1. If the salvation mentioned in a text involves human means it is not eternal salvation.
2. If the salvation in a text requires faith, repentance, calling on the Lord, confession, perseverance, etc., yea, any act of a sinner or believer, then it cannot be eternal salvation.
3. If salvation is only received by those who believe and obey the Gospel, then this would make salvation to be by works and not by grace.
4. If salvation is promised only to those who believe, repent, confess, and persevere, then this would deny that salvation was solely based upon the work of Christ on the cross.
5. If salvation came through hearing the Gospel, then it becomes dependent upon men and their efforts and money.
6. Biblical commands imply ability to obey the commands.
7. People may be regenerated and yet be unbelievers and impenitent.
8. People may be regenerated who are not converted.
9. Believing and repenting are not duties God requires of all men.
10. People are not exhorted to seek God for the creation of a new heart.
11. If the Bible does not specifically mention a belief or practice, then it is not to be believed or practiced.
12. The doctrine of unconditional election necessitates believing that God has no love for those not chosen, and no desire at all for their salvation.
Hardshells did not derive these presuppositions from the Scriptures but take them to the Scriptures. Where did they get these propositions then? Did they not get them from their erroneous logical deductions rather than from express statements of Scripture?
The Hardshells have no express Scripture that says that unbelievers and the impenitent will be saved. They have no express Scripture that says that those professing Christians who do not persevere will be saved. All they have is are what they perceive to be logical deductions from Scriptural statements and propositions.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Make You A New Heart
Hardshells say that no exhortations or appeals to the minds of unregenerate people can possibly be a means in creating new hearts and minds, in circumcising the heart, in quickening the dead. Yet, many verses show that they are wrong. In the verses I will be citing, it will be seen how God commands unregenerate people to become regenerate. Elder W. S. Craig, recognized Hardshell apologist, wrote the following years ago:
"Conversion, while often used otherwise, should be used with reference to a change of mind, views, intentions or purposes; while regeneration is a creative work and means to quicken, "born again," or give spiritual life...So while there may be earthly means used in conversion, nothing short of heavenly-means of the divine power can possibly regenerate...Exhortations, persuasions and arguments may very often affect and change the mind, but such feeble means cannot change any one from nature to grace, for this is a radical change. A change of mind or intentions is very far different from giving life to the dead...Conversion may in some respects be considered a moral act; but regeneration never. Exhortations to morality and right living are certainly commendable; but regeneration is not a duty, for men are not commanded to be "born again."" ("Conversion and Regeneration" - see here)
The particular statement of Craig that I wish to fully examine is the one where Craig says "regeneration is not a duty, for men are not commanded to be born again." But, let me first make a few comments on some of his other assertions.
By Craig's definition of "conversion" and "born again" it is clear that Craig believes that being born again or regenerated does not change one's mind, views, intentions, or purposes. All he says is that being born again gives a man spiritual life. But, it is a "life" that is undefinable, something physical. Yet, this is not the way the new testament writers define spiritual "life." Rather, they define spiritual life as involving the very things that Craig puts under the word conversion. It is hard to imagine, in view of the new testament writings, how anyone could be said to be spiritually alive but who still has the same thinking, the same views, the same purposes, that he had before he was born again. Craig's definition is a "hollow log" definition of what it means to be born again. Further, Craig would say that a man does not have to undergo a change in his direction, in his thinking and views, in his purpose, to be eternally saved. He does not have to be converted. Craig says there is no change of mind in being born again, for that comes later when one is converted. He says that being born again is a "radical change," but how can it be such if one's mind and heart are not changed? If his will and purpose are not changed? If his thinking is not changed?
Paul said:
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (Rom. 8: 6)
Notice how Paul defined spiritual life with being spiritually minded, the very thing that Craig denies.
Craig also says that the means God uses in conversion are "feeble" and "earthly" "means," and yet there is more change to the person in his definition of "conversion" than in his definition of "born again." Conversion he says is a moral act, but regeneration never is. Imagine that! A man is regenerated or born again and yet he has not experienced a moral transformation! Is he not saying that regeneration is a physical change of the soul? Of course, I overthrew this false idea in my series on "Hardshell Pelagianism."
Now let us look at verses which show that men are indeed commanded and exhorted to save themselves, to be regenerated, or to ask God to regenerate them.
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Eze. 18: 31)
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." (Eze. 36: 26)
No Hardshell will deny that God's promise in Ezekiel 36. to give people a new heart and spirit. is a reference to regeneration or to being born again. But, notice that the same language is used in chapter 18. How can they deny that regeneration is also the subject of that verse? But, I have no doubt that the Hardshells will want to make the new heart and spirit of Ezekiel 18: 31 to be different than that of Ezekiel 36: 26. And why would they not want to think that regeneration was alluded to in the first passage? Is it not because the verse demolishes their presuppositions about how the unregenerate are not to be exhorted in order to their regeneration, as Craig asserted? And, who can doubt that it is the unregenerate who are being addressed in the passages? Why would the Lord exhort people for the purpose of obtaining what they already have?
Further, the Hardshells argue that it is useless and foolish to so exhort those who are unregenerated and have only natural minds. They say that to do so would imply that regeneration can be accomplished by appealing to the carnal mind. But, in such a presupposition, do they not indict the Lord? Does the Lord not do in the above passage what they condemn? Was God acting foolishly in appealing to the natural minds of the unregenerate? Was God promoting Arminianism or Pelgianism? Further, to have a new heart and mind obviously is not to be understood of a physical change to the substance of the soul, but is a change in the disposition and thinking of the soul. To have a new mind is to have new views, new thinking, new purposes.
Paul said:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
This verse is sufficient to overthrow Craig's Hardshell reasoning. Here is regeneration. Even Craig would admit this as do all Hardshells. Yet, Paul says that it is in being regenerated or born again that "all things become new." But, Craig denies this, leaving new thinking, new views, new direction, new purposes, etc., all left for a later experience of conversion. Paul did not say that only a change in the substance of the soul occurs in being regenerated, it being the only thing made new. He did not say a few things become new in the new birth, but most things become new later in conversion.
Notice how God commands the people to be regenerate, to make themselves a new heart and spirit. This is the very thing that Craig and the Hardshells deny to be a truth of Scripture! On Ezekiel 18: 31 Dr. Gill comments:
"...and make you a new heart and a new spirit; which the Lord elsewhere promises to give, and he does give to his own elect; (See Gill on Ezekiel 11:19); and if here to be understood of a regenerated heart and spirit, in which are new principles of light, life, and love, grace and holiness, it will not prove that it is in the power of man to make himself such a heart and spirit; since from God's command, to man's power, is no argument; and the design of the exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart; of the importance of it: and which, through the efficacious grace of God, may be a means of his people having it, seeing he has in covenant promised it to them." (commentary)
Notice that Gill says that such exhortations to men for them to make themselves new hearts and spirits, or to be regenerated, do not imply ability in them to do what he commands. He also says that the design of such an exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart and spirit and that such exhortations are means towards the creating of the new heart and spirit. There can be no other explanation of the passage. Thus, I call upon my Hardshell brothers to come forward and explain how their doctrinal presuppositions harmonize with God's exhorting the unregenerate to regeneration.
Now notice a similar verse. God said by Moses:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 16)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart - Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it."
And notice how the same thing is said through Jeremiah.
"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"...this is the true spiritual circumcision; and they that are possessed of it are the circumcision, the only truly circumcised persons; and they are such who have been pricked to the heart, and thoroughly convinced of sin; who have had the hardness of their hearts removed, and the impurity of it laid open to them; which they have beheld with shame and loathing, and have felt an inward pain on account of it; and who have been enabled to deny themselves, to renounce their own righteousness, and put off the body of the sins of the flesh: and though men are exhorted to do this themselves, yet elsewhere the Lord promises to do it for them, (Deuteronomy 30:6), and indeed it is purely his own work; or otherwise it could not he called, as it is, "circumcision without hands", and "whose praise is not of man, but of God", (Colossians 2:11) (Romans 2:29), and the reason of this exhortation, as before, is to convince those Jews, who were circumcised in the flesh, and rested and gloried in that, that their hearts were not circumcised, and that there was a necessity of it, and they in danger for want of it; as follows: lest my fury come forth like fire; to which the wrath of God is sometimes compared, (Nahum 1:6) and is sometimes signified by a furnace and lake of fire, even his eternal wrath and vengeance: and burn that none can quench it; such is the fire of divine wrath; it is unquenchable; it is everlasting, (Mark 9:43 Mark 9:44) (Matthew 3:12) (25:41): because of the evil of your doings; which are so provoking to the eyes of his glory; the sins of men are the fuel to the fire of his wrath, and cause it to burn to the lowest hell, without the least degree of mercy."
Dr. Gill gives the only explanation of these verses that is possible. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree with this explanation. The only ones who will deny it are the Pelagians and the Hardshells. But, I doubt we will ever see a Hardshell even attempt to deal with these verses. This is probably why they do not want to discuss or debate their views with others any more. If called upon in debate to harmonize these verses with their Hardshell aberrant views, how will they do it?
Now, let us look at some other verses that are really no different from the ones already looked at. Wrote Paul:
"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5: 14)
How is the command to the spiritually dead to raise themselves from the dead any different from the commands for unregenerate sinners to circumcise their hearts and to make themselves new hearts and minds?
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19)
The Greek verb "repent" is from "metanoeō" and means to change one's mind, and in context generally means in regard to one's views about God, sin, and salvation. "Be converted" may be better translated as simply "convert." In other words, "repent and convert." The Greek verb for "convert" is "epistrephō" means to "turn." What is to be turned is the heart, mind, and conduct.
When one sees the truth about Ezekiel 18: 31, Deuteronomy 10: 16, Jeremiah 4: 4, then he will have no problem seeing that the command to repent (change your mind) and convert (turn away from your sins and to the Lord) are a command to become new creatures by calling upon the Lord.
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2: 40)
On this verse Elder R. W. Thompson, writing in the "Primitive Monitor and Church Advocate" (Vol. 9, 1894) said: "This cannot mean eternal salvation..." (page 462 - see here)
But, he only asserts his case and gives no proof as to why the words "save yourselves" cannot have reference to final or eternal salvation. Would he also say that Ezekiel 18: 31, Deuteronomy 10: 16, Jeremiah 4: 4, and Ephesians 5: 14 cannot have reference to regeneration and eternal salvation? Why? Because his presupposition will not allow him to say so, his presupposition that says that men do not have a duty to circumcise their hearts to the Lord, to make them new hearts and minds, to raise themselves from the dead. Yet, clearly, we have shown how this presupposition is against the plain statements of Scripture.
Present day Hardshell elder Michael Gowens wrote:
"Old Baptists are virtually alone in their ability to reconcile apparently contradictory texts like Ephesians 2:8 (a text that teaches that salvation is not of ourselves) and Acts 2:40 (a text that exhorts us to save ourselves from this untoward generation), because they understand that the first verse has eternal ramifications and the second does not." ("Why I Am A Primitive Baptist" - see here)
Gowens thinks that Acts 2: 40 (save yourselves) cannot be the same salvation of Ephesians 2: 8 because one says that God does the saving and the other says that people save themselves. But, the contradiction is all in Gowen's head. There is no contradiction. By the logic of Gowens he must say that God does not do the saving of Acts 2: 40. Gowens is saying that he converted himself. God did not do it! He says this because his logic forces him to say it. When Gowens reads a text that says God saves a man, it excludes saying at the same time that a man saves himself. So, likewise, when a text says men save themselves, this excludes saying at the same time that God saved the man.
The Scriptures say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but it also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Obviously it is possible for an action to be ascribed to both God and the sinner.
"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple..." (Rev. 7: 14-15)
Notice that this being washed in the blood is said to be a work that the saved did for themselves. Yet, the Hardshells will not allow that such language is Scriptural. I am sure that they will try to go to work on such verses as these, trying to make them deal with only temporal deliverance, yet the task is an impossible one. Notice that the result of washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb is that they are in Heaven, before the throne. Come on, my Hardshell brethren, deal with these verses! Come teach us!
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." (Num. 21: 8)
Look and live! Hardshellism uprooted!
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3)
Hear and live! Hardshellism uprooted!
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)
Come to Christ for life! Hardshellism uprooted!
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth...That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." (Acts 17: 26-27)
All men are commanded to repent and seek the Lord! Again, Hardshellism uprooted! Craig says men do not have such duties! And, what is the purpose for repenting and seeking the Lord? That they might "find him." What is regeneration but to find the Lord?
