Rebutting Hardshell Arguments (1)

The Greek word "logismos" in the above text is translated as "imaginations" (kjv), "reasonings," and "arguments," and "speculations" in other translations. Anyone who is in the business of "correcting" errors in religion or Christian doctrine, in doing "apologetics" (what the apostle Peter called giving a defense or answer to those who inquire into why you believe the way you do - I Peter 3:15), will be involved in "casting down arguments" that heretics give to support their heresies. One of the things that the "scriptures" do is to "correct" people who hold to religious errors. (II Tim. 3: 16) 

In my writings over the past eighteen years via my blogs I have been "casting down arguments" against many false teachers and their teachings and that is certainly true in regard to the errors of the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshell Baptists. I have also written and debated much against Arminianism, such as from those of the "Church of Christ" or the followers of Alexander Campbell. I have refuted all the arguments of the Hyper Calvinists and the Hardshell Primitive Baptists and the Hyper Arminians concerning the doctrine of salvation (soteriology). 

I have written rebuttals to Hardshell apologists such as Elders Bernard Gowens, Ben Winslett, Ronnie Loudermilk, Joseph Holder, Gary Harvey, Jason Brown, Michael Ivey, Harold Hunt, Sonny Pyles, David Pyles, and other present day defenders of Hyper Calvinism, as well as recognized Hardshell leaders of the past, such as Elders Sylvester Hassell, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, Wilson Thompson, Grigg Thompson, Thomas Dudley, S.F. and C.H. Cayce, Lemuel Potter, John R. Daily, R.V. Sarrels, etc. 

I have, of course, cited from several first generation "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists who I thought taught the truth and who were at odds with other Hardshellers who were going astray after strange doctrines, such as Two Seedism, men such as Elders John M. Watson, John Clark, James Osbourn, C.B. Hassell, R.W. Fain, J.B. Stephens, J.R. Respass.

One of the errors of Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists says that people are born again or regenerated before faith and repentance, and the error of some of them that say people can be regenerated and never embrace the Christian faith but remain believers in false gods. It is a very serious error to say that regeneration is distinct from evangelical conversion. Another of their errors says that the written word of God, or the preaching of the gospel, is no means in effecting regeneration or in obtaining eternal salvation, another very serious error with perilous consequences. Another Hardshell error says that regenerated people may be kept or preserved from losing salvation but most will not persevere in faith and holiness, or allegiance to Christ.

I have a series titled "The Means of Grace" where I refute the arguments of those who deny that the word of God is a means in regeneration and in eternal salvation and present affirmative arguments for the means view. All are in their own blog (see the link on this page "The Gospel - The Means of Grace" here).

I also have a series titled "Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts" where I answer the arguments of those Hyper Calvinists who say that people are born again before faith and I have also given arguments for the belief that people are born again by faith. All these articles also are in their own blog titled "Ordo Salutis Debate" (see link on this blog here). In that series I showed that the view that says regeneration precedes faith leads to another error which affirms that regeneration precedes justification. I argue that the historic Protestant doctrine affirms that justification by faith precedes regeneration by faith.

This writing will be another rebuttal to the apologists of Hardshellism, particularly from an Internet treatise titled "Primitive Baptist Church: Bible Basic Doctrines" (See here) authored by Elders Johnson Vernon, Michael Ivy, and Don Watson, compiled by Brother Filden Oroni and found at the web page of Denton Primitive Baptist Church (www.dentonpbc.org). I have written a lengthy rebuttal to Michael Ivey's book "Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists." 

I will begin with the section titled "Relationship Between Belief and New Birth"  (pgs. 112-113), where they say (emphasis mine throughout):

"In this essay we will look at the relationship between belief and the new birth. Most people today are taught and believe that you must hear and believe the gospel in order to be born again. In a cause/effect relationship, they think that "belief" is the "cause" and that the "new birth" is the "effect." This concept is to them supported by an erroneous belief in what John 3:16 teaches. In truth, the "new birth" is the "cause" and "belief" is the "effect" of the new birth."

"A. John 1:11-13...to them that believe on his name: which were born...of God." For the sake of brevity we didn't quote all the above passage, but please note "believe" is in the present tense, while "were born" is in the past tense. Grammatically, therefore, the birth must precede the belief; i.e., they were born of God prior to believing."

My Response

Why not "quote all the above passage" from John 1? They say it was "for the sake of brevity"! Who can believe that? Is it not because the part left out refutes their argument about the grammar supposedly proving that the birth precedes receiving Christ? Let us cite all the verses.

"11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (nkjv)

The word "received" is an aorist past tense or action, meaning "it happened." Likewise, "were born" is an aorist past tense. So, to say that the birth occurred before the receiving is false. It is true that the participle "the ones believing" is a linear present tense. The participle is simply a declaratory statement identifying the ones who savingly "received" Jesus as Christ. John may have given this explanatory comment about the receivers of Christ in order to let readers know that John does not include those who simply invited Christ into their homes or gave him a hearing. Simon the Pharisee is one such person. We read about him in Luke 7: 36-50. He invited, welcomed, or received Christ into his home. Yet, the story shows that he was not a true believer in Christ. Let us give the story.

"36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. 37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.” 

Jesus says to Simon, 

“44 Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much." 

Notice that Simon "asked" or "invited" Christ to enter into his house. But, he did not believe in Christ, not even believing he was a prophet of God. He also did not believe he was a sin sick sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness. Christ also described how Simon did not show him the loving kindness that the sinner woman did who was washing his feet. Christ said to Simon that her sins, though many, were forgiven, implying that Simon's sins were not forgiven. He "received" Christ into his house but not into his heart and did not become a believer. Perhaps John says those who "received" Christ are they who are believing and trusting in Christ.

So, did the birth occur when the receiving and believing occurred? The argument by our Hardshell apologists says that the birth preceded both the receiving and the believing. Why? Because, say they, the tense for the participle "the believing ones" is present tense while the tense for the verb "born" is, say they, "past tense." Actually, however, "born" is an aorist past tense just as is the word "received." So, their argument is invalid. The birth occurred when they received Christ and this receiving of Christ was by faith, by believing in him. What the text is saying is that those who are the believing ones are they who have previously received Christ and been born of God. 

