Answering a Hardshell Polemic (2)

In this second post of this series I will continue to examine an Internet article titled "Why Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists" by Elder Gary Harvey (read here). 

Harvey wrote further:

"So the Baptists were fairly monolithic, as a people. Until, that is, the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries when the great split in the Baptist family occurred." 

I suppose he means the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, for the "great split" he speaks of is no doubt the split that occurred over missions via the "Black Rock Address" (1832). However, if he means the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, surely he knows that at that time there were several groups of Baptists, such as the General Baptists, Particular Baptists, Seventh Day Baptists, etc. Also in the mid eighteenth century in America we had both Regular and Separate Baptists, and then a union of these two that produced the United Baptists in many places. I am not sure what meaning this brother is attaching to the word "monolithic." 

In the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century we did see the rise of Hyper Calvinism epitomized by Congregationalist Joseph Hussey and his book "God's Operations of Grace, but no Offers of Grace" (1707) wherein he denied that sinner's were offered salvation by preachers via the gospel. He also embraced the idea that Christ in his humanity preexisted the creation. So, it is not true that "the Baptists" were ever "monolithic." Also, in England there arose the sect of the "Strict Baptists" coincidental with the "rise of the Hardshells" in American in the first half of the 19th century. Both these groups were Hyper Calvinists but the Hardshells would later go to further extremes than did the Strict Baptists, for the Hardshells would come to deny God's use of the means of his word and Gospel in saving sinners and the Strict Baptists did not. 

When I was a Hardshell Baptist I often heard them say that prior to the division over missions (late 1820s-early 1830s) that all the Baptists believed as do the Hardshells (were monolithic) and that the split occurred because the "Missionary Baptists" brought in new views, such as mission societies, theological education, Sunday Schools, and taught that the word of God was a means in salvation, and a general or universal atonement. In 1887 Elder Lemuel Potter, representing the "Primitive Regular Baptists" had a debate with Dr. W.P. Throgmorton, a Missionary Baptist, on the question of who are the true primitive Baptists. In that debate Potter said:

"I claim that if an organization of any kind be rent by the introduction of new rules, regulations or doctrines, that the innovators, and not the party that adheres to the old rules, regulations and doctrines, are the seceding party." 

What is ironically strange about this claim is the fact that it was the Hardshells who were guilty of the new things. Even Elder John M. Watson, who Elder Potter claimed to be one of their leaders, called those who denied God's use of means in salvation "modern innovators." In his book "The Old Baptist Test" (1st edition about 1858, second revised edition 1867) Watson said:

"Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328) 

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14. Paul, it is true, preached the Gospel in word only, while the election of God was manifested in the power and assurance of the Holy Spirit imparted to his words; when received by the elect which apart from that power and assurance would have been received in word only, as it really was by others not embraced in the divine election. I Thess. 1: 4." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 399, 400)

Supporting missionaries was not new among the Baptists. Theological education was not new either. Nor were Sunday Schools new in the history of the Church of Christ. What was new was the Hardshells making support for these things a test of fellowship and is why Dr. R.B.C. Howell, a neighbor and friend of Elder Watson in the Nashville area, called them "new test men." Dr. Howell wrote:

"The name given by them to the antimissionaries is the most appropriate we have yet seen--New Test men. We propose that the self styled Old School, be hereafter called New Test. What say you brethren? It is not reproachful, and conveys the exact description of those brethren and Churches, who have done so much evil by introducing a new test of fellowship that is, making friendship to the Convention a crime for which they will exclude a member, and enmity the ground of his reception." (Page 38 - "The Baptist" - Vol. V. Jan. 1839 No. 1)

In "BAPTIST SUCCESSION" a "HAND-BOOK OF BAPTIST HISTORY," by D. B. Ray, in chapter II two titled "THE "MISSIONARY" AND "OLD-SCHOOL" BAPTISTS," wrote:

"The Regular Baptists and the Anti-Mission Baptists were once together as one people; and, therefore, their history up to the separation was the same. The opposition of our Anti-Mission brethren to the mission work, and kindred objects, is a new feature among Baptists...This declaration of Dr. Howell is fully sustained by historic facts. The opposition among Baptists to the mission work, is of recent date. "

So, all that Harvey said in the above citation is false. The truth is, it is the Hardshells who brought into the Baptist family new doctrines, such as denying that the word of God was a means in salvation. The fact that Alexander Campbell, who was a Hyper Arminian, drew off many from among the Baptists, and the fact that many supported missions, theological education, etc., and became known as Missionary Baptists, and the fact that some were Hyper Calvinists, shows that the Baptists in the early 19th century were not all of the same stripe, even among those who were Particular Baptists. The Baptists, both General and Particular, therefore, prior to the rise of Campbell and the Hardshells, had within their body Calvinists, Arminians, semi-Calvinists, and Hyper Calvinists. They also had disagreements over other issues, such as on the millennial question, church government, etc. They were not therefore monolithic. They also did not come from the same stock, as the General and Particular Baptists were never one.

Harvey continued:

"It is sad beyond words that this happened, but it did happen. And here is what caused it: Arminian doctrine and the general atonement theory, accompanied by the idea that the gospel was used in the eternal salvation of people. This is the false idea that people had to respond to the gospel in order to be born again. Which certainly is not primitive faith. Primitive faith says loud and clear that we must be born again first, that people who are dead in sins cannot understand or believe the gospel. Arminian doctrine was fairly young in the late seventeenth century. Thus the churches that adopted the new doctrine were labeled the "new school" Baptists. Those bodies who continued in primitive faith and practice were called "old school," or "primitive" Baptists."

There are so many false statements in these words. Harvey says erroneous things but gives no historical or biblical proof to substantiate them. First, it is a falsehood to say that it was "Arminian doctrine and the general atonement theory" that was the cause of "the great split in the Baptist family." Again, I am thinking by "the great split" he means the split between the Hardshell Anti-Mission Baptists and the Pro-Mission Baptists which is generally said to have occurred in 1832 as a result of the "Black Rock Address," which was a formal declaration of non-fellowship by the Hardshells against several things, such as mission societies. I don't know of a great split in England or America among the Baptists in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. The General Baptists and Particular Baptists never were together and therefore could not split. 

Harvey says it was "Arminian doctrine" to believe in means, but surely he knows that nearly all Calvinists also believe in means. In fact, many "Primitive Baptists" today will say that the authors of the 1689 confession were Calvinists and Missionary Baptists. It is only the Hyper Calvinist Hardshells who took over the denomination in the late 19th century who denied means altogether. Nearly all of the older Hyper Calvinists, such as Joseph Hussey, believed in means.

In the Black Rock Address there is not a single word said about the extent of the atonement being a reason for their declaration of non-fellowship. You can read that Address (here). The declaration and address does not declare against the view that the preaching of the word of God is a means in saving sinners, though Hardshells continue to claim that it did. Rather, the Address upholds the means view. (See my posts on this here, here, here) The "split" was over evangelistic and mission methods, and not over whether the gospel was a means in salvation, and over whether preachers should be schooled in seminaries. 

