Chpt. 91 - Hardshell Proof Texts XIII

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans 2: 14-16)

Hardshells, in their attempts to find verses which affirm that there are numerous "heathen" people who are "regenerated," will cite this verse. Clearly the passage is talking about the "heathen," about those who do not know the one true and living God, but who worship "gods many" and "lords many." Do the verses say that such people are nevertheless regenerated, though still pagan idolaters? If the reference to the law being written on the heart is a reference to regeneration, then the Hardshells have some weight to their position.

But, it is clear that the "work of the law" is not the "work of grace," or the work of regeneration. The law being written upon the heart is not regeneration, in this passage, although other passages speak of regeneration as involving such a writing. Paul does not say that the "Gentiles do by grace and regeneration the things contained in the law," but "do by nature," referring not to the divine nature, but to human nature.

Further, Paul does not say this is true of only some heathen Gentiles, which he would say if he had reference to regeneration and to the divine nature. Rather, he says this is true of the Gentiles, as a whole. Thus, if this is a reference to regeneration, then Paul is affirming that all Gentiles, all heathen, are "regenerated." Also, Paul does not say - "the regenerated children of God do by nature..." Rather, he says "the Gentiles do by nature."

All commentators, other than Hardshells, affirm that Paul is referring to man's moral nature, to his God-given conscience, and to the fact that human nature has God's moral laws written in it.

Wrote the old Baptist, John Gill:

"Ver. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the law,.... The objection of the Gentiles against their condemnation, taken from their being without the law, is here obviated. The apostle owns that they had not the law, that is, the written law of Moses, and yet intimates that they had, and must have a law, against which they sinned, and so deserved punishment, and which they in part obeyed; for these men

do by nature the things contained in the law. The matter and substance of the moral law of Moses agrees with the law and light of nature; and the Gentiles in some measure, and in some sort, did these things by nature; not that men by the mere strength of nature without the grace of God, can fulfil the law, or do anything that is acceptable to God; and indeed, what these men did was merely natural and carnal, and so unacceptable to God. Some understand this of nature assisted by grace, in converted Gentiles, whether before or after the coming of Christ; others expound the phrase, by nature, freely, willingly, in opposition to the servile spirit of the Jews, in their obedience to the law; though it rather seems to design the dictates of natural reason, by which they acted: and so

these having not the law, the written law,

are a law to themselves; which they have by nature and use, and which natural reason dictates to them."

Ver. 15. Which show the work of the law written in their hearts,.... Though the Gentiles had not the law in form, written on tables, or in a book, yet they had "the work", the matter, the sum and substance of it in their minds; as appears by the practices of many of them, in their external conversation. The moral law, in its purity and perfection, was written on the heart of Adam in his first creation; was sadly obliterated by his sin and fall; upon several accounts, and to answer various purposes, a system of laws was written on tables of stone for the use of the Israelites; and in regeneration the law is reinscribed on the hearts of God's people; and even among the Gentiles, and in their hearts, there are some remains of the old law and light of nature, which as by their outward conduct appears, so by the inward motions of their minds."

To interpret Paul's words as a reference to regeneration is to completely ignore the context, for Paul is demonstrating the condemnation of the heathen Gentiles, not their salvation. Paul is not attempting to prove that some of the heathen, though ignorant of the one true and living God, and of the gospel, are nevertheless "regenerated," and the children of God, but just the opposite. He is contrasting the special revelation of the gospel with the general revelation found in nature. That general revelation is present in creation and in nature generally and includes the nature and conscience of men. This general revelation is God's witness and voice to all men in the "conscience."

Gentiles have "sinned," apart from knowledge of the written Mosaic law, and apart from God's revelation and light in scripture, but "sin is not imputed where there is no law" (5: 13), but men "sinned" before there was a written legal moral code, and so, since sin was in fact "imputed" (men died), therefore there was in existence a moral code before the giving of the "law of Moses." The only "law" that all men were under, prior to the written code of Moses, was that law which resides in the "conscience." That law is part of the nature of man. God, when he made the first man, wrote upon his nature and conscience his precepts of right and wrong. Man, though fallen, still has this written upon his nature and conscience, but, his nature and conscience have been over-written by another "law," or "code of conduct," the "law of sin." (Rom. 7: 23)

God's Witness to the Conscience

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." (John 8:9)

Wrote Dr. Henry Morris:

"A conscience can be a reliable guide, however, only if it is a good conscience. The Scriptures on the other hand, speak of some who have a "weak conscience" (I Corinthians 8:7,10,12) which may become a "defiled conscience" (Titus 1:15) and eventually a "seared conscience" (I Timothy 4:2) or even an "evil conscience" (Hebrews 10:22)."

"If used properly, however, the conscience is a blessing. God has given us a conscience to help guide us. The question is, what makes a conscience "good"? There are two references in Scripture to a "pure conscience" (I Timothy 3:9; II Timothy 1:3) and six to a "good conscience" (Acts 23:1; I Timothy 1:5, 19; Hebrews 13:18; I Peter 3:16, 21), but none of these tell how such a conscience is acquired.

The answer to this vital question appears to be found in the apostle Paul's testimony before Felix: "And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men" (Acts 24:16). The "exercise" (literally "training") which had produced such a conscience in Paul, he said, was this: "So worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14). A lifelong study of the Scriptures, accompanied by absolute faith in their veracity and authority, had produced in Paul a strong, pure, good, reliable conscience, and it will do the same for us." ("The Witness Of Conscience" by Henry Morris, Ph.D.)

http://www.icr.org/article/witness-conscience/

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." (Gen. 6: 3)

How does God's Spirit "strive with man," with all men? Is it not by the convictions and admonitions of conscience? When a man commits an immoral act, and feels guilty for it, is that not a witness of conscience and the way in which God convicts all men of sin? Will the Hardshells deny that the witness of conscience regarding immoral acts is the "work of the law," the Spirit's "striving" with men? Will they affirm that all who experience conviction for an immoral act are "regenerated"? And, they wonder why they have had serious difficulties with the heresy of "universal salvation."

More Theological Nonsense From Loudermilk

At the web page for Union Grove Primitive Baptist church here in Monroe, N.C., there is the following posting for January 12, 2020, in which Elder Ronnie Loudermilk (here) wrote some horrendous things, theologically speaking. Here is his posting with my comments following (highlighting mine):

"Romans 2:14-15, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)…”

It would be difficult, to say the least, for all of us who live in the year 2020 and are members of the New Testament Church of the Lord Jesus Christ to imagine a time when the Gentiles lived in darkness without the knowledge of the information of God. But there was such a time when the nations of the world did not have, or have access to the oracles and commandments of the Lord as the Jews. Paul, In Romans 3:1-2 teaches us that one of the advantages of the Jews (national Israel) was that “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Yet, according to Paul in our study verses, the Lord had a people among the Gentiles who were born again. When we read, “the work of the law written in their hearts”, it is referring to the finger of God writing His laws on their hearts in Regeneration, or the New Birth. In 2 Corinthians 3:3 we read, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” In this verse the Apostle Paul is referring to the same. When the elect child of God is born again, the Holy Spirit writes the Laws of God on the new heart which is given to them by His direct life giving work. You may ask, I wonder if this has happened to me? If you feel guilty for your sins and the wrong doings of your life, it is good evidence that this efficacious work has been accomplished in you by God’s grace (2 Timothy 1:9). The Gentiles in our study verse manifested that this work had been done to them before they received the information of God’s commandments, “having not the law…”

When we consider these two verses in God’s Holy Word, we are able to come to a few theological conclusions. (1) God has had, and does have a people in every kindred, tongue, people and nation (Revelation 5:9), not just where the gospel is or has been preached. (2) God’s eternal grace and salvation is without the knowledge and information of God’s word, or the gospel. (3) Those who are eternally saved are able to show forth the work of salvation without the knowledge and information of the word of God, or the gospel. (4) The knowledge and information of God’s word is for them who are already born again, to teach them that they may be comforted in the salvation they have and be informed of a better way to love to please the One Who saved them by His grace. And so, finally, we are able to conclude that life precedes believing the information of life. Amen!"

I answered this nonsense on this text in this posting here. I dare say that such a misinterpretation of this passage is cultic and a clear example of twisting the scriptures. Those who are guilty of such will reap destruction. (II Peter 3:16) It is cult teaching because it is new and novel. Loudermilk and his brothers who share his view cannot find where anyone, including his own Baptist forefathers, who taught this nonsense regarding this passage. They certainly would not say that worshipers of other gods show evidence of having been "born again"!

There is so much contradiction in these words of Loudermilk. Perhaps Loudermilk will want to come here to this blog and discuss his interpretation? Perhaps some at Union Grove would like to hear a discussion of this most important issue?

The view of Loudermilk on the above passage leads him right into Universalism! I wonder, does Loudermilk believe that any go to Hell? Has he ever preached on Hell? Have sinners ever been awakened to their danger by his preaching on it?

