Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (9)

The Bible teaches that one must come to know God and his Son Jesus Christ in order to be saved and to go to heaven. Here are some of the proof-texts for that affirmation:

"...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 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. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." (II Thess. 1: 7-9 nkjv)

"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" (Matt. 7: 23 nkjv)

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10: 14)

If you ask the typical "Primitive Baptist" today whether a person needs to know God and Jesus Christ to be saved, you will generally get a "no" for an answer. Some will hedge, however, and contend that people do come to know God and his Son but on the subconscious level, which is ridiculous. It is saying that there are people who don't know that they know Jesus and his Father. In saying this they will identify those who are worshipers of other gods as people who on the sub-conscious level actually know the one true and living God and his Son Christ Jesus. Hardshell apologist R.V. Sarrels actually taught this in his book "Systematic Theology." They say that many people who worship other gods are "born again" and "know God" which is ridiculous. Sarrels wrote:

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion–repentance, faith, and justification–may be present only embryonically...The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progressive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands. The child of God, be he heathen or cultured, may not understand all that is woven around his life in God, yet in germ all is there. (See Rom:2:14)" (Systematic Theology, page 369) 

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

Elder C.H. Cayce wrote:

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

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

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

Since the above texts about knowing God and the Lord Jesus tell us that one must intimately know God and Jesus, how then does one come to know them? The above text in the heading tells us. You cannot know God nor Jesus unless you are informed about who they are, and the way anyone comes to be informed is by the word of God in the Bible. That is what the inspired apostle said and yet what he said is not believed by the Hardshell Baptists, and the citations from Sarrels, Cayce, and Daily show this.

People must know God and know Christ to be saved and this knowledge is necessary for having faith or belief. You cannot know that George Washington was the first U.S. president unless you are informed of that fact. 

Some of them will tell us that "faith" is a gift of God given to all the elect ("faith of God's elect"; Titus 1:1) and that Christ is known because the Father reveals Christ to each elect person (Matt. 16: 17) and that the Father is known because Christ reveals the Father to each of the elect (Matt. 11: 27; Luke 10: 22), all which is true. However, if that is true, then why do many of them teach that many of the elect never come to know Christ or the Father but remain pagans? They often talk about the American Indians being children of God and born again even before the white man came and brought to them the word of God. But, if the above texts about having the Father and Son revealed to a person is what occurs when he is born again, then why did the American Indians know nothing about the Father and the Son? 

Is the saving knowledge of God present in a heathen idolater as a "germ" or virus, the person having it being unaware that he has it? Is that not ridiculous?

Elder C.H. Cayce taught that the Athenian idolaters to whom Paul preached Jesus and his resurrection in Acts chapter seventeen had already been born again and were the children of God even though they did not yet know Jesus nor the Father and were worshiping other gods when Paul came there. See my post (here) on that, where I cite Cayce on that point. The apostle Paul however did not believe that anyone who did not know the one true God nor the way of salvation through Christ were regenerated children of God. He wrote to the Galatian believers saying "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods." (Gal. 4: 8 nkjv) Notice that people who do not know God, the one true God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, worship and serve many false gods. There is no one who worships many false gods and at the same time knows God.

Elder Samuel Trott, predecessor of Sylvester and leader of the "Old School" Baptists wrote the following in "CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE" in 1845; You can read here on page 41 of his several writings; emphasis mine):

"A coming to Christ is admitted as necessary by all professors. I will, therefore, here show that Christ has said that none can come unto Him except they are taught of God. The words are, “No man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me,” &c. (John 6:44-45). Thus he evidently represents the drawing and teaching as the same thing. Teaching has to do with the mind, not the animal feelings; it is an instruction of the judgment, or a giving of understanding to the things taught. But God’s teaching is not like man’s, a mere enlightening of the head whilst the heart is untouched. It is a revelation of truth in the heart, so that the affections are arrested; there is a heart-feeling of the truth taught, and a heart love for it. To come to Christ, or to be believers on Him, we must know Him in His true character as the Savior of sinners."

"The position I have taken relative to this subject will, I think, be admitted by every reflecting Christian as the Scriptural one when he considers that the promises of salvation run alone through faith in Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 and Mark 16:16). And that faith implies a knowledge of Christ, and this knowledge evidently is only from being taught of God. "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22). I hope this brother, on a re-examination, will be able to tell us something of what he has learned of Jesus and of His saving power." 

That was the general view of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. They did not believe that a person was saved who did not believe in Christ and the Father and who did not place his faith in Christ for salvation.

