I submit to any leading "Hardshell" or "Primitive Baptist" "historian" or "apologist" a challenge to come forth and debate the following propositions. They are written in the affirmative for me to affirm, but I will be happy to deny the reverse of them. Will there be any takers?
Affirmative Propositions
1. The “gospel means” position was the position of the Baptists generally prior to 1820.
2. One must believe the 1689 London Confession of Faith on salvation to be a “Primitive Baptist.”
3. The Bible teaches the “gospel means” position held to by Baptists.
Sep 21, 2006
Sep 17, 2006
Chapter 30 - Hot Shots Returned (5th Volley)
ISAIAH, PAUL & BARNABAS - GOD'S MEANS IN BRINGING SALVATION
"And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49: 5,6)
"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. (Acts 13: 46-49)
"And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and (to turn) from the power of Satan unto God, THAT they may receive forgiveness of sins, and (in order that they may receive) inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 14-18)
It is very clear that Isaiah, Paul and Barnabas, yea, every gospel minister who "brings glad tidings of good things," were and are predestined and made by God to be his "servants" in order "to bring salvation." God had determined to make Isaiah a preacher of the good tidings, and by him, as a means, to "bring again the captivity" of his people, to effect their "return" to the Lord, and to work and effect their "salvation."
There is no way to distort or twist these verses as to make them concern only a "salvation" from temporal trials and errors but to a "salvation" which, by its description in the above verses, can be only that which delivers and rescues from sin and eternal condemnation, of that "salvation" which the Scriptures overwhelmingly speak, and which brings with it the "forgiveness of sins." People, in the "salvation" under consideration in the above passages of scripture, are delivered from the "power of Satan," from his bondage, and who were therefore not "free," nor "saved," nor "born again," prior to hearing and believing the gospel.
In this "salvation" sinners were brought to see and confess their sins and their need of Christ, and were "effectually drawn" to him as a suitable Savior. This "salvation" includes, as the above passages show, "receiving the forgiveness of sins," and "receiving an inheritance among the saints." How anyone can make this "salvation" something unconnected with eternity, and to refer strictly and simply to only some "timely deliverances," of those who are already eternally saved, is to pay absolutely no attention to the "context" and to shut ones eyes to what is obvious in the language of the passages cited.
It is by means of the gospel and gospel ministers that the Lord "gathers" his "sheep," and by which he "calls" and "brings" them into the "sheepfold." This was the view that Elder Watson expressed, in his book, "The Old Baptist Test," as being both his and the truly "Old Baptist position." It is by the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that sinners are brought to faith and repentance, by which they are converted and changed, and whereby they truly come to "know God" and to "know Christ," and whereby they are instructed in the truth about Christ and his salvation.
Dr. Gill wrote:
"...thus what was decreed and resolved on by God the Father, and was declared by him to his Son, is applied to his ministers and ambassadors, who represented him; so that what they did, he may be said to do; and who by them was to go, and did go to the Gentiles, and enlighten them with the light of the Gospel, and became salvation to them; so that this prophecy is produced by the apostles, to vindicate their conduct, as well as to show the agreement between the command of Jesus Christ to his disciples, and the decree of God the Father; as also to illustrate and confirm the particular order, which the Apostle Paul had, to go to the Gentiles, and to which he may have a regard here; see Ac 26:17." (Commentary on Acts 13)
Dr. Gill believed the reference in Isaiah referred first to Christ and secondarily to the ministers of the gospel. Paul definitely cites the passage in Isaiah in order to authenticate his ministry and to show that it was the "work of the Lord" and the result of his making his own appointed means effectual.
Hardshells, in excluding gospel ministers and gospel preaching, a "belief of the truth," as the God ordained "means" he uses to accomplish his salvation, are clearly against these plain facts from inspired witnesses.
TAKING THEM OUT BY THE GOSPEL
"Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: THAT the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning." " (Acts 15: 14-20)
This "taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name" is connected with the work of conversion through the preaching of the Apostles. God was "saving" and "calling out from among" the Gentiles those whom he had "chosen to salvation." Christ sent his ambassadors to offer the "conditions of pardon" to "every man." Those whom the Lord had thus "taken out," by the ministry of the Apostles and gospel preachers, from among the Gentiles, were those who had received that gospel and who had, thereby, sought, called upon, and found the Lord.
This work of "converting" sinners, of "making disciples," is part and parcel of that "salvation" and "regeneration" that God promised to bring by the hands of those whom he sends with the message, "Be ye reconciled to God."
It is interesting too that the Apostle James calls this "work" of "calling out" the Gentiles by the gospel, of "taking out from among them a people for his name," is the "work of God." But, it is Hardshell "logic" that says that such a work cannot possibly be the "work of God" because it involved means! If the Hardshells make the "salvation" and "conversion" of this passage to be a "time salvation," then they are forced to accept the Absoluter argument and position that says "conversion," like "regeneration," is always "effectual" and "irresistable," because it is the "WORK OF GOD." Conditionalists, the predominant sect within the Hardshell cult, will not, however, accept this position. These have staked it out, as their position, that "conversion" is the result of the free will choice and work of the child of God himself, and is, therefore, not certain nor "irresistably" the "work of God."
Dr. Gill wrote:
"James speaking to an assembly of Hebrews...observes, that he (Peter) had given a very clear and distinct narrative, how God at the first preaching of the Gospel, quickly after the day of Pentecost, was pleased to look upon the Gentiles, and show favour to them, and visit them in a way of grace and mercy, by sending the Gospel to them, and his Spirit to make it effectual: this was a gracious visit; he came and looked upon them, quickened them, and spoke comfortably to them, and bestowed special favours upon them; the set time for such a visit being come..." (Commentary Acts 15)
THAT expresses truly the Old Baptist position on this matter, does it not? Neither Dr. Gill, nor the truly Old Baptists, saw it as detracting from the glory of God in salvation, in the least, for God to use the means of his own gospel and the means of his own created witnesses to it! They certainly did not see the idea of regeneration, by the "means of the gospel," as a "blasphemous," teaching, as do those who arrogantly and wrongly claim to be "Old Baptists"!
First Christians All Saved By The Gospel
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:40, 47)
"Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11:14)
"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thessalonians 2:16)
Some of these verses I have already mentioned in previous writings. Again, who can deny that men are saved by the preaching of the gospel? Who can think, without Hardshell help, that the word "saved" in these passages, and others like them, is not clearly talking about eternal salvation? To make all such passages to deal with "timely deliverances" is to sit on the edge of a doctrinal pit of heresy, and be precariously near to falling into the abominable pit of full blown Universalism.
I again challenge every Hardshell who reads this book to cite one Baptist forefather, prior to the 1800's, who interpreted all these passages, that speak of sinners being "saved" by the hearing and believing the gospel message, as being unconnected with eternal salvation from sin and death!
If you cannot find your "interpretations" of all these passages in any Baptist writing prior to the 1800's, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," then you must confess, if you are honest, that your views are truly novel and hybrid, and that they are clearly not the truly Old Baptist "position"!
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
The Hardshell will want to make this "salvation" to be a timely deliverance for those who are already eternally saved apart from or before they ever hear the preaching of Christ's gospel. They are, therefore, logically forced to believe that the "condemnation," in the passage, is not eternal but must also likewise be some kind of "timely judgment." Again, it is simply absurd to view Christ, contextually speaking, as talking about anything other than what is most momentous, for the occasion, and that is the salvation of those sinners whom God had destined beforehand to call by the preaching of the gospel. Hardshells do not believe what this verse, and many verses like it, clearly affirm -- every soul who rejects the gospel of Christ will be condemned, lost eternally.
"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." (James 1:21)
Again, this is but another of many verses that speak of Christians as being saved by the preaching of the gospel. The Hardshells do not believe that the word of God is "able to save" the soul of sinners, that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation," but the Scriptures expressly teach otherwise.
Partaker Of The Divine Nature By Means
"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (II Peter 1: 3,4)
It is "by the promises," by the words of promise, the gospel, that men come to be "partakers of the divine nature," and are made free from "corruption" and human nature's depravity. This is denied however by Hardshells.
They sometimes "reason" on "how people in the Old Testament were saved if men are saved by believing the gospel, implying, that one could not believe the gospel in the Old Testament.
I have heard some ask, "Where did Abel get his FAITH if it comes by the preaching of the gospel"? They will "reason" that those who believe men are "the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" must believe that God had one way of saving people in the Old Testament and another way in the New. From there they will reason that he only "system" that will allow for only "one way" of "saving sinners," alike under both Testaments, is the Hardshell view on regeneration.
Well, these are not difficult questions at all. Abel believed the gospel. He had the good news of a promised Redeemer, one who was divinely called the "seed of the woman." He believed in this coming Redeemer. That was his faith and it was true in his case, as in every case, that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." The gospel did not begin, strictly speaking, when John the Baptist arrived on the scene. Who has not often see the gospel in Isaiah? Is it not so full of "gospel" that men sometimes call it "the gospel of Isaiah"?
So, Abel had the promise of God, full of good news and glad tidings of the coming Redeemer, the one who would undo and restore all the harm done by sin and Satan. And, as Peter testifies, it is by the means of these, and other like promises, that men come to saving faith in Christ and to "partake of the divine nature."
"And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49: 5,6)
"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. (Acts 13: 46-49)
"And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and (to turn) from the power of Satan unto God, THAT they may receive forgiveness of sins, and (in order that they may receive) inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 14-18)
It is very clear that Isaiah, Paul and Barnabas, yea, every gospel minister who "brings glad tidings of good things," were and are predestined and made by God to be his "servants" in order "to bring salvation." God had determined to make Isaiah a preacher of the good tidings, and by him, as a means, to "bring again the captivity" of his people, to effect their "return" to the Lord, and to work and effect their "salvation."
There is no way to distort or twist these verses as to make them concern only a "salvation" from temporal trials and errors but to a "salvation" which, by its description in the above verses, can be only that which delivers and rescues from sin and eternal condemnation, of that "salvation" which the Scriptures overwhelmingly speak, and which brings with it the "forgiveness of sins." People, in the "salvation" under consideration in the above passages of scripture, are delivered from the "power of Satan," from his bondage, and who were therefore not "free," nor "saved," nor "born again," prior to hearing and believing the gospel.
In this "salvation" sinners were brought to see and confess their sins and their need of Christ, and were "effectually drawn" to him as a suitable Savior. This "salvation" includes, as the above passages show, "receiving the forgiveness of sins," and "receiving an inheritance among the saints." How anyone can make this "salvation" something unconnected with eternity, and to refer strictly and simply to only some "timely deliverances," of those who are already eternally saved, is to pay absolutely no attention to the "context" and to shut ones eyes to what is obvious in the language of the passages cited.
It is by means of the gospel and gospel ministers that the Lord "gathers" his "sheep," and by which he "calls" and "brings" them into the "sheepfold." This was the view that Elder Watson expressed, in his book, "The Old Baptist Test," as being both his and the truly "Old Baptist position." It is by the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that sinners are brought to faith and repentance, by which they are converted and changed, and whereby they truly come to "know God" and to "know Christ," and whereby they are instructed in the truth about Christ and his salvation.
Dr. Gill wrote:
"...thus what was decreed and resolved on by God the Father, and was declared by him to his Son, is applied to his ministers and ambassadors, who represented him; so that what they did, he may be said to do; and who by them was to go, and did go to the Gentiles, and enlighten them with the light of the Gospel, and became salvation to them; so that this prophecy is produced by the apostles, to vindicate their conduct, as well as to show the agreement between the command of Jesus Christ to his disciples, and the decree of God the Father; as also to illustrate and confirm the particular order, which the Apostle Paul had, to go to the Gentiles, and to which he may have a regard here; see Ac 26:17." (Commentary on Acts 13)
Dr. Gill believed the reference in Isaiah referred first to Christ and secondarily to the ministers of the gospel. Paul definitely cites the passage in Isaiah in order to authenticate his ministry and to show that it was the "work of the Lord" and the result of his making his own appointed means effectual.
Hardshells, in excluding gospel ministers and gospel preaching, a "belief of the truth," as the God ordained "means" he uses to accomplish his salvation, are clearly against these plain facts from inspired witnesses.
TAKING THEM OUT BY THE GOSPEL
"Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: THAT the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning." " (Acts 15: 14-20)
This "taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name" is connected with the work of conversion through the preaching of the Apostles. God was "saving" and "calling out from among" the Gentiles those whom he had "chosen to salvation." Christ sent his ambassadors to offer the "conditions of pardon" to "every man." Those whom the Lord had thus "taken out," by the ministry of the Apostles and gospel preachers, from among the Gentiles, were those who had received that gospel and who had, thereby, sought, called upon, and found the Lord.
This work of "converting" sinners, of "making disciples," is part and parcel of that "salvation" and "regeneration" that God promised to bring by the hands of those whom he sends with the message, "Be ye reconciled to God."
It is interesting too that the Apostle James calls this "work" of "calling out" the Gentiles by the gospel, of "taking out from among them a people for his name," is the "work of God." But, it is Hardshell "logic" that says that such a work cannot possibly be the "work of God" because it involved means! If the Hardshells make the "salvation" and "conversion" of this passage to be a "time salvation," then they are forced to accept the Absoluter argument and position that says "conversion," like "regeneration," is always "effectual" and "irresistable," because it is the "WORK OF GOD." Conditionalists, the predominant sect within the Hardshell cult, will not, however, accept this position. These have staked it out, as their position, that "conversion" is the result of the free will choice and work of the child of God himself, and is, therefore, not certain nor "irresistably" the "work of God."
Dr. Gill wrote:
"James speaking to an assembly of Hebrews...observes, that he (Peter) had given a very clear and distinct narrative, how God at the first preaching of the Gospel, quickly after the day of Pentecost, was pleased to look upon the Gentiles, and show favour to them, and visit them in a way of grace and mercy, by sending the Gospel to them, and his Spirit to make it effectual: this was a gracious visit; he came and looked upon them, quickened them, and spoke comfortably to them, and bestowed special favours upon them; the set time for such a visit being come..." (Commentary Acts 15)
THAT expresses truly the Old Baptist position on this matter, does it not? Neither Dr. Gill, nor the truly Old Baptists, saw it as detracting from the glory of God in salvation, in the least, for God to use the means of his own gospel and the means of his own created witnesses to it! They certainly did not see the idea of regeneration, by the "means of the gospel," as a "blasphemous," teaching, as do those who arrogantly and wrongly claim to be "Old Baptists"!
First Christians All Saved By The Gospel
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:40, 47)
"Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11:14)
"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thessalonians 2:16)
Some of these verses I have already mentioned in previous writings. Again, who can deny that men are saved by the preaching of the gospel? Who can think, without Hardshell help, that the word "saved" in these passages, and others like them, is not clearly talking about eternal salvation? To make all such passages to deal with "timely deliverances" is to sit on the edge of a doctrinal pit of heresy, and be precariously near to falling into the abominable pit of full blown Universalism.
I again challenge every Hardshell who reads this book to cite one Baptist forefather, prior to the 1800's, who interpreted all these passages, that speak of sinners being "saved" by the hearing and believing the gospel message, as being unconnected with eternal salvation from sin and death!
If you cannot find your "interpretations" of all these passages in any Baptist writing prior to the 1800's, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," then you must confess, if you are honest, that your views are truly novel and hybrid, and that they are clearly not the truly Old Baptist "position"!
