"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee." (Deut. 13: 1-5 KJV)
The presence of false prophets and teachers puts professing Christians to the test by God's design. But, what is proven by such a test? Is it not the proof of profession? Is it not to show who is really joined in heart to the Lord versus who is only a pretender?
Now, notice these words from the New Testament:
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (I Cor. 11: 19 KJV)
The presence of heretics with their false teachings is again viewed as a means for showing who is, and who is not, "approved" by the Lord. The word "that" is from "hina" (a hina clause) and denotes purpose or reason. Why are heresies among the saints? In order that by this means the approved may be "made manifest," which will, of course, also reveal those who God disapproves.
How are you in relation to the various heresies at work today?
"A glimpse of the divine mind is in this. Christians who become upset and discouraged because of schisms, factions and other disorders in the church make a tragic mistake. As God used Satan in the Paradise of Eden to test the progenitors of the human race, he still tests the faith of all Christians. Church difficulties provide an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate that they are genuine followers of the Lord. God never intended that any man should move through life in a constant environment of encouragement and spiritual delight. There is a place in the experience of every Christian where "the rubber meets the road"; and his response to unfavorable, or even tragic, situations will determine whether or not he is "approved" of God. It should always be remembered that "many are called, but few are chosen."" (Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - emphasis mine)
I look back over my life and see the numerous heresies I have had to confront. I have battled against Arminianism, Hyper Calvinism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Antinomianism, Pelagianism, and a host of other sectarian doctrines and sects. I never gave an inch to any of them but battled against them all. I believe in this that I revealed that I was one in the truth, one approved of God.
How about you?
Thursday, January 30, 2020
"Receiving" Christ & Salvation
When I was a Hardshell I remember the difficulty I experienced in regard to those texts of scriptures that spoke of salvation, Christ, the Spirit, etc., being "received." That word seemed to denote a choice, or act of the will, what was not passive experience. I read where Elder C.H. Cayce confronted this problem in one or more of his debates (he had about 300 debates!). He argued that men may "receive" things passively. I recall him asking his opponent - "what did you do to receive your name?" His point was that some things are "received" passively. That may be true as in relates to the common English word, but in the Greek there are several different words used and translated generally by the word "receive" in the KJV, and each of these words carries different connotations. For an in depth look at these see here. For these several Greek words translators have a range of words in English to choose from in order to bring out the meaning in each text. Some of these English words are obtain, accept, take, welcome, etc.
In the verses that we shall look at, dealing with receiving Christ, the Spirit, or salvation, we will see that in all of them that a passive receiving cannot possibly be meant, but rather that an active receiving is denoted. After that we will look at a possible exception to the rule.
"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:17 kjv)
In this text the word "receive" is from the Greek "lambanontes" and this word is a present tense participle in the active voice, not passive voice. And just what is intended by the active voice?
When verbs are in the active voice it is the subject that is the doer of the action expressed by the verb. Thus, the "receiving" of "abundance of grace" and "the gift of righteousness" (salvation) is that which the receiver actively does, representing his action. It is like receiving gifts where the gift is "accepted" or "received."
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:2, 14)
"Received" is from the Greek word "elabete" and is aorist active, and "receive" is from "labÅmen" and is also aorist active. The Spirit and the promise of the Spirit, i.e. salvation, are actively received or accepted.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4:7)
Here "receive" is from "elabes" and is also aorist active.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12)
Here "received is from "elabon" and is also aorist active.
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5:11)
Here "receive" is from "elabomen" and is likewise aorist active.
"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." (Col. 2:6)
Here "receive" is from "parelabete" and is also aorist active.
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2: 12-14 kjv)
In this passage two different Greek words are used for "receive." In the first instance it is the Greek word "elabomen" and is aorist active. The second instance is from "dechetai" and is either middle or passive voice. Since the passive and middle voice are both written alike in Greek, context will determine which it is. It cannot be passive voice because to affirm this would be to affirm that men are passive in their rejection of the things of the Spirit. But, this is wholly untenable. Thus, it must be middle voice, which means not only that the non receiver is actively doing the rejecting, but is doing it for or to himself. The middle voice denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action.
