Chapter 32 - Hot Shots Returned (7th Volley)

I trust that this will in fact be my final "Hot Shots Returned" series. I did not want to end it with six chapters, but thought seven would be better, seeing it is the perfect number, and denotes completion. Plus, the scriptures I deal with in this final chapter in the series need to be included.

Arise From The Dead

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. (or in the darkness) But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Ephesians 5: 11-14)

Here is some of the argumentation that went back and forth between Elder Claud Cayce, one of the foremost Hardshell debaters of history, and the Campbellite champion, F. B. Shrygley, in their historic debate. After Shrygley introduces the above passage and uses it against Cayce and Hardshellism, Cayce responds, saying:

"Then he quotes Ephesians: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead." A literal translation would be: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise up from among the dead." He is not talking to dead, alien sinners out yonder; he is talking to the church of God at Ephesus." (Cayce-Shrygley Debate, page 218)

And again, he continues:

"Members of the church of God at Ephesus were not alien sinners, were they? He said to them: "Awake thou that sleepest, and rise up from among the dead, and Christ shall give the light" --l-i-g-h-t, light; not l-i-f-e, life. Quite a difference, isn't there? Christ shall give thee light. It does not say Christ shall give you life. That is what he wants to find--a text that says Christ shall give you life on these conditions." (Ibid)

F. B. Shrygley's Reply

"My opponent says, in his exposition of Eph. 5:14, that those addressed were to "rise from among the dead" --that is, for God's people to come out from among the spiritually dead. But unfortunately for the gentleman's proposition, the very word "sleepeth" comes from the Greek word which literally means death. The word "sleepeth" means death in that passage. It is the same word translated "sleepeth" in this: "Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth." (Matt.9:24) Also: "Lazarus sleepeth." (John 11:11) We have the same Greek word in the following: "Even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." (I Thess. 4:14) I suppose he would try to have them sleeping among the dead. Now, I ask the gentleman to tell this audience whether or not these were dead who were said to be asleep. I demand that he answer this question, for this passage (Eph. 5:14) sounds the death knell of his doctrine."

And further, Shrygley adds:

"Then he made a great ado about light and life. Paul says: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5: 14) "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4) Light here is another word for life; hence there is no point in what he says against my position." (Page 227)

Cayce's response:

"Eph. 5:14. He says that the word "dead" --the word there which is translated sleep means dead. All right. In that verse there are two words which are translated different ways. One is translated sleepest, and the other is translated dead. He says: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead." I am giving the King James translation. Now what does the word mean that is translated dead in that same verse? And what word is it? Now they are not the same words; and if the first word means dead, and the other is not like it, then it would read: "Awake thou that art dead, and arise from thy sleep." Now I don't think that is correct. Brother Shrygley, just tell me what that word means, and what it is--what the difference is between the two words. Are the two words akin? Are they any way alike?" (Page 240)

After these exchanges, F. B. Shrygley continues his argumentation on the above passage but adds nothing but simply emphasizes again that the command is to those who are asleep, dead, to arise from the dead. Cayce then adds these remarks.

"And so when he says, "Awake thou that sleepest," he is not talking to those that are in that dead state, as a corpse; but you rise up from among them, come out from among them. He says he has investigated, but he has not found a translation that reads that way. Well, let me see. Here it is in the Interlinear translation -"Wherefore he says, Arouse thou that sleepest (or the sleeping ones), and rise up from among the dead, and shall shine upon thee the Christ." That is the Interlinear translation. That is one translation. Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott says: "Awake thou the one sleeping, and arise thou out of the dead ones." Arise out of the dead ones. What does that mean but to rise up and come out from among the dead ones? But he told somebody that was asleep and had life to come out from among the dead ones. What are you doing over there? You have no business there. You are in the wrong place. Come out from among the dead ones." (Pages 302,303)

Shrygley then responds:

