Campbell wrote:
"THE subject of our present address is the Sabbath day and the Lord's day. Either christians are bound to observe the sabbath day, or they are not. If they are, let us see what the nature of that observance is, which was prescribed for the sabbath day. The law reads thus: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God: In it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your man servant, nor your maid servant, nor your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."
You will observe that, in this command, God positively prohibits all manner of work or labor on this day. Son, daughter, servant, cattle, stranger; are commanded to be exempted from all manner of work. In examining the particular precepts originating from this law, recorded in the Old Testament, we find the following specifications:--
1. "You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the sabbath day." Ex.xxxv. 3.
2. "Abide you every man in his place, (house or tent;) let no man go out of his place, (house or tent,) on the sabbath day. Ex. xvi. 29.
3. "He gives you on the sixth day the bread of two days. Bake that which you will bake this day, and seethe what you will seethe, and that which remains over, lay up for you to be kept until the morning." Ex. xvi. 29. 23.
4. "Bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day." Jer. xvii. 21, 22.
5. "Not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words." Is. lxii. 13.
6. "From evening unto evening shall you celebrate your Sabbath." Lev. xxiii. 32.
7. "Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Every one that defiles it shall surely be put to death." Ex. xxxi. 14. 15.
"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the Lord commanded Moses." Numbers, xv. 32-36.
The above items are a few of many that might be selected out of the Old Testament on this subject. We believe them to be a fair specimen of the law given by Moses, as explained and enforced upon the nation of Israel.
Now the question is, are we under this law? If we are, we pay little or no respect to it. For who is there that does not habitually violate the rest enjoined on this day! Those who make the most ado about sabbath breakers are themselves, according to the above law, worthy of death. They kindle fire in their houses. They go out of their houses, and travel on their cattle miles. Their sons and their daughters do some kind of work. They bring in burdens of water, wood, and prepare food. They celebrate it not from evening to evening, but from morning to evening they violate it. They speak their own words, and do many things worthy of death. Why then is not the penalty enforced? Assuredly their observance of this law is mere mockery. It is an insult on the Lawgiver!
We know that some of the clergy have given, if not sold them indulgences to violate it. They have told them that certain "works of necessity and mercy" are allowable. But who told them so? They tell them they may prepare food, bring in fuel and water. But God forbade those under this law to do so. So far was he from countenancing such "works of necessity," that he wrought three miracles to prevent the necessity of doing a "work of necessity." He sent two days' portion of manna from heaven the sixth day; he sent none the seventh; he preserved that gathered on the sixth from putrefaction until the close of the seventh: all of which were special miracles, for the space of forty years. If he wrought three miracles to prevent an Israelite from crossing his threshold to gather up a little manna for his daily food, how dare any give a dispensation, in his name, to do that which is tenfold more laborious!
Because the Saviour of the world put to silence those who accused him of breaking the sabbath, by appealing to their own conduct in relieving animals in distress, this doctrine of "works of necessity and mercy," has been represented as of divine origin. What a perversion! An argumentum ad hominem converted into a general maxim! But such a perversion shows consummate inattention to the laws of Israel. While Israel kept the law there never would occur an opportunity for a work of necessity or of mercy, such as these lawgivers tolerate. For while they kept the law, they should be blessed in their basket, stores, fields, houses, children, flocks, herds; no house would take fire; no ox would fall into a pit, &c. And if they transgressed the law, they should be cursed in all these respects, and no toleration of a violation of the law was granted as a means of mitigating the curse.
Again: Let me ask, Was there ever a law published relaxing that rigid observance of rest enjoined upon the Sabbath? Was there a law published, saying, You must or you may observe the sabbath with less care, with less respect; you may now speak your own words, kindle fire to your houses, and prepare victuals! &c. &c. I say, Was there ever such a law published? No, indeed--either the law remains in all its force, to the utmost extent of its literal requirements, or it is passed away with the Jewish ceremonies. If it yet exist, let us observe it according to law. And if it does not exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day for it. "But," say some, "it was changed from the seventh to the first day." Where? when? And by whom? No man can tell. No, it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio--I think his name is DOCTOR ANTICHRIST.
But was not the sabbath given to the Jews only? And again, Was it not a shadow or type? This deserves attention.
The preface to the law, of which it was a part, says, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; therefore, remember the sabbath day," &c. The preface to this law, as the inscription or address upon a letter, ascertains whose property it was. It was the property of the Jews. But Moses tells them this, not leaving it to an inference, Deut. v. 15. "Remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out thence, through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day" Ezekiel says the same, or rather the Lord by the prophet says, chap. xx. 12. "Moreover, also, I gave them my Sabbath, to be a sign between me and them" Yes, said the Lord by Moses, "The sabbath is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever." Ex. xxxi. 17. It is worthy of note in this place, that of all the sins in the long black catalogue of sins specified against the gentiles, in all the New Testament, the sin of sabbath-breaking is never once preferred against them! We conclude, then, that the sabbath day was as exclusively the property of the Jews as circumcision.
But was it not a shadow and a type? Let us hear Paul. "Let no man judge you (condemn you for not observing) in meats and drinks, (for eating and drinking,) or in respect of a holy day, or of a new moon, or of the sabbath, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ," or, according to Macknight, "the body is Christ's body." Paul, then, says it was a shadow. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, 4th chapter, he makes it and Canaan "types of that rest which remained for the people of God." The sabbath then was a shadow--a type given to the Jews only.
Since beginning this article, we noticed, for the first time, a very correct note of Dr. Macknight's, the celebrated translator of the apostolic epistles, which expresses our view of this matter. With many, we know, his views will be received with more readiness of mind than ours. He was, strange as it may appear, a dignitary in the presbyterian church; yet he expresses himself in the following manner, on Colossians ii. 16.
"The whole of the law of Moses being abrogated by Christ, (Col. ii. 14.) Christians are under no obligation to observe any of the Jewish holy days, not even the seventh day sabbath. Wherefore, if any teacher made the observance of the seventh day a necessary duty, the Colossians were to resist him. But though the brethren, in the first age, paid no regard to the Jewish seventh day sabbath, they set apart the first day of the week for public worship, and for commemorating the death and resurrection of their master by eating his supper on that day; also, for private exercises of devotion. This they did, either by the precept or by the example of the apostles, and not by virtue of any injunction in the law of Moses. Besides, they did not sanctify the first day of the week in the Jewish manner by total abstinence from bodily labor of every kind. That practice was condemned by the council of Laodicea as judaizing. Lec. Suiceri Thes. Eccl. voce Sabbaton."
The sabbath was, by the Lord of the sabbath, set aside, as well as every other part of the law of Moses, as stated in our last address. The learned Macknight is with us also in this instance. His words on Col. ii. 14. "It is evident," says he, "that the law of Moses, in all its parts, is now abolished and taken away. Consequently, that Christians are under no obligation to obey even the moral precepts of that law, on account of their being delivered by Moses to the Jews. For if the obligations of the moral precepts of his law are still continued, mankind are still under its curse." I would just observe, on this item, that the Lord Jesus Christ observed the last sabbath that was obligatory on any of the human race, by lying in the grave from evening to evening. In the silence of death and the grave he celebrated it literally, "not going out of his place," until the sabbath was past. Then, very early in the morning, when the sabbath was past, the Jewish religion being consummated, he rises and becomes the beginning of the new creation."
MARCH 1, 1824 - Address to the readers of the Christian Baptist. No. IV.
Nov 5, 2008
Campbell on the Law II
Campbell wrote:
"Good has been often called evil, and evil good. Truth has been piously called error, and error truth. Pure religion has frequently been called heresy, and heresy pure religion. Paul had to confess that he worshipped God in the way which the populars called heresy. So we frankly confess, that some of our views have been by the populars called heretical and blasphemous. Because we have said, that we christians are not under Moses, but under Christ; not under the law as a rule of life, but under the gospel, we are said to have spoken "blasphemous words against Moses and the law." Because we have said that the Jewish sabbath is no more, we are represented as without religion, profane and impious; and, because we have called much of what is called warm preaching, and warm feelings, and great revivals, enthusiasm; we are said to deny "experimental religion" or the influence of the Holy Spirit, by the word, upon the minds of believers. "Yes," say our enemies, "you deny the moral law, the christian Sabbath and experimental religion."
To the first of these charges we shall, in the present address, call your attention, reserving the others for a future day.
The "moral law," or decalogue, is usually plead as the rule of life to believers in Christ, and it is said that it ought to be preached "as a means of conviction of sin." The scriptures never divide the law of Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. This is the work of schoolmen, who have also divided the invisible world into heaven, hell, and purgatory; who have divided the obedience of Christ into active, passive, and both; who have divided the members of the church into speechless babes, seekers of religion and regenerated saints; who have divided the kingdom of heaven, or christian kingdom, into clergy, ruling elders, and laity; and who have philosophized, allegorized, and mysticized christianity into an incomprehensible and ineffable jargon of christianized paganism and Judaism.
We published, seven years ago, a speech pronounced to an association on this subject, in which we objected to this division of the law; the substance of which, if we recollect right, was this: we objected to this division of the law, First, because it was unauthorized by either the Old or New Testament, i. e. neither God by Moses, his Son Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, had ever made such a division. They always spoke of the law as one grand whole. "The law was given by Moses, but the grace and the truth by Jesus Christ." "The law and the prophets continued until John the Baptist." "You are not under the law," &c. &c. Here is no moral, ceremonial or judicial law, but "the law." Secondly, because this division of the law perplexes the mind of a student of the bible, who, while he meets the words "the law," is puzzled to know which of the three is meant; whereas, if he would always view the phrase "the law," when not otherwise defined, as the one and undivided law of Moses, he would never be perplexed. Because, in the third place, this division is illogical or incorrect, as respects the moral and judicial laws. All writers and speakers we have either heard or seen, blend, in their expositions, moral and judicial precept, making the latter as moral as the former. They have no palpable or distinguishable criteria of distinction. Because, in the fourth place, they represent the ten commands as the moral law; whereas they tell us that the law contained two tables: the former teaching religion, or our duty to God; the second teaching morality, or our duty to our neighbor. This moral law, then, is both moral and religious; for these same divines distinguish religion and morality. In the fifth place, because one precept of this moral law was as ceremonial as any item in their ceremonial law, viz: the fourth commandment. For these reasons and others, we objected then to this division of the law. We have never heard any thing said, though much has been said on that subject, of the least weight to change our views delivered at that time.
But, without going further into the detail on this part of the subject, we proceed to observe, that Moses, the great lawgiver to the Jews, delivered this law as a rule of life to the Jews only; and it was all equally important to them, and binding upon them. It was all holy, just, and good, as respected its design; and was equally divine and authoritative. He that touched the ark died the death, as well as he who stole the golden wedge. He that offered strange fire upon the altar was consumed, as well as he that cursed his father.
He that gathered fuel on the Sabbath, and he that blasphemed the God of Israel, were devoted to the same destruction. But the law of Moses was given for a limited time. The world was about twenty-five hundred years old before it was given; "for until the law sin was in the world," and this law was designed only to continue till the promised seed should come, the great Law-giver. Moses pointed Israel to this great Law-giver. Malachi told the Jews to remember this law until Elias should come. The Messiah said plainly, "that the law and the prophets preached till John." But, "since that time, the kingdom of God was preached." Paul repeatedly affirms that christians are not under the law, but under the gospel, as a rule of life. In teaching the Jews he compared the law to a school-master until Christ came; but since faith or Christ came, he assured them they were no longer under the school-master. He declared they "were delivered from the law"--"they were free from its" "they were dead to it." He says, "it is done away"--"it is abolished"--"it is disannulled."
Moses had a brother of great dignity, of illustrious fame, whose name was Aaron. This brother of the lawgiver was divinely ordained a high priest, and divine laws ordained concerning him and his successors. In process of time the son of Jesse was crowned king over Israel, under God, who still retained the sovereignty. Concerning this David and his successors divine laws were published. Israel were under Moses as a lawgiver, under Aaron as high priest, under David as king. These three were types of Christ as lawgiver, priest, and king. Now the populars and we agree in one grand point on this topic. They say that "Jesus Christ is our only prophet, priest, and king." To this we cordially and fully agree. Therefore, we will not submit to Moses as our prophet or lawgiver, to Aaron as our high priest, to David as our king. If we would yield to Moses as our lawgiver, we would yield to his brother Aaron as our high priest, and to the son of Jesse as our king. We honor Moses, Aaron, and David. We study their history, their offices, and their deeds. We revere them as Messiah's types. We will treat them with every due respect; but will not put ourselves under them. While we acknowledge Jesus to be the great lawgiver, the great prophet, the great high priest, David's son, and David's king, we are assured that every part of Moses' law worthy of our regard has been republished and reenacted under more glorious circumstances and with more illustrious sanctions by him--that every item of Aaron's priesthood has been fulfilled by him--that every excellent trait in the character and government of David has been exhibited by him, free from imbecility and imperfection. Messiah, you are my only prophet, priest, and king; for you are worthy!