There is a distinction between lambano and dechomai. In many instances lambano suggests a self-prompted taking, whereas dechomai more frequently indicates "a welcoming or an appropriating reception" (Grimm-Thayer).
Dechomai means to accept with a deliberate and ready reception of what is offered, to receive kindly and so to take to oneself what is presented or brought by another. It means to welcome as a teacher, a friend, or a guest into one's house. Dechomai indicates that the reception was a voluntary and willing act.
Paralambano looks to the content of that which is received, whereas dechomai implies a favorable evaluation of that which is accepted.
Dechomai means to take or receive, to accept with approval, to welcome, and denotes a subjective reception. Paralambano refers to the ear, while dechomai adds the idea of appropriation and in this sense refers to the heart.
Now for a peculiar case of the word "receive."
"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one." (II Cor. 11:24 kjv)
In this instance "recieve" is from "elabon" and is aorist active. But, it seems that a passive voice would have been more appropriate here. "Receiving" or "accepting" stripes? Surely Paul was passive in "receiving" these stripes, right? Wrong! Paul willingly suffered for Christ! He gladly received those stripes!
Thus, we conclude that the Hardshell notion that one is only passive in receiving salvation is false.
In the verses that we shall look at, dealing with receiving Christ, the Spirit, or salvation, we will see that in all of them that a passive receiving cannot possibly be meant, but rather that an active receiving is denoted. After that we will look at a possible exception to the rule.
"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:17 kjv)
In this text the word "receive" is from the Greek "lambanontes" and this word is a present tense participle in the active voice, not passive voice. And just what is intended by the active voice?
When verbs are in the active voice it is the subject that is the doer of the action expressed by the verb. Thus, the "receiving" of "abundance of grace" and "the gift of righteousness" (salvation) is that which the receiver actively does, representing his action. It is like receiving gifts where the gift is "accepted" or "received."
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:2, 14)
"Received" is from the Greek word "elabete" and is aorist active, and "receive" is from "labÅmen" and is also aorist active. The Spirit and the promise of the Spirit, i.e. salvation, are actively received or accepted.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4:7)
Here "receive" is from "elabes" and is also aorist active.
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12)
Here "received is from "elabon" and is also aorist active.
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." (Rom. 5:11)
Here "receive" is from "elabomen" and is likewise aorist active.
"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." (Col. 2:6)
Here "receive" is from "parelabete" and is also aorist active.
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2: 12-14 kjv)
In this passage two different Greek words are used for "receive." In the first instance it is the Greek word "elabomen" and is aorist active. The second instance is from "dechetai" and is either middle or passive voice. Since the passive and middle voice are both written alike in Greek, context will determine which it is. It cannot be passive voice because to affirm this would be to affirm that men are passive in their rejection of the things of the Spirit. But, this is wholly untenable. Thus, it must be middle voice, which means not only that the non receiver is actively doing the rejecting, but is doing it for or to himself. The middle voice denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action.
There is a distinction between lambano and dechomai. In many instances lambano suggests a self-prompted taking, whereas dechomai more frequently indicates "a welcoming or an appropriating reception" (Grimm-Thayer).
Dechomai means to accept with a deliberate and ready reception of what is offered, to receive kindly and so to take to oneself what is presented or brought by another. It means to welcome as a teacher, a friend, or a guest into one's house. Dechomai indicates that the reception was a voluntary and willing act.
Paralambano looks to the content of that which is received, whereas dechomai implies a favorable evaluation of that which is accepted.
Dechomai means to take or receive, to accept with approval, to welcome, and denotes a subjective reception. Paralambano refers to the ear, while dechomai adds the idea of appropriation and in this sense refers to the heart.
Now for a peculiar case of the word "receive."
"Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one." (II Cor. 11:24 kjv)
In this instance "recieve" is from "elabon" and is aorist active. But, it seems that a passive voice would have been more appropriate here. "Receiving" or "accepting" stripes? Surely Paul was passive in "receiving" these stripes, right? Wrong! Paul willingly suffered for Christ! He gladly received those stripes!