Our Hardshell "scholars" want to try to make John contradict himself in the text. John clearly says that receiving Christ preceding obtaining the privilege of becoming the children of God. Why would he then say that they were born children of God before they received him? When did they become children of God? When they 1) received Christ and 2) were born of God. So we have the order thus: 1) received Christ by believing in him, 2) born of God, 3) become children of God. 

Also, the Greek word for "children" is from "teknon" and denotes a birthed child. Becoming a birth child follows receiving Christ. 

To say that John is affirming that those who received Christ and believed in him were born again children of God before they received and believed is to affirm that receiving Christ is not the way people receive spiritual life and all the blessings of redemption. To say people are born again before they receive Christ is to say that they were children of God and spiritually alive while separated from Christ. Yet, the Bible is very clear that spiritual life comes by being united to Christ who is Life.

In the next chapter we will look at more of the arguments for the Hardshell ideas about how to be saved and on whether regeneration or rebirth occurs apart from faith in Christ.\

Sound Doctrine

 

Several New Testament texts speak of what is called "sound doctrine." (I Tim. 1:10; II Tim. 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1) By "sound" (Grk. hygiainō) means healthy or what is good and profitable for you, therapeutic. The same Greek word is translated as "whole" in contrast to "sick." (Luke 5: 31; 7:10) In III John 3: 1 it is actually translated as "be in health." Paul speaks of sound doctrine in these words:

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome (Grk. hygiainō) words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness." (I Tim. 6: 3 kjv)

He also spoke of Bible teachers teaching or delivering "sound words" (II Tim. 1: 13), warning that "the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine" (II Tim. 4: 3). Sound doctrine is wholesome, beneficial, good for your spiritual and mental health. It will also improve your overall health, your mental, spiritual, and bodily well being. Wrote Solomon:

"My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings. Do not let them depart from your eyes; Keep them in the midst of your heart; For they are life to those who find them, And health to all their flesh. Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it spring the issues of life." (Prov. 4: 20-23 nkjv)

"A merry heart does good, like medicine, But a broken spirit dries the bones." (Prov. 17: 22 nkjv)

"The light of the eyes rejoices the heart, And a good report makes the bones healthy." (Prov. 15: 30 nkjv)

The Gospel is good news and so is good for the mind, and the mind affects the body.

"A sound heart is life to the body, But envy is rottenness to the bones." (Prov. 14: 30 nkjv)

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones." (Prov. 3: 5-8 kjv)

Solomon gave good fatherly advice about the benefits of good doctrine and the knowledge of truth when he wrote:

"Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding. For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law." (Prov. 4: 1-2 kjv)

Again, that is true in regard to all the sciences, but especially in the knowledge of God, of his character, works, and ways. Good doctrine is good in itself, good for you, good because it is profitable. In the New Testament there are several Greek words that are translated by the singular English word "good." At times the word may mean what is worthy, as in "good" seed. Sometimes it may mean what is profitable. At times it may mean what is essentially or morally good. "Good doctrine" would include good theology, good instruction, good because it is true and right. Our Father in Heaven has given us good doctrine. Wrote Moses of the doctrine of the LORD:

"Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass." (Deut. 32: 1-2 kjv)

The doctrine of the scriptures is as beneficial and right as rain. So the apostle Paul wrote:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (II Tim. 3: 16 kjv)

In the Bible we have only "words of faith and of good doctrine" (I Tim. 4: 6). A Bible believer is one who is "holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught," and is "sound in the faith," and is thereby "able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict themselves," and if necessary to "rebuke sharply" those who oppose the faithful word of God. (Titus 1: 9, 13 nkjv) A Bible believer should be rooted in the faith, one who "gives attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." (I Tim. 4: 13 kjv) They should all "labor in the word and doctrine," especially teachers of the word (I Tim. 5: 17 kjv). 

Christians need to be on alert about false doctrine, especially when it comes to the fundamental tenets of the Bible. They need to be "rooted and grounded" in love, and in Christ, which cannot be done apart from being rooted and grounded in what he taught, in the knowledge of the truth. (Eph. 3: 17-19) If a person's life is not founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, he is destined for destruction. Said Jesus:

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” (Matt. 7: 24-27 nkjv)

Importance of Sound Doctrine

"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Rom. 6: 17-18 kjv)

"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 kjv)

These texts tell us that doctrine is so important that it is connected with salvation. That is not to say that a person must be right in properly interpreting every text of holy scripture, but it does tell us that one must be correct in the fundamental teachings of the Bible concerning the nature and works of God, the way of salvation through Christ or the message of the Gospel, and of the person of Christ, etc., and not over tertiary issues.

The apostles constantly warned believers about this matter. The apostle Paul firmly gave this solemn warning to them:

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4: 14 kjv)

Such professing Christians show how unstable they are and may reveal that they have never truly known the way of truth and were never begotten by it. Peter wrote about these hypocritical believers in this language:

"For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire." (II Peter 2: 20-22 nkjv)

Obviously these professing believers were not true disciples, but were people who had a head knowledge of Christ and the doctrine of the faith but who did not hold on to it. By this head knowledge and through  having made a profession of Christ they had for a time "escaped the pollutions of the world" through the "knowledge" of the doctrine. They received temporary benefits from abiding by the morals of the Christian faith, but no lasting benefits. The teachings of Christ were not made the foundation of the lives of these shallow ground hearers. We must remember these words of Jesus about what he taught:

"Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority." (John 7: 16-17 nkjv)

Doing God's will cannot be divorced from knowing the doctrine of Christ which is the doctrine of God. A saved person knows the doctrine. If he does not, he is not saved. 

Christians must be on guard against false teachers and their false doctrines. So exhorted the apostle who had so much to do with codifying Christian doctrine (Paul):

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Rom. 16: 17 kjv)

Christians must not be reluctant to learn doctrine nor to make sure that what they believe is correct, for if they do not, they may be found doing what the apostle Paul warned about, i.e. "that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed" (I Tim. 6: 1 kjv). Rather, Christians should rather strive to "adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things" (Titus 2: 10 kjv)

Bad Doctrine

Obviously sound doctrine is very important. That is true in all the sciences, but especially in theology. It is repugnant that some Christians talk badly of doctrine, saying it prevents unity and causes division and does not promote love. However, this idea is foreign to what the scriptures say about doctrine and its importance. Truth will always divide. Said Jesus:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ " (Matt. 10: 34-36 nkjv)

Of course, false doctrine is harmful, but good doctrine is highly beneficial. False doctrine is also called "damnable heresies" (II Peter 2:1) because they are condemned by the scriptures and because they confirm people in their condemned state and bring upon them greater condemnation. 

