( 8.6.2 ) The Proper Mode of Baptism is to be by Immersion Only.

2. THE PROPER MODE

Baptism is to be by immersion only.

ARGUMENT:

1. From the meaning of the word baptize. Greek scholars are in agreement that the word means to dip, immerse.

2. From the “Church Fathers.” Cyril 315-386 A. D.  Bishop of Jerusalem: “For as he who sinks down in the waters and is immersed (baptized)….”

Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, 370 A. D. “Imitating the burial of Christ by the immersion (baptism)….”

Gregory, Bishop of Constantanople, 380 A.D.: “Let us, therefore, be buried with Christ by the immersion (baptism) that we may also rise with Him….”

3. From the admissions of those who do not now immerse. D. Dollinger, a Roman Catholic historian: “At first Christian baptism commonly took place in the Jordan; of course, as the church spread more widely, in private houses also.

Like that of St. John, it was by immersion of the whole person, which is the only meaning of the New Testament word.

A mere pouring or sprinkling was never thought of.” (The First age of Christianity and the church, page 324-325).

Mr.  Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, in his comment on #Ro 6:4,5 admits that the reference is to immersion as the primitive mode of baptism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia: “The most ancient form usually employed was unquestionably immersion…. In the Latin Church immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century.  

After that time it was found in some places even as late as the 16th century..” (See The Catholic Encyclopedia, in 15th vol., edited by Charles G. Herberan, Ph.D., LL, D., pages 261, 262).

Prof. Marcus Dods, Edenburgh explained baptism as “a rite wherein by immersion of water the participant symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure life, his death to a past he abandons, and his birth to a future he desires.”

4. From the practice of the early church. The first instance of baptism by any other mode than immersion was about the middle of the third century.

A man named Novatian was ill and was baptized by having water poured around him.  The first public (official) authority for sprinkling was given about 811 A.D. by Pope Steven II. Some of the French clergy informed the pope that there were some too sick and some too small to be immersed and asked for permission to sprinkle them.

The pope replied, “If such were cases of necessity, and if sprinkling were performed in the Name of the Trinity, it should be valid.”  

At the Council of Ravenna in 1311, the Roman Church decreed: “Baptism is to be administered by triune aspersion (sprinkling,  CDC) or immersion.”

The Westminster (Presbyterian) Assembly met in 1643 to compose a Confession of Faith.  Baptism was hotly discussed; 24 voted to retain immersion; 25 voted for sprinkling or pouring.

5. From the New Testament metaphor by which baptism is represented.  It is called a burial and a resurrection. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (#Ro 6:4); “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead”  (#Col 2:12).

( 8.6.1 ) 1. The Proper Subject of Baptism: Only a believer (born again).

1. THE PROPER SUBJECT

Baptism is only for believers, and believers are saved or justified. “And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses”  (#Ac 13:39);

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (#Ac 16:31);

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (#Joh 3:16).

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”  (#Joh 3:36); 

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (#Ro 5:1),  

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (#Eph 2:8,9).  This excludes unregenerate adults and all infants.

A Jesuit Theologian, S. J. Hunter, said: “It is impossible for infant baptism to be discussed directly between a Catholic and a Baptist. They have no common ground.

The Baptist urges that the scriptures everywhere teach faith as a prerequisite to baptism.

The Catholic defends his practice as to infants by the authority of the Church, which the Baptist refuse to accept.” (Outline of Dogmatic Theology Vol. 3, page 222.)

ARGUMENT:

1. To baptize any but believers is to accept Catholic authority rather than Scriptural authority. The Scriptures nowhere command baptism for any but believers.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”  (#Mt 28:19);

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (#Ac 2:41);

“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (#Ac 8:12);

“And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized”  #Ac 18:8);

“Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus” (#Ac 19:4).

2. To baptize infants destroys the privilege of personal obedience to the command to be baptized. There can be no personal obedience on the part of an infant when it is immersed or sprinkled.

3. To baptize infants or unregenerate adults is to merge the church and the world.  It is filling the church with the world. Infants have no personal responsibility are not lost and need no so-called saving rite of baptism.

4. To baptize any but the saved is to deny that the church should be composed of only lovers of God and of Christ.

Think of having enemies of Christ in the church which is His body, and the custodian of His truth. And nobody loves God except the born-again believers.  

“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God”  (#1Jo 4:7);

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him” (#1Jo 5:1).

In these two verses, the perfect tense should read- “has been born of God.”

Love and faith are the results of the new birth from God.

( 8.6.0 ) Why do some claim that words such as “baptism” or “to baptize” are inaccurate translations in the KJV?

“Baptism” In King James Version

By Paul Kirkpatrick

CONTENTS AND SUMMARY

I. The Problem Stated  

Why do some claim that words such as “baptism” or “to baptize” are inaccurate translations in the KJV?

II. Some Preliminary Consideration

An analysis of the view that the KJV translators may not have been totally honest when they  chose to use words such as “baptism” and “to baptize” rather than “immersion” or “to immerse.”

III. Etymology of the Word “Baptism”

How did the words “baptism” and “to baptize” come to be used in the English language used by the KJV translators?

IV. History of Immersion for Baptism in England

Did King James I of England or the KJV translators really use some other baptismal mode than immersion?

V. Semantical Relationship of “Baptism” to the KJV Translators

Why it is illogical to claim that the KJV translators were not honest when they used the words “baptism” and “to baptize.”

VI. Conclusions to be Drawn

Why one can be confident that the KJV translators were not deceptive when they used such words as “baptism” and “to baptize.”

…

I. The Problem Stated.

       In the course of examining the question as to why some religious groups use modes other than immersion for their baptism, one will occasionally come across the charge that is leveled by some people, Baptists in particular, that one possible reason for the existence of these variations in the mode of baptism is that the English words “baptism,” or “to baptize” which are found in the King James Version [KJV] of the Bible are extremely vague in their meanings.

       Should one ask of these same people their explanation of why the KJV’s translators chose to use such words as these rather than “immersion” or “to immerse,” many of them will offer something on the order of the following line of reasoning:

1) The translators (as well as King James I himself) were members of the Church of England (sometimes referred to as the Anglican Church), and that denomination uses sprinkling as their mode of baptism.

2) Because of this, when the translators came to the Greek words for this ordinance (which, implicit in their literal definitions, preclude any other mode but immersion), they had to do something to conceal the true meaning of these words.

3) To use words such as “immersion” or “to immerse” would expose the erroneous practice of their mode for baptism; therefore, to accomplish their goal and to becloud the issue of the proper mode of baptism, the KJV translators chose not to translate those Greek words, Instead, they transliterated the Greek letters of these words into our Roman alphabet, thus coining a brand new set of English words: “baptism” and “to baptize” (1)

      While such logic as this may make good material for exposing some aspect of Protestant deceitfulness, is such a charge as this an accurate one? Are the translators of the KJV guilty of “taking away” from the Word of God (Rev. 22:19)? Moreover, if they mishandled this very important aspect of baptism, who is to say that they may not have also misrepresented other important Christian doctrines and practices?

II. Some Preliminary Considerations

       The purpose of this work is to examine the above viewpoint from three disciplines that are essential to determining its validity:

1) The etymology of our English words “baptism” and “to baptize” i.e., the study of how these English words got their origin.

2) The history of the mode of baptism that was used in England up to the time that the KJV was produced (A. D. 1611).

3) In conjunction with 1 and 2 above, an examination into the semantics of these words as they applied to the translators will also be taken into consideration.

