May 25, 2015

Hardshells Adopting "Expository Preaching"

Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church, pastored by Lasserre Bradley Jr., has a web page (cincinnatipbc.org) and one of the links leads one to the question and answer section.  These answers were given by reps of the church under the heading "Questions and Answers With Our Pastors."  One of the questions was "What is expository preaching and why do you do it?"  Elder Bradley gave the audio reply.

Bradley first defines "expository preaching" as

"...selecting a book of the Bible and going through it verse by verse to draw from the text the message that is there."

He says that some of the advantages of "expository preaching" is that it forces people to face difficult texts, "texts which they can't ignore."

To his credit he did say that it is justifiable to preach on topics or short texts sometimes, saying "there are relevant issues that are needed at a particular point.  For example, we have done a series on money."

Types of Sermons

In this discussion it is taken for granted that sermons have been categorized into textual, expository, and topical.  (For instance see Broadus in his "Preparation and delivery of sermons")  All do not agree on the definition of these categories, but Bradley's definition of "expository preaching" is defective, as I shall show.

It is also to be noted that not everyone defines these categories exactly alike nor that sermons cannot be a mixture of the above categories.

Perhaps a definition of "sermon" might also require some attention.

Problem #1 - The Definition

According to brother Bradley's definition, we have to conclude the following:

1.  Only those who go through a book of the Bible verse by verse, fully explaining its meaning (doing exegesis), are doing "expository preaching."  Thus,

2.  Those who are not doing "expository preaching" by this definition are not doing the best kind of preaching.  Thus,

3.  All the Hardshells of the past, and 99% of the present, are not preaching in the most profitable way.

4.  Elder Bradley himself has spent most of his years as a textual or topical preacher and so confesses that he did not do his best preaching then.

5. Elder Bradley is also affirming that his preaching style, recently adopted, is superior to not only the preaching style of his forefathers, and of his own former preaching, but that of Spurgeon, whom he admires.

Of course, people like Spurgeon, who take texts, either short or long, do "exposition."  But, Bradley's definition implies that only those who go verse by verse, Sunday by Sunday, through a chosen book of the Bible, do "expository" preaching.

In this posting I will look at the negatives of this style of preaching and recommend how the three types of sermons can be utilized.  But, before doing this, I would like to ask - "why is this method being adopted by Bradley and some others of his ilk?" 

A Remedy?

It is an old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  Obviously Bradley and other Hardshells think something is defective in traditional and historical Hardshell preaching (as well as in the preaching style of other textual preachers as Spurgeon).  They know that they are dying as a denomination.  Each year 100 churches go out of existence for every one that comes into existence.  Most of the churches that remain today only have a handful and these are mostly old people.  But, Bradley's church seems to be working hard to stay alive.  Over recent years they have added Bible classes, schools, programs for the young, missionary work, etc.  And, it seems, that it has helped to keep them from death.  Now it seems that the Cincinnati church wants to adopt the Reformed Baptist trappings, which includes their insistence on what they call "expository preaching."  One wonders, however, whether this latter experiment will yield the results intended and hoped for.  Has it, or will it, increase the growth of the church?  As we shall see, in part two of this mini series, the track record of those who promote "expository preaching" is not good.

Oct 15, 2014

Is The Atonement a Commercial Transaction?

David Allen, professor of theology, in writing against "limited atonement" said, in answer to a question:

"In a nutshell, you are assuming that the atonement is a commercial transaction rather than a penal transaction, as Scripture teaches. In a commercial transaction, if the debt is paid, it cannot be paid for again. If so, then an injustice is done."  (SEE HERE)

Allen repeats what those who believe in unlimited and indefinite atonement often say.  They say that those who believe in special (or limited) atonement make the error of seeing the atonement as "a commercial transaction."  He then says that the truth is that the atonement is a "penal transaction."

In response, I object to Allen implying that men like John Piper (who Allen is critiquing) reject the idea that the atonement was a "penal transaction."  He implies that one cannot believe that the atonement is BOTH a commercial and penal transaction. 

Further, the atonement being a penal transaction poses the same difficulty for Allen as does the atonement being a commercial transaction.  Further, there is in Scripture a mixing of these two concepts, so that they are not mutually exclusive as Allen imagines.  When a criminal is being punished for his crimes (penal), he is at the same time "paying his debt" to the state whose laws have been transgressed.  Jesus likened sin to debt when he told us to pray "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." 

