The following is a response from a Hardshell to my posting hard nut questions for hardshells and these two questions: 1. Is faith necessary for eternal salvation? 2. What is faith?
"My answers will probably be too short for your liking, but here it goes.
1. Is faith necessary for eternal salvation? No
2. What is faith? Faith is the outward works shown by the child of God, given as a gift from the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:8-10). No matter how small that faith might be. A tree is known by its fruit.
Although, that answer does make me think about the Hindu or Muslim. Does the Hindu or Muslim show faith for Jesus Christ? I would say no. But do they believe in God? I would say yes. Aren't the Hindu and the Muslims in the same camp as the Jews? Are we to say that all Jews who reject Christ are not born again?"
The Errors
1. Faith is works, outward works
But, these scriptures prove otherwise:
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth" (Rom. 4:5)
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace" (vs. 16)
2. Faith is outward, not inward
"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10)
Works are the fruit of faith, but they are not the same. All is by faith, for "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14: 20)
3. Hindus and Muslims "believe" in "God" but not in Jesus
But, the Hindus and the Muslims do not believe in the true God. In fact, basic Hindu belief is polytheistic. To call Hindus and Muslims "believers" and contend that the term "believer" in scripture includes such people is a gross interpretation. The bible would call such religious people "heathen" or "unbelievers." But, more on this shortly.
4. Jews who reject Jesus are born again
But, this is not taught in scripture. If so, where is it taught? Explicitly taught? Is it not explicitly taught in scripture that unbelieving Jews, those who reject Christ and the NT revelation, are lost?
"I said therefore unto you (Jews), that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24 kjv)
5. Faith in God seems to be necessary
(but not right conceptions about God)
The Hardshell in his response seems to want to make some kind of faith necessary for salvation, even though he states positively that faith is not necessary for eternal salvation (or to be constituted one of the "elect" and "called").
When he expressly says that faith is not required to be eternally saved, he is defining "faith" as the NT defines it, as being a belief in the one true God and in his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the good news of salvation through Christ. However, when he argues for the heathen having "faith" or being a "believer," then he seems to want to make "faith" universal in all the regenerate.
The Hardshell brother wants to define "faith" as religious belief, truth not being a necessary object to faith.
Questions
1. What kind of tree (regeneration, life) is it that has no fruit of faith?
2. Can one be saved without believing in religion or divinities?
Inconsistencies
I. Faith is the gift of the Spirit
Syllogism
1. Faith is the gift of God
2. Faith is good works
3. Good works are the gift of God
II. Faith is believing in some religion or deity
It seems that the position of this Hardshell brother affirms that atheists have as much a reason to expect to go to Heaven as the believer in Jesus.
Faith is not defined by this writer. Or, at least, not well defined. It is said to be "outward works" and to involve believing in "God," but not believing in Jesus. But, it seems clear that "faith," bible faith, according to this Hardshell brother, is equated with "religious belief." But, this is not a bible definition.
Is "faith" ("religious belief") necessary to salvation? When he says that "faith" is not necessary to salvation, is he denying that religious belief is necessary? Does he not affirm even the salvation of atheists? And, is not this Universalism?
I am sure that when he says that faith is NOT necessary for salvation, that he is thinking of faith as it is generally defined in Scripture and among the Christian community, as a belief in the the Hebrew God and in his Son Jesus, or a belief in the Trinity, in which name all who enter the community are immersed. This is the faith that our Hardshell brother deems unessential for salvation, and as no essential part of the spiritual life given of God in regeneration and renewal. But, if one defines "faith" in an odd and novel way, as do the Hardshells, then "faith" may be essential to salvation and thus what is universal in all the elect and born again.
Necessity of Faith for Salvation
The following post shows clearly that faith in the revelation of Scripture is a necessity for being eternally saved.
Gospel Means Of Grace VII
C. H. Spurgeon said:
"Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."
(Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).
That is the truth of scripture and one must be blind not to see it. This is also the great truth taught by Baptists throughout history. The only ones to deny such a truth are the Universalists and the quasi Universalist Hardshells like this Hardshell brother.
Notice this verse of scripture that came to my mind as I read the response of this Hardshell to my two hard nut questions for Hardshells.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24 kjv)
These words clearly identify those who have spiritual life and who shall be finally saved in Heaven. Who are they? How can they be identified and known? What is it that separates them from the world? They "hear" the "word" of Christ and "believe" in the Father and Son.
What about the unbeliever?
"he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16: 16)
"but he that believeth not is condemned already..." (John 3: 18)
"...he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)
"...he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (I John 5:10)
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Rev. 21:8)
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb. 11:6)
"Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief...Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Heb. 4:6, 11)
Fulton Confession of Faith of Primitive Baptists, from the "Fulton Convention" (1900) in Fulton, Ky., endorsed the London Confession of 1689. The record of that convention is - "The London Confession of Faith was approved by a unanimous vote of the meeting."
Here is what these Hardshells said about the old 1689 Confession:
8. The London Confession of Faith, adopted over 200 years ago by thirty-seven of the ablest ministers of
England and Wales, representing over 100 churches, has served one of the most needful services among our
people of any document of faith since the days of the apostles, and has stood unquestioned as an expression of
the Primitive Baptists’ interpretation of the Bible from then till now. At the present assembly of 51 ministers,
representing 335 churches, aggregating 14,500 members in direct correspondence with over 100,000 Baptists,
the Confession has been carefully read and approved.
So, this brother, in saying that "faith" is not necessary to be eternally saved, is against the faith of his fathers. Here is what the 1689 Confession says about faith and salvation.
