In this third posting in this series we will begin an examination of those passages where there is mention made of the faith of God or of Christ.
Passage #1 - Romans 3:3
"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" (KJV)
My Thesis
Let me begin with my thesis relative to this passage. I contend that "the faith of God" denotes the Christian faith or system of revealed truth, or the Gospel. Negatively, the faith of God in this passage cannot be proven to be a subjective faith which God has and exercises, either towards creatures, or among the three persons of the Trinity towards each other. Nothing in the wording, in Greek or English, or in the context, demands that it be interpreted as a subjective Genitive.
I will show that it is either universally the case, or at least almost so, that when the noun "faith" is used with the definite article, "the faith" stands for "the gospel" or for "the Christian faith." Interpreters agree that this is the case at least in some instances in the New Testament. One such instance is found in Jude 1:3.
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
Every serious interpreter or commentator interprets “the faith" in this verse objectively, signifying the body of Christian doctrine or the gospel system. They do so not because the Greek demands that it signify or mean such, but because the syntax and context clearly demonstrates that interpretation.
I contend that "the faith" in Jude 1:3 signifies much the same thing as it does in Romans 3:3. Besides the difference of context between the two passages, there is also this difference: the Jude passage has no qualifying adjective or Genitive noun, being simply "the faith," but the Romans passage has such.
This does not mean, however, that in such passages where there are no adjectives or Genitive nouns written in the text, that there are not any implied. Bible commentators and teachers of the word realize this, and thus in their expositions (in giving "the sense" of the words in question) often suggest or otherwise supply them. If someone would have asked Jude what was the specific faith that he had in mind, he would have added adjectives and Genitive nouns in explanation.
Jude, in saying "the faith," is obviously talking about the creed of Christians, the object of subjective belief. The presence of the definite article limits "faith" to a specific kind, as does the Genitive noun. The context also limits it. "The faith" is described as that which Christians are to contend for apologetically. It is what had been "delivered unto the saints."
Further, since "the faith" (or divine revelation) came from God and his Son, through inspired writers, and was "delivered to the saints," it was presented as an external object calling for belief, but when it was believed it then also became subjective and internalized. One may now be said to have faith or belief in "the faith" When reference is to "belief" of the faith (or truth, or gospel, etc.) then "belief" nearly always is without the definite article (though often with a personal pronoun that acts as an adjective, i.e., "your faith," "her faith," etc.), because the focus is on the quality of subjective belief.
One could substitute word equivalents for "the faith" in these and such texts as "the truth," "the way," "the doctrine," "the gospel," etc. Though these are not exactly synonyms, yet they are often used interchangeably by the New Testament writers when referring essentially to the same system or body of divinity that God has given to men. Some of those inspired writers favored one expression or another when referring to the fundamental teachings of believers.
There is of course some slight differences between "the faith" of Jude 1:3 and that of Romans 3:3, as will be elaborated upon as this passage is closely analyzed. But for now I observe that "the faith" of Jude 1:3 included more inspired revelation than what was included in Romans 3:3 in the mind of the apostle Paul when he spoke of "the faith of God." In either case "the faith" means the inspired body of divinity given to men in the holy Scriptures.
It is important in beginning our analysis of this verse to examine the various translations of this verse. For the sake of brevity I will give only a representative sampling and only offer short comments after some of them.
New International Version
"What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness?"
This rendering at least is consistent in translating "pistis" as "faithfulness" and "a-pistis" as "unfaithfulness." However, as I hope to show, "faith" does not denote faithfulness, although it may have that connotation is some instances.
English Standard Version
"What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?"
New American Standard Bible
"What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?"
Why make pistis in a-pistis "belief" but make pistis "faithfulness" seeing they mean the same thing? The alpha "a" in front of pistis does not automatically mean that "no faith" or "unbelief" denotes "unfaithfulness." Again, if we substitute the word "unfaithfulness" in places where "unbelief" is used, it will create the same kinds of problems. Likewise, if we substitute "faithfulness" in places where "belief" or "faith" are used, we create theological problems. This I intend to show.
Pistis is nearly always, or can be, translated as either "belief" or "faith" and only rarely as "faithfulness," and this is always, or nearly always, both unnecessary and incorrect. Likewise A-Pistis (no faith, or without faith, or lacking faith) is nearly always translated as either "unbelief" or "lack of faith." Thus, a more consistent rendering, if we make a-pistis to mean "unbelief," would be to translate "pistis" not as "faithfulness" but as "belief." In other words, we would translate as follows: "shall their unbelief make the belief of God..." If we insist on making "belief" to connote "faithfulness" then, to be consistent, we should make "unbelief" to connote "unfaithfulness." Some of the translations we are looking at are consistent in this regard.
International Standard Version
"What if some of the Jews were unfaithful? Their unfaithfulness cannot cancel God's faithfulness, can it?"
Though I don't agree that pistis means faithfulness and a-pistis means unfaithfulness, yet this translation is at least consistent in how pistis is interpreted in both cases, both with the alpha and that without.
American Standard Version
"For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?"
This translation's translation of a-pistis as "want of faith" is good and correct, but to be consistent pistis should have been translated as "the faith." The comparison is between the absence of one and same thing in one case and of the existence of it in another case.
Young's Literal Translation
"For what, if certain were faithless? shall their faithlessness the faithfulness of god make useless?"
Does "Faith" mean "Faithfulness"?
It is wrong that so many interpreters feel forced to translate "faith" as "faithfulness" in this passage. In doing so they are not consistent, for they rarely translate "faith" as "faithfulness" in other places in Romans and in the New Testament. If they did that in those other places it would show how the definition that they give to "faith" in Romans 3: 3 and elsewhere is unique or rare. This puts the burden of proof on those who translate pistis as faithfulness in this passage to prove the necessity for doing so. After all, as stated, the normal word for pistis is either faith or belief. Further, if we took "faith" to mean "faithfulness" in the remainder of the new testament, then we are forced into untenable consequences in soteriology.
The making of πίστις to mean "faithfulness" in Romans 3: 3 is an "interpretation" based supposedly upon the context, and not based upon a literal "translation." Many Bible students are not able to discern when a translator is strictly translating versus when he is interpreting. But, more on this later.
Further, those commentators and interpreters who interpret "the faith of God" to mean "the faithfulness of God" are forced to change "their unbelief" (or "no faith") to "their unfaithfulness." But, again, the normal word used to translate pistis is either faith or belief, so those translators who diverge from the norm should give solid reasons for doing so. But, if the normal use of pistis poses no difficulties (supplying the word "faith" in this passage), then why make it mean "faithfulness" here? What is it in the context of Romans 3:3 that demands that we change the normal way pistis is translated and give it the abnormal meaning of "faithfulness"?
Failure to distinguish between "faith" and "faithfulness" (or between belief and obedience), creates confusion and contradiction. Faith comes before the Christian life of faith, before learning obedience and fidelity, before faithfulness. Initial faith in Christ precedes faithfulness as a cause precedes an effect.
It is interesting that there is not in the New Testament of the KJV the word "faithfulness." We do find the adjective or participle "faithful" to describe people, such as "the faithful," or "the faithful servant," etc.
In Romans 3:3 the "unbelief" (ἀπιστία) of humans is set in direct opposition to the "faith" or "belief" (πίστις) of God.
Notice further how "unbelief" is qualified by the pronoun "their" but "belief" does not have a personal pronoun to modify it but does have the definite article "the," which acts as a modifier. It is "their no belief" contrasted with "the belief of God." Both the pronoun and the article function as adjectives as does the genitive "of God."
The phrase "the belief of God" is like other such phrases in scripture, such as "the love of God," "the law of God," "the word of God," etc. In each of these examples there is no essential difference in meaning when one renders "the law of God" as "God's law," and "the love of God" as "God's love," and "the word of God" as "God's word." And so, in our text, there is no difference in meaning to say "the faith of God" versus "God's faith."
Of course, there is some difference. For instance, in "the love of God" both "love" and "God" are nouns, the latter being in Greek in the Genitive case and acts as a modifier to limit the main noun "love." On the other hand, in "God's love" only "love" is the noun and "God" is the adjective. Also, as we shall show more fully forthwith, saying "the faith of God" rather than "God's faith" does put emphasis on the secondary genitive noun. It is as though we were emphasizing a word by way of capitals or italics, saying in contrast to other kinds of faith, "the faith of GOD." In the other form of expression, "God's faith," the emphasis is on the "faith."
Further, as we shall later see, the lack of the definitive article in "their no faith" and the presence of it in "the faith of God" is also significant. Many times in the Greek New Testament the definite article is used with possessive pronouns, such as saying "the faith that is yours." Many translations like the KJV omit the definite article in such cases and simply say "your faith" and it thus requires looking at each instance to see if the article is there in the Greek along with the pronoun.
Also, as we shall see, there are certain kinds of Genitive nouns that can be reversed. In other words, in such cases, "the love of God" can be reversed and say "God of the love." In the passage before us, the phrase "the faith of God" would then be "the God of faith." But, more on that later.
In the next posting I will continue with further proof of my thesis relative to this important passage.
Jan 5, 2016
Jan 4, 2016
God''s Faith? (part II)
In the first posting in this series, it was shown that "faith" was not something that God has, and that faith implies limited knowledge, being contrasted with sight or full vision, and therefore incompatible with the nature and perfections of God. This fact should guide us in our interpretation of passages which might seem to teach that God or Christ believe, hope, trust, etc.