Paul spoke of "science falsely so called" (I Tim. 6: 20 kjv). Knowledge that is not correct does no one any good. It is called "falsehood" in the Bible. People do themselves no good when they give heed to untruths and to falsehood, whey the "take refuge in their lies" and "hide themselves under falsehood." (Isa. 28: 15) They have "trusted in falsehood" (Jer. 13: 25). This is true whether it be errors in psychology, philosophy, medicine, etc., but especially in what they know about God. Paul warned of these false doctrines when he warned:

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." (I Tim. 4: 1-3 nkjv)

It is interesting that when the truth is spoken of in scripture that it is called the "doctrine" (singular) and not "doctrines" (plural), as we see in the above text where Paul speaks of "doctrines of demons." We should not think merely of demonic doctrines in theology alone, but should recognize that doctrines of demons are also to be found in philosophy and its branches, such as in modern psychology (which justifies homosexuality for instance), in ethics, in political science, etc. In the above text Paul gave some examples where demonic doctrines may be found, such as in beliefs about marriage and the family, about diets, religious or otherwise, involving all kinds of "lies" and "deceptions" in a given society. 

The Lord Jesus warned about several specific false doctrines. He warned his disciples to "beware of the leaven or doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." (Matt. 16: 12 kjv) The specific "leaven" that Christ has in mind is "hypocrisy" (Luke 12: 1) but would include legalism, the idea that a person's works determine whether he is saved or lost. The Sadducees erred in denying the existence of angels, the resurrection of the dead, and in accepting only the Torah and not the prophets, and that salvation came by keeping the law. (Acts 23: 8)

In Revelation chapters two and three the ascended Lord Jesus dictated and sent letters to seven churches in Asian Minor. In them he warned about the danger of false doctrines.

"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." (Rev. 2: 14, 15 kjv)

"But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden." (Rev. 2: 24 kjv)

It is not necessary for me to elaborate on what are the doctrines of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans. The reader can research that for himself or herself.

Brethren, make every effort to be certain that your beliefs are right. 

Brethren, Keep These Words In Mind

“For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.” (I Peter 3: 12 kjv)

This text has been on my mind lately as it has in the past. It is comforting to me to know that the eyes of the Lord are watching over me, as a watchman or guardian, and that his ears are open to my prayers, even though he does not grant many of my prayer requests. The words of the Apostle Peter are well worth our time spent musing upon them. Recall that the Apostle Paul wrote:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Phil. 4: 8 kjv)

Our subject text is worth thinking deeply upon. If you are a believer and one that seeks to do good as God defines it, rejoice, but if you are one who is an unbeliever and a doer of evil, beware of the face of the Lord. 

In the above text God is said to have eyes, ears, and a face. Does that mean that he has a physical body? No. Jesus says "God is Spirit" (John 4: 24), and should not be translated as "God is a Spirit." (kjv) The absence of the definite article "the" does not always imply the indefinite "a." Translating it as "God is a spirit" is grammatically misleading because it makes God sound like just one member of a general category of spirit beings. We have other "God is" statements in the Bible that are also anarthrous nouns, such as "God is love" (I John 4:8) and "God is light" (I John 1:5). 

When God is said to have eyes, ears, hands, feet, or a face, mouth, etc., theologians call these anthropomorphisms, and the ascribing of emotions to God as anthropopathisms. What these are intended to teach us is that God hears, sees, speaks, moves about (though he has no physical body), and can appear in a physical form when he chooses, as he appeared in a burning bush, and as he appeared in a human body in the old testament and when he appeared in human flesh in the person of Christ. 

The eye(s) of the Lord denote his omniscience. The arm of the Lord denotes the execution of his divine power. So, when the text says that the "eyes of the Lord are over the righteous" it simply means that he sees and watches over the righteous. God is seen as a "watchman" in Psalm 121 where he is said not to sleep as do human watchers. Said the Psalmist David: 

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep (or guard) the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psa. 127: 1 kjv)

God employs watchers, both angels and men, to watch over his people, but over them he is the chief watcher and if they fail, he does not. LORD God also said to his ancient people: "I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye." (Psa. 32: 8 kjv) God has what is called "the all-seeing eye." He sees and knows all. Nothing escapes his notice. So Solomon said: "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good." (Prov. 15: 3 kjv) Though Peter focuses especially upon God's watching over the righteous, for their good and protection, yet he sees all that every man does. So wrote the Psalmist: "The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men." (Psa. 11: 4 kjv) 

By God's "eyelids" of course we are not to understand that he literally has them, but his "eyelids" are said to try men, because, when physical beings closely scrutinize or inspect a thing, they customarily drop their eyelids and half close their eyes. They also sometimes stoop down towards a thing to get a closer look, as the angels are said to do as regards the gospel and things pertaining to redemption, being things "the angels desire to look into." (I Peter 1:12) On the words "look into" Ellicott says the following in his commentary:

"The word which has here shrunk into our word “to look into,” means really, to bend aside to see. In its literal sense it occurs in John 20:5; John 20:11, and in Luke 24:12, of people standing at the side of the cave so as not to get in their own light, and stooping sideways to peer in."

So God closely examines each man. But, he especially looks upon the righteous, those who by faith have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. He does not watch over them looking to find fault, but he looks upon them because he delights in them. The Psalmist David said "But I am poor and needy; Yet the Lord thinks upon me. You are my help and my deliverer; Do not delay, O my God." (Psa. 40: 17 nkjv) What a blessed and wonderful thought to know that God thinks upon us because it pleases him to do so!

