Page 3

HOME

CONTENTS

= Chapter Title = &nb= sp; P= age

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Approaching the Parables = &nb= sp; = 2

Signs and Reason= s for a Church

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>Departing from t= he Faith &n= bsp; = ; 18

Old Testament Israel and Theology

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>Broken Off &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; 24

Restatement of t= he Purpose of

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>The Ministers' S= chool &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 40

Discussion of Ac= ts 1:5, 2:4, and 10:44-48

In Comparison to Ephesians 5:18 &nb= sp; = 51

Early American Associations

(1707 - 1845) &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; 62=

= &nb= sp; = Revival = ; &n= bsp; = ; 4

( APPROACHING THE PARABLES Matthew 13 )

March 16, 1971

The Ministers' S= chool meeting in Atlanta= recently, voted to have this manuscript reproduced for the use of those ministers requesting a copy. This is the copy or copies you requested.=

As was stated in= the meeting, in an introduction to this subject, the interpretation of parables= has always been somewhat controversial. Differences of opinions abound on nearly every parable of Jesus, even among our people. It was illustrated at the meeting = that not all agreed upon the interpretations given to sample parables in this treatise. The writer again states that these are his opinions, or agreement= or disagreement with the opinions of others. Please bear that in mind.

I believe there = is some valuable material here, gleaned from various sources, on the ways and means of interpreting parables. If those things, within that cause your own disagreement, will stimulate you to study more on your own, then I will be satisfied that something good has been accomplished. My views are certainly= not final authority on any scriptural matter, any more than yours; but I sincer= ely believe the interpretations I have here given. Please accept this manuscript and use it for any value that it might bring you.

In bonds of Christ,

R. L. Mitchell, Jr.

Ministers' School - 69th Session - February, 1971

APPROACHING THE PARABLES Matthew 13

A. What is basic= to all the Parables?

B. What are the limitations of interpretations?

C. What are the flexibilities of interpretations?

INTRODUCTION

The committee has chosen an excellent and appropriate title - "Approaching= the Parables" - for in this limited time and study, an approach to this gr= eat study will be all we might accomplish. It is hoped that this introduction, gleaned from various sources, will be an incentive for you to further your = own studies in this vital portion of scripture.

While it is true= that there are parables in the Old Testament, in the Epistles and in the Revelat= ion, in one form or another; that is, some forms of parabolic teaching, or other form close akin to it, we shall confine our present study to the parables o= f Jesus. These are found primarily in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. There is little trace of parable instruction in John, although some passages might be considered in this light: such as Christ, the Good Shepherd, or Christ, the Door, in John 10; and Christ, the True Vine, in John 15. You will note that in these instances Jesus takes symbols and refers them directly to Himself, which is not the general case in parab= les. Except for special instances, primarily in His introduction to parabolic teaching in Matthew 13, J= esus leaves the interpretation of parables to the guidance of the Spirit in our studying. More about that comes up later, but for now, we emphasize that we= are studying parables of Jesus in the first three Gospels, with possibly a slig= ht reference only to other sections of the Scriptures.

It is interesting to note the various and sundry counts of parables in these t= hree Gospels. The Thompson Chain-reference Bible lists thirty-eight parables in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Of these, twenty-nine appear in one Gospel only; th= ree appear in two Gospels; and six are given in all three Gospels. This, I say,= is one opinion. For instance, the parable of the Lost Sheep, according to this reference occurs in Matthew 18 and in Luke 15. Other opinions, including my own, assert that while there are similarities in these two passages, context arrangement suggests that they are two distinct parables, used on separate occasions for differing circumstances, This is just one example of differen= ces of opinion you will find in the count and arrangement of the parables.=

WHAT IS A PARABLE? We will try to avoid being too technical about the term, breaking it down t= o a simple meaning. Of the two Greek words which are rendered “parable= 221; in the New Testament, "Parabole" is the more common, occur= ring 48 times in the synoptic Gospels, but never in the Gospel of John. This Gre= ek word implies "beside" or "to throw or cast,” suggesting nearness for the purpose of comparison for likeness or difference. It means “the placing of one thing by the side of another." In the Bible we have similitudes, proverbs, metaphors, allegories, "fables" and types. None of these are exactly the same= as a parable; indeed, some are vastly different. The parable comes closer to the similitude - in fact, the parable is an extended similitude. The word "similitude" me= ans “like” or “resembling” and is illustrated for us in= the first Psalm. “He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water = . . . The ungodly . . . are like the chaff which the wind driveth away." Psalms 1:3,4. Dr. A. T. Piers= on tells us that - "a parable proper is, in Scripture usage, a similitude, usually put in narrative form, or used in connection with some incident.= 221; Thus, we see that the parable is an extended similitude which is more of a narrative or complete story.

Some may be startled that the writer includes fables in the Scriptures, so I wan= t to give a word of explanation just here. A fable is a fictitious narrative intended to illustrate some maxim or truth. In Judges 9:8-15 we have what is sometimes referred to as Jotham’s Parable of the Trees. While this has been called a parable, it is not in the true sense. It may resemble a parable, but there is one noteworthy difference, and a point that must be remembered about all parables. You never find anything in a true parable th= at is contrary to the truth of nature. Parables thrive on facts of nature, but never will you find trees talking or becoming kings in a parable. Fables are good but they deal with less elevated subjects. Parables take the truth of nature and illustrate the even greater truth of the Spirit. Patrick Fairbai= rn says, “the parable may be said to be a story which, either true, or possessing all the appearance of truth, exhibits in the sphere of natural l= ife a process parallel to one which exists in the ideal and spiritual world.̶= 1; The story of the Prodigal Son may have been a history of literal facts, or = at any rate, it is an actual fact which occurs every generation. The Lord of Heaven and Earth is well acquainted with human life and draws upon its experiences to illustrate great spiritual treasures.

THE PUPPOSE OF TEACHING IN PARABLES can best be seen in referring to our Scriptural reference in Matthew 13, “And he spake many things unto th= em in parables --. And the disci= ples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answer= ed and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of t= he kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ear= s, for they hear. All these thin= gs spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he = not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, sayi= ng, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” Verses 3,10, 11,13,16,34,35. Unger’s Bible Dictionary quotes Whedon on the purpose of teaching in parables with the following: “The sacred parable was a wonderful vehi= cle of truth to serve three distinct purposes, viz.: to reveal, to co= nceal, and to perpetuate.”

Jesus used parab= les to REVEAL hidden mysteries of His spiritual kingdom to those who had the heave= nly ability to grasp spiritual truths. What appears as a simple, down-to-earth = tale on the surface breaks open to reveal great heavenly treasures to those born again. Like the tabernacle in the wilderness, parables look vastly differen= t to those “within” than they do to those “without." Here, too, is a point that makes the parable principally a New Testament peculiarity. Jesus said, “Many prophets and righteous men have desire= d to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those th= ings which ye hear, and have not heard them.” And again, “I will ope= n my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” Therefore, even though there be parables and forms of parabolic teachings in the Old Testament and in other sections of = the New Testament, the Parables of Jesus are in a class to themselves, designed= by Him to reveal the great gospel mysteries to His people which had never been seen before in this fullness.

Not only does the parable reveal to whom it is destined to reveal; at the same = time it CONCEALS this same truth from the unregenerate. “And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For = this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their ey= es, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and shoul= d be converted, and I should heal them.”&= nbsp; When Jesus said, “But whosoever hath not, from him shall be ta= ken away even that he hath,” He meant that the appearance of this true doctrine, like the light, should manifest even more clearly who they were w= ho believed not. In other words, the parable= as a vehicle of truth, becomes a “divider of the sheep from the goats.R= 21; It reveals to the one, and at the same time conceals from the other. It dra= ws the line of distinction. The natural man sees only the simple story which to him is foolish, like the du= ll, grey, drab appearance of the tabernacle from the outside, But the spiritual= man sees beneath this simple covering the glories of spiritual light, spiritual bread, communion with God and the blood of the everlasting covenant.

The third reason or purpose for teaching in parables is that the truth of God m= ight be PERPETUATED in convenient vehicles. We have all heard the values and vir= tues of our modern "visual-aid” educational programs. “One pict= ure is worth a thousand words." Libraries and bookstores are filled with b= ooks of illustrations of all sorts for all occasions. Good speakers know how to captivate their listeners effectively with a good story or illustration at = the appropriate time. This technique is not new. Jesus, the Master-teacher, knew how to drive home His points with effective illustrations. He was so effect= ive, that it is recorded in this same 15th chapter of Matthew that some said, “Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?" Verse 54.

We might say tha= t the parables of Jesus are the illustrations of New Testament doctrine. We need = not look further for the most effective and useful illustrations for our sermon= s on doctrine. What knowledgeable = minister can quote the statement in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost, "without immediately thinking of= the parable in Luke 15, which tells of the shepherd leaving the ninety and nine= to seek and find the one that was lost? Hundreds of volumes made by the wisest= of men cannot produce a more apt illustration than that. A word of caution here: parables s= hould not be used to formulate doctrine, but to illustrate and prove it effective= ly. Rely upon passages like the Sermon= on the Mount and the theological discourses in the Epistles for doctrinal standards - then effectively arrest the memory of the hearer with a parable illustration. Faustus Socinus, one of the early Unitarians, argued from the taxable of the Unmerciful Servant in Matthew 18, that as the king pardoned = his servant merely on his petition, and not on the score of any satisfaction ma= de, or any mediator intervening, we may from this conclude that in the same way, and without requiring sacrifice or intercessor, God will pardon sinners sim= ply on the ground of their prayers. This is undoubtedly twisting or wresting of the scriptures to prove a pre-conceived logic. It points out, too, what I have just said - parables a= re illustrations of doctrine and not the very foundation of doctrine. You can see how that by taking every little point of a parable and fitting it where you want it, you might establish most any kind of doctrine.

Getting back now to our thought of perpetuating truth by means of parables, let me quote from Herbert Lockyer in "All The Parables of the Bible.” "Parables attract, and when f= ully understood are sure to be remembered. They are a great help to memory.= We are more apt to remember illustrations or stories, than other things delive= red in a sermon. Parables are cal= led to remembrance long after the main substance of the sermon is forgotten.”= ; I would amend that last thought to say that, the main substance or thought of= a sermon is perpetuated or preserved because of the power of the parable in t= he memory. If all the Bible were= lost, and our preservation of truth depended upon memory, the parables would play= an important part in teaching future generations what Jesus taught. Who can fo= rget The Good Samaritan, who still has mind to remember anything?

Parables were used by Jesus then, primarily for these three reasons: to REVEAL, to CONCEAL and to PERPETUATE.

We have spent the time before possibly without getting into the outline sugges= ted, but this introduction seemed needful in the study. Now, the questions = of What is Basic to all the Parables, the Limitations and Flexibilities of Interpretation, and the three illustrations called for, can all be cov= ered under the general heading of INTERPERTATION AND MISINTERPRETATION OF PARABL= ES.

Two basic points to remember in interpretation of a parable are: 1. A parable should be regarded in its entirety, and not broken apart to prove this or t= hat point. It has been pointed out already that parables are generally illustrations of a point already given, or for one that is about to be give= n. In approaching a parable’s meaning, always look for this point that J= esus is illustrating. 2. Similar to the first, a parable should never be taken o= ut of context, but always presented in the proper scriptural setting. For an e= xample of this, let us approach the three famous parables of Luke 15: T= he Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin and the Prodigal Son. Most scholars and interpre&= shy;ters consider an inseparable link holding all three of these parables together; = in other words, one parable with three different views or shades of meaning. T= hat is probably true and commands our research when we enter this chapter. B= ut one thing is certain: None of the three can be properly understood with= out first considering verses 1 and = 2: “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear hi= m. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners,= and eateth with them.” The response to this by Jesus is seen in verse 3: “And he spake this parable unto them, saying,” and follows with= the Lost Sheep. The point of interest here is the fact that this man “receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” Jesus focuses upon t= hat point by saying to those Pharisees and scribes, "What man of you, havi= ng an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nin= e in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?” In other words, "You accuse me of this - what would you do under such circumstances?" He compa= res the sinners and publicans to the lost sheep and Himself to the faithful shepherd who is "Seeking and saving that which was lost.” The context and setting is essential to proper interpretation.<= /span>

Two main causes of misinterpretation according to John Cumming in his “Lectures on the Parables," is: 1. Making too much of them, and 2. Making too little of them. He= says, "There are two great errors in interpreting the parables: one consists= in screwing meaning out of every part, as if there were nothing subsidiary at = all; and the other in regarding much of the parable as mere subsidiary, and= to be regarded as mere drapery.”

We have been affected probably by the former of these extremes more than the latter. There is a tendency t= o make too much of every iota within the parable, or we express it in this way: we “spiritualize" too much. There are times when Jesus is teaching a basic practical truth with a parable and we go into it, teaching the whole scope of God’s plan of salvation, from Election to the Resurrection. = Of course, we are not alone in this “spiritualizing” or allegorizi= ng of the parables. And we did n= ot originate this type of interpretation. Augustine is an outstanding example = of those early fathers who thought each term stood as a cryptogram for an idea= so that the whole had to be de-coded term by term. C. H. Dodd in “The Parables of the Kingdom,” cites Augustine's interpretation of the Par= able of the Good Samaritan . . .

By the certai= n man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho - Adam himself is meant:

Jerusalem is the heavenly= city of peace, from whose blessedness Adam fell:

Jericho means the moon,= and signifies our mortality, because it is born, waxes, wanes and dies:

Thieves are the Devil a= nd his angels;

Who stripped him= , means of his immortality:

And beat him, means they pers= uaded him to sin:

And left him half—dead, means in so far as man can understand and know God, he lives, but in so far= as he is wasted and oppressed by sin, he is dead; he is therefore called half-dead:

The Priest and t= he Levite signify the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament, which could profit nothing for salvation:

Samaritan= means guardian,= and therefore signifies Jesus:

The binding of t= he wounds is the restraint of sin:

Oil is the comfort = of good hope:

Wine<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'> is the exhortat= ion to work with fervent spirit:

The beast= is the flesh of Christ, in which He condescended to come to us:

Set upon the bea= st is our belief i= n the incarnation;

The Inn is the Church:<= o:p>

The Morrow is after the Resurrection of the Lord:

The Two Pence are either the = two precepts of love, or the promise of this life and of that which is to come:=

The Innkeeper is the Apostle = Paul

That is Augustine’s elaborate treatment of the parable. None of us have gone quite to that extent, but many of us have no doubt preached it in this vein. Elder Fred Hartley loved to preach= on this parable; using the wounded pilgrim as a type of fallen man, the thieve= s as the Law of Sin and Death, the priest and Levite as the inability of the Law= to save, the Samaritan as Christ and the Inn as the Church.<= /p>

Basically, the p= arable is in response to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” The second and great commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,"= ; is beautifully illustrated by Jesus. The main purpose then of this parable is to teach us how to put this commandment into everyday living. Personally, I feel that the parable should not be totally limited to this primary interpretation, but can be given the spiritual treatment witho= ut offence, and with great effect - IF NOT CARRIED TOO FAR. It may be summed up in this fashion: Christ is teaching us how to be good neighbors, and hidden in that instruction is a great illustration of how He Himself is the great example as the Neighbor of all neighbors.