Hermeneutical Problems VI (conclusion)

I have always believed, with the vast majority of scholarly bible interpreters, that innate or instinctual knowledge is "written" into the moral conscience and Psyche of all men by virtue of their nature (being made in Adam, who was made in the image and likeness of God). The question is: was the law of God, respecting moral duty, written into the nature of Adam? Did he know instinctively or intuitively that it was right to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love his neighbor (in this case his wife) as himself (which are the two pillars of the law's substance)?

An Epistemology Debate?

The word "instinct" means "an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species." Of course, instinctive knowledge is neither rational nor actively acquired. Rather, it is passively received, unlearned, acquired in birth, coded somehow into the physical nature.

In the Scriptures this is called "brutish knowledge" ("become brutish in their knowledge" - Jer. 10: 14). There are things that animals instinctively know. Peter spoke of "brute beasts" and of "what they know naturally." (II Peter 2: 12) "Know naturally," that is, know inwardly and intuitively. Thus, the Scriptures do acknowledge some kind of innate knowledge. There is also, of course, other knowledge that animals acquire by mimicking behavior, a kind of learning. For example, in Scripture, an animal is said to "know" his owner and his stall. (Isa. 1: 3) This knowledge was not natural, instinctive, or unlearned. Man is animal and he also has inner instincts, the effect of innate knowledge.

Of course, animals do not have rational minds, nor consciences, nor understanding of moral laws, as does man. Animals do not have spirits, or ability to have intercourse with and enjoyment of God. Man as a physical being, or animal, has innate knowledge, as other animals, but he also has an inner knowledge of right and wrong that is part of his moral or spiritual nature.

Some philosophers, like Locke, believed that a person was born with a "blank slate", or tabula rasa (Latin), for a soul. These denied that man was born with any innate knowledge, arguing rather that all human knowledge is acquired from experience and sensory perception. This has not been the general belief of Christians, however. It is against what Paul wrote in Romans 2: 14-15)

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

Is conscience acquired at birth? This question is a related question to that which asks whether man has knowledge in his nature or subconscious mind at birth. Or, we may ask, is one born with a superego? Or, is the superego something that comes later into existence? If we define "conscience" as the capacity or faculty for making moral choices, then yes, all men are born with a conscience. However, if we define conscience as cognitive knowledge of right and wrong, as that which is written into the conscience by life learning, then the conscience is something that is in continuous construction during life.

The words of the apostle, in the above passage, seem to clearly teach that man has a natural knowledge of wrongdoing. Yet, we also read where Moses spoke of "your little ones" and said that as such they had "no knowledge between good and evil" (Deut. 1: 39) If they had "no knowledge" of good and evil, as newborns, then how can it be asserted that they had such knowledge innately?

On this passage Dr. Gill wrote:

"Though the Gentiles had not the law in form, written on tables, or in a book, yet they had "the work", the matter, the sum and substance of it in their minds; as appears by the practices of many of them, in their external conversation. The moral law, in its purity and perfection, was written on the heart of Adam in his first creation; was sadly obliterated by his sin and fall; upon several accounts, and to answer various purposes, a system of laws was written on tables of stone for the use of the Israelites; and in regeneration the law is re inscribed on the hearts of God's people." (Commentary)

Clearly, when Moses said that babies do not have any knowledge of right and wrong, he means they do not have any conscious or rational knowledge of such. This can only be acquired by learning.

It is true, as Gill says, that the original writing of God's law into the nature of man has been "sadly obliterated," or we may say "over written" by another writing. The law of sin was written over the first writing, greatly obscuring it. Both writings manifest themselves in moral choices.

This concluding essay is not intended to be chiefly on this epistemological debate, but was only introduced because of the Hardshell argument that God's word is written into the new nature of the regenerated in the same way in which the law is written into the nature of man, that is, in both cases, there is no conscious knowledge connected with this writing.

It is not important to debate the merits of the Socratic method, which affirms that all knowledge that a man may acquire in life was already present in the man, and "learning" a thing was not strictly "cognition" but "recognition." In such an epistemological scheme knowledge is simply "brought out" of a person rather than put within the person. All knowledge is anamnesis, or remembrance, a person merely rediscovers innately possessed knowledge.

This is exactly the kind of belief that the Hardshells have in regard to that spiritual knowledge that God promises to give to sinners in their regeneration. Thus, they will say that when a person is regenerated, he then knows instinctively the good news, yet not consciously. And, when that person hears the good news, he knows it instinctively, or remembers and recognizes it as truth. The word presented to the conscious mind agrees with the the word written in the subconscious mind. Of course, today's Hardshells will generally say that this is not so in every case.

This has been a paradigm of many Hardshells throughout the years, though it is not often explained so thoughtfully as I have in this posting. Many simply say things as did Elder Holder, saying that every born again person has had the word of God written into his heart and soul, even in those who have no conscious knowledge of it, such as pagans. The problem with this view is to explain why today's Hardshells are against affirming that all the elect who hear the Gospel will believe and obey it.

Further, I do not deny that there is some truth in all this, and there is such a thing as Christian intuition, an ability to sense when something is dangerous or a lie.

What I deny is the Hardshell attempt to deny God's use of means in fulfilling his promise to write his word into the heart and mind and their attempt to deny that the knowledge produced by this divine writing is cognitive.

Remember that it was Paul who said "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Paul did not believe that there were people who knew about Jesus apart from being informed about who Jesus is. Further, the prophecies themselves show that the word written is written into the conscious mind.

Further, Paul often pointed to people and said of them that they did not know God. But, if the Hardshell view of how saving knowledge is communicated to the soul is correct, Paul could not be sure that the heathen people he referred to did not know God.

Further, why would the Lord advise his people to write his word upon their hearts if it is already all written there? Hardshells sing the song "Tell Me The Story Of Jesus," and there is a prayer in that song that asks God to "write upon my heart every word." From this we may gather that the Hardshells agree that this work of God in writing upon the heart and mind is not a one time instantaneous work, but continuous throughout the life of the believer, and one often accomplished by the means of Gospel instruction.

The Hardshell view makes it possible to say of a Hindu worshipper who worships gods and lords many, that he both knows and does not know God, all at the same time, which just throws out the window the law of non-contradiction.

Divine Justice Issues (XXVII)

Many theologians answer this question by using an analogy. They say that the same sun will melt ice but harden clay. The same thing that softens the hearts of some is the same thing that hardens the hearts of others. So, by this analogy God is justified in his hardening of the clay (or the heart). God sends fires of trial in his providential crucible and in one case the fire purifies some people so that they become vessels for honor and glory, and in other cases some people are destroyed by the fire and become vessels for wrath and dishonor. So, in this way we see how God, by means of fire or the sun (contributing causes), makes one vessel into a good or better vessel and makes another vessel into a bad or worse vessel. There is much truth in these analogies. 

We might ask in response to those who would criticize how God punishes transgressors or his "judicial hardening" of heart: "is society morally responsible if criminals become more criminal by being sent to prison by them?" Is their criminal justice system better than God's?

Many who write on the philosophy of crime and punishment will often say that criminals are really victims, and therefore not responsible, at least to some degree. This was what the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow argued in one of his famous cases. (See my posting on this here) It is also the philosophy of many liberal democrats in this country. It is the view of most sociologists. My college major was in sociology and I was taught it and read it in the writings of the leading sociologists. Their idea is that a person is born with a good nature, or at least a "Tabula rasa." It is a Latin phrase meaning "blank slate" or "clean slate." It's a philosophical concept that refers to the idea that the human mind, soul, or spirit at birth is a blank slate, without any pre-existing or intuitive knowledge, or no law written in their nature. This concept suggests that all knowledge and belief are acquired through sensory experiences and interactions with the world, or from the environment. Therefore the liberal sociologist will argue that a person who becomes a criminal becomes so by external factors alone and thus becomes an innocent victim. Of course, the bible is against this philosophy. It rather teaches that man is born depraved, as we have already seen. (Psa. 51: 5; Eph. 2: 3; etc.) It teaches that every man is responsible for his crimes and has no excuses. (Rom. 1: 20)

That is not to deny, however, that some criminals may be shown leniency due to what are called "mitigating" circumstances. In legal terms, a mitigating circumstance is a factor that lessens the severity of a criminal offense or the punishment for it. It's not an excuse or justification for the crime, but rather a reason to consider the defendant's actions as less blameworthy. These circumstances can lead to reduced charges or a lighter sentence. The bible acknowledges the rightness of this way of thinking. Solomon said: "People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry." (Prov. 6: 30 kjv) The bible also  recognizes how external factors may be contributing causes for a person becoming criminal and that these should be considered in deciding the level and kind of punishment in a sentence.

Further, who can doubt that when a sinner enters into his eternal prison (Hell) that his time there makes him infinitely more hardened against God and right? If men do not condemn themselves for making criminals more hardened by their imprisonments, then they cannot condemn God. 

Judicial Hardening

"But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?” Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.” These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." (John 12: 37-41 nkjv)

Barnes in his commentary says: "There is, indeed, a judicial blinding and a judicial hardening." It is not a case where God is preventing the salvation of anyone who is seeking salvation. For, as we have seen, "God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4) God does not want any of his creatures to believe falsehood, especially about him and his ways. It is rather a case where God has "given up," as it were, in his efforts to turn a man from his wicked ways. In Romans chapter one Paul speaks of this when he speaks of how “God gave them over” (or "up") in three things: 

1) “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them” (verse 24, NASB). 

