"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." (Acts 28:28)
What is sent? salvation or the message? When Paul says "they will hear it," what is the antecedent of the pronoun it? If it is "salvation," how can one hear it? If what is heard is the message of salvation, then does the apostle not equate the singular term "salvation" with what is heard, or with the gospel message?
Obviously when Paul speaks of "salvation" he equates the term with the gospel message itself. He uses the word "sent" and then uses the word "hear," but you would think that he would have rather used the word "receive" rather than "hear." Thus, we would read the verse as saying in English - "this salvation is sent to the Gentiles and they will receive it."
Thus, one of two things are obvious. First, Paul equates the Gospel being "sent" to the Gentiles with "salvation" being "sent" to them. Second, Paul's idea of hearing the Gospel is all the same as receiving. And, is it not true in both cases? That in sending the Gospel to the Gentiles God was sending salvation (a fact denied by the Hardshells)? And, second, that to hear is the same as to receive? (And this latter fact also denied by today's Hardshells)
So, what can the Hardshell do with this text? Seeing he refuses to acknowledge that "the salvation of God" is sent via the Gospel, what then will he do? What kind of twisted interpretation can he offer to the verse to make it compatible with hardshellism? I dare say that most of them will opt for the "time salvation" defense, affirming that it is a mere temporal salvation that is sent and received. But, does this solve the difficulty for them? Or (as I will show in the next posting), does it not rather create innumerable problems for them?
From Dr. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"Be it known therefore unto you,.... Unbelievers and despisers, take this along with you at parting, and do not say you were never acquainted with it:
that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles; meaning the Gospel, which is a publication and declaration of that salvation, which God contrived from all eternity..."
Friday, January 29, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
God's Faith? (vii)
As previously stated, no translator nor serious commentator on holy scripture denies that many times in the new testament that "the faith" refers to the object of Christian belief and not to a strictly subjective faith. Two scriptures that were cited as examples of this are these:
1) "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)
2) "shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." (I Tim. 4:1)
Now let us add to this list others, beginning with a passage which most interpreters acknowledge refers to the object of Christian trust and conviction.
"And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts 6:7)
On this verse A.T. Robertson says (emphasis mine):
"The faith (τηι πιστει — tēi pistei). Here meaning the gospel, the faith system as in Romans 1:5; Galatians 1:23; Judges 1:3, etc." (Word Pictures)
Notice how Robertson says that "the faith" denotes "the gospel" (the common interpretation), and then mentions Romans 1: 5, as another passage where "the faith" denotes the gospel and is a passage we will look at shortly as it bears on the discussion of the meaning of "the faith" in Romans 3: 3. But, first, let us look at these other verses in Acts.
"But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith." (Acts 13:8)
"Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." (Acts 14:22)
"And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily." (Acts 16:5)
What these verses show is that Luke commonly refers to the doctrine of Christ or the gospel as "the faith" and shows that the first Christians understood what was signified and denoted by "the faith." It is as Dr. Robertson said a term that stands for the gospel system. Further, notice how the presence of the definite article is important, referring to something definite and particular. I think another word for "faith" in arthrous cases could be "creed." Thus "the faith" is "the creed." Also, we can speak of "the creed" or "the faith" without stated adjectives (or genitive nouns) because it is understood in context. It often is given with modifiers and genitive nouns and so we have "the faith (creed) of God," "the faith of saints," "the faith of Christ," etc., or put the same into this English form; "God's faith (creed)," "saint's faith," or "Christ's faith."
Though it is most often the case that where "faith" is used with the definite article it is a reference to the creed of Christians, or to the gospel revelation, or to the oracles of God in Christ, to the object of individual subjective belief, yet there are some few cases where "the faith" possibly alludes to the subjective belief of individuals. In such cases the definite article functions as a demonstrative pronoun and so in such cases the writer will indeed be speaking of the subjective faith or belief of Christians. The context will reveal this. If a writer is discussing individual belief or believing, then when in such context he says "the faith" or "the belief" he means "this belief or believing that I have been talking about." This will become evident as we look at pertinent passages, first in the Roman epistle. Further, we will see that most often when a writer is focusing on subjective belief he will do so by using "faith" (pistis) without the article, and why this is so.
Before we leave the book of Acts, let us notice this disputed passage.
"And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ." (KJV)
When Felix heard Paul "concerning the faith in Christ" we notice how the KJV adds the definite article, which is present in the Greek text. However, notice how both the NIV and NASB both omit the definite article in their translations. Others, like the KJV, retain the article.
"Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus." (NIV)
"But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus." (NASB)
It is possible that the definite article means "this" or "that" and so may refer to individual Christian belief, or subjective faith, in this context. But, it is doubtful that Felix wanted to hear about Paul's personal convictions as much as his doctrine or teachings. Further, had this been the object of Felix's hearing of Paul, would not Luke had rather written that Felix sent to Paul to hear him of "your faith" (2nd person) rather than as he wrote "the faith" (3rd person)? Further, in the previous passages in Acts "the faith" stood for the Christian religion, being the oracles of God as given to the Jews as well as the oracles of God as given through Christ.
However, this verse is unique in that it does not have a genitive attached to "the faith" so as to read "the faith of..." but rather has "the faith in (eis) Christ Jesus." The Greek preposition is directional, pointing towards an object. It is belief that is towards or unto Christ. We will be looking at passages that have "the faith of Christ," but this here is "the faith towards Christ." This would seem to lend weight to the definite article being demonstrative and therefore meaning "this belief directed towards Christ Jesus." Not that this is conclusive, for even with the preposition eis, "the faith" still may denote "the Christian creed" as the other passages in Acts just noticed. Certainly the Scriptures, which are the Christian's creed, are all "unto (eis) Christ," that is, they all point to Christ.
Again, I don't think anyone can doubt that these passages in the book of Acts show that it was common nomenclature for the early church to refer to the gospel as "the faith" and these passages demonstrate such. Further, we see this same term used not only by the inspired historian but by the other writers of the new testament as we observed in Paul's first letter to Timothy and in Jude's general epistle. Shortly, we will see whether Paul used this term in his Roman epistle, and if so, where? But, let us first look at some of those other new testament passages that speak of "the faith."
"Watch, stand fast in the faith, quit yourselves like men, be strong." (I Cor. 16:13)
"Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith." (II Cor. 13:5)
"But they had heard only, That he who persecuted us in times past now preaches the faith which once he destroyed." (Gal. 1:23)
"If you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and do not be moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; of which I Paul am made a minister." (Col. 1:23)
"Being rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving." (Col. 2:7)
"But if any does not provide for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." (I Tim. 5:8)
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (I Tim. 6:10)
"Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." (I Tim. 6:21)
"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." (II Tim. 3:8)
"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." (II Tim. 4:7)
"This witness is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." (Titus 1:13)
"My brothers, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons." (James 2:1)
"Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brothers that are in the world." (I Peter 5:9)
"Here is the patience of the saints: here are those who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Rev. 14:12)
I doubt that anyone will doubt the frequency of the term "the faith" in the new testament scriptures and that it refers to the object of Christian conviction, or to their scriptures or creed. But, let us notice this interesting passage that also has "the faith."
1) "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)
2) "shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." (I Tim. 4:1)
Now let us add to this list others, beginning with a passage which most interpreters acknowledge refers to the object of Christian trust and conviction.
"And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts 6:7)
On this verse A.T. Robertson says (emphasis mine):
"The faith (τηι πιστει — tēi pistei). Here meaning the gospel, the faith system as in Romans 1:5; Galatians 1:23; Judges 1:3, etc." (Word Pictures)
Notice how Robertson says that "the faith" denotes "the gospel" (the common interpretation), and then mentions Romans 1: 5, as another passage where "the faith" denotes the gospel and is a passage we will look at shortly as it bears on the discussion of the meaning of "the faith" in Romans 3: 3. But, first, let us look at these other verses in Acts.
"But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith." (Acts 13:8)
"Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." (Acts 14:22)
"And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily." (Acts 16:5)
What these verses show is that Luke commonly refers to the doctrine of Christ or the gospel as "the faith" and shows that the first Christians understood what was signified and denoted by "the faith." It is as Dr. Robertson said a term that stands for the gospel system. Further, notice how the presence of the definite article is important, referring to something definite and particular. I think another word for "faith" in arthrous cases could be "creed." Thus "the faith" is "the creed." Also, we can speak of "the creed" or "the faith" without stated adjectives (or genitive nouns) because it is understood in context. It often is given with modifiers and genitive nouns and so we have "the faith (creed) of God," "the faith of saints," "the faith of Christ," etc., or put the same into this English form; "God's faith (creed)," "saint's faith," or "Christ's faith."
Though it is most often the case that where "faith" is used with the definite article it is a reference to the creed of Christians, or to the gospel revelation, or to the oracles of God in Christ, to the object of individual subjective belief, yet there are some few cases where "the faith" possibly alludes to the subjective belief of individuals. In such cases the definite article functions as a demonstrative pronoun and so in such cases the writer will indeed be speaking of the subjective faith or belief of Christians. The context will reveal this. If a writer is discussing individual belief or believing, then when in such context he says "the faith" or "the belief" he means "this belief or believing that I have been talking about." This will become evident as we look at pertinent passages, first in the Roman epistle. Further, we will see that most often when a writer is focusing on subjective belief he will do so by using "faith" (pistis) without the article, and why this is so.
Before we leave the book of Acts, let us notice this disputed passage.
"And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ." (KJV)
When Felix heard Paul "concerning the faith in Christ" we notice how the KJV adds the definite article, which is present in the Greek text. However, notice how both the NIV and NASB both omit the definite article in their translations. Others, like the KJV, retain the article.
"Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus." (NIV)
"But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus." (NASB)
It is possible that the definite article means "this" or "that" and so may refer to individual Christian belief, or subjective faith, in this context. But, it is doubtful that Felix wanted to hear about Paul's personal convictions as much as his doctrine or teachings. Further, had this been the object of Felix's hearing of Paul, would not Luke had rather written that Felix sent to Paul to hear him of "your faith" (2nd person) rather than as he wrote "the faith" (3rd person)? Further, in the previous passages in Acts "the faith" stood for the Christian religion, being the oracles of God as given to the Jews as well as the oracles of God as given through Christ.