The committee asked me to present three parables for analysis and show whether there is more than one legitimate interpretation of them. We will consider that the Good Sam= aritan just discussed is one of the three. You can see the two ways = it might be interpreted, with the understanding however, that no parable can h= ave opposing interpretations. If = there are different ways of interpreting a single parable, these ways must be in harmony. To look at this parable with the two ideas; one, with you as the g= ood neighbor, and second, with Christ, the example, as the good neighbor, we se= e no contradiction; but actually an emphasis on the primary interpretation.=

A parable already mentioned, the Parable of the Lost Sheep in Luke 15, is one that I would like to consider with you just now. T= his parable has been interpreted in various ways, principally two different way= s. One way considers the lost sheep as a “backsliding” child of God who has strayed away from the fold, and Jesus as the faithful shepherd Who brings him back to the fold. = The second interpretation has the lost sheep as the elect of God, not yet regenerated, being sought and saved by the Saviour. This view generally has the ninety= and nine as representatives of the Pharisees and scribes who, by their own profession, needed no repentance, but were just persons without sin. This latter interpretation seems the more logical with the context in view, but there are some objections to it. “What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of t= hem --” speaks of the man originally having or possessing all one hundred. And “sheepR= 21; consistently refer to the saved in scriptural languages. These are legitimate objectio= ns to the interpretation that most great commentators have followed. But, in favo= r of their view, are some interesting facts often overlooked. Some ministers have actually quoted the hymn by E. C. Clephane while teaching this passage. “There were ninety and nine = that safely lay, In the shelter of the fold --”, whereas the scriptures do= not teach this. It is a beautiful sentiment, but the ninety and nine were actually left in the wilderness according to the scriptures, and there is no hint that He went back for the= m. Also, the ninety and nine are interpreted for us as “ninety and nine = just persons, which need no repentance.”&= nbsp; Is there such a thing in the family of God? “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Ecclesiastes 7:20. I read one expositor who recognized that these just persons without need of repentance could not be human beings, who took the position that they must be the angels who fell n= ot. He further states that Christ’s leaving them speaks of His coming down into the earth to find and save the lost element of His kingdom, lost human beings. But he did not bother to say how Heaven might be typified by a “wilderne= ss.” It seems more logical all the way to understan= d this statement, “ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance,= 221; as a description Jesus gives to the Pharisees and scribes. This perfectly harmonizes with another instance with similar circumstances. Actually, it is the exact same criticism by the Pharisees being answered. We read in Luke 5:30-32, "But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answe= ring said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” The Pharisees considered themselves righteous, thereby acknowledging that they did not need saving o= r a Saviour. They felt they were just persons needing no repentance. The simple solution to this parabl= e is in the context: Jesus likens the publicans and sinners to this lost sheep a= nd the scribes and Pharisees to the ninety and nine.

What then of the figure of sheep for this ninety and nine? What then of the shepherd’s possession of the ninety and nine? It is evident that this likeness follows= the general teaching of the New Testament about the transition from Israel, the nation, to Israel,= the spiritual nation, as the possession of God, National Israel was the chosen nation of God, and peculiarly His in this chosen sense, above and separate = from all other nations. But not all national Israelites were spiritual Israelites. Many of them, including great numb= ers of scribes and Pharisees, took for granted that they were children of God simp= ly because they were natural descendants of Abraham. But they were not. John the Baptist and Jesus laid th= e axe to the root of that tree. Joh= n 1:11 states, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” “His own” ref= ers to national Isra= el. They were the nation of God, possessing the laws and oracles given by Moses, but their rejec= tion of Christ proved that they did not have God’s laws and precepts engra= ved in their hearts. In other wor= ds, they pretended to be sheep, thought they were sheep, and paraded around like sheep; but the true Shepherd knew all along who were really His in a spirit= ual sense. Jesus said in John 10:26, “But ye believe not, because ye are = not of my sheep --,” which indicates that their rejection and unbelief pr= oved that they were not at all included with His sheep. Notice the emphasis on t= he personal pronoun in verse 27 following; “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,” Romans 9:6. And they are not all sheep which a= re among the sheep! Remember, there are some wolves in sheep’s clothing. Matthew 7:15.<= /o:p>

Finally, some have put a dispensational interpretation on this parable, applying the= ninety and nine to the Jews and the one lost sheep to the Gentiles. They endeavor = to connect this with the teaching of Jesus in John 10:16, “And other she= ep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall be= one fold, and one shepherd.” There is no doubt that John 10:16 speaks of = the Gentiles, but following the context in our parable, it fits better to think= of the ninety and nine as representatives of the self-righteous and rejecting Jews, while the lost sheep refers to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

For the third pa= rable introduced for analysis, we will look very briefly at the Parable of the Ri= ch Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. It w= as very interesting to note the mind of Elder William H. Crouse in his “= The Man of Galilee” on this particular parable, in contrast to many other versions I have heard among our people. Brother Crouse stated, “To my mind the parables of The Wheat and the Tares and The Rich Man and Lazarus b= oth teach the final disposition of mankind - the joys of the righteous and the irrevocable judgment which shall be pronounced upon the wicked.” In contrast to this view, we note another Primitive Baptist minister’s ideas on this same parable. Elder C. H. Cayce wrote in the Pri= mitive Baptist of June, 1909, "We think the parable primarily refers to the J= ews and Gentiles. The rich man represented the Jews and Lazarus represented the Gentiles. The Jews were scattered, and are yet in a scattered condition. They are now being torment= ed. They had their good things under the law dispensation. But now, under the gospel dispensa= tion, the Jews are being tormented and the Gentiles are enjoying the privileges of the gospel.” This you can see is a dispensational view, which is rath= er widespread among Primitive Baptists. Elder Hassell evidently did not hold to this view, but rather to one akin to that of Elder Crouse, for in Chapter 9 of Hassell’s History, concerning the marks of the apostolic church, he says, “Like Lazarus,= in the parable of Christ, they have had evil things in this world, but comfort= in the eternal world (Luke xvi.25).” He was likening the sufferings= and persecutions of the true church here in the world under His 7th mark (page = 299) to the sufferings of Lazarus.

It is all too ev= ident to me that the views of Grouse and Hassell more nearly conform to the conte= xt and scriptural arrangement of the parable. This parable was spoken to = the Pharisees who were deriding Him. He said unto them in verse 15, “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; = but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.”&nb= sp; This key verse linked with the final statement of the parable (verse= 31) s= heds light on the intent of Jesus in the parable. “If they hear not Moses = and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead.” Had an unregenerate Pharisee stood and watched the actual resurrection of the body of Jesus Christ; had he heard Him speak; had he handled that pure glorified body; had he seen for himself and not another -= - HE WOULD NOT HAVE BELIEVED THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD! “Ye must be born again." These men justified themselves before the world and in their own eyes, but God knew t= heir hearts. They might pretend to= be children of God, and pretend to believe Moses and the prophets (but they did not, else they would have believed in Jesus) and all the time they were manifesting to God and to spiritual minds that they were contrary to every thing concerning God and truth.

In the parable, = the riches refer to self-righteousness, pride and self-esteem -- being filled w= ith one’s self. The poverty= of Lazarus represents one with a broken and contrite heart, one who is poor in spirit, one who cries out, “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy= cross I cling.” Abraham is in the parable to show who is really the child of Abraham. “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the = same are the children of Abraham.” Galatians 3:7. The ric= h man called out to “Father Abraham” just like all the scribes and Pharisees kept boasting about being the descendants of Abraham. But they were children only in a n= atural tie -- not children of the promise at all.= “Ye must be born again.R= 21;

Is there more th= an one legitimate interpretation of any parable?&= nbsp; Possibly, but only if the second interpretation does not contradict = the primary interpretation. There must be complete agreement. Can the messages of the parables change from age to age? No more than the Messenger can. Appropriate illustrations cur= rent to our times might emphasize the parable to us, but the basic message remai= ns the same for all time. What special precautions should be taken in presenti= ng personal opinions about them? Make sure your personal opinion does not ignore the context or purpose of the parable, as used by Jesus. Do not rely upon any parable for a doctrinal standard, but rather as an illustration of a standard already established in the scriptures. Make sure you let it be known that some opinion in your own mind about interpretation is just that -- your own personal opinion, and not necessarily the final authority on the matter. Some of the interpretations given = in this paper are my personal opinion: there is also agreement and disagreemen= t with the opinions of other men. I could be wrong. They could be wrong. You could be wrong. Never forget that. All in all, strive to stay complet= ely within the context in the which a parable is given.

February 19, 19= 71

Ministers School= - February 20, = 1974

SIGNS AND REASON= S FOR A CHURCH

DEPARTING FROM T= HE FAITH

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart f= rom the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaki= ng lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbiddi= ng to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created= to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” 1 Timothy 4:1-3= .

What is the faith? This must be first established before we might identify those who are departing therefrom. The true faith of = Jesus Christ is the true messag= e of Jesus Christ, unchanged and unyielding. It is the marvelous combination of the Old and New Testaments b= lending together in the harmonious doctrines and practices outlined specifically fo= r us by Jesus and His apostles. We Baptists give great praise to the London Confession of Faith, and well we should. It is a declaration of faith, copied almost word for word by the earliest Baptist association in t= his country. The Philadelphia Confession is no longer heeded by the vast majori= ty of Baptists. The dangerous tendencies of the New Hampshire Confession have = led most Baptists from the original confessions. Nowadays it is almost as fashionable to formulate new creeds as it is to translate new Scriptures. A= mong Confessions of Faith, our people would do well to cling to the London and Philadelphia Confessions as models. Among translations they would do well to cling tenaciously to the beautiful and reliable King James.

But the purest of Confessions cannot stand in the hallowed place of "The Faith." That faith is th= e Holy Bible, word for word. Jesus b= rought the Father’s doctrine from Heaven. This, fulfilling all that is in the law and the prophets is the faith of God’s elect. I suppose the reaso= n we rely so heavily upon the articles of faith is because everyone in evangelic= al Christianity claims to believe the Bible. Only the modernists and some other extremists say they do not believe the literal word of God. The conservative evangelicals, to a man, claim belief in the inspired word of God. Yet, they differ in their ideas. So we come to the articles of faith which declare wh= at we believe the Bible to teach. In the final analysis, however, it is the wo= rd of God that is the final Judge of what is the faith. The faith embraces all= the teachings of God, both as to fundamenta1 doctrine and as to practical godliness.

Now at this point let us establish these two principles firmly in our minds. Because it is at these two areas where the faith is denied. Sometimes we ca= ll these two areas doctrine and practice. I prefer however to refer to these as the fundamental doctrines of God and the moral code of righteousness. ̶= 0;Practice” is a shallow word which includes many trivial things over which churches ha= ve divided. Yet these things are= not worthy of division for the most past. Moral righteousness, on the other han= d, is quite a serious matter. These two main headings or areas of the faith is where we find our Bible examples of departure. The churches of Galatia= were guilty of departing the faith as to fundamental doctrine. Many of them were denying the truth of God’s sovereign grace. The church at Corinth departed in moral righteousnes= s. They allowed ungodliness to reign in the midst of their membership. It may = be noted that Paul in both these cases addressed himself to the = problems without compromise. He did not turn his back on these churches as hopeless cases, but proceeded to cure th= em with the unblemished word of God.

I do not suggest that inasmuch as Paul continued with these churches and did = not forsake them, that such departures should be allowed to continue indefinite= ly. The erroneous practice among old Baptists of barring is a great sin on the other hand. No group of churches or ministers has the authority to declare anyone else out of order and enforce that ruling on sister churches. Each church is a separate government under her head, Jesus Christ. A sound and righteous church should labor in love and fellowship toward an erring church like it would toward a member. But when all efforts have failed, the church must remember she has no disciplinary judgments over sister churches as she= has over her own members. The best she can do is leave the offending church alo= ne and pray for them. You will notice Jesus, in finding fault with the seven churches of A= sia, communicated directly with each one of them as to their problems. He did not mention the troubles of Ephesus to the bre= thren at Philadelphia. All seven of these churches were in a circle of no more than one hundred and twenty-five miles and I am sure they knew something of the affairs of one another. But Jesus gave n= o hint that any of them should go over and straighten out the others, but His burd= en was to the individual church in each message. Now this is somewhat off my subject but I wanted it clearly indicated that departures from the faith are bad enough. Many troubles have been added because of over-zealous and over-= righteous judges in other churches who have been quick to condemn every little sin of= the sister church. It should be n= oted that many have come out from us who are no longer with us. But God help us = when we start counting the ones we have driven off.

Now let us notice some of the reasons for departures. First, we will deal with = the area of the fundamental doctrines of God. Why would anyone not be satisfied with God’s own word? Well, among all the reasons that can be given the one which is paramount is PRIDE. Man is a creature of pride. The doctrine of God does not harmonize with pri= de. Therefore, many have departed the faith of God because it did not suit thei= r pride. As harsh as the judgment seems, it is nevertheless true. Men, Christian men by profession, absolutely refuse to bow themselves to God the way God requires.

Salvation is by Gods grace. This is elementa= ry to us all. But this is a doctrine which is hated by much of the religious world. It is not simply that they do n= ot like Election or Predestination. It is apparent that God’s glorious p= lan of redemption through grace is rejected. Why? Because God demands all the credit and glory for that holy work. Man is not willing to give it to Him. = Even when many claim that they believe and preach salvation by grace, they deny = it with their flimsy man-made doctrine. They leave God completely helpless, bound up in the depraved will of ma= n. Man, like the devil, cannot tolerate taking second place. He wants to be fi= rst. Therefore, he makes God dependent upon him rather than the other way around. He will pray, he will preach, = he will sing about God’s grace. BUT HE WILL NOT ADMIT THAT GOD SAVES BY GRACE WITHOUT THE ASSI= STANCE OR FINAL TOUCH OF MAN. In oth= er words, man's doctrines are those which declare man as the final authority a= nd key to God's success in saving people.

In the early history of the church there was quite a bit of paganism brought o= ver into the church. This found its greatest zenith in Roman Catholicism. Refer= ence is made to this sort of thing it our Scripture: "Forbidding to marry, = and commanding to abstain from meats..." and several other things which ca= me directly from pagan sources. There was quite a bit of pomp and ceremony in other religions and it appears that the Christian religion was just too sim= ple for some. They claimed Christian allegiance but changed God’s re1igio= n to a world1y system that suited them.

In these days, so much success has been sect in other bodies that some churches have been tempted to depart the faith for the sake of popularity and recognition. Occasionally you will hear it among our folks that if we would= do away with some of our old strict ways, more people would come into our rank= s. We firmly believe that Peter preached salvation by grace on Pentecost. If p= ower and preaching under God's blessings added three thousand that day, there is= no reason to doubt growth with the pure truth today. It is not truth, but bad behavior and laziness, among other sins, which have kept us from growing as= we should. Then, too, we might as well face the prophetic fact of life. More a= nd more, people are denying the faith for a simple mess of worldly pottage. Fa= ith will be here when Jesus comes again. But frankly, I am not looking so much = for REVIVAL as for JUDGMENT upon thi= s old sinful world.<= /span>

In the area of m= oral righteousness, the reason for departures is simply summed up in one word - WORLDLINESS. P= eople love the world more than they love God. They have not been willing to separate themselves from the world = but have rather enlisted the wo= rld to boost up the sagging ranks of the church. Sins like those in Corinth are readily accepted today as a matter of fact. We must labor with such people without end we are told for they are not sin= ners - just sick. Bingo and other fo= rms of gambling have taken the pl= ace of prayer meeting. Psychological discourses on human behavior have been substituted for sermons on sin and righteousness. Social workers have taken the places of preachers and giant social halls have replaced the d= ear old church. Even in our ol= d timey churches it is a shame to cry and a sin to say, “Amen.” It has = been said that churches are no place to praise God, and considering the modern church, I am sure the Almighty would agree. Worldliness is the thing. Let the preacher w= ear long hair and mod clothing, encourage the ladies to wear slacks to service, serve pink lemonade and ice cream, show a film on what's wrong with the old established church and you have a sure-fire formula for success.

