"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (I Peter 1:22-25, KJV)
The Hardshells, in denying the instrumentality of the "word of God" in regeneration and the new birth, must explain how they are in harmony with the above words of the Apostle Peter. Does the passage not clearly say that our being "born again" is "by" or "through" the instrumentality of the word preached? Yes, it obviously does, as I will more fully show in what follows in this chapter. Before I show how these inspired words of Peter refute Hardshellism, I want to give the two prevalent views they hold relative to this passage.
Two Common Views (Both Wrong)
Some say that the "word" ("logos") in this passage does not refer to the written, preached, or spoken "word," but to Christ, who is called, in the writings of John, the "Word of God." Thus, we would interpret Peter to say, "Being born again of God by Christ." Such, however, as I have shown in a previous chapter, is totally incorrect and foreign to sound hermenuetics.
Others will take the view that the "word" is the "direct speaking" of Christ, a view I have already noticed in detail relative to John 5.
Therefore I will now cite representatives, both from the past and present, of these two views, and then comment upon and correct them where needed.
The "Word" Is Divine Direct Speaking
Elder Grigg Thompson (Hardshell Founding Father) represented this view when he wrote:
"Peter, in writing to the saints who had purified their souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, exhorts them to love one another with pure hearts fervently, "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, "This simply teaches that the first birth was of a corruptible seed, and brought us into this natural world, fallen sinners, with corrupt propensities, sinful desires, and lusts. But the second birth is of an incorruptible seed. It is by the quickening power and regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit that we are born the second time." (From "The Primitive Preacher" and the section, "The New Birth," emphasis mine)
Elder Grigg (sometimes "Gregg") Thompson, son of Elder Wilson Thompson, has been called the greatest debater and scholar the Hardshells have ever had. I will be having much more to say about him and his father in subsequent chapters. I too consider Grigg Thompson the ablest and soundest Hardshell I have ever read and I hate he could not see his error on the "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration." But more on that later in chapters dealing with him and his famed father.
Elder Sarrels wrote:
"“Our view that the Holy Spirit is the only instrumentality used in regeneration is unaffected by I Pet. 1:23; In the anagegennemenoi...dia logou zontos Theou, the definite article is not used before logou. This, we believe, is significant. In no place in the New Testament, that we recall, is the article absent where Christ is unmistakably in the writer’s mind. The logou of this text refers not to Christ, who would be expressed by tou logou, but to the divine exertion of Deity. In this text is set forth, perhaps as the only instance in the New Testament exactly like it, a principle of action or behavior in the Godhead. The dia logou of this text signifies method, not agency. “With the gen. Of a thing,” says Thayer, “dia is used to denote the manner in which a thing is done, or the formal cause...In this particular area of the divine activities, Peter is here giving us God’s modus operandi.” (Ibid)
“Hence, we hold that I Pet. 1:23 distinctly signifies not regenerative agency, but the manner or mode of operation in the Godhead.” (Page 334)"
Thus, Sarrels does not disagree with Grigg Thompson, even though he phrases the propositions differently.
Elder Michael Gowens, present pastor of Lexington Primitive Baptist Church in Lexington, Kentucky, wrote:
"Divine imperative is the thought conveyed in I Peter 1:23-25, a text frequently employed by those who teach gospel agency: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever...This is the word, which, by the gospel is preached unto you."
When Peter says we are born again by the word of God, does He mean that the gospel is the means God uses to quicken the dead sinner? No. The word by which we are born again is not the Bible, nor the gospel, but the spoken voice, the creative fiat of God. Think of I Peter 1:23 in terms of Psalm 33:6: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." Does that mean that the universe was created by the Bible, or by the gospel? No. It means it was created by the sheer power of God's command. The same God who called the widow's son, Jairus' daughter' and Lazarus to life, still calls sinners who are 'dead in trespasses and in sins' to life in Christ. That is the power of Divine imperative. The gospel, then explains what has happened (1 pet. 1:25)." (New Birth essay)
So too then does Elder Gowens share the views of Sarrels (from whom he often cites in his writings) and Thompson. They all see this "Direct Voice Speaking" of Christ, this non-instrumental word of God, the "word" he "speaks" as in the original creation. But, before I address the remarks of these three representative Hardshells, past and present, I wish to cite a Hardshell who believes that the "word" refers to Christ, the "Living Word."