       This work will deal with baptism only in the realm of its mode. Although there are other aspects concerning baptism that may be important in their place, they lie beyond the scope of this work’s purpose and therefore will not be addressed in it.

       It should also be understood that any reference cited within this work does not necessarily imply an endorsement by its author of that person’s views either on baptism or any other subject. Such references that do appear shall be used only as they relate to the immediate subject within this work.

III. Etymology Of “Baptism”

       Contrary to the opinions of those who maintain that the KJV translators were the ones who gave birth to the English words “baptism” and “to baptize,” these words have a long history of usage before early seventeenth-century England.

     Greek. These words have their ultimate origin in the Greek language. “Baptism” derives from the Greek noun baptisma, which means “a dipping in water.” (2) It was first found in the Greek New Testament, and then in later Greek ecclesiastical writings. (3) The verb “to baptize” comes from the Greek baptizein or baptizo, both of which have the meaning “to dip, to immerse, submerge,” and have been in existence from at least the time of the Greek philosopher Plato (c. 400 B.C.). (4, 5. 6) However, these words did not remain dormant for some fifteen hundred years as the advocates of the above viewpoint might lead one to believe. 

    Latin. From the Greek, they were assimilated into Ecclesiastical Latin,(7) the style of Latin used primarily by the church fathers of the West. The Latin noun for this ordinance was baptisma (“a dipping”), and the verb form was baptizare (“to dip”).:s: Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 230), a North African leader of the dissident Montanist group and creator of this style of Latin,(9,10) is credited with being the one who introduced this word into the Latin vocabulary,(11) most likely as a result of his important tract, De Baptismo (c. 190). (12)

     French. These Latin words went on to be adopted into the Old French language (c. 850 – c. 1350). (13) In this language the nouns appeared as bapteme or baptesma, and the verb form was baptiser. (15) Both noun and verb forms are cited as being found in an Old French poem entitled Vie de Saint Alexis, written about the year 1040, which is considered as being “the oldest French poem possessing literary merit.” (16, 17, 18)

     Old English (to C. 1150). The event that led to the appearance of the forerunners of the words “baptism” and “to baptize” in Great Britain was the Norman Invasion and Conquest of that island by William the Conqueror which began in 1066. (19) The Norman Conquest influenced almost every aspect of British life, including its language in general and its ecclesiastical terminology in particular. (20) Old French-speaking clergymen who came to the island soon after the invasion brought their words for this ordinance along with them. (21) The extent to which the Old French language influenced the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) language can be seen by the fact that the Old French noun baptesme began to appear in Old English writings. (22, 23)

     Middle English (c. 1150 – C. 1475). By the 1150’s the language of England had sufficiently changed from Old English that it was given a new designation: Middle English.) (24) This form of English was used up until the late fifteenth century. (25) During that era the word for “baptism” was bapteme.)26 The earliest known work in which this word is used is a Northumbrian poem on biblical subjects entitled Cursor Mundi, written about the year 1300. (27)

       The earliest recorded usage of the Middle English equivalent of the verb ‘to baptize” is in Robert of Gloucester’s Metrical Chronicle (1297), a history of England written in rhymed couplets. (28 29) An even earlier date can be ascribed to the first known occurrence of the Middle English equivalent of the noun ‘baptist.” When referring to Christ’s forerunner, the Trinity College Homilies includes a sermon written about the year 1200 that uses the word Baptiste. (30)

       After the late fifteenth century, Middle English started to change into what is now called Early Modern English. By the early 1500’s, the exact English words “baptism” and “to baptize” began to appear in both English ecclesiastical writings and Bible translations, some of which were consulted by the KJV translators as they did their work one hundred years later. (31)

       Although the etymological evidence does show that the KJV’s translators could not have invented the words “baptism” and “to baptize,” the advocates of the viewpoint under examination could still maintain that the translators chose to use them to conceal their usage of baptismal modes other than immersion—that is, if other modes were in fact used either by them or their ecclesiastical superiors.

       To find out what baptismal mode was used by these people, one must investigate the history of baptismal modes in England up to the early 1600’s. The results of such a study do not produce much evidence to support the claim that British Christians living in the early 1600’s did not use immersion for their baptism

IV. History of Immersion for Baptism in England.

       The history of Christianity in England is divided into various time periods. Most historians sub-divide the history of Christianity prior to the Norman Invasion of 1066 into two major periods. The first period is the Era of Briton Christianity (c. A.D. 100‑c. 600) (32), and the second period is the Era of Anglo-Saxon Christianity (C. 600 – C. 1100),(33)

     Briton Christianity (c. 100 – c. 600). Today it is impossible for anyone to know either who it was that first brought the Christian Gospel to the shores of Great Britain or when that event occurred. Almost a dozen legends exist about who that person was or when it was that he first brought the Gospel to England. All of these legends claim to be authoritative, all of them are in conflict with each other, and none of them can be conclusively verified. However, it can be safely asserted that Christianity was known in Britain by the early second century. The baptismal mode used by the Christians of that era was immersion.

       Christianity flourished on that island for about 300 years, so long as its society was afforded both internal and external protection by the Roman military that was garrisoned there. However, when the Western Roman Empire withdrew its soldiers from England in the early 400’s, the bulk of the remaining native Britons (most of whom lived on that island’s eastern coastal region) were quickly subjected to a series of invasions by various barbaric Anglo-Saxon tribes. Those Britons who wished to escape the ravages of these barbarians were forced to flee to that island’s remote, mountainous regions along its western coastal areas.:

      During the latter part of this era lived a man whose name is still remembered today, Saint Patrick (c. 390 – C. 460). His ministry included not only the Irish natives, but it extended to what is now known as Scotland and even to those Briton refugees. The mode he used to baptize his converts was immersion. (37)

      Not only did the Anglo-Saxons raid the eastern and southern parts of the island, but also many of them actually began to move to the island to live since it apparently afforded them a better way of life than what they had experienced in their native areas along the shores of northern continental Europe.

     AngIo Saxon Era (c. 600 – c. 1100). The year 597 marks the beginning of the Era of Anglo-Saxon Christianity, an era that was ushered in by Augustine, the so-called “Apostle to the English” and personal envoy of Pope Gregory I (“the Great,” c. 590-604).(38)

Augustine’s labors among the Anglo-Saxon residents became very successful. When he baptized his Anglo-Saxon converts, he sought the use of rivers in order to perform total immersion. (39)

      All throughout the Anglo-Saxon Era there are references that point to the fact that immersion was the only mode for baptism. Venerable Bede (c. 700), the “father of English theology and church history,” held to a dipping in water as necessary for baptism. (40 41) The Council of Calichyth (816), held under the auspices of King Kenwold of Mercia, strictly forbade any other baptismal mode than immersion. (42) The Constitutions of the Synod of Amesbury in 977 recounted the widespread use of immersion in the island.

     Norman through Tudor England (C. 1100 – 1603). A series of six church councils held in various English cities from 1200-1296 all recommended baptism to be performed by immersion. William Tyndale (1484-1586), the famous Bible translator, considered baptism as being a plunging in water.