I think these two reasons labored with the most are the most pronounced - PRI= DE AND WORLDLINESS. All other reasons, one way or another fit into these two categories.

Now a word about signs. The subject indicates that we want to know how to ident= ify a church that is about to depart the faith. Some of our brethren have erred= in this. Some said the organ or piano was a sure sign that apostasy would fol1ow. Others = have said the same things about circles, brotherhoods, and evangelism even. What= a pity. These are not signs of death but of life if they are sincere. Rather t= han some tangible thing, I think the greatest indication or sign of departure is the attitude of an individual or church.= A young brother preacher once said, “I will never be satisfied until I = have a “Doctor” in front of my name on the church bulletin.” H= e is no longer with us. This is what I= am talking about. When people become= restless and discouraged with God’s humble and true way, watch out. They are fixing to jump the fence. Some will try to straddle it awhile serving truth= and error, but eventually pride and worldliness will carry them completely over= .

Sincere brethren with differences in opinion about certain passages of Scripture sometime scare some little people. This is no sign of departure. It is a good sign to see investigation= of the truth. As long as brethre= n are agreed on the fundamental fact of God’s sovereign grace and the moral code of the Sermon on the Mount, other differences can be agreeably tolerat= ed.

God help us to r= emain true to God and to His word. God grant that we shall not deny His doctrine and w= ill with our traditions or our innovations. The Lord give us unity in the faith once delivered to the saints.

Ministers’ School, Ocala, Florida - December 3-5, 1974

OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL = AND THEOLOGY

BROKEN OFF<= /o:p>

LESSONS TAUGHT FROM ISRAEL’S BEING BROKEN OFF. Romans 11:2= 0-22

What relationship if any exists between Israel’s being cut off (Romans 11:20) and Israel’s not being all Israel= . (Romans 9:6-8.)?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(NOTE: While no direct quotes have been taken from sources other than the Holy Bib= le, the following references have been carefully considered and compared.)=

1. An Exposition= of Romans, Robert Haldane

2. The Epistle t= o the Romans, John Murray

3. Romans, Charl= es Hodge

4. Unger’s= Bible Dictionary, Merrill F. Unger

5. Dr. Gill̵= 7;s Commentary, John Gill

6. Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Matthew Henry

7. Romans Eleven= and the Two Israels, Charles D. Alexander

8. Election and Reprobation, James Henly Thornwell

“Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of = God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” Romans 11:20-22.=

“Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they= are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Romans 9:6-8.

INTRODUCTION

The Scriptures before us come from a most complex and sublime portion of the New Testament. Chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Romans must be thoroughly digested if a= ny idea of what the apostle has before us can be comprehended. Most commentato= rs readily agree to three divisions of the book of Romans which are as follows: One - chapters 1-8; Two - chapters 9-11; and Three - chapters 12-16. The fi= rst division concerns itself with the doctrinal scheme from depravity to spirit= ual victory in Christ. The third and final portion of the book is devoted mostl= y to a practical exhortation to the saints. Paul, heavy at heart, but determined= in spirit, uses the middle three chapters to discuss a most painful subject for himself. It has to do with the place of his own countrymen, his kinsmen in = the flesh, in the plans of God. Our Scriptures have to do with this; therefore,= we must be acquainted with all of the three chapters if we are to discuss what these Scriptures mean. It is well also to refer to the Old Testament passag= es he calls upon in his own treatment of the subject.

There are three things I want us to keep before us as we go into this discussion. These three principles are in these three chapters and should be firmly fix= ed in our minds. First, the apostle views his brethren in the flesh with hope = and heaviness of heart, but he is not willing to sacrifice the demands of God’s justice to appease them. It is apparent that he views them outs= ide the circle of fellowship which he and other believing Jews have with God. I= t is a mistaken idea to think that Paul holds his brethren to be nothing more th= an disobedient children of God. Their evidences outweigh that possibility altogether. But at the same time, being well acquainted with the grace of G= od, he views none of them as being arbitrarily beyond hope. In fact, he voices = much prayer and supplication to see in them the same evidences which have come to himself by the grace of God.

Secondly, the apostle has in mind the vindication of God’s justice. However God= , in His wisdom deals with any nation or man, has to be right and just. He knew = that the Jews as a nation took for granted that they were the children of God because of the promise made to Abraham. Yet, he speaks of many of the natio= n as being cut off. The question would naturally arise: “Has God cast away= his people?” The apostle deals with this question in no uncertain words: “God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of t= he tribe of Benjamin.” In other words, all the Israelites are not cast o= ff, for the one writing these words is living proof that God saves some of them. But the real answer is in his next statement. “God hath not cast away= his people WHICH HE FOREKNEW.” God would never make such a failure or mistake. Having chosen His people in Christ, He will never suffer one to be taken from Him. But some Israelites were cut off. God is altogether just and right in doing this, for they were never foreknown as His spiritual people. Make no mistake about this. God did not cut them off from Christ. They were never in Christ. He did = not make them His children spiritually and then disown them. Included in the ch= osen nation of the Old Testament were many who were never His according to a spiritual choice. Their being cut off is nothing more or less than the expo= sure of their true beings when the real and searching light came into the earth = in the person of Jesus Christ. His light revealed their darkness. Their “whited seplchres” could not hide their “dead men’s bones” from His penetrating vision and judgment. God has indeed conde= mned many Israelites in the flesh but He has not cast away His “true Israel&= #8221; whom He foreknew. That which is cast off is not genuine but a hypocritical, self-righteous group of pretenders.

The third thing, and probably the more important thing, to be remembered in this study is the division that Paul makes in discussing Israel. This division is seen= in many of the verses in the three chapters. It is clearly defined in the expression, “For they are not all Isr= ael, which are of Israel<= /st1:place>.” The former distinction in this verse refers to the election of grace or remnant, while the latter refers to the entire nation known as Israel.= While all the natural descendants of Abraham could boast of their lineage and, consequently assume their share in the promises to Abraham; God clearly establishes the fact that His spiritual choice is based not on natural relationship but on a spiritual likeness to Abraham reckoned by faith. “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Romans 4:13. And, again in Romans 9:7,8. “Neither, beca= use they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” And when tuning to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, we fi= nd that the seed in Isaac is none other than Christ. “Now to Abraham and= his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as= of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” Galatians 3:16. Any man that = is not in Christ is none of Abraham’s. A man must be born again, “= not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” before he can be considered a son of Abraham in the sense of the promise. This understanding is what prompted John the Baptist to say, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our fathe= r: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into = the fire.” Matthew 3:9,10. This cutting down of trees, or severing them f= rom the root (notice plural of trees and singular of root) is the same as the branches being broken off the olive tree in our Roman Scriptures.

Paul divides the true Israel in Israel = from the nation as a whole. Then when he sums up in Romans 11:26, “And so all = Israel = shall be saved,” he is not contradicting himself, but to the contrary, vindica= ting God’s final victory. All true Israel, Jew and Gentile, bond= and free, male and female, shall be saved. This is the Israel chosen from the founda= tion of the world. This is the Israel which shall be purged from all dross and uncleaness. Many presumptous Jews and Gentiles= alike shall find their own lot in the lake of fire, but all Israel = shall be saved.

NOT ALL ISRAEL, WHICH ARE OF ISRAEL

The question is asked, “What relationship if any exists between Israel’s being cut off and Israel’s not being all Israel?= ” Much in every way. In fact, this is the pivotal point of the entire lesson. There is only one way in which any of Israe= l could be cut off or broken off in this final sense - and that is, that some= of them are not genuinely Israel in a chosen sense. They are impostors and are exposed as such. It would be ridiculous to suppose that God would break off from Himself in the sense the apostle is speaking of those who are His own elect. God’s people may = be chastised and punished severely but never cast completely off. To even supp= ose such a thing would be to question God’s own ability to keep that whic= h He has purchased for Himself.

The apostle begins his treatment of this idea in Romans 9:6, “Not as thou= gh the word of God hath taken none effect.” Do not suppose one moment, s= ays he, that God’s word has failed to reach His own regenerated people. T= his is not a case of elect people turning deaf ears to the convincing gospel of Christ. This is no failure of the gospel or of God. But to some it may have appeared so, because many who had claimed to be the children of God under t= he Old Covenant resisted and rejected this gospel. It did not convert them. To= the contrary it enraged them. Well, how can it be that Israel would reject the very = word of God? The simple answer comes from the apostle, “For they are not a= ll Israel, which are of Israel.”

“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.R= 21; How could anything be clearer? The apostle lays the ax to the root of the matter. This is not a question of disobedient children of God being punished with blindness for a portion of time. He says that many of Israel’s children according to the flesh “ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD.” = Not the children of God! Not in any sense!

Again in this ninth chapter, in verses 4 and 5 there is a point to consider. The apostle is naming some of the privileges of the Israelites. “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenan= ts, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose = are the fathers, and of whom CONCERNING THE FLESH Christ came, who is over all,= God blessed for ever. Amen.” The apostle is naming the blessings upon the nation as the chosen nation of God. But notice that telling little phrase concerning the coming of Christ. “And of whom CONCERNING THE FLESH Ch= rist came.” The only relationship the natural Israelites had with Christ w= as a fleshly relationship. He did not come to them as a whole in power and revelation. He came to them in the flesh only. That is the very obvious rea= son they rejected Him.

The very dialogue of Paul on the subject of election in this chapter is given to prove that some Israelites were not the children of God. When he speaks of enduring “with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” he is addressing himself primarily to the reprobates who long reigned in Isra= el the nation. He endured them to a point and no more. And what is that point? God suffer= ed Israel&= #8217;s rebellion until His purpose was accomplished in the coming of the Holy One = of Israel, the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ came as the Saviour of His chosen peo= ple and as the judge of the ungodly. His coming revealed the truth about- Israel and consequently, Israel = as a nation was cut off.

It will help in this discussion if we dwell on this most important point for a while. You will notice that Paul in the three chapters of Romans we have be= fore us quite often refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. In pursuing the stud= y of these references you will find them to be involved in prophecies of the com= ing of Christ. Psalm 69 is notable in this. The whole Psalm is a prophecy of the coming of the Lord. The blinding of Israel in part is here prophe= sied and it is contingent upon the coming of the Lord. “Let their table be= come a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let= it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not: and make their loins continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon them, and = let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and= let them not come into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.” Psalms 69:22—24,27,28. Christ is here seen in prophecy calling for the judgm= ent of God upon pretenders. They are to lose their supposed privileges, their assumed state of righteousness. “Let them not be named with thy right= eous sons” is really the interpretation of “let them be blotted out = of the book of the living.” They shall no longer have that distinction, = but the coming of Christ would show them up for what they really were.

Paul also quotes from Isaiah 29:10, to establish the fact that God prophesied the blindness of Israel<= /st1:place> at this particular time in history. “For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep and hath closed your eyes:”. The first p= art of that chapter deals with the judgment and woes upon Ariel, which is “the lion of God” or Jerusalem= , or Israel.= He announces this blinding or sealing off at the coming of the Holy One of Isr= ael. Then in the latter part of the chapter, he speaks of the remnant of Israel and Judah coming to the Holy One = of Israel and understanding. Right in the middle of that chapter, verse 15 giv= es us a remarkable insight to these events. “Woe unto them that seek dee= p to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?” This is a description of the pretenders, the counterfeit Israel who claimed to be what she could not be. And really, the only way Israel = would have consented to be the children of God (had they the choice) would have b= een on their own conditions. This is the attitude of all men in nature’s darkness. But their deceit is discovered - it is made known. The brilliant searching light of the Son of God revealed their true being. Their secret is known and they are cut off.

The Book of Hebrews will help us some on this point. In the very beginning of t= hat book, we are told, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners sp= ake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spok= en unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also= he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express ima= ge of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he h= ad by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Hebrews 1:1-3. Christ here is the LAST to speak. His word in t= he LAST DAYS are the final words. His words are judgment and verity, straight = from the throne of the Majesty on high. He is the EXPRESS IMAGE of the Person of= the Godhead. That is, He is the Eternal Word, the expression or voice of true judgment.

Now, keeping that in mind, move over to the fourth chapter of this book. “= For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints= and marrow, and is a DISCERNER (discoverer) of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest is his sight: but= all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” Hebrews 4:12, l3. = Now this word of God here mentioned is the same as that of the first chapter. H= e is the living, personal word of the Godhead, even our Lord Jesus Christ. What = is described here is what He did in His first coming. He knew what was in all = men. He revealed the truth about the Israelites. They were descendants of Abraha= m in the flesh but not according to the promise. He called them “children = of the devil.” He told many of them that they would “die in their sins.” He said to some of them “Ye believe not because ye are n= ot of my sheep.” All the ancestral boasts, long prayers and stately robes could not hide the truth from Him who was Truth. As the Lord discovered and= revealed their true being, the nation was doomed. The false pretenders would be cut = off, and true Israel made manifest. Yes, true Israel is purged from the whole lump. He, the Son of God, is the refiner and the fuller’s soap which tries, cleanses and purges the lump of Israel.= Out of that trying comes the remnant or true Israel, and the dross is cut = off and thrown away.

The prophets had been telling this for centuries but the nation of Israel continued with its presumption and boasting. But when the Son of God was revealed from Heaven as the true and piercing light, sin was exposed fully,= and the unrighteous were made known. Israel, the nation was cut of= f. Israel,= the chosen, remained in the stock of the olive tree and bore fruit to the glory= of God in the beginnings of Christianity.

TWO OLIVE TREES<= o:p>

We come now to discuss the Scriptures from Romans 11:20-22. Just before these verses, the apos= tle establishes his metaphor of two olive trees. One is the natural or domestic olive tree which is the church in the Old Testament. The other is the wild olive tree which is the Gentiles. Now, God in the person of Christ the judg= e, found many branches in the first olive tree not bearing fruit. He cuts them= out completely. This is the cutting or breaking off of the unbelieving Jews. Th= en He found some branches in the wild olive tree budding forth with promise of good. These He took and grafted into the natural tree. It is interesting to note the meaning of the word “graft” in the Greek. It means literally to “Prick in.” This shows the reason the apostle chose this simile. When Gentiles, who were considered wild and strange to the kingdom of God, were pricked in their hearts = or born again, they became partakers of the fatness of the root of the natural olive tree. The natural branches which showed no signs of spiritual life or fruit-bearing qualities were cut off.