However, this verse is unique in that it does not have a genitive attached to "the faith" so as to read "the faith of..." but rather has "the faith in (eis) Christ Jesus." The Greek preposition is directional, pointing towards an object. It is belief that is towards or unto Christ. We will be looking at passages that have "the faith of Christ," but this here is "the faith towards Christ." This would seem to lend weight to the definite article being demonstrative and therefore meaning "this belief directed towards Christ Jesus." Not that this is conclusive, for even with the preposition eis, "the faith" still may denote "the Christian creed" as the other passages in Acts just noticed. Certainly the Scriptures, which are the Christian's creed, are all "unto (eis) Christ," that is, they all point to Christ.
Again, I don't think anyone can doubt that these passages in the book of Acts show that it was common nomenclature for the early church to refer to the gospel as "the faith" and these passages demonstrate such. Further, we see this same term used not only by the inspired historian but by the other writers of the new testament as we observed in Paul's first letter to Timothy and in Jude's general epistle. Shortly, we will see whether Paul used this term in his Roman epistle, and if so, where? But, let us first look at some of those other new testament passages that speak of "the faith."
"Watch, stand fast in the faith, quit yourselves like men, be strong." (I Cor. 16:13)
"Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith." (II Cor. 13:5)
"But they had heard only, That he who persecuted us in times past now preaches the faith which once he destroyed." (Gal. 1:23)
"If you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and do not be moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; of which I Paul am made a minister." (Col. 1:23)
"Being rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving." (Col. 2:7)
"But if any does not provide for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." (I Tim. 5:8)
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (I Tim. 6:10)
"Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." (I Tim. 6:21)
"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." (II Tim. 3:8)
"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." (II Tim. 4:7)
"This witness is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." (Titus 1:13)
"My brothers, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons." (James 2:1)
"Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brothers that are in the world." (I Peter 5:9)
"Here is the patience of the saints: here are those who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Rev. 14:12)
I doubt that anyone will doubt the frequency of the term "the faith" in the new testament scriptures and that it refers to the object of Christian conviction, or to their scriptures or creed. But, let us notice this interesting passage that also has "the faith."
Sunday, January 24, 2016
My Meeting With Sonny Pyles (vi)
After Lunch
Stephen
Brother Newell, will you lead us in prayer?
Thank you
Well, the last thing that we were discussing before we broke for lunch was how we would save discussions about issues involved in Landmarkism till later and talk about what we think the Hardshells of today need in order to bring about the blessing of God. You know, one of my favorite verses of the bible is Psalms 127:1 where it is said: "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes in vain."
This verse does not give us any authority to blame the Lord for our vanities in labor, yet we are to give him the credit for vanity's opposite, which must involve success in labor, as the metaphors chosen show. The Psalmist contrasts meaningless or useless labor versus meaningful and useful labor.
If we want to "build up Zion" and to see her grow, mature, and prosper, then God will have to be the chief builder behind our work. Paul confidently said of his own labors "we are laborers together with God." And he said to the Corinthians "know that your labors are not in vain in the Lord."
But, how can we know that he is laboring with us in building the Hardshell church? In watching over her? Is he the master builder in the building efforts of the Hardshells? A joint laborer with them as he was with Paul?
A house that is in the process of being constructed is growing in size and members. To say a building is being built but yet no new no members are being added to it, or that it is not increasing in size, is a contradiction. When a building is being destroyed, or dismantled, members of the building are removed one by one until there are no members joined together. I just think you brothers are living in denial of this fact. You have a disease. The symptoms prove it. But, you refuse to accept the fact. You convince yourself that your failure to prosper is any sign of being out of the will of God.
Sonny
I like that verse also. I certainly do want the Lord to be involved in our building and watching. I also want to see the church prosper, but not in the way the Arminians define "prosper." What you say about growth in numbers in relation to God blessed labors is difficult to refute. I will have to give that some more thought. I do recall that verse - "For the children of the desolate one are more numerous than the children of the married woman." (Isaiah 54:1) The churches of the world will always be "more numerous" than the Lord's true church.
Stephen
About the manner in which we are to build up the Lord's church and bring about its prosperity, let me first say that we ought not to think that the Lord's doing the building excludes our building. That would be an Antinomian error, one into which many Hardshells have fallen. Paul said to the members of the early church "you are God's building," meaning that God was the builder. Did that exclude Paul from being involved in that building?
Further, you cannot exclude growth in numbers from the criteria for judging God's blessing on a work or group. If we do include growth in numbers as an evidence of blessing and approbation from the Lord, as we should, then by this criteria the Hardshells are not in a state of blessing. Luke, in writing the book of Acts, often linked growth in the number of disciples with the blessing of God on the word being preached. For instance he wrote in Acts 11: 21 - "And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." Notice that the hand of the Lord being with the first evangelists in their preaching produced a great number of converts. By this criteria, the "Primitive Baptist Church" is not being blessed and owned by God.
Sonny
A growth in numbers does not prove orthodoxy nor is it a sign of divine approval. Many heretical groups have grown in great numbers, such as the Catholics and Muslims. As far as the Antinomian error of which you speak, I would rather call it fatalism, and no one doubts that such an error has had its influence among our people. Further, our enemies have been prophesying of our death for two hundred years.
Stephen
Bare survival is not prosperity. The "Primitive Baptist" church of today is at least "half dead" like the wounded man in the story of the good Samaritan. To me they are like the church at Sardis, to whom Christ said - "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead."
The prosperity and success of the Lord's church is guaranteed so long as she believes and practices the true faith of Christ. As far as heretical groups prospering in number, and this proving that growth in numbers is no sign of God's blessing, I will say that growth in numbers alone does not prove a good standing with God, but I do affirm that God's blessing of the word preached will always be prosperous as regarding the number of converts, as I showed already from the Acts passage. But, notice also Isaiah 55: 11.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
I just find it fascinating that the Hardshells cannot see how their decline is a sign that they are not in line with the Lord in some serious way. And, they are not going to prosper till they discover what it is about them that is frowned upon by the Lord. They even want to make their decline a sign of God's blessing. Ironic indeed. And yet we find just the opposite sentiment in scripture. Notice God's judgment on Israel is evidenced by her decline in numbers.
"Wheras you were as numerous as the stars of heaven, you shall be left few in number, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God." (Duet. 28:62)
Are not the Hardshells today left few in number? The word prosper, used often in connection with the word preached, necessarily includes growth in number. How can you say that the Hardshell church is prospering when she is not increasing in size?
Sonny
Well, lots of our churches are growing, but they will never grow as fast nor be as large as worldly churches. Some are dying, and I agree that the Lord is not to blame, but rather we must be at fault. And, so far as being few in number, remember Stephen that the Lord's church is called a "little flock." Only few walk the narrow way by being in the Lord's visible church kingdom. Remember that in Noah's day only eight people were saved. Remember also that in the days of Elias there were only seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
Stephen
We are indeed making progress. I thank God for where we now are in our conversation. We are addressing the question as to why the Hardshells have been in decline ever since their origin and why God has not been blessing their preaching as he did that of their forefathers, men like Benjamin Keach, John Gill, and Charles Spurgeon. And men in this country like John Leland and John Gano, Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall, John Watson and R.W. Fain, etc. These are your forefathers as well as mine to some degree. God blessed their ministries and the churches in their care and fellowship and they prospered. Converts to Christ were not rare occurrences as they are in today's Hardshell churches, but were commonplace and expected.
You know, brother Sonny, you have had such great gifts given to you of God for the purpose of gospel preaching. I think of what a waste your talents have been as a result of your cult thinking and heretical beliefs. Rather than preaching to handfuls here and there, you could, like Spurgeon, preached to thousands regularly. Instead of seeing a few converts to hardshellism, you would have seen radical sinners transformed by the power of your preaching. You could have also been an excellent seminary professor. So much lost because of your going into hyper Calvinism.
Sonny
Well, that is a lot to respond to. You certainly hit hard and get right to the point. No ambiguity with you. But, I at least admire the gentle way you are saying these things. And, of course I take a different view of things than you do relative to what you have just said. Moses could have been a great man in Egypt. Some have said that I would have made a good doctor or possibly some kind of engineer. But, I forsook those things as did Moses. I chose to suffer the loss of all things, including fame and fortune, in order to be a servant among God's little chosen flock, or the Primitive Baptists. And as far as my being a modern day Spurgeon, we know that Spurgeon, as great as he was, did not hold to the full truth, as well as the other men that you mention. I am glad that I did not begin my ministry thinking that the eternal well being of my neighbors was dependent upon my preaching. Had that been my thinking, I doubt I could have had a moment's rest or peace. I would always be worrying whether my time spent in meaningless pursuits could not have been used to save the souls of others. What a burden your doctrine of means puts on you. Remember, it is your doctrine that says that you will be held eternally responsible for not warning your neighbor about his eternal dangers.
Stephen
Why don't we take a short break and return?
Stephen
Brother Newell, will you lead us in prayer?
Thank you
Well, the last thing that we were discussing before we broke for lunch was how we would save discussions about issues involved in Landmarkism till later and talk about what we think the Hardshells of today need in order to bring about the blessing of God. You know, one of my favorite verses of the bible is Psalms 127:1 where it is said: "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes in vain."
This verse does not give us any authority to blame the Lord for our vanities in labor, yet we are to give him the credit for vanity's opposite, which must involve success in labor, as the metaphors chosen show. The Psalmist contrasts meaningless or useless labor versus meaningful and useful labor.
If we want to "build up Zion" and to see her grow, mature, and prosper, then God will have to be the chief builder behind our work. Paul confidently said of his own labors "we are laborers together with God." And he said to the Corinthians "know that your labors are not in vain in the Lord."
But, how can we know that he is laboring with us in building the Hardshell church? In watching over her? Is he the master builder in the building efforts of the Hardshells? A joint laborer with them as he was with Paul?
A house that is in the process of being constructed is growing in size and members. To say a building is being built but yet no new no members are being added to it, or that it is not increasing in size, is a contradiction. When a building is being destroyed, or dismantled, members of the building are removed one by one until there are no members joined together. I just think you brothers are living in denial of this fact. You have a disease. The symptoms prove it. But, you refuse to accept the fact. You convince yourself that your failure to prosper is any sign of being out of the will of God.