Just as it would be wrong to collect a debt twice (commercial transaction) so it would be wrong to punish two men for the same crime (penal transaction), or punish one whose legal debt has been satisfied.

Allen admits that the commercial view of the atonement poses problems for Allen and his universal atonement view, so he rejects it, though the Scriptures support it.  What Allen needs to realize is that even his "penal transaction" view gives him the same difficulty.  It is "double payment" versus "double jeopardy."

Oct 2, 2014

Christ the Capstone

The following citations are from that chapter "THE PYRAMID AND CHRIST" by J. A. Seiss, and from his book "Miracle in Stone" (SEE HERE)

Seiss holds that it is wrong to think that when the Scriptures speak of Christ as being "the chief cornerstone" or "head of the corner," that it refers to one of four corners at the base of a building. But, this is wrong, as Seiss shows. Let us notice his words (emphasis mine).

"But then we would expect it (the great pyramid - SG) also to refer to Christ and redemption. The great subject of (p. 121) all sacred Revelation is the Christ and his glorious kingdom, and we can hardly suppose this pillar Divine if it has not something on this point. Men may well sneer at the idea of a special revelation to old Cheops or his architects to teach the diameter, density, and temperature of the earth. Something of mightier moment to mankind must be involved when Jehovah thus interposes. Such claims need to be tried by the pre-eminent theme of all inspiration. But even on this high ground the Great Pyramid sustains itself full as grandly as in the sphere of cosmic facts and geodetic measures."

"When Zerubbabel and Jeshua were engaged rebuilding Jerusalem and the Temple on the return from the great captivity, they had in hand a work of extraordinary greatness, difficulty, and discouragements. So important was it in itself, and so bound up in history and type with another and greater restoration, that it was made the occasion and subject of special Divine communication through Zechariah the prophet. And in those prophecies that work and all that it typified is set forth under the image of the building of the Pyramid. A "great mountain" of worldly power and difficulty was in the way, but God said it should (p. 122) become "a plain before Zerubbabel," as the Gizeh hill was levelled to receive the Great Pyramid. As despite all hindrances the Pyramid was successfully carried forward to completion, even to the laying of the peculiar corner-stone of its apex amid the songs of "the morning stars" and the shouts of "all the sons of God," so was Zerubbabel and he whom Zerubbabel typified to succeed in their Divine work, even to the "bringing forth of the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, 'Grace, Grace unto it.'" (Zech. 4: 6, 7.) The pyramid idea is absolutely essential to an intelligible and consistent interpretation of this imagery. The picture is an exact parallel to the one in Job, only transferred from nature to grace, from geologic to Messianic territory.

By necessary implications of Holy Scripture then the Great Pyramid is immutably linked with the building of the Church of which the adorable Jesus is "the headstone," "the chief corner-stone."

"It is also a clear and outstanding fact that the Scriptures continually make the pyramid capstone the type and symbol of Christ, both in the Old Testament and in the New. Who heeds to be reminded with what brilliant diction Moses likens Jehovah to a rock, and how (p. 123) triumphantly he asserts against all the heathen world, that "their rock is not as our rock, even our enemies themselves being judges!"

"He is not only such a rock as that which yielded thirsty Israel drink, or as that which gives the weary traveller shelter from the scorching sunshine or beating storm, or as that which the prudent builder seeks whereon to found his house securely, but especially such a rock as that which forms the apex of the Pyramid—a rock which is the head and crown of all the works of Providence and grace—the unique bond in which the whole edifice of time is united—the headstone of redemption lifted high above all other rocks, "that in all things he might have the preeminence." So David conceived of him when he sung, "The stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner," or "the head corner-stone," as the Septuagint renders it. (Ps. 118: 22.) So Peter being (p. 124) "filled with the Holy Ghost," conceived of him when he said to the Jews who had condemned and crucified him, "This is the stone which was set at naught by you builders which is become the head of the corner." (Acts 4: 11.) Hence, also, he wrote to his scattered brethren in the faith as having come to Jesus, "as unto a living stone disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious," in whom they also "as lively stones were built up a spiritual house," according to the saying of God, "Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious," even "the stone which the builders disallowed," but which now "is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence even to them which stumble at the word." (1 Pet. 2: 4-8.) So Paul conceived of him when he wrote to the Ephesians, Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the spirit." (Eph. 2: 20-22.) And the same conception Jesus applied to himself when he said, "Did ye never read in the (p. 125) Scriptures, the stone which the builders rejected the same is become the head of the corner? And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall it will grind him to powder." (Matt. 21: 42-44.)

