Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXIII)

Elder John M. Thompson

1844 - 1940

In this chapter we will continue to examine the editorial writings of elder C.H. Cayce in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" and what he wrote about the controversy he was engaged in about "the whole man" doctrine. In the previous chapter we ended it with what Cayce said about the above minister, who was a grandson of Elder Wilson Thompson, a leading minister who we have referred to in earlier chapters. We ended the previous chapter with these words:

"Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"We have some letters from Elder John M. Thompson which we will publish soon, in which he denies that regeneration makes a man better. We will publish his letters so our readers can see for themselves what he says. We want no man to preach in our churches who is not made better by regeneration.""

In the next issue of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical under the title "CURTAIN RAISED AGAIN," being "Article No. 3" for October 10, 1916, Cayce wrote: 

"We promised last week that we would give some letters from Elder J. M. Thompson soon, and we do that this week. In our issue of Nov. 16, 1915, we published our views on regeneration, and stated that we would not publish more on that question, hoping the brethren would drop the matter and not continue the unholy war. Elder John M. Thompson evidently did not endorse our article, so he wrote us the following letter on Jan. 18th, 1916: -Tipton, Ind., 1-18-16."

"ELDER C. H. CAYCE:- 

Dear Brother--In sorrow I write you owing to the strange position you have taken on the vital subject of regeneration. Regeneration is one of the essentials in the eternal salvation of sinners, on which there should be agreement."

Actually the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists is filled with strange views on the subject of regeneration or the birth of the Spirit. Thompson continued:

In your article on regeneration, P. B., p.p. 5,9,10, Nov. 1915, you say regeneration is a spiritual work by the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man; that in that work the sinner is formed anew in his soul, or spirit, or heart; that the body is not formed anew in regeneration, but that it will be formed anew, will be made spiritual, in the resurrection; and you quote as your belief: "The apostles' doctrine teaches that it is the man that is dead in sin that is quickened...that is made a child and fellow citizen." In this I understand you to teach, that in regeneration the spirit of man is formed anew, is made spiritual, but the body is not, but that it will be formed anew in regeneration (we suppose he means to say in the resurrection.-C. H. C.), will then be made spiritual; that man in spirit is quickened in regeneration, is made a child of God. Yet, strange indeed, you say, that the work of regeneration does not take the old nature away, but gives him another nature. This you say of that that is regenerated-the spirit."

"You teach that the evil man is made good by the Lord making his heart good. Then you say, "If that does not make a man a better man, we confess that we do not know what would make him better." Primitive Baptists have held and do hold that alien sinners are totally depraved, not good. If not good naturally, by nature the children of wrath--Paul--morally depraved, how is it possible that regeneration can or does make them better? Man prior to regeneration is a good man if regeneration makes him a better man--good, better, best. He has to be good before he can be made better. So the Newman-Collings contention cannot be true."

"As to the two natures in regenerated people, Paul locates the bad nature in the body, but never in the regenerated soul, spirit, or heart. I cannot conceive that it is possible for a man in spirit, soul, or heart to possess a vile-nature according to your presentation of the great change in regeneration in soul, spirit, heart." 

I have addressed this issue in the preceding chapters. I agree that the body is a source for doing evil. This is why Paul said that he worked hard to "discipline" and "bring into subjection" his "body" (I Cor. 9: 27) and prayed to be "delivered" from "the body of this death." (Rom. 7: 24) I also agree that it is the heart or spirit that is the object that is changed in regeneration and renewing. However, I don't believe as many of the Hardshells, such as Lemuel Potter, that whatever inner part of a man is born again cannot sin, a view that they in part derive from their interpretation of I John 3: 9 where it is said that "whoever is born of God cannot sin." 

We saw how Paul, for instance, exhorted believers as follows: "let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1) So, though the heart or spirit is renewed when a sinner is born again, that renewal continues (II Cor. 4: 16) and there is a need for daily cleansing and for progressive sanctification. 

About Thompson's picking a fight over whether it is correct to say that being saved or regenerated makes a person "better" versus making him "good," I will have more to say shortly after we hear Cayce's response to this point. 

Thompson continued:

"You inform us that communications arguing regeneration will go into the fire. Strange! Truth relative to regeneration cannot be argued and error exposed! A fundamental tenet of our faith suppressed! thus it appears to me. I feel constrained to request that my name be discontinued and your paper to me be discontinued. - I am for principle regardless of financial consideration. The Lord bless truth and faithfulness." J. M. Thompson 

I have said it many times over my lifetime since leaving the Hardshell cult. If you are on the good side of the Hardshells they will patronize you to death, as they did my father (Elder Eddie K. Garrett) and Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. for a long time. But, when they turn against you, as they did to father and Bradley, you will become the object of their wrath and scorn. The history of the Hardshells is full of such vicious fighting.

Elder Cayce responded to Thompson as follows (emphasis mine):

"We sent the following letter to Brother Thompson in reply: Feb. 19, 1916. 

ELDER JOHN M. THOMPSON: 

Dear Brother--I am very much surprised at the tone and contents of your letter of Jan. 18th. According to your statement and argument a good man is no better than a bad man; a good tree is no better than a bad tree; and if a thing that is bad cannot be made better, then the soul or spirit of the unregenerate must be good, or else they are not made good in regeneration, and are, therefore, still bad. I am utterly surprised that you would take such a position. My brother, please do not think me presumptuous or impertinent when I tell you that you know too much about language to make such an argument, or to take such a position. I am sorry to see that you would do this. Now, I wish to say that I do not care to discuss the matter further. I have said my say in the paper, and there is no room for misunderstanding. You and others may read things into the article which I did not say, but I am not responsible for that. I have no more to say concerning the matter. I have today had your name taken off the editorial staff, and also had your name dropped from the mailing list, as you requested. I hold no ill feeling nor malice toward you. I trust that after you have carefully considered the matter you will feel differently to the way you manifested in your letter. Yours in sorrow, C. H. CAYCE."

Thompson was a school teacher, having gone to college to become such. I am sure that he taught his students grammar about "good, better, best." Of course, Cayce is right. Being made better does not strictly imply a previous state of being good; it only implies an improvement relative to a previous condition, which could have been neutral or even bad.

After Cayce published his reply to Thompson, and his promise to say no more about the matter, he gets a letter from Thompson which Cayce published as follows (emphasis mine):

"In reply to this letter Brother Thompson wrote us as follows: Tipton, Ind., 3-18-16 

ELDER C. H. CAYCE: Martin, Tenn.- 

In as much as you impertinently charge me with insincerity, with making a false statement, and misrepresent me, I do not consider it proper that I address you as I would otherwise have done." 

Meaning he cannot address Cayce as "Brother" or "Elder." This attitude is quite prevalent in the many wars that have occurred among the Hardshells. Thompson continued:

"In language good is positive, better is Comparative, and best is superlative. Bad is positive, worse is comparative, and worst is superlative. An alien sinner is a bad man in soul. Regeneration makes him good or righteous in soul, but it does not make him better in soul. He would have to be good in soul before regeneration for regeneration to make him better in soul. If you understand grammatical comparison of adjectives you know I am right in this. You surprise me in your opposing note. You can exercise your pleasure concerning any further say. I am confident I am correct, and am willing to submit the question to any unprejudiced scholar. If you see your error and scripturally confess it will correct your unjust offense. J. M.Thompson."

So, why is Thompson denying that regeneration makes a sinner better? Is he not picking a fight? Nitpicking? A saved man is better in his conduct, in his morality or ethics, in the way he treats others. Thompson then attaches this postscript:

"P. S. If a thing that is black can be made whiter (which is impossible) then it might reasonably be said that a bad man morally can be made a better man morally. A thing has to be white before it can be made whiter, even so a man has to be a good man morally before he can be made a better man morally. When a thing is black it may be made to be white, but not whiter, even so a bad man morally may be made to be a good man morally, but not to be a better man morally." 

I believe this war over the "whole man" doctrine and the experience of regeneration, though it had a doctrinal basis, yet it often included rivalries about who will have the preeminence among the cult, arising over preacher jealousy. 