It is also very comforting to know that the Lord's ears are open to hear the prayers of the righteous. It is implied that the Lord's ears are not open to hear the prayers of the unrighteous. It is important for all to keep in mind that righteous living produces greater odds for being granted prayer requests. So James said: "The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." (James 5: 16 niv) By "righteous person" we are to understand a righteous living person. Unrighteous living, even for the child of God, will hinder his prayer effectiveness. So the Apostle Peter said:

"Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered." (I Peter 3: 7 nkjv)

Every Christian has had times when it seemed that God was not listening to his prayers. Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, exclaimed - "Even when I cry and shout, He shuts out my prayer." (Lam. 3: 8 nkjv) Still, the Lord Jesus taught his disciples to persevere in prayer, and never give up. He taught this by this story:

"1 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, 2 saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. 3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’ 4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, 5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’ ” 6 Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said. 7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? 8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily." (Luke 18: 1-8 nkjv) 

It is necessary for Christians to keep in mind that they have need of patience and perseverance in their prayer lives. They need to remember that his ears are open to their prayers and that there is never an inopportune time for them to approach the Lord. Moses reminded the ancient covenant people of God:

“For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him?" (Deut. 4: 7 nkjv)

Peter says that the "face" of the Lord is "against" them who do evil. Of course, the "face" of the Lord is "for" his people, for those who do good, who do the things he has commanded them. It seems as if Peter should have mentioned this positive aspect of the "face" of the Lord since he has just mentioned how the eyes and ears of the Lord are positive things for the righteous. The face or countenance of the Lord may frown upon a person or may smile upon him or her. Children know they have done bad when they get a frowning face from their parents and know they have done well when they get a smile of approval from them. This is described in the well known priestly benediction from Numbers chapter six which says:

"The Lord bless you and keep you; The Lord make His face shine upon you, And be gracious to you; The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, And give you peace." (vs. 24-26 nkjv)

Brethren, I hope you get as much good from meditating upon I Peter 3: 12 as I have. 

Answering a Hardshell Polemic (4)

"But the fearful, and unbelieving...

shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: 

which is the second death." 

(Rev. 21: 8 kjv)

In this fourth 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). Elder Harvey wrote further:

"Calvinism (and Arminianism) errantly places faith before regeneration, or at the very best simultaneous with regeneration. They make faith a requirement for eternal salvation. But the scriptures are abundantly clear that regeneration comes before faith in the life of every single child of God."

I have many citations from "Primitive Baptists" who say that faith is given "in" regeneration. Recently I examined a writing (here) by Elder Joshua Winslett who cited Elder Bernard Gowens (both present day Hardshell ministers) who said:

“This verse describes the initial gift of faith in regeneration. When the Lord Jesus Christ speaks the life-giving voice to one who is dead in trespasses and sins (Joh 5:25), He creates faith in the soul by the sheer power of His command, so that the sinner irresistibly responds to His effectual call. The sinner is “made willing in the day of [God’s] power” (Ps 110:3). Like Lazarus, he responds to the Divine imperative involuntarily – below the level of consciousness. The power that raise Jesus from the dead is the very same power that creates faith in the soul (Eph 1:19).” (You can see where Gowens said this in this Internet article here)

If faith is given in regeneration, then no one is regenerated who does not have faith. Further, not all Calvinists put faith before regeneration. Perhaps the majority of them today do not, though John Calvin and the older Calvinists did, and as I do. In this blog (here) I have all my articles on proving that faith precedes salvation, including regeneration or rebirth.

How anyone can deny that faith is a requirement for salvation, in all its phases, is bewildering. Does Harvey believe sinners go to heaven as unbelievers? Does Harvey not know that the first "Primitive Baptists" founders of his sect did not deny that faith was necessary to be eternally saved? In my series titled "What The First Hardshells Believed" (See this post here that gives links to most of the articles in that series), for instance, in the tenth article in the series I wrote:

Wm. C. Hunter in "The Primitive Baptist" for August 9, 1845 (See here) wrote the following (emphasis mine):

"Then we should never think we are doing the works of God only, by believing on him whom he hath sent; for this, says the scripture, is the works of God, and so soon as we get faith in the only begotten of the Father, our chains all fall off. Hence it is, if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. Then faith, says Paul, is the gift, of God; yet faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Thus, we hear the scriptures and we acknowledge our condemnation to be just; this is belief, we believe there is a God and that he is just. Thus faith comes by hearing; then after the legitimacy of his claims are admitted, the Lord works in us to believe in his Son and thus we work the works of God by believing on him whom he hath sent. Thus we get the righteousness of Christ, that came by faith, called the faith of God's elect. This righteousness is not imputed to the heirs of promise, because they are any better than others; but that the purposes of God according to election, might stand not according to their works, but according to God's own purpose and grace, which was given them in Christ Jesus, before the world was made."

In II Thessalonians 2: 13-14 we are told that God has chosen some to salvation and that this salvation is "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." I wrote about how this text completely refutes the Hardshell belief that belief in the truth is not a requirement for salvation. (See here and here)

Fate of Unbelievers

The text at the head of this post says that all "unbelievers" shall go to the lake of fire and suffer the second death. The Greek word for the adjective "unbelieving" is apistos and means "without faith." It is also translated in the KJV as "faithless" or "unbelievers." In the many texts that speak of these unbelievers, we see that they are styled a "perverse generation," or "infidels" (II Cor. 6: 15; I Tim. 5: 8), and are they "whom the god of this age has blinded their minds" and have not had the "light" of Christ to shine in their hearts (II Cor. 4: 4), and have a "defiled mind and conscience." (Titus 1: 15) When Jesus spoke of a person having his "portion with the unbelievers" (Luke 12: 46) he was describing the second death in the lake of fire. Jesus also said: 

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3: 18 nkjv)

He also repeated this in giving the great commission, saying "he who believes not shall be condemned" (Mark 16: 16). He also said to the unbelieving Jews: "Except you believe that I Am, you will die in your sins" (John 8: 24).

Further, the scriptures are rather clear in saying that it is by faith that sinners are quickened from spiritual death, reborn or regenerated, or made children of God. Notice these substantiating texts:

"buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Col. 2: 12 nkjv)

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12-13 nkjv)

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 26 nkjv)

Further, the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith was a confession endorsed by the leaders of the "Primitive Baptist Church" in the year 1900 when assembled in Fulton, Kentucky. What did the signatories of the 1689 confession believe on this matter? Did they not affirm that faith in Christ was essential for salvation? In the Catechism attached to the confession we have these words:

Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)

Q. 35. What is effectual calling?

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel.