All these are great central passages of the Divine word, and not one of them will interpret without the Pyramid, whose light alone brings out their full significance and beauty. It is absurd enough when men speak of a river's head at one end of it., and its mouth at the other end; but it is unbearable to represent the Holy Ghost treating of the head of a thing as in its toes. Interpreters may put such absurdities in the Bible, but its author never does. The head is not the foot nor the foot the head in any consistent or intelligible use of language. So the head corner-stone cannot be the foot or foundation corner-stone. Where there are four alike, to regard one as chief is a mere conventionalism without reality in fact, and such as the Bible never employs. Common architecture furnishes no one pre-eminent corner or corner-stone. There is no head corner without the Pyramid. That alone has such a head at the head, or a cornerstone uniquely and indisputably the chief. It (p. 126) has the usual four at the base, alike in shape, place and office, but it has a fifth, different from all others and far more exalted. It is at the top, and properly the head one. It is the last to come into place and so may be long rejected while the building still goes on. The base corner-stones must be laid at the beginning. Work cannot proceed while either of them is disallowed. They are also of such regular shape as renders them capable of being worked in as well at one place as at another. They furnish no occasion to be disallowed. Not so the head corner-stone. The shape of that is altogether peculiar. It is five-sided and five-pointed. From foundation to summit there is no place at which it will fit till everything else is finished and its own proper place is reached. Till then it is naturally enough rejected by the builders. They have no place for it. To those ignorant of its purpose it is only in the way—"a rock of offence and a stone of stumbling." With one sharp point always sticking upwards, any one falling on it would necessarily "be broken." And when on its way to its position hundreds of feet in the air were it to fall on any one it would certainly "grind him to powder."

"But though rejected to the last, it finally (p. 127) turns out to be the very thing required, and reaches a place to which it alone fits; a place above all others, where it sublimely finishes out and binds together everything in one glorious whole. It is itself a perfect pyramid, the original model of the edifice which it completes and adorns. It is emphatically the head stone of the head corner. It is at the head and not at the feet. It has its own peculiar angles and they are the angles of the entire structure. There is but one stone of that shape and it is the shape of the pyramid complete. It is the stone which stands toward Heaven for every other in the building. Every other stone in all the mighty construction stands in it, and has place with reference to it, and is touched by its weight and influence, as well as sheltered under its lines, and honored and perfected by its presence. It is indeed the "all in all" of the whole edifice. To its angles is "all the building fitly framed together." And in it every part and particle that belongs to the structure from foundation to capstone has its bond of perfectness, its shelter, and its crown."

"About such imagery there should be no question. In all the richness of the Scriptures there is not a more luminous, expressive, (p. 128) and comprehensive picture of the Christ, in himself, in his experiences, in his relations to his friends or foes, in his office and place in all the dispensations of God toward our race, than that which is given in these texts when studied in the light of the Great Pyramid. These passages alone consecrate and sanctify it forever. In them the Holy Ghost takes hold of it, traces in it a sacred significance, and assigns to it relations and connections, the truth and beauty of which cannot be disputed. And thus by the highest authority known to man it is rendered impossible to be thoroughly true to the utterances of inspiration, and yet regard this venerable monument as nothing but the profane tomb of a pagan despot."

Sep 29, 2014

Fuller against Modalism

Andrew Fuller, that great Baptist theologian, wrote on the trinity, saying (emphasis mine):

"An economical trinity, or that which would not have been but for the economy of redemption, is not the trinity of the Scriptures. It is not a trinity of divine persons, but merely of offices personified;  whereas Christ is distinguished from the Father as the express image or character of his person, while yet in his pre-incarnate state." ("The complete works of Rev. Andrew Fuller," Volume 2, page 505, SEE HERE

I have had posted in this blog a series of writings against Sabellianism and Modalism. I have had to confront Sabellian "Baptists" over the past several years and studied the subject in that time period more exhaustively than ever before. In my Old Baptist Test blog, where I write against Hardshellism, I have shown how some of the first leaders of the newly created "Primitive Baptist" church (1832) were Sabellian Modalists, denying the historic teaching of the trinity, that God is an ontological trinity, not merely an economic trinity.