There was no split in the Particular Baptist family prior to this time over the extent of the atonement, over whether the gospel or word of God was a means in saving sinners, simply because they all believed in limited atonement and that the word of God was a means. Even the first "Primitive Baptists" immediately after 1832 confessed their belief not only in the perseverance of the saints but also in God's use of the gospel and word of God as a means in saving sinners. This blog is filled with citations from the leaders of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" denomination from the 1830s and onward that show that they believed in means. See my series "What The First Hardshells Believed." This Page (here) gives you links to the several articles in that series. Elder John M. Watson was recognized as one of those leaders and in the above citations from him he states that the "no means" view was an "innovation" among them and that it arose from the Two Seed Primitives. 

So, Harvey's statement that the means view was not the Primitive view is false. Many Hardshells say this but I have many times challenged them to give the proof of this. They have not done so because there is no evidence of it. All the Baptists, with very few exceptions, believed that God used his word as a means in saving sinners. This is the teaching of the 1689 confession and all the oldest Baptist confessions. It is not true that "Arminian doctrine was fairly young in the late seventeenth century." The General Baptists existed long before this time and they were always Arminian. Further, even among the Particular or Regular Baptists of that time period, some were Arminian leaning or partial Calvinists and some were Hyper Calvinists in several points. 

Harvey then said "Thus the churches that adopted the new doctrine were labeled the "new school" Baptists. Those bodies who continued in primitive faith and practice were called "old school," or "primitive" Baptists." This statement leads me to believe even further that by the "end of the seventeenth century" he means rather the end of the eighteenth century, or the time period after 1832, for these labels were then coined. Also, Harvey gives no proof for his assertions. They are false. Who gave these labels? Who was the judge whether a church after 1832 was Old or New School? Was it not the Hardshells? Did not the Missionary Baptists, who the Hardshells labeled as "New School," deny this charge? Did they not claim to be the original Baptists or the old school? I have already cited from Howell who said that it was the Hardshells who were the "new test men" and even Elder Watson testified that his Hardshell Brethren who were beginning to deny means were the "innovators." 

In the next chapter we will continue to examine the polemic for Hardshellism as given by Elder Harvey.

Answering a Hardshell Polemic (1)

 

Recently I read an article titled "Why Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists" By Elder Gary Harvey (read here) and was provoked to write a rebuttal to what he wrote about Hardshell doctrine. From my search he is the pastor of Point Remove Primitive Baptist Church in Russellville, AR. You can see a picture of him in the church's web page (here). In this article Harvey begins by saying:

"Calvinists usually assert the perseverance of the saints, and this is a drastically different doctrine than the preservation of the saints. I assure you, my friends, this is not a mere matter of semantics. The perseverance of the saints is the idea that all the elect will hear the gospel, and obey the gospel, and persevere in obedience to the gospel throughout their lives."

Throughout this article Harvey disdains being labeled a "Calvinist." That is a new phenomenon among the "Primitive" "Old School" "Hardshell" Baptists as their forefathers did not disdain it. Not only that, but his forefathers believed in the perseverance of the saints and not preservation only. This is the view of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and is the confession his forefathers endorsed when they assembled in Fulton, Kentucky in 1900 and though they put footnotes to those sections that they sought to alter, they put no footnotes on the section dealing with perseverance (chapter 17; See here) It was not until the end of the 19th century that some "Primitive Baptists" began to denounce perseverance as a result of denying that faith was a necessary means or condition for eternal salvation. 

In the Mt. Carmel church trial (1909) we have this testimony from Elder Burnham from the faction that held to a belief in means and in perseverance. Elder Burnam was questioned as follows:

Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?

A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.

Q. By whom has that departure been made?

A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.

Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”

A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.

Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?

A. I have.

This is taken from a book published by Elder R.H. Pittman (1909) of the anti-means side wherein he gave much of the testimony from that trial. I purchased this book when I was a young Hardshell. You can read a synopsis of this trial at the web page of the "Primitive Baptist Library" (here). 

So, Elder Harvey is correct to say that there is a drastic difference between perseverance and preservation. It is obvious that the reason why the Hardshells rejected perseverance at the end of the 19th century is a result of their having embraced the view that faith is no condition for salvation, and accepting the Two Seed Primitive Baptist tenet that says "nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell." 

If one reads the first periodicals of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect (1832), in the 1830s-1850's, for instance, he will see that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints was the common view. For instance, Elder C. B. Hassell, the father of Sylvester, and co-author of the recognized history which they universally accept, "The History of the Church of God," cited the following words of Faussett with approval:

“The patience and the final perseverance of the saints, notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions, which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history. God’s people serve Him for His own sake, not merely for the temporary reward which His service may bring; they serve Him even in overwhelming trial. Herein is Job an imperfect type of Christ. Job’s chief agony was, not so much his accumulated losses and sufferings, not even his being misunderstood by friends, but that God hid His face from him, as these calamities too truly seemed to prove (Job 23:3-9). Yet conscience told him he was no hypocrite, nay, though God was slaying him, he still trusted in God (Job 23:10-15; compare Abraham, 22:19).”—Fausset. (chapter II, page 63)

In chapter nine of this history, page 270, under the title "TWELVE MARKS OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH," the first mark is given as follows: 

"The apostolic church consisted only of those persons who had been convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and who had given signs of repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Their faith was the faith of God's elect (Titus i. 1), a steadfast and earnest adherence to the doctrine of the Apostles and prophets (Acts ii. 42; Eph. ii. 20; Jude 3), including the total depravity of the human race in consequence of the fall of our first parents, the special eternal election of God's people to everlasting life, the particular redemption purchased by the blood of Christ for all His people, the effectual calling and the final perseverance of the saints to glory."

In chapter seventeen, page 525, this history says the following about the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

"What is called the Confession of 1688, in thirty-two chapters, by far the most important and authoritative of all uninspired Baptist Confessions, and still generally received by all Baptists who hold the doctrine of personal election and the certainty of the final perseverance of the saints, first appeared in 1677 at London, and was, in 1688 and 1689, approved and recommended by' the ministers and messengers of above a hundred churches who were in session in London July 4-11, 1689. It was adopted by the Philadelphia Baptist Association, in Philadelphia, Sept. 25th, 1742, and is hence also called the Philadelphia Confession — the latter retaining all the old London Confession, and adding two other Articles (Chapter xxiii., Of Singing of Psalms, and Chapter xxxi., Of Laying on of Hands). The Charleston (South Carolina) Association was organized, in 1751, on the basis of the old London Confession; and the Kehukee (North Carolina) Association was organized in 1765 on the same Confession, adding, from the Philadelphia Confession, the Chapter on the Singing of Psalms, but not adding the Chapter on the Laying on of Hands."

So, the 1689 London confession, the 1742 Philadelphia confession, the 1751 Charleston confession, and the 1765 Kehukee confession affirmed the doctrine of the perseverance of all the truly regenerate. 