Thus, we conclude that the Hardshell notion that one is only passive in receiving salvation is false.
Holcombe's History of Alabama Baptists
Hosea Lot Holcombe (1780–1841) was Alabama's first church historian, as noted on his marker in Bessemer, Alabama. He was a Baptist evangelist and missionary, who moved from the Carolinas to Alabama in 1818. He was President of the Alabama Baptist Convention from 1833 to 1838. His book title is:
"A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Alabama: With a Miniature History of the Denomination from the Apostolic Age Down to the Present Time, Interspersed with Anecdotes Original and Selected, and Concluded with an Address to the Baptists of Alabama" (here)
I want to cite from Chapter IV titled "SOME BRIEF SKETCHES, RELATIVE TO THE CONTENTIONS AND DIVISIONS IN THE BAPTIST CHURCHES IN ALABAMA, WITH SOME SPECIMENS OF ANTI-ISM; REMARKS, ETC." In this chapter Holcombe describes the intense hostility manifested by the "antis" in the division over mission and education methods. He begins by saying:
"If the truth is the instrument, which God has ordained to recover men from their apostasy, and prepare them for his kingdom, what apology can Christians offer for a refusal to aid any practicable means of extending the knowledge of the truth? It is especially astonishing, that men who embrace Baptist principles should be hostile to Missions, to Tract Societies, to Theological Seminaries, and to other means of benevolence. Baptists have always contended for free inquiry, for the demolition of all the barriers which laws prejudice, and error oppose to the progress of truth. They have resolutely resisted the interference of the civil power in religious concerns; they have denied the right of government to establish parish lines; they have insisted that Christianity should be taught and maintained by moral means, by the power of argument, and the evidence of truth. Is it for Baptists, then, to oppose Missions, to decry Bible and Tract Societies, to proscribe Colleges and Theological Seminaries? Baptists, of all men in the world, ought to be foremost in these enterprises. Every thing which contributes to spread light among mankind, will hasten the triumph of our principles. It is a source of surprise and sorrow, that there are men who call themselves Baptists, and who are nevertheless opposed to all these exertions. Let them come forth as they are now doing, like the "Kehukee Association," and the "Reformed Churches." The sooner they disclose their true character, the better. Let the line be drawn distinctly between the friends and the enemies of Missions. Let those who choose to withhold their aid stand aside; and with the blessing of God, the great body of the denomination will advance, like an army with banners, to the "help of the Lord against the mighty."
I agree wholeheartedly. It is just bewildering that any man calling himself a Baptist, or Bible believer, would oppose efforts to educate people in the scriptures!
Notice again the evidence that the first name the "antis" chose was "Reformed." Why did they later reject that name for "Primitive" or "Old School"? Actually, seeing they were inventing new doctrines, the title "reformed" was more appropriate.
Holcombe continued:
"The Baptist State Convention of Alabama, was formed in 1823; the objects of the Convention at its organization was, and is yet, Foreign and Domestic Missions, and the education of young men called to the ministry. What the Convention has been instrumental in doing, we have spoken of, in the last chapter. Soon after the Convention was organized, some were opposed to the measure; but several years elapsed before there was much excitement on the subject. Whenever ministerial education was spoken of, it seemed to excite suspicion in the minds of a certain class of our brethren. It was thought that the Baptists were about to raise themselves to an improper height. A number of the ministers who were scattered through the state, became alarmed, under an impression that they were to be put down, hence opposition began to show itself. A number of them were much more concerned, it appears, for fear of being prostrated, or having to descend from their supposed eminence, than they were about studying to show themselves approved unto God."
I think this is true with regard to most of the frontier preachers. Others have said the same. They often opposed theological education, not so much because the scriptures forbade it, but because they felt like their pastoral positions were in jeopardy by a trained ministry.
Holcombe continued:
"We shall here make two or three extracts from the writings of the New Testers, which will show what anti-ism is."