"Now let me state that on the matter of sleep and death, he started to say that I said that they were the same word. He misunderstands me. I said that two words meaning the same thing were sometimes used for double emphasis, and that sleep and death were used in the fifth chapter of Ephesians for that purpose, and that the same state is described by the two words. My Master said, "The maid is not dead, but sleepeth," and they laughed him to scorn. More than that, when he said, "Lazarus sleepeth," he used this word "sleep," but he used it in a literal sense to describe the state of death in which Lazarus was, and my contention is that he used the word "sleep" in Eph. 5:14 in a metaphorical sense to describe their spiritual condition. The reason the gentleman cannot take hold of this is because he cannot answer it. I say that the two words are different, but they describe the same condition, and when Paul said, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead," Cayce says it means arise from among the dead, and he sought to avoid the force of this position by introducing the word "among." My friend, you surely do not put Wilson down as the equal of the men that gave us the Revision. You certainly know more about this matter than that; but granting that it is "among," the contention I make is that the apostle describes the same state by "sleep" and "death" when he said, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead," and he does not get out of his difficulty by putting the word "among" in before "dead," for they were commanded to awake from sleep. I suppose if he had known that in time, he would have tried to twist something in before "sleep," to get it fixed, but it came too late on that." (Page 314, 315)


Gill's Comments

Ver. 14. "Wherefore he saith," - Either the man that is light in the Lord, who reproves the unfruitful works of darkness; or else the Holy Ghost BY Paul, who here speaks after the manner of the prophets; or God, or the Spirit, or the Scripture."

And again he writes:

"the words are spoken not to unregenerate men, for though they are asleep, and dead in sin, and need awaking out of sleep, and raising from the dead, yet they are never called upon to awake and arise OF THEMSELVES; such a sense would countenance the doctrine of man's free will and power, against the quickening and efficacious grace of God; but to regenerate persons, professors of religion, to whom the epistle in general was written; and who are spoken to, and exhorted in the context: awake thou that sleepest: the children of God are sometimes asleep, and need awaking; of the nature, causes, and ill consequences of such sleeping, and of the methods by which they are sometimes awaked out of it, See Gill on "Ro 13:11"."

He comments further:

"And arise from the dead"; - living saints are sometimes among dead sinners, and it becomes them to arise from among them, and quit their company, which is oftentimes the occasion of their sleepiness: besides, the company of dead sinners is infectious and dangerous; it is a means of hardening in sin, and of grieving of the people of God, who observe it; and by abstaining from their company, a testimony is bore against sin, and conviction is struck into the minds of sinners themselves; to which add, that so to do is well pleasing to God, who promises to receive such who come out from among them, and separate themselves from them: and it follows here as an encouragement, and Christ shall give thee light; for such who are made light in the Lord, stand in need of more light; and by keeping close to the word, ways, ordinances, and people of Christ, they may expect more light from Christ: they need fresh light into pardoning grace and mercy, through the blood of Christ; they want more to direct them in the way they should go; and they are often without the light of God's countenance; and they may hope for light from Christ, since it is sown in him, and promised through him; and he is given to be a light unto them, and he is the giver of it himself."

It can be readily seen, from such comments as above from Dr. Gill, why some have wanted to charge Dr. Gill with being, in some respects, the "father" of Hyper-Calvinism and Hardshellism. He certainly does take the view of Cayce on this passage, yet, with far less reason to do so as did Cayce. This is all very curious about Dr. Gill. He was no Hardshell, as we have clearly shown, but he could, at times, exhibit tendencies in the direction of Hardshellism. He is said to be the "father of Hyper-Calvinism"

I believe, ironically, that the Arminian Shrygley was correct in his analysis on the passage in Ephesians 5:14 than either Cayce or Dr. Gill. Dr. Gill, though holding to Cayce's view, nevertheless did not, as Brother Ross and I have shown, believe that sinners were regenerated apart from the means of gospel preaching. Where Gill erred, in his above comments, was in thinking that such a command to dead alien sinners, issued by the Holy Ghost, and as he admits, is issued "BY Paul," and the "prophets" in their regular exhortations and preaching, implies "Arminianism," saying:

"...yet they are never called upon to awake and arise OF THEMSELVES; such a sense would countenance the doctrine of man's free will and power, against the quickening and efficacious grace of God..."