In chapter eighteen, pages 566-567, Hassell writes:

"The Circular Letter of 1791, written by Elder Wm. Vanhorn, treats of the final perseverance of the saints, and contains the following paragraph: 

"We exclude, in the consideration of this subject, all false professors of religion, of every description, whatever may be their attainments, as in the grace of knowledge, talents or tongues, and power of working miracles, who, nevertheless, are and continue destitute of the Renewing grace of God. Hence, those who have made a fair show in Religion for a time, as the foolish virgins, Matthew xxv. The branches who were in the true vine, either by profession only, or in relation to Abraham, John xv. Those who in a sense may have tasted of the good word of God, as the stony-ground hearers, Matthew xiii; or as Herod, who heard John gladly, Matthew vi. 20. Those who may have embraced the doctrine of the gospel, frequently styled 'The Faith,' in the New Testament, Acts xxiv. 24; 1 Timothy i. 21; 2 Timothy iii. 8; as Hymeneus and Alexander, who in time made shipwreck thereof, 1 Timothy i. 20. Those who have been enlightened, and had the gift of prophecy, as Balaam, 1 Cor. xiii. 2; or who had the gift of tongues— power to work miracles, and as such tasted of the powers of the world to come, or of the gospel dispensation, as Judas, Hebrews vi. 5— all such we exclude— of all such there is no sufficient evidence that any of them were renewed by the grace of God, but of many of them the fullest testimony that they were not. We therefore cannot plead their perseverance in grace, which they never had; nor can such instances of defection, with any propriety, he produced as objections to the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints. We assert that those only will persevere in the way of eternal life and attain unto it, in whom the regenerating grace of God has or will take place. This fact is proved by the everlasting love of God to His people; by the covenant of grace, ordered in all things and sure; redemption by Christ Jesus; the charge He has taken of His people; the promises of the gospel; the perfections of God, His immutability, justice, power, wisdom, faithfulness and truth, all engaged to bring the heirs of grace, through perseverance therein, to glory. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in grace is not the doctrine of their perseverance in wickedness— is not a licentious doctrine. How shall they, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans vi. 1, 2."

So, clearly, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the historic doctrine of the Particular Baptists and of the founders of the "Primitive Baptist" church in the early nineteenth century. So, Harvey's denial of the doctrine shows that he is really not a "primitive" or "original" Baptist. In the year 1900 fifty one of the most well known leaders of the "Primitive Baptist Church" assembled in Fulton, Kentucky and endorsed the 1689 London Baptist Confession as being the confession believed by their forbears. They of course felt a need to put footnotes to the old confession on those sections that they disagreed with, but they did not put any footnotes to the section on perseverance. The 1689 Confession clearly upholds the doctrine of perseverance. 

In chapters 92-97 of my work titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I dealt with the subject of Perseverance and its historical treatment among the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. They can all be read in this blog in the archives for September, 2011. The first can be read (here). In that chapter I cited these words from Elder J. H. Purifoy (1837-1908) and his work titled "God's Saving Power Made Manifest In The Everlasting Preservation of the Saints," under the sub-section titled "The Power of God Unto Eternal Salvation," where he said (emphasis mine):

"To my mind, everlasting preservation is a more thoroughly Scriptural expression than the 'final perseverance' of the saints. If our eternal salvation at last depends on our 'final perseverance,' what are we to persevere in? Are we to persevere in grace, or faithfulness to God, His cause and each other, or persevere in obedience to God?

I have failed in it so often myself, and have seen so much of it on every hand that I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints, for our eternal salvation does depend on that, if we are what we profess to be."

Again, this recommendation by Purifoy was generally accepted by the "Primitive Baptists" and so they changed their articles of faith and removed the word "perseverance" and substituted the word "preservation." Ironically, they did this while all along claiming to have not changed their beliefs since they became a separate denomination, arguing that the word "primitive" means "original." The reason for this change in doctrine I have already shown was due to their changing their views on the nature of regeneration (or rebirth) and of the means God has ordained to effect it, denying that faith is a condition of salvation.

Elder Zach Guess (born 1941 and yet living so far as I know) agrees with what I have written and he is a "Primitive Baptist" minister, pastoring Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, and has pastored other churches in his lifetime. Their web page can be seen (here). He is the brother-in-law, I believe, of Elder Sonny Pyles, who was one of the leading ministers of the Hardshells in his lifetime. Elder Guess is one of the most learned men among the Hardshells and he has sons who are likewise ministers in the "Primitive Baptist" church. Guess wrote the following in this Internet article (2002) titled "Thoughts about the Doctrine of Perseverance" (Available here; emphasis mine):

"It is quite obvious that in some instances the doctrine of perseverance is misunderstood. What people need to do is to thoroughly research the subject before jumping to conclusions. In some cases an inaccurate “straw man” is erected and then torn down. I would like to make some observations that I hope will be enlightening and helpful."

It is true that many reject the doctrine of perseverance because 1) they do not understand it or 2) they are in error in their soteriological views and do not understand what occurs when a person is united to Christ by faith and born of the Spirit. It is also true that many "jump to conclusions," especially among the Hardshells and those in the "free grace" movement, who think that a person can be saved by simply believing intellectually without repentance or a reformation of their lives. These people speak against the idea of "lordship salvation," which simply says that when a sinner is joined to Christ by a living faith that good works will follow and Christ will be Lord over the believer and his ways. It is also true that the opponents of the doctrine of perseverance among the Hardshells of today give a false caricature of the doctrine or a "straw man."  

Next, under the sub-heading "Historical Considerations" Guess wrote:

"In light of some recent discussions one would think that the doctrine of perseverance is a new thing being advocated by some Primitive Baptists. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the term, “perseverance” was not invented by me nor by others of my brethren who advocate this doctrine. Historically the great majority of Primitive Baptist ministers have held to this doctrine. It is also true that many, many of the Articles of Faith of Old Line Primitive Baptist churches, and of Old Line Primitive Baptist associations have contained the very word, “perseverance” as well as what I believe and teach about this doctrine. It is very sad to me that many present day Primitive Baptists are either grossly ignorant of our history or care nothing for it."

When Guess spoke of "some recent discussions" among the "Primitive Baptists" he refers to issues that were taking place at the start of this century over what some called "the liberal movement" where some of the Hardshell churches were beginning to support missions, have ministerial education seminars, Bible classes, and who rejected much of what is called the "time salvation" doctrine and upheld the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. There are articles in this blog on this schism, one which led to a declaration of non-fellowship for Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr. and others, and a split in the Lexington Primitive Baptist church. Just put "liberal movement" in the search engine for this blog and you will find them.

Next, Guess, under the sub-heading "Evidence From Primitive Baptist History" wrote further:

"What I write now will not be exhaustive. It would be easy to produce hundreds of pages of evidence. However, if one will not be convinced by a few plain examples, he would not be convinced by a thousand pages. He would reveal a biased and closed mind."

Agreed. If the Hardshells reject one or a few texts that go against their views, there is no need to multiply texts. Guess then shows, as I have, how the Fulton Assembly and resulting Confession affirmed the doctrine of perseverance, and how Hassell’s History affirmed that it was the belief of the "Primitive Baptists" of the nineteenth century, and how the moderator of the Fulton Assembly and a leader of the Hardshells, Elder J. H. Oliphant, also confessed a belief in it. Guess said:

"Elder J. H. Oliphant, one of the most respected Primitive Baptist preachers of the late 19th and the early 20th centuries wrote a book in 1878. The title of the book? Final Perseverance of the Saints." 

Next, Guess says that the oldest "Church and Associational Records" of the "Primitive Baptist" churches likewise affirmed their belief in perseverance. The above citation from Purifoy also shows this is true. Guess said:

"Many, many Primitive Baptist church and associational Articles of Faith have the expression “Perseverance of the Saints” or “Final Perseverance of the Saints” in them. This expression did not bother the vast majority of our forefathers." 