      The era of Tudor England (1485-1603) saw many changes in the nation’s religious life. During Henry VIII’s reign (1509-1547) the Church of England was founded (1534).  That baptism by immersion was still practiced is evident in that what records of the Tudor royal family that mention the mode, all of them refer to immersion.  Henry VIII, his older brother Arthur, his sister Margaret, his son Edward VI (r. 15471553), and his daughter Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1558-1603) were all immersed. (47) 

The turbulent era of Catholic Queen Mary (1553-1558) was one in which only immersion was permitted.  John T. Christian states that “immersion was almost the universal rule in Elizabeth’s reign” (49). He refers to an important book written in Latin by high Anglican officials entitled Reformation Legum Ecclesiasticarum (1571) which required immersion for the Church of England’s baptism. (50)

     Stuart England (1603 – 1714). Although other modes for baptism did start to make their way into England about the time of the beginning of the Stuart family’s reign, King James I (r. 1603-1625), the one for whom the KJV was named, was not an advocate of these other modes. (51) Anglican officials consistently fought attempts to introduce sprinkling and pouring as baptismal modes during the reign of Charles I (1625-1649). (52) It was not until at least 1644, some thirty years after the KJV was first published, that the British Parliament, then under the control of Scottish Presbyterians, decreed immersion as illegal in English churches. 53)

       It is evident, therefore, that the history of the mode of baptism used in England confirms the fact that immersion had always been the predominant baptismal mode throughout all the years prior to and during the period that produced the KJV.

       The advocates of the viewpoint under examination have neither the findings of etymology nor history as a basis upon which their contentions may be proven. Not only does the evidence from these two studies invalidate their claim, but also, when they are coupled with the application of the discipline of semantics, there are other factors that make their assertions quite illogical.

V. Semantical Relationship of “Baptism” to the KJV Translators

       In semantics, which is the study of the significance of words and the concepts to which they refer, there is a basic principle that what a word means to its users is determined by what its users do with that word. (55) For the purpose of this study, this principle may be formulated as a question: ‘Did the words ‘baptism’ and “to baptize’ mean” “immersion” and “to immerse” to the KJV’s translators, that is, were they synonymous with each other?” There are three key sources of evidence which practically demand an affirmative answer to this question.

     English Bibles. The first of these decisive factors is that every Bible, from the very first English Bible written by John Wycliffe (c. 1384) to the last Bible in English prior to the KJV, the Rheims New Testament (1582), uses either the exact words “baptism” and “to baptize” or their contemporary English equivalents in their original texts. (56, 57, 58)  What did the users of these Bibles take those words to mean? The study of the baptismal mode in England indicates that they understood those words to mean “immersion” and ‘to immerse.”

     English Baptists. Secondly, facsimile reproductions of original editions of Baptist confessions of faith in English, from before and on up to the very year the KJV was first produced (1611), all employ either those exact words or their contemporary English equivalents in their original texts when referring to this ordinance. Historically Baptists have been immersionists, and most Baptists of England at that time were no exception to this Baptist distinctive. (59)

     KJV Translators. Finally, perhaps the most important evidence of all to disprove the allegations of the viewpoint being examined is the testimony of the KJV translators themselves. As was indicated in the study of the history of English baptismal modes, other modes for baptism did begin to creep into England by the turn of the seventeenth century. However, the people who practiced these other modes were not primarily those of the old-line Anglican High Church persuasion. Rather, they tended to be those of the dissident Puritan faction.

       These Puritans most likely picked up the usage of these modes from the influence of Continental European reformers such as John Calvin (1509-1564) with which they had come into contact when the majority of the English Puritan leaders were forced into exile from Great Britain to the European mainland (and most notably to the Swiss city of Geneva, then under the direct control of Calvin) during the reign of Queen Mary (1553-1558).) While the English Puritan faction did play an important role in promoting the idea for a new English Bible (the result of which was the KJV), the forty-seven men who translated the KJV were mostly all high Church of England scholars and officials. (61)

       In “The Translators to the Reader” preface (which is seldom included in modern KJV editions), they have this to say about the words “baptism” and “to baptize” in their work:

(d) We have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans who leave the old ecclesiastical words,
as when they put washing for baptism… (62)

       From this statement by the translators themselves, it is obvious that were they inclined to agree with the Puritan faction on the baptismal mode while translating the KJV, they would not have used the words “baptism” or “to baptize” at all. Instead, they would have used “washing” or “to wash.”

They did not use the latter two words, because they wanted to employ the words that to them aptly expressed the old-line high Anglican church concept of the mode of immersion: “baptism” and ‘to baptize.”

VI. Conclusions to be Drawn

       The evidence from etymology, history, and from semantic reasoning, shows that the KJV translators did not coin the English words “baptism” and “to baptize” as a deceptive front to hide the practice of either sprinkling or pouring as baptismal modes. To say that they did is a totally unsubstantiated charge because:

(1) These words already existed in the English language.

(2) The high church faction of the Church of England, of which practically all the translators were high officials, still practiced immersion when the KJV was translated.

(3) If the translators had intended to convey the idea of other baptismal modes, they would not have used “baptism” and “to baptize” when they translated the references to this ordinance anyway.

       It is hoped that this work will help to show that the KJV translators are innocent of this charge that has been leveled at them, and, therefore, give its users confidence that its translators had no intention of confusing the issue of the mode of baptism when they performed their scholarly work.

ENDNOTES

I A representative sampling of this viewpoint, in whole or in part, may be found in (but is not limited to) these sources: Milburn Cockrell, “The Proper Mode of Baptism, The Baptist Examiner, XLI (January 5, 1974), 1; E. G. Cook, Let’s Study Revelation (Ashland, Ky.: Economy Printers, 1970), p. 167; William Manlius Nevins, Alien Baptism and the Baptists (Ashland, Ky.: Press of Economy Printers, 1962), p. 17, J. M. Pendleton, Baptist Church Manual (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1966), pp. 65-69; and Kenneth S. Wuest, “Romans in the New Testament,” Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1966), 1,96.

2 Ernest A. Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Elsevier Publishing Co., 1966), I, 147.

3 Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Marshailton, Del.: National Foundation for Christian Education, n. d.), p. 94. An excellent overview of both the secular and scriptural usages of these Greek words can be found in Charles F. Stanley, Charles Stanley’s Handbook for Christian Living (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), pp. 3-4.

4 Klein: and C. T. Onions, et. al., The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), p.74.

5 J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (New York: Macmillan Co., 1951), p. 584. Both of these two words are merely different conjugational forms of the same Greek verb stem.

6 Thayer.

7 Klein and Onions.

 8 Ibid. See also Charton T. Lewis and Charles Short, Harper’s Latin Dictionary (New York: American Book Co., 1907), p.221.

 9 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (n. p.: Associated Publishers & Authors, n. d.), I, 378.

10 James H. Martinbrand, Dictionary of Latin Literature (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956), p. 274.

11 Lewis.

12 Schaff. See also Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, Pa.; Judson Press, 1907), pp. 936-937.

13 Onions.

14 Mario A. Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics (New York; Philosophical Library, 1954), P. 153.

15 Onions.

16 Oscar Bloch and W. von Wartburg, Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Francaise (Paris; Presses Universitaries de France, 1950), p. 55; and Albert Dauzat, Dict/onnaire Etymologique de la Langue Franca/se (Paris: Librarie Larousse, 1938), p. 73.

17 H. Stanley Schwartz, An Outline History of French Literature (New York: Knopf, 1929), p. 14.

18 Edward Dowden, A History of French Literature (New York: Appleton Co., 1929), p.4.

19 Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, (New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, Inc., 1963), p. 127.

20 Ibid., P. 201.

21 Ibid., p. 203; and Lincoln Barnett, The Treasury of Our Tongue (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 123.

22 Klein.

23 Baugh, p. 159.

24 Ibid., pp. 200 if.

25 Ibid., p. 59.

26 Klein and Onions.

27 James Murray et. al., The Oxford English Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1933) I, pp. 659-660; and Baugh, p. 164.

