I listened to a sermon preached this last weekend (here) at Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church by Elder David Pyles on Joshua as a type of Christ, and I heartily commend this sermon to all.
I enjoyed it on many counts, as the interconnected truths of Scripture were deftly manifested by the Elder in the application of the typology of Christ and His triumphant kingdom by Joshua's leadership of Israel in the conquest of Canaan.
Pertaining to some of my recent blogs on the Sculptor's Hammer, I found the sermon quite relevant to the Faithless Generation and John 10:24-28 posts, especially as Elder Pyles rebuts the tendency of some PB ministers to apply Canaan's land only to the New Testament Church and affirms the obedience of the new generation of Israelites that enter Canaan's land as an example of Psalms 110:3. He quotes John 10:27 also in application of the obedience of the generation that entered Canaan.
Wonderful sermon, and an intellectual treat.
Some Primitive Baptists seem to have a bizarre view of spiritual preaching. I hear comments often to the effect of divorcing spiritual preaching with the intellect.
I have heard an older sermon by Ray Piles (and Elder Sonny Pyles has stated in his sermons) that, though the Apostle Paul had the gospel revealed to him directly by Christ, Paul's exhortation to Timothy, as a non-Apostolic minister of the gospel, was to, "Study to show thyself approved...". A minister that is not given to study cannot be a God-called minister, therefore.
Nevertheless, an attitude exists among some PB's that true spiritual preaching is done by an ignorant minister having the Holy Spirit "funnel" the gospel through Him, as if the man plays little or no part in the message. Often, ministers with this tendency of attitude will "chant", "sing-song", or "cry" their messages, as if the Spirit is palpably manifested in something other than truth. Preachers today do not receive the gospel to be preached on Sunday morning like Paul received it from Christ. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost gave and revealed the power of the gospel by the Spirit to the Apostles in a different manner (with the knowledge of foreign tongues, etc.) than ordinary preachers learn to preach it.
Intellectual truth of the preached gospel is the chief evidence of the Spirit. This is established plainly in John 4:24 by Jesus' statement that only those who worship God in Spirit and in truth are in true worship. These do not exist separately from each other, but are mutually dependent.
The elders that rule well, and especially those that labor in the word and doctrine are counted worthy of double honor, according to 1 Timothy 5:17. I do not find that it is unscriptural, therefore, to recognize in Elder David Pyles an Elder worthy of double honor in regard to his intellectual/spiritual grasp and command of the doctrines of the bible.
I have never personally met Elder David, though I have corresponded with him in emails. My enthusiasm for his sermons is that I am spiritually/intellectually fed by them. My hope and prayer is that the study habits of some of the ministers among the PB's will improve, and the superstition of "Holy Ghost conjuring" by chant, tears, or hoarse wails will be abolished.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
John 10:24-28
I have been somewhat unclear with this text in my past writing on my Primitive Baptist Apologist blog, and I would like to state clearly the meaning of this passage, as I understand it.
Most Primitive Baptists and Stephen Garrett, I think, apply and correlate this passage to John 5:25 in the "voice" of Christ being the effectual call, which I think is partially correct.
What I have tried to point out, is that this passage clearly applies more of John 5 than simply verse 25 as I shall show. The "hearing" and "following" of the sheep in 10:27 is plainly contrasted to the gospel unbelief of the pharisees in 10:25. The evident and incontrovertible point of Christ is that the pharisees were gospel unbelievers because they were not of Christ's sheep.
Now, the problem here for some modern Primitive Baptists is that this passage clearly makes the gospel belief lacking in the pharisees (vs. 25, 26) part of the "hearing" and "following" of the sheep by contrast. This follows quite clearly to any reasonable mind free of prejudice. The unbelief of the pharisees in this passage to the ministry of Jesus is clearly a result of non-election, and the gospel belief of sheep is plainly a part of hearing and following the voice of Christ, as, "He that is of God heareth God's words, ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God (John 8:47)".
The problem for Stephen Garrett, and some Primitive Baptists also, is observed in 10:27 as correlated to John 5, is that in John 5, spiritual life is not limited to the quickening of the Son in verse 25. As Christ stated plainly in 5:21, the Father quickened whoever He willed, as the Son. It is clear from John 5:37, 38 that there were many already quickened by the Father, but that those not quickened by the Father showed damnation in rejecting the ministry of Jesus.
John 5:24 is understood in this vein, as the ministry of Jesus was compatible with the Father, and he that rejected Christ, rejected the Father (5:23), showing their damned state in their pseudo trust in Moses (5:45-47).
John 5:24 refers to those Jews with the Father's word already abiding in them (21, 38) who embraced the public ministry of Christ because they had eternal life.
John 5 does not isolate the hearing of the words of Jesus to the quickening, resurrecting power of Jesus, manifestly, as there were clearly Jews already quickened of the Father. John 5:25 refers to the quickening power of Jesus, indeed, but there is no reason to view John 10:24-28 as only referring to John 5:25 because the "sheep" is a reference to all of the elect, even those already quickened by the Father. John 10:24-28 clearly encompasses the truth of the 5th chapter that there were many pseudo-Jews who "trusted" in Moses to their own damnation, who were not quickened by the Father or Jesus.
The pharisees in 10:24,25 were clearly such Jews who did not have the Father's word abiding in them. The idea that the sheep are all quickened by the voice of Jesus contradicts John 5:21. The point of 10:27, in harmony with the entire 5th chapter of John, is that hearing the voice of Christ is not only the quickening of the dead by the Spirit, it is also the corroboration of those with eternal life that have been quickened by the Father (John 6:45).
I do not think that some modern Primitive Baptists and Stephen Garrett clearly evaluate John 10:24-28 in relation to John 5, and realize that it must refer both to Christ's quickening and the illumination of the Father's previous quickening, just as the effectual call may be with the gospel as preached by men or apart from it. But regardless of whether the words of Christ are physically present whether by Christ or preachers of Christ, it is Christ or the Father by the Spirit that effects quickening through the spiritual revelation of the person of Christ (5:25), which embraces the words of Christ as preached by men, if they are present, as the sheep follow their shepherd (5:24).
The sheep already quickened by the Father would hear the voice of Christ to gospel conversion (5:24, 6:45), and the sheep yet dead in their sins would hear the voice of Christ (or be drawn of the Father - 6:44) first by Spirit (5:25), then by following immediately in faith and life in the person of Christ and gospel belief tantamount to the spiritual experience of His person (10:27).