CHAPTER XIV. OF SAVING FAITH.
1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, the work of the Spirit of CHRIST a in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.
2. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word on the authority of God Himself...and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed...but the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the Covenant of Grace.
I hope this brother will become an old or original Baptist and adopt what the 1689 Confession affirms on the topic.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Monday, October 16, 2017
Hard Nut Questions For Hardshells
These are simple questions for Christians. They are not simple questions for Hardshell cultists.
1. Is faith necessary for eternal salvation?
2. What is faith?
1. Is faith necessary for eternal salvation?
2. What is faith?
Conviction - Evidence of New Birth?
Wrote Samuel Rutherford:
"All these foregoing endeavors and sweatings, being void of faith, cannot please God, Heb. 11:6. These who act in the strength of them are yet in the flesh, and not in the Spirit, and so can do nothing acceptable to God, being yet out of Christ, Rom. 8:8, John 15:4-6. And the tree being corrupt, the fruit must be sour, and naught; humiliation, sorrow for sin, displeasure with ourselves, that go before conversion, can be no formal parts of conversion..."
"Those are not moral preparations which we perform beforeconversion, nor have they any promise of Christ annexed to them, as, He that is humbled under sin shall be drawn to Christ, or He that wisheth the Physician, shall be cured and called to repentance. We read of no such promise in the word..."
"Many have storms of conscience, as Cain and Judas, who go never one step further. When, therefore, Antinomians impute to us that we teach, That to desire to believe is faith, or desire to pray is prayer, they foully mistake. For raw desires, and wishes after conversion and Christ, are to us no more conversion, and the soul's being drawn to Christ, than Esau's weeping for the blessing was the blessing, or Balaam's wish to die the death of the righteous was the happy end of such as die in the Lord..."
"The humiliation and sorrow for sin, and desire of the Physician, by way of merit, or having the favor of a gospel promise, do no more render a soul nearer to Christ and saving grace, than the want of these dispositions..." (As cited by me here)
Wrote Stephen Charnock:
"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration; there must be some apprehensions of the necessity of it. Yet sometimes the work of regeneration follows so close upon the heels of these precious preparations, that both must be acknowledged to be the work of one and the same hand." (As cited by me here)
"All these foregoing endeavors and sweatings, being void of faith, cannot please God, Heb. 11:6. These who act in the strength of them are yet in the flesh, and not in the Spirit, and so can do nothing acceptable to God, being yet out of Christ, Rom. 8:8, John 15:4-6. And the tree being corrupt, the fruit must be sour, and naught; humiliation, sorrow for sin, displeasure with ourselves, that go before conversion, can be no formal parts of conversion..."
"Those are not moral preparations which we perform beforeconversion, nor have they any promise of Christ annexed to them, as, He that is humbled under sin shall be drawn to Christ, or He that wisheth the Physician, shall be cured and called to repentance. We read of no such promise in the word..."
"Many have storms of conscience, as Cain and Judas, who go never one step further. When, therefore, Antinomians impute to us that we teach, That to desire to believe is faith, or desire to pray is prayer, they foully mistake. For raw desires, and wishes after conversion and Christ, are to us no more conversion, and the soul's being drawn to Christ, than Esau's weeping for the blessing was the blessing, or Balaam's wish to die the death of the righteous was the happy end of such as die in the Lord..."
"The humiliation and sorrow for sin, and desire of the Physician, by way of merit, or having the favor of a gospel promise, do no more render a soul nearer to Christ and saving grace, than the want of these dispositions..." (As cited by me here)
Wrote Stephen Charnock:
"The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration; there must be some apprehensions of the necessity of it. Yet sometimes the work of regeneration follows so close upon the heels of these precious preparations, that both must be acknowledged to be the work of one and the same hand." (As cited by me here)
Saturday, October 14, 2017
A Good Policy
I agree with the following statement:
"I have a policy of not answering ambush questions. There's no right answer to the wrong question. I reserve the right to reformulate trick questions, loaded questions." (Steve Hays - see here)
I try to always answer legitimate questions, but I will not be gullible. I also ask a lot of questions, all designed to help a person reach the right conclusion, or the truth.
"I have a policy of not answering ambush questions. There's no right answer to the wrong question. I reserve the right to reformulate trick questions, loaded questions." (Steve Hays - see here)
I try to always answer legitimate questions, but I will not be gullible. I also ask a lot of questions, all designed to help a person reach the right conclusion, or the truth.
A Critique of a Pb Statement of Faith
The web page for Franklin Primitive Baptist Church or Thompson Memorial Primitive Baptist Church (see here), the church founded by father, there are these three statements of faith.
"The Primitive Baptists believe that if you have a fear of God and are mournful over your sins that you are showing evidence that God has already done something for you that is wonderful…being born again!"
This is what father believed, after he fell into Hardshell errors. It is also what most modern "Primitive Baptists" profess to believe. However, it is not the belief of the oldest Baptist churches nor is it biblical. I have written on this subject extensively, showing how heretical and harmful it is. See these postings:
On Conviction I
On Conviction II
On Conviction III
Wilson Thompson on Conviction
What Do You Say?
Hardshells Make The Spirit A Liar
On whether fear of God is in itself an evidence of rebirth, see these postings:
Hardshell Proof Texts X
The Gospel...
Fearing God
Next, the web page says:
"Many people teach that you have to accept the gift of eternal life, in order to make the atonement of Jesus Christ effective. We’re here to tell you that the gift of eternal life was already chosen, before the foundation of the world, for a great multitude of people. (Eph 1:4-6)"
I also have written much against the ideas put forth in these words. See these postings:
Hardshell Prayers
Hermeneutical Problems For Hardshells V
Saved By Faith?