2) “God gave them over to degrading passions” (verse 26, NASB). 

3) “God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper” (verse 28, NASB).

"The Greek word translated “gave over” or “gave up” means “surrendered, yielded up, entrusted, or transmitted.” In this context, it refers to the act of God completely abandoning the unrighteous. As the wicked deserted God, God in turn deserted them, no longer giving them divine direction or restraint, but allowing them to corrupt themselves as they wished. Because they would not honor Him, He let them do what they pleased to dishonor themselves. Being given over or yielded up to one’s sinful desires is a judgment from God." (Got Questions - See here - emphasis mine)

So, it must be acknowledged that God's judicial hardening and blinding, his giving them up, makes sinners more sinful, and this is one way in which they are being further fitted or prepared, as vessels of wrath, for destruction. Is God just to render this kind of punishment knowing that it will increase a person's sin and level of punishment? Can he not send punishments that rather reform the sinner and turn him around, or make him sin less? Answer: yes, some of God's punishments do act as means to turn a sinner around. But, in some cases, they rather harden the wicked man even more. If a man is "getting away with" his crimes, with little punishment, will this not encourage him to keep on committing crimes? We see this to be the case with some criminals.

The same source article also says:

"What’s the result of God’s having given them over? “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:29–32)."

Some God haters who are ever looking for ways they can condemn God may argue that God is the cause of some people becoming more sinful because of his judicial hardening. Obviously, however, God does not agree with this, i.e. that he is being unjust to give the sinner up because it leads him to commit greater sins. Further, God can and often does lesson the amount of sin being committed by his creatures. The bible is filled with proof texts that uphold this truth. For instance, the bible teaches that God is hindering or preventing, for the time being, the coming of the Antichrist. (II Thess. 2: 6-7) But, one day he will suffer Antichrist to enter into the scene and then what follows will be greater wickedness on earth. So, we cannot go beyond scripture and affirm that God never does anything in his providence and government of men that brings about more wickedness. If the cynic thinks he could do better than God in his control of the world, let him tell us how he would govern the wicked or criminal.

When God gives persons up or over because they have long spurned his truth, he gives them over to a "reprobate mind." Wrote Paul in that same chapter:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness..." (Rom. 1: 29-30 kjv)

"A reprobate mind is void of all sense and judgment to discern things that differ, so that they could not distinguish their right hand from their left in spiritual things." (Matthew Henry commentary) 

Said the same source:

"The sad fact is that sometimes God gives us what we want. God allowed the Israelites who rebelled to reap the natural consequences of their choice: “But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices” (Psalm 81:11–12). In Romans 1, Paul shows how the wicked made a choice to reject God, and that choice set them on a downward spiral of increasing darkness and decreasing hope. As the godless run farther and farther from God, God intervenes less and less. The Spirit’s restraint of sin is a blessing, and if that restraint is removed, all wickedness follows." 

The God hater, by sophistry, will act like a prosecutor and put God on trial and say that because God removed his restraints, he caused more wickedness, and he shows thereby that he is not just. After all, why does God not do more restraining? Cannot criminals say that it is God's fault that they committed a crime since he did not keep them from doing the crime? However, God is not obligated to intervene to stop every crime, nor to show mercy to all without exception. 

Yes, as the Got Questions article says, God does sadly sometimes give people what they want, even though he knows that it would be better if he didn't. So the Psalmist wrote: "And He gave them their request, But sent leanness into their soul." (Psa. 106: 15 nkjv) God, like many parents, replies to their begging children - "okay, I am going to give you what you want, but you will regret it, but I do it so that you might thereby learn a few things." A case where this is seen is in the story of "the prodigal son" who pestered his father and demanded that he give him his inheritance early in life. The father granted his request and it led to the ruination of the son, loss of all his inheritance by squandering all in sinful pursuits, living is squalor, to starving to death.

Barnes says further:

"He hath blinded their eyes - The expression in Isaiah is, "Go, make the heart of this people fat, and shut their eyes." That is, go and proclaim truth to them truth that will result in blinding their eyes. Go and proclaim the law and the will of God, and the effect will be, owing to the hardness of their heart, that their eyes will be blinded and their hearts hardened. As God knew that this would be the result - as it was to be the effect of the message, his commanding Isaiah to go and proclaim it was the same in effect, or in the result, as if he had commanded him to blind their eyes and harden their hearts. It is this effect or result to which the evangelist refers in this place. He states that God did it, that is, he did it in the manner mentioned in Isaiah, for we are limited to that in our interpretation of the passage. In that case it is clear that the mode specified is not a direct agency on the part of God in blinding the mind - which we cannot reconcile with any just notions of the divine character - but "in suffering the truth to produce a regular effect on sinful minds, without putting forth any positive supernatural influence to prevent it." The effect of truth on such minds is to irritate, to enrage, and to harden, unless counteracted by the grace of God. See Romans 7:8-9, Romans 7:11; 2 Corinthians 2:15-16. And as God knew this, and, knowing it, still sent the message, and suffered it to produce the regular effect, the Evangelist says "he hath blinded their minds," thus retaining the substance of the passage in Isaiah without quoting the precise language; but in proclaiming the truth there was nothing wrong on the part of God or of Isaiah, nor is there any indication that God was unwilling that they should believe and be saved."

We might view the command of God to Isaiah as sarcasm. In other words he says "Preach to them Isaiah and give them more opportunities to refuse, scorn, deride, and harden themselves against me." 

The very same ones who believed not and had hardened their hearts is not because they cannot be healed (saved), but simply means that as long as they remain in this state their healing is not possible.

In other places in the gospels we read where people are also said to have hardened their own hearts when they refused to believe in Jesus. (Mark 6: 52, 8: 17) So again we see where both God and people themselves may be seen as doing the same hardening in some cases. 

Further, it is not only the unbeliever who is often hardened in his heart towards God and his word, but even the believer sometimes is likewise hardened. So we read: "For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened." (Mark 6: 52 kjv) The "they" of the text are the apostles, God's disciples. Notice also these words of the Lord Jesus to his apostles and disciples:

"And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?"(Mark 8: 15-18 kjv)

Here again the "they" are the apostles. Believers must always be on guard against becoming hardened in heart and spirit against any truth of God. We see this hardening of heart against truth in the many cults within the professing Christian community. Each of these cults holds to some gross heresy and become hardened against all other groups and against certain bible doctrines. One group I have focused much of my outreach ministry towards are those known as "Primitive" "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists. The term hardshell was applied to them because of their stubborn adherence to their ideas and for them withdrawing into a cocoon. These folks are hardened against all other churches, being especially antagonistic towards those they call "Missionary Baptists," or "Arminians." It is also seen to a large degree in some Calvinists being hardened against Arminians and vise versa, or between Unitarians and Trinitarians. 

A hardened heart is intimately linked with a lack of understanding, with ignorance, and blindness to truth. Our lack of understanding God's word, even as believers, can sometimes be the result of having a hard heart, or being hard-headed. Another verse that shows that even believers are to ever be on guard against having a hard heart is this:

"Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” (Heb. 3: 12-15 nkjv)

This text tells us much about what it means for the heart to be hardened and the causes of it. The Christian has no need to worry that God is going to harden his heart as he did Pharaoh, Sihon, and others. That is because the believer is not a vessel of wrath, or vessel unto dishonor, and doomed to destruction, but is rather a vessel of mercy, a vessel unto honor, who is being prepared by God for glory. God will never "give them up" as he does the reprobate. They may harden their hearts to some degree, but never to the extent or for the same reason, that many unbelievers are hardened in heart. The thing that causes hardness of heart is "the deceitfulness of sin." 

"13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” 15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’" (Matt. 13: 13-15)

These are the effects of a hardened heart, a stubborn will, and perverseness of spirit. It is a heart that is in opposition to God, or to one or more of his truths. When people get into the condition described above by Jesus and Isaiah it is much more difficult to bring them to repentance. If God saves any of them it will require greater power to be exercised by him. With them God may have to use extraordinary means, even a pry bar, to pry them away from their sins. But again, God will never harden the hearts of his own children in the same way he did to his enemies, such as Pharaoh and Sihon. God will soften the hearts of believers so that their hardness of heart is limited and restrained as a result of mercy shown. The hardening of the hearts of the reprobate brings an end to God's positive influence towards them. Further, God only hardens the hearts of the vessels of wrath, in conjunction with their own efforts towards that end, but he never hardens the hearts of his own children. They do that themselves within the limits he circumscribes. 

Some of the other ways that the vessels of wrath are being prepared or fitted for destruction may be learned from such texts as this:

"But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."(Rom. 2: 5 nkjv)

This "treasuring up" is linked with "prepared (fitted) for destruction." Both texts show that this preparation is continuous and progressive. Every sinner who is spurning God and his offers of mercy and chooses a life of sin is being steadily prepared for destruction. In fact, that are on "the broad way that leads to destruction." (Matt. 7: 13) 

"But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” 

(Gen. 15: 16 nkjv)

We might say that the Amorites, as vessels of wrath, were not yet fully "fitted" for destruction until they had reached a certain level in their sinful course. When hard hearted people die, we may say that they die "ready" for Hell, in contradistinction to the vessels of mercy who will die ready or "fit for" Heaven. 