The central point is that John 10:27 does not establish that all the elect are quickened by the Son, as this would make Christ to contradict Himself in John 5:21. All of the sheep hear the voice of Christ whether by quickening power, as in the first instance of life from the dead (5:25), or because they have been quickened already by the Father (5:24).
Most Primitive Baptists and Stephen Garrett, I think, apply and correlate this passage to John 5:25 in the "voice" of Christ being the effectual call, which I think is partially correct.
What I have tried to point out, is that this passage clearly applies more of John 5 than simply verse 25 as I shall show. The "hearing" and "following" of the sheep in 10:27 is plainly contrasted to the gospel unbelief of the pharisees in 10:25. The evident and incontrovertible point of Christ is that the pharisees were gospel unbelievers because they were not of Christ's sheep.
Now, the problem here for some modern Primitive Baptists is that this passage clearly makes the gospel belief lacking in the pharisees (vs. 25, 26) part of the "hearing" and "following" of the sheep by contrast. This follows quite clearly to any reasonable mind free of prejudice. The unbelief of the pharisees in this passage to the ministry of Jesus is clearly a result of non-election, and the gospel belief of sheep is plainly a part of hearing and following the voice of Christ, as, "He that is of God heareth God's words, ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God (John 8:47)".
The problem for Stephen Garrett, and some Primitive Baptists also, is observed in 10:27 as correlated to John 5, is that in John 5, spiritual life is not limited to the quickening of the Son in verse 25. As Christ stated plainly in 5:21, the Father quickened whoever He willed, as the Son. It is clear from John 5:37, 38 that there were many already quickened by the Father, but that those not quickened by the Father showed damnation in rejecting the ministry of Jesus.
John 5:24 is understood in this vein, as the ministry of Jesus was compatible with the Father, and he that rejected Christ, rejected the Father (5:23), showing their damned state in their pseudo trust in Moses (5:45-47).
John 5:24 refers to those Jews with the Father's word already abiding in them (21, 38) who embraced the public ministry of Christ because they had eternal life.
John 5 does not isolate the hearing of the words of Jesus to the quickening, resurrecting power of Jesus, manifestly, as there were clearly Jews already quickened of the Father. John 5:25 refers to the quickening power of Jesus, indeed, but there is no reason to view John 10:24-28 as only referring to John 5:25 because the "sheep" is a reference to all of the elect, even those already quickened by the Father. John 10:24-28 clearly encompasses the truth of the 5th chapter that there were many pseudo-Jews who "trusted" in Moses to their own damnation, who were not quickened by the Father or Jesus.
The pharisees in 10:24,25 were clearly such Jews who did not have the Father's word abiding in them. The idea that the sheep are all quickened by the voice of Jesus contradicts John 5:21. The point of 10:27, in harmony with the entire 5th chapter of John, is that hearing the voice of Christ is not only the quickening of the dead by the Spirit, it is also the corroboration of those with eternal life that have been quickened by the Father (John 6:45).
I do not think that some modern Primitive Baptists and Stephen Garrett clearly evaluate John 10:24-28 in relation to John 5, and realize that it must refer both to Christ's quickening and the illumination of the Father's previous quickening, just as the effectual call may be with the gospel as preached by men or apart from it. But regardless of whether the words of Christ are physically present whether by Christ or preachers of Christ, it is Christ or the Father by the Spirit that effects quickening through the spiritual revelation of the person of Christ (5:25), which embraces the words of Christ as preached by men, if they are present, as the sheep follow their shepherd (5:24).
The sheep already quickened by the Father would hear the voice of Christ to gospel conversion (5:24, 6:45), and the sheep yet dead in their sins would hear the voice of Christ (or be drawn of the Father - 6:44) first by Spirit (5:25), then by following immediately in faith and life in the person of Christ and gospel belief tantamount to the spiritual experience of His person (10:27).
The central point is that John 10:27 does not establish that all the elect are quickened by the Son, as this would make Christ to contradict Himself in John 5:21. All of the sheep hear the voice of Christ whether by quickening power, as in the first instance of life from the dead (5:25), or because they have been quickened already by the Father (5:24).
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Michael Gowens on Philippians 1:6
Michael Gowens is a gifted writer and minister of the Primitive Baptists. I would like to consider his comments on Phil. 1:6, which can be found in his article, "The Place of the Gospel".
Elder Gowens wrote:
"Philippians 1:6 is frequently employed to teach that every regenerate person will be automatically and progressively sanctified: “Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ.” But the verb epiteleo translated “will perform” does not mean “will continue to work”, but literally “will bring to completion”. The same root verb (telos) is translated “finished” in John 19:30: “It is finished”. Did the Lord Jesus intend to suggest by that statement that the work of redemption would continue, or that it was completed? Obviously, he intended the latter. Similarly, “will perform” does not mean “will continue” but “will complete”. Philippians 1:6, then, is an eternal security text, not a text to argue for the Reformed idea that every truly regenerate person will persevere in faith and holiness. Paul is simply affirming that the God who quickened them into Divine life will finish the work by giving them glorified bodies to match their regenerate souls when Jesus Christ comes again."
I agree with Elder Gowens that Phil. 1:6 obviously does not establish that children of God are preserved from temporal disobedience, as the London and Fulton Confession allow from Ephes. 4:30.
The Calvinistic view of perseverance is in error when it conditions perseverance, contrary to the London Confession (chapter 17, section 2), on the free will of men rather than God's decree of election. However, the London Confession clearly states in chapter 3, section 1, that the liberty of the creature is established by God's decree, so that, while perseverance is not predicated on the liberty of man's will, the will of the effectually called is established in grace and holiness by God's decree and effectual call.
So, it is not an issue of either preservation by God's decree or perseverance by man's will, but that the elect are preserved by God's decree of election to persevere in the faith and holiness of the seed of God remaining in them (1 John 3:9), which is the "work" begun in them according to Gill in his commentary on Phil. 1:6.
The "faith" and "holiness" persevered is not necessarily every full measure of discipleship, though, surely, in such individuals who persevere in discipleship it is God that worketh in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
The inner man, the principle of grace of 1 John 3:9, is the good work of God begun that will continue until the day of Jesus Christ, and it is the essential faith in the person of Christ of this principle of grace that is kept by the power of God unto salvation ready to be revealed at the last time. This principle of grace manifests the children of God from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10).
