Pre-Faith Regeneration?

Since I have had many discussions of this topic since I wrote many initial chapters on this topic, I felt like I should cite from some of those chapters. So, I will do so now and cite from chapter 40 titled "Biblical Regeneration." I deal with Boyce on the issue.

I also agree with what Pendleton wrote and think it needs repeating today among those who are saying that "reformed Baptist" teaching is, and has always been, that regeneration must precede and be completed before faith.

I wish more people who read Gill, Boyce, and others would listen to their cautions when they use the word "regeneration." In their writings they would explain how they have, at times, used a man-made "theological definition" of the term "regeneration," in their intitial writings, yet they would conclude by saying "after all, we must remember how this is NOT how the term 'regeneration' is used in scripture, for scripture equates regeneration with external conversion, and not as do the theologians." (Paraphrase)

This "ordo salutis" malarky has come from the "hair-splitting" theologians among the Presbyterians, such as Berkhof and Shedd.

Anyway, I will give these excerpts from chapter 40 and follow with a couple new postings soon on this matter of "pre-faith regeneration."

I believe that the following words by J.M. Pendleton are appropriate to cite at this juncture. He writes under the heading, "Regeneration, With Its Attendants, Repentance And Faith," saying:

"It is evident that the Scriptures refer to a great change in all who become Christians--a change denoted by such forms of expression as the following: "Born again," (John 3:3); "Born of the Spirit" (John 3:5); "Born of God" (John 1:13); "Created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10); "Quickened together with Christ" (Eph. 2:5); "A new creature" (2 Cor. 5:17); "Renewed after the image of him that created him" (Col. 3:10); "Dead unto sin,...alive unto God." Rom. 6:11. This change is, in theological writings, usually called Regeneration, and it is inseparable from "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21. For this reason the heading of this chapter has been selected, and I purposely present in closest connection Regeneration, Repentance, and Faith. Nor is it my intention to dwell on what has been termed "the order of time." Indeed, if the view of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards is correct, regeneration and repentance are in substance the same so that the question as to order of time is ruled out. Calvin says:

"In one word, I apprehend repentance to be regeneration, the end of which is the restoration of the divine image within us; which was defaced, and almost obliterated by the transgression of Adam."

The words of Edwards are these:

"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that by regeneration, or being BEGOTTEN or BORN AGAIN, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as efffected by true REPENTANCE, and CONVERSION. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts 3:19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing."

Pendleton continues:

"Without fully endorsing the view of these great men, I may say that if regeneration and repentance are not identical, they are so closely connected that it is not worth while to inquire whether the one precedes or follows the other. As to regeneration and faith, a plausible argument may be made in favor of the priority of either. For example, if we turn to John 1:12, 13 it seems natural to suppose that those who believed in Christ were those who had been born of God. So also according to the correct rendering of I John 5:1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is (has been) born of God." Some use this passage as it reads in the Common Version, "is born of God," to prove that faith is prior to regeneration because the means of it; but the argument fails in view of the fact that not the present, but the perfect, tense is used in the original--"has been born of God." But if we turn to Galatians 3:26, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," the obvious view is that we become God's children by faith, or, in other words, that faith is instrumental in effecting regeneration. We see, therefore, that there may be a plausible argument on either side of the question. It is, perhaps, in view of this fact, wisest and safest to consider regeneration and faith simultaneous, or so nearly so that the question of precedence should not be considered at all. The adoption of this theory will save us from perplexities which will otherwise annoy. For instance, those insisting on the precedence of regeneration are not a little perplexed when asked if there can be a regenerate unbeliever, and those taking the opposite view are eqaully perplexed when asked if there can be an unregenerate believer. That regeneration and faith are not separable in point of time is, all things considered, the most satisfactory position. One thing is certain--wherever we see a regenerate person, we see a believer in Christ; and wherever we see a believer in Christ, we see a regenerate person." ("Christian Doctrines," pages 256-58)

Pendleton was very insightful and true to Holy Scripture and historic Baptist teaching in his remarks above. For instance, he says:

"For this reason the heading of this chapter has been selected, and I purposely present in closest connection Regeneration, Repentance, and Faith. Nor is it my intention to dwell on what has been termed "the order of time."

Yes, I agree that this whole discussion about "ordo salutis" has been a plague to the classical "theologians."

It is absurd and fraught with all kinds of theological difficulty to separate the elements of regeneration and the new birth as though one may exist without the others. He says truly, that

"...regeneration and repentance are in substance the same so that the question as to order of time is ruled out."

That is why, as I have said, that the holy scriptures do not strictly follow an "ordo salutis," respecting the essential elements of "regeneration."

To argue over "which comes first," faith or repentance, assumes 1) that one may in fact precede the other (when they cannot), and 2) that the scriptures always present the terms in the same order (when they do not), and 3) that one must be a cause of the other (when they can be, and are, both effects of the same cause); And, to argue over "which comes first," regeneration or conversion, is also to "strive about words to no profit," and evinces a purpose to separate what God has joined together. Such "vain reasonings" and "human logic" (or perhaps, "Greek Speculative Theory") applied to the metaphysical understanding of what is called "regeneration" or the "New Birth," is about as profitable as to asking these questions:

1. Which comes first, regeneration or the new birth?
2. Which comes first, creation in Christ Jesus or the new birth?
3. Which comes first, living or hearing the voice of Christ?
4. Which comes first, coming to Christ, or life?
5. Which comes first, being freed from sin or freed to Christ?

I think it is obvious that the people asking such questions are wrong in that they fail to realize that these various terms are but descriptions of the same experience, but viewed from different perspectives or from various relations. I have already mentioned Hebrews 6:9 where the writer speaks of the "things (plural) that accompany salvation."

To have salvation is to have its essential elements, its rudimental graces and fundamental gifts. Repentance and godly sorrow, with faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel, with a spontaneous confession of the same with the heart and lips, with love for God, are integral elements of what it means to be saved, born again, regenerated, renewed, quickened, created, etc.

Pendleton continues:

"...the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as efffected by true REPENTANCE, and CONVERSION. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts 3:19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing."

Brother, that is the truth of the matter and one in keeping with the historic Baptist faith. He says further, however:

"It is, perhaps, in view of this fact, wisest and safest to consider regeneration and faith simultaneous, or so nearly so that the question of precedence should not be considered at all."

Amen brother! It is sad that men have substituted the clear teachings of the Bible with their "vain speculations."

Ordo Salutis

I agree wholeheartedly that this debate over the "Ordo Salutis" has not been productive. The voice and words of Brother Pendleton need reverberating throughout the theological world.