28 Walter W. Skeat, An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 47.

29 “Robert of Gloucester,” Encyclopedia Americana, International Ed., 1973, XXIII, 567.

30 Murray. The Trinity College Homilies is a collection of sermon manuscripts maintained by Trinity College of Cambridge University, Cambridge, England.

31 Klein and Onions.

32 John Henry Kurtz, Text-book of Church History (Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1880), I, 297.

33 Baugh, p. 133. The Norman Conquest had little doctrinal effect on the English Church, but a majority of church offices changed hands as native English leaders were replaced by men from the Continent,

34 John F. Hurst, History of the Christian Church, (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1900), I, 575ff.

35 Ibid., p. 583.

36 Kurtz.

37 John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, (Texarkana, Tex.-Ark.: Sunday School Committee of the American Baptist Assn., 1922), p. 178.

38 Ibid., p. 179. This Augustine (also called Austin) should not be confused with the better-known St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa, who lived some 200 years earlier. Schaff, II, 399-403, 14-16.

39 John Godfrey, The Church in Anglo-Saxon England (London: Cambridge University Press, 1962), p. 372.

40 Schaff, II, 19.

41 Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists, (New York: Bryan, Taylor & Co., 1887), p.426.

 42 Ibid. Mercia was a region in central England. During the Anglo-Saxon era, England was at various times sub-divided into 4-7 smaller ‘kingdoms.”

43 Thomas Collier, Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, I, 471, cited in Christian, p. 182.

44 Armitage, p. 427.

45 Christian, p. 188.

46 Roy Mason, The Church that Jesus Built (Tampa: Central Avenue Baptist Church, n. d.), p. 53.

47 Christian, p. 194; and Armitage, pp. 427-428.

48 Christian, p. 204.

49 Ibid., p. 213.

50 Ibid., pp. 296-297.

51 Pendleton, p. 69.

52 Christian, pp. 287-288.

53 Ibid., 297-297, The Scottish Presbyterians were temporarily able to wrest political control of the English Parliament from the Anglicans as a result of the series of English Civil Wars that began in 1642.

54 Pei and Gaynor, p. 193.

55 Louis B. Salomon, Semantics and Common Sense (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966), p.51.

56 Francis Henry Stratmann, A Middle English Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 43.

57 Schaff, Ill, 157.

58 Luther A. Weigle, ed., The New Testament Octapla (New York: Nelson-National, 1962), passim; and Eugene Cumminskey, ed., The Holy Bible Translated from the Latin Vu/gate (Boston: P. Dunahue, 1852), passim.

59 William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1959), Pp. 93, 111, 119-120.

60 Pendleton.

61 Terence H. Brown, ‘The Learned Men,” Which Bible?, David Otis Fuller, ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1971), pp. 14-22.

62 Henry Barker, English Bible Versions (New York: Edwin S. Graham, 1907), pp. 171-172.

0.0.10 ALARM #22: “GIVE ME A GOOD REASON YOU WANT TO GO TO HELL” or BOW YOUR HEAD!

We might as well take a loaded gun to people’s heads.

begin at 24:00 minute mark.

“Decisional Regeneration”

Can you be Eternally Saved by just “deciding to”, signing a Commitment Card, or even “Praying”?

Can anyone, “Make a Decision” for Christ??
or “Make Jesus your ‘Lord'”?

You may think you have done some of these things and yet still do not “feel” saved.

Well, it may not be “Well with your soul”, so BE SURE.

YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN.

Go to my Facebook page to view the video:

See “June 12th”

https://www.facebook.com/AlanDaleGross

0.0.9 ALARM #21: Psalm 145:9; “The Lord is Good to all, and His Tender Mercies are over all His Works.”

…

Adapted from The COMPLETE TEXT

of ORIGINAL MATERIAL in PDF,

here: in Part 1, Section 9—

John Gill

Cause of God and Truth.pdf  

…

Section 9—Psalm 145:9.

The Lord is good to all,

and his tender mercies are over all his works

Psalm 145:9

An attempted ‘attack’ on the Word of God is to say, “The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation, and of Particular Redemption, are represented as contrary to the general Mercy and Goodness of God” expressed in this passage, in Psalm 145:9; “The Lord is Good to all, and His Tender Mercies are over all His Works.”

Also, it is with a view to “The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation, and of Particular Redemption”, it is asked by one writer, “Why is it said, that His Tender Mercies are over all His works, if they are so restrained from his most noble creatures?” And it is observed by another, “That it should not be said, His Tender Mercies are over all His works: but His cruelties are over all His works.” To which I reply,

1. That the said The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation, and of Particular Redemption do not restrain the Tender Mercies of God in a Providential Way, of which this text only speaks, as will be shown hereafter, The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation, and of Particular Redemption do not restrain the Tender Mercies of God from any of His creatures; no, not even from the non-elect, or those who have no share in the Special Grace and Favor of God, and who are not eventually Saved; though these should not be reckoned God’s most noble creatures: for surely they are not more noble than the Elect of God, or those who are Saved with an Everlasting Salvation; or more noble than the Angels, who stand, and never left their First Estate in which they were Created. Admitting also that these Doctrines carried in them ideas of cruelty, and ‘want of compassion in God” to those who are Rejected by Him, and excluded from Redemption by Christ; yet it should not be concluded from hence, that the cruelties of God are over all His Works; since, according to the known tenor of these Doctrines, some of God’s creatures are Chosen by Him to Eternal Life, Redeemed by the Blood of Christ, and shall be certainly and Eternally Saved.
2. The said “The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation, and of Particular Redemption Doctrine: are not expressive of cruelty in God to mankind, nor inconsistent with His Goodness and Mercy; nor do they represent God less Good, or less Merciful, than the Doctrines of ‘Conditional Election’ and ‘Universal Redemption’ do; nay, “The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation, and of Particular Redemption” represent God more Merciful than the Doctrines of ‘Conditional Election’ and ‘Universal Redemption’ do, since The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation, and of Particular Redemption Ascertain the Salvation of some, whereas the Doctrines of ‘Conditional Election’ and ‘Universal Redemption’ leave the Salvation of every man = precarious and uncertain, if not impossible, depending upon “the mutable will” of the creature.
3. These words, in Psalm 145:9; “The Lord is Good to all, and His Tender Mercies are over all His Works”, are to be understood not of ‘Special Mercies’, or ‘Saving Benefits Bestowed by God upon any of His creatures; but, “The Lord is Good to all, and His Tender Mercies are over all His Works”, are to be understoodof His Providential Goodness, which extends to them all, even to the brutal world, to all irrational as well as rational creatures, as appears from verses 15, 16, compared with Psalm 147:8, 9, who have no concern in Election and Redemption; so that if these, in Psalm 145:9; “The Lord is Good to all, and His Tender Mercies are over all His Works”, are to be understood, as to relate to the Blessings of Spiritual and Eternal Salvation, they would prove too much, more than our opponents desire; namely, that these Blessing are Provided for, and Extend unto irrational creatures, yea, even to all the works of God, of every kind and sort. Therefore,
4. The Doctrines of Election and Reprobation, and of Particular Redemption Ascertain the Salvation of some, and are not at all repugnant to these universal expressions of God’s Goodness and Mercy; since the non-elect, or such who have no Saving Benefit by the Death of Christ, have a share in the Providential Goodness and tender mercies of God; who makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and is kind to the unthankful and to the evil: nay, oftentimes the worst of men have the greatest share of the good things of this World; their eyes stand out with fatness, and they have more than heart could wish: their Temporal Mercies are oftentimes larger than those, that the Dear Children of God enjoy; and therefore are not what they have in common with the brutes that perish; God takes more care of them than of oxen, or the fowls of the air, in a Providential Way; though they despise the riches of his goodness and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth them to repentance; but after their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.

