such ridiculousness. Jesus used language in regard to himself and to his Father that necessarily imply distinct persons. For instance, he says of him and his Father - "WE will come in and dwell in him who believes." (John 14: 23) Can I say of myself - "we are going to the store"? Is it not ridiculous for me to say that I am my own father? Or, I am my own son?
Trott continued:
"When I was led to look at these inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Nicene system, I turned to an examination of the Scriptures on that head, and I found that they by no means sustained that system. I found that God has revealed Himself as three, and so as three, that distinct things are affirmed of each; but not so as three as to infringe upon the unity of God. Hence it is said, "These three are one." Hence, whenever God is spoken of He is spoken of as the one God, that is absolutely God, whether in reference to the Father, the Word or Son, or the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I conclude that each in His distinct relation is the one God, having all the fullness of the Godhead in that relation, whether as Father, as Son, or as the Holy Ghost."
So, according to Trott's modalism, God is one person. The Father is the Son and the Son is the Holy Spirit. The terms Father, Son, and Spirit are but three modes or roles that the one person God manifests his singular person. But, how can one person talk to himself or send himself? How can one person be the son or father of himself? "One" God does not mean "one person." That is the error of Trott and the Sabellians. As I have shown before in my writings against Modalism (in the Gadfly blog), Jesus said that all believers will be "one" in the same way that he and his Father are "one." (John 17: 21) But, surely no one will say that all believers are the same person!
Trott continued:
"The views which I have advanced have been charged with Sabellianism. But any candid reader of what I have written will see the falsity of such charge. They will see that I believe just what the Scriptures say, that "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" I John 5:7; that is, that God exists as three, but so as three, as to be absolutely one, and therefore, not three persons or individuals."
Though Trott denies being a Sabellian, he clearly is nonetheless. When he denies that God is three persons, he is a Sabellian. When he says that God is one person, he is a Sabellian. When he says that the Father is the Son and Spirit, he is a Sabellain. When he says that the terms Father, Son, and Spirit simply denotes roles or modes of the one person God, then he is a Sabellian. The charge that Trott, Beebe, and Thompson were Arians was not as accurate as the charge that they were Sabellians. But, more on this shortly.
Trott continued:
"I have been charged with Arianism, so brother Clark charges me with denying the divinity of the Son of God. He says he has made it deliberately, but I must say he has made it wantonly. I cannot view it in any other light, though I presume he designed no such looseness. What I have written will, I think, show the entire incorrectness of the charge. I will, however, add that brother Clark, I think, will admit that the Word was made flesh, or became a perfect man, without in the least destroying His essential Godhead. Why then could He not exist with the life of His people, and therefore a begotten life in Him, and as personally one with Him without destroying His divinity? However, it is enough to sustain me against such a charge, that, in the same declaration of Him, in which it is said, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men," it is also said, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." John l:1 & 4."
The reason for Elder John Clark charging Trott with Arianism is because he says that Christ became in time, by an act of the Father, the Son of God. To Trott, as with traditional Baptist views on the Trinity, the term "Son of God" was a term that spoke of the divinity of Christ, just as the term "son of man" spoke of the humanity of Christ. To say that Christ was made the Son of God is equivalent, in the mind of Clark, with affirming that Christ became God, or was made God. And, this is Arianism. The charge is not exactly accurate, since Trott does not deny that Christ was God before he became the Son of God. Trott believes that God existed as a one person God before he took the roles or modes of Father, Son, and Spirit. Still, the view of Trott is in many ways like the views of Arius. Trott was a true Sabellian, not a true Arian.