According to sound rules of hermeneutics it is forbidden to take propositions or presuppositions to the Bible and then to use them as rules for how to interpret the text of Scripture. However, it is quite proper to apply clear biblical propositions from one portion of Scripture towards interpreting other portions. This is simply using Scripture usage to help to determine meaning, or it is interpreting Scripture, as much as possible, by Scripture. It is comparing Scripture with Scripture. If many Scriptures show clearly that God is omniscient, for instance, then a passage which seems to teach otherwise must not in fact teach it, and so it must be looked at more closely to discern the reason for the seeming discrepancies. There are no contradictions in Scripture, only seeming ones, or ones in the mind of the interpreter. If it has been proven that God does not have faith, then obviously the scripture passages which supposedly teach that he does have and exercise faith must not really teach such.
Those who use those passages (that seem to imply that God has faith) as actual proof texts and arguments have the burden of proof on them to show 1) that the texts in question unquestionably teach it, and 2) how such is consistent with the nature and perfections of God, and 3) how such is consistent with the definition of the word "faith." Further, seeing that the view that God and Christ (in his divinity) had faith is a new and minority view, the burden of proof is further weighted on them to prove their proposition.
It is of course proper for one to say that he has faith or trust in or towards God, but it is not proper for one to say that God has faith in him, or places trust in him. God does not say to people - "I trust in you," or "I believe you," or "I give credit to you," or "I am persuaded that you," or "you are worthy of my trust and confidence," etc.
To say that God believes and trusts, or that he has confidence, etc., is making God into a man like us, yet God is unlike us. He is unique. That is one of the reasons why he is God and God alone. In fact, God being "holy" in his essential nature implies this uniqueness. God is truly unlike any other. Well might God say to such interpreters who say he has faith - "thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself." (Psalm 50:21)
In some respects the debate on this point is connected with the debate over whether God has feelings and emotions like we have. The Westminster and London Confessions of Faith affirm that "God is without body, parts, or passions." In Process Theology, however, this article of faith is denied, affirming rather that God has emotions just as have humans. Of course, some of these same advocates of God having faith and passions as have his creatures also deny that God has absolute foreknowledge of all future events, at least those that result from libertarian free will.
In the body of this series we will take a general look at the New Testament uses of "faith" ('pistis' or one of its variants), the noun primarily, both that which is arthrous and that which is anarthrous, but primarily the latter. This will be crucial for our study concerning "faith" (without the definite article) and "the faith" (with the definite article). We will also look at those passages where a second noun with a genitive ending is attached to "the faith," or main noun, and where the English preposition "of" is often used to designate such. Thus we have such phrases as "the faith of God," "the faith of Christ," "the faith of the saints," etc.
Many interpreters and translators argue over whether a particular passage with a genitive ending noun is either to be interpreted as objective genitive or subjective genitive. All realize that there is no way of knowing by the Greek alone, for both the genitive and subjective are the same in Greek with respect to such genitive nouns. Thus, the translator must also become an interpreter or exegete and base his translation in large part, not upon the Greek language itself, but upon context, syntax, and sound rules of exegesis. Such factors will determine the translator's choice of a word or words, in the English, in this case, whether to use the prepositions "of" or "in," etc.
It has been often said that the greatest difficulty for Bible interpreters and students of the word is not learning the meaning of the big words in Scripture, but with the little prepositions, conjunctions, particles of speech, idioms, etc. And with translators, it is also often difficult to find out the best words and arrangement of words in the English language. Though translators generally do try to be as "literal" as possible, even keeping words in the same order as the Greek or Hebrew, sometimes this is not practical for the average reader in English. Sometimes word order must be sacrificed in order to make the text readable and understandable in English. Especially is this true with scripture idioms. In these cases translators use what is called "equivalence" rather than the "dynamic" or literal word for word method.
Here are some things one should know relative to the Genitive case in Greek. We will talk more about the Genitive case as we go along in our investigation of the pertinent passages involved in this debate. Some of the things this writer says has already been said by me but is added here for authority. Other things are said that are additional thoughts about the Genitive case than what has already been mentioned and will be important to remember as we begin our look at the various passages involved in this discussion.
In "The Genitive Case" (SEE HERE), from an excellent Internet article on the subject, the writer says the following under the sub heading "General Considerations." (emphasis mine)
"The genitive case is used in such a variety of ways in Greek, Wallace says, "The genitive case is one of the most crucial elements of Greek syntax to master." It is commonly used just like the possessive form of the English noun (i.e., with the apostrophe, singular, "the saint's faith," or plural, "the saints' faith"). But, more particularly, most genitive functions are related to our English use of the preposition "of" (e.g., "the faith of the saints"). Then some functions indicate something more like the uses of prepositions like "from," "than," "within which," and so on."
The writer also gives us these pertinent words:
"Yet, even though Greek genitives are used in only a few different constructions, and can often be translated in a few simple ways, the meanings of those few constructions, and of those ways of being translated are far more varied and deep than any other case. And our purpose is to find the meaning, not just to produce an idiomatic translation. The wide variety of meanings and implications which can be conveyed through the Greek genitive is simply amazing."
And,
"Although we can identify with many of the wide variety of uses in the GNT, genitives do cause numerous disputes regarding their translation. Context and logic, with an eye given over to harmonizing each text with the consistent overall teachings of God's Word, are absolutely critical to the interpretations of many genitive forms in the GNT. Before you interpret a genitive, a good understanding of doctrine, of how the author was thinking, is often required. For biblical Greek, this requires much prayer to Thee Author over time, to be taught by His Holy Spirit."
The same writer also adds this information, saying:
"There are 19,633 genitive forms in the GNT (7,681 nouns; 4,986 pronouns; 5,028 articles; 743 participles; and 1,195 adjectives), making up 25% of all declined words. Nominatives make up 31% of all declined forms, accusatives 29%, datives 15%, and vocatives less than 1%."
Under the sub heading "The Semantics of Genitives in the Exegesis of Scripture," the author writes:
"Wallace quotes Moule as saying the genitive is "immensely versatile" and "hard-worked" as far as Greek cases go. The meaning or semantics of genitives can be difficult at times, due to their wide variety of possible functions. But a good understanding is important and rewarding for one seeking to correctly interpret the meaning of Scripture. Wallace states: "Learning the genitive uses well pays big dividends. It has a great deal of exegetical significance, far more so than any of the other cases, because it is capable of a wide variety of interpretations."
"Context always plays a large part in the interpretation of syntax, but is far more critical to the interpretation of genitives than it is to the interpretation of any other case forms. Genitives have well over a hundred different and distinctly identifiable functions. (Of course, Wallace, and this document, will divide those functions into about thirty five main categories, but some of them could each be further divided into five or six subcategories.) In order to determine which category a genitive falls into, and thus its meaning, one must almost always make a judgment call based on an examination of the context, since the syntax of the construction with the genitive usually does not indicate much of anything. Yet, judging by context is often a subjective matter, requiring careful observation, logic, much background knowledge, and other factors. So interpreting by context can cause many disputes."
"The genitive form "covers a multitude of semantic relationships" and is frequently used to produce compressed "kernels" of thought which, for an English translation, require many more words to describe clearly.
The Greek construction of these "kernels" is basically: HEAD NOUN + GENITIVE NOUN (abbreviated as N-Ng, which stands for a Noun [of any case] followed by a Noun of the genitive case). Whenever we see this construction, we need to "unpack" it."
This is what we have in those disputed passages where God or Christ is said to have faith, i.e., "the faith of God" (Rom. 3:3) and "the faith of Christ" or "the faith of the Son of God," (Galatians and elsewhere) etc. "The faith" is the HEAD NOUN and "God," "Christ" and "Son of God" (this latter is a double Genitive) are in the place of the GENITIVE NOUN. In our look at the pertinent passages in this discussion, we will have need to "unpack" them.
Our author continued:
"Grammatical constructions involving other cases often give structural clues which help in their interpretation -- such as the use of articles with certain words, the position of the words in relation to each other, and so on. But, although the genitive can be used for more functions than any other case, a construction with a genitive is the same (N-Ng) for most functions. Thus, its interpretation depends more on context than on the structure of its grammatical construction. The lexical definition of the genitive form, whether it is articular, its number (singular or plural), and a few other considerations will affect its interpretation. But the context is usually most critical. Outside of the context, many possible meanings of a N-Ng construction can be antithetical, completely opposite or very sharply contrasted with each other, especially with verbal head nouns. So a great deal of thought, with a thorough examination of context, is often required to "unpack" its true meaning."
"Basically, there are two general roles which a genitive form can serve in Greek. One is the standard role as a true genitive, which "defines, describes, qualifies, restricts, limits" (Wallace). In grammars which assume an eight-case system, this is the only role they recognize, since they define the other major role as a different case, even though it uses the same genitive form. However, a genitive form can also serve in the role of an ablative, which implies the idea of separation, source or comparison, and its meaning is normally conveyed by our English preposition "from." Regarding both these roles, there are some common implications."
"A genitive indicates limitation according to kind or quality: When a genitive modifies a noun, it generally limits it to a particular "kind.""
