A STUNNING ANALOGY

A STUNNING ANALOGY

    For years, as an educator, this editor has studied childhood habits and characteristics. Some are temporary, which with developing years and maturity are discarded. Others remain as a part of the child’s personality into adulthood. To illustrate and to draw a point for this article, I have selected two examples that most adults have noticed in children.

    Annie and Brenda are very close friends. They share many experiences. One day, Annie becomes angry with Brenda; they are no longer on speaking terms. Cindy likes both Annie and Brenda. Cindy continues to play with Brenda, and immediately Annie is angry with Cindy. Cindy should not be playing with Brenda now that Annie is not. Cindy cannot be a friend to both. She must make a choice between them.

    The playground bully pushes Billy down and hurts him. In frustration, Billy (later that morning) punches Henry in the nose after seeing him playing with the playground bully.

    Perhaps they’ll outgrow these characteristics, if they do not first become nominal sovereign grace believers! We noted the same behavior among some of the sovereign grace Independents; among some Primitive Baptists; and among some Predestinarian Baptists. Elder John Doe gets angry with, or jealous of, Elder Smith. Elder Tinker loves them both. He visits Elder Smith’s church and preaches for them. Elder John Doe cuts him off from fellowship with his church, and all other churches with which he affiliates. It is called by some free grace men as a “bar of fellowship”; by some, “out of fellowship”; and by educators it is called “childhood behavior”.

    Stunning analogy, isn’t it? There is no stronger “meat” for a child of God than Free Grace Doctrine. It certainly can’t be called the “milk of the Word”. Isn’t it tragic how hypocrisy stunts men’s’ growth into gospel maturity? Where are those things we read of in the New Testament: love, forgiveness, forbearance, long-suffering, tenderness, mercies, patience, etc? Are these things mere abstractions to be intertained in our religious discussions? Are they not, rather, principles of grace which distinguish true believers from nominal believers? “By their fruit ye shall know them”. (Matt 7:16,20)

    Most sovereign grace ministers are profound students of the Scriptures; they excel above Arminian freewillers as high as the heavens. Yet, they seem to overlook one of the most serious indictments in the Scriptures. “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and castest them out of the church”. III John 9,10.

    We believe these are the latter times for, “men have a form of godliness and deny the POWER thereof”; (II Tim.3:5) But , Ah how we should seek to adorn the gospel of FREE GRACE by our personal demonstration of those traits characteristic of our Lord. He LOVE us and gave Himself for us. He forgave us all our sins and transgressions. He was long-suffering towards us while we plunged head-long into rebellion. His patience is a precious heritage and pace to poor wayward sinners. As Predestinarians, we say we believe that “He hath predestinated us to be CONFORMED to the IMAGE of His son” (Romans 8:29); but where is that image in such who behave contrary to the gospel towards their brethren?

    Three sovereign grace brethren believe in the millennial reign of Christ. As they study together, they pull various books from the dusty shelves to aid in their Biblical research. Eventually one concludes “the Lord will come BEFORE He sets up His reign on earth; another concludes He will come AFTER the great tribulation; and the last believes He will come DURING the great tribulation. Their “love” is shattered, and they refuse “to fellowship”. Each believes dogmatically he is correct; none realizes they could ALL be in error. The end of the matter finds brethren and churches isolated from one another.

    In the upper Mid-Western states, the old school party of Regular Baptists was a numerous people in the late 1800’s. They were associated in the South with some calling themselves Predestinarian Baptists and some Primitive Baptists. Two of their elders, Elder J. H. Oliphant and Elder Silas Durand, engaged in a “friendly debate”. Elder Oliphant took the position that God’s people were “blessed for doing good works”. Elder Durand took the position that God’s people were “blessed to do good works”. Before the debate ended, the Baptists were divided. Years later a friend of this writer reported that someone asked Elder Oliphant: “What exactly was the difference between you and Elder Durand?” The old elder replied sorrowfully. “A choice of words”. Elder Oliphant’s followers descended into the very Conditionalisin they had opposed only two decades earlier in the Regular Baptists; Elder Durand’s followers devoured each other until today none are left.

    Brethren, beware lest when you have received brethren to doubtful disputation, you finally have no brethren left! Then you will have your reward. You can then sit “under your vine and eat your own grapes”.., if there are any left to eat. “If ye bite and devour one another, take heed lest ye be consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15)

    At times as we watch children play we are reminded of some sovereign grace ministers. The children will usually get over it and be friends again. With sovereign grace folk, it sometimes gets worse. Now we know our Lord said “.. .except ye . . . become as little children, ye shall iiot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 18:3. But we do not believe He was commending childish squabbling; rather, the thing that we believe to which He referred is the one thing lacking — childlike humility.

    When children behave in an unruly manner, teachers and parents often sit down and talk with them; and often it helps. Christ has placed His baptized people under the church’s discipline and care. When an elder or member behaves in a childish and graceless manner, his church should “sit him down and talk with him about it.” If Elder John Doe were certain his church was faithful in discipline, he would not likely have breached the fellowship of the brethren. The fact that he did so is an indictment of the church of which he was a member. They, too, reaped the just reward of their carelessness.

    This writer learned of a situation in a church in a neighboring state. A church there had two elders. After a time, the old preacher-jealousy raised its ungodly head. One day during conference, while one elder was away preaching the gospel, the other elder stood before the assembly and said: “All that are with me go outside. All that are with Elder so and so stay inside.” No one moved. Finally, one faithful member answered humbly: “Elder, we were here before either of you, and we’ll be here after both of you are gone. We love you both, but we aren’t following either of you.” The church convincingly settled those issue themselves. It is a pity that so few deal faithfully with their own elders and members, thus preventing a breach of fellowship.

    When a minister or member departs from the truth of the gospel, the church also should prevent their laying hands upon the brethren; thus violating the Scripture, “Saying, touch not mine anointed, and 4o my prophets no harm.” (I Chr. 16:22). It need be done only ONCE! Elders are not dumb . . . they learn pretty FAST under necessity. — S.C.P.

The Predestinarian
Vol. 1, No. 2