H. Boyce Taylor

H. Boyce Taylor 

1870 - 1932

In my writings over the years, and in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series of chapters, I have referred to several opponents of Hardshellism, and Taylor was one. I cite from his work titled "Bible Briefs Against Hurtful Heresies" (See here and here) 

Concerning Hardshellism, he wrote:

"The second heresy of Hardshellism is like the first, a half-truth. They teach the doctrine of personal, unconditional, eternal election. That is the truth, but not all the truth on that subject. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). But they warp and wrest and twist that truth and make it teach a lie, namely, that if God elected a man unto salvation, he will be saved, whether he ever hears the gospel or not. The God, who elected the men unto salvation, also elected the means for their salvation. To preach the personal election of men, as Hardshells do, and leave out or deny the divinely chosen means, is not only not the truth, but is a wicked perversion of the truth.

When Paul states the doctrine of election he states the whole truth. Rom. 8:28-30: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." He clearly teaches that all the elect will be glorified; but between their predestination and their glorification he puts in the two things the Hardshells leave out, namely, their calling and their justification.

They are called, Paul said, by the gospel and they are justified by faith or believing the gospel. So that the whole truth as to election is that all the elect will be called by the gospel and be justified by believing the gospel and be glorified by reason of the hope obtained through the gospel. Or take this passage in II Thes. 2:13-14: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ", Paul again tells the whole truth about election: There is eternal election, from the beginning; personal election, "you"; unconditional election, "God chose." But that is only half the truth. God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel.

These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel.

Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth.

Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation.

Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means. But once more Paul said: "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10). The elect will obtain eternal glory; but how? By the missionaries enduring all things that they may preach the gospel by which the elect are called unto salvation. Since Hardshell election leaves out missions it is not God's kind, not Paul's kind and not the truth."

Amen!

On The "Regulative Principle"

I have not been an advocate for what is called "the regulative principle of worship." So, just what is that? Let me begin by citing from a question and answer post at Got Questions org., from "Regulative vs. normative principle of worship—which viewpoint is correct?" (here)

That answer says (highlighting mine):

"The regulative principle of worship maintains that Scripture gives specific guidelines for conducting corporate worship services and that churches must not add anything to those guidelines. For example, churches following the regulative principle in worship often do not use musical instruments, since there is no New Testament command or example that would warrant their use in the church. The normative principle is the idea that anything not expressly forbidden by Scripture can be used in corporate worship. One of the foundational differences is that the former considers the Bible’s instructions as a strict code of conduct while the latter sees them as principles to follow. Both hold to the truth of God’s Word, but they differ on whether or not it clearly establishes an unalterable blueprint for corporate worship."

It is not doubted that the old covenant (testament) had a strict ritual of religious service (and gatherings). All worship activities were finely fixed (or set in stone). But, that does not appear to be the case in the new testament. Though there are certain customs and practices that characterized the church of the apostles, these are not always the result of apostolic command or instruction. The early Christians gathered together and their gatherings were called "churches" or "eklesias" (Greek). They began more as informal gatherings before they became more formal and patterned. They did have a strict code of conduct but that is not to say that they were too rigid in their manners of worship.

The authors of the answer say:

"The regulative principle is most often associated with Reformed churches, while the normative principle is widely promoted by modern evangelicalism." 

I think that is true. 

Again they say:

"One weakness of the regulative principle is that it can easily become legalistic in its strict rejection of anything not found in the Bible. It can also place worship in a category saved only for corporate settings, rather than encourage it as a daily practice. It also does not account for many aspects of a worship service not dealt with in the Bible, such as length of services, instrument use, how much technology should be employed, and dozens of other cultural questions not applicable in Bible times."

This being true, the regulative principle is closely tied to Landmarkism, to "patternism," to tradition. These are solid objections to the regulative principle, or at least against being too strict in regard to that principle. 

Again they say:

"The normative principle of corporate worship also uses the Bible as the final authority but teaches that anything not expressly forbidden may be incorporated in services. Drama, special music, movie clips, and PowerPoint presentations may all be used in normative worship services since they are not forbidden in Scripture." 

Most of those who claim to be guided by the regulative principle do many things for which they can find no express biblical warrant or example. Thus, they may profess to be regulative but they act often according to the normative principle. Paul's command for all to be done decently and in order should govern all things. All things should be done for the purpose of edifying the body is another principle. Trying to regulate every detail of the gatherings and public worship of believers is going too far I think.