Cayce wrote an editorial after this titled "QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS COPIED" and wrote:

"In or about the first part of the year 1913 Elder J. L. Collings, of Glen Rose, Texas, sent out a list of questions, which we suppose was sent to quite a number of brethren. A copy of them was sent to Elder John M. Thompson, and he replied under date of May 21, 1913. We have before us a copy of the questions and a copy of his reply. We give the questions and his answers as follows:

Q. Do you believe that regeneration makes a man better morally? 

A. I do not believe that regeneration makes a man better morally. I believe it causes a man to think, desire and do better morally. It makes him better in soul morally but not in act. It enables him to do better morally. "Makes" is too strong here as pertains to his actions morally. 

Q. What according to the Scriptures is the child of God? 

A. The inner man in regeneration is the child of God; God is the Father of spirits.- Paul. 

Q. To whom are the Scriptures addressed--to the inner man or the child of God as a complex being? 

A. The Scriptures are addressed to the regenerate soul,--not to the body, which is only natural, without spiritual discernment. 

Q. Do the righteous acts of men make them better at heart, or are the righteous acts fruits of the righteous heart? 

A. Righteous works are fruits of the righteous heart. They do not make men better at heart. 

Q. Does a Christian obey because he is better in heart, or does he obey to become better in heart and soul by God's grace? 

A. A Christian obeys because he is better in heart. God's grace makes them better in heart. 

Q. Does grace in the heart make men better or worse, or does it change him at all? 

A. Grace in the heart makes men better in heart. The change is in the inner man. Grace does not force obedience: "Let us come boldly unto a throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need."-- {(Hebrews 4:16)} not to force. 

Q. I believe the sinner is passive in regeneration but active in obedience. Do you? 

A. I do believe the sinner is passive in regeneration. 

Q. Do you believe that Paul persecuted the church of God after regeneration, either in whole or part? 

A. I do not believe Paul persecuted the church after regeneration, if regenerated on his way to Damascus. 

Q. Is it the whole man doctrine to say that regeneration makes an immoral man better morally? 

A. The whole man doctrine as I understand its advocates, is, that the body as well as the inner man, is born of the spirit, - born again; and not to say that regeneration makes a man better morally. Both statements are wrong. Regeneration causes men to do better morally, but does not make him do better, does not force him to do better. 

Q. Is it the whole man doctrine that in regeneration the man, in body, soul, and spirit, is make spiritual, sinless, and pure? 

A. It may be, and it may not be the whole man doctrine that in regeneration man is made spiritual, sinless and pure; some may teach that way, and others to the contrary. The contention in Texas is wrong. "Make" is too strong in the use some make of it. 

Cayce then writes this commentary on Thompson's answers:

"The above answers were signed by Elder John M. Thompson. From these answers it appears that, according to Elder Thompson, regeneration made a man better in soul in 1913; but from his letters it appears that regeneration does not make a man better in soul now."

I think Cayce, the champion debater, showed that Thompson spoke out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, with one caveat however. Thompson says that when he denied that regeneration "makes" a man better, he is denying that regeneration forces or unconditionally causes a regenerated person to live a more moral life.

Cayce continued:

"Since he boasts of his scholarship (so it appears to us; we do not mean this as an insinuation), we wonder what institution of learning he has graduated from during the past three years. Any how, his answers to those questions and his letters show a change. We wonder whether that change was wrought in the "inner man"-that is, in his soul or spirit-or was it in his material body of flesh? Evidently there has been a change with him. We wonder if that change was wrought by the direct and immediate operation of the Spirit of God upon the inner man. Perhaps it was just the inner man that has been changed, and not Elder Thompson at all. If that is the way of it, we humbly beg Elder Thompson's pardon for even thinking such a thing as that he has changed; and we humbly beg the pardon of that inner man in him for charging what he had done to Elder Thompson. Of course, if the inner man is made as pure and sinless in regeneration as God is, and the inner man in Elder Thompson has been regenerated, then the inner man in Elder Thompson never does wrong or makes a mistake. - And if that inner man never does wrong nor makes a mistake, and if that inner man wrote those answers, - then they were correct when written. And if that be true, then in 1913 regeneration did make men better in soul, but it does not make them better now. So, according to this, regeneration did something for men then that it does not do now. We wonder why it does not do as much for them now as it did then. Perhaps that infallible inner man can tell us. If he can, we would be glad for him to do so. But perhaps that inner man did not write both, the answers and the letters. If not, we wonder which or what part of the writing Elder Thompson did himself. It is really Elder Thompson we would like to reply to. We do not know how to preach or write to spirits." 

Here Cayce shows his debate skills, and his Sophistry. He makes fun of Thompson's views and his change of positions, and him being so uncompromising on an issue where there was basic agreement.

Cayce wrote further:

"Elder Thompson does not wish to call us brother. Very well. Our letter to him was intended to have been written in the very best of feeling, and we told the truth when we said we had no ill feeling toward him. The reader can judge for himself as to whether we misrepresented him or not. Now, this was not Elder Thompson that does not wish to call us brother. It was Elder Thompson's regenerated spirit saying this to our flesh; and as his regenerated spirit is the child of God, and as our flesh or 'body is no part of a child of God,' of course we are not brothers. He was not saying this to our spirit, of course. Perhaps Elder Thompson would admit that our spirit is a child of God, and perhaps he would not."

I had this same problem when I first began to debate with Hardshell Jason Brown back in 2011 (see archives for that year). When he first began to address me he would not call me "brother." I found that odd since Hardshells have become quasi-Universalists and make nearly all religious people children of God. He did start calling me brother. As I have shown in postings in the past, the first Hardshells considered most of the religious world to be unsaved, part of the system of Antichrist and Mystery Babylon. See this post (here) where I write about this. What a change!

Cayce wrote further:

"But Elder Thompson says that the "spirit of man" in (I Corinthians 2:11) signifies that the spirit of man is a man. This is another new thing to us. We never knew before that the spirit of man was a man. According to this, there is a man in a man, and the man in the man is regenerated. The man who has the man in him is not regenerated. It is the Adam sinner, then, who has the regenerated man in him, and the Adam sinner is left out of the matter entirely, only as he is tormented and worried and crossed with and by the child of God that is in him- for awhile. This is evidently Elder Thompson's view of the matter, for he says that the regenerated man departs from the body. As the regenerated man departs from the body, then the body is no part of the regenerated man. This simply leaves Adam sinners out, and they are not regenerated at all. So far as we are concerned, if it is not us, it makes no difference to us if it should be a mule. But in (Philippians 1:21-26) the apostle is teaching no such thing as that the regenerated man departs from the unregenerated man; but he is teaching that there is a better life for him beyond this vale of tears, and that he had a desire to depart this mode of existence, and to be present with the Lord. - There is nothing in the apostle's language that even intimates that the body is no part of the child of God, or that there was a child of God dwelling in him, and that he was not a child of God."

Here again we see two extremes. We see Cayce accusing Thompson of not believing that the physical body is a part of a child of God, because it is not regenerated, and Cayce seemingly taking the view that the whole man, including the body, is a child of God by regeneration, even though Cayce denies this to be his view. As I stated in previous chapters, the body belongs to Lord because he purchased it by this death on the cross, and not because it is regenerated like the heart or spirit. The body is "part of the regenerated man" but it is not regenerated but purchased or owned by the Lord. Cayce is wrong to say that it is not true that "the regenerated man departs from the unregenerate man" however. The regenerated spirit (or part of the man) does depart from the unregenerated body (or other part of the man). 

Cayce wrote further:

"It is true, and the Scriptures abundantly so teach, that the spirit or soul does not die when the body dies. When the body dies the spirit goes to God. The body dies because it is mortal, and on account of sin; but it is the mortal part of the child of God." 