Why were they broken off? We have just stated because they bore no fruit. They = are like the fig tree that had no figs. Jesus put a curse on it and it withered away. A fig tree that bears no figs has no right to be called a fig tree. It has no right to cumber the ground or take up the place of those which could= be bearing fruit. A fruitless branch in an olive tree is the same. It is cut o= ut and a fruitful branch is grafted in. Paul says, “Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” So we come to these two great word= s, “unbelief” and “faith”.

Do not mistake the meaning of this word, “unbelief.” It is true th= at God’s children are often in doubt. It is true that a child of God who believes can have some elements of unbelieving about him. But this word, as= it is used here and most places in the Bible, carries with it the weight of TO= TAL REJECTION AND REBELLION AGAINST GOD! There is not one evidence of belief or faith in them. And the only way a branch can abide in that tree under the piercing judgment of Christ is that it “standest by faith.” It = must bear fruit. A momentary glance at John 15 will help us here. “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: (this is the cutting off or severing completely of unfruitful branches.) and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, t= hat it may bring forth more fruit.” John 15:1,2. The true branches are purged or pr= uned; that is, they are refined through persecutions and trials and made to glori= fy God in their bodies, but the unfruitful branches are totally cut out, withe= rs and burns!

Now at this point there are three errors of interpretation I would like to inve= stigate for a moment concerning believing (standing by faith) or being cut off beca= use of unbelief. First, there is the Arminian error which places all the emphas= is for salvation upon the individual power of believing. That is, they assume = that all men have within themselves the freedom of will to believe or reject at their own volition. This is incorrect. “All men have not faith.” Faith is a gift of God, a fruit of the Spirit. Galatians 5:22. “But t= he natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know then, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthia= ns 2:14. It is not unbelief as a= mere act on the part of a free man that caused the Israelite to be cut out, but rather, unbelief as an evidence or proof of his reprobate condition. The judgment of God in Christ found many Jews in the flesh, in the ceremonial a= nd outward worship of God, to be counterfeit, false and untrue. Unbelief is si= mply the proof of their real being. Faith, or the act of believing, on the other hand, is the outward evidence of the Gentiles who were grafted in. They were not brought in because they believed, but because they evidenced by their believing that they were born again.

Secondly, there is the error of what we might call Dispensationalism. This is a various group of ideas b= uilt around the idea that Jews are cut out temporarily, but that as a nation they will all be brought back in. This is built around a false interpretati= on of the statement, “that blindness in part is happened to Israel,= until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” The first mistake made here is concerning “blindness in part.” This statement by the apostle does= not mean as they seem to allude that all of Isr= ael has been partly blinded, but that part of <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Israel has been totally blind= ed. How clear that is in the latter part of the 7th verse of chapter 11. “= ;The election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded.” There is a part= of Israel = that sees and a part which does not see. There is a part that is elect and a part that is not. The second error arises from their misunderstanding of the “fulness of the Gentiles."= They seem to think this means that when God gets all the Gentiles in that He wants to save, He will start over with the Jews all over again. This constitutes a real perversion of the glorious setting up of the gospel chur= ch at the first coming of Christ. It seems to say that God is going back to give the unbelieving Jews another ch= ance. But the whole New Testament revolts against the idea of God ever dealing wi= th an individual nation again. THERE IS BUT ONE NATION UNDER GOD SPIRITUALLY. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be J= ews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink in= to one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:13. And, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: fo= r ye are all ONE in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye ABRAHAM’S SEED, AND HEIRS according to the promise.” Galatians 3:28,29. Once more, “Wh= ere there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” Colossians 3= :11. THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER ISRAEL OTHER THAN THE WHOLE FAMILY OF GOD, MADE UP OF ALL NATIONS ON EARTH. And that is exactly what the term, “the fulness of the Gentiles,” means. The coming in of the Gent= iles is the filling up of the measure of the kingdom. First came the Jews, then = the Samaritans and finally, the Gentiles. (see Acts l:8 for Christ’s own command concerning this order.)

It is noticeable that immediately after the apostle mentions this fulness of t= he Gentiles coming in, he adds with no hesitation, “And so all Israel = shall be saved.” All the Israel of God, both Jew and Gentile, grafted into one tree shall be saved. Jews have been grafted into that tree as well as Genti= les. This is the only way they will be saved - the same as the Gentiles. Those w= ho have been born again and those who will yet be born again will have part in= the fatness of the root of the tree.

“As concerning the gospel, they (national Israel in unbelief) are enemi= es for your sakes: but as touching the election (the Jews or Israelites who are elected and called) they are beloved for the fathers’ sake.” Pa= ul is simply saying that Jews will continue to be saved but only those who are= the elect of God will be in that number, whether it be many or few. “For = God hath concluded them all (both Gentile and Israelite) in unbelief, that he m= ight have mercy upon all.” This is simply an establishment of the fact that salvation is not exclusively for the Jew in the Old Testament nor for the Gentile in the New Testament, but that all who are saved in either period a= re saved by the mercy of God. On= ly God can enable either to believe. All are shut up together in unbelief, or all = fall short of the glory of God. Those who are made to stand by faith can give ho= nor to God’s mercy and grace. Whether there shall be an increase in the numbers of Israelites to believe in Christ remains to be seen, but one thin= g is certain. No Israelite or Gent= ile who remains in rejection of Christ and dies in his sins is going to be graf= ted into that tree. The only ones who come in will come by the ONE WAY FOR ALL = and that is by the new birth or the new creation.

The third erroneous idea that I would warn against is the notion that all natio= nal Israelites are the children of God. This is really worse than the Arminian heresy. The Arminians say that it is the Jews' or Gentiles’ own belie= ving (of himself) that will save him. This third idea says they will be saved ev= en in spite of their hardened unbelief and rejection of Christ. This is an ama= zing thing for one to believe in the very face of the doctrine of Christ, Who sa= ys, "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6. National Israel = is a type of the family of God, but under no circumstances can we assume that all natural descendants of Abraham were the children of God. This has already b= een proven sufficiently. Beware of this third interpretation. It leads to all k= inds of errors, culminating finally into fatalism and universalism. No man can successfully believe in the effectual working of God’s grace, or what= we call “effectual calling,” and at the same time suppose that some are going to be saved who never show any evidence whatsoever of a change.

Now we come finally to these last words on lessons taught from Israel&= #8217;s being broken off. One lesson is the fact that Israel’s salvation never ceased. The nation ceased but the salvation of God’s chosen among them continued. Not all the branches were broken off. The early Christians = were Jews. There have been Jews as well as Gentiles in the Christian church from that day until this, but they are the same in the Lord’s eye. Not only so, but the promise is given by the apostle, “And they also (that is, among the Jews or natural branches) if they abide not still in unbelief, sh= all be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.” This is an amazing thing. Even though the nation as a whole seems to be broken off, it= is not so - some will be grafted in again. Those who are of national Israel,= being born again, come in with the Gentiles. Notice "God is able —.” It is by God’s grace that they are saved, not because they were kin to Abraham= in the flesh. We do not have to wait for the Jews to come back to the kingdom. They have been coming since the days of the Apostles. It is beautiful to se= e, and the apostle glories in their salvation by saying, “What shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” It appears that the mo= st were cut off, and yet we still see them coming, as if arising from the ruin= s of ancient Israel, believing Jews, born of the Spirit of God. The curse is on the nation but t= he elect are saved!

Another lesson to be seen in this is that this cutting off of Israel = was evidence that the Old Covenant had been fulfilled by the New. God’s eternal covenant of Grace was being put into visual effect. No longer would there be a nation on earth calling themselves the people of God, but now th= ere would be one great spiritual nation made up of all of God’s people. T= his is that “holy nation” mentioned by Peter. For those who look fo= r a future renewed nation of natural Israelites in the H= oly Land I hold no comfort or encouragement. The only Holy Land th= ere is now or ever will be is in the church and bride of the Lord Jesus Christ scattered through many nations.

But now I enter what I think is the one greatest lesson which can be learned by= us today from these Scriptures. That lesson can be found in the warning of the apostle to the Gentiles. “Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Be not high-minded but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also sp= are not thee.” Paul feared to see in the Gentiles the same thing that he = had witnessed in the Jews. Boasti= ng and a feeling of security, even of superiority because of preference. He did not want them to think that God cut the Jews off and brought the Gentiles in because the Gentiles were better than the Jews. Nor would he want to see in them that pride and presumption that had so characterized Israel. “Be not high-minded, but fear!” says he. For if God sees in any= of you that you are not genuine, that you are counterfeit, that you are a mere professor of religion, He will not hesitate to cut you off. “If God spared not the natural branches, take heed --!” Is there a possibility that I may be cut off?

Brethren, be not alarmed at my thinking. To me, this is the major thrust of Bible evangelism for us among our people in this day. It is not my concern that G= od will lose one of His children. No, a thousand times no! “Nevertheless= the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them th= at are his.” 2 Timothy 2:19. God shall never lose one of His. Thank God = for that! But this verse gives not only comfort - it gives me a chill. If God k= nows who are His, He also knows as well who are NOT his! The question for me, th= en - for all of us, yes, all of us, is this: Am I what I claim to be, what I thi= nk I am? Do I belong to Him?

Paul had this same burden on his heart when he wrote to the Hebrews and warned t= hem, “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of un= belief, in departing from the living God.” Hebrews 3:12. Yes, he called them = his brethren. But would there be evidence enough for Christ to call them brethr= en? That is the big question. God knows His elect. He will save them all. I can= not make myself elect or non-elect - it is out of my jurisdiction. But I must Know! God grant me the consol= ation and comfort of assurance. Am I a child of God? I love God, I go to church, I prea= ch the gospel, I visit the sick, I think about the kingdom of God and righteousness. I stand pretty well before the community and with my brethren in the Lord’s house. Yet, down in my heart, there are those = dark reminders of things that ought not to be. O GOD! What am I? Can I make my calling a= nd election sure to myself? God grant it.&nbs= p; Is there reason for a hope in me?&n= bsp; Please, God, grant it. Lord, let me see the evidence of Thy Spirit working in me, fruit coming forth from this lowly branch. (Let me know that I am in that beloved root and vine whi= ch is Christ Jesus my Lord.)

Amen.=

January 13, 1976 Eighty-Third Session Primitive Baptist Ministers’ School, Frank Primitive Baptist Church

RESTATEMENT OF T= HE PURPOSE OF THE MINISTERS’ SCHOOL

A. The teaching and leaning experience.

“A SCHOOL OF= THE PROPHETS” This is the ca= ption of an article on the inside front cover of the November, 1948 Banner-Herald written by Elder J. Walter Hendricks. It is altogether fitting that we quote some words from that article to give us some historical insight as to the setting up of our Ministers’ School.

“For some years now I have had a great desire to help my brethren in the ministr= y. Now that I am giving up my pastoral labors, closing out with the month of October this year, I wish to make a start.

We have made a very decided step forward in our ministerial assemblies, meeting for a day at a time and discussing problems that have to do with our succes= s as ministers, with the advancement of the cause of Christ in the earth, and for the glory of God.

Now if it will please our brother preachers, I want to ask that we meet at some central place for a week at a time, beginning Monday at two P.M. and closing out at Friday noon. That would give four full days and let all of the pasto= rs have time to attend upon their regular pastoral labors. If desirable this c= ould be protracted for another week or more.”

Brother Hendricks then outlines in the fourth paragraph of that article just what he had in mind as a purpose for the school. This will begin for us a re-statem= ent of the purpose of the school as outlined in the program. His words are as follows:

“There are many questions that I think we ought to consider, among them being (1) = How to study our bibles more successfully.&nbs= p; (2) How to preach more effectively. (3) How to organize our churches better and secure the full and efficient cooperation of every member. (4) H= ow to win for the church those whom God has saved in our communities. Under th= ese heads there would be many sub-heads; for instance, the use of correct and effective English, the correct reading and quoting of the Scriptures, pulpit manners, and pastoral visits with the members and friends.”

Elder Hendricks knew that the question of leadership would naturally arise, but he already had the answer for that. “At first I shall want to be the hea= d of the school, but not so permanently. I know all of the preachers very well, = and I know which ones can help in the teaching, and I should want the privilege= of choosing my “faculty” at first. Of course every one is to feel = free to help in any way possible and offer suggestions at any time. We older ones can still help each other, and we certainly ought to try in every way to he= lp those who are younger.”

He went on to suggest a daily schedule which has been followed with minor chan= ges since that day. He also projected the idea of a night service with preaching for the public during the session and called for our larger churches to iss= ue invitations for such meetings.

The idea was readily accepted by many ministers and invitations came almost immediately from several churches. By the end of the month, invitations had come from Beard’s Creek, Lake and Savannah churches respectively. Accordingly, the first meeting was set for BeardR= 17;s Creek Church, near Glenville, Georgia for Monday, January 3= , 1949 through January 7, ending on Friday at noon.

It is of interest to our subject to examine the first program used by the scho= ol twenty-seven years ago at Beard’s Creek. The program was as follows:<= o:p>

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>HOW TO STUDY THE BIBLE: Elders V. F. Agan and A. W. Corley

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>THE PREPARATION = AND DELIVERY OF SERMONS: Elders W. C. Kicklighter and W. Henry Waters

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>THE PURPOSE OF G= OSPEL PREACHING: Elders H. C. Stubbs and Maurice T. Thomas

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>THE VALUE AND US= E OF CORRECT ENGLISH: Elders Geo. B. Goddard and W. E. Price

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>MINSTERIAL ETHIC= S AND CONDUCT: Elders R. H. Jennings and A. R. Crumpton

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>COMPLETE CHURCH ORGANIZATION: Elders John D. Durden and A. H. Garner

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>ORDER AND ARRANG= EMENT OF SERVICES: Elders N. P. Vandiver and W. F. Mims

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>YOUNG PEOPLER= 17;S ACTIVITIES AND BIBLE SCHOOL: Elder J. Harley Chapman and J. Fred Hartley

It was also noted on the program that Elder Hendricks, Organizer of the School, would assist in all lessons.

It can be detected from this program that Elder Hendricks had in mind a discus= sion group designed to help each other primarily on functions and conduct of the pastor and secondarily, to share convictions about the doctrines. Out of the eight subjects, seven were devoted to practical work of the minister and one was devoted primarily to doctrinal matters. It was the consensus at that ti= me that most of the preachers were well grounded in doctrinal understanding but quite lacking in practical functions. The school was designed to help all o= ur ministers, principally the young, toward a better understanding of pastoral works and pulpit manners.

However, it should be added that doctrinal discussions should not be excluded from t= he sessions. That was never the intention of the founder or his co-laborers. I began attending the school in its seventh session and third year of operati= on and have been fairly active in it for nearly all its existence. I am convin= ced that neither Brother Hendricks nor those who have followed him have desired= no doctrinal discussions but have rather encouraged them. But the overall prim= ary intent has been to help train one another in better service. There have been and are times when it is necessary to bring up and discuss doctrinal issues= . It is fitting that such subjects should be put on the program. Even controvers= ial ideas are very beneficial if we all remember the cardinal rule of Christian charity with one another. We shall get into this more in the latter part of= the lesson but should at the moment return to the historical development of the school.

