The Gospel - The Means of Grace VII

Save By Gospel Faith

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 13-17)

The scriptures teach the proposition - "no faith = no salvation."

This is contrary to the Hardshell view. Dr. (Elder) Charles Waters in Zion's Advocate (June 1890) wrote:

"Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith. Infants and idiots must be so saved; for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated. Faith, therefore, is not necessary to eternal salvation."

Then he wrote later in the same periodical (June 1891):

"Spiritual and eternal life may exist, then, apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration; and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of His grace from this time state ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river."

This position was not the original Primitive Baptist position and when it was advocated in the latter quarter of the 19th century, many Primitives objected to it, especially elders Burnam and Pence. Burnam had been an associate editor on Zion's Advocate when Elder Clark edited it. In 1890, however, Elder Clark was no longer living.

During the last quarter of the 19th century, the "ultraist" wing of the Primitive Baptist movement gained the ascendancy. It was a novel idea to affirm that faith and repentance are not required for regeneration and eternal salvation, and one so dramatically opposed to the clear teachings of scripture. Let us see what the scriptures say.

"That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (II Thess. 2: 12)

"...he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark16: 16)

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24)

"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (II Thess. 1: 7-9)

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36)

"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (I John 5: 10)

These verses could not be clearer about the fate of those who reject the gospel. The rejection of their obvious teaching, by the Hardshells, is fantastic and demonstrates their cult status. It is heresy to deny what they teach.

In defending Elder Waters assertion that faith was not required for regeneration and salvation, Elder J. R. Daily, a later editor of Zion's Advocate, wrote:

"The position of the Elder (Burnam) seems to be that the Spirit gives these graces to the unregenerate sinner, and then leaves him to exercise these gifts as a condition of his regeneration. Right here we beg leave to join issue with Elder Burnam. This is the great dividing line between us and the Arminian World and ever has been, and we enter a denial that "it was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth to the notion of regeneration without faith," or rather before faith. Birth was given to that notion by divine inspiration."

Of course, Elder Daily did not state things accurately in his portrayal of the views of Elder Burnam and of those Primitive Baptists who believed in means and that faith was a requirement for being eternally saved. Elder Burnam did not believe that "graces" were given to the unregenerate with the expectation that the unregenerate must use them in order to be regenerated. What he believed was that faith and regeneration were concurrent, that one could not have one without the other. Also, Elder Daily was falsifying when he said that it was the "Arminian World" that taught that faith was connected with regeneration. Calvinists have also asserted the same. The London Confession of 1689 affirms that faith is a requirement for being saved. Dr. Gill affirmed that faith was required. Also, Daily offered no proof that the Hardshell view was not a novelty. He only denied it, affirming that the scriptures teach it. Of course, he is clearly in error on this. The bible does not teach that unbelievers will be saved, as the scriptures I have cited demonstrate.

Further, Burnam did not accept the Arminian teaching concerning "prevenient grace," as Daily implied. Burnam, like the real old Baptists, did believe that there was grace that preceded regeneration, that there was preparatory work that often preceded it.

Daily wrote:

"We wish it understood that what Elder Waters stated in those articles is still the doctrine of Zion's Advocate and we pledge ourselves ready to stand by it."

It may have become the view of the editors of Zion's Advocate after the death of Elder Clark, but it was not the view of it from 1854-1890, during the lifetime of Elder Clark.

Daily wrote:

"Elder Burnam then says, "In the first place, the Holy Scriptures in the clearest manner show that faith in God is essential to spiritual or eternal life," and refers to a number of passages as negative and affirmative proof, not a single one of which says or implies that "faith is essential to eternal life."

I don't know what particular verses were cited by Elder Burnam, but it must have included some of the verses I have cited. Daily can deny that they teach that faith is a requirement of salvation, but he is just stubbornly refusing to confess the obvious, and is intent on twisting their meaning to conform with his proposition, which proposition denies that faith is necessary for salvation.

Daily wrote:

"Elder Burnam does not show, nor can he show, that any one passage in the Bible teaches that one must believe in order to receive eternal life. It is not enough to say they are associated in regeneration, for if belief is to be exercised in order to the work of regeneration, as the Eld. asserts in the beginning of his article, and faith and eternal life are given at the same time, then it follows that one has eternal life before he is regenerated."

"It is not enough to say they are associated in regeneration"? Why is that not enough?

Besides, there are numerous verses that affirm that faith is a means for eternal life, some of which have already been cited. But, notice these:

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31)

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13)

Elder Daily is arguing for a strict chronological order in which regeneration precedes faith. But, the scriptures do not insist on this order, as the scriptures cited demonstrate.

See here for Daily's words

C. H. Spurgeon said:

"Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."

(Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).

Spurgeon's predecessor, John Gill, in commenting upon Romans 10, wrote:

"...there can be no true calling upon God without faith, no faith without hearing, no hearing without preaching, and no preaching without a divine mission."

Elder T. S. Dalton, years later, after Elder Waters and Daily promoted the view that faith was not required for eternal life and salvation, testified in the famous Mt. Carmel church trial. He was asked this interrogative: "You believe that God given faith is essential to the salvation of God's people, do you not?"