Present day Hardshell apologist Elder David Pyles, in his work "Perfections Of Grace," wrote the following on page 56 (emphasis mine): 

"Sylvester Hassell also testified to the antiquity of the doctrine in private correspondence with William Crouse where he said:

"So far as I know, the Kehukee Association never entertained or endorsed the doctrine that God sometimes uses the preached gospel in regenerating sinners...Man, not regenerated by God’s Spirit, may have a natural conviction of sin and conversion (a turning from their outward evil conduct). In my time I never knew one of our ministers or members to believe or maintain that the preaching of man is a means of regeneration; nor do I suppose that in 1778 any minister or member of the Kehukee Association held that the Holy Spirit comes through the human preacher to quicken into life a person who is dead in sin. He may regenerate a sinner while the minister is preaching, but He does so by His own direct operation in the sinner’s heart or spirit. True conviction and conversion are the effects of immediate Divine regeneration. – (Regeneration or the New Birth, p 73-74)

However, in the preceding chapters of this series I have shown where many "Primitive Baptists" in the days preceding Hassell, and even in his day, taught that sinners were begotten by the gospel. I have shown that even his father C.B. Hassell taught that view. I cited from Elder Joshua Lawrence who taught that view and he was a leader in the Kehukee Association before Sylvester. In chapter six of this series I cited from the Kehukee's original articles of faith which said:

2. We believe that Almighty God has made known his mind and will to the children of men in his word; which word we believe to be of divine authority, and contains all things necessary to be known for the salvation of men and women. The same is comprehended or contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, as are commonly received.

7. We believe that in God’s own appointed time and way, (by means which he has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned and sanctified; and that it is impossible they can utterly refuse the call; but shall be made willing by divine grace to receive the offers of mercy.

As I have stated, the literature of "Primitive Baptists" is full of falsehoods. The Lord willing I hope to assemble all these falsehoods in the future. Their "historians" often gave false information and a false narrative concerning historical events. 

Pyles also cites these texts and comments as follows:

"The scriptures that Calvinists most commonly cast against immediate regeneration are: 

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. – 1Cor 4:15 

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. – James 1:18 

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. – 1Peter 1:23 

These are also the texts with which Gill struggled in his indecision on this subject." (pg. 57) 

These texts do teach that God uses his word or gospel in producing birth children and it is believed by both Calvinists and Arminians. Also, Pyles is giving a falsehood when he says that "Gill struggled in his indecision on this subject." Gill, in all his writings, in his commentary, Body of Divinity, etc., never denied that the gospel or word of God was a means. In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) in chapters 58-65 I showed where Gill taught the means view and never changed his mind on it. I showed where the Hardshells pick one sentence from his Body of Divinity, from his section on "Regeneration," where they think he changed his mind, and which is not the case. In that section Gill wrote:

"Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": (Gal. 3:2), that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."

So, Pyles and his brethren tell a falsehood when they say Gill taught that the gospel was no means in regeneration in his Body of Divinity.

Now, let us return to Sylvester Hassell's polemic against means via his editorial "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12 here). Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"In James i. 18, "Of his own will begat He us with the word of truth," the verb rendered "begat" occurs in only one other passage of the Scriptures, James i. 15, where it is correctly rendered, in the King James Version, "bri" (John 10: 14 kjv)ng forth," and so it is correctly rendered in James i. 18, in the Revised Version and the latest Baptist Version; it never means "beget," but always means "bring forth"; it thus refers not to the communication, but to the manifestation of life. The verb rendered "beget again" or "born again" (it is the same word in the original, and should always be rendered "beget again ") occurs in 1 Pet. i. 3 and 23. In the first of these verses, there is not the slightest allusion to human instrumentality; Peter says that God hath, according to His abundant mercy, begotten us again or regenerated us by, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" —the resurrection of Christ, who is our resurrection and life, being the virtual or procuring cause of the resurrection from death in sin or the regeneration of all the members of His mystical body (John xi. 25; Eph. ii. 5)." "

Is Hassell saying that the "bringing forth" is not a birth? Is he agreeing with his older brethren who taught that the "begetting" preceded the "birth" or the "bringing forth"? Does he believe that a person is born who has not been brought forth in birth? Does he believe that only the begetting is necessary for eternal salvation but the birth is not? Who is it that begets? Is it not the father who sires or plants the sperm? Who is it that "brings forth" in the birth? Is it not the mother? But, notice in the text that James says it is the Father who "begets" or "brings forth" in the birth. This shows that James does not see two stages to spiritual birth as there are in physical birth, and as most first generation Hardshells believed. The passage speaks analogically of how lust begets sin that gives birth to death.

"Then when lust hath conceived (syllambanō - to conceive, to become pregnant), it bringeth forth (tiktō - produce or generate, as of a woman giving birth) sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth (apokyeō - give birth to) death." (James 1: 15)

There is no doubt that James uses the several stages of birth to illustrate how death is produced. Lust conceives sin and then sin is developed as a child in the womb, and then finally sin, when matured, gives birth to death. Does James affirm that spiritual birth likewise has stages to it? That there are gaps in time between being conceived by God and being brought to the birth by God? The first Hardshells believed so. However, I don't think that James intended to teach this. He does however use a word that focuses upon being born from the womb. In the book of Isaiah God said:

"Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God."  (Isa. 66: 9)

Here we see where birth is viewed from the standpoint of delivery from the womb. God says in his birthing children into his family that there are no abortions or miscarriages. All who are begotten are brought to the full birth, a fact that is denied by today's Hardshells, but not denied by their forefathers. On this passage and the verse preceding it John Gill wrote the following in his commentary:

"As in the natural birth it is he that gives strength to conceive, forms the embryo in the womb, ripens it for the birth, and takes the child out of its mother's womb; so he does all that answers hereunto in the spiritual birth...God will not shut the womb of conversion until they are all brought to faith in Christ, and repentance towards God."