This being so, why does Cayce fault saying that the inner or regenerated man departs from the outer or unregenerated man? Is it because the word "man" is used for one part of a man? Does not Paul however refer to an inner and an outer "man"? Cayce was often insisting that the man is regenerated and seemed to suggest that this meant the whole man. Notice what he says next:

"The Saviour said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." - (John 3:3). To Nicodemus He said, "Ye must be born again." - (John 3:7). He was not talking to a spirit when He said this, but He was talking to a MAN. In this new birth the Spirit of God operates on the spirit of man, and that operation of the Spirit makes the MAN a child of God." 

Here is the problem in what Cayce says, and which I have addressed in previous chapters. Cayce clearly affirms that the body becomes a child of God by the man being born again. Is he affirming that the birth of the man's spirit makes the body a child of God? Is he saying that the body becomes a child of God by it, like the inner spirit, also having been born of the Spirit? 

Cayce wrote further:

"It does not make the body of the man spiritual; but it does make the man a child of God, and that child of God has a mortal body. We know that the Scriptures teach this, no matter what we may think about it, and no matter how mysterious it may appear to us. There are mysteries about this thing that no man on earth can explain, and all this effort to explain an inexplainable thing only serves to mystify the matter all the more. And that is what causes the trouble among the Old Baptists, too." 

So, spiritual birth does not make the body spiritual or holy but it does make the man, including his body, a child of God? This idea forces one to say that the body of a believer is a child of God because it has been born of God. Cayce does not distinguish, as he should, between being God's possession or ownership of a believer's body versus it being regenerated or transformed (as it will be in the resurrection). 

Cayce wrote further:

"But Elder Thompson claims now that regeneration makes a bad man a good man in soul, but does not make him a better man in soul, and he also claims that in regeneration the soul or spirit is made pure and sinless. If regeneration makes the soul pure and sinless, we do not see how it could be made any better, unless it can be made better than pure and sinless. If regeneration makes the soul or spirit good, and it cannot be made better than pure and sinless, then we do not see how the soul or spirit of the child of God could be made any better. So it seems that, according to Elder Thompson's contention, the soul or spirit is not simply made good in regeneration, but it is made as good as the best! If the soul or spirit is made as pure and sinless in regeneration as God is, and is made good, as Elder Thompson claims, and can then be made better, as he says, then God can be made better, too." 

Thompson, when he affirms that "in regeneration the soul or spirit is made pure and sinless," is expressing the view of Elder Lemuel Potter of Illinois. This view Cayce rightly rejects. In chapter forty eight of this series I cited from Potter's book "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter." In chapter nineteen of that work Potter wrote:

"During the year 1871, and '72, I began to get acquainted with the brethren of Wabash District Association. I visited their Association once or twice, and visited a number of their churches, and found that among them and some of their correspondents, the question was being agitated as to what it is that is born again in the work of regeneration. Some of the preachers of that, and some other Associations, differed so widely about it that they were accused of taking positions that were very extreme. One man was accused of claiming that the body was no part of the child of God. Another denied any distinction of soul and body, claiming that the man that was born again, to use their own language, was, the man that ate bacon and cabbage. 

The question as to what part of a person experiences regeneration was still a question being fought over in Cayce's battle with Thompson, and also the question as to whether the part of a person that is regenerated is able to sin. In chapter fifty four I cited from Potter's 1895 treatise titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare." In that work Potter wrote the following in chapter seven under the title "The Renewed Soul Clear of Sin":

"Some who believe in a distinction of soul and body, and that the soul of the saint goes immediately into conscious joy at the death of the body, have claimed that, in the work of the new birth, the soul is not made entirely clear of sin, as the body will be in the resurrection; but that when the soul leaves the body, it will be pure and sinless. It is argued that the soul comprises the whole mind of man, and that the body could neither do good nor evil, only as it did so at the instance of the soul; that the body was the instrument of the soul, in doing good and evil both."

"I have always thought that, in the christian warfare, the soul was always on the side of holiness, and that it always did oppose evil." 

Cayce always spoke highly of Potter. How could he not, seeing Potter was highly venerated at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the twentieth. Cayce could hardly speak against Potter and expect it not to hurt his efforts to obtain subscribers to his paper and promote himself. However, in condemning the view of Thompson on the belief that the regenerated part of a man cannot sin he also condemns Potter. As I have shown, being born again or regenerated does not make the soul or spirit incapable of sinning. So, does the "new" or "divine" nature that believers receive commit sin? No, it does not, no more than does Christ who dwells in the believer. But, the heart, soul, spirit, or mind is not completely of one holy divine nature when it experiences initial salvation. The new nature begins to operate and change the heart and spirit but that work is never completed in this life. 

If the old depraved nature is the source of all the sin and the new divine nature is the source of all the holiness and right doing, then do I not have anything to do with which one controls what I do? If so, then are there not three entities at work? Am I a mere bystander in the war between the new and old nature? When I sin, is it because the old nature won and the new nature lost? My beloved father used to say that the two natures of a believer were comparable to a black dog warring with a white dog. So, which one wins? Father said -- "the one to whom I say 'sic em' to." So, that makes three entities. When Paul tells believers to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh, who is he addressing? The sinful nature? The new nature? Or the one who stands between the two?

Cayce wrote further:

"Again, according to his contention, a good man in soul is no better than a bad man in soul. If a thing has to be made good before it can be made better, then a good thing is no better than a bad thing. We have always thought that a good thing was better than a bad thing, and we confess that we think so yet. But Elder Thompson says that he is willing to leave it to any unprejudiced scholar. Perhaps he could not find One that is unprejudiced. If a scholar should say he is wrong, of course he would be prejudiced. If Elder Thompson is right in his contention, then a sound apple is no better than a rotten one; sound meat is no better than tainted meat."

Cayce shows his debate skills in this exchange and has Thompson cornered or in a tight spot. Cayce wrote further:

"Elder Thompson says that "the Scriptures are addressed to the regenerated soul not to the body, which is only natural, without spiritual discernment." The commandments, admonitions, and exhortations, then, are all given to the soul or spirit in the man, and not to the man himself. And the regenerated soul or spirit is pure and holy and cannot sin, and therefore cannot disobey. And the body is still a child of wrath, still dead in sin, like the unregenerate sinner, and cannot obey, and is not even required to obey. No commandment is given in which it is embraced." 

Cayce is demonstrating the absurdity of the view that says that the body or old nature cannot do good and the renewed spirit or new nature cannot sin. By his reasoning he shows how absurd it is to think of a believer through this paradigm. The fact is, a "regenerated soul or spirit" can indeed sin. So Paul exhorted the believers, saying to them "let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1) Notice that Paul includes himself. If he believed that the "spirit" of the regenerated believer could not sin, then why this exhortation? Cayce argues the same way when he wrote further:

(6) (James 5:16) says, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." We wonder what was the matter with them. Remember that Elder Thompson says the Scriptures are addressed to the regenerate soul, and the regenerate soul is as pure and sinless as God is; yet they needed a healing of some kind...The regenerated soul, then, could not obey this command; and the body could not obey it, for it has no spiritual discernment, so EIder Thompson says. Others say it is still dead in sin, just like the alien sinner, and cannot obey. Pray, then, who could obey this command? The spirit could not, for it has no faults to confess; and the body could not obey it, for it is still dead in sin like the alien sinner; besides, it is not required to obey it, for Elder Thompson says the Scriptures are addressed to the spirit."

The Bible with its exhortations, commands, and admonitions are addressed to people, whether they are lost people who only have a fallen nature, or whether they are saved people who have both a fallen nature (called "the flesh") and a renewed nature (called "the divine nature" or  "new man"). Technically the nature in each person is not what is addressed, but the person who has those natures. In our attempt to persuade people we may say to them "I appeal to your better nature in what I say" or "I appeal to your sense of right or wrong or sense of justice" in your judgment of this or that. But, the meaning is that the person is addressed to consider his conscience, or his "good side." 

Misc. News

My wife Paulette is once again in the hospital (since Monday) with pneumonia. This is her third time in the past few months. She might come home today and be on in-home hospital care. Her lung cancer has made it harder to treat her pneumonia. 