Oliphant vs. Pence

In an article titled "More on The Wisdom of the "Heathen", J. H. Oliphant, Hardshell preacher and apologist, and moderator of the infamous "Fulton Convention" or "Fulton Confession," and published in "The Primitive Monitor" for November, 1907, wrote in defence of the new hybrid view of the late 19th century Hardshells that affirmed that many of the pious heathen were already "born again," and that the Gospel or word of God was therefore not necessary for being eternally saved. The time of this article (1907) is important, as well as is the person to whom Oliphant is responding (Elder W. T. Pence). (see here)

Oliphant begins (emphasis mine):

"I received a clipping from a recent number of Elder Pence's paper, in which he criticizes an article from me in a recent number of the Primitive Baptist. I will write concerning the matter again...Many have held, as Elder Pence, seems to hold, that there can be no salvation where there is no bible. I think the Missionaries usually make this plea."

The idea that there are heathen who have been born again, saved, and justified, although they have no faith in the Hebrew God or in Christ and his atonement, is a novel view, one that was not believed by Baptists until the "rise of the Hardshells" in the 19th century. For instance, the London Confession is clear on this point, denying that any are saved who die without Gospel knowledge and faith. Dr. Gill also, in his Body of Divinity, affirms the same. Further, it was not even the view of the first generation of Hardshells, being a novelty of second and third generation Hardshells.

Besides being novel, it is also entirely heterodox, against the plain teachings of the Scriptures, as Elder Pence was asserting.

When Olipant denies that there can be any salvation apart from the Bible, he is really asserting that salvation exists where there is no knowledge of the Bible's revelation concerning God and Christ. This idea is so clearly against the Scriptures that one wonders how and why this novel idea gained a following. Does Oliphant have any Scriptures that affirm the salvation of heathen who die without faith in the God of the Bible and of his way of salvation through Christ? No, he does not, as we shall see.

Today's Hardshells have also been challenged to give the Scriptural proof for their novel idea, and to explain how they interpret the numerous verses that teach the absolute necessity of Christian enlightened (experience revelation) for faith and salvation. All Oliphant and the Hardshells can do is to offer inferences and logical deductions in proof of their hybrid teaching. They can give no clear cut, straight forward, passages which assert their proposition, so they rely on their own human reasonings, as I have often pointed out before. (For instance, see here)

Oliphant continued:

"Paul said, "In him we live and move and have our being," and then showed that their own poets had said as much, "For we are also his offspring." Paul quoted from the heathen words of instruction for Christianity. Paul spoke of their inscription "To the unknown God, whom therefore ye ignorantly worship." He recognized a spirit of devotion among them, something commendable, and quoted from their author words of wisdom. There are some texts that indicate that heathen nations are interested in salvation. "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest." And all the nations of the earth shall be blest in him." "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blest." Here is a blessing for "all the nations" and "all the families of the earth." But how can this be if "seven tenths of the nation are swept away without one ray of light among them?" "For thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people under heaven." How could this be if the work on grace is wholly excluded from seven-tenths of the nations of the earth? or if it be restricted to those who have bible advantages?"

John saw a great multitude that no man can number "of all kindreds and people and tongues who stood before the throne and before the lamb clothed in white robes," etc."

Such statements as this better agree with the idea that God's method of salvation is not limited to human efforts, especially when we remembered that only about one fourth of the race has ever been favored with Bible advantages."

Notice how none of the passages cited and alluded to assert prima facie the proposition of Oliphant. None of those verses affirm that anyone who dies without faith is saved. Oliphant thinks that making faith necessary for salvation is inconsistent with wholesale heathen damnation. He is relying on his own presuppositions and logical deductions rather than upon the plain express statements of Scripture. Ironically, though he relies upon logical deduction to sustain his doctrine, his logic is seriously flawed.  His analysis is a good example of eisegesis rather than exegesis.  He brings propositions and premises into the discussion without first proving their source in Scripture.

Notice how Oliphant says "but how can this be?" and how such and such a fact "better agrees with" another supposed fact. Is he not "leaning upon his own understanding," a thing forbidden in Scripture? (Prov. 3: 5) No fundamental doctrine of Scripture is to be based upon mere inferences and deductions, but upon the clearest and plainest statements of Scripture.  Oliphant not only shows his hermeneutical flaws in this way, but he also shows it by the fact that he allows his presuppositions to control his handling of the word of God. In other words, if a passage of Scripture seems to teach contrary to the Hardshell premise that says "God uses no human means in the eternal salvation of sinners," then that verse will then be twisted in such a way as to harmonize with their premise.

Oliphant offers this syllogistic logic to prove the salvation of heathen idolaters. 

1.  The pagans had a "spirit of devotion," or were devout and religious.
2.  A "spirit of devotion" is evidence of regeneration.
3.  The pagans were regenerated.

Of course, what is wrong with this logic is the fact that premise #2 is false.  Jesus certainly did not believe that such was an evidence of salvation, but of damnation.  Likewise, the apostles did not view heathen religious devotion as proof of regeneration.  By this logic the Hardshells would have all, except atheists, to be regenerated and heirs of eternal life.  Is this not quasi universalism? 

Actually, though the Bible teaches the elect "few," and the reprobate "many," the Hardshells reverse this and say that the "few" are the reprobate and the "many" are the elect.

Oliphant also offers this syllogism:

1. The pagans believed that humans were created by divinity or divinities.
2. Believing this is proof of regeneration.
3. The pagans who believed this are regenerated.

Again, where is Oliphant's Scriptural support for premise (presupposition) #2?  Just because Paul cites a heathen writer to show agreement on a theological point does not equate with his affirming the salvation of the one being cited.  That idea is ludicrous.

The idea that the Athenian polytheists were already born again before they heard the Gospel is a view that late 19th century Hardshells adopted to uphold their idea of "regenerated heathen." Oliphant argues that since the heathen were religious, believed in divine beings, and in some things in common with Hebrews and Christians, therefore they must be born again. But, no where in Scripture are such things put forth as evidence of salvation.

In my book I cited from Hardshell apologist Sarrels who, like Oliphant, attempted to find evidences of regeneration in the heathen. He thought that any good person was regenerated since "goodness" is a fruit of the Spirit. (Gal. 5: 22) The person will not have any faith, for "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10: 17), but according to Oliphant, Cayce, Sarrels, Waters, Dalton, Daily, and other late 19th century Hardshell leaders, faith is not essential to salvation. In fact, Elder Waters uttered the new Hardshell banner in 1890 with these words - "Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith." Though this is what is now believed by today's Hardshells, it is not the teaching of the Old Baptists nor of the Scriptures, but is an invention of men, that which helps identify them as a cult.

Because Paul cites some things from the heathen writers, therefore he must have viewed them as regenerated and saved? That is very poor reasoning. Paul and the Biblical writers also cite from Satan and demons. According to the reasoning of Oliphant, that must mean that they are regenerated children of God!

Oliphant continued:

"There was no Bible, not even the ten commandments or the golden rule, for the first fifteen hundred years of the world, and yet we read of men and women that knew God, the true God, and the right worship. Josephus tells us that Abraham argued from the vastness of creation and the beauty and order of it that there is but one God. Tillotson argued, I think rightly, that we learn of the being of God from the works of his hands, and "There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard." Jacob and all the Patriarchs had lived and died before the first line of the Bible was written. Enoch had walked with God; Noah had built the ark, and Abel had made acceptable sacrifice to God without the aid of the Bible. All these are referred to in the New Testament as the true servants of God. Though Abraham was surrounded with error in the midst of the Chaldees yet he knew the true God and obeyed him and became the father of the faithful in all ages, and all this without a Bible or a preacher. Job lived before Abraham in the land of Uz, supposed to be Arabia. He knew the true God and the true worship with none of the advantages Elder Pence seems to think indispensable to the knowledge and worship of God."

First of all, we notice again how Oliphant, in typical Hardshell fashion, tries to slip in a proposition that he assumes to be true, with the supposition that it will be accepted without questioning.  But, those "skilled in the word of righteousness" will not be so accepting.  Oliphant's false premise says that there "was no Bible," no word of God, "for the first fifteen hundred years of the world." That is a gross falsehood. The word of God, yea, even the Gospel, was in existence during those fifteen hundred years.

Oliphant affirms that the ancient believers, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the Patriarchs, "knew God, the true God, and the right worship" and yet had no word of God! Is that not preposterous?

It is true that the first part of the Bible was formally written by Moses, but to assume that what Moses wrote was entirely new revelation is an error. Oliphant admits that what Moses believed is what Abraham believed. Further, what Abraham believed was what the first family believed, what the first prophets taught. Luke says that "His holy prophets...have been since the world began." (Luke 1: 70) Did the ancient antediluvian believers not have any word of God? Did they not have the promise of the Redeemer who would be wounded by the serpent's seed and would crush the head of the serpent? Does not ancient Mazzaroth show that the ancients had great knowledge of the true nature of God and of the coming Messiah?