"Then," say the populars, "you have no moral law as a rule of life--no preaching of the law as a means of conviction of sin; you may live as you list--your doctrine is licentious--it is antinomian--it is dangerous to morale--to piety--to all good." JANUARY 5, 1824.
Address to the Readers of the Christian Baptist. No. III
I agree with Campbell on all this, of course. It does not mean, however, that I endorse his errors.
"Good has been often called evil, and evil good. Truth has been piously called error, and error truth. Pure religion has frequently been called heresy, and heresy pure religion. Paul had to confess that he worshipped God in the way which the populars called heresy. So we frankly confess, that some of our views have been by the populars called heretical and blasphemous. Because we have said, that we christians are not under Moses, but under Christ; not under the law as a rule of life, but under the gospel, we are said to have spoken "blasphemous words against Moses and the law." Because we have said that the Jewish sabbath is no more, we are represented as without religion, profane and impious; and, because we have called much of what is called warm preaching, and warm feelings, and great revivals, enthusiasm; we are said to deny "experimental religion" or the influence of the Holy Spirit, by the word, upon the minds of believers. "Yes," say our enemies, "you deny the moral law, the christian Sabbath and experimental religion."
To the first of these charges we shall, in the present address, call your attention, reserving the others for a future day.
The "moral law," or decalogue, is usually plead as the rule of life to believers in Christ, and it is said that it ought to be preached "as a means of conviction of sin." The scriptures never divide the law of Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. This is the work of schoolmen, who have also divided the invisible world into heaven, hell, and purgatory; who have divided the obedience of Christ into active, passive, and both; who have divided the members of the church into speechless babes, seekers of religion and regenerated saints; who have divided the kingdom of heaven, or christian kingdom, into clergy, ruling elders, and laity; and who have philosophized, allegorized, and mysticized christianity into an incomprehensible and ineffable jargon of christianized paganism and Judaism.
We published, seven years ago, a speech pronounced to an association on this subject, in which we objected to this division of the law; the substance of which, if we recollect right, was this: we objected to this division of the law, First, because it was unauthorized by either the Old or New Testament, i. e. neither God by Moses, his Son Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, had ever made such a division. They always spoke of the law as one grand whole. "The law was given by Moses, but the grace and the truth by Jesus Christ." "The law and the prophets continued until John the Baptist." "You are not under the law," &c. &c. Here is no moral, ceremonial or judicial law, but "the law." Secondly, because this division of the law perplexes the mind of a student of the bible, who, while he meets the words "the law," is puzzled to know which of the three is meant; whereas, if he would always view the phrase "the law," when not otherwise defined, as the one and undivided law of Moses, he would never be perplexed. Because, in the third place, this division is illogical or incorrect, as respects the moral and judicial laws. All writers and speakers we have either heard or seen, blend, in their expositions, moral and judicial precept, making the latter as moral as the former. They have no palpable or distinguishable criteria of distinction. Because, in the fourth place, they represent the ten commands as the moral law; whereas they tell us that the law contained two tables: the former teaching religion, or our duty to God; the second teaching morality, or our duty to our neighbor. This moral law, then, is both moral and religious; for these same divines distinguish religion and morality. In the fifth place, because one precept of this moral law was as ceremonial as any item in their ceremonial law, viz: the fourth commandment. For these reasons and others, we objected then to this division of the law. We have never heard any thing said, though much has been said on that subject, of the least weight to change our views delivered at that time.
But, without going further into the detail on this part of the subject, we proceed to observe, that Moses, the great lawgiver to the Jews, delivered this law as a rule of life to the Jews only; and it was all equally important to them, and binding upon them. It was all holy, just, and good, as respected its design; and was equally divine and authoritative. He that touched the ark died the death, as well as he who stole the golden wedge. He that offered strange fire upon the altar was consumed, as well as he that cursed his father.
He that gathered fuel on the Sabbath, and he that blasphemed the God of Israel, were devoted to the same destruction. But the law of Moses was given for a limited time. The world was about twenty-five hundred years old before it was given; "for until the law sin was in the world," and this law was designed only to continue till the promised seed should come, the great Law-giver. Moses pointed Israel to this great Law-giver. Malachi told the Jews to remember this law until Elias should come. The Messiah said plainly, "that the law and the prophets preached till John." But, "since that time, the kingdom of God was preached." Paul repeatedly affirms that christians are not under the law, but under the gospel, as a rule of life. In teaching the Jews he compared the law to a school-master until Christ came; but since faith or Christ came, he assured them they were no longer under the school-master. He declared they "were delivered from the law"--"they were free from its" "they were dead to it." He says, "it is done away"--"it is abolished"--"it is disannulled."
Moses had a brother of great dignity, of illustrious fame, whose name was Aaron. This brother of the lawgiver was divinely ordained a high priest, and divine laws ordained concerning him and his successors. In process of time the son of Jesse was crowned king over Israel, under God, who still retained the sovereignty. Concerning this David and his successors divine laws were published. Israel were under Moses as a lawgiver, under Aaron as high priest, under David as king. These three were types of Christ as lawgiver, priest, and king. Now the populars and we agree in one grand point on this topic. They say that "Jesus Christ is our only prophet, priest, and king." To this we cordially and fully agree. Therefore, we will not submit to Moses as our prophet or lawgiver, to Aaron as our high priest, to David as our king. If we would yield to Moses as our lawgiver, we would yield to his brother Aaron as our high priest, and to the son of Jesse as our king. We honor Moses, Aaron, and David. We study their history, their offices, and their deeds. We revere them as Messiah's types. We will treat them with every due respect; but will not put ourselves under them. While we acknowledge Jesus to be the great lawgiver, the great prophet, the great high priest, David's son, and David's king, we are assured that every part of Moses' law worthy of our regard has been republished and reenacted under more glorious circumstances and with more illustrious sanctions by him--that every item of Aaron's priesthood has been fulfilled by him--that every excellent trait in the character and government of David has been exhibited by him, free from imbecility and imperfection. Messiah, you are my only prophet, priest, and king; for you are worthy!
"Then," say the populars, "you have no moral law as a rule of life--no preaching of the law as a means of conviction of sin; you may live as you list--your doctrine is licentious--it is antinomian--it is dangerous to morale--to piety--to all good." JANUARY 5, 1824.
Address to the Readers of the Christian Baptist. No. III
I agree with Campbell on all this, of course. It does not mean, however, that I endorse his errors.
Nov 4, 2008
The Brought
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10: 14-16 KJV)
"Bring," is from the Greek word "ago," and means, according to Strong:
1) to lead, take with one
a) to lead by laying hold of, and this way to bring to the point of destination: of an animal
b) to lead by accompanying to (into) a place
c) to lead with one's self, attach to one's self as an attendant
d) to conduct, bring
e) to lead away, to a court of justice, magistrate, etc.
2) to lead,
a) to lead, guide, direct
b) to lead through, conduct to: to something
c) to move, impel: of forces and influences on the mind
3) to pass a day, keep or celebrate a feast, etc.
4) to go, depart
How could we then translate the full depth of meaning behind these words?
To what event is Christ alluding when he speaks of bringing the sheep?
Could We Translate Thusly?
Christ will "escort" us?
Christ will "accompany" us?
Christ will "usher" us?
Christ will "guide" us?
Christ will "conduct" us?
Christ will "lead us away"?
Is there anything in this definition, and in the way the word is used in the New Testament, that shows this work of Christ to be ineffectual? Does the definition and usage of the word not show that this work is effectual and efficacious? That it is irresistable? That it is wholly of grace and unconditional?
Does this verse not relate to the Arminian-Calvinism debate, particularly over "effectual calling" or "irresistable grace"?
Strong says the word includes meaning "to move" or "impel," including the "forces and influences" of God "on the mind."
We say "such and such a thought was brought to mind," or remembered, meaning a person was "led to think" of something, or "conducted" in one's thoughts.
I believe that the word "bring," like the word "draw" (John 6: 44; 11: 42, etc.), does signify the Calvinistic position, being words that denote what is effectually and irresistably caused.
People who are "brought" and "drawn" are people who are pulled, dragged, attracted, and compelled. The Armimian, and advocate of Libertarian "free will," cannot offer legitimate scriptural grounds for denying this, but can only offer "logical" reasons for denying it.
The Arminian insists vehemently that such terms do not imply being "forced" or "compelled." He will not allow that salvation is "forced" upon a sinner. He will not allow that the terms "brought" and "drawn" denote it. He is biased against such a view. He will refer to other scriptures in order to interpret what Jesus meant by being "brought" and "drawn."
But, if one looks at the definition of "ago" and at its use in the New Testament, then he will see that the idea of being forced or compelled, or irresistibly made, or constrained, is part of its essential meaning.
The elect have been compelled and constrained, forced by God's power and efficacious grace, to drink of the living water. They, like a drug addict, would never willingly on their own, autonomously, desire or effect their freedom from addiction. They are, further, like a drug addict who is compelled to take a pill that, when taken, instantly removes the addiction, and the love of the drug. This person, though having been forced to take the pill of deliverance, nevertheless does not complain for having been delivered! From having been graciously compelled!
Thus, though the Arminian offers "logical" arguments for denying that "bring" and "draw" signify what is compelling, they cannot deny that these words denote it.
Besides his "logical" argument that says "salvation forced is no real or meaningful salvation," he offers another "logical" argument that affirms that "love" cannot be "love" if it is forced or compelled, nor if the "drawing" is irresistable.
To the Arminian, the Calvinist God is guilty of spiritually "raping" the sinner when he compels or forces him to love him. I have dealt with this argument in prior writings and do not wish to deal with it here. I have shown it to be "false reasoning."
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me." (Luke 19: 27 KJV)
"Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." (John 19: 4 KJV)
"And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem." (Acts 9: 2 & vs. 21 & 22: 5 KJV)
"But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people." (Acts 17: 5 KJV)
"And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring [him] into the castle." (Acts 23: 10 KJV)
Who can deny that these verses demonstrate that "ago" or "bring" denotes the "forcing" or "compelling" of people?
In the bible animals are "led" or "brought" in several ways, sometimes by voice commands to sheep (or use of sheep dogs), or by a leash or some other "pulling" or "leading" device.
Paul wrote to Timothy, saying:
"Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry." (II Timothy 4: 11 KJV)
The verbs "take" and "bring" are imperatives. Paul is telling Timothy to "grab" Mark, or "pick him up," and compel (or force, or order) him to come.
Another writer on the Greek word "ago" says:
"ag'-o: to lead; by implication, to bring, drive, (reflexively) go, (specially) pass (time), or (figuratively) induce -- be, bring (forth), carry, (let) go, keep, lead away, be open."
http://scripturetext.com/2_timothy/4-11.htm
Christ will BRING us
"For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2: 10 KJV)
There is no doubt that the writer of Hebrews had the words of Christ from John 10 on his mind when he wrote these words. They are too similar to think otherwise.
There are two aspects to this "bringing" of the sheep (elect) "unto glory." First, they must be "brought OUT" of things, and then "brought INTO" other things.
Wrote John Gill:
"(bring them) out of the wilderness of the world, from among the men of it, their former sinful compassions, from the folds of sin and Satan, and (from) the pastures of their own righteousness; to himself, and into his Father's presence, to his house and ordinances, to a good fold and green pastures, and at last to his heavenly kingdom and glory: and there was a necessity of doing all this, partly on account of his Father's will and pleasure, his purposes and decrees, who had resolved upon it; and partly on account of his own engagements, who had obliged himself to do it; as well as because of the case and condition of these sheep, who otherwise must have eternally perished." (Commentary)
Christ "brings" the elect out of their sins, and state of condemnation and unrest and into righteousness and a state of justification and rest. This is done first in initial conversion or regeneration, but is completed when the elect are all brought safely through to full salvation in glory.
"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." (I Thessalonians 4: 14 KJV)
"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." (Genesis 2: 22 KJV)
Typically this is fulfilled when the sinner is "married to Christ" in the experience of conversion, when he "falls in love" with Christ.
"So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind." (Luke 14: 21 KJV)
Here the Greek word is combined with the preposition, eisagō or "bring into."
In "bringing in" the sheep into the fold of salvation, God uses the preaching of the gospel to effect it.
Christ said he "must" bring them. It is his "responsibility" as the Shepherd and protector of the sheep. The Arminian errs when he puts the chief responsibility upon the sheep to shepherd or protect themselves.