This is what men such as R.B.C. Howell first called the "antis." They were "New Testers," or "New Test Men." They created the breach in the Baptist family by their bringing in a new test of fellowship, a test that was not in existence among their forefathers of previous centuries.
Holcombe continued:
"It has already been remarked, that for several years, the contention relative to doing good has been increasing. Coldness towards brethren has been manifested, and often in their associated capacity, rife contentions, unchaste, unchristian, and severe reflections, cast on brethren. This has been the case in different associations. To undertake to describe a scene which we witnessed in the Flint River Association, would be the most painful; in truth, it beggars description. There were some of the most pious, humble, respectable and intelligent brethren, who most affectionately and earnestly besought their anti-brethren, to suffer them to do as they felt bound in conscience to do, as they would with their own, and not let those things be a bar to Christian fellowship. They entreated, they plead by the mercies of God—by the love of the Saviour, and by the joys of heaven;—they wept—tears flowed—they cried to heaven —heaven smiled!!! But the adamantine hearts of the anti-brethren were not touched; they were apparently as hard as the nether millstone. Notwithstanding all this the missionary party still clave to them, hoping to win them over to the truth; yet it was evident they had no well-grounded hope, for the anties were determined and inflexible. Elder Wm. Crutcher, stood at their head, who appeared to be really sincere."
To any honest heart, the feelings and actions of these first Hardshells cannot be judged as being anything close to the spirit of Christ. The "anties" were "inflexible." Is that not why they are known as "Hardshells"? Stubborn, hardhearted, cantankerous, strifeful, etc. It seems clear to me that the missionary party showed the love of Christ, but got no show of it in return.
Holcombe continued:
"The Alabama Association, which was the largest in the state, made a division in October, 1838, or at least, a number of churches withdrew to form an anti-association, they being in the minority; which was accomplished in December following. We find from their minutes that 17 churches withdrew from the association, and one other united with them, which had not been associated. Their reasons for withdrawing were as follows: "Whereas, we, the Baptist Churches of Christ, in the State of Alabama, having for many years enjoyed peace and harmony, as members of the Alabama Baptist Association, but finding that we cannot now enjoy, nor maintain that harmony which has so long existed among us as a body, and believing that many of the members of said Association, have departed from their former principles by becoming members of the Missionary and other societies tributary thereto: therefore, we the above named churches, believing it to be a duty we owe God, and our posterity, to withdraw from the Alabama Baptist Association; and in order to maintain and keep up the union which has heretofore existed, we therefore, having met for that purpose, (according to previous appointment,) at Fort Dale Church, Butler county," &c.
The circular letter, written by elder Luke Hancy, for the Alabama Association, but rejected by that body, and placed on the minutes of the new anti association, called Ebenezer, was headed as follows, "The Alabama Association to the churches of which she is composed sends greeting." It appears that those brethren were so elated, or rather infatuated—so absorbed in their anti-mission principles—that they never once discovered they were not the Alabama Association. From this letter we give the following extracts,—"And now for a moment let us notice the language of some of the votaries of the new system. They say God complains—my people perish for the lack of knowledge. They also say, that if we urge on the mighty cause of education, Bible and tract distribution, and through missionary effort, we know that the millenial day will soon dawn upon the world. They entreat you to hasten, for if we pause—if we hesitate—people will perish for ever."—"But again, we are told by some, that we need an improved ministry; or, in other words, an educated ministry. As to the education, we know no objection, provided it is received before a call to the ministry; for Paul says,—' Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." It is also said, that pious men that are called of God to preach his gospel—that they, in their ignorance, will ordain other ignorant men, and in that way a great deal of harm will be done. Oh! What An Insult To Deity, that men should say that God has no power to qualify men for the ministry, after he has called them."
Can you believe that Hardshells argue that ministers must get all their education before God calls them and not after? That is just plain nonsense and any reasonable mind knows it.