Does Oliphant not know that oral revelation was in existence before Moses wrote the Pentateuch? That the word of God existed in the minds of men and communicated orally? Does Oliphant not know that there was revelation before it was written down? Does he not know that when it is said that Abel had "faith," that this presupposes knowledge of the truth believed?

We are told by Jude that Enoch, "the seventh from Adam," prophesied of the coming of the Lord. Did he not get this knowledge by the word of God? The truth is, the ancients had the gist of the Bible existent in their hearts and understandings.

Oliphant thinks that the fact that a vast host is finally redeemed is logically inconsistent with the idea that only those who hear the word of God are saved. But, again, why base one's doctrine on such imagined reasonings rather than upon what is clearly stated in Scripture?  Those of us who believe that God saves through the means of the word and revelation of God have no problem seeing men of all nations in heaven.

Oliphant continued:

"After Moses' time centuries passed with but a small part of the Bible written as we now have it. Christ was known in it only in types and shadows. Forty centuries went by, and all that train of nations had been swept away before a line of the New Testament was written. Yet we see a succession of the true worshippers from Abel to the coming of Christ. "All thy children shall be taught of God," and God found a way to teach and make himself and his will known to the children of men in the various nations of earth throughout all those centuries."

So, what is Oliphant saying?  He is not denying that the ancient believers, before the written Bible, had been taught divine truth, but he denies that this divine teaching was by means of indirect communication. His argument, if valid, rather than proving that men were saved apart from faith in divine revelation, would prove merely that they were saved by God directly speaking the word to ancient believers and not by prophets or communicators of the word. It seems to me that such a view ignores the plain facts of history as revealed in Scripture, which affirm that sufficient revelation has existed from the beginning to bring men to know God and his way of salvation through a mediator.

Oliphant actually contradicts himself.  In one breath, he wants to say that there was no Bible, or no revelation of religious or theological truth, prior to Moses, and yet in another breath asserts that people prior to Moses knew religious truth.  If his point is to prove that men are saved who knew not God, he has miserably failed.

Oliphant wants us to believe that the manner in which God teaches all his children is by direct revelation, making all God's people into mystics, into prophets and apostles.

Also, consider that all the examples Oliphant offers of people who were supposedly "heathen," and who were nevertheless in favor with God, and born of his Spirit, were in fact, by his own admission, not "heathen" by definition, for they believed in the one true God and were "true worshippers."

Oliphant says that "God found a way to teach and make himself known" in those times before we had a formal written revelation. But, does he believe that those who have experienced this revelation are still by definition heathen, pagans, and polytheists? According to Oliphant, God can make himself known in regeneration and enlightenment in some "way" and manner, but this "way" cannot possibly be by means of prophets and communicaters of the word. 

Oliphant wrote:

"How much of the Bible is indispensable to salvation? Twenty-five hundred years went by before one line of it was written, and near three thousand years were gone before one half the Old Testament was written, and four thousand years were gone before one line of the New Testament was written. These are all important facts as I see the subject. God's mercy was applied to multitudes before a line of the Bible was written. The redeemed shall come from every kindred tongue, and nation under heaven--a multitude that no man can number of all the families of the earth."

Oliphant gives the same rhetorical response as other Hardshells when he queries - "how much of the Bible is indispensable to salvation"? His purpose in asking this question is so that he can whittle down the amount of truth necessary to be believed in order to be classified as regenerate. He wants to whittle it down so as to exclude knowing the one true God, and so as to include polytheists.

Oliphant then says:

"Abraham knew of Christ and all the ancient worthies saw Christ by faith."

But, according to Paul, one must first hear the word about Christ in order to believe in him.  (Rom. 10: 14-17)  Also, this shows that there was revelation about Christ before Moses penned the first Scriptures. 

Oliphant wrote:

"When the gentiles, which have no law, do by nature the things contained in the law, it shows the work of the law written in their hearts.” Paul believed there were Gentiles that had the work of the law written in their hearts, which is the new covenant of grace. Rom. ii. 8, 9 teach the same."

Romans 2: 8-9 does not teach that the heathen, while in heathendom, are regenerated.  This is a novel interpretation of this passage.  This passage was seized upon because it was judged as being one passage that at least comes close to asserting the regeneration of heathen and polytheists.  I have previously destroyed this interpretation (see here)  Notice that the passage does not say "which show the work of GRACE (or salvation) written in their hearts," but the "work of the LAW." Paul is not affirming that the heathen have a regenerated nature, but a moral nature, a conscience.

Oliphant wrote:

"When Peter went to the house of Cornelius he said, “I perceive of a truth that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” Peter learned that God’s mercy was operative in “every nation.” “He that feareth him and worketh righteousness;” such people are in every nation and “are accepted with him.”

Cornelius was not saved apart from hearing and believing the Gospel. He heard and he believed. To argue that he was saved before he became a believer is to affirm that men can be regenerate while unbelievers. But, the Scriptures know nothing of regenerated unbelievers.

Further, since "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6), how can Oliphant affirm that heathen people were pleasing God (working righteousness) apart from faith? Further, how can one "fear" him whom he knows nothing about?

Oliphant wrote:

"If all the good and pure is in Christendom it is little enough. But I am persuaded that a little of the good is in other nations. There are some who fear God and work righteousness, and they are accepted with him. There are some who “call upon the name of the Lord,” and there is a promise to them, Acts x. 1-4, also Acts ii. 21-3; Joel ii. 2. These have ever been my views. They are scriptural, as I understand the Bible."

So, like Sarrels, Oliphant argues that since heathen people do good things, therefore they must be born again! Oh wonderful logic!

Also, Oliphant again identifies the heathen, the ones who have not heard the Gospel or read a Bible, as people who "fear God and work righteousness," and who are "accepted with him." They even "call upon the Lord" though they do not know the Lord and continue to believe in false gods! Anyone who is not blinded by Hyper Calvinism and cult thinking can see how perverted is such reasoning and handling of the word of God.

Justification Unto Life & Regeneration IV

Proof Text #4

"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." (Gal. 2: 19)

"Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." (Gal. 3: 21)

These verses show that justification and imputation of righteousness precede obtaining spiritual life (via regeneration or rebirth). Being "dead to the law" is a reference to justification. Being given life is a reference to regeneration (rebirth or quickening). Further, in Romans, to be "dead to the law" is to be "dead to sin" also.

There are two things that could not come from the law, namely "righteousness" (justification), and "life." But, it is precisely those two things that come from Christ. As unrighteousness (condemnation) and "death" come from Adam the first, so righteousness, justification, and life come from Adam the second or last. The reason why death comes from the law is because it condemns us. The reason why life comes from Christ is because he justifies us. Spiritual death presupposes condemnation so too does spiritual life presuppose justification.

Notice how Paul relates "life" with "righteousness." One is first dead to the law in justification before he is alive unto God in regeneration. Death and degeneration come from unrighteousness and condemnation being imputed to Adam's descendants. On the other hand life and regeneration come from righteousness of Christ being imputed, or from justification.

The law cannot give life because it cannot give righteousness, cannot justify, and not vise versa. The law can only condemn and bring death because it cannot give the righteousness it requires. Had it given righteousness, had it justified, then life would have resulted. With Paul the outcome of how one seeks justification is a matter of life and death. What Paul affirms here in this text is what we saw in the preceding affirmative texts from Romans. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" (Rom. 10: 4) and he is also the end of the law "for life."  

Wrote Martin Luther in his commentary:

"On first sight Paul seems to be advancing a strange and ugly heresy. He says, "I am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." The false apostles said the very opposite. They said, "If you do not live to the law, you are dead unto God." 

"The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day. Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live." Paul, on the other hand, teaches, "We cannot live unto God unless we are dead unto the Law." If we are dead unto the Law, the Law can have no power over us."

"To be dead to the Law means to be free of the Law." (or to be justified) 

Clearly Luther believed that justification preceded being alive to God. He also wrote:

"We have two propositions: To live unto the Law, is to die unto God. To die unto the Law, is to live unto God. These two propositions go against reason. No law-worker can ever understand them. But see to it that you understand them. The Law can never justify and save a sinner. The Law can only accuse, terrify, and kill him. Therefore to live unto the Law is to die unto God. Vice versa, to die unto the Law is to live unto God. If you want to live unto God, bury the Law, and find life through faith in Christ Jesus."

Again, Luther understands Paul to mean that "life" results from having "died to the law" and being dead to the law is the essence of justification. Notice also how Luther puts "life" after faith, saying "life through faith." Both justification and regeneration (sanctification too) are by or through faith. The reason for this is because faith is the medium of union between Christ and the believer. It is not "faith through life." 

The NIV Application commentary says (See here): 

"In converting to Christ, the Jewish Christian finds spiritual life through death, understood here as being crucified with Christ to the law so that the resurrected Christ might grant his new life to the believer (vv. 19–21)." 