In writing against those who denied the eternal sonship of Christ, and against those that deny that his sonship equates to his divinity, Fuller wrote (emphasis mine):

"The sacred Scriptures lay great stress on the character of Christ as "the Son of God." It was this that formed the first link in the Christian profession, and was reckoned to draw after it the whole chain of evangelical truth. "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." From this rises the great love of God in the gift of him: "God so loved the world as to give his only-begotten Son "—the condescension of his obedience: "Though he was a son yet learned he obedience —the efficacy of his blood: "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin"—the dignity of his priesthood: "We have a great High Priest Jesus the Son of God"—the greatness of the sin of unbelief: "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God"—the greatness of the sin of apostacy: "Who have trodden under foot the Son of God." The incarnation, resurrection, and exaltation, of Christ declared, but did not constitute him the Son of God; nor did any of his offices, to all which his Sonship was antecedent."

Fuller continued:

"God sent his Son into the world. This implies that he was his Son antecedently to his being sent, as much as Christ's sending his disciples implies that they were his disciples before he sent them. The same may be said of the Son of God being made of a woman, made under the law. These terms no more express that which rendered him a Son, than his being made flesh expresses that which rendered him the Word. The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil; he must therefore have been the Son of God antecedently to his being manifested in the flesh. I have heard it asserted that "Eternal generation is eternal nonsense." But whence does this appear? Does it follow that, because a son among men is inferior and posterior to his father, therefore it must be so with the Son of God? If so, why should his saying that God was his own Father be considered as making himself equal with God? Of the only-begotten Son it is not said he was, or will be, but he is in the bosom of the Father; denoting the eternity and immutability of his character. There never was a point in duration in which God was without his Son: he rejoiced always before him. Bold assertions are not to be placed in opposition to revealed truth. In Christ's being called the Son of God, there may be, for the assistance of our low conceptions, some reference to sonship among men; but not sufficient to warrant us to reason from the one to the other."

"The Holy Spirit is not the grand object of ministerial exhibition; but Christ, in his person, work, and offices. When Philip went down to Samaria, it was not to preach God the Holy Spirit unto them, but to preach Christ unto them. While this was done, the Holy Spirit gave testimony to the word of his grace, and rendered it effectual. The more sensible we are, both as ministers and Christians, of our entire dependence on the Holy Spirit's influences, the better: but, if we make them the grand theme of our ministry, we shall do that which he himself avoids, and so shall counteract his operations. The attempts to reduce the Holy Spirit to a mere property, or energy, of the Deity, arise from much the same source as the attempts to prove the inferiority and posteriority of Christ as the Son of God; namely, reasoning from things human to things divine. The Spirit of God is compared to the spirit of man; and, as the latter is not a person distinguishable from man, so, it has been said, the former cannot be a person distinguishable from God the Father. But the design of the apostle, in 1 Cor. ii. 11, was not to represent the Spirit of God as resembling the spirit of man tn respect of his subsistence, but of bis knowledge; and it is presumptuous to reason from it on a subject that we cannot understand. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you, and your affectionate brother —A. F."

Sep 25, 2014

Agreeable Comments on the Atonement's Extent

The following are some citations from Dr. B. H. Caroll in which he is discussing the extent of the atonement. I think they are worthy observations on this subject and I would like to present them here with some of my thoughts on Caroll's observations. (SEE HERE):

Carroll, in commenting upon the commentary of J. P. Boyce, wrote:

"What is the difference so far as Christ’s work is concerned? Does not the difference come in the Spirit’s work in connection with the application of the atonement and the ministry of reconciliation? Do election and foreordination become operative toward atonement or toward acceptance of the atonement? These questions are submitted for consideration in the realm of the study of systematic theology. The author does not dogmatize on them."

What I like about this comment is the fact that he says that he "does not dogmatize on them."

I think it is wrong for some Calvinists to think it is heresy to believe that the atonement was, in some sense at least, general or universal.

My own view aligns more with Boyce, whom Carroll thought was possibly the ablest theologian of his time. I believe that "election and foreordination" become operative towards BOTH atonement and acceptance of the atonement.