Hermeneutical Problems For Hardshells VI
Hermeneutical Problems For Hardshells III
Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning
The idea that one can "have" eternal life without having "received" or "accepted" it! Absurd! The idea that men who reject eternal life have it any way! Universalism!
Next, the web page says:
"Eternal Salvation is a gift from God, not of man and certainly not of works. If you have to believe the gospel in order to be saved, that is a work! Believing and accepting that Jesus Christ died for your sins, is a work. Only Gods grace, delivered by the Holy Spirit, can save the dead sinner and bring him/her to spiritual life. (Eph 2:8-10)"
What a false dilemma is set up here! Faith is works! Salvation is not by faith for by grace excludes by faith! In response to this false proposition, see these postings:
Hardshell Presuppositions
Oliphant vs Pence
"The Primitive Baptists believe that if you have a fear of God and are mournful over your sins that you are showing evidence that God has already done something for you that is wonderful…being born again!"
This is what father believed, after he fell into Hardshell errors. It is also what most modern "Primitive Baptists" profess to believe. However, it is not the belief of the oldest Baptist churches nor is it biblical. I have written on this subject extensively, showing how heretical and harmful it is. See these postings:
On Conviction I
On Conviction II
On Conviction III
Wilson Thompson on Conviction
What Do You Say?
Hardshells Make The Spirit A Liar
On whether fear of God is in itself an evidence of rebirth, see these postings:
Hardshell Proof Texts X
The Gospel...
Fearing God
Next, the web page says:
"Many people teach that you have to accept the gift of eternal life, in order to make the atonement of Jesus Christ effective. We’re here to tell you that the gift of eternal life was already chosen, before the foundation of the world, for a great multitude of people. (Eph 1:4-6)"
I also have written much against the ideas put forth in these words. See these postings:
Hardshell Prayers
Hermeneutical Problems For Hardshells V
Saved By Faith?
Hermeneutical Problems For Hardshells VI
Hermeneutical Problems For Hardshells III
Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning
The idea that one can "have" eternal life without having "received" or "accepted" it! Absurd! The idea that men who reject eternal life have it any way! Universalism!
Next, the web page says:
"Eternal Salvation is a gift from God, not of man and certainly not of works. If you have to believe the gospel in order to be saved, that is a work! Believing and accepting that Jesus Christ died for your sins, is a work. Only Gods grace, delivered by the Holy Spirit, can save the dead sinner and bring him/her to spiritual life. (Eph 2:8-10)"
What a false dilemma is set up here! Faith is works! Salvation is not by faith for by grace excludes by faith! In response to this false proposition, see these postings:
Hardshell Presuppositions
Oliphant vs Pence
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Thoughts About Father
My father, Eddie K. Garrett Sr., passed away about a year and a half ago and I have thought of him many times. The Lord willing, I will meet him again in the third heaven. I have written some already about father, and my relationship with him. I have spoken of the things that we agreed upon as well as those we did not agree on. In this posting, I want to share some additional thoughts about him.
Father was firmly dedicated to his Christian faith. I am so glad that he was. I know he is in heaven because he was a "true believer" in the Bible, and in what it taught about God and about the world he created. Father did not miss going to church. In about sixty years of going to church I think he missed Sunday service one time, when he had open heart surgery. Bible study, praying, evangelizing, and other such Christian practices, were habit for father. They were not hobbies and sidelines.
When I think of the words that best describe father's Christian faith, his beliefs and practices, yea, his "spirit," these come first to mind: dogmatic, staunch, strict, intolerant, firm, resolute, unwavering, unmoved, uncompromising, hard-shell, stubborn, persevering, resilient, bold. I think of these words and I study them. I think - why did I not include love, mercy, gentleness, meekness, goodness, kindness, tolerance, etc., in the list? Did father not show these qualities? Yes, he did. Stories flood my mind when I think of the many times father exhibited those qualities and spirit. Father could be a lamb as well as a lion.
Father was at one time a believer in the very doctrines that I now hold dear. It was not till he converted to Hardshellism in the mid 60s that he began to seriously alter his beliefs on several important areas of bible doctrine. I have often considered how things would have been different for both him and me had he remained a sovereign grace missionary Baptist. I have also often thought about the reasons why father forsook the truth he once believed in order to embrace Hardshell heresies. Here are some of my responses to these questions.
Had father remained with the real primitive Baptists, the old time predestinarian Baptists, what would have been the results for his ministerial labors and for his religious beliefs?
Had father remained a sovereign grace Missionary Baptist
Positives
1. He would have been spared becoming a member of a cult.
2. He would have been kept from the "damnable heresies" of the Hardshells.
3. He would have been instrumental in the salvation of many more souls.
4. He would have experienced greater Christian growth.
5. The church he founded and pastored would have grown larger in number.
6. He would have preached the gospel to sinners.
7. He would have been spared all the trouble that came to him by the leaders of the cult.
8. His preaching would have been more Christ centered than church centered.
9. He would have been happier.
10. He would have been more gentle and forbearing.
Negatives
1. He would not have preached as much among churches other than his own.
2. He would not have enjoyed as much praise and recognition among the Missionary churches.
3. His standing among his brethren would have been less, having more competition for position.
I have stated in my book on the Hardshells how that I believe that father was attracted to the cult because he felt like he would be more utilized among the Hardshells. I think he saw how elder Bradley was welcomed and given numerous opportunities to preach and desired the same. He saw his entrance into the Hardshell cult as a way for him to enlarge his labors, which were geared more to debating and apologetics than to soul winning.
