Those who believe that the second coming of Christ will be two separate events, teach that there is actually not one coming of Christ, but that there are two more comings.
Christ has come once. He has promised to come once again. Is there a third coming after the second? Some believe and teach this. Some will rephrase it and say "it is one coming in two stages." I suppose they have as much right to believe this as they do to believe that both the first and second comings are actually two stages of one coming.
Those who believe in two future comings of Christ, or two "stages" of the second coming of Christ, characterize these two comings (or "stages") by their contrasts.
The first coming (of the second coming) is supposed to be "secret" and "silent," something that takes place and millions are totally unaware of it. The second coming, of the second coming, however, is quite different. Christ is not generally revealed in the first stage but he is fully revealed in the second stage, and he comes only partially in the first stage, but he comes fully in the second stage.
I think the Hardshells do the same thing relative to how they explain both regeneration and conversion, how they make one the product of a secret, silent, sub-conscious "coming" of the believer to Christ, and of Christ to the believer, one in which there is no (or very little) "revelation" of truth.
However, the Hardshell "conversion" experience takes place at a subsequent coming. This is how they will explain passages like Matthew 11: 28-30. Christ is inviting (or "commanding") people to come to him for rest and relief, people who have (supposedly) already come to him previously, and yet who are not aware of it.
If we then make, according to this Hardshell system, the first coming of Christ to a sinner dead in sin the equivalent of regeneration, and then make the second coming of Christ to the same sinner the equivalent of conversion, several things are then observable, which, when viewed with spritual insight and honesty of heart, will demonstrate the serious errors in this Hardshell soteriological system.
So, let us see if we can discern those errors.
Contrasting the Comings
The first coming of Christ to the sinner is something done by Christ secretly and silently and is experienced by the sinner unconsciously. The second coming of Christ to the sinner, however, is something done by Christ openly and is experienced by the sinner consciously.
The first coming ("regeneration") gives "life" to the dead, the second coming ("conversion") revives it.
The first coming creates immediate conviction of sin, in the Hardshell system, but the second coming takes it away!
The first coming creates sorrows and the second coming takes away those same sorrows!
The first coming creates burdens that the second coming takes away!
The first coming creates thirst that the second coming quenches!
The first coming creates hunger that the second coming satisfies!
The first coming gives sense of guilt and the second coming removes it!
The first coming produces a sense of condemnation and the second coming removes it!
The first coming produces an unconscious faith and the second coming produces a conscious faith!
The faith produced by the first coming does not embrace Christ or the true God, but the faith of the second does embrace them!
The first coming to Christ gave "life" and "inner ability" but gave no joy, peace, knowledge of Christ, no living faith, no conscious belief of the truth, no rest or relief from the burden of guilt and shame, no deliverance from the power of Satan, no deliverance from the yoke of sin, no cleansing of the conscience from the giult of sin, no faith in the gospel or Christ's righteousness, no forgiveness of sins, no obedience or conformity of the mind and life to God, no actural turning of the heart and mind consciously, no assurance of the love of God, while the second coming (conversion) is supposed to either undo or reverse what the first coming of Christ to the sinner effected, or to complete the work he left undone in his first coming to the sinner!
Consider too how this depicts God. God, for instance and illustration, "comes to" ten sinners, and by this "coming" ("regeneration") he puts them all into a miserable condition, characterized by intense guilt, extreme shame, a burden unbearable, etc. Then, suppose he "comes" the second time ("conversion") "to" only one of those ten sinners (to remove that one from his awful state and condition). Would that not be cruel of God? Indeed it would! Yet, the "interpretation" that the Hardshells have given to "regeneration" and to "conversion" necessitates this nonsense. And, because they have left the position of their forefathers relative to preaching the gospel to every creature, they have been forced into altering the plain teachings of passages like Matthew 11: 28-30.
By the Hardshell "interpretation" of Matthew 11: 28-30 and by what they say further about "conviction" (or "recognition of guilt") being an "evidence of regeneration" (more on this in upcoming chapters), all that I have said thus far becomes clearly deducible and logically inevitable.