"A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Alabama: With a Miniature History of the Denomination from the Apostolic Age Down to the Present Time, Interspersed with Anecdotes Original and Selected, and Concluded with an Address to the Baptists of Alabama" (here)
I want to cite from Chapter IV titled "SOME BRIEF SKETCHES, RELATIVE TO THE CONTENTIONS AND DIVISIONS IN THE BAPTIST CHURCHES IN ALABAMA, WITH SOME SPECIMENS OF ANTI-ISM; REMARKS, ETC." In this chapter Holcombe describes the intense hostility manifested by the "antis" in the division over mission and education methods. He begins by saying:
"If the truth is the instrument, which God has ordained to recover men from their apostasy, and prepare them for his kingdom, what apology can Christians offer for a refusal to aid any practicable means of extending the knowledge of the truth? It is especially astonishing, that men who embrace Baptist principles should be hostile to Missions, to Tract Societies, to Theological Seminaries, and to other means of benevolence. Baptists have always contended for free inquiry, for the demolition of all the barriers which laws prejudice, and error oppose to the progress of truth. They have resolutely resisted the interference of the civil power in religious concerns; they have denied the right of government to establish parish lines; they have insisted that Christianity should be taught and maintained by moral means, by the power of argument, and the evidence of truth. Is it for Baptists, then, to oppose Missions, to decry Bible and Tract Societies, to proscribe Colleges and Theological Seminaries? Baptists, of all men in the world, ought to be foremost in these enterprises. Every thing which contributes to spread light among mankind, will hasten the triumph of our principles. It is a source of surprise and sorrow, that there are men who call themselves Baptists, and who are nevertheless opposed to all these exertions. Let them come forth as they are now doing, like the "Kehukee Association," and the "Reformed Churches." The sooner they disclose their true character, the better. Let the line be drawn distinctly between the friends and the enemies of Missions. Let those who choose to withhold their aid stand aside; and with the blessing of God, the great body of the denomination will advance, like an army with banners, to the "help of the Lord against the mighty."
I agree wholeheartedly. It is just bewildering that any man calling himself a Baptist, or Bible believer, would oppose efforts to educate people in the scriptures!
Notice again the evidence that the first name the "antis" chose was "Reformed." Why did they later reject that name for "Primitive" or "Old School"? Actually, seeing they were inventing new doctrines, the title "reformed" was more appropriate.
Holcombe continued:
"The Baptist State Convention of Alabama, was formed in 1823; the objects of the Convention at its organization was, and is yet, Foreign and Domestic Missions, and the education of young men called to the ministry. What the Convention has been instrumental in doing, we have spoken of, in the last chapter. Soon after the Convention was organized, some were opposed to the measure; but several years elapsed before there was much excitement on the subject. Whenever ministerial education was spoken of, it seemed to excite suspicion in the minds of a certain class of our brethren. It was thought that the Baptists were about to raise themselves to an improper height. A number of the ministers who were scattered through the state, became alarmed, under an impression that they were to be put down, hence opposition began to show itself. A number of them were much more concerned, it appears, for fear of being prostrated, or having to descend from their supposed eminence, than they were about studying to show themselves approved unto God."
I think this is true with regard to most of the frontier preachers. Others have said the same. They often opposed theological education, not so much because the scriptures forbade it, but because they felt like their pastoral positions were in jeopardy by a trained ministry.
Holcombe continued:
"We shall here make two or three extracts from the writings of the New Testers, which will show what anti-ism is."
This is what men such as R.B.C. Howell first called the "antis." They were "New Testers," or "New Test Men." They created the breach in the Baptist family by their bringing in a new test of fellowship, a test that was not in existence among their forefathers of previous centuries.
Holcombe continued:
"It has already been remarked, that for several years, the contention relative to doing good has been increasing. Coldness towards brethren has been manifested, and often in their associated capacity, rife contentions, unchaste, unchristian, and severe reflections, cast on brethren. This has been the case in different associations. To undertake to describe a scene which we witnessed in the Flint River Association, would be the most painful; in truth, it beggars description. There were some of the most pious, humble, respectable and intelligent brethren, who most affectionately and earnestly besought their anti-brethren, to suffer them to do as they felt bound in conscience to do, as they would with their own, and not let those things be a bar to Christian fellowship. They entreated, they plead by the mercies of God—by the love of the Saviour, and by the joys of heaven;—they wept—tears flowed—they cried to heaven —heaven smiled!!! But the adamantine hearts of the anti-brethren were not touched; they were apparently as hard as the nether millstone. Notwithstanding all this the missionary party still clave to them, hoping to win them over to the truth; yet it was evident they had no well-grounded hope, for the anties were determined and inflexible. Elder Wm. Crutcher, stood at their head, who appeared to be really sincere."