Sonny
I like that verse also. I certainly do want the Lord to be involved in our building and watching. I also want to see the church prosper, but not in the way the Arminians define "prosper." What you say about growth in numbers in relation to God blessed labors is difficult to refute. I will have to give that some more thought. I do recall that verse - "For the children of the desolate one are more numerous than the children of the married woman." (Isaiah 54:1) The churches of the world will always be "more numerous" than the Lord's true church.
Stephen
About the manner in which we are to build up the Lord's church and bring about its prosperity, let me first say that we ought not to think that the Lord's doing the building excludes our building. That would be an Antinomian error, one into which many Hardshells have fallen. Paul said to the members of the early church "you are God's building," meaning that God was the builder. Did that exclude Paul from being involved in that building?
Further, you cannot exclude growth in numbers from the criteria for judging God's blessing on a work or group. If we do include growth in numbers as an evidence of blessing and approbation from the Lord, as we should, then by this criteria the Hardshells are not in a state of blessing. Luke, in writing the book of Acts, often linked growth in the number of disciples with the blessing of God on the word being preached. For instance he wrote in Acts 11: 21 - "And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." Notice that the hand of the Lord being with the first evangelists in their preaching produced a great number of converts. By this criteria, the "Primitive Baptist Church" is not being blessed and owned by God.
Sonny
A growth in numbers does not prove orthodoxy nor is it a sign of divine approval. Many heretical groups have grown in great numbers, such as the Catholics and Muslims. As far as the Antinomian error of which you speak, I would rather call it fatalism, and no one doubts that such an error has had its influence among our people. Further, our enemies have been prophesying of our death for two hundred years.
Stephen
Bare survival is not prosperity. The "Primitive Baptist" church of today is at least "half dead" like the wounded man in the story of the good Samaritan. To me they are like the church at Sardis, to whom Christ said - "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead."
The prosperity and success of the Lord's church is guaranteed so long as she believes and practices the true faith of Christ. As far as heretical groups prospering in number, and this proving that growth in numbers is no sign of God's blessing, I will say that growth in numbers alone does not prove a good standing with God, but I do affirm that God's blessing of the word preached will always be prosperous as regarding the number of converts, as I showed already from the Acts passage. But, notice also Isaiah 55: 11.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
I just find it fascinating that the Hardshells cannot see how their decline is a sign that they are not in line with the Lord in some serious way. And, they are not going to prosper till they discover what it is about them that is frowned upon by the Lord. They even want to make their decline a sign of God's blessing. Ironic indeed. And yet we find just the opposite sentiment in scripture. Notice God's judgment on Israel is evidenced by her decline in numbers.
"Wheras you were as numerous as the stars of heaven, you shall be left few in number, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God." (Duet. 28:62)
Are not the Hardshells today left few in number? The word prosper, used often in connection with the word preached, necessarily includes growth in number. How can you say that the Hardshell church is prospering when she is not increasing in size?
Sonny
Well, lots of our churches are growing, but they will never grow as fast nor be as large as worldly churches. Some are dying, and I agree that the Lord is not to blame, but rather we must be at fault. And, so far as being few in number, remember Stephen that the Lord's church is called a "little flock." Only few walk the narrow way by being in the Lord's visible church kingdom. Remember that in Noah's day only eight people were saved. Remember also that in the days of Elias there were only seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal.
Stephen
We are indeed making progress. I thank God for where we now are in our conversation. We are addressing the question as to why the Hardshells have been in decline ever since their origin and why God has not been blessing their preaching as he did that of their forefathers, men like Benjamin Keach, John Gill, and Charles Spurgeon. And men in this country like John Leland and John Gano, Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall, John Watson and R.W. Fain, etc. These are your forefathers as well as mine to some degree. God blessed their ministries and the churches in their care and fellowship and they prospered. Converts to Christ were not rare occurrences as they are in today's Hardshell churches, but were commonplace and expected.
You know, brother Sonny, you have had such great gifts given to you of God for the purpose of gospel preaching. I think of what a waste your talents have been as a result of your cult thinking and heretical beliefs. Rather than preaching to handfuls here and there, you could, like Spurgeon, preached to thousands regularly. Instead of seeing a few converts to hardshellism, you would have seen radical sinners transformed by the power of your preaching. You could have also been an excellent seminary professor. So much lost because of your going into hyper Calvinism.
Sonny
Well, that is a lot to respond to. You certainly hit hard and get right to the point. No ambiguity with you. But, I at least admire the gentle way you are saying these things. And, of course I take a different view of things than you do relative to what you have just said. Moses could have been a great man in Egypt. Some have said that I would have made a good doctor or possibly some kind of engineer. But, I forsook those things as did Moses. I chose to suffer the loss of all things, including fame and fortune, in order to be a servant among God's little chosen flock, or the Primitive Baptists. And as far as my being a modern day Spurgeon, we know that Spurgeon, as great as he was, did not hold to the full truth, as well as the other men that you mention. I am glad that I did not begin my ministry thinking that the eternal well being of my neighbors was dependent upon my preaching. Had that been my thinking, I doubt I could have had a moment's rest or peace. I would always be worrying whether my time spent in meaningless pursuits could not have been used to save the souls of others. What a burden your doctrine of means puts on you. Remember, it is your doctrine that says that you will be held eternally responsible for not warning your neighbor about his eternal dangers.
Stephen
Why don't we take a short break and return?
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
My Meeting With Sonny Pyles (v)
After Break
Stephen
Before I respond to what you last said, let me make this one preliminary comment.
You know, this is the kind of debating or discussing that we should be doing. We have treated each other with respect and talked in conversational and friendly, yet frank, terms. For this I thank God and I hope that this will lead us to a longer and more thorough discussion of our differences and on what is good for the "Primitive Baptist" church. For, I think, you and I have the same goal in mind, yet we disagree on the means to the end. I want the old Hardshell church to be in the will of God and fully enjoying his presence and approbation.
I want the "Primitive Baptist" church to experience heaven sent revival. I want to hear their preachers preaching Jesus to thousands rather than to a small handful. I want to see the lives of sinners transformed by the preaching of the gospel, just as it was in the days of the first Christians and of our Baptist forefathers. I want to see the people really enjoying our present or "time salvation," and to show them the way, which is by working for the Lord, by doing his business. But, hopefully we can discuss this more in detail as we continue our time of conversation together.
But, let me respond to the last things you said before our little break. You said that you were concerned about the present state of the church and not what errors our forefathers may have entertained for a time. First, I am glad that you are staying away from the idea that a church cannot now be pure if she had ancestors who were not. That was Sylvester Hassell's view, and mine also, but it is not the view that is avowed by modern primitives, the ones you say you are defending.
Your statement about concern for the present state of the church is not unrelated to what I just said about us both wanting what is good for the Hardshells, which of course is one and the same with what God characterizes as good. You know, if the Lord wrote letters today to the Hardshell churches, as he did to the seven churches of Asia, what would he condemn, and what would he condone? How would his condemnation be different from mine as respects the Hardshells? Could it be that he has, to some degree at least, already written to them through yours truly?
Sonny
Well, Stephen, I too have enjoyed our discussion. It is not like I thought it would be. I fully expected you to be combative and to be hurling insults. As long as our talks continue in this mode I see no reason why we can't continue to have them. You are unlike your dad in how you dialogue with your opponents. I know you have had several debates as he did and I never entered into them because they seem to make those who engaged in them combative, argumentative, forward, and disrespecting to others who disagree with them. But, that doesn't seem to have been the case with you.
About wanting the church to prosper, I do want it, but I hardly believe you when you say you are only interested in the good of the old Baptists, while we see you as only interested in destroying the old Baptists out of hatred. About the way to accomplish this, we are not going to employ Arminian or Missionary methods that our forefathers declared against in the Black Rock Address.
About problems in Landmarker principles as held to by Primitive Baptists. I do not doubt that many of our brethren have gone overboard in this area, but I deny that baptisms and other church work done by churches in disorder are valid and I think I can prove it by the bible. And, so, the practice of our churches in not recognizing the baptisms and ordinations of other groups, Baptists or otherwise, we do so on biblical authority.
Stephen
Well, as much as I would like to talk in greater detail with you about the difficulties that Landmark ecclesiology has had in the Hardshell church, concerning which I have written extensively, and I hope you have read or will read, we can save that for later as other things seem to be of greater importance, in my mind, for us to discuss at this moment. This relates to our common goal, which is to see the prosperity of the "Primitive Baptist Church." I also hope that when we return to the subject of Landmarkism that brother Helms can also be present. I am sure as an old elder in the Bear Creek association that he too would like to see them prosper and experience heaven sent revival. Further, a few years ago the difficulty with Landmark sentiments involved a man who wanted to join Union Grove church from a Sovereign Grace Baptist church, but who did not see why he needed to be baptized again, believing his first baptism was scriptural and pleasing to the Lord. Your insistence, Newell, that he be baptized again was a result of your Landmarker views, which are not scriptural.
Newell
I hope that you all can get back to discussing Landmarkism sometime as I would like to hear it. And, as far as what we can do to see Zion prosper, I am all for, as long as it is scriptural and does not disturb the peace of the church.
Stephen
Well, surely, the Lord will arrange for us to discuss this important area of doctrine then in the future. That being said, we lay that subject aside for the present and move on to how we can achieve our common goal, and that is the health and well being of the Hardshell flock.
We have already agreed that charity is of the utmost importance. Love gives birth to faith, and from faith all other Christian gifts and graces proceed. So, what can we do to bring the Hardshells into closer communion and fellowship with Christ so that the love of Christ burns in their hearts and produces hard working disciples? For surely, revival and gospel blessings will then come down as showers of blessing.
Paulette
Lunch is ready. You all come.
Stephen
Well, brothers, we will continue our talk after lunch.
Stephen
Before I respond to what you last said, let me make this one preliminary comment.