"Bring," is from the Greek word "ago," and means, according to Strong:
1) to lead, take with one
a) to lead by laying hold of, and this way to bring to the point of destination: of an animal
b) to lead by accompanying to (into) a place
c) to lead with one's self, attach to one's self as an attendant
d) to conduct, bring
e) to lead away, to a court of justice, magistrate, etc.
2) to lead,
a) to lead, guide, direct
b) to lead through, conduct to: to something
c) to move, impel: of forces and influences on the mind
3) to pass a day, keep or celebrate a feast, etc.
4) to go, depart
How could we then translate the full depth of meaning behind these words?
To what event is Christ alluding when he speaks of bringing the sheep?
Could We Translate Thusly?
Christ will "escort" us?
Christ will "accompany" us?
Christ will "usher" us?
Christ will "guide" us?
Christ will "conduct" us?
Christ will "lead us away"?
Is there anything in this definition, and in the way the word is used in the New Testament, that shows this work of Christ to be ineffectual? Does the definition and usage of the word not show that this work is effectual and efficacious? That it is irresistable? That it is wholly of grace and unconditional?
Does this verse not relate to the Arminian-Calvinism debate, particularly over "effectual calling" or "irresistable grace"?
Strong says the word includes meaning "to move" or "impel," including the "forces and influences" of God "on the mind."
We say "such and such a thought was brought to mind," or remembered, meaning a person was "led to think" of something, or "conducted" in one's thoughts.
I believe that the word "bring," like the word "draw" (John 6: 44; 11: 42, etc.), does signify the Calvinistic position, being words that denote what is effectually and irresistably caused.
People who are "brought" and "drawn" are people who are pulled, dragged, attracted, and compelled. The Armimian, and advocate of Libertarian "free will," cannot offer legitimate scriptural grounds for denying this, but can only offer "logical" reasons for denying it.
The Arminian insists vehemently that such terms do not imply being "forced" or "compelled." He will not allow that salvation is "forced" upon a sinner. He will not allow that the terms "brought" and "drawn" denote it. He is biased against such a view. He will refer to other scriptures in order to interpret what Jesus meant by being "brought" and "drawn."
But, if one looks at the definition of "ago" and at its use in the New Testament, then he will see that the idea of being forced or compelled, or irresistibly made, or constrained, is part of its essential meaning.
The elect have been compelled and constrained, forced by God's power and efficacious grace, to drink of the living water. They, like a drug addict, would never willingly on their own, autonomously, desire or effect their freedom from addiction. They are, further, like a drug addict who is compelled to take a pill that, when taken, instantly removes the addiction, and the love of the drug. This person, though having been forced to take the pill of deliverance, nevertheless does not complain for having been delivered! From having been graciously compelled!
Thus, though the Arminian offers "logical" arguments for denying that "bring" and "draw" signify what is compelling, they cannot deny that these words denote it.
Besides his "logical" argument that says "salvation forced is no real or meaningful salvation," he offers another "logical" argument that affirms that "love" cannot be "love" if it is forced or compelled, nor if the "drawing" is irresistable.
To the Arminian, the Calvinist God is guilty of spiritually "raping" the sinner when he compels or forces him to love him. I have dealt with this argument in prior writings and do not wish to deal with it here. I have shown it to be "false reasoning."
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me." (Luke 19: 27 KJV)
"Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him." (John 19: 4 KJV)
"And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem." (Acts 9: 2 & vs. 21 & 22: 5 KJV)
"But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people." (Acts 17: 5 KJV)
"And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring [him] into the castle." (Acts 23: 10 KJV)
Who can deny that these verses demonstrate that "ago" or "bring" denotes the "forcing" or "compelling" of people?
In the bible animals are "led" or "brought" in several ways, sometimes by voice commands to sheep (or use of sheep dogs), or by a leash or some other "pulling" or "leading" device.
Paul wrote to Timothy, saying:
"Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry." (II Timothy 4: 11 KJV)
The verbs "take" and "bring" are imperatives. Paul is telling Timothy to "grab" Mark, or "pick him up," and compel (or force, or order) him to come.
Another writer on the Greek word "ago" says:
"ag'-o: to lead; by implication, to bring, drive, (reflexively) go, (specially) pass (time), or (figuratively) induce -- be, bring (forth), carry, (let) go, keep, lead away, be open."
http://scripturetext.com/2_timothy/4-11.htm
Christ will BRING us
"For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2: 10 KJV)
There is no doubt that the writer of Hebrews had the words of Christ from John 10 on his mind when he wrote these words. They are too similar to think otherwise.
There are two aspects to this "bringing" of the sheep (elect) "unto glory." First, they must be "brought OUT" of things, and then "brought INTO" other things.
Wrote John Gill:
"(bring them) out of the wilderness of the world, from among the men of it, their former sinful compassions, from the folds of sin and Satan, and (from) the pastures of their own righteousness; to himself, and into his Father's presence, to his house and ordinances, to a good fold and green pastures, and at last to his heavenly kingdom and glory: and there was a necessity of doing all this, partly on account of his Father's will and pleasure, his purposes and decrees, who had resolved upon it; and partly on account of his own engagements, who had obliged himself to do it; as well as because of the case and condition of these sheep, who otherwise must have eternally perished." (Commentary)
Christ "brings" the elect out of their sins, and state of condemnation and unrest and into righteousness and a state of justification and rest. This is done first in initial conversion or regeneration, but is completed when the elect are all brought safely through to full salvation in glory.
"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." (I Thessalonians 4: 14 KJV)
"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." (Genesis 2: 22 KJV)
Typically this is fulfilled when the sinner is "married to Christ" in the experience of conversion, when he "falls in love" with Christ.
"So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind." (Luke 14: 21 KJV)
Here the Greek word is combined with the preposition, eisagō or "bring into."
In "bringing in" the sheep into the fold of salvation, God uses the preaching of the gospel to effect it.
Christ said he "must" bring them. It is his "responsibility" as the Shepherd and protector of the sheep. The Arminian errs when he puts the chief responsibility upon the sheep to shepherd or protect themselves.
Campbell Essays on HS
Alexander Campbell wrote the following in his battles against Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism.
"That faith is necessary to salvation, is a proposition the truth of which we need not now attempt to prove, as all professors of christianity admit it; and that testimony is necessary to faith, is a proposition equally true, evident, and universally admitted. He that believes, believes something, and that which he believes is testified to him by others." (Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of men.--No. I)
"Correct views of the office of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men, are essential to our knowledge of the Christian religion, as also to our enjoyment of it. On mistaken views of it are engrafted most of the extravagant systems of our times.
Some describe faith to be an inward principle of grace, implanted in the heart by the operation of the Spirit, separate from, and previous to the knowledge of the word of God. (Hardellism or Hyper Calvinism - SG) But it is impossible to conceive what is meant by such a principle of grace as this. It cannot be any sentiment respecting Christ or his salvation, since it is supposed to be previous to the knowledge of the word of God, wherein alone he is revealed. Nor can it be any disposition or affection of mind towards Christ; for the mind cannot he affected with any object of which it has no knowledge; and our confession of faith makes the principal acts of saving faith to have immediate relation to Christ, trusting on him alone for justification, &c. But the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of truth, and operates upon the mind not abstracted from the word, which is truth, or without it, but by means of it, enlightening the understanding in its doctrines, and influencing the will by its motives: so that the word itself, is the very principle established in the heart by the Spirit. Men are born of the spirit; but it is by the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Pet. i.23. It is of his own will that God begets men to the faith; but it is with the word of truth, James i. 18, for faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Rom. x. 17. To suppose, therefore, that the Spirit implants faith, as a principle of grace in the heart, without the word, or previous to any knowledge of it, is unintelligible, and unscriptural, and contrary to the word of God, and the confession of Faith:--it makes the word of God of little consequence--supercedes the necessity of preaching it to sinners, or of its being read by them in order to faith; and the Spirit does not glorify the Lord Jesus Christ in his operations, as he was promised to do, in imparting it. It opens a flood-gate of wild enthusiasm, and sets aside the scripture rule for distinguishing the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error. Isai. viii. 20. 1 John v. 1-6.
When men conceive faith to be a principle wrought in the heart by the Spirit, abstract from the word, it will lead them to look within themselves, for the operation of some spirit, very different from the spirit of truth, who speaks in the scriptures, whose work is to guide into all truth, to testify of Christ, and take of his, and show it to us. John xvi. 13, 14. It will make them seek after this inward principle, in the first instance, as the main hinge of their hope, and prevent them taking any comfort from the word till they find, or rather they fancy they find, this mysterious principle wrought in them: which, after all, seems to be only a principle of blind enthusiasm or self-conceit.
Saving faith is distinguished from every other, by its object and effects. Faith cannot so much as exist without an object; for, when nothing is believed, there can be no belief. It saves in no other way than that it has a saving object; and all its influence upon the heart and life, is, properly speaking, the influence of truth believed.
Though there can be no true faith without knowledge, yet there may be a kind of speculative knowledge without true faith. There is a wide difference between understanding the terms of a proposition, and believing the truth of it.
Whatever men may think of their knowledge and belief of the gospel, yet if they do not in some measure perceive its excellence, suitableness, and importance to their lost condition as sinners, they do not in reality know, and believe it--it is the operation of God's Spirit that produces this.
Christ told his disciples that the Spirit of truth, the Holy Ghost, when he came, would not speak of himself--but would glorify him. Accordingly, his operations, during the age of miracles, were all performed in glorifying Jesus Christ, and in his name. The gospel of Christ, since the days of the apostles, has been the theme he has blessed, in convincing the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, and through which he has imparted saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It was in the name of Jesus, all the miracles were wrought; and by the preaching of Christ, and him crucified, as he is exhibited in the record God has given of his Son, the same Spirit has exerted his power, through this preaching, its regenerating the hearts of men. Hence, it is by preaching Christ to sinners, and not the Spirit, that the Spirit operates in glorifying Jesus in their conversion. If I preach to sinners less about the Spirit, it is that they may experience the operations of the Spirit more, by preaching Christ and him crucified, which is the sum and substance of the gospel. On believers I urge the necessity of praying the Father, through the Son, for the Spirit, that he may enlighten and sanctify them, &c." [107]
(NOVEMBER 1, 1824 "Essays on the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men"--No. IV)
"That faith is necessary to salvation, is a proposition the truth of which we need not now attempt to prove, as all professors of christianity admit it; and that testimony is necessary to faith, is a proposition equally true, evident, and universally admitted. He that believes, believes something, and that which he believes is testified to him by others." (Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of men.--No. I)
"Correct views of the office of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men, are essential to our knowledge of the Christian religion, as also to our enjoyment of it. On mistaken views of it are engrafted most of the extravagant systems of our times.
Some describe faith to be an inward principle of grace, implanted in the heart by the operation of the Spirit, separate from, and previous to the knowledge of the word of God. (Hardellism or Hyper Calvinism - SG) But it is impossible to conceive what is meant by such a principle of grace as this. It cannot be any sentiment respecting Christ or his salvation, since it is supposed to be previous to the knowledge of the word of God, wherein alone he is revealed. Nor can it be any disposition or affection of mind towards Christ; for the mind cannot he affected with any object of which it has no knowledge; and our confession of faith makes the principal acts of saving faith to have immediate relation to Christ, trusting on him alone for justification, &c. But the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of truth, and operates upon the mind not abstracted from the word, which is truth, or without it, but by means of it, enlightening the understanding in its doctrines, and influencing the will by its motives: so that the word itself, is the very principle established in the heart by the Spirit. Men are born of the spirit; but it is by the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Pet. i.23. It is of his own will that God begets men to the faith; but it is with the word of truth, James i. 18, for faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Rom. x. 17. To suppose, therefore, that the Spirit implants faith, as a principle of grace in the heart, without the word, or previous to any knowledge of it, is unintelligible, and unscriptural, and contrary to the word of God, and the confession of Faith:--it makes the word of God of little consequence--supercedes the necessity of preaching it to sinners, or of its being read by them in order to faith; and the Spirit does not glorify the Lord Jesus Christ in his operations, as he was promised to do, in imparting it. It opens a flood-gate of wild enthusiasm, and sets aside the scripture rule for distinguishing the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error. Isai. viii. 20. 1 John v. 1-6.
When men conceive faith to be a principle wrought in the heart by the Spirit, abstract from the word, it will lead them to look within themselves, for the operation of some spirit, very different from the spirit of truth, who speaks in the scriptures, whose work is to guide into all truth, to testify of Christ, and take of his, and show it to us. John xvi. 13, 14. It will make them seek after this inward principle, in the first instance, as the main hinge of their hope, and prevent them taking any comfort from the word till they find, or rather they fancy they find, this mysterious principle wrought in them: which, after all, seems to be only a principle of blind enthusiasm or self-conceit.