Not only is the doctrine of the sure and certain perseverance of all the called and justified the traditional and orthodox view of the Particular or Regular Baptists who identify with the churches who endorsed the 1689 London Baptist Confession but it is the teaching of the scriptures. The scriptures are very clear in affirming that perseverance in faith to Christ and his word is a necessary condition for obtaining eternal life and being vindicated and declared just in the judgment of the quick and the dead. Let us notice a few of them.

"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12 kjv)

The Greek word for "patience" is "makrothymia" and denotes not only patience, but endurance, constancy, steadfastness, and perseverance. By "the promises" we must include final salvation, or the "eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 15) These promises are "inherited," what is given to those who are the heirs of God. Two things are required to inherit those promises, both of which are denied to be necessary by Hardshell Baptists. Those two things are faith and perseverance. Jesus taught the same, saying: "But he who endures to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 24: 13 nkjv) Wrote the apostle John:

"Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." (II John 1: 9 nkjv)

That is clear enough, is it not? John also wrote:

"Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (I John 2: 24 nkjv)

That is saying the same thing. It is what the apostle Paul also taught when he wrote:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain." (I Cor. 15: 1-2 nkjv)

"And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister." (Col. 1: 21-23 nkjv)

"but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end...For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." (Heb. 3: 6, 14 nkjv)

"Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” (Heb. 10: 38 nkjv)

These verses tell us that if a professing Christian fails to keep trusting in Christ and the good news of his saving work, if he fails to abide in Christ, if he does not remain a believer, he will be damned and will show that he was not a true believer. So wrote the apostle John of some professors who did this very thing, writing these words:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (I John 2: 19 nkjv)

Those who turn away from Christ and the gospel show that they were not true or real Christians, but were "false professors," or "hypocrites." Further, John testifies that those who are true believers, truly of the community of saints, that they will in fact "continue" in the community, in the doctrine of Christ. 

So, we first show that perseverance in the faith is necessary for final salvation. Next, we show that the truly saved will in fact continue in the faith, will keep in memory the blessed Gospel, and will not draw back. Next, we give the reason why all the truly born again will indeed persevere, endure, or continue in their allegiance to Christ. So John expressly affirms, writing:

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5: 4-5 nkjv)

"We know that whoever is born of God does not sin (miss the mark); but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him." (vs. 18)

John does not say that a few of those who are born of God will overcome the world, but that they all will. They all will "keep themselves."  Further, such a fact does not exclude giving exhortations to professing Christians to "Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 1: 21 kjv) For those who are born of God such exhortations will serve as means to help them keep themselves.

In the seven letters to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation chapters two and three, Christ ends his letters with a promise to those who "overcome." Those who overcome will go to heaven and enjoy all its promised blessings. Those who do not overcome, or persevere, will not obtain those promised things. What are they? The overcomers will eat of the tree of life in paradise, will not be hurt of the second death, receive a white stone and hidden manna with a new name (identity), the name of God and of the city of God written in their foreheads, and Christ's new name, receive power over the nations to rule them with a rod of iron, being seated with Christ on his throne, be given the morning star, be clothed in white raiment, will not have their names blotted out of the book of life, will have their names confessed in heaven before the Father and the angels, be made a permanent pillar in the heavenly temple, 

The Vine and the Branches

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15: 6 nkjv)

These verses tell us that one must abide in Christ, the true Vine, in order to be saved from being destroyed in the fire. We have already shown how abiding in Christ is a necessary condition for final salvation and how the apostles exhorted professing Christians to so abide. Union with Christ the Vine is salvation. To be disjoined from Christ is damnation. What happens to every branch that does not bear fruit (which is essentially what it means to endure, persevere, etc.)? It is "taken away," and "thrown into the fire" and "burned." What happens to those branches that bear fruit? They are "pruned" so that they then "bear more fruit." Those, therefore, who have a genuine connection with Christ will be progressively sanctified, will regularly be pruned so that they bear more and more fruit. This text shows that continuance in bearing fruit is a necessary condition for final salvation, and such a continuance is the essence of what we mean by the perseverance of the saints.

Defining Perseverance

Those who deny perseverance think that the doctrine of perseverance entails that a believer live above sin. However, that is not what is intended. However, we must question what is meant by "sin." We have already seen where the apostle John said "whoever is born of God does not commit sin." The Greek word for sin is "hamartia" and means to "miss the mark." Yes, every believer sins in the sense of transgressing or disobeying the commands of the Lord, but none of them "miss the mark" in the larger sense. Christ is the mark, and to be with him in glory is the end goal, the chief aim. So wrote the apostle Paul:

"Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3: 12-14 kjv)

All the truly born again will hit the mark, will win the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, will reach perfection, will apprehend the prize and all that God has promised to those who overcome.

Some Bible teachers say that by "does not commit sin" means "does not habitually commit sin" as a way of life, and it is true that those who are born of God cannot live in sin for God's chastening rod will ensure that they are corrected. (Heb. 12: 6-11; Psa. 89: 29-34) The Lord promised that the new covenant's new heart would ensure obedience. Said the LORD: "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Eze. 36: 27 kjv)

All the above texts about perseverance tell us what is meant by persevering. It means to abide in Christ and in his doctrine, to keep in memory the gospel and be not moved away from it, and to continue to bear fruit.

Further, being preserved does not exclude faith and perseverance. Jude says "keep yourselves in the love of God" as we have seen. John says every born again child of God "keeps himself." Peter says they are "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." (I Peter 1: 5)

In the next chapter I will continue to review Elder Harvey's defense of Hardshell ideas about salvation.

No Reaping in the Next Life?

Elder C.H. Cayce, champion debater for the "Primitive Baptist" sect, in an editorial in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" titled "Galatians 6:7 AND Ephesians 5:6" for July 16, 1936, wrote: 

"Sister Alma Pate, Avant, Okla., has requested our views on (Galatians 6:7) and (Ephesians 5:6); (Galatians 6:7-8) reads as follows: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” This language was written to the church at Galatia. It is not addressed to alien sinners. But it is true in nature, that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

He then said:

"He does the reaping from the same field where he does the sowing."

This is Hardshellism in a nutshell. It is also a leading tenet of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists. The Two Seeders said that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. Cayce believes that all the reaping for sowing good seed occurs in this life and not in the next life or in eternity. He also is affirming that all the reaping from sowing to the flesh is likewise received in a person's life but not in eternity. What about sowing on earth and reaping in hell? What saith the scriptures?

"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." (John 5: 28-29 nkjv)

Here those who do good obtain resurrection life. Those who do evil obtain resurrection of condemnation.

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12: 36 kjv)

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." (Matt. 16: 27 nkjv)

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (II Cor. 5: 10 nkjv)

"But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom. 14: 10-12 nkjv)

"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,  who "will render to each one according to his deeds":  eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;  but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath,  tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek." (Rom. 2: 5-9 nkjv)

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Rev. 22: 12 kjv)

"For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8 nkjv)

I could add many more texts that show that Cayce is wrong when he avers that all the reaping for good or bad done in life is received in this life, but these should be sufficient.