PB's say that the very ones invited to Christ in the above passage have already come to Christ once before! When they affirm this the above logical consequences become inevitable, if we are to avoid contradiction. It is a veritable "reductio ad absurdum"!
The Lord puts millions and millions into this awful state by "regeneration" and yet will not send the gospel to them to relieve but few of them! And it puts all Hardshells to shame for not supporting missions to foreign countries (if they really believe all this nonsense). Will they leave these millions in the condition of those described by Christ in Matthew 11: 28-30?
How cruel you are yourselves and how cruel you try to make God! No loving father would do this to his children! Are these heathen millions, who have supposedly been "regenerated," and who are spiritually in a mess thereby, by your "interpretation" of Matthew 11: 38-30 and your views on "conviction," to be left in such a condition? You represent the first visit of Christ to a sinner dead in sins as putting him into a spiritually starving state, where the regenerated sinner is now dying of spiritual dehydration, and yet you will "not lift your finger" to send them the healing and saving balm?
Who do you think you are fooling, except yourselves? And when perhaps one or two brave Hardshells step forward today to take the gospel to these "heavily ladened sinners," they are disfellowed and slandered and castigated in every way! But, more on that in later chapters.
All this comes, as I said previously in this work, from "dividing asunder" what God has "joined together." Divorcing conversion from regeneration has created a soteriological mess for the Hardshell apologists of later generations.
Further, in this hybrid system of "regeneration" and "conversion," the Hardshells have these consequences.
The first coming makes a sinner "poor" but the second coming makes him "rich."
The first coming makes a sinner "lame" but the second coming makes him "walk."
The first coming makes a sinner "blind" but the second coming makes him "see."
The first coming makes a sinner "afraid" but the second coming makes him "feel safe."
The first coming invites to come those who are unable to come, the second coming invites to come those who are able to come.
The first coming involves not an act of the will of the sinner, but the second coming involves it.
The first coming of Christ to the sinner is irresistable but the second coming is resistable (Majority view of PB's).
The first coming is absolute and unconditional but the second coming is conditional and not absolute.
The first coming is to the "dead" sinner but the second coming is to the "living" sinner.
The first coming produces gloom and doom but the second coming produces hope and joy.
The first coming produces no revelation of Christ but the second coming produces it.
Christ comes, in his first visit to the sinner, "as a thief in the night," without visible display, but in his second visit to the sinner he comes openly and visibly.
Furthermore, can you imagine Christ putting a man into the kind of servitude of which the passage speaks, and of which Spurgeon so eloquently illustrated for us out of the passage, the kind of "yoke" under which these "sensible sinners" are under? Christ does not make us pull the cart and carry the load at the same time! These clearly are under a "yoke" that is not Christ's, for he compares his "yoke" to the one these weary and burdened sinners are under, saying his "yoke is easy" and "his burden light."
The Hardshell view then is that these sinners being called and invited by Christ are already "regenerated" even though they are yet "yoked" up with sin and with Satan, and not yet "yoked" up with Christ! Who can believe it?
Regeneration or Conversion?
"Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw." (4: 10-15)
I have asked my dad recently how he believed most PB's today interpret this passage and of the experience of the woman in drinking "that living water." He says that he believes most would interpret the drinking of the water as being "regeneration" and of being "born again." He did not think that many of them would interpret it as being the post "regeneration" experience of "conversion."
I have already alluded to one problem that this presents for the Hardshell apologist. By his "logic" this cannot possibly be regeneration since, according to the same "logic," the dead can't drink! If she was "thristy" for this living water, then, according to Hardshell "logic" it means she was already "regenerated"!