Again they say:

"Here are some strengths of the normative principle: It encourages creative expressions of worship through the arts and technology. It creates a more relaxed and relevant environment for new believers and those not familiar with the “churchy” atmosphere. It allows for differences in taste and style, while still maintaining allegiance to biblical principles. It brings Scripture into current culture, minimizing the tendency of postmoderns to view the Bible as outdated and irrelevant. Some weaknesses to the normative approach are that it opens the door to worldliness in its efforts to incorporate culture. It can also tend toward entertainment-based gatherings rather than pure worship of God. It may also slide toward a man-centered focus as it incorporates whatever is popular with the congregation."

I think those weaknesses are to be guarded against.

Again they say:

"So which viewpoint is correct? Every Bible-believing church body must be regulated by the authority of Scripture. If it does not, it has ceased to be a New Testament church. But within those churches that hold fast to God’s Word, there is a vast array of acceptable expressions of worship." 

I think that is true. Each church should preach, pray, and sing. Each should have all kinds of gatherings, such as general Sunday church, Sunday Schools, bible classes, choir meetings, special singings, etc. Meetings in the "fellowship hall" after regular services should also be viewed as part of worship activity even though it is used for general fellowship (koinonia). Just gathering together to share thoughts is an act that God takes special notice of. Wrote the prophet Malachi:

"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name." (3: 16)

Paul told the church at Corinth that each member came to church with a psalm, a hymn, a word of exhortation, etc., and that each would have opportunity to speak. (I Cor. 14: 26, 31) Church worship and practice is not restricted to what is done in the formal Sunday morning service.

Again they say:

"Many congregations embrace a combination of both views. The extreme of either is displeasing to God. Extreme regulators can become pharisaical, creating rules out of principles and judging anyone who veers from those rules (Matthew 7:1). But extreme normatives can be guilty of walking on the edge of worldliness and justifying questionable activities by claiming they are being “all things to all people” (1 Corinthians 9:22)."

I think that is what is best, to practice a combination of both views.

Again they say:

"Paul addressed this issue in 1 Corinthians 10:23–24. “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12)." 

Agree. Abide by the general directives. Yes, there are specifics, such as singing, preaching, and praying. But the forms of these things are not delineated in the bible under the new covenant. 

Again they say:

"The Bible does give us guidelines for the assembly of the church, and no congregation has the authority to completely disregard them. Several elements are vital for a healthy congregation: reading the Bible (1 Timothy 4:13), preaching the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2), singing hymns and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), prayer (Matthew 21:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:17), and celebrating the Lord with two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26)."

I agree. Well said.

Still, I have my personal preferences. Choosing a church to attend and support by membership must first of all depend on my agreement with its beliefs. But, after that, style of worship is important. I enjoy a lively church with spirited singing and passionate preaching and solid bible teaching. I enjoy a church where people feel free to testify and exhort.

Be On Guard

"And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch" 

(Mark 13: 37)

There are many bible passages that exhort believers to watch, to be on the lookout. They are to be as soldiers who are "on the watch," or "on alert." They are to be "on guard" for enemies approaching the soldiers fort or camp or headquarters. So, our Lord said to his soldier servants:

"Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.” (Luke 21:36) 

As watchmen for the Lord we are to watch for ourselves in order that we may remain safe. But, we are also duty bound to "sound the alarm" so that others may be warned and take precautions. The above verse from Ezekiel deals with the duty of watchmen to blow the trumpet of warning. Said God through the prophet:

"Blow the trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; For the day of the LORD is coming, For it is at hand." (Joel 2: 1)

As believers, or as sinners, we have many enemies. Satan is an enemy to people, especially to the Lord's people. Wrote the apostle Peter:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith..." (I Peter 5: 8-9)

A soldier who is on watch duty, or on alert, must be "vigilant" (Greek gregoreo - means to be awake). A soldier on guard duty has a duty to stay awake, yet some soldiers do shirk this responsibility. Of these the Lord complained by Isaiah the prophet.

"His watchmen are blind; they are all without knowledge; they are all silent dogs; they cannot bark, dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber." (Isa. 56: 10)

What good is a watchdog that cannot bark? What good is a security guard who sleeps on the job, or is blind? So many professing Christians are like this. But, how foolish is sleeping when lions are on the loose? The opposite of watching is sleeping. To watch and be on guard is to be awake, on alert, to be attentive and focused, being "circumspect." (Eph. 5: 15) It is to be keenly aware, cautious. 