That first session in January 1949, was a great success. There is no record of h= ow many attended although it is on record that 31 elders attended the second sessio= n at Lake = Church, Metter, Ga., in February 1949. The third session was held in March of that same year at = the Savannah Church. Thus the first year in our history came into being with great success. Many responses came in from ministers to Elder Hendricks after the first session testifying of its great influence on them. Gradually, the one-day ministerial associations began to fade and the School of the Prophets became a regular program for our minist= ers every year, meeting three times; in December, January and February. Few cha= nges have come about except the change of name and the shortened sessions.<= /o:p>

The name, SCHOOL OF THE PROPHETS, was given by Elder Hendricks, the founder, and it is safe to say he would not have consented t= o a change of name gracefully. This change to THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST MINISTERS’ SCHOOL came only after Elder Hendricks’ death. He was very fond of the old name and had borrowed it from the practice of Samuel in the Old Testament. Although the wording is not found exactly like that in t= he Bible, it is generally agreed that there was a school of the prophets overs= een by Samuel. Elijah and Elisha both later supervised a school of this sort, probably the same one. Then Ezra also had such a school of the prophets in = his day. Many scholars believe that the Jewish synagogue of Jesus’ day was the outgrowth of such schools.

Although the name has a Biblical setting, there has always been some objection to it because of the general use of the word, prophet. Some newspaper ads really fixed us up good writing at random about our “Schools for prospective prophets and fortunetellers.” But objection to the name did not erase= it as long as Brother Hendricks lived. His use of the word and ours also is th= at a prophet is a preacher and the school was not to teach them how to preach or prophesy but to help them in learning more about the Scriptures, godly livi= ng and practice. No doubt, this was the very purpose of Samuel’s school.= No one, Samuel or Elder Hendricks, was able to; nor did they aspire to; teach someone how to preach the word of God. Only God can make a prophet or preac= her - but we who are thus called can certainly help one another to improve upon= the use of our God-given talents.

Another change that came into being was the shortened session. Brother Hendricks was against this idea, too, but it finally prevailed. For several years the sch= ool had convened on Monday at 1 P.M. with an afternoon session. Then Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday was a full day schedule, followed by a 3-hour morni= ng session on Friday, with adjournment coming at noon. We now convene our sess= ion on Tuesday morning at 9 A.M. and conclude at noon on Thursday. There is preaching on Monday through Wednesday nights. There used to be preaching al= so on Thursday nights under the old schedule. The change was urged by ministers who said too much of their pastoral time was being taken and that they want= ed to be able to stay for the whole session. Elder Hendricks and others mainta= ined that no matter what time you convened some of the elders would be late out = of pure habit. This proved to be the case. Some people used to come on Tuesday= and leave on Thursday. Now with the shorter schedule they come Tuesday night an= d leave Wednesday afternoon. If we had but one day they would probably come just for lunch.

It had been the hope of the founder and others that most of our ministers would take advantage of this school. But that has not been the case, unfortunatel= y. The average attendance is somewhere around thirty. We have had as many as s= ixty and as few as fifteen in total attendance. Generally the attendance varies = from twenty-five to forty. Some ministers attend just occasionally. Some never h= ave attended. There have been some, both young and old who have been very faith= ful. These miss only in rare instances. These are the ones who make the school w= ork.

The question arises, “Why will some not attend?” The answers are varied. Some just do not take the time. Some feel they are unable to contri= bute anything worthwhile, not realizing that they would gain a great deal. Some evidently do not feel they can be taught anything, already knowing it all. Others just do not believe in the school. Most of our preachers, it would be fair to point out, do feel that it is a great blessing. The most common rea= son for not attending, probably, is poor planning - not getting ready in time to make the effort.

The school was based on the idea that every man God calls is able to teach some= body something. Every preacher is of necessity a teacher. One brother was once h= eard to say, “I am just a very poor Old Baptist preacher.” Someone w= ho heard this, answered, “I know. I heard you last Sunday.” Maybe = some are not as good at teaching as they should be, but if God calls a man, God = will enable him to preach and teach somebody something. God should not be accuse= d of making a mistake. If you are really called to preach, you had better acknowledge that you are able to teach. I am persuaded that a man well educ= ated in the word of God; that is, by prayerful study and meditation of the Holy Bible is the best-educated man in the world. Other things are important, su= ch as grammar, public speaking and plain old common manners. But a man well ve= rsed in Scripture will use good grammar. Constant godly preaching will teach him more about public speaking than all the seminaries in the world. If he will meticulously study his Bible he will naturally develop good grammar and cultivate a rich vocabulary. A grand way to lean is to associate with and listen to other men of God in their preaching.

The proof is in the pudding. Paul was probably the only well-educated man among= the early apostles. Most of them were declared to be ignorant and unlearned men, but take note of the writings of Peter and John. Compare them with Paul’s. There is not a whit difference in their abilities to teach and preach the word of God. This is because they were constantly schooled in prayer, study and devotion. They learned from the Master and from one anoth= er.

This is what the school is all about. We help each other. We learn from one anot= her. Most of us will go home from each school with several new ideas or “texts” hardly able to wait for a chance to try something we ha= ve learned on our own congregations. None of us has reached that place where we cannot be helped. Our lives are made richer by hearing someone else comment= on certain ideas or interpretations.

In a practical sense, what young preacher has not been helped? And a novice ne= eds all the help he can get. I will never forget my first attempt to baptize someone. It was in a baptistry and I was wearing rubbers boots or waders (something I knew nothing about). I stepped into the pool and the air in the boots took over. One foot went one way and the other the opposite and I fell hopelessly beneath the depths. It was quite a spectacle and an unforgettable embarrassment to me. Just simple instructions on how to go about baptizing a person can be very profitable to young preachers. Many a preacher in the ru= ral areas has gotten into difficulty trying to baptize with the current in a st= ream rather than against it. How to fix your hands and handle your candidate, wh= at words to say - all of this, for the most part, has to be picked up watching other ministers. We can help our young preachers very much in this area.

The Value and Use of Correct English was a standard subject while Brother Hendr= icks was with us. We have gotten away from this. Maybe it is because it does not bother us as much as it did him to hear someone butcher the English languag= e. Preachers should study to improve their grammar. We can help one another a great deal here with proper criticism and corrections. A preacher should be able to take constructive criticism. If not he will not last too long with = the average congregation anyhow. We need more subjects along this line today.

When we do have doctrinal subjects we should keep in mind another principle adva= nced by Elder Hendricks. He said, “God’s ministers should be able to= be agreeable even in their apparent disagreements.” He often quoted Jesus’ words, “Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16. It is a known fact that no two preachers are g= oing to agree on every jot and tittle of interpretation. While we must be agreed= on the fundamental fact of salvation, and in harmony concerning the basic arti= cles of faith we subscribe to, it is doubtful if any of us will ever be complete= ly agreed on the interpretation of parables or on the visions of Revelation. B= ut we should be patient and understanding with one another, and in the process, learn from one another.

Argument has no place in the school, but there is plenty of room for honest, spiritu= al debate. Who knows? I have found myself quite sure of a position on a parable only to have it shattered by my brethren in honest discussion. None of us should have fixed preconceived notions about a matter and try to force the Scriptures or circumstances to fit our idea whether they will or not. We sh= ould be willing to learn, even to the extent of admitting we were wrong.

It is my opinion that one of the greatest blessings from the school comes from practical suggestions. Older ministers have rendered invaluable service to younger through their experiences and suggestions. Even some comical critic= ism of ourselves has been, not only entertaining, but very instructive. I learn= ed not to constantly repeat over and over, “each and every one of you= 221; quite early in my ministry. Elder Hendricks was no doubt one of our best in= structors along this line. He told some of the brethren to quit rattling the change in their pockets while they were preaching. “The folks will think you ha= ve plenty of money and will not pay you.” He was criticizing some pulpit gestures at one tine. He said, “Guy Smith will squat down behind the pulpit where he cannot be seen for a moment - then shoot straight up like a rocket with his arm and one finger pointing up almost as if he is going to punch a hole in God Almighty’s blue heaven.” He pointed out that another preacher should wear tighter britches to keep his congregation more= at ease. That preacher looked like he was about to lose his pants every time he preached. He asked Elder P. 0. Revels, Sr. one time if he knew how to get a goose fat. When Elder Revels looked puzzled, Brother Hendricks smiled and s= aid, “Nail his feet to the floor.”

Such things kept us laughing but we were learning. And something else came from this, too. Fellowship with our brethren in the ministry is one of the great blessings we have in this earth. Men who are called of God can share with e= ach other what they can share with no other - a mutual understanding and love f= or the kingdom of God.

I think the teaching and learning experience is all summed up in the history = of the school. You have seen with me the dream of one of our great men of God.= You have seen it develop even after God has taken him from our midst. Many othe= rs have gone with him, but their lives remain in ours in so many ways. And this school has made most of that possible.

It happened twenty four or five years ago but I still smile when I think of it. Elder W. Henry Waters was speaking on the assigned subject of “The Tw= elve Sons of Jacob.” He was enjoying himself talking about Reuben. After f= orty minutes he was still on Reuben and the schoolmaster, Elder Hendricks, yelled out almost impolitely, “Henry, do you expect ever to get to those oth= er eleven boys?” It was funny - it still is. But not all funny. That one thing taught me a little bit about arranging my subject with the time in mi= nd. That can be very important. The school has been a blessing. Thank God for i= t. God bless it to continue for years to come.

THE SCHOOL OF THE PROPHETS

(Circular No. 3)=

This School is being held upon the following principles:

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>1. That there is a God - Father, Son and Holy Ghost - three-in-One.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>2. That God has a church in the earth and th= at Jesus is its head.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>3. That this church is made up of baptized believers in the Lord, Jesus Christ, upon a profession of their faith and t= he promise of obedience to the commandments of Christ.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>4. That the church is to be nurtured, instru= cted, reproved, corrected, and guided by ministers called of God and ordained to = the work by presbyteries under and by the authority of any local church of Jesus Chr= ist, and such ministers are called Elders.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>5. That all such ministers stand in constant= need of more knowledge of God’s word, and greater wisdom in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God in the world.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>6. That each minister, under God’s ble= ssings and mercy, can help other ministers to learn how to do their work better and more efficiently. Every preacher a teacher under God.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>7. That each minister will take it kindly and without embarrassment when His mistakes are corrected, and determine to do better in the future.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>8. That each minister, called of God, will b= e glad and eager to learn more, to make every improvement necessary to a successful ministry, to grow in grace and in the knowledge of truth.=

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>9. That God’s ministers are necessarily leaders, no matter how unworthy they may feel to be, and that there is great need of wise, safe, and godly leadership.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>10. That Gods ministers, as servants of= Jesus Christ and His church, will strive to promote and cultivate love, sweet fellowship, and Christian brotherhood among themselves and with all other Christian people everywhere.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>11. That all of God’s ministers s= hould consider as sacred their obligations to the churches, to society, to their government, in business, in politics, and to those that are without the chu= rch.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>12. That the minister of God has a spec= ial duty and obligation to the poor, the distressed, the bereaved, the sick, the shut-ins, the weak, the doubting, the halting, the penitent mourner, the ti= mid and shy.

<= span style=3D'font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Bookman Old Style"'>13. That each and every minister in attendance will give of his best for the success of the school and for the glory of God.

Yours for a better ministry,

Elder J. Walter Hendricks

Baptist Ministers School, Arbor Church, Lynchburg, Tennessee, December 4-6, 1979

DISCUSSION OF AC= TS 1:5; ACTS 2:4; AND ACTS 10:44-48

IN COMPARISON WI= TH EPHESIANS 5:18

It is evident that the general theme, “TRY THE SPIRITS,” arises fr= om serious observations on the teachings concerning the Holy Spirit. This program has been well designe= d for the purpose of steering our brethren in the proper Scriptural course of understanding and preaching the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. There are dangers; there always ha= ve been in this greatly needed study. Those dangers are summed up primarily under two headings. First, a total disregard of much of Bible teaching on the work of the Holy Spirit. There is and has been a rath= er cold, lifeless orthodoxy about this subject in the established church. Meas= ures designed to correct this first danger and fault, have inadvertently caused = the second great danger, which is equally non-Scriptural and unbalanced. This is the effort to create for ourselves a spiritual revival which is counterfeit, fictitious arising out of man’s own spirit rather than from the Spiri= t of the living God. To avoid either or both of these extremes, the proper appro= ach is given by John and wisely adopted as the general theme of this program. We must "try the Spirits," for there are false “spirits” even as there are false prophets zone out into the world. We are not to believe a thing simp= ly because it appears to be spiritual and vivifying, but are to test all such teachings and experiences by the final authority, which is the word of God. The genuine Spirit of Go= d and the written word of God must harmonize.&nb= sp; They can do no otherwise since the Holy Spirit is the author of the written word. Some men try to fit the word to their experiences. This is getting the cart before the horse. The word is the measure by which every experience must be tried.

Let us therefore stick to the word, following the advice of John, that we may be able to stay clear of these two extremes - too little, of the Spirit and too much of that exciting and glib arousing which is not the Spirit. Paul R. Van Gorder made this interesting observation in a RADIO BIBLE CLASS message on = the "Power of His Baptism." "If Satan can’t stop you by putting tacks under your tire= s, giving you a flat and slowing you down, then he will climb up beside you in= the seat and say, “Step on the gas!" Even the casual observer in Christ= endom will detect either the spiritual “flat tire"of a dea= d, cold orthodoxy or the misguided, unscriptural “speeding” of wildfire fanaticism. May God give us a scriptural balance."=

We come now to speak to those verses assigned in this subject. The committee h= as grouped three selections from Acts to be compared with the text in Ephesians 5:18. Those in Acts all prima= rily have to do with the BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit while the one in Ephesians i= s a command to “be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Of course there is an initial “filling” in the baptism, as noted in Acts 2:4, “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” We will of necessity then compare = and differentiate between the baptism and the filling.

Acts 1:5, the first verse assigned to the subject, is an obvious introduction to= the subject of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.&= nbsp; These are the words of Jesus at the time of His ascension. "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” There is no dou= bt but that this verse is a prophecy, a repetition of prophecies already made of an HISTORIC event that is to take place "not many days hence." Let us therefore consider the Bapt= ism of the Holy Ghost in three dimensions. First, it is the fulfillment of prophecy. Second, it is historic. Third, it = is initiatory. By considering the subject in these three ways, we can get a clearer picture of what is really meant by the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

But before going into these three thoughts, in passing, let us make one observa= tion in a negative way. Many earne= st, though misinformed, people say almost boastingly they have been baptized wi= th the Holy Spirit and with fire. They base their understanding on the words of John the Baptist in Matthew and Luke. Luke 3:16 records John saying, “= ;I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet = of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with, the Holy Ghost and with fire." Th= ose are basically the same words found in Matthew 3:11. But let it be pointed out that whi= le there is a baptism of fire IT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE BAPTISM OF THE H= OLY GHOST. Keep in view the conte= xt of What John is saying. In Luke 3:17, he follows up with this, “Whose fa= n is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the whe= at into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” = He gathers His wheat and He burns up the chaff. Christ is the One who does the baptizing here. It is a picture of His first coming, which in itself is a coming in judgment. "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see: and = that they which see might be made blind.”= John 9:39. The Lord Je= sus Christ came as the messenger of the covenant to set all things in order for= His kingdom. The prophecy of Him in Malachi 3:2, 3 states, “But who may a= bide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is lik= e a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap: and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and p= urge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.”