0.0.8 ALARM #20: Psalm 125:3 “because the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous, lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.

…

Adapted from The COMPLETE TEXT

of ORIGINAL MATERIAL in PDF,

here: in Part 1, Section 8—

John Gill

Cause of God and Truth.pdf  

Section 8—Psalm 125:3.

For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous,

lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity.

Psalm 125:3

These words would have to be made use of “to prove”,

that “saints, or true believers,

or men once truly good,

may cease to be so:

because it is said, that they “seem” plainly to insinuate,

that great and long impressions

might have this effect upon them;

trod surely that which God

is thus careful to prevent,

might possibly befall the righteous:

there being no need of care

to prevent that which

he hath absolutely engaged to preserve them from.”

Strange! seeing,

1. The doctrine of the Saints Final Perseverance is so plainly intimated in the two preceding verses of this Psalm: They that trust in the Lord shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever. As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the Lord is round about his people, from henceforth even for ever. If they that trust in the Lord, who are saints, true believers, men truly good, are as mount Zion; then they cannot be removed neither from the Heart of God, nor out of the Hands of Christ; but will Abide there for ever, and consequently cannot cease to be what they are. If, as the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the Lord is round about the same persons before described, who are His people, and that even for ever; how is it possible that they should ever perish?
2. These words are strictly connected with the former, and express a certain effect that should surely follow from the safe state and happy situation of such who trust in the Lord, yk for, or because it is so and so with them; therefore the rod of the wicked,the tyrannical government, oppressions, and persecutions of wicked men, to which the saints are often subject, shall not rest, always continue and abide, upon the lot, not the back, as Dr. Whitby cites the words, of the righteous; meaning either their persons or their goods; lest the righteous, who are made so by the righteousness of Christ, put forth their hands unto iniquity; that is, lest through the oppressions of wicked men, the instigation of Satan, and their own hearts, they should be moved to that which would dishonor God, bring a reproach on His ways, and wound their own souls; all which they may do, and yet not cease to be saints, true believers, truly good men; as the instances of David, Peter, and others, fully make appear. The righteous may put forth their hands unto iniquity, and fall into great sins, and yet not totally fall away, or so fall as to be lost and perish: ‘total apostasy’ is not intended by saints, true believers, truly good men ‘putting forth their hands unto iniquity’.
3. It is stranger still, that the care of God to Prevent the righteous putting forth their hands unto iniquity, should be improved into an argument against their Perseverance, and in favor of their apostasy. It will be readily allowed, that what God is thus careful to Prevent, even suppose a total apostasy was meant, might possibly befall the righteous, should they be left to themselves, destitute of the Powerful Protection of God; nor would there be a possibility of its being otherwise; but since the Care and Power of God are so greatly employed about their Preservation, it is impossible that it should befall them.
4. It is an egregious mistake to say, that “there is no need of care to prevent that which he (God) absolutely hath engaged to preserve them from;” since God’s engagement to Preserve His people, is the true reason of the employment of His Care about them; which is necessary to prevent their doing the iniquity, which otherwise would be done by them: God having Absolutely Resolved, Determined, and Engaged, that those that Trust in Him should not be removed, but Abide for ever; therefore he will be round about them for ever, and take care of them, that nothing hurt or destroy them; He will keep them by His power through faith unto salvation.

0.0.7 ALARM #19: Psalm 81:13, 14; “O that My people had hearkened unto Me, and Israel had walked in My ways.”

Adapted from The COMPLETE TEXT

of ORIGINAL MATERIAL in PDF,

here: in Part 1, Section 7—

John Gill

Cause of God and Truth.pdf  

…

Section 7—Psalm 81:13, 14.

O that My people had hearkened unto Me, and Israel had walked in My ways; I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned My hand against their adversaries.

“O that My people had hearkened unto Me, and Israel had walked in My ways;…”

This passage is produced by the Remonstrants,

to “prove” the “resistibility” of the Grace of God in Conversion;

in favor of the delectability of the saints;

and by a late writer, as irreconcilable

with God’s Decrees of Election and Reprobation,

and the Doctrine of Particular Redemption;

and as “proving” that

“men have a sufficiency of ability

to do what God wishes they would do”.

…

But let it be considered,

1. That, admitting the words contain “a wish and desire of God for the Spiritual Welfare and conversion of men”, such a wish can only be ascribed to Him in a figurative sense, as has been observed under the preceding section. “Wishing” cannot be attributed to God in such sense as it is to man, who often wishes for that which is not in his power to perform, and therefore desires it to be done by another, which cannot be said of God without impeaching His Omnipotence. When God is said to “wish for and desire”, as we will suppose here, the conversion and obedience of men, it only implies that these would be grateful and well-pleasing to him; and not that either is in the power of men to convert themselves, and obey the commands of God, or that it is the Determining Will of God that “every individual of mankind should be converted and obey his commands in a way Acceptable to Him”; since then every man would be converted and obey: therefore, such a wish, suppose it as universal and extensive as you please, does not militate against the Distinguishing Grace of God, in Choosing, Redeeming, and Calling some only; since such a wish only declares what God approves of, and not what He determines shall be.
2. The “wish for the spiritual welfare of the persons here mentioned”, supposing it to be one, is only for the people of Israel, God’s professing people, and whom He Calls My people, and not all mankind, or every individual son of Adam, as it ought to have been, could it be thought to militate against the Election, Redemption, and Effectual Vocation of some particular persons only; and besides, it would be difficult to prove that these persons spoken of, notwithstanding all their perverseness, rebellion, and misconduct, were not Chosen of God, Redeemed by Christ, and Savingly wrought upon by the Power of Divine Grace, and finally Saved.
3. The words, if duly examined, will appear not to contain any “wish” at all, but an hypothesis, or supposition; to be read thus, If my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways, I should, etc. R. Sol. Jarchi interprets wl by sa, and R. Aben Ezra by wlya, and the Septuagint by eij; all which signify if:so the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Vulgate Latin, Junius, and Tremellius, read the words; therefore, as the ContraRemonstrants have rightly observed, it does not follow from hence, that these people could obey the commands of God; or that the performance of obedience depended on their will; no more than it would follow from such a proposition, if a man keeps the law of God perfectly, he shall be justified by it: therefore it is in the power of man to keep the law of God perfectly; or from this, if a man believes he shall be saved; therefore, faith depends on man’s will, or is in man’s power. Besides,
4. The words are not to be understood of the internal work of grace and conversion, and of spiritual and evangelical obedience springing from it, which would have been attended with spiritual and eternal blessings; but of an external obedience to God’s commands, which would have been followed with temporal favors; such as subduing their enemies under them, feeding them with the finest of the wheat, and satisfying them with honey out of the rock; in the same sense are we to understand the words in Isaiah 48:18, which usually go in company with these under examination, and are also to be read conditionally; If thou hadst hearkened to my commandments, then had thy peace been as a river;as they are by the Targum, the Septuagint, and Arabic versions, by R. David Kimchi, Junius, and Tremellius; and neither the one nor the other regard the spiritual, but temporal welfare of God’s people Israel; nor do they contain “a wish” for that, but a declaration or an asseveration of it (or the solemn or emphatic declaration or statement of something), on condition of their obedience to God’s commands. The passage in Hosea 11:8, which is sometimes joined with this, is a human way of speaking, as R. Aben Ezra on the place observes; and expresses God’s compassionate concern for the temporal welfare of Ephraim and Israel, and not transports of affection, and desire after the Spiritual Welfare of any, much less of all mankind.