Now, it is incorrect to argue that 'epitelesei' refers only to glorification, as if it does not refer to sanctification in time. The sense of the prepositional phrase 'unto the day of Jesus Christ' clearly implies that the good work begun by God is performed in the interim between the beginning of the work at the effectual call and up to the day of Jesus Christ.
Beside this, there is a significant difference between teleo and when the prefix epi is placed before the stem. Epi amplifies the significance of the stem, as it does with 'episkopos'. As Strong's indicates, it means to complete further or perfect, not simply "complete", which is why the text of Phil 1:6 is rendered "will perform it" as an ongoing work. The good work begun is not performed AT the day of Christ's final appearance, but is performed UNTO that day, which plainly implies sanctification in time to any reasonable mind.
This method of attack on this text is unnecessary to uphold the criticism of some Reformed formulations of perseverance. As Gill argues, it is the principle of grace of the inner man that is secured unto eternal life, not a standard of perfect discipleship:
"...it is but a begun work; it is not yet finished and perfect: this appears from the several parts of this work, which are imperfect, as faith, hope, love, knowledge, &c. from the indwelling of sin, and corruption in the best of saints; from their various continual wants and necessities; from their disclaiming perfection in this life, and their desires after it. But the apostle was confident, and so may every good man be confident, both for himself and others, that God who has, and wherever he has begun the good work of grace, will "perform", finish it, or bring it to an end, as the word here used signifies: and this the saints may assure themselves of, from many considerations; as from the nature of the work itself, which is called living water, because it always continues, a well of it, because of its abundance, and is said to spring up to eternal life; because it is inseparably connected with it, where there is grace, there will be glory; grace is the beginning of glory, and glory the perfection of grace; this work of grace is an incorruptible seed, and which remains in the saints, and can never be lost; it is a principle of life, the root of which is hid in Christ, and that itself is maintained by him, and can never be destroyed by men or devils: and also from the concern God has in it, who is unchangeable in his nature, purposes, promises, gifts, and calling; who is a rock, and his work is perfect sooner or later; who is faithful, and will never forsake the work of his hands, and has power to accomplish it; and who has promised his people, that they shall grow stronger and stronger, that they shall not depart from him, and he will never leave them."
What a beautiful passage from Dr. Gill! The tenor of perseverance by preservation is obvious here, and in the London Confession. "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."
Elder Gowens wrote:
"Philippians 1:6 is frequently employed to teach that every regenerate person will be automatically and progressively sanctified: “Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ.” But the verb epiteleo translated “will perform” does not mean “will continue to work”, but literally “will bring to completion”. The same root verb (telos) is translated “finished” in John 19:30: “It is finished”. Did the Lord Jesus intend to suggest by that statement that the work of redemption would continue, or that it was completed? Obviously, he intended the latter. Similarly, “will perform” does not mean “will continue” but “will complete”. Philippians 1:6, then, is an eternal security text, not a text to argue for the Reformed idea that every truly regenerate person will persevere in faith and holiness. Paul is simply affirming that the God who quickened them into Divine life will finish the work by giving them glorified bodies to match their regenerate souls when Jesus Christ comes again."
I agree with Elder Gowens that Phil. 1:6 obviously does not establish that children of God are preserved from temporal disobedience, as the London and Fulton Confession allow from Ephes. 4:30.
The Calvinistic view of perseverance is in error when it conditions perseverance, contrary to the London Confession (chapter 17, section 2), on the free will of men rather than God's decree of election. However, the London Confession clearly states in chapter 3, section 1, that the liberty of the creature is established by God's decree, so that, while perseverance is not predicated on the liberty of man's will, the will of the effectually called is established in grace and holiness by God's decree and effectual call.
So, it is not an issue of either preservation by God's decree or perseverance by man's will, but that the elect are preserved by God's decree of election to persevere in the faith and holiness of the seed of God remaining in them (1 John 3:9), which is the "work" begun in them according to Gill in his commentary on Phil. 1:6.
The "faith" and "holiness" persevered is not necessarily every full measure of discipleship, though, surely, in such individuals who persevere in discipleship it is God that worketh in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
The inner man, the principle of grace of 1 John 3:9, is the good work of God begun that will continue until the day of Jesus Christ, and it is the essential faith in the person of Christ of this principle of grace that is kept by the power of God unto salvation ready to be revealed at the last time. This principle of grace manifests the children of God from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10).
Now, it is incorrect to argue that 'epitelesei' refers only to glorification, as if it does not refer to sanctification in time. The sense of the prepositional phrase 'unto the day of Jesus Christ' clearly implies that the good work begun by God is performed in the interim between the beginning of the work at the effectual call and up to the day of Jesus Christ.
Beside this, there is a significant difference between teleo and when the prefix epi is placed before the stem. Epi amplifies the significance of the stem, as it does with 'episkopos'. As Strong's indicates, it means to complete further or perfect, not simply "complete", which is why the text of Phil 1:6 is rendered "will perform it" as an ongoing work. The good work begun is not performed AT the day of Christ's final appearance, but is performed UNTO that day, which plainly implies sanctification in time to any reasonable mind.
This method of attack on this text is unnecessary to uphold the criticism of some Reformed formulations of perseverance. As Gill argues, it is the principle of grace of the inner man that is secured unto eternal life, not a standard of perfect discipleship:
"...it is but a begun work; it is not yet finished and perfect: this appears from the several parts of this work, which are imperfect, as faith, hope, love, knowledge, &c. from the indwelling of sin, and corruption in the best of saints; from their various continual wants and necessities; from their disclaiming perfection in this life, and their desires after it. But the apostle was confident, and so may every good man be confident, both for himself and others, that God who has, and wherever he has begun the good work of grace, will "perform", finish it, or bring it to an end, as the word here used signifies: and this the saints may assure themselves of, from many considerations; as from the nature of the work itself, which is called living water, because it always continues, a well of it, because of its abundance, and is said to spring up to eternal life; because it is inseparably connected with it, where there is grace, there will be glory; grace is the beginning of glory, and glory the perfection of grace; this work of grace is an incorruptible seed, and which remains in the saints, and can never be lost; it is a principle of life, the root of which is hid in Christ, and that itself is maintained by him, and can never be destroyed by men or devils: and also from the concern God has in it, who is unchangeable in his nature, purposes, promises, gifts, and calling; who is a rock, and his work is perfect sooner or later; who is faithful, and will never forsake the work of his hands, and has power to accomplish it; and who has promised his people, that they shall grow stronger and stronger, that they shall not depart from him, and he will never leave them."