The Word Is Christ In I Peter 1:23
In answer to the question, "Is not the word the means by which we are born again," a Hardshell responds.
"Answer: It is true that we are born again by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever, but that Word is not the written word, or the preached word, but the living Word-Christ (John 1: 1, 2, 14; I Peter 1: 23-25). "And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." The Word and the gospel are two distinct things. Christ and the message of Christ are not synonymous. The gospel is the good news of what Christ has done for His people."
(From - www.olpbc.com/Library/pb_believe.htm)
This is a very common view among Hardshells. I do not know which is the majority, but I suspect they are near evenly divided. It is interesting that the Hardshells cannot agree among themselves as to what this verse means, but all the truly Old Baptists, who accept the Old Confessions, accept what Dr. Gill said on the matter (below), have no disagreements on it. Who is the Old Baptist relative to the interpretation of these inspired words of Peter? Can any Hardshell cite one Baptist prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who took the views spouted above on I Peter 1:23? Yes, I know, Dr. Gill did suggest a "possible interpretation" of the passage as referring to Christ, the "Living Word," but he did not believe such a view accurately reflected the syntax or context of the passage and thus said what he did in support of the truly Old Baptist position on this passage.
Gill On I Peter 1:22-25
"Ver. 22. "Seeing ye have purified your souls" - The apostle passes to another exhortation, namely, to brotherly love; the ground of which he makes to be, the purification of their souls; and which supposes that they had been impure; and indeed, their whole persons, souls and bodies, were so by nature; even all the members of their bodies, and all the powers and faculties of their souls: it is internal purity, purity of the heart, that is here particularly respected; though not to the exclusion of outward purity, for where there is the former, there will be the latter; but there may be an external purity, where there is not the inward one: this the apostle ascribes to the saints themselves, but not without the grace of God, the blood of Christ, and the operations of his Spirit; as appears by a following clause; but they are said to purify themselves, inasmuch as having the grace of faith bestowed on them, they were enabled, under the influences of the Spirit of God, to exercise it on the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin:
"in obeying the truth"; - of the Gospel, by receiving, believing, and embracing it in the love of it; which teaches outward purity, and is a means in the hand of the spirit of inward purity, and of directing to the purifying blood of Jesus, who sanctifies and cleanses by the word:
"through the Spirit"; - this clause is left out in the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, but is in the Arabic version, and ought to be retained; for, as Christ died to purify to himself a peculiar people, the Spirit of Christ does from him purify the heart by faith in his blood; by sprinkling that on the conscience, and by leading the faith of God's people to the fountain of it, to wash it for sin, and for uncleanness; even both their consciences and their conversation, garments; whereby they obtain inward and outward purity..."
""Being born again,...by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever"; - for the incorruptible seed, and the ever living and abiding word, are two distinct things; though interpreters generally confound them: and by "the word of God" is either meant the essential Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; who is concerned in regeneration as well as the Father and the Spirit; by whose resurrection, and in consequence of it, the elect of God are begotten again; and who, as the Word, is able to build up all the sanctified ones, and give them the inheritance they are born heirs unto: or the Gospel, the word of truth, which is made use of as a means of begetting souls again; and the rather, since it seems to be so interpreted, 1Pe 1:25 the phrases, "which liveth and abideth forever", may be either read in connection only with "God", and as descriptive of him, who is the living God, is from everlasting to everlasting, in distinction from idols; and here added, to show that he can give power and efficacy to his word, to regenerate and quicken, and will continue to preserve and make it useful to all his saving purposes; so Jarchi explains the passage in Isa 40:8 after referred to, "the word of our God shall stand for ever..."
"The Gospel also may be said to live, in opposition to the law, which is the killing letter; and because it points out the way of life and salvation to sinners; and is a means of quickening dead sinners, and of ingenerating that faith by which men live on Christ; and of revealing to them that righteousness which is unto justification of life; and of supporting and maintaining spiritual life in them..."