What "Primitive Baptists" Believed in 1916

Recently in my series on "Two Seedism" I cited from Elder C.H. Cayce's paper "The Primitive Baptist" for November 14, 1916, from his editorial "Curtain Raised Again" and a letter from Elder W. E. Brush who was an assistant editor of Cayce's paper. It seems that Elder Brush also served on the editorial staff of the historical Primitive Baptist publication "Youth's Guardian Friend," founded by Elder J.M. Thompson. At this time both Thompson and Brush had asked Cayce to remove their names from the editorial staff of Cayce's paper because of disagreement over the "whole man" doctrine. Elder John R. Daily writes the following in chapter five of his autobiography "Pilgrimage of a Stranger":

"I wish to say here that while we were living on Dr. Oilar's farm I attended a term of school taught by R. W. Thompson, who was then a young man. His brother, John M. Thompson, was a pupil in the same school. These are both now (1903) able ministers. The former is Editor of the "Primitive Monitor," and the latter is editor of the "Youth's Guardian Friend."

Elder Brush wrote (emphasis mine):

"First, it has stood for the doctrine of election and predestination, and that unconditional on the part of the sinner...And now all that God the Father chose in Christ, Christ died for, the Holy Spirit (the third Person in the divine Trinity) will, here in time, make known to the heirs of promise what God the Father and Jesus Christ have done for them, by going where they are and revealing this one most noble truth to them. And now in this revelation I have understood the P. B. to teach that men and women, together with children as well, were taught to know God, whom to know is life eternal; and that in this teaching they were taught to know God only in soul, spirit, or heart; that this work of regeneration or the new birth did not teach men to know God in the flesh. Am I right? Or have I been mistaken all this long time as to what the P. B. taught on this point? I never understood it to teach that this revelation that the Spirit makes to the heirs of promise here in this life, with its purifying power, reached the entire man and partially purified him all over; or in the revelation, or the work of quickening the heir of promise, it left him, in some mysterious way unexplainable, quickened, both soul and body that is, it did not leave any part of him dead in trespasses and sins, and if not dead in trespasses and sins, then necessarily alive in Christ." 

All this is quite interesting to me as a "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist historian. It seems, from the words of Elder Brush, that at the time this was written (1916) it was the view of the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists that a regenerated person has the Gospel of salvation revealed to him by having been taught to know God. Many of them, after this date, began to teach that people could be regenerated in heathen lands by the direct speaking of Christ to them and yet remain cognitively ignorant of Christ and believers in other deities. 

Elder Sarrels, who was part of this debate about the "whole man" doctrine, as we have seen, later in his life wrote a book titled "Systematic Theology" (1978). I have cited much from this book in several posts which showed that he believed that regeneration did NOT teach people about who is the true God, nor of Jesus Christ and the way of salvation through him. (See this post here for instance) Here are a couple citations from Sarrels in that work that substantiate this fact:

"We here give some attention to a matter mentioned earlier in this chapter: Since we hold, (a) that God, without the use of the gospel as a means, regenerates his loved ones in heathen lands as well as in cultured lands, and, (b) that in all of these lands, both heathen and cultured, the Holy Spirit performs his convicting work, we make the following differential observation: As the innate knowledge of God's existence, or First Truths, may exist in only faintly discernible ideas about the Supreme Being, and may range from this all but dormant and little understood stamp of the Maker to the highest and most enlightened concept of God's existence, so the facts connected with conviction--and conversion--may begin with the faintly dim ideas about sin, righteousness, and judgment, about repentance, faith, and justification, and range from this to the most advanced intellectual concepts concerning these progressive steps in the experience of a believer in gospel lands." (pages 365, 366)

"Not only does this view limit salvation to areas where the gospel is preached; it actually limits salvation to those who believe the gospel and obey it. (As the Scriptures themselves do!) The Moslems, the Buddhists, the Brahmans, and all other non-Christian adherents, even in gospel lands, are according to the strict sense of this view doomed. Not only this--strictly interpreted and applied, this view would exclude Jews and Unitarians, and, by some, even Catholics, who do not believe what is preached (like the gospel?) as some religious groups would present the matter. These are hard facts which need to be placed before the world. For reasons which are but briefly alluded to in some parts of the work, but developed more fully in other parts, we hold that God, despite the teachings of man, saves his chosen people all over the world." (page 434)

This view of Sarrels (published in 1978) was the standard view of the "Primitive Baptist Church" when I joined it in 1972 (my father joined them about 1965). They taught that people in other religions had been regenerated and yet not converted to Christ, but who remained in false religions. 

In the "Christian Baptist" periodical for January, 1978, Elder S.T. Tolley, editor (who I knew personally), wrote: 

"Primitive Baptists have always believed that it was unnecessary for the gospel of Christ to be preached in order that sinners be saved from hell."

"Elder John R. Daily in a debate with W. P. Throgmorton in 1912 said: 

"Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

Daily, Cayce, and Sylvester Hassell lived about the same time and were each recognized as leaders and defenders of the "Primitive Baptists" in their beliefs. 

Cayce in his day seemed to advocate both sides. At times he would affirm as Elder Brush, saying that all the elect will have the gospel preached to them directly by Christ himself and be made believers thereby. At other times he would say that people had been regenerated but who remained pagans, knowing nothing about Jesus. For instance, in commenting upon Paul's preaching in Athens, Greece and commanding them all to repent, a thing Cayce denied that ministers should do, Cayce wrote (emphasis mine):

“Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word." ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)

So, even though the Athenians did not know about Jesus and his resurrection or his Messiahship, and were believers in many pagan gods and goddesses, yet because Paul says "we are all the offspring of God" (Acts 17: 28), and because Cayce believes that only those who are born again are to be exhorted to believe and repent, Cayce will argue that they had already been regenerated before Paul arrived there and preached the gospel to them. That is a view unique to the Hardshell Baptists. All Bible commentators believe that by Paul saying "we are all the offspring of God" that Paul means that every human being is God's creation. This is because the context shows this to be the case. Notice it:

"25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (kjv) 

If "we are also his offspring" denotes the new birth or regeneration, then we must say that every man who is God's creature and has breath and life from God are all born again and this leads to Universalism.

But, one wonders why the Athenians did not know anything about Jesus and were worshipers of other gods if Christ had already personally appeared to each of them and preached the gospel to them. Elder Sylvester Hassell, who lived in the time of Cayce, and who was a recognized leader as he was, wrote in "Question and Answer" the following:

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

This viewed was shared by Cayce, who often argued in his debates with others, on the subject of whether the gospel (as preached by preachers) was a means in regeneration, that Jesus spoke directly to each one of the elect in his regenerating them. In another editorial on 1 Peter 3:18-21 for October 23, 1906, Cayce wrote:

"By the same Spirit by which His body was quickened He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. This shows very clearly that there is a work upon spirit which is performed by the direct work of the Spirit. “And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” - (Ephesians 2:17-18). There is a preaching, or a work, which Jesus does by His Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit. This work is what is also called regeneration. Through the work of Jesus, His offering, both Jews and Gentiles have access to the Father by one Spirit in the work of regeneration. The Holy Spirit makes the application of the blood of Christ in the work of regeneration."