To any honest heart, the feelings and actions of these first Hardshells cannot be judged as being anything close to the spirit of Christ. The "anties" were "inflexible." Is that not why they are known as "Hardshells"? Stubborn, hardhearted, cantankerous, strifeful, etc. It seems clear to me that the missionary party showed the love of Christ, but got no show of it in return.
Holcombe continued:
"The Alabama Association, which was the largest in the state, made a division in October, 1838, or at least, a number of churches withdrew to form an anti-association, they being in the minority; which was accomplished in December following. We find from their minutes that 17 churches withdrew from the association, and one other united with them, which had not been associated. Their reasons for withdrawing were as follows: "Whereas, we, the Baptist Churches of Christ, in the State of Alabama, having for many years enjoyed peace and harmony, as members of the Alabama Baptist Association, but finding that we cannot now enjoy, nor maintain that harmony which has so long existed among us as a body, and believing that many of the members of said Association, have departed from their former principles by becoming members of the Missionary and other societies tributary thereto: therefore, we the above named churches, believing it to be a duty we owe God, and our posterity, to withdraw from the Alabama Baptist Association; and in order to maintain and keep up the union which has heretofore existed, we therefore, having met for that purpose, (according to previous appointment,) at Fort Dale Church, Butler county," &c.
The circular letter, written by elder Luke Hancy, for the Alabama Association, but rejected by that body, and placed on the minutes of the new anti association, called Ebenezer, was headed as follows, "The Alabama Association to the churches of which she is composed sends greeting." It appears that those brethren were so elated, or rather infatuated—so absorbed in their anti-mission principles—that they never once discovered they were not the Alabama Association. From this letter we give the following extracts,—"And now for a moment let us notice the language of some of the votaries of the new system. They say God complains—my people perish for the lack of knowledge. They also say, that if we urge on the mighty cause of education, Bible and tract distribution, and through missionary effort, we know that the millenial day will soon dawn upon the world. They entreat you to hasten, for if we pause—if we hesitate—people will perish for ever."—"But again, we are told by some, that we need an improved ministry; or, in other words, an educated ministry. As to the education, we know no objection, provided it is received before a call to the ministry; for Paul says,—' Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." It is also said, that pious men that are called of God to preach his gospel—that they, in their ignorance, will ordain other ignorant men, and in that way a great deal of harm will be done. Oh! What An Insult To Deity, that men should say that God has no power to qualify men for the ministry, after he has called them."
Can you believe that Hardshells argue that ministers must get all their education before God calls them and not after? That is just plain nonsense and any reasonable mind knows it.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
God Put In Their Hears (Rev. 17:17)
"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." (Rev. 17:17 kjv)
I have read many commentaries on this passage of scripture to find where focus was upon God's work of "putting" thoughts and purposes into the minds of his creatures. It seems to me that such a verse enters in strongly into the debate concerning Arminianism vs. Calvinism, concerning the extent of predestination and divine sovereignty, concerning "free will," concerning whether God "causes" men to think and act, whether he "forces" their will and behavior, etc.
In this verse the act of God in "putting in their hearts to fulfill his will" is viewed as being absolutely successful in accomplishing his will in seeing that certain things are done. The ten devilish kings "give their kingdom unto the beast," which is an evil act. Their evil act came about as a result of God's act of putting thoughts into the hearts and minds of these kings.