The Campbellites and the Baptists split over the "order of salvation," disagreeing over the relationship of "baptism" and "good works" to "salvation."

J. P. Boyce, in writing upon "Regeneration" and "Conversion," says:

"At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration. It is not strange, therefore, that they are often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is the act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart."

"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."

"It is true that but few of the passages refer to anything save the work of God; yet these few sufficiently teach the use of the word in regeneration to lead us not to reject, as a part of it, that result of God's act which, in connection with the word, leads to the full union of its subject with Christ through repentance and faith."

"The whole work is thus spoken of, however, because God is operative from the beginning to the end, but this does not prove that he does not operate differently in one part from what he does in the other."

The above citations of Boyce clearly show that he believed, as did the truly Old Baptists, that the new birth was not accomplished in one who did not come to faith and repentance. It is clear that he believed that this was accomplished through means and that he rejected the Hardshell "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration."

Some have cited from this same section of Boyce's "Systematic Theology," on "Regeneration and Conversion," wherein he seems to deny what he said in the above citations, and SEEMS to accept "Hardshellism" rather than opposing it. What can we say about this?

First, let me cite the words of Boyce that supposedly show him accepting the "Pre-Faith" view of "regeneration." T hen I will cite the insightful remarks of Brother Ross relative to what Boyce was really teaching and communicating in that section. Lastly, I will add a few remarks of my own on this seeming contradiction in what Boyce wrote and taught on the subject.

Boyce a Hardshell?

Boyce writes:

"V. The relation of regeneration to conversion will, therefore, APPEAR to be one of invariable antecedence.

Wherever the appropriate truth is at the time present its relation is almost that of producing cause, for the prepared heart at once receives the truth. Hence, as this is so generally the case, they have been usually regarded as contemporaneous and by some even as identical. But that regeneration is the invariable antecedent is seen,

1. From the fact that the heart is the soil in which the seed, the word of God, is sown, and that seed only brings forth fruit in the good soil. The heart is made good soil by regeneration.

2. Regeneration (as in infants) MAY exist without faith and repentance, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Therefore, regeneration precedes.

3. LOGICALLY the enabling act of God must, in a creature, precede the act of the creature thus enabled. But this logical antecedence involves actual antecedence, or the best conceptions of our mind deceive us and are not reliable. For this logical antecedence exists only because the mind observes plainly a PERCEIVED dependence of the existence of the one on the other. But such dependence demands, if not causal, at least antecedent existence. Here it is only antecedent.

VI. There is not only antecedence, but in some cases an appreciable interval.

1. This is true even of conversion regarded as a mere turning to God. Between it and regeneration must intervene in some cases some period of time until the knowledge of God's existence and nature is given, before the heart turns, or even is turned towards that God.

(1.) This must be true of all infants and of all persons otherwise incapable of responsibility, as for example idiots.

(2.) There is no reason why it should not be true of some heathen. The missionaries of the cross have been sought by men, who knew nothing of Christianity, but whose hearts, unsatisfied with the religion of their fathers, were restlessly seeking for what their soul was crying out.

2. It is still more manifestly true of full Christian conversion.

(1.) The Scriptures teach this in many examples of persons pious, holy, and fearing God, yet unacquainted with the full truth which secures union with Christ.

Ethiopian Eunuch: Acts 8:26-40.

Paul: Acts, chapter 9, 22 and 26. Galatians, chapters 1st and 2d.

Cornelius the Centurion: Acts 10:2.

Lydia: Acts 16:14.

(2.) The experience of ministers in all ages with persons seeking and attaining salvation confirms this idea. The attainment of conversion may be marked by stages. The sinner is at first totally indifferent. The word produces on him no effect. Then (1.) There is an evident willingness to give serious attention to the truth of God. God has opened the heart as he did that of Lydia. (2.) There is conviction of sin, sense of its vileness, and of its dangerous effects. (3.) The soul, oppressed by these, strives to do something by which to attain salvation, but finds all in vain. (4.) At last accepting the truth of God's word it rests in trust of a personal Saviour.

VII. The term conversion is not TECHNICALLY applied to any change, except that which follows upon regeneration, and consists in the Godward turning of one heretofore turned entirely away from God. The return of men who have backslidden, or fallen into grievous sin, is also called "a return to God," and such a return is possibly what is called "conversion" in Peter's case. Luke 22:32. But conversion is theologically used exclusively of the first act."

(http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch32.html)

From the above, the words of Boyce seems to echo the words of the Hardshells. It is, sadly, a view that the founders.org group is trying to promote as being the historic teaching of the Baptists. What about these words of Boyce? Are they like the words, often cited from Gill, that alledgedly prove he also denied, like Boyce, the use of means in regeneration, or that regeneration did not include conversion?"

A writer on Boyce has well said:

"Like Spurgeon, Boyce often lamented the inroads that Arminianism was making on Baptist life. He saw the fate that awaits the Church when it trades the sovereignty of God for the sovereignty of man. Boyce also warned against the dangers of hyper-Calvinism that had taken root among Baptist in the south in the form of Primitive and Hard-Shell Baptists. He was a Calvinist who was so committed to evangelism that he offered the Seminary grounds to D.L. Moody when he brought his tent to Louisville."

(http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist/baptistpage/Portraits/boyce.htm)

Here is what Brother Bob Ross wrote in regards to the views of J. P. Boyce, who sometimes made statements, which taken out of context, would imply that he believed in pre-faith regeneration.

"James P. Boyce clearly cannot be put into the "born again before faith" category."

"If one reads what Dr. Boyce says in the first paragraph on page 375 of his Abstract of Systematic Theology (Christian Gospel Foundation reprint of 1887 edition), it is hardly possible to lump Boyce with the "no means" theologians such as Shedd, the Hodges, Frame, and Berkhof on this matter. He refers to the Word as "part" and "in connection with" the "work of God" in production of the "result," the New Birth.

Boyce was educated at Princeton Seminary under the Presbyterian scholars, particularly Charles Hodge, and some of his nomenclautre might at first appear to some as at least consistent with Hodge's view. If Boyce indeed held that view, I would suspect he imbibed it from his Princeton Pedobaptist teachers, or had it further developed in his thinking under them. This theory certainly derives from the Pedobaptist Hybrid Calvinists.

However, I do not really find any explicit denial by Boyce of the "use of the Word" in the act of regeneration itself, and this strikes at the heart of the pedo theory, for this theory rests on the very foundation that "regeneration" is an act which takes place apart from the necessary use of means as the instrumentality.