Cayce also said:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through or by the gospel." (Cayce's Editorials, Vol. VI, page 176)

So, what can we conclude from all this? Answer: that at the beginning of the twentieth century there was no unified answer to the question as to whether a person must hear the gospel and believe in Jesus to be saved. Some said yes but that it was only by the personal preaching of Jesus. Others said that Jesus does not personally preach the gospel to people, though he speaks to them in commanding them to arise from the dead, and so they remain worshipers of false gods. 

The last statement by Cayce is ridiculous and against the plain declarations of scripture. It contradicts what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans chapter ten, where he says: 

"14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (nkjv) 

Paul also wrote:

"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?" (I Cor. 3: 5 kjv)

We also read this about the preaching of John the Baptist:

"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1: 6-7 kjv)

These scriptures overthrow Cayce's statement that knowledge and faith in Christ does not come by the gospel. Further, if Hassell is right, and if what Cayce said in other places is right, then such saving faith does come by the gospel when Christ preaches it personally to all in regeneration.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXIV)

 

In this chapter we will continue to review what Elder C.H. Cayce called an "unholy war" (or the biting and devouring of the above text) that was occurring in the first part of the twentieth century among those who called themselves "Primitive Baptists" concerning what was known as the "whole man doctrine." This was one extreme that came out over the controversies over Two Seedism. The other extreme was known as the "hollow log doctrine." We discussed these two doctrines in previous chapters. These issues were periphery issues to the central question as to what is "regeneration" and being "born again" or "born from above," whether the written word of God is a means the Spirit uses to effect it, and whether faith and repentance are means thereunto. It also involves the question of whether evangelical conversion is essentially the regeneration Paul speaks of in Titus 3:5, or whether conversion is an after effect.

The several articles we have been examining are from Cayce's periodical "The Primitive Baptist" under the title "Curtain Raised." In this chapter we look at another article titled "Curtain Raised Again" for November 14, 1916, being Number four in that series. In it Cayce wrote (emphasis mine): 

"In our last article we promised to let our readers see some things concerning some parties nearer home. According to that promise we now raise the curtain again and let our readers see some of the productions from Elder W. E. Brush. Under date of May 9, 1916, he wrote us the following letter while we were in Georgia filling appointments in that country: 

Greenfield, Tenn., May 9, 1916. ELDER C. H. CAYCE:

My Dear Brother-After long and due and prayerful consideration, as I hope, have decided that it would be best for me to come off the staff of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper. It's indeed sad to me for us to come where the ways separate (and I don't mean by this that I declare non-fellowship for you), as I have been with the paper so long, and have walked together with its former editor, Elder S. F. Cayce, your dear father, and my father also in the ministry, and a man whose sacred memory lingers still, and shall ever linger in my poor heart, and it's with tender emotion that I remember his kindness to one so unworthy as myself. And since his departure to the better land our association together has been just as sweet and pleasant until this unhappy affair came up in Texas, and from there came on to this country to the extent, at least, that it has caused confusion among our dear brethren." 

In the previous chapters we saw where Hardshell leader Elder J.M. Thompson was so sharply against Elder C.H. Cayce for his views on the nature of "regeneration" that he had his name removed from the editorial staff of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical, edited by Cayce, and also canceled his subscription to it, and went even further and would not call Cayce "brother." Next to do the same is Elder W.E. Brush.

Elder Brush letter continues:

"But now to get at my reason for coming off the corresponding staff of the P. B. is because I feel that you are in sentiment lined up with the Primitive Baptist Signal, of Texas, edited by Elder Collings, in which such statements as the following are found, and that, too, from the pen of Elder M. W. Miracle, who is the editor of the "Good Old Songs Department" of the P. B. to-wit: 

"I am forced to the conclusion that man in his completeness or complexity is born again in the change we call from nature to grace. No man can arrive at any other logical fact from the context. It is to say that man is born again in spirit, but such an expression does violence to the whole tenor of the Scriptures. Just as well say that a man is out of debt in part." -P. B. Signal, Jan. 4, 1916. 

"Now Elder Miracle has come out plainer in this statement than anyone that I have read after, but I only think the more of him for that. But now, Brother Claud, if the above statement is old or primitive doctrine, or in other words, the doctrine of the Bible, I have never known nor believed it yet. One thing I know, and you know it as well as I do, that doctrine like the above statement contains has not been advocated among the Old Baptists for the past twenty years, and if very many of them receive it today I will be very much surprised."

Up till this time Elder Cayce has repeatedly said that Brethren were accusing him of believing the "whole man" doctrine and that he continued to deny that he believed it. However, Brush is giving evidence that Cayce either does in fact believe it or else tolerates those who do.

Brush continued:

"Now, my dear brother, you may say that you don't believe what Elder Miracle has said. If you don't, why do you keep him as the editor of the "Good Old Songs Department" of your paper? And if you do believe as Elder Miracle, why don't you come out plain and above-board and say so, so the Baptists would know where to place you? There are not very many of your readers that read the Signal, and therefore have no opportunity to know the doctrine that is being advocated by the Signal, but are led by the writings of Elder Lee Hanks, especially, to believe that the Newman faction in Texas are the sound element of Baptists out there." 

Obviously Elder Brush believes the "whole man doctrine" is a heresy and should be a reason to break fellowship. Also, Elder Cayce either did not know that Elder Miracle held to that doctrine or did not think it was a reason to declare non-fellowship.

Brush continued:

"Neither do I think that all the error has been on one side, for I condemned Elder Sarrels' idea that these bodies, or the bodies of the saints, do not render service to God. But, as I told Elder Newman, in my condemning his erroneous idea that our bodies did not serve God, I did not mean that our bodies had been quickened or made alive-but simply meant, as I have believed all the way along that it's the man that is born again, but not born again all over. If he is born again all over why not come out and say so." 

It is true that the body does not need to be regenerated in order for it to be sanctified for use in the service of God. (Rom. 12: 1) That is because the body is controlled by the brain (or mind) and it is controlled by the soul or spirit, especially in renewed spirits.

Brush continued:

"And, as it presents itself to me, if I object to you saying that man is born again in part, I certainly must believe that he is born again in whole. If I don't, please tell me what I would believe. Now, my dear brother, if any man on earth can work out this problem for me he certainly will do me a great favor. When a man says, "Oh, it won't do to say that man is only born again in part," and then, in the face of this statement, say that he don't believe that man is born again in whole-now then the man that neither believes that man is born again in part nor in the whole, pray, for the sake of truth, tell me what that man does believe." 

The real you is your cognitive self, your mind, soul, and spirit. Your corporeal self is controlled by your incorporeal self. It is the heart, mind, and spirit that is positively changed by regeneration, repentance, renewal, and rebirth. So, it is true that a man is born again in part, meaning that it is the inner self that experiences it.

Brush continued:

"First, it has stood for the doctrine of election and predestination, and that unconditional on the part of the sinner...And now all that God the Father chose in Christ, Christ died for, the Holy Spirit (the third Person in the divine Trinity) will, here in time, make known to the heirs of promise what God the Father and Jesus Christ have done for them, by going where they are and revealing this one most noble truth to them. And now in this revelation I have understood the P. B. to teach that men and women, together with children as well, were taught to know God, whom to know is life eternal; and that in this teaching they were taught to know God only in soul, spirit, or heart; that this work of regeneration or the new birth did not teach men to know God in the flesh. Am I right? Or have I been mistaken all this long time as to what the P. B. taught on this point? I never understood it to teach that this revelation that the Spirit makes to the heirs of promise here in this life, with its purifying power, reached the entire man and partially purified him all over; or in the revelation, or the work of quickening the heir of promise, it left him, in some mysterious way unexplainable, quickened, both soul and body that is, it did not leave any part of him dead in trespasses and sins, and if not dead in trespasses and sins, then necessarily alive in Christ." 