You know, this is the kind of debating or discussing that we should be doing. We have treated each other with respect and talked in conversational and friendly, yet frank, terms. For this I thank God and I hope that this will lead us to a longer and more thorough discussion of our differences and on what is good for the "Primitive Baptist" church. For, I think, you and I have the same goal in mind, yet we disagree on the means to the end. I want the old Hardshell church to be in the will of God and fully enjoying his presence and approbation.
I want the "Primitive Baptist" church to experience heaven sent revival. I want to hear their preachers preaching Jesus to thousands rather than to a small handful. I want to see the lives of sinners transformed by the preaching of the gospel, just as it was in the days of the first Christians and of our Baptist forefathers. I want to see the people really enjoying our present or "time salvation," and to show them the way, which is by working for the Lord, by doing his business. But, hopefully we can discuss this more in detail as we continue our time of conversation together.
But, let me respond to the last things you said before our little break. You said that you were concerned about the present state of the church and not what errors our forefathers may have entertained for a time. First, I am glad that you are staying away from the idea that a church cannot now be pure if she had ancestors who were not. That was Sylvester Hassell's view, and mine also, but it is not the view that is avowed by modern primitives, the ones you say you are defending.
Your statement about concern for the present state of the church is not unrelated to what I just said about us both wanting what is good for the Hardshells, which of course is one and the same with what God characterizes as good. You know, if the Lord wrote letters today to the Hardshell churches, as he did to the seven churches of Asia, what would he condemn, and what would he condone? How would his condemnation be different from mine as respects the Hardshells? Could it be that he has, to some degree at least, already written to them through yours truly?
Sonny
Well, Stephen, I too have enjoyed our discussion. It is not like I thought it would be. I fully expected you to be combative and to be hurling insults. As long as our talks continue in this mode I see no reason why we can't continue to have them. You are unlike your dad in how you dialogue with your opponents. I know you have had several debates as he did and I never entered into them because they seem to make those who engaged in them combative, argumentative, forward, and disrespecting to others who disagree with them. But, that doesn't seem to have been the case with you.
About wanting the church to prosper, I do want it, but I hardly believe you when you say you are only interested in the good of the old Baptists, while we see you as only interested in destroying the old Baptists out of hatred. About the way to accomplish this, we are not going to employ Arminian or Missionary methods that our forefathers declared against in the Black Rock Address.
About problems in Landmarker principles as held to by Primitive Baptists. I do not doubt that many of our brethren have gone overboard in this area, but I deny that baptisms and other church work done by churches in disorder are valid and I think I can prove it by the bible. And, so, the practice of our churches in not recognizing the baptisms and ordinations of other groups, Baptists or otherwise, we do so on biblical authority.
Stephen
Well, as much as I would like to talk in greater detail with you about the difficulties that Landmark ecclesiology has had in the Hardshell church, concerning which I have written extensively, and I hope you have read or will read, we can save that for later as other things seem to be of greater importance, in my mind, for us to discuss at this moment. This relates to our common goal, which is to see the prosperity of the "Primitive Baptist Church." I also hope that when we return to the subject of Landmarkism that brother Helms can also be present. I am sure as an old elder in the Bear Creek association that he too would like to see them prosper and experience heaven sent revival. Further, a few years ago the difficulty with Landmark sentiments involved a man who wanted to join Union Grove church from a Sovereign Grace Baptist church, but who did not see why he needed to be baptized again, believing his first baptism was scriptural and pleasing to the Lord. Your insistence, Newell, that he be baptized again was a result of your Landmarker views, which are not scriptural.
Newell
I hope that you all can get back to discussing Landmarkism sometime as I would like to hear it. And, as far as what we can do to see Zion prosper, I am all for, as long as it is scriptural and does not disturb the peace of the church.
Stephen
Well, surely, the Lord will arrange for us to discuss this important area of doctrine then in the future. That being said, we lay that subject aside for the present and move on to how we can achieve our common goal, and that is the health and well being of the Hardshell flock.
We have already agreed that charity is of the utmost importance. Love gives birth to faith, and from faith all other Christian gifts and graces proceed. So, what can we do to bring the Hardshells into closer communion and fellowship with Christ so that the love of Christ burns in their hearts and produces hard working disciples? For surely, revival and gospel blessings will then come down as showers of blessing.
Paulette
Lunch is ready. You all come.
Stephen
Well, brothers, we will continue our talk after lunch.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
My Meeting With Sonny Pyles (iv)
Elder Helms called me at 8 am the next day and wanted to know if he and Sonny could come by this morning about 10.
(remember that the following is an imaginary dialogue)
Knock Knock
Stephen
Good morning brothers! So good to see you again. I hope you all had a good service last evening and a good night's rest.
Newell
Yes, we had a good service. Sonny preached one of his ablest messages. Perhaps your discussion yesterday stirred him as he preached with a little more youthful vigor, as he use to do when he was a young stallion rather than an old dinosaur. (laugh)
Stephen
I wish I could have heard it. But, of course, I have heard many of brother Sonny's sermons over the years and know his thoughts and spirit quite well I think.
Sonny
I hope you also slept well last night Stephen.
Stephen
Yes, I did, thank you. You all sit down. Can I get you anything? Paul!
Paulette
Good to see you both again, Elder Helms, Elder Pyles. What would you like to drink?
Stephen (after prayer)
Sonny, let me respond to your last words from yesterday, since we ran out of time for me to do so.
What I am saying about the Hardshell group is not what is true of a few, but what characterizes them generally. I am not inferring anything from a limited sampling, but is the result of a very long list of evidences to prove what I say. I only gave you an inkling of such instances, but more could be added. You know, I got my undergraduate degree in Sociology and so I know about studying groups.
About love keeping no list of wrongs, I don't think Paul meant this to be applied to every case. God keeps a list of wrongs, does he not? Our consciences, by the word and Spirit of God, also keeps a list of wrongs until they are confessed, do they not? Paul often made a list of wrongs, did he not? Did not Jesus? Once sin is acknowledged and turned from, it is forgiven, and of course there is no list of wrongs kept. Did not Jesus say "if your brother repent, then forgive him?" Further, the Hardshells have kept a list of my wrongs, have they not? Of those of Eddie Garrett? Of those of the liberal brethren?
Further, Paul also said that charity is kind and I have had little kindness shown to me by the Hardshells. Others can testify the same. Charity is also not boastful, and yet I hear the Hardshells boast all the time about how they are the only ones who know the full truth, who are pure in doctrine and practice, and who therefore need no correction or repentance. And love, said Paul, does not dishonor others, and yet this is a common practice among the Hardshells. Paul says that love is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered. I hardly think these qualities characterize the Hardshells, at least not more than other Christian groups. Further, we are told that love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. The Hardshells delight in opposing the truth on many issues.
Sonny
I guess I was thinking along the lines that it was you who showed a lack of charity, forbearance, long suffering, and that it was you who held a grudge against us, and refuse to forgive us of any errors or mistakes. What church does not have these same faults? But, your criticisms are not only excessive but often seen as nit picking.
Stephen
You mean the kind of charity and forbearance that was shown to me, dad, Lasserre and the liberal brethren, and Elder Fralick, not to mention many others? That kind of love that men like Keith Ellis manifests? I am sure you know of Ellis, being a pastor now or formerly in Texas. Do you know that he started spreading the lie on Facebook that I had been unfaithful to my first wife, and that I was excluded for it, and that I therefore have been out of the church ever since?
Brother Newell, you know this is not the case. When Elder Jeff Patterson years ago attempted the same tactic, in an attempt to smear my name, he even called you, remember? (Newell nods yes) Well, what did you tell me that you told him?
Newell
That it was untrue and to leave it alone.
Stephen
Well, someone ought to tell the Hardshell liars like Ellis to quit spreading such lies. I hate it Newell. Such vicious lies simply bring up things that ought not to be brought up. But, the fact is, Karon was excluded from Union Grove after our divorce. I was given a letter of dismissal and good standing by the church at Haws Run where I was a member. You remember. (Newell nods yes) It is sad. But, Ellis shows the Hardshell spirit, one that lacks love. I don't know why he just didn't try to answer the many things I have written about the Hardshells instead of using such tactics. His behavior was simply more proof that he was acting like a typical cult member protecting his cult's image.
Sonny
Again, we are not perfect. But, what you say about some people and some cases is not reflective of our people as a whole.
Stephen
Well, as we have agreed, God is our judge and we should fear and tremble at the thought of such a judgment and it ought to produce in us a sense of caution in how we talk about our brethren, criticize them, how we do apologetics, or defend the faith, and how we choose our battles. But, I would like to add that I think it wrong for Hardshells to say that people like Karon (Newell's daughter and my first wife) can never be taken back into the church or forgiven, because, as they say, "she is living in adultery." This practice of refusing baptism to such, and not allowing them membership in the church, is an example of that strict discipline I spoke about yesterday and which reveals a lack of the love of Christ. But, I do not mention this in order that we may spend time debating that issue, for we have other issues to discuss. But, perhaps at some future point, we could also debate this point. I hate that men like Ellis must result to smear tactics to oppose one who is writing against his errors.
Sonny
I don't condone what Ellis or Patterson attempted to do with regard to your divorce from Newell's daughter. They can defend themselves.
Newell
I wish they had not gone down that path.
Stephen
Newell, I think it shows how they cannot give a reply to my arguments against their errors and so, rather than deal with the argument, they make personal attacks. And, as I said, such behavior ironically proves my whole thesis. The Hardshell church is a cult and when their members and spokespersons act like cult members, it lends weight to my thesis. It is hypocrisy. Ellis wants to condemn me for throwing stones and yet he picks up stones and hurls them at me.
Sonny
I am not going to defend such individuals and specific cases. I would be a fool to try it. Such folks can defend themselves. I am defending the church as a whole.
Stephen
That is wise of you. And, I am glad you don't condone such tactics by men like Ellis. Also, why would Ellis even concern himself with me if my blogs were not doing some damage to the cult? In fact, if I put together a list of the comments I have received from the Hardshells over the past ten years or so while I have been writing on the Web, they would evince a spirit and attitude that is anything like the meek and gentle spirit of Jesus.