In fact, in Boyce's statement on page 375, he indicates there are passages of Scripture which "sufficiently teach the USE of the word IN regeneration" (page 375). He cites some of these verses in the next few paragraphs.

That God does a pre-faith work or activity in the heart, we certainly believe, and Boyce teaches this. But that this early preliminary work constitutes the New Birth is "too much too soon," NOR DO WE FIND BOYCE TEAChING THAT.

Rather, Boyce sets forth two inseparable categories (regeneration and conversion) which he places under ONE IDEA AS THE "NEW BIRTH" (Abstract of Theology, pages 373, 374).

He says: "They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The SCRIPTURES CONNECT the TWO under THE ONE IDEA of the NEW BIRTH, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably ACCOMPANIES regeneration."

So, with Boyce, I hardly see how it could be said that the sinner undergoes the "NEW BIRTH" BEFORE he has experienced repentance and faith, which according to Boyce constitute conversion.

If we follow Boyce's line of thought, consider the following:

If (1) "regeneration" and (2) "conversion" are "TWO under the ONE idea" of the "NEW BIRTH," then it could hardly be said that the sinner has been BORN AGAIN, or has experienced the NEW BIRTH, unless he simultaneously has experienced repentance and faith which constitute "conversion." Boyce says the "TWO" (regeneration and conversion) go under "ONE IDEA" -- THE NEW BIRTH.

(1) Regeneration and Conversion (repentance and faith) are TWO under ONE idea.

(2) The one idea is called the "NEW BIRTH."

(3) Therefore, a sinner has not experienced the "NEW BIRTH" until he has experienced conversion (repentance and faith).

It is clear that all Boyce is teaching is that when (1) the Gospel is preached, (2) the power which regenerates "in connection with the Word" is the power of the Holy Spirit, and (3) whenever He uses the Word to generate repentance from sin and faith in Christ the sinner is born again, and (4) these combined elements -- (a) the power of the Spirit and (b) the Word-generated repentance faith -- constitute the NEW BIRTH.

Furthermore, Boyce incorporates the role of MEANS in this work, for he says "The FIRST STEP here is to make known to man the GOSPEL" (page 367). If that is the FIRST STEP, then you cannot have the NEW BIRTH without the means of the GOSPEL being used as the instrumentality by the Holy Spirit.

This certainly conflicts with the Pedo view of "born again before faith," wherein "regeneration" is imagined to be a "DIRECT OPERATION" in the case of both (1) babies and (2) adults -- apart from, without, and exclusive of the necessary use of the Word as the essential means or instrumentality, and without repentance and faith (conversion) being the immediate, simultaneous necessary production by the WORD and of the SPIRIT."

(http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23354593&postID=115173577614521347)

It is obvious that Boyce distinguishes between how Scriptures define and use the word "regeneration," and with how the "hair-splitting" theologians have used them.

He speaks of how words, like regeneration and conversion, are "technically applied" and how they are "theologically used" by "theologians," and how things "seem" or "appear" to be from the eye of "human logic," but he does not allow that such strict definitions are warranted by the Sciptures.

He simply assumes the "theological definitions" of the terms "regeneration" and "conversion," for the sake of argument and convenience, and shows, by such definitions of the term, how of course "regeneration" precedes faith, repentance, and conversion, yea, even before being "born again"!

But, in such reasoning, the writer is only assuming the definition of "regeneration" as being limited to the initial move of the Spirit in preparing the heart for the full birth, and yes, in such context, "regeneration" does precede faith, conviction, knowledge, love, and every other grace. But, we are not talking in context, in such cases, with the Bible, and one must wonder how much good, as Pendleton warned, has come of all this talk about "ordo salutis."

Thus, such a theological definition would not equate with the term "regeneration" with the term "new birth." But, both Boyce and Scripture equated them, and so the "theologians," who rather and unscripturally "narrowly define" the term "regeneration" win the day in showing that "regeneration," SO DEFINED, precedes faith and conversion. By such a definition, of course, a man is not saved when he is "regenerated" for he is not yet "born again" (by Boyce's definition), and not yet possessed of any grace of the Spirit.

Boyce does what Gill did, in some parts of his writings on this subject, in which they both would sometimes 1) Speculate or suggest things without dogmatically affirming his speculations, and/or 2) Say, "If we define the term in such and such a way, then..."

Thus we find right at the outset of Boyce's treatise saying that such and such "appear to be one of invariable antecedence." Certainly things are not always what they "appear" to be. He is simply giving "logical deductions," deductions which are necessary if one accepts the premises (prior definitions).

Now, it does seem plain that "regeneration" does in fact occur prior to the new birth and conversion IF we define the term to simply mean "prior preparations" in which God works to prepare the heart and soul for the reception of life and salvation through the word.

If we equate, for instance, the terms "conviction" for "regeneration," then yes, "regeneration" precedes "conversion." But, is simply being "convicted" of sin the same as "regeneration," biblically speaking? It may be, in some "theological circles," and using "theological jargon," but not if we stay close to how the Bible defines and uses terms.

Now, I think too, that Boyce, due to his belief in the "regeneration" and salvation of infants and idiots, believed that God worked "extraordinarily," in these cases, as did the writers of the 1689 Confession, as I have shown (and will deal with again in an upcoming chapter on "Infant Regeneration"), while it was his "ordinary" way, with all others, to use the means of gospel truth. This is no doubt the most predominant view of the Baptists throughout history. Few have preached the damnation of these classes of sinners. Most have allowed that God "regenerates" these in a manner without human means. Some have confessed that they have no answer from the Scriptures, others argue that it cannot be proven that the means of applying gospel truth, to infants and idiots, is not possible, as I have shown and will enlarge upon yet.

Some of the arguments that Boyce raises relative to infants and idiots and to God's "preparatory" workings in people before they are "born again" and "come to faith and repentance," I have already addressed in previous chapters of this book. Some I will yet address in future chapters. For instance, the case of Lydia and Cornelius will be taken up, together with other arguments and cases identified by Boyce, the Hardshells, and by those who believe in "Pre-Faith Regeneration."

Biblical regeneration is well defined in Scriptures. All the relevant New Testament passages, if examined together and honestly, will give a picture of the new birth that makes the application of gospel truth an integral part of it.

Chpt. 73 - The Great Commission VIII

Spurgeon said:

"He that winneth souls is wise."—Proverbs 11:30."