Trott continued:
"Again he appears to think there is nothing in the Scriptures to warrant the idea of Christ's being anything else than God and man. Strange! Does brother Clark harbor the idea that God in His word has carelessly used descriptive and distinctive names and terms, where there are no distinctions designed? Is not the Lord Jesus Christ in the Scriptures declared to be God and Jehovah, and the Son of God, and man? Are not these three distinctive names, and is there nothing distinctive intended by them? Does not the name Jehovah imply absolute, independent, and self-existence? Does not the term Son, as used among men, and generally in the Scriptures, distinctively imply a begotten, and therefore dependent existence? And does not the term, man, imply a fleshly existence? Was He not a Son before He was made of a woman and made under the law? I cannot believe that our Lord is revealed to be what He is not. Why then are these three distinctive terms so often used of our Lord if He does not possess the three distinct existences thereby designated? Can brother Clark answer these enquiries so as to make them harmonize with the truth of Scripture declarations and yet so as to deny His distinct existence as the Son of God? In John 1st, as already noticed, we have the three natures, "The Word was God;" again, "In Him was life;" again, "The Word was made flesh," verse 1,4 & 14. In Isa. 9:6, we have A child born and a Son given, are not these distinct? And again, His names are The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. Are not these names descriptive? I presume brother Clark could not say that the name Everlasting Father being given to the child born and the son given implies He is distinctively the Father in the Godhead."
Trott says that Christ was God before he was the Son of God. That is, he was the one person God before he manifested himself in the role or mode as the Son of God. Also, even though he says that Christ was the Son of God before his virgin birth (a denial of incarnational sonship), yet he does not believe that Christ has eternally been the Son of God. So, when does Trott believe that Christ became the Son of God? He believed that there was an instance before the world began when Christ was begotten or made the Son of God. It was this view that made Elder Clark associate the views of Trott and of the Signs of the Times periodical with Arianism.
The idea of Trott that Christ had "three natures" is most ridiculous.
Further, the argument that Christ being called "everlasting father" (Isa. 9: 6) proves that he is the Father has been answered by Trinitarians just as has been the argument made from the words of Jesus where he says "he who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14: 9) and where he says "I and my Father are one." These verses do not prove that the Son is the Father. How can one be the father of himself? How can one be the son of himself?
Trott continued:
"Brother Clark will probably shuffle these queries off by saying the subject of God's existence is a mystery. True it is a mystery, but does this imply that we should, by our constructions put upon God's word, involve it in contradictions? There is a material difference between mystery and contradictions. It is nowhere written, great are the contradictions of godliness. Contradictions in his system I have already pointed out, the above hint therefore will be sufficient. I have thus presented my views as contrasted with the popular system, by which it will be seen that I, in common with the advocates of that system, hold that God exists as three, and that these three are one, and so one, that either of the three is, in His distinct relation, the one God. They hold that there are three persons in the Godhead. I deny that, but say that the Son is a proper and distinct person from the Father and the Holy Ghost, in relation to His sonship; but that He does not exist in His sonship separate from His Godhead, any more than He does as man, so that in His distinct personality He is God, Son of God, and Man. They hold that His sonship relates to His Godhead, so that He is no otherwise God than as He is begotten of the Father; I deny this as contradictory to His being equal with the Father, and to His being the independent and self-existent God; and in distinction, I hold that His sonship consists in His being begotten of the Father as the Head of His church and life of His people and that they thus, in their spiritual life, were begotten in Him and proceed from Him, and that He is the "first born among many brethren" Rom.8:29."
It is ironic that Trott should decry contradictions in the Trinitarian scheme and yet contradict himself when he says that there are not three persons in the Godhead and yet says that the Son is a distinct person from the Father and Holy Ghost. Trott denies that the sonship of Christ "relates to His Godhead." Yet, in affirming this he is against the Old Baptist faith. He certainly rejects the clear teaching of Dr. Gill on this matter, and Dr. Gill reflected the traditional Old Baptist faith. Further, Trott holds that God begat himself! But, in the realm of men, who ever begat himself? Does Trott not frequently point to human begetting as being all the same as divine begetting?