"A genitive is usually adjectival, in a way often implying movement from it: The genitive is the only oblique case which generally modifies a noun, and, thus, is generally adjectival. In addition, it implies movement from the genitive to the noun it modifies. That is, whatever limitation the genitive is expressing, that limitation is frequently transferred from the genitive to the head noun it modifies. In possession, "a gadget of the man," the "man" owns and holds the "gadget," where owning and holding are actions from the genitive. In an ablative role, "righteousness from God," God is the source causing the righteousness, where causing is an action from the genitive. So there is implication of movement or action from a genitive. We frequently see this implication when genitives are used as objects of prepositions too. For example, the phrase ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ("out of God") implies movement from God, towards the word being modified by this phrase."
Under the sub heading "Grammatical Role 1: Adjectival Genitives" our author says:
"This is the most fundamental role of a genitive, it describes. Whether as a true genitive or as an ablative, the genitive describes the head noun. Thus it qualifies or modifies the head noun, indicating limitations as to the scope of that noun's class of persons or things. In this way, the genitive functions much like an adjective. However, the genitive is more emphatic or stronger than an adjective, and a genitive also implies movement or action from it to the head noun."
These particular statements will become important to remember in our coming exegetical look at the various passages on this topic.
Our author continues:
"Using a genitive noun is often far stronger and more emphatic than using an adjective because a noun is stronger and more emphatic than an adjective. This is mostly because a noun generally represents something real, whole or tangible. But an adjective merely represents a quality or quantity, which is only a part of the existence or essence of the noun it modifies."
In the next posting we will begin our look at Romans 3: 3 where the apostle speaks of "the faith of God."
According to sound rules of hermeneutics it is forbidden to take propositions or presuppositions to the Bible and then to use them as rules for how to interpret the text of Scripture. However, it is quite proper to apply clear biblical propositions from one portion of Scripture towards interpreting other portions. This is simply using Scripture usage to help to determine meaning, or it is interpreting Scripture, as much as possible, by Scripture. It is comparing Scripture with Scripture. If many Scriptures show clearly that God is omniscient, for instance, then a passage which seems to teach otherwise must not in fact teach it, and so it must be looked at more closely to discern the reason for the seeming discrepancies. There are no contradictions in Scripture, only seeming ones, or ones in the mind of the interpreter. If it has been proven that God does not have faith, then obviously the scripture passages which supposedly teach that he does have and exercise faith must not really teach such.
Those who use those passages (that seem to imply that God has faith) as actual proof texts and arguments have the burden of proof on them to show 1) that the texts in question unquestionably teach it, and 2) how such is consistent with the nature and perfections of God, and 3) how such is consistent with the definition of the word "faith." Further, seeing that the view that God and Christ (in his divinity) had faith is a new and minority view, the burden of proof is further weighted on them to prove their proposition.
It is of course proper for one to say that he has faith or trust in or towards God, but it is not proper for one to say that God has faith in him, or places trust in him. God does not say to people - "I trust in you," or "I believe you," or "I give credit to you," or "I am persuaded that you," or "you are worthy of my trust and confidence," etc.
To say that God believes and trusts, or that he has confidence, etc., is making God into a man like us, yet God is unlike us. He is unique. That is one of the reasons why he is God and God alone. In fact, God being "holy" in his essential nature implies this uniqueness. God is truly unlike any other. Well might God say to such interpreters who say he has faith - "thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself." (Psalm 50:21)
In some respects the debate on this point is connected with the debate over whether God has feelings and emotions like we have. The Westminster and London Confessions of Faith affirm that "God is without body, parts, or passions." In Process Theology, however, this article of faith is denied, affirming rather that God has emotions just as have humans. Of course, some of these same advocates of God having faith and passions as have his creatures also deny that God has absolute foreknowledge of all future events, at least those that result from libertarian free will.
In the body of this series we will take a general look at the New Testament uses of "faith" ('pistis' or one of its variants), the noun primarily, both that which is arthrous and that which is anarthrous, but primarily the latter. This will be crucial for our study concerning "faith" (without the definite article) and "the faith" (with the definite article). We will also look at those passages where a second noun with a genitive ending is attached to "the faith," or main noun, and where the English preposition "of" is often used to designate such. Thus we have such phrases as "the faith of God," "the faith of Christ," "the faith of the saints," etc.
Many interpreters and translators argue over whether a particular passage with a genitive ending noun is either to be interpreted as objective genitive or subjective genitive. All realize that there is no way of knowing by the Greek alone, for both the genitive and subjective are the same in Greek with respect to such genitive nouns. Thus, the translator must also become an interpreter or exegete and base his translation in large part, not upon the Greek language itself, but upon context, syntax, and sound rules of exegesis. Such factors will determine the translator's choice of a word or words, in the English, in this case, whether to use the prepositions "of" or "in," etc.
It has been often said that the greatest difficulty for Bible interpreters and students of the word is not learning the meaning of the big words in Scripture, but with the little prepositions, conjunctions, particles of speech, idioms, etc. And with translators, it is also often difficult to find out the best words and arrangement of words in the English language. Though translators generally do try to be as "literal" as possible, even keeping words in the same order as the Greek or Hebrew, sometimes this is not practical for the average reader in English. Sometimes word order must be sacrificed in order to make the text readable and understandable in English. Especially is this true with scripture idioms. In these cases translators use what is called "equivalence" rather than the "dynamic" or literal word for word method.
Here are some things one should know relative to the Genitive case in Greek. We will talk more about the Genitive case as we go along in our investigation of the pertinent passages involved in this debate. Some of the things this writer says has already been said by me but is added here for authority. Other things are said that are additional thoughts about the Genitive case than what has already been mentioned and will be important to remember as we begin our look at the various passages involved in this discussion.
In "The Genitive Case" (SEE HERE), from an excellent Internet article on the subject, the writer says the following under the sub heading "General Considerations." (emphasis mine)
"The genitive case is used in such a variety of ways in Greek, Wallace says, "The genitive case is one of the most crucial elements of Greek syntax to master." It is commonly used just like the possessive form of the English noun (i.e., with the apostrophe, singular, "the saint's faith," or plural, "the saints' faith"). But, more particularly, most genitive functions are related to our English use of the preposition "of" (e.g., "the faith of the saints"). Then some functions indicate something more like the uses of prepositions like "from," "than," "within which," and so on."
The writer also gives us these pertinent words:
"Yet, even though Greek genitives are used in only a few different constructions, and can often be translated in a few simple ways, the meanings of those few constructions, and of those ways of being translated are far more varied and deep than any other case. And our purpose is to find the meaning, not just to produce an idiomatic translation. The wide variety of meanings and implications which can be conveyed through the Greek genitive is simply amazing."
And,
"Although we can identify with many of the wide variety of uses in the GNT, genitives do cause numerous disputes regarding their translation. Context and logic, with an eye given over to harmonizing each text with the consistent overall teachings of God's Word, are absolutely critical to the interpretations of many genitive forms in the GNT. Before you interpret a genitive, a good understanding of doctrine, of how the author was thinking, is often required. For biblical Greek, this requires much prayer to Thee Author over time, to be taught by His Holy Spirit."
The same writer also adds this information, saying:
"There are 19,633 genitive forms in the GNT (7,681 nouns; 4,986 pronouns; 5,028 articles; 743 participles; and 1,195 adjectives), making up 25% of all declined words. Nominatives make up 31% of all declined forms, accusatives 29%, datives 15%, and vocatives less than 1%."
Under the sub heading "The Semantics of Genitives in the Exegesis of Scripture," the author writes:
"Wallace quotes Moule as saying the genitive is "immensely versatile" and "hard-worked" as far as Greek cases go. The meaning or semantics of genitives can be difficult at times, due to their wide variety of possible functions. But a good understanding is important and rewarding for one seeking to correctly interpret the meaning of Scripture. Wallace states: "Learning the genitive uses well pays big dividends. It has a great deal of exegetical significance, far more so than any of the other cases, because it is capable of a wide variety of interpretations."
"Context always plays a large part in the interpretation of syntax, but is far more critical to the interpretation of genitives than it is to the interpretation of any other case forms. Genitives have well over a hundred different and distinctly identifiable functions. (Of course, Wallace, and this document, will divide those functions into about thirty five main categories, but some of them could each be further divided into five or six subcategories.) In order to determine which category a genitive falls into, and thus its meaning, one must almost always make a judgment call based on an examination of the context, since the syntax of the construction with the genitive usually does not indicate much of anything. Yet, judging by context is often a subjective matter, requiring careful observation, logic, much background knowledge, and other factors. So interpreting by context can cause many disputes."
"The genitive form "covers a multitude of semantic relationships" and is frequently used to produce compressed "kernels" of thought which, for an English translation, require many more words to describe clearly.
The Greek construction of these "kernels" is basically: HEAD NOUN + GENITIVE NOUN (abbreviated as N-Ng, which stands for a Noun [of any case] followed by a Noun of the genitive case). Whenever we see this construction, we need to "unpack" it."
This is what we have in those disputed passages where God or Christ is said to have faith, i.e., "the faith of God" (Rom. 3:3) and "the faith of Christ" or "the faith of the Son of God," (Galatians and elsewhere) etc. "The faith" is the HEAD NOUN and "God," "Christ" and "Son of God" (this latter is a double Genitive) are in the place of the GENITIVE NOUN. In our look at the pertinent passages in this discussion, we will have need to "unpack" them.