I am glad I finished my recent series on "Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means." I believe that any of my Hardshell Brethren who read this series should see the error of denying that the word of God and faith are means in the eternal salvation of sinners.

I am working on finishing my series on Two Seedism and I have a few more chapters to add to my series on "Prevenient Grace." I am also wanting to write a short series showing that Charles Spurgeon changed his views on the ordo salutis, at first believing that regeneration preceded faith and then later seeing them as simultaneous and even that faith precedes.

I also want to finish my series on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I need to write about the fourth horse, the pale green horse. I also want to add a couple chapters to my series on the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse, proving that the Apostle John is one of the two.

There are also a few other series I want to add some chapters to and have many drafts on other subjects. Thanks for your prayers for my wife and me. I sure do miss brother Mann.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (16)

By John Spilsbury

1593 - 1668

The above is the front cover of John Spilsbury's work defending Baptist views on water baptism wherein he refuted the baptizing of infants. It was published in 1643, one year before he signed the 1644 London Particular Baptist Confession of Faith. Below is a publication by layman Thomas Bakewell Presbyterian Paedo Baptist wherein he took aim at Spilsbury's book (above) and also at the 1644 Confession as it relates to whether the confession was correct to limit salvation to those who are believers. 

I have written on this dispute and will call attention to it again now in this series for the purpose of showing that the idea of "faith" being something that is merely a seed planted in infants when they are baptized by believing parents was also a belief similar to what Hardshell Baptists embraced in the 19th century as part of their arguments against 1) the Gospel or word of God being a means in regeneration or eternal salvation, and 2) the idea that cognitive faith (involving trust) in Christ and the Gospel is a necessary condition or means for salvation. In the last chapter we showed how both Hardshells and Paedo Baptists agree that faith may be in a non-cognitive seed form, even in infants, and even in adults.

 

As we saw in the preceding chapter, Hassell spoke of "faith" as sometimes denoting a "latent" or "hidden" faith deposited in some before they ever come to actual faith. Many of his Hardshell brethren likewise spoke of "seed faith" that lies dormant until called forth to actual faith by the Gospel. In chapter 41 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) I have several citations from the written debate that occurred between Thomas Bakewell and John Spilsbury. It does not seem to be available online as it was when I first took notes from reading it. It still shows it is available at elbourne.org when doing a Yahoo search (as in this search page here), but the link for the document seems to be broken. Even if you go to elbourne.org the document containing the debate is not there. 

Well has a writer said of this debate and its relevance to the heresy of Hardshellism.

"Please note that the majority of modern Baptists and many so-called Old Baptists hold the same theology, concepts and conclusions that Thomas Bakewell held. Bakewell was a Presbyterian. This means that the modern Baptists and many of the so-called Old Baptists, if they had lived during those days, would have sided with Bakewell against John Spilsbury. John Spilsbury was one of the most important Particular Baptist leaders and writers of that or any other era. Is it any wonder then that those who are in truth and reality the old Baptists are despised by the modern Baptists and many of the so-called Old Baptists? The sad part is that these rejectors of the old Baptist faith and order are calling themselves Baptists, and even Old Baptists." (emphasis mine - SMG)

I cannot find the source for this but believe it was made by Dr. R.E. Pound. Since he has passed away a lot of his writings are no longer available on the Internet. Pound was well versed in the history of the Baptists, including the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. I will now begin to give some of the back and forth words between Bakewell and Spilsbury.

Bakewell's Attack

Bakewell writes to Spilsbury as follows (emphasis mine):

"In their next article (of the 1644 Confession of Spilsbury and the Particular Baptists) they believe that all who know God and Christ shall have eternal life, but vengeance shall be rendered on all that know not God and Christ: but here I doubt they exclude all infants that die in their infancy from salvation, because they are not capable of such knowledge of God and Christ. You answer saying you know not what is this knowledge, neither hath the Scripture revealed any such that were saved. But was not Jeroboam's child saved, when the Lord Himself saith that there was some good thing in him towards the Lord God of Israel, I Kings 14:15? And did David rejoice that his child was damned, and did he desire to go to hell to his child and rejoice in believing it, 2 Sam. 12:23? And why should not infants that die be saved, when as they may be sanctified, which is eternal life began already? And they may be sanctified as well as Jeremiah and John the Baptist, Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:15. Then, are you a teacher and know not these things?"

"But you say you will not judge them, when as you make it an article of your faith to believe that none shall be saved without this knowledge of God in Christ, which infants are not capable of; yet they may have the seeds of grace in them wrought by the Spirit of God; neither can this be denied, when as they are sanctified by the Spirit of God. Again if I should believe this article, I fear I should condemn many of God's people, which have the faith of adherence, but not the faith of evidence: for many that live a holy life, may want a clear evidence that God is reconciled to them in Christ, therefore I dare not give my faith to believe this article."

Of course Spilsbury does not deny that infants may be saved but he says he does not build a doctrine upon it and says that the scriptures are clear that say a person must believe in order to be saved or baptized. You can read more citations from both Bakewell and Spilsbury in the above chapter I referenced. I simply cite the above to show that the idea of a non-cognitive faith, latent or dormant faith, which knows and believes nothing, is a tenet of the Paedo Baptists. Yet, there is one difference. Hardshell Baptists not only say that baptized babies of believing parents may have this seed or root of faith but also say that many adults have this same seed faith and have it though they have not heard nor believed the Gospel or word of God and have remained pagans, atheists, agnostics, or Muslims. 

In the Gospel Messenger for April 1891 (Vol. 13, No. 4; Read here) in an editorial titled "Salvation is By Grace," Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"In Rom. iii. 23, 24, Paul says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;" plainly teaching that all mankind are sinners, and that those who are justified are justified freely by his grace through the redemption of Christ. We learn from Rom. iii. 23, that it is the believer that is thus justified; and from Rom. iv. 16, that "it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed," just as "grace" and "faith" are used synonymously in Rom. iii. 24, and v. 1."

In chapter fourteen of this series I wrote the following under "Ways Hardshells Define Faith":

1. Faith means Christ

2. Faith means Grace

3. Faith means a seed deposit

4. Faith means ability to believe

5. Faith means evidence of salvation

In the above citation Hassell says "faith" and "grace" are synonyms, which is ridiculous. Faith is a gift of grace no doubt, but that is different from saying faith is a synonym for grace. If that is so, then why do the Hardshells deny that salvation is by faith? Why do they say that being saved by faith means salvation is by works and not by grace? He even cited the words of Romans 4: 16 that say "it is of faith that it might be by grace." To read it as saying "it is of grace that it might be by grace" is nonsense. So too when Paul says "for by grace are you saved through faith." (Eph. 2:8) Further, if faith and grace are synonyms, then to be saved by grace is to be saved by faith. It is interesting that Hassell would cite from Romans chapter three, and verse 24 but omit the next verse which says - "whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." Sinners are justified and have propitiation by grace and through faith.

In another editorial by Hassell, titled "Faith and Its Relation to Salvation," in "The Gospel Messenger" for May 1898 (you can read here), Hassell wrote:

"The Scriptures are so plain upon the subject that all of the ablest Protestant and even Catholic authors frankly admit that faith is the gift of God, the work of God, the fruit of His Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 3—11; 2 Cor. iv, 5, 13; Gal. v. 22; Eph. i. 19—23; ii. 8—10; Philip, i. 29; Heb. xii. 2; John i. 12, 13; vi. 29, 37, 44, 65; x. 26—30; xvii. 1—3, 8—10; Acts xiii. 48; xiv. 27; 1 Joh v, 1.)"

Why does Hassell and his fellow Hardshells insist that "faith" is a "gift of God" if it is what merely is a fruit or by-product of salvation? At times he says faith is an essential part of regeneration and then at other times says it is not, but is what comes later and is only evidence of it.Yes, faith is a fruit of the Spirit, but so too is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, and temperance. (Gal. 5: 22-23) Are these also gifts given to all who are regenerated? What about patience or perseverance? Why deny that these are also gifts of God and his grace? Why deny that they are sovereignly and efficaciously given to all the elect when they are regenerated? 