"I have said enough, brethren, I trust, to make some of you desire to occupy the position of soul-winners: but before I further address myself to my text, I should like to remind you that the honour does not belong to ministers only; they may take their full share of it, but it belongs to every one of you who have devoted yourselves to Christ: such honour have all the saints. Every man here, every woman here, every child here, whose heart is right with God, may be a soul-winner. There is no man placed by God's providence where he cannot do some good. There is not a glowworm under a hedge but gives a needed light; and there is not a labouring man, a suffering woman, a servant-girl, a chimney-sweeper, or a crossing-sweeper, but has some opportunities for serving God; and what I have said of soul-winners, belongs not to the learned doctor of divinity, or to the eloquent preacher alone, but to you all who are in Christ Jesus. You can each of you, if grace enables you, be thus wise, and win the happiness of turning souls to Christ through the Holy Spirit." (Soul-Winning Explained)

(http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/sw12.htm)

This is precisely what I showed to be the teaching of the bible in my last chapter. I looked at several key passages of scripture that affirmed it to be both a duty and a privilege for disciples to make other disciples, to witness to them of the saving gospel of Christ. In the first part of this chapter I want to enlarge upon that truth; and in doing so I could do no better than cite the above words of Spurgeon. He certainly did not limit the commands in the "Great Commission" to ministers only, as do the Hardshells.

Recall the question I asked in my first chapter in this series wherein I asked the Hardshells this question - "what command in the Great Commission is no longer binding on disciples or ministers?"

I listed all the commands given and asked which ones are no longer applicable. I have not gotten an answer or reply from any Hardshell, nor do I expect to get one. Do they believe the command to "go and make disciples" is no longer binding upon any? To any disciple? To any minister? To any church? Do they believe that the command to "announce the glad tidings" to be no longer a valid command? Do they believe that the command to "teach" and to "baptize" to be no longer applicable today?

I cited several key passages where the ordinary disciple was told to "go" and to "tell" others about the saving gospel. Each disciple has a commission to "go into the highways and byways" and with the gospel "compel all to come in." Each is commanded to "announce from the roof tops the gospel they have been taught."

One can easily see the difficult place that such questions put the Hardshell apologist! Will they come forward and tell us which of these commands the apostles did NOT teach ordinary disciples to "observe"? Will they come forward and tell us that an ordinary disciple CANNOT make another disciple?

Recall how I cited the words of Hardshell leading apologist, Elder Sonny Pyles, wherein he said in a sermon - "sheep make sheep." I showed that this statement contradicted his "anti-means" view of regeneration, wherein he says that God does not use Christians to regenerate and save other Christians. It also contradicts the idea that ONLY ordained ministers can fulfill the commission to "make disciples"!

I also showed clearly from I Corinthians chapter 14 that every male disciple was encouraged to take part in exhorting and teaching others in the church. Again, such instructions go contrary to the teachings of the Hardshells respecting who may fulfill and practice the commands of the "Great Commission."

Recall too from the first chapters in this series how I mentioned the fact that most of the Hardshell writings against the "Great Commission" restricted themselves to the accounts given by Matthew and Mark. Very few, if any, even take time to talk about the other accounts of similar commissions given by Christ to different sets of disciples during his forty days of post resurrection appearances.

Elder Hassell wrote:

"As I have tried to show, in the GOSPEL MESSENGER for Dec. 1892, the FINAL COMMISSION of Christ to His Disciples seems to have been given, in words somewhat different but having substantially the same meaning, on four different occasions after His resurrection from the dead---1 st , on the night of the first day, when He rose from the grave (Mark xvi. 14, Luke xxiv. 33-48, John xx. 19-23): 2d, at His appearance to seven of His Disciples by the sea of Galilee (John xxi. 15-17); 3d, at His appearance to eleven of His Disciples, and probably to five hundred brethren also, on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. xxviii 16-20, 1 Cor. xv. 6); and 4th , when He met the eleven apostles for the last time in Jerusalem, and led them out to Bethany, and ascended in their sight to heaven (Mark xvi. 15-19; Luke xxiv. 49-53, Acts i. 1-12). Just as the direction which Christ gave to Peter, in John xxi 15-17, to feed His sheep and lambs undoubtedly applied also to all the apostles, and is applied by Peter to all elders---1 Pet. V. 1-4, so I feel sure that (as plainly intimated in His words in Matt. xxviii, 20, 'Lo, I am with you always,' not to the end of each one of your personal earthly lives, but 'even unto the end of the world .') Christ in His words in the Final Commission, commands His true ministers, to the end of time, to go unto all the world, as they may be impressed and directed by His Spirit, and as the way may be opened to them by His providence, and to teach the nations, whether Jew or Gentile..." (THE GOSPEL MESSENGER, Devoted to the Primitive Baptist Cause. Sylvester Hassell, Editor -W. M. Mitchell, Associate Editor. Williamston, N.C., July 1896)

(http://knhurst.net/Hassell/Hassell_013.html)

What is important (for now) about this citation from Elder Hassell is the fact that he admits that the words of the "Great Commission" were often repeated by Christ during his forty days with the disciples after his resurrection. What Elder Hassell fails to mention, however, is the fact that these various resurrection appearances, wherein Christ repeated the commands given in the "Great Commission," were NOT made simply to apostles alone.

Many times the gospel accounts will say that Christ appeared to "the eleven," while at other times the text will simply say Christ appeared to the "disciples."

Let us then look at each of these appearances and see who was present when Christ spoke the commands concerning the evangelization of the world.

The first appearance of course was to Mary Magdalene and "the other women." Notice the account given by Matthew.

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." (28: 1-10 NIV)

There is so much in these verses that overthrow much of the nonsense of the Hardshells in their writings on the "Great Commission."

Let us look at each pertinent counterpoint one by one, from this first appearance of Christ to his "disciples." Such a look will show that these verses rebut the argumentation of the Hardshells on the "Great Commission," wherein they try very hard to show that the words of commissioning were only spoken to "apostles."

First, who will deny that these two Marys were "disciples"? And, that Christ appeared to them?

Second, who can deny that Christ gave these women orders and evangelical commands (either personally himself or through the angel) similar to the orders and commands that he would later give to all the other disciples? He told them to -

1) "Go quickly and tell his disciples (that) 'He has risen from the dead (is that not the gospel?) and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him', and

2) "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee (and) there they will see me."

This clearly shows that women may preach the gospel and have a commission to go, just like every disciple. This does not, of course, suggest that they can occupy the office of a pastor, or serve as an elder, or teach publicly in the general assembly. But, not all preaching is done only in the public assembly nor by formal ministers of the word. Certainly Hardshells will at least teach that women are obligated to teach their own children the gospel. But why limit it to that simply? Will the Hardshells tell us that women CANNOT "make a disciple" or "win a soul" to Christ and the gospel?