0.0.6 ALARM #18: Deuteronomy 32:29. “O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end.”

Adapted from The COMPLETE TEXT

of ORIGINAL MATERIAL in PDF,

here: in Part 1, Section 4—

John Gill

Cause of God and Truth.pdf  

0.0.5 ALARM #17; Deuteronomy 30:19: “I have set before you life and death”.

Section 5—Deuteronomy 30:19.

I have set before you life and death,

blessing and cursing;

therefore choose life,

that both thou and thy seed may live.

…

These words are frequently made use of

by the patrons of “free will”,

in favor of “free will”, and its supposed power,

to do that which is Spiritually Good.

…

Adapted from The COMPLETE TEXT

of ORIGINAL MATERIAL in PDF,

here: in Part 1, Section 4—

John Gill

Cause of God and Truth.pdf  

…

I shall briefly consider

this so-much-controverted subject,

by considering the following things:

…

I. What free-will is,

or what is the nature of the liberty of the human will.

…

1. The will of man, though it is free, yet not independently and

absolutely so; it is dependent on God, both in its being and acting;

it is subject to his authority and command

and controllable by his power.

The King’s heart (Prov. 21:1),

and so every other man’s heart,

is in the hand of the Lord:

as the rivers of waters,

he turneth it

whithersoever he will.

…

The will of God is only free in this sense;

he is not subject to a superior being,

and therefore acts without control,

according to his will,

in the armies of the heavens,

and among the inhabitants of the earth:

hence those great swelling

words of vanity,

aujtexousion, liberum arbitrium,

which carry in them the sense of self-sufficiency,

despotic, arbitrary liberty, are

improperly given to the human will,

though agreeable enough to

the language of some free-willers;

such as Pharaoh, who said,

Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice,

to let Israel go?

I know not the Lord,

neither will I let Israel go (Ex. 5:2).

…

Others have said, Our lips are our own;

who is Lord over us? (Ps.12:4).

…

2. The liberty of the will

does not consist in indifference to good and evil,

or in an indetermination to either;

otherwise

the will of no being would be free;

for God, as he is essentially and naturally good,

his will is determined only to that which is so;

nor does he nor can he do anything evil;

and yet in all he does, acts with the utmost freedom

and liberty of his will.

…

The will of the good angels,

though in their state of probation,

was left mutable and liable to change;

yet in their confirmed state, is impeccable,

wholly turned unto and bent upon that which is good,

and yet all the services they perform to God

and man, are done with the greatest

readiness, cheerfulness, and willingness,

without any force or compulsion.

…

The will of the devil is biased only to that which is

evil, without the least inclination to that which is good; and yet

moves freely in the highest acts of sin and malice. The will of

man, considered in every state he has been, is, or shall be in, is

determined to good or evil, and does not stand in equilibrio, in an

indifference to either. The will of man, in a state of innocence, was

indeed mutable, and capable of being wrought upon and inclined

to evil, as the event shows; yet during that state, was entirely bent

on that which is good, and acted freely, and without any co-action,

in obedience to the commands of God. The will of man, in his

fallen state, is wholly addicted to sinful lusts, and in the fulfilling of

them takes the utmost delight and pleasure. Man, in his

regenerate state, though he is inclined both to good and evil

which arises from the two different principles of corruption and

grace in him; yet both move freely, though determined to their

several objects. The flesh, or corrupt part, is solely determined to

that which is evil; grace, or the new creature, to that which is

spiritually good; so that with the flesh, the regenerate man serves

the law of sin, and with his mind the law of God. The will of the

glorified saints in heaven is wholly given up to spiritual and divine

things, nor can it be moved to that which is sinful; and yet as they

serve the Lord constantly, so with all freedom and liberty.

Consider, therefore, the will in very rank of beings, its liberty does

not consist in an indifference or indetermination to good and evil.

3. The liberty of the will is consistent with some kind of necessity.

God necessarily, and yet freely, hates that which is evil, and loves

that which is good. Christ, as man, was under some kind of

necessity of fulfilling all righteousness, and yet performed it

voluntarily. The will of man is free from a physical or natural

necessity; it does not act and move by a necessity of nature, as

many creatures do. So the sun, moon, and stars, move in their

course; fire, by a physical necessity, burns; light things ascend

upwards, and heavy bodies move downwards. Moreover, it is free

from a necessity of co-action or force; the will cannot be forced;

nor is it even by the powerful, efficacious, and unfrustrable

operation of God’s grace in conversion; for though before, it; is

unwilling to submit to Christ, and his way of salvation, yet it is

made willing in the day of his power, without offering the least

violence to it; God working upon it, as Austin says, cum suavi

omnipotentia et omnipotenti suavitate, with a sweet omnipotence,

and an omnipotent sweetness: but then the will of man is not free

from a necessity of obligation; it is bound to act in obedience to

the divine will; though it is free, it is not free to act at pleasure,

without control; though the sinful, corrupt will of man, breaks out

in despite of the laws of God, and chooses its own ways, and

delights in its abominations; yet this is not properly liberty, but

licentiousness. And though a good man looks upon himself under

a necessary obligation to act agreeable to the will of God, yet this

necessity is act contrary to the liberty of his will; for he delights in

the law of God after the inner man. Moreover, there is a kind of

necessity which the school-men call a necessity of immutability;

which respects the divine decrees, and their necessary,

unchangeable, and certain events, that is consistent with the

liberty of man’s will: for though the decrees of God are necessarily

fulfilled, yet these do not infringe nor hinder the liberty of the

creature in acting; for instance, the selling of Joseph to the

Ishmaelites, by whom he was brought to Egypt, was according to

the decree and purpose of God, who sent him thither, and

designed it for the good of others, and yet his brethren in the

whole of that affair, acted with the utmost deliberation, choice,

and freedom of their wills imaginable. Nothing was more

peremptorily decreed and determined by God than the crucifixion

of Christ, and yet men never acted more freely, as well as more

wickedly, than the Jews did in all the parts and circumstances of

that tragical scene. So that the liberty of the will is consistent with

some kind of necessity, yea, even with some kind of servitude. A

servant may serve his master freely and voluntarily, as the

Hebrew servant who was unwilling to part from his master when

his time of servitude was expired. A wicked man, who commits

sin, gives up himself wholly to it, is a servant of it, yet acts freely

in all his shameful and sinful services; even at the same time he is

a slave to those lusts and pleasures he chooses and delights in;

which made Luther call free-will servum arbitrium.

4. The consideration of the will of man in the several states of

innocence, the fall, regeneration, and glorification, serves much to

lead us into the true nature and notion of the liberty and power of

it. Man, in his state of innocence, had both a power and will to do

that which was naturally and morally good; though his will was left

mutable, and so through temptation might be inclined to evil, at

which door came in the sin and fall of man. Man, in his fallen

state, is wholly under the power and dominion of sin, is a captive

under it, and a slave unto it, and has neither a power nor will to

that which is spiritually good. Man, in a state of regeneration, is

freed from the dominion of sin, though not from the being of it; his

will is sweetly and powerfully wrought upon, and inclined to what

is spiritually good, though he finds a body of sin and death about

him, which much distresses and hinders him in the performance

of it. The saints in heaven are freed both from the being and

dominion of sin; and as they have a will solely inclined, so they

have full power, to serve the Lord without ceasing.