Our author continued:
"Grammatical constructions involving other cases often give structural clues which help in their interpretation -- such as the use of articles with certain words, the position of the words in relation to each other, and so on. But, although the genitive can be used for more functions than any other case, a construction with a genitive is the same (N-Ng) for most functions. Thus, its interpretation depends more on context than on the structure of its grammatical construction. The lexical definition of the genitive form, whether it is articular, its number (singular or plural), and a few other considerations will affect its interpretation. But the context is usually most critical. Outside of the context, many possible meanings of a N-Ng construction can be antithetical, completely opposite or very sharply contrasted with each other, especially with verbal head nouns. So a great deal of thought, with a thorough examination of context, is often required to "unpack" its true meaning."
"Basically, there are two general roles which a genitive form can serve in Greek. One is the standard role as a true genitive, which "defines, describes, qualifies, restricts, limits" (Wallace). In grammars which assume an eight-case system, this is the only role they recognize, since they define the other major role as a different case, even though it uses the same genitive form. However, a genitive form can also serve in the role of an ablative, which implies the idea of separation, source or comparison, and its meaning is normally conveyed by our English preposition "from." Regarding both these roles, there are some common implications."
"A genitive indicates limitation according to kind or quality: When a genitive modifies a noun, it generally limits it to a particular "kind.""
"A genitive is usually adjectival, in a way often implying movement from it: The genitive is the only oblique case which generally modifies a noun, and, thus, is generally adjectival. In addition, it implies movement from the genitive to the noun it modifies. That is, whatever limitation the genitive is expressing, that limitation is frequently transferred from the genitive to the head noun it modifies. In possession, "a gadget of the man," the "man" owns and holds the "gadget," where owning and holding are actions from the genitive. In an ablative role, "righteousness from God," God is the source causing the righteousness, where causing is an action from the genitive. So there is implication of movement or action from a genitive. We frequently see this implication when genitives are used as objects of prepositions too. For example, the phrase ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ("out of God") implies movement from God, towards the word being modified by this phrase."
Under the sub heading "Grammatical Role 1: Adjectival Genitives" our author says:
"This is the most fundamental role of a genitive, it describes. Whether as a true genitive or as an ablative, the genitive describes the head noun. Thus it qualifies or modifies the head noun, indicating limitations as to the scope of that noun's class of persons or things. In this way, the genitive functions much like an adjective. However, the genitive is more emphatic or stronger than an adjective, and a genitive also implies movement or action from it to the head noun."
These particular statements will become important to remember in our coming exegetical look at the various passages on this topic.
Our author continues:
"Using a genitive noun is often far stronger and more emphatic than using an adjective because a noun is stronger and more emphatic than an adjective. This is mostly because a noun generally represents something real, whole or tangible. But an adjective merely represents a quality or quantity, which is only a part of the existence or essence of the noun it modifies."
In the next posting we will begin our look at Romans 3: 3 where the apostle speaks of "the faith of God."
Jan 3, 2016
God's Faith? (part I)
God does not have faith. I don't care what Kenneth Hagan, Kenneth Copeland, or the Hardshells say. They are wrong to affirm that God has faith, that he trusts and believes, and they, and others like them, sustain their proposition upon a false interpretation of a few passages of scripture. But, they do not teach that God has faith, for God cannot be said to have faith, any more than he be said to have hope or fear, for the simple reason that such things are inconsistent with the nature and perfections of God.
Why is it not possible for God or the deity to have faith? Because faith implies imperfect knowledge and is why faith is always contrasted with "sight."
Does God walk by faith or by sight?
"Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (II Cor. 5: 6-8)
We walk by faith now in this life, while we "are at home in the body" and "absent from the Lord," but we will not walk by faith when we are "present with the Lord" in glorified bodies, but will be walking by sight. That fact in itself destroys the idea that God has faith. If the saints have faith now because they do not have sight (believing in what is now invisible), then surely they will not have faith when faith is turned to sight. Now, if perfect sight and knowledge eliminates faith, then surely this eliminates God from having faith.
No where in the Bible can it be proven that God has "faith." God never says "I believe," or "I trust," or "I give credence to," "I am persuaded," etc. Rather, he says "I know."
Faith, by its very nature, is a belief in what is now not visible to the rational senses. It is a "seeing" but it is a seeing of what is invisible. It is not an actual "seeing" of the invisible with the physical eyes but rather in the mind's eye by Spirit inspired imagery. So Peter said - "whom having not seen ye love." (I Peter 1:8) And of Moses the writer of Hebrews says that he by faith "endured as seeing him who is invisible" (Heb. 11:27). The same writer said this in verse one.
“Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
This verse is similar to these words of Paul about hope.
"For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"
Just as "hope that is seen is not hope" so "faith that is seen is not faith," don't you see?
Wrote Dr, Gill in his commentary on the II Corinthians 5 passage cited:
"...it is opposed to "sight": by which is meant, not sensible communion, but the celestial vision: there is something of sight in faith; that is a seeing of the Son; and it is an evidence of things not seen, of the invisible glories of the other world; faith looks at, and has a glimpse of things not seen, which are eternal; but it is but seeing as through a glass darkly; it is not that full sight, face to face, which will be had hereafter, when faith is turned into vision."
In commenting upon I Cor. 13: 13 he wrote similarly, saying:
"...in the other world, faith will be changed for vision, and hope for enjoyment, but love will abide, and be in its full perfection and constant exercise, to all eternity."
Notice this passage:
“While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (II Cor. 4:18)
The "eternal things" are unseen precisely because they are not yet within our grasp. The only way they can be seen now is by the eye of faith, but this view is not the full vision, but is all in mental images till we behold the reality with our physical eyes.
There is an old poetic line that sums it all up.
"Faith may be lost in sight; Hope ends in fruition; but Charity extends beyond the grave, through the boundless realms of eternity."
Also, in the song "Jesus I My Cross Have Taken" we sing these words:
"Haste thee on from grace to glory, Armed by faith, and winged by prayer. Heaven’s eternal days before thee, God’s own hand shall guide us there. Soon shall close thy earthly mission, Soon shall pass thy pilgrim days, Hope shall change to glad fruition, Faith to sight, and prayer to praise."
Wrote J.C. Philpot:
"But hope has its END as well as faith; and what end is this? all that we need and all that we desire– fruition, or enjoyment; for as faith will be swallowed up in sight, so hope will be lost in fruition." (The Work of Faith, Patience of Hope, and Labor of Love. Preached at North Street Chapel, Stamford, on, March 1, 1862 - SEE HERE)
Thus, my first argument against God having faith is due to the fact that God sees and knows all and that there is nothing that is invisible to him so as to require him to have faith. He does not have limited knowledge. In the next posting I will look at some of the passages that Hardshells use to try to prove that God has faith and that it is this "faith" that is the instrument of salvation.
Needless to say this is a novel interpretation among the Hardshells and modern Bible interpreters. It seems that it is the Hardshells alone however who are using this new idea of being saved by the faith of God or the faith of Christ as an argument to prove that a person's faith in God or Christ is not necessary for salvation.
Why is it not possible for God or the deity to have faith? Because faith implies imperfect knowledge and is why faith is always contrasted with "sight."
Does God walk by faith or by sight?
"Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (II Cor. 5: 6-8)
We walk by faith now in this life, while we "are at home in the body" and "absent from the Lord," but we will not walk by faith when we are "present with the Lord" in glorified bodies, but will be walking by sight. That fact in itself destroys the idea that God has faith. If the saints have faith now because they do not have sight (believing in what is now invisible), then surely they will not have faith when faith is turned to sight. Now, if perfect sight and knowledge eliminates faith, then surely this eliminates God from having faith.
No where in the Bible can it be proven that God has "faith." God never says "I believe," or "I trust," or "I give credence to," "I am persuaded," etc. Rather, he says "I know."
Faith, by its very nature, is a belief in what is now not visible to the rational senses. It is a "seeing" but it is a seeing of what is invisible. It is not an actual "seeing" of the invisible with the physical eyes but rather in the mind's eye by Spirit inspired imagery. So Peter said - "whom having not seen ye love." (I Peter 1:8) And of Moses the writer of Hebrews says that he by faith "endured as seeing him who is invisible" (Heb. 11:27). The same writer said this in verse one.
“Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
This verse is similar to these words of Paul about hope.
"For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"
Just as "hope that is seen is not hope" so "faith that is seen is not faith," don't you see?
Wrote Dr, Gill in his commentary on the II Corinthians 5 passage cited:
"...it is opposed to "sight": by which is meant, not sensible communion, but the celestial vision: there is something of sight in faith; that is a seeing of the Son; and it is an evidence of things not seen, of the invisible glories of the other world; faith looks at, and has a glimpse of things not seen, which are eternal; but it is but seeing as through a glass darkly; it is not that full sight, face to face, which will be had hereafter, when faith is turned into vision."
In commenting upon I Cor. 13: 13 he wrote similarly, saying:
"...in the other world, faith will be changed for vision, and hope for enjoyment, but love will abide, and be in its full perfection and constant exercise, to all eternity."
Notice this passage:
“While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (II Cor. 4:18)
The "eternal things" are unseen precisely because they are not yet within our grasp. The only way they can be seen now is by the eye of faith, but this view is not the full vision, but is all in mental images till we behold the reality with our physical eyes.
There is an old poetic line that sums it all up.
"Faith may be lost in sight; Hope ends in fruition; but Charity extends beyond the grave, through the boundless realms of eternity."