Saving faith is distinguished from every other, by its object and effects. Faith cannot so much as exist without an object; for, when nothing is believed, there can be no belief. It saves in no other way than that it has a saving object; and all its influence upon the heart and life, is, properly speaking, the influence of truth believed.
Though there can be no true faith without knowledge, yet there may be a kind of speculative knowledge without true faith. There is a wide difference between understanding the terms of a proposition, and believing the truth of it.
Whatever men may think of their knowledge and belief of the gospel, yet if they do not in some measure perceive its excellence, suitableness, and importance to their lost condition as sinners, they do not in reality know, and believe it--it is the operation of God's Spirit that produces this.
Christ told his disciples that the Spirit of truth, the Holy Ghost, when he came, would not speak of himself--but would glorify him. Accordingly, his operations, during the age of miracles, were all performed in glorifying Jesus Christ, and in his name. The gospel of Christ, since the days of the apostles, has been the theme he has blessed, in convincing the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, and through which he has imparted saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It was in the name of Jesus, all the miracles were wrought; and by the preaching of Christ, and him crucified, as he is exhibited in the record God has given of his Son, the same Spirit has exerted his power, through this preaching, its regenerating the hearts of men. Hence, it is by preaching Christ to sinners, and not the Spirit, that the Spirit operates in glorifying Jesus in their conversion. If I preach to sinners less about the Spirit, it is that they may experience the operations of the Spirit more, by preaching Christ and him crucified, which is the sum and substance of the gospel. On believers I urge the necessity of praying the Father, through the Son, for the Spirit, that he may enlighten and sanctify them, &c." [107]
(NOVEMBER 1, 1824 "Essays on the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men"--No. IV)
Bio on Dr. Silas Noel
Dr. Silas Mercer Noel
1784 - 1830
"SILAS MERCER NOEL was the son of Theodrick Noel, a distinguished Baptist preacher in the Old Dominion, in the early days of Baptist operations in that State, and was born in Henrico county, Va., August 13, 1783. His father gave him a good English education, after which he educated himself in the classical languages, and then studied law. He emigrated to Kentucky and established himself in the practice of his profession, at Frankfort. He professed conversion, probably as early as 1810, and was baptized by William Hickman, pastor of Forks of Elkhorn church. Soon after his union with the church, he was licensed "to exercise a preaching gift," and, about 1813, was ordained to the pastoral care of Big Spring church, in Woodford county, which was constituted that year. He continued pastor of this church one year."
"Mr. Noel was a man of fine culture, of broad views, of active enterprise, and enlarged public spirit. As soon as he entered the work of the ministry, his active mind began to inquire into the wants of the Baptists of the State. In 1813, he commenced the publication of a religious monthly magazine, called the Gospel Herald. In the first number of this periodical, he advocated the establishment of a "General Committee, " among the Baptists of Kentucky, in which the whole Baptist denomination in the State, might be represented and thereby secure unity and harmony of action in promoting schemes of benevolence, especially home and foreign missions. Without entering into particulars here, it is sufficient to say, in this place, that the proposed "General Committee" was intended to answer similar ends to those now promoted by the General Association of Kentucky Baptists. The measure would have been a wise one, if the Baptists of Kentucky, had been prepared to adopt it and carry out its purposes; but they were not, and the movement had to be postponed about nineteen years. Mr. Noel, however, lived to see his measure carried into successful operation in the General Association."
"In 1812, Mr. Noel and Jeremiah Vardeman proposed to publish "a comprehensive History of the Baptist Society." How far this work progressed is not known.
About 1816, Mr. Noel was appointed by Gov. Slaughter, Judge of the Circuit Court. In filling this office, he abandoned the work of the ministry, for a time. John Taylor speaks of him at this period as follows: "Mr. Noel sometime after this relinquished the pastoral charge at Big Spring, though he preached for them sometime after this. He at length took a letter of dismission, and joined the church at Frankfort, after which being appointed circuit judge, for a season he desisted from preaching, and resumed the practice of law to which he had been bred. He forebore the sacred office of gospel minister, about two years, being very unhappy in this lapsed state. About one year past, he came forward again as a preacher, with more zeal, consistency and apparent stability than at any time of his life, before, and is now one of our first-rate Baptist preachers in Kentucky, and has lately taken the pastoral care of the Baptist church in Frankfort." Speaking of him at a later period the same author says: "Silas M. Noel . . .is now a great traveler and one of the most successful preachers the Baptists have in Kentucky. For three years past I suppose he has baptized more people than any other man in Kentucky. His labors seem blessed in whatever direction he takes. The conversion of sinners to the Lord seems to be the greatest object of his address to men. Repentance and faith, or faith and repentance, connected with a godly life, is the main drift of his discourses, with profuse invitations to everyone to come to the Supper. Speculative trifles are barely found in his exhibitions.
"The high powers of Lexington, authorized to make doctors of Divinity, a year or two back saluted him with a flowing diploma. But it is pleasing to see that these high flying trifles do not prevent his going into thickets; or, according to his own term, while at his work, the highways and hedges, to invite the poor, the halt, the blind and lame, with every other soul to seek the salvation of God."
In 1827, Mr. Noel accepted a call to Stamping Ground, where he labored but a short time. The next year he took charge of Great Crossing church. Here his success was remarkable. Within one year he baptized into its fellowship 359 persons. Among them were seventeen Indians from Choctaw Academy at Blue Springs. At least one of these Indians, Sampson Birch, was afterward ordained to the ministry."
"During the two or three years that followed this large in-gathering at Great Crossing, the Campbellite excitement was at fever heat. The discussion partook largely of the popular feeling, but also brought into the arena of newspaper warfare, the ablest men on both sides of the question. Among them Silas M. Noel stood in the front rank on the Baptist side, and while he was not the equal of William Vaughan in the pulpit, he was decidedly his superior with the pen, and, with this he entered largely into the discussions, through the press, while Vaughan was in the lead on the rostrum. Out of a membership of 558, Great Crossing lost only sixteen by the Campbellite schism."
"Mr. Noel probably served some other country churches, at different periods. In 1836, he accepted a call to the church in Lexington. Here he served acceptably about three years, when he was called up higher, May 5, 1839."
"In his early life, Mr. Noel was somewhat perplexed on the subject of church government, and probably inclined to the Presbyterian, but after a few years, became fully settled in that of the Baptists. He, however, felt the need of some general organization, through which the denomination, at least, over the extent of the State, could act in harmony. Hence his proposal for a general committee, in 1813. He established, in that year, the Gospel Herald, a denominational monthly Magazine, by means of which the Baptists of the State could have inter-communion of sentiments. But this was soon discontinued for want of patronage. He was very active in originating Georgetown College, especially for the educating of young preachers. He was a member and President of its Board of Trustees, was instrumental in securing the Paulding fund, and subscribed $500 to the college endowment. He was a leading spirit in organizing the Kentucky Baptist State Convention, in 1832, of which he was Moderator during its existence. The Baptists of Kentucky owe much, under God, to this good and great man.
— History Of Kentucky Baptists, J.H. Spencer, Vol. 1, pages 316-319
"He was known as one of the "ablest" Baptist preachers in Kentucky, Silas M. Noel, D.D., preached for the Baptist Church in Frankfort, Kentucky and fought the Campbell & Stone Movements for many years. P.S. Fall, was a bitter enemy of Noel's, as Fall had led an entire Baptist church to give up their theology to become a first century church in 1824. Noel wrote articles against the Churches of Christ, and debated their preachers in his writings. He, along with Jeremiah Vardeman, planned the Baptist, Georgetown College, in hopes of producing Baptist preachers who would combat Campbellism. He was the man who initially baptized Emily H. Tubman, but Tubman never worshipped as a Baptist, always with the Christians."
http://www.therestorationmovement.com/noel,silas,m.htm
1784 - 1830
"SILAS MERCER NOEL was the son of Theodrick Noel, a distinguished Baptist preacher in the Old Dominion, in the early days of Baptist operations in that State, and was born in Henrico county, Va., August 13, 1783. His father gave him a good English education, after which he educated himself in the classical languages, and then studied law. He emigrated to Kentucky and established himself in the practice of his profession, at Frankfort. He professed conversion, probably as early as 1810, and was baptized by William Hickman, pastor of Forks of Elkhorn church. Soon after his union with the church, he was licensed "to exercise a preaching gift," and, about 1813, was ordained to the pastoral care of Big Spring church, in Woodford county, which was constituted that year. He continued pastor of this church one year."
"Mr. Noel was a man of fine culture, of broad views, of active enterprise, and enlarged public spirit. As soon as he entered the work of the ministry, his active mind began to inquire into the wants of the Baptists of the State. In 1813, he commenced the publication of a religious monthly magazine, called the Gospel Herald. In the first number of this periodical, he advocated the establishment of a "General Committee, " among the Baptists of Kentucky, in which the whole Baptist denomination in the State, might be represented and thereby secure unity and harmony of action in promoting schemes of benevolence, especially home and foreign missions. Without entering into particulars here, it is sufficient to say, in this place, that the proposed "General Committee" was intended to answer similar ends to those now promoted by the General Association of Kentucky Baptists. The measure would have been a wise one, if the Baptists of Kentucky, had been prepared to adopt it and carry out its purposes; but they were not, and the movement had to be postponed about nineteen years. Mr. Noel, however, lived to see his measure carried into successful operation in the General Association."
"In 1812, Mr. Noel and Jeremiah Vardeman proposed to publish "a comprehensive History of the Baptist Society." How far this work progressed is not known.
About 1816, Mr. Noel was appointed by Gov. Slaughter, Judge of the Circuit Court. In filling this office, he abandoned the work of the ministry, for a time. John Taylor speaks of him at this period as follows: "Mr. Noel sometime after this relinquished the pastoral charge at Big Spring, though he preached for them sometime after this. He at length took a letter of dismission, and joined the church at Frankfort, after which being appointed circuit judge, for a season he desisted from preaching, and resumed the practice of law to which he had been bred. He forebore the sacred office of gospel minister, about two years, being very unhappy in this lapsed state. About one year past, he came forward again as a preacher, with more zeal, consistency and apparent stability than at any time of his life, before, and is now one of our first-rate Baptist preachers in Kentucky, and has lately taken the pastoral care of the Baptist church in Frankfort." Speaking of him at a later period the same author says: "Silas M. Noel . . .is now a great traveler and one of the most successful preachers the Baptists have in Kentucky. For three years past I suppose he has baptized more people than any other man in Kentucky. His labors seem blessed in whatever direction he takes. The conversion of sinners to the Lord seems to be the greatest object of his address to men. Repentance and faith, or faith and repentance, connected with a godly life, is the main drift of his discourses, with profuse invitations to everyone to come to the Supper. Speculative trifles are barely found in his exhibitions.
"The high powers of Lexington, authorized to make doctors of Divinity, a year or two back saluted him with a flowing diploma. But it is pleasing to see that these high flying trifles do not prevent his going into thickets; or, according to his own term, while at his work, the highways and hedges, to invite the poor, the halt, the blind and lame, with every other soul to seek the salvation of God."
In 1827, Mr. Noel accepted a call to Stamping Ground, where he labored but a short time. The next year he took charge of Great Crossing church. Here his success was remarkable. Within one year he baptized into its fellowship 359 persons. Among them were seventeen Indians from Choctaw Academy at Blue Springs. At least one of these Indians, Sampson Birch, was afterward ordained to the ministry."
"During the two or three years that followed this large in-gathering at Great Crossing, the Campbellite excitement was at fever heat. The discussion partook largely of the popular feeling, but also brought into the arena of newspaper warfare, the ablest men on both sides of the question. Among them Silas M. Noel stood in the front rank on the Baptist side, and while he was not the equal of William Vaughan in the pulpit, he was decidedly his superior with the pen, and, with this he entered largely into the discussions, through the press, while Vaughan was in the lead on the rostrum. Out of a membership of 558, Great Crossing lost only sixteen by the Campbellite schism."
"Mr. Noel probably served some other country churches, at different periods. In 1836, he accepted a call to the church in Lexington. Here he served acceptably about three years, when he was called up higher, May 5, 1839."