Elder Dalton answered:

"I will say this, that there is a belief produced through the preaching of the Gospel and there is a belief of the sacred truth of God; but that belief which is produced through the preaching of the Gospel is not a necessary adjunct in the eternal salvation of the sinner. But there is a faith that is implanted by the Spirit of God in the soul of every man that will ever enter Heaven, and no man will ever go to Heaven without that Divine eternal faith by the Spirit of God." (See this also in "Faith," from "Studies in Bible Doctrine," page 6 - emphasis mine)

Paul says that "faith comes by hearing" and that faith is necessary to be eternally saved. So, how do the Hardshell cultists handle this? They say that there are two kinds of "faith," one kind that comes by the preaching of the gospel, and another kind that comes without it. One kind of faith is necessary to eternal salvation and another kind is not necessary. One kind of faith can be possessed by infants in the womb and by the mentally incompetent, but another is possessed only by adults who are mentally competent. All this is, of course, a perverting of the teachings of scripture. Paul does not say that a certain kind of faith is produced by the gospel, but "faith." To say that some faith comes apart from preaching is to deny the plain teaching of Paul.

My dad, a leading Hardshell preacher and apologist, wrote:

"First, let me say that I believe all those dying in infancy are of the elect of God. God implants a faith in these infants as he did John the Baptist. See Luke 1:15 and 1:44."

”All of these verses prove that there is a faith that is implanted in us supernaturally when we are regenerated. No one will go to heaven without this faith. The preacher has nothing to do with this faith.”

What kind of faith is it that comes apart from knowledge of the truth? What kind of faith is it that does not know or believe anything? Where is the scriptural warrant for such an interpretation? Is it not an invention of those who refuse to believe what God has declared? If the Hardshells want to say that John the Baptist had the kind of "faith" that did not come through a knowledge of the gospel truth, why did John the Baptist "leap for joy" when the gospel was preached? According to Hardshells, the Athenian idolaters, while still in their heathen idolatry, had this kind of "faith"!

Scriptures on the utility and necessity of faith for salvation

"And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15: 9)

"...which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 18)

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus...Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3: 21-26, 28)

"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. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect...Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." (Romans 4: 13, 14, 19))

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Romans 5: 1, 2)

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2: 16)

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham...That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." (Gal. 3: 7-9, 14, 22)

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 26)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2: 8)

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Phil. 3: 9)

"the faith of God's elect." (Titus 1: 11)

"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (I Peter 1: 9)

An Analysis Of 19th Century PB Leaders

"Founding Fathers" of PB Church (1st generation) And Their Belief On Means

1. Elder Daniel Parker (never denied means and affirmed that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation)
2. Elder Gilbert Beebe (taught regeneration without means but new birth or conversion by means)
3. Elder Samuel Trott (same as Beebe)
4. Elder John Watson (taught means in regeneration or new birth)
5. Elder James Osbourn  (taught means in regeneration or new birth)
6. Elder John Clark  (taught means in regeneration or new birth)
7. Elder Joshua Lawrence  (taught means in regeneration or new birth)
8. Elder Mark Bennett  (taught means in regeneration or new birth)
9. Elder C. B. Hassell  (taught means in regeneration or new birth)
10. Elder Wilson Thompson  (same as Beebe)
11. Elder Grigg Thompson  (same as Beebe)
12. Elder Stephen Gard  (same as Beebe)
13. Elder William Conrad  (same as Beebe)
14. Elder John Leland (never denied means and affirmed that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation)
15. Elder John Taylor (never denied means and affirmed that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation)
16. Elder Lawrence Greatrake (never denied means and affirmed that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation)
17. Elder Joel Hume (never denied means and affirmed that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation)
18. Elder Hosea Preslar  (same as Watson)
19. Elder Richard M. Newport (never denied means and affirmed that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation)
20. Elder R. W. Fain (Same as Watson and Clark)
21. Elder J. B. Stephens  (Same as Watson and Clark)
22. Elder W. T. Pence  (Same as Watson and Clark)
23. Elder E. H. Burnam  (Same as Watson and Clark)
24. Elder William Conrad (same as Beebe)
25. Elder William Mitchell (same as Beebe)
26. Elder J. R. Respass (same as Beebe
27. Elder Daniel Jewett (believed in means)

Second Generation Leaders Who Espoused Means

1. Elder J. H. Purifoy  (Same as Watson and Clark at the first and then changed)
2. Elder P. D. Gold  (same as Beebe)
3. Elder Moses Denman (Same as Watson and Clark)
4. Elder Paul Yates (Same as Watson and Clark)
5. Elder T.S. Dalton (Same as Watson and Clark at the first and then changed)
6. Elder J. M. Thompson  (same as Beebe)
7. Elder J. V. Kirkland (believed in means - went to Missionaries)
8. Elder R. S. Kirkland  (believed in means - went to Missionaries)
9. Elder Benjamin Lampton  (same as Beebe)
10. Elder W. T. Pence (believed in means)
11. Elder E. H. Burnam  (believed in means)
12. Elder J. C. Denton  (believed in means)
13. Elder John Rowe  (believed in means)
14  Elder J. G. Webb (believed in means)
15. Elder W. L. Beebe (same as father Gilbert)

Second Generation Leaders Who Denied Means

1. Elder S. F. Cayce
2. Elder Sylvester Hassell (but seemed to incline to Beebe's view)
3. Elder Charles Waters
4. Elder Walter Cash
5. Elder C. H. Cayce
6. Elder J. H. Oliphant
7. Elder Silas Durand
8. Elder Lee Hanks
9. Elder P. G. Lester
10. Elder John R. Daily
11. Elder Lemuel Potter
12. Elder S.A. Paine

Third Generation Leaders Who Denied Means

1. Elder W. S. Craig
2. Elder J. S. Newman
3. Elder J. R. Redford
4. Elder W. C. Arnold
5. Elder W.H. Crouse
6. Elder R. H. Pittman
7. Nearly All the Rest

Now, can one not discern from this that those PBs who today deny the preaching of the gospel to be God's ordained means of calling his elect to salvation hold not to the primitive or original view?