Also, in the song "Jesus I My Cross Have Taken" we sing these words:
"Haste thee on from grace to glory, Armed by faith, and winged by prayer. Heaven’s eternal days before thee, God’s own hand shall guide us there. Soon shall close thy earthly mission, Soon shall pass thy pilgrim days, Hope shall change to glad fruition, Faith to sight, and prayer to praise."
Wrote J.C. Philpot:
"But hope has its END as well as faith; and what end is this? all that we need and all that we desire– fruition, or enjoyment; for as faith will be swallowed up in sight, so hope will be lost in fruition." (The Work of Faith, Patience of Hope, and Labor of Love. Preached at North Street Chapel, Stamford, on, March 1, 1862 - SEE HERE)
Thus, my first argument against God having faith is due to the fact that God sees and knows all and that there is nothing that is invisible to him so as to require him to have faith. He does not have limited knowledge. In the next posting I will look at some of the passages that Hardshells use to try to prove that God has faith and that it is this "faith" that is the instrument of salvation.
Needless to say this is a novel interpretation among the Hardshells and modern Bible interpreters. It seems that it is the Hardshells alone however who are using this new idea of being saved by the faith of God or the faith of Christ as an argument to prove that a person's faith in God or Christ is not necessary for salvation.
Dec 12, 2015
Distress of Nations
Political Omens
"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them with fear, and for looking after those things which are coming to pass on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." (Luke 21:25, 26)
These are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God, towards the latter end of his life and ministry. He was on the Mount of Olives, itself significant in old testament prophecy, and his whole sermon show him fully in his character as "that Prophet."
It would be at the Mount of Olives that Christ would later assemble with his chosen disciples, after his resurrection, and would ascend into heaven in their sight, with the promise given by angels that Christ would return just as he has left. He left bodily and visibly and will return in like manner. This is the hope and expectation of every Christian. In the old testament it was said, in connection with the Mount of Olives and the coming of Messiah:
"Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee." (Zechariah 14: 3-5)
If one interprets this prophecy literally, which seems to be the only way to interpret it, then this prophecy cannot be said to have been fulfilled at the time of Christ's ascension, for the topographical changes to the land of Israel did not then occur. It is for this reason that many Christian expositors believe that the complete fulfillment of the primitive prophecy of Zechariah will be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ, who will descend not only in the manner he ascended, but even descend to the very place he ascended.
Though some of the things that Christ foretold in the Olivet sermon have been and are being fulfilled, many yet await fulfillment at the time of Christ's second coming to earth to his glorious apocalypse.
In the words of the text, Christ said that there would be "signs" in two geographical areas, one is in the heavens, in the place occupied by sun, moon, and stars, and the other "upon the earth." It appears, from the text, that these signs occur together. The signs that are taking place in the heavens, or above the earth, are taking place at the same time as the signs that are taking place upon the earth.
The question to consider is what is it that is causing "distress" and giving "perplexity" to the nations towards the time of the end? What is the reason for the great "fear" that will characterize the world community in the time of the end?
It appears that the signs in the heavens occur first, and help to cause the nations of the world to be in distress, fear, and perplexity. This is evident from the fact that it is specifically said that men's hearts will fail them for fear as a result of "looking after those things that are coming on the earth," things which result from the "power of the heaven" being shaken. The shaking of the heavens, and the signs in the heavens among the sun, moon, and stars, begets the distress on earth.
Yet, it seems to me that we are seeing something of an initial fulfillment of this in the growing social, economic, and political problems that are increasing in severity to a degree never experienced in previous generations (at least since the flood). We have all kinds of things that today worry the masses. We have global terrorism, the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, of laser weapons and numerous advanced technologies that pose a threat to man's very existence.
People sense that something is coming. They are building bomb shelters, storing food and weapons, etc. Further, the things producing fear are not the result of irrational paranoia, because the things are very real indeed.
Men are realizing that they cannot save themselves, that they need a savior. They put their faith in science but science is showing itself to be a sorry savior. The world is destined to accept Antichrist rather than Christ. God help us as Christians to witness to this distressed and perplexed world by pointing them to the one and only true savior of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ, the king of kings, and to his promised return.
"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them with fear, and for looking after those things which are coming to pass on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." (Luke 21:25, 26)
These are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God, towards the latter end of his life and ministry. He was on the Mount of Olives, itself significant in old testament prophecy, and his whole sermon show him fully in his character as "that Prophet."
It would be at the Mount of Olives that Christ would later assemble with his chosen disciples, after his resurrection, and would ascend into heaven in their sight, with the promise given by angels that Christ would return just as he has left. He left bodily and visibly and will return in like manner. This is the hope and expectation of every Christian. In the old testament it was said, in connection with the Mount of Olives and the coming of Messiah:
"Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee." (Zechariah 14: 3-5)
If one interprets this prophecy literally, which seems to be the only way to interpret it, then this prophecy cannot be said to have been fulfilled at the time of Christ's ascension, for the topographical changes to the land of Israel did not then occur. It is for this reason that many Christian expositors believe that the complete fulfillment of the primitive prophecy of Zechariah will be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ, who will descend not only in the manner he ascended, but even descend to the very place he ascended.
Though some of the things that Christ foretold in the Olivet sermon have been and are being fulfilled, many yet await fulfillment at the time of Christ's second coming to earth to his glorious apocalypse.
In the words of the text, Christ said that there would be "signs" in two geographical areas, one is in the heavens, in the place occupied by sun, moon, and stars, and the other "upon the earth." It appears, from the text, that these signs occur together. The signs that are taking place in the heavens, or above the earth, are taking place at the same time as the signs that are taking place upon the earth.
The question to consider is what is it that is causing "distress" and giving "perplexity" to the nations towards the time of the end? What is the reason for the great "fear" that will characterize the world community in the time of the end?
It appears that the signs in the heavens occur first, and help to cause the nations of the world to be in distress, fear, and perplexity. This is evident from the fact that it is specifically said that men's hearts will fail them for fear as a result of "looking after those things that are coming on the earth," things which result from the "power of the heaven" being shaken. The shaking of the heavens, and the signs in the heavens among the sun, moon, and stars, begets the distress on earth.
Yet, it seems to me that we are seeing something of an initial fulfillment of this in the growing social, economic, and political problems that are increasing in severity to a degree never experienced in previous generations (at least since the flood). We have all kinds of things that today worry the masses. We have global terrorism, the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, of laser weapons and numerous advanced technologies that pose a threat to man's very existence.
People sense that something is coming. They are building bomb shelters, storing food and weapons, etc. Further, the things producing fear are not the result of irrational paranoia, because the things are very real indeed.
Men are realizing that they cannot save themselves, that they need a savior. They put their faith in science but science is showing itself to be a sorry savior. The world is destined to accept Antichrist rather than Christ. God help us as Christians to witness to this distressed and perplexed world by pointing them to the one and only true savior of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ, the king of kings, and to his promised return.
The Coming Babylonian Megalopolis
The future Babylon will be a major center of world culture, music, art, commerce, and trade according to Revelation chapter 18. What is going on now in the land of Shinar, in the Euphrates river area, politically speaking, is all preparation for the rebuilding of Babylon. Listen to the presidential candidates and what they are saying should be done with Iraq, with plans for its future, and you might see that we are nearer to the time of the Apocalypse than most realize.
Dec 6, 2015
Hardshell Evolution in Doctrine
In my many years of research into the history of that group that today calls itself "Primitive Baptists," I have discovered many things about the evolution in doctrine that occurred within this denomination. Today's Hardshells generally do not know that there has been any change in doctrine over the past 181 years since the Black Rock Address (1832). They unknowingly believe that what they believe today is exactly what the first Hardshells believed in the early 19th century.
When I was a young Hardshell preacher, and just beginning to be schooled by the veteran Hardshells about their history, I was told many things that I later found out to be false. This is also true concerning the numerous Hardshell histories that I had begun to read.
The first falsehood I was told was that the division among the Baptists that occurred in 1832, as a primary result of the "Black Rock Address," was because the Baptists at that time began to believe things that were new, things that Particular Baptists had not believed before, and that this forced those who supposedly adhered to the old views to declare non-fellowship with them, which created two groups, styled "Missionary" and "Primitive" Baptists.
Another falsehood that I was told is that all the Baptists were united in their beliefs, and that they all were anti missionary and all believed in Spirit alone or immediate regeneration or regeneration apart from faith via the Gospel.
Another falsehood that I was told was that missionary organizations, theological schools, and special religious education for the young, were all new things among the Old Baptists.
Another falsehood that I was told was that the division, or separation of the Hardshells from the general Baptist family, was doctrinal, over the issue of the means question (in regeneration) and over the extent of the atonement (over "Fullerism").
A few years ago I was shocked to find out that one of the more popular views among the first Hardshells of the early 19th century was the view that saw the new birth as being exactly like natural/physical birth, and that as physical birth has stages, so does spiritual birth. There is first the implantation of the seed, the origin of the child, then there was the time of growth in the womb, and then finally the birth of the child from the womb. This view I have learned is still the teaching of the old Regular Baptists and some Presbyterians, and was also the teaching of A.W. Pink. In chapter 52 under the title "Beebe-Trott Model" and chapter 57 under the title "The Original Paradigm" I documented how this view was an accepted view among many of the first generation Hardshells.
This view sees "regeneration" as corresponding to the implantation of the seed, the time in growth in the womb as corresponding to the time when a regenerated soul is under conviction of sin, yet in darkness, without Gospel hope, without conversion to Christ. Finally, there was the "birth," corresponding to the time when the soul is "delivered" from the womb of conviction and darkness and brought forth into the light of the Gospel, when the soul believes in Christ and is converted.