What a beautiful passage from Dr. Gill! The tenor of perseverance by preservation is obvious here, and in the London Confession. "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."
Friday, July 13, 2012
A Balanced View of the Faithless Generation in Hebrews
As I have stated to Stephen Garrett on my blog, Primitive Baptist Apologist, Primitive Baptists are not committed to viewing the "faithless generation" of Hebrews 3 and 4 as born again individuals that failed to inherit the temporal Kingdom of God in the gospel rest of which Canaan's land was the direct reference, as the temporal promise of God to those in the visible community of believers.
First, it is clear that Moses and Aaron were clearly, according to Numbers 14:4-7, on the side of Caleb and Joshua against the faithlessness of that generation. Moses and Aaron were not faithless in regard to the promise of God of entering into Canaan's land. They were prevented from entering into the Kingdom of God in time because of other acts of disobedience from this event.
Second, the central faithlessness of that generation is clearly presented in the Scripture as evidence of the eternal damnation of that generation. This is clearly proved by an examination of Jude 4-7:
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though you once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
To any reasonable mind, the faithless of that generation that failed to inherit the temporal promises of God is indicative of non-election in those "before of old ordained to this condemnation". The faithlessness is placed in the same category as the devil and his angels and the damned of Sodom who are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the vengeance of the Lord of eternal fire.
It is, therefore, untenable to suggest that there were born again individuals in that faithless generation that opposed Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, and Yahweh of whom it is said in Hebrews 3 that they, "always do err in their heart and have not known my ways".
However, Moses and Aaron still failed to inherit the temporal Kingdom of God in Canaan's land for other acts of disobedience. This obviously proves that regenerate children of God can fail to enter the temporal Kingdom of God through disobedience.
The point of Hebrews 3 and 4 is that there is a temporal rest promised to the people of God in the gospel - a temporal realization of an eternal reality, as there was to that faithless generation, and it's foundation is the eternal, Sabbath rest of God that Christ secured for His house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end (Heb. 3:6).
Without laying hold of the temporal rest of Christ and His righteousness in gospel belief, there is no basis to hope for the eternal, Sabbath rest of God in Christ, obviously. This is the point. There is no hope of eternal heaven apart from gospel belief, as the faithless generation failed the temporal rest of God because they were damned, according to Jude.
One cannot find solace in Moses and Aaron's disobedience, as on what basis could one identify themselves apart from the company of the damned in Jude as simply disobedient but regenerate when they fail to embrace Jesus Christ as did the damned?
However, just because some "seem to come short of it" (temporal rest in gospel belief), does not necessarily mean they are damned, though this could explain disobedience as it did for that faithless generation, as the temporal exhortation of Paul is to seize the temporal inheritance while it is called today - while the disobedient are yet in the way (Matt. 5:25,26), proving one's election of God in fear and trembling, before one is delivered into the prison of hell to pay every farthing of sin treasured up unto wrath and the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to the gospel.
The missing piece to understanding Hebrews is the epistemic focus of the quality of faith that confers assurance of eternal salvation. Hebrews does not provide assurance of eternal salvation to those who draw back unto perdition, but to those who believe unto the saving of the soul, which is placed in Hebrews 10 in regard to Christ's final appearance.
I pray that Primitive Baptist ministers will seek a balanced position on disobedient children of God, and teach the whole counsel of God. Unrepentant "disobedience" is not a fruit of the Spirit which leads those truly effectually called (Romans 8:14).
First, it is clear that Moses and Aaron were clearly, according to Numbers 14:4-7, on the side of Caleb and Joshua against the faithlessness of that generation. Moses and Aaron were not faithless in regard to the promise of God of entering into Canaan's land. They were prevented from entering into the Kingdom of God in time because of other acts of disobedience from this event.
Second, the central faithlessness of that generation is clearly presented in the Scripture as evidence of the eternal damnation of that generation. This is clearly proved by an examination of Jude 4-7:
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though you once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
To any reasonable mind, the faithless of that generation that failed to inherit the temporal promises of God is indicative of non-election in those "before of old ordained to this condemnation". The faithlessness is placed in the same category as the devil and his angels and the damned of Sodom who are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the vengeance of the Lord of eternal fire.
It is, therefore, untenable to suggest that there were born again individuals in that faithless generation that opposed Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, and Yahweh of whom it is said in Hebrews 3 that they, "always do err in their heart and have not known my ways".
However, Moses and Aaron still failed to inherit the temporal Kingdom of God in Canaan's land for other acts of disobedience. This obviously proves that regenerate children of God can fail to enter the temporal Kingdom of God through disobedience.
The point of Hebrews 3 and 4 is that there is a temporal rest promised to the people of God in the gospel - a temporal realization of an eternal reality, as there was to that faithless generation, and it's foundation is the eternal, Sabbath rest of God that Christ secured for His house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end (Heb. 3:6).
Without laying hold of the temporal rest of Christ and His righteousness in gospel belief, there is no basis to hope for the eternal, Sabbath rest of God in Christ, obviously. This is the point. There is no hope of eternal heaven apart from gospel belief, as the faithless generation failed the temporal rest of God because they were damned, according to Jude.
One cannot find solace in Moses and Aaron's disobedience, as on what basis could one identify themselves apart from the company of the damned in Jude as simply disobedient but regenerate when they fail to embrace Jesus Christ as did the damned?
However, just because some "seem to come short of it" (temporal rest in gospel belief), does not necessarily mean they are damned, though this could explain disobedience as it did for that faithless generation, as the temporal exhortation of Paul is to seize the temporal inheritance while it is called today - while the disobedient are yet in the way (Matt. 5:25,26), proving one's election of God in fear and trembling, before one is delivered into the prison of hell to pay every farthing of sin treasured up unto wrath and the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to the gospel.
The missing piece to understanding Hebrews is the epistemic focus of the quality of faith that confers assurance of eternal salvation. Hebrews does not provide assurance of eternal salvation to those who draw back unto perdition, but to those who believe unto the saving of the soul, which is placed in Hebrews 10 in regard to Christ's final appearance.
I pray that Primitive Baptist ministers will seek a balanced position on disobedient children of God, and teach the whole counsel of God. Unrepentant "disobedience" is not a fruit of the Spirit which leads those truly effectually called (Romans 8:14).