5. The distinction between the natural and moral liberty of the will

is of great service in this controversy; though these two are

artfully confounded together; and because the one is denied by

us, it is concluded that the other is also; whereas we affirm, that

the natural liberty of the will is essential to it, and always abides

with it in every action and in every state of life. A wicked man, in

the highest degree of servitude to sin, his will acts as freely in this

state of bondage as Adam’s will did in obedience to God, in a

state of innocence; but the moral liberty of the will is not essential

to it, though it adds to the glory and excellency of it; and therefore

may and may not be with it, without any violation to, or destruction

of, the natural liberty of the will. The moral liberty of the will to

that; which is good was with Adam in a state of innocence; this

was lost by the fall; hence man in a state of corruption and

unregencracy is destitute of it; in the regenerate state it is

implanted in the will by the Spirit and grace of God, and in the

state of glorification will be in its full perfection; so that the

controversy ought to be not about the natural, but moral liberty of

the will, and not so much about free-will itself, as the strength and

power of it; which leads me to the consideration of the next

inquiry, which is,

II. What is the strength and power of man’s free-will; or what it is

that the will of man itself can will or nill, choose or refuse, effect

and perform.

1. It will be allowed that the human will has a power and liberty of

acting, in things natural or in things respecting the natural and

animal life; such as eating, drinking, sitting, standing, rising,

walking, etc. The external parts, actions, and motions of the body,

generally speaking, are subject to, and controllable by the will;

though the internal parts, motions, and actions of it, are not so,

such as digestion of food, secretion of it to various purposes and

uses, nutrition and accretion of the several parts of the body,

circulation of the blood, etc., all which are performed without the

consent of the will.

2. The will of man has a liberty and power of acting in things civil,

such as relate to the good of societies, in kingdoms, cities, towns,

and families; as obedience to magistrates, lawful marriage,

education of children, cultivation of arts and sciences, exercise

and improvement of trades and manufactures, and every thing

else that contributes to the good, pleasure, and advantage of civil

life.

3. Man has also a power of performing the external, parts of

religion, such as praying, singing praise of God, reading the

scriptures, hearing the word of God, and attending on all public

ordinances. So Herod heard John gladly, and did many things in a

religious way, externally. Men. may also give to every one their

own, do justice between man and man, love such as love them,

live inoffensively in the world, appear outwardly righteous before

men, and do many things which have the show of moral good, as

did the heathen and publicans, and the apostle Paul before

conversion.

4. Man has neither will nor power to act of himself in things

spiritually good, or in such as relate to his spiritual and eternal

welfare; as conversion, regeneration, faith, repentance, and the

like. Conversion is not the work of a creature, but of God, even a

work of his almighty power; by which men are turned from sin and

Satan to him, are delivered from the power of darkness, and

translated into the kingdom of his dear Son. Regeneration, or a

being born again, is expressly denied to be of the will of the flesh,

or of the will of man, and is ascribed to God himself. All men have

not faith in Christ; and such who have it, have it not of

themselves; it is the gift of God, the operation of his Spirit, the fruit

and effect of electing and efficacious grace. Evangelical

repentance, which is unto life, is not in the power of man; man, in

a state of nature, has no true sense of his sins; nor will any

means of themselves bring him to repentance for them, without

the efficacious grace of God. True evangelical repentance is

God’s free-grace gift.

5. That there is no power naturally in the will of man, to will,

choose, and effect things spiritually good, does not only appear

from all experience of human nature, but also from all those

scriptures which represent men as polluted, wholly carnal, given

up to sin, slaves unto it, and dead in it; and not only impotent

unto, but under an impossibility to do that which is good; and from

all those scriptures which declare the understanding, judgment,

and affections, to be corrupt, by which the will is greatly

influenced and directed; and from all such scriptures which

intimate that every good gift and spiritual blessing come from

God, and that the saints themselves only will and act through the

power, and under the influence of the grace of God; who works in

them both to will and to do of his good pleasure. I proceed,

III. To inquire whether the words of the text under consideration

assert the power and liberty of the will of man in choosing that

which is spiritually good. To which I answer,

1. Supposing what is here proposed to be chosen is spiritually

good, and what to be refused is spiritually evil; it does not follow

from hence that man has a power to choose the one and refuse

the other; for, as Luther says, “The words are imperative, they

assert nothing but what ought to be done; for Moses does not

say, thou hast a power of choosing, but choose, keep, do. He

delivers precepts, of doing, but does not describe the power of

man.”

2. Life and death, blessing and cursing, are to be taken in a civil

sense, and design the external dispensations of God’s

providence, with respect to temporal good or evil, which should

befall the people of Israel, according to their civil behavior. That

people were under the immediate government of God; he was

their political king and head. Moses, from him, gave a system of

laws to them as a body politic; according to their obedience to

which laws, they and their seed were to live and dwell in and

enjoy all the temporal blessings of the land of Canaan, as

appears from verses 16, 20; but if they disobeyed, they were to

expect cursing and death, captivity and the sword, and not

prolong their days in the land they were going to possess, as is

evident from verses 17, 18. Therefore Moses advises them to

choose life, that is, to behave according to those laws given them

as a commonwealth; that so they, under the happy government

they were, might comfortably live, and they and their posterity

enjoy all the blessings of a civil life in the land of promise. What

comes nearer to such a case, and may serve to illustrate it, is as if

a person should represent the wholesome constitution laws of

Great Britain, preserved under the government of his majesty king

George, with all the consequent blessing and happiness thereof,

and also, the sad and miserable condition it would be in under a

popish Pretender; and then observe that it would be most

desirable, advisable, and eligible peaceably to continue under the

government of the one, than to receive the yoke of the other. To

choose the one is to choose liberty and property, blessing and

life, and everything, that is valuable, in a civil sense; to choose the

other, is to choose slavery and arbitrary power, cursing and

death, and everything that is miserable and destructive. Now it is

allowed that man has a power of willing and nilling, choosing and

refusing, acting and not acting, in things of a civil nature; therefore

these words can be of no service, nor ought they to have a place

or concern in the controversy about the power and liberty of the

will in things spiritual.

0.0.4 ALARM #16: Deuteronomy 8:2; “And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God Led thee.”

…

Section 4—Deuteronomy 8:2.

And thou shalt remember

all the way which

the Lord thy God led thee

these forty years in the wilderness,

to humble thee, and to prove thee,

to know what was in thine heart,

whether thou wouldest

keep his commandments or no.

…

Adapted from The COMPLETE TEXT

of ORIGINAL MATERIAL in PDF,

here: in Part 1, Section 4—

John Gill

Cause of God and Truth.pdf  

…

It is said, that it is evident

from this and other passages of Scripture,

that the state of man in this world,

is a state of trial or probation.

It will be proper therefore

to make the following inquiries:

I. What this state of probation is,

or what is meant by it.

…

1. This state of trial, or ‘probation’,

is not a trial of men’s graces,

as faith, patience, etc.,

by afflictive dispensations of Providence;

for men in general are not in such a state,

since all men have not grace to be tried;

nor is the state of every man

an afflicted one in this life:

this is a state peculiar to the people of God,

and to them only when converted:

for before conversion

they have no graces to be tried;

and with some of them,

this state is very short,

and so far from being the state of man

whilst in this world;

and yet, as will be seen

hereafter, the proof of the state of probation

pretty much depends on passages of Scripture

which relate to the exercise

of the graces of the saints

by afflictions, temptations, etc.