The baptism of the Spirit is seen fulfilled initially on the day of Pentecost. = The baptism of fire and judgment is seen primarily in the destruction not only = of Jerusalem and Judea, but of the old Jewish forms of worship. Believers are not baptized with fire. As a final note on this, give good attention to the fact that Jesus made no mention of being baptized with fire when He referred to John in Acts 1:5. “For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” John spoke them together for they go together in this first coming of Jesus. He came to set= apart His kingdom through the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and to oust all false prophets and pretenders through a baptism of fire and judgment.<= /span>

BAPTISM OF THE H= OLY GHOST - PROPHESIED.

There is a close relationship between the prophetic and historic aspects of this baptism and we probably will overlap some in the two sub-heads. But at the = same time, both aspects need to be considered. Those familiar with Acts 2 will h= ave no hesitation in believing that what took place on that unique day was prophesied by Joel. Peter does not leave us in doubt about that. "And = it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your Sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and up= on the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the hea= vens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkn= ess, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pa= ss, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the = Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." Joel 2:28-32,= and quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17-21. The real point of mentioning this prophecy= is to show that Joel is foretelling by the Spirit of a definite one time event which shall come to pass at a particular time. And of those events which ca= used such amazement on the Day of Pentecost, Peter said, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." Acts 2:16. The coming of the Spirit, the incl= usion of other nations among the Gentiles in the kingdom, the miraculous events, = the destruction and demise of the old forms of worship, and the empowering of t= he new covenant kingdom are all prophesied in this passage from Joel. "The great and terrible day of the Lord’s coming” is a recurring the= me in the book of Joel and has reference to the FIRST coming of our Lord. It is not just His advent or incarnation but more His coming in POWER to establish His kingdom. “The day of his coming” in Malachi 3:2 (already mentioned) has reference to the same thing. Jesus had reference to these same = days in Matthew 24:4-35.

The prophecies of John the Baptist already mentioned and the prophecy of Jesus,= as stated in Acts 1:5, all point to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.

But we must enlarge on that for just a moment. Does not the prophet Joel include Gentiles in his prophecy of this event? And were not all those involved on = the day of Pentecost Jews? Yes, to both of these questions. Is it not also true that there are other instances in the Acts of similar experiences like this= day of Pentecost? Yes. The committee included one of these messages (Acts 10:44= -48) in this discussion. This has to do with the “falling” of the Ho= ly Ghost on Cornelius and those of his household. But there is another passage prior to this one. It is found in Acts 8. You will remember when Philip went and preached to the Samaritans and many believed, the Church in Jerusalem sent Pe= ter and John to investigate. The apostles laid hands on the believers in Samaria and ̶= 0;they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:17. This is simply an extension of Pentecost according to the evangelistic blueprint laid out by Christ in Acts 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come u= pon you (Apostles and 120): and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, (the first ones to come into the kingdom were Jews) and = in Samaria, (the second group to come in were the remnants of the ten northern tribes of the revolt) and unto the uttermost part of the earth. These last = are the Gentiles who are initially brought in by the great experience of Cornel= ius and his household at Caesarea. So then w= e can conclude that all these experiences fit Scripturally into the historic even= t of Pentecost. But there is one other passage in Acts which cannot be ignored.<= o:p>

Some have used Acts 19:1-7 as a basis to say that the baptism of the Holy Ghost = was not confined to one historic event, and that a man can be a disciple of the Lord and not have this baptism. While it is easy to see that the other references fit into the full scope of all kinds of people in the Pentecostal empowering, this particular passage will not fit in that scope, so we must = give the proper meaning to it.

The first mistake that is made by those who use this passage to show that the baptism of the Holy Ghost comes after one is a disciple of Jesus, is simply= to take for granted that these men are the Lord’s disciples and the Scriptures do not teach that. Notice that first verse in Acts 19, “An= d it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Ephesus: and finding certain disciples." There is not= hing said about their being disciples of Jesus. In fact the context proves they = were disciples of John the Baptist, and apparently they knew nothing beyond John’s baptism of repentance. It is only after Paul preached Jesus Ch= rist to them and baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, that Paul would lay his hands on them. Then the Holy Ghost came upon them and they spake with tongues and prophesied. Whatever else this passage may teach, it does not t= each that a man may be a disciple of the Lord without the Holy Ghost, and later receive a special baptism of the Holy Ghost which will set him apart from o= ther disciples of the Lord. It arr= ears to me that the main thrust of this passage is to show the great difference between the work and baptism of John the Baptist and that of the newly empowered kingdom of our Lord and Saviour. That of John was a preparatory m= inistry that heralded the coming of Christ. It has served its purpose. It is no longer sufficient for discipleship in our Lord’s king= dom.

THE BAPTISM OF T= HE HOLY GHOST - HISTORIC.

As we stated before much of the historic aspect of this subject has already be= en touched upon in the fulfilling of prophecy. But I want us to see that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a remarkable event in history, not an experie= nce which is repeated in all generations. Augustine has a saying that has some merit. He said, “Pentecost was the birth of the Spirit." Now some may object to that, knowing that the Holy Spirit, like Christ, existed all along. In fact, He is much in evidence from the beginning. There is no deba= te about that. Augustine meant t= hat Pentecost was the manifestation of the ministry or ministration of the Holy Spirit, much like the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem’s manger was the earthly presen= ce of God in the form of a man. Although the Holy Spirit is God from all eternity past, that day of Pentecost was the day He came into the world in His offic= ial capacity. In the Old Testament He had come upon men for service. Now in the= New dispensation, He came to take up His residence in men.

Paul actually refers to this dispensation as “the ministration of the spirit," and compares it with the “Ministration of death, written and engraven in stones." This is in 2 Corinthians 3:7, 8. This is the era or dispensation of= the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Kingdom. He began reigning in the kingdo= m on Pentecost and He continues until the full possession of Christ is accomplished. And now as to h= ow all the members of God’s family become partakers of this baptism after Pentecost, we shall see in the initiatory aspect of the subject.=

THE BAPTISM OF T= HE HOLY SPIRIT - INITIATORY.

No better way can we begin this part of the study than to quote again from Pau= l R. Van Gorder in "Power from on High.” He says, “Some well-meaning Christians have raised the cry, ‘What we need is another Pentecost!’ Not so! That is a useless and unscriptural wish. You migh= t as well expect another Bethlehem or another <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Calvary as expect another Pentecost. God the Spirit= began His appointed work in that upper room. The womb of the virgin was the prepa= red body in which the Son of God moved. Likewise, those 120 believers in that u= pper room were the infant body into which God the Spirit moved. God is now makin= g a man, a new man. He is forming a body. This body is the Church, of which Jes= us Christ is the Head. The advent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, = the coming of the power from on high, marks the beginning of that body."

Therefore, the empowering of the infant church was that Historic Baptism of the Holy Ghost. As we have seen, these and those joining them miraculously on that d= ay, were all Jews. The advent of = the Spirit on the Samaritans and the Gentiles were simply extensions of that historic event.

Now the question arises, how do we today have or take part in that baptism? A c= lose study of the last few verses of Ephesians 2 will help us here. You know that chapter as a great masterpiece on the subject of regeneration. It is that a= nd more. The apostle enlarges on the Gentile entrance into the kingdom of God, by stating that the “middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile has been broken down. “For by him (Christ) we both have acces= s by one Spirit unto the Father.” Our access is clearly seen as being by t= he Spirit. We then are “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the house= hold of God.” Now look at ve= rse 20. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” We can clearly understand that the family of God, called out of the world, from among both Jews and Gentiles, = is firmly built upon the foundation of the doctrines of Jesus Christ as taught= by Himself and His chosen Apostles. Also in that foundation is the inspired revelation in the Old Testament, the word of the prophets. Whether all the regenerated people of God are actually in an organized local expression of = that church or not is not the point here. The fact is, this is the blueprint or = plan of God. The universal church, the body of Christ, is to be built upon a sol= id foundation. Every local body of the church, which should be a part of the whole, is definitely intended to be built upon this order. That true founda= tion of apostles, with the word of God from the Old Testament and from our Lord Himself, was empowered with the dynamic power of the Spirit of God on the d= ay of Pentecost. Now everything added to that foundation is also to have that spiritual power.

Now in verse 21, the apostle says, “In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.” We are fitted primarily by the Spirit of God Who regenerates us making us acceptable as b= uilding material; then are we established in the proper places upon the foundation = by the knowledge of the truth of God, as it is in the foundation. It is evident that each individual piece added must harmonize in faith and doctrine to the foundation. Otherwise it will not fit.

Verse 22: “In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” the proper foundation and the well-fitted buildi= ng provide the place of HABITATION for the Spirit. Now God does not just fill = the entire building as we might see Him in His Shekinah Glory in the tabernacle= , in a general sense. He fills it by filling each individual block in the founda= tion and each individual brick in the building. He takes up His abode in the individual. God, through the Spirit makes His habitation in each regenerated person in the work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth. He does not come in some token work and leave, only to come later with a fuller blessing to some select individuals. Jesus told His disciples in John 14:17. “Even the spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; FOR HE DWELLETH WITH YOU, AND SHALL B= E IN YOU.” The Spirit dwells with and abides in those to whom He comes.

Now to the question as to how each individual receives that Baptism of the Spir= it and has Him dwelling within them, in each his own time, we turn to what I t= hink is one of the pinnacle texts in all the Scriptures on the Baptism of the Ho= ly Ghost. This text is 1 Corinthians 12:13. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond = or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

This is Spirit Baptism, that is clear. The object of the baptism is to place cer= tain people in the body, which is the mystical body of Christ. Both Jews and Gentiles partake of this baptism. As a result of the baptism we are given access to be able to drink “into one Spirit.” That simply means= to partake of the spiritual blessings afforded all in that body. Every person = thus baptized is qualified to “drink into” or be filled to his capac= ity with the Spirit of the living God.

To those who think baptism of the Spirit is subsequent to and separate from regeneration for the children of God today, this verse is enigma. While the= re are different gifts and different degrees of fullness in our lives, there is only one baptism for all. Paul includes all in this baptism. “For by = one Spirit are we ALL baptized into one body.” That includes every single person whom God regenerates. This baptism was an unusual thing on Pentecost= . It came upon the whole church and into every single believer at once. From then till now as each person is made alive in Christ, he becomes a partaker of t= hat baptism by the Holy Ghost as he is regenerated.

In closing this section, I quote from John R. W. Stott in his BAPTISM AND FULLNESS. “The evidence, then, which I have sought to gather from the= New Testament in general, and in particular from Peter’s sermon in Acts 2= and Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 12:13, indicates that the ‘baptism’ of the Spirit is identical with the ‘gift’= ; of the Spirit, that it is one of the distinctive blessings of the new covenant, and, because it is an initial blessing, is also a universal blessing for me= mbers of the covenant. It is part and parcel of belonging to the new age. The Lord Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant and the bestower of its blessings, gives both the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit to all who en= ter his covenant. Further, baptis= m with water is the sign and seal of baptism with the Spirit, as much as it is of = the forgiveness of sins. Water-baptism is the initiatory Christian rite, because Spirit-baptism is the initiatory Christian experience. So then, whatever post-conversion (I would say post-regeneration) experiences there may be, ‘baptism with the Spirit’ cannot be the right expression to use= for them.”

THE EARLY AMERIC= AN ASSOCIATIONS (1707 -1845)

While the history of Associations among the Baptists is a mixed bag, there is no doubt that much good has been contributed to the cause of the individual churches by said Associations. Among those things greatly benefited was an early way of keeping track of churches and the records of individual church= es. Growth from year to year = was more easily tabulated and a continuing fellowship was enhanced beyond the immediate areas. While the Association was limited from interfering in the autonomy of the local bodies, it nevertheless provided a unifying influence that might not have been obtained otherwise.

Sad to say, the ideal was not kept intact. Much damage was done when certain Associations became guardians over the churches to such an extent that much havoc was caused. There were divisions and splits far too often. We all know about the destructive forces of an Association acting beyond its lawful bounds. Some actually became = ruling bodies over the independent churches. But the Baptists, in great measure, maintained a self—cleaning posture, and usually corrected those unfortunate power plays made by Associations -

Thomas Armitage said in his “History of the Baptists” that these simple meetings at first which evolved into Associations “Will bear close watching at all times, as they are simply human in their origin. The origin= al safeguard against this tendency was found in our colonial times in the fact that, except as the Churches met in Association for the purpose of helping = each other to resist the oppressions of the State, they transacted no busin= ess.” We might add they have no business= in transacting any business outside the meeting of the Association itself.

Now the first question asked by the committee is, “WHlCH HAD GREATER IMPA= CT: THE WORK OF ROGER WILLIAMS OR THE PHILADELPHIA ASSOCIATION AND ITS DAUGHTERS?” To which, i= n my opinion, there is no contest. While Roger Williams contributed much to the beginning of the Baptists in this country, the far greater influence and impact on the churches came from the organization of Associations such as the Philadelphia.

Roger Williams contributed much toward the separation of church and state. For his labors in this controversy, he was banished from the colony of Massachusetts. For several weeks he lived among the Indians and eventually organized our smallest colony, Rhode Island= . He also gets credit for establishi= ng Providence, the state’s capitol city. I= n 1636 he left Massachusetts, fleeing the persecution of the Puritan (or Congregational) majority which greatly disliked his “separationist” ideas. He is credited with establishing the first Baptist <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">Church in the colonies at Providence in 1639. There is, however s= ome difference of opinion that it was the first. Some say another was establish= ed by Dr. John Clark, (a physician) at Newport, R. I., a year earlier in 1638. The evidence seems to favor the Newport Church as being the first. Getting back to Roger Williams (1599-1683) and (now quoting from Hassell’s History, “= He was a Welshman by birth and Episcopalian by training, and had been a Congregationalist by choice, and he was a graduate of the University of Cambr= idge. He came to Massachusetts in 1631, and was for a few years assistant ministe= r of the Congregational Church at Salem; but denying the right of the magistrate= s to punish offenses of a purely religious character, he was banished, and, leav= ing his wife and children at Salem, he fled, in the depth of a severe winter, to the Narransett Indians, and, in gratitude to God for his preservation during fourteen weeks of bitter wilderness wandering, he called the town he founded Providence, and he made it a shelter for persons distressed for the sake of conscience. He established the colony of Rhode Islan= d upon principles of entire religious liberty - principles which have since b= een adopted in all the states of the American Union, but upon which no State be= fore Rhode Island had ever been founded.” So, it would be a profound injustice to say he had no impact upon the history of the Baptists. Sadly, due to h= is doubts about the baptism by which he and others founded the church in 1639,= four months later he withdrew from the church and became a permanent seeker, nev= er finding that perfect church he desired.&nb= sp; A good man, but some of his actions, prevent me from giving him more= , or as much credit for contributions to our Baptist cause over the establishmen= t of Associations.

Of course, as we have already pointed out, some Associational actions have bee= n, to say the least, questionable. But in most cases great contributions have = been made to the history of our people. As we shall see, these associations help= ed influence the enactment of the separation of church and state probably more than any single individual.