"Ver. 25. "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever,...." - Though men die, and ministers of the word too, and everything in the world is uncertain, unstable, fleeting, and passing away, and whatever change has been in the ordinances of divine service; yet the word of the Lord, the Gospel of Christ, is settled for ever, and will never pass away: and this is the word which by the Gospel is preached unto you; this is the apostle's application of the passage in Isaiah, showing that the word of the Lord there is the same with the Gospel preached by him, and the other apostles, at that present time; and is no other than that good tidings Zion is said to bring; see Isa 40:9 the selfsame Gospel the Prophet Isaiah preached the apostles did, though with greater clearness, and more success; see Ro 10:8." (emphasis mine)
Thus, Gill is against Hardshell views.
Bob Ross wrote an article, under the title, "JACK HYLES' DISTORTION OF FIRST PETER 1:23," saying:
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
Ignoring both the context and the English grammar of this text, Hyles jumps to the confusion of identifying the "seed" of I Peter 1:23 as being a reference to the "Word of God." It is NOT. Rather, the "seed" refers to the "incorruptible" God who is the source of the new birth in contrast to the "corruptible seed" which is the "flesh" (3:24). Of course, "seed" often does refer to the Word of God, as in Luke 8:11; but that is not the case in I Peter 1:23. Neither the King James Version in English nor the Textus Receptus in Greek will support the Hyles' distortion.
"The Prepositions Examined"
The preposition "of" (ek) is indicative of source, not "means" or instrumentality. We are born "of God" as the source (compare John 1:13; I John 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18). The preposition "by" (dia) is indicative of means, or the instrumentality. We are born "by the Word of God," or "through the Gospel" (I Cor. 4:15; "with," James 1:18).
Thus, we are born OF ("ek," out of) God, and it is BY ("dia," by means of), WITH, or THROUGH the Word, the Gospel). In I Peter 1:23, source (God) and means (Word) are both in the text: "born again...of incorruptible," that is, God in contrast to the corruptible flesh.
"Some wrongly regard 'the Word of God' as the incorruptible seed. But they were begotten of God, 'of' indicating the source of their new life; but were begotten by (by means of) the Word of God (James 1:18), the truths of the Bible, the Gospel (I Cor. 4:15)." (An American Commentary on the New Testament; First Peter, N. Williams, Vol. VI, page 22 in First Peter section).
Stephen Charnock (Works, Vol. III, page 309) and John Gill (Commentary, Vol. VI, page 815) expound I Peter 1:23 similarly. Here is Charnock's comment:
"The Scripture doth distinguish the efficient and instrumental cause by the prepositions ek, or ex, and dia. When we are said to be 'born of the Spirit,' it is John 3:5, ek pneumatos; I John 3:9, v. 1, ek theu; never dia pneumatos, or dia theu; but we are nowhere said to be born of the word, or begotten of the word, but dia loguou, by or with the word, I Peter 1:23; and dia uangelion, I Cor. 4:15, I have begotten you 'through the gospel.' The preposition ek or ex, usually notes the efficient or material cause; dia, the instrumental or means by which a thing is wrought." (Works, Vol. III, page 309, A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument of Regeneration).
Notice the following passages in which this distinction is seen:
"...that which is born OF the Spirit" - John 3:6.
"...Which were born... OF God" - John 1:12.
"...is born OF him" - I John 2:29.
"...is born OF God" - I John 3:9.
"...is born OF God" - I John 4:7.
"...is born OF God" - I John 4:7.
"...is born OF God" - I John 5:1.
"...is begotten OF Him"- I John 5:1
"...is born OF God" - I John 5:4.
"...whosoever is born OF God" - I John 4:18.
"...but he that is begotten OF God" - I John 4:18.
"...renewing OF the Holy Ghost" - Titus 3:5.
Notice, it is not referring to being born "by" God, but "of" God. Being born "of" God means that He is the efficient cause or author of the birth; to be born "by" the Word or Gospel means that it is through these means of revelation that God performs the work of bringing men to Himself.