Trott continued:
"And now brethren, is there anything heretical, anything anti-scriptural in those points wherein I differ from you, anything contradictory to the Son of God's being absolutely the Jehovah, whilst He is the Son of God, and Man, possessing these existences distinct from His Godhead, yet inseparable from it, and personally one with it; any diminishing of His capacity to act as the one Mediator between God and men? If there is, then clear yourselves from the heresy by separating from me. But beware how you encourage splits among us, when that from which you would separate is sustained by the word of God. I am willing to join issue with brother Clark in an appeal to the saints of the most high God, which it is that denies that the Son of God is the Jehovah, he who says He is begotten of the Father as God, or I in contending that He is unbegotten, unproduced in His Godhead; and whether I any more diminish His essential Godhead by contending that He exists as the life of His people as well as man in His personal union with His Godhead, that he does in admitting that He exists as proper man in like union with His Godhead. Whilst having joined in this appeal to the saints, I would not forestall their decision, but wish them to consider and speak candidly if they are disposed to do so, and say which more denies the idea of absolute self-existence, he who contends that it is an unbegotten, underived existence, for this is the point; I would beg indulgence to lengthen this communication by stating what I believe to be the actual difference between me and brother Clark and other brethren whom I could name, and that reduced to the shortest span. It is simply this, that I believe that Christ actually existed from before the foundation of the world, in union with His Godhead as the Head and life of His people, and they deny His so existing, and therefore in effect, deny His actual existence as the Christ and Mediator until He was born of Mary. Also, we differ in the reference of His sonship, they referring it to His Godhead and I referring it to His existence as Head and life of His people. This is the amount on this subject; it, to be sure, extends itself to the subject of regeneration as to what constitutes that. Whether this be a sufficient ground for a split I leave them to judge for themselves. My opinion and my feelings are that it is no cause for a split or for hard feelings; but as I do not wish to intrude upon their fellowship after what brother Clark has developed by crowding myself upon their churches, or associations, I shall stand aloof, till invited." (see here)
These views of Trott are radical and a mixture of Sabellianism and Arianism. It is good that modern Hardshells have rid themselves of these errors. However, it is to be noted that they come from this stock and is a monkey wrench in their Landmarker views of link chain succession.
Concerning the eternal Sonship of Christ, Dr. John Gill wrote:
"X. When the Reformation began in the sixteenth century, and spread throughout many nations in Europe, great evangelical light broke forth among the Reformers; and Satan fearing his kingdom would greatly suffer hereby, went to his old game again, which he had played with so much success in the first ages of Christianity, namely, to stir up an opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the person of Christ...but the contrary has been maintained by all sound divines and evangelical churches, from the Reformation to the present time, as appears by their writings and harmony of confessions: so that upon the whole it is clear, that the church of God has been in the possession of this doctrine of the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ, from the beginning of Christianity to the present age, almost eighteen hundred years; nor has there been any one man who professed to hold the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the three distinct divine persons in the unity of the divine essence, that ever opposed it, till the latter end of the seventeenth century: if any such person in this course of time can be named, let him be named: none but the followers of Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Carpocrates, the Gnosticks, etc. in the two first centuries, and then by the Sabellians, Samosatenians, Arians, Photinians, Mahometans, Socinians, and more lately by the Remonstrants, such as are Antitrinitarians."
"Now since it appears that all the sound and orthodox writers have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ in all ages, and that those only of an unsound mind and judgment, and corrupt in other things as well as this, and many of them men of impure lives and vile principles, have declared against it, such must be guilty of great temerity and rashness to join in an opposition with the one against the other; and to oppose a doctrine the Church of God has always held, and especially being what the scriptures abundantly bear testimony unto, and is a matter of such moment and importance, being a fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, and indeed what distinguishes it from all other religions, from those of Pagans, Jews and Mahometans, who all believe in God, and generally in one God, but none of them believe in the Son of God: that is peculiar to the Christian religion." ("Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Shewing By Whom It Has Been Denied And Opposed, and By Whom Asserted And Defended In All Ages Of Christianity" - see here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)