In continuation of the previous article on the parable of the soils, I want to cite from Elder John R. Daily, a recognized leader of today's Hardshells and close associate of Cayce, and see what he said about the subject. The debate from which this citation occurred is on a "Primitive Baptist" web page. (SEE HERE) It is from the Daily-Throgmorton Debate (1912). Daily Replied in his first negative speech (2nd proposition regarding means - emphasis mine):
"The position is that the preacher or preaching the truth gives life to dead sinners by his preaching, just as the sower puts life in the ground by sowing. That God depends upon the preacher for the transmission of life to the sinner dead in trespasses and sins. There was no change produced in the ground, the good ground even, by sowing the seed. It is the same ground it was before. There as no change wrought in the stony ground by sowing the seed. There was no change produced in the wayside ground by sowing seed upon it. There was no change in the ground that brought forth thorns, briars, etc., by sowing seeds among those thorns. The sowing produced no change. The ground represents the hearts. The preaching then produces no change in the hearts of people. None whatever."
It is astounding that any public teacher of the word of God would repeatedly say that the preaching of the Gospel produces "no change" in the hearts of those who hear and believe it! Then why preach?
It is also ironic to me that Daily would fight the Two Seeder notion of a "no change" view of "regeneration" or "hollow log doctrine," (as he does in other writings) and yet affirm here that the revelation of the word of God to a sinner produces no change in that man's heart. Does he not know what the word "heart" means in Scripture? He says the hearts of people who hear the word, saved or unsaved, produces no change in the heart, saying "It is the same ground it was before."
Also, it is significant that Daily interprets God's use of means in rebirth to logically necessitate that one who hold that view to affirm that "God depends upon the preacher." He has no problem with affirming, by his logic and rule, that God depends upon the preacher in conversion, sanctification, perseverance, etc.! Further, by his logic, we must say that God "depended" upon human beings every time he used them to carry out his purposes. How ridiculous! Daily, like a "Sophist," simply wants to build a "straw man" argument and try to win debate by such tactics.
Daily also said:
"The seed sown cannot be eternal life; because where it fell on the wayside it was taken up the fowls and carried away. If it represents eternal life fowls get eternal life by swallowing the seed they will get salvation, and if it represents eternal life then eternal life perishes. If it represents eternal life, then eternal life is choked. I deny that it represents eternal life, and call upon him to prove it, which he will never do."
Can you believe this bunk? Why do the Hardshells uphold men like Daily and Cayce when they were clearly theological morons?
No one ever said that the "seed" was the same thing as "eternal life"! Another "straw man." The "seed" is as Jesus said, "the word of God," and it is the medium for conveying spiritual and eternal life to his chosen people. Paul speaks of Christians who, in communicating the word of God, were "holding forth the word of life." (Phil. 2: 16) Jesus said that his words were "spirit" and "life," and surely the word of God in the Gospel gives us those words. (John 6: 63)
By Daily's own argument about the fowls receiving salvation and eternal life by eating the "seed," which is ridiculous, he must say that this word/seed, being the truth (as he says), and being taken and eaten by the fowls, must mean that the fowls have the truth and have been converted! Is that not foolishness?
It is no wonder that God is not blessing Hardshell preaching with such low views of the power of the Gospel!