…

2. This state of trial, if I understand it right,

is of man’s obedience

and conduct towards God during his life;

according to which

conduct and behavior God acts towards him,

both in this and the other world;

his state, as to happiness or misery,

being yet unfixed:

so that whilst this state lasts,

it is uncertain whether he

will be saved or lost.

…

II. What proof is given

of the state of man in this world,

being such a one.

1. All those scriptures are urged,

which speak of God’s proving

the children of Israel when in the wilderness,

and in their own land,

whether they would walk in his statutes,

and keep his commandments, or no;

such as Exodus 16:4, Exodus 20:20;

Deuteronomy 8:2, and 13:3;

Judges 2:2l, 22, and 3:1, 4.

…

It ought to be observed,

that these people were under a theocracy,

or the immediate government of God as their King,

who gave them laws,

according to which they should act;

to which they readily promised a cheerful

and universal obedience;

on condition of which obedience,

they were to enjoy, and continue in their

enjoyment of the land of Canaan.

…

Therefore, before they entered

into the land, and when in it,

God was pleased to try them,

sometimes in one way, and sometimes in another,

whether they would yield that obedience to his commands

which he required,

and abide by the promises

which they themselves had made,

or no;

all which he did not for his own sake,

who knows all things,

but that their obedience

or disobedience might be made manifest,

and he be justified in all his dealings with them.

…

This trial of their obedience

was not in order to their salvation

in another world, but

to their temporal good in this;

…

Because such of them as were saved

with an everlasting salvation,

were saved not by their obedience

to the commands of God,

but by the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

…

Besides, the scriptures produced,

speak only of the people of Israel,

and of what was their state

and case as a politic body,

under the immediate government of God,

in a certain period of time;

and not of all mankind;

and so fall abundantly short

of proving that the state of man in this world,

is such a state of

probation as before described.

…

2. This is attempted to be proved from all those places in which

God is said to try men, their works and graces, by afflictions,

persecutions, temptations, and the like; as 1 Corinthians 3:13; 2

Corinthians 3:2; 1 Peter 1:7, and 4:12; James 1:3; Revelation

2:10, and 3:10; Psalm 66:10; Daniel 11:35, and 12:10; Zechariah

13:9. What I have said in answer to the first query, is a sufficient

reply to what is alleged from these passages; since these only

speak of the saints, and of the trial of their grace, who only have

grace to be tried, and that not in order to fix and settle the affair of

their salvation; nor are these trials mere experiments of the truth

and constancy of their graces: but are also designed for the

further exercise and increase of them; the issue of which is their

own spiritual good, and God’s glory. Hence it must follow that

these scriptures are insufficient proofs of every man’s being in a

state of probation, and in order to everlasting happiness or

misery.

…

3. This is said to be evident from all the promises and threats

recorded in the Scripture, to engage all men to repent, and turn to

God; for it is added, no such thing is or can reasonably be offered

to them who are already in a fixed state either of happiness or

misery. To which I reply, that the promises and threats recorded

in the Scripture, which relate to men’s spiritual and eternal good,

may be reduced to and comprehended in these words, He that

believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not,

shall be damned; which was the substance of the gospel ministry

the apostles had in commission from Christ to fulfill, and which

might be exercised fully and thoroughly, supposing a fixed state of

happiness or misery; since such a ministry might be, and is used,

through the grace of God, to bring those who are designed for

happiness, into a state of grace meet for the same; and to leave

others inexcusable, to discover the more the corruption and

vitiosity of their nature, and so to justify the righteous proceedings

of God against them.

…

4. This is argued for from all the exhortations of the holy Scripture

to men to watch and pray, that they enter not and are not led into

temptation, and from such scriptures which suppose men to be in

danger by temptation; the passages referred to are, Matthew

6:13, and Matthew 26:41; Luke 8:13; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; which

only regard the saints, or such who profess to be so, and not all

mankind. Besides, if God has put all men into a state of probation,

and this designed by temptation, how should any watch and pray

not to enter or be led into it? Moreover, this state of probation, is

either a good one, or a bad one; if a good one, why should men

watch and pray against it? if a bad one, can it be reasonably

supposed, that God has put men into it, in order to their

everlasting good? and why then should it be contended for?

…

5. This is said to be evident from the temptations of Satan, who

goes about continually seeking whom he may devour; and it is

added, to what end should he tempt, or endeavor to destroy the

elect, or strive to hinder the progress of the gospel, or the

conversion of any man; when supposing a fixed state by the

decrees of God, and a divine unfrustrable operation on the hearts

of men, he must know that his labor will certainly be in vain? To

which I answer, that Satan has not the book of life in his keeping;

nor does he know who are and who are not the elect of God, until

this appears by the unfrustrable operation of God’s grace on their

hearts, and it may be, not even then: so that it is no wonder that

he tempts, strives, and endeavors to hinder the success of the

gospel in their conversion, and to destroy them; and when he

does know who they are, endeavors to distress them by his

temptations, though he cannot destroy; and in ten thousand

instances will show his malice, when he cannot show his power.

Besides, the text referred to in 1 Peter 5:8, carries in the sense of

it the doctrine of a fixed state; when it supposes that there are

some whom Satan may devour, and leaves a plain intimation that

there are others whom he may not and cannot devour; who are

the sheep of Christ, and being in his hands, neither man nor devil

will ever be able to pluck from thence. This is the sum of the proof

offered in favor of this notion, by a celebrated writer, which how

pertinent it is, must be left to the consideration of others.

III. What reason there is to conclude that the state of man in this

world is not such a state.

…

1. Angels and man both, have been in a state of probation

already, in which their free-will, and power to obey the commands

of God, have been sufficiently tried; which trial has issued in the

fall and ruin of a large number of angels, and of the whole race of

mankind: and therefore it is not reasonable to suppose that God

would put man into such a state again; but rather provide in

another way for the good of those he designed to bring to

everlasting happiness.

…

2. If men were in a state of probation, they ought to be on equal

ground, enjoying equal privileges and advantages; whereas this is

not the case; some have only the dim light and weak law of

nature, whilst others enjoy the gospel revelation; and of these

some have larger, and others lesser, means of grace, light, and

knowledge; some have the grace of God itself bestowed upon

them, others have it not. Now were all men in such a state of

probation as is pleaded for, is it reasonable to suppose that there

would be such an inequality among them?

…

3. This state of probation, which renders salvation precarious and

uncertain, is contrary to God’s foreknowledge and decree of

election; for God, according to his foreknowledge, has chosen

and predestinated a certain number of men to eternal life and

salvation, by which their state is fixed, and their salvation sure, for

the purpose of God according to election shall stand. Whom he

did foreknow, he also did predestinate; whom he did predestinate,

them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified;

and whom he justified, them he also glorified

(Rom. 9:11; 8:29, 30).

…

4. This notion puts man’s salvation on the foot of his obedience

and works, contrary to the Scriptures, to the merits of Christ, and

to the grace of God; it ascribes more to the free-will of man than

to the free grace of God, and lays a foundation for boasting in the

creature.

…

5. Such a state of probation is contrary to all those scriptures

which represent the saints to be now in a saved state, and as

having everlasting life; such as Ephesians 2:8, John 5:24, and

John 6:47. In a word, it destroys the doctrine of assurance, and

leaves the saints themselves in a most uncomfortable condition,

because it leaves them in a most precarious, unsettled, yea,

dangerous one.