I agree. Paul clearly sees justification as logically (not chronologically) preceding spiritual life. The commentary says further:

"The life Paul now lives for God is the result of dying with Christ (v. 20). But the life Paul lives (“I”) is the life the Jewish Christian finds in Christ. It is a life of the indwelling Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 3:17) and the indwelling Spirit (Gal. 3:1–5; 5:22–23). When the Jewish Christian died to the law by dying with Christ (who absorbed the full wrath of God that came about because of the law’s work), that Jewish Christian was raised a new person: a post-law Jewish Christian. That person was now indwelt by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who would now guide and control."

James Haldane, brother to Robert Haldane (who I have previously cited from his Roman commentary), wrote a commentary on Galatians. In his comments upon Galatians 2: 19 he wrote:

"Some explain this passage as meaning, that the law, by discovering our sinfulness, leads us to despair of justification by our obedience. The knowledge of the spirituality of the law, and of our shortcoming of its requirements, may certainly drive us to despair of deliverance by our own exertions; but no discovery of sin—nothing but death, can dissolve the connexion between the law and the sinner, which is what the Apostle has in view when he affirms that he through the law is dead to the law. Although we cannot be justified by the law, we are subject to its penalty, which is death. This passage is a summary of the doctrine taught in the sixth and seventh chapters of the epistle to the Romans, where the Apostle shows that believers are justified by having died and risen again, in their great Head and Surety. Rom. vii. 4, is exactly parallel to the words under consideration: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” 

He wrote further:

"Here we are taught that believers are delivered from the law by the body of Christ; in other words, by the obedience which, in our nature, he rendered to the law, in its precept and its penalty—by His life and by His death. So that, in virtue of our having died in Christ, we are set free from the law, as a woman by death is loosed from the law of her husband. So far is this doctrine from leading to licentiousness, that it is essential to our living unto God. Gospel life flows from legal death. “I live,” says the Apostle, “yet not I,” —he was dead—”1 but Christ liveth in me.” Christ dwells by faith in the hearts of his people, and His almighty power is pledged for their deliverance from sin;1 and they are commanded to hold fast their confidence, and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. He has undertaken to subdue their iniquities; they are, therefore, not without law to God, but under the law to Christ; and the love of Christ constrains them to live, not to themselves, but to God. They are delivered from the law, “that being dead,”—or being dead to that— “wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”2

"Gospel life flows from legal death." Justification brings regeneration and sanctification and all follows the production of faith.

He wrote further:

"In this passage the Apostle teaches us that, in order to live a life of holiness, and to enjoy communion with God, we must have done with the law, —be completely freed from its dominion. It is no wonder that the wisdom of this world should denounce the Gospel as affording encouragement to sin; it appears to them to remove every restraint, and to license every species of wickedness."

Again, he puts justification before spiritual life (quickening or regeneration), and understands, as I do, that this is the logical order that the apostle gives.

He wrote further:

"That the believer is sanctified as well as justified in Christ, and not by his own works, is a mystery which human wisdom is unable to fathom. Even the people of God are slow to apprehend this truth. Were the question asked, What reason have you to expect that sin shall not have dominion over you, and that you shall live a holy life? how few could unhesitatingly reply, —Because I am not under the law, but under grace; my connexion with the law, like the married relation, is dissolved, by my having died in Christ!"

The believer is both justified and sanctified but justification must logically precede regeneration and sanctification.

"The law, then, as to its power of condemning those that are Christ’s, is abrogated. They have, in Him, given it full satisfaction, —they have endured the curse, —they have paid all which it demanded, and received a full discharge. Thus we see how believers are reinstated in the Divine favour, and, at the same time, their sanctification secured, by their indissoluble union with Christ the fountain head of holiness. Thus the believer is dead to the law, that he may live unto God. In the matter of justification, he has no more confidence in the best work which he ever performed, than in the greatest sin he ever committed."

He wrote further:

"that I might live unto God - not, that I might live in sin or carelessness. The Gospel which provides a perfect righteousness in Christ, which is justification, provides also a life of holiness by the Spirit, a life unto God, which is sanctification. These are distinct, but inseparable—nay, the latter is the end and the result of the former." (Cambridge) 

Notice how Haldane holds firm to the priority of justification over sanctification. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent wrote: "With death to the law a new principle of life entered. For the phrase, see Romans 6:10, Romans 6:11." 

Life (regeneration) comes from justification as death comes from condemnation (degeneration). That is the Pauline order.

Regeneration In Romans

Where is regeneration mentioned in the book of Romans according to our Hardshell brothers? Where is it alluded to? Some say it is referred to in Romans 2: 14-15.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

Though our Hardshell brethren cite this verse in an attempt to show that the heathen, who are ignorant of true religion and without faith, are regenerated, yet this is not talking about regeneration. On this I have written concerning in previous postings. (See this posting here) The text is speaking not about the work of grace but "the work of the law" and has reference to the human conscience and its realization of right and wrong.

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (29-30)

The reference to being a Jew inwardly and being circumcised in the heart is what is effected in regeneration. So, there is a reference to that work in these words. On spiritual circumcision I have also written. (See here and here) In those postings I show how faith is required in this circumcision. There is nothing in the context of the above verses to make one think that he becomes a spiritual Jew and is circumcised in heart apart from being made a believer by the Spirit through the power of the gospel. It is hard to conceive an unbeliever having a circumcised heart as our Hardshell brothers imagine.

Why is this circumcision not connected with evangelical conversion? How is the creation of faith and repentance excluded from this circumcision? What is "cut away" and discarded by spiritual circumcision? Is it not unbelief and impenitence? It is hard to conceive of a spiritual Jew who is a stranger to the religion of the bible, yet our Hardshell brothers have not this difficulty. Is it not because they have changed the nature of regeneration by divorcing it from conversion, from faith and repentance? When Paul says "we are the circumcision" he means "we believers." (Phil. 3: 3) Unbelievers are not circumcised.

Romans 3 declares our death and guilt, our need of righteousness and justification and declares that such comes from Christ by faith. The chapter affirms that justification, righteousness, propitiation, and redemption are by faith. Though regeneration is not specifically mentioned, it can hardly be divorced from the above things. If all the above things be by faith, then why would regeneration be excluded?

Romans 4 affirms that the blessedness of sins forgiven comes by faith, along with imputation of the righteousness of Christ and justification from guilt; And, since this precedes regeneration (as the apostle will show in the next chapter), regeneration follows faith for regeneration follows justification.

Romans 5 speaks of death that results from condemnation and of life that results from justification. By faith the believer is justified, reconciled to God, and experiences peace with God. There is mention of "receiving abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness" by faith. How could regeneration or conversion be excluded from that description? It is certainly not excluded from obtaining "life" as a result of having been justified by faith. So, there is a reference to obtaining spiritual life (regeneration) and this is said to follow justification by faith. "Receiving" is in the active voice and denotes an accepting of the gift of grace and the gift of righteousness. We receive life by faith.

Romans 6 speaks of identification with Christ, symbolized in water baptism, wherein the believer, being joined to Christ, dies to sin (first in justification and secondly in sanctification), and is resurrected to new life. As he was buried in water, so his sins and old self are buried. As Christ was raised to life so the believer is raised to life. This identification with Christ is by faith. To become dead to sin and alive to God one must become identified with and related to Christ by faith, to become one in union with him, so that his death, burial, and resurrection are imputed to him and operates to bring about his own death and resurrection.

Paul says to the believers in Rome: "but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead." (vs. 13) Being "alive from the dead" is a clear reference to regeneration. But, is it a regeneration that does not include conversion? That does not begin with faith and repentance? Paul says that they should reckon themselves as spiritually alive. But how and when alive? By what means? The context clearly says that it results from identification with Christ by faith, and thereby have union with him in his death, burial, and resurrection. Further, Paul, when he speaks of the believer's quickening or regeneration, he speaks of it 1) in conversion language, and 2) as occurring at a time known to the believers. The latter fact shows that it is not a sub conscious change but a conscious one. 

Now let us notice what he says further in this chapter about regeneration.

"Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness." (Vs. 16-18)

That this is talking about evangelical conversion to Christ there is no doubt. But, if regeneration does not encompass conversion, then it is not talking about regeneration. But, there are all kinds of problems with not seeing Paul's description as denoting that conversion is regeneration. 

Becoming servants of righteousness follows obeying (believing and repenting) the "doctrine" (the gospel). Prior to believing and turning to God (repentance) one is a "servant of sin" and not a "servant of righteousness." But, if he is regenerated before obeying the gospel (before faith and conversion), then his regeneration did not save him from slavery to sin; And, in that case, we create a strange creature indeed, one who is "regenerate," but who has not yet obeyed the gospel to become "free from sin." A regenerate man who is still a servant of sin, self, the world, Satan, etc.! How can we not see how being made free from sin is a reference to regeneration? Did Paul teach that people were regenerated before or without becoming servants of Christ? No. Are there regenerated people who are servants of sin? No. Who are not servants of God and righteousness? No. Yet, our Hardshell brothers believe so. 

Paul said further in this chapter: "For when you were the servants of sin, you were free from righteousness." (vs. 20) Paul speaks to the Roman believers, in the above words, with the assumption that they each knew when they were servants of sin and when they were free from righteousness. This leads to the conclusion that he is referring to the time when the believer first came to believe in Christ and the gospel.