"In his early life, Mr. Noel was somewhat perplexed on the subject of church government, and probably inclined to the Presbyterian, but after a few years, became fully settled in that of the Baptists. He, however, felt the need of some general organization, through which the denomination, at least, over the extent of the State, could act in harmony. Hence his proposal for a general committee, in 1813. He established, in that year, the Gospel Herald, a denominational monthly Magazine, by means of which the Baptists of the State could have inter-communion of sentiments. But this was soon discontinued for want of patronage. He was very active in originating Georgetown College, especially for the educating of young preachers. He was a member and President of its Board of Trustees, was instrumental in securing the Paulding fund, and subscribed $500 to the college endowment. He was a leading spirit in organizing the Kentucky Baptist State Convention, in 1832, of which he was Moderator during its existence. The Baptists of Kentucky owe much, under God, to this good and great man.
— History Of Kentucky Baptists, J.H. Spencer, Vol. 1, pages 316-319
"He was known as one of the "ablest" Baptist preachers in Kentucky, Silas M. Noel, D.D., preached for the Baptist Church in Frankfort, Kentucky and fought the Campbell & Stone Movements for many years. P.S. Fall, was a bitter enemy of Noel's, as Fall had led an entire Baptist church to give up their theology to become a first century church in 1824. Noel wrote articles against the Churches of Christ, and debated their preachers in his writings. He, along with Jeremiah Vardeman, planned the Baptist, Georgetown College, in hopes of producing Baptist preachers who would combat Campbellism. He was the man who initially baptized Emily H. Tubman, but Tubman never worshipped as a Baptist, always with the Christians."
http://www.therestorationmovement.com/noel,silas,m.htm
Nov 2, 2008
Campbell on "The Law"
Although Alexander Campbell went off into some grave errors in doctrine, nevertheless he was correct in his views on "the law" as he preached it first before the Redstone Baptist Association.
Here are some good comments analyzing that sermon. (emphasis mine)
"Content Of The Sermon"
"What is meant by “the law”? Campbell argued that it signifies the whole Mosaic dispensation. He rejected the generally accepted distinctions between the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the judicial law."
Note: I recently saw where Turretinfan, a blogger of repute, takes the view that the law is to be divided so. My dad also does.
I left a comment (for the 1st time) on Turretinfan's blog on this issue, seeing he was promoting the three kinds of "law" view. I have often challenged my dad on this issue, asking him to give biblical authority for such a division and distinction.
Also, I agree with Campbell that such things as tithing and sabbath keeping are NOT laws for New Covenant Christians. But, more on this in future posts.
The analysis continues:
"To refer to the Decalogue as the “moral law,” he argued first of all, is contradictory, seeing that only six of them are moral--that is, relating to our conduct toward men.
Second, Campbell argued against calling the ten commandments the “moral law” on the ground that all morality is clearly not contained in them.
Campbell’s third objection to this division in the law is based on the words of Paul, who denominated the ten commandments the “ministration of condemnation and of death” (2 Cor. 3:7), and further taught that they were to be done away. It is inconsistent, reasoned Campbell, to refer to the “moral law” in such terms. The epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews become perplexing to the person who continues to maintain the moral/ceremonial/judicial distinction.
Campbell concludes this section of his sermon by observing that there were certain universal and immutable principles such as, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, soul, mind, and strength; and thy neighbor as thyself,” which did not originate with the law of Moses. Rather, these principles are timeless principles, written in the hearts of all men, which formed the basis of the law.
The second major section in the sermon was to point out those things which the law could not accomplish. Here Campbell cites three fundamental failings.
First, it could not give righteousness and life. In Galatians 3:21 Paul wrote,”for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” “...for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). In Romans 7:10, Paul said, “And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.” This was what the apostle once mistakenly thought of the law. The law was merely “added to the promise of life, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19). “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound” (Rom. 5:20). “For through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).
Second, the law could not exhibit the malignity or demerit of sin. It taught that certain actions were sinful, gave names to those actions, and showed that they were offensive to God, hurtful to men, and deserving of death. But to show the extent of their malignity the law could not do.
Third, the law could not be a suitable rule of life to mankind in this imperfect state. The law was given to the Jewish nation only. It was designed for them only. But it was inadequate for universal application. To attempt to apply it beyond what it was intended would be as unjust and improper, Campbell explained, as trying to convey the contents of a letter to a person to whom it was not directed, or to enjoin a proclamation made by the President of the United States on the subjects of France. And even to the Jews it was not the most suitable rule of life, in that what it lacked most was an example of living perfection.
Campbell then moves on to his third major objective — to demonstrate the reason why the law could not accomplish these objects.
Paul taught that the law failed to accomplish these thing due to human weakness — “in that it was weak through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Though some part of the law was holy, just and good, even that failed in that it was “too high, sublime, and spiritual, to regulate so weak a mortal as fallen man.”
On the other hand, the oblations and sacrifices were in themselves too weak and carnal in nature to effect anything so vast and sublime. “So that as the Apostle saith, the law made nothing perfect, it merely introduced a better hope” (cf. Heb. 7:19). The law was not faultless, otherwise there would be no place found for the gospel (Heb. 8:7).
Campbell summed up the deficiencies in the words of Ezekiel 20:25 — “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.”
In the fourth head of his discourse, Campbell set out to illustrate the means by which God has remedied the relative defects of the law. All those defects of the law God remedied by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemning sin in the flesh. “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4).
The first deficiency of the law was that it could not give righteousness and life. Now Christ brings righteousness through His obedience unto death, through the work the Father gave Him to do. All believers – the seed of Abraham – thus find righteousness and life in Christ, not by works of law but by grace.
The law could not give a full exhibition of the demerit of sin. But Christ shows the fullness of the nature and demerits of sin. God condemned sin in Him. He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up (Rom. 8:32). At length Campbell explains how we have the greatest demonstration and most enduring monument of the demerit of sin in the suffering and death of the Savior on the cross.
And where the law failed in not providing a suitable rule of life, Christ remedied by giving a perfect example. “He spake as never man spake.” He was the greater Prophet, the perfect teacher. Of Him the voice from the cloud declared, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.” Concluding his remarks on this point from the transfiguration of Christ, Campbell said, “The plain language of the whole occurrence was this – Moses and Elias were excellent men – they were now glorified in heaven – they had lived their day – the limited time they were to flourish as teachers of the will of Heaven was now come to an end. The morning star had arisen – nay, was almost set, and the Sun of Righteousness was arising with salutiferous rays. Let us, then, walk in the noon-day light – let us hearken to Jesus as the Prophet and Legislator, Priest and King. He shall reign over all the ransomed race. We find all things whatsoever the law could not do are accomplished in him, and by him – that in him all Christians might be perfect and complete – ‘for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’”
Campbell, under the final heading of his sermon, comes to the conclusions to be deduced from the premises he has presented.
First, there is an essential difference between the law and the gospel – between the Old Testament and the New Testament. He cites 2 Corinthians 3 as clear demonstration of the essential difference. The law is called “the letter,” “the ministration of condemnation,” “the ministration of death,” “the old testament,” and “Moses.” The gospel is called “the Spirit,” “the ministration of the Spirit,” “the ministration of righteousness,” “the new testament,” “the law of liberty,” and “Christ.” As Hebrews 8 declares, the former is called “that which is done away,” whereas the latter is called, “that which remaineth”; the former was faulty, the latter faultless; the former waxed old and vanished away, the latter remains, lives and is everlasting.
There is “no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” We are not under law; we are freed from it (Rom. 6-7; 8:1). Campbell points out the confusion of modern teachers, who profess that we are not under the law as a covenant of works, but we are under the law as a rule of life. To those who would object that teaching that Christians are not under the law in any sense would lead to licentious living, Campbell responds with Paul’s answer in Romans 6:15: “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” If the apostle Paul ever would have wanted to say that we are still under the law in any sense, this would have been the time to do so. But instead, he says, “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:2). Antinomianism is no part of the New Testament, the gospel, Campbell says, but because of the true Christian’s relationship as a servant, and not because we are still under the law of Moses in some sense, including even the ten commandments or part of them. Furthermore, the Gentiles were never regarded as under the law of Moses, though the “wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. 1:18).
There is no necessity for preaching the law in order to prepare men for receiving the gospel. Jesus said, “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel unto every creature” (Mark 16:15). “Teach the disciples to observe all things whatsoever I command you.” Thus, Campbell says, they were authorized to preach the gospel, not the law, to every creature. As such, they were constituted ministers of the New Testament, not of the Old.
All the preaching of the apostles in Acts consisted of proclaiming the gospel, but not the law. The very nature of the church as God’s kingdom and the means by which it is to be built up is based on the power of the Spirit in the gospel, not the law of Moses.
The gospel, not the law, is best suited to convincing men of sin so as to prepare them to receiving saving truth. It is only the discovery of Christ exalted, as in the case of Paul, that will convict man of sin, righteousness and judgment. Campbell acknowledges that the law was necessary to convince sinners of sin, but only before Christ came. From Romans 6-7, he shows that we, like Paul, are now delivered from the law. The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Campbell shows clearly that, contrary to countenancing law-preaching, this passage (Gal. 3:23) proves that whatever use the law served as schoolmaster previous to Christ, it no longer serves that use.
There is therefore no scriptural basis for using the Old Testament as authority for various common religious practices such as infant baptism, tithing, observance of holy days or religious feasts, Sabbath observance, entering national covenants, or the establishment of religion by civil law. All such “reasons and motives” are borrowed from Jewish law, but are not authorized by Jesus Christ.
Finally, it means that we should venerate the Lord Jesus Christ above all. He is the Great Prophet spoken of by Moses. We should receive Him as the Lord our righteousness and observe all His teachings. “Let us as his disciples believe all he teaches, and practice all he enjoins in religion and morality; let us walk in all his commandments and ordinances; and inquire individually, What lack I yet!” Campbell concludes the sermon with these words: “May he that hath the key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and none can open, open your hearts to receive the truth in the love of it, and incline you to walk in the light of it, and then ye shall know that the ways thereof are pleasantness, and all the paths thereof are peace! AMEN.”
The same views were set forth in the Christian Baptist, the paper that Campbell edited from 1823 to 1829. In one issue, Campbell observes how some have charged him with heresy. “Because we have said, that we christians are not under Moses, but under Christ; not under the law as a rule of life, but under the gospel, we are said to have spoken ‘blasphemous words against Moses and the law’.” These critics were particularly accusing Campbell of denying “the moral law, the Christian Sabbath, and experimental religion.” Campbell responds to these charges by reviewing his “Sermon on the Law” delivered seven years previously (The Christian Baptist I:6 (1824): 115-119).
In the following issue we find Campbell writing on the Sabbath. He argues that Sabbath-keeping was part of the law of Moses and that since that law was set aside, then the Sabbath was also set aside (The Christian Baptist I:7 (1824): 127-133).
Campbell said in 1846 (30 years later) that if it were not for this sermon and the opposition it aroused, he might never have launched his reformation.
Certainly the sermon represented a fresh approach to interpreting and applying the Scriptures. The approach of recognizing that God deals with man in covenants and making a clear distinction between the old and the new was certainly Biblically sound and was a significant step in the efforts of Campbell and many others as they sought to find their way (and to help others find theirs) out of the maze of religious confusion and to work toward the goal of restoring New Testament Christianity."
http://www.lessonsonline.info/Campbells%20Sermon%20on%20the%20Law.a.htm
Here are some good comments analyzing that sermon. (emphasis mine)
"Content Of The Sermon"
"What is meant by “the law”? Campbell argued that it signifies the whole Mosaic dispensation. He rejected the generally accepted distinctions between the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the judicial law."
Note: I recently saw where Turretinfan, a blogger of repute, takes the view that the law is to be divided so. My dad also does.
I left a comment (for the 1st time) on Turretinfan's blog on this issue, seeing he was promoting the three kinds of "law" view. I have often challenged my dad on this issue, asking him to give biblical authority for such a division and distinction.
Also, I agree with Campbell that such things as tithing and sabbath keeping are NOT laws for New Covenant Christians. But, more on this in future posts.
The analysis continues:
"To refer to the Decalogue as the “moral law,” he argued first of all, is contradictory, seeing that only six of them are moral--that is, relating to our conduct toward men.
Second, Campbell argued against calling the ten commandments the “moral law” on the ground that all morality is clearly not contained in them.
Campbell’s third objection to this division in the law is based on the words of Paul, who denominated the ten commandments the “ministration of condemnation and of death” (2 Cor. 3:7), and further taught that they were to be done away. It is inconsistent, reasoned Campbell, to refer to the “moral law” in such terms. The epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews become perplexing to the person who continues to maintain the moral/ceremonial/judicial distinction.
Campbell concludes this section of his sermon by observing that there were certain universal and immutable principles such as, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, soul, mind, and strength; and thy neighbor as thyself,” which did not originate with the law of Moses. Rather, these principles are timeless principles, written in the hearts of all men, which formed the basis of the law.