Notice the Scriptures which refer to this latter sense:
"...born again...BY the word of God" - I Peter 1:23.
"...begat he us WITH the word of truth" - James 1:18.
"...begotten you THROUGH the gospel" - I Cor. 4:15.
"...He called you BY our gospel" - II Thess. 2:13.
"...ye are clean THROUGH the word" - John 15:3.
"...Sanctify them THROUGH thy truth: thy word is truth" -Jn. 17:17
"Corruptible flesh" is the source of the flesh; "Incorruptible Spirit" is the source of the spiritual man; the means of his birth is the Word of God...The "seed" of I Peter 1:23 refers to God, not to the Word of God."
(http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_hyles_distortion_pr.htm)
This is a fine exegesus of the passage and a total refutation of the view that says the word is the same as the seed (Ross and Gill agree on that against Hyles) and also the view of the Hardshells that says the word is other than the gospel.
The "Word" Is NOT Christ
I think that Elder Sarrels showed how the view of his fellow Hardshells is wrong, the view that says the "word" is Christ. I also have already, in a previous chapter, shown also why this "word" cannot refer to Christ. Besides the definite article "the" being absent in the Greek text ("by a word of God," not by the word of God,")
John is the only writer who uses this title of Christ. It is strictly Johanine.
The Greek is awkward and, by the admission of Sarrels himself, is not so structured elsewhere in the New Testament, to refer the passage to either Christ, the Living Word, or to a the "word of fiat creation" (Gowens).
I also have shown that the "context", the thing Hardshells claim to strictly follow in their "hermeneutics," absolutely proves that Peter has reference to the "preached" or "written word." In verse 22 he mentions "obeying the truth" as a means in bringing about "inner" and outward "purification" (see Dr. Gill above). Also, verse 25 shows that the "word" is the same as the "gospel," saying, "this is the word which I preached unto you before." It is the same word, the preached word, the word of the gospel.
Besides all this, it is perfectly clear that the Apostle Peter is citing Isaiah and the passage there (40:8) is without a doubt, as Dr. Gill showed, is identical with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I also showed how Peter goes on to say, "desire the sincere milk of the word," again showing us that he is refering to the word of God even the good news of Jesus Christ.
Hardshell Digest On The "Word"
1. "It is by the quickening power and regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit." (Thompson)
2. "It is a principle of action or behavior in the Godhead. (Sarrels)
3. "It signifies not regenerative agency, but the manner or mode of operation in the Godhead.” (Sarrels)
4. "Divine imperative is the thought conveyed." (Gowens)
5. "The word by which we are born again is not the Bible, nor the gospel, but the spoken voice, the creative fiat of God. (Gowens)
6. It is "the sheer power of God's command." (Gowens)
It is obvious from looking over the above definitions of what the "word" signifies in I Peter 1:23, that Hardshells pay absolutely no attention to the "context," either immediately in I Peter, or in the Bible generally. They come up with strange and "forced interpretations" of passages which the average person reading would not see by reading according to the normal rules of grammar.
It is obvious that the strained interpretation that they place on the passage is a case of "eisogesus," for they take their "preconceived ideas to the text in order to keep from having to convert to what the text says.
All error in interpretation stems from an unwillingness to accept what a passage says. The Scripture is not as hard to interpet as it is to accept. What it often says goes against man's "preconceived ideas" and so, rather than humbly submitting to the authority and light of the word of God, they twist and distort the word to make it mean what they think it ought to mean. I can testify that my "honesty in interpretation" was often "tested" when I was in the Hardshell "cult" and had to face these "gospel means passages." I refused to stay dishonest with these texts and chose rather to change my views rather than the word of God. I invite other Hardshells to do the same. Just take the passage for what it says and quit "philosophizing" about it! Think of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones. Did the Lord not "beget them to life from the dead" by the word preached by Ezekiel? Is not what he did a living example of I Peter 1:23 in action?
If it refers to God's "method" or "modus operandi," as Sarrels said, then we see it at work in the case of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones, do we not brother Hardshell? Does God have more than one mode of operating, one like the one shown in Ezekiel 37, and one shown somewhere else?
No comments:
Post a Comment