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
The Hardshell will want to make this "salvation" to be a timely deliverance for those who are already eternally saved apart from or before they ever hear the preaching of Christ's gospel. They are, therefore, logically forced to believe that the "condemnation," in the passage, is not eternal but must also likewise be some kind of "timely judgment." Again, it is simply absurd to view Christ, contextually speaking, as talking about anything other than what is most momentous, for the occasion, and that is the salvation of those sinners whom God had destined beforehand to call by the preaching of the gospel. Hardshells do not believe what this verse, and many verses like it, clearly affirm -- every soul who rejects the gospel of Christ will be condemned, lost eternally.
"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." (James 1:21)
Again, this is but another of many verses that speak of Christians as being saved by the preaching of the gospel. The Hardshells do not believe that the word of God is "able to save" the soul of sinners, that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation," but the Scriptures expressly teach otherwise.
Partaker Of The Divine Nature By Means
"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (II Peter 1: 3,4)
It is "by the promises," by the words of promise, the gospel, that men come to be "partakers of the divine nature," and are made free from "corruption" and human nature's depravity. This is denied however by Hardshells.
They sometimes "reason" on "how people in the Old Testament were saved if men are saved by believing the gospel, implying, that one could not believe the gospel in the Old Testament.
I have heard some ask, "Where did Abel get his FAITH if it comes by the preaching of the gospel"? They will "reason" that those who believe men are "the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" must believe that God had one way of saving people in the Old Testament and another way in the New. From there they will reason that he only "system" that will allow for only "one way" of "saving sinners," alike under both Testaments, is the Hardshell view on regeneration.
Well, these are not difficult questions at all. Abel believed the gospel. He had the good news of a promised Redeemer, one who was divinely called the "seed of the woman." He believed in this coming Redeemer. That was his faith and it was true in his case, as in every case, that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." The gospel did not begin, strictly speaking, when John the Baptist arrived on the scene. Who has not often see the gospel in Isaiah? Is it not so full of "gospel" that men sometimes call it "the gospel of Isaiah"?
So, Abel had the promise of God, full of good news and glad tidings of the coming Redeemer, the one who would undo and restore all the harm done by sin and Satan. And, as Peter testifies, it is by the means of these, and other like promises, that men come to saving faith in Christ and to "partake of the divine nature."
Chapter 29 - Hot Shots Returned (4th Volley)
"Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day." (II Thess. 1: 6-10)
I have already mentioned this passage of scripture in chapter two relative to my "personal experiences" and noted there how this verse was always more than a little "troublesome" to me while a believer in Hardshellism and how I never got any satisfactory "explanation" of the verse that would harmonize with Hardshell views relative to those who reject the gospel.
There are many verses that clearly affirm that all those who reject the gospel, who fail to believe it, are all lost and "without hope." This one, however, cannot be made any clearer. Those, like the Hardshells, who will affirm that most of those who go to heaven go there as gospel rejecters is a terrible departure from the teaching of Scripture. I really need not add anything to this passage by way of commentary, for it is plain enough to all who read it without bias and with an honest heart. One can see why the Hardshells would have trouble with the doctrine of "universalism" by them making this passage to refer to some "timely destruction"! Certainly our Baptist forefathers, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," did not believe, based upon this and similar passages, that anyone was "saved" who did not believe the preaching of the gospel.
We have a similar word from Paul in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, one I have mentioned already in a previous chapter. Paul says:
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: WHEREUNTO he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2: 11-14)
Again, every Hardshell, that I know, will affirm that this passage is dealing with eternal election to eternal salvation. Yet, this passage makes it very clear that the "salvation" that the elect are "chosen" to obtain is wrought "in" or "through" a "belief of the truth." This too was always a very difficult passage for me. Were it not for the fact that I was convinced that other passages taught or implied that some who rejected the gospel were saved, I would not have had any difficulties. So, my dilemma, and one which every Hardshell faces, is to either "twist and distort" this verse to make it say, "Not all those who disbelieve the gospel are doomed to eternal destruction," or to accept it for what it says (as I finally did) and go back and see that those "other verses" that seemed to teach contrary to it did not do so in fact, but was rather the result of my using Hardshell "logic," and "reading into" them what I thought they should be saying. This was and is the way Hardshells "interpret" the Bible on this subject (and others subjects too, as I shall show under the chapter dealing with Hardshell "hermeneutics").
This passage does not say that we are chosen to a "salvation" apart from a "belief of the truth," but it says rather that the very "salvation" some have been "chosen to obtain" involves coming to evangelical faith and repentance, to a full conversion.
We are chosen to a salvation that includes a conversion. When we receive this "salvation," we also receive the gifts of love, faith, repentance and conviction and confession of the truth. This is that "revelation" of "truth" about which Jesus often spoke and which most Hardshells are willing to apply to the work of "regeneration."
Revelation of Christ = Regeneration
"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11: 25-27)
"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed IT unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16: 16,17)
"That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? (John 12:38)
Hardshells will generally affirm that this "revelation" of Christ, and the things of Christ, in the above passages, is part and parcel of "regeneration." However, they find it very difficult to "explain" how one can experience such a "revelation," come to "know" both the Father and the Son, without a knowledge of the truths of the gospel and word of God!
"Salvation" involves a "revelation" of certain truthful things, as Jesus clearly taught. Certainly no heathen believes in these "things" the Father "reveals" to sinners in regeneration!
I don't see how any Hardshell can reasonably affirm that this "revelation" is "regeneration." There is no historical evidence that any American Indian "believed in Jesus," or the gospel, by this "direct revelation." This "revelation", being necessary to salvation, will be "interpreted," by PB's, as being a "direct (or "immediate") revelation" of the truth, without preachers or the means of the word of God, much like the "enthusiasts" mentioned above and elsewhere in this work.
Yet it seems that the Pilgrims should have found many "believers in Jesus" when they arrived in America, that is, if Hardshellism is true. Those PB's who make the "revelation" of the above scriptures to be "regeneration," have this difficulty with which to deal.
If having Christ "revealed" to sinners, the same as it was to Peter, then the missionaries, who have taken the gospel to heathen lands, ought to have found many who could witness about Jesus! The fact that the missionaries have found them all ignorant of the true God of Abraham, and ignorant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his Messiahship, proves that none of them had this revelation, or were born again, and also shows that the gospel obviously is necessary to the obtaining of this "revelation."
Those Hardshells, on the other hand, who "interpret" the "revelation," mentioned above, as not "regeneration," but rather to "conversion" or to their "time salvation," are not exempt from difficulty themselves, by their "interpretation." These recognize that the experience of having the things of Christ "revealed", if a "time salvation," is then, like "regeneration," also a work of sovereign and irresistable grace. Only the Absoluter faction, however, believes this. It is such difficulties as these that has confused many as to whether coming to gospel faith and conversion is, like regeneration, an experience in which the child of God is entirely passive.
Elect Within The Elect?
This is one reason why today's Hardshells have had trouble with a doctrine known as the "elect within the elect." Those Hardshells who see the conversion experience as being an irresistable and effectual work of God as regeneration, will acknowledge that their being converted is also the result of a choice of God. Since not all the elect are both regenerated and converted, then, ergo, those who are converted must be an "elect within the elect," a special "inner circle" within the elect. Most of the Conditionalist Hardshells would deny this, however, and will fight this view as it often appears within their ranks. The Absoluters, I don't believe, will object to this view that some of the elect, in addition to being chosen to eternal salvation, are also chosen to a time salvation that other elect are not chosen to receive.
Their error of course, is in denying, like nearly all their old articles faith aver, that all the elect will be BOTH regenerated and converted.
How Can This Be Hardshell Regeneration?
"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Ephesians 4: 17-4)
Clearly this text is speaking about both regeneration and conversion. Clearly the "other Gentiles" are those who have not been regenerated and converted, yea, those who have not yet even heard "the word of the truth of the gospel."
Characteristics of lost and depraved Gentiles
1. Vanity of Mind (worthless thoughts & beliefs)
2. Darkened Understanding (spiritually ignorant of truth)
3. Alienated from Life of God (spiritually dead)
4. Inner Ignorance & blindness of heart (spiritual corruption)
5. Beyond feeling (spiritual death)
6. Servants of Sin ("given themselves" to sin)
7. Spiritually filthy and in Need of Cleansing (inner depravity)
We can now ask ourselves this question -- "Is Paul, in the above passage, talking about the change effected in regeneration?" Obviously he is, and I do not know any Hardshell who will deny that it is talking about what it means to be made a "new creature in Christ Jesus." Where they err is in being so blindly inconsistent and contradictory in what they say about the experience of regeneration. They can, in one breath, speak of "regeneration" as being "below the level of consciousness," and then at other times, make it not so. They can say, in one breath, that "regeneration produces no internal sensations," and then at other times, have the "regenerated" person having all kinds of "internal feelings" as part of that change.
Obviously, the Apostle Paul, in the above passage, connected regeneration with conversion. He is clearly speaking of one experience that involved all the changes enumerated above. No Hardshell will include all the above delineated things in their descriptions of the experience of "regeneration"! Most of the things mentioned above they will put into the post regeneration category of conversion, an experience not guaranteed to all the elect, and one that only few of the elect experience, and then, when those few do, it is not by the sovereign irresistable work of God, as in their prior "regeneration," but a work of their own, of their own free will and ability, and yet they cannot deny that "regeneration" is what is discussed in the above passage -- for he clearly speaks of being brought out of spiritual death and alienation from the "life of God."
Paul, in giving forth the reason why Christian "believers" are "not like other Gentiles," not like those who are lost and "without God and hope in the world," said:
"But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus."
Of course the Hardshells will want to make this passage refer to a "direct speaking" or to an "immediate revelation," to something apart from the preaching of the gospel and word of God by the messengers of Christ. I have already shown how this whole idea of "learning," as being something part and parcel of Biblical "regeneration," is just foreign to the Hardshell idea that "regeneration is below the level of consciousness" and that it is unconnected with "coming to understanding of gospel truth." These words, like those in John 6:45, have the sinner being "taught" in the "new birth." I have repeatedly, therefore, asked the Hardshell brotherhood to "tell us all what the sinner is "taught" and comes to "believe" in regeneration?" Will they come forth and do it?
Will they absurdly take the view that sinners are not "taught of Christ" when they are "taught of Paul"? Will they be so anti scriptural as to affirm that sinners who are being "taught by" and "learning from" gospel preachers, are then in such cases not being "taught of Christ" nor "learning from him"? We who have been "taught the gospel" by gospel preachers and teachers believe that we have been "taught by Christ."
Regeneration, Conversion, or Both?
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (II Timothy 2: 24-26)
Is this passage talking about regeneration or conversion, or about both? What is there in the above passage that contradicts Hardshellism?
First, most Hardshells, as I have already shown, do not believe that "repentance" is part and parcel of "regeneration." Yet, some will often cite this verse as if it were dealing with "regeneration." They recognize that the "repentance" mentioned here is a "gift" from God, the same thing that is said of that "faith" which is "neccessary" for "regeneration" and for "eternal salvation" (Eph. 1:19, 2:9), but that puts them in a difficult place, doctrinally speaking. For, this "repentance" is "unto an acknowledging of the truth."
If the Hardshells make this verse to refer to "conversion," and not to "regeneration," then they are logically necessitated to affirm that "conversion" is also an "irresistable work of God," just like "regeneration"; And, if they admit that "conversion" is as much the "work of God" as is "regeneration" (and seeing, by their own admission, that "conversion" is through the "means of the gospel"), then all their "logical" "arguments" that affirm that what God does through "means" cannot possibly be all of his power are a bunch of nothing.
This verse is talking about people being "liberated" from the "bondage" and "snare" of Satan. This is what evangelical faith and repentance, what Biblical regeneration and conversion do for a man.
It is also clear that true gospel preachers simply "preach the word" and leave the results with the Lord, who will, on occasions of his own choosing, "give repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." So we are told in Acts 17:4 that those who heard Paul preach and believed him were those whom the Lord, in his decree of election, had "allotted to him" (KJV - "consorted with").
So, like all good Sovereign Grace Missionary Baptists, we preach God's gospel, his power unto salvation to everyone who believes it, and we leave the results with the Lord, who will "peradventure give repentance and faith to salvation" to those who he has from the beginning "chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
I have already mentioned this passage of scripture in chapter two relative to my "personal experiences" and noted there how this verse was always more than a little "troublesome" to me while a believer in Hardshellism and how I never got any satisfactory "explanation" of the verse that would harmonize with Hardshell views relative to those who reject the gospel.
There are many verses that clearly affirm that all those who reject the gospel, who fail to believe it, are all lost and "without hope." This one, however, cannot be made any clearer. Those, like the Hardshells, who will affirm that most of those who go to heaven go there as gospel rejecters is a terrible departure from the teaching of Scripture. I really need not add anything to this passage by way of commentary, for it is plain enough to all who read it without bias and with an honest heart. One can see why the Hardshells would have trouble with the doctrine of "universalism" by them making this passage to refer to some "timely destruction"! Certainly our Baptist forefathers, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," did not believe, based upon this and similar passages, that anyone was "saved" who did not believe the preaching of the gospel.
We have a similar word from Paul in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, one I have mentioned already in a previous chapter. Paul says:
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: WHEREUNTO he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2: 11-14)
Again, every Hardshell, that I know, will affirm that this passage is dealing with eternal election to eternal salvation. Yet, this passage makes it very clear that the "salvation" that the elect are "chosen" to obtain is wrought "in" or "through" a "belief of the truth." This too was always a very difficult passage for me. Were it not for the fact that I was convinced that other passages taught or implied that some who rejected the gospel were saved, I would not have had any difficulties. So, my dilemma, and one which every Hardshell faces, is to either "twist and distort" this verse to make it say, "Not all those who disbelieve the gospel are doomed to eternal destruction," or to accept it for what it says (as I finally did) and go back and see that those "other verses" that seemed to teach contrary to it did not do so in fact, but was rather the result of my using Hardshell "logic," and "reading into" them what I thought they should be saying. This was and is the way Hardshells "interpret" the Bible on this subject (and others subjects too, as I shall show under the chapter dealing with Hardshell "hermeneutics").
This passage does not say that we are chosen to a "salvation" apart from a "belief of the truth," but it says rather that the very "salvation" some have been "chosen to obtain" involves coming to evangelical faith and repentance, to a full conversion.
We are chosen to a salvation that includes a conversion. When we receive this "salvation," we also receive the gifts of love, faith, repentance and conviction and confession of the truth. This is that "revelation" of "truth" about which Jesus often spoke and which most Hardshells are willing to apply to the work of "regeneration."
Revelation of Christ = Regeneration
"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11: 25-27)
"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed IT unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16: 16,17)
"That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? (John 12:38)
Hardshells will generally affirm that this "revelation" of Christ, and the things of Christ, in the above passages, is part and parcel of "regeneration." However, they find it very difficult to "explain" how one can experience such a "revelation," come to "know" both the Father and the Son, without a knowledge of the truths of the gospel and word of God!
"Salvation" involves a "revelation" of certain truthful things, as Jesus clearly taught. Certainly no heathen believes in these "things" the Father "reveals" to sinners in regeneration!
I don't see how any Hardshell can reasonably affirm that this "revelation" is "regeneration." There is no historical evidence that any American Indian "believed in Jesus," or the gospel, by this "direct revelation." This "revelation", being necessary to salvation, will be "interpreted," by PB's, as being a "direct (or "immediate") revelation" of the truth, without preachers or the means of the word of God, much like the "enthusiasts" mentioned above and elsewhere in this work.
Yet it seems that the Pilgrims should have found many "believers in Jesus" when they arrived in America, that is, if Hardshellism is true. Those PB's who make the "revelation" of the above scriptures to be "regeneration," have this difficulty with which to deal.