But, where is it itimated that the call of dead sinners, by the Holy Ghost through Paul, to arise out of the sleep of death, implies that the sinners have the ability to respond? It is unlike Gill to argue this way, who elsewhere argued against the very line of argumentation he puts forth in this passage. Clearly Dr. Gill is primarily combating the idea that the coming forth from spiritual death and sleep is due to any power in the dead themselves. He errs in thinking that a general gospel command to repent and believe, or a command to be saved (born again, regenerated, resurrected from the dead, etc.), implies freedom of will and creature ability. It can be shown that Gill argued contrary to this in many other places. Why he found difficulty in making the dead in Ephesians 5:14 to be "spiritual death" and applicable to all men, is indeed perplexing, to say the least.

Clearing The Air On Eph. 5:14

Here are the points that carry the day, in my view, on the above passage and relative to the above commentary by the aforementioned writers.

1. The word "Sleep," though not the same word as "Death," is nevertheless used equivocably and interchangeably in the passage in question. They are virtual synonyms.

2. The command or call to "arise" is made to people who are "asleep" and who are "dead". They may therefore be termed the "Un-Risen."

3. The command or call was to the sleeping dead to "arise" to BOTH receive "light" and "life."

Besides, if this "rising up from among the dead" is a post regeneration experience, the Hardshell "conversion," is it not still, in such a case, the "work of God" that converts as regenerates? Why will the "Conditionalists" continue to spout the heresy that "conversion is not the "work of God," but the work of the child of God, one that he does "by his own free will and effort"? It seems that the Absoluter view on this matter is more in keeping with the Old Baptist Confessions and with the teaching of the first Hardshell founding fathers, and the "Conditionalists" are, therefore, the ones who have departed from the ancient Baptist faith on this matter.

I see this as a serious difficulty for the Hardshells relative to this passage. Even if we apply the "command" to those who are already spiritually resurrected and alive, is Christ still not calling, with his "word" and "voice," his living children to "come forth" in a "resurrection"? Even if one makes the "resurrection," experience alluded to in the passage, a "conversion" experience, to a post "regeneration" experience, then is it still not a case where a command, exactly like the one he makes in regeneration, is made? Does the passage then not show, by any honest admission, that the command to be "converted" is the same kind of command as given in the work of "regeneration"? Is God still not commanding a "resurrection," of some sort, to take place in both regeneration and conversion? Why then is one experience "irresistable" and "efficacious" and the other not, seeing the same language is used by God in commanding both?


Garrett's Interpretive Reading

"Rise up from the sleep of death, and be no longer therefore among the dead, and Christ shall shine upon you to give you the light of life."

You will then:

1. No longer be dead.
2. No longer be among the dead.
3. No longer be in darkness (of death).
4. No longer be un-risen.
5. No longer "walk in darkness."

Shrygley could have added these other weighty arguments against the Hardshell "interpretation."

1. The phrase "from the dead" or "out from the dead," never, in any scripture passage, implies that the ones being called forth are NOT themselves dead. I challenge any Hardshell who holds Cayce's view to show us one passage of scripture, besides the one in question, where the phrase is used to call forth living people from the society and place of the dead.

2. For instance, the same language is used of Christ, who also was both raised "from the dead" and "out from among the dead." So too is the same language applied to the coming resurrection of the just, in the first resurrection, who will likewise be raised "from the dead" and "out from among the dead." There is a clear distinction in the Bible between the phrase "resurrection of the dead" and "resurrection from (or out from among) the dead." The latter use shows clearly a special or eclectic resurrection where some are resurrected and others are not, but remain in the realm of the dead. What Hardshell will say that when Christ or the saints are said to "rise out from among the dead" that it does not mean that they are themselves "dead"? Show me an instance where one is said to be resurrected "from" or "out from among" the dead where the person was not himself resurrected from death!

Why are these born again, spiritually alive children of God, "among the dead" if they themselves are not dead? Where does "among the dead," in the Bible, mean "alive" and "not dead"? When one dies, he is dead and therefore in the realm of the dead, "among the dead." A man who is alive, therefore, is said to be in the "land of the living," to be "among the living," and therefore "not among the dead."

By the "interpretation" of Cayce, a child of God, who has been raised to spiritual life, is still sleep among the dead! What did "regeneration" do for him then? If he is still among the dead, in complete darkness, without any light, how can it be said he is alive and risen? It seems that Hardshell "conversion" CAN DO MORE FOR A MAN THAN CAN REGENERATION! Further, according to Hardshellism (Conditionalist), their "conversion" experiences, being their own authored work, and brought about after the manner described by Arminians and Campbellites, does more for a man that God's regeneration of him! Who can believe such a thing?