But, Satan is not our only enemy. Wrote the Psalmist:

"Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; Keep watch over the door of my lips." (Psa. 141: 3)

Many believers fail watching out for what they say. The flesh (old sinful nature or old man) must be kept as a prisoner and we need to keep on guard against him. 

We should also be on watch for "the signs of the times" (See Matt. 16: 1-3). Wrote Paul:

"But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation." (I Thess. 5: 4-8) 

Brethren and Sisters, let us not sleep but watch and be sober!

Attitudes

It is interesting that the word "attitude" is not in the bible (or KJV English translation). That seems surprising since "attitude" is an important thing and Christians should have a good attitude, although they, like all, sometimes have what is called in every day speech a "bad attitude." We know what people mean when they speak of having a bad attitude, but it may be harder to precisely define. What are the definitions given by the English dictionaries? 

- "manner, disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, especially of the mind"

- "a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior."

- "a position of the body proper to or implying an action or mental state." 

example - "the boy was standing in an attitude of despair, his chin sunk on his chest"

- truculent or uncooperative behavior; a resentful or antagonistic manner. 

example - "I asked the waiter for a clean fork, and all I got was attitude"

Though the KJV does not translate any text with the word attitude, other English translations do. These are the results from those other translations: 

 

8 results in the NLT 

8 results in the NIV 

5 results in the CSB 

12 results in the NASB20 

8 results in the NASB95 

16 results in the NET

So, the word attitude is used by translators of the bible outside of the KJV. Let us notice a few.

"May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had." (Rom. 15: 5 NIV)

The NIV has "to be made new in the attitude of your minds" (Eph. 4: 23) instead of "renewed in the spirit of you minds." NLT has "your thoughts and attitudes."  

"Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin." (1 Pet. 4: 1) 

So, we see that verses which speak of having a certain mind must include the ideas of "frame of mind," mental posture, or attitude. 

What kind of attitude did Jesus have? Paul wrote to the Philippians and said "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" and then explained what that meant. (Phil. 2: 5) The context shows that this mind, or "mindset," included what we think of as "attitude." It is the mind or attitude of a humble servant. Paul also said to the Corinthians "we have the mind of Christ" (I Cor. 2:16), which could easily be translated as "we have the thoughts and attitude of Christ."

Let us all pray to have the attitude of Christ.

Pursue Spiritual Gifts

"Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy."

1 Corinthians 14:1 

I am not a "strict cessationist" in regard to the spiritual (miraculous) gifts, which means that

1) I do not believe that God intended for those gifts to end in the first century

2) I allow that God may give these gifts to Christians at any time throughout the church age

3) I do not believe that the phrase "when that which is perfect is come" (I Cor. 13: 10) denotes the time when the bible was completed (with the writing of Revelation in A.D. 90-95)

I am a cessationist in that I acknowledge that these gifts have mostly ceased in the church. How we interpret the meaning of that fact is where I disagree with the strict cessation view which says that God gave them with the intention that they only characterize the church for the time period of A.D. 33-95. I think that view has little weight to it. It could be for other reasons that the gifts have ceased. Perhaps the church became corrupt or that she quit eagerly desiring them.

Observations

If God intended that all the miraculous gifts were to "cease" when the bible is completed with the book of Revelation, then Paul's words to the Corinthian brethren mean "pursue spiritual gifts until A.D. 95." This would have Paul saying "After the bible is completed, disregard this exhortation to eagerly desire spiritual gifts." He wrote this epistle around 53-54 A.D. so that would give about forty years for the time when God was giving people these gifts.

Yes, Paul says the miraculous gifts would "cease" at some point. "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (I Cor. 13: 10)

It is laughable to read commentators who come to this passage with a pretext and presupposition. They come looking for a text that can be used to prove that such gifts are no longer available to the body of Christ. And, they do find where Paul says the miraculous gifts will "cease," and "vanish away," and they think that they have a proof text for their pretext. But, then the argument shifts to ascertaining the time "when" they shall end. Paul says "when that which is perfect is come" and so these interpreters say that "when" refers to the completing of the books of the new testament (i.e. A.D. 95). But, the context will not allow that interpretation.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

To my mind, and the minds of theologians who do not come to the text with a presupposition, "that which is perfect is come" refers to the coming of the world to come, the time after the coming again of Christ, to the new heavens and new earth. That is when God's people will no longer be children (in thinking, speech, and overall growth) but full grown sons and daughters of Jehovah. It is then that they put away "childish things." It is then that the people of God will no longer "see through a glass darkly" but "see face to face," when they no longer "know in part" but know fully. These are eschatological, and are not intended to contrast people who were before A.D. 95 with those after that time. 