We also see how the women fulfilled the words of Christ, for the record says - "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples."

Should women not still run today to tell others of Jesus and his resurrection? If not, why not?

The verses above are also important for helping us discern who was PRESENT when Christ 1) Appeared later that same day to "the eleven" (and when he gave the words of the "Great Commission" as cited by Matthew), and 2) Appeared later in Galilee (to repeat the Commission in words similar to the other occasions).

The message that these woman were to communicate were to be delivered to "my brothers" and to "his disciples." Which Hardshell wants to come along and say that these two phrases refer ONLY to the eleven apostles? Who wants to come along and say that "my brothers" and "his disciples" only meant the eleven apostles?

"Then go quickly and tell his disciples (that he is) going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him."

"Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Notice that Christ clearly affirmed that these two Marys would also be present when Christ would later appear to his "brothers" and "disciples"!

This shows that it is an great error for bible commentators, Hardshell or otherwise, to affirm that when the text says that Christ (either later that evening on the first day of the week, or else one week later on the evening of the second Sunday after his resurrection), appeared to "the eleven," that this meant that no other disciples were present but those eleven!

The above passages prove that there were other disciples present when Christ is said to have appeared unto "the eleven"!

So, all the argumentation that the words were spoken solely to "the eleven," is false. The context of all these various Commissions show conclusively that other disciples were present when Christ is said to have "appreared to the eleven."

These two Marys were certainly present with "the eleven" later that evening! Why would we think that they were NOTpresent? Why would we not think that all or most of the disciples were there present with the eleven apostles (or twelve if we count Matthias)? Would not all the events of that first day cause them to stay together? Would also their fear of the Jews also keep them all together in that locked room? Why do the Hardshells create a scenario where all the disciples or brethren are outside of that locked room except for the eleven?

Further, if we read the account of the events of the first day of the week, we will discover that there were two other disciples, two who were NOT of the "eleven," and yet who were clearly present in the locked room on the evening of the first day, and at the time when Christ is said to appear in that room "unto the eleven." But, was it unto them alone? Surely not. Surely he also appeared to others in the room! These "two disciples" were the two who walked with Christ late in the afternoon on the first day of the week, while they walked on the road to Emmaus.

But, before I call attention to these "two Emmaus Road disciples," of "Cleopas" and another unnamed disciple, let me call attention to an afternoon event that took place after the initial appearing to the two Marys and yet before the appearing to the "two disciples" and then later to the "eleven" (and other disciples) in the bolted and barred room, the place where he uttered the words of the "Great Commission" as given by Matthew and Mark.

"When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened." (Luke 24: 9-12 NIV)

When Luke says that the two Marys and Joanna, with "the others with them," went and told "the eleven," did this exclude them telling the other disciples also? Certainly not. Jesus and the angel had told the women to go tell all the disciples and all the brethren!

Are we to imagine, as do the Hardshells, that all these women and other disciples went home early that night? Is it not more likely that they were all together that evening still discussing the events of the day?

"They (the "two disciples," one being named "Cleopas" - vs. 18) got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread." (verses 33-35)

When these "two disciples" walked into the room, Luke first records who was speaking and what was being said. Obviously many of the disciples, other than the apostles, were in that room hearing and giving testimony regarding the resurrection. Once the speaker finished, the "two disciples" then reported what had just happened to them. It was after the giving of their testimony and while all the disciples were pondering the significance of the day's events, that Christ suddenly appears within the room and shows all the disciples in the room his hands and feet, and eats with them. There is just no way that one can conclude that only ten or eleven apostles were in this room when Christ gave the words of the "Great Commission." Rather, it is obvious that many disciples were in the room, both women and men. So, when Christ says "go ye and make disciples" he is not addressing only the apostles, but the whole body, or the church.

The text clearly says - "There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together..." The "they" refers to the "two Emmanus disciples," and "the eleven" refers to the apostles (excluding Thomas but including Matthias), and "those with them" refers to the many other disciples who were present when Christ gave the "Great Commission." Why do the Hardshells, in violation of what the text clearly affirms, state that only ten or eleven apostles were in that room? They therefore cannot say that the "ye" in "go ye" refers only to the apostles. The "ye" refers to all the disciples in that room, including Cleopas, the two Marys, and Joanna, and the "other women," and many "other disciples."

"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles." (Acts 1: 21-26 NIV)

Certainly Joseph and Matthias were present when Christ gave his various commissions! Certainly others also. They were present with the apostles continuously during the forty days.

Consider also that Jesus said to this band - "I am with you always." Why do the Hardshells want to restrict this pronoun "you" to the apostles, or to the ordained ministry, only?

"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." (John 20: 10-21 KJV)

Again, this is taking place at the same time, on the evening of that first Sunday. John records the "Commission" a little differently, or else is stating simply one of many such "commission utterances" that he gave on that evening, and on subsequent days. Who does Christ send? Every disciple! "Peace unto you." Who is the designated by this pronoun? Are the disciples excluded?

Wrote John Gill:

And it may be observed from hence, that such persons who have a true, spiritual, and saving sight of Christ, of the glory of his person, and the fulness of his grace, cannot but be speaking of him to others, either in private, or in public, as Isaiah here did..." (John Gill on John 12: 41)

It is unbelievable that Elder Beebe would say that the "commission was addressed to none but such as were designated by our Lord, and can apply to none others without manifest violation of its proper sense or meaning"!

In closing this chapter I again ask this important question of every Hardshell Baptist.

"What duties, in the Great Commission, do you believe are now forbidden or wrong for any Christian to do?" And, "why are those duties now wrong?"

Valid Invitations?

In a blog discussion at the pyromaniacs blog web page the following questions were asked in a discussion of Calvinistic versus Arminian points of view.

1. "Can I walk up to someone and tell them that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life?"

2. "Can I make the statement that God wants to save them if they would just let him?"

3. "Can I tell my congregation that if they don't preach the gospel right, someone will end up in hell who wouldn't have gone there if they did just preach it right?"

4. "Can I say to just anyone that Christ died for them, so they owe Him their life?"

5. "Can I tell my congregation that if they're a true Christian that they are eternally secure / will persevere to the end based on God's grace? Or do I have to tell them that they're in danger of being lost unless they do/say/believe this or that?"