If having Christ "revealed" to sinners, the same as it was to Peter, then the missionaries, who have taken the gospel to heathen lands, ought to have found many who could witness about Jesus! The fact that the missionaries have found them all ignorant of the true God of Abraham, and ignorant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his Messiahship, proves that none of them had this revelation, or were born again, and also shows that the gospel obviously is necessary to the obtaining of this "revelation."
Those Hardshells, on the other hand, who "interpret" the "revelation," mentioned above, as not "regeneration," but rather to "conversion" or to their "time salvation," are not exempt from difficulty themselves, by their "interpretation." These recognize that the experience of having the things of Christ "revealed", if a "time salvation," is then, like "regeneration," also a work of sovereign and irresistable grace. Only the Absoluter faction, however, believes this. It is such difficulties as these that has confused many as to whether coming to gospel faith and conversion is, like regeneration, an experience in which the child of God is entirely passive.
Elect Within The Elect?
This is one reason why today's Hardshells have had trouble with a doctrine known as the "elect within the elect." Those Hardshells who see the conversion experience as being an irresistable and effectual work of God as regeneration, will acknowledge that their being converted is also the result of a choice of God. Since not all the elect are both regenerated and converted, then, ergo, those who are converted must be an "elect within the elect," a special "inner circle" within the elect. Most of the Conditionalist Hardshells would deny this, however, and will fight this view as it often appears within their ranks. The Absoluters, I don't believe, will object to this view that some of the elect, in addition to being chosen to eternal salvation, are also chosen to a time salvation that other elect are not chosen to receive.
Their error of course, is in denying, like nearly all their old articles faith aver, that all the elect will be BOTH regenerated and converted.
How Can This Be Hardshell Regeneration?
"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Ephesians 4: 17-4)
Clearly this text is speaking about both regeneration and conversion. Clearly the "other Gentiles" are those who have not been regenerated and converted, yea, those who have not yet even heard "the word of the truth of the gospel."
Characteristics of lost and depraved Gentiles
1. Vanity of Mind (worthless thoughts & beliefs)
2. Darkened Understanding (spiritually ignorant of truth)
3. Alienated from Life of God (spiritually dead)
4. Inner Ignorance & blindness of heart (spiritual corruption)
5. Beyond feeling (spiritual death)
6. Servants of Sin ("given themselves" to sin)
7. Spiritually filthy and in Need of Cleansing (inner depravity)
We can now ask ourselves this question -- "Is Paul, in the above passage, talking about the change effected in regeneration?" Obviously he is, and I do not know any Hardshell who will deny that it is talking about what it means to be made a "new creature in Christ Jesus." Where they err is in being so blindly inconsistent and contradictory in what they say about the experience of regeneration. They can, in one breath, speak of "regeneration" as being "below the level of consciousness," and then at other times, make it not so. They can say, in one breath, that "regeneration produces no internal sensations," and then at other times, have the "regenerated" person having all kinds of "internal feelings" as part of that change.
Obviously, the Apostle Paul, in the above passage, connected regeneration with conversion. He is clearly speaking of one experience that involved all the changes enumerated above. No Hardshell will include all the above delineated things in their descriptions of the experience of "regeneration"! Most of the things mentioned above they will put into the post regeneration category of conversion, an experience not guaranteed to all the elect, and one that only few of the elect experience, and then, when those few do, it is not by the sovereign irresistable work of God, as in their prior "regeneration," but a work of their own, of their own free will and ability, and yet they cannot deny that "regeneration" is what is discussed in the above passage -- for he clearly speaks of being brought out of spiritual death and alienation from the "life of God."
Paul, in giving forth the reason why Christian "believers" are "not like other Gentiles," not like those who are lost and "without God and hope in the world," said:
"But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus."
Of course the Hardshells will want to make this passage refer to a "direct speaking" or to an "immediate revelation," to something apart from the preaching of the gospel and word of God by the messengers of Christ. I have already shown how this whole idea of "learning," as being something part and parcel of Biblical "regeneration," is just foreign to the Hardshell idea that "regeneration is below the level of consciousness" and that it is unconnected with "coming to understanding of gospel truth." These words, like those in John 6:45, have the sinner being "taught" in the "new birth." I have repeatedly, therefore, asked the Hardshell brotherhood to "tell us all what the sinner is "taught" and comes to "believe" in regeneration?" Will they come forth and do it?
Will they absurdly take the view that sinners are not "taught of Christ" when they are "taught of Paul"? Will they be so anti scriptural as to affirm that sinners who are being "taught by" and "learning from" gospel preachers, are then in such cases not being "taught of Christ" nor "learning from him"? We who have been "taught the gospel" by gospel preachers and teachers believe that we have been "taught by Christ."
Regeneration, Conversion, or Both?
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (II Timothy 2: 24-26)
Is this passage talking about regeneration or conversion, or about both? What is there in the above passage that contradicts Hardshellism?
First, most Hardshells, as I have already shown, do not believe that "repentance" is part and parcel of "regeneration." Yet, some will often cite this verse as if it were dealing with "regeneration." They recognize that the "repentance" mentioned here is a "gift" from God, the same thing that is said of that "faith" which is "neccessary" for "regeneration" and for "eternal salvation" (Eph. 1:19, 2:9), but that puts them in a difficult place, doctrinally speaking. For, this "repentance" is "unto an acknowledging of the truth."
If the Hardshells make this verse to refer to "conversion," and not to "regeneration," then they are logically necessitated to affirm that "conversion" is also an "irresistable work of God," just like "regeneration"; And, if they admit that "conversion" is as much the "work of God" as is "regeneration" (and seeing, by their own admission, that "conversion" is through the "means of the gospel"), then all their "logical" "arguments" that affirm that what God does through "means" cannot possibly be all of his power are a bunch of nothing.
This verse is talking about people being "liberated" from the "bondage" and "snare" of Satan. This is what evangelical faith and repentance, what Biblical regeneration and conversion do for a man.
It is also clear that true gospel preachers simply "preach the word" and leave the results with the Lord, who will, on occasions of his own choosing, "give repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." So we are told in Acts 17:4 that those who heard Paul preach and believed him were those whom the Lord, in his decree of election, had "allotted to him" (KJV - "consorted with").
So, like all good Sovereign Grace Missionary Baptists, we preach God's gospel, his power unto salvation to everyone who believes it, and we leave the results with the Lord, who will "peradventure give repentance and faith to salvation" to those who he has from the beginning "chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
Sep 16, 2006
Chapter 28 - Hot Shots Returned (3rd Volley)
Epistles Of Christ
"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (II Cor. 3:2-6)
These verses are a clear reference to regeneration, to being born again. I do not know of any Hardshell who would deny this. I have heard both Elder C.H. Cayce and Elder J.R. Daily argue in debate that it is so, but they also affirmed that this letter writing of Christ, upon the heart, is done by Christ without means. Yet, I never did accept their analysis of this metaphor as excluding the preachers of the gospel.
In any letter writing, one must have the following necessary things.
1. A writer or author who will be the efficient cause of the writing, the one who will use the means, whatever they are, to do this writing. In this case it is Christ who does the writing.
2. The paper, (or "tablet") which, by its signification in the metaphor, is none other than the "heart," which does not exclude the mind, the understanding, and the thoughts.
3. The ink, which, by its signification in the metaphor, is the "Spirit of the living God."
4. The quill or instrument by which the ink is applied to the paper. In the significance of this there is reference to those who "minister the Spirit" (Gal. 3:5), and to the "ministration of the Spirit." (II Cor. 3:8)
It is pure blindness and willful perversion of this teaching to exclude the preachers who are the quills (or pens) that Christ uses to minister the gospel and the ink. Paul clearly teaches this for he says, "ministered (written) by us." Paul is saying that Christ uses his ministers of the word in this writing. He says they are "able ministers of the new covenant," the Lord using them to bring the blessings of that covenant to elect sinners.
Here is what William Huntingdon wrote on this passage (who is sometimes said to have believed in regeneration without the preached gospel)
"Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men." We are the pens that the Spirit of God uses to write his laws of faith, truth, love, and liberty on your minds..." ("Moses unveiled in the face of Christ - A sermon by William Huntington preached at Monkwell Street meeting, August 12, 1794)
Spurgeon wrote this:
"I have heard of a minister who preached once about our being epistles, written not with ink, but with the Holy Spirit; and one of his divisions was that sometimes ministers were pens, and they could not write upon men’s hearts because they were not dipped in the ink.
I think that there is a great deal in that thought. If a minister comes forward with a good dip of ink in his pen, then he can write upon men’s hearts; when the Spirit of God fills us, and we are revived, then some good writing will be done; but not else." (A Prayer for Revival)
Martin Luther wrote:
"Paul says that the Spirit, through his preaching, has wrought in the hearts of his Corinthians, to the end that Christ lives and is mighty in them. After such statement he bursts into praise of the ministerial office, comparing the message, or preaching, of Moses with that of himself and the apostles. He says:
"Such confidence have we through Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God." (The Twofold Use of the Law & Gospel: Letter & Spirit)
Robert Murray MCheyne
"When you write with a dry pen without any ink in it, no impression is made upon the paper. Now, ministers are the pens, and the Spirit of God is the ink. Pray that the pen may be filled with the living ink - that the Word may remain in your heart, known and read for all - that you may be sanctified through the truth." ("Thanksgiving Obtains The Spirit")
The Spirit AND The Word
In the following comments the writer refutes both Campbellism and its "word alone" view of "regeneration" and Hardshellism and its "Spirit alone" view of the same.
"Recently, a number of Christian campuses have reported revival. As I have read case after case, one theme running throughout is the “testimony” that the Spirit was working directly in these meetings. Students and faculty alike appeared to applaud the fact that there was no preaching involved. “There wasn’t even a preacher,” one student exults. “The Holy Spirit was doing it, not some preacher.”
What is the assumption in such a comment? It is that the Holy Spirit working directly and immediately (i.e. without means) was superior to the Holy Spirit working through means. By circumventing the Word——and especially the preached Word——the Holy Spirit was perceived more intimately and powerfully involved. Historic Protestantism has always emphasized the preaching of God’s Word as sacramental. That is, it is not merely the communication of information, but the effectual means of producing conversion. God alone is the cause of the New Birth, but he calls women and men to himself through the weakness of preaching.
Nowhere in Scripture do we find a pattern of evangelism or revival in which individuals respond to the gospel by simply being “zapped” by the Spirit. They are always responding to the preached Word. It may be one-on-one, or in an assembly, but it is the Word proclaimed that gives life to those spiritually dead. Furthermore, even after they are converted, believers do not grow in their walk, deepen in their Christian experience, or learn new truths by the direct activity of the Spirit apart from God’s ordained means.
Apart from the Word, there is no salvation and no activity of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s people. Where the Word is rightly preached, the Spirit is active in power. Where the Word is not rightly preached, the Spirit is not active in power. It is impossible to have a place in which the Word is preached clearly (as the proclamation of Christ), where the Spirit is absent in his power and saving strength. It is equally impossible for the Spirit to be actively present if the preaching of Christ is not the central focus.
The Reformers faced “the enthusiasts,” who were heirs to many of the tendencies of the ancient Gnostics. They believed that they knew a better way, a higher path, a secret tunnel of the Spirit that was a short-cut. Luther, for instance, in a sermon on Luke 2:22, warned of “those noxious spirits who say: a man acquires the Holy Spirit by sitting in a corner, etc. A hundred thousand devils you will acquire and you will not come to God. God has always worked with something physical.” True Christianity is not gained by sitting in a corner, watching and waiting to be filled with heavenly revelation. Rather, as we sit with other sinners in a church, hearing and believing the Word of God, God comes to his people in intimate communion, self-disclosure, and redemption. John Calvin declared, in his commentary on I Thessalonians 5:20,
"It is an illusory belief of the enthusiasts that those who keep reading Scripture or hearing the Word are children, as if no one were spiritual unless he scorned doctrine. In their pride, therefore, they despise the ministry of men and even Scripture itself, in order to attain the Spirit. They then proudly try to peddle all the delusions that Satan suggests to them as secret revelations of the Spirit.”
“Far from denigrating the preached Word over the Spirit’s direct “whisper” to the heart, the biblical accounts of conversions link the Spirit to the Word in every case. For instance, in the gospel accounts, people respond either in outrage or faith to Jesus’ teaching. This preaching of the Word is the Spirit’s means of bringing whole crowds to Christ. In fact, this is why Luther said it is difficult to preach the gospel to ourselves.”
“Education——though it is despised by Gnostics who feel that they have access to direct revelations——is indispensable. We believe that the Holy Spirit will link us to Christ through the preached Word, so we come with expectations of divine activity. Israel had the Word of God, but it was the Holy Spirit who, through Ezekiel’s preaching, made that Word the active, energetic power behind the spiritual resurrection.”
“...we must refuse to separate what God has joined together. The Word without the Spirit would be ineffective, and the Spirit without the Word is not the Spirit at all——but the lying delusions of our own imagination and fallible minds.”
“It’s time we recovered our confidence in the Word and Spirit once again. We must refuse to accept any version of spirituality that seeks the Word without the life-giving Spirit or the Spirit without the actual proclamation, teaching and doctrinal clarity of the actual text of Holy Scripture. Apart from sound doctrine and lively preaching of biblical truth, the Holy Spirit is silent; when that Word is faithfully proclaimed, the Holy Spirit is at work. Then there comes a rattling sound, as the bones come together one by one, forming an army of the Lord in the valley of death.”
(“Receiving Christ,” by Michael Horton, from his out of print book, “In the Face of God”)
Both Campbellism and Hardshellism are both denied by the Scriptures and comments given above.
Serving The Spirit
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3:2-5)
These verses harmonize with those in II Corinthians chapter 3. It is about gospel preachers, as servants of God, "communicating the Spirit" to others, offering the "blessings of the new covenant" to Jews and Gentiles alike.
Receiving the Holy Spirit is what brings life, salvation, regeneration, conversion, and the new birth. The Holy Spirit is received "by faith," by believing the gospel preached. That is what the passage in Galatians tells us.
Gospel Preaching of Paul A Means To Eternally Save
"Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (II Tim. 2:9,10)
Hardshells think this is "blasphemy." They believe that it is "blasphemy" to teach that the preachers of the gospel are instruments used by the Holy Spirit in regenerating dead sinners. They will not deny that some kind of "temporal salvation" is connected with or otherwise dependant upon the preached word of the gospel, but they deny it in the case of "eternal salvation." The above words of Paul were always a difficult nut to crack when I was a believer in Hardshellism and its regeneration apart from the word of God. I could not, however, in good conscience, make the "salvation" of the passage "temporal," for he describes this "salvation" as one that has "eternal glory." I could not, nor can any other "honest" Hardshell, make this anything but eternal salvation. If we go by the "context," this is perfectly clear.
Believing Unto Life
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 29-31)
This was indeed an even harder "nut to crack" when I was a believer in Hardshellism. Here it is clearly affirmed that the written and preached word of God, the message of the gospel, is the means of bringing people to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the result of coming to this gospel faith was to give them "life." This is absolutely not Hardshell teaching and it would be difficult to find language any more clear in their refutation of the Hardshell views on how one comes to "saving faith" and "spiritual life."
I challenge any Hardshell to show, from Baptist writings, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," that denied that the above words of John taught the necessity of gospel faith for salvation.
I will be extending these returned "hot shots" in the next chapter or two.
"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (II Cor. 3:2-6)
These verses are a clear reference to regeneration, to being born again. I do not know of any Hardshell who would deny this. I have heard both Elder C.H. Cayce and Elder J.R. Daily argue in debate that it is so, but they also affirmed that this letter writing of Christ, upon the heart, is done by Christ without means. Yet, I never did accept their analysis of this metaphor as excluding the preachers of the gospel.