Evidence That Demands A Verdict

From my years of research into the history of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, I have discovered that Elder E H. Burnam, a "Primitive Baptist" preacher in the latter half of the 19th century, and who was an associate editor with Elder John Clark on the Hardshell paper "Zion's Advocate," was correct when he stated the following in the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial."

"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."

Elder W. T. Pence, an associate of Elder Burnam, debated Elder Lemuel Potter on the issue of whether the Bible taught the use of means in regeneration. Elder Potter wrote this about the debate:

"Elder Pence claimed that we could not find a single author or commentator, prior to fifty years ago, that took the Anti-means position. He referred to Dr. Watson, and the London Confession of Faith, and to Dr. Gill, and other authors, in order to prove that the Baptists had heretofore believed in the doctrine of means, and that our position among the Old School Baptists was entirely new."
(see here where I cited this previously)

Let us name the leaders of the first generation of Hardshells and look at what they are on record as believing.

Elder Joshua Lawrence, a leader in the Kehukee Association and in the anti mission movement in North Carolina and in the eastern states. He is on record as affirming the Gospel means position.

Elder Gilbert Beebe, a signer of the Black Rock Address and editor of the first and foremost Hardshell periodical, The "Signs of the Times," and he is on record as affirming that the new birth followed regeneration, being distinct from it, and was the same experience as "conversion," or that experience that comes to those who hear the Gospel of Christ and believe in him.

Elder Samuel Trott, a close associate of Beebe and frequent writer on the Signs of the Times periodical, he held the same view as Beebe.

Elder John Watson, a leader of the Baptists on the western frontier and of middle Tennessee, and a supporter of "The Old Baptist Banner" periodical, published out of Nashville in the late 1830s by Watson's associate, Elder Washington Lowe, is also on record as believing the Gospel means position.

Elder John Clark was a frequent writer to all four of the first Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, along with Elder Watson, and eventually started the paper "Zion's Advocate" in 1852 and all through this paper, even in the first issue, the means position was advocated.

Elder Wilson Thompson is often cited where he denies that God uses the means of the Gospel in the "regeneration" of sinners. But, what is often overlooked is the fact that he was in fellowship with Elders Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and William Conrad, and others, who espoused the view that regeneration was a distinct preparatory work from being born again, and that the former was effected without the means of faith and Gospel preaching, but that the latter was through faith and through the Gospel. He certainly did not believe that many of God's elect would die without coming to faith in Christ.

Elder William Conrad also believed as did Elders Trott and Beebe that the new birth was to be equated with the experience of Gospel conversion. He was a leader in Kentucky in the early to mid 1800s.

Elder Mark Bennett was editor of "The Primitive Baptist" and a leader of the denomination and the above periodical is filled with statements affirming the use of Gospel preaching in regenerating or giving spiritual birth to the elect.

Elder Burwell Temple also was a later editor of "The Primitive Baptist" and no doubt believed the Gospel means position.

Elder Daniel Jewett was editor of "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" and there is clear evidence in that paper that he and his fellow writers and his readers believed that the Lord used the preaching of the word to give birth to, or eternally save, his elect.

Elder James Osbourn was without question one of the foremost ring leaders of the newly formed Hardshell denomination and travelled widely after the division within the general Hardshell Baptist family and he is on record as also affirming the Gospel means position.

Elder Lawrence Greatrake was an outspoken early advocate for the Regular Baptists who opposed missions, Sunday Schools, theological schools, etc., and yet he is on record as supporting the Gospel means position.

Elder John Taylor, though he was one of the first to speak against the rise of mission organizations, Sunday Schools, and seminaries, he nevertheless shows by his writings that he believed that God uses Gospel preaching to call his elect to life and salvation.

Elder John Leland, like Elder Taylor, with whom he was friends, opposed the same things that the early Hardshells opposed, but nevertheless shows by his writings that he believed in the means position.

Elder Hosea Preslar, first a leader in the Bear Creek Association in North Carolina, and later a resident of middle Tennessee and friend of Elder Watson, is also on record as believing in the means position.

Elder Stephen Gard, a close ally of Wilson Thompson, and leader in the Miami Association in Ohio, is also on record as believing in Gospel means.

I find that it was not till the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, as Elder Burnam testified, that the "Primitive Baptists" began to embrace the anti means position. The founding fathers of the evolved Hardshell denomination are men such as R.W. Thompson (who preached this view in his debate with a Campbellite in Reynoldsburg, Ohio in 1874), and Elder Lemuel Potter, who defended this view in the 1880s and 1890s in debates with Elder W. T. Pence and Elder W. P. Throgmorton, and Elders C. H. Waters and T.S. Dalton about the same time. Two elders who took up the new hybrid doctrine and make it stick with the Hardshells were two great debaters, namely Elders C. H. Cayce and John R. Daily.

I have challenged the Hardshells to prove Elders Pence and Burnam wrong on their thesis that the anti means position is a new position, not only as regards Baptists of pre 19th century times, but even among their own denomination. When I debated Jason Brown here on this blog, I often challenged him to give us the citations from men of the early 19th century, among the Hardshells, who promoted the anti means position. He could not do it. I have challenged my father, who has preached for the Hardshells for nearly 50 years, and he cannot do it. Thus, the evidence for a verdict is clear. Today's Hardshells who deny that the elect are regenerated and eternally saved by the Gospel are a new denomination, or "modern innovators," as Elder Watson called them. If any Hardshell has evidence to prove that there were advocates for the anti means position in the 1830s, or 1840s, or even the 1850s, let him come forward and give us the evidence.

Nooses Around The Neck

There are several major problems that "Primitive" (aka "Hardshell") Baptists have in dealing apologetically with their history. These problems concern 1) the beliefs of their founding fathers and 2) their confessions and periodicals. The religious views of these men are like nooses around their denominational neck.