All this is quite interesting to me as a "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist historian. It seems, from the words of Elder Brush, that at the time this was written (1916) it was the view of the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists that a regenerated person has the Gospel of salvation revealed to him by having been taught to know God. Many of them, after this date, began to teach that people could be regenerated in heathen lands by the direct speaking of Christ to them and yet remain cognitively ignorant of Christ and believers in other deities. Elder Sarrels, who was part of this debate about the "whole man" doctrine, as we have seen, later in his life wrote a book titled "Systematic Theology" (1978). I have cited much from this book in several posts which showed that he believed that regeneration did NOT teach people about who is the true God, nor of Jesus Christ and the way of salvation through him. (See this post here for instance)

Brush continued:

"Now if the P. B. stood for this late (to me) heard doctrine, I confess I never knew it until a recent date. But at this point, and with reference to this point of doctrine, I always understood the P. B. to stand for this principle-that in the work of the new birth, or regeneration, or quickening, or giving His sheep eternal life (and many other expressions that have reference to the same great change), that this work was wrought in the soul, or spirit, or heart, of God's people while they yet live here in time; that this change was an inward work, and only brought eternal life to the soul, or spirit, or heart, and left the body just as it was before the Spirit of God entered the heart; that is, it left the body in an unquickened state, or in an unregenerated state. Am I mistaken with reference to this point? If I am, will you please explain to me wherein I have been mistaken all this long time? Further, at this point I have understood the P. B. to believe that where Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” that the Spirit in this work gives eternal life to His people in soul, or spirit, or heart. Am I right or wrong? Will you tell me? Is it not a fact, my dear brother, that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper has ever (until late) stood for the truth that in regeneration the saint receives eternal life in his soul or heart, and that while this body is still natural, that God's people may and can, and, in fact, ought to bring this old body under subjection by the Spirit, that we should present these vile bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service; that we should mortify the deeds of the body. Then I have always understood the P. B. to teach that the saint is two in one, composed of an inward and an outward man, the inward man being the renewed soul, or spirit, or heart of man, and the outward man being this old body that is still subject to death and must die, because it has no eternal life. Paul said, {(II Corinthians 4:16)}" 

"P. S.-Brother Claud, here is what Elder Sylvester Hassell says on the subject under consideration, in the three questions asked by himself or some other one, and answered by him, as found in his paper of a recent date: 1. What is regeneration? A. It is the impartation of spiritual or eternal life to a human being. 2. What part of that work takes place in time? A. The impartation of such life to the soul, or spirit, or hearts, of men. (Romans 2:29); (Jeremiah 31:33). 3. When is the body regenerated? A. At the final resurrection at the second personal coming of Christ to the world. (Romans 8:23); ((20) (Philippians 3:20-21)." 

As I have stated in the immediately preceding chapters, the error in thinking of those who Espoused the "whole man doctrine" was the belief that the body 1) could not be considered a child of God or a special possession of the Lord unless it was also regenerated, and 2) could not serve God without experiencing regeneration. Though the body will not be perfected until the resurrection, yet it belongs to the Lord by his purchase of it via his atoning death. So wrote Paul:

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s." (I Cor. 6: 19-20 nkjv)

Paul does not say "glorify God in your body because it has been regenerated as the spirit" but glorify God in your body because it has been purchased and belongs to the Lord, and is Lord of it, rather than yourself owning it and have Lordship over it. 

In reply to Elder Brush Elder Cayce wrote:

"Concerning the foregoing we have to say, first, that this paper stands for the same principles and the same truths which it has stood for since the first issue was sent out on January 1st, 1886...Therefore, as we stand where we have always stood, if Elder Brush and we have come to the parting of the ways, it is Elder Brush who has left the old path and not us." 

"Again, Elder Brush said, "Is it not a fact, my dear brother, that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper has ever (until late) stood for the truth that in regeneration the saint receives eternal life in his soul or heart, and that while this body is still natural-and then these words follow with a pencil mark through them-or carnal or a child of-Now, what did he start to say? Could he have started to say anything else only that the body is still a child of wrath? Why did he mark those words out and not finish his sentence? Evidently that is what he believes now, and what he started to say. Has Elder Brush always believed that? Let the following article answer, which is copied from the Primitive Baptist Signal of April 1, 1915: Jan. 21, 1915."

"ELDER R. V. SARRELS: My Dear Brother-I have read your article in the Trumpet of Dec. 17 on the subject of the new birth, and it seems that the subject is very clear to you, but to me your article is very confusing." 

"We come now to notice your text at the head of your article already named, "Therefore, if any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature." Now, the first question I want to ask you is, What does it take to constitute the man? Paul said it was the MAN that was in Christ Jesus. It makes no difference how it may appear to us, nor to what extreme we may go on either side, it still remains a fact that Paul said the MAN. Our Master said to Nicodemus, "Except a MAN be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This was a mystery to this ruler of the Jews, nevertheless our Master did not modify it to suit his understanding. Now, my brother, if you can, tell me how a MAN can be in Christ and his body in no way changed or affected, when he is not a man without his body and the MAN is in Christ-not simply his spirit, but the MAN. That is what the Bible says. It makes no difference what you may think about the matter, nor what I think; our think so's do not weigh very much, unless they are in keeping with a "Thus saith the Lord.""

So, as Cayce is showing, Elder Brush at one time believed in the whole man doctrine. But, does Cayce? As we have seen previously, Elder Cayce denied believing it though he was often accused of believing it and would often emphasize that Christ said that it was the "man" who was born again and created in Christ Jesus, often implying that by "man" meant the whole man, body, soul, and spirit.

Brush continued further in is letter to Sarrels:

"My brother, is it not a fact that it takes soul, body and spirit to make man? If it does, and the MAN is in Christ, is not the body in Christ in some sense of the word? If not, please explain how the MAN could be in Christ, and at the same time the body, which is one of the component parts of MAN (in fact, if it were not for the body there would be no man), is not changed in any way at all no not so much as to be under the commandments of Christ, for I note that you say in your article that no living man can prove by God's word that we serve God in our flesh or body relation. Now I suppose that you mean by this statement that we don't serve God in, or with, our bodies. Why don't you come out plain and above-board so people of ordinary sense would know just what you mean? I take it for granted that you mean that no living man can prove by the Bible that men serve God with their bodies. If this is not what you mean, please tell me what you do mean. Paul said to the Roman brethren, "I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."-(Romans 12)."

The body does not need to be regenerated or born again in order for the renewed spirit to use it in the service of God. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God." (Rom. 6: 12-13 nkjv) 

Here we see how the "mortal body" of the regenerated believer is still a source of sin and lust and when it is followed or obeyed becomes an instrument of unrighteousness. The believer's renewed spirit that is indwelt by Christ and the Holy Spirit and is possessed of the divine life and nature ought to be the lord of the body and its members. The members of the body ought to be servants of the renewed spirit and not the king of the spirit. So we read of such exhortations as these:

"Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need." (Eph. 4: 28)

"I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (I Tim. 2: 8 nkjv)

By "holy hands" we are not to think that the hands experienced a regeneration or spiritual cleansing. Rather, that they are "set apart for religious service." 