"Conversion, while often used otherwise, should be used with reference to a change of mind, views, intentions or purposes; while regeneration is a creative work and means to quicken, "born again," or give spiritual life...So while there may be earthly means used in conversion, nothing short of heavenly-means of the divine power can possibly regenerate...Exhortations, persuasions and arguments may very often affect and change the mind, but such feeble means cannot change any one from nature to grace, for this is a radical change. A change of mind or intentions is very far different from giving life to the dead...Conversion may in some respects be considered a moral act; but regeneration never. Exhortations to morality and right living are certainly commendable; but regeneration is not a duty, for men are not commanded to be "born again."" ("Conversion and Regeneration" - see here)
The particular statement of Craig that I wish to fully examine is the one where Craig says "regeneration is not a duty, for men are not commanded to be born again." But, let me first make a few comments on some of his other assertions.
By Craig's definition of "conversion" and "born again" it is clear that Craig believes that being born again or regenerated does not change one's mind, views, intentions, or purposes. All he says is that being born again gives a man spiritual life. But, it is a "life" that is undefinable, something physical. Yet, this is not the way the new testament writers define spiritual "life." Rather, they define spiritual life as involving the very things that Craig puts under the word conversion. It is hard to imagine, in view of the new testament writings, how anyone could be said to be spiritually alive but who still has the same thinking, the same views, the same purposes, that he had before he was born again. Craig's definition is a "hollow log" definition of what it means to be born again. Further, Craig would say that a man does not have to undergo a change in his direction, in his thinking and views, in his purpose, to be eternally saved. He does not have to be converted. Craig says there is no change of mind in being born again, for that comes later when one is converted. He says that being born again is a "radical change," but how can it be such if one's mind and heart are not changed? If his will and purpose are not changed? If his thinking is not changed?
Paul said:
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (Rom. 8: 6)
Notice how Paul defined spiritual life with being spiritually minded, the very thing that Craig denies.
Craig also says that the means God uses in conversion are "feeble" and "earthly" "means," and yet there is more change to the person in his definition of "conversion" than in his definition of "born again." Conversion he says is a moral act, but regeneration never is. Imagine that! A man is regenerated or born again and yet he has not experienced a moral transformation! Is he not saying that regeneration is a physical change of the soul? Of course, I overthrew this false idea in my series on "Hardshell Pelagianism."
Now let us look at verses which show that men are indeed commanded and exhorted to save themselves, to be regenerated, or to ask God to regenerate them.
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Eze. 18: 31)
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." (Eze. 36: 26)
No Hardshell will deny that God's promise in Ezekiel 36. to give people a new heart and spirit. is a reference to regeneration or to being born again. But, notice that the same language is used in chapter 18. How can they deny that regeneration is also the subject of that verse? But, I have no doubt that the Hardshells will want to make the new heart and spirit of Ezekiel 18: 31 to be different than that of Ezekiel 36: 26. And why would they not want to think that regeneration was alluded to in the first passage? Is it not because the verse demolishes their presuppositions about how the unregenerate are not to be exhorted in order to their regeneration, as Craig asserted? And, who can doubt that it is the unregenerate who are being addressed in the passages? Why would the Lord exhort people for the purpose of obtaining what they already have?
Further, the Hardshells argue that it is useless and foolish to so exhort those who are unregenerated and have only natural minds. They say that to do so would imply that regeneration can be accomplished by appealing to the carnal mind. But, in such a presupposition, do they not indict the Lord? Does the Lord not do in the above passage what they condemn? Was God acting foolishly in appealing to the natural minds of the unregenerate? Was God promoting Arminianism or Pelgianism? Further, to have a new heart and mind obviously is not to be understood of a physical change to the substance of the soul, but is a change in the disposition and thinking of the soul. To have a new mind is to have new views, new thinking, new purposes.
Paul said:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
This verse is sufficient to overthrow Craig's Hardshell reasoning. Here is regeneration. Even Craig would admit this as do all Hardshells. Yet, Paul says that it is in being regenerated or born again that "all things become new." But, Craig denies this, leaving new thinking, new views, new direction, new purposes, etc., all left for a later experience of conversion. Paul did not say that only a change in the substance of the soul occurs in being regenerated, it being the only thing made new. He did not say a few things become new in the new birth, but most things become new later in conversion.
Notice how God commands the people to be regenerate, to make themselves a new heart and spirit. This is the very thing that Craig and the Hardshells deny to be a truth of Scripture! On Ezekiel 18: 31 Dr. Gill comments:
"...and make you a new heart and a new spirit; which the Lord elsewhere promises to give, and he does give to his own elect; (See Gill on Ezekiel 11:19); and if here to be understood of a regenerated heart and spirit, in which are new principles of light, life, and love, grace and holiness, it will not prove that it is in the power of man to make himself such a heart and spirit; since from God's command, to man's power, is no argument; and the design of the exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart; of the importance of it: and which, through the efficacious grace of God, may be a means of his people having it, seeing he has in covenant promised it to them." (commentary)
Notice that Gill says that such exhortations to men for them to make themselves new hearts and spirits, or to be regenerated, do not imply ability in them to do what he commands. He also says that the design of such an exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart and spirit and that such exhortations are means towards the creating of the new heart and spirit. There can be no other explanation of the passage. Thus, I call upon my Hardshell brothers to come forward and explain how their doctrinal presuppositions harmonize with God's exhorting the unregenerate to regeneration.
Now notice a similar verse. God said by Moses:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 16)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart - Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it."
And notice how the same thing is said through Jeremiah.
"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"...this is the true spiritual circumcision; and they that are possessed of it are the circumcision, the only truly circumcised persons; and they are such who have been pricked to the heart, and thoroughly convinced of sin; who have had the hardness of their hearts removed, and the impurity of it laid open to them; which they have beheld with shame and loathing, and have felt an inward pain on account of it; and who have been enabled to deny themselves, to renounce their own righteousness, and put off the body of the sins of the flesh: and though men are exhorted to do this themselves, yet elsewhere the Lord promises to do it for them, (Deuteronomy 30:6), and indeed it is purely his own work; or otherwise it could not he called, as it is, "circumcision without hands", and "whose praise is not of man, but of God", (Colossians 2:11) (Romans 2:29), and the reason of this exhortation, as before, is to convince those Jews, who were circumcised in the flesh, and rested and gloried in that, that their hearts were not circumcised, and that there was a necessity of it, and they in danger for want of it; as follows: lest my fury come forth like fire; to which the wrath of God is sometimes compared, (Nahum 1:6) and is sometimes signified by a furnace and lake of fire, even his eternal wrath and vengeance: and burn that none can quench it; such is the fire of divine wrath; it is unquenchable; it is everlasting, (Mark 9:43 Mark 9:44) (Matthew 3:12) (25:41): because of the evil of your doings; which are so provoking to the eyes of his glory; the sins of men are the fuel to the fire of his wrath, and cause it to burn to the lowest hell, without the least degree of mercy."
Dr. Gill gives the only explanation of these verses that is possible. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree with this explanation. The only ones who will deny it are the Pelagians and the Hardshells. But, I doubt we will ever see a Hardshell even attempt to deal with these verses. This is probably why they do not want to discuss or debate their views with others any more. If called upon in debate to harmonize these verses with their Hardshell aberrant views, how will they do it?
Now, let us look at some other verses that are really no different from the ones already looked at. Wrote Paul:
"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5: 14)
How is the command to the spiritually dead to raise themselves from the dead any different from the commands for unregenerate sinners to circumcise their hearts and to make themselves new hearts and minds?
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19)
The Greek verb "repent" is from "metanoeō" and means to change one's mind, and in context generally means in regard to one's views about God, sin, and salvation. "Be converted" may be better translated as simply "convert." In other words, "repent and convert." The Greek verb for "convert" is "epistrephō" means to "turn." What is to be turned is the heart, mind, and conduct.
When one sees the truth about Ezekiel 18: 31, Deuteronomy 10: 16, Jeremiah 4: 4, then he will have no problem seeing that the command to repent (change your mind) and convert (turn away from your sins and to the Lord) are a command to become new creatures by calling upon the Lord.
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2: 40)
On this verse Elder R. W. Thompson, writing in the "Primitive Monitor and Church Advocate" (Vol. 9, 1894) said: "This cannot mean eternal salvation..." (page 462 - see here)
But, he only asserts his case and gives no proof as to why the words "save yourselves" cannot have reference to final or eternal salvation. Would he also say that Ezekiel 18: 31, Deuteronomy 10: 16, Jeremiah 4: 4, and Ephesians 5: 14 cannot have reference to regeneration and eternal salvation? Why? Because his presupposition will not allow him to say so, his presupposition that says that men do not have a duty to circumcise their hearts to the Lord, to make them new hearts and minds, to raise themselves from the dead. Yet, clearly, we have shown how this presupposition is against the plain statements of Scripture.
Present day Hardshell elder Michael Gowens wrote:
"Old Baptists are virtually alone in their ability to reconcile apparently contradictory texts like Ephesians 2:8 (a text that teaches that salvation is not of ourselves) and Acts 2:40 (a text that exhorts us to save ourselves from this untoward generation), because they understand that the first verse has eternal ramifications and the second does not." ("Why I Am A Primitive Baptist" - see here)
Gowens thinks that Acts 2: 40 (save yourselves) cannot be the same salvation of Ephesians 2: 8 because one says that God does the saving and the other says that people save themselves. But, the contradiction is all in Gowen's head. There is no contradiction. By the logic of Gowens he must say that God does not do the saving of Acts 2: 40. Gowens is saying that he converted himself. God did not do it! He says this because his logic forces him to say it. When Gowens reads a text that says God saves a man, it excludes saying at the same time that a man saves himself. So, likewise, when a text says men save themselves, this excludes saying at the same time that God saved the man.
The Scriptures say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but it also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Obviously it is possible for an action to be ascribed to both God and the sinner.
"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple..." (Rev. 7: 14-15)
Notice that this being washed in the blood is said to be a work that the saved did for themselves. Yet, the Hardshells will not allow that such language is Scriptural. I am sure that they will try to go to work on such verses as these, trying to make them deal with only temporal deliverance, yet the task is an impossible one. Notice that the result of washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb is that they are in Heaven, before the throne. Come on, my Hardshell brethren, deal with these verses! Come teach us!
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." (Num. 21: 8)
Look and live! Hardshellism uprooted!
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3)
Hear and live! Hardshellism uprooted!
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)
Come to Christ for life! Hardshellism uprooted!
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth...That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." (Acts 17: 26-27)
All men are commanded to repent and seek the Lord! Again, Hardshellism uprooted! Craig says men do not have such duties! And, what is the purpose for repenting and seeking the Lord? That they might "find him." What is regeneration but to find the Lord?
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Perseverance or Regenerated Antichrists?
Much has been written of late on the subject of the perseverance of the saints, a truth upheld by the London Confession and condoned without “footnoting” by those who assembled at Fulton, Kentucky in 1900. There are very clear verses in scripture which testify to this truth, and these passages trump any logical reasoning on the part of the objector.
I would like in this posting though to really press the issue by demonstrating a most terrible consequence of not believing this doctrine. In no other bible passage of which I’m aware is the question of the saints’ perseverance set in such a context where the espousal of preservation without perseverance would lead to an absolutely horrific conclusion, one which would cause the Christian community to shudder.
1 John 2:18-20 states:
”Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.”
The Apostle here tells us that there were some who continued with them for a season, though at some point ceased their fellowship. And mark this. They are described in no casual language, but are said to be antichrists! Now at this point the Hardshell mind must make a critical decision, and that is to either 1) affirm the perseverance of the saints with those who “went out” being imposters or 2) admit to the existence of regenerated antichrists who were preserved but did not persevere!
Antichrists. Part of the redeemed family of God? Antichrists. New creatures in Christ? I wonder what the general Christian community feels about such a notion; that is, if they are able to pick their jaw off the floor. The typical Hardshell who opposes perseverance would want to assert at this point that John is distinguishing the regenerate elect who continue in the faith from those among them who do not. To his relief, though, the cliché could be said of them both: “They were already saved eternally.” That such is not the case, though, is proven by the fact that John contrasts those who continued not with those who had an unction from the Holy Ghost (v.20). The former had no such unction, meaning they were not regenerated. Now unless the Holy Spirit has imparted an unction only to those elect who persevere but not to those who don’t, or if there are “two kinds” of unctions (an oft-used Hardshell argumentation) it is clear that those who went out from the apostles were not born again.
In this passage it is either perseverance being taught or regenerated antichrists under consideration. The question is which one.
What say ye?