Plus, they have the problem of addressing how she can be asking and desiring the water and yet not be "regenerated," using the "logic" of their system! She apparently was thirsty BEFORE she drank, thus she was thirsty BEFORE she was "regenerated"! I suspect that this rebuttal may cause many of the severely hard-headed PB's to change their views on this and make this "drinking" of the "water of life" a "conversion" experience that only very few of the elect experience! (As they have also deviated from other traditional Baptist interpretations of such passages)
This is indeed "life giving water" as I have in previous chapters shown. They will have to do one of two things relative to their "interpretation" of this passage in John 4. They will either have to get rid of their false human logic that says the dead can't drink in order to live, or else will have to say that this woman was already regenerated before she drank of the water.
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:37-39)
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22: 17)
The above two passages are not dealing with something different than is dealt with in John 4. The water is the same. The invitation is the same. There are some differences however.
In the declaration of Christ in John 7 it is to all who are present in the temple, which cannot be only regenerated people. Many of those who would never receive Christ were present at this national Jewish feast. He says - "if anyone." It is also to be observed that this "drinking" of the "water of life" is equated with "believing" on Christ and coming to him. The water that one takes within them is the Holy Ghost, and by this drinking of the "water of life," and by this drinking of Christ, this drinking of the gospel, one receives life and is quenched forever of thirst.
Another distinction comes from the passage in Revelation. There it is not only Christ who invites and calls but his "bride" joins in with him and the call and invitation become one. The Hardshells would have the bride speaking apart from her husband! But, as I have written previously, if they can have a "birth" WITHOUT A MOTHER, as they do in their version of the "new birth," then they can also (in their own minds, at least) have Christ's calling and his bride's calling divorced!
God gave this word through Isaiah:
"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55: 1-3)
This too has been traditionally interpreted by all, except perhaps the first generation of Hardshells, as being an invitation to those who are already the people of God, already regenerated in heart and spirit. It is argued again that the words describing the ones "called" and "invited" are those who 1) have spiritual thirsts (hence spiritual life), and 2) have spiritual hungers (hence spiritual life), and 3) have ears to hear (meaning, ability to hear, hence spiritual life). Yet, this "interpretation" is not tenable.
"Incline your ear, hear, and your soul shall live." Life comes after the "inclining of the ear," after "hearing," not before. Yet, some slick Hardshell apologist will try to say that the "life" in this and similar passages only refers to "the quality of life," not to "life" itself; as when one says "you have not lived until you've done so and so." But that is silly. It is life itself that these dead ones are called to come to obtain.
Teaching & Warning EVERY MAN
The Apostle Paul wrote:
"Whom we preach, WARNING every man, and TEACHING every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Colossians 1:28,29)
This verse annihilates the Hyper Calvinism of men like Gadsby and Brine! It utterly destroys Hardshellism! Three times in this passage Paul says "every man." There can be no mistake about who is under consideration. "Anthropos" is repeated three times and is mentioned as being the object of several verbs, "warn," "teach," and "present." We are to "warn" every man without exception and we have the examples of the prophets, John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles as examples of how they did not fail to teach all indiscriminately.
Wrote Paul again:
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." (II Cor. 5:10,11)
It was not just a few men, the elect, or the regenerated, but all men that are to be warned in view of eternal judgment to come, wherein the terror of the Lord will be displayed on those who have rejected the Lord's proffered mercy and kindness. Paul preached this way to Felix, one who clearly was not "born again."
"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." (Acts 24: 25)
Only the preaching that includes the Lord's warnings is after the manner of Paul. Only this kind of preaching causes wicked and hardened sinners to "tremble." This "trembling" is no "evidence" of "regeneration," however, as some Hardshells might imagine. If so, then the "demons" are "regenerated" for they also "tremble"!
Concerning what did John the Baptist "warn" the wicked, that "brood of vipers"? Was it not "to flee from the wrath to come"? And would he have them flee to any other place than to the Messiah? Certainly in warning them to flee FROM the wrath to come he was not pointing them TO the law as the place to hide!
Not only does Paul say that "every man" is to be "warned," but the same ones are to be "taught" - "teaching every man."