Carroll said:

"While he has only a very moderate respect for philosophy in any of its departments as taught in the schools, and prefers rather to accept every word of God without speculation, and believes it true and harmonious in all its parts, whether or not he is able to philosophically explain it, yet he submits merely for consideration along with other human philosophizing on the atonement the philosophy of Dr. Wm. C. Buck on this matter. It is found in his book, The Philosophy of Religion. On the question of general or limited atonement he takes this position, as I recall it: Jesus Christ through his death repurchased or bought back the whole lost human race, including the earth, man’s habitat. The whole of it and all its peoples passed thereby under his sovereignty. What debt they once owed to the law they now owe to him, the surety who paid the debt. From his mediatorial throne he offers to forgive this debt now due him to all who will accept him. But all alike reject him. The Father, through the Spirit, graciously inclines some to accept him. Thus those really saved are saved according to the election and foreordination of God, not operative in the atonement which was general, but in the Spirit’s application which was special. Those thus saved were originally promised by the Father to the Son. He dies for the whole world as the expression of the Father’s universal love. He died for the elect, his church, as his promised reward."

I cannot find anything wrong with Buck's view, except possibly in the way in which the atonement is general. I have often argued much the same way over the years. Further, Carroll seems willing to accept the view of Buck.

Carroll wrote:

"Let us do with this or any other philosophy what we will, but let us not hesitate to accept all that the Scriptures teach on this matter. When we read John 10:14-16; 11:26-29; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28-29; Ephesians 5:25-32, let us not abate one jot of their clear teaching of Christ’s death for the elect and their certain salvation. And when we read John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2; Ezekiel 33: 11; Matthew 28:19; 1 Timothy 2:4, let us beware lest our theory, or philosophy, of the atonement constrain us to question God’s sincerity, and disobey his commands. There are many true things in and out of the Bible beyond our satisfactory explanation. Let faith apprehend even where the finite mind cannot comprehend."

I think these words of Carroll are quite agreeable.

The above citations as given on the web page link are from Carroll's “Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews” in, An Interpretation of the English Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 86-92.

Jul 26, 2014

Euthyphro dilemma & Homosexuality

I agree with Matt Slick at carm.org in his writing "What is the Euthyphro dilemma?"  His answer to the question as to why evil is evil, and why good is good, is biblical.  The Euthyphro dilemma deals with these questions:

“Are moral acts willed by God because they are good, or are they good because they are willed by God?"

Said one writer:

"Philosophers both past and present have sought to defend theories of ethics that are grounded in a theistic framework. Roughly, Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires." (see here for citation)

The bible upholds the divine command theory of ethics. Good and evil are defined by God. Why is murder evil? Why is it evil to disobey certain commands of God, like what I can eat? Or, to disobey any rules from God about my sexual conduct, or what to do with my body?

Is is naturally discoverable either by human reasoning, or by the use of human standards of what is good and right, to know that homosexual is either good or evil?

How does the concept of "natural law" enter into this discussion?

Apr 12, 2014

On the Problem of Evil

I fully accept the following citation as an expression of my own thinking.

"However, when one enters the Christian view of reality fully, it is clear that Christian theology has a doctrine of evil—both of its origins in the Fall and of its continuing presence due to sin. Christianity takes evil seriously, and reveals the character and goodness of God in contrast to the evil that grieves him. The Bible also teaches that God has morally sufficient reasons for evil’s present existence,[3] and that he will judge all evil and remove it in the end. Christians are not in a position of being able to claim that they know the purpose behind any and every particular instance of evil, or that the relationship between evil and God’s loving designs is entirely without mystery. Lest we become like Job’s “friends,” we must avoid simplistic explanations or quick justifications for someone’s suffering; rather, we direct them toward to the character of God, who can be trusted, and the truth that he has revealed." ("God and the Problem of Evil" - see here)



Oct 13, 2013

The Fearful & Unbelieving

"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)

Those who are finally cast into the Lake of Fire and experience the second death are described as being both "fearful" and "unbelieving." Obviously then, those who are saved are not either "fearful" or "unbelieving."

Lest any of those who are true believers lose heart at such a description, let it be known that such descriptions do not assert that true believers never have fears and never unbelief. Every true believer comes to Christ saying "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." (Mark 9: 24)

No Christian has perfect faith. As it was with the apostles at the first, so it is with most disciples that they "are of little faith." (Matt. 6: 30, etc.) After the resurrection we are told by Mark that Christ "appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." (Mark 16: 14) In the Hebrew epistle we find the Christians being warned about the dangers of unbelief.