Monday, November 4, 2013
Preservation & Perseverance
Hardshell leader Elder J. H. Purifoy, in the latter end of the 19th century, wrote:
"I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints..." (as cited in chapter 92 of my series "Hardshells & Perseverance")
Purifoy's testimony demonstrates that the Hardshells of the late 19th century were beginning to deny what their forefathers taught regarding the perseverance of the saints. He testifies that this was what their articles of faith had always taught and he wanted to change them. Yet, in spite of this, the Hardshells who wanted to change this article were a minority for the Hardshells who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky, in the year 1900, still held on to their belief in the perseverance of the saints. They endorsed the 1689 confession and left the section on perseverance as it reads, without any "clarification." That section says these things:
"Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon..."
"This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof."
"And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end."
These are the historic and traditional articles of faith of the Hardshell denomination and many of them, like Purifoy, changed those articles of faith to deny perseverance. Who was right? The Hardshell forefathers or today's Hardshells? Further, how can Hardshells today claim to believe as did their forefathers? That they have articles of faith that have remained unchanged from the primitive Baptists of prior centuries? How can they say that they have not changed in their doctrinal views throughout their history as a denomination?
In the early 1890s there was a division in the Mt. Carmel Regular Old School Baptist church in Luray, Virginia over the question regarding means and perseverance. There was a trial held in 1909 to determine which views were the historic views of the Old Baptists. Here is a part of the testimony given by Elder E.H. Burnam regarding the changes being proposed on the subject of perseverance.
Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”
A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.
So, we can conclude that the Hardshells have forsaken the Old Baptist position regarding perseverance.
In further testimony, let me now cite from Elder John M. Watson on this matter. In his book "The Old Baptist Test," he wrote:
"...he perseveres because God keeps him by his power through faith unto salvation..." (page 480) And, he says "That he perseveres through the power of God." (page 482)
Elder C. B. Hassell wrote:
"The patience and the final perseverance of the saints, notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions, which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history." (chapter II, page 63, of Hassell's history)
Elder J. H. Oliphant, the moderator of the Fulton Convention, wrote a book called "The Perseverance of the Saints," and wrote this:
"God’s word is a stubborn truth that cannot be gainsaid. Where we have a plain thus saith the Lord, reason and philosophy must give way. Mark, xiii: 22, "For false Christs and false prophets shall arise and shall show signs and wonders to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." Doubtless all believers are the elect. And this text affirms it to be impossible to deceive the elect: Job, xvii: 9, "The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger." (Chapter 6)
These words are clear. Oliphant says that the elect can't be deceived (about their faith in Christ as Savior and Lord) and that they shall hold on their way.
Further, if one reads the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s he will see that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints was taught in all of them and that this was put forward as being the historic teaching of the Old Baptists.
In fact, those Hardshells today who deny perseverance should quit singing the song "How Firm A Foundation," for line three says:
Fear not, I am with thee; oh, be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid.
I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by my righteous, upheld by my righteous,
Upheld by my righteous, omnipotent hand.
Notice how the song writer says that God will "cause thee to stand." This is what the Scriptures also say. God says "I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness." (Isa. 41: 10) "Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." (Rom. 14: 4) In these verses the words "uphold" and "holden up" mean "made to stand." In fact, in the New KJV "made to stand" is the translation of Romans 14: 4. What is this but the promise that God will insure that his people stand firm on the rock of Christ?
Those Hardshells today who say that they believe in the preservation of saints, but not in the perseverance of saints, are
1) Teaching contrary to the historic doctrine of the Old Baptists, even of their own founding fathers, as expressed in their accepted confessions of faith and in the writings of their leaders.
2) Denying the plain declarations of Scripture that affirm both preservation and perseverance.
3) Failing to see how these terms represent ideas that compliment each other rather than being opposed to each other.
If one looks at the passages of Scripture that are most often used to teach the certain preservation of all those who have been truly saved and converted, he will see how that preservation is more than simply preserving a physical (non moral) life, but a preservation of that which is created in the soul's rebirth, which is more than bare life, for it includes that love and trust in God and Christ that is born in the new birth. It is a preservation of the union brought about through a faith adherence to God and his Son Jesus.
Let us look at some of the Scripture passages that teach the preservation of the saints and see how they involve perseverance.
"Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (I Peter 1: 5)
Notice that God's preservation is through the means of faith, through belief of the truth, through trust in God and his promises.
Dr. Gill, in commenting upon this verse said:
"they are kept...in the fear of God, and faith of Christ, and love to both; and in the path of truth, from whence they can never finally and totally fall: for though they are not kept from the being of sin, and the workings of it, and slips and falls into it, yet from being destroyed by it; and though not from Satan, and his temptations, yet from being overcome by them; and though not entirely from unbelief, doubts, and fears, yet from final unbelief; for Christ prays for them, that their faith fail not; and from a final and total falling away from grace into sin: and they are kept thus..."
In commenting upon how this preservation is "through faith," he wrote:
"...through faith in the power and faithfulness of God; through faith looking to Christ, leaning on him, and living upon him; by faith getting the victory over the world, and every other enemy, and being more than conquerors, through Christ."
Paul wrote:
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phi. 4: 7)
Notice how this preservation involves the keeping of both the heart and mind, or keeping of the understanding and faith. Further, as we shall see, this keeping by God is visible in the saints keeping themselves.
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5: 18)
God keeps the believer but the believer also keeps himself.
"Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life...Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy..." (Jude 1: 21, 24)
Notice how Jude mentions God's keeping of the believer and yet he admonishes the believer to keep himself. Jude did not think that one excluded the other as do our modern Hardshells.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." (John 8: 51)
Notice how keeping the words of Christ are stated as a condition for obtaining eternal life. Does this not plainly teach against those Hardshells who say that there are not admonitions to persevere for the purpose of being finally saved?
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him...Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings..." (John 14: 21-24)
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (I John 2: 4)
Here Jesus again affirms that those who do not keep the words of Christ are liars, do not have the truth (reality) of salvation in them. He also says that if one keeps or perseveres in his allegiance to Christ and his words, then that person will be loved by God, will be finally saved. If a man loves me, if a man has been born again, he will keep the words of the Lord. Of course he does not mean perfectly, but he does mean he will do so generally and characteristically. The Hardshells want us to believe that there are many saved in Heaven who have not preserved the words of Christ, did not persevere. Yet, they are clearly against the Scripture in teaching this.
"I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints..." (as cited in chapter 92 of my series "Hardshells & Perseverance")
Purifoy's testimony demonstrates that the Hardshells of the late 19th century were beginning to deny what their forefathers taught regarding the perseverance of the saints. He testifies that this was what their articles of faith had always taught and he wanted to change them. Yet, in spite of this, the Hardshells who wanted to change this article were a minority for the Hardshells who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky, in the year 1900, still held on to their belief in the perseverance of the saints. They endorsed the 1689 confession and left the section on perseverance as it reads, without any "clarification." That section says these things:
"Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon..."
"This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof."
"And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end."
These are the historic and traditional articles of faith of the Hardshell denomination and many of them, like Purifoy, changed those articles of faith to deny perseverance. Who was right? The Hardshell forefathers or today's Hardshells? Further, how can Hardshells today claim to believe as did their forefathers? That they have articles of faith that have remained unchanged from the primitive Baptists of prior centuries? How can they say that they have not changed in their doctrinal views throughout their history as a denomination?
In the early 1890s there was a division in the Mt. Carmel Regular Old School Baptist church in Luray, Virginia over the question regarding means and perseverance. There was a trial held in 1909 to determine which views were the historic views of the Old Baptists. Here is a part of the testimony given by Elder E.H. Burnam regarding the changes being proposed on the subject of perseverance.
Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”
A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.
So, we can conclude that the Hardshells have forsaken the Old Baptist position regarding perseverance.
In further testimony, let me now cite from Elder John M. Watson on this matter. In his book "The Old Baptist Test," he wrote:
"...he perseveres because God keeps him by his power through faith unto salvation..." (page 480) And, he says "That he perseveres through the power of God." (page 482)
Elder C. B. Hassell wrote:
"The patience and the final perseverance of the saints, notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions, which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history." (chapter II, page 63, of Hassell's history)
Elder J. H. Oliphant, the moderator of the Fulton Convention, wrote a book called "The Perseverance of the Saints," and wrote this:
"God’s word is a stubborn truth that cannot be gainsaid. Where we have a plain thus saith the Lord, reason and philosophy must give way. Mark, xiii: 22, "For false Christs and false prophets shall arise and shall show signs and wonders to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." Doubtless all believers are the elect. And this text affirms it to be impossible to deceive the elect: Job, xvii: 9, "The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger." (Chapter 6)
These words are clear. Oliphant says that the elect can't be deceived (about their faith in Christ as Savior and Lord) and that they shall hold on their way.
Further, if one reads the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s he will see that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints was taught in all of them and that this was put forward as being the historic teaching of the Old Baptists.
In fact, those Hardshells today who deny perseverance should quit singing the song "How Firm A Foundation," for line three says:
Fear not, I am with thee; oh, be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid.
I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by my righteous, upheld by my righteous,
Upheld by my righteous, omnipotent hand.
Notice how the song writer says that God will "cause thee to stand." This is what the Scriptures also say. God says "I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness." (Isa. 41: 10) "Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." (Rom. 14: 4) In these verses the words "uphold" and "holden up" mean "made to stand." In fact, in the New KJV "made to stand" is the translation of Romans 14: 4. What is this but the promise that God will insure that his people stand firm on the rock of Christ?
Those Hardshells today who say that they believe in the preservation of saints, but not in the perseverance of saints, are
1) Teaching contrary to the historic doctrine of the Old Baptists, even of their own founding fathers, as expressed in their accepted confessions of faith and in the writings of their leaders.
2) Denying the plain declarations of Scripture that affirm both preservation and perseverance.
3) Failing to see how these terms represent ideas that compliment each other rather than being opposed to each other.
If one looks at the passages of Scripture that are most often used to teach the certain preservation of all those who have been truly saved and converted, he will see how that preservation is more than simply preserving a physical (non moral) life, but a preservation of that which is created in the soul's rebirth, which is more than bare life, for it includes that love and trust in God and Christ that is born in the new birth. It is a preservation of the union brought about through a faith adherence to God and his Son Jesus.
Let us look at some of the Scripture passages that teach the preservation of the saints and see how they involve perseverance.
"Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (I Peter 1: 5)
Notice that God's preservation is through the means of faith, through belief of the truth, through trust in God and his promises.
Dr. Gill, in commenting upon this verse said:
"they are kept...in the fear of God, and faith of Christ, and love to both; and in the path of truth, from whence they can never finally and totally fall: for though they are not kept from the being of sin, and the workings of it, and slips and falls into it, yet from being destroyed by it; and though not from Satan, and his temptations, yet from being overcome by them; and though not entirely from unbelief, doubts, and fears, yet from final unbelief; for Christ prays for them, that their faith fail not; and from a final and total falling away from grace into sin: and they are kept thus..."
In commenting upon how this preservation is "through faith," he wrote:
"...through faith in the power and faithfulness of God; through faith looking to Christ, leaning on him, and living upon him; by faith getting the victory over the world, and every other enemy, and being more than conquerors, through Christ."
Paul wrote:
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phi. 4: 7)
Notice how this preservation involves the keeping of both the heart and mind, or keeping of the understanding and faith. Further, as we shall see, this keeping by God is visible in the saints keeping themselves.
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5: 18)
God keeps the believer but the believer also keeps himself.
"Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life...Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy..." (Jude 1: 21, 24)
Notice how Jude mentions God's keeping of the believer and yet he admonishes the believer to keep himself. Jude did not think that one excluded the other as do our modern Hardshells.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." (John 8: 51)
Notice how keeping the words of Christ are stated as a condition for obtaining eternal life. Does this not plainly teach against those Hardshells who say that there are not admonitions to persevere for the purpose of being finally saved?
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him...Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings..." (John 14: 21-24)
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (I John 2: 4)
Here Jesus again affirms that those who do not keep the words of Christ are liars, do not have the truth (reality) of salvation in them. He also says that if one keeps or perseveres in his allegiance to Christ and his words, then that person will be loved by God, will be finally saved. If a man loves me, if a man has been born again, he will keep the words of the Lord. Of course he does not mean perfectly, but he does mean he will do so generally and characteristically. The Hardshells want us to believe that there are many saved in Heaven who have not preserved the words of Christ, did not persevere. Yet, they are clearly against the Scripture in teaching this.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Abide In Him
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2: 28)
In this verse there is an exhortation, and the tense of the word "abide" carries the meaning of “keep on abiding in him.” The Hardshells argue that there are no commands or exhortations in Scripture for believers to persevere in order to be finally saved. But, this verse overthrows that reasoning.
The Greek word for "abide" is "menō" and means, according to Strong, to remain or not depart. It includes the idea of enduring or persevering.