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Elder Walter Cash on Is Time Salvation Conditional?
I noticed while perusing the Spring 2012, The Old Path Contender, a quarterly Primitive Baptist publication edited by Elder Kenneth Clevenger, that it showcased Elder Walter Cash's article in the Messenger of Peace in February 1924.
I have enjoyed and commend Elder Cash's writings to all, and count him certainly to be one of the most knowledgeable and Biblically faithful Primitive Baptists of the last century who emphasized, above all, using Bible language wherever possible. The semantic confusion that can arise when doctrine is formulated conceptually apart from the language of Scripture, even if substantively synonymous, has been the cause of unnecessary strife within the Bride of Christ. Certainly for the cause of the babes in Christ who might strain at concepts like the meat offered to idols, language that is not Biblical, though it is conceptually consistent with the logical consequence of expressed Biblical concepts, ought to be eschewed in preaching in favor of the language of Scripture.
This truth reproves both sides of the debate between those that advocate God's predestination of all things, and the so-called "conditional", time salvation, as Brother Cash's writings demonstrate.
I present the article that was originally presented by Elder Cash, whose years of life were from 1856-1937, in the, Messenger of Peace, in February, 1924:
Is Time Salvation Conditional?
Brother J.S. Rippeto, of Hartsburg, Missouri, asks me to answer this question, "Is Time Salvation Conditional?" through the MESSENGER of PEACE. It cannot be answered "yes" or "no." The reason why it cannot be is because the meaning of "time salvation" has to be defined before it can be intelligently discussed. It would be better to say in the beginning that the term should not be used at all, for the reason that it is too indefinite. It is not a Bible expression and we should always be careful about using expressions that are not warranted by the Bible.
It may be true that in some sense we might use the expression, "time salvation," but it would always need to be qualified. It is better to use terms so plain that they will be understood without having to qualify them. The word "salvation," as used in the Bible, generally refers to God's salvation of his people, whether it be in time or to eternity. God's salvation is God's saving and the manifestation of this commences in time and it's blessings and benefits are felt and known in time, and are made perfect in eternity. Whenever this is used, those not used to some special explanation would be likely to think of this salvation and object to saying that it was conditioned on the acts of men. For this reason I feel that the expression, "time salvation" is not good usage.
This expression is generally used to refer to blessings that follow obedience to God's will and way, or contrariwise, to the chastisement that follow disobedience. Upon these points the Bible is so clear that if we use Bible terms no one will be misled. If we ask, is there conditional chastisement? The Bible will answer such a question. God said to Samuel of David, "If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart away from him." This course is also true of God's dealings with his children in all the ages. "We are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world." Our fathers, after the flesh, "chastened us after their own pleasure; but He (God) for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness."
No one with reason would claim that God chastised without cause or that He chastised the obedient. So, likewise, we know that the obedient have the approval of the Master and the fruits of the Spirit will be manifest in them. So, while it is true that the obedient save themselves from chastisement, it is not necessary to call it time salvation.
At the same time, Elder Cash in an article entitled, Thoughts on Predestination, published in Messenger of Peace, 1928, opposed the use of "predestinate" in reference to what God suffers or permits:
"
In modern PB's, you often hear of this latter, semantic objection to the use of the expression of God's predestination of all things by fiat or permissive decree. I agree with the point here, as it cannot be denied that the Bible's direct use of the word "predestinate" in the New Testament is expressly in reference to the specific salvation of individuals, though I do not object to the use of this term in reference to what God suffers as long as it is clearly qualified that God's predestination of sin is permissive and not causative, as the Fulton Confession (Hassell through this confession, as they adopted his statements in the footnotes) and the LCF allowed.
However, it is inconsistent to stress this semantic focus of Biblical language without doing the same of the expression, "conditional time salvation", which is the focus of Elder Cash in his article posted above. The salient objection to Absoluters and Stephen Garrett's view of soteriology, is that the sin of the regenerate, and the consequent chastisement in time, are clearly presented in the Scripture as conditional, not absolute, as the Bible commands in Ephesians to, "grieve not the Holy Ghost" and, 1 Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit." Also, clearly James 1:13,14 emphatically makes this point.
It does not follow from this fundamental objection that the subjective experience of grace and mercy of God is as conditional as disobedience, as the effectual call is manifestly unconditional, as an aspect of salvation experienced in time. As Cash argues, it is disobedience that is conditional from the Scripture, not salvation (except as salvation pertains to deliverance from temporal disobedience), which is the common experience of all those truly shepherded.
May the truth and emphases of the Scripture inform the emphases of His ministers.
I have enjoyed and commend Elder Cash's writings to all, and count him certainly to be one of the most knowledgeable and Biblically faithful Primitive Baptists of the last century who emphasized, above all, using Bible language wherever possible. The semantic confusion that can arise when doctrine is formulated conceptually apart from the language of Scripture, even if substantively synonymous, has been the cause of unnecessary strife within the Bride of Christ. Certainly for the cause of the babes in Christ who might strain at concepts like the meat offered to idols, language that is not Biblical, though it is conceptually consistent with the logical consequence of expressed Biblical concepts, ought to be eschewed in preaching in favor of the language of Scripture.
This truth reproves both sides of the debate between those that advocate God's predestination of all things, and the so-called "conditional", time salvation, as Brother Cash's writings demonstrate.
I present the article that was originally presented by Elder Cash, whose years of life were from 1856-1937, in the, Messenger of Peace, in February, 1924:
Is Time Salvation Conditional?
Brother J.S. Rippeto, of Hartsburg, Missouri, asks me to answer this question, "Is Time Salvation Conditional?" through the MESSENGER of PEACE. It cannot be answered "yes" or "no." The reason why it cannot be is because the meaning of "time salvation" has to be defined before it can be intelligently discussed. It would be better to say in the beginning that the term should not be used at all, for the reason that it is too indefinite. It is not a Bible expression and we should always be careful about using expressions that are not warranted by the Bible.
It may be true that in some sense we might use the expression, "time salvation," but it would always need to be qualified. It is better to use terms so plain that they will be understood without having to qualify them. The word "salvation," as used in the Bible, generally refers to God's salvation of his people, whether it be in time or to eternity. God's salvation is God's saving and the manifestation of this commences in time and it's blessings and benefits are felt and known in time, and are made perfect in eternity. Whenever this is used, those not used to some special explanation would be likely to think of this salvation and object to saying that it was conditioned on the acts of men. For this reason I feel that the expression, "time salvation" is not good usage.