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." (Heb. 3: 12)

Christians are to ever be on guard against having an unbelieving heart and disposition. They are to battle against it, and seek to grow in their faith and confidence in the Lord. Though the Apostle said that "the love of money is the root of all evil" (I Tim. 6: 10), it seems that unbelief is the root of all evil. Why does a man love money? Is it not because he is an unbeliever? How can one disconnect love of money from faith in money? Likewise, how can a man disconnect love for God with faith in God?

Fearfulness is a natural consequence of unbelief just as confidence and lack of fear is a fruit of faith. Well did Solomon say - "In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge." (Prov. 14: 26)

It is impossible to disconnect John's two descriptive participles of "fearful" and "unbelieving" because they naturally go together. Where you find one you will surely find the other. Fearfulness is a natural product of unbelief. Jesus asked some - "Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?" (Mark 4: 40) Notice how Jesus connects "no faith" (unbelief) with being "fearful."

In what ways do we manifest unbelief in our lives?

First, we manifest it by being fearful, by worry and anxiety. Are there not many exhortations in Scripture against it? Do not worry and fear spring from unbelief? Are they not symptoms of unbelief and is unbelief not an evidence of an evil heart? Remember the words "evil heart of unbelief." Did not Jesus tell us not to worry about tomorrow as Christians? Would not doing so be an act of disobedience? Has God not said many times, in addressing his people, "fear not"? Again, to do so would show unbelief and would be an act of disobedience. When we fret and worry, when we sit in fear, are we not distrusting God?

Second, we manifest unbelief when we murmur and complain, and when we curse our circumstances and are angry. When we have strong faith we say "I will fear no evil for thou art with me." (Psa. 23: 4) The Lord also says - "But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil." (Prov. 1: 33) What person does not want to "be quiet from fear of evil"? To be in such a state requires that we increase in our faith and confidence in the Lord. It is the antidote for fear, worry, doubt, and murmuring.

Third, we manifest unbelief in being impatient, in our failing to wait upon the Lord. On the other hand, faith gives us the will and strength to wait and be patient, as well as to persevere.

It is therefore of the highest urgency that Christians constantly ask the Lord to give them increase of faith and to rid them of all unbelief.

When the lost are described as being fearful and unbelieving, it is to be understood that this is what they are characteristically. Further, it is affirmed that the saved are they who are generally and characteristically not so. If we are mostly fearful and unbelieving as professing Christians, then let Rev. 21: 8 be a means of exciting us to come to the Lord and asking him to help rid us of our evil heart of unbelief.

Jul 18, 2013

Hardshellism's Severe Error

Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the founding fathers of Hardshellism, wrote:

"...the gospel of God our Savior makes no address whatever to dead sinners; it addresses the living, the quickened, and them exclusively." (article titled "Means."  see here)

What a gross error! It makes one think that the Hardshells are reading a different Bible than the rest of us!  Notice these verses:

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people."  (Luke 2: 10)

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."  (Mark 16: 15)

Of course, in their defence, Hardshells like Beebe will define what it means to "preach the Gospel" to a person.  To them, to preach the Gospel to a person is all the same as telling a person that he/she is saved, therefore, to preach the Gospel to every person is to tell every person that he/she is saved.  But, this is not what the Scriptures mean by preaching the Gospel to a person.  To preach the Gospel to every person is to announce to them that each can be saved, because of Christ, IF he/she believes in him and calls upon his name.  Notice these words of Paul:  "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."  (Rom. 4: 24)  Notice that the work of Christ being put to one's account is dependent upon "if we believe on him." 

Further, if Beebe is correct in his denial that it is wrong to preach the Gospel to the unsaved, then Christ and his apostles are guilty of error, for it is clear that they preached the Gospel to the unsaved.  This has been shown by me in my series "Addresses to the Lost" and in other numerous articles in the Old Baptist and Baptistgadfly blogs.  Oh that Hardshells could see their error and begin to preach the Gospel to the lost!

Mar 21, 2013

Our Brother Is Gone!

One of my two younger brothers, David Daniel Garrett, who just turned fifty about two weeks ago, has gone to be with the Lord.  He had major surgery on his spine and died today around noon due to a blood clot.  He was a fine Christian man and had premonitions that this was going to happen.  We loved "Danny"!  He is with the Lord and I hope one day to see him again.  Keep us in your prayers.