Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Many criticize the Old Baptists when we teach that we can do nothing to effect the new birth in ourselves or in others. We believe that just as in our natural birth we had nothing to do with effecting it – so we have nothing to do in our spiritual birth. Keep in mind that it is our Lord’s use of the word “birth” to describe this event. Surely the “new” birth must be like our “natural” birth or the Lord used a poor example. Perish the thought! When the Arminian world can show us that anyone has something to do in bringing about his own natural birth, we will begin to listen to them on this matter (Elder Eddie K. Garrett, The Hardshell Baptist p. 1, April, 1986).

Mr. Garrett’s analogy is clear and concise. While we are not arguing as an “Arminian,” we want to examine Mr. Garrett’s parallel. It is not our design to show that one “has something to do in bringing about his own natural birth,” for he does not and cannot. In that connection, Garrett is correct.

Mr. Garrett’s fatal flaw is in making a parallel the Lord did not construct. The Lord’s point and purpose was not to equate man’s passivity or inaction regarding physical birth to his spiritual birth. What, then, was His objective? Namely, this: Nicodemus stood before the Son of God as a child of Abraham with the blood of the great and grand patriarch pulsing and throbbing through his veins. As such, he could neither see nor sense any spiritual need. “We be Abraham’s seed . . . Abraham is our father we have one Father, even God” Qn. 8:33,39,41). This was Nicodemus’ confidence (cf. Phil. 3:3-6; Gal. 3:26-29; 4:21-31). Jesus’ aim was to show Nicodemus that his fleshly birth as Abraham’s seed would not avail. “Despite your proud heritage, Nicodemus, ‘ye must be born again.”‘ That was the Lord’s object. It was to tell him that he had to be born again, that his Abrahamic, fleshly, birth would not suffice. It was not the Lord’s intention to parallel either the passivity or the activity of the two births.

“A Poor Example”

If an analogy, illustration or metaphor one uses to establish a point does not fit, “a poor example” has been employed (slower than the ace of spades; as black as a bride’s dress). In this case, however, the poor example is the result of Mr. Garrett’s tortured use of the Lord’s comparison. He assumes the point he needs to prove and announces that if we disagree with his conclusion we are saying the Lord is guilty of using Cc a poor example.” No, Mr. Garrett is the one who has inserted a thought into the new birth that Jesus never intended.

Nearly all standard reference works that treat the Lord’s parables and figures of speech warn the student not to extend the parable or parallel beyond the chief aim of the context. Mr. Garrett has not heeded this warning.

If one wanted to charge the Lord with “a poor example,” he could do so very easily concerning the new birth. For example: (1) A physical birth is the beginning of an entirely new being, but the new birth involves the transition from one state to another. One may live in sin and be a servant of sin (Rom. 6:16-21; Col. 3:5-10; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:22-24). When that servant is regenerated, he puts off “the old man,” the old manner of life, and puts “on the new man,” the new manner of life, and begins to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4-6). Should we, then, accuse the Lord of using “a poor example,” because a physical birth involves a new life in toto, whereas the new birth of John 3 does not? No, because that would be forcing an element into the example which the Lord never had in mind.

(2) A physical birth results in a life independent of its parents or progenitors. They may die but the baby can live. Its life is not essentially tied to the life of its bearers. But this is not true of the new birth. In the spiritual birth, one’s life is not independent of its Begetter – “This life is in His Son” (1 Jn. 5:11; cf. Jn. 15:5,6). One’s physical parent can die. Our spiritual Parent cannot die. Should we charge the Lord with “a poor example” in John 3:3,5, because this particular aspect does not fit the birth analogy? No, because that was not the Lord’s point. He was not using the new birth to teach that one’s life is bound to God in the same sense that a baby’s life is to its parents.