This expression is generally used to refer to blessings that follow obedience to God's will and way, or contrariwise, to the chastisement that follow disobedience. Upon these points the Bible is so clear that if we use Bible terms no one will be misled. If we ask, is there conditional chastisement? The Bible will answer such a question. God said to Samuel of David, "If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart away from him." This course is also true of God's dealings with his children in all the ages. "We are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world." Our fathers, after the flesh, "chastened us after their own pleasure; but He (God) for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness."
No one with reason would claim that God chastised without cause or that He chastised the obedient. So, likewise, we know that the obedient have the approval of the Master and the fruits of the Spirit will be manifest in them. So, while it is true that the obedient save themselves from chastisement, it is not necessary to call it time salvation.
At the same time, Elder Cash in an article entitled, Thoughts on Predestination, published in Messenger of Peace, 1928, opposed the use of "predestinate" in reference to what God suffers or permits:
"
It may be urged that God certainly knows what will be, and so it may be said he "predestinated to permit" all the evil that there is in the world. The fact that he does not prevent evil cannot be denied. And he permits in the sense that he has power to prevent and does not do so. But we should so hold ourselves to the use of scripture language that we do not use terms that the scriptures do not use, and it is nowhere said in his word that he predestinates to permit. This is too strong a term to use unless God himself had authorized it.
"In modern PB's, you often hear of this latter, semantic objection to the use of the expression of God's predestination of all things by fiat or permissive decree. I agree with the point here, as it cannot be denied that the Bible's direct use of the word "predestinate" in the New Testament is expressly in reference to the specific salvation of individuals, though I do not object to the use of this term in reference to what God suffers as long as it is clearly qualified that God's predestination of sin is permissive and not causative, as the Fulton Confession (Hassell through this confession, as they adopted his statements in the footnotes) and the LCF allowed.
However, it is inconsistent to stress this semantic focus of Biblical language without doing the same of the expression, "conditional time salvation", which is the focus of Elder Cash in his article posted above. The salient objection to Absoluters and Stephen Garrett's view of soteriology, is that the sin of the regenerate, and the consequent chastisement in time, are clearly presented in the Scripture as conditional, not absolute, as the Bible commands in Ephesians to, "grieve not the Holy Ghost" and, 1 Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit." Also, clearly James 1:13,14 emphatically makes this point.
It does not follow from this fundamental objection that the subjective experience of grace and mercy of God is as conditional as disobedience, as the effectual call is manifestly unconditional, as an aspect of salvation experienced in time. As Cash argues, it is disobedience that is conditional from the Scripture, not salvation (except as salvation pertains to deliverance from temporal disobedience), which is the common experience of all those truly shepherded.
May the truth and emphases of the Scripture inform the emphases of His ministers.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Awake Thou That Sleepest!
Stephen Garrett stated (here) in regard to Ephesians 5:14:
"I see this as a serious difficulty for the Hardshells relative to this passage. Even if we apply the "command" to those who are already spiritually resurrected and alive, is Christ still not calling, with his "word" and"voice," his living children to "come forth" in a "resurrection"? Even if one makes the "resurrection," experience alluded to in the passage, a"conversion" experience, to a post "regeneration" experience, then is it still not a case where a command, exactly like the one he makes in regeneration, is made? Does the passage then not show, by any honest admission, that the command to be "converted" is the same kind of command as given in the work of "regeneration"? Is God still not commanding a "resurrection," of some sort, to take place in both regeneration and conversion? Why then is one experience "irresistable" and"efficacious" and the other not, seeing the same language is used by God in commanding both?"
I reject Stephen Garrett's general view of this passage for the reasons I will state on my blog, "The Primitive Baptist Apologist". However, I couldn't have stated the logical implications of this passage better for some ministers among the Primitive Baptists who would make moral sanctification and gospel conversion not of grace and fully optional, which is unbiblical.
However, I deny this error has been the view of knowledgeable Primitive Baptists, and I assert it is nothing less than a relapse into the hollow log heresy, which every single Primitive Baptist claims to deny.
2 Peter 1:3 clearly states that God gives all things that pertain to life and godliness, and it is God that works within the regenerate to will and do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12,13), perfecting them unto the image of His Son unto the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6).
The degree of sanctification and gospel conversion is something in which the spirit of God leads the regenerate man's will (Romans 8:14), and yet it can be resisted to some degree, as 1 Thess. 5:19.
But there is a rudimentary sense, according to the grace of God, in which a fundamental presence of both is irresistible, not optional, and the necessary effect of the moving cause of Christ within; both in the sense of that which characterizes the regenerate in vital union with Christ in Romans 8:1, "...who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit", and as respect to a basic conviction and conversion of all the elect when exposed to the special revelation of God, as the same spirit that testifies that one is a child of God (Rom. 8:16), testifies of the truth in resurrecting power per Ephesians 1:19,20, 1 John 3:24, 1 John 4:4,6, Ephesians 5:14 above, 1 Corinthians 1:18,24, Romans 1:16, and 1 Peter 4:6.
"I see this as a serious difficulty for the Hardshells relative to this passage. Even if we apply the "command" to those who are already spiritually resurrected and alive, is Christ still not calling, with his "word" and"voice," his living children to "come forth" in a "resurrection"? Even if one makes the "resurrection," experience alluded to in the passage, a"conversion" experience, to a post "regeneration" experience, then is it still not a case where a command, exactly like the one he makes in regeneration, is made? Does the passage then not show, by any honest admission, that the command to be "converted" is the same kind of command as given in the work of "regeneration"? Is God still not commanding a "resurrection," of some sort, to take place in both regeneration and conversion? Why then is one experience "irresistable" and"efficacious" and the other not, seeing the same language is used by God in commanding both?"
I reject Stephen Garrett's general view of this passage for the reasons I will state on my blog, "The Primitive Baptist Apologist". However, I couldn't have stated the logical implications of this passage better for some ministers among the Primitive Baptists who would make moral sanctification and gospel conversion not of grace and fully optional, which is unbiblical.
However, I deny this error has been the view of knowledgeable Primitive Baptists, and I assert it is nothing less than a relapse into the hollow log heresy, which every single Primitive Baptist claims to deny.
2 Peter 1:3 clearly states that God gives all things that pertain to life and godliness, and it is God that works within the regenerate to will and do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12,13), perfecting them unto the image of His Son unto the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6).