What is the reason given for continuing to abide in Christ? It is "that" ("hina" in Greek which denotes purpose) we "not be ashamed before him at his coming," or "when he shall appear." Now, there is no way that any Hardshell can make this into a "time salvation." The word "ashamed" carries with it the idea of being dishonored and disgraced.
Thus, the exhortation of the Apostle is that believers should persevere and remain in Christ in order that they may be saved in the day of the Lord. Now, let our Hardshell brother at theearstohear blog show how this verse does not overthrow his reasoning.
In this verse there is an exhortation, and the tense of the word "abide" carries the meaning of “keep on abiding in him.” The Hardshells argue that there are no commands or exhortations in Scripture for believers to persevere in order to be finally saved. But, this verse overthrows that reasoning.
The Greek word for "abide" is "menō" and means, according to Strong, to remain or not depart. It includes the idea of enduring or persevering.
What is the reason given for continuing to abide in Christ? It is "that" ("hina" in Greek which denotes purpose) we "not be ashamed before him at his coming," or "when he shall appear." Now, there is no way that any Hardshell can make this into a "time salvation." The word "ashamed" carries with it the idea of being dishonored and disgraced.
Thus, the exhortation of the Apostle is that believers should persevere and remain in Christ in order that they may be saved in the day of the Lord. Now, let our Hardshell brother at theearstohear blog show how this verse does not overthrow his reasoning.
Preservation but not Perseverance?
The Hardshell who writes at theearstohear blog has written another denial of the Bible doctrine of Perseverance (see here). Both Elder Fralick and I have both recently interacted with this Hardshell on this issue and written in rebuttal to what he has written. This Hardshell has written another article in an attempt to uphold his idea that "Primitive Baptists Rightly Divide Preservation and Perseverance."
Before I examine this article, I want to give the comment I left him. I commented, saying:
Dear Brother:
"Can you give a citation from any of your Baptist forefathers, prior to the mid 19th century, who denied perseverance as you do? Can you cite one of them who taught that perseverance was only for a time salvation? If you cannot, and yet you believe that believing as you do is required for a church to be a legitimate church, how can you claim to be a primitive Baptist?"
In response, this Hardshell wrote me a lengthy reply, similar to the reply that he recently gave to Brother Fralick. I need not cite the entire comment, but he first replied by writing:
"My belief regarding perseverance comes directly from my understanding of scripture, not from citations of “Baptist forefathers prior to the mid 19th century.” I make my arguments from a systematic approach to the bible, not from Baptist history. Were I to do so, it would prove nothing with respect to the validity of my theological position."
The first thing to notice is how this brother basically admits that his view is novel among Particular or Calvinistic or Sovereign Grace Baptists. He knows he can find no one among his Baptist forefathers who denied that preservation involved perseverance. So, what does he do? He skips over centuries and claims that he is a "Primitive" Baptist because Paul and the new testament writers were Primitive Baptists and that they did not teach the doctrine of perseverance. So, what is he saying? He is saying that the truth about preservation was lost for centuries until it was restored by him and his modern Hardshells. He is saying that his Baptist forefathers were in error on this point, were not "rightly dividing the word of truth," and were basing salvation on something other than the atonement because they taught perseverance. That is indeed an outlandish claim. It reminds me of Alexander Campbell who also thought that the church had lost important truth until he came along to restore it. But, Campbell did not take the name of "Primitive Baptist" because he realized that there were not any groups in the days of the apostles or afterward (till the 17th century) who called themselves Baptists. He and his followers therefore wanted only to be called "Christian" and "church of Christ." This ought to have been what this Hardshell ought to do also, seeing he cannot find any Baptists, besides the Arminian or General Baptists, who denied perseverance. His forefathers who first adopted the name "Primitive Baptist" did so because they believed that they were holding to the beliefs of their Baptist forefathers who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of faith.
This Hardshell wants us to believe that he is a "Primitive Baptist" because he teaches preservation as did the Apostle Paul. But, by this definition, his Hardshell forefathers who professed a belief in perseverance are not genuine "Primitive Baptists." He does not want us to define the label "Primitive Baptist" on the basis that one is teaching what is historic and traditional Baptist teaching. Of course, we know why. On this basis he is not a true old or primitive Baptist. But, all his Hardshell forefathers were express in saying that they believed that the new testament teaches what is expressed in their articles of faith.
How can this brother say that all his Baptist forefathers were in error in linking preservation with perseverance? How can he be so presumptuous as to think that he is wiser in the Scriptures than all of them? He also denies that they were "Primitive Baptists." He says "Primitive Baptists" believe in preservation but not in perseverance. So, all his Hardshell forefathers who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky to endorse the London Confession's statement on perseverance are not "Primitive Baptists." He did not say - "SOME Primitive Baptists" deny perseverance. The names of those who signed the Fulton Confession are recognized men in the Hardshell cult, men like S.F. and C.H. Cayce, J.M. Thompson, J.H. Oliphant, Lee Hanks, etc., are not "Primitive Baptists"!
He then says this:
"It follows by logical consequence that any attempt to validate the legitimacy of one’s theology by any measure other than scripture is quixotic sophistry."
It is true that the Scriptures are the final rule for deciding orthodoxy. But, it is difficult to think that such an important understanding about preservation and perseverance was lost by the Lord's church from the days of the Apostles until some few Hardshells in the latter end of the 19th century rediscovered it. Further, we have many Scriptures that teach clearly the doctrine of both preservation and perseverance and so we are willing to discuss with this brother what the Scriptues teach. But, we have already done this to some degree. Brother Fralick and I have cited Scriptures to this Hardshell brother that clearly teach perseverance and he has not demonstrated that those Scriptures do not teach it. We again invite this brother to read our series on "Hardshells and Perseverance."
This brother next writes to me, saying:
"You ask the question, “If you cannot (cite some old Baptist who agrees) and yet you believe that believing as you do is required for a church to be a legitimate church, how can you claim to be a Primitive Baptist?” In so doing you project a position onto me, namely that I believe that someone must believe as I do with respect to preservation/perseverance in order to be a legitimate church. I do not believe that. The bible is clear that mere doctrinal error is insufficient to make the determination as to whether or not a body of believers is a legitimate church."
I certainly do agree that an error in doctrine does not make a church illegitimate. But, it would be good if this brother practiced his beliefs. Have not the Hardshells said that they will not accept the baptisms and work of any church that is not of their fellowship? What doctrinal errors does he think invalidates a church? If a church believes, like the first Hardshell churches, that the Gospel is God's means in saving his elect from sin and damnation, and that they all will persevere in the faith of the Gospel, are they legitimate? If a church has musical instruments, is this church legitimate? If it is not legitimate, then is this brother not saying that an error regarding preservation/perseverance is not critical, but the musical instrument question is?
This brother then writes:
"That said, I believe that most Christian churches have done far more than merely stray-off-the-path into doctrinal error. They have canonized and institutionalized doctrinal error. In so doing they have hardened their hearts with respect to the truth and they visit great distress and confusion upon those of the Lord’s flock who find themselves in those assemblies. The unarguable fact that the VAST majority of professing Christian churches have doctrinal statements that are abjectly Arminian is proof positive of this statement."
According to this brother any church that is "Arminian" has doctrinal error that invalidates it as a church of Christ. But, we would first need to know what this brother would include in the label "Arminian." Many Hardshells do call certain doctrinal points "Arminian" when they are in fact not. We cited Elder John Watson and Elder John Clark who pointed out, in their day, how some Hardshells were calling those who believed in Gospel means, and in exhorting the lost, as "Arminian" when they were not. In fact, the Hardshells of today are contradictory on the point of whether the Gospel means position is either "Arminian" or "Calvinist." Many Hardshells today will say that the belief that God calls his elect by the Gospel, and who believe in the doctrines of grace, is "Calvinism," and they will tell us that "Primitive Baptists" are not Calvinists. So, which is it?
Consider also that what this brother teaches about conversion and "time salvation" is nothing but pure Arminianism. This is what Elder John Clark said about those Hardshells who think it unscriptual to preach to dead sinners. He wrote:
"To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism."(see here for Clark's entire writing)
Further, this brother has already stated that error in doctrine does not necessarily make a church illegitimate so as to invalidate their baptisms. The church of Galatia, for instance, held to serious error but Paul still addressed them as churches of Christ. Does this Hardshell not realize that the Kehukee Association was once Arminian and that when they embraced Calvinism that they were not all re-baptized? Were those Kehukee churches illegitimate because they were not re-baptized? Further, Elder Sylvester Hassell said that the medieval churches that today's Hardshell churches descended from were Arminian?
This brother wrote further:
"These writings attribute the whole of our salvation to the work of God through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, the imputation of our sins to Christ as our substitute...Paul said it best when he said that our salvation was "not by works of righteousness which we have done." (Tit 3:5) It follows that our righteous acts of perseverance have NOTHING to do with the work that populates heaven."
This false argumentation I answered in my previous posting "Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning." But, I wish to add to it the rebuttal observation that this kind of reasoning forces this brother to argue that his being converted was by his works, and not by grace; that his coming to know and believe in Christ was not by grace, and was not the work of God alone. His persevering loyalty to Christ and his word is not the work of God and his grace, but is his own work. In fact, any activity that this brother does he will not ascribe to the grace and work of God, but to himself, by his own reasoning.
This brother wrote further:
"We Primitive Baptists are in many respects quirky and imperfect. We are sinners saved by grace and nothing more. But I have yet to find a group of professing believers that is closer in doctrine and practice to what I find taught in the bible than the Primitive Baptist church."
When this Hardshell brother says that he is saved by grace, he certainly does not include his "time salvation," or his conversion to Christ. He will say that daily salvation from sin and trial is of works, by his own reasoning. And, as far as his thinking how the Hardshell cult is more perfect in doctrine and practice than any other group, this is just what we would expect from those in a cult would say. I am sure that those in the Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, and Catholic cults would say the same thing about their own denominations.
Now let me examine the writing of this brother to which I made comment. He wrote:
"In a recent internet discussion I was asked:
Could you clarify your beliefs on Perseverance? It sounds as if you don't believe that children of God will persevere in this world.
To which I provided the following response:
Primitive Baptists make a distinction between "Preservation" (Jude 1), which is the surety we have "in Christ" regarding our eternal destiny as a result of his finished work on behalf of his chosen people (Rom 8:31-39, John 10:28), and "Perseverance" which is a matter of temporal obedience to which God's people are admonished and exhorted. Failure to rightly divide these two results in a great deal of confusion."
The citation that this Hardshell brother refers to is that made by Elder Fralick. Of course, brother Fralick added Scripture to support his view that those who are chosen and called will certainly remain loyal to Christ and not fall totally and finally away. These Scriptures were never refuted by the Hardshell.
Further, as I have already pointed out, when he says "Primitive Baptists make a distinction between preservation and perseverance," he by this language says that those who do not make such a distinction are not "Primitive Baptists." But, in this he accuses his Hardshell forefathers of not being "Primitive Baptists." He also accuses his fellow Hardshells, such as Zack Guess and Lasserre Bradley, as not being "Primitive Baptists." And notice once again how he gives God all the credit for his being preserved but gives himself the credit for his persevering. His preservation is by God's grace and power but his persevering is by works and by his own power. Further, this disjointing of preservation and perseverance is not rightly dividing the word of truth but, as brother Fralick has said, is putting asunder what God has joined together. If this brother would take the time to read our series on "Hardshells and Perseverance" then he would see this to be the case.
He then wrote:
"Since the eternal salvation of God's chosen people is a monergistic work, that is, a work of God alone, there is therefore no room to include man's works in any way, shape, form, or fashion without denying the notion of monergism. Thus, there is simply no way to include those things which fall under the rubric of "perseverance" as conditions of our eternal salvation without the unavoidable logical consequence of leaving the realm of salvation by sovereign grace."
One can only guess what this Hardshell means when he says that eternal salvation "is a monergistic work." Does he mean that a person is saved whether he ever believes, repents, calls on the Lord, confesses Christ, etc.? Does he mean that the sinner in being quickened is entirely passive? If so, he ought to read our postings on "Active or Passive?" In these chapters I show how the sinner is indeed active in being saved and converted. He seems to define "monergistic work" as any work that involves only God being active. I wish this brother would apply his reasoning and argumentation to that passage we cited in an earlier posting where the prophet said "thou has wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12) Is this divine work of producing works in us monergistic? He says that "there is no way to include" our works into the "realm of sovereign grace." But, it seems to me that the prophet did this very thing in the passage just cited. So did Paul in I Cor. 15: 10. But, notice again how this Hardshell will not ascribe his conversion to Christ to sovereign grace.