This view was promoted by elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, mainly in only one of the four Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, in the "Signs of the Times." A few writers in the other three Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s also promoted this view. Elder William Conrad of Kentucky held this view and he was a close associate of Elder Wilson Thompson who also seems to have held this view. Thompson was a close associate of Beebe and Trott and frequent writer to the Signs of the Times periodical. Further, in chapter 50 under the title "From Law to Grace?" I showed how this seemed to be the view of Thompson. This view of things was put forth well into the 1850s.
This view of regeneration and the new birth led some Hardshells of the 1830s to reason regeneration was immediate, apart from faith via the Gospel, while the new birth was mediate, through faith via the Gospel. Knowing this about the first Hardshells is important. Just because a writer of the 1830-1860 period may have affirmed that regeneration was immediate, does not mean that he denied that the new birth was likewise immediate, nor does it mean that he denied that one had to be converted as well as regenerated to be finally saved in heaven. In fact, as I have shown in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," the oldest articles of faith of the Hardshell churches all say that they believe that all the elect will be "regenerated AND converted."
In the other periodicals, especially that of "The Primitive Baptist," however, this view does not appear to be generally promoted, the writers in this periodical generally making no distinction between regeneration and conversion, and affirming that regeneration was accomplished through the means of the Gospel. Elder John Watson, who helped put out and write for the "Old Baptist Banner" seemed to believe as did the writers in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical. Further, the writers in "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" also seemed to identify conversion with regeneration.
These historical discoveries led me to do further research into exactly how and when the Hardshell denomination took on its present doctrinal stand, when it comepletely denied that regeneration or the new birth was accomplished by the Gospel, and denied that faith in Christ was necessary to be finally saved in heaven.
Around 1890 there was a watershed event dealing with this question of means in regeneration and the new birth. The Mt. Carmel Old School or Regular Baptist church (Luray, Virginia) divided over this question along with the issue of having bible classes and Sunday Schools. This division occurred at the time of Elder John Clark's death who lived in the area and who was editor (since its beginning in 1852 or 1854) of the Hardshell periodical "Zion's Advocate." He lived in Luray. He was a major leader among the Hardshells, and outspoken opponent of Beebe and Trott, who he opposed for holding to Sabellianism, Arianism, and to the eternal children doctrine of Daniel Parker, as well as some of their other errors.
Elder Clark's writings are generally not available on the Internet today as are the old issues of the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s. Hopefully they will be reviewed by me sometime in the future. However, it is clear to me that Elder Clark believed that regeneration was accomplished by the means of the Gospel. He was a frequent writer to the "Primitive Baptist" and never wrote to that periodical to disagree with their oft advocating the means view. Further, I have presented evidence that Elder Clark affirmed the Gospel means position in the very first issue of "Zion's Advocate." However, I have seen some Hardshell web pages where Clark is cited as supposedly affirming that means were not used in regeneration. Now, something is amiss here. Did Clark contradict himself? Or, did he believe in the three stage model of the new birth, as Beebe, Trott, Conrad, and Thompson, and therefore advocated that initital regeneration was apart from means, but that the birth, or complete regeneration, was by means? Or, as I suspect, the citations that these Hardshells give wherein Clark supposedly denied the use of means have the infamous Hardshell ellipsis, of which I have written about in a previous post (see here). I therefore suspect that the omissions in these citations are intended to cover up the real views of Clark on this issue.
It must be remembered that Elder Burnam, who was advocating the means view, and who was one of the leaders involved in the split in the Mt. Carmel church, and one of the persons testifying in the Mt. Carmel church trial that happened many years later concerning this division, was an associate editor with Clark on "Zion's Advocate." It seems unlikely that Clark would have him on his editorial staff if he disagreed with Burnam regarding means. Further, Burnam testified in the trial that he had proof from writings in the Advocate that showed that Clark believed in means. This was denied, however, by those on the other side, men like Elders Dalton and Waters. Dalton became editor of the Advocate when Clark died. Further, Elder Clark was a close friend to elders Watson and Osbourn who clearly taught regeneration by the means of the Gospel.
In the trial Elder Burnam said:
"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."
Is Burnam saying that the no means view of regeneration/new birth was not promoted at all prior to the last quarter of the 19th century? Surely this change in doctrine did not occur in a vacuum or instantly, but probably had its advocates prior to this time. I was anxious to find out, to discover the causes of this evolution in doctrine.
There is little doubt in my mind that it was in the time period mentioned by Burnam when the anti means faction became the majority view and this led to a formal division between those who still held to the old view, the means view, and those who grabbed hold of the new anti means view.
It is clear that it was the overwhelming majority view of the Hardshells up to the time period mentioned by Burnam that all the elect would be converted, via evangelical faith. It is true that some Hardshells prior to this time were advocating that initial regeneration was immediate, without means, but nevertheless held that conversion was necessary for final salvation and was accomphished by evangelical faith. I suspect that it was the teaching that initial regeneration was immediate that led later Hardshells to deny a distinction between regeneration and conversion and to believe that conversion was not necessary to be born again or finally saved.
It must be remembered that the debate over mission organizations, Sunday Schools, theological schools, tract organizations, protracted meetings, etc., all came down to the question of the condition of the heathen who have no knowledge of the Gospel. How can they be saved if they do not hear the Gospel? This question was a problem for the first generation of Hardshells to deal with as they tried to give a defense for their opposition to mission operations. At first, they did not generally argue that they could be saved whether they ever heard the Gospel, but simply attacked the methods being advocated to bring the Gospel to the heathen. But, after a period of time, their arguments wore thin, and it became apparent to many of them that they would have to come up with a better apology in their fight against missionary operations. This they later decided to do by denying that anyone had to have evangelical faith, or to hear the Gospel, to be regeneration, born again, or finally saved.
In middle Tennessee Dr. R.B.C. Howell put out a paper called "The Baptist" (which was later taken over by Dr. J.R. Graves and who later called it "The Tennessee Baptist"). In this periodical Howell fought against Daniel Parker and his followers, who were strong in his area, and against his neighbor, John Watson. (Note: Watson also battled against the Parkerite faction of the newly formed Hardshell denomination) In Howell's paper, in the 1830s, Howell mentions how the Parkerite Hardshells were responding to the case of the heathen, and of their need to take the Gospel to them. Howell says that they were saying that they would be saved because they were ignorant of the Gospel, and since they never heard it, it was not necessary for them to hear it. If one heard the Gospel, reasoned the Parkerites, then of course they would have to believe it to be finally saved. Howell argued that such reasoning amounts to the heathen being saved by their ignorance, would force one to believe in wholesale heathen salvation, and that it would be better not to preach the Gospel to them at all.
Thus, it seems that the first ones to assert salvation apart from hearing the Gospel were the small Parkerite faction. This is substantiated also by elders John Watson and Hosea Preslar. Watson indicates that this novel view began with some among the followers of Parker, and Preslar, in his book "Thoughts on Divine Providence," as I have cited before, and who moved to middle Tennessee from North Carolina, in the time in question, also intimates that the anti means view as a peculiar view of the Parkerites.
When I was a young Hardshell preacher, and just beginning to be schooled by the veteran Hardshells about their history, I was told many things that I later found out to be false. This is also true concerning the numerous Hardshell histories that I had begun to read.
The first falsehood I was told was that the division among the Baptists that occurred in 1832, as a primary result of the "Black Rock Address," was because the Baptists at that time began to believe things that were new, things that Particular Baptists had not believed before, and that this forced those who supposedly adhered to the old views to declare non-fellowship with them, which created two groups, styled "Missionary" and "Primitive" Baptists.
Another falsehood that I was told is that all the Baptists were united in their beliefs, and that they all were anti missionary and all believed in Spirit alone or immediate regeneration or regeneration apart from faith via the Gospel.
Another falsehood that I was told was that missionary organizations, theological schools, and special religious education for the young, were all new things among the Old Baptists.
Another falsehood that I was told was that the division, or separation of the Hardshells from the general Baptist family, was doctrinal, over the issue of the means question (in regeneration) and over the extent of the atonement (over "Fullerism").
A few years ago I was shocked to find out that one of the more popular views among the first Hardshells of the early 19th century was the view that saw the new birth as being exactly like natural/physical birth, and that as physical birth has stages, so does spiritual birth. There is first the implantation of the seed, the origin of the child, then there was the time of growth in the womb, and then finally the birth of the child from the womb. This view I have learned is still the teaching of the old Regular Baptists and some Presbyterians, and was also the teaching of A.W. Pink. In chapter 52 under the title "Beebe-Trott Model" and chapter 57 under the title "The Original Paradigm" I documented how this view was an accepted view among many of the first generation Hardshells.
This view sees "regeneration" as corresponding to the implantation of the seed, the time in growth in the womb as corresponding to the time when a regenerated soul is under conviction of sin, yet in darkness, without Gospel hope, without conversion to Christ. Finally, there was the "birth," corresponding to the time when the soul is "delivered" from the womb of conviction and darkness and brought forth into the light of the Gospel, when the soul believes in Christ and is converted.