In any letter writing, one must have the following necessary things.
1. A writer or author who will be the efficient cause of the writing, the one who will use the means, whatever they are, to do this writing. In this case it is Christ who does the writing.
2. The paper, (or "tablet") which, by its signification in the metaphor, is none other than the "heart," which does not exclude the mind, the understanding, and the thoughts.
3. The ink, which, by its signification in the metaphor, is the "Spirit of the living God."
4. The quill or instrument by which the ink is applied to the paper. In the significance of this there is reference to those who "minister the Spirit" (Gal. 3:5), and to the "ministration of the Spirit." (II Cor. 3:8)
It is pure blindness and willful perversion of this teaching to exclude the preachers who are the quills (or pens) that Christ uses to minister the gospel and the ink. Paul clearly teaches this for he says, "ministered (written) by us." Paul is saying that Christ uses his ministers of the word in this writing. He says they are "able ministers of the new covenant," the Lord using them to bring the blessings of that covenant to elect sinners.
Here is what William Huntingdon wrote on this passage (who is sometimes said to have believed in regeneration without the preached gospel)
"Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men." We are the pens that the Spirit of God uses to write his laws of faith, truth, love, and liberty on your minds..." ("Moses unveiled in the face of Christ - A sermon by William Huntington preached at Monkwell Street meeting, August 12, 1794)
Spurgeon wrote this:
"I have heard of a minister who preached once about our being epistles, written not with ink, but with the Holy Spirit; and one of his divisions was that sometimes ministers were pens, and they could not write upon men’s hearts because they were not dipped in the ink.
I think that there is a great deal in that thought. If a minister comes forward with a good dip of ink in his pen, then he can write upon men’s hearts; when the Spirit of God fills us, and we are revived, then some good writing will be done; but not else." (A Prayer for Revival)
Martin Luther wrote:
"Paul says that the Spirit, through his preaching, has wrought in the hearts of his Corinthians, to the end that Christ lives and is mighty in them. After such statement he bursts into praise of the ministerial office, comparing the message, or preaching, of Moses with that of himself and the apostles. He says:
"Such confidence have we through Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God." (The Twofold Use of the Law & Gospel: Letter & Spirit)
Robert Murray MCheyne
"When you write with a dry pen without any ink in it, no impression is made upon the paper. Now, ministers are the pens, and the Spirit of God is the ink. Pray that the pen may be filled with the living ink - that the Word may remain in your heart, known and read for all - that you may be sanctified through the truth." ("Thanksgiving Obtains The Spirit")
The Spirit AND The Word
In the following comments the writer refutes both Campbellism and its "word alone" view of "regeneration" and Hardshellism and its "Spirit alone" view of the same.
"Recently, a number of Christian campuses have reported revival. As I have read case after case, one theme running throughout is the “testimony” that the Spirit was working directly in these meetings. Students and faculty alike appeared to applaud the fact that there was no preaching involved. “There wasn’t even a preacher,” one student exults. “The Holy Spirit was doing it, not some preacher.”
What is the assumption in such a comment? It is that the Holy Spirit working directly and immediately (i.e. without means) was superior to the Holy Spirit working through means. By circumventing the Word——and especially the preached Word——the Holy Spirit was perceived more intimately and powerfully involved. Historic Protestantism has always emphasized the preaching of God’s Word as sacramental. That is, it is not merely the communication of information, but the effectual means of producing conversion. God alone is the cause of the New Birth, but he calls women and men to himself through the weakness of preaching.
Nowhere in Scripture do we find a pattern of evangelism or revival in which individuals respond to the gospel by simply being “zapped” by the Spirit. They are always responding to the preached Word. It may be one-on-one, or in an assembly, but it is the Word proclaimed that gives life to those spiritually dead. Furthermore, even after they are converted, believers do not grow in their walk, deepen in their Christian experience, or learn new truths by the direct activity of the Spirit apart from God’s ordained means.
Apart from the Word, there is no salvation and no activity of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s people. Where the Word is rightly preached, the Spirit is active in power. Where the Word is not rightly preached, the Spirit is not active in power. It is impossible to have a place in which the Word is preached clearly (as the proclamation of Christ), where the Spirit is absent in his power and saving strength. It is equally impossible for the Spirit to be actively present if the preaching of Christ is not the central focus.
The Reformers faced “the enthusiasts,” who were heirs to many of the tendencies of the ancient Gnostics. They believed that they knew a better way, a higher path, a secret tunnel of the Spirit that was a short-cut. Luther, for instance, in a sermon on Luke 2:22, warned of “those noxious spirits who say: a man acquires the Holy Spirit by sitting in a corner, etc. A hundred thousand devils you will acquire and you will not come to God. God has always worked with something physical.” True Christianity is not gained by sitting in a corner, watching and waiting to be filled with heavenly revelation. Rather, as we sit with other sinners in a church, hearing and believing the Word of God, God comes to his people in intimate communion, self-disclosure, and redemption. John Calvin declared, in his commentary on I Thessalonians 5:20,
"It is an illusory belief of the enthusiasts that those who keep reading Scripture or hearing the Word are children, as if no one were spiritual unless he scorned doctrine. In their pride, therefore, they despise the ministry of men and even Scripture itself, in order to attain the Spirit. They then proudly try to peddle all the delusions that Satan suggests to them as secret revelations of the Spirit.”
“Far from denigrating the preached Word over the Spirit’s direct “whisper” to the heart, the biblical accounts of conversions link the Spirit to the Word in every case. For instance, in the gospel accounts, people respond either in outrage or faith to Jesus’ teaching. This preaching of the Word is the Spirit’s means of bringing whole crowds to Christ. In fact, this is why Luther said it is difficult to preach the gospel to ourselves.”
“Education——though it is despised by Gnostics who feel that they have access to direct revelations——is indispensable. We believe that the Holy Spirit will link us to Christ through the preached Word, so we come with expectations of divine activity. Israel had the Word of God, but it was the Holy Spirit who, through Ezekiel’s preaching, made that Word the active, energetic power behind the spiritual resurrection.”
“...we must refuse to separate what God has joined together. The Word without the Spirit would be ineffective, and the Spirit without the Word is not the Spirit at all——but the lying delusions of our own imagination and fallible minds.”
“It’s time we recovered our confidence in the Word and Spirit once again. We must refuse to accept any version of spirituality that seeks the Word without the life-giving Spirit or the Spirit without the actual proclamation, teaching and doctrinal clarity of the actual text of Holy Scripture. Apart from sound doctrine and lively preaching of biblical truth, the Holy Spirit is silent; when that Word is faithfully proclaimed, the Holy Spirit is at work. Then there comes a rattling sound, as the bones come together one by one, forming an army of the Lord in the valley of death.”
(“Receiving Christ,” by Michael Horton, from his out of print book, “In the Face of God”)
Both Campbellism and Hardshellism are both denied by the Scriptures and comments given above.
Serving The Spirit
"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3:2-5)
These verses harmonize with those in II Corinthians chapter 3. It is about gospel preachers, as servants of God, "communicating the Spirit" to others, offering the "blessings of the new covenant" to Jews and Gentiles alike.
Receiving the Holy Spirit is what brings life, salvation, regeneration, conversion, and the new birth. The Holy Spirit is received "by faith," by believing the gospel preached. That is what the passage in Galatians tells us.
Gospel Preaching of Paul A Means To Eternally Save
"Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (II Tim. 2:9,10)
Hardshells think this is "blasphemy." They believe that it is "blasphemy" to teach that the preachers of the gospel are instruments used by the Holy Spirit in regenerating dead sinners. They will not deny that some kind of "temporal salvation" is connected with or otherwise dependant upon the preached word of the gospel, but they deny it in the case of "eternal salvation." The above words of Paul were always a difficult nut to crack when I was a believer in Hardshellism and its regeneration apart from the word of God. I could not, however, in good conscience, make the "salvation" of the passage "temporal," for he describes this "salvation" as one that has "eternal glory." I could not, nor can any other "honest" Hardshell, make this anything but eternal salvation. If we go by the "context," this is perfectly clear.
Believing Unto Life
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 29-31)
This was indeed an even harder "nut to crack" when I was a believer in Hardshellism. Here it is clearly affirmed that the written and preached word of God, the message of the gospel, is the means of bringing people to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the result of coming to this gospel faith was to give them "life." This is absolutely not Hardshell teaching and it would be difficult to find language any more clear in their refutation of the Hardshell views on how one comes to "saving faith" and "spiritual life."
I challenge any Hardshell to show, from Baptist writings, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," that denied that the above words of John taught the necessity of gospel faith for salvation.
I will be extending these returned "hot shots" in the next chapter or two.
Sep 12, 2006
Chapter 27 - Hot Shots Returned (2nd Volley)
God's Gospel Power To Save
"I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:14-16)
How do the Hardshells deal with this verse? Does it not destroy their view that the preaching of the gospel is not God's means, yea, God's power UNTO salvation?
The almost universal Hardshell "interpretation" of this passage is to affirm that the phrase, "to everyone who believes," means, "to everyone who has God implanted "faith" in "regeneration"; in other words, "unto everyone who are already born again or saved." Thus, they would say -- the gospel is the power of God unto a time salvation to those who are already eternally saved." Or, they would interpret it to say, "the gospel is the power of God unto a gospel belief (faith) to everyone who has a seed belief (faith)."
Wrote Elder C. H. Cayce:
""For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."---Rom. i. 16. Please take notice of the fact that Paul did not say, "it is the power of God in order to salvation"--but unto salvation. How under heaven could the gospel of Christ be the power of God unto salvation if salvation did not already exist in the person before the gospel got there? How can one thing be unto another thing if the other thing is not already in existence? The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." It is not the power of God unto salvation to one who is not a believer. A believer is one who has already been born of God. "Even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."---John i. 12,13. Those who now believe, in the present, were born of God, in the past. So the gospel coming to one in power proves that such a one was born of God before the gospel came to him; and one who has been born of God was chosen of God before he was born of God. Being born of God and the gospel coming to him with power is inspired proof of the fact that such a one was embraced in the election of God." (Vol.VII, pp. 376--379)
Two errors then are evident in this "interpretation." First, they err in making the "salvation" something in time and totally unconnected with the new birth or eternal salvation. Second, they err in affirming that the "believer" who is saved by the preaching of the gospel is not one who is a believer in the gospel, but a believer in the sense that he has a mystical seed or spirit of faith.
If "everyone who believes" refers to a "faith" that one has before they ever know the gospel, what is it that they believe? Apparently the Hardshells are using the phrase "everyone who believes" as equivalent with the phrase "everyone who is elect," or at least as equivalent to "everyone who is regenerated." So, let us read the verse as the Hardshells interpret it.
"...the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who is born again."
Has that really helped them? No, it has not. Rather, it has put them, logically, into the position of affirming that everyone who is born again will be saved by the gospel! Very few Hardshells believe that idea, although some have historically. Notice that Paul does not say that the "gospel" is potentially or hypothetically the "power of God" to those who believe, but that it is actually.
The average person reads the verse and naturally sees that Paul is saying that everyone who "believes the gospel" will be saved by believing it. The Hardshells will affirm that the "believing" of Romans 1:16 precedes any gospel knowledge, and thus cannot be a believing of the gospel. Well, again I ask, what do they "believe" by "regeneration," apart from the gospel? It cannot be a faith in Christ, "for how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Most will, when forced into an answer, say, "It is a belief in God, a supreme being." But, then, are they saying that all who confess a belief in this are born again, of God's elect? Do not the "devils" have this kind of faith?
Again, I press the point, that the Hardshells cannot escape the consequences of their interpretation that says "the gospel IS (in fact) the power of God unto salvation to EVERYONE who believes" (i.e., is "born again").
But, the Hardshells do not believe that "everyone" who is "born again," that has the "faith of God's elect," that "faith" which is "implanted" in "regeneration," and who is a "believer" in that sense, finds the gospel the power of God to their "time" or "gospel salvation"! Yet, by their "interpretation," they would have to say that the gospel is in fact the power of God to salvation to "everyone" who is born again. They do not believe this however, in spite of the fact that their "interpretation" necessitates it.
Elder John Watson
"So, those who are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ were called. This then brings me to the subject of their calling. This was of God, and gave efficacy and certainty to all other callings--by the preacher--by the written word, or by any means whatever...Paul in his letter to the Romans defines the Gospel to be the "Power of God unto salvation unto every one that believes." The power of God unto whom? In this instance they are termed the predestined of God--wherein we learn that the Gospel was ordained unto them as the Power of God: a very sure and effectual power, verily! sure unto them as some of the seed, called in his letter, the predestinated ones, a term synonimous in a Gospel sense with that of seed. Thus, the Gospel as the power of God could not fail to reach them with its blessings bad as their natural state was. Any inferior power would have failed. The Gospel as the Power of God must accord, in its practical course, with the foreknowledge and predestination of God. It is absurd to entertain a thought to the contrary." (Old Baptist Test, page 81)
Again he writes:
"We may therefore learn that the preaching of Paul, and of others was included in the calling of God. Hence, the Apostle asks the questions, how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach except they be sent? And may I not ask most significantly here by whom are they sent? Will our missionary Baptists allow Christ to answer? "Pray ye therefore the Lord of harvest, that He will send forth laborers into His harvest."" (page 82)
Elder Watson was a unique Hardshell founding father, and I will be having more to say about him in later chapters. He was not your typical Hardshell however, for he believed that the gospel was the means God used in calling the elect to life in Christ and he believed those fellow Hardshells who did not believe such were really NOT the Old Baptists, but "ULTRA Brethren," as he called them.
He certainly did see what I see in the passage. He sees that the verse absolutely affirms that everyone who is predestined to salvation will be brought to that salvation by the preaching of the gospel. That is truly the Old Baptist position. I challenge the Hardshells to cite one Baptist writer, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who interpreted Romans 1:16 as do you.
Dr. Gill On Romans 1:16
"it is the power of God organically or instrumentally; as it is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends; to which add, the manner in which all this is done, suddenly, secretly, effectually, and by love, and not force: the extent of this power is, "unto salvation"; the Gospel is a declaration and revelation of salvation by Christ, and is a means of directing and encouraging souls to lay hold upon it." (Commentary)
Gill was not here advocating a new doctrine among the Baptists nor a new interpretation of Romans 1:16. He expressed the standard and historical view of the Baptists. Had any Hardshells been around in Dr. Gill's day, they would have opposed his views and written against them. But, there are no writings opposing this traditional Baptist view until the "rise of the Hardshells."
One of the things that always bothered me about this novel "interpretation" of Romans 1:16, besides the strange twist on the import of the term "believer," was the making of this "salvation" a "time salvation." This view, however, is just simply "out of context" with the whole Roman epistle, which is to give us divine teaching on eternal justification and salvation. The way the Hardshells handle the Book of Romans has Paul, undetectable to any except the Hardshells, going back and forth, at one time talking about eternal deliverance from sin and then, at other times, talking strictly about being saved in time from temporal pains and harms.
Is not Romans one talking about eternal condemnation? I would ask the Hardshells to tell us what parts of Romans is dealing with eternal salvation and what part with time salvation. How do we know when to interpret one way versus the other? Does Paul indicate in the "context" which is which? Is it not true that the whole of the epistle is dealing with eternal salvation and that you Hardshells just do not want to believe it and had rather twist and distort it?
"I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:14-16)
How do the Hardshells deal with this verse? Does it not destroy their view that the preaching of the gospel is not God's means, yea, God's power UNTO salvation?