The second major section in the sermon was to point out those things which the law could not accomplish. Here Campbell cites three fundamental failings.
First, it could not give righteousness and life. In Galatians 3:21 Paul wrote,”for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” “...for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). In Romans 7:10, Paul said, “And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.” This was what the apostle once mistakenly thought of the law. The law was merely “added to the promise of life, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19). “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound” (Rom. 5:20). “For through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).
Second, the law could not exhibit the malignity or demerit of sin. It taught that certain actions were sinful, gave names to those actions, and showed that they were offensive to God, hurtful to men, and deserving of death. But to show the extent of their malignity the law could not do.
Third, the law could not be a suitable rule of life to mankind in this imperfect state. The law was given to the Jewish nation only. It was designed for them only. But it was inadequate for universal application. To attempt to apply it beyond what it was intended would be as unjust and improper, Campbell explained, as trying to convey the contents of a letter to a person to whom it was not directed, or to enjoin a proclamation made by the President of the United States on the subjects of France. And even to the Jews it was not the most suitable rule of life, in that what it lacked most was an example of living perfection.
Campbell then moves on to his third major objective — to demonstrate the reason why the law could not accomplish these objects.
Paul taught that the law failed to accomplish these thing due to human weakness — “in that it was weak through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Though some part of the law was holy, just and good, even that failed in that it was “too high, sublime, and spiritual, to regulate so weak a mortal as fallen man.”
On the other hand, the oblations and sacrifices were in themselves too weak and carnal in nature to effect anything so vast and sublime. “So that as the Apostle saith, the law made nothing perfect, it merely introduced a better hope” (cf. Heb. 7:19). The law was not faultless, otherwise there would be no place found for the gospel (Heb. 8:7).
Campbell summed up the deficiencies in the words of Ezekiel 20:25 — “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.”
In the fourth head of his discourse, Campbell set out to illustrate the means by which God has remedied the relative defects of the law. All those defects of the law God remedied by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemning sin in the flesh. “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4).
The first deficiency of the law was that it could not give righteousness and life. Now Christ brings righteousness through His obedience unto death, through the work the Father gave Him to do. All believers – the seed of Abraham – thus find righteousness and life in Christ, not by works of law but by grace.
The law could not give a full exhibition of the demerit of sin. But Christ shows the fullness of the nature and demerits of sin. God condemned sin in Him. He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up (Rom. 8:32). At length Campbell explains how we have the greatest demonstration and most enduring monument of the demerit of sin in the suffering and death of the Savior on the cross.
And where the law failed in not providing a suitable rule of life, Christ remedied by giving a perfect example. “He spake as never man spake.” He was the greater Prophet, the perfect teacher. Of Him the voice from the cloud declared, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.” Concluding his remarks on this point from the transfiguration of Christ, Campbell said, “The plain language of the whole occurrence was this – Moses and Elias were excellent men – they were now glorified in heaven – they had lived their day – the limited time they were to flourish as teachers of the will of Heaven was now come to an end. The morning star had arisen – nay, was almost set, and the Sun of Righteousness was arising with salutiferous rays. Let us, then, walk in the noon-day light – let us hearken to Jesus as the Prophet and Legislator, Priest and King. He shall reign over all the ransomed race. We find all things whatsoever the law could not do are accomplished in him, and by him – that in him all Christians might be perfect and complete – ‘for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’”
Campbell, under the final heading of his sermon, comes to the conclusions to be deduced from the premises he has presented.
First, there is an essential difference between the law and the gospel – between the Old Testament and the New Testament. He cites 2 Corinthians 3 as clear demonstration of the essential difference. The law is called “the letter,” “the ministration of condemnation,” “the ministration of death,” “the old testament,” and “Moses.” The gospel is called “the Spirit,” “the ministration of the Spirit,” “the ministration of righteousness,” “the new testament,” “the law of liberty,” and “Christ.” As Hebrews 8 declares, the former is called “that which is done away,” whereas the latter is called, “that which remaineth”; the former was faulty, the latter faultless; the former waxed old and vanished away, the latter remains, lives and is everlasting.
There is “no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” We are not under law; we are freed from it (Rom. 6-7; 8:1). Campbell points out the confusion of modern teachers, who profess that we are not under the law as a covenant of works, but we are under the law as a rule of life. To those who would object that teaching that Christians are not under the law in any sense would lead to licentious living, Campbell responds with Paul’s answer in Romans 6:15: “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” If the apostle Paul ever would have wanted to say that we are still under the law in any sense, this would have been the time to do so. But instead, he says, “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:2). Antinomianism is no part of the New Testament, the gospel, Campbell says, but because of the true Christian’s relationship as a servant, and not because we are still under the law of Moses in some sense, including even the ten commandments or part of them. Furthermore, the Gentiles were never regarded as under the law of Moses, though the “wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. 1:18).
There is no necessity for preaching the law in order to prepare men for receiving the gospel. Jesus said, “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel unto every creature” (Mark 16:15). “Teach the disciples to observe all things whatsoever I command you.” Thus, Campbell says, they were authorized to preach the gospel, not the law, to every creature. As such, they were constituted ministers of the New Testament, not of the Old.
All the preaching of the apostles in Acts consisted of proclaiming the gospel, but not the law. The very nature of the church as God’s kingdom and the means by which it is to be built up is based on the power of the Spirit in the gospel, not the law of Moses.
The gospel, not the law, is best suited to convincing men of sin so as to prepare them to receiving saving truth. It is only the discovery of Christ exalted, as in the case of Paul, that will convict man of sin, righteousness and judgment. Campbell acknowledges that the law was necessary to convince sinners of sin, but only before Christ came. From Romans 6-7, he shows that we, like Paul, are now delivered from the law. The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Campbell shows clearly that, contrary to countenancing law-preaching, this passage (Gal. 3:23) proves that whatever use the law served as schoolmaster previous to Christ, it no longer serves that use.
There is therefore no scriptural basis for using the Old Testament as authority for various common religious practices such as infant baptism, tithing, observance of holy days or religious feasts, Sabbath observance, entering national covenants, or the establishment of religion by civil law. All such “reasons and motives” are borrowed from Jewish law, but are not authorized by Jesus Christ.
Finally, it means that we should venerate the Lord Jesus Christ above all. He is the Great Prophet spoken of by Moses. We should receive Him as the Lord our righteousness and observe all His teachings. “Let us as his disciples believe all he teaches, and practice all he enjoins in religion and morality; let us walk in all his commandments and ordinances; and inquire individually, What lack I yet!” Campbell concludes the sermon with these words: “May he that hath the key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and none can open, open your hearts to receive the truth in the love of it, and incline you to walk in the light of it, and then ye shall know that the ways thereof are pleasantness, and all the paths thereof are peace! AMEN.”
The same views were set forth in the Christian Baptist, the paper that Campbell edited from 1823 to 1829. In one issue, Campbell observes how some have charged him with heresy. “Because we have said, that we christians are not under Moses, but under Christ; not under the law as a rule of life, but under the gospel, we are said to have spoken ‘blasphemous words against Moses and the law’.” These critics were particularly accusing Campbell of denying “the moral law, the Christian Sabbath, and experimental religion.” Campbell responds to these charges by reviewing his “Sermon on the Law” delivered seven years previously (The Christian Baptist I:6 (1824): 115-119).
In the following issue we find Campbell writing on the Sabbath. He argues that Sabbath-keeping was part of the law of Moses and that since that law was set aside, then the Sabbath was also set aside (The Christian Baptist I:7 (1824): 127-133).
Campbell said in 1846 (30 years later) that if it were not for this sermon and the opposition it aroused, he might never have launched his reformation.
Certainly the sermon represented a fresh approach to interpreting and applying the Scriptures. The approach of recognizing that God deals with man in covenants and making a clear distinction between the old and the new was certainly Biblically sound and was a significant step in the efforts of Campbell and many others as they sought to find their way (and to help others find theirs) out of the maze of religious confusion and to work toward the goal of restoring New Testament Christianity."
http://www.lessonsonline.info/Campbells%20Sermon%20on%20the%20Law.a.htm
Yarnell on "Ordo Salutis"
I received the following email from my friend Ian and wish to share it here. Thanks Ian for sharing this with us.
"I came upon this Q & A at the Baptist Theology website (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) and though both of you might enjoy reading it. In response to a question of whether regeneration precedes conversion, Malcolm Yarnell says neither precedes the other, that they are concomitant.
http://www.baptisttheology.org/questions.cfm
Just think of how many needless discussions and debates might be ended if the Reformed groups and Arminian groups heeded Yarnell's word on this matter and about ordo salutis! We would have a point of agreement rather than dissension and argument.
With regards,"
Ian
(emphasis mine)
Q: Greetings in the name of Christ, Do you teach that regenration precedes conversion at SWBTS...Do respond in detail...thanks and GOD bless you!!
A: The administration has forwarded your request for information to me. I am the Director of the Center for Theological Research and an Associate Professor of Systematic Theology here at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Although I do not speak in an official capacity for the entire seminary (only our President may do that), I can respond as a typical professor to your question.
Your email stated the following:
“Greetings in the name of Christ, Do you teach that regenration precedes conversion at SWBTS...Do respond in detail...thanks and GOD bless you!!”
In my systematic theology lectures on soteriology, I discuss this issue, which comes under the general heading of the order of salvation (ordo salutis). First of all, please realize that most discussions of the ordo salutis are highly speculative and quickly become independent of divine revelation as they flee toward human speculation and philosophy. This includes both the Calvinist (Synod of Dort) and Arminian/Wesleyan systems. I teach my students to reject both systems as human innovations and stick strictly with Scripture.
Let us focus upon John 3 as an example of how this works. In verses 1-18, both regeneration and faith are discussed by the One who saves us. Faith, as you know, is one side of the coin of conversion, and indicates full trust in God; repentance is the other side of that coin. Regeneration means to be born again, or to be born from above. Let us discuss both faith and regeneration from this passage.
Regeneration is a sovereign, mysterious work of the Holy Spirit (vv. 5-8), yet Jesus says it is required for our salvation (v. 3). This means that we are dependent upon God for our salvation. Salvation is truly a divine work of grace, from beginning to end. Without regeneration, there is no salvation.
Nicodemus was confused by this and queried Jesus for further information. Jesus proceeded to speak to him about faith.
Faith, or believing in the sense of full trust, is required as well if we are to be saved. The world is facing judgment and the only way to escape that judgment is if one will believe in Christ and what He came to the world to do through His incarnation, death, and resurrection (vv. 16-18). Without faith, there is no salvation.
Jesus, however, did not stop with faith. He also proceeded to speak of the redeemed life.
Faith, if it is true faith, will issue forth in a changed life, or Repentance (vv. 19-21). If we are of the Light and welcome in the kingdom of Light than we will practice deeds of Light. In other words, repentance, or the changing of our life to follow Christ, is part and parcel of faith! (Indeed, one may not claim to know God’s grace without being a disciple who seeks to obey His Lord in all things. Saying “Jesus is Lord” is the basic Christian confession, so salvation without lordship is nonsensical. Indeed, anyone who says they have Jesus as savior without having Jesus as Lord is deceived and deceiving.)
We are not done, so hold on to your seat. Regeneration, a work of God, is required of us for our salvation (John 3:1-8). Faith, our personal response to Christ and his cross, is required of us for our salvation (John 3:9-18). And repentance, our personal following of Christ and taking up our own cross, is integral to our salvation, too (John 3:19-21). Now, Jesus did not treat these as part of an order, but as descriptive of a single and profoundly momentous, and indeed the most important, event in a person’s life. Regeneration and conversion (which includes faith and repentance) are two different ways to speak of what is required for salvation. One emphasizes divine action; the other emphasizes human action. Yet, even the human action that is required is also a gift, for faith and repentance are the gifts of God, too!
Regeneration is required for salvation (John 3:3). Regeneration is a gift of God (John 3:5-8).
Faith is a human duty (Mark 1:14). Faith is a divine gift (Eph. 2:8-9). Repentance is a human duty (Matt. 4:16, Acts 17:30). Repentance is a divine gift (John 16:8-10).
When Jesus and the apostles talk about the great and beautiful truth of salvation, they describe something so great that it is beyond our capability and comprehension. And yet, God demands of us to exercise all that he gives us to exercise in faith and repentance.
My friend, Regeneration is required and is a gift; Faith is required and is a gift; and, Repentance is required and is a gift. And nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that any of these things are prior to the other. REGENERATION AND CONVERSION ARE CONCOMITANT ACTIONS OF GOD THAT ALSO DEMAND HUMAN RESPONSE!