(2 Tim. 1:9; John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezekiel 36:26; John 6:44,45; 1 Cor. 12:3)

Q. 92. What does God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin?

A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.

Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the Gospel."

John Spilsbury, signatory to the 1644 London Baptist Confession agreed, writing as this in his "Personal Confession of Faith" (you can read here; emphasis mine):

"I believe that God of his grace, in his own time, effectually calls such as shall be saved to the knowledge of the truth, who is said, of his own will to beget us by the word of truth: in which work of grace, nature is as passive, as a child in the parents begetting of it; and so God by His Spirit works faith in the hearts of all such to believe in Christ, and his righteousness, only for justification. And thus they are made righteous before God in Christ, and so conformable to the will of God the Father through the Son; and also made holy through the work of regeneration, and the holy Spirit of grace dwelling in them; yet all such have still, as long as they live here in the flesh, remaining in them, an old man, that original corruption, the flesh that wars against the spirit, which hinders them in their obedience both to God and to man, and many times draws them to that which is evil, and contrary to their intentions; yet all of them shall through Christ overcome, and safely be brought to glory at last."

Harvey wrote further:

"God knows that a person dead in sins cannot do anything acceptable in His sight, whether man knows that or not. God knows better than to require spiritual action from the dead person prior to regeneration." 

If "dead in sin" people cannot do anything acceptable in God's eyes, then why is it not also true that people who are "dead to sin" cannot do anything unacceptable to God? If the dead cannot do anything to be saved, then why did Jesus say that the dead must "hear the voice of the Son of God" in order to be brought to life? (John 5: 25) Why did Jesus say to dead sinners "you will not come to me that you might have life"? (John 5: 40) Further, Jesus says to the dead: "Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.” (Eph. 5: 14 nkjv) 

Why tell the dead to rise from the dead if they can't do anything? Through the prophet Isaiah God said: "Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you— The sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3 nkjv) If God can say “Hear, you deaf; And look, you blind, that you may see" (Isa. 42: 18 nkjv), then he can also say "arise you who are dead." Jesus, the apostles, and all new testament preachers addressed dead sinners in their preaching and were always telling them what they must do to be saved.

Harvey wrote further:

"I heard Elder Charles Sandage say forty years ago, "To incorporate the gospel in the eternal salvation of sinners in any way is to completely destroy grace." I say Amen to that. To do so actually decreases the number of people that we can logically assume will be saved." 

What Sandage condemns is what the scriptures teach and show, for they clearly show that the gospel is a means in saving sinners from sin and eternal death, and such a view does not "destroy grace." Notice these scriptures:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." (Rom. 1: 16 nkjv)

"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." (Eph. 1: 13 nkjv)

"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)

"For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15 nkjv)

"that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel." (Eph. 3: 6 nkjv)

"in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 1: 8 nkjv)

"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 nkjv)

Typically the Hardshells will argue that any text that connects salvation through hearing and believing the gospel is a "time salvation" or an evangelical "conversion," one not necessary for eternal salvation, and yet in doing this they must totally ignore the fact that the contexts of these texts deal with eternal salvation. Such a position also forces them to say that 1) conversion is not necessary for eternal salvation, and 2) that being converted is not by grace. As we saw, Sandage and Harvey say that if salvation is effected by the gospel, then it is not by grace. Ergo, conversion is not by God nor by his grace.

Next, he says that the gospel cannot be a means in eternal salvation because it "decreases the number of people that we can logically assume will be saved."

But, how is that so if what Harvey's leading spokesmen have said in the past, men such as Elder C.H. Cayce and Elder Sylvester Hassell? Notice what Cayce and Hassell said:

"Q. Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?

A. In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it."  (see here)

In the same question and answer writing, however, Hassell says:

"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)."

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."

So, if Christ personally preaches the gospel to all the elect, then how is the number of the saved decreased by the gospel being a means? Further, cannot the Lord send an angel to preach the gospel to anyone? Paul speaks of this in Galatians 1: 8. Also, in Revelation 14: 7 we read:

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 7)

The reasoning of Harvey and the Hardshells that says - "whatever soteriological view saves the most people is the right one" I addressed in the previous chapter. Why then is Harvey not a Universalist? 

Harvey wrote further:

"I remind you of the many, many times that God has threatened to destroy His own people down through history. And how He has destroyed them, over and over and over. He has killed them in some pretty spectacular ways too, hasn't He? The Flood comes to mind. Sodom and Gomorrah too." 

Here again we see how close to Universalism are the Hardshells, as if we have not seen enough already. Where is the scripture that says God's people were destroyed in the flood or the hell fire that rained down upon Sodom and her sister cities? Harvey makes such claims and yet gives absolutely no proof from scripture to support them. The Bible rather says that God brought the flood in upon the "world of the ungodly." (II Peter 2: 5) In Genesis chapter six we see that the whole race of men are described as filled with great wickedness, that "every imagination of their hearts were only evil continually." Of these wicked men God says he repented that he had ever created them. How could that be said of any of the Lord's people? It was said of Judas however. (Matt. 26: 24) It was only Noah who the Lord judged to be perfect and righteous and he alone found grace in the eyes of the Lord. (verses 5-9) 

The only righteous person in Sodom was Lot. So the Bible says:

"turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority." (II Peter 2: 6-10 nkjv) 

This text tells us that it was Lot alone who was righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. The others, the ones condemned to destruction, are described as being unrighteous, ungodly, characters of filthy conduct and lawless deeds, and who walked according to the flesh. Paul says that saved people "walk not according to the flesh" but "according to the Spirit" (Rom. 8: 4) Those who walk after the flesh are not saved people. Only a Hardshell or Universalist would claim otherwise.

In Genesis chapter eighteen Abraham asks the LORD if he will destroy the righteous with the wicked in destroying Sodom and her sister cities. He ends up saying that he would not destroy the cities if he found ten righteous souls in it. So, the idea that many righteous people were destroyed in that judgment is absurd.

Harvey wrote further:

"In Matthew 11:23, Christ indirectly proved that there were children of God that died in Sodom. He says that if the people of Sodom had seen the mighty works performed in Capernaum, they would have repented, and the city remained."