Consider also that by faith being a "fruit" of the Spirit means it is birthed by the Spirit, for we read in the scriptures of the "fruit of the womb." The apostle John speaks of faith being begotten of God when a sinner is begotten. (I John 5: 4) See my post on this (here). When faith is begotten a sinner is begotten. Further, the faith that is begotten is not some seed or root of faith that infants may possess or adults may possess without actually believing in Christ or the scriptures. 

Consider also that the words "faith is a fruit of the Spirit" does not equate to mean "faith is a fruit of regeneration." The Spirit produces or begets faith before regeneration, for faith unites a sinner to Christ, and by that union a person is then regenerated or born of the Spirit. We could also say that godly sorrow or conviction of sin is also a production or fruit of the Spirit but it precedes salvation. So Paul said: "godly sorrow works repentance to salvation." So people first see their need for Christ and salvation, which is a result of the word and Spirit of God, before they actually reach out by faith and receive the healing remedy. 

Hassell wrote further:

"The word faith occurs two hundred and forty-seven times in the Scriptures; and a comprehensive view of all these passages shows that, as understood by the inspired writers, faith is an experimental manifestation, a conscious realization of personal and spiritual union with Christ."

Hassell betrays his own scholarship by such commentary. I challenge anyone to examine what the Bible as a whole says about faith or believing and then come to the conclusion that it often means something other than cognitive belief in someone or some truth. What does he mean by faith being "an experimental manifestation"? From what he has said elsewhere I am sure he means that faith is not a means of salvation but merely a means whereby a person realizes he is saved. But, I do not believe that the inspired writers thought of faith in this way. Rather than thinking that faith in Christ is a "conscious realization of personal and spiritual union with Christ" the inspired writers saw it as the means of union with Christ. Christ and the Spirit are said to be "received" and this reception is what a convicted sinner actively does by faith in Christ.

Hassell wrote further:

"It is the root-grace, from which spring all the other graces of the Spirit, reverence, fear, repentance, hope, love, joy, peace, thankfulness, contentment, humility, self-denial, patience, resignation, fortitude, zeal, and sincerity; and faith is blended with all these gracious emotions and their exercises."

How is faith "the root grace" if regeneration precedes faith? Would not regeneration be the root grace? It is true that faith is the root grace because "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6) and because "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) If a person were regenerated apart from faith, he still could not please God. He would also still be under God's wrath. (John 3: 36) 

Hassell wrote further and defines faith as follows:

"It is looking to Christ, hearing Him, tasting, eating, and praising Him, laying hold upon Him, receiving Him, coming to Him, fleeing unto Him, and resting upon Him."

Here Hassell gets it right. It is bewildering that he could say this about faith and yet say all the other erroneous things about faith! By this definition of faith there is no such thing as hidden, dormant, seed faith, the kind that is non-cognitive, and that believes and knows nothing. Can a man be saved who has not looked to Christ as the bitten Israelites looked to the brazen serpent on the pole? (John 3: 14-15) Can a man be saved who has not "heard" the voice of the Son of God? Can a person be saved who has not "eaten" Christ the bread of life by faith? Can a person be saved who has not "come" to Christ for life? Can a person be saved who has not "received" or "laid hold of" Christ? It seems that Hassell's above definition of faith, which is the right one, uproots what he has said elsewhere.

Hassell wrote further: 

"The blessed object of evangelical faith is always one and unchangeable — the eternal Son of God, our precious Saviour."

That is true, but what about this latent hidden faith? What is the object of it? Does it believe anything? Can a person be saved who does not have faith in Christ?

Hassell wrote further: 

"In an act of faith, of course it is not God who believes (for God believes nothing. He knows all things), but it is the creature who believes; yet the Scriptures already cited prove that the revelation and power of God cause the faith, whether we regard faith as a feeling, act, principle, habit, or state of the soul."

"Whether we regard"? Are we not to define Bible words by what they mean in the language and day in which they were used and by how they are used by the biblical writers? Where in all the scripture is "faith" defined as a "feeling" or "habit" or "state of the soul"? Does it not always mean belief or trust?

Hassell wrote further: 

"And when the Scriptures state that we are saved, justified, sanctified, or kept by or through faith, the language is of an experimental nature, and the meaning is that, by or through believing in God, we experience or realize our interest in His saving, justifying, sanctifying, and keeping power — faith is the manner in which the power of God, the life of Christ, in our souls, manifests itself in our salvation."

What a sweeping assertion is made here by Hassell! Every text that says people are saved, justified, sanctified, or kept by faith, means that it really does not do those things but simply makes a person to "realize" that he has an "interest" in salvation, justification, etc.? That faith only "manifests" that a person has already been saved and justified and regenerated? Who gave Hassell and the Hardshells the right to handle the word of God in this manner? Will the Lord not hold them responsible for this twisting of his word? Jesus said "except you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins." If Hassell is right, then failure to realize you are saved will damn your soul! 

Hassell wrote further: 

"When Paul, quoting from Moses (Rom. iv. 3 — 25; Gen. xv. 6), says that Abraham's faith was counted or imputed to him for righteousness, he plainly means as shown by the context and other Scriptures (Rom. iii. 21—31; v. 15—21; 1 Cor. i. 30, 31; 2 Cor. v. 21; Philip, iii. 3 — 11), that, not the act but the object of Abraham's faith, the righteousness of God, the righteousness of Christ, His active and passive obedience, all that Christ did and suffered, were imputed to Abraham for righteousness, and Abraham by faith realized."

It is true that faith is not the ground or legal basis why any condemned sinner is justified, yet it is the way in which this justification is put to a person's account (or imputed). In this chapter in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) I cited from Dr. A.H. Strong's Systematic Theology where he said:

A. We are justified by faith, rather than by love or by any other grace:

(a) not because faith is itself a work of obedience by which we merit justification, for this would be a doctrine of justification by works,

(b) nor because faith is accepted as an equivalent of obedience, for there is no equivalent except the perfect obedience of Christ,

(c) nor because faith is the germ from which obedience may spring hereafter, for it is not the faith which accepts, but the Christ who is accepted, that renders such obedience possible, but

(d) because faith, and not repentance or love or hope is the medium or instrument by which we receive Christ and are united to him. Hence we are never said to be justified dia pistin, = on account of faith, but only dia pisteos, = through faith, or ek pisteos, = by faith. Or, to express the same truth in other words, while the grace of God is the efficient cause of justification and the obedience and sufferings of Christ are the meritorious or procuring cause, faith is the mediate or instrumental cause."  (pg. 160, 161)

What Hassell is essentially affirming is that faith in Christ or in the one true God is not a necessary condition for being saved from sin, and that is one of the worst and dangerous heresies, a lie of the devil, or "doctrine of demons." How many have gone to Hell because of this teaching by the Hardshells? When the Bible says Abraham was justified by his act of faith, the word faith does not mean the object of faith. If I have faith in the local bank and trust company does my faith mean the bank? Boy, would that not be nice?

Hassell wrote further:

"We are said to be justified not for or on account of our faith as a cause, but by or through faith, as a medium by or through which we realize our union with Christ and our interest in His righteousness."

It is good that Hassell agrees with Strong that faith is not the ground of justification. But, when he says that faith is "a medium by which we realize" our union or justification, then he teaches a dangerous heresy. By saying this he is making faith non-essential for salvation. How he can uphold such a proposition in view of the avalanche of scriptures that says faith is essential is bewildering. Also, he has already said in other places that faith is a part of regeneration!  

Hassell wrote further:

"The faith of God's elect is the effect and evidence of regeneration or the new birth (John i. 12, 13; iii. 3 — 16; 1 Pet. i. 21 — 23; 1 John v. 1); and it is the source or spring of obedience..." 

We have already refuted this proposition. The texts he cites do not say that faith is an effect or evidence of having been born of God. First of all, Hassell does not believe that faith is an automatic effect of being born of God, for he and his brethren believe that most of the regenerated never come to faith in Christ. 