"Founding Fathers" of PB Church
(1st generation)

1. Elder Daniel Parker
2. Elder Gilbert Beebe
3. Elder Samuel Trott
4. Elder John Watson
5. Elder James Osbourn
6. Elder John Clark
7. Elder Joshua Lawrence
8. Elder Mark Bennett
9. Elder C. B. Hassell
10. Elder Wilson Thompson
11. Elder Grigg Thompson
12. Elder Stephen Gard
13. Elder William Conrad
14. Elder John Leland
15. Elder John Taylor
16. Elder Lawrence Greatrake
17. Elder Joel Hume
18. Elder Hosea Preslar
19. Elder Richard M. Newport

Observations 

1. These are the "founding fathers" or first generation leaders of the newly formed "Old School" or "Primitive Baptist" denomination.

2. Not one of these men would be fellowshipped by today's "Primitive" Baptists!

3. Most of these men held to serious errors, and to many "Two Seed" heresies, as confessed by later PB histories.

4. Biographical histories are often best when tracing the history of a movement or formation of a separate religious group. What does an examination of the first leaders of the PB denomination reveal about the denomination?

Revelatory Historical Events

1. The Kehukee Declaration (1827)
2. The Black Rock Address (1832)
3. The Fulton Convention and Confession (1900)

Observations

1. Neither the Kehukee Declaration or the Black Rock Address spoke against the belief that the gospel was a means in the new birth.

2. The Fulton Convention endorsed the 1689 London confession and acknowledged that it was the confession of their oldest churches, the historically accepted confession of all Predestinarian Baptists.

3. The Fulton Convention, via its attached "notes" of "explanation," corrupted the confession and pawned off a misinterpretation of it. It condemned both the use of means in rebirth and the predestination (decree) of all things.

First Major Periodicals

1. The Signs of the Times
2. The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor
3. The Primitive Baptist
4. The Old Baptist Banner

Observations

1. These periodicals all taught that all things that come to pass are the result of God's will or eternal decree.

2. These periodicals all taught the use of gospel knowledge in the new birth.

3. These periodicals all taught the certain perseverance of all the elect and called (adult) and that faith in Christ was essential for that perseverance, and perseverance for final salvation.

4. These periodicals all taught that the spiritually dead were to be addressed in gospel preaching and exhorted to believe and repent for salvation.

Second Generation Leaders

1. Elder Sylvester Hassell
2. Elder P.D. Gold
3. Elder R.W. Fain
4. Elder T. P. Dudley
5. Elder S. F. Cayce
6. Elder C.H. Cayce
7. Elder J.R. Respass
8. Elder William Mitchell
9. Elder T.S. Dalton
10. Elder (Dr.) Charles Waters
11. Elder John R. Daily
12. Elder Walter Cash
13. Elder Lee Hanks
14. Elder Silas Durand
15. Elder J.H. Oliphant
16. Elder S.N. Redford
17. Elder J.S. Newman
18. Elder J.H. Purifoy
19. Elder W.T. Pence
20. Elder E.H. Burnam
21. Elder J.M. Thompson

Observations

1. Many of these men, early in their ministries, held to the gospel means position, believed in the predestination of all things, and to the perseverance of the saints, but many changed during the last half of the nineteenth century. This is documented in historical writings of the period.

2. Many of these men held to the view that all the elect would hear the gospel as preached by Jesus via the Spirit apart from human preachers or the written word.

3. Some of these men went further and held that one could be "born again" while in heathendom, and yet remain a heathen in faith (quasi Universalism).

4. This led others to further extremes, denying that all the regenerated (or born again) would be converted evangelically and to deny the historic doctrine on perseverance and predestination.

I have studied the writings and lives of these men and read many of their old periodicals and there is an interesting biographical history in all that information. Perhaps one day I can put it all together in such a form.

2nd Generation Periodicals

1. The Primitive Baptist (Cayce - 1880s)
2. Zion's Advocate (1854)
3. Zion's Landmark
4. The Gospel Messenger
5. The Signs of the Times
6. Herald Of Truth
7. The Baptist Watchman
8. The Messenger of Peace
9. The Primitive Monitor
10. The Church Advocate

Observations

1. You can see the ecclesiastical battles play out in these second generation periodicals and among these leaders.

2. What is known today as the "Conditionalist" faction of PBs (largest), called "ultraists" and "modern innovators" by Elder Watson (Old Baptist Test), won the battle with those contending for keeping to a belief in means, absolute predestination, perseverance, etc., in this period.

3. It was still common in this period to hear the "three stage model" of the new birth taught and believed.

4. It was a time when the doctrine of "time salvation" became a popular apology for neo Hardshellism.

Daily vs. Burnam

1854 - 1920

(Note: This article is quite long and I don't expect many to have the desire and fortitude to read it all. Many of my articles are quite long. I could break this entry into two parts, but this has its disadvantages too. Those few who are interested, particularly those studying the history of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists," will hopefully be edified and informed by this writing. The issues involved in the split over the means question at the latter end of the 19th century, and extending into the 20th century, among the "Primitive Baptists," are still debated today (hence the reason for this blog).

There were several areas of theological debate that took place within the newly formed denomination (or sect) of those who went by the name "Reformed," then "Old School" and/or "Primitive" Baptists. Many historians, both within and without the sect, say that the official date of separation was 1832, the date of the famous (or infamous) "Black Rock Address" but some say the date is 1827 when the Kehukee Association of North Carolina issued a similar Address, also protesting and declaring against mission societies and evangelical methods, and some other things, such as theological education (seminaries), tract publishing, revivals, etc. 