Married To Christ

"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Romans 7: 4-6)

Clearly this verse is talking about "regeneration." It tells us of three things that certainly results from the efficacy of "the body of Christ," from the efficacy of his death and atonement for sin, and they are signaled by the use of the Greek terms "hina," and "oste," and "eis."

1. Christ's death was in order that you "become dead to the law."
2. Christ's death was in order "that you should be married to another" (to Christ).
3. Christ's death was in order "that you should bring forth fruit unto God." (and fruit "unto life" in contrast to previous fruit which was "unto death")

Paul teaches, here and throughout Romans, that there is a demarcation line of salvation. Prior to salvation (or regeneration) certain things can be said about that person, and likewise, after salvation. Paul, in the above passage, says that the saints were, prior to the time when they were "married to Christ," as a time when they were "in the flesh."

When these Romans got saved, were born again, they:

1. Were no longer "in the flesh" but rather "in the Spirit."
2. Were no longer "married" to another other than Christ, no longer "married" to the law, to the world, to Sin and Satan, etc.
3. Were no longer "under the law" but rather "under grace."
4. Were no longer alive to the law," but now, in regeneration, have become "dead to the law."

The Hardshells are in another difficult place with these words and teachings of the Apostle. They cannot reconcile their "sub-conscious" idea of "regeneration," as it has been described thus far in this book, with the description that Paul gives of what happens in the new birth. In the above passage, it is obvious that being "married" to Christ is part and parcel of it. But, who can get "married" unconsciously? Who can "become married to another" without a choice and act of the will? It is an absurdity. Laughable it would be if not serious.

Regeneration Or Conversion?

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: BUT ye are washed, BUT ye are sanctified, BUT ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (I Corinthians 6: 9-11)

The farther one goes back in an historical study of Hardshellism's hybrid "interpretation" of key Bible passages, dealing with regeneration, the more he will see that the first Hardshells interpreted far more passages as dealing with regeneration than do modern Hardshells. There has been a clear and steady drift away from descriptions of regeneration, by the first Hardshells, for they clearly made it an experience of which the sinner is very much consciously aware, more like a "conversion experience," to the modern PB view that says that regeneration is wholly an unconscious experience.

So it is with the above passage of scripture. The first Hardshells believed that the above passage was talking about what took place in regeneration. Most of todays Hardshells will disagree with this, saying that it is a gospel salvation, a time salvation, a conversion experience apart from regeneration.

But, what always troubled me about the above passage, as a Hardshell, was the fact that this experience, whatever it was, absolutely and immediately changed the external conduct of the Corinthian Christians. But, modern Hardshell views will not allow that "regeneration causes, necessarily, any "great change" in a person.

Today's Hardshells will say that the "kingdom" that is "under consideration," by Paul, in the above passage, is the "visible church," or "the Old Hardshell Church," and not God's "eternal kingdom" that only the righteous enter, and which they all, truly and in fact, enter in the work of regeneration.

Neo-Hardshells do not want to make the above passage to deal with "entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ," but to "the church that has adhered to all the correct truths on all Bible doctrine," the "Old Line Primitive Baptist Church." Why this reluctance to make it "regeneration" and to apply to entrance into heaven and immortal glory? Because they do not believe that living a righteous life is characteristic of the born again child of God! Rather, they believe that most of those who are "born again and "regenerated" "live like the Devil"!

The above verse is similar to this:

"For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." (I Timothy 4:8)

It is a Hardshell leading premise that says that not one thing a person does in this life has any fruit or effect for the life that is to come after death and the judgment. The Bible, of course, everywhere, refutes this notion. Certainly the above passages refute it also. Clearly living godly brings reward promised to those who live godly, and this reward is not only, like bodily exercise, for a little while, but is good both for this life and for eternity. What we do does, by God's will and design, determined whether we go to heaven or hell. Did not Paul say, "If we sow to the Spirit we will of the Spirit reap everlasting life"? (Gal. 6)