This view was promoted by elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, mainly in only one of the four Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, in the "Signs of the Times." A few writers in the other three Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s also promoted this view. Elder William Conrad of Kentucky held this view and he was a close associate of Elder Wilson Thompson who also seems to have held this view. Thompson was a close associate of Beebe and Trott and frequent writer to the Signs of the Times periodical. Further, in chapter 50 under the title "From Law to Grace?" I showed how this seemed to be the view of Thompson. This view of things was put forth well into the 1850s.
This view of regeneration and the new birth led some Hardshells of the 1830s to reason regeneration was immediate, apart from faith via the Gospel, while the new birth was mediate, through faith via the Gospel. Knowing this about the first Hardshells is important. Just because a writer of the 1830-1860 period may have affirmed that regeneration was immediate, does not mean that he denied that the new birth was likewise immediate, nor does it mean that he denied that one had to be converted as well as regenerated to be finally saved in heaven. In fact, as I have shown in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," the oldest articles of faith of the Hardshell churches all say that they believe that all the elect will be "regenerated AND converted."
In the other periodicals, especially that of "The Primitive Baptist," however, this view does not appear to be generally promoted, the writers in this periodical generally making no distinction between regeneration and conversion, and affirming that regeneration was accomplished through the means of the Gospel. Elder John Watson, who helped put out and write for the "Old Baptist Banner" seemed to believe as did the writers in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical. Further, the writers in "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" also seemed to identify conversion with regeneration.
These historical discoveries led me to do further research into exactly how and when the Hardshell denomination took on its present doctrinal stand, when it comepletely denied that regeneration or the new birth was accomplished by the Gospel, and denied that faith in Christ was necessary to be finally saved in heaven.
Around 1890 there was a watershed event dealing with this question of means in regeneration and the new birth. The Mt. Carmel Old School or Regular Baptist church (Luray, Virginia) divided over this question along with the issue of having bible classes and Sunday Schools. This division occurred at the time of Elder John Clark's death who lived in the area and who was editor (since its beginning in 1852 or 1854) of the Hardshell periodical "Zion's Advocate." He lived in Luray. He was a major leader among the Hardshells, and outspoken opponent of Beebe and Trott, who he opposed for holding to Sabellianism, Arianism, and to the eternal children doctrine of Daniel Parker, as well as some of their other errors.
Elder Clark's writings are generally not available on the Internet today as are the old issues of the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s. Hopefully they will be reviewed by me sometime in the future. However, it is clear to me that Elder Clark believed that regeneration was accomplished by the means of the Gospel. He was a frequent writer to the "Primitive Baptist" and never wrote to that periodical to disagree with their oft advocating the means view. Further, I have presented evidence that Elder Clark affirmed the Gospel means position in the very first issue of "Zion's Advocate." However, I have seen some Hardshell web pages where Clark is cited as supposedly affirming that means were not used in regeneration. Now, something is amiss here. Did Clark contradict himself? Or, did he believe in the three stage model of the new birth, as Beebe, Trott, Conrad, and Thompson, and therefore advocated that initital regeneration was apart from means, but that the birth, or complete regeneration, was by means? Or, as I suspect, the citations that these Hardshells give wherein Clark supposedly denied the use of means have the infamous Hardshell ellipsis, of which I have written about in a previous post (see here). I therefore suspect that the omissions in these citations are intended to cover up the real views of Clark on this issue.
It must be remembered that Elder Burnam, who was advocating the means view, and who was one of the leaders involved in the split in the Mt. Carmel church, and one of the persons testifying in the Mt. Carmel church trial that happened many years later concerning this division, was an associate editor with Clark on "Zion's Advocate." It seems unlikely that Clark would have him on his editorial staff if he disagreed with Burnam regarding means. Further, Burnam testified in the trial that he had proof from writings in the Advocate that showed that Clark believed in means. This was denied, however, by those on the other side, men like Elders Dalton and Waters. Dalton became editor of the Advocate when Clark died. Further, Elder Clark was a close friend to elders Watson and Osbourn who clearly taught regeneration by the means of the Gospel.
In the trial Elder Burnam said:
"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."
Is Burnam saying that the no means view of regeneration/new birth was not promoted at all prior to the last quarter of the 19th century? Surely this change in doctrine did not occur in a vacuum or instantly, but probably had its advocates prior to this time. I was anxious to find out, to discover the causes of this evolution in doctrine.
There is little doubt in my mind that it was in the time period mentioned by Burnam when the anti means faction became the majority view and this led to a formal division between those who still held to the old view, the means view, and those who grabbed hold of the new anti means view.
It is clear that it was the overwhelming majority view of the Hardshells up to the time period mentioned by Burnam that all the elect would be converted, via evangelical faith. It is true that some Hardshells prior to this time were advocating that initial regeneration was immediate, without means, but nevertheless held that conversion was necessary for final salvation and was accomphished by evangelical faith. I suspect that it was the teaching that initial regeneration was immediate that led later Hardshells to deny a distinction between regeneration and conversion and to believe that conversion was not necessary to be born again or finally saved.
It must be remembered that the debate over mission organizations, Sunday Schools, theological schools, tract organizations, protracted meetings, etc., all came down to the question of the condition of the heathen who have no knowledge of the Gospel. How can they be saved if they do not hear the Gospel? This question was a problem for the first generation of Hardshells to deal with as they tried to give a defense for their opposition to mission operations. At first, they did not generally argue that they could be saved whether they ever heard the Gospel, but simply attacked the methods being advocated to bring the Gospel to the heathen. But, after a period of time, their arguments wore thin, and it became apparent to many of them that they would have to come up with a better apology in their fight against missionary operations. This they later decided to do by denying that anyone had to have evangelical faith, or to hear the Gospel, to be regeneration, born again, or finally saved.
In middle Tennessee Dr. R.B.C. Howell put out a paper called "The Baptist" (which was later taken over by Dr. J.R. Graves and who later called it "The Tennessee Baptist"). In this periodical Howell fought against Daniel Parker and his followers, who were strong in his area, and against his neighbor, John Watson. (Note: Watson also battled against the Parkerite faction of the newly formed Hardshell denomination) In Howell's paper, in the 1830s, Howell mentions how the Parkerite Hardshells were responding to the case of the heathen, and of their need to take the Gospel to them. Howell says that they were saying that they would be saved because they were ignorant of the Gospel, and since they never heard it, it was not necessary for them to hear it. If one heard the Gospel, reasoned the Parkerites, then of course they would have to believe it to be finally saved. Howell argued that such reasoning amounts to the heathen being saved by their ignorance, would force one to believe in wholesale heathen salvation, and that it would be better not to preach the Gospel to them at all.
Thus, it seems that the first ones to assert salvation apart from hearing the Gospel were the small Parkerite faction. This is substantiated also by elders John Watson and Hosea Preslar. Watson indicates that this novel view began with some among the followers of Parker, and Preslar, in his book "Thoughts on Divine Providence," as I have cited before, and who moved to middle Tennessee from North Carolina, in the time in question, also intimates that the anti means view as a peculiar view of the Parkerites.
My Experience with Cults
Over the past several years I have had many thoughts about my Christian experience, which includes my years (1972-1985) spent as a "Primitive Baptist" aka "Hardshell." I often wonder how things would have turned out for me religiously had I never embraced Hardshellism, becoming a member of a cult.
God is not to be blamed for my joining a cult, or believing doctrinal errors, though he has used my experience in the Hardshell cult to further transform and sanctify me. He is good at bringing good out of evil. Nothing that has happened in my life is a surprise to God. Had God willed, my past life could have been much different. I can also say that had I willed, my past life could have been much different.
I have had other experiences with two other Baptist cults, that embracing Campbellism, and with a local Baptist cult that is Sabellian, among other heresies. I have born witness against the errors of these cults. I want to believe that my labors in the word and doctrine against the heresies of the cults will be blessed of God for the salvation of souls, as well as for my own.
I believe what is taught in the Reformed confessions about God and salvation. I am Baptist because I maintain a belief in believer's baptism, rejecting infant baptism. I am a Baptist because I maintain that baptism must be done by immersion in the name of the blessed Trinity. I am Particular Baptist, maintaining the confessional views expressed in the 1689 London confession and the 1742 Philadelphia Confession. By this standard I call myself an "Old" (or primitive) Baptist.
I have had people say to me - "why do you bother with these little fringe groups when there are other larger heretical groups that deserve attention?" I cannot answer that fully. I can only speculate. My time spent in the cults (Hardshell cult for over ten years, and a local cult for three years) has made me an expert on those points of doctrine in dispute, on the beliefs and practices of the cults. Why should I not be an apologist against the beliefs of these cults? If but a few are saved from these cults, it will be worth it all.
Being in a cult is not a healthy good thing for Christians. Being in a Bible believing church, one that is not a cult, is what Christians need in order to grow and be preserved. Believing the basics of Christian doctrine, and staying free of heresies and corrupt doctrine, is what ought to characterize the Christian life and struggle.
My experience has forced me into Christian apologetics and God has used my association with cults, I believe, as a means of bearing witness to the cultists, and of increasing my understanding and appreciation of the Scriptures.
God is not to be blamed for my joining a cult, or believing doctrinal errors, though he has used my experience in the Hardshell cult to further transform and sanctify me. He is good at bringing good out of evil. Nothing that has happened in my life is a surprise to God. Had God willed, my past life could have been much different. I can also say that had I willed, my past life could have been much different.