The degree of sanctification and gospel conversion is something in which the spirit of God leads the regenerate man's will (Romans 8:14), and yet it can be resisted to some degree, as 1 Thess. 5:19.
But there is a rudimentary sense, according to the grace of God, in which a fundamental presence of both is irresistible, not optional, and the necessary effect of the moving cause of Christ within; both in the sense of that which characterizes the regenerate in vital union with Christ in Romans 8:1, "...who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit", and as respect to a basic conviction and conversion of all the elect when exposed to the special revelation of God, as the same spirit that testifies that one is a child of God (Rom. 8:16), testifies of the truth in resurrecting power per Ephesians 1:19,20, 1 John 3:24, 1 John 4:4,6, Ephesians 5:14 above, 1 Corinthians 1:18,24, Romans 1:16, and 1 Peter 4:6.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
God's Faith in Christ and Christ's Faith in God
Some Primitive Baptist Elders hold the view that texts of Scripture - specifically Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:3, 21-31 - refer to God's faith in Christ (Rom. 3:3, or his blood as in Rom. 3:25), and Christ's faith in His Father as in Gal. 2:16 and Romans 3:22.
First of all, I want to agree with the Elders that take this view that it is a faith that is OF God and OF Christ. What I mean is that in these texts θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ are nouns in the genitive case. To render these texts with the preposition "in" God and "in" Christ is not the literal translation; there is a way to state that in Greek according to the dative case, making these nouns objects of the preposition "in" or "to" or indirect objects. If Paul intended such meaning he could have easily stated it clearly with different suffixes.
However, as William Mounce states on page 52 of the Basics of Biblical Greek:
"Genitive
1. The most common use of the genitive is when the word in the genitive gives some description of the head noun (descriptive).
2. The head noun can be possessed by the word in the genitive (possessive)."
William Mounce gives Matt. 19:21 as an example of the possessive genitive in which a personal pronoun, "sou" - your - is in the genitive case.
PB Elders are right to object to translating or understanding these nouns as objects of a preposition that would imply the dative case, but they, in turn, claim that the use of the genitive case must show possession. The possessive genitive is usually indicated by the presence of pronouns. Besides, if the translators thought the genitive possessive was in context, the King James Version would have been rendered in these texts with personal pronouns, or, at the very least by the English words, "belonging to" or "possessed by". The fact the King James translators did not translate the "faith of God" as "His faith", "faith possessed by God", or "God's faith" all indicate that the genitive case of these nouns be understood in a generally descriptive manner.
Consult this sheet found here: http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/genitive_case.pdf, which discusses the most common uses of the genitive case. The author states that a pronoun will most often be present, if the genitive possessive use of a noun is intended. They also state that contexts of possession are not always literal, so even if the nouns considered above were genitive possessive, it still would not prove that Paul intended to communicate that God or Christ has/had faith as an attribute.
There is no grammatical basis from a comparison of the textus receptus and the KJ translation to surmise the translators viewed these nouns as anything more than generally descriptive of faith.
As used as a noun, faith in these passages refers to the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant as distinct from the mechanism of justification under the law or the old covenant, it is not directly addressing any one's or any thing's subjective faith. This is clearly proved by context when one compares Romans 3:7 to Romans 3:3. Notice Paul is still considering the question of whether unbelief makes the 'faith of God' without effect. This text illustrates the manner in which the Jewish adversaries attacked Paul's gospel in that they argued it commended rather than excluded unrighteousness. They accused the faith of God as an ineffective method to attain righteousness because it - they claimed - was a tool of unrighteousness rather than what Paul claimed of it; namely, that it revealed God's righteousness.
It is evident that Paul is still considering the question of verse 3 in verse 7, yet he refers to the 'truth of God' rather than the 'faith of God'. Paul is using 'aletheia' here interchangeably with the 'pistin' of verse 3. God's subjective faith in Christ is alien to the grammar, and it is alien to any preceding context.
Coming to Romans 3:22 and Gal. 2:16, which refer to justification or attaining the righteousness of God 'by faith of Jesus Christ', it is not any one's subjective belief that is referenced by the grammar, but, again, the system of justification under the new covenant, as opposed to the law. There is abundant evidence that this is Paul's meaning in both passages. In both passages (really the whole book of Galatians is about this very point), Paul contrasts two systems of justification, one of Sinai, the other of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:21-31)
However, the 'faith of Jesus Christ' as a concept, clearly refers to man's individual faith by which he is justified. Gal. 3:2 makes the contrast plain. The contrast is between man's works under the law and man's hearing of faith under the new covenant. Men know they have received the spirit when they hear and believe the gospel, as it is the earnest of inheritance until the end time.
Subjective belief is treated separately from the 'faith of Jesus Christ' in both Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22. Subjective belief, indicated by the phrase 'even we have believed in Jesus Christ' in Gal. 2:16, and 'unto all and upon all them that believe' in Rom. 3:22, marks an intellectual distinction in Paul's mind between the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant, and specific examples of the justified by those who have evangelical faith.
Even Abraham's belief in God in Gen. 15, referenced in Romans 4, certainly cannot be said to be when Abraham was first justified. Did not Abraham believe God when he left Ur? Evangelical belief, like Abraham's belief in Gen. 15, evidences a righteous standing before God. It does not confer it. Paul states that it is God that justifies (vs. 26), so the idea that Paul made evangelical belief in the literal blood of Christ per 3:25 as a 'sine qua non' of justification does not follow. Abraham would not have passed that strict standard, manifestly, as the Bible gives no evidence that Abraham knew clearly of the historical events of Calvary.
Certainly, though, if we view 'through faith in His blood' as a reference to the full revelation of God (whom God hath set forth - revealed in the gospel), witnessed (but not revealed) by the law and the prophets (vs. 21), it is certain that to whom this revelation is made, they cannot be thought of as having been made just by God when they reject evangelical faith in Christ's blood.
It is God that justifies in regeneration when the measure of faith is given to all the seed, so that it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise of eternal life might be sure to all the seed (Rom. 4:16).