The Association became an annual (sometimes semi—annual gathering) where ideas and proposals were exchanged and the fellowship of ministers and laym= en alike was enriched. Forgettin= g the unfortunate and disruptive forces that came upon many churches due to the usurpation of power by some men and associations, there can be seen a side panacea of blessing produced by these unifying bodies.

The next question is, “WHAT WERE AND WHERE WERE THE FIRST TEN ASSOCIATIONS?” It is no= t my intention to avoid this question, but let it be known there seems to be some differences of opinion among the historians about some of these. Therefore, I am certain, to a cert= ain extent only, of the first FIVE, even here I found some differences. You can discuss the options. It is we= ll known that the FIRST was the PHILADELPHIA Association, organized in 1707. “In 1707 the Pennepek, Middletown, Piscataqua, Cohansey and Welsh Tract Churches appointed representatives and formed Philadelphia Association. At that time the Philadelphia congregation was a branch = of the Church at Pennepek. The Philadelphia branch was known as Lower Dublin and it= s name does not appear, but the name of the town, Philadelphia, was chosen for the Association. They adopted the London Confession= of Faith of 1689 and modified it with the addition of two articles.”

So the list goes like this:

1. <= /span>Philadelphia 1707 Organized in Pennsylvania.

2. <= /span>Charleston 1753 Organized in = South Carolina.

3. <= /span>Sandy Creek 1755 Organized in North Carol= ina.

4. <= /span>Kehukee 1765 Organized in North Carol= ina.

5. <= /span>Ketockton 1766 Organized in Virginia.

Now, as has been pointed out, not all historians agree on this list. For instanc= e, while Hassell and others insert Sandy Creek (not to be confused with a Sandy Creek in Illinois of later time) Armitage and = most Missionary Baptist leave Sandy <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Creek in North Carolina out, never mentioning it.

With the resources I had at my disposal, this above li= st comes as close to the first five as I could bring it. Needless to say, shortly after this time, with great growth among the Baptists, the number of the Associations multiplied rapidly. While mos= t of us originated in the state of Georgia I thought it might be interesting to list the first five Associations in th= at state. They are as follows:

1785<= /span>

HEPHZIBAH &= nbsp; 1795

SEREPTA &nb= sp; 1799<= /o:p>

SAVANNAH &= nbsp; 1802<= /span>

OCMULGEE &= nbsp; 1810<= /span>

Now we will end this part of the questions with an interesting note about the Savannah Association (and surrounding territory) which may interest some of you. It started with three churches: Savannah, Newington, and Bryan (the black church - oldest Baptist Church in Savannah). The Association grew fast in both Georgia and the low country of South Carolina and changed its name quickly = to the Savannah River Association, in that same year two churches, Black Creek= and Lotts Creek Church, both in Bulloch County, were being mentioned among Southeast Georgia Churches in history.&nbs= p; On August 15, 1802, Isham Peacock was ordained at Black Creek in the morning and the Black Creek Church was officially constituted the same day in the afternoon. That Bl= ack Creek Church is ours and the Lotts Creek Church is the Old Line Church near Highways 46 and 301.

The Associations then grew in number with a fast growing Baptist Cause. But, sadly, that cause was about to begin some serious divisions in its ranks.= Shortly would come the = Mission - Anti-Mission split, primarily on doctrinal grounds. The creeping in of doctrines contr= ary to those found in the Articles of Faith at that time was brought about by the influence of other bodies coming into contact with the Baptists through the Triennial Convention and American Bible Society (to be discussed later) . T= here would also be departures of some to the Campbellite movement, and even others would found the Free Will Baptists.

While the Associations were instrumental in many of these discussions and divisio= ns, prior to that time their influence had been tremendous in unifying the chur= ches and preaching peace. All the Associations prior to these disruptions, held firmly to the London Confession of Faith, now called the Philadelphia Confession, which differed only with the addition of two articles, under th= e insistence of the Welsh Tract Church in Delaware. It is clear that while Christianity as a whole was strangely at a low ebb shortly after the Revolutionary War, the Baptists were strongly united upon the principles of grace.

A study of Baptist History shows that the Associations, beginning with the Philadelphia, had= a great influence on the strength of our churches during those post—war years= . No other element wielded a greater strengthening upon the fellowship of Baptist Churches in that critical period of history. Primitive Baptists still hold faithfully to the principles laid out in the historic Articles of Faith of = that time.

Sadly, this has not held true during the years following. Some will, no doubt, bri= ng out later the Fulton Convention or 1900, which witnessed the gathering of g= reat minds from Primitive Baptists around the country, seeking to unify the cause more on the same Articles of Faith. But in less than ten years, we experien= ced here in the South and exclusion of all who were considered too “progr= essive.” Some of the very expressions of that Convention were completely ignored and overturned in that short period of time. Associations, again, are a MIXED B= AG. If the Spirit guides, there is great good. If man guides, there is profound chaos and destruction within God’s vineyard.

The Committee has asked, “What was the role of the Query and the Circular Letter?” We shall take = up the Query first. The query was a Question submitted either by a church, a group of ministers, or an individual,= and addressed to = the Association in session. The original purpose was probably good, except it should have been restricted to member churches only, agreeing in a body to the question before submitting = it. It is a practice noticed mostly by Primitive Baptists in their histories and seems for the most part to have disappeared. My own opinion is that queries or questions should be handled = by the local church when possible. If it is necessary to obtain ot= her help, probably the best solution would be for the church itself to call in a council of minister to assist them. That group of Elders should consist of at least two or more, and wile their advice would not necessarily be binding, it would be recommended that= the church bear their counsel carefully before making a decision on the matter. With our history of problems in the Associations, it would be risky, to say= the least, to carry a local problem to a group of churches usually having visit= ors from a distance as well. At a= ny rate, the question seems to be moot, since the query (as a practice) seems = to have disappeared from among our people.

The Circular Letter is mostly a thing of the past, also. However, there was much good in the early circular letters, usually written by a minister chosen at the Associational Meeting. Normally, in the early churches, that appointment was made for the next annual association. That gave the brother ample time to prepare and be ready to deliver a well composed message of advice and love to all the churches. What few remain in use today on a regular basis (the Sequatchie Valley in Alabama and Tennessee is an example) appoint the letter to be prepared during the current meeting, and to be read at the close of the session. Also it is included for publica= tion in the minutes. This is norma= lly a harmless exercise which can have some merit. A good devotional exercise can be = had with several Circular Letters written for various associations found in Hassell’s History. You = can also find quite a list of early queries sent to the Kehukee Association.

The committee asked, “How did the power of the Association affect Evangel= ism? Education?" It can be sa= id that the first influences of the early associations on evangelism were generally well ordered and safe. Missions to the frontiers and to the India= ns were generally well received and carried out with good results. There was s= ome opposition to education, but some progressive steps were taken in this fiel= d as well. The greater influence and financial support came when councils took o= ver from the associations, and quite a bit of opposition arose in both fields f= rom the more conservative Baptists. These churches objected to the encroachment= of alien doctrinal views brought in by other denominations. This occurred in t= he Triennial Convention and later the American Bible Society. When those groups started dictating policy and doctrine, most of the Baptists slowed their support or cut it out completely. Later the more liberal Baptists, with the= ir own machinery in place, used the power of their conventions and societies to make great progress in both fields. There is little to say for our Primitive Baptists but that history records their opposition to the REQUIREMENT of a man’s theological training as a prerequisite to preach and pastor. Th= ey have come along in some measure on their ideas in evangelism. But, thank Go= d, they have not succumbed to the Arminianism and Free-Willism that seems to h= ave affected the larger groups of Baptists.

Now the Committee asked me to “Note the seeds of discord promulgated by t= he Triennial Convention and the American Bible Society.” The Triennial Convention was an organization brought about in a strange way. There had be= en efforts prior to this Convention succeeding in establishing some general conventions made up of several associations, whose purpose was primarily to foster the development of colleges to train ministers and to promote missionary activi= ties at home and abroad. Even the = old Kehukee for a while participated in a North Carolina Convention for these purposes, but not wit= hout quite a bit of concern and dissent.

The Triennial Convention of 1814 came into existence primarily through the effo= rts of Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice. These men were both non-Baptists who we= re converted to Baptist principles while on their way to India u= nder the support of Pedobaptist. Mr. R= ice soon returned to America to solicit funds to aid in establish Baptist Missions in the Far East, and to select suitable persons for an undertaking to whi= ch the attention of American Baptists was now directed. It was done in a sudden and unexpected manner. David Benedict, great Baptist historian informs us t= hat Luther Rice was the principal agent to arouse the Baptists in America= to a favorable view of this “Missionary Enterprise.” Thus a foundati= on was laid for the formation of the Old Baptist “Triennial Convention;” which body was organized in Philadelphia in May, 1814, and under its direction all Baptist affairs pertaining to Foreign Missions were managed f= or about thirty years. The name of that body was changed to that of the Americ= an Baptist Missionary Union. This change was in made in New York in 1845. According to Thomas Armitage, the 1814 organizational meeting in Philadelphia had thirty-six delegates f= rom eleven states, and the outgrowth of that Conventional Meeting resulted in t= he formation of “The Baptist General Convention for Foreign Missions.= 221; Dr. Furman, of South Carolina, was elect= ed President, and Dr. Baldwin, of Massachusetts, Secretary. Mr. & Mrs. Judson were adopted as its first missionaries.

The Convention itself was called the Triennial Convention because it met once in three years, and the board of the Convention was located in Boston. Now for it relationship to the American Bible Society we take some excerpts from Armitage’s History = of the Baptists. “Early in the 18th Century, local Bible Societies spran= g up in various American towns and cities. At length, May 11, 1816, thirty-five local societies sent delegates to a Bible Convention which assembled in New York, and organized the American Bible Society: for the dissemination of the Scriptures in the RECEIVED VERSIONS where they exist, and in the most faith= ful where they may be required.” The Baptist Triennial Convention at first supported wholeheartedly this work. But the Baptists said (concerning translations) “The parchment which you hold in your hand is God’= ;s word, all that you have to do is to re-utter the Divine voice. The right of Jehovah to a hearing = as He will is the only consideration in this case. You are to inquire of him by e= arnest prayer, you are to use the most diligent study to ascertain the precise mea= ning of the original text, then you are to make your translation as exact a representation of the mind of the Holy Spirit as may be possible, so far as= the nature of the language into which you translate will permit.” But, in contrast to this, the Bible Society said: “You are to take the common English versions and conform your version to the principle on which it was made, so that all DENOMINATIO= NS REPRESENTED IN THIS SOCIETY can use it in their schools and communities.= 221; Such an untenable position settled the question of further cooperation-operation with the Society by the Baptists of that period.=

We may surmise from all this that the Triennial Convention sparked some divisi= ve differences on missionary enterprises, yet remained primarily Baptist. The American Bible Society, while doing the good work of getting the Word of God into other languages, nevertheless became, (as most ecumenical organizations always do) the dictator to its supporting members what they would have to endure, whether they believed it or not. In fact, the Baptist presented a protest, and were not even allowed to read it before the Society. The Bapti= sts formed their own Bible Society, but in time, when the New Hampshire Articles replace the London Articles, the Primitive Baptists were in no mood to supp= ort any Bible Society. The effects were tragic in many ways. The dictatorial st= ance of the American Bible Society and the gradually deteriorating doctrinal sta= nce of the Missionary Baptists, caused a withdrawal of dissenting Baptists, kno= wn as Anti-Mission. A safe assessment is that the majority Baptist became too liberal and the conservative Baptists probably became ANTI to some things t= hey should oppose and many others that caused damage among themselves. Once you are "a'gin something= " you can very easily become a'gin everything in sight. But thank God our fat= hers held firm to the doctrines of sovereign grace and sound principles in pract= ice. God grant us wisdom to be charitable to all, but firm in our convictions concerning the cause of TRUTH.

We shall conclude with the last question posed: “What is the significanc= e of President Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury?” I have to confess that in my resources no documentation of this particular incident was found. However, = there was much about Jefferson and the Baptists. The particulars of the Danbury I will leave for your discussion but will sa= y a little about Jefferson’s relations= hip with the Baptists.

Among the Baptists of Virginia no three greater friends were to be found than Jefferson, Henry and Madison. Jefferson, in particular, frequented many meetings of Baptists near Mon= ticello. Also he was influenced by Elder John Leland. In his own family, his favorite aunt, a Mrs. Woodson, was a Baptist. It was through the influence of this a= unt and the Madisons that the tradition was ha= nded down that Jefferson caught his first vie= ws of a democratic form of government while attending Baptist meetings. I have no record of the Danbury document, but there = is this note to the Baptist Church of Buck Mountain, in = Albemarle, dated April 13, 1809. “= ;I thank you, my friends and neighbors, for your kind congratulations on my re= turn to my native home, and of the opportunities it will give me of enjoying ami= dst you affections, the comforts of retirement and rest. Your approbation of my conduct is the more valued as you have best known me, and is an ample reward for any service I may have rendered - Accept the offering of my affectionate esteem and respect.”<= /o:p>

John Leland was in constant communication with him on all subjects of liberty, a= nd said of Jefferson, “By his writing= and administration, he has justly acquired the title of the Apostle of Liberty.” Thomas Armitage adds this note:

“The replies of Jefferson to THREE BAPTIST ASSOCIATIONS, and to the Baptist of Virginia in General Meeting assembled, speak of the satisfaction which the review of his times gave him, in remembering his long and earnest cooperati= on with them in achieving the religious freedom of America.” Quite possibly, one of those three Associations might have been the Danbury. Whether or not it was, the signifi= cance of Jefferson’s reply and interest substantiates the belief of the Baptists in religious liberty, and gives a = very noble signature to their cause. Let us pray that this great accomplishment = of early Baptists in this country, with the help of great men, although not Baptist members, might continue as long as the country stands.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Hassell’s History

Armitage’s History of the Baptists

Benedict’s History of the Baptists

Benedict’s Fifty Years Among the Baptists

Plus Various tracts and articles by many Authors

REVIVAL

1. INTRODUCTION=

2. WHAT IS REVIVAL

3. SOURCE OF= REVIVAL

4. &n= bsp; SIGNS OF REVIVAL

INTRODUCTION

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I = will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, flora thirst for water, b= ut of hearing the words of the Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word= of the Lord, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:11, 12.) To Israel = of old had been given the word of Almighty God.&n= bsp; To Israel Amos spoke the judgment of God upon an ungrateful nation. = No doubt there were some who were concerned, but not nearly enough of them. How hardly shall a drought begin than men shall begin to pray who are not accustomed to pray! This has often been seen and applauded--how quickly and= how many would respond to calls for prayer for rain. Why? Because the need here= is CARNAL and means either loss or gain in our pocketbooks. But we can endure for a long time = the spiritual droughts, which eventually dry-up our churches. Sad as it is, our first love is not often our spiritual well being. Even worse, we are so dri= ed up spiritually that we do not even recognize that we are having a drought, = and are in desperate need of SPIRITUAL SHOWERS, or a return to the Fountain of living waters. For example, consider Samson who “wist not that the Lo= rd was departed from him” Judges 16:20. But thank God, just recently, ma= ny concerns were brought together at the meeting of the Sequatchie Valley Association, and a resolution was passed calling for deep concern and prayer with fasting in all our churches. The call was for help from God in sending ministers to preach, and pouring out His Spirit upon us all. God grant such= a petition if He be willing = to bless His negligent people.