Teaching them what? You question any Hardshell today about what he is able to say to those who are clearly unregenerate and you will get either a "stopped mouth" (and stunned look) or a discourse on how they can preach morality and the law to the unregenerate man, but he cannot invite him, command him, exhort him, nor teach him about coming to Christ! He cannot teach him anything "spiritual"! Why? Because he does not teach the dead! Oh how unlike they are to Ezekiel and Paul! They have forgotten what one of their forefathers taught them. Remember Elder Clark said - "The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability."
That We May Present Every Man Perfect in Christ
Surely "perfect in Christ" is expressive of eternal salvation, is it not? That is the end or purpose in the warning and teaching of the gospel minister. The "hina clause" is in the passage - "THAT we may present every man..." That is all the same as saying - "that we may save every man."
Do the Hardshells teach anyone, elect or non-elect, with the intent of "presenting" him one day "perfect in Christ"? The Hardshell soteriological system will not allow the teaching of Paul in this verse! They do not "WARN" "everyone," nor do they "TEACH" "everyone" the same blessed truths, and they certarinly do not do it with the intent of "presenting" "everyone" they teach "perfect in Christ"! They do not believe they are means in the hand of God for the same end as Paul was in the hand of the Lord.
In closing this chapter let us say something about the early evangelistic preaching of Shubal Stearns and the first Baptists in the Carolinas, for he and they are the source of most of the churches established in the southern states of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, etc.
About the Preaching of Shubal Stearns & The Separate Baptists
"The Episcopalian ministers became very troubled by this revival among the Baptists. This evangelism set the Episcopalian minister on edge and he even tried to rally a conspiracy against the progress of the Separate Baptists. Most of the reports of a negative nature about the Separate Baptists and Stearns' followers derive from this adversary. The Sandy Creek Episcopal parish pastor reported:
"They were declaring that no human learning, no human morality would bring one into saving relations with God; that to be saved one must be born again; that no regular and prolonged course of instruction was necessary to bring one into acceptance with God but only repentance and faith; that to as many as received Him to them gave he power to become the sons of God; that this was brought about by the irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit; that the one saved had immediate revelation of it in his soul. (Paschal 1930, 308)
Their practice is further described in the following manner:
"When the preacher had finished his sermon he would come down from the pulpit and while he and the brethren were singing an appropriate hymn he would go around among them shaking hands. After the singing of the hymn he would extend an invitation to such persons as felt themselves to be poor, guilty sinners and were anxiously inquiring the way of salvation to come forward and kneel near the stand or if they preferred to do so they would kneel at their seats proffering to unite with them in prayer for their conversion (Paschal 1930, 298)."
"Stearns' greatest contribution to Baptists was evangelism, especially in the areas of missions and church planting."
"By the year 1775, the Baptists had become one of the largest denominations in North Carolina, planting at least one church in every county (Stroupe 1955, 32). The vehicle used to achieve this home mission enterprise was the Sandy Creek Association.
The Sandy Creek Association organized by Shubal Stearns became the main hub for this strategic evangelism. The heartbeat of this association was the new birth experience, and the preaching of a "heartfelt" religion was in high demand. "People from distant areas attended to petition the Association to send preachers into their neighborhoods" (Baptist Encyclopedia 1988). The Sandy Creek Church grew from 16 to 606 (including its arms) in just a few years and...within seventeen years of its origin...It had become mother, grandmother, and great grandmother of forty two churches from which 125 ministers were sent out as licentientes or ordained clergy men. There are probably thousands of churches that arose from the efforts of Shubal Stearns and the Church of Sandy Creek (Baptist Encyclopedia 1988)."
"Some Southern Baptists take pride in the synthesis of Stearns' warm delivery and invitation to sinners, but ignore the most vital and most stressed part of Stearns' theology, which was "Experimental Knowledge". Many times modern day historians purposely leave out the historical Baptist practice of conversion. Several are fond of and familiar with D. L. Moody's "inquiry room" and Billy Sunday's "shake the preacher's hand salvation," but what about the practice of Stearns and the eighteenth century Baptists?"
(pastortim.org/shubal_stearns.htm)
No comments:
Post a Comment