He then wrote:
"That said, men are exhorted and admonished to persevere in the faith as a matter of obedient discipleship. To make this a condition of eternal salvation undeniably defines salvation as a matter of works, since all such obediences are undeniably works of righteousness. In stark contrast, Paul strictly excludes "works of righteousness which we have done" from having anything to do with the work that provided us eternal salvation. (Tit 3:5)"
Notice the presupposition that this brother has invented and which he takes to the Bible and tries to make the Bible to agree with it. His presupposition is that the Bible does not exhort men to persevere for being finally saved. But, the Bible is filled with such examples. For instance, see our posting titled Jesus Uproots Hardshellsim. Jesus said to men who he identified as being spiritually dead and said to them - "but these things I say, that ye might be saved." (John 5: 34) This cannot be a "time salvation" because the men he addressed were spiritually dead. Also, the early evangelists preached to multitudes and said to them:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19)
Now, when a Hardshell comes to such a passage as this with his presupposition, he sees that it contradicts his presupposition. But, rather than discarding his presupposition and accepting the plain truth of the passage, he rather begins to devise ways in which he can twist the plain meaning of the passage to make it agree with his presupposition. He sees that the passage exhorts lost sinners to repent and convert and that it is to the end that they might have their sins blotted out, especially when the Lord returns, which is that time of refreshing. Most Hardshells, in the face of such texts, will add a word to the text, and though that word is not in the text, will nevertheless affirm that such a word is implied. They will say that it is not the actual blotting out of sins that is intended, but the knowledge that they are blotted out. But, the text does not say that, of course.
This Hardshell will not want to say that this blotting out of sins has to do with one's eternal salvation because repentance and conversion are put as conditions. His presupposition will force him to twist the verse to make it deal with a "time salvation." Thus, this blotting out of sins becomes not the work of God and his grace, but the work of the sinner himself! Away with such handling of the word of God! We could multiply examples but is unnecessary, for if a man will twist one verse to uphold his presuppositions, then he will do so with a multitude.
The Hardshell apologist then says:
"The admonitions to persevere (1 Cor 15:2, John 15) have respect to our temporal enjoyment of the truth of our salvation and to our capacity for fruit-bearing in the kingdom of God in this life, and have NO reference to our eternal standing before the throne of God. Indeed if such admonitions DID have respect to our eternal destiny, then salvation is most assuredly by works rather than by grace, and Paul was quite mistaken when he said that our salvation is "not according to our works." (II Tim 1:9). Paul was not mistaken."
This Hardshell thinks that his simply saying that the salvation being talked about in the passages mentioned is a temporal salvation is sufficient to prove his point? Why does he not prove what he says? We would be happy to debate these texts with him and show him his error, but we first want his proof for such a wild novel interpretation.
Further, he keeps repeating his same argument which we have completely demolished just as Paul told us to do. His argumentum ad nauseam proves nothing. Why does he not simply give us Scripture that plainly says that men will be saved who did not believe, repent, or persevere? No, Paul was not mistaken, but this Hardshell is mistaken in his reading of Paul.
He then wrote:
"It follows that the sense in which God's people can be said to "persevere" in this life, is in the sense that we are "preserved" in a state of grace by the imputed righteousness of Christ which is "all our righteousness" and which is "not of our works" and which is vastly superior to the best obedience offered by the best of saints on the best of days. At the end of the day...
What lands us in heaven is the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness, not our imperfect attempts at righteousness as disciples."
In this statement this Hardshell seems to think that there is a sense in which it may be said that the Lord's people persevere. But, his idea of perseverance is simply to affirm that the life and righteousness continue in a believer. But, this is clearly not the extent of the Bible teaching about perseverance. Paul had a different idea, however. He wrote to the Roman Christians and said:
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (Rom. 8: 13)
Obviously the apostle is not talking about physical death, for the Christians addressed were going to die physically whether they lived after the flesh or Spirit. Surely he is talking about the second death. And, what do we find John writing in regard to this second death in the Lake of Fire? John wrote:
"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Rev. 2: 11)
Clearly overcoming (persevering) is what men are to do in order to not be hurt of the second death. John further says that it is the "unbelieving" who will suffer the second death. (21: 8) John also said "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (2: 7)
So, when Paul says "if you live after the flesh you shall die," he means "if you live after the flesh (or fail to persevere in faith and holiness) you will die the second death," and "if you live after the Spirit you will eat of the tree of life and live forever."
And, who is the overcomer, the one who perseveres? Wrote John:
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world." (I John 5: 4)
Obviously the Apostle John did not have any doubts that those who were born of God would persevere and overcome. He also wrote:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (vs. 18)
Thus, the doctrine of the saints sure and certain perseverence is plainly taught in Scripture and we need not rely upon trying to base it upon speculative reasoning as does our Hardshell brother.
Before I examine this article, I want to give the comment I left him. I commented, saying:
Dear Brother:
"Can you give a citation from any of your Baptist forefathers, prior to the mid 19th century, who denied perseverance as you do? Can you cite one of them who taught that perseverance was only for a time salvation? If you cannot, and yet you believe that believing as you do is required for a church to be a legitimate church, how can you claim to be a primitive Baptist?"
In response, this Hardshell wrote me a lengthy reply, similar to the reply that he recently gave to Brother Fralick. I need not cite the entire comment, but he first replied by writing:
"My belief regarding perseverance comes directly from my understanding of scripture, not from citations of “Baptist forefathers prior to the mid 19th century.” I make my arguments from a systematic approach to the bible, not from Baptist history. Were I to do so, it would prove nothing with respect to the validity of my theological position."
The first thing to notice is how this brother basically admits that his view is novel among Particular or Calvinistic or Sovereign Grace Baptists. He knows he can find no one among his Baptist forefathers who denied that preservation involved perseverance. So, what does he do? He skips over centuries and claims that he is a "Primitive" Baptist because Paul and the new testament writers were Primitive Baptists and that they did not teach the doctrine of perseverance. So, what is he saying? He is saying that the truth about preservation was lost for centuries until it was restored by him and his modern Hardshells. He is saying that his Baptist forefathers were in error on this point, were not "rightly dividing the word of truth," and were basing salvation on something other than the atonement because they taught perseverance. That is indeed an outlandish claim. It reminds me of Alexander Campbell who also thought that the church had lost important truth until he came along to restore it. But, Campbell did not take the name of "Primitive Baptist" because he realized that there were not any groups in the days of the apostles or afterward (till the 17th century) who called themselves Baptists. He and his followers therefore wanted only to be called "Christian" and "church of Christ." This ought to have been what this Hardshell ought to do also, seeing he cannot find any Baptists, besides the Arminian or General Baptists, who denied perseverance. His forefathers who first adopted the name "Primitive Baptist" did so because they believed that they were holding to the beliefs of their Baptist forefathers who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of faith.
This Hardshell wants us to believe that he is a "Primitive Baptist" because he teaches preservation as did the Apostle Paul. But, by this definition, his Hardshell forefathers who professed a belief in perseverance are not genuine "Primitive Baptists." He does not want us to define the label "Primitive Baptist" on the basis that one is teaching what is historic and traditional Baptist teaching. Of course, we know why. On this basis he is not a true old or primitive Baptist. But, all his Hardshell forefathers were express in saying that they believed that the new testament teaches what is expressed in their articles of faith.
How can this brother say that all his Baptist forefathers were in error in linking preservation with perseverance? How can he be so presumptuous as to think that he is wiser in the Scriptures than all of them? He also denies that they were "Primitive Baptists." He says "Primitive Baptists" believe in preservation but not in perseverance. So, all his Hardshell forefathers who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky to endorse the London Confession's statement on perseverance are not "Primitive Baptists." He did not say - "SOME Primitive Baptists" deny perseverance. The names of those who signed the Fulton Confession are recognized men in the Hardshell cult, men like S.F. and C.H. Cayce, J.M. Thompson, J.H. Oliphant, Lee Hanks, etc., are not "Primitive Baptists"!
He then says this:
"It follows by logical consequence that any attempt to validate the legitimacy of one’s theology by any measure other than scripture is quixotic sophistry."
It is true that the Scriptures are the final rule for deciding orthodoxy. But, it is difficult to think that such an important understanding about preservation and perseverance was lost by the Lord's church from the days of the Apostles until some few Hardshells in the latter end of the 19th century rediscovered it. Further, we have many Scriptures that teach clearly the doctrine of both preservation and perseverance and so we are willing to discuss with this brother what the Scriptues teach. But, we have already done this to some degree. Brother Fralick and I have cited Scriptures to this Hardshell brother that clearly teach perseverance and he has not demonstrated that those Scriptures do not teach it. We again invite this brother to read our series on "Hardshells and Perseverance."
This brother next writes to me, saying:
"You ask the question, “If you cannot (cite some old Baptist who agrees) and yet you believe that believing as you do is required for a church to be a legitimate church, how can you claim to be a Primitive Baptist?” In so doing you project a position onto me, namely that I believe that someone must believe as I do with respect to preservation/perseverance in order to be a legitimate church. I do not believe that. The bible is clear that mere doctrinal error is insufficient to make the determination as to whether or not a body of believers is a legitimate church."
I certainly do agree that an error in doctrine does not make a church illegitimate. But, it would be good if this brother practiced his beliefs. Have not the Hardshells said that they will not accept the baptisms and work of any church that is not of their fellowship? What doctrinal errors does he think invalidates a church? If a church believes, like the first Hardshell churches, that the Gospel is God's means in saving his elect from sin and damnation, and that they all will persevere in the faith of the Gospel, are they legitimate? If a church has musical instruments, is this church legitimate? If it is not legitimate, then is this brother not saying that an error regarding preservation/perseverance is not critical, but the musical instrument question is?
This brother then writes:
"That said, I believe that most Christian churches have done far more than merely stray-off-the-path into doctrinal error. They have canonized and institutionalized doctrinal error. In so doing they have hardened their hearts with respect to the truth and they visit great distress and confusion upon those of the Lord’s flock who find themselves in those assemblies. The unarguable fact that the VAST majority of professing Christian churches have doctrinal statements that are abjectly Arminian is proof positive of this statement."
According to this brother any church that is "Arminian" has doctrinal error that invalidates it as a church of Christ. But, we would first need to know what this brother would include in the label "Arminian." Many Hardshells do call certain doctrinal points "Arminian" when they are in fact not. We cited Elder John Watson and Elder John Clark who pointed out, in their day, how some Hardshells were calling those who believed in Gospel means, and in exhorting the lost, as "Arminian" when they were not. In fact, the Hardshells of today are contradictory on the point of whether the Gospel means position is either "Arminian" or "Calvinist." Many Hardshells today will say that the belief that God calls his elect by the Gospel, and who believe in the doctrines of grace, is "Calvinism," and they will tell us that "Primitive Baptists" are not Calvinists. So, which is it?
Consider also that what this brother teaches about conversion and "time salvation" is nothing but pure Arminianism. This is what Elder John Clark said about those Hardshells who think it unscriptual to preach to dead sinners. He wrote:
"To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism."(see here for Clark's entire writing)
Further, this brother has already stated that error in doctrine does not necessarily make a church illegitimate so as to invalidate their baptisms. The church of Galatia, for instance, held to serious error but Paul still addressed them as churches of Christ. Does this Hardshell not realize that the Kehukee Association was once Arminian and that when they embraced Calvinism that they were not all re-baptized? Were those Kehukee churches illegitimate because they were not re-baptized? Further, Elder Sylvester Hassell said that the medieval churches that today's Hardshell churches descended from were Arminian?
This brother wrote further:
"These writings attribute the whole of our salvation to the work of God through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, the imputation of our sins to Christ as our substitute...Paul said it best when he said that our salvation was "not by works of righteousness which we have done." (Tit 3:5) It follows that our righteous acts of perseverance have NOTHING to do with the work that populates heaven."
This false argumentation I answered in my previous posting "Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning." But, I wish to add to it the rebuttal observation that this kind of reasoning forces this brother to argue that his being converted was by his works, and not by grace; that his coming to know and believe in Christ was not by grace, and was not the work of God alone. His persevering loyalty to Christ and his word is not the work of God and his grace, but is his own work. In fact, any activity that this brother does he will not ascribe to the grace and work of God, but to himself, by his own reasoning.
This brother wrote further:
"We Primitive Baptists are in many respects quirky and imperfect. We are sinners saved by grace and nothing more. But I have yet to find a group of professing believers that is closer in doctrine and practice to what I find taught in the bible than the Primitive Baptist church."