I find it ironic that such Hardshells could decry my supposed anger while spewing forth such anger towards me. Actually, I could point to other examples of hypocrisy, of being guilty of the things I am accused of, by such Hardshells. I am condemned for lacking love towards the old Baptists but nothing is said about my being loved by the Hardshells. If you all don't see it, surely God does, and also others outside the cult. I think brother Bradley has seen it, becoming the object of scorn and ridicule by most of today's Hardshells. As I said, Hardshells can show "much love," as they did to Bradley for years, but once you get on their bad side, they will look upon you with the severest enmity, with no desire to save you, but only to destroy you. You know Sonny, I wonder how you would behave if all of a sudden you did or said something that got under the skin of the Hardshell brotherhood? I wonder how soon that love for you would disappear also as it has to a large degree with Bradley?
Sonny
Well, again, I respond by saying that I am not going to enter into being an attorney for the defense for some of our brethren. They can defend themselves. Further, we never claimed to be free of sin, that we don't have jealous preachers, irritable and cantankerous folks, troublemakers, etc., and their presence is to be expected in the church from time to time. And, about Elder Bradley, he brought this on himself when he began to teach things contrary to the views of Primitive Baptists.
Stephen
You know, Sonny, I find the cases of you and Bradley interesting and revealing. Let me explain. I could add my dad, but for now will keep the cases to you and Bradley who have been the two leading figures in the Hardshell church for the past fifty years. You both spent many years together in sweet fellowship. You both did more to help save the Hardshells from death than any others. But, look at where both of you are now. You cannot now fellowship Bradley and consider him and the Cincinnati church in disorder. I think you and Bradley help demonstrate a lot of what I have been talking about in regard to the schismatic and separatist nature of the Hardshell denomination; About their lack of love, forgiveness, forbearance, long suffering, patience, good will, etc.
You know, for the first seventy five years or so of the Primitive Baptist denomination, those of your view and Bradley's view lived together in the church, and did not make their disagreement over means a test of fellowship. How unlike are today's Hardshells to their forefathers. The first Hardshells were indeed an intolerant bunch, but two hundred years later their offspring far outdo them in the spirit of intolerance.
Sonny
Well, some of our forefathers held to more errors that we do now. As I said, the church has been purged of errors. And, when someone today departs from the old paths, as did Bradley and those in the liberal movement, in regards to preacher schools, mission work, their belief in perseverance rather than preservation, and with some of them believing in gospel means in the new birth, we must cut them off. Further, the reason why our forefathers tolerated much is because they had those qualities that you say we lack as a denomination, such as love and forbearance. They tolerated because they were being patient and forbearing. But the time came when forbearance and a time of repentance came to an end and it then became time for the old church to finally cut off such errors and those who hold them.
Stephen
You know, with all this talk about the Hardshell church taking decades to purify herself, and that this fact accounts for the fact that she did not generally believe at the start all things right, as do today's Hardshells, I am reminded of the history of the Campbellites, which also was a history of purging as you say is your history. Actually, brother Bob Ross and I have written about the numerous similarities of these two groups. The first Campbellites were called "Reformers" and so were the first Hardshells in the Kehukee Association. And, you prove my point in saying that the church took decades to reform and purify itself. But, I see this as creating all kinds of problems for you in light of your Landmarker views on church succession and validity. You have a clean thing, a pure church, that has come from an unclean thing, or impure source. Your mother church believed in means, for example, but the daughter church does not. If she is pure now, she was corrupt then. If she was pure then, she is corrupt now.
Sonny
Well, I don't claim that an existing church that is pure in doctrine, but yet had in previous years held to corrupt doctrine, is not a valid church. That is an extreme view. But, we cannot be held accountable for the sins of our forefathers. They made mistakes and we have tried to learn from them. The Lord often uses controversy as a means in purifying the church of false doctrine, so that after such controversies the particular truth debated is much more definitive and clear than before. What I am concerned about is the present state of the church, not what errors our forefathers may have entertained for a time.
Stephen
Why don't we take a short break, so that we can be refreshed.
(remember that the following is an imaginary dialogue)
Knock Knock
Stephen
Good morning brothers! So good to see you again. I hope you all had a good service last evening and a good night's rest.
Newell
Yes, we had a good service. Sonny preached one of his ablest messages. Perhaps your discussion yesterday stirred him as he preached with a little more youthful vigor, as he use to do when he was a young stallion rather than an old dinosaur. (laugh)
Stephen
I wish I could have heard it. But, of course, I have heard many of brother Sonny's sermons over the years and know his thoughts and spirit quite well I think.
Sonny
I hope you also slept well last night Stephen.
Stephen
Yes, I did, thank you. You all sit down. Can I get you anything? Paul!
Paulette
Good to see you both again, Elder Helms, Elder Pyles. What would you like to drink?
Stephen (after prayer)
Sonny, let me respond to your last words from yesterday, since we ran out of time for me to do so.
What I am saying about the Hardshell group is not what is true of a few, but what characterizes them generally. I am not inferring anything from a limited sampling, but is the result of a very long list of evidences to prove what I say. I only gave you an inkling of such instances, but more could be added. You know, I got my undergraduate degree in Sociology and so I know about studying groups.
About love keeping no list of wrongs, I don't think Paul meant this to be applied to every case. God keeps a list of wrongs, does he not? Our consciences, by the word and Spirit of God, also keeps a list of wrongs until they are confessed, do they not? Paul often made a list of wrongs, did he not? Did not Jesus? Once sin is acknowledged and turned from, it is forgiven, and of course there is no list of wrongs kept. Did not Jesus say "if your brother repent, then forgive him?" Further, the Hardshells have kept a list of my wrongs, have they not? Of those of Eddie Garrett? Of those of the liberal brethren?
Further, Paul also said that charity is kind and I have had little kindness shown to me by the Hardshells. Others can testify the same. Charity is also not boastful, and yet I hear the Hardshells boast all the time about how they are the only ones who know the full truth, who are pure in doctrine and practice, and who therefore need no correction or repentance. And love, said Paul, does not dishonor others, and yet this is a common practice among the Hardshells. Paul says that love is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered. I hardly think these qualities characterize the Hardshells, at least not more than other Christian groups. Further, we are told that love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. The Hardshells delight in opposing the truth on many issues.
Sonny
I guess I was thinking along the lines that it was you who showed a lack of charity, forbearance, long suffering, and that it was you who held a grudge against us, and refuse to forgive us of any errors or mistakes. What church does not have these same faults? But, your criticisms are not only excessive but often seen as nit picking.
Stephen
You mean the kind of charity and forbearance that was shown to me, dad, Lasserre and the liberal brethren, and Elder Fralick, not to mention many others? That kind of love that men like Keith Ellis manifests? I am sure you know of Ellis, being a pastor now or formerly in Texas. Do you know that he started spreading the lie on Facebook that I had been unfaithful to my first wife, and that I was excluded for it, and that I therefore have been out of the church ever since?
Brother Newell, you know this is not the case. When Elder Jeff Patterson years ago attempted the same tactic, in an attempt to smear my name, he even called you, remember? (Newell nods yes) Well, what did you tell me that you told him?
Newell
That it was untrue and to leave it alone.
Stephen
Well, someone ought to tell the Hardshell liars like Ellis to quit spreading such lies. I hate it Newell. Such vicious lies simply bring up things that ought not to be brought up. But, the fact is, Karon was excluded from Union Grove after our divorce. I was given a letter of dismissal and good standing by the church at Haws Run where I was a member. You remember. (Newell nods yes) It is sad. But, Ellis shows the Hardshell spirit, one that lacks love. I don't know why he just didn't try to answer the many things I have written about the Hardshells instead of using such tactics. His behavior was simply more proof that he was acting like a typical cult member protecting his cult's image.
Sonny
Again, we are not perfect. But, what you say about some people and some cases is not reflective of our people as a whole.
Stephen
Well, as we have agreed, God is our judge and we should fear and tremble at the thought of such a judgment and it ought to produce in us a sense of caution in how we talk about our brethren, criticize them, how we do apologetics, or defend the faith, and how we choose our battles. But, I would like to add that I think it wrong for Hardshells to say that people like Karon (Newell's daughter and my first wife) can never be taken back into the church or forgiven, because, as they say, "she is living in adultery." This practice of refusing baptism to such, and not allowing them membership in the church, is an example of that strict discipline I spoke about yesterday and which reveals a lack of the love of Christ. But, I do not mention this in order that we may spend time debating that issue, for we have other issues to discuss. But, perhaps at some future point, we could also debate this point. I hate that men like Ellis must result to smear tactics to oppose one who is writing against his errors.
Sonny
I don't condone what Ellis or Patterson attempted to do with regard to your divorce from Newell's daughter. They can defend themselves.
Newell
I wish they had not gone down that path.
Stephen
Newell, I think it shows how they cannot give a reply to my arguments against their errors and so, rather than deal with the argument, they make personal attacks. And, as I said, such behavior ironically proves my whole thesis. The Hardshell church is a cult and when their members and spokespersons act like cult members, it lends weight to my thesis. It is hypocrisy. Ellis wants to condemn me for throwing stones and yet he picks up stones and hurls them at me.
Sonny
I am not going to defend such individuals and specific cases. I would be a fool to try it. Such folks can defend themselves. I am defending the church as a whole.
Stephen
That is wise of you. And, I am glad you don't condone such tactics by men like Ellis. Also, why would Ellis even concern himself with me if my blogs were not doing some damage to the cult? In fact, if I put together a list of the comments I have received from the Hardshells over the past ten years or so while I have been writing on the Web, they would evince a spirit and attitude that is anything like the meek and gentle spirit of Jesus.
I find it ironic that such Hardshells could decry my supposed anger while spewing forth such anger towards me. Actually, I could point to other examples of hypocrisy, of being guilty of the things I am accused of, by such Hardshells. I am condemned for lacking love towards the old Baptists but nothing is said about my being loved by the Hardshells. If you all don't see it, surely God does, and also others outside the cult. I think brother Bradley has seen it, becoming the object of scorn and ridicule by most of today's Hardshells. As I said, Hardshells can show "much love," as they did to Bradley for years, but once you get on their bad side, they will look upon you with the severest enmity, with no desire to save you, but only to destroy you. You know Sonny, I wonder how you would behave if all of a sudden you did or said something that got under the skin of the Hardshell brotherhood? I wonder how soon that love for you would disappear also as it has to a large degree with Bradley?