I will not give the views of the ones who attempted to answer these questions, but simply state my own views and answers to these questions. I thought about posting my answers there, but I have already left two comments there and I don't wish to crowd the conversation so I am posting my view of them here only.

To the first question I would say yes. I would know what I meant when I said that to anyone. And if further discussions were had I would help the new convert to know fully what it meant.

There is a sense in which God loves everybody. But, to say he loves all alike contradicts the bible. I would say "God is the lover of all men, especially of those who believe (or the elect)."

God has both a revealed and a hidden will in regard to every man. As regards his stated or revealed will, God says he "will have all to be saved." As regards his secret will of election, he will not "have all to be saved." God has a revealed plan for every man and that is for him to come to Christ for salvation. But, his secret plan for a man may be for him to be doomed, as Pharoah and Esau.

In reply to question # 2 I believe again that I can say that to a person and be correct because I know what I mean when I say it. But, that is not to say that the one to whom I say it will interpret it in the precise way that I intend. Still, the statement is not improper to say to a person, especially if it is used as a lead into a further discussion of what that means.

Again, God has a revealed or known will and this is that which we are to concern ourselves.

Only those who have tendencies towards (or are in fact) Hyper Calvinists greatly object to any invitation that ask the sinner to "allow" or "let" God save them. In fact, many of them do not favor at all any talk of anyone "allowing" or "letting" God do anything. But, what says the scriptures?

But, those who reject the gospel are described as those who have "disallowed" the stone, Christ. Obviously then, those who accept the gospel "allow" Christ.

Besides, "you would not" is the same thing essentially as "you did not allow me."

Concerning question # 3, the answer is yes and no. Yes, from our human viewpoint, and as far as the known and revealed will of God is concerned, but not so as respects the hidden, decretive, will of God.

God told Ezekiel that had he sent him to a foreign country, which he did not, instead of to Israel, that those foreignors "would have listened to him." (Ezekiel 3: 5,6) Jesus also said that had the "mighty works" that he was then doing among the Capernaum citizens, and others, "had been done in Tyre and Sodom," they "would have repented," or been saved. (Matthew 11: 20-24)

So, it is scriptural, in a sense, to say that some people would have, or could have, been saved, had these means been made available.

But, I say this with the caution that again this is all, in the end, all in accordance with the singular will and decree of God respecting all things.

The next question - "Can I say to just anyone that Christ died for them, so they owe Him their life?"

My answer to this is to say no. We cannot say this indiscriminately to every sinner. We can tell them Christ died for sinners, and that the only assurance anyone will have that they were included is to believe in Christ. We tell them that Christ died for every believing sinner. That is what I tell them in my "making disciples" of sinners and in fulfilling the Great Commission.

We should tell congregations of baptized believers that they need to daily examine themselves in regard to their profession and regularly make sure they are true believers and not hypocrites. We should tell them that all true believers will remain faithful to Christ.

Spurgeon & Limited Atonement

"Christ’s Limited Atonement" - Charles Spurgeon

"Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins.Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Savior, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of heaven."

http://www.glenwoodhills.org/article.asp?ID=402


PARTICULAR REDEMPTION
(LIMITED ATONEMENT)
NO. 181

"I begin this morning with the doctrine of Redemption. “He gave His life a ransom for many.” The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.

Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person. And they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life. Consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be worthless."


"We believe that as the result of this every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin and stand, washed in His blood, before the Father’s Throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are forever damned. We dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never would be saved—and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them."

"I have hurried over that, to come to the last point, which is the sweetest of all. Jesus Christ, we are told in our text, came into the world, “to give His life a ransom for many.” The greatness of Christ’s redemption may be measured by the EXTENT OF THE DESIGN OF IT. He gave His life “a ransom for many.” I must now return to that controverted point again. We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists—and we are not very much ashamed of that. We think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any uninspired man who has ever lived. We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.

Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it—we do not. The Arminians say Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if”—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will just go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did he? You must say, “No.” You are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace and perish.

Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death. We say, “No, my dear Sir, it is you that do it. We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement. You may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”

"Now, Beloved, when you hear anyone laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this—general atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch. It does not go across the stream. It only professes to go half way—it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream. I am told it is my duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scriptural warrant for it—“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

"Now, that looks like a very great argument, indeed, on the other side of the question. For instance, look here—“The whole world is gone after Him.” Did all the world go after Christ? “Then went all Judea and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? “You are of God, little children,” and “the whole world lies in the wicked one.” Does “the whole world” there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were “of God”? The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture. And it is very rarely that “all” means all persons taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor—and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

Leaving controversy, however, I will now answer a question. Tell me then, Sir, who did Christ die for? Will you answer me a question or two and I will tell you whether He died for you. Do you want a Savior? Do you feel that you need a Savior? Are you this morning conscious of sin? Has the Holy Spirit taught you that you are lost? Then Christ died for you and you will be saved. Are you this morning conscious that you have no hope in the world but Christ? Do you feel that you of yourself cannot offer an atonement that can satisfy God’s justice? Have you given up all confidence in yourselves? And can you say upon your bended knees “Lord, save, or I perish”? Christ died for you.

If you are saying this morning, “I am as good as I ought to be. I can get to Heaven by my own good works,” then, remember, the Scripture says of Jesus, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” So long as you are in that state I have no atonement to preach to you. But if this morning you feel guilty, wretched, conscious of your guilt and are ready to take Christ to be your only Savior, I can not only say to you that you may be saved, but what is better still, that you will be saved. When you are stripped of everything but hope in Christ.

When you are prepared to come empty handed and take Christ to be your All and to be yourself nothing at all—then you may look up to Christ and you may say, “You dear, You bleeding Lamb of God! Your griefs were endured for me. By Your stripes I am healed and by Your sufferings I am pardoned.” And then see what peace of mind you will have—for if Christ has died for you, you cannot be lost. God will not punish twice for one thing.

If God punished Christ for your sin, He will never punish you. “Payment, God’s justice cannot twice demand, first, at the bleeding Surety’s hand, and then again at mine.” We can today, if we believe in Christ, march to the very Throne of God, stand there, and if it is said, “Are you guilty?” We can say, “Yes, guilty.” But if the question is put, “What have you to say why you should not be punished for your guilt?” We can answer, “Great God, Your justice and Your love are both our guarantees that You will not punish us for sin. For did You not punish Christ for sin for us? How can You, then, be just—how can You be God at all, if You punish Christ the Substitute, and then punish man himself afterwards?” Your only question is, “Did Christ die for me?” And the only answer we can give is—“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ came into the world to save sinners.” Can you write your name down among the sinners? Not among the complimentary sinners, but among those that feel it, bemoan it, lament it, seek mercy on account of it? Are you a sinner? That felt, that known, that professed—you are now invited to believe that Jesus Christ died for you, because you are a sinner—and you are bidden to cast yourself upon this great immovable Rock and find eternal security in the Lord Jesus Christ."

http://www.spurgeongems.org/tulip-3.pdf

Argumentum A Silentio

"Argumentum a silentio" or "Argumentum ex silentio" is Latin for what is called in hermeneutics and logic an "argument from silence." Is this a valid argument at any time? Or, is it, as some affirm, always a fallacious argument?