Because Christ said the Sodomites would have repented had they seen the miracles proves that the "people of Sodom" were children of God? Are you kidding me? Wrote Jude the Lord's brother:

"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1: 7)

Jude says the sinful inhabitants of Sodom are "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire"! These are God's people? The LORD God says through Ezekiel:

"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit." (Eze. 16: 49-50 nkjv)

Wrote the Apostle Paul:

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5: 19-21 nkjv)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (I Cor. 6: 9-10 nkv)

These verses describe the people of Sodom and Gommorah and they are not children of God.

Harvey wrote further:

"I remind you also of Korab and all those that appertained unto him, as we read in Numbers 16. The earth opened up and swallowed them. Uzzah, who in ignorance touched the Ark to steady it, was smitten and died (II Samuel 6:1-9). Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu changed the recipe for the incense and offered this "strange fire" before the Lord in Leviticus 10. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord (verse 2). These two men were priests of the Lord too. Yet each of these, if they were God's elect, was eternally preserved from the sad effects of their sin." 

Why is Harvey and other Hardshell Baptists so prone to make every wicked apostate in the Bible a child of God? Having been a Hardshell Baptist, and the son of a leading Hardshell Baptist minister, I can make a good guess. It is because of their invention of the "time salvation" ideology. Elder Afton Richards told us what it basically is in the following quotation. I wrote about this (here), citing from Elder David Montgomery:

"Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist". On page 21, he gives a definition of time salvation. Elder Richards says, "Primitive Baptists read the Scriptures with the desire of getting the harmony taught therein, and they enjoy much comfort that others do not get. When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world.""

Why was this formula created? Answer: it was formed because the "Primitive Baptists" at the end of the 19th century had come to believe that the word of God was not a means in the eternal salvation of sinners and that faith was no condition, nor anything that a sinner does. Having formulated that proposition, how were they going to deal with the numerous Bible passages that disprove this formula? Answer: they would assert that those passages deal with a "time salvation," one that is not necessary for eternal salvation. This of course led them out of necessity to also believe in a "time damnation" or "time destruction" or "time perishing." 

So, when the Hardshells read such texts as Mark 16: 16 that say whoever believes and is baptized will be "saved" and whoever does not believe will be "damned" (kjv) they not only have to say that the salvation is temporal but also that the damnation is temporal. 

If Hardshells like Harvey can make children of God out of those who were destroyed in the flood or in Sodom and Gomorrah, it is no wonder that they would do so with the other evil characters mentioned by Harvey, such as Korah, Cain, Balaam, Nadab and Abihu, etc. However, let us again return to the Book of Jude and see how this inspired writer describes them. 

"But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah...These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever...These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage...These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit. " (Jude 1: 10-13; 16; 19 nkjv) 

Who are the persons designated by the pronouns in these words (which I have put in red)? It is the very people who Harvey is intent to make into children of God. They are described as being natural brute beasts, hardly a description of saved people! They are said to be "sensual," which is from the same Greek word translated as "natural" in I Cor. 2:14, which all Hardshells interpret to mean an unregenerated person. They are also declared to "have not the Spirit" and "twice dead." Harvey says Jude is describing children of God! "Be astonished, Oh ye heavens!" 

Is Harvey saying that Nadab and Abihu are children of God because they were priests? So, there were no unsaved wicked priests in Israel? 

Hophni and Phinehas were wicked sons of the high priest Eli who abused their power in the tabernacle at Shiloh. They stole the best parts of the meat offerings meant for God, threatened worshipers with force, and sexually abused the women serving at the entrance of the tent of meeting. God ultimately judged them for their severe sin. Both Ezekiel and Malachi delivered God's indictment against the wicked priests.

This will finish my review of Elder Harvey's reasoning for not being a Calvinist. I am glad he is not because he is an embarrassment to that system of theology which has produced many of the ablest theologians in the history of Christianity. In fact, Hardshells of today are more Arminian than Calvinists. Even in the mid nineteenth century the more orthodox among the "Primitive Baptists" accused their brethren, who were beginning to deny that faith and the gospel were means in the eternal salvation of sinners, of being Arminians. In the mid 19th century men like Elder John M. Watson and Elder John Clark, two great leaders in the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" sect, even though they were accused of being "Arminian" for contending for the truth that God uses his word in saving sinners, responded by saying that it was their Brethren who denied means who were the real Arminians. Wrote Clark (See my previous post giving these citations here): 

"The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.

To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.

The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."

("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)

What think ye?

"Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things." (II Tim. 2: 7 nkjv)

Answering a Hardshell Polemic (3)

I probably should not have titled this short series using the word "polemic" because Elder Harvey did not give a scriptural or rational defense of Hardshellism's unscriptural propositions, but simply stated them, in his attempt to give the reason why Hardshells are not Calvinists. Of course, they are Calvinists, because they believe in the five points of Calvinism and because they are not Arminians. They are in fact Hyper Calvinists because they hold to the tenets of Hyper Calvinism, tenets that increased through the years since its first rise at the start of the seventeenth century. In Hassell's History we find both Hassells, father and son, speaking well of Calvinism and not disdaining it. My own father who was a "Primitive Baptist" minister for over fifty five years took issue with those Hardshells who refused to identify themselves as Calvinists. In Hassell's History we read these words:

"Prof. Henry Drummond, in his recent able work entitled "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," has some admirable pages unanswerably evincing the united and harmonious testimony of both science and Scripture to the truth of the Pauline or Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrine of salvation, and I will now give the substance of some of his remarks upon this subject..." (Chapter twelve, page 404)

Tenets of Hyper Calvinism

In my post titled "Evolutionary History of Hyper Calvinism" (here) I gave a list of the various tenets of Hyper Calvinism as they have accumulated over the centuries. In that post I gave Dr. Phil Johnson's list of those tenets as follows:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, 

2. OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, 

3. OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), 

4. OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” 

5. OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. 

I have a longer list which adds to the above.

1. Regeneration before faith and conversion 

2. Regeneration (which is a part of sanctification) is before justification

3. Total depravity denotes physical, as well as moral, disability

4. Commands or imperatives imply ability

5. God has no will or desire for the salvation of the non elect

6. There are no conditions for salvation (like in election)

7. Hardshellism - elect saved apart from faith and all human means

8. The written word of God is no means in regeneration or eternal salvation

Tenet number one would indict Phil Johnson for he believes that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith, and if so, then he must also believe that the gospel or word of God is no means in regeneration. This view also makes him believe tenet number two as well as the first part of number eight. 