When this Hardshell brother says that he is saved by grace, he certainly does not include his "time salvation," or his conversion to Christ. He will say that daily salvation from sin and trial is of works, by his own reasoning. And, as far as his thinking how the Hardshell cult is more perfect in doctrine and practice than any other group, this is just what we would expect from those in a cult would say. I am sure that those in the Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, and Catholic cults would say the same thing about their own denominations.
Now let me examine the writing of this brother to which I made comment. He wrote:
"In a recent internet discussion I was asked:
Could you clarify your beliefs on Perseverance? It sounds as if you don't believe that children of God will persevere in this world.
To which I provided the following response:
Primitive Baptists make a distinction between "Preservation" (Jude 1), which is the surety we have "in Christ" regarding our eternal destiny as a result of his finished work on behalf of his chosen people (Rom 8:31-39, John 10:28), and "Perseverance" which is a matter of temporal obedience to which God's people are admonished and exhorted. Failure to rightly divide these two results in a great deal of confusion."
The citation that this Hardshell brother refers to is that made by Elder Fralick. Of course, brother Fralick added Scripture to support his view that those who are chosen and called will certainly remain loyal to Christ and not fall totally and finally away. These Scriptures were never refuted by the Hardshell.
Further, as I have already pointed out, when he says "Primitive Baptists make a distinction between preservation and perseverance," he by this language says that those who do not make such a distinction are not "Primitive Baptists." But, in this he accuses his Hardshell forefathers of not being "Primitive Baptists." He also accuses his fellow Hardshells, such as Zack Guess and Lasserre Bradley, as not being "Primitive Baptists." And notice once again how he gives God all the credit for his being preserved but gives himself the credit for his persevering. His preservation is by God's grace and power but his persevering is by works and by his own power. Further, this disjointing of preservation and perseverance is not rightly dividing the word of truth but, as brother Fralick has said, is putting asunder what God has joined together. If this brother would take the time to read our series on "Hardshells and Perseverance" then he would see this to be the case.
He then wrote:
"Since the eternal salvation of God's chosen people is a monergistic work, that is, a work of God alone, there is therefore no room to include man's works in any way, shape, form, or fashion without denying the notion of monergism. Thus, there is simply no way to include those things which fall under the rubric of "perseverance" as conditions of our eternal salvation without the unavoidable logical consequence of leaving the realm of salvation by sovereign grace."
One can only guess what this Hardshell means when he says that eternal salvation "is a monergistic work." Does he mean that a person is saved whether he ever believes, repents, calls on the Lord, confesses Christ, etc.? Does he mean that the sinner in being quickened is entirely passive? If so, he ought to read our postings on "Active or Passive?" In these chapters I show how the sinner is indeed active in being saved and converted. He seems to define "monergistic work" as any work that involves only God being active. I wish this brother would apply his reasoning and argumentation to that passage we cited in an earlier posting where the prophet said "thou has wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12) Is this divine work of producing works in us monergistic? He says that "there is no way to include" our works into the "realm of sovereign grace." But, it seems to me that the prophet did this very thing in the passage just cited. So did Paul in I Cor. 15: 10. But, notice again how this Hardshell will not ascribe his conversion to Christ to sovereign grace.
He then wrote:
"That said, men are exhorted and admonished to persevere in the faith as a matter of obedient discipleship. To make this a condition of eternal salvation undeniably defines salvation as a matter of works, since all such obediences are undeniably works of righteousness. In stark contrast, Paul strictly excludes "works of righteousness which we have done" from having anything to do with the work that provided us eternal salvation. (Tit 3:5)"
Notice the presupposition that this brother has invented and which he takes to the Bible and tries to make the Bible to agree with it. His presupposition is that the Bible does not exhort men to persevere for being finally saved. But, the Bible is filled with such examples. For instance, see our posting titled Jesus Uproots Hardshellsim. Jesus said to men who he identified as being spiritually dead and said to them - "but these things I say, that ye might be saved." (John 5: 34) This cannot be a "time salvation" because the men he addressed were spiritually dead. Also, the early evangelists preached to multitudes and said to them:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19)
Now, when a Hardshell comes to such a passage as this with his presupposition, he sees that it contradicts his presupposition. But, rather than discarding his presupposition and accepting the plain truth of the passage, he rather begins to devise ways in which he can twist the plain meaning of the passage to make it agree with his presupposition. He sees that the passage exhorts lost sinners to repent and convert and that it is to the end that they might have their sins blotted out, especially when the Lord returns, which is that time of refreshing. Most Hardshells, in the face of such texts, will add a word to the text, and though that word is not in the text, will nevertheless affirm that such a word is implied. They will say that it is not the actual blotting out of sins that is intended, but the knowledge that they are blotted out. But, the text does not say that, of course.
This Hardshell will not want to say that this blotting out of sins has to do with one's eternal salvation because repentance and conversion are put as conditions. His presupposition will force him to twist the verse to make it deal with a "time salvation." Thus, this blotting out of sins becomes not the work of God and his grace, but the work of the sinner himself! Away with such handling of the word of God! We could multiply examples but is unnecessary, for if a man will twist one verse to uphold his presuppositions, then he will do so with a multitude.
The Hardshell apologist then says:
"The admonitions to persevere (1 Cor 15:2, John 15) have respect to our temporal enjoyment of the truth of our salvation and to our capacity for fruit-bearing in the kingdom of God in this life, and have NO reference to our eternal standing before the throne of God. Indeed if such admonitions DID have respect to our eternal destiny, then salvation is most assuredly by works rather than by grace, and Paul was quite mistaken when he said that our salvation is "not according to our works." (II Tim 1:9). Paul was not mistaken."
This Hardshell thinks that his simply saying that the salvation being talked about in the passages mentioned is a temporal salvation is sufficient to prove his point? Why does he not prove what he says? We would be happy to debate these texts with him and show him his error, but we first want his proof for such a wild novel interpretation.
Further, he keeps repeating his same argument which we have completely demolished just as Paul told us to do. His argumentum ad nauseam proves nothing. Why does he not simply give us Scripture that plainly says that men will be saved who did not believe, repent, or persevere? No, Paul was not mistaken, but this Hardshell is mistaken in his reading of Paul.
He then wrote:
"It follows that the sense in which God's people can be said to "persevere" in this life, is in the sense that we are "preserved" in a state of grace by the imputed righteousness of Christ which is "all our righteousness" and which is "not of our works" and which is vastly superior to the best obedience offered by the best of saints on the best of days. At the end of the day...
What lands us in heaven is the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness, not our imperfect attempts at righteousness as disciples."
In this statement this Hardshell seems to think that there is a sense in which it may be said that the Lord's people persevere. But, his idea of perseverance is simply to affirm that the life and righteousness continue in a believer. But, this is clearly not the extent of the Bible teaching about perseverance. Paul had a different idea, however. He wrote to the Roman Christians and said:
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (Rom. 8: 13)
Obviously the apostle is not talking about physical death, for the Christians addressed were going to die physically whether they lived after the flesh or Spirit. Surely he is talking about the second death. And, what do we find John writing in regard to this second death in the Lake of Fire? John wrote:
"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Rev. 2: 11)
Clearly overcoming (persevering) is what men are to do in order to not be hurt of the second death. John further says that it is the "unbelieving" who will suffer the second death. (21: 8) John also said "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (2: 7)
So, when Paul says "if you live after the flesh you shall die," he means "if you live after the flesh (or fail to persevere in faith and holiness) you will die the second death," and "if you live after the Spirit you will eat of the tree of life and live forever."
And, who is the overcomer, the one who perseveres? Wrote John:
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world." (I John 5: 4)
Obviously the Apostle John did not have any doubts that those who were born of God would persevere and overcome. He also wrote:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (vs. 18)
Thus, the doctrine of the saints sure and certain perseverence is plainly taught in Scripture and we need not rely upon trying to base it upon speculative reasoning as does our Hardshell brother.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (II Cor. 10: 5)
Some better translations for "casting down imaginations" are "overthrowing reasonings" (Darby), "destroying speculations" (NASB), and "demolish arguments" (NIV). This is what we do when we do apologetics, which all Christians should be able to do, to one degree or another. (See I Peter 3: 15) Much false doctrine is built upon false reasonings and incorrect interpretations of Scripture. The Hardshell Baptists of today put forth such reasonings, arguments, and speculations that are to be overthrown and destroyed.
One argument that was recently made by the Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog against perseverance being necessary to final salvation was that such a view was against salvation being by grace and for a salvation by works (which is denied in Scripture). This Hardshell argued that since the Bible affirms that salvation is not by works, therefore it is not by persevering. This is an argument based upon a presumed logical deductive argument of a Scripture passage, and not from a clear express statement of Scripture. This Hardshell can find no express Scripture that says that salvation is not by persevering so he has to say that such a proposition is logically deducible. In other words "not by works" logically infers "not by perseverance."
When Paul says that salvation is "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3: 5) and "not according to our works" (II Tim. 1: 9) and "not of works" (Eph. 2: 9), the Hardshell, like other Hardshells, interprets "works" to refer to any act of a man. Further, since verbs are action words, there is no verb used in Scripture to refer to any action of a sinner unto eternal salvation. Thus, by this reasoning, not only must one exclude perseverance being necessary for salvation, but all these things also.
Sinners do not have to hear the Father or Son of God to be saved, for hearing is action (work) and salvation is not by works. Yet Jesus said that all who hear from the Father come to him (John 6: 45), and all who hear the voice of the Son of God live. (John 5: 25)
Sinners do not have to learn from the Father, for learning is action and salvation is not by any action of the sinner. Yet Jesus said all who hear and learn of the Father come to him. (John 6: 45)
Sinners do not have to come to Christ to be saved, for coming is an action and salvation is not through human action. Yet Jesus said that one must come to him for life. (John 5: 40)
Sinners do not have to believe in either the Father or the Son to be saved, for believing is an action and salvation is not by human action. Yet the record is that the "unbelieving" will have his part in the Lake of Fire, and he who does not believe will be damned. (Rev. 21: 8, Mark 16: 16)
Sinners do not have to repent to be saved, for repenting is an action and salvation is not by human acts.
He does not have to obey the Gospel.
He does not have to call on the name of the Lord.
He does not have to confess Christ.
He does not have to turn from serving idols.
He does not have to love God.
He does not have to receive Christ or the atonement.
This is Antinomianism and a denial of human responsibility.
This is a denial that all the actions (verbs) enumerated result from the grace and work of God. Though it is we who do the acts it is also at the same time the works of God. So testified the prophet - "thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12) So, though salvation is predicated or conditioned upon the above enumerated acts and activities, they are themselves predicated upon the gracious work of God. So Paul also wrote:
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)
The writer of Acts says that people "believed through grace." (Acts 18: 27) And Paul says that people believe "according to the working of his mighty power." (Eph. 1: 19) Though it is the creature who does the believing activity, yet it is conditioned upon God's acting. Thus, there ought not to be any opposition seen between our acting for our salvation and God acting for our acting.
Now notice these words of the Apostle.
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 13)
Notice that two things are named as conditions for obtaining "the promises." They are faith (belief) and patience. The Greek word for "patience" is "makrothymia" and means endurance or perseverance. Further, patience implies faith. But, Hardshells deny that there are any conditions or activities that people do in order to obtain the promises of God. What will the Hardshell do with such verses? Will he not try to say that the promises that are obtained by faith and patience are temporal promises only? Yet, in this he is simply bringing his presuppositions to the text. But, the text does not say "temporal promises" but simply "the promises," which includes the "promise of eternal life" (Titus 1: 2), and those in the context of the Hebrew epistle, including "the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9: 15)
Paul also wrote in this same epistle:
"For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise." (Heb. 10: 36)
Here the Greek word for "patience" is "hypomonē" and denotes steadfastness, constancy, and endurance.
So, how do we harmonize those passages which say that past, present, or future salvation is not "by" works? Is it not by the way I have shown? We are not saved by works that we have done apart from God's grace and working. We are not saved on the basis of our works but they are means that God has ordained and promised to work in his elect. Further, it is not the teaching of Scripture that we are finally saved because we believed, repented, loved, persevered, etc., but these are the things that are characteristic of those who have been chosen and called. If a man who professes Christ does not persevere, does not continue in the faith, then he manifests that he was never truly chosen and called.
I hope that this helps those Hardshells who are falsely reasoning on these things.
Some better translations for "casting down imaginations" are "overthrowing reasonings" (Darby), "destroying speculations" (NASB), and "demolish arguments" (NIV). This is what we do when we do apologetics, which all Christians should be able to do, to one degree or another. (See I Peter 3: 15) Much false doctrine is built upon false reasonings and incorrect interpretations of Scripture. The Hardshell Baptists of today put forth such reasonings, arguments, and speculations that are to be overthrown and destroyed.