Sonny
Well, again, I respond by saying that I am not going to enter into being an attorney for the defense for some of our brethren. They can defend themselves. Further, we never claimed to be free of sin, that we don't have jealous preachers, irritable and cantankerous folks, troublemakers, etc., and their presence is to be expected in the church from time to time. And, about Elder Bradley, he brought this on himself when he began to teach things contrary to the views of Primitive Baptists.
Stephen
You know, Sonny, I find the cases of you and Bradley interesting and revealing. Let me explain. I could add my dad, but for now will keep the cases to you and Bradley who have been the two leading figures in the Hardshell church for the past fifty years. You both spent many years together in sweet fellowship. You both did more to help save the Hardshells from death than any others. But, look at where both of you are now. You cannot now fellowship Bradley and consider him and the Cincinnati church in disorder. I think you and Bradley help demonstrate a lot of what I have been talking about in regard to the schismatic and separatist nature of the Hardshell denomination; About their lack of love, forgiveness, forbearance, long suffering, patience, good will, etc.
You know, for the first seventy five years or so of the Primitive Baptist denomination, those of your view and Bradley's view lived together in the church, and did not make their disagreement over means a test of fellowship. How unlike are today's Hardshells to their forefathers. The first Hardshells were indeed an intolerant bunch, but two hundred years later their offspring far outdo them in the spirit of intolerance.
Sonny
Well, some of our forefathers held to more errors that we do now. As I said, the church has been purged of errors. And, when someone today departs from the old paths, as did Bradley and those in the liberal movement, in regards to preacher schools, mission work, their belief in perseverance rather than preservation, and with some of them believing in gospel means in the new birth, we must cut them off. Further, the reason why our forefathers tolerated much is because they had those qualities that you say we lack as a denomination, such as love and forbearance. They tolerated because they were being patient and forbearing. But the time came when forbearance and a time of repentance came to an end and it then became time for the old church to finally cut off such errors and those who hold them.
Stephen
You know, with all this talk about the Hardshell church taking decades to purify herself, and that this fact accounts for the fact that she did not generally believe at the start all things right, as do today's Hardshells, I am reminded of the history of the Campbellites, which also was a history of purging as you say is your history. Actually, brother Bob Ross and I have written about the numerous similarities of these two groups. The first Campbellites were called "Reformers" and so were the first Hardshells in the Kehukee Association. And, you prove my point in saying that the church took decades to reform and purify itself. But, I see this as creating all kinds of problems for you in light of your Landmarker views on church succession and validity. You have a clean thing, a pure church, that has come from an unclean thing, or impure source. Your mother church believed in means, for example, but the daughter church does not. If she is pure now, she was corrupt then. If she was pure then, she is corrupt now.
Sonny
Well, I don't claim that an existing church that is pure in doctrine, but yet had in previous years held to corrupt doctrine, is not a valid church. That is an extreme view. But, we cannot be held accountable for the sins of our forefathers. They made mistakes and we have tried to learn from them. The Lord often uses controversy as a means in purifying the church of false doctrine, so that after such controversies the particular truth debated is much more definitive and clear than before. What I am concerned about is the present state of the church, not what errors our forefathers may have entertained for a time.
Stephen
Why don't we take a short break, so that we can be refreshed.
Friday, January 15, 2016
God's Faith? (part vi)
Thus far I have proven that the context shows that "the faith of God" in Romans 3:3 means the same thing as "the oracles of God" (3:. 2), and as "the word of God" (9:6; 10:17), and as "the truth of God" (1:25; 2:7), and as "the gospel of God" (1:1). I have shown that the syntactical construction of the phrase "the faith of God" (Head Noun + Genitive Noun) in itself cannot prove what kind of Genitive it is, whether Ablative, Subjective, Objective, or some other type. I have shown that the only way to determine the type of Genitive is to look at the context. This being done, the context is very clear.
What is it that has supposedly become "of no effect"? Is it God's faithfulness that is being doubted or questioned? If so, directly or indirectly? Directly, no, indirectly yes. But, saying this does not justify translating pistis as faithfulness. Directly, the doubt is to the veracity of the oracles and word of God and is therefore the same doubt found later in the Roman epistle where Paul says "not as though the word of God has taken none effect." Obviously, if God's word, promise, truth, or oracles fail, then God may be said to either fail or not be faithful. However, Jesus said that "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
Consider also that the word "faithfulness" does not even occur in the authorized version. We find the adjective "faithful" and the participle "faithful," as we do their opposites, such as unfaithful. Further, even in other English versions that do include the word faithfulness in some few passages, like Romans 3:3, it is because the translators of those versions have acted as interpreters and not strictly as translators.
The Similarity Between Romans 3:3 and 9:6
Paul's protagonist in Romans 3:3 and 9:6 is one and the same. It can also be argued that what he discusses in greater detail in Romans chapters nine through eleven he first introduces in Romans 2:17 - 3:6, which is the fact that the word of God has not failed but succeeded. Let us compare the verses.
"their unbelief shall not make the faith of God without effect, will it?"
"not as though the word of God has taken none effect"
There is no reason to doubt that these two verses are essentially addressing the same theological question. John Owen realized this. In The Works of John Owen, Volume 20 (pg. 223 - SEE HERE), he wrote (emphasis mine):
"Those to whom the promise mentioned in this place was first proposed came short of it, believed it not, and so had no benefit by it. What then became of the promise itself? did that fail also, and become of none effect? God forbid; it remained still, and was left for others. This our apostle more fully declares, Rom ix. 4, 5; for having showed that the promises of God were given unto the Israelites, the posterity of Abraham, he foresaw an objection that might be taken from thence against the truth and efficacy of the promises themselves. This he anticipates and answers, verse 6, "Not as though the word of God" (that is, the word of promise) "hath taken none effect;" and so proceedeth to show, that whosoever and how many soever reject the promise, yet they do it only to their own ruin; the promise shall have its effects in others, in those whom God hath graciously ordained unto a participation of it. And so also Rom. iii. 3, "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid." The "faith of God" (that is, his glory in his veracity, as the apostle shows in the next words, "Yea, let God be true, and every man a liar") is engaged for the stability and accomplishment of his promises."
Owen thinks that the questions are essentially the same. In both contexts Paul is denying that the loss of God's favor and salvation by the unbelieving fleshly Jew nullifies the truthfulness of what God has said (in his word and oracles). And, if all this is so, then this gives weight to the fact that "the faith of God" is the same as "the word of God." The word of God becoming of no effect is equated with the faith of God becoming of no effect.
The Symptom or the Disease?
What is Paul condemning by characterizing people as being of "no faith"? Their unfaithfulness and disobedience, external behavior, or something pertaining to the heart and inner core of a sinner's soul and mind? It is to an "evil heart of unbelief" that the apostle, like Jesus and all the new testament writers, points to as being the source of the problem. (Heb. 3:12) Unbelief in heart gives birth to practical unbelief, or to unfaithfulness and disobedience. So said Jesus - "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders," etc. (Mark 7:21)
So, the question is this - is Paul focusing on the disease or on the symptom? Is he focusing on the effect or the cause? Is he focusing on the root or the fruit? When he says that the carnal Jew, the one who had not been circumcised in heart and spirit, would, like the heathen Gentiles, be left inexcusable and not able to escape the judgment and wrath of God, does he lay the reason to the root cause or not? And if he does, is not want of faith the reason for unfaithfulness? So then why do translators and interpreters think that "the pistis of God" requires giving pistis the unusual meaning of "faithfulness"? As we will see, to substitute the word "faithfulness" in most places in the epistle where faith is the normal word chosen, is wholly untenable. Thus, the burden of proof is on interpreters who give "faithfulness" for "faith" in Romans 3:3 to prove that the deviation from the norm is warranted by the context.
In the next few postings I will be going through the Roman epistle to see what Paul says about "faith" (pistis) and "no faith" (a-pistis) and see what may be discovered thereby that helps us to learn whether by "pistis" Paul intends faithfulness or faith. We will also be looking to see the significance of the presence of the definite article with pistis and that without it. In order to prepare for those postings, let me give some basic information about the Greek definite article.
Faith with the Definite Article
Why is "faith" sometimes used with the definite article and sometimes without? What is the meaning of "the faith" in new testament usage? What is signified by the absence of the article with pistis? Is it okay for translators to either omit or to add the definite article (or the indefinite for that matter)? What are the rules for decision making in this regard?
In "Use of the definite article in Greek" (SEE HERE) we read (emphasis mine):
"The Greek article was originally a weak demonstrative pronoun / adjective (i.e., a weaker form of "this," "that," "these," "those"). It pointed to someone or something, in a subtle way that was still clear and obvious to the listener or reader. It may have been used as a pronoun, as a sort of short and abbreviated reference to someone or something already known through the context of what was being said or written, so the whole name of the person or thing did not need to be repeated in full (e.g., "This is what we are talking about."). Or it may have pointed to a noun in order to indicate that the noun was now present or previously mentioned (e.g., "That man is the one.")."
This is important, for as we shall see, in some passages the apostle may be using the definite article as a demonstrative pronoun meaning "this" or "that," or in context may mean "the thing I am talking about."
We also read this:
"Thus, the Greek article originally served a completely different function than the English definite article "the." Then the Greek article developed many uses which are far more closely related to its original Greek function than to the functions of the English definite article. The Greek article definitely is not just an equivalent to the English definite article "the." Nor is the absence of the Greek article simply an equivalent to the English indefinite article ("a" or "an")."
This information will be important later as we look at passages where the definite article is absent. What is said above is important in the debate over John 1: 1 and the words "and the word was God" versus "and the word was a god." We will have need later to talk about the absence of the definite article and what that tells us in a given text. Of course, most nouns and participles with definite articles perform the function of individualizing, specifying, and particularizing as in English.
The Greek grammarian also wrote:
"Therefore, in translating Greek into English, we cannot automatically always use an English definite article "the" in the place of a Greek article. There are many times when one will use no English article in the translation. And sometimes one can even use an indefinite English article in translating a Greek article. For instance, when a Greek article indicates a generic noun, we may translate the Greek article as an English indefinite article, or as an English indefinite pronoun ("any"). Also, if there is no Greek article in front of a Greek noun, we often use an English definite article in the translation, simply because the context indicates a definite reference to that Greek noun."