The almost universal Hardshell "interpretation" of this passage is to affirm that the phrase, "to everyone who believes," means, "to everyone who has God implanted "faith" in "regeneration"; in other words, "unto everyone who are already born again or saved." Thus, they would say -- the gospel is the power of God unto a time salvation to those who are already eternally saved." Or, they would interpret it to say, "the gospel is the power of God unto a gospel belief (faith) to everyone who has a seed belief (faith)."
Wrote Elder C. H. Cayce:
""For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."---Rom. i. 16. Please take notice of the fact that Paul did not say, "it is the power of God in order to salvation"--but unto salvation. How under heaven could the gospel of Christ be the power of God unto salvation if salvation did not already exist in the person before the gospel got there? How can one thing be unto another thing if the other thing is not already in existence? The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." It is not the power of God unto salvation to one who is not a believer. A believer is one who has already been born of God. "Even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."---John i. 12,13. Those who now believe, in the present, were born of God, in the past. So the gospel coming to one in power proves that such a one was born of God before the gospel came to him; and one who has been born of God was chosen of God before he was born of God. Being born of God and the gospel coming to him with power is inspired proof of the fact that such a one was embraced in the election of God." (Vol.VII, pp. 376--379)
Two errors then are evident in this "interpretation." First, they err in making the "salvation" something in time and totally unconnected with the new birth or eternal salvation. Second, they err in affirming that the "believer" who is saved by the preaching of the gospel is not one who is a believer in the gospel, but a believer in the sense that he has a mystical seed or spirit of faith.
If "everyone who believes" refers to a "faith" that one has before they ever know the gospel, what is it that they believe? Apparently the Hardshells are using the phrase "everyone who believes" as equivalent with the phrase "everyone who is elect," or at least as equivalent to "everyone who is regenerated." So, let us read the verse as the Hardshells interpret it.
"...the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who is born again."
Has that really helped them? No, it has not. Rather, it has put them, logically, into the position of affirming that everyone who is born again will be saved by the gospel! Very few Hardshells believe that idea, although some have historically. Notice that Paul does not say that the "gospel" is potentially or hypothetically the "power of God" to those who believe, but that it is actually.
The average person reads the verse and naturally sees that Paul is saying that everyone who "believes the gospel" will be saved by believing it. The Hardshells will affirm that the "believing" of Romans 1:16 precedes any gospel knowledge, and thus cannot be a believing of the gospel. Well, again I ask, what do they "believe" by "regeneration," apart from the gospel? It cannot be a faith in Christ, "for how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Most will, when forced into an answer, say, "It is a belief in God, a supreme being." But, then, are they saying that all who confess a belief in this are born again, of God's elect? Do not the "devils" have this kind of faith?
Again, I press the point, that the Hardshells cannot escape the consequences of their interpretation that says "the gospel IS (in fact) the power of God unto salvation to EVERYONE who believes" (i.e., is "born again").
But, the Hardshells do not believe that "everyone" who is "born again," that has the "faith of God's elect," that "faith" which is "implanted" in "regeneration," and who is a "believer" in that sense, finds the gospel the power of God to their "time" or "gospel salvation"! Yet, by their "interpretation," they would have to say that the gospel is in fact the power of God to salvation to "everyone" who is born again. They do not believe this however, in spite of the fact that their "interpretation" necessitates it.
Elder John Watson
"So, those who are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ were called. This then brings me to the subject of their calling. This was of God, and gave efficacy and certainty to all other callings--by the preacher--by the written word, or by any means whatever...Paul in his letter to the Romans defines the Gospel to be the "Power of God unto salvation unto every one that believes." The power of God unto whom? In this instance they are termed the predestined of God--wherein we learn that the Gospel was ordained unto them as the Power of God: a very sure and effectual power, verily! sure unto them as some of the seed, called in his letter, the predestinated ones, a term synonimous in a Gospel sense with that of seed. Thus, the Gospel as the power of God could not fail to reach them with its blessings bad as their natural state was. Any inferior power would have failed. The Gospel as the Power of God must accord, in its practical course, with the foreknowledge and predestination of God. It is absurd to entertain a thought to the contrary." (Old Baptist Test, page 81)
Again he writes:
"We may therefore learn that the preaching of Paul, and of others was included in the calling of God. Hence, the Apostle asks the questions, how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach except they be sent? And may I not ask most significantly here by whom are they sent? Will our missionary Baptists allow Christ to answer? "Pray ye therefore the Lord of harvest, that He will send forth laborers into His harvest."" (page 82)
Elder Watson was a unique Hardshell founding father, and I will be having more to say about him in later chapters. He was not your typical Hardshell however, for he believed that the gospel was the means God used in calling the elect to life in Christ and he believed those fellow Hardshells who did not believe such were really NOT the Old Baptists, but "ULTRA Brethren," as he called them.
He certainly did see what I see in the passage. He sees that the verse absolutely affirms that everyone who is predestined to salvation will be brought to that salvation by the preaching of the gospel. That is truly the Old Baptist position. I challenge the Hardshells to cite one Baptist writer, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who interpreted Romans 1:16 as do you.
Dr. Gill On Romans 1:16
"it is the power of God organically or instrumentally; as it is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends; to which add, the manner in which all this is done, suddenly, secretly, effectually, and by love, and not force: the extent of this power is, "unto salvation"; the Gospel is a declaration and revelation of salvation by Christ, and is a means of directing and encouraging souls to lay hold upon it." (Commentary)
Gill was not here advocating a new doctrine among the Baptists nor a new interpretation of Romans 1:16. He expressed the standard and historical view of the Baptists. Had any Hardshells been around in Dr. Gill's day, they would have opposed his views and written against them. But, there are no writings opposing this traditional Baptist view until the "rise of the Hardshells."
One of the things that always bothered me about this novel "interpretation" of Romans 1:16, besides the strange twist on the import of the term "believer," was the making of this "salvation" a "time salvation." This view, however, is just simply "out of context" with the whole Roman epistle, which is to give us divine teaching on eternal justification and salvation. The way the Hardshells handle the Book of Romans has Paul, undetectable to any except the Hardshells, going back and forth, at one time talking about eternal deliverance from sin and then, at other times, talking strictly about being saved in time from temporal pains and harms.
Is not Romans one talking about eternal condemnation? I would ask the Hardshells to tell us what parts of Romans is dealing with eternal salvation and what part with time salvation. How do we know when to interpret one way versus the other? Does Paul indicate in the "context" which is which? Is it not true that the whole of the epistle is dealing with eternal salvation and that you Hardshells just do not want to believe it and had rather twist and distort it?
Sep 10, 2006
Chapter 26 - Hot Shots Returned (1st Volley)
The famed Hardshell "debater" and "apologist," Elder C.H. Cayce, put out a booklet in the "hay day" of his debating days, called "HOT SHOTS." I have always wanted to get a copy of this booklet, even during those years when I was a Hardshell "apologist" myself, and never could find anyone who had a copy for me to buy or borrow. I was always curious about this, quering to myself, "why would it not be reprinted and used if it was such a great work of Hardshell apologetics?" I could say the same for other books that have mysteriously disappeared or otherwise been kept out of print by later generations of Hardshells. Many of these books are sitting on dusty shelves in a few "libraries" dedicated to preserving the writings of "Primitive Baptists."
"HOT SHOTS" was intended, by Cayce, to put forth unanswerable questions to the "Arminians" (those he considered such, whether they were in fact, or not) and the "Missionary Baptists" and which would demonstrate to all how the "Primitive Baptists" were the only ones who were "right."
I have still not to this day located Cayce's "HOT SHOTS" booklet. As I said, many such books and writings have not been republished by today's Hardshells. They pick and choose what writings of their forefathers to keep printed for new generations of Hardshells, but it amazes me that many writings, like the above mentioned work, for one reason or another, never "made the cut." If such a booklet was so "unanswerable," then why has it not been reprinted and used in the "proselyting methods" of Hardshells against the "Arminians" and "Missionaries"? It does make one wonder. I do believe that the Hardshells are a clear example of group "selective perception." Actually, every cult has its own peculiar way of "processing information" into previously designated areas of mental storage, previous interpretation categories.
One can tell a lot about the Hardshells by viewing what writings they have chosen to keep printed, what arguments they have found worthy of keeping and continuing, what jargon they have made part of their group culture, what traditions in thought and practice they have preserved, and other such group characteristics. I will deal with some of this in later chapters, especially in those that will concern their "evolution" in doctrine over the past 200 years, and the one that will deal with their "hermeneutics."
If I ever do locate this booklet of Cayce, I will be happy to include it, with my analysis, if the Lord wills, in a possible second volume to this work down the road. After all, I do plan to continue to follow this "cult" and do research into their writings in the next few years. So, it is likely that the result of this will lead to another volume. There are many works now extant, important historical documents, that have just disappeared. I may even make a list of these missing works at the end of this book and ask any reader to contact me if any of them can be located.
In any case, it is in the spirit of good spiritual sportsmanship that I "return volley" and issue my own two chapters titled "HOT SHOTS RETURNED" In these chapters I will hurl red hot cannon balls of Scripture that establish the teaching that regeneration, or the new birth, occurs by the Holy Spirit using the means of gospel preaching, "by the word of God" being communicated to the mind and heart of sinners.
Ephesians 5:26-28 - Cleansed By The Word
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5:22-32)
On this verse Elder Cayce says, "this word is Christ." (Editorial Writings, Volume III, page 191)
Then he writes years later, these words:
"He does this by speaking to them by the power of the Holy Spirit. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."--John 6:63. It is by the power of His speech that sinners are regenerated, and in this work there is an inward washing and cleansing." (Volume 6, page 197)
From the above writings of Cayce, it is obvious that he does the same thing, hermeneutically, that Elder Durand did relative to his commentary upon James 1:18. The "word" by which the church of Christ is "cleansed" and "sanctified" for eternity is not the gospel, but either 1) Christ, who is the "word", or 2) The actual "speech" of Christ to the hearts of sinners apart from his preachers of the word. How can it be both, however?
Christ is never called "remah" but always "logos"! It seems that Cayce, in his early days as a Hardshell debater, took the view that the "word" of Eph. 5:26 was Christ himself. Then, later, however, after having tested, perhaps, this view in debate, he latered altered that view to say that the "word" was not Christ himself, but his own direct personal "speech" to the sinner. He probaby realized that the "word" in Eph. 5:26 was not "logos" and so decided to change his views. Either view will not get one in trouble with the Hardshell faithful, however. You will be safe with them as long as you make the "word" of this passage to mean anything other than the preached, written or spoken word of the gospel of truth. It can mean Christ himself, or it can mean his direct speaking or personal speech to the sinner, but never can it mean what it normally means in the New Testament, which is, obviously, the words of scripture, the words of the promises of God, the words of the gospel or glad tidings. They take this bias against a belief in gospel means, derived strictly from their own Hardshell "logic," to passages like the above, and twist, distort, alter or otherwise contort the obvious meaning of such verses in order to uphold their false teachings.
It never fails to amaze me how the Hardshells can repeatedly talk about how they, and they alone, "rightly divide the word of truth," how they always "interpret" the word "saved" (or its various forms) strictly by the "context," when in fact, as I have shown to some degree already, they absolutely do not. They do the same on the meaning of the terms "word of God," or "word of truth," or simply "the word." They will say, as Cayce, that it makes no difference whether the Greek word is "logos" or "remah," for they have this "hermeneutic rule," as I said, that they take to the Bible and use whenever they read a verse that connects the "word" or the "gospel" with "regeneration" (or its equivalent terms).
None of these Hardshell "apologists" cite from the "context" of James 1:18, I Cor. 4:15, I Peter 1:23, or Ephesians 5:26 to prove that their "interpretation" of the meaning of "by the word" is correct. In fact, in previous chapters I have done just the opposite, for I have clearly shown from the "context" how "the word," as used in those passages, clearly refers to the preaching of "the word of the truth of the gospel."
The "cleansing" that the church of Christ experiences, per the "context" of the above passage, involves the removal of every "spot," and "wrinkle," and "blemish," yea, every imperfection of heart, mind, and soul. This work of perfecting, cleansing, of sanctifying the elect, is not all done at once in regeneration, though it begin there, but is a work that is progressive throughout the life of the believer. This work of perfecting and sanctifying, when properly understood, is obviously not unconnected with spiritual truth, with the application of the word of God, of the good news of the gospel.
Throughout this chapter Paul is talking about how the Ephesian disciples ought to continue to be washed and cleansed in their daily walks. This "cleansing" is steady and continuous in removing all impure thoughts, motives, ambitions, and deeds. He speaks of Christian wives "submitting" (or "obeying") their husbands. Is this not all the same as saying, "Obey the words or instructions of your husbands"? So, by necessary implication, it is by the bride obeying and heeding the words and voice of her husband that she finds a continuous cleansing, regular purging, and progressive sanctification."
Cayce and the Hardshells find it impossible to believe that Christ speaks effectively to sinners "through the word" preached by his faithful and holy servants. I ask them, "Does the Lord continue his "speech" to them after regeneration"? If not, what "word" is there left for them for daily cleansing? Is not "daily cleansing" part of our being "kept" from that "pollution" of soul that ultimately destroys the soul? I would also ask them to tell me whether the regenerated sinner needs the blood of Christ to be at work in continually cleansing post regeneration. I would ask whether he does this cleansing by the same word as initially. If the Lord can cleanse and wash away sin in saint by the word of God preached, then why cannot it also do the same in regeneration? Does it take glory away from God that he cleanses the born again soul by the continuous use of the word of God?
Paul wrote these words to the early Christians at Corinth.
"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7:1)
Hardshells will argue that this passage does not have anything to do with "regeneration," seeing Paul is addressing those who are already Christians. That is conceded. However, a number of things are still pertinent in addressing the question as to the utility of the word of God in the preservation of the saint from further real or potential filth. Obviously, these Christians still got dirty spiritually speaking. They still needed the cleansing of the blood of Christ to be continuously at work in their souls, daily removing stains, blemishes, etc. So too is the word of God a steady means in the progressive and continuously cleansing of the elect to their destined perfection. Paul clearly believes that the elect are not simply passive in this washing and spiritual bathing, for he exhorts them to clean themselves. Does this contradict those passages that speak of the Lord cleansing us? No, it does not. The only ones who see a contradiction are the Hardshells, and they would not see it if they would just lay aside their prejudices and biases, and "receive with meekness the engrafted word."
Regeneration is sometimes, like salvation, commanded of us, in a manner that supposes that sinners are very active in it. This is a truth some deny, as being in one extreme, such as the Hyper-Calvinists or Hardshells. It is not viewed as an experience in which the sinner is wholly passive. Yet, I confess, that there are other passages where the sinner is viewed as totally passive. This truth is not to be denied either. They do not contradict themselves, although it might seem that way, initially, to some.
If one searches the Old Baptist writings it will be seen that they keep with the Scriptures and show how, in some respects, the sinner is passive, while in other respects, he is quite active. I will deal with this a little further in the chapter that discusses the question of whether salvation is unconditional or conditional, or in some ways both.
So it is no contradiction for the Lord to command saint and sinner to be washed of sin. The Lord does the cleansing, yes, but the ones being cleansed also cleanse themselves for they are the ones who make the decision to take the spiritual bath in the blood of Christ. Yes, that coming to see oneself dirty and in need of cleansing, and the coming to the laver of regeneration is a willing mental act that the sinner is made by grace to make.
Born OF Water
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," (JOH 3:5.)
"Water" is here viewed as a "source" one with the Spirit in bringing about the "new birth" just as the "word" is also one with the Holy Spirit as the source or means of "cleansing" the bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:26-28. There are not two "births" in John 3, but one birth with two sources, like natural birth where there is both a mother and a father. In this case the water would correspond to our spiritual mother and the Holy Spirit our spiritual father.