One argument that was recently made by the Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog against perseverance being necessary to final salvation was that such a view was against salvation being by grace and for a salvation by works (which is denied in Scripture). This Hardshell argued that since the Bible affirms that salvation is not by works, therefore it is not by persevering. This is an argument based upon a presumed logical deductive argument of a Scripture passage, and not from a clear express statement of Scripture. This Hardshell can find no express Scripture that says that salvation is not by persevering so he has to say that such a proposition is logically deducible. In other words "not by works" logically infers "not by perseverance."
When Paul says that salvation is "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3: 5) and "not according to our works" (II Tim. 1: 9) and "not of works" (Eph. 2: 9), the Hardshell, like other Hardshells, interprets "works" to refer to any act of a man. Further, since verbs are action words, there is no verb used in Scripture to refer to any action of a sinner unto eternal salvation. Thus, by this reasoning, not only must one exclude perseverance being necessary for salvation, but all these things also.
Sinners do not have to hear the Father or Son of God to be saved, for hearing is action (work) and salvation is not by works. Yet Jesus said that all who hear from the Father come to him (John 6: 45), and all who hear the voice of the Son of God live. (John 5: 25)
Sinners do not have to learn from the Father, for learning is action and salvation is not by any action of the sinner. Yet Jesus said all who hear and learn of the Father come to him. (John 6: 45)
Sinners do not have to come to Christ to be saved, for coming is an action and salvation is not through human action. Yet Jesus said that one must come to him for life. (John 5: 40)
Sinners do not have to believe in either the Father or the Son to be saved, for believing is an action and salvation is not by human action. Yet the record is that the "unbelieving" will have his part in the Lake of Fire, and he who does not believe will be damned. (Rev. 21: 8, Mark 16: 16)
Sinners do not have to repent to be saved, for repenting is an action and salvation is not by human acts.
He does not have to obey the Gospel.
He does not have to call on the name of the Lord.
He does not have to confess Christ.
He does not have to turn from serving idols.
He does not have to love God.
He does not have to receive Christ or the atonement.
This is Antinomianism and a denial of human responsibility.
This is a denial that all the actions (verbs) enumerated result from the grace and work of God. Though it is we who do the acts it is also at the same time the works of God. So testified the prophet - "thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12) So, though salvation is predicated or conditioned upon the above enumerated acts and activities, they are themselves predicated upon the gracious work of God. So Paul also wrote:
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)
The writer of Acts says that people "believed through grace." (Acts 18: 27) And Paul says that people believe "according to the working of his mighty power." (Eph. 1: 19) Though it is the creature who does the believing activity, yet it is conditioned upon God's acting. Thus, there ought not to be any opposition seen between our acting for our salvation and God acting for our acting.
Now notice these words of the Apostle.
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 13)
Notice that two things are named as conditions for obtaining "the promises." They are faith (belief) and patience. The Greek word for "patience" is "makrothymia" and means endurance or perseverance. Further, patience implies faith. But, Hardshells deny that there are any conditions or activities that people do in order to obtain the promises of God. What will the Hardshell do with such verses? Will he not try to say that the promises that are obtained by faith and patience are temporal promises only? Yet, in this he is simply bringing his presuppositions to the text. But, the text does not say "temporal promises" but simply "the promises," which includes the "promise of eternal life" (Titus 1: 2), and those in the context of the Hebrew epistle, including "the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9: 15)
Paul also wrote in this same epistle:
"For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise." (Heb. 10: 36)
Here the Greek word for "patience" is "hypomonē" and denotes steadfastness, constancy, and endurance.
So, how do we harmonize those passages which say that past, present, or future salvation is not "by" works? Is it not by the way I have shown? We are not saved by works that we have done apart from God's grace and working. We are not saved on the basis of our works but they are means that God has ordained and promised to work in his elect. Further, it is not the teaching of Scripture that we are finally saved because we believed, repented, loved, persevered, etc., but these are the things that are characteristic of those who have been chosen and called. If a man who professes Christ does not persevere, does not continue in the faith, then he manifests that he was never truly chosen and called.
I hope that this helps those Hardshells who are falsely reasoning on these things.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Watson's Condemnation Continued
Elder John M. Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test" is a must read for anyone doing serious study into the history of the "Primitive Baptist Church." As has been noted before, Elder Watson was a first generation leader of the newly formed denomination, and labored during the formative years of the 1830s through the middle of the 1860s. His views can be taken as an example of what the first generation Hardshells believed and may be compared with what today's Hardshells believe. He recorded how many of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists were going to extremes in their fight against Baptists who supported mission work and religious education. I am sure that this old preacher died (1866) grieving over these extreme departures from the historic old Baptist faith, and he called those who were promoting these new doctrines "modern innovators," "ultraists," etc.
It is impossible for anyone to read the following citations from Watson (together with previous citations given in preceding postings) and deny that Watson believed in the Gospel means position. Yet, this is exactly what Elder Lemuel Potter did in his 1887 debate with W.P. Throgmorton. He affirmed that Watson did not advocate the means position. But, Potter either cannot read plain English or told a falsehood. Further, Elder Potter may be considered as one of the creators of modern Hardshellism, being one of the "modern innovators" and "ultraist" that Watson warned against. Potter, together with men like John R. Daily, T.S. Dalton, Charles Waters, C.H. Cayce, and R.W. and J.M. Thompson, Walter Cash, helped to make the Hardshell church into what it is today.
Watson wrote:
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86)
Watson says that the Hardshells who were against preaching the Gospel to the unregenerate, and denying that it was a means in regeneration, were not in possession of the true Gospel. This is a serious indictment. Today's Hardshells think that they are the only ones who are preaching the true Gospel, but the truth is, they do not preach it if they do not believe the Gospel is to be preached to all. Further, the day that the Hardshells discarded this belief and practice is the day that the Hardshell church began to wither and die, and the day when they became a cult. They will never again see escape from this curse until they once again begin to preach to sinners and to exhort them to believe and repent in order to be saved.
When I was a young Hardshell pastor, I struggled with this issue. I wanted to urge sinners about their situation, and point them to the way of salvation. I was concerned about the lack of conversions and wanted to bring my sermon messages to a point where I exhorted the sinner about his need to call on Christ. I gave the typical Hardshell invitation at the end of every sermon which was simply to say "the doors of the church are open for anyone who wants to join." But, to me, this was simply not the best or only way.
Watson also wrote:
"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Armminians." (ibid)
Today's Hardshells are totally made of "ultra" brethren, people who will not preach to dead sinners as did Christ and his apostles. If one today preaches in such a fashion, he would indeed be called "Arminian" by the neo Hardshells. In failing to preach evangelistically to sinners, today's Hardshells are not in league with the Old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, their forefathers, and not in league with their own founding fathers of the 19th century, with men like Leland, Watson, Fain, and Grigg Thompson, men who regularly called upon sinners to believe in Christ for salvation.
Watson also wrote:
"Let us see: The zealous preacher calls on all to repent, earnestly, faithfully and I may add, gospelly, but alas! the old brother whose head has got wrong, whose heart has grown cold, says all cannot repent, some have not the power to do so. How does he know? Peradventure the Lord has given the power to repent to the very ones whom he has in his feelings excluded.." (page 87)
In this quotation, and the preceding one, Watson mentions giving "zealous appeal," to the lost, and doing so "earnestly," a thing which you will not see in today's Hardshell churches. They feel no burden to the lost nor believe that their preaching has any power to raise the spiritually dead to life. Watson says that these ultra Hardshells not only do not preach the Gospel but have hearts that have grown cold and who had heads that are wrong. Simply put, today's Hardshells do not believe that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Watson also wrote:
"How mortifying to the feelings of a faithful preacher to be called an Arminian on account of preaching according to the very commission which Christ gave for the rule and government of his ministry. Brethren preachers, it is high time that we strive to please God in this affair rather than men. It is high time indeed that some of us were waking up on this subject; let us rather exhort our opposing brethren to pray the Lord that he would open the hearts of our hearers to attend to the truths which we may preach, knowing that none will heed to profit without this blessing, to the great end that the 'other sheep" of our day may be brought in. Here again the objector says, why pray for that which is sure? This, verily is the very reason why we should pray for it..." (page 88)
Oh that these words of wisdom would have been heeded by the Hardshells! They need little comment. There is one historical observation that ought to be made, however. Obviously by 1866 the anti means view of regeneration was gaining ground. What brought about this change? Is it not because the opposition to mission methods by itself lacked strength? Did simply attacking methods, after awhile, begin to "wear thin" as Brother Ross has stated in his work?
Watson wrote:
"There are yet a few who contend for the general outward call of the Gospel, but we doctrinise it too much, lest some ultra brother should conclude that we are Arminians." (page 89)
Notice the historical significance of these words of Watson. He says "there are yet a few," which indicates that in 1866 the no means position had gotten the upper hand. Watson says that it was the tactic of the "ultra brother" to label all who believed in the outward general call of the Gospel, or in exhorting the lost, or in Gospel means regeneration, as "Arminian" that led to the dwindling of those who held to the Gospel means position. These ultraist brethren used cult tactics to win in this war. They threatened the side who retained a belief in means. They intimidated them.
Watson wrote:
"Further, I was much surprised as well as mortified that they evinced so little concern about the unbrought "other sheep" which the Saviour said he must bring. They lay great stress on these words of the Saviour, but do not regard other things which he connected with the bringing them in as they ought to do. I heard but few prayers for the sending forth of laborers into his field; nor did I see much concern in any way about them." (page 181)
Watson says that he was both "surprised" and "mortified" to see so little concern about the lost. But, it really ought not to have been a surprise for it should have been evident to such a learned man as Watson to have foreseen what the opposition to missions, religious education, and evangelism, would eventually lead to. We who look back see clearly how such opposition led to a change in doctrine regarding means and perseverance.
It is to the credit of Watson that he felt mortified by the unconcern and apathy that his fellow Hardshells showed towards the lost, especially in foreign lands. Watson saw this unbecoming spirit begin to take over the newly formed denomination, and if he were alive today he would see how such a spirit has pervaded the denomination. A Christian who has no concern about sending the Gospel to the lost, that they might be saved, is a Christian who has a spirit that ought to be condemned.
Watson wrote:
"I felt inclined to ask these orthodox Christians, if they believed that any of the "other sheep" are now among the heathen nations? and if they were watching the providence of God in regard to them? Moreover, if they felt under any obligations to search them out; to pray unto the Lord to bring them in; and to encourage, aid and send out any who may feel called of the Lord to preach to them?"
How would today's Hardshells respond to such questions? If they searched their hearts, would they not have to confess that they live from day to day with little or no concern for the lost souls in heathen lands? Do they not feel no obligation towards them? Do they not think that it is God's responsibiility alone and not theirs? What is this but Antinomianism?
Further, Watson mentions encouraging, aiding, and sending out those who have been called to preach to those poor lost heathens. But, as we have already seen, today's Hardshells feel no duty or desire to do any of these things. Recall how I cited from Hardshell testimony in the Mt. Carmel Church trial in which a Hardshell said that he felt no duty to even give encouragement or one cent to help such a preacher to preach to the heathen.
Watson continued:
"I find that the great extravagance of many who have engaged in this work has had a very bad influence on these people, and probably prevented them in some instances from performing their duty toward the "other sheep" which may be in distant countries. And I really fear should any one profess a call of this kind, he would not receive the fellowship and assistance which he would be entitled to. Thus I fear they do not act as did those who heeded all the commandments of the Lord." (pages 181-82)
What is Watson saying? Is he not saying that the Hardshells, in opposing mission methods of others, went to an opposite extreme? He says their opposition to the "great extravagance" of some Mission Baptists led them to neglect their "duty" towards the elect who are lost in heathen darkness. He testifies of his fear that this Hardshell extremism would lead to the Hardshells doing nothing to help see that the Gospel was sent to the heathen. His fears, as history shows, was indeed what actually materialized. The Hardshells today have violated the commission of the Lord, and are a disobedient people, not doing what the Lord has commanded them today. Why do they think that they shall escape the judgment of God for this?
Watson continued:
"Who of us are...sinning in propagating Protestant heresies, or Old Baptist ultraisms. We can readily see the absurdities of Romanism, the errors of many Protestant sects, and avoid them, but we do not recognize, as heresies, those hurtful ultraisms which are eating, as doth a canker, upon our very vitals as a denomination-a denomination which very justly boasts of its antiquity, and of having never acknowledged any other rule of faith and practice but that of the Bible. But some of our brethren are interpreting many of its blessed truths in such a way as to lead off their hearers from the Old Baptist platform of principles." (page 300)
What Watson here says is what I have been saying throughout my writings against the Hardshells. If Watson were alive today, he would join Elder Fralick and me in writing against the errors of today's Hardshells. The modern Hardshell church has seen the cancer of "Old Baptist ultraisms" metastasize and reach its final stage. These ultraisms he labels as "heresies." He says that these new interpretations of Scripture, wherein means are denied, and duty to fulfill the Great Commission is set aside, etc., were leading the denomination away "from the Old Baptist platform of principles." This is exactly what brother Fralick and I have been also proclaiming.