Had father remained a Missionary Baptist, then it would have affected my life. I would not have become a Hardshell. I would not have married my first wife (who was a Hardshell). I would perhaps have gone to seminary, become a Missionary Baptist preacher, and then who knows how many other things would have been different?
Father believed in the five points of Calvinism as a Missionary Baptist. I would have embraced that just as I did as a Hardshell. Father believed in the perseverance of the saints as I do now. Father believed that regeneration and conversion occurred together, and that the preached word was the means, as I do now. Father also believed in the predestination of all things as I do now.
I remember listening to the debate that father had with Howard See of the "Church of Christ" back in the mid sixties, a year or so before he converted to Hardshellism. That debate was excellent! He preached and ably defended the very truths that I now hold dear, and are the very truths that the real "Primitive Baptists" have historically confessed. I use to ask father to send me that old debate (an old reel to reel) but he never would let me have it after I left the PBs!
I love my father and forgive him for having taught me errors in doctrine. He is in heaven and now holds to no errors. I rejoice in the great truths he did not turn away from but I will always regret his choice to join the Hardshells.
Father was firmly dedicated to his Christian faith. I am so glad that he was. I know he is in heaven because he was a "true believer" in the Bible, and in what it taught about God and about the world he created. Father did not miss going to church. In about sixty years of going to church I think he missed Sunday service one time, when he had open heart surgery. Bible study, praying, evangelizing, and other such Christian practices, were habit for father. They were not hobbies and sidelines.
When I think of the words that best describe father's Christian faith, his beliefs and practices, yea, his "spirit," these come first to mind: dogmatic, staunch, strict, intolerant, firm, resolute, unwavering, unmoved, uncompromising, hard-shell, stubborn, persevering, resilient, bold. I think of these words and I study them. I think - why did I not include love, mercy, gentleness, meekness, goodness, kindness, tolerance, etc., in the list? Did father not show these qualities? Yes, he did. Stories flood my mind when I think of the many times father exhibited those qualities and spirit. Father could be a lamb as well as a lion.
Father was at one time a believer in the very doctrines that I now hold dear. It was not till he converted to Hardshellism in the mid 60s that he began to seriously alter his beliefs on several important areas of bible doctrine. I have often considered how things would have been different for both him and me had he remained a sovereign grace missionary Baptist. I have also often thought about the reasons why father forsook the truth he once believed in order to embrace Hardshell heresies. Here are some of my responses to these questions.
Had father remained with the real primitive Baptists, the old time predestinarian Baptists, what would have been the results for his ministerial labors and for his religious beliefs?
Had father remained a sovereign grace Missionary Baptist
Positives
1. He would have been spared becoming a member of a cult.
2. He would have been kept from the "damnable heresies" of the Hardshells.
3. He would have been instrumental in the salvation of many more souls.
4. He would have experienced greater Christian growth.
5. The church he founded and pastored would have grown larger in number.
6. He would have preached the gospel to sinners.
7. He would have been spared all the trouble that came to him by the leaders of the cult.
8. His preaching would have been more Christ centered than church centered.
9. He would have been happier.
10. He would have been more gentle and forbearing.
Negatives
1. He would not have preached as much among churches other than his own.
2. He would not have enjoyed as much praise and recognition among the Missionary churches.
3. His standing among his brethren would have been less, having more competition for position.
I have stated in my book on the Hardshells how that I believe that father was attracted to the cult because he felt like he would be more utilized among the Hardshells. I think he saw how elder Bradley was welcomed and given numerous opportunities to preach and desired the same. He saw his entrance into the Hardshell cult as a way for him to enlarge his labors, which were geared more to debating and apologetics than to soul winning.
Had father remained a Missionary Baptist, then it would have affected my life. I would not have become a Hardshell. I would not have married my first wife (who was a Hardshell). I would perhaps have gone to seminary, become a Missionary Baptist preacher, and then who knows how many other things would have been different?
Father believed in the five points of Calvinism as a Missionary Baptist. I would have embraced that just as I did as a Hardshell. Father believed in the perseverance of the saints as I do now. Father believed that regeneration and conversion occurred together, and that the preached word was the means, as I do now. Father also believed in the predestination of all things as I do now.
I remember listening to the debate that father had with Howard See of the "Church of Christ" back in the mid sixties, a year or so before he converted to Hardshellism. That debate was excellent! He preached and ably defended the very truths that I now hold dear, and are the very truths that the real "Primitive Baptists" have historically confessed. I use to ask father to send me that old debate (an old reel to reel) but he never would let me have it after I left the PBs!
I love my father and forgive him for having taught me errors in doctrine. He is in heaven and now holds to no errors. I rejoice in the great truths he did not turn away from but I will always regret his choice to join the Hardshells.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
A Problem in Interpretation
"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." (I Cor. 5: 11 KJV)
Many years ago I had great difficulty in regard to this passage. In a church in which I was a member we had a man and wife who were members and one of them (the wife) came under the condemnation of the church and the church was forced to deal with her after the manner prescribed by the apostle in the above passage. Each member of the church was forbidden "to eat" with that censured member, or to have fellowship with her. The problem? Was this to be done by the woman's husband? If it was, then was he forbidden to eat with his wife? To have fellowship with her? Some in the church thought that the husband was to obey the apostolic command. Others thought that it was not applicable to the husband, for if it was, then the husband doing so would mean that the husband could no longer obey the scripture's teaching on how a husband should treat his wife.