It has been pointed out how the Campbellites take out the Spirit in the "new birth" and how the Hardshells take out the "water" (or the "word") from it.
If "water" does refer in fact to the "word of God," then Christ is here teaching against the idea of "Spirit Alone" (Hardshellism) and "Word Alone"(Campbellism) "regeneration."
Water is a scriptural and apt SYMBOL of the Word of God. It is used as a symbol for cleansing. The word of God is the instrument used of the Spirit for purifying the soul in the new birth. The new birth is the work of the Holy Spirit and brings about the soul's sanctification.
"1 PE 1:22-23 says, "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
The word of God purges out all things unclean in the sinner. The heart, mind, and soul are all cleansed and washed.
"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word." (PSA 119:9)
"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you."
(John 15:3)
"HOT SHOTS" was intended, by Cayce, to put forth unanswerable questions to the "Arminians" (those he considered such, whether they were in fact, or not) and the "Missionary Baptists" and which would demonstrate to all how the "Primitive Baptists" were the only ones who were "right."
I have still not to this day located Cayce's "HOT SHOTS" booklet. As I said, many such books and writings have not been republished by today's Hardshells. They pick and choose what writings of their forefathers to keep printed for new generations of Hardshells, but it amazes me that many writings, like the above mentioned work, for one reason or another, never "made the cut." If such a booklet was so "unanswerable," then why has it not been reprinted and used in the "proselyting methods" of Hardshells against the "Arminians" and "Missionaries"? It does make one wonder. I do believe that the Hardshells are a clear example of group "selective perception." Actually, every cult has its own peculiar way of "processing information" into previously designated areas of mental storage, previous interpretation categories.
One can tell a lot about the Hardshells by viewing what writings they have chosen to keep printed, what arguments they have found worthy of keeping and continuing, what jargon they have made part of their group culture, what traditions in thought and practice they have preserved, and other such group characteristics. I will deal with some of this in later chapters, especially in those that will concern their "evolution" in doctrine over the past 200 years, and the one that will deal with their "hermeneutics."
If I ever do locate this booklet of Cayce, I will be happy to include it, with my analysis, if the Lord wills, in a possible second volume to this work down the road. After all, I do plan to continue to follow this "cult" and do research into their writings in the next few years. So, it is likely that the result of this will lead to another volume. There are many works now extant, important historical documents, that have just disappeared. I may even make a list of these missing works at the end of this book and ask any reader to contact me if any of them can be located.
In any case, it is in the spirit of good spiritual sportsmanship that I "return volley" and issue my own two chapters titled "HOT SHOTS RETURNED" In these chapters I will hurl red hot cannon balls of Scripture that establish the teaching that regeneration, or the new birth, occurs by the Holy Spirit using the means of gospel preaching, "by the word of God" being communicated to the mind and heart of sinners.
Ephesians 5:26-28 - Cleansed By The Word
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5:22-32)
On this verse Elder Cayce says, "this word is Christ." (Editorial Writings, Volume III, page 191)
Then he writes years later, these words:
"He does this by speaking to them by the power of the Holy Spirit. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."--John 6:63. It is by the power of His speech that sinners are regenerated, and in this work there is an inward washing and cleansing." (Volume 6, page 197)
From the above writings of Cayce, it is obvious that he does the same thing, hermeneutically, that Elder Durand did relative to his commentary upon James 1:18. The "word" by which the church of Christ is "cleansed" and "sanctified" for eternity is not the gospel, but either 1) Christ, who is the "word", or 2) The actual "speech" of Christ to the hearts of sinners apart from his preachers of the word. How can it be both, however?
Christ is never called "remah" but always "logos"! It seems that Cayce, in his early days as a Hardshell debater, took the view that the "word" of Eph. 5:26 was Christ himself. Then, later, however, after having tested, perhaps, this view in debate, he latered altered that view to say that the "word" was not Christ himself, but his own direct personal "speech" to the sinner. He probaby realized that the "word" in Eph. 5:26 was not "logos" and so decided to change his views. Either view will not get one in trouble with the Hardshell faithful, however. You will be safe with them as long as you make the "word" of this passage to mean anything other than the preached, written or spoken word of the gospel of truth. It can mean Christ himself, or it can mean his direct speaking or personal speech to the sinner, but never can it mean what it normally means in the New Testament, which is, obviously, the words of scripture, the words of the promises of God, the words of the gospel or glad tidings. They take this bias against a belief in gospel means, derived strictly from their own Hardshell "logic," to passages like the above, and twist, distort, alter or otherwise contort the obvious meaning of such verses in order to uphold their false teachings.
It never fails to amaze me how the Hardshells can repeatedly talk about how they, and they alone, "rightly divide the word of truth," how they always "interpret" the word "saved" (or its various forms) strictly by the "context," when in fact, as I have shown to some degree already, they absolutely do not. They do the same on the meaning of the terms "word of God," or "word of truth," or simply "the word." They will say, as Cayce, that it makes no difference whether the Greek word is "logos" or "remah," for they have this "hermeneutic rule," as I said, that they take to the Bible and use whenever they read a verse that connects the "word" or the "gospel" with "regeneration" (or its equivalent terms).
None of these Hardshell "apologists" cite from the "context" of James 1:18, I Cor. 4:15, I Peter 1:23, or Ephesians 5:26 to prove that their "interpretation" of the meaning of "by the word" is correct. In fact, in previous chapters I have done just the opposite, for I have clearly shown from the "context" how "the word," as used in those passages, clearly refers to the preaching of "the word of the truth of the gospel."
The "cleansing" that the church of Christ experiences, per the "context" of the above passage, involves the removal of every "spot," and "wrinkle," and "blemish," yea, every imperfection of heart, mind, and soul. This work of perfecting, cleansing, of sanctifying the elect, is not all done at once in regeneration, though it begin there, but is a work that is progressive throughout the life of the believer. This work of perfecting and sanctifying, when properly understood, is obviously not unconnected with spiritual truth, with the application of the word of God, of the good news of the gospel.
Throughout this chapter Paul is talking about how the Ephesian disciples ought to continue to be washed and cleansed in their daily walks. This "cleansing" is steady and continuous in removing all impure thoughts, motives, ambitions, and deeds. He speaks of Christian wives "submitting" (or "obeying") their husbands. Is this not all the same as saying, "Obey the words or instructions of your husbands"? So, by necessary implication, it is by the bride obeying and heeding the words and voice of her husband that she finds a continuous cleansing, regular purging, and progressive sanctification."
Cayce and the Hardshells find it impossible to believe that Christ speaks effectively to sinners "through the word" preached by his faithful and holy servants. I ask them, "Does the Lord continue his "speech" to them after regeneration"? If not, what "word" is there left for them for daily cleansing? Is not "daily cleansing" part of our being "kept" from that "pollution" of soul that ultimately destroys the soul? I would also ask them to tell me whether the regenerated sinner needs the blood of Christ to be at work in continually cleansing post regeneration. I would ask whether he does this cleansing by the same word as initially. If the Lord can cleanse and wash away sin in saint by the word of God preached, then why cannot it also do the same in regeneration? Does it take glory away from God that he cleanses the born again soul by the continuous use of the word of God?
Paul wrote these words to the early Christians at Corinth.
"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7:1)
Hardshells will argue that this passage does not have anything to do with "regeneration," seeing Paul is addressing those who are already Christians. That is conceded. However, a number of things are still pertinent in addressing the question as to the utility of the word of God in the preservation of the saint from further real or potential filth. Obviously, these Christians still got dirty spiritually speaking. They still needed the cleansing of the blood of Christ to be continuously at work in their souls, daily removing stains, blemishes, etc. So too is the word of God a steady means in the progressive and continuously cleansing of the elect to their destined perfection. Paul clearly believes that the elect are not simply passive in this washing and spiritual bathing, for he exhorts them to clean themselves. Does this contradict those passages that speak of the Lord cleansing us? No, it does not. The only ones who see a contradiction are the Hardshells, and they would not see it if they would just lay aside their prejudices and biases, and "receive with meekness the engrafted word."
Regeneration is sometimes, like salvation, commanded of us, in a manner that supposes that sinners are very active in it. This is a truth some deny, as being in one extreme, such as the Hyper-Calvinists or Hardshells. It is not viewed as an experience in which the sinner is wholly passive. Yet, I confess, that there are other passages where the sinner is viewed as totally passive. This truth is not to be denied either. They do not contradict themselves, although it might seem that way, initially, to some.
If one searches the Old Baptist writings it will be seen that they keep with the Scriptures and show how, in some respects, the sinner is passive, while in other respects, he is quite active. I will deal with this a little further in the chapter that discusses the question of whether salvation is unconditional or conditional, or in some ways both.
So it is no contradiction for the Lord to command saint and sinner to be washed of sin. The Lord does the cleansing, yes, but the ones being cleansed also cleanse themselves for they are the ones who make the decision to take the spiritual bath in the blood of Christ. Yes, that coming to see oneself dirty and in need of cleansing, and the coming to the laver of regeneration is a willing mental act that the sinner is made by grace to make.
Born OF Water
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," (JOH 3:5.)
"Water" is here viewed as a "source" one with the Spirit in bringing about the "new birth" just as the "word" is also one with the Holy Spirit as the source or means of "cleansing" the bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:26-28. There are not two "births" in John 3, but one birth with two sources, like natural birth where there is both a mother and a father. In this case the water would correspond to our spiritual mother and the Holy Spirit our spiritual father.
It has been pointed out how the Campbellites take out the Spirit in the "new birth" and how the Hardshells take out the "water" (or the "word") from it.
If "water" does refer in fact to the "word of God," then Christ is here teaching against the idea of "Spirit Alone" (Hardshellism) and "Word Alone"(Campbellism) "regeneration."
Water is a scriptural and apt SYMBOL of the Word of God. It is used as a symbol for cleansing. The word of God is the instrument used of the Spirit for purifying the soul in the new birth. The new birth is the work of the Holy Spirit and brings about the soul's sanctification.
"1 PE 1:22-23 says, "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
The word of God purges out all things unclean in the sinner. The heart, mind, and soul are all cleansed and washed.
"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word." (PSA 119:9)
"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you."
(John 15:3)
Sep 6, 2006
Chapter 25 - I Cor. 4:15
"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church."
Hassell wrote:
"Therefore, when the Apostle Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthian Church (I Cor. 4:15), he means, as he himself explains his language, not their spiritual, but only their ministerial father (II Cor. 3:3), the minister by whom, or under whose preaching, they first believed the gospel, even, he says, as the Lord gave to every man; he was, under God, the founder or planter of that church (I Cor. 3:5, 6) and it was sinful "carnality" for them to say that they were "of him" (I Cor. 3:4)."
By this "logic" of Hassell it is clear that he does not connect "spirituality" with being a "minister" of Christ. He alludes to the words of Paul who stated that he was a "minister by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man." If they were made "believers" by his preaching the gospel to them, then he was a means of them being saved, for we are "saved by grace through faith." (Eph. 2:8,9)
He also seems to think that when Paul, in the first chapter, says that it was wrong for the Christians in Corinth to say "I am of Paul," that he therefore was denying that he was in any sense a means in their regeneration and salvation. But, again, why cannot he not see the difference between being born "of" God and being born "through" a means? Paul does not deny that he was the means in their regeneration, but he never asserts that they were born "of Paul," but "through" Paul. If "source" be ascribed to Paul, the agent or means, then it is always clearly understood that it is intermediate source in view, the second cause.
He seems to think, like all Hardshells, that a man cannot be born "of" any but God. But, is this so, in every way? Do we not, as I have argued, have a "mother" in the new birth? Does the "Bride" not say "come" when the Lord says the same? Yes, strictly speaking, we are begotten of the father but through the mother. But, sometimes, we may be said to be both "of" the father and the mother.
"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man." (I Cor. 11:8)
"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (Vs. 11,12)
So, as I said, strictly speaking, we are "born of God by" the Bride, the "heavenly Jerusalem," who is "the mother of us all," (by the word of God preached by her). In natural birth it is more proper to say we are born of our fathers and through our mothers. Both are necessarily involved, but one is viewed as the producer of the "seed." Still, it can be allowed, by accomodation, to speak of birth as being "of" that secondary or instrumental cause. Thus, as I said in the previous chapter, one can be a "child of God" and also a "child of Abraham." Hardshell "logic" would say that they could not be both.
So Paul says, as a means, or agent, "I have begotten you..." You are my children and you are God's children. You are my follower and the Lord's follower as he says in the next verse. Again, I do not see why the Hardshells think they have such a great argument here.
Beebe wrote:
"Now the simple question is, in what sense does Paul claim to have begotten the Corinthians through the gospel? If, as Arminian cavilers contend, their regeneration, as subjects of saving grace, was effected by the efforts of Paul in preaching the gospel to them as a means of grace, it must then follow that they were as Christians begotten and born, not of the Spirit, but of Paul, and consequently not the children of God but of Paul; not heirs of God, but heirs of Paul." (emphasis mine)
Oh is that not glorious "logic"? Such "ignorance" resembles so much the "ignorance" of their parents, men like Daniel Parker and his "ignorant" and "arrogant" "frontier preachers." But, more on that in later chapters.
Beebe says further that the Corinthians were -
"...figuratively born into the more full understanding of the gospel; It was in this sense that Paul called Timothy his son, and the beloved John claimed all the scattered saints as his little children. In this application of the figure, Paul appealed to the members of the Galatian churches who had received the Spirit, and who had run well, saying, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you, etc. (Galatians 4:19).” If he travailed of them again, he had travailed of them before. As an anxious parent earnestly desiring that they might bear the image of Christ, to which end his former travail and labor had been successful; now that error, in the form of legality, meanism and Arminianism had bewitched them, again he travailed in birth, that their former beauty might be restored, and Christ, not Moses, be formed in them, so that they might again reflect his lovely image. By his administration of the gospel, which is Christ to them, Christ was reflected or formed understandingly in their hearts, so that in the exhibitions of their faith they presented Christ, and not Moses or Old Testament doctrine." (Elder Gilbert Beebe, Middletown, N.Y., February 1, 1866. Editorials Volume 6 –– pgs 290-294)
The two passages, I Cor. 4:15 & Gal. 4:19 are not exactly alike. In the former Paul is viewed as "siring" or "fathering" the Corinthians, but in the latter, he is viewed as mothering or delivering them to a birth. Both do contemplate regeneration, but under different figures. It is interesting that Beebe argues as do the Campbellites relative to the latter passage. But, I wish chiefly to call attention to the fact that Beebe argues that the word "begotten" is figurative of the teacher pupil relationship. This is the standard view. Let me cite a source that elaborates further upon this interpretation.
by Elder Zack M. Guess, Memphis, TN
"In the first place, it would have been blasphemy for the Corinthians to refer to Paul as a father in the sense that He was the means of bringing eternal life to them. No man can receive this honor because God alone is to receive the credit and glory for the salvation of His people. Christ instructed us, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matt 23:9). This is one of the gross errors of the Roman Catholic Church by having the priests addressed as "father." So it is certain that Paul was not the father of the Corinthians in the sense that he, by preaching the gospel to them, had had a part in their spiritual birth."
And again:
"The Meaning of Begotten"
First, let us see how this word "begotten" was commonly used at the time of the writing of the New Testament. J. H. Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament Words, p. 113 says, "In a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life." Commenting on the same word in the same passage, John Gill, in his Commentary On The New Testament quotes the Jerusalem Talmud as follows: "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the Law, the Scripture reckons this the same as if he had begotten him."