I do not need to defend God in doing this act. He is sovereign and answers to no one. "Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters." (Job 33:13)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"he will incline their minds to do the above things, as it will be in the power of their hands to do them; he who has the hearts of all men, and even of kings in his hands, and can turn them as rivers of water, will move them hereunto, Proverbs 21:1 he that turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people Israel, Psalm 105:25 will turn the hearts of these kings to hate the whore, and do unto her as is here predicted;"
Now, if God be able to put into the heart of wicked men the will and purpose to do a certain evil thing, he certainly has the power to put into the hearts of sinners the will to be saved, to come to Christ, and to do good works. What think ye?
Is God putting into your heart a will and desire to serve him? If not, ask him to do so! Call upon him to "work in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"? (Phil. 2:13) Is your heart turned to hate, or to sin? Only God can turn your heart in a different direction. Call upon him to work in you today!
I have read many commentaries on this passage of scripture to find where focus was upon God's work of "putting" thoughts and purposes into the minds of his creatures. It seems to me that such a verse enters in strongly into the debate concerning Arminianism vs. Calvinism, concerning the extent of predestination and divine sovereignty, concerning "free will," concerning whether God "causes" men to think and act, whether he "forces" their will and behavior, etc.
In this verse the act of God in "putting in their hearts to fulfill his will" is viewed as being absolutely successful in accomplishing his will in seeing that certain things are done. The ten devilish kings "give their kingdom unto the beast," which is an evil act. Their evil act came about as a result of God's act of putting thoughts into the hearts and minds of these kings.
I do not need to defend God in doing this act. He is sovereign and answers to no one. "Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters." (Job 33:13)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"he will incline their minds to do the above things, as it will be in the power of their hands to do them; he who has the hearts of all men, and even of kings in his hands, and can turn them as rivers of water, will move them hereunto, Proverbs 21:1 he that turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people Israel, Psalm 105:25 will turn the hearts of these kings to hate the whore, and do unto her as is here predicted;"
Now, if God be able to put into the heart of wicked men the will and purpose to do a certain evil thing, he certainly has the power to put into the hearts of sinners the will to be saved, to come to Christ, and to do good works. What think ye?
Is God putting into your heart a will and desire to serve him? If not, ask him to do so! Call upon him to "work in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"? (Phil. 2:13) Is your heart turned to hate, or to sin? Only God can turn your heart in a different direction. Call upon him to work in you today!
Hassells On Funeral Preaching
In Hassell's history, chapter eleven, page 392 (here) we find this interesting footnote by Sylvester:
"Like some others of our brethren in the ministry, neither of the authors of this volume ever preached funeral sermons. But the most of our ministering brethren do preach on such occasions, and they give as a reason that they feel impressed to preach, not funerals, but the gospel, wherever and whenever an opportunity is presented. Still it should be remembered that Christ and His Apostles never preached on such occasions, so far as the New Testament informs us; and that no minister of Christ ever preached on such occasions until the fourth century, so far as history informs us; and that funeral sermons were the successors of the ancient heathen funeral orations (see Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. i., pp. 253 and 704)."
My beloved father, while I was a Hardshell, used to tell me that the reason why PB ministers were frequently called upon to preach funerals, especially of those who gave little or no evidence of being saved, was because Hardshell doctrine, which is almost Universalism, got a whole lot of such people into Heaven, and was the only doctrine that could give hope where there seemed to be none. I, however, view the matter differently.
My only further comment at this time is this; How could the PB church go from shying away from funeral preaching to making it a popular thing to do? I think it has to do with their change in doctrine. What think ye?
"Like some others of our brethren in the ministry, neither of the authors of this volume ever preached funeral sermons. But the most of our ministering brethren do preach on such occasions, and they give as a reason that they feel impressed to preach, not funerals, but the gospel, wherever and whenever an opportunity is presented. Still it should be remembered that Christ and His Apostles never preached on such occasions, so far as the New Testament informs us; and that no minister of Christ ever preached on such occasions until the fourth century, so far as history informs us; and that funeral sermons were the successors of the ancient heathen funeral orations (see Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. i., pp. 253 and 704)."