The first proposition of Hyper Calvinism was articulated by Josehp Hussey in 1707 in his book "God's Operations Of Grace But No Offers Of His Grace," wherein he argued against the idea that gospel ministers should universally or conditionally invite or call every single hearer to believe in or accept Christ, or that God actively offers saving grace to those who ultimately perish. 

The next proposition of Hyper Calvinism was the denial of "duty faith," that it was the obligation of all men to believe the word of God and to believe in Christ. I have several posts on this question in this blog. (See here, here, here, here) If men are not required to believe in Christ or the Bible, then it is no sin for any not to believe it. So, rejecting Christ and the word of God is no sin. If the Bible says it is a sin to reject God, Christ, and the word of God, then it must be because God commands it. So, let us show that all men are commanded to believe and repent. Wrote the apostle John:

"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." (I John 3: 23 kjv)

The apostle Paul preached to the Athenian idolaters and said:

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31 nkjv)

Those initial propositions of the Hyper Calvinists naturally led to others, such as the belief that God shows no grace (or common grace) to the non-elect, and has no love for them, and is why they say that no offers of salvation are given to them in preaching. It also led to the idea that there are no conditions for being saved, affirming that men must be first saved or regenerated before they can believe, repent, come to Jesus, receive Christ, etc. Andrew Fuller unloaded on the Hyper Calvinists who taught these things. His famous treatise "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, or, The Duty of Sinners to Believe in Jesus Christ" refutes these tenets of Hyper Calvinists. The title of his work is taken from that apostle Paul's words to Timothy:

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (I Tim. 1: 15 kjv)

Not all the first generation of Hardshell Baptists rejected duty faith. In an article in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1839, titled "Duty Faith & Repentance. An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray," (see here) Elder Samuel Trott wrote:  (emphasis mine)

"On the other hand, I understand the Old School doctrine to be, that it is the duty of all rational beings to believe all God has spoken in the scriptures as they have access to them directly or indirectly, and to believe the testimony of the works of creation and providence, where the scriptures have not come. To disbelieve the record, which God hath given of His Son, is to make God a liar (I John 5:10;) and surely no person can do this and be guiltless. The obligation man is under thus to believe God, arises, not from any demand which the gospel as such peculiarly makes upon him, but from the nature and fitness of things, and from what God is. It is a law of our creation."

Now let us return to what Harvey said in his polemic. Harvey continued (emphasis mine):

"The moment we say, "Salvation is by grace, but here is what you must do to get it," we have annihilated grace. It is just that simple. That is what Paul is saying in Romans 11:6. Grace and works are mutually exclusive when it comes to eternal salvation. We are not allowed to say, "It is by grace, but here is what you must do to get it." Nor can we say, "It is by grace, but here is what you must do to keep it." We are not even allowed to say, "You must do this, but it is not really you doing it; it is Christ in you doing it." No. That is still salvation by works. Do you understand, my friend?" 

"Doing" something is not to be equated with "works." Hardshells are frequently saying that salvation cannot be by faith for faith is doing something and that is works. Yet, the scriptures say faith is not in the category of works. So wrote and testified the apostle Paul:

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." (Rom. 4: 5 nkjv)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph. 2: 8-9 nkjv)

Here "believing" in Christ is not classified as "work." So, how can a man who claims to be a Bible teacher for Christ utter such anti-biblical things? These texts affirm that salvation is by grace and yet it is through something people do, i.e. believe. Further, we are told in scripture that people "believed through grace" (Acts 18: 27), and that justification from sin is "by faith that it might be by grace" (Rom. 4: 16), which clearly demonstrates that the proposition of Harvey and his Hardshell brethren is against scripture. Romans 11: 6 does not say that salvation is not by faith, nor not by repentance or coming to Christ, or by being taught and drawn by the Father, etc. 

The idea that it is a violation of scripture to teach that sinners must do something to be saved is an invention of the Hardshells, coming from their Two Seed Primitive Baptists ancestors. They too said that nothing a person did in life determined whether he went to heaven or hell. Further, Paul ascribed all his working for the Lord to God's grace, writing:

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10 kjv)

So also testified Isaiah the prophet:

"LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12 kjv)

This refutes the statement of Harvey that averred - "We are not even allowed to say, "You must do this, but it is not really you doing it; it is Christ in you doing it." How a Bible man can claim that believers cannot say that what they do in faith is God's gracious doing is amazing and diametrically opposite of the above verses and others I could cite. Just as Paul said of his transgressing, in Romans chapter seven, that "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me" (vs. 17 and 20), so he likewise says his acts of righteousness were not done by him but by God's work of grace in him. A believer confesses that all the good he does is a result of God "working in him to do that which is well pleasing in his sight." (Heb. 13: 21)

Next, Harvey wrote: "Prevenient grace is no grace at all." 

Where is that affirmed in the Bible? Is he denying that God was graciously and providentially at work in him before he was converted? Wrote the apostle Paul: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." (Titus 2: 11 nkjv) The apostle Peter says that married couples are "heirs together of the grace of life." (I Peter 3: 7 kjv) The apostle John wrote this about the Lord Jesus Christ: "For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace." (John 1: 16 esv) Notice these texts:

“The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made” (Psa. 145:9). Jesus said God causes “his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45) and “is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Luke 6:35). Barnabas and Paul said the same thing: “He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:17). This divine compassion, benevolent goodness, kindness, and longsuffering to all, are instances of God's common grace. 

Elder John M. Watson was one of the widely recognized leaders of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist" sect, as Elder Sylvester Hassell, Elder Lemuel Potter, and Elder Gilbert Beebe have stated. He believed in prevenient grace, as have other Calvinists, though not in the same way as some Arminians or as the Catholics. Watson wrote:

"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." ("Old Baptist Test," page 357)

By the Lord "going out before" the preachers Watson alludes to God's prevenient grace, to his preparation of people to hear the word of God savingly. This shows that Watson believed in some preparations or prevenient grace prior to actual salvation. So too did the biblical writers. Wrote Solomon: "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord." (Prov. 16: 1 kjv) The Puritan Calvinists believed in preparations and gracious operations of the Spirit upon a lost sinner before he is regenerated or born again.