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (Hebrews 1: 5 KJV)

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Verse 13)

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Hebrews 7: 3 KJV)

"Without" means "without any statement of scripture."

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Hebrews 7:14 KJV)

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." (Jeremiah 7: 31 KJV)

"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." (19: 5)

"Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?"" (II Samuel 7: 7 NIV)

All these verses make some kind of argument based upon silence. To deny that they do is to put one in an undesirable position. If they are not valid arguments from silence, what are they?

In what cases are arguments from silence valid and justified?

An argument from silence is valid and proper in contexts where one would not normally expect silence. Thus, in such cases, the silence becomes "striking," unexpected or unusual.

Look at all the scriptural examples above. Were they not all made because they were examples of silence IN CONTEXTS OR SITUATIONS WHERE ONE WOULD NOT NORMALLY EXPECT SILENCE?

When there is silence at times when it is least expected, then the silence says something!

The question becomes, what is meant by the unexpected silence? What can we infer from it?

There is no question but that there are examples of invalid arguments from silence, especially from those who are "patternists" or who go by what is called the "regulative principle." Those who promote these systems "go to seed" in their attempts to use the argument from silence. But, the abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself of no valid use!

"Arguments from silence are always weak at best."

"We should not rely upon arguments from silence."

"Arguments from silence are rarely conclusive."

These are some cautions that one will hear from logicians about the argument from silence. A sound logician will NOT however "throw the baby out with the bath water" and say that there is NEVER any validity to an argument from silence. What a logician will do is to give rules for how to discern when an argument from silence is valid and when it is not. The rule I gave above is the most critical. Is the silence "striking"?

In a debate I had in the early 90's with Pat Donahue of the "Church of Christ" on the subject of whether water baptism were essential to salvation, I made what I consider a valid argument from silence, and one that other Baptists have made against the "Campbellites" on the issue. It is ironic too because the "Campbellites" are generally overusers of the argument from silence, abusing it with their "patternism."

In that debate I showed that for everything necessary for eternal salvation, in the bible, we have both a positive and a negative statement. Is faith necessary? The scriptures give us both the negative and the positive.

Believe and be saved versus believe not and be damned. The same with repentance, confession of Christ, of the blood of Christ, etc. But, there is no negative for water baptism. There is no text that says "he that is not baptized shall be damned." I still believe that such is a valid argument from silence. Why? Because we would expect this negative! For there not to be such a negative is indeed "striking"!

A Dose of Spurgeon

"FAITH, WHAT IS IT?" By Charles Spurgeon

"WHAT IS THIS FAITH concerning which it is said, “By grace are ye saved, through faith ?” There are many descriptions of faith; but almost all the definitions I have met with have made me understand it less than I did before I saw them. The Negro said, when he read the chapter, that he would confound it; and it is very likely that he did so, though he meant to expound it. We may explain faith till nobody understands it. I hope I shall not be guilty of that fault. Faith is the simplest of all things, and perhaps because of its simplicity it is the more difficult to explain.

What is faith? It is made up of three things — knowledge, belief, and trust . Knowledge comes first. “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” I want to be informed of a fact before I can possibly believe it. “Faith cometh by hearing”; we must first hear, in order that we may know what is to be believed. “They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee.” A measure of knowledge is essential to faith; hence the importance of getting knowledge. “Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live.” Such was the word of the ancient prophet, and it is the word of the gospel still. Search the Scriptures and learn what the Holy Spirit teacheth concerning Christ and His salvation. Seek to know God: “For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” May the Holy Spirit give you the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord! Know the gospel: know what the good news is, how it talks of free forgiveness, and of change of heart, of adoption into the family of God, and of countless other blessings. Know especially Christ Jesus the Son of God, the Savior of men, united to us by His human nature, and yet one with God; and thus able to act as Mediator between God and man, able to lay His hand upon both, and to be the connecting link between the sinner and the Judge of all the earth. Endeavor to know more and more of Christ Jesus. Endeavor especially to know the doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ; for the point upon which saving faith mainly fixes itself is this — “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” Know that Jesus was “made a curse for us, as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Drink deep of the doctrine of the substitutionary work of Christ; for therein lies the sweetest possible comfort to the guilty sons of men, since the Lord “made him to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Faith begins with knowledge.

The mind goes on to believe that these things are true. The soul believes that God is, and that He hears the cries of sincere hearts; that the gospel is from God; that justification by faith is the grand truth which God hath revealed in these last days by His Spirit more clearly than before. Then the heart believes that Jesus is verily and in truth our God and Savior, the Redeemer of men, the Prophet, Priest, and King of His people. All this is accepted as sure truth, not to be called in question. I pray that you may at once come to this. Get firmly to believe that “the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s dear Son, cleanseth us from all sin”; that His sacrifice is complete and fully accepted of God on man’s behalf, so that he that believeth on Jesus is not condemned. Believe these truths as you believe any other statements; for the difference between common faith and saving faith lies mainly in the subjects upon which it is exercised. Believe the witness of God just as you believe the testimony of your own father or friend. “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.”

So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust . Commit yourself to the merciful God; rest your hope on the gracious gospel; trust your soul on the dying and living Savior; wash away your sins in the atoning blood; accept His perfect righteousness, and all is well. Trust is the lifeblood of faith; there is no saving faith without it. The Puritans were accustomed to explain faith by the word “recumbency.” It meant leaning upon a thing. Lean with all your weight upon Christ. It would be a better illustration still if I said, fall at full length, and lie on the Rock of Ages. Cast yourself upon Jesus; rest in Him; commit yourself to Him. That done, you have exercised saving faith. Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure. It is not an unpractical, dreamy thing; for faith trusts, and stakes its destiny upon the truth of revelation. That is one way of describing what faith is.

Let me try again. Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him .