DISCUSSION:=

1. In Amos 8:11-2, God warned Israel of a famine “of hearing the words of the Lord.” Why would God withhold His word?=

2. What were the conditions in Israel= in the days of Amos?

3. Can we find para= llels in our day?

4. Why are God’s people slow to react to spiritu= al droughts?

WHAT IS REVIVAL?

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones is quoted in his FOREWORD to his work on REVIVAL as foll= ows: “It means more than evangelism that brings in converts, and more than cheerfulness, enthusiasm, and a balanced budget in the local church. It is a new quality of life that comes through knowing the greatness and nearness of our holy, gracious Creator--something that in former days would have been called ENLARGEMENT OF HEART, and heart usually starts with a deepened sense= of the power and authority of God in the PREACHING of the Biblical message.= 221; That puts the impetus for revival squarely upon the shoulders of the gospel minister-pastor.

Bible terminology has many words implying revival “Revive, reviving, arising from the dead, alive again, and God visiting His people. A revival, then, really means days of heaven upon earth. Revival originates in the pulpit, t= hen catches on in the church congregation. There is stimulation of life, awaken= ing awareness again on the surface of the meaning of GOD. There is a manifestat= ion of the Holy Spirit in the church that will eventually spread out to the community. It must begin in a local church. Almost immediately the members = are aware of His presence and powers as NEVER BEFORE, possibly in our day. The = Holy Spirit, in a sense is felt taking charge of the worship, in pulpit first and then in the entire congregation. Moreover, there is more than ever a terrib= le sense of personal sin, and a need for loving forgiveness.=

Richard Owen Roberts, member of the board of directors for International Awakening Ministries, Inc., and one who specializes in the subject of Revival says as follows: “A number of years ago in a book entitled Revival, I gave the following definition of that term: ‘Revival is an extraordinary work = of the Holy Spirit producing extraordinary results.’ While that phrase conveys the fundamental concept of revival, over the intervening years I ha= ve come to the conviction that one SINGLE word describes revival better than a= ny other--that word is GOD.” From this definition we see a vital sense in which revival is literally “God in the midst of His people” We = see that throughout the Bible When God is in the midst, great things happen- Wh= en He is absent, because of our sin, drought begins. The moral and spiritual decline that begs for revival is accounted for by the absence of His manife= st presence.

Let me conclude this part by saying that REVIVAL is a time when heaven comes cl= oser to earth than at any other time in the lives of God’s people. The cho= rus of C. A. Tindley’s beautiful HYMN could well become a baffle hymn for= us in yearning openly for what Revival really could mean to us.

“NOTHING B= ETWEEN MY SOUL AND THE SAVIOUR,

SO THAT HIS BLES= SED FACE MAY BE SEEN;

NOTHING PREVENTI= NG THE LEAST OF HIS FAVOR,

KEEP THE WAY CLE= AR! LET NOTHING BETWEEN”

What is Revival? When there is nothing between my soul and the Savior. In the ve= rses of this hymn, Tindley points out things, which do come between. “This world’s delusive dream, sinful and worldly pleasure, habits of life, pride, station, self or fiends, hard trials.” Then he closes the last verse with this grand statement, “Watching with prayer and much self-denial, I’ll triumph at last, with NOTHING BETWEEN. That is REVI= VAL -- NOTHING BETWEEN, NOTHING TO HINDER

DISCUSSION:=

1. Discuss “enlargement of heart.”

2. List some Bible words that express the idea of revival.

3. How would you define “revival”?=

4. Where does revival originate?

5. What brings about spiritual drought?

IS REVIVAL NEEDE= D?

John MacNaughtan was minister of High= Church in Paisley, Scotland.= A statement from him quoted here was originally published in 1840 in Lectures= on the Revival of Religion. “When is a Revival required? Wherever there = are the proofs of spiritual death in, or around, the professing church, wherever there is an actual decay or dormancy in the energy or activity of its membe= rs, or wherever there is the absence of a progression in those habits and feeli= ngs and principles that distinguish the divine life--there is a necessity of revival.” He goes onto make this analogy of proving there is no difficulty in determining when a revival is necessary in the world of natur= e. We will omit his analogy and take our own from the Bible in Song of Solomon, chapter 2, verses 10-13.

“My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come aw= ay. For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; The flowers appear = on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and= the vines with tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.”

This is what we need to hear, Spring is come! It is a time of Revival, if we heed the call of our Lord. The deadness of winter must pass away, and the beauti= es of that season which marks the resurrection of Christ and nature is a pictu= re of what is needed in our churches. “The rain is over, the flowers dot= the landscape, birds are singing, and the voice of the SPIRIT (turtle dove) is heard once more. Then comes fruit-bearing in the fig trees and vine.”= He calls us to rise and come away with Him into glorious fields of harvest to come.

Let us consider four circumstances (again as suggested by Mr. MacNaughtan) that render revival necessary. We borrow these points and apply them to our own circumstances.

1. THE LIMITED EXTENT OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH in the present days. What a study we find when we compare the general vision we have of the church’s mission over against that laid out in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible sees the need of the whole world; people in every nat= ion, kindred, and tongue. Our vision is usually confined to a rather small area = of Primitive Baptist churches. That is a worthy sight, but oh, so small and limited. It is to be feared that our growth is limited to a very small and selfish appetite.

What is the purpose and mission of the church? Ponder that question. Then compar= e it to how we generally feel about the need of enlarging our fields. Think of w= hat Mordecai said to Esther; “For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there ENLARGEMENT and deliverance arise to the Jews f= rom another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Esther 4:14. Shall we sit and wait while others have faith to conquer? Let us go with the Lord, within His boundaries of doctrine and practice, yet placing no boundaries on our vision of the field. We must not limit our extension, but believe that we, too, have power “to turn the world upside down.”

2. THE WANT OF ZEAL IN THE CHURCH, the feebleness of what we sometimes call the evangelistic spirit, and the downright slothfulness of <= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>both pastors and members toward = work in the Lord’s vineyard.

When Jesus commanded that merchandise be taken for His Father’s house and said, “Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise,̶= 1; in John 2:16, it is said in verse 17, “And his disciples remembered t= hat it was written (Psalms 69:9) The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.̶= 1; Shall we not follow His example and have such a zeal for the house of God in our day. Are we indeed a part of that great house? If so, why then are we so casual about how we do? The CHURC= H MUST BE FIRST IN OUR LIVES AND = DEVOTIONS! If we take Jesus’ command as our rule we cannot fail to be hum= bled and ashamed, God give us vision, “that we might not perish.”

3. THE DIVISIONS IN THE CIIURCH demonstr= ate a vital need for revival. We need no example but our own for this. Our little group of ministers and churches have been fragmentized and splintered so ma= ny times, and even at present, until it is miraculous that we exist at all! “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” And that question implies more than two persons walking together. Divinely, it points out that one person and God CANNOT WALK TO= GETHER except they be agreed. Concentrate not on our differences with EACH OTHER, but Amos points= us to OUR AGREEMENT WITH GOD, HI= MSELF. A house divided is doomed from the start.&= nbsp; Is there a brother or sister with whom you have little or no fellows= hip? Try praying for them earnestly. Then pray even more earnestly for YOURSELF. Get together with God = and you will find it easier to get together with your brother,

4. THE LANGUOR = OF THE DEVOTIONAL SPIRIT in the church proves the necessity for a revival of Christianity. Not much has to be said here, except to acknowledge the truth= of the matter. It is amazing that churches agree to the need of revival, but in the face of that, some members still absent themselves from the worship of = the church far more than is healthy. Prosperity in our lives has tended to make many Christians take God and the church for granted. It becomes more an occasional haven, or worse, a first aid station for random Band-Aids on our= problems, rather than the greatest necessity of our mortal lives.

Strong, convicting preaching of the word of God is required along with serious and searching minds of the people. We must have this if we turn around to proper priorities. Unless we are each wil= ling to pay the cost of consecration God will not heal our cause. We must become more interested in “digging ditches” if we expect the Lord “to fill them and work miracles for us.” God grant us wisdom to= see the need of renewal and address it as best we can.

DISCUSSION:=

1. Discuss the mission of the church as spelled out in scripture.

2. Does it seem that Primitive Baptist people have a proper vision of the miss= ion of the church?

3. List some signs of the need of revival,

4. As you list a sign of the need for revival, tell how that need effects the church.

5. Discuss unity in the church.

6. Is the church to have unity at any cost?

7. Discuss “languor of the devotional spirit.”

SOURCE OF REVIVA= L

Under our first sub-topic, we mentioned that the meaning of Revival was narrowed = down in its finest sense to one word--GOD. The same definition can now be given to this sub-topic, the Source of Revival. God is the ONLY sour= ce.

“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put = in his own power.” Acts 1:7. Jesus plainly tells us that God is the source. Surely, revival in the church is a “time” and a “season” which comes only = from God. We cannot know when it is coming, pray as we might, for God alone rese= rves the right to select the time and the place.

Fundamental to a proper understanding of the term “revival” is that its sou= rce is God, and not the results produced by human plans and efforts. To this all the great men involved in the history of revival agree.

Joel prophesied it and Peter acknowledged it on the day of Pentecost, that they = were in that time and place predicted by Joel. The same as Pentecost, though not= the same event, revival comes when God wills it. It can further be explained as Jesus taught the New Birth to Nicodemus. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John 3:8, = The Spirit of God suddenly and often unexpectedly comes upon a church or group = of churches and revival “happens.” The only explanation is that Go= d, moved by His Own pleasure, has willed it. This is a supernatural event, a w= ork of the Spirit, not the results of persistent use of proper means.

However, God has appointed certain means to be used for the advancement of His kingd= om, the first of which is the preaching of the Gospel in power and sincerity, accompanied by fervent prayer. Yet, no amount of human effort can assure results. We must remember that. God bestows such blessings solely according= to His good pleasure. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, sai= th the Lord of hosts.” Zechariah 4:6. To a friend George Whitefleld wrot= e in 1749 that he would be glad to hear of a revival, and then added, “But, dear sir, you have already seen such things as are seldom seen above once i= n a century.”

Someone said, “If the Church would do all her duty, she would soon complete t= he triumph of religion in the world.” This idea has resulted in all kind= s of special techniques to assist in accomplishing this purpose. But that is not= the course to follow. Pastors must simply continue in the work to which they ha= ve been called, preaching the full counsel of God faithfully. If in the event = some unexpected blessing occurs in this usual course of duty, most spiritually-minded pastors would acknowledge that what happened was a sudden and unexpected blessing. It would simply be God blessing the ordinary funct= ion of a true pastor and congregation. Therefore it must be said the extraordin= ary degree of blessing poured out in such a case is simply God’s approval= of the normal means that God has given the church.

Revival may occur in this way sometimes. Jesus said in John 4:37, 38, “One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent you= to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are ent= ered into their labours.” Likewise, the Apostle Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 3:6, 7: “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth but God that giveth the increase.” As we hope and pray for revival in our churches, we must remember that the source is God. He gives = all increase. We who plant and we who water are “laborers together with God” and receive no credit for the revival. The glory is God’s.=

A fitting close to this section may be found in Psalm 115:1-3. “Not unto us, 0 Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give gl= ory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.”

DISCUSSION:=

1. What is the source of revival?=

2. Can we plan a revival?<= /p>

3. True or false. Revival comes when the pas= tor or the church begins to work harder in God’s kingdom. Discuss your answe= r.

4. How does revival “happen”?

5. Read Acts 2:42-47. What was the church do= ing when “the Lord added to the church daily”?

6. Is there a lesson here for the church tod= ay?

7. Read Acts 3:19-20. What are “times = of refreshing”?

8. Is it possible that these times come and = we miss them?

9. How can we insure that we won’t miss them?

SIGNS OF REVIVAL

We have established that the meaning of Revival is GOD, that there are definite signs of needed Revival, and that Revival comes only from God, and cannot be produced by the best efforts of = man. Now we look at signs we might recognize as the possible evidence of a Reviv= al breaking out in one or more churches. The importance of proper signs cannot= be over estimate. We all should = be on the lookout for signs of both decadence in the churches and hopeful hints of renewed interest. These latter hints could be the beginning of revival for = us.

James I. Packer, professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the author of se= veral books, has suggested five definite MARKS OF REVIVAL in an article by that n= ame. We will partially use some of his suggestions along with our own observatio= ns.

1. Realization of God’s Presence. This may = seem a strange observation but the truth is, much of our worship tends to be on the worldly side--almost playing ch= urch and pretending a Christian walk. When a keen awareness of the almost frightening presence of God overwhelms a pastor and church, it is a real at= tention getter. But it is at the same time a glorious sign.

“Oh that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence.” Isaiah 64:1. The mountains could repres= ent the haughty self-esteem of the people who need to humble themselves; and wo= uld certainly do so if this scene became real.= Possibly, Isaiah was thinking of his own experience at his calling. “Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone.” Isaiah 6:5. This was= the impact when God revealed Himself to His servant. If this effect were felt in an individual or a church, it most certainly would be a good sign.<= /span>

2. THE POWER OF HIS PRESENCE.= The very feeling of God’s holy presence in the midst would make His word = more alive to us. It would then reach the utmost depths of the hearer’s hearts. The word of God would wound our exalted spirits into submission. “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” Jeremiah 23:29. Preachers and members a= like would tremble before that mighty word when the holy presence of God is sens= ed. This, too, would be a definite sign that something great and terrible is happening.

3. AWARENESS OF OUR OWN SIN. = Deep conviction of our individual unworthiness and sin would plague us all in su= ch a scene of His presence and His word in power. And like the people on Penteco= st we would cry out, “What shall we do?” Acts 2:37. Like David of = old we would moan, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and = be clear when thou judgest.” Psalm 51:4. The Spirit and word of God mani= fest by powerful presence the depth of repentance into which both saints and sin= ners are led. Men and women cry, and turn to God. This is a great sign of reviva= l.

4. CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE IN COMMUNITY. Such = an event of men and women openly returning to a fervent and willing service to their God will catch the attention of the whole community. Then such an affected church would indeed become a city set upon a hill whose light and influence could not be hidden. When we are greatly influenced by our God and His word, we become the salt of the earth indeed, and the light of the worl= d to God’s praise.

5. And finally, FRUITBEARING IN ABUNDANCE. "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye b= e my disciples." John 15:8. This is the final sign we mention, but we close with a Scriptural exhortation which shows us that this is the greatest final sign = that revival has come to a church. Notice the words of Paul in Philippians 1:11: “Being filled with the fruits of RIGHTEOUSNESS, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.” Oh that we might someday s= oon see and experience such signs of REVIVAL!

DISCUSSION:

1. List some signs that show that God is rev= iving His church.

2. How do we recognize God’s presence?=

3. Is God not always present in the church?

4. Is there power in God’s presence?

5. What is the effe= ct of the power of god’s presence? Give Bible examples.

6. Is there a difference in awareness of our sins and conviction of our sins?

7. How much influence does your church have = in your community?=

8. Discuss Christian fruitbearing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Revival, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Foreword

International Awakening Ministries:

John MacNaughtan, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, C. A. Tindley, Richard Owen Roberts, John Sale, James Th= icker.

Hymns of Grace, “Nothing Between" Page= 434

The Holy Bible, LW.