(3) A physical birth, indeed, does not involve the will of the child. One who does not exist obviously cannot have a choice in his birth. But Mr. Garrett admits that the item that is spiritually regenerated exists before the Lord gives it the new birth. Even accepting Mr. Garrett’s theology (he believes that one has no choice or will in deciding whether he is to be born again), he is still faced with an inconsistency. Note it. He says that if we say one has a choice in being “born again” that we thereby cause the Lord to have used “a poor example,” since the baby cannot choose to be born. Well, Mr. Garrett unwittingly has fallen into his own trap. Here is how. Regardless of whether or not one has a will or choice in his being “born again,” Mr. Garrett will concede that the “dead, alien sinner,” the child of the devil, exists. It is upon this sinner, this child, that the Spirit operates and effects the new birth, according to Elder Garrett. So, even Garrett causes the Lord to have used “a poor example,” for the physical baby that is born does not exist beforehand for the parents to act upon and beget. But he does exist in the spiritual realm for the Spirit to act upon and to beget. Mr. Garrett’s illustration backfires on him.

(As an aside, one cannot even use the term, “regenerate,” without implying that something exists to be regenerated, to receive the new birth.)

Figures of Speech

The word of God uses a number of things to demonstrate our fellowship with God. We are “married” to Christ (Rom. 7:4; 2 Cor. 11:3). We are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Col. 2:11-13). We are “grafted in” (Rom. 11:23; cf. Jn. 15:1-6). In all of these comparisons, there are things not under consideration that could be used to make void the initial thought or analogy. For instance: (1) A Christian is married to Christ (Rom. 7:4; cf. Jas. 4:4). Can a man be married to “the man Christ Jesus”? Man to man marriage? (2) God wants one person married to only one person. Yet Christ is married to many people. Is this spiritual polygamy? By perverting the point, it is made absurd. (3) The body of the sins of the flesh is circumcised by the circumcision of Christ (Col. 2:11-13). But the figure is drawn from the Old Testament ordinance and involves only men. Are women exempted from this spiritual circumcision since the type or pattern originated only with men? By going beyond the intent of the analogy, the lesson is rendered useless. By the same token, the new birth is not “a poor example” in the matter under study until someone like Mr. Garrett introduces a thought that is not germane to the topic.

When Mr. Garrett Will Listen

Mr. Garrett said, “When the Arminian world can show us that anyone has something to do in bringing about his own natural birth, we will begin to listen to them on this matter” (whether one can do anything to effect the new birth).

Suppose I said, “When the Calvinian world is able to show that one’s physical life is dependent on the continued life of his physical parents, we will begin to listen to them on this matter. ” Would that be reasonable? It would be unfair because that analogy is not in the scope of the Lord’s argument.

Or suppose I said, “When the Calvinian world can show us that God approves of marriage between one person and scores of others, we will begin to listen to them on this matter” (of many being married to Christ)? Would that be a true proposal? And, again, what if I said, “When the Calvinian world can show us that females were circumcised in the Old Testament as the males were, we will begin to listen to them on this matter” of females receiving the circumcision of Christ? Would that be a rational proposition? No, and for the same reason, neither is Garrett’s pledge to listen to us concerning whether one has a part in effecting the new birth.

Conclusion

One does have something to do with effecting the new birth (Jn. 1:11-13; 3:36; 5:24,25,40; 8:24; Matt. 7:21; 11:28-30; Lk. 13:34; Rev. 22:17). If not, whose fault is it if he is never born again? The devil does not want you to be born again, as Garrett will agree. Garrett says you cannot do anything about it; so, whose fault is it if you are not born again? The dead sinner must “hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live” (Jn. 5:25). God calls by His Spirit through the gospel (Jn. 6:44,45; Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 2:13,14), and “whosoever will” may come (Acts 10:34,35; 2:38,39; Mk. 16:15,16).

One must do the will of the Father to enter the kingdom (Matt. 7:21; 183; Jn. 3:3,5). So, if you would be “born again,” if you would receive “eternal salvation,” you must choose to believe and obey (Heb. 5:8,9; 11:6; 1 Pet. 1:22). Do not allow men like Mr. Garrett to deceive you.

Guardian of Truth XXX; 14, pp. 425-426
July 17, 1986

By Anthony Wayne Goforth

In the barren old age of Abraham and Sarah, God promised a seed heir (Gen. 15:4). We usually think of Abraham as the great example of living faith, and so he was for the most part, but faltered with this difficult-to-believe promise of God.

As we read Genesis 16:1-2, we find that Abraham tried to help God out by taking Sarah’s Egyptian maid. A child did indeed come from this relationship, Ishmael, the father of the Arab nations today. By helping God out, he brought many future problems among his descendants, for Ishmael was not the seed of promise, but rather his descendants have been the enemy of the Jews to this day.