My beloved father, while I was a Hardshell, used to tell me that the reason why PB ministers were frequently called upon to preach funerals, especially of those who gave little or no evidence of being saved, was because Hardshell doctrine, which is almost Universalism, got a whole lot of such people into Heaven, and was the only doctrine that could give hope where there seemed to be none. I, however, view the matter differently.
My only further comment at this time is this; How could the PB church go from shying away from funeral preaching to making it a popular thing to do? I think it has to do with their change in doctrine. What think ye?
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
More On The Three Stage Model Of Birth
"While the doctrine of some Old Regular Baptist would be in harmony with the majority of Primitive Baptist today, others among the Regulars hold to a more modified Calvinism, this difference led to the light is life split that took place in the Union Association. This division soon spread to other associations brought on by requests sent to them from the Union Association, resulting in the isolation of the Mud River Association, and the formation of the Bethel Association, other associations like the New Salem, chose not to divide over this issue, often churches and associations and even Elders are distinguished by which side of this debate they are on, those that hold to the doctrine that an individual is first begotten or quickened into life at the start of their travail, are called the "hard shell side" of Old Regular Baptist or the Old School, [this appears to be the original view of the first Regular Baptist in America] those who hold that life starts at the end of their travail (repentance) are called the "soft shell side". Today the debate is still among the Old Regular Baptist along with when one receives faith, men and women's dress, the receiving of divorced members, the doctrinal differences over hope and knowledge." (See here for the rest of the posting titled "The Original Paradigm")
In this posting, and in others here in this blog, I have shown how this view was the predominate view of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. This view was later mostly discarded when the anti means heresy took over the denomination. The anti means faction would not in any way make spiritual birth to be accomplished by the communication of the word of God.
This view rejected the idea that some of the "begotten" (regenerated) would fail to come to the "birth," to the deliverance from the guilt of sin experienced while in "travail" in the womb of conviction. God was as much at work in converting (birthing) as he was in regenerating (begetting), in this view. However, the anti means faction could not accept this, and instead taught that though God's work in regenerating was efficacious and irresistible, his work in conversion was not, but depended upon the free will and merit of the regenerated.
Remember too that many of the forefathers of the PBs called themselves "Regular Baptists," such as Elder Lemuel Potter.
In this posting, and in others here in this blog, I have shown how this view was the predominate view of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. This view was later mostly discarded when the anti means heresy took over the denomination. The anti means faction would not in any way make spiritual birth to be accomplished by the communication of the word of God.
This view rejected the idea that some of the "begotten" (regenerated) would fail to come to the "birth," to the deliverance from the guilt of sin experienced while in "travail" in the womb of conviction. God was as much at work in converting (birthing) as he was in regenerating (begetting), in this view. However, the anti means faction could not accept this, and instead taught that though God's work in regenerating was efficacious and irresistible, his work in conversion was not, but depended upon the free will and merit of the regenerated.
Remember too that many of the forefathers of the PBs called themselves "Regular Baptists," such as Elder Lemuel Potter.
We Welcome Elder Kenny Mann
Elder Mann and I have been friends for several years now and he is one who corresponds with me about "Primitive Baptist" history. He is Southern Baptist and though we disagree on certain points of Calvinism, he claiming to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian, yet we agree on much more than we disagree upon. Seeing he has such interest in our Hardshell brothers, and having encouraged me much over the years, and wanting to see that these blog writings are preserved, I have asked him to join Kevin and me as an administrator of this blog.
We expect him to write some good things for us, especially as it relates to the history of the "Primitive Baptist Church."
We expect him to write some good things for us, especially as it relates to the history of the "Primitive Baptist Church."
Curt Wildy's Article on Hardshellism
A few years ago Brother Garrett and I shared a link to an article written by Curt Wildy. It remains to this day one of the most thorough and sound refutations to Hardshell anti-means theology I have ever read. I have been thinking about this article lately, but when I looked for it, I noticed that the site has been changed. Here is the new link below. If any missed this article the first time we shared this, you owe it to yourself to read this very able article written by Brother Wildy. It is in three parts, with a link at the bottom of each page to the next part.
Let us know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)