The issue becomes even more acute when the woman is excluded. The members of the church are to shun such a person and not to have any dealings with that member. But, how could the woman's husband obey such a command without violating his marital vows?
I concluded, though not without some struggles, that the husband could not refuse to eat with his excluded wife. Thus, the rule had an exception. The members should shun the woman, not eat with her, etc., but this could not be the case with the husband.
Some others disagreed, thinking that the woman's exclusion actually gave the man the right to divorce his wife. What think ye?
Many years ago I had great difficulty in regard to this passage. In a church in which I was a member we had a man and wife who were members and one of them (the wife) came under the condemnation of the church and the church was forced to deal with her after the manner prescribed by the apostle in the above passage. Each member of the church was forbidden "to eat" with that censured member, or to have fellowship with her. The problem? Was this to be done by the woman's husband? If it was, then was he forbidden to eat with his wife? To have fellowship with her? Some in the church thought that the husband was to obey the apostolic command. Others thought that it was not applicable to the husband, for if it was, then the husband doing so would mean that the husband could no longer obey the scripture's teaching on how a husband should treat his wife.
The issue becomes even more acute when the woman is excluded. The members of the church are to shun such a person and not to have any dealings with that member. But, how could the woman's husband obey such a command without violating his marital vows?
I concluded, though not without some struggles, that the husband could not refuse to eat with his excluded wife. Thus, the rule had an exception. The members should shun the woman, not eat with her, etc., but this could not be the case with the husband.
Some others disagreed, thinking that the woman's exclusion actually gave the man the right to divorce his wife. What think ye?
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Hardshells & The Adultery Question VII
In this posting we will begin to look at other places in the Gospels where Jesus taught on the subject of marriage and divorce. In "7. The Teaching of Jesus on Divorce — (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12)" (see here) Professor Luck wrote the following under the title "Second Confrontation with the Pharisees on the Morality of Divorce." He begins this subsection with the the words “Is It Lawful For A Man To Divorce His Wife For Any Reason?” (Matthew 19:3-12/Mark 10:2-12)." It is a good introduction to this posting that begins with a study of other passages in the Gospels that give the words of the Lord Jesus Christ on the subject of divorce, adultery, and remarriage. We will be giving attention to the two passages mentioned by Luck.
Wrote Professor Luck (emphasis mine):
"Our Lord’s primary teaching on divorce was in His great Sermon preached on a mountain to his disciples (Matthew 5). The focus of that was that men who treacherously divorce their wives in order to marry other woman or who are a party to breaking up someone else’s marriage in order to claim the newly released woman are guilty of adultery in the eyes of His Father. Subsequent to that He had an interchange with the Pharisees (Luke 16) in which He reaffirmed those teachings in an illustration showing to the religious leaders that they were poor stewards of God’s Law, especially as it related to its divorce teachings. We come now to an event, twice recorded (Matthew 19 and Mark 10) in which the Pharisees came to Jesus and queried Him about his beliefs regarding the subject. On most understandings of the chronology of the life of Christ, this confrontation is thought to come after the Sermon, and likely after the confrontation over stewardship. While Jesus says more in this dialogue than in the other incidents, many commentators focus upon it, reducing the prior teachings almost to a footnote. Heth/Wenham’s Jesus and Divorce is an example. It is a study of alternative views of the exception clause as found in Matthew 19:9. I believe the reverse, that this is a footnote on the Sermon, which Jesus would not have spoken, had the Pharisees not confronted Him on the matter."
I agree with Luck that the other passages in the Gospels are to be seen as enlargements of what Jesus previously taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5: 31-32.
Wrote Luck:
"Having studied exhaustively the teaching of the Lord in Matthew 5: 31-32, we will now turn our attention to other texts in the gospels that also give his teachings on the subject of divorce and remarriage. First, we will begin with Mark 10: 11-12 which in the KJV reads as follows:
"And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
We will begin looking at the first statement in the Mark passage - “Whosoever shall put away (divorce) his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her." This verse will be compared with Matthew 5:31a and the words - "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, Causeth her to commit adultery." In what way are these sayings alike? How are they different?
Comparing Mark 10:11 & Matt. 5:31a
Matt. 5:31a - "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, Causeth her to commit adultery."
Mark 10:11 - "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."
Similarities
Both passages
1. focus on the husband and his adultery and
2. have him unjustly and treacherously putting away (or divorcing) his wife and
3. have the man as the active one in the actions of divorce and adultery and
4. have the woman as a passive recipient of the above actions and
5. view the wife as an innocent victim who suffers as a direct result of her husband's action and
6. identify unlawful divorce and remarriage as examples of adultery
Differences
But, they are different because
1) Matt. 5:32a does not mention the husband marrying another (although it assumes it), and
2) Matt. 5: 32a does not as clearly say that the husband commits adultery (Mark 10:11 says that he "commits adultery") and
3) Mark 10: 11 says that the husband's adultery is committed "against" his wife (Matt. 5:32a says this indirectly in the words "makes her the victim of adultery") and
4) there is no exception clause in Mark 10:11 ("except it be for fornication")
As stated previously, Mark 10:11 makes illegal and treacherous divorce to be adulterous as did Matt. 5: 32b. Notice that the passage in Mark says that the man does two things that make him guilty of committing adultery. He 1) illegally divorces his wife and 2) marries another. Notice that in these two conditions there is no direct mention of sexual intercourse. Divorce does not involve it, for that is a legal proceeding. "Marrying" also does not directly involve it, as I showed in the previous posting. It will likely lead to it, of course, but Christ did not say "whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, and has sex with his new wife on the honeymoon."