I will not comment upon this now, but will have use of these remarks later.
Our writer continued:
"Of course, the Greek article very often, but definitely not always, functions as an individualizing article, where it is used to distinguish one entity — one person, one group of persons, one thing, or one group of things — apart from all other entities. And, if a Greek article does this, it functions much like our English definite article. Thus, it very often can be translated directly into an English definite article."
I would dare say that this is nigh universally true in the new testament.
Again we are told:
"In Greek, the first mention of a noun or substantive, or its synonym, is traditionally anarthrous (i.e., it has no article in front of it). Then any subsequent references to the same entity — whether through the use of the same noun or a synonym — will normally be articular (with an article in front of it), indicating an anaphoric reference. In this way, it signals the reader to identify any previously mentioned information with the current articular noun or substantive."
This particular lesson will become very important as we look at the noun "faith" in the first two chapters of Romans (leading up to 3:3 our central verse)/
What is it that has supposedly become "of no effect"? Is it God's faithfulness that is being doubted or questioned? If so, directly or indirectly? Directly, no, indirectly yes. But, saying this does not justify translating pistis as faithfulness. Directly, the doubt is to the veracity of the oracles and word of God and is therefore the same doubt found later in the Roman epistle where Paul says "not as though the word of God has taken none effect." Obviously, if God's word, promise, truth, or oracles fail, then God may be said to either fail or not be faithful. However, Jesus said that "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
Consider also that the word "faithfulness" does not even occur in the authorized version. We find the adjective "faithful" and the participle "faithful," as we do their opposites, such as unfaithful. Further, even in other English versions that do include the word faithfulness in some few passages, like Romans 3:3, it is because the translators of those versions have acted as interpreters and not strictly as translators.
The Similarity Between Romans 3:3 and 9:6
Paul's protagonist in Romans 3:3 and 9:6 is one and the same. It can also be argued that what he discusses in greater detail in Romans chapters nine through eleven he first introduces in Romans 2:17 - 3:6, which is the fact that the word of God has not failed but succeeded. Let us compare the verses.
"their unbelief shall not make the faith of God without effect, will it?"
"not as though the word of God has taken none effect"
There is no reason to doubt that these two verses are essentially addressing the same theological question. John Owen realized this. In The Works of John Owen, Volume 20 (pg. 223 - SEE HERE), he wrote (emphasis mine):
"Those to whom the promise mentioned in this place was first proposed came short of it, believed it not, and so had no benefit by it. What then became of the promise itself? did that fail also, and become of none effect? God forbid; it remained still, and was left for others. This our apostle more fully declares, Rom ix. 4, 5; for having showed that the promises of God were given unto the Israelites, the posterity of Abraham, he foresaw an objection that might be taken from thence against the truth and efficacy of the promises themselves. This he anticipates and answers, verse 6, "Not as though the word of God" (that is, the word of promise) "hath taken none effect;" and so proceedeth to show, that whosoever and how many soever reject the promise, yet they do it only to their own ruin; the promise shall have its effects in others, in those whom God hath graciously ordained unto a participation of it. And so also Rom. iii. 3, "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid." The "faith of God" (that is, his glory in his veracity, as the apostle shows in the next words, "Yea, let God be true, and every man a liar") is engaged for the stability and accomplishment of his promises."
Owen thinks that the questions are essentially the same. In both contexts Paul is denying that the loss of God's favor and salvation by the unbelieving fleshly Jew nullifies the truthfulness of what God has said (in his word and oracles). And, if all this is so, then this gives weight to the fact that "the faith of God" is the same as "the word of God." The word of God becoming of no effect is equated with the faith of God becoming of no effect.
The Symptom or the Disease?
What is Paul condemning by characterizing people as being of "no faith"? Their unfaithfulness and disobedience, external behavior, or something pertaining to the heart and inner core of a sinner's soul and mind? It is to an "evil heart of unbelief" that the apostle, like Jesus and all the new testament writers, points to as being the source of the problem. (Heb. 3:12) Unbelief in heart gives birth to practical unbelief, or to unfaithfulness and disobedience. So said Jesus - "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders," etc. (Mark 7:21)
So, the question is this - is Paul focusing on the disease or on the symptom? Is he focusing on the effect or the cause? Is he focusing on the root or the fruit? When he says that the carnal Jew, the one who had not been circumcised in heart and spirit, would, like the heathen Gentiles, be left inexcusable and not able to escape the judgment and wrath of God, does he lay the reason to the root cause or not? And if he does, is not want of faith the reason for unfaithfulness? So then why do translators and interpreters think that "the pistis of God" requires giving pistis the unusual meaning of "faithfulness"? As we will see, to substitute the word "faithfulness" in most places in the epistle where faith is the normal word chosen, is wholly untenable. Thus, the burden of proof is on interpreters who give "faithfulness" for "faith" in Romans 3:3 to prove that the deviation from the norm is warranted by the context.
In the next few postings I will be going through the Roman epistle to see what Paul says about "faith" (pistis) and "no faith" (a-pistis) and see what may be discovered thereby that helps us to learn whether by "pistis" Paul intends faithfulness or faith. We will also be looking to see the significance of the presence of the definite article with pistis and that without it. In order to prepare for those postings, let me give some basic information about the Greek definite article.
Faith with the Definite Article
Why is "faith" sometimes used with the definite article and sometimes without? What is the meaning of "the faith" in new testament usage? What is signified by the absence of the article with pistis? Is it okay for translators to either omit or to add the definite article (or the indefinite for that matter)? What are the rules for decision making in this regard?
In "Use of the definite article in Greek" (SEE HERE) we read (emphasis mine):
"The Greek article was originally a weak demonstrative pronoun / adjective (i.e., a weaker form of "this," "that," "these," "those"). It pointed to someone or something, in a subtle way that was still clear and obvious to the listener or reader. It may have been used as a pronoun, as a sort of short and abbreviated reference to someone or something already known through the context of what was being said or written, so the whole name of the person or thing did not need to be repeated in full (e.g., "This is what we are talking about."). Or it may have pointed to a noun in order to indicate that the noun was now present or previously mentioned (e.g., "That man is the one.")."
This is important, for as we shall see, in some passages the apostle may be using the definite article as a demonstrative pronoun meaning "this" or "that," or in context may mean "the thing I am talking about."
We also read this:
"Thus, the Greek article originally served a completely different function than the English definite article "the." Then the Greek article developed many uses which are far more closely related to its original Greek function than to the functions of the English definite article. The Greek article definitely is not just an equivalent to the English definite article "the." Nor is the absence of the Greek article simply an equivalent to the English indefinite article ("a" or "an")."
This information will be important later as we look at passages where the definite article is absent. What is said above is important in the debate over John 1: 1 and the words "and the word was God" versus "and the word was a god." We will have need later to talk about the absence of the definite article and what that tells us in a given text. Of course, most nouns and participles with definite articles perform the function of individualizing, specifying, and particularizing as in English.
The Greek grammarian also wrote:
"Therefore, in translating Greek into English, we cannot automatically always use an English definite article "the" in the place of a Greek article. There are many times when one will use no English article in the translation. And sometimes one can even use an indefinite English article in translating a Greek article. For instance, when a Greek article indicates a generic noun, we may translate the Greek article as an English indefinite article, or as an English indefinite pronoun ("any"). Also, if there is no Greek article in front of a Greek noun, we often use an English definite article in the translation, simply because the context indicates a definite reference to that Greek noun."
I will not comment upon this now, but will have use of these remarks later.
Our writer continued:
"Of course, the Greek article very often, but definitely not always, functions as an individualizing article, where it is used to distinguish one entity — one person, one group of persons, one thing, or one group of things — apart from all other entities. And, if a Greek article does this, it functions much like our English definite article. Thus, it very often can be translated directly into an English definite article."
I would dare say that this is nigh universally true in the new testament.
Again we are told:
"In Greek, the first mention of a noun or substantive, or its synonym, is traditionally anarthrous (i.e., it has no article in front of it). Then any subsequent references to the same entity — whether through the use of the same noun or a synonym — will normally be articular (with an article in front of it), indicating an anaphoric reference. In this way, it signals the reader to identify any previously mentioned information with the current articular noun or substantive."
This particular lesson will become very important as we look at the noun "faith" in the first two chapters of Romans (leading up to 3:3 our central verse)/
More Theology from the Old Hymns
In this posting I cite from two leading Hardshell hymn books, giving songs that uphold the gospel means position. Further, I cite the words of the hymn book authors about their selection of hymns.
In the introduction to the hymnbook (1886) they published for the "Old School Baptists," Hardshell leaders Silas H. Durand and P. G. Lester wrote (SEE HERE): (emphasis mine)
"In the selection of hymns our first care has been that every sentiment expressed should be in harmony with the truth of God, believing that "Christians should never sing what they do not believe to be true.""
In that section titled "Gospel" being hymn # 42
I. While in the vale of vision dead,
The house of Israel lie,
Jehovah to the Prophet said —
"do thou, and prophesy.
2 "Go thou, nor reasoning scruples make,
Because the bones are dry;
My voice shall bid the dead awake;
Go thou, and prophesy.
3 "I'll bid the dying sinner live.
To lift my name on high;
Eternal life 'tis mine to give —
Go thou, and prophesy.
4 "Preach Jesus as he's brought to view,
And thither point their eye;
'Tis I must give to will and do—
Go thou, and prophesy.
5 "From stones, to celebrate my grace.
While mercy's tidings fly.
My arms shall raise a numerous race, —
Go thou, and prophesy."
6 Let Zion's watchmen ne'er refrain
Her silver trump to blow;
For Jesus can, with feeblest strain,
His richest grace bestow.
Now here are some songs from Osbourn's hymnal (Sonnets) published with the approval of the Kehukee Association in 1844.