The title of this post refers to two of the leaders of the opposing sides in the war over the question of means in regeneration (and eternal salvation) during the last quarter of the 19th century, to Elder E.H. Burnam (though some spell it Burnham) and Elder John R. Daily. Both men were widely accepted among those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School" or "Regular" Baptists. We have already also referred to some of the associates of each of these two men, particularly of the debate between Elder Lemuel Potter (confessing to be "primitive" or "regular" Baptist) and Elder W.T. ("Tom") Pence. See my postings on this debate: 1) "Pence on Hardshell Origins" (here) 2) This post from my Duke Research on John Clark (here) 3) "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" (here) 4) "Hardshell Falsehoods" (here).

I have not been able to find pictures of either Burnam or Pence nor much information about them. I have not found much information of other PB leaders who were on the means side in the split, such as Elder J.B. McInturf (and others who were involved in the famed "Mt. Carmel Church Trial"- see archives). These men showed conclusively in their debates with the "modern innovators" of the "anti means" side (as Elder Watson called them) that their anti means doctrine was not biblical nor was it the view of their forefathers but was an "innovation" and showed them to be "ultraists" (what Watson called them, and a term Sylvester Hassell later also used). 

I cannot, for brevity's sake, give any more than the above on the biographies and credentials of either Burnam or Daily. I did read Daily's book as a young Hardshell called "Pilgrimage of a Stranger." I also know that Daily saw himself as the successor to his mentor and idol, Elder Lemuel Potter. Elder Daily had many children and several sons and one of them he named after his mentor, calling him Oliver "Lemuel" Daily. He and one of his other sons, J. Harvey Daily, became PB preachers also. 

It is sufficient only to know that both Burnam and Daily were leaders when the last quarter of the 19th century began or ended. I have written much over the years on both men and have much more information in unpublished drafts on them both. Daily became a leading debater, like his ministerial brother C.H. Cayce, and editor of one of their leading papers similarly. He traveled much in preaching tours to other churches in many states. Burnam preached in several states, living in Missouri, Virginia, and some other places I believe. When the debate over means became intense, Burnam started his own paper called The Regular Baptist Magazine. I have a few of those issues on USB drive but would like to find much more from the years he published it. In it are to be found information on the debate that was going on. Daily at the end of the 19th century took over editorship of the paper started by Elder John Clark in Luray, Va. Below is an entry from "Zion's Advocate" (began by Clark in 1854) titled "Regenerate Sinners Saved - Faith or No Faith" for August 1898, Vol. 37, No. 8 (See here). The Primitive Baptist Library says this about the history of PBs in Missouri:

"The First Regular Baptist Church of St. Louis, Missouri, was constituted on March 29, 1879, by Elder E. H. Burnam, who lived on Laclede Avenue in St. Louis at that time." (See here)

Now let me examine an editorial of Elder Daily in Zion's Advocate (originally begun by Elder John Clark in 1854 and he believed in means and would be disappointed that anti means brethren took control of the paper he started!). It is under the heading "REGENERATE SINNERS SAVED, FAITH OR NO FAITH" and was written to respond to Elder Burnam's article on behalf of the means side (which I wish we had access to and not only the citations of it from Daily). Wrote Daily in rebuttal (emphasis mine): 

 

"This heading is given in quotation marks to an article in "The Old Paths" from the pen of E. H. Burnam, intended as a criticism of statements made by Dr. (Elder) Waters in Zion's Advocate for June, 1890 and June 1891. It seems that a former effort had been made thro' the same paper to overthrow the position taken by Dr. Waters, but we presume E. H. B. was not satisfied with that and so attempted it again. Very well, Elder, you can make another trial if you wish, for unless the former attempt was much more successful than yours above referred to, the Doctor's position is not in the least injured by the assault."

I would love to locate this periodical "The Old Paths" for it would hold additional information on the split over the doctrine of means and of perseverance. It and the "Regular Baptist Magazine" (edited by Burnam during this time) would be desirous of any historian of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. Concerning elder (medical doctor) C.H. Waters, I read some of his sermons back in the 70s when I began to devour PB writings. He pastored churches in the Washington D.C. area. He became editor of Zion's Advocate when Elder Clark passed away in 1882, followed by Elder T.S. Dalton (who at first believed in means but when the split came jumped on the anti means innovation bandwagon) and then Elder John R. Daily. 

Daily writes further:

First, Eld. Burnam says, "It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ." From this statement it is logically inferred that Eld. B. believes that one must "exercise repentance, faith, and other spiritual gifts," in order to his own regeneration. If he believes this he believes regeneration to be conditional on the part of the regenerated; that the unregenerated sinner must, while in a state of unregeneracy, exercise repentance, faith, and other spiritual gifts, as a result of which God will regenerate him. Observe that he calls "repentance" and "faith" spiritual gifts. If they are spiritual gifts the Spirit gives them.

I have concluded from all my historical research that Elder Burnam was correct and Daily was wrong. In fact, I have shown how Daily, Potter, and others who took the lead in the schism for the anti means side, told falsehoods about their history. For instance, they all said that both Elders Watson and Clark did not believe in means, which I am sure they knew better. They even said that John Gill denied means! In doing this they lost all credibility and showed that their published histories are what the late PB historian, Dr. R.E. Pound called "wish history" and "mishistory." (See my posting with his citations here) 

One of their historians, Elder W.H. Crouse (a young admirer of the older John R. Daily), I have shown falsified the writings of Elder Clark and made him to believe the very thing he disbelieved. (See here) I had to drive to Duke University and spend a day in the library going through old issues of Zion's Advocate to find the article Crouse cited and I found where Clark advocated a belief in means! The no means view did not become the standard view till the second half of the 19th century, especially in the last decade of that century. 