When a man unlawfully divorces his wife in order to marry another, he commits adultery "against her" because he is making her the victim of his sin, separating what God has joined together. His act is sin "against" God and his law and "against" his wife.
Matthew 5:32a showed that one is guilty of committing adultery against his spouse when he divorces unlawfully, and this is so even if he does not remarry, because adultery is committed by unlawful divorce. A good paraphrase reading would be - “Whoever divorces his wife unlawfully to marry someone else makes his ex-wife the victim of his adultery.”
Wrote Luck:
"Nonetheless, there was within Jesus’ words a rather shocking implication. Jesus was saying that the man who took advantage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and put away his wife was really guilty of the sin of adultery—though sexuality was not involved."
This is what many miss seeing in the teaching of Christ.
The Indictment of Wives
Mark 10:12 also indicts the woman who divorces her husband. Jesus added:
“And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
This harmonizes with Matthew 5:32b
The best translations of Matthew 5:32b show that it is the woman who unlawfully divorces her husband (for the purpose of becoming someone else's wife) who sins in remarriage. A good translation says - "And if a woman divorces her husband unlawfully in order to marry another man, she commits adultery.” There is then complete harmony between the Mark and the Matthew passages in regard to what they say about the woman who divorces her husband.
If we put Mark 10: 11 together with Matthew 5: 31a we have this:
"whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her the victim of his adultery and if he marry another, he commits adultery against her."
Comparing Mark 10:12 & Matt. 5:31b
Mark 10:12 - “And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (KJV)
Matt. 5:31b - "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (KJV)
Having compared Mark 10:11 with Matthew 5: 31a and noted the similarities and differences, we will now compare Mark 10:12 with Matthew 5:31b. Mark 10:11 parallels Matthew 5:31a and Mark 10:12 parallels Matthew 5:31b. By comparing the above two clauses of Mark 10:12 and Matthew 5:31b, we see how they are more alike than different. This is seen especially if we give a better translation (than the KJV) to the Matthew 5:31b clause.
Mark 10:12 - “And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (KJV)
Matt. 5:31b - “And if someone marries a woman who herself has divorced (then) he himself is committing adultery.”
It needs to be pointed out how in Mark 10:12 the clause is given its own numbered verse status by Robert Stephanus (who in the mid sixteenth century gave us our verse divisions) but not so in the Matthew passage. Why make the words of Mark 10:12 a separate numbered "verse" in the one case but not in the other? Further, had Stephanus made Matthew 5: 31b a separate "verse" as he did with the clause in Mark, what would this say about the interpretation of the words of the text? And, how would this affect interpretation?
In our previous writings I have given good reasons why the two clauses in Matthew 5:31 should be viewed as separate independent clauses, and therefore could and should be viewed as separate sentences. I have opposed the view that the woman ("her") in Matthew 5:31b is the innocently divorced woman in the first clause of Matthew 5:31a. If two things had happened in the English translation (and remember the adding punctuation, including numbered verses, as well as choosing equivalent words, are part of the translation process) of Matthew 5:31, then many would not have adopted that fault. Those two things are:
1) The second clause had been translated more accurately to show that the second woman was not the divorced woman of the first clause, but a different woman who had herself initiated divorce (with the intent of marrying another) and,
2) The second clause had been given its own number as a separate verse.
CONCLUSION
When you look at the context, the history, the Greek, the grammar, and the overall tenor of these passages, it becomes clear what Jesus’ point is: Do not divorce unlawfully and do not be the complicit party/beneficiary of the unlawful divorce (i.e., homewrecker). If you do, then you are an adulterer.
As I mentioned earlier, there are varying positions in regards to the meaning of adultery and the exact nuance of every point Jesus makes. However, one point that the majority of scholarship is virtually unanimous on is that repentance does not demand further divorce, regardless of which subsequent marriage you may find yourself in. This fact, however, was not understood by my father, nor other PBs.
If you are a man or woman who divorced unlawfully, then you committed adultery. If you are a man or woman who was the beneficiary of the unlawful divorce (by being the one whom the person unlawfully divorced their spouse for), then you too are guilty of adultery by being a complicit party in the breaking up of a marriage. However, grace can be found and forgiveness can be given.
If you find yourself in a subsequent marriage after an unlawful divorce, understand that it is not God’s will for you to break up another marriage covenant. On the contrary, you need to sanctify your union by turning to God and realizing your past mistakes and look to no longer break wedlock in the future. Repentance does not demand divorce and even though you may have attained your marriage through an unlawful divorce, understand that it can and should be continued in righteousness.
Answering A Rebuttal
How can the man commit adultery against his wife in a remarriage after the divorce if the divorce ended her time as his wife?
That is a good question and one that needs to be addressed by those, as I, who see unlawful treacherous divorce as a case of adultery, or who see even unlawful divorce as the ending of a marriage, even in the eyes of God.
The argument stated in the "if, then" form:
If the remarriage is a sin, then the prior marriage must still be intact and unbroken; therefore, divorces tolerated by the laws of man are not divorces recognized or approved by God.
We cannot accept this reasoning and conclusion. We deny that all remarriages of divorced persons are acts of adultery committed against a former spouse. We have already denied that the innocent divorced woman of Matthew 5: 31a was forbidden to remarry if she wanted to avoid committing adultery. I do not doubt that some remarriages are acts of adultery. However, I categorically deny that all who were divorced for reasons other than fornication sin when they remarry.