Romans 7 again talks of justification and shows that it results from union with Christ (under the figure of the marriage union). In verse four he speaks of becoming "married to Christ." When does this occur? Obviously in conversion, which is regeneration. Union with Christ is by faith. It speaks of that time when the Lord makes covenant with the believing and penitent sinner. Christ says "I do" (or "I will") and the penitent believer says the same. Then, "the two become one." Paul affirms throughout his epistles that all the benefits of redemption follow union with Christ and union is by faith (a faith divinely created). Justification and regeneration follow faith union. The benefits of marital union come after the covenant is made based upon faith (fealty and trust). 

In the same chapter Paul says:

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (vs 5-6)

What time is denoted by "when we were in the flesh"? Is it not to a pre conversion time, the time before they became servants of righteousness by faith? When were they dead? Was it not before they believed and were converted? He is describing regeneration yes, but in terms of conversion, which shows, in Paul's mind, they were the same. They were also what the Roman believers understood by a reference to their time "in the flesh," the time when they lacked faith and knowledge of Christ, before they were converted. 

Romans 8

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." (vs 1-2)

In Paul's writings "in Christ" is a term denoting union between Christ and the believer. But, those who believe that one is born again before they believe believe that one is "in Christ" apart from faith. They often will speak of faith union, but then turn around and put union before faith. 

In the New Testament the phrase "eis auton" (unto him) is used frequently. We believe "unto Christ."

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-unto him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40) 

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may be believing on him (eis-unto him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29) 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis, unto) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48)

Everything the Christian does, in obedience to Christ, from the first moment of his birth into new spiritual life in Christ, until his final breath on earth, is "UNTO (eis) Christ," and "UNTO (eis) salvation," and "UNTO (eis) forgiveness (pardon)," and "UNTO (eis) sanctification," and "UNTO (eis) justification (righteousness)," and "UNTO (eis) redemption," and "UNTO (eis) adoption," etc. Thus, when we believe the gospel, we believe "eis" Christ, and "eis salvation," and "eis righteousness," and "eis forgiveness," etc. Likewise, when we repent, and are baptized, and eat the Lord's Supper, and do good works, it is all "eis," or "concerning" Christ and salvation. As these acts are often continuous, so all our spiritual activity is continuously "eis..." But, "eis" often also means "into" and is often so translated. So, we believe "into Christ." Before faith we were outside of Christ. After faith we are "in Christ." 

Those who are "in Christ" are the same ones who have Christ in them. It is "I in you and you in me." 

In the previous chapter we have seen how Paul speaks of union with Christ through the metaphor of the marriage union. It is when the marriage is consummated that the believer and Christ become one so that the believer is "in Christ" and Christ is in the believer. Christ entering the believer is symbolized in partaking of the bread and wine of the Supper. The believer entering Christ is symbolized in water baptism.

Not only is the believer "in Christ" but he is also "in the Spirit," no longer being "in the flesh." 

Further, faith is implied in Paul's words. Those who are free from condemnation are they who "walk after the Spirit." But, how is this possible apart from faith? Did the apostle not say "without faith it is impossible to please God"? (Heb. 11: 6) Obviously then "those who are in Christ Jesus" are they who have faith.

Paul says further in this chapter:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (vs 8-10)

There is no doubt that regeneration is alluded to in this passage. It is connected with becoming "in the Spirit," and that is defined as having "the Spirit of God dwell in you." To be "in the Spirit" is to "have" or possess "the Spirit of Christ." How does one who is in the flesh become no longer such? To become "in the Spirit"? If it is not by faith, then we must conclude that unbelievers may have the Spirit and be in the Spirit. But, Paul always taught that both Christ and the Spirit were received by faith. It is when Christ enters into the believer that the believer's own "spirit" is quickened ("is life"). Wrote Paul to the Galatian believers:

"This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (3: 2)

If we receive the Spirit by faith (that comes by hearing the word - Rom. 10: 14-17), and it is the receiving of the Spirit that constitutes one as being "in Christ" and "in the Spirit," then regeneration is by faith.

Some of the born again before faith advocates will attempt to teach their view from the above words based upon what they perceive to be a logical deduction. If while being "in the flesh" (unregenerate) the sinner exercises faith, it is argued, his faith could not be pleasing to God. Or, to state the argument another way, it is argued that one must be "in the Spirit" before he can believe. But, this is not logically deducible from the text. It certainly contradicts what he said in Galatians 3: 2 as we have seen. 

What Paul is clearly saying is that it by "having the Spirit" by faith that one becomes "in the Spirit," and "in Christ," and so walks not after the flesh, and is in fact no longer "in the flesh." Those in the flesh "cannot please God." Yes, but the same thing is said about faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11: 6). It seems clear that these two things are linked together and are inseparable. Faith possesses Christ, possesses the Spirit, and thereby is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit. As long as a man is an unbeliever, as long as he has not received Christ, he is in the flesh. The moment he embraces Christ he receives life and begins his moral and spiritual transformation.

Finally, in Romans chapter eight Paul says:

"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." (vs. 30)

On this text, in regard to the ordo salutis, I have already written much. Hardshells, like many others, believe that the "calling" of this text is the same as being regenerated, born again, or quickened. I do not. But, as far as the purpose of this posting is concerned, we want to address it on the assumption that it is the same thing and to see if it excludes faith, excludes the necessity of hearing the gospel, excludes conversion. That it absolutely implies faith there can be no doubt. In fact it is a calling to faith in Christ. Being such, a man cannot be said to be called who does not have faith in Christ. 

This calling is of the Spirit but it is "by the gospel," and by faith in it. Wrote Paul:

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13-14)

The parallel between this passage and Romans 8: 29-30 is apparent. Both deal with being chosen and predestined to salvation. Both speak of being "called." The same salvation is under consideration in both passages. This salvation to which they have been chosen and predestined is "by" a "belief (Greek - faith) of the truth," and the salvation calling was made "by our gospel." Those called are they who have heard the call in the gospel and have positively answered it in faith. So, the gospel as a means and faith as an instrument are not excluded. Those who do not believe the gospel were not effectually called.

Romans 9 has no reference to conversion or to regeneration. 

Romans 10 speaks of being saved. This is conversion. It affirms that one must have faith, confess Christ and call upon his name, in order to be saved. In order to produce this saving faith the gospel is sent to men for "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." 

There is no reason to exclude regeneration from the salvation of this chapter. It is not a salvation for the regenerated. But, this is exactly what the born again before faith view affirms. But, again, we cannot imagine a "regenerate" man who has not heard, believed, received, confessed, etc. To exclude these things from what constitutes a regenerate character is to produce a strange creature of which the bible knows nothing. Such a creature only exists in the minds of those who believe regeneration exists where there is no faith.

The remainder of Romans does not speak of either regeneration or conversion, although the apostle speaks of two of his kin who he says "were in Christ before I." (Rom. 16: 7) It is obvious from that statement that Paul knew both when he first was "in Christ" and when Andronicus and Junia were "in Christ." If one gets into Christ on a sub conscious level, apart from faith and conversion, then it cannot be known when one is "in Christ." Doubtless the apostle is referring to that time when he, Andronicus, and Junia became believers. Most of those who teach this kind of regeneration will say that it is not possible to know when this occurs (which is not what they say, however, about being converted). In fact, they actually teach that most are regenerated who do not even know it. But, Paul knew when he and his kin became "in Christ."

So, in conclusion, I ask my Hardshell brothers to show me where in Romans Paul teaches the kind of regeneration they talk about, to show me where regeneration is divorced from conversion, where it occurs apart from faith. If there is a passage I overlooked, let me know.

Hermeneutical Problems for Hardshells VI

In the concluding entry of my three part review of Hardshell apologist Joe Holder's commentary on Romans 6: 19-22, I cited some comments from Holder in which he affirmed that regeneration or new birth involved having God write his word upon the heart. I promised to examine this proposition in light of what Hardshells have historically taught relative to it, and this I will do in the conclusion of this two part entry for Hardshell Hermeneutical Problem VI. First, however, I will look at the Scriptures on the subject and see whether they are consistent with neo Hardshellism's understanding of it. As we will see, to say that regeneration involves having God's word written in the inner being gives modern Hardshells great difficulty, representing another hermeneutical problem.

A Truth Proposition

It is indeed a truth taught clearly in Scripture that God, in that work called "regeneration" or being "born again," writes upon, or puts within man's inner being his word, law, statutes, etc., but chiefly the Gospel.

For Holder and the Hardshells to affirm this proposition is good, and is a place to "take the battle to the gate," (Isa. 28: 6) for as we will see, such an affirmation is inconsistent with their other statements on the nature of the new birth experience. It represents a point of discussion that, when pressed, ought to convict every Hardshell of his error on the nature of regeneration. Keep in mind also, that the error the Hardshells have regarding the nature of regeneration is a result of another error regarding the denial of means used to effect it. The first Hardshells who believed in means, in the 1830s, for instance, believed that regeneration and conversion could not be divorced, but those Hardshells who forsook the means view were forced to alter their description of regeneration.