So there is no doctrinal reason for PB ministers to insist that the 'faith of Jesus Christ' be Christ's subjective faith in God, as the thought process above strikes down the Calvinist notion that evangelical belief in the gospel is to be equated with the doctrine of justification, though Calvinist ideas of associating evangelical belief with justification are consistent with the truth for those in this gospel era that already have His seed remaining in them (1 John 3:9); they err in limiting justification to propositional knowledge about Christ rather than to Christ Himself. The true object of justifying faith is the person of Christ, as experienced in the new birth. The true knowledge that justifies begins with an experiential knowledge of Christ in which direct perceptions and affections toward Him are aroused by the Spirit alone.
As we have seen, there is no contextual, grammatical, or doctrinal basis to insist that these texts refer to God and Christ having faith. With the same logic used to establish this view, no scriptural interpretation could be invalidated. There is no evidence in the context of these passages to suggest this perspective.
First of all, I want to agree with the Elders that take this view that it is a faith that is OF God and OF Christ. What I mean is that in these texts θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ are nouns in the genitive case. To render these texts with the preposition "in" God and "in" Christ is not the literal translation; there is a way to state that in Greek according to the dative case, making these nouns objects of the preposition "in" or "to" or indirect objects. If Paul intended such meaning he could have easily stated it clearly with different suffixes.
However, as William Mounce states on page 52 of the Basics of Biblical Greek:
"Genitive
1. The most common use of the genitive is when the word in the genitive gives some description of the head noun (descriptive).
2. The head noun can be possessed by the word in the genitive (possessive)."
William Mounce gives Matt. 19:21 as an example of the possessive genitive in which a personal pronoun, "sou" - your - is in the genitive case.
PB Elders are right to object to translating or understanding these nouns as objects of a preposition that would imply the dative case, but they, in turn, claim that the use of the genitive case must show possession. The possessive genitive is usually indicated by the presence of pronouns. Besides, if the translators thought the genitive possessive was in context, the King James Version would have been rendered in these texts with personal pronouns, or, at the very least by the English words, "belonging to" or "possessed by". The fact the King James translators did not translate the "faith of God" as "His faith", "faith possessed by God", or "God's faith" all indicate that the genitive case of these nouns be understood in a generally descriptive manner.
Consult this sheet found here: http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/genitive_case.pdf, which discusses the most common uses of the genitive case. The author states that a pronoun will most often be present, if the genitive possessive use of a noun is intended. They also state that contexts of possession are not always literal, so even if the nouns considered above were genitive possessive, it still would not prove that Paul intended to communicate that God or Christ has/had faith as an attribute.
There is no grammatical basis from a comparison of the textus receptus and the KJ translation to surmise the translators viewed these nouns as anything more than generally descriptive of faith.
As used as a noun, faith in these passages refers to the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant as distinct from the mechanism of justification under the law or the old covenant, it is not directly addressing any one's or any thing's subjective faith. This is clearly proved by context when one compares Romans 3:7 to Romans 3:3. Notice Paul is still considering the question of whether unbelief makes the 'faith of God' without effect. This text illustrates the manner in which the Jewish adversaries attacked Paul's gospel in that they argued it commended rather than excluded unrighteousness. They accused the faith of God as an ineffective method to attain righteousness because it - they claimed - was a tool of unrighteousness rather than what Paul claimed of it; namely, that it revealed God's righteousness.
It is evident that Paul is still considering the question of verse 3 in verse 7, yet he refers to the 'truth of God' rather than the 'faith of God'. Paul is using 'aletheia' here interchangeably with the 'pistin' of verse 3. God's subjective faith in Christ is alien to the grammar, and it is alien to any preceding context.
Coming to Romans 3:22 and Gal. 2:16, which refer to justification or attaining the righteousness of God 'by faith of Jesus Christ', it is not any one's subjective belief that is referenced by the grammar, but, again, the system of justification under the new covenant, as opposed to the law. There is abundant evidence that this is Paul's meaning in both passages. In both passages (really the whole book of Galatians is about this very point), Paul contrasts two systems of justification, one of Sinai, the other of the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:21-31)
However, the 'faith of Jesus Christ' as a concept, clearly refers to man's individual faith by which he is justified. Gal. 3:2 makes the contrast plain. The contrast is between man's works under the law and man's hearing of faith under the new covenant. Men know they have received the spirit when they hear and believe the gospel, as it is the earnest of inheritance until the end time.
Subjective belief is treated separately from the 'faith of Jesus Christ' in both Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22. Subjective belief, indicated by the phrase 'even we have believed in Jesus Christ' in Gal. 2:16, and 'unto all and upon all them that believe' in Rom. 3:22, marks an intellectual distinction in Paul's mind between the mechanism or mode of justification under the new covenant, and specific examples of the justified by those who have evangelical faith.
Even Abraham's belief in God in Gen. 15, referenced in Romans 4, certainly cannot be said to be when Abraham was first justified. Did not Abraham believe God when he left Ur? Evangelical belief, like Abraham's belief in Gen. 15, evidences a righteous standing before God. It does not confer it. Paul states that it is God that justifies (vs. 26), so the idea that Paul made evangelical belief in the literal blood of Christ per 3:25 as a 'sine qua non' of justification does not follow. Abraham would not have passed that strict standard, manifestly, as the Bible gives no evidence that Abraham knew clearly of the historical events of Calvary.
Certainly, though, if we view 'through faith in His blood' as a reference to the full revelation of God (whom God hath set forth - revealed in the gospel), witnessed (but not revealed) by the law and the prophets (vs. 21), it is certain that to whom this revelation is made, they cannot be thought of as having been made just by God when they reject evangelical faith in Christ's blood.
It is God that justifies in regeneration when the measure of faith is given to all the seed, so that it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise of eternal life might be sure to all the seed (Rom. 4:16).
So there is no doctrinal reason for PB ministers to insist that the 'faith of Jesus Christ' be Christ's subjective faith in God, as the thought process above strikes down the Calvinist notion that evangelical belief in the gospel is to be equated with the doctrine of justification, though Calvinist ideas of associating evangelical belief with justification are consistent with the truth for those in this gospel era that already have His seed remaining in them (1 John 3:9); they err in limiting justification to propositional knowledge about Christ rather than to Christ Himself. The true object of justifying faith is the person of Christ, as experienced in the new birth. The true knowledge that justifies begins with an experiential knowledge of Christ in which direct perceptions and affections toward Him are aroused by the Spirit alone.
As we have seen, there is no contextual, grammatical, or doctrinal basis to insist that these texts refer to God and Christ having faith. With the same logic used to establish this view, no scriptural interpretation could be invalidated. There is no evidence in the context of these passages to suggest this perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)