Was Watson wrong when he says that these ultraisms of those who were calling themselves "Old" or "Primitive" Baptists was a departure from the historic teaching of their Old Baptist forefathers? What Hardshell can come forward today with the evidence to disprove his assertion? Have we not presented all kinds of evidence in my book and in my blogs that show that the Hardshell no means view is an innovation in doctrine, not held to by the ancestors of the Hardshells?
Watson continued:
"No wonder we have perversions, heresies, debates and divisions among us, from such a deceitful handling of the Word of God; a part carried far beyond its true import, and another portion suppressed just as may subserve their tenets or fancies." (page 319)
Notice again how Watson says that the no means, Spirit alone, view of regeneration, and the denial that the Great Commission is yet an obligation of the church, is the result not only of faulty interpretation of Scripture, but from a "deceitful handling of the Word of God." How accurate is this judgment! The hermeneutics of the Hardshells is so faulty. They feel no judgment for their handling of the word of God in the manner they do. They twist it, they pervert it, and feel no sense of wrong for doing it. They do not realize how great an evil it is to as they do. The Scriptures that teach against their peculiar beliefs they truly do suppress or else try to make them say what they obviously do not say. They come to the Scriptures with their "fancies," with their peculiar tenets and presuppositions and are guilty of eisegesis. I hopefully will have a couple chapters on "Hardshell Hermeneutics" and "Hardshell Amillenialism" which will demonstrate the errors of the Hardshells in how they interpret Scripture.
Watson continued:
"To show that the will of God is in His word, of His own will, says James, begat he us with the word of truth. The proof that His everlasting love is in it, is that with loving kindness He draws believers to Christ." (page 421)
This is the truth that was discarded by second and third generation Hardshells, and which had even begun in the latter days of Watson's life. They deny that the word of truth is God's instrument in begetting sinners to life. Today's Hardshells are suffering the consequences of such a departure from the Scriptures and the historic Baptist faith.
It is impossible for anyone to read the following citations from Watson (together with previous citations given in preceding postings) and deny that Watson believed in the Gospel means position. Yet, this is exactly what Elder Lemuel Potter did in his 1887 debate with W.P. Throgmorton. He affirmed that Watson did not advocate the means position. But, Potter either cannot read plain English or told a falsehood. Further, Elder Potter may be considered as one of the creators of modern Hardshellism, being one of the "modern innovators" and "ultraist" that Watson warned against. Potter, together with men like John R. Daily, T.S. Dalton, Charles Waters, C.H. Cayce, and R.W. and J.M. Thompson, Walter Cash, helped to make the Hardshell church into what it is today.
Watson wrote:
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86)
Watson says that the Hardshells who were against preaching the Gospel to the unregenerate, and denying that it was a means in regeneration, were not in possession of the true Gospel. This is a serious indictment. Today's Hardshells think that they are the only ones who are preaching the true Gospel, but the truth is, they do not preach it if they do not believe the Gospel is to be preached to all. Further, the day that the Hardshells discarded this belief and practice is the day that the Hardshell church began to wither and die, and the day when they became a cult. They will never again see escape from this curse until they once again begin to preach to sinners and to exhort them to believe and repent in order to be saved.
When I was a young Hardshell pastor, I struggled with this issue. I wanted to urge sinners about their situation, and point them to the way of salvation. I was concerned about the lack of conversions and wanted to bring my sermon messages to a point where I exhorted the sinner about his need to call on Christ. I gave the typical Hardshell invitation at the end of every sermon which was simply to say "the doors of the church are open for anyone who wants to join." But, to me, this was simply not the best or only way.
Watson also wrote:
"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Armminians." (ibid)
Today's Hardshells are totally made of "ultra" brethren, people who will not preach to dead sinners as did Christ and his apostles. If one today preaches in such a fashion, he would indeed be called "Arminian" by the neo Hardshells. In failing to preach evangelistically to sinners, today's Hardshells are not in league with the Old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, their forefathers, and not in league with their own founding fathers of the 19th century, with men like Leland, Watson, Fain, and Grigg Thompson, men who regularly called upon sinners to believe in Christ for salvation.
Watson also wrote:
"Let us see: The zealous preacher calls on all to repent, earnestly, faithfully and I may add, gospelly, but alas! the old brother whose head has got wrong, whose heart has grown cold, says all cannot repent, some have not the power to do so. How does he know? Peradventure the Lord has given the power to repent to the very ones whom he has in his feelings excluded.." (page 87)
In this quotation, and the preceding one, Watson mentions giving "zealous appeal," to the lost, and doing so "earnestly," a thing which you will not see in today's Hardshell churches. They feel no burden to the lost nor believe that their preaching has any power to raise the spiritually dead to life. Watson says that these ultra Hardshells not only do not preach the Gospel but have hearts that have grown cold and who had heads that are wrong. Simply put, today's Hardshells do not believe that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Watson also wrote:
"How mortifying to the feelings of a faithful preacher to be called an Arminian on account of preaching according to the very commission which Christ gave for the rule and government of his ministry. Brethren preachers, it is high time that we strive to please God in this affair rather than men. It is high time indeed that some of us were waking up on this subject; let us rather exhort our opposing brethren to pray the Lord that he would open the hearts of our hearers to attend to the truths which we may preach, knowing that none will heed to profit without this blessing, to the great end that the 'other sheep" of our day may be brought in. Here again the objector says, why pray for that which is sure? This, verily is the very reason why we should pray for it..." (page 88)
Oh that these words of wisdom would have been heeded by the Hardshells! They need little comment. There is one historical observation that ought to be made, however. Obviously by 1866 the anti means view of regeneration was gaining ground. What brought about this change? Is it not because the opposition to mission methods by itself lacked strength? Did simply attacking methods, after awhile, begin to "wear thin" as Brother Ross has stated in his work?
Watson wrote:
"There are yet a few who contend for the general outward call of the Gospel, but we doctrinise it too much, lest some ultra brother should conclude that we are Arminians." (page 89)
Notice the historical significance of these words of Watson. He says "there are yet a few," which indicates that in 1866 the no means position had gotten the upper hand. Watson says that it was the tactic of the "ultra brother" to label all who believed in the outward general call of the Gospel, or in exhorting the lost, or in Gospel means regeneration, as "Arminian" that led to the dwindling of those who held to the Gospel means position. These ultraist brethren used cult tactics to win in this war. They threatened the side who retained a belief in means. They intimidated them.
Watson wrote:
"Further, I was much surprised as well as mortified that they evinced so little concern about the unbrought "other sheep" which the Saviour said he must bring. They lay great stress on these words of the Saviour, but do not regard other things which he connected with the bringing them in as they ought to do. I heard but few prayers for the sending forth of laborers into his field; nor did I see much concern in any way about them." (page 181)
Watson says that he was both "surprised" and "mortified" to see so little concern about the lost. But, it really ought not to have been a surprise for it should have been evident to such a learned man as Watson to have foreseen what the opposition to missions, religious education, and evangelism, would eventually lead to. We who look back see clearly how such opposition led to a change in doctrine regarding means and perseverance.
It is to the credit of Watson that he felt mortified by the unconcern and apathy that his fellow Hardshells showed towards the lost, especially in foreign lands. Watson saw this unbecoming spirit begin to take over the newly formed denomination, and if he were alive today he would see how such a spirit has pervaded the denomination. A Christian who has no concern about sending the Gospel to the lost, that they might be saved, is a Christian who has a spirit that ought to be condemned.
Watson wrote:
"I felt inclined to ask these orthodox Christians, if they believed that any of the "other sheep" are now among the heathen nations? and if they were watching the providence of God in regard to them? Moreover, if they felt under any obligations to search them out; to pray unto the Lord to bring them in; and to encourage, aid and send out any who may feel called of the Lord to preach to them?"
How would today's Hardshells respond to such questions? If they searched their hearts, would they not have to confess that they live from day to day with little or no concern for the lost souls in heathen lands? Do they not feel no obligation towards them? Do they not think that it is God's responsibiility alone and not theirs? What is this but Antinomianism?
Further, Watson mentions encouraging, aiding, and sending out those who have been called to preach to those poor lost heathens. But, as we have already seen, today's Hardshells feel no duty or desire to do any of these things. Recall how I cited from Hardshell testimony in the Mt. Carmel Church trial in which a Hardshell said that he felt no duty to even give encouragement or one cent to help such a preacher to preach to the heathen.
Watson continued:
"I find that the great extravagance of many who have engaged in this work has had a very bad influence on these people, and probably prevented them in some instances from performing their duty toward the "other sheep" which may be in distant countries. And I really fear should any one profess a call of this kind, he would not receive the fellowship and assistance which he would be entitled to. Thus I fear they do not act as did those who heeded all the commandments of the Lord." (pages 181-82)
What is Watson saying? Is he not saying that the Hardshells, in opposing mission methods of others, went to an opposite extreme? He says their opposition to the "great extravagance" of some Mission Baptists led them to neglect their "duty" towards the elect who are lost in heathen darkness. He testifies of his fear that this Hardshell extremism would lead to the Hardshells doing nothing to help see that the Gospel was sent to the heathen. His fears, as history shows, was indeed what actually materialized. The Hardshells today have violated the commission of the Lord, and are a disobedient people, not doing what the Lord has commanded them today. Why do they think that they shall escape the judgment of God for this?
Watson continued:
"Who of us are...sinning in propagating Protestant heresies, or Old Baptist ultraisms. We can readily see the absurdities of Romanism, the errors of many Protestant sects, and avoid them, but we do not recognize, as heresies, those hurtful ultraisms which are eating, as doth a canker, upon our very vitals as a denomination-a denomination which very justly boasts of its antiquity, and of having never acknowledged any other rule of faith and practice but that of the Bible. But some of our brethren are interpreting many of its blessed truths in such a way as to lead off their hearers from the Old Baptist platform of principles." (page 300)
What Watson here says is what I have been saying throughout my writings against the Hardshells. If Watson were alive today, he would join Elder Fralick and me in writing against the errors of today's Hardshells. The modern Hardshell church has seen the cancer of "Old Baptist ultraisms" metastasize and reach its final stage. These ultraisms he labels as "heresies." He says that these new interpretations of Scripture, wherein means are denied, and duty to fulfill the Great Commission is set aside, etc., were leading the denomination away "from the Old Baptist platform of principles." This is exactly what brother Fralick and I have been also proclaiming.
Was Watson wrong when he says that these ultraisms of those who were calling themselves "Old" or "Primitive" Baptists was a departure from the historic teaching of their Old Baptist forefathers? What Hardshell can come forward today with the evidence to disprove his assertion? Have we not presented all kinds of evidence in my book and in my blogs that show that the Hardshell no means view is an innovation in doctrine, not held to by the ancestors of the Hardshells?
Watson continued:
"No wonder we have perversions, heresies, debates and divisions among us, from such a deceitful handling of the Word of God; a part carried far beyond its true import, and another portion suppressed just as may subserve their tenets or fancies." (page 319)
Notice again how Watson says that the no means, Spirit alone, view of regeneration, and the denial that the Great Commission is yet an obligation of the church, is the result not only of faulty interpretation of Scripture, but from a "deceitful handling of the Word of God." How accurate is this judgment! The hermeneutics of the Hardshells is so faulty. They feel no judgment for their handling of the word of God in the manner they do. They twist it, they pervert it, and feel no sense of wrong for doing it. They do not realize how great an evil it is to as they do. The Scriptures that teach against their peculiar beliefs they truly do suppress or else try to make them say what they obviously do not say. They come to the Scriptures with their "fancies," with their peculiar tenets and presuppositions and are guilty of eisegesis. I hopefully will have a couple chapters on "Hardshell Hermeneutics" and "Hardshell Amillenialism" which will demonstrate the errors of the Hardshells in how they interpret Scripture.
Watson continued:
"To show that the will of God is in His word, of His own will, says James, begat he us with the word of truth. The proof that His everlasting love is in it, is that with loving kindness He draws believers to Christ." (page 421)
This is the truth that was discarded by second and third generation Hardshells, and which had even begun in the latter days of Watson's life. They deny that the word of truth is God's instrument in begetting sinners to life. Today's Hardshells are suffering the consequences of such a departure from the Scriptures and the historic Baptist faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)