"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." (James 1: 18-22)
This verse is similar to that in I Peter 1:23-25 in that it clearly shows that one's being "begotton" is "Of his own will," or "of God" (ek), and is "with" the "word of truth." Thus we have the same pattern, noted by our Baptist forefathers, how God is always the lone "efficient" cause of the new birth and his "word of truth" is the "instrumental" or "secondary cause." How do the Hardshells interpret this passage? I have dealt with this passage somewhat in a previous chapter, but will now enlarge upon it, showing the various views of the "Primitive Baptists" and why their views are unscriptural, un-Baptistic, and a "forced interpretation" of those who obviously refuse to submit willingly to its teaching.
Elder Silas Durand, under the title, "TO WHOM IS THE GOSPEL PREACHED," wrote to specifically address James 1:18, saying:
"This is regarded by some as a declaration that the preaching of the word quickened those alluded to. But the apostle James includes himself with those of whom he speaks. What he says of them was true in his case. But we know he was not made alive by means of preaching, for the Savior called him by his own voice, saying, “Follow me.” That same voice is heard by all his sheep. By him as the word they are begotten and born; for Peter says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever.” He does not say they are born again by the preaching of the gospel, but he says that this word of God by which they are born again, and which endures forever, is the word which by the gospel is preached unto them; I Peter, i, 23-25. That word is Jesus, whose name in salvation is called the Word of God. “This is the word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God, and which was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth;” Jno., i, 1-14.
The gospel is not this word, but is glad tidings of it. This word by the gospel is preached unto the saints who have felt the glorious power thereof, as the apostle John says, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that your fellowship may be with us; “ I Jno., i, 1-3. Here is the word of truth, the word of life, the word of God, the eternal life, by which the saints are all begotten and born again.
This is the word of God by which hearing and faith come. If that word of God be not in the heart, there can be no power to hear, nor can the faith or truth of the gospel be received. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who hath believed our report.” They all heard literally, for “their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” But only those who had been begotten by the word of truth could hear and understand,” Rom., x, 15-20."
(http://www.the-remnant.com/backissue13.htm)
From the above web site we have this from the editor.
"EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written over one hundred and twenty years ago by Elder Silas H. Durand, one of the editors who succeeded Elder Gilbert Beebe at the Signs of the Times. Elder Durand was also the co-publisher of the Durand-Lester Hymnbook. This article is from Meditations on Portions of the Word, a compilation of his editorial writings. It shows exactly what the brethren of the nineteenth century believed about the important subject of the utility of the gospel."
Thus, according to Durand, James was begotten before he "heard the word of truth"! He also teaches, by his "reasoning" and "interpretation," that Jesus did not speak the "word of truth" when he called the apostles by his preached word! He is the "Word" in himself, indeed, but he is, in the calling of James and the other apostles, "preaching the word" (message of truth) and this "preaching of the word" is what regenerates, by the Holy Spirit. Again, according to Durand, and the Hardshells, the preaching of the "word of truth" by the messengers of Christ have no power to "beget," but only the preaching that Christ does directly to individuals has such power. Yet, have I not shown, in previous chapters, that not all those who heard Christ, the "Word of God," preach the "word of truth" directly to them, were regenerated by this "direct speaking?" It seems that mere direct speaking did not regenerate, since not all to whom Christ directly spoke were saved or could hear him.
Durand, in the above citation, takes the passage both ways! It refers to Christ, who, though called in the Johanine writings, the "Word of God, yet whom John never calls "Word of truth," nor do any other New Testament writers (unless this be an exception), saying - "That word is Jesus." Then, he says, in addition to it being a reference to Jesus' person, he then says it refers "to the word that Jesus speaks to people directly, as he did to James and the apostles when he said, "follow me."