The Scriptures speak of Jesus Christ as being God, God is human flesh; as being perfect in His character; as being made of a sin-offering on our behalf; as bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. The Scripture speaks of Him as having finished transgression, made an end of sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness. The sacred records further tell us that He “rose again from the dead,” that He “ever liveth to make intercession for us,” that He has gone up into the glory, and has taken possession of Heaven on the behalf of His people, and that He will shortly come again “to judge the world in righteousness, and his people with equity.” We are most firmly to believe that it is even so; for this is the testimony of God the Father when He said, “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him.” This also is testified by God the Holy Spirit; for the Spirit has borne witness to Christ, both in the inspired Word and by divers miracles, and by His working in the hearts of men. We are to believe this testimony to be true.

Faith also believes that Christ will do what He has promised; that since He has promised to cast out none that come to Him, it is certain that He will not cast us out if we come to Him. Faith believes that since Jesus said, “The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life, it must be true; and if we get this living Water from Christ it will abide in us , and will well up within us in streams of holy life.

Whatever Christ has promised to do He will do, and we must believe this, so as to look for pardon, justification, preservation, and eternal glory from His hands, according as He has promised them to believers in Him.

Then comes the next necessary step. Jesus is what He is said to be, Jesus will do what He says He will do; therefore we must each one trust Him , saying, “He will be to me what He says He is, and He will do to me what He has promised to do; I leave myself in the hands of Him who is appointed to save, that He may save me. I rest upon His promise that He will do even as He has said.” This is a saving faith, and he that hath it hath everlasting life. Whatever his dangers and difficulties, whatever his darkness and depression, whatever his infirmities and sins, he that believeth thus on Christ Jesus is not condemned, and shall never come into condemnation.

May that explanation be of some service! I trust it may be used by the Spirit of God to direct my reader into immediate peace. “Be not afraid; only believe.” Trust, and be at rest.

My fear is lest the reader should rest content with understanding what is to be done, and yet never do it. Better the poorest real faith actually at work, than the best ideal of it left in the region of speculation. The great matter is to believe on the Lord Jesus at once . Never mind distinctions and definitions. A hungry man eats though he does not understand the composition of his food, the anatomy of his mouth, or the process of digestion: he lives because he eats. Another far more clever person understands thoroughly the science of nutrition; but if he does not eat he will die, with all his knowledge. There are, no doubt, many at this hour in Hell who understood the doctrine of faith, but did not believe. On the other hand, not one who has trusted in the Lord Jesus has ever been cast out, though he may never have been able intelligently to define his faith.

Oh dear reader, receive the Lord Jesus into your soul, and you shall live forever! “HE THAT BELIEVETH IN HIM HATH EVERLASTING LIFE.”



From "All Of Grace"

http://www.godrules.net/library/spurgeon/272spurgeon9.htm

Observation: Was Spurgeon promoting what some call "easy believism" by telling the sinner "only believe"?


"REGENERATION AND THE HOLY SPIRIT"

"YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN.” This word of our Lord Jesus has appeared to flame in the way of many, like the drawn sword of the cherub at the gate of Paradise. They have despaired, because this change is beyond their utmost effort. The new birth is from above, and therefore it is not in the creature’s power. Now, it is far from my mind to deny, or ever to conceal, a truth in order to create a false comfort. I freely admit that the new birth is supernatural, and that it cannot be wrought by the sinner’s own self. It would be a poor help to my reader if I were wicked enough to try to cheer him by persuading him to reject or forget what is unquestionably true.

But is it not remarkable that the very chapter in which our Lord makes this sweeping declaration also contains the most explicit statement as to salvation by faith? Read the third chapter of John’s Gospel and do not dwell alone upon its earlier sentences. It is true that the third verse says:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

But, then, the fourteenth and fifteenth verses speak:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The eighteenth verse repeats the same doctrine in the broadest terms:

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It is clear to every reader that these two statements must agree, since they came from the same lips, and are recorded on the same inspired page. Why should we make a difficulty where there can be none? If one statement assures us of the necessity to salvation of a something, which only God can give, and if another assures us that the Lord will save us upon our believing in Jesus, then we may safely conclude that the Lord will give to those who believe all that is declared to be necessary to salvation. The Lord does, in fact, produce the new birth in all who believe in Jesus; and their believing is the surest evidence that they are born again.

We trust in Jesus for what we cannot do ourselves: if it were in our own power, what need of looking to Him? It is ours to believe, it is the Lord’s to create us anew. He will not believe for us, neither are we to do regenerating work for Him. It is enough for us to obey the gracious command; it is for the Lord to work the new birth in us. He who could go so far as to die on the cross for us, can and will give us all things that are needful for our eternal safety. “But a saving change of heart is the work of the Holy Spirit .” This also is most true, and let it be far from us to question it, or to forget it. But the work of the Holy Spirit is secret and mysterious, and it can only be perceived by its results. There are mysteries about our natural birth into which it would be an unhallowed curiosity to pry: still more is this the case with the sacred operations of the Spirit of God. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” This much, however, we do know — the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit cannot be a reason for refusing to believe in Jesus to whom that same Spirit beareth witness.

If a man were bidden to sow a field, he could not excuse his neglect by saying that it would be useless to sow unless God caused the seed to grow. He would not be justified in neglecting tillage because the secret energy of God alone can create a harvest. No one is hindered in the ordinary pursuits of life by the fact that unless the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it. It is certain that no man who believes in Jesus will ever find that the Holy Spirit refuses to work in him: in fact, his believing is the proof that the Spirit is already at work in his heart.

God works in providence, but men do not therefore sit still. They could not move without the divine power giving them life and strength, and yet they proceed upon their way without question; the power being bestowed from day to day by Him in whose hand their breath is, and whose are all their ways. So is it in grace. We repent and believe, though we could do neither if the Lord did not enable us. We forsake sin and trust in Jesus, and then we perceive that the Lord has wrought in us to will and to do of His own good pleasure. It is idle to pretend that there is any real difficulty in the matter.

Some truths which it is hard to explain in words are simple enough in actual experience. There is no discrepancy between the truth that the sinner believes, and that his faith is wrought in him by the Holy Spirit.

Only folly can lead men to puzzle themselves about plain matters while their souls are in danger. No man would refuse to enter a lifeboat because he did not know the specific gravity of bodies; neither would a starving man decline to eat till he understood the whole process of nutrition. If you, my reader, will not believe till you can understand all mysteries, you will never be saved at all; and if you allow self-invented difficulties to keep you from accepting pardon through your Lord and Savior, you will perish in a condemnation which will be richly deserved. Do not commit spiritual suicide through a passion for discussing metaphysical subtleties." (Ibid)