I have had other experiences with two other Baptist cults, that embracing Campbellism, and with a local Baptist cult that is Sabellian, among other heresies. I have born witness against the errors of these cults. I want to believe that my labors in the word and doctrine against the heresies of the cults will be blessed of God for the salvation of souls, as well as for my own.
I believe what is taught in the Reformed confessions about God and salvation. I am Baptist because I maintain a belief in believer's baptism, rejecting infant baptism. I am a Baptist because I maintain that baptism must be done by immersion in the name of the blessed Trinity. I am Particular Baptist, maintaining the confessional views expressed in the 1689 London confession and the 1742 Philadelphia Confession. By this standard I call myself an "Old" (or primitive) Baptist.
I have had people say to me - "why do you bother with these little fringe groups when there are other larger heretical groups that deserve attention?" I cannot answer that fully. I can only speculate. My time spent in the cults (Hardshell cult for over ten years, and a local cult for three years) has made me an expert on those points of doctrine in dispute, on the beliefs and practices of the cults. Why should I not be an apologist against the beliefs of these cults? If but a few are saved from these cults, it will be worth it all.
Being in a cult is not a healthy good thing for Christians. Being in a Bible believing church, one that is not a cult, is what Christians need in order to grow and be preserved. Believing the basics of Christian doctrine, and staying free of heresies and corrupt doctrine, is what ought to characterize the Christian life and struggle.
My experience has forced me into Christian apologetics and God has used my association with cults, I believe, as a means of bearing witness to the cultists, and of increasing my understanding and appreciation of the Scriptures.
Dec 2, 2015
Philadelphia Confession = Hardshellism?
In his debate with Dr. W. P. Thorgmorton on the question "Who Are The Primitive Baptists" (1887), Elder Lemuel Potter said (emphasis mine):
"He (Throgmorton) says we have not the Philadelphia confession of faith in any of our churches or associations. He says they have. It is not so much a matter of concern with me as to who have it, but as to who believe it and preach it. That is the question we are here to settle. We are here to identify each other by what we preach and teach; to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists on that subject. Remember, that although the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a “Hardshell” Baptist document some of the Missionary Baptist associations fight it. That is, the doctrine it contains. Not only a few of them, but take the country over, a majority of their ministers today preach the doctrine of Arminianism, the very thing that this London confession of faith denied when it was first gotten up." (see here)
Is there any Hardshell apologist today who wants to come to a serious discussion as to whether today's "Primitive Baptists" believe and preach the doctrines of the Philadelphia Confession? If it can be shown that today's Hardshells reject the teachings of that confession, though once accepted by their ancestors, does it not prove that they are not "original" as they claim?
"He (Throgmorton) says we have not the Philadelphia confession of faith in any of our churches or associations. He says they have. It is not so much a matter of concern with me as to who have it, but as to who believe it and preach it. That is the question we are here to settle. We are here to identify each other by what we preach and teach; to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists on that subject. Remember, that although the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a “Hardshell” Baptist document some of the Missionary Baptist associations fight it. That is, the doctrine it contains. Not only a few of them, but take the country over, a majority of their ministers today preach the doctrine of Arminianism, the very thing that this London confession of faith denied when it was first gotten up." (see here)
Is there any Hardshell apologist today who wants to come to a serious discussion as to whether today's "Primitive Baptists" believe and preach the doctrines of the Philadelphia Confession? If it can be shown that today's Hardshells reject the teachings of that confession, though once accepted by their ancestors, does it not prove that they are not "original" as they claim?
Nov 19, 2015
Calvin on Gospel Invitations
Wrote Calvin (emphasis mine):
"Christ began His sermons thus, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel. First of all he declareth that the treasures of mercy are set open in Him. Secondly, He requireth acceptance. Lastly, confidence in God's promises. 'To what end,' some will ask, 'do exhortations tend?' Why are not men rather left to the conduct of the Holy Spirit? Why are they solicited by exhortations, since they can only comply with them so far as the Holy Spirit enables them? This briefly is our answer: The sinner cannot impute the hardness of his heart to any one besides himself, and oh man, who art thou that wouldst impose laws on God? If he choose to prepare us by means of exhortations to receive that very grace to obey those exhortations which are addressed to us, what hast thou to object to this conduct of the Lord, and what is there in it which thou canst justly condemn?" ("CALVINISM AND HYPER-CALVINISM: Mr. J. E. Cracknell's Reply To Mr. Wale's LETTER ON "MINISTERIAL APPEALS TO THE UNCONVERTED."") (see here)
"Christ began His sermons thus, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel. First of all he declareth that the treasures of mercy are set open in Him. Secondly, He requireth acceptance. Lastly, confidence in God's promises. 'To what end,' some will ask, 'do exhortations tend?' Why are not men rather left to the conduct of the Holy Spirit? Why are they solicited by exhortations, since they can only comply with them so far as the Holy Spirit enables them? This briefly is our answer: The sinner cannot impute the hardness of his heart to any one besides himself, and oh man, who art thou that wouldst impose laws on God? If he choose to prepare us by means of exhortations to receive that very grace to obey those exhortations which are addressed to us, what hast thou to object to this conduct of the Lord, and what is there in it which thou canst justly condemn?" ("CALVINISM AND HYPER-CALVINISM: Mr. J. E. Cracknell's Reply To Mr. Wale's LETTER ON "MINISTERIAL APPEALS TO THE UNCONVERTED."") (see here)
John Owen on Gospel Invitations
John Owen was a Calvinist, but he was no Hyper Calvinist, as the following citations show.
Wrote Owen (emphasis mine):
"Wherever there is a declaration of the excellencies of Christ, in his person, grace, or offices, it should be accompanied with an invitation and exhortation unto sinners to come unto Him. This method Christ himself first made use of (Matthew xi. 27, 30. John vii. .37, 38,) and consecrated it unto our use also. Besides, it is necessary from the nature of the things themselves; for who can dwell on the consideration of the glory of Christ, being called therewith to the declaration of it, but his own mind will engage him to invite lost sinners unto a participation of him?"
In the following we have his method of dealing with the unconverted sinner:
"Jesus Christ yet stands before sinners, calling, inviting, encouraging them to come unto Him. This is somewhat of the word which He now speaks unto you,—Why will yc die?—Why will ye perish?—Why will ye not have compassion on your own souls? Can your hearts endure or your hands be strong in the day of wrath that is approaching? It is but a little while before all your hopes, your reliefs, your presumptions, will forsake you and leave you eternally miserable! Look unto me and be ye saved. Come unto me and I will ease you of all your sins, sorrows, fears, burdens, and give rest unto your souls. Come I entreat you, lay aside all procrastinations, all delays, put me off no longer, eternity lies at the door. Cast off all cursed self-deceiving reserves, do not so hate me, as that you will rather perish than accept of deliverance from me. These, and the like things doth the Lord Christ continually declare, proclaim, plead, and urge on the souls of sinners as it is fully declared (Prov. i, 20, 34). He doth it in the preaching of the word as if He were present with you, stood amongst you, and spake personally to every one of you. And because this world does not suit His present state of glory, He hath appointed the ministers of the gospel to appear before you, and to deal with you in His stead, avowing as His own the invitations that are given you in His name (2 Corinthians, v. 19, 20)." (Owen's Glory of Christ, page 535)
(From "CALVINISM AND HYPER-CALVINISM:
Mr. J. E. Cracknell's Reply To Mr. Wale's LETTER ON "MINISTERIAL APPEALS TO THE UNCONVERTED."") (see here)
Wrote Owen (emphasis mine):
"Wherever there is a declaration of the excellencies of Christ, in his person, grace, or offices, it should be accompanied with an invitation and exhortation unto sinners to come unto Him. This method Christ himself first made use of (Matthew xi. 27, 30. John vii. .37, 38,) and consecrated it unto our use also. Besides, it is necessary from the nature of the things themselves; for who can dwell on the consideration of the glory of Christ, being called therewith to the declaration of it, but his own mind will engage him to invite lost sinners unto a participation of him?"
In the following we have his method of dealing with the unconverted sinner:
"Jesus Christ yet stands before sinners, calling, inviting, encouraging them to come unto Him. This is somewhat of the word which He now speaks unto you,—Why will yc die?—Why will ye perish?—Why will ye not have compassion on your own souls? Can your hearts endure or your hands be strong in the day of wrath that is approaching? It is but a little while before all your hopes, your reliefs, your presumptions, will forsake you and leave you eternally miserable! Look unto me and be ye saved. Come unto me and I will ease you of all your sins, sorrows, fears, burdens, and give rest unto your souls. Come I entreat you, lay aside all procrastinations, all delays, put me off no longer, eternity lies at the door. Cast off all cursed self-deceiving reserves, do not so hate me, as that you will rather perish than accept of deliverance from me. These, and the like things doth the Lord Christ continually declare, proclaim, plead, and urge on the souls of sinners as it is fully declared (Prov. i, 20, 34). He doth it in the preaching of the word as if He were present with you, stood amongst you, and spake personally to every one of you. And because this world does not suit His present state of glory, He hath appointed the ministers of the gospel to appear before you, and to deal with you in His stead, avowing as His own the invitations that are given you in His name (2 Corinthians, v. 19, 20)." (Owen's Glory of Christ, page 535)
(From "CALVINISM AND HYPER-CALVINISM:
Mr. J. E. Cracknell's Reply To Mr. Wale's LETTER ON "MINISTERIAL APPEALS TO THE UNCONVERTED."") (see here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)