First, from the Preface Elder Osbourn wrote:
"Inasmuch as singing in the house of God forms an important part of divine worship, so of course it is expedient that the hymns made use of in the singing department should contain such sentiments, and such only, as are in strict accordance with the genius of the gospel of Christ...the old Kehukee Baptist Association in North Carolina, at its last session, thought proper to recommend a plan whereby this serious defect might be remedied; and hence it proposed, that in case a volume of such hymns and songs should forthwith be compiled as would well comport with the gospel of the grace of God, and also be adapted to the religious views and feelings of the churches composing its body, they, as an Association, would cheerfully patronise the same and use it as their Standard Hymn Book."
Hymn # 330 in that section "THE GOSPEL AND ITS BLESSINGS"
1 GOD, in the Gospel of his Son,
Makes his eternal counsels known;
Tis here his richest mercy shines,
And truth is drawn in fairest lines.
2 Here sinners of a humble frame,
May taste his grace, and learn his name;
Tis writ in characters of blood,
Severely just, immensely good.
3 Here Jesus, in ten thousand ways,
His soul-attracting charms displays;
Recounts his poverty and pains,
And tell his love in melting strains.
4 Wisdom its dictates here imparts,
To form our minds, to cheer our hearts;
Its influence makes the sinner live,
It bids the drooping saint revive.
5 May this blest volume ever lie
Close to my heart, and near my eye,
Till life's last hour my soul engage,
And be my chosen heritage.
# 332
1 How precious is the book divine,
By inspiration given!
Blight as a lamp its doctrines shine
To guide our souls to heaven.
2 It sweetly cheers our drooping hearts
In this dark vale of tears;
Life, light, and joy, it still imparts,
And quells our rising fears.
3 This lamp, through all the tedious night
Of life, shall guide our way,
Till we behold the clearer light
Of an eternal day.
#341
1 THIS is the word of truth and love,
Sent to the nations from above;
Jehovah here resolves to shew,
What his Almighty grace can do,
2 This remedy did wisdom find,
To heal diseases of the mind;
This sovereign balm, whose virtues can,
Restore the ruined creature, man.
3 The gospel bids the dead revive,
Sinners obey the voice and live;
Dry bones are raised and clothed afresh,
And hearts of stone are turned to flesh
4 May but this grace my soul renew,
Let sinners gaze, and hate me too;
The word that saves me does engage
A sure defence from all their rage.
In the introduction to the hymnbook (1886) they published for the "Old School Baptists," Hardshell leaders Silas H. Durand and P. G. Lester wrote (SEE HERE): (emphasis mine)
"In the selection of hymns our first care has been that every sentiment expressed should be in harmony with the truth of God, believing that "Christians should never sing what they do not believe to be true.""
In that section titled "Gospel" being hymn # 42
I. While in the vale of vision dead,
The house of Israel lie,
Jehovah to the Prophet said —
"do thou, and prophesy.
2 "Go thou, nor reasoning scruples make,
Because the bones are dry;
My voice shall bid the dead awake;
Go thou, and prophesy.
3 "I'll bid the dying sinner live.
To lift my name on high;
Eternal life 'tis mine to give —
Go thou, and prophesy.
4 "Preach Jesus as he's brought to view,
And thither point their eye;
'Tis I must give to will and do—
Go thou, and prophesy.
5 "From stones, to celebrate my grace.
While mercy's tidings fly.
My arms shall raise a numerous race, —
Go thou, and prophesy."
6 Let Zion's watchmen ne'er refrain
Her silver trump to blow;
For Jesus can, with feeblest strain,
His richest grace bestow.
Now here are some songs from Osbourn's hymnal (Sonnets) published with the approval of the Kehukee Association in 1844.
First, from the Preface Elder Osbourn wrote:
"Inasmuch as singing in the house of God forms an important part of divine worship, so of course it is expedient that the hymns made use of in the singing department should contain such sentiments, and such only, as are in strict accordance with the genius of the gospel of Christ...the old Kehukee Baptist Association in North Carolina, at its last session, thought proper to recommend a plan whereby this serious defect might be remedied; and hence it proposed, that in case a volume of such hymns and songs should forthwith be compiled as would well comport with the gospel of the grace of God, and also be adapted to the religious views and feelings of the churches composing its body, they, as an Association, would cheerfully patronise the same and use it as their Standard Hymn Book."
Hymn # 330 in that section "THE GOSPEL AND ITS BLESSINGS"
1 GOD, in the Gospel of his Son,
Makes his eternal counsels known;
Tis here his richest mercy shines,
And truth is drawn in fairest lines.
2 Here sinners of a humble frame,
May taste his grace, and learn his name;
Tis writ in characters of blood,
Severely just, immensely good.
3 Here Jesus, in ten thousand ways,
His soul-attracting charms displays;
Recounts his poverty and pains,
And tell his love in melting strains.
4 Wisdom its dictates here imparts,
To form our minds, to cheer our hearts;
Its influence makes the sinner live,
It bids the drooping saint revive.
5 May this blest volume ever lie
Close to my heart, and near my eye,
Till life's last hour my soul engage,
And be my chosen heritage.
# 332
1 How precious is the book divine,
By inspiration given!
Blight as a lamp its doctrines shine
To guide our souls to heaven.
2 It sweetly cheers our drooping hearts
In this dark vale of tears;
Life, light, and joy, it still imparts,
And quells our rising fears.
3 This lamp, through all the tedious night
Of life, shall guide our way,
Till we behold the clearer light
Of an eternal day.
#341
1 THIS is the word of truth and love,
Sent to the nations from above;
Jehovah here resolves to shew,
What his Almighty grace can do,
2 This remedy did wisdom find,
To heal diseases of the mind;
This sovereign balm, whose virtues can,
Restore the ruined creature, man.
3 The gospel bids the dead revive,
Sinners obey the voice and live;
Dry bones are raised and clothed afresh,
And hearts of stone are turned to flesh
4 May but this grace my soul renew,
Let sinners gaze, and hate me too;
The word that saves me does engage
A sure defence from all their rage.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
About the "Go" in the Great Commission
The following is from Chpt. 72 - The Great Commission VII of my ongoing book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" book (SEE HERE). The Hardshells, with all their argumentation on the word "go" in the Great Commission, fail to realize that such is not even the main verb, and that the Greek word should have been translated in English as "as you go," so that we have "as you go, make disciples."
In the Greek syntax of the passage the word "disciple" (or"teach" or "make disciples") is both the main thought and the main verb. The other verbs, baptize and teach, are the ways one fulfills the command to "disciple" (or 'make disciples'). The main verb is imperative. The verb "go" is not the main verb and is not necessarily imperative. It may be translated "as you go." Thus, we may translate the verse as follows:
"As you go (depart or proceed) into all the world, disciple the nations as you go, and baptizing them as you go, and continue to teach them as you go."
The root word for "go" is poreuō, and according to Strong means:
1) to lead over, carry over, transfer
a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue one's journey
b) to depart from life
c) to follow one, that is: become his adherent
1) to lead or order one's life
The Greek word poreuo itself is from that base root word "peira"and means, according to Strong:
1) a trial, experience, attempt
2) to attempt a thing, to make trial of a thing or of a person
3) to have a trial of a thing
4) to experience, learn to know by experience
On these points a writer says:
"It is a well-known fact that the Greek text of Matthew 28:19-20 does not include an imperative verb that must be translated "go." Instead, the Greek text has a participle from which the command to go has been translated."
"The verb that is translated "go" (if transliterated exclusively from the English alphabet and without accent marks) is "poreuthente"which is an aorist particle of "poreuo." In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Second Edition, Copyright 1958, page 692, the lexicographers make this double-pronged comment:
"The aorist participle (of poreuo) is often used pleonastically to enliven the narrative...in any case the idea of going or traveling is not emphasized."
Referring to the root verb, and not to the aorist participle in particular, also on page 692, the lexicographers describe two other ways that the verb is used: (1) "conduct oneself, live, walk"and (2) "of life generally" (page 692).
Why then is Matthew 28:19 translated "go," as if the Greek New Testament included an explicit command to go? It may be because of the command to disciple all nations. However, the command to disciple all nations may not have been given to command "going."
(http://www.biblical-counsel.org/commiss1.htm)
In Matthew 10: 7 the same word is translated "as you go preach." (KJV) So, I am not translating the word differently than how it was translated elsewhere in the King James Version.
In the Greek syntax of the passage the word "disciple" (or"teach" or "make disciples") is both the main thought and the main verb. The other verbs, baptize and teach, are the ways one fulfills the command to "disciple" (or 'make disciples'). The main verb is imperative. The verb "go" is not the main verb and is not necessarily imperative. It may be translated "as you go." Thus, we may translate the verse as follows:
"As you go (depart or proceed) into all the world, disciple the nations as you go, and baptizing them as you go, and continue to teach them as you go."
The root word for "go" is poreuō, and according to Strong means:
1) to lead over, carry over, transfer
a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue one's journey
b) to depart from life
c) to follow one, that is: become his adherent
1) to lead or order one's life
The Greek word poreuo itself is from that base root word "peira"and means, according to Strong:
1) a trial, experience, attempt
2) to attempt a thing, to make trial of a thing or of a person
3) to have a trial of a thing
4) to experience, learn to know by experience
On these points a writer says:
"It is a well-known fact that the Greek text of Matthew 28:19-20 does not include an imperative verb that must be translated "go." Instead, the Greek text has a participle from which the command to go has been translated."
"The verb that is translated "go" (if transliterated exclusively from the English alphabet and without accent marks) is "poreuthente"which is an aorist particle of "poreuo." In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Second Edition, Copyright 1958, page 692, the lexicographers make this double-pronged comment:
"The aorist participle (of poreuo) is often used pleonastically to enliven the narrative...in any case the idea of going or traveling is not emphasized."
Referring to the root verb, and not to the aorist participle in particular, also on page 692, the lexicographers describe two other ways that the verb is used: (1) "conduct oneself, live, walk"and (2) "of life generally" (page 692).
Why then is Matthew 28:19 translated "go," as if the Greek New Testament included an explicit command to go? It may be because of the command to disciple all nations. However, the command to disciple all nations may not have been given to command "going."
(http://www.biblical-counsel.org/commiss1.htm)
In Matthew 10: 7 the same word is translated "as you go preach." (KJV) So, I am not translating the word differently than how it was translated elsewhere in the King James Version.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)