Of course, Daily's error is not only in denying that faith precedes regeneration, but that it mostly occurs in those who have no faith, or at least no biblical or Christian faith. Why are they serious errors? Besides their ideas being what is positively denied in scripture, it is illogical too. And certainly not "Baptistic" (meaning not what is historical or traditional Baptist belief). Why? Because the scriptures put union with Christ at the head of salvation. One must be united to Christ to have life (like a branch needs to be joined to the vine to have the sap of life) and union with Christ is by faith. So, yes, faith is a necessary precondition for the beginning of regeneration, and God's drawing and teaching work is a precondition of faith. God does work on the heart and mind of a sinner prior to his regeneration. One of the oft cited scriptures of Elder Clark was Galatians 3: 26 - "for you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." No! Waters, Dalton, Potter, and Daily did not believe the same thing as Elder Clark and they lied when they said that they did. God help them.

Further, the crux of the controversy was not so much as to whether faith preceded regeneration or whether regeneration preceded faith, but whether one could exist without the other. Those are not the same things. Further, the proposition of Elder Waters (attacked by Burnam and the Means brethren and defended by Daily on behalf of the anti means brethren) says "faith or no faith" and so the debate is not whether faith immediately precedes or immediately follows regeneration but whether faith is a necessary element or condition of spiritual life. 

The proposition of the anti means innovators was to say that regeneration is not only "before" faith but it is also "without" faith. Their innovative idea produced a character the bible and our Baptist forbears have not known, i.e. a "regenerated unbeliever." The new Hardshell understanding of regeneration led them to believe that many idol worshiping pagans were regenerated while they remained in a pagan faith. Elder C.H. Cayce (perhaps their leading debater, and who had over 300 debates I have been told and of which I have read several along with his "Editorial Writings," which I devoured in my twenties), actually believed that the Athenians to whom Paul preached in Acts chapter seventeen gave evidence of regeneration by their worshiping of idols and thus apart from believing in the scriptures or gospel! When I was a Hardshell I heard sermons about how many American Indians, before they were ever brought to know and believe the scriptures and the gospel, showed "evidence" of "regeneration" by their reverence for the god they knew as "the great spirit." Such is not biblical nor Baptistic. Also it is not what his PB founders believed in the 1830s.

Further, as I have shown in numerous writings, many of the first generation of PBs believed that regeneration and the new birth were not the same, that the former preceded the latter, and that there was a gap in between corresponding to time spent in the womb of conviction. In this paradigm "regeneration" did precede faith or conversion, but the "birth" followed faith. Surely Daily knew this! But, he now represents second generation PBs (who became true "Hardshells") by affirming that regeneration and begetting are the same thing and that neither is connected with faith, repentance, or evangelical conversion. But, as I have shown, the first PBs in the 1830s believed that the birth occurred in evangelical conversion and this is why their oldest confessions say "all the elect will be regenerated and converted." 

Daily says further:

"The position of the Elder seems to be that the Spirit gives these graces to the unregenerate sinner, and then leaves him to exercise these gifts as a condition of his regeneration. Right here we beg leave to join issue with Elder B. This is the great dividing line between us and the Arminian World and ever has been, and we enter a denial that "it was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth to the notion of regeneration without faith," or rather before faith. Birth was given to that notion by divine inspiration. Jesus says, "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things" (Matt. 12:35). "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10). In regeneration the heart is changed and thus caused to possess a good treasure. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them" (Ezk. 36:26-27)." 

Daily's calling a belief in pre-regeneration work, or a belief in means, "Arminian," was a tactic he and his anti means brethren used in their war with the PBs who retained a belief in means. However, today we find anti means PBs saying a belief in means is "Calvinism"! I could use Daily's own argumentation against him by allusion to the story of the coming to life of the "dead dry bones" in Ezekiel 36. There was activity in the bones and other body parts before there was life breathed into them. And God was working on the bones and sinews before they were made alive. So, if we define "quickening" or "resurrection" as that which occurs when God first begins to work on that which is dead, then we will have to say that the bones, sinews, and the persons were quickened before the breath of life was breathed upon them. Don't you see?  

Further, as I pointed out before, the new heart and spirit involves a believing heart and believing spirit, but Daily says this new heart is still a heart of unbelief and this new spirit is still the old unbelieving spirit. 

Dr. John Owen (1616-1683), the great Calvinist of the 17th century, wrote about the preparatory work of God which precedes regeneration, saying (as cited by me here):

"I shall, therefore, in general, refer the whole work of the Spirit of God with respect unto the regeneration of sinners unto two heads:— First, That which is preparatory for it; and, secondly, That which is effective of it. That which is preparatory for it is the conviction of sin; this is the work of the Holy Spirit, John xvi. 8."

("Regeneration", CHAPTER V., "THE NATURE, CAUSES, AND MEANS OF REGENERATION" (See here)

All those who put regeneration before faith do so because they define the word "regeneration" as denoting the first thing God does in the life and heart of a sinner to bring about his being regenerated. By that definition there are no preparatory workings. 

 Owen also addresses the subject in the third volume of his Works in a section entitled, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration." Owen writes: 

"Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them." 

Likewise, another great 17th century theologian, Stephen Charnock, wrote similarly to Owen his contemporary: "The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration..." 

The first Hardshells, as I have shown in my writings, believed that "conviction of sin and lost condition" followed regeneration but preceded the new birth.