Second, how can he read John 1: 12-13 and say that faith follows becoming children of God since the text says "as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become the children of God"? 

Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church Name Change

 

The above is the church building for Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church. Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. was the founding pastor of the church, which was formerly a Landmark Calvinistic Missionary Baptist church until Bradley and a faction of that church "went Hardshell" and were constituted in 1958 as a "Primitive Baptist" church. A huge gathering took place to constitute the church and ordain Bradley and Bradley at once became the most desired minister among the Hardshells and he went everywhere among them holding meetings. He also had a large radio ministry that was supported by the "Primitive Baptists" far and wide. 

My father, Eddie K. Garrett Sr., knew Bradley, father himself being also a Calvinistic Missionary Baptist living near Cincinnati. Several years later, about 1965, father also "went Hardshell" and his small church also re-constituted as a "Primitive Baptist" church. He and his church joined Cincinnati church and it was re-constituted as a "Primitive Baptist" church also and father was ordained an elder the same day at the Cincinnati church.  

When I united with father's small church (meeting at that time in Trenton, Ohio) in August 1972, father took me to Cincinnati church where I first met Elder Bradley. I would sometimes go to Wednesday services at Cincinnati in 1972-1975 before I moved to North Carolina in March, 1976. Years later Elder Bradley gave me counsel when I was being told by the Bear Creek Association in North Carolina that my prior ordination was not valid and so I needed to be ordained again. I didn't think so. Elder Bradley encouraged me to not fight the brethren on this. 

A few years after this he invited me to fill in for him at Cincinnati and the church paid for my flight from Charlotte to Cincinnati. I also used to take some of my church members from eastern North Carolina to the big October meeting at the Cincinnati church (their annual meeting). At that time hundreds of Hardshells came from all over the country to attend, including dozens of preachers.

A few years ago Elder Bradley began to speak against the Hardshell doctrine of "time salvation." He also was attacked for believing in the sure and certain "perseverance" of saints rather than merely their "preservation," although the founders of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists believed in the former and is what is taught in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. He was also attacked for his support of missions and his belief that the Great Commission was given to the church. In the Primitive Baptist Library's Web Page (See here) we find this written:

"On June 16, 2001 (Saturday of their annual meeting), Shiloh Church, near Kimball, Nebraska, took a public stand against liberalism. The pastor announced that the church was unanimously agreed not to commune with those who believe or defend the heretical views of Gus Harter and Lasserre Bradley, who are the best-known leaders of the effort to establish a mission system among the Primitive Baptists, on the false principle that the commission was given to the church rather than to the apostles, with preacher schools, etc."

So, though Elder Bradley was once the most recognized and useful minister of the "Primitive Baptist" church, he in his later years was shunned and disfellowshipped by most Hardshells. The same thing happened to my own father after having been so popular among the Hardshells, after he was shunned for believing in the fall of Satan and the angels from heaven. But, that is another story. So, it is no wonder that Cincinnati church will no longer be called "Cincinnati Primitive Baptist" church but "Parkway Baptist Church." 

I have become a close friend of Elder (Dr.) Jeremiah Bass, the pastor of the church. He is a very able scholar of the word of God and has a fine family. The church has lost members over the past couple decades due to the shunning by the Hardshells. A few years ago when I was at Cincinnati church Elder Bradley told me that they had recently lost several members over this trouble. I hope now that they will begin to grow and prosper. I am sure the Lord is pleased with their direction and leadership. 

A few years ago I wrote about what Elder John Clark, a first generation leader of the "Primitive Baptist" church, said about the name the Hardshells called themselves, writing the following:

"We belong to that order called Old School, and by that we understand, in regard to salvation, all that is embraced in the doctrine of grace--and a strict construction of the scriptures throughout. But when that cognomen is sought to be used as a cloak and shelter for errors of the worst kind, we eschew it, we protest against it, appropriated to such a purpose." 

"We never understood, in taking a stand 20 years ago against new measures in religion, that all who should enlist under Old School banners were to have the unbridled license to introduce and propagate any or all of the exploded dogmas of the dark ages, and it would all be sanctified by the wonderful charm imparted by the Old School colors under which we are sailing."

"We get up excitement upon a particular question, parties are formed, and we get fully under way in our march against opposing interests, and ere we are aware, we have been led or driven to an extreme far beyond the error we commenced battling against. Such is precisely the condition in which we consider some of the Old School Baptists at present." 

"Such cunning craftiness has been displayed in introducing the wild doctrines among us, that the strange anomaly is frequently witnessed, of seeing brethren, sound in the faith when they express their own sentiments, actually affirming that they are not aware of the existence of any sentiment among professed Old School Baptists inharmonious with their own!"

(page 1 Vol. 1; no. 7 for April 1, 1854, in his periodical "Zion's Advocate" under the title "Old School Baptists")

See my post on this citation (here). I believe many of today's "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists feel the same way. What the Hardshell sect has evolved into was well described by Clark. Now, today, the name "Primitive Baptist" has too much baggage. Many of the first churches in the anti-mission movement who adopted the name "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell," towards the end of the 19th century, had to disassociate themselves from that sect because that sect declared against their belief that God uses means in the eternal salvation of sinners, or who believed in preaching to sinners, or who believed the Great Commission was given to the church, etc. 

For instance, notice what happened at the start of the 20th century among the Hardshells in what was written in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical by Elder C.H. Cayce under the title "OUR WORK ENDORSED" for October 10, 1905. Cayce cites from the minutes of the Forked Deer Association of Tennessee for September, 1905 and gives the following from their minutes:

"By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."

So, I pray that God honors the stand of Elder Bradley, Elder Bass, and the Cincinnati Church for their stand on the Bible and that they see a period of growth in the coming years and that they will be used by God to reach many of the lost sheep. It is good that any Hardshell church not be connected with the sentiments expressed in the above resolution of the Forked Deer Association.

"Finish, then, thy new creation"?

Recently in my series "Prevenient Grace" (chapter 16; See here) I wrote about how being created in Christ is not a finished work, but is a continuous creation. I wrote:

Consider also that Calvin believed that it was better to view "regeneration" as only begun when one is born of God, and continues all through the life of a believer, just like being renewed, transformed, or conformed to the image of the Son, or being sanctified, etc. We can also say that our being "created in Christ Jesus" is both a past experience and a continuous one. That is why a famous Christian song says "he's still working on me to make me what I want to be. It took him just a week to make the moon and the stars, the sun and the earth, and Jupiter and Mars. How loving and patient he must be, he's still working on me." That truth is entailed in the fact that believers are daily being renewed and transformed. It is one of those instances of "already but not yet" that we see in scripture. I have been created in Christ Jesus but I hope he is not finished re-creating me for I know that I am not yet fully made into the perfect man.

Six years ago I wrote an article titled "Did God Rest When He Saved You?" (See here) In that article I also wrote about how being created anew is an ongoing work of God. One of the verses I cited was this:

"And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1: 6)

If this work is "regeneration," then it is ongoing as Calvin believed. If it is being created anew, then it also is ongoing and won't be finished till "the day of Jesus Christ." It does not seem that being born of God is the "good work," for if it was then birth would be a process that would not be completed until the day of Christ. 

Recently I heard sung the famous hymn "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling" written by Charles Wesley (1747) and I focused in on the fourth stanza that says -- "Finish, then, thy new creation; Pure and spotless let us be." So, was Wesley right to see our re-creation as not finished? I think so. What think ye?

John Spilsbury's Belief About Regeneration

John Spilsbury

1593 -1668

In 1643, Spilsbury published 1) A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme, which he reissued in a second edition in 1652, "Corrected and enlarged by the Author, 2) Peculiar Interest of the Elect in Christ," 3) "God's Ordinance, The Saints Privilege," (1646). He was a signatory of the first Particular Baptist Confession of Faith in 1644 by several London Churches. His views are reflected in both the 1644 and the 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith. Though "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists claim that these old confessions taught their views on salvation and that the signatories of those confessions held to their views, this is a falsehood. 