Likewise we read in James where he admonished Christians about using their "tongues" for good purpose, to control it, and not allow it to be used for evil. (James 1: 26; 3: 5-8; See also I Peter 3: 10) The same is true for the feet. Prior to being saved, when under depravity's control, the "feet are swift to shed blood" (Rom. 3: 15). After conversion, however, the feet begin to bring "glad tidings" to a lost and dying world. (Rom. 10: 15) 

Brush continued further in his letter to Sarrels:

"I am sure you will agree with me that it's only in service to God that we can glorify Him, and if so, we can serve God in our bodies as well as our spirits. "For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (I Corinthians 6:20)." 

Yes, but as I said, the body needs not be regenerated in order for the regenerated spirit to make use of it in the service of God. The body belongs to the Lord because it has been purchased and will experience its own rebirth in the resurrection.

Brush continued further in addressing Sarrels:

"I note in your same article you say, "I think it is not safe to say that the body is not a part of the new creature." Now, how could the body be a part of the new creature without having been changed in some sense? Please answer this question, for it is one of great importance. Could not the soul or spirit just as well be a part of the new creature without a change as the body? If not, why not? seeing that the entire man is alike contaminated in sin-or, in other words, the whole man is dead in trespasses and sins. Now, I have never understood, neither do I yet understand, that a man is so changed that he cannot sin in any sense of the word. We know that John said, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." The same writer said, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

So, clearly Brush at that time believed in the "whole man doctrine" and that the body experiences a regeneration just as the soul or spirit. 

Brush continued further:

"Then I believe just as Elder J. S. Newman expressed himself to me in a letter, "I believe that eternal life is implanted in the heart or soul of man, but it so affects his whole being that -it makes him hate the things he once loved and love the things he once hated. Yes, the very lips that we used to curse with, we now praise God with; and the feet that once carried us to the ballroom now carry us to the church of God." My dear brother, if you had a neighbor that had been a wicked man, and he claims to have been changed from nature by grace, and yet he still lives the same wicked life that he has been living heretofore, what evidence have you that he has met with any change?"

It is interesting that in 1916 the "Primitive Baptists" seemed still to hold to some beliefs connected with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and not to a mere preservation. In the above citation we see where Elder Newman believes that when a sinner is given eternal life that he no longer lives the same wicked life he did before. Many "Primitive Baptists" today believe that many of the regenerated children of God are never converted, but remain in idolatry and in a wicked lifestyle.

Brush continued further:

"Elder Sarrels, it does seem to me such a pity for the Baptists of Texas to divide over nothing but preacher jealousy. I feel sure that if there were, or had been, one half dozen preachers taken away from Texas, and not allowed to return, that you would have had NO trouble over the WHOLE MAN DOCTRINE as it is called."

I have stated that many of the divisions in the "Primitive" or "Old School" denomination have been due to a large degree a result of preacher feuds where preachers were contending for supremacy in a given area or association. I write about this in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." I witnessed this myself after I had been in the "Primitive Baptist Church" for two years when Elder John Robbins of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists began to fight against my father, Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr., who he felt threatened his ascension in that association, and used father's view on the origin of Satan as the way to bring charges against him, and convening a "council" of churches, of which he was the moderator, he led them to declare that his view that Satan fell from heaven was heresy and unless he agreed to never preach that view that they would declare him in disorder. Father, of course, could not allow his conscience to be brought under the tyranny of him or his followers. Many "Primitive Baptist" ministers and historians have also confessed to this fact about preacher jealousies.

Cayce replied to Brush as follows:

"This letter from Elder Brush to Elder Sarrels will serve as an answer to the letter from Elder Brush to us. Elder Brush has a long article in the Trumpet of Oct. 19, giving us "down the country." This letter of his to Elder Sarrels will serve as an answer to that also. We simply answer Elder Brush with Elder Brush. It appears to us that he should observe a little of the advice he gave Elder Sarrels-"Let's be careful that we don't take a position that we will meet ourselves coming back before we get far." Elder Brush has simply met himself coming back, and did not get far, either."

It is obvious that Elder Brush had in fact changed his mind on the "whole man" doctrine.

Why I Am A Calvinist

I hear lots of people tell why they are NOT Calvinists. In this post I will tell you why I am a Calvinist. It is not because I am a follower of John Calvin, although I agree with him on many things. The doctrines Calvin taught did not begin with Calvin, of course. Nor did the counterpoint of Calvinism, i.e. Armianism, begin with James Arminius. These are simply terms now used to denote what Bible believers believe about sin, salvation, and the sovereignty of God. 

In a nutshell, I am a Calvinist because I believe that God can save a sinner any time he pleases. This is the way the apostle Paul prayed, saying: "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." (Rom. 10: 1) I also believe that everyone God saves, he chose to save before the world began.

Arminianism says God cannot save sinners unless they let God do so. Yet, even though Arminians affirm this, they often do not pray like this. Rather, they pray like Calvinists when they pray for God to save another person, for such a prayer implies that God can save them any time he chooses. The same is true when we pray for God to heal another person, our prayer is based upon our belief that God can heal anyone any time he desires. They also are willing to admit that God convicts people of sin apart from people allowing him to do so.

A.W. Tozer, well known Bible teacher is reported to have once said: "I preach like an Arminian but I pray like a Calvinist." I have not been able to find where he said this, however.

Said Spurgeon:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say, but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it." (Sermon - “Free-Will A Slave,” 12/2/1855)

I wrote about this in this post (here), writing:

Such a prayer reveals that the ultimate deciding factor in the salvation of any soul is the prerogative of God.  It shows that the one uttering such a prayer believes that the one for whom they are praying can only be saved if God simply wills and makes it so.  If God is already doing all he can to save the friend who is being prayed for, and is already as disposed as he can be to save that friend, then why pray that God save that friend?  Would it not be more apropos to Arminian theology to pray to the sinner rather than to God?

The fact is, God is able to conquer the will, for we are told that God "is able to subdue all things" (Phil. 3: 21) and that would include the stubborn will of sinners, God taming the will as a man tames a wild horse. Christians sing about their conversion experiences by saying they "surrendered" to God as in the song "I surrender all." They surrendered and God conquered or subdued.

God is able, when he pleases, to work in people so as to make them willing to will what God wants them to will and do. (Psa. 110:3; Phil. 2:13; Rev. 17:17) He has "the king's heart" in his hand, under his control, and can turn the heart "withersoever he will." (Prov. 21: 1) He is able to "move" people, to "stir them up," and to do things in providence so as to cause people to do and act as he wants. (Ezra 1:1, 5; Hag. 1:14)

Why pray to God for our leaders, for all in authority over us (per I Tim. 2: 1-2), so that we "may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," if God cannot control what such authorities choose to do, or actually do? We pray that God will give them wisdom, for instance. We assume he can give them wisdom any time he chooses, and even in cases where those in authority are not asking for it themselves; And, giving this wisdom will cause those authorities to make choices different than they would have made otherwise.