Daily says further:

"The following propositions are deducible from these positive declarations, and we are glad to believe that Eld. B is sufficiently acquainted with the principles of logic to understand them:

1. Faith is a good thing. 

2. Only such as have a good treasure of heart can bring forth faith. 

3. A good treasure of heart is given in regeneration. Therefore regeneration precedes faith" 

But, ironically, this is not logical. The way the syllogism is set up it affirms that a heart can be good while it is an unbelieving heart. If a good heart is given in regeneration, and a good heart is a believing heart, then there can be no good heart that is void of faith. Further, the heart cannot be good as long as it remains unconnected with Christ and it remains unconnected till the heart is united to Christ by faith.

Daily says further:

 

"Again, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." To be born of God means regeneration. Belief, or faith, is, then, an evidence of regeneration, and not a condition in order to regeneration. A condition goes before, an evidence follows after. If we say, Whosoever breathes is alive, all understand us to mean that breathing is an evidence of life, and that life, therefore, precedes breathing. But when the Bible says, "Whosoever believeth is born of God," Eld. Burnam and other Arminians still insist that Faith is not an evidence but a condition of regeneration." 

"To be born of God means regeneration" says Daily. But, surely he knows that such was not the general view of the PBs of the 1830s. They saw regeneration as distinct from being born again. But, I do agree with Daily that being born again and being regenerated speak of the same thing. Further, as I have shown in my writings, the scriptures are filled with statements that sinners come to Christ for spiritual life, the coming (faith) preceding the living. 

About breathing because one has life, that is true. However, one cannot make too much of this. Let us ask - can a person be living who is not breathing? Did not Adam have the breath of God before he became a living man? Did not the dry bones of Ezekiel's vision have breath before they were made alive? Again, Daily and his Hardshell brethren say a man can have spiritual life who never comes to faith which signifies a man can have physical life without breathing. But, just as breathing is a necessary condition for being alive, so too is faith necessary for being spiritually alive. 

Daily says further:

"In Heb. 11:1, it is said that "faith is the evidence of things not seen." The Spirit's work in regeneration is a work not seen, and faith is the evidence of that work. We now present the following propositions and conclusion:

1. Faith is an evidence of regeneration. 

2. That of which a thing is an evidence must precede it. 

3. Therefore regeneration precedes faith." 

 

But, if faith is the evidence or proof of regeneration, then how can Daily claim to have proof that unbelievers have been regenerated? Further, Paul does not say it is evidence of "regeneration" but rather the "evidence of things invisible," or evidence of hope. All Paul means is that faith, real faith, is the visible proof of what is invisible. We have hope of Heaven, an invisible thing to us and the evidence of it is faith. Further, I don't think it is true in every case that evidence must follow the thing it evidences. For instance, a pre-cancerous cell is evidence that cancer is coming. Or, certain weather conditions are evidence of a coming storm.

Daily says further:

"What Dr. Waters said in the articles referred to we are glad to say we most heartily endorse. Here is the first quotation given by Elder B. from Dr. Waters:

"Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith. Infants and idiots must be so saved; for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated. Faith, therefore, is not necessary to eternal salvation."---Dr. Waters, in Zion's Advocate for June, 1890.

We wonder if Eld. B. believes that infants and idiots are saved. If he believes they are saved does he believe they are regenerated?" 

This is the argument that Daily and his ilk rely much upon but it is very weak and unconvincing (which is why very few have been converted to Hardshellism by it). Even if we admit that infants and idiots are saved apart from faith and repentance, that does not mean that all non infants and idiots are saved apart from faith and repentance. In my book on the Hardshell cult, I deal with these type arguments and show them to be invalid. Further, infants and idiots do not go to Heaven without faith and repentance. Does Daily believe that they enter Heaven unbelievers and impenitent? If he believes that only believers are in Heaven, then when did the infant become a believer? 

Daily says further:

"We now give the second extract.

"Spiritual and eternal life may exist, then, apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration; and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of His grace from this time state ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river."---Dr. Waters, in Zion's Advocate and Herald of Truth for June, 1891.

We wish it understood that what Elder Waters stated in those articles is still the doctrine of Zion's Advocate and we pledge ourselves ready to stand by it." 

It may be the doctrine of Zion's Advocate since the death of its founder, Elder John Clark, but it was not the view of Clark and of Zion's Advocate prior to Waters, Dalton, and Daily taking it over. Of course Clark would have affirmed that infants go to Heaven apart from being converted, at least on the conscious level and in a way visible to adults. John the Baptist however was able to leap for joy in his mother's womb when he heard the good news. This in itself destroys the argumentation of Daily. Further, Sylvester Hassell, a contemporary of Daily, would not agree.

Elder Sylvester Hassell (1842-1928), Hardshell historian and apologist, wrote:

"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."  (see here)

Does this not say that infants, who are part of "His people," have Jesus to preach the gospel to them? 

I had a former Hardshell attendee call me years ago and I recall we talked about John R. Daily and the means question. He was very familiar with Daily's Hymn Book which he compiled and he assured me that there were songs in it that advocated means in regeneration. Ironic and revealing it is.

Daily says further:

"After asserting that the notion of regeneration preceding faith received its birth among the Old Order of Baptists in the last quarter of the 19th century, Eld. B. discovers "one eminent man," A. Fuller, who believed and advocated that notion, who he declares to be the "antipodes" of ours "on some accounts." He should have said antipode using the word in the singular form. True enough, in his Arminian views he was the antipode of us, just as Burnam and all other Arminians are, but we are glad to learn he was right on this one point, and not surprised to find Eld. B. taking exceptions to his position on that point."

Several things need to be said in reply to these words of Daily. First, again, the debate is not over whether regeneration precedes faith, but whether it, or the new birth, can exist without faith. Burnam would have known that many of his forefathers or founders of the PB church believed that regeneration did precede faith but they also believed that faith preceded the new birth. So, the real question is whether a man can be born again without faith. Daily will not find any church or leader in Baptist history who taught that born again people are without faith (among adults). They never believed in a regenerated or born again unbeliever.