Man has continued to “help God out” over the years, which comes from a lack of faith in what God has to say.

A. The Genesis account of creation. Many theories have been established to harmonize the Bible’s version of creation with modern science. Everything from the day-age theory to theistic evolution has been proposed by the modern critics who live on the faith of their parents.

If Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, then why any of it? Any attempt to “help God out” by doing anything less than taking God’s account of creation as literal will do nothing more than wave doubt over the rest of His divine revelation, and does nothing more than create an enemy for God’s people as Abraham did of old.

B. The Virgin birth. Isaiah 7:14 gives us a prophecy concerning the birth of Christ – the virgin birth of Christ. Yet, some modern translations since the RSV have translated virgin as “young woman.” After all, a virgin cannot have a baby -which is exactly the point, she cannot by any normal natural means be with child. What kind of a sign would it be for a “young woman to conceive and bear a child”? It might be the sign of many things, but not divinity. The RSV translators had reason to translate the Hebrew almah as young woman rather than virgin. Harold Orlinsky, the prime translator was an unbelieving Jew who would certainly wish to discredit the virgin birth of our Lord. In fact, he even said that Abraham and Moses were just Jewish legends in his translator’s preface! Yet, as we read the New Testament, we find Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23 as “virgin.” Notice verse 25, “. . . Kept her a virgin until she gave birth. . . ” and notice the odd wording of Galatians 4:4, calling Christ the seed of woman. Do we give credence to those who would call into question the deity of Christ?

C. The organization of the church. Man, still believing that God is not able to carry out what He has said He would and in the manner and through the organization He has established, has further continued to “help God out” by changing the patterns of the New Testament church and by creating other organizations to do what God has specified only for His church. But, it is argued, “These organizations are doing the work of the church for them.” Funny, for Hagar was doing the work of Sarah for her as well!

Conclusion

God is well able to fulfill all He has said. There is no need to “help God out” as we have suggested in this study. Where God has spoken we can rest in full confidence knowing what promises He has made, He can fulfill, in the organizations He has ordained, whether it be the home or church; they can do all God requires each to do without the aid of outside organizations to do their work for them. As we attempt to help God out, we compromise His Word little by little.

It is as the story of the fish monger who opened his business with the sign out front reading, “Fresh Fish Sold Today.” Someone asked him, “Why the word ‘fresh’ in your sign? Your integrity should vouch for that. ” Another asked, “Why the ‘today’? We know it’s not yesterday or tomorrow.” Another said, “You should remove the ‘sold’ for everyone knows you’re not giving it away.” This left him with the one word “fish,” to the which someone remarked, “Don’t bother with that, for we can smell them a block away.”

Little by little we are told we cannot take God at His word and must compromise by helping Him out. Instead, let us put up our sign as the fish monger and refuse to remove one iota from it, contending earnestly for the faith which was once and for all time delivered, never to be repeated (Jude 3).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 14, pp. 419, 439
July 17, 1986

By Irvin Himmel

Neat But Negative

Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox (Prov. 14:4).

Oxen were used for a variety of purposes in Bible times. They furnished the power for pulling a plow. Elisha was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen when the mantle of Elijah was cast upon him (1 Kgs. 19:19-21). They were used for treading out grain (Deut. 25:4). They were suitable for sacrifice under the law of Moses (Num. 7:17; 1 Kgs. 8:63). Their flesh was good for food (I Kgs. 1:25). Their strength made them useful in pulling carts with heavy loads. The wealth of a man was sometimes measured, at least in part, by the number of oxen he owned. Job had five hundred yoke of oxen (Job 1:3).

Cheaper Not To Own Oxen

Suppose a farmer in ancient times had reasoned, “My supply of grain is abundant. My ground is rich and fertile. My supply of corn will last longer if I don’t have to feed oxen. I’ll save money by getting rid of every ox I own.”

How would this farmer plow his ground? By what means would he move heavy loads? Disposing of his oxen to save money would prove costly in time, for “much increase is by the strength of the

Some people are penny wise and dollar foolish. One may pay dearly for a small saving. Often in the Lord’s work, we pinch pennies and thereby waste dollars. Many expensive replacements would be unnecessary if quality had been given more consideration than cutting costs at the outset. Thrift has its limitations.