But, it is clear that the call to the apostles to "follow" Christ involved discipleship, a mental act, an assent or choice of the will, conversion. That is evident from what followed. They all "forsook" things and began to live a life of obedience to him. They also did not hear these words on the "sub-conscious level." They were all very much conscious of what Christ was saying to them and to what he was calling them. Besides, is Durand saying that not all men are called, "by the word of truth, by the "preaching of the gospel," to "follow Christ"?
It is a little strange that Durand, the one who took up Beebe's "mantle," did not argue, like Beebe, that this passage was talking about the "third stage or phase" of the "new birth." I think it was Elder Trott who used this passage to speak of the final "delivery" of the quickened soul out of the darkness of the "spiritual womb." But, in the above article Durand does not take that approach, but argues for the text referring either to Christ himself or to that word that he personally speaks to sinners apart from any word of truth or knowledge of revelation.
In looking at the "twisted logic" of the Hardshells, from the above citations, it is clear that they believe that if one is a disciple of Paul, then he cannot be a disciple of Jesus! Yet, did not Paul say, "follow me as I follow Christ"? Why does one, in the Hardshell mind, exclude the other? "And ye became followers of us, AND of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost." (II Thess. 1:6)
It is argued that if sinners are begotten by the preaching done by preachers of the gospel then they could not legitimately be begotten of the Lord! One would exclude the other! Durand basically said - "If they are Paul's children, they cannot be the Lord's"! Yet, by the same "logic," one is not a "convert" or "disciple of Christ" since he "makes disciples" by "human instruments" preaching his word! They can affirm this and yet admit that it was clearly to the apostles (and every gospel minister) that Christ said, "making disciples of all nations" by your ministry of "teaching all nations." Also, did not Jesus say that his children are BOTH "children of God" and "children of Abraham"? Why can we not be both "of Paul" and "of Christ"?
Notice how the phrase "word of truth" is used in the New Testament by a look at these passages.
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation..." (Eph. 1:13)
"And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments." (Psa. 119:43)
"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left..." (II Cor. 6:7)
"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel..." (Col. 1:5)
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Tim. 2:15)
Will we be uniform, brother Hardshell, in how we interpret the phrase "word of truth"? Will you isolate this one passage in James 1:18 and make it mean something different than what it does everywhere else in the New Testament? Will you do this and remain blind to what you are doing? Will you show us from the "context" of James chapter one that it clearly demonstrates your "interpretation" of what is meant by being "begotten with the word of truth"?
I have already shown that the "context" shows clearly what is meant by the "word of truth." James speaks of "hearing," and "obeying," and "following" this "word of truth." He even calls upon those begotten "by the word of truth" to "receive with meekness the engrafted (written) word which is able to save your souls." James tells us that we have been "begotten of God to life, through his word of truth," and that we have been "saved" by our "reception of that engrafted word."
How can we be "doers of the direct speaking word"? How can we be "doers" of a "word" that gives no instruction? How can we be "doers" of the will of Christ the "Living Word" if he does not speak to us words of instruction that we can understand and follow?
Salvation By The Word
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." (I Tim. 4:16)
When a Hardshell reads this passage, he is programmed to automatically resist what it says. His brainwashing makes him to reject what he plainly reads. He will look at the passage in Timothy and say, "this cannot possibly be eternal salvation or regeneration because the scriptures are not means in such; thus, it must be talking about some other kind of "salvation." They will conclude this without any attention to the "context." They will make their arguments about the "salvation" not being "eternal" but then will give no clear evidence from the "context" to substantiate their uncommon interpretation of the word "saved."
Yes, Timothy was already regenerated. But, just as the word of God, the Holy Scriptures, were a means in his initial salvation, conversion, and regeneration, so also they continue to be a means in the preservation of that life. Why would the Hardshells disagree with that, seeing they too agree that the renewed soul and spiritual life must live on that heavenly bread, the word of God? So too will it be a means in saving others, both dead sinners, who will be called to life thereby, and to saints, who will be kept and preserved by "living off every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
No comments:
Post a Comment