This is why our denomination’s confession treats regeneration neither as prior to or subsequent from conversion. Rather, it treats regeneration and conversion as concomitant realities of the one moment we understand to be the beginning of salvation. Separating salvation into four moments (regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification), article IV of the Baptist Faith and Message treats regeneration and conversion as part of one moment: Regeneration is “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” And Southern Baptists believe this because they follow the Jesus Christ of the Bible, and although they respect John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, they will walk with those two only insofar as they follow the Bible. Baptists are Biblicists: no more, no less.
Or, if you want a simple answer to your simple question, “Does regeneration precede conversion?” The answer is, “No, but neither does conversion precede regeneration.” Calvinists and Arminians would respond that they are not speaking of a temporal order but a logical order, and I would respond that if one deigns to speak of a logical order from eternity apart from divine revelation, then one speaks with both ignorance and arrogance.
May I ask you a question, good sir? Have you responded to the free offer of God’s grace in Christ Jesus? God sent His only begotten Son to become a human being, to die upon a cross to atone for the sins of the world, and to rise from the dead so that those who believe in Him might also have eternal life. Jesus died on the cross for your sins; Jesus rose from the dead for your resurrection. Do you know Him as your personal Lord and Savior? Have you been born again? Have you repented and believed? If not, I beg of you to follow Jesus, who came preaching, “Repent and Believe in the Gospel!”
Malcolm Yarnell
I disagree with but a few things Yarnell has here said.
"I came upon this Q & A at the Baptist Theology website (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) and though both of you might enjoy reading it. In response to a question of whether regeneration precedes conversion, Malcolm Yarnell says neither precedes the other, that they are concomitant.
http://www.baptisttheology.org/questions.cfm
Just think of how many needless discussions and debates might be ended if the Reformed groups and Arminian groups heeded Yarnell's word on this matter and about ordo salutis! We would have a point of agreement rather than dissension and argument.
With regards,"
Ian
(emphasis mine)
Q: Greetings in the name of Christ, Do you teach that regenration precedes conversion at SWBTS...Do respond in detail...thanks and GOD bless you!!
A: The administration has forwarded your request for information to me. I am the Director of the Center for Theological Research and an Associate Professor of Systematic Theology here at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Although I do not speak in an official capacity for the entire seminary (only our President may do that), I can respond as a typical professor to your question.
Your email stated the following:
“Greetings in the name of Christ, Do you teach that regenration precedes conversion at SWBTS...Do respond in detail...thanks and GOD bless you!!”
In my systematic theology lectures on soteriology, I discuss this issue, which comes under the general heading of the order of salvation (ordo salutis). First of all, please realize that most discussions of the ordo salutis are highly speculative and quickly become independent of divine revelation as they flee toward human speculation and philosophy. This includes both the Calvinist (Synod of Dort) and Arminian/Wesleyan systems. I teach my students to reject both systems as human innovations and stick strictly with Scripture.
Let us focus upon John 3 as an example of how this works. In verses 1-18, both regeneration and faith are discussed by the One who saves us. Faith, as you know, is one side of the coin of conversion, and indicates full trust in God; repentance is the other side of that coin. Regeneration means to be born again, or to be born from above. Let us discuss both faith and regeneration from this passage.
Regeneration is a sovereign, mysterious work of the Holy Spirit (vv. 5-8), yet Jesus says it is required for our salvation (v. 3). This means that we are dependent upon God for our salvation. Salvation is truly a divine work of grace, from beginning to end. Without regeneration, there is no salvation.
Nicodemus was confused by this and queried Jesus for further information. Jesus proceeded to speak to him about faith.
Faith, or believing in the sense of full trust, is required as well if we are to be saved. The world is facing judgment and the only way to escape that judgment is if one will believe in Christ and what He came to the world to do through His incarnation, death, and resurrection (vv. 16-18). Without faith, there is no salvation.
Jesus, however, did not stop with faith. He also proceeded to speak of the redeemed life.
Faith, if it is true faith, will issue forth in a changed life, or Repentance (vv. 19-21). If we are of the Light and welcome in the kingdom of Light than we will practice deeds of Light. In other words, repentance, or the changing of our life to follow Christ, is part and parcel of faith! (Indeed, one may not claim to know God’s grace without being a disciple who seeks to obey His Lord in all things. Saying “Jesus is Lord” is the basic Christian confession, so salvation without lordship is nonsensical. Indeed, anyone who says they have Jesus as savior without having Jesus as Lord is deceived and deceiving.)
We are not done, so hold on to your seat. Regeneration, a work of God, is required of us for our salvation (John 3:1-8). Faith, our personal response to Christ and his cross, is required of us for our salvation (John 3:9-18). And repentance, our personal following of Christ and taking up our own cross, is integral to our salvation, too (John 3:19-21). Now, Jesus did not treat these as part of an order, but as descriptive of a single and profoundly momentous, and indeed the most important, event in a person’s life. Regeneration and conversion (which includes faith and repentance) are two different ways to speak of what is required for salvation. One emphasizes divine action; the other emphasizes human action. Yet, even the human action that is required is also a gift, for faith and repentance are the gifts of God, too!
Regeneration is required for salvation (John 3:3). Regeneration is a gift of God (John 3:5-8).
Faith is a human duty (Mark 1:14). Faith is a divine gift (Eph. 2:8-9). Repentance is a human duty (Matt. 4:16, Acts 17:30). Repentance is a divine gift (John 16:8-10).
When Jesus and the apostles talk about the great and beautiful truth of salvation, they describe something so great that it is beyond our capability and comprehension. And yet, God demands of us to exercise all that he gives us to exercise in faith and repentance.
My friend, Regeneration is required and is a gift; Faith is required and is a gift; and, Repentance is required and is a gift. And nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that any of these things are prior to the other. REGENERATION AND CONVERSION ARE CONCOMITANT ACTIONS OF GOD THAT ALSO DEMAND HUMAN RESPONSE!
This is why our denomination’s confession treats regeneration neither as prior to or subsequent from conversion. Rather, it treats regeneration and conversion as concomitant realities of the one moment we understand to be the beginning of salvation. Separating salvation into four moments (regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification), article IV of the Baptist Faith and Message treats regeneration and conversion as part of one moment: Regeneration is “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” And Southern Baptists believe this because they follow the Jesus Christ of the Bible, and although they respect John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, they will walk with those two only insofar as they follow the Bible. Baptists are Biblicists: no more, no less.
Or, if you want a simple answer to your simple question, “Does regeneration precede conversion?” The answer is, “No, but neither does conversion precede regeneration.” Calvinists and Arminians would respond that they are not speaking of a temporal order but a logical order, and I would respond that if one deigns to speak of a logical order from eternity apart from divine revelation, then one speaks with both ignorance and arrogance.
May I ask you a question, good sir? Have you responded to the free offer of God’s grace in Christ Jesus? God sent His only begotten Son to become a human being, to die upon a cross to atone for the sins of the world, and to rise from the dead so that those who believe in Him might also have eternal life. Jesus died on the cross for your sins; Jesus rose from the dead for your resurrection. Do you know Him as your personal Lord and Savior? Have you been born again? Have you repented and believed? If not, I beg of you to follow Jesus, who came preaching, “Repent and Believe in the Gospel!”
Malcolm Yarnell
I disagree with but a few things Yarnell has here said.
Reprobates?
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates. Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates." (II Corinthians 13: 5-7 KJV)
"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed." (NIV)
Observations
Paul did not assume, nor presume, that all the Corinthian disciples were truly saved, or had "received the seed of the kingdom in an honest and good heart," and neither would he have them to assume it.
Paul wanted to test them and he wanted them to test themselves; not just once either, but regularly and continuously, to be in the habit of doing so.
Paul's counsel and exhortation had its multi-faceted purpose.
First, it would seek to assure the truly saved, the good ground hearers of the gospel.
Secondly, to convince the hypocrites and deceived of their mistake, of their stony, wayside, or thorny ground heart condition, and of their need of real conversion, so that they might really be saved, or become "good ground hearers" with "honest" (sincere and non-pretentious) and "good" hearts.
It is imperative that all professing Christians regulary "take the test" of the Christian so that they might be regularly reassured and strengthened in their faith, and come to "know" and "realize" that they are not "reprobates," or imposters, or deceived, but possessors of a real salvation, and a genuine possession of Christ.
Salvation or conversion is defined by Paul by equating it with Christ being "in" a person, and a person being "in the faith," or "in" Christ, one who "passes the test," and who is not a "reprobate," one void of judgment and discernment.
Paul affirms that one who has Christ "in" him is one who knows it, or is assured of it, who knows and realizes it.
Paul also affirms that it is part of the Christian psyche to "know thyself," and that it should have spiritual discernment to know the state of its heart and life, and not to be in doubt about its state and condition.
This is not said in a "gnostic" or "new age" sense, nor in a strictly "philosophical" sense, but in a spiritual or moral sense. We are to "know ourselves" through God's knowledge of us. God knows us better than we could ever know ourselves.
To have a correct view of ourselves, of our own "psyche," our own heart and mind, requires that we get God's view of us. We must look in God's "mirror" (James 1) and not to Satan's "vanity mirror."
Public opinion, especially non Christian opinion, is not a criterion to be used as part of the "test" to be taken. By that standard, Paul is one who has "failed the test," is one who is a "reprobate."
People may be those, like Paul, who "seem," to unbelievers, to be those who have "failed the test," or are "reprobates," but who are not what they seem to be in such eyes. We may "esteem" some to be failers of the test (or reprobates), such as are the wayside or thorny ground hearers, but who may actually be passers of the test, men with genuine knowledge of a saved condition.
Now, what is "the test"? How can we come to presently know that we are really saved, and good ground hearers rather than shallow or thorny ground hearers? How can we know that we have actually been "begotten" and have the life and presence of Christ "in" us? That we are "elect" and "called," and not "reprobates"? How can we be certain that our conversions are as the bible describes?
Perseverence is a proof of genuine regeneration. But what does it mean to "persevere," and to "continue," and to "endure to the end," as a Christian or as a believer in Jesus?
The more a Christian endures and continues, the more he is assured of his salvation. Every victorious battle over sin and unbelief gives further proof and reassurance. Every act of repentance, confession, and returning to the Lord is fresh evidence.
What are more immediate evidences of one's salvation being real? What other criteria is there for "the test"? Besides the perseverence test?
Here are pertinent questions on "the test."
1. Do you love and adore Christ and accept his lordship over your life?
2. Does he "rule" in your heart, soul, thoughts, and mind?
3. Do you daily seek him?
4. Do you daily pray and meditate upon his teachings?
5. Do you enjoy telling others about the gospel?
6. Are you unashamed to tell others that you are a follower of Christ?
7. Are you regularly penitent over your sins?
8. Do you regularly confess your sins to Christ?
9. Do you enjoy the regular company of Christians?
10. Do you ever 'suffer persecution' as a Christian?
11. If confronted with martydom, will you deny Christ?
12. Do you have a humble heart? A low estimation of self?
13. Do you love others more than self?
14. Do you enjoy doing as Christ commanded and taught?
15. Do you have the inner witness that Christ loved and died for you?
16. Are you led of the Spirit and word of God?
17. Do you possess love, joy, peace, faith and confident hope in Christ?
18. Are you filled with doubt about the gospel or confident of its truth?
If one can answer these questions correctly and without "mental reservation," then he may "rest assured" that he is really saved and "has received the word in an honest and good heart" and certainly will be finally saved.
"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed." (NIV)
Observations
Paul did not assume, nor presume, that all the Corinthian disciples were truly saved, or had "received the seed of the kingdom in an honest and good heart," and neither would he have them to assume it.
Paul wanted to test them and he wanted them to test themselves; not just once either, but regularly and continuously, to be in the habit of doing so.
Paul's counsel and exhortation had its multi-faceted purpose.
First, it would seek to assure the truly saved, the good ground hearers of the gospel.
Secondly, to convince the hypocrites and deceived of their mistake, of their stony, wayside, or thorny ground heart condition, and of their need of real conversion, so that they might really be saved, or become "good ground hearers" with "honest" (sincere and non-pretentious) and "good" hearts.
It is imperative that all professing Christians regulary "take the test" of the Christian so that they might be regularly reassured and strengthened in their faith, and come to "know" and "realize" that they are not "reprobates," or imposters, or deceived, but possessors of a real salvation, and a genuine possession of Christ.
Salvation or conversion is defined by Paul by equating it with Christ being "in" a person, and a person being "in the faith," or "in" Christ, one who "passes the test," and who is not a "reprobate," one void of judgment and discernment.
Paul affirms that one who has Christ "in" him is one who knows it, or is assured of it, who knows and realizes it.
Paul also affirms that it is part of the Christian psyche to "know thyself," and that it should have spiritual discernment to know the state of its heart and life, and not to be in doubt about its state and condition.