Second, Daily is wrong about Andrew Fuller. Fuller taught that one was regenerated before faith! He taught essentially what is taught by many Reformed Baptists, such as James White, or some Calvinists such as John MacArthur, that regeneration logically preceded faith but did not precede it chronologically. Fuller and such men believe essentially in the same three stage model of the new birth (that I have written about so much, which makes regeneration to be like conception in the womb via the male sperm, followed by the time in the womb, corresponding to the experience we call "conviction of sin," and after a period of time followed by the birth or delivery from the womb corresponding to the new birth). However, many would not put a gap in time between regeneration (seed planting), conviction, and birth (gospel conversion or deliverance). 

Alexander Campbell, in his dialogues with Baptist leader J.M. Peck (who debated Daniel Parker), attacked Fuller for believing that regeneration preceded faith and forced Peck to respond to it! See these postings (here and here)

Daily says further:

"In coupling us with Fuller he says, "A noble pair of brothers, truly! One knows not whether most to wonder at the daring impiety of these utterances, or the contempt which they imply for the common sense and judgment of men." Eld. B. must have felt relieved after letting off that extraordinary load. But really such a statement comes with a very ill grace from a leading man among the faction which, like that led off by Fuller, left the Old Order of Baptists. The most contemptible thing connected with this recent separation from us is that those who have gone out from us because they were not of us, persist in claiming to be the Old Order of Baptists at the same time advocating the Arminian doctrine. "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."

I don't know what Burnam is referring to in regard to Fuller. Fuller certainly did not believe regeneration was complete until one was brought to faith and repentance. He was like many in his day who spoke of two senses to the term "regeneration," one narrowly defined, and one broadly defined. Fuller did fight against the Hyper Calvinists, and he was vehement in affirming that the preaching of the gospel was the means God used to regenerate or beget. 

Daily says further:

"Eld. B. then says, "In the first place, the Holy Scriptures in the clearest manner show that faith in God is essential to spiritual or eternal life," and refers to a number of passages as negative and affirmative proof, not a single one of which says or implies that "faith is essential to eternal life." Eld. B. does not show, nor can he show, that any one passage in the Bible teaches that one must believe in order to receive eternal life. It is not enough to say they are associated in regeneration, for if belief is to be exercised in order to the work of regeneration, as the Eld. asserts in the beginning of his article, and faith and eternal life are given at the same time, then it follows that one has eternal life before he is regenerated."

Daily was living in a dream world to believe that his Baptist forefathers affirmed that faith in Christ was not essential to possessing eternal life. Daily never produced one source from previous decades or centuries to show that his view of life without faith was "Old Baptist" teaching. Further, Jesus said "except you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins." (John 8: 24) Jesus made faith necessary for salvation and eternal life.

Daily says further:

"Again, the Elder says, "One is not born in order to be possessed of sensation of which faith is the spiritual organ." Worse and worse! Then we suppose one possesses "sensation of which faith is the spiritual organ" before he is born. But this is not all. He says, "Both illumination and faith are equally the product of the Spirit of God, and being equally essential to life, they must be imparted at the same time and become inseparable." He here makes a distinction between illumination and life. Illumination is the impartation of light. John says, "In him was life and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). According to this the illumination is the life, but Eld. B. makes a distinction and argues that the sinner is illuminated before he has the life, for he says this illumination and faith are given at the same time, and that both precede the work of regeneration. In the same connection he asserts that both illumination and faith are given at the instant life is given. These contradictory positions the Eld. will never be able to reconcile." 

I don't understand the first part of the citation from Burnam. I would need to see more of the whole article from which Daily takes the quotation. 

But, the statements or propositions of Burnam are the teachings of scripture and of the "Old Baptists" of former times. Jesus had the order this way: hear the teaching of the Father, be drawn by the Father, come to Christ, obtain spiritual or eternal life. (John 6: 44-45) That seems to be the very thing Burnam was conveying and Daily is against both scripture and Old Baptist history and tradition.

Daily says further:

"Now, as he proposes to continue the subject we have a few questions to propound which we desire him to answer.

1. Will any have faith who never hear the gospel? 

2. Will any of the Heathen who die without having heard of Jesus be finally saved? 

3. Will infants who die in infancy be saved without being regenerated? 

4. Will insane persons and idiots dying in that state, not having minds susceptible of believing on Jesus Christ, be saved without regeneration? 

5. Is the illumination mentioned in your last article enlightenment imparted through the preaching of the gospel? 

6. Give a passage that says or implies that the unbelieving sinner is affected by the preached word while in a state of unbelief, and tell how such sinner is affected. Be frank and plain in your answer to these interrogatories. 

Here are my answers. If I every locate where Burnam answered them, I will post them.

1) Romans 10 says people must hear about Jesus to believe in Jesus and "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." How could Daily believe otherwise? It is bewildering.

2) Not according to Sylvester Hassell, your contemporary (see the citation above). Further, Jesus said "all that the Father gives to me will come to me." So, yes, all who have not come to faith in Christ are not of the number given to Christ.

3) Infants are saved by regeneration but we do not have any scripture that explains that to us and we do not build doctrine on speculation. Like Campbell said, "we speak where the bible speaks and are silent where it is silent."

4) Same answer as the above. I deal with all these questions or arguments in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."

5) Of course enlightenment and illumination come by the gospel! (See I Cor. chapter 2 for instance)

6) My section in the above book dealing with "Addresses to the Lost" answers this question.

In another upcoming post I will deal more with the division over the "means question" that occurred within the denomination.