The great men of the "Primitive Baptist" sect in the 19th century did not deny that there were conditions for salvation, but taught that all those conditions are effected by God's sovereign and efficacious grace.

In the paper "The Southern Baptist Messenger," begun by Gilbert Beebe's son, William L. Beebe, Elder W.M. Mitchell (1819-1901) wrote:

"The saving of sinners from their sins with an everlasting salvation is a great work, but God is a Great God and all his works are great. When it is said that “salvation is of the Lord” it is thereby declared that everything pertaining to salvation from first to last is of him. There is no salvation without the choice of God in Christ. He hath therefore from the beginning chosen us unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth...In conclusion, let us not overlook the fact that in order to salvation, it is necessary that we be born again; that we have faith, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; but as salvation is of the Lord, these things are as much of him as our redemption, calling or justification, for his “divine power hath given us all things that pertain unto, life and godliness.” 2 Pet. i. 4. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things ?” (You can read that issue of that periodical here).

Elder Sylvester Hassell, another great leader of the Hardshells, wrote:

"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation (Gen. iii. 15; xii. 3; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Psalm cx. 3; Isa. xxvii. 13; xxxv. 10; xlii. 16; xlv. 17; liii.-lv.; Jer. xxxi. 33-37; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; xxxvii. 1-14; Zech. xii. 10-14; xiii. 1, 7-9; Matt. i. 21; xxv. 34; John vi. 37-40; x. 15, 27-30; xvii. 2, 3, 24; Acts xiii. 48; Rom. v. 19-21; viii. 28-39; Eph. i.-iii.; 2 Thess. 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; 1 Pet. i., ii.; 1 John v. 11, 12; Rev. i. 5, 6; xxi. 27)."  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Conditionalism" by Sylvester Hassell, The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894)

So, Harvey's views are not the original views of the first Hardshells and his views, being expressive of what most "Primitive Baptists" today believe, show how much he and they have changed from their origin in the early 19th century, and this is laughable considering how they boast of having changed not in their views since their beginning.

The idea that a lost sinner is to do nothing to be saved is so glaringly opposed to the most explicit and clear declarations of scripture that nearly all Christians will be stunned to know that there are professing Christians, as the Hardshells, who affirm such.

From the scriptures we learn that one must "receive" Christ and the Spirit to be saved, and that is doing something. We also learn that a sinner must "come" to Christ and that is doing something. We learn also that a sinner must believe in Christ, confess Christ, and be instructed and drawn by the Father. These are things the sinner does. We learn that a sinner must "repent" or "turn" to the Lord and that is something he does. We also learn from the scriptures that a lost sinner must "convert" in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, and that he must "call upon the name of the Lord" and calling is something the sinner does. Many scriptures affirm these things, as any Bible student knows.

Harvey wrote further:

"Thus I conclude that Calvinism is worse than Arminianism for the simple reason that it can logically expect far fewer to be saved!...Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists, although we are sometimes falsely accused of being so. We believe far more are going to heaven than any Calvinist (or Arminian either, for that matter) could ever conceive of!"

I have responded to this line of reasoning before. In this post I cited from Elder Harold Hunt in this post (here) who said:

"I would hate to believe the family of God is limited to the little number we preachers can reach. But that is clearly not what the Bible teaches. God will have the victory, even in numbers."

I then responded, writing:

"I would hate to believe"? Is that how Hunt decides what to believe? His emotions control his faith? His likes and dislikes determine his biblical interpretations? By his logic, he should be a "no-heller," for surely he would hate to believe that anyone would suffer in Hell forever, right?"

I have also heard Hardshells argue that more must go to heaven than go to hell for if not then Satan will have won more to his side than God did to his. Absurd logic! Using this same twisted logic we ask why they teach that most of those who God regenerates are never converted to the true religion but remain in false religions? Jesus sent Paul to preach the gospel so that people might be "turned from darkness to light" and turned "from the power of Satan unto God" (Acts 26: 18). So, since most of the chosen and called, according to Hardshellism, never hear the gospel, they remain in darkness and under the power of Satan. So, who wins more converts then, my Hardshell brothers, God or Satan? 

In my post titled "Hardshell Quasi Universalism" (See here) I cited the following from Elder T.L. Webb Sr. (who was once on the editorial staff of Elder C.H. Cayce's paper "The Primitive Baptist") and his book "Little Things" (1941):

"For this reason I have said that every one that sincerely and truly desired to be saved in heaven, would finally reach that happy home. Can you ask for a better system of salvation than one which is sure for all that really want to be saved?" (page 20)

"One comforting thought in the above Scripture (Heb. 11:16) is, if one really desires a better country it is an unmistakable evidence that such an one has an interest there. I have often said publicly, as a rebuttal in defending our people against the charge that our system is not broad enough, that the system advocated by Primitive Baptists is broad enough to embrace all that want to be saved; and why should we think God unjust if He does not save those who do not want to be saved? What better system could we ask for than one which will embrace every one, in all the world, who desires the better country?" (pages 53-54)

"I believe that God is the author of prayer. I have thought, and I believe today with all my heart, that every person in this world, who has prayed, will finally be around the throne of grace in heaven. I say, brethren, these Old Baptists have the broadest system in the world. People say it is narrow. They do not know how broad it is. It is broader than any other theory in the world." (page 99)

"So I say that we have the broadest system that has ever been advocated here in the world. For different reasons the Primitive Baptists have the best system that has ever been preached in the world. How broad is it? It is broad enough that it reaches everyone that has ever prayed a prayer. Heaven will be their home after awhile, if they have ever prayed. Brother Taylor, I love this old doctrine. I get comfort out of it. It reaches me, because, if I am not mistaken, I have, a few times in my life, tried to pray to God, and if I have really prayed, God is the author of that prayer and heaven will be my home after awhile. God answers all prayer." (page 100)

Friends, that is so close to Universalism! That is where Hardshellism leads. It is why in the twentieth century we saw the rise of those who are called "Primitive Baptist Universalist" churches. 

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 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 was only the Hyper Calvinist Hardshells (who took over the newly formed 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.