This is not said in a "gnostic" or "new age" sense, nor in a strictly "philosophical" sense, but in a spiritual or moral sense. We are to "know ourselves" through God's knowledge of us. God knows us better than we could ever know ourselves.
To have a correct view of ourselves, of our own "psyche," our own heart and mind, requires that we get God's view of us. We must look in God's "mirror" (James 1) and not to Satan's "vanity mirror."
Public opinion, especially non Christian opinion, is not a criterion to be used as part of the "test" to be taken. By that standard, Paul is one who has "failed the test," is one who is a "reprobate."
People may be those, like Paul, who "seem," to unbelievers, to be those who have "failed the test," or are "reprobates," but who are not what they seem to be in such eyes. We may "esteem" some to be failers of the test (or reprobates), such as are the wayside or thorny ground hearers, but who may actually be passers of the test, men with genuine knowledge of a saved condition.
Now, what is "the test"? How can we come to presently know that we are really saved, and good ground hearers rather than shallow or thorny ground hearers? How can we know that we have actually been "begotten" and have the life and presence of Christ "in" us? That we are "elect" and "called," and not "reprobates"? How can we be certain that our conversions are as the bible describes?
Perseverence is a proof of genuine regeneration. But what does it mean to "persevere," and to "continue," and to "endure to the end," as a Christian or as a believer in Jesus?
The more a Christian endures and continues, the more he is assured of his salvation. Every victorious battle over sin and unbelief gives further proof and reassurance. Every act of repentance, confession, and returning to the Lord is fresh evidence.
What are more immediate evidences of one's salvation being real? What other criteria is there for "the test"? Besides the perseverence test?
Here are pertinent questions on "the test."
1. Do you love and adore Christ and accept his lordship over your life?
2. Does he "rule" in your heart, soul, thoughts, and mind?
3. Do you daily seek him?
4. Do you daily pray and meditate upon his teachings?
5. Do you enjoy telling others about the gospel?
6. Are you unashamed to tell others that you are a follower of Christ?
7. Are you regularly penitent over your sins?
8. Do you regularly confess your sins to Christ?
9. Do you enjoy the regular company of Christians?
10. Do you ever 'suffer persecution' as a Christian?
11. If confronted with martydom, will you deny Christ?
12. Do you have a humble heart? A low estimation of self?
13. Do you love others more than self?
14. Do you enjoy doing as Christ commanded and taught?
15. Do you have the inner witness that Christ loved and died for you?
16. Are you led of the Spirit and word of God?
17. Do you possess love, joy, peace, faith and confident hope in Christ?
18. Are you filled with doubt about the gospel or confident of its truth?
If one can answer these questions correctly and without "mental reservation," then he may "rest assured" that he is really saved and "has received the word in an honest and good heart" and certainly will be finally saved.
New World Economic Order?
Under the coming rule of the AntiChrist, in the coming days of "the great tribulation," the nations of the world will be united in one world government.
Many of our Christian forefathers feared the creation of the "League of Nations" because they believed that the "uniting" of the governments of the world under one rule was an omen of apocalyptic disaster.
It was this view (prevalent in America in the days when President Wilson was using all his abilities to get the USA to vote herself into this "confederacy") this pervasive view of the Christian community, that defeated Wilson's plans.
The second attempt at a "world government" came at the close of the second world war, being the work of Roosevelt and Truman, together with the other leaders of the victorious nations. It was then finally successful, and this time called "The United Nations," rather than the "League of Nations." This world institution has continued with us till this hour, and has steadily increased its power and influence in the political machinations of world government.
There is unquestionably a Satanic conspiracy to bring about a "world government" of the highest order.
Satan has always had control of the world to some degree. That is why he is called the "god of this age" (II Cor. 4: 4 NIV), and the "prince of this world" (John 12: 31; 14: 30; 16: 11 NIV), and why he could, when he tempted Christ in the wilderness, offer rule over the governments of the world, saying "all these will I give you if you will fall down and worship me." (Matt. 4: 9 KJV) Yet, he is destined for greater control through "the son of perdition." (II Thess. 2: 3 KJV)
The Satanic conspirators of the "New World Order" have realized the near impossibility of "setting up" this "new world order" by a democratic vote of the people, at least of the American people. They realized the people must be forced or tricked into it.
Marxist-Socialism is a socio-economic theory with its general philosophy summed up in the motto - "each according to his abilities, each according to his need."
Marxist-Socialism is as much an "economic" theory as it is a "social" theory of community.
But, these penetrating questions must be asked.
Who decides the "abilites" and the "needs" of each? Who is the regulator and decider of such things in this system? Who controls the "wealth" or "means of production"?
Who controls the lives of the citizens? Who decides what is best for them? Who shall decide whether they live or die? Who judges whether they are aborted in the womb? Who decides whether they get needed surgery or medicine to live, or food to eat? Who decides what job or career they shall have, and how much money they will make?
In Marxist-Socialism, it is decided by "the goverment" or "ruling authorities." But, then, the questions become these.
How does one become part of the "ruling class"? And, How is power to rule obtained? Or, phrased in another way, how are rulers chosen? And, On what basis?
Satan wants this ultimate power over all. He wants to be the one all must depend upon.
Satan knows that if he can control who eats and prospers, and who lives or dies (See book of Job), then he has effectually usurped all earthly power, and has occupied the place of the God of providence.
The Apocalypse tells us of a time just before the return of Christ when all the nations of the world will be united under the one called "the beast." He will have complete and absolute economic control over the lives of all the earth's citizens, excepting faithful Christians.
The recent economic collapses of large banks and even some nations, and the news of others impending, is bringing about what has been recently called the "new world economic order."
Here are some news clips of recent events.
"Brown (Prime Minister Gordon Brown of UK) has attempted to win favor with Arab states by stressing they have not been represented enough on international bodies and promising them a seat at the table amid discussions by world leaders "grasping toward new world order."
"...a meeting of G-20 nations to hammer out potential reform of the global financial system to prevent a repeat of the current crisis, scheduled for November 15 in Washington D.C., which will also be attended by King Abdullah."
"They are getting each other on to the same page of analysis and the agreed response and Saudi Arabia's active participation in getting the world through this first financial crisis of the global age," Mandelson told reporters after Brown met with Abdullah. "But that is a process, not an event."
"Brown expects Saudi financial help."
By JANE WARDELL, AP Business Writer
Notice the words "this first financial crisis." It seems others are planned by Satan's conspirators. Events are transpiring fast, "speedily." Notice also how the recent financial collapses are not just singular events, not unforeseen by any, but are part of a planned "process" or scheduled order of events.
The call needs to go out for Christians and for all to "get ready," to make sure of their "calling" and "election." (II Peter 1: 10 KJV)
Many of our Christian forefathers feared the creation of the "League of Nations" because they believed that the "uniting" of the governments of the world under one rule was an omen of apocalyptic disaster.
It was this view (prevalent in America in the days when President Wilson was using all his abilities to get the USA to vote herself into this "confederacy") this pervasive view of the Christian community, that defeated Wilson's plans.
The second attempt at a "world government" came at the close of the second world war, being the work of Roosevelt and Truman, together with the other leaders of the victorious nations. It was then finally successful, and this time called "The United Nations," rather than the "League of Nations." This world institution has continued with us till this hour, and has steadily increased its power and influence in the political machinations of world government.
There is unquestionably a Satanic conspiracy to bring about a "world government" of the highest order.
Satan has always had control of the world to some degree. That is why he is called the "god of this age" (II Cor. 4: 4 NIV), and the "prince of this world" (John 12: 31; 14: 30; 16: 11 NIV), and why he could, when he tempted Christ in the wilderness, offer rule over the governments of the world, saying "all these will I give you if you will fall down and worship me." (Matt. 4: 9 KJV) Yet, he is destined for greater control through "the son of perdition." (II Thess. 2: 3 KJV)
The Satanic conspirators of the "New World Order" have realized the near impossibility of "setting up" this "new world order" by a democratic vote of the people, at least of the American people. They realized the people must be forced or tricked into it.
Marxist-Socialism is a socio-economic theory with its general philosophy summed up in the motto - "each according to his abilities, each according to his need."
Marxist-Socialism is as much an "economic" theory as it is a "social" theory of community.
But, these penetrating questions must be asked.
Who decides the "abilites" and the "needs" of each? Who is the regulator and decider of such things in this system? Who controls the "wealth" or "means of production"?
Who controls the lives of the citizens? Who decides what is best for them? Who shall decide whether they live or die? Who judges whether they are aborted in the womb? Who decides whether they get needed surgery or medicine to live, or food to eat? Who decides what job or career they shall have, and how much money they will make?
In Marxist-Socialism, it is decided by "the goverment" or "ruling authorities." But, then, the questions become these.
How does one become part of the "ruling class"? And, How is power to rule obtained? Or, phrased in another way, how are rulers chosen? And, On what basis?
Satan wants this ultimate power over all. He wants to be the one all must depend upon.
Satan knows that if he can control who eats and prospers, and who lives or dies (See book of Job), then he has effectually usurped all earthly power, and has occupied the place of the God of providence.
The Apocalypse tells us of a time just before the return of Christ when all the nations of the world will be united under the one called "the beast." He will have complete and absolute economic control over the lives of all the earth's citizens, excepting faithful Christians.
The recent economic collapses of large banks and even some nations, and the news of others impending, is bringing about what has been recently called the "new world economic order."
Here are some news clips of recent events.
"Brown (Prime Minister Gordon Brown of UK) has attempted to win favor with Arab states by stressing they have not been represented enough on international bodies and promising them a seat at the table amid discussions by world leaders "grasping toward new world order."
"...a meeting of G-20 nations to hammer out potential reform of the global financial system to prevent a repeat of the current crisis, scheduled for November 15 in Washington D.C., which will also be attended by King Abdullah."
"They are getting each other on to the same page of analysis and the agreed response and Saudi Arabia's active participation in getting the world through this first financial crisis of the global age," Mandelson told reporters after Brown met with Abdullah. "But that is a process, not an event."
"Brown expects Saudi financial help."
By JANE WARDELL, AP Business Writer
Notice the words "this first financial crisis." It seems others are planned by Satan's conspirators. Events are transpiring fast, "speedily." Notice also how the recent financial collapses are not just singular events, not unforeseen by any, but are part of a planned "process" or scheduled order of events.
The call needs to go out for Christians and for all to "get ready," to make sure of their "calling" and "election." (II Peter 1: 10 KJV)
Nov 1, 2008
Hudson's "New Birth"
Under an article titled "Regeneration or New Birth," By Woodrow W. Hudson, and published at a Hardshell Baptist web page (see below), the writer said:
"The elect of God do believe in the truth in due time. "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) This Scripture proves that ALL of the elect shall believe the truth.
The Lord blesses His people, or the elect, with repentance. "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance." (Rom. 2:4) "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to GIVE repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:31)"
"The elect believe because they have the witness or Spirit of Truth within their hearts. Since the world cannot receive the Holy Ghost, only the elect receive the Holy Ghost or Comforter."
http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Volume%20One/THE_PREDESTINARIAN_VOLUME_1_ISSUE_10.pdf
Some "Primitive Baptists" today still hold the old Regular Baptist view that the "new birth" comes in distinct stages, with "regeneration" being the first stage, "conviction" being the second, and "birth" the final stage.
Some "Primitives" still hold this view, it seems, because the affirmation of saying that all the elect, and regenerated (without the gospel), will eventually come to saving faith and repentance, through faith in the gospel, is basically the same view as the great leaders, or "founding fathers," of the Hardshell, Primitive, or Old School Baptist denomination.
"The elect of God do believe in the truth in due time. "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) This Scripture proves that ALL of the elect shall believe the truth.
The Lord blesses His people, or the elect, with repentance. "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance." (Rom. 2:4) "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to GIVE repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:31)"
"The elect believe because they have the witness or Spirit of Truth within their hearts. Since the world cannot receive the Holy Ghost, only the elect receive the Holy Ghost or Comforter."
http://www.mountzionpbc.org/Volume%20One/THE_PREDESTINARIAN_VOLUME_1_ISSUE_10.pdf
Some "Primitive Baptists" today still hold the old Regular Baptist view that the "new birth" comes in distinct stages, with "regeneration" being the first stage, "conviction" being the second, and "birth" the final stage.
Some "Primitives" still hold this view, it seems, because the affirmation of saying that all the elect, and regenerated (without the gospel), will eventually come to saving faith and repentance, through faith in the gospel, is basically the same view as the great leaders, or "founding fathers," of the Hardshell, Primitive, or Old School Baptist denomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)