In this blog I have numerous articles from the authors of these old Baptist confessions which show that they believed that sinners are saved by faith, which faith is the result of hearing the word of God, truths denied by those who falsely claim to be "original" or "primitive" Baptists. Here is what John Spilsbury wrote as article number five 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."

Observations

First, we see that Spilsbury equates being "effectually called" with "regeneration," a point denied by Hardshell leader Sylvester Hassell. In chapter thirteen of my series "Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means" (See here) I cited where Hassell said "Regeneration precedes Effectual Calling." 

Hassell also said: "Regeneration goes before and causes faith." But, again, this is not what Spilsbury and the signatories to the two old confessions (mentioned above) believed and expressed in those confessions. Spilsbury said God first "works faith in the hearts" to make people "believe in Christ" and that as a result "are made righteous" and "made holy through the work of regeneration." The word "thus" shows that he believed, as John Calvin, that both justification and regeneration follow union with Christ by faith. He also taught the sure and certain perseverance of all those who are regenerated, another doctrine denied by the overwhelming majority of those who falsely call themselves "Primitive Baptists." 

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (15)

As we saw in the previous chapter the Hardshell Primitive Baptists give a definition to "faith" (noun - Greek "pistis") and "believe" (verb - Greek pisteuō) that is unscriptural. See my post "pisteuō and pistis" (here) for a larger commentary on the meaning of these Greek words.

There are several errors that people have on "faith" (pistis) as it is used in the Bible. Some say there are two kinds of faith, one that denotes belief and another that denotes the ability to believe. I will have more to say on this shortly. Another error that some have is to say that "faith" sometimes means "faithfulness" in the Bible. It is true that the verb "believe" is often in a present tense linear form so as to mean "believing habitually" but that is not the same as "faithfulness." It is interesting that the Hebrew word for "faith" in "the just shall live by faith" (Habakkuk 2: 4) is the same word translated as "faithfulness" in many places in the old testament. However, in the KJV new testament the Greek word for "faith" is never translated as "faithfulness." Also, we have the adjective pistos and would in that case include the idea of faithful, or simply mean "man of faith." 

Dr. Mack Griffin who tutored me in Greek taught that the noun faith had a drastic difference in meaning than the verb believe. I disagreed and argued with him about that. I told him that there was no essential difference in me saying "I love (verb) you" versus "I have love (noun) for you." When Jesus said "have faith in God" (Mark 11: 22) he means "believe and trust God." 

Many think that when Paul spoke of unbelief not making "the faith of God without effect" (Rom. 3: 3) that "faith of God" means "faithfulness of God." However, I think that is quite unlikely. I give several reasons why this is not so in my eleven part series titled "God's Faith?" You can read them in the archives of this blog for January through March of 2016. It is clear from the context that "faith of God" denotes the same thing as the creed of God as when Jude says believers should "contend earnestly for the faith." (Jude 3)

Faith is belief in something, assurance of truth, a persuasion of religious doctrine, and when directed towards a person involves trust. It also may denote the set of beliefs that are believed. By its very nature it is cognitive and involves the mind and a person's thoughts or creed. To speak of "faith" as not involving belief, or cognition, or being below consciousness, is totally without foundation in scripture, nor do people use the word in this manner in common speech. I will enlarge upon this in this and the next chapter. For now let us return to what Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote in "The Gospel Messenger" for May 1926, in an article titled "ANOTHER UNPROFITABLE AND DEPLORABLE STRIFE OF WORDS." He wrote:

"All Primitive Baptists are agreed upon the unconditionality of our eternal salvation, and the inability of those who are dead in sin to render spiritual obedience to the law of God. Instead of repentance and faith being conditions prerequisite to salvation, we understand that they are the work of the Holy Spirit in the renewed heart, and are thus essential parts of salvation; and, until this spiritual renewal, the fallen child of Adam will love sin and hate holiness and continue in rebellion against God."

So, according to Hassell, is faith and repentance necessary for salvation? He says that they do not precede salvation, but he does affirm that both are "essential parts of salvation." That is not what most "Primitive Hardshell Baptists" believe today. If faith and repentance are essential parts of salvation, then he must affirm that the preaching of the gospel is a means in producing faith and repentance. We have already seen where the apostle Paul says "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) And, repentance is likewise a result of hearing the word of God. The same apostle said:

"6 And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, 7 so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe. 8 For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything. 9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." (I Thess. 1: 6-10 nkjv)

Here we see that the saved people Paul addresses in the church of Thessalonica had become followers of the Lord as a result of "having received the word" that he preached and revealed to them. We also see that they became believers or possessed faith as a result of hearing Paul preach the word. We also see how their repentance, or their having "turned to God from idols," which is what repentance is, was the result of having heard the preaching of Paul. 

Elder R.H. Pittman, who compiled these Questions and Answers in 1935 while Sylvester was still alive, responded to the following question with his own answer (emphasis mine):

"Q. How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent? Does this mean that there is no salvation in heaven where there are no preachers to preach? 

 

A. No. Paul was defending the preaching of the gospel, to the Gentiles. And remember, there is a gospel faith - a belief of gospel truths, separate and distinct from the faith of God's elect. The saving faith of God's elect may exist in those who never hear or understand the preaching of the gospel. Infants, idiots, the deaf, and millions cannot be reached by the preached gospel, and surely there is salvation for them. However, there is need for the preached gospel, and a belief of gospel truths is proof that such believer "hath everlasting life." The right living and right preaching of a minister also saves from false ways and false doctrines. In this sense they cannot believe and cannot be saved without the preacher, and there cannot be preaching unless one is sent to preach." 

Notice that Pittman gives no scripture that says 1) that the faith of God's elect is not a faith in the gospel or word of God, and 2) that "saving faith of God's elect may exist in those who never hear or understand the preaching of the gospel." Further, how can he say this since his mentor, Sylvester Hassell, is on record as saying: "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)"? How can he say this when Paul says "faith comes by hearing the word of God"? (Rom. 10: 17) Paul did not say: "one kind of faith comes by the word of God and another kind of faith does not come by the word of God." 

Notice also that Pittman not only gives no scripture to support his assertions but relies on human reasoning or philosophy, saying "Infants, idiots, the deaf, and millions cannot be reached by the preached gospel, and surely there is salvation for them." How does he know that? The scriptures do not address this question and "secret things belong unto the Lord." (Deut. 29: 29) On that we will have more to say in the next chapter.

Also, notice that according to Pittman God's salvation of millions does not save them from "false ways and false doctrines." This is what the Hardshells more and more began to believe as the 19th century was coming to an end. A person could be regenerated or born again and yet still believe in many false gods and false religions. On the argumentation that the salvation of infants proves that the word of God is no means in salvation, I will have more to say shortly. 

The hermeneutical method Hardshell apologists use to defend their tenet that says the written word of God or the Gospel is no means in salvation, whether in the new birth, or in eternal salvation, when confronted with texts that seem to contradict that tenet, is to say that when the salvation of a text is conditioned upon hearing or believing the word of God, or on anything a person does, then it is not talking about eternal salvation, or regeneration, but a "time salvation" which is not necessary for eternal salvation. In this post (here) I cited from Elder David Montgomery of recent years who cited from Elder Afton Richards (who I met in 1976 when I was preaching in Texas Primitive Baptist churches) and his book "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist" (1956). In it Richards gave us the Hardshell method for dealing with texts that say faith and hearing the gospel are means in salvation, writing the following:

"When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they (Hardshells) 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."

By this we see how their denial of means controls how they interpret scripture regarding salvation. They believe their proposition is absolute, inspired truth, and they pervert scripture to make it agree with their proposition, a proposition which is not taught in scripture. However, they should revise their man-made propositions to conform with scripture. The same is true with their hermeneutical method regarding faith and its relation to salvation. That method is stated by Pittman in the above citation. 