The preacher who is willing to work for the lowest wages may prove to be a costly mistake. Cheap class room material may prove worthless. The cheapest building contractor may do shoddy work. Replacing a cheap sound system may cost substantially more than a good system would have cost at first.

Oxen Are Much Trouble

Suppose a farmer in the ancient past had decided that he wanted his crib or fodder-trough to always be clean. “The oxen make such a mess. I abhor the sight and smell of my barn. Oxen are just too much trouble.”

As the proverb says, “Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but. . . . ” Before deciding that oxen are too bothersome, the farmer needs to remember that “much increase is by the strength of the ox.”

Benefits often outweigh disadvantages, but sometimes we allow the inconveniences to blind us to desired results. Which is preferable, a clean crib or the increase resulting from the use of the ox?

The Cost of Increase

Labor and increase go together. No ox, clean crib. No ox, no increase. Better keep ox!

Without planting there can be no harvest. Without diligent study there will be no increase in knowledge and understanding. Without faithful effort there can be no growth in the kingdom of God.

The price of sowing is negligible in comparison with the value of what is reaped. Many want to see growth in the church without work. Some want discipleship without paying the price. A lot of folks want heaven without overcoming the world. Some young people want a successful career without preparation.

Getting rid of the ox makes for a clean crib. It also excludes a valuable means of increase. Some like things neat … and negative.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 14, p. 427
July 17, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is a specific command for a weekly collection for poor saints in Jerusalem. How can this be used as general authority for a weekly collection that is not used to help needy saints, but is used to pay the preacher, missionaries, utilities, literature, etc.?

Reply: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay be him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1,2).

There are several things to consider in these verses. This collection, which was to be made upon the first day of the week, was specifically for the poor saints in Jerusalem. The convenience of this collection as stated in the latter part of verse two, “that no collections be made when I come,” precludes the idea that the collection was laid by at home. If this were true, gatherings or collections would have to be made. The purpose of the common treasury was to avoid such. James Macknight, in his commentary on the Apostolic Epistles, makes this appropriate comment: “The apostle’s meaning is, that every first day of the week each of the Corinthians was to separate, from the gains of the preceding week, such a sum as he

could spare, and put it into the treasury; that there might be no occasion to make collections when the apostle came” (Vol. 1, p. 291). The expression, “lay by him in store,” suggests a treasury. Thesaurizon, the Greek word that is translated “in store,” is a present participle which means literally, “putting into the treasury.” The laying up in a common treasury was done upon the first day of the week because this was the time that Christians assembled for worship (Acts 20:7).

The contribution in 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 was to relieve the poor saints in Jerusalem, as we have noted (see v. 3, also Rom. 15:26). The church at Corinth was instructed as to how to meet a specific need. Other passages show clearly that churches supported gospel preachers (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15,16). As the church at Corinth met a need, so it would logically follow that other needs of the church would be met in the same way – by members contributing upon the first day of the week, the time when the saints assembled. When Paul took wages from other churches (2 Cor. 11:8), it is reasonable to conclude that the money was supplied from the treasuries of these different churches and sent directly to him. Thus, there is a pattern in the New Testament for churches meeting their needs. Corinth relieved the need of destitute saints in Jerusalem by contributing money that was laid up in the treasury upon the first day of the week. Other churches supplied the need of Paul by supporting him in the same way. The Scriptures therefore authorize the local church to meet its legitimate needs by means of a contribution upon the first day of the week. Thus it can support preachers, pay utility bills, purchase songbooks, communion supplies, provide a building and purchase Bible class material. This authority is established by churches meeting their needs (1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15,16).

We take note that there is no scriptural authority for local churches to do their work through a sponsoring church. We do not make a demand for a “detailed” description in the New Testament when we reject the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions, etc., but we do make a demand for their scriptural authority. We have book, chapter and verse for local churches meeting their proper needs, but we do not have book, chapter and verse for a sponsoring church and church support of human institutions. The former is authorized by the New Testament but the latter is not.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 14, p. 421
July 17, 1986