It is true that the man in Mark 10:11 commits adultery "against" his wife even after he has divorced her and after the marriage has ended and that this seems to suggest that the divorce did not really void the marriage "in the eyes of God." But, if what Luck and others, and I also, have affirmed is correct, then the only person who sins in remarriage is the person who divorces with the purpose of marrying another. Some people divorce with no intent of remarrying, having no other person they desire as new spouses. Others divorce so that they can marry another person whom they have been coveting. In the former case there is no sin in the remarrying, but in the latter case there is sin in the remarrying. In the latter case, the remarriage often takes place soon after the divorce, showing that the divorce was obtained for the purpose of obtaining a particular new spouse. Oftentimes this new spouse is what we call the "homewrecker."
The Mark passage seems to suggest that two conditions are needed to constitute one an adulterer. It takes 1) divorcing for a reason other than fornication, and 2) remarrying another spouse after such an unjust divorce. But, this is not what Jesus is saying. Rather, he is affirming that both unjust divorce and the remarriage to the homewrecker are both instances of adultery. The man that does these two things commits adultery twice.
In the next posting we will continue our look at the marriage and divorce teachings of the Lord as given in the other passages in the Gospels.
Wrote Professor Luck (emphasis mine):
"Our Lord’s primary teaching on divorce was in His great Sermon preached on a mountain to his disciples (Matthew 5). The focus of that was that men who treacherously divorce their wives in order to marry other woman or who are a party to breaking up someone else’s marriage in order to claim the newly released woman are guilty of adultery in the eyes of His Father. Subsequent to that He had an interchange with the Pharisees (Luke 16) in which He reaffirmed those teachings in an illustration showing to the religious leaders that they were poor stewards of God’s Law, especially as it related to its divorce teachings. We come now to an event, twice recorded (Matthew 19 and Mark 10) in which the Pharisees came to Jesus and queried Him about his beliefs regarding the subject. On most understandings of the chronology of the life of Christ, this confrontation is thought to come after the Sermon, and likely after the confrontation over stewardship. While Jesus says more in this dialogue than in the other incidents, many commentators focus upon it, reducing the prior teachings almost to a footnote. Heth/Wenham’s Jesus and Divorce is an example. It is a study of alternative views of the exception clause as found in Matthew 19:9. I believe the reverse, that this is a footnote on the Sermon, which Jesus would not have spoken, had the Pharisees not confronted Him on the matter."
I agree with Luck that the other passages in the Gospels are to be seen as enlargements of what Jesus previously taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5: 31-32.
Wrote Luck:
"Having studied exhaustively the teaching of the Lord in Matthew 5: 31-32, we will now turn our attention to other texts in the gospels that also give his teachings on the subject of divorce and remarriage. First, we will begin with Mark 10: 11-12 which in the KJV reads as follows:
"And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
We will begin looking at the first statement in the Mark passage - “Whosoever shall put away (divorce) his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her." This verse will be compared with Matthew 5:31a and the words - "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, Causeth her to commit adultery." In what way are these sayings alike? How are they different?
Comparing Mark 10:11 & Matt. 5:31a
Matt. 5:31a - "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, Causeth her to commit adultery."
Mark 10:11 - "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."
Similarities
Both passages
1. focus on the husband and his adultery and
2. have him unjustly and treacherously putting away (or divorcing) his wife and
3. have the man as the active one in the actions of divorce and adultery and
4. have the woman as a passive recipient of the above actions and
5. view the wife as an innocent victim who suffers as a direct result of her husband's action and
6. identify unlawful divorce and remarriage as examples of adultery
Differences
But, they are different because
1) Matt. 5:32a does not mention the husband marrying another (although it assumes it), and
2) Matt. 5: 32a does not as clearly say that the husband commits adultery (Mark 10:11 says that he "commits adultery") and
3) Mark 10: 11 says that the husband's adultery is committed "against" his wife (Matt. 5:32a says this indirectly in the words "makes her the victim of adultery") and
4) there is no exception clause in Mark 10:11 ("except it be for fornication")
As stated previously, Mark 10:11 makes illegal and treacherous divorce to be adulterous as did Matt. 5: 32b. Notice that the passage in Mark says that the man does two things that make him guilty of committing adultery. He 1) illegally divorces his wife and 2) marries another. Notice that in these two conditions there is no direct mention of sexual intercourse. Divorce does not involve it, for that is a legal proceeding. "Marrying" also does not directly involve it, as I showed in the previous posting. It will likely lead to it, of course, but Christ did not say "whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, and has sex with his new wife on the honeymoon."
When a man unlawfully divorces his wife in order to marry another, he commits adultery "against her" because he is making her the victim of his sin, separating what God has joined together. His act is sin "against" God and his law and "against" his wife.
Matthew 5:32a showed that one is guilty of committing adultery against his spouse when he divorces unlawfully, and this is so even if he does not remarry, because adultery is committed by unlawful divorce. A good paraphrase reading would be - “Whoever divorces his wife unlawfully to marry someone else makes his ex-wife the victim of his adultery.”
Wrote Luck:
"Nonetheless, there was within Jesus’ words a rather shocking implication. Jesus was saying that the man who took advantage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and put away his wife was really guilty of the sin of adultery—though sexuality was not involved."
This is what many miss seeing in the teaching of Christ.