Most times the Hardshells will say that "faith" is no means, nor condition, nor necessary prerequisite for being eternally saved, affirming that it only 1) saves in a temporal sense and not in an eternal sense, and 2) when a text is dealing with eternal salvation to say that the "faith" is a "seed faith" which is "hidden" or "dormant" or "latent" in a person and which does not believe any gospel truth. In my post "Hassell on Faith" (here) I cited from his editorial "Faith and it's Relation to Salvation" in "The Gospel Messenger" for May, 1898. In it he wrote the following about this "latent faith":

"Even in that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, and in evangelical repentance towards God for sins against Him, there is latent or hidden faith, just as there may be in a liquid a dissolved and unseen solid; and this latent faith, while it does not comfort, yet does some­thing even more important in humbling the soul and caus­ing it to hate sin..."

Hassell gives no scripture to prove his thesis about faith. His analogy of "latent faith" being a kind of deposit or solid substance deposited in water, thus becoming an "unseen solid," is an invention that has no support in scripture. A better metaphor for this view of "latent faith" would be to compare it to a virus, parasite, or germ. In fact many who hold this view say it is comparable to a "seed" and so speak of "seed faith." This view was borrowed from the Paedo Baptists as a result of their practice of baptizing infants.

"Latent" or "Seed" Faith

Paedo Baptist theologian Francis Turretin (1623 -1687) wrote (as cited here; emphasis mine):

“Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrumentation being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)” (Institutes 15.14.13, vol 2, p. 586)."

You can read more about what Turretin wrote on this in his "The Faith of Infants" (here). The Rev. Dr. Robert S. Rayburn of Good Shepherd PC, Minneapolis said the following in elaborating this view of the infant baptizers (See here; emphasis mine): 

"This sermon relates in a general way to the baptism of my granddaughter, but as often as I have preached about baptism and infant baptism, I don’t believe I had ever preached on the subject of infant faith, on our covenant children as believers even when they are babes in arms and still incapable of instruction in the gospel, of making a choice to believe, or of confessing their faith. It is that infant faith that is my subject this evening. In Minneapolis they live in Lutheran country. Actually, so do we here in Tacoma. Lutheran theology has a strong doctrine of infant faith. The great John Gerhard, perhaps the most influential of Lutheran theologians after Luther himself, wrote: “We are not solicitous about the mode of this faith, but we simply acquiesce in the fact that infants really believe.” [Cited in Schmid, Doctr. Theol. of the Evan. Luth. Ch., 549] I mention that simply to assure you that the idea of believing infants is not unique to the Reformed Church. The Lutherans, however, are more likely to derive their doctrine of infant faith from the logic of salvation (if justification is by faith and necessary for salvation, then infants, especially those who die in infancy, must have faith); the Reformed from the plain-speaking of the Bible."

Again, there are no scriptures that say that infants have faith. Those who try to find scripture to support that view will often 1) go to Bible passages where it seems to affirm that some dying infants are saved and then reason that they must have had faith, and 2) go to Bible passages that speak of little children praising God or coming to Christ. In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here), chapter 41, I dealt with the issue of "infant regeneration." (See here) 

For instance, those who say infants have faith will cite the words of Christ who said "suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not" (Matt. 19: 14) and say this proves infants have faith. But, the "little children" are not infants, but little children who are capable of being exhorted and who can "come" to Christ with their hearts and minds. Some will cite the words of the Psalmist who said that the Lord had made him "hope upon his mother's breast." (Psa. 22:9) However, "upon mother's breast" does not necessarily denote an infant sucking the breast, for many little toddlers lay upon mother's breast after they have been weaned. Jesus did say that "out of the mouths of babes and sucklings" comes praise. (Matt: 21:16) But, clearly these are not infants because Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2 in the temple when children were shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David" and while the chief priests and scribes were trying to silence them. Infants do not shout such praises.

The chief text, however, that Paedo Baptists have used to affirm infant faith is the case of John the Baptist who "leaped for joy" at the greeting of Mary the mother of Jesus. (Luke 1: 41) However, this does not seem to be merely a latent faith of the babe, but a cognitive faith, and this was a miracle and unique to the Baptist who was "filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb." (Luke 1: 15) On this we will have more to say in the next chapter when we look at what John Spilsbury in the early 17th century had to say about it in his debate over this question with a Paedo Baptist. 

Rayburn said further:

"Taking all that the Bible says together, mysterious as this may be in some respects, our fathers concluded that since faith is a fundamental disposition of the soul as well as a specific action, infant faith is first what theologians call a habitus, by which is meant a capacity or a spiritual disposition, we can speak of even babies in the womb as possessing that. Our theological tradition uses a rich terminology to speak of this capacity of faith from which actual acts of faith eventually spring. They spoke of faith as a seed; they spoke of the root of faith in an infant’s heart; of an inclination to faith; of faith as a principle already present perhaps even in the womb. [Bavinck, Saved by Grace, xxxii; citing Ref. Dogm. IV, 525] Calvin spoke of “a tiny spark” of the Lord’s presence in an infant’s heart which heart “[God] will illumine in the future with the full splendor or his light…” [Inst. IV, xvi, 19-20]"

This is what Hardshell Baptists also have come to argue. They too say there are two kinds of faith. In this post (here) I cited from Elder Zack Guess on how the Hardshells define faith. He first rightly said:

"The Greek word most commonly translated "believe" in the New Testament is PISTEUO. The meaning is "to believe, be persuaded of, to place confidence in." (W. E. Vine)." 

But he then disregarded this and said:

"Faith" is "the ability to believe." So, if one believes, he is exercising the faith which he already has."

That is exactly what Turretin and Rayburn and the Paedo Baptists affirm. But, it is not what Baptists have historically believed and is why they only baptize those who have come to faith or actual belief in Christ and the Gospel.

Rayburn said further:

"But, if so, how much more with little children, who have the root or the seed of faith which only slowly grows to bear fruit that we can see. When we stop to ponder this, as we should, we realize that our own salvation, however it came to us, whether as very little children or as adults, is a supreme mystery of divine grace and power. What precisely is the new birth? How does the Holy Spirit bring it to pass within us? How do we become and in what respects do we become new creations in Christ? What actually changes? Our appearance is the same, our personality remains largely the same, our powers of intellect and will, our dispositions, our talents remain much the same, and yet we are new people, new from the bottom up and from the inside out. The change occurs down deep, below our conscious awareness." 

Again, this is what Hardshells believe and teach. But, it is all an invention for the scriptures do not teach such nonsense.

Rayburn said further:

"It is only the Christian who has forgotten what an utter mystery his own salvation is who can quibble at the Bible’s assertion that babies in the womb are spiritual beings who can have faith, even if it is faith only in the seed or the root...This fact of infant faith is a grand demonstration of the nature of our salvation as the gift and the work of God, mysterious as it must be."

Again, this is what Hardshell Baptists teach but it is not taught in scripture. It is a wonder that the Hardshells do not baptize infants of believers.

Faith is Belief

"But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" (James 2: 18-19 nkjv)

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Heb. 11: 6 nkjv)

These texts show that "faith" involves believing truth propositions. A person who has faith believes in "one God," and believes that "God is," and believes that God "is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him." It also involves "coming to God" with the heart and mind. Some of those who teach that faith is not a means of salvation but merely an evidence of salvation will cite verse one of Hebrews chapter eleven where the inspired writer says -- "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."(vs. 1) They stress the interpretation that faith, actual faith, not seed faith, is what follows (in some cases, but not in all cases) regeneration, being "evidence" of a salvation that preceded faith. However, that is not what the verse is saying. See my post on this text (here). The problem with this interpretation is that the Greek word for "evidence"  (hupostasis) is misunderstood. In that post I wrote:

"Hupostasis is a very common word from Aristotle on and was used in Greek to describe that which stands under anything such as a building, a contract, a promise. It is common in the papyri in business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions or with the meaning of a title deed. Thus one translation renders it "Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for."

A T Robertson on hupostasis: "It is common in the papyri in business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions." 

So, unless you have actual faith that believes the things enumerated in the context, you do not have a right or title to eternal life. Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest translates the text as: "Now faith is the title deed of things hoped for, the proof of things which are not being seen."