I do not believe that the miraculous gifts claimed by the "Pentecostals" are the real thing, but human counterfeits. Still, I don't discount that there have perhaps been a few individuals throughout the past two thousand years who have been given one or more of these gifts although having those gifts did not bring fame and notoriety to the one having the gift. 

I believe however that I am to desire spiritual gifts and I do pray that God would give me those gifts, especially the gift of prophesy (which is not limited, intended only to describe those who interpret and teach the scriptures, as some affirm), which involves foretelling the future work of God.

I also believe in what is called "the latter day rain" belief, which says that the early rain of the Spirit (with the miraculous gifts), or first Pentecost, occurred at the start of the church age, and that a latter day rain of the Spirit, with a restoration of the gifts, will occur at the end of the church age, especially in the days of the trials of the Apocalypse. 

So, I earnestly desire the gifts, of super faith, miracle working, healing, tongues, etc. But, especially to prophesy, for God to give revelation (not of new truth) concerning the immediate times with their peculiar trials. If we are in the tribulation and need guidance on where to flee, would to God he revealed such information to one chosen to be a prophet in regard to such things, and could tell them what they need to know. Agabus foretold of a coming famine and the disciples were forewarned and came to be prepared. (Acts 21: 10)

Foresight

"A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: 

but the simple pass on, and are punished." 

(Prov. 22: 3 kjv)

There are several good definitions of the word "foresight" but I think this one from Collins is very good.

"Someone's foresight is their ability to see what is likely to happen in the future and to take appropriate action."

This dictionary also says: Synonyms: forethought, prudence, circumspection, far-sightedness. 

I believe the above text in Proverbs is talking about the kind of foresight that bible believers ought to possess. Actually, they should have all kinds of sight, such as hindsight, insight, foresight, etc. Wrote the apostle Peter:

"For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins." (II Peter 1: 9 nkjv) 

Some translations say "nearsighted" instead of shortsighted. Just as we have people who are literally either nearsighted (myopia) or farsighted (hyperopia) so we have those same people metaphorically (in regard to their wisdom). Actually, both are mentioned in the text. "Cannot see afar off" (kjv) means nearsighted. "Has forgotten" means can no longer discern past events or history. 

Astigmatism is blurred or distorted vision. Metaphorically, I believe those believers who are not interested in prophetic studies dealing with future events, suffer from myopia and believers who cannot remember things that have been fulfilled are they who suffer from a spiritual hyperopia. Others suffer from astigmatism and cannot properly see what a text of scripture says and come away with a distorted or twisted view of it.

Prophets had the special ability (gift) to be able to foresee events. Oftentimes this was due to divine wisdom in being able to foresee consequences and results. But, all believers should seek to be prophets. (I Cor. 14: 1) We should all desire to have more foresight, the ability to see the consequences of our choices and actions.

Foresight

"He also said to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, ‘A shower is coming.’ And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching heat,’ and it happens." (Luke 12:54-55) 

When we have foresight we will be able to forecast. So, we have weather forecasters and some are better than others. We also have stock market forecasters and again some are good and others not so good. 

"By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household..." (Heb. 11: 7)

Here Noah had foresight as a prophet and as one with keen vision, with insight and foresight. 

In fact,  the words "looking diligently" may involved the idea of exercising foresight. (Hebrews 12:15)

In Acts 24:2 we read of how Paul, having been called into court, had Tertullus the prosecutor to accuse him, and in order to win favor with the Judge, said in his sophistic manner to him that it was by the Judge that the people enjoyed much peace through him, and that "worthy deeds being done to this nation through thy forethought." (some translations say "through your providence"). We want leaders who have foresight, who can see the consequences of things.

Let us pray that God will give us better vision of things in his word, of things past, present, and future.

Things That Must "Come First"

“for these things must come to pass first, 

but the end will not come immediately.” 