The Indictment of Wives
Mark 10:12 also indicts the woman who divorces her husband. Jesus added:
“And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
This harmonizes with Matthew 5:32b
The best translations of Matthew 5:32b show that it is the woman who unlawfully divorces her husband (for the purpose of becoming someone else's wife) who sins in remarriage. A good translation says - "And if a woman divorces her husband unlawfully in order to marry another man, she commits adultery.” There is then complete harmony between the Mark and the Matthew passages in regard to what they say about the woman who divorces her husband.
If we put Mark 10: 11 together with Matthew 5: 31a we have this:
"whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her the victim of his adultery and if he marry another, he commits adultery against her."
Comparing Mark 10:12 & Matt. 5:31b
Mark 10:12 - “And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (KJV)
Matt. 5:31b - "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (KJV)
Having compared Mark 10:11 with Matthew 5: 31a and noted the similarities and differences, we will now compare Mark 10:12 with Matthew 5:31b. Mark 10:11 parallels Matthew 5:31a and Mark 10:12 parallels Matthew 5:31b. By comparing the above two clauses of Mark 10:12 and Matthew 5:31b, we see how they are more alike than different. This is seen especially if we give a better translation (than the KJV) to the Matthew 5:31b clause.
Mark 10:12 - “And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (KJV)
It needs to be pointed out how in Mark 10:12 the clause is given its own numbered verse status by Robert Stephanus (who in the mid sixteenth century gave us our verse divisions) but not so in the Matthew passage. Why make the words of Mark 10:12 a separate numbered "verse" in the one case but not in the other? Further, had Stephanus made Matthew 5: 31b a separate "verse" as he did with the clause in Mark, what would this say about the interpretation of the words of the text? And, how would this affect interpretation?
In our previous writings I have given good reasons why the two clauses in Matthew 5:31 should be viewed as separate independent clauses, and therefore could and should be viewed as separate sentences. I have opposed the view that the woman ("her") in Matthew 5:31b is the innocently divorced woman in the first clause of Matthew 5:31a. If two things had happened in the English translation (and remember the adding punctuation, including numbered verses, as well as choosing equivalent words, are part of the translation process) of Matthew 5:31, then many would not have adopted that fault. Those two things are:
1) The second clause had been translated more accurately to show that the second woman was not the divorced woman of the first clause, but a different woman who had herself initiated divorce (with the intent of marrying another) and,
2) The second clause had been given its own number as a separate verse.
CONCLUSION
When you look at the context, the history, the Greek, the grammar, and the overall tenor of these passages, it becomes clear what Jesus’ point is: Do not divorce unlawfully and do not be the complicit party/beneficiary of the unlawful divorce (i.e., homewrecker). If you do, then you are an adulterer.
As I mentioned earlier, there are varying positions in regards to the meaning of adultery and the exact nuance of every point Jesus makes. However, one point that the majority of scholarship is virtually unanimous on is that repentance does not demand further divorce, regardless of which subsequent marriage you may find yourself in. This fact, however, was not understood by my father, nor other PBs.
If you are a man or woman who divorced unlawfully, then you committed adultery. If you are a man or woman who was the beneficiary of the unlawful divorce (by being the one whom the person unlawfully divorced their spouse for), then you too are guilty of adultery by being a complicit party in the breaking up of a marriage. However, grace can be found and forgiveness can be given.
If you find yourself in a subsequent marriage after an unlawful divorce, understand that it is not God’s will for you to break up another marriage covenant. On the contrary, you need to sanctify your union by turning to God and realizing your past mistakes and look to no longer break wedlock in the future. Repentance does not demand divorce and even though you may have attained your marriage through an unlawful divorce, understand that it can and should be continued in righteousness.
Answering A Rebuttal
How can the man commit adultery against his wife in a remarriage after the divorce if the divorce ended her time as his wife?
That is a good question and one that needs to be addressed by those, as I, who see unlawful treacherous divorce as a case of adultery, or who see even unlawful divorce as the ending of a marriage, even in the eyes of God.
The argument stated in the "if, then" form:
If the remarriage is a sin, then the prior marriage must still be intact and unbroken; therefore, divorces tolerated by the laws of man are not divorces recognized or approved by God.
We cannot accept this reasoning and conclusion. We deny that all remarriages of divorced persons are acts of adultery committed against a former spouse. We have already denied that the innocent divorced woman of Matthew 5: 31a was forbidden to remarry if she wanted to avoid committing adultery. I do not doubt that some remarriages are acts of adultery. However, I categorically deny that all who were divorced for reasons other than fornication sin when they remarry.
It is true that the man in Mark 10:11 commits adultery "against" his wife even after he has divorced her and after the marriage has ended and that this seems to suggest that the divorce did not really void the marriage "in the eyes of God." But, if what Luck and others, and I also, have affirmed is correct, then the only person who sins in remarriage is the person who divorces with the purpose of marrying another. Some people divorce with no intent of remarrying, having no other person they desire as new spouses. Others divorce so that they can marry another person whom they have been coveting. In the former case there is no sin in the remarrying, but in the latter case there is sin in the remarrying. In the latter case, the remarriage often takes place soon after the divorce, showing that the divorce was obtained for the purpose of obtaining a particular new spouse. Oftentimes this new spouse is what we call the "homewrecker."
The Mark passage seems to suggest that two conditions are needed to constitute one an adulterer. It takes 1) divorcing for a reason other than fornication, and 2) remarrying another spouse after such an unjust divorce. But, this is not what Jesus is saying. Rather, he is affirming that both unjust divorce and the remarriage to the homewrecker are both instances of adultery. The man that does these two things commits adultery twice.
In the next posting we will continue our look at the marriage and divorce teachings of the Lord as given in the other passages in the Gospels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)