Arndt and Gingrich, in their Greek-English Lexicon, p. 154 say of the same word, "Figuratively of the influence exerted by one person on another...of a teacher on pupils." H. Cremer, in his Biblical-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, p. 146, says of this word, "Peculiar is the use made by Paul in some passages of the word to denote an influence exerted on some one, moulding his life, as in Galatians 4:24; 1 Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10."
If we put all this together and sum it up, it becomes immediately apparent that Paul was not even hinting to these Corinthians that he had preached the gospel to them and that they had thereby been born again.
Paul is rather saying this, "By my use of the gospel I have brought you over to my way of life: I have taught you the Scriptures; I have exerted an influence on you as a teacher on his pupils; I have helped to mold your life." This, and only this, is what Paul had done to those Corinthians by preaching the gospel to them."
And again:
"A look at the Word "Father"
Now let us briefly examine a very common way in which the word "father" was used in New Testament times. Thayer says, p. 495, "Metaphorically...one who stands in a father's place, and looks after another in a pastoral way: 1 Corinthians 4:15." W. E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. II, p. 82 says-"...of one who, as a preacher of the Gospel and a teacher, stands in a father's place, caring for his spiritual children, 1 Corinthians 4:15." So, here again, Paul is not saying that he was an instrument in giving spiritual life, but his responsibility was to help the life that had already been implanted by the Holy Spirit to develop. There is not even a hint of the new birth here."
And again:
"Paul is saying further that he is a father to these Corinthians. By this he means that he preached the gospel to them and turned them from error to truth. He thus became their spiritual teacher and they became learners or disciples. By his teaching he had great influence on them and helped to mold their lives. In this sense he was their father and they were his children. But only in this sense. If they had not previously been born again his teaching would have had no effect on them in a positive way."
("What Does This Mean?" A Study on 1 Corinthians 4:15 - http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Index/index14.htm)
It is very easy to destroy this "novel interpretation" of I Cor. 4:15. It is "novel" because you will search in vain to find a Baptist writer, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who will affirm the "interpretation" that the Hardshells place on these words of Paul. It has always been affirmed that it was a reference to "regeneration" or to the "new birth." Why this new "interpretation"? Why did no one come up with these view on the passage till the Hardshells came along?
Elder Zack Guess, a supporter of Elder Bradley and of the modern "liberal wing" of the Hardshell cult, says that the view of our Old Baptist forefathers is "blasphemy." He says further that the passage has "not even a hint of reference to the new birth" I suppose that all our Baptist forefathers were just plain deluded and stupid for not seeing how it could not possibly be referring to the "spriritual birth" in Christ? Our forefathers were all "blasphemers" because they all did not believe as do the Hardshells on this passage?
Father DOES NOT = Teacher
In the "interpretations" given by the Hardshell writers above, it is clear that they equate the term "teacher" with the word "father. They do this in spite of the fact that Paul shows that they are not the same, he EVEN EMPHASIZING THIS FACT! He says,
"For though you have ten thousand teachers in Christ, yet have you not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
If the Hardshell "interpretation" were correct he would be saying they have ten thousand teachers and ten thousand fathers, for they have equated the terms where Paul distinquished between them, except in regard to himself. He was both their teacher and father, for he had initially preached the saving message of Christ to them. Every Christian who leads another to Christ has been used to "beget," instrumentally, to "father" that soul in the same sense as Paul. It takes no glory away from God to use means in resurrection and in bringing others to Christ for life and salvation. I know the Hardshells will pretend that they are protectors of God's "glory" and "sovereignty" in denouncing the "gospel means" position, but they are simply attacking a "straw man," as I have shown.
Gill ON I Cor. 4:15
"yet have ye not many fathers; as it is in nature, so it is in grace; how many masters and instructors soever a child may have, whether together or successively, he has but one father; and so how many after instructors, either nominally or really, believers may have to lead them on, or who pretend to lead them on to a further knowledge of Christ; yet have they but one spiritual father, who has been the happy instrument and means of their conversion, as the Apostle Paul was to the Corinthians;
"for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the Gospel"; - which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature; which the apostle ascribes to himself, not as the efficient cause thereof, for regeneration is not of men but of God; not of the will of the flesh, of a man's own free will and power, nor of the will of any other man, or minister; but of the sovereign will, grace, and mercy of God, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father of Christ beget us again according to his abundant mercy; and the Son quickens whom he will; and we are born again of water and of the Spirit, of the grace of the Spirit; hence the washing of regeneration, and renewing work are ascribed to him: but the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument or means, which God made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phrases show: for he is said to do it "in Christ"; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion: and which were brought about "through the Gospel"; not through the preaching of the law; for though by that is the knowledge of sin, and convictions may be wrought by such means; yet these leave nothing but a sense of wrath and damnation; nor is the law any other than a killing letter: no regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith nor holiness come this way, but through the preaching of the Gospel; in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a spirit of regeneration and faith; and God of his own will and rich mercy, by the word of truth, by the Gospel of grace and truth, which came by Christ, so called in distinction from the law which came by Moses, begets us again as his new creatures; which shows the usefulness of the Gospel ministry, and in what account Gospel ministers are to be had, who are spiritual fathers, or the instruments of the conversion of men."
I challenge the Hardshells to cite one leading Baptist writer, prior to the 19th century, who espoused your views on I Corinthians 4:15. I also challenge them to show proof from the context of I Corinthians chapter 4 that forces one to believe as you all do on thhis passage.
Will you all continue to claim John Gill as being one with you in your heretical "anti-gospel means" position?
Hassell wrote:
"Therefore, when the Apostle Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthian Church (I Cor. 4:15), he means, as he himself explains his language, not their spiritual, but only their ministerial father (II Cor. 3:3), the minister by whom, or under whose preaching, they first believed the gospel, even, he says, as the Lord gave to every man; he was, under God, the founder or planter of that church (I Cor. 3:5, 6) and it was sinful "carnality" for them to say that they were "of him" (I Cor. 3:4)."
By this "logic" of Hassell it is clear that he does not connect "spirituality" with being a "minister" of Christ. He alludes to the words of Paul who stated that he was a "minister by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man." If they were made "believers" by his preaching the gospel to them, then he was a means of them being saved, for we are "saved by grace through faith." (Eph. 2:8,9)
He also seems to think that when Paul, in the first chapter, says that it was wrong for the Christians in Corinth to say "I am of Paul," that he therefore was denying that he was in any sense a means in their regeneration and salvation. But, again, why cannot he not see the difference between being born "of" God and being born "through" a means? Paul does not deny that he was the means in their regeneration, but he never asserts that they were born "of Paul," but "through" Paul. If "source" be ascribed to Paul, the agent or means, then it is always clearly understood that it is intermediate source in view, the second cause.
He seems to think, like all Hardshells, that a man cannot be born "of" any but God. But, is this so, in every way? Do we not, as I have argued, have a "mother" in the new birth? Does the "Bride" not say "come" when the Lord says the same? Yes, strictly speaking, we are begotten of the father but through the mother. But, sometimes, we may be said to be both "of" the father and the mother.
"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man." (I Cor. 11:8)
"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (Vs. 11,12)
So, as I said, strictly speaking, we are "born of God by" the Bride, the "heavenly Jerusalem," who is "the mother of us all," (by the word of God preached by her). In natural birth it is more proper to say we are born of our fathers and through our mothers. Both are necessarily involved, but one is viewed as the producer of the "seed." Still, it can be allowed, by accomodation, to speak of birth as being "of" that secondary or instrumental cause. Thus, as I said in the previous chapter, one can be a "child of God" and also a "child of Abraham." Hardshell "logic" would say that they could not be both.
So Paul says, as a means, or agent, "I have begotten you..." You are my children and you are God's children. You are my follower and the Lord's follower as he says in the next verse. Again, I do not see why the Hardshells think they have such a great argument here.
Beebe wrote:
"Now the simple question is, in what sense does Paul claim to have begotten the Corinthians through the gospel? If, as Arminian cavilers contend, their regeneration, as subjects of saving grace, was effected by the efforts of Paul in preaching the gospel to them as a means of grace, it must then follow that they were as Christians begotten and born, not of the Spirit, but of Paul, and consequently not the children of God but of Paul; not heirs of God, but heirs of Paul." (emphasis mine)
Oh is that not glorious "logic"? Such "ignorance" resembles so much the "ignorance" of their parents, men like Daniel Parker and his "ignorant" and "arrogant" "frontier preachers." But, more on that in later chapters.
Beebe says further that the Corinthians were -
"...figuratively born into the more full understanding of the gospel; It was in this sense that Paul called Timothy his son, and the beloved John claimed all the scattered saints as his little children. In this application of the figure, Paul appealed to the members of the Galatian churches who had received the Spirit, and who had run well, saying, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you, etc. (Galatians 4:19).” If he travailed of them again, he had travailed of them before. As an anxious parent earnestly desiring that they might bear the image of Christ, to which end his former travail and labor had been successful; now that error, in the form of legality, meanism and Arminianism had bewitched them, again he travailed in birth, that their former beauty might be restored, and Christ, not Moses, be formed in them, so that they might again reflect his lovely image. By his administration of the gospel, which is Christ to them, Christ was reflected or formed understandingly in their hearts, so that in the exhibitions of their faith they presented Christ, and not Moses or Old Testament doctrine." (Elder Gilbert Beebe, Middletown, N.Y., February 1, 1866. Editorials Volume 6 –– pgs 290-294)
The two passages, I Cor. 4:15 & Gal. 4:19 are not exactly alike. In the former Paul is viewed as "siring" or "fathering" the Corinthians, but in the latter, he is viewed as mothering or delivering them to a birth. Both do contemplate regeneration, but under different figures. It is interesting that Beebe argues as do the Campbellites relative to the latter passage. But, I wish chiefly to call attention to the fact that Beebe argues that the word "begotten" is figurative of the teacher pupil relationship. This is the standard view. Let me cite a source that elaborates further upon this interpretation.
by Elder Zack M. Guess, Memphis, TN
"In the first place, it would have been blasphemy for the Corinthians to refer to Paul as a father in the sense that He was the means of bringing eternal life to them. No man can receive this honor because God alone is to receive the credit and glory for the salvation of His people. Christ instructed us, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matt 23:9). This is one of the gross errors of the Roman Catholic Church by having the priests addressed as "father." So it is certain that Paul was not the father of the Corinthians in the sense that he, by preaching the gospel to them, had had a part in their spiritual birth."
And again:
"The Meaning of Begotten"
First, let us see how this word "begotten" was commonly used at the time of the writing of the New Testament. J. H. Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament Words, p. 113 says, "In a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life." Commenting on the same word in the same passage, John Gill, in his Commentary On The New Testament quotes the Jerusalem Talmud as follows: "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the Law, the Scripture reckons this the same as if he had begotten him."
Arndt and Gingrich, in their Greek-English Lexicon, p. 154 say of the same word, "Figuratively of the influence exerted by one person on another...of a teacher on pupils." H. Cremer, in his Biblical-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, p. 146, says of this word, "Peculiar is the use made by Paul in some passages of the word to denote an influence exerted on some one, moulding his life, as in Galatians 4:24; 1 Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10."
If we put all this together and sum it up, it becomes immediately apparent that Paul was not even hinting to these Corinthians that he had preached the gospel to them and that they had thereby been born again.
Paul is rather saying this, "By my use of the gospel I have brought you over to my way of life: I have taught you the Scriptures; I have exerted an influence on you as a teacher on his pupils; I have helped to mold your life." This, and only this, is what Paul had done to those Corinthians by preaching the gospel to them."
And again:
"A look at the Word "Father"
Now let us briefly examine a very common way in which the word "father" was used in New Testament times. Thayer says, p. 495, "Metaphorically...one who stands in a father's place, and looks after another in a pastoral way: 1 Corinthians 4:15." W. E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. II, p. 82 says-"...of one who, as a preacher of the Gospel and a teacher, stands in a father's place, caring for his spiritual children, 1 Corinthians 4:15." So, here again, Paul is not saying that he was an instrument in giving spiritual life, but his responsibility was to help the life that had already been implanted by the Holy Spirit to develop. There is not even a hint of the new birth here."
And again:
"Paul is saying further that he is a father to these Corinthians. By this he means that he preached the gospel to them and turned them from error to truth. He thus became their spiritual teacher and they became learners or disciples. By his teaching he had great influence on them and helped to mold their lives. In this sense he was their father and they were his children. But only in this sense. If they had not previously been born again his teaching would have had no effect on them in a positive way."
("What Does This Mean?" A Study on 1 Corinthians 4:15 - http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Index/index14.htm)
It is very easy to destroy this "novel interpretation" of I Cor. 4:15. It is "novel" because you will search in vain to find a Baptist writer, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who will affirm the "interpretation" that the Hardshells place on these words of Paul. It has always been affirmed that it was a reference to "regeneration" or to the "new birth." Why this new "interpretation"? Why did no one come up with these view on the passage till the Hardshells came along?
Elder Zack Guess, a supporter of Elder Bradley and of the modern "liberal wing" of the Hardshell cult, says that the view of our Old Baptist forefathers is "blasphemy." He says further that the passage has "not even a hint of reference to the new birth" I suppose that all our Baptist forefathers were just plain deluded and stupid for not seeing how it could not possibly be referring to the "spriritual birth" in Christ? Our forefathers were all "blasphemers" because they all did not believe as do the Hardshells on this passage?
Father DOES NOT = Teacher
In the "interpretations" given by the Hardshell writers above, it is clear that they equate the term "teacher" with the word "father. They do this in spite of the fact that Paul shows that they are not the same, he EVEN EMPHASIZING THIS FACT! He says,
"For though you have ten thousand teachers in Christ, yet have you not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
If the Hardshell "interpretation" were correct he would be saying they have ten thousand teachers and ten thousand fathers, for they have equated the terms where Paul distinquished between them, except in regard to himself. He was both their teacher and father, for he had initially preached the saving message of Christ to them. Every Christian who leads another to Christ has been used to "beget," instrumentally, to "father" that soul in the same sense as Paul. It takes no glory away from God to use means in resurrection and in bringing others to Christ for life and salvation. I know the Hardshells will pretend that they are protectors of God's "glory" and "sovereignty" in denouncing the "gospel means" position, but they are simply attacking a "straw man," as I have shown.
Gill ON I Cor. 4:15
"yet have ye not many fathers; as it is in nature, so it is in grace; how many masters and instructors soever a child may have, whether together or successively, he has but one father; and so how many after instructors, either nominally or really, believers may have to lead them on, or who pretend to lead them on to a further knowledge of Christ; yet have they but one spiritual father, who has been the happy instrument and means of their conversion, as the Apostle Paul was to the Corinthians;
"for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the Gospel"; - which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature; which the apostle ascribes to himself, not as the efficient cause thereof, for regeneration is not of men but of God; not of the will of the flesh, of a man's own free will and power, nor of the will of any other man, or minister; but of the sovereign will, grace, and mercy of God, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father of Christ beget us again according to his abundant mercy; and the Son quickens whom he will; and we are born again of water and of the Spirit, of the grace of the Spirit; hence the washing of regeneration, and renewing work are ascribed to him: but the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument or means, which God made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phrases show: for he is said to do it "in Christ"; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion: and which were brought about "through the Gospel"; not through the preaching of the law; for though by that is the knowledge of sin, and convictions may be wrought by such means; yet these leave nothing but a sense of wrath and damnation; nor is the law any other than a killing letter: no regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith nor holiness come this way, but through the preaching of the Gospel; in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a spirit of regeneration and faith; and God of his own will and rich mercy, by the word of truth, by the Gospel of grace and truth, which came by Christ, so called in distinction from the law which came by Moses, begets us again as his new creatures; which shows the usefulness of the Gospel ministry, and in what account Gospel ministers are to be had, who are spiritual fathers, or the instruments of the conversion of men."
