Brother Fralick posted a blog, "A Cayce Contradiction", here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/cayce-contradiction.html.
I must agree with his criticism of Cayce's exposition on Romans 10:17, as the 'word of God' in context is surely the gospel of peace preached by God-called ministers from the preceding 15th verse. He is right to point out that Cayce's interpretation makes the faith under consideration the faith given in regeneration:
"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)
This interpretation would be on an exegetical collision course with the majority view of Primitive Baptists today that the salvation of Romans 10:1 was a temporal salvation that regenerate but gospel ignorant Jews did not enjoy. This is a view that Cayce would not have shared, given his exegesis of this text, as the majority of Israel did not have this faith is plain from the 16th verse and by the analogy Paul makes in 11:2-5 to the Jewish unbelief and the unbelief in the time of Elijah.
What is important to realize about justification by faith in the book of Romans is that it is a root trust in the promises of God. This was the nature of Abraham's justification. He did not have the gospel of Paul; nevertheless, Paul used Abraham to illustrate the doctrine, and Abraham had the righteousness of God imputed to him. Abraham, as a regenerate man, embraced in faith the revelation available to him. If Abraham had Christ preached to him as we know the gospel today, you think Paul would have stated that, which would only have strengthened Paul's argumentation in Romans.
In the time of Paul, God's revelation was the gospel. It is the nature of truly regenerate men to embrace the gospel, as Abraham embraced the direct revelation of God to go to a land that God would show him. It is not consistent for those that possess justifying faith and imputed righteousness not to confess Jesus Christ as Lord (Romans 10:11), as faith in the gospel is had from the root of faith/trust in God that Abraham was given when he was spiritually reborn. This is the faith of Romans 10:17. It is a gospel faith, which is the natural extension of the root of faith imparted in the new birth.
Now, it is unnecessary to question that the salvation of Romans 10:1 is eternal, as Paul's thoughts on unbelief are clear from 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. Indeed, if we examine Romans 9:11-16, it is framed in elaboration to Jewish unbelief (9:6). Paul is clear here that election explains Jewish unbelief. He is also clear in 11:7.
Brother Fralick's challenges:
1) Does faith come by hearing?
Yes, gospel faith comes by hearing.
2) Was Elder Cayce treating Romans 10 as speaking of eternal salvation? If he
wasn't, why the need to deny the faith of verse 17 as coming by way of hearing
the gospel? If he was, is he therefore "out of order"?
I believe I answered this above. I doubt Elder Cayce exposited Romans 10 as most Primitives do today because it would be elementary to see the conflict with his exposition of 10:17.
3) If the faith of Romans 10:17 is part of an optional 'gospel salvation' for the
elect, should not Cayce be trying to PROVE that the faith comes by the 'gospel'?
See above. Saying that gospel salvation is 'optional' makes light of the powerful influence of the spirit in sanctification attending the preached word, working in the redeemed both to will and to do His good pleasure.
4) Does the preposition 'by' in v.17 signify that means of some sort are to follow in the passage?
It does because gospel conversion is mediated through the ministry of the word.
5) Is the faith which comes by hearing a gift of God's grace or a work of men?
Gospel faith is a natural extension of the root trust in God imparted in regeneration. The Spirit testifies to the truth of it, convicting the heart and mind of the regenerate. It pertains to life and Godliness (2 Peter 1:3), so it is a gift of God. Man, having the influence of the flesh, may quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19) for a time in terms of showing forth the fruits of this belief, even as Peter denied Christ.
6) If the faith which comes by hearing is of God's grace, then why is it stated that it is part of 'time salvation', which is a system of works?
It is categorized thusly to account for the influence of the flesh and of satan, even as Peter's path to conversion after being born again was tempestuous, or as Paul states in 2 Timothy 2:13, "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny Himself". This same relationship is understood of sanctification, which is a work of synergy between man and the Spirit.
7) If faith comes through the gospel does it cease to be of God?
Not at all, because gospel faith is a natural extension of the root of faith imparted by God in regeneration.
8) Is Christ the author of 'evangelical faith' ?
In that evangelical faith is the extension of a root of a fundamental trust given in regeneration, an affirmative would have to be given.
9) If my faith in Christ is part of how I ‘save myself while I live here’, does it
not follow that I am the author of my own faith?
No, 'saving yourself while I live here' is a benefit of being eternally secure by the finished work of Christ. A person's faith in the gospel is built in the context of being a new creature; gospel faith is not a different faith than that given in regeneration. It is an elaborated faith, fleshed out by the revelation of the gospel.
10) Is it hypocritical to sing the following words of "I Know Whom I Have Believed" in the song service? If so, why is it sung?
"I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.
I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word ,
Creating faith in Him."
It is not hypocritical. The fundamental trust/faith given in regeneration is fully consistent with the faith a disciple has in the gospel.
I enjoyed reading this Kevin.
ReplyDelete