(Luke 21: 9)

In keeping with the words of Christ from his sermon on the mount of Olives (called his "Olivet Discourse"), I affirm that there are certain things that must come to past first before the second coming (his parousia, epiphany, apocalypse). I certainly do believe that "the great tribulation" (Rev. 7: 14; See also Rev. 3: 10) will precede his second coming, will precede the rapture and resurrection of believers. I believe the second coming is described in Revelation chapter nineteen and it occurs after the seven seals have been opened and the seven trumpet angels have sounded their trumpets and this harmonizes with the above words of Jesus. Tribulation must come first, along with several other things. 

Elias Must First Come

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17: 10-13)

Just as the old testament on the surface seemed only to have spoken of a singular coming of the Messiah so it also seemed to speak of a singular coming of Elijah (Elias). However, as we see from new testament revelation, Christ has two comings (with an inter advent period). One has occurred and the second is yet to occur. Likewise, we also see from new testament revelation that the coming of Elijah has two comings. Further, in each case, Elijah comes before Christ.

The following are citations from an old posting of mine in the Baptist Gadfly (See here) in which I cited from J.A. Seiss and his work "The Apocalypse." 

"Here, then, we would seem to come upon solid Scriptural ground. If Elijah means Elijah, and the great and terrible day of the Lord is the day of Christ’s final coming in judicial majesty to crush out Satan and his seed, there is no alternative left to believers in God’s word, but to receive the doctrine that Elijah is to come again to prophesy and execute works of judgment upon earth, and just in that period of time to which the Apocalypse assigns these Two Witnesses. Whatever else may be compassed by the prediction, and in whatever narrower circles it may have been fulfilled, if words are not utterly deceitful, and certainty can at all be predicated of God’s very specific promises, this prophecy cannot be considered fulfilled or accomplished in the past, nor until Elijah the Tishbite, in propria persona, returns again to the earth."

"On the mount of Christ’s glorious Transfiguration Elijah appeared. The disciples saw him and knew him. And, as they were coming down from the mount, they asked the Master about this very point, alleging the doctrine of the scribes that “Elias must first come.” And He answered and said unto them: “ELIAS TRULY SHALL FIRST COME, AND RESTORE ALL THINGS.” (Matthew 17:11.) This passage is decisive. “The great Interpreter of prophecy gives right to that interpretation of the prophetic word which the scribes maintained,” says Trench. It cannot refer to John the Baptist, for John was then dead, while every part of it specifically relates to the future. “Elias truly shall come, and shall restore all things.” Besides, the restoration or “restitution of all things” (ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων), in the which it is affirmed that the coming Elias is to take part, is specifically referred by the Apostle Peter to the time of Christ’s second coming. (Acts 3:19.) In all its terms and relations, therefore, we are compelled to accept this solemn declaration of the Saviour as looking to the future, and meant to set forth what yet awaited fulfilment. John the Baptist is here out of the question, unless indeed he is to come again. Dr. Stier has rightly said: “Whoever, in this answer of Christ, would explain away the manifest and striking confirmation of the fact that a coming of Elias was yet to take place, must do great violence to the words, and will never be able to restrain the future of their form and import so as to be applicable to John the Baptist.”

But, it may be asked, Did not Christ say in the same connection, that Elias had come already, leaving it to be understood that He spoke of John the Baptist? The answer is, Yes; but in a way entirely distinct from the declaration we have just been considering. Elsewhere also he says of John: “If ye will receive [it, him, or something else] this is Elias, which was for to come.” (Matthew 11:14.) This proves that there is a sense in which John the Baptist was Elias, but certainly not such a sense as that in which the Jews were expecting Elias, nor yet such a sense as that in which He declared, after John was dead: “Elias truly shall first come and restore all things.” John was not the literal Elias. This we are compelled to admit, or else he did not tell the truth; for when the priests and Levites asked him, “Art thou Elias? “he answered, “I AM NOT.” (John 1:21.) And this clear and positive denial is further sustained by the facts

(1) that he did not restore all things as was predicted of Elias, and
(2) that the great and terrible day, which was to be ushered in immediately upon the finishing of the Elijah ministry, did not succeed the ministry of John, but is even yet future."

"Whilst, therefore, there is a sense of much importance in which John was Elias, there is another, more literal, and equally important sense, in which he was not Elias, and in which Elias is still to be expected, according to the Saviour's own word."