I challenge the Hardshells to cite one leading Baptist writer, prior to the 19th century, who espoused your views on I Corinthians 4:15. I also challenge them to show proof from the context of I Corinthians chapter 4 that forces one to believe as you all do on thhis passage.
Will you all continue to claim John Gill as being one with you in your heretical "anti-gospel means" position?
Sep 4, 2006
Chapter 24 - James 1:18
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." (James 1: 18-22)
This verse is similar to that in I Peter 1:23-25 in that it clearly shows that one's being "begotton" is "Of his own will," or "of God" (ek), and is "with" the "word of truth." Thus we have the same pattern, noted by our Baptist forefathers, how God is always the lone "efficient" cause of the new birth and his "word of truth" is the "instrumental" or "secondary cause." How do the Hardshells interpret this passage? I have dealt with this passage somewhat in a previous chapter, but will now enlarge upon it, showing the various views of the "Primitive Baptists" and why their views are unscriptural, un-Baptistic, and a "forced interpretation" of those who obviously refuse to submit willingly to its teaching.
Elder Silas Durand, under the title, "TO WHOM IS THE GOSPEL PREACHED," wrote to specifically address James 1:18, saying:
"This is regarded by some as a declaration that the preaching of the word quickened those alluded to. But the apostle James includes himself with those of whom he speaks. What he says of them was true in his case. But we know he was not made alive by means of preaching, for the Savior called him by his own voice, saying, “Follow me.” That same voice is heard by all his sheep. By him as the word they are begotten and born; for Peter says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever.” He does not say they are born again by the preaching of the gospel, but he says that this word of God by which they are born again, and which endures forever, is the word which by the gospel is preached unto them; I Peter, i, 23-25. That word is Jesus, whose name in salvation is called the Word of God. “This is the word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God, and which was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth;” Jno., i, 1-14.
The gospel is not this word, but is glad tidings of it. This word by the gospel is preached unto the saints who have felt the glorious power thereof, as the apostle John says, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that your fellowship may be with us; “ I Jno., i, 1-3. Here is the word of truth, the word of life, the word of God, the eternal life, by which the saints are all begotten and born again.
This is the word of God by which hearing and faith come. If that word of God be not in the heart, there can be no power to hear, nor can the faith or truth of the gospel be received. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who hath believed our report.” They all heard literally, for “their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” But only those who had been begotten by the word of truth could hear and understand,” Rom., x, 15-20."
(http://www.the-remnant.com/backissue13.htm)
From the above web site we have this from the editor.
"EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written over one hundred and twenty years ago by Elder Silas H. Durand, one of the editors who succeeded Elder Gilbert Beebe at the Signs of the Times. Elder Durand was also the co-publisher of the Durand-Lester Hymnbook. This article is from Meditations on Portions of the Word, a compilation of his editorial writings. It shows exactly what the brethren of the nineteenth century believed about the important subject of the utility of the gospel."
Thus, according to Durand, James was begotten before he "heard the word of truth"! He also teaches, by his "reasoning" and "interpretation," that Jesus did not speak the "word of truth" when he called the apostles by his preached word! He is the "Word" in himself, indeed, but he is, in the calling of James and the other apostles, "preaching the word" (message of truth) and this "preaching of the word" is what regenerates, by the Holy Spirit. Again, according to Durand, and the Hardshells, the preaching of the "word of truth" by the messengers of Christ have no power to "beget," but only the preaching that Christ does directly to individuals has such power. Yet, have I not shown, in previous chapters, that not all those who heard Christ, the "Word of God," preach the "word of truth" directly to them, were regenerated by this "direct speaking?" It seems that mere direct speaking did not regenerate, since not all to whom Christ directly spoke were saved or could hear him.
Durand, in the above citation, takes the passage both ways! It refers to Christ, who, though called in the Johanine writings, the "Word of God, yet whom John never calls "Word of truth," nor do any other New Testament writers (unless this be an exception), saying - "That word is Jesus." Then, he says, in addition to it being a reference to Jesus' person, he then says it refers "to the word that Jesus speaks to people directly, as he did to James and the apostles when he said, "follow me."
But, it is clear that the call to the apostles to "follow" Christ involved discipleship, a mental act, an assent or choice of the will, conversion. That is evident from what followed. They all "forsook" things and began to live a life of obedience to him. They also did not hear these words on the "sub-conscious level." They were all very much conscious of what Christ was saying to them and to what he was calling them. Besides, is Durand saying that not all men are called, "by the word of truth, by the "preaching of the gospel," to "follow Christ"?
It is a little strange that Durand, the one who took up Beebe's "mantle," did not argue, like Beebe, that this passage was talking about the "third stage or phase" of the "new birth." I think it was Elder Trott who used this passage to speak of the final "delivery" of the quickened soul out of the darkness of the "spiritual womb." But, in the above article Durand does not take that approach, but argues for the text referring either to Christ himself or to that word that he personally speaks to sinners apart from any word of truth or knowledge of revelation.
In looking at the "twisted logic" of the Hardshells, from the above citations, it is clear that they believe that if one is a disciple of Paul, then he cannot be a disciple of Jesus! Yet, did not Paul say, "follow me as I follow Christ"? Why does one, in the Hardshell mind, exclude the other? "And ye became followers of us, AND of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost." (II Thess. 1:6)
It is argued that if sinners are begotten by the preaching done by preachers of the gospel then they could not legitimately be begotten of the Lord! One would exclude the other! Durand basically said - "If they are Paul's children, they cannot be the Lord's"! Yet, by the same "logic," one is not a "convert" or "disciple of Christ" since he "makes disciples" by "human instruments" preaching his word! They can affirm this and yet admit that it was clearly to the apostles (and every gospel minister) that Christ said, "making disciples of all nations" by your ministry of "teaching all nations." Also, did not Jesus say that his children are BOTH "children of God" and "children of Abraham"? Why can we not be both "of Paul" and "of Christ"?
Notice how the phrase "word of truth" is used in the New Testament by a look at these passages.
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation..." (Eph. 1:13)
"And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments." (Psa. 119:43)
"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left..." (II Cor. 6:7)
"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel..." (Col. 1:5)
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Tim. 2:15)
Will we be uniform, brother Hardshell, in how we interpret the phrase "word of truth"? Will you isolate this one passage in James 1:18 and make it mean something different than what it does everywhere else in the New Testament? Will you do this and remain blind to what you are doing? Will you show us from the "context" of James chapter one that it clearly demonstrates your "interpretation" of what is meant by being "begotten with the word of truth"?
I have already shown that the "context" shows clearly what is meant by the "word of truth." James speaks of "hearing," and "obeying," and "following" this "word of truth." He even calls upon those begotten "by the word of truth" to "receive with meekness the engrafted (written) word which is able to save your souls." James tells us that we have been "begotten of God to life, through his word of truth," and that we have been "saved" by our "reception of that engrafted word."
How can we be "doers of the direct speaking word"? How can we be "doers" of a "word" that gives no instruction? How can we be "doers" of the will of Christ the "Living Word" if he does not speak to us words of instruction that we can understand and follow?
Salvation By The Word
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." (I Tim. 4:16)
When a Hardshell reads this passage, he is programmed to automatically resist what it says. His brainwashing makes him to reject what he plainly reads. He will look at the passage in Timothy and say, "this cannot possibly be eternal salvation or regeneration because the scriptures are not means in such; thus, it must be talking about some other kind of "salvation." They will conclude this without any attention to the "context." They will make their arguments about the "salvation" not being "eternal" but then will give no clear evidence from the "context" to substantiate their uncommon interpretation of the word "saved."
Yes, Timothy was already regenerated. But, just as the word of God, the Holy Scriptures, were a means in his initial salvation, conversion, and regeneration, so also they continue to be a means in the preservation of that life. Why would the Hardshells disagree with that, seeing they too agree that the renewed soul and spiritual life must live on that heavenly bread, the word of God? So too will it be a means in saving others, both dead sinners, who will be called to life thereby, and to saints, who will be kept and preserved by "living off every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
This verse is similar to that in I Peter 1:23-25 in that it clearly shows that one's being "begotton" is "Of his own will," or "of God" (ek), and is "with" the "word of truth." Thus we have the same pattern, noted by our Baptist forefathers, how God is always the lone "efficient" cause of the new birth and his "word of truth" is the "instrumental" or "secondary cause." How do the Hardshells interpret this passage? I have dealt with this passage somewhat in a previous chapter, but will now enlarge upon it, showing the various views of the "Primitive Baptists" and why their views are unscriptural, un-Baptistic, and a "forced interpretation" of those who obviously refuse to submit willingly to its teaching.
Elder Silas Durand, under the title, "TO WHOM IS THE GOSPEL PREACHED," wrote to specifically address James 1:18, saying:
"This is regarded by some as a declaration that the preaching of the word quickened those alluded to. But the apostle James includes himself with those of whom he speaks. What he says of them was true in his case. But we know he was not made alive by means of preaching, for the Savior called him by his own voice, saying, “Follow me.” That same voice is heard by all his sheep. By him as the word they are begotten and born; for Peter says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever.” He does not say they are born again by the preaching of the gospel, but he says that this word of God by which they are born again, and which endures forever, is the word which by the gospel is preached unto them; I Peter, i, 23-25. That word is Jesus, whose name in salvation is called the Word of God. “This is the word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God, and which was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth;” Jno., i, 1-14.
The gospel is not this word, but is glad tidings of it. This word by the gospel is preached unto the saints who have felt the glorious power thereof, as the apostle John says, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that your fellowship may be with us; “ I Jno., i, 1-3. Here is the word of truth, the word of life, the word of God, the eternal life, by which the saints are all begotten and born again.
This is the word of God by which hearing and faith come. If that word of God be not in the heart, there can be no power to hear, nor can the faith or truth of the gospel be received. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who hath believed our report.” They all heard literally, for “their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” But only those who had been begotten by the word of truth could hear and understand,” Rom., x, 15-20."
(http://www.the-remnant.com/backissue13.htm)
From the above web site we have this from the editor.
"EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written over one hundred and twenty years ago by Elder Silas H. Durand, one of the editors who succeeded Elder Gilbert Beebe at the Signs of the Times. Elder Durand was also the co-publisher of the Durand-Lester Hymnbook. This article is from Meditations on Portions of the Word, a compilation of his editorial writings. It shows exactly what the brethren of the nineteenth century believed about the important subject of the utility of the gospel."
Thus, according to Durand, James was begotten before he "heard the word of truth"! He also teaches, by his "reasoning" and "interpretation," that Jesus did not speak the "word of truth" when he called the apostles by his preached word! He is the "Word" in himself, indeed, but he is, in the calling of James and the other apostles, "preaching the word" (message of truth) and this "preaching of the word" is what regenerates, by the Holy Spirit. Again, according to Durand, and the Hardshells, the preaching of the "word of truth" by the messengers of Christ have no power to "beget," but only the preaching that Christ does directly to individuals has such power. Yet, have I not shown, in previous chapters, that not all those who heard Christ, the "Word of God," preach the "word of truth" directly to them, were regenerated by this "direct speaking?" It seems that mere direct speaking did not regenerate, since not all to whom Christ directly spoke were saved or could hear him.
Durand, in the above citation, takes the passage both ways! It refers to Christ, who, though called in the Johanine writings, the "Word of God, yet whom John never calls "Word of truth," nor do any other New Testament writers (unless this be an exception), saying - "That word is Jesus." Then, he says, in addition to it being a reference to Jesus' person, he then says it refers "to the word that Jesus speaks to people directly, as he did to James and the apostles when he said, "follow me."
But, it is clear that the call to the apostles to "follow" Christ involved discipleship, a mental act, an assent or choice of the will, conversion. That is evident from what followed. They all "forsook" things and began to live a life of obedience to him. They also did not hear these words on the "sub-conscious level." They were all very much conscious of what Christ was saying to them and to what he was calling them. Besides, is Durand saying that not all men are called, "by the word of truth, by the "preaching of the gospel," to "follow Christ"?
It is a little strange that Durand, the one who took up Beebe's "mantle," did not argue, like Beebe, that this passage was talking about the "third stage or phase" of the "new birth." I think it was Elder Trott who used this passage to speak of the final "delivery" of the quickened soul out of the darkness of the "spiritual womb." But, in the above article Durand does not take that approach, but argues for the text referring either to Christ himself or to that word that he personally speaks to sinners apart from any word of truth or knowledge of revelation.
In looking at the "twisted logic" of the Hardshells, from the above citations, it is clear that they believe that if one is a disciple of Paul, then he cannot be a disciple of Jesus! Yet, did not Paul say, "follow me as I follow Christ"? Why does one, in the Hardshell mind, exclude the other? "And ye became followers of us, AND of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost." (II Thess. 1:6)
It is argued that if sinners are begotten by the preaching done by preachers of the gospel then they could not legitimately be begotten of the Lord! One would exclude the other! Durand basically said - "If they are Paul's children, they cannot be the Lord's"! Yet, by the same "logic," one is not a "convert" or "disciple of Christ" since he "makes disciples" by "human instruments" preaching his word! They can affirm this and yet admit that it was clearly to the apostles (and every gospel minister) that Christ said, "making disciples of all nations" by your ministry of "teaching all nations." Also, did not Jesus say that his children are BOTH "children of God" and "children of Abraham"? Why can we not be both "of Paul" and "of Christ"?
Notice how the phrase "word of truth" is used in the New Testament by a look at these passages.
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation..." (Eph. 1:13)
"And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments." (Psa. 119:43)
"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left..." (II Cor. 6:7)
"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel..." (Col. 1:5)
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Tim. 2:15)
Will we be uniform, brother Hardshell, in how we interpret the phrase "word of truth"? Will you isolate this one passage in James 1:18 and make it mean something different than what it does everywhere else in the New Testament? Will you do this and remain blind to what you are doing? Will you show us from the "context" of James chapter one that it clearly demonstrates your "interpretation" of what is meant by being "begotten with the word of truth"?
I have already shown that the "context" shows clearly what is meant by the "word of truth." James speaks of "hearing," and "obeying," and "following" this "word of truth." He even calls upon those begotten "by the word of truth" to "receive with meekness the engrafted (written) word which is able to save your souls." James tells us that we have been "begotten of God to life, through his word of truth," and that we have been "saved" by our "reception of that engrafted word."
How can we be "doers of the direct speaking word"? How can we be "doers" of a "word" that gives no instruction? How can we be "doers" of the will of Christ the "Living Word" if he does not speak to us words of instruction that we can understand and follow?
Salvation By The Word
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." (I Tim. 4:16)
When a Hardshell reads this passage, he is programmed to automatically resist what it says. His brainwashing makes him to reject what he plainly reads. He will look at the passage in Timothy and say, "this cannot possibly be eternal salvation or regeneration because the scriptures are not means in such; thus, it must be talking about some other kind of "salvation." They will conclude this without any attention to the "context." They will make their arguments about the "salvation" not being "eternal" but then will give no clear evidence from the "context" to substantiate their uncommon interpretation of the word "saved."
Yes, Timothy was already regenerated. But, just as the word of God, the Holy Scriptures, were a means in his initial salvation, conversion, and regeneration, so also they continue to be a means in the preservation of that life. Why would the Hardshells disagree with that, seeing they too agree that the renewed soul and spiritual life must live on that heavenly bread, the word of God? So too will it be a means in saving others, both dead sinners, who will be called to life thereby, and to saints, who will be kept and preserved by "living off every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)