What is the Hardshell View?

This is not always an easy question to ask - "what is the Hardshell view?" This is because there is not unanimity of opinion on certain issues. Also, the first generation of Hardshell leaders, in the 1830's, believed much differently on certain things than do today's Hardshells.

Let us now look at the chief passages involved in this discussion.

Passage #1

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jer. 31: 33-34)

Notice the two expressions "I will put" and "I will write." God puts or places his law in the "inward parts" and writes his words in the heart. There is no need to ascertain the precise distinction between "inward parts" and "heart." Both denote the very core of being, the soul and its spiritual, moral, and rational faculties.

Other similar prophecies, as we shall see, speak of this same work being done in the "mind" as well as in the heart. In fact, Paul's citation of Jeremiah's prophecy has "mind" for "inward parts."

What Is The Intended Effect?

The effect of this work of God in the inward parts, in the heart, and in the soul, is to cause people to "know" Lord God. Knowing God, in this context, implies understanding and cognition. This represents a great difficulty or hermeneutical problem for the Hardshells. Another effect is to know the truth, about God, and the scheme of salvation through the work of Christ. What did David mean when he said - "Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom"? (Psa. 51: 6) Notice that having the truth in the heart of the soul involves knowledge, or cognition. It involves conscious thought.

What is the intended effect of God's work of putting his law into the inward parts and of writing his word upon the tablet of the heart? This is a very difficult question for a Hardshell. All that they can do is to retreat to that common way of speaking of the purpose of regeneration, which is to simply give an "ability" to act spiritually and righteously. But, this is hardly what is intended by the Lord. He does not merely make sinners capable of learning, by writing his word upon the heart, but actually teaches them. They are not only given ability to know God, but they actually come to know him.

To write something upon the heart is the same thing as to write it in the memory. When something is written on paper, an impression is made in the paper. Job spoke of a pen of iron writing on stone as on paper. It is a kind of engraving. God engraves his word upon the heart and mind by impressing his word upon the thinking faculties. We might say, in keeping with Scriptural metaphor, that he "burns" his word into the moral fiber of our rational and spiritual being. Notice these verses:

"Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart." (Prov. 3: 3)

"My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee. Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart." (Prov. 7: 1-3)

In these verses people are commanded to write God's word upon their hearts, the very thing he promised to do himself. Is there a contradiction? How do the Hardshells solve the difficulty?

It is not uncommon for God to command the people to do what he promises to do himself. For instance, God promises, and actually does, "circumcise" the heart (Rom. 2: 29; Phi. 3: 3; etc.), yet he also says to people - "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord" (Jer. 4: 4: Deut. 10: 16). Also, he promises to give a "new heart" and to put a "new spirit" within people (Eze. 36: 26-27), yet he also says to them - "make you a new heart and a new spirit" (Eze. 18: 31). Only Hardshells see these things as contradictory. Because of their unscriptural presuppositions and false premises they cannot admit that the same thing is being denoted. Doing so would force him into giving up his anti means view.

So, what is our intended effect when we do as commanded and write God's word upon our hearts? Is it not that we will have God's word "always in remembrance"? (II Peter 1: 12) That it will be burned into our conscious memory? Of course. Is it any different when God writes his word upon our hearts or places in our minds his teachings? Further, Peter said this was his assigned work, to keep the saints reminded, to keep writing things upon the mind's memory. Remember too that God was working through Peter so that it was the work of God to keep the believer always in remembrance, and this is in fulfillment of his promise to write his word continuously in hearts and minds.

David prayed:

"Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You" (Psalm 119:11).

David placed God's word in his heart! The very thing God said he would do! When will the Hardshells understand that one does not exclude the other? They think that if God writes, then this excludes any writing done by the apostles in their teaching ministries, and also excludes the writing the believer himself does. But, this is just illogical and also against plain scripture.

How Does One Come To Know?

As stated, the prophecy of Jeremiah speaks of people coming to know the Lord and this via coming to know his word by the teaching work of God. He, like a teacher, will put within the mind of his students the lessons he has designed for them to learn and know. He, as a teacher, writes upon the heart and memory those lessons. Did not Jesus explain this?

“No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘and they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (John 6: 44-45)

Notice that it is the work of the Father to teach all the chosen people, so that they hear and learn from the Father. Who can doubt that this is the manner in which God puts his law in the inward parts and the manner in which he writes his word in the heart and mind? All this cries COGNITION. People do not hear and learn on the subconscious level. How can they know a God that they have heard and learned nothing about?

God's Continuous Writing

Further, the words "I will put," means "continually giving my laws." The Hebrew tense denotes what is an ongoing or continuous action rather than what is done in an instant. This is detrimental to the Hardshell idea that all the laws are written, or secretly encoded, in the soul's DNA, when it is regenerated or divinely begotten. The work of writing the word of God on the heart then, is not only what takes place in the instant of regeneration, but what takes place throughout the life after regeneration, being a part of sanctification.

It is doubtful that any Hardshell today would affirm that God is continually writing his word in the hearts of his covenant people after their regeneration, because 1) this would tend to overthrow their thesis that the word written in the heart is all done in the subconscious region of the heart and mind (since a continual writing would lend towards a writing that results in cognition of truth propositions), and 2) they do not believe that there is any work after regeneration in which the believer is passive.

The Covenant With God

The covenant that is the source or reason for the regenerating work of God is made between God and the people saved. In the text it is "I will make a covenant with the house of Israel." It is a covenant between God and people. This poses another difficulty for the Hardshells. Where, in their understanding of the experience of regeneration, does a person agree with God, and enter into covenant with him? Of course, the Hardshell can only respond by saying that Jesus, representing him, made the covenant with God (the Father) on his behalf. Of course this is true, the error of the Hardshell consists in his not seeing how people enter into the blessings of the new covenant (all which pertain to salvation) by faith, by agreeing with God, which is the chief meaning of homologeo, the Greek word for confess.

Entering the Covenant by Heartfelt Confession

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom. 10: 9)

Strong says that the Greek word means "to say the same thing as another, i.e. to agree with, assent." He also says it means "to concede, to promise." When two people get married, they each say the same thing, "I do." That is, I agree, I assent, I confess or acknowledge. They not only agree, but they make promises. So too when sinners join with Christ and become one with him.

Hardshells acknowledge that people make covenant with God, as literally, really, and personally, as did the Israelites on Mt. Sinai. In the making of that covenant, the terms were clear to both parties. So, also in the new. Christ agrees to save and lead and the sinner agrees for Christ to save and lead him. That is the covenant and it is entered into by a God given faith. But, the Hardshell insists that such a making of covenant with God, or being converted, is not necessary to be finally and eternally saved.

Vital Union With Christ

The adept Hardshell apologist will often attempt to solve many difficulties about the necessity of union with Christ for salvation by ignoring "vital union" and stressing representative or federal union through Christ. The latter does not require regeneration, conversion, faith, repentance, etc., as does the former. He will also affirm that a real "vital union" does occur in Hardshell definitions of "regeneration," but insist that faith and repentance are not means or conditions to such a union with Christ.

So, then, is that union with Christ, per Romans 7:4, an essential aspect of regeneration? Does one have to have a vital marital union with Christ to be eternally saved? How can the anti means Hardshell say yes without contradicting himself? Will he not hold on to his anti means proposition so that he will be forced to say that one does not have to have a marital union with Christ, or enter into covenant with him, to be saved? He will have to say that the "vital union" that occurs in a Hardshell "regeneration" does not include being joined to Christ as a spouse?

Wrote Paul:

"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 17)

In the context of this verse Paul contrasts being joined in body versus being joined in heart and spirit. A man who has sexual intercourse with a whore, said Paul, becomes "one" with her, that is, one in body. How does one become united with, or one with, Christ? How does he enter into covenant with him? It is all by saying and confessing "I will" to the Spirit who testifies of Christ. There are many verses that speak of a faith union with Christ.

It is doubtful that Hardshells will deny that there is a union with Christ by faith, but they will insist that 1) this is no part of the "vital union" created in regeneration apart from faith, and that 2) this is not necessary for being eternally saved.

Passage #2

"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." (Eze. 36: 26-27)

What does it mean to have a "new heart" and a "new spirit"? Does it represent a physical change in the soul and spirit, as many of today's Hardshells teach, rather than a moral change? Is it something that actually changes a man's thoughts and beliefs? Or, is it the mere giving of an ability to perhaps later change thought and belief? If a man was a pagan or polytheist before obtaining a new heart and spirit, will he remain such? That is the crucial question. Nearly all of today's Hardshells insist that many people who live and die believing in a false religion, and in false gods, nevertheless were people who had that new heart and spirit.

Whatever the precise nature of the new heart and spirit, it is given for the purpose of effecting a change in behavior. Belief always changes behavior. Behavior reflects belief. Notice the three links in the chain of causes and effects.  God gives a new heart and spirit, which causes change in belief, which then causes change in behavior. The new heart and spirit signify a change in the moral nature, in character. It is simply absurd for the Hardshells to say that many have experienced this change and are yet "unbelievers." A regenerated unbeliever! The Bible knows of no such character. He is a figment of the Hardshell imagination.