"There was a twofold ministry embraced in the ancient promise to send Elijah, just as there was a twofold advent in the predictions concerning the Messiah. In neither case did the Old Testament clearly distinguish between these two, but viewed them both as if they were but one. And as the two Messiah-comings are widely separated in time, though belonging to one and the same work, so there are two Elijah-comings, equally separated in time, and equally comprehended in the predictions. Hence, John, as the forerunner of Christ in the first advent, was Elias, that is, he filled the Elijah place, operated in the Elijah spirit and energy, did for that occasion the Elijah work, and so far fulfilled the Elijah promise. As the angel said of him before he was born, he went before Christ “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:15-17); which implies that he was not Elias himself. The Saviour could, therefore, truly say of him while living, “If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come, “and so likewise after he was dead,” Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.” John the Baptist operated in the spirit and energy of Elias, and performed the Elijah mission for the first advent, and so far “was Elias,” but, according to the word of the angel, only the virtual, and not the literal Elias. He could accordingly answer the Jews, who had in mind the literal Elias, that he was not Elias, while yet, in another respect, he was Elias. In him the prediction in Malachi concerning the sending of Elijah had a true and real fulfilment, but only a partial, germinant, preliminary fulfilment, whilst the highest and ultimate fulfilment respects another advent of the Messiah, and the coming of the literal Elijah as the herald of it."

"Such also is the view which the fathers took of the matter, and so they held and taught on the subject with great unanimity.

Justin Martyr says, “If Scripture compels you to admit two advents, shall we not allow that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent? Accordingly our Lord in His teachings proclaimed that this very thing would take place, saying, that Elijah would also come. And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in John.”

So, who came first, John the Baptist or Christ? Answer: John. Who will come first when Christ comes the second time? Answer: Elijah (Rev. 11) 

I am excited to think that I might live to see the coming of Elijah as one of the two "witnesses" of Revelation chapter eleven. (See my post on the two witnesses, where I show that they are Elijah the prophet and John the Apostle are the two, here in the Old Baptist Blog and here, here, here, and here in The Baptist Gadfly Blog) 

Tribulation Must Come First

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matt. 24: 29-30)

Clearly this text shows that tribulation shall precede the coming again of the Lord.

Falling Away Must Come First

"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (II Thess. 2: 3-4)

These verses destroy the idea that Christ will come before Antichrist, or before the great falling away and time of tribulation. 

Antichrist Must Come First

The above text says Antichrist (or "Man of lawlessness" and "son of perdition") will come before Christ comes. The verses following show this and they read as follows:

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."  (II Thess. 2: 8-10)

By "that wicked" and "him whose coming is after the working of Satan" is the one mentioned in verses 3-4, the "man of lawlessness" (or sin, Greek anomia) and "son of perdition." If the Lord destroys him at his coming, then he must already be present on earth before the coming of the Lord to destroy him. This Antichrist is mentioned by the apostle John in his first epistle and is also the one described in the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation). In fact he is seen in chapter eleven as killing the two witnesses after they have prophesied in sackcloth for 42 months. 

So, I am looking for the two prophets (John and Elijah) and for the Antichrist to come before Christ comes. This same truth is revealed in the Book of Daniel, who also spoke of the Antichrist as "the little horn."

"I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened...I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7: 8-10, 13-14)

These verses also show that the little horn comes before Christ and that it is the coming of Christ "the Son of man," who destroys the little horn thereby.

Since Christ does not come till Revelation chapter nineteen, all the events of Revelation's first eighteen chapters comes before his coming. This chronology also puts the second coming at the sounding of the seventh and final trumpet of the Apocalypse and is in keeping with what Paul said about the time of the resurrection, it occurring at the sounding of "the LAST trumpet." (I Cor. 15: 52)

Thy Will Be Done On Earth

We are taught to pray "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." This is prayed to the Father and the prayer takes for granted the belief that the Father could make it happen (that his will be done on earth) at any time he wants. If he cannot bring about a world on earth where his will is always done, then why pray to him to make it happen? But, how can God do that if he cannot change and control the will of his creatures? If they have a "free will" that God himself cannot force or determine, then how can he ever make it a fact that his will is done on earth as in heaven? The fact is, the will of creatures is not independent of God.

"Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." (Psa. 76: 10)

"The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes." (Prov. 21: 1)