Today's Hardshells, however, do believe that "the womb of conversion" is shut for most of those who God has begotten. Gill comments further upon these words of the text - "for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children" (vs. 8), saying:

"...this is to be understood of the pains which Gospel ministers take in preaching the word, which is the means of regeneration, and they the instruments of it; and so are called fathers, who through the Gospel beget souls to Christ; and of their anxious concern for the conversion of sinners, and the formation of Christ in them, which is called a travailing in birth; see (1 Peter 1:23) (James 3:18) (1 Corinthians 4:15) (Galatians 4:19) (Romans 8:22 Romans 8:23)

Hassell said further:

"In the other verse (the 23d) Peter says that we are "born or begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Here the construction of the phrase "by the word of God" (the preposition dia with the genitive case) is exactly the same as that of the phrase, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," in the 3d verse; and as that of the phrase, "by Him" — "who by Him (that is, by Christ) do believe in God," in the 21st verse; and as that of the phrase, "through the Spirit"—"obeying the truth through the Spirit," in the 22d verse; so that it would seem, from the context and the construction that Peter means, by "the word of God" in the 23d verse, not the written or preached word, but the incarnate, personal, essential Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, once crucified, but now risen and glorified, and ever living, and pouring out His Spirit of life, faith, and obedience upon His people, by which Word all things were created and are upheld, and which Word is preached or proclaimed by the gospel. By "the word of God" is sometimes meant, in the Scriptures, His effective will (Psalm cxlviii. 8 ; Heb. i. 3 ; xi. 3; 2 Pet. iii. 5, 7). If Peter here means the preached word, he uses the term "regenerate" (as Paul does in 1 Cor. iv. 15 and Philemon 10) in its wider sense as including conversion (see Acts ii. 38 and iii. 19). Christ did not commission Peter to regenerate His people, but to "feed His lambs and sheep" (John xxi. 15— 17); and Peter similarly exhorts other elders. (1 Pet. v. 1—4)."

Hassell gives three interpretations that he will accept in regard to I Peter 1: 23 and one that he will not accept. He says that "the word of God" 1) may denote Christ, or 2) may denote a word God speaks apart from his written word, as when he created the heavens and earth, or 3) may denote regeneration in its broad definition which involves conversion. However, if the latter is accepted, then surely he must admit that the written word or gospel is a means, for even the Hardshells admit that conversion is by such means. But, Hassell has already denied that the word of God in the text has reference to the written word of God. As far as the "word of God" denoting Christ, I have already responded to that idea in the preceding chapters of this series. 

Why is Hassell, and his brethren, so vehemently opposed to the idea that the "word of God" means the written revelation or good news? Is it because there are some texts that say the word of God cannot be a means? Is it not rather because they base it upon their own reasoning and carnal logic? In chapter six of this series I cited Romans 1: 16 where Paul said that "the gospel of Christ" is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes." In Hebrews it is also written:

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4: 12 nkjv)

To the Thessalonian Believers Paul wrote:

"For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 5)

Since these texts say that the gospel or word of God is an instrument of divine power, why should anyone be opposed to the idea that such divine power is instrumental in raising the spiritually dead?

A Sad State of Affairs

We are living in what the bible calls "perilous times" (II Tim. 3: 1) characterized by people being "lovers of their own selves," or narcissists, and "covetous," that is "lovers of money," which is the root of every kind of evil (I Tim. 6: 10), and yet who are stingy and selfish at the same time, serving the money god "mammon" (Matt. 6: 24). They are also characterized as being "proud boasters," braggers or self-promoters, egotists and megalomaniacs, "heady" and "highminded." 

They are also characterized as being "blasphemers," spewing forth every kind of evil speaking, even against God, and is prevalent and widespread. When we speak evil of others we are speaking evil against God for they are made in God's image and likeness. (James 3: 9-10) 

Such perilous times are also described by people being "disobedient to parents," and "without natural affection," and rebellious to all authority, which is an example of people doing what is right in their own eyes and who have no moral compass. 

Paul also describes the persons of those perilous times as being "unthankful," and why? Is it not because they feel like they are owed or deserve what they have? He says in those times people will be generally "unholy," morally filthy, irreverent, and will be "trucebreakers," people who cannot keep their word or covenants, being dishonest, "traitors," deceitful, and "false accusers." Think of all the divorces! Think of how many people are calling so many people "racists" unjustly! 

Paul says times will be perilous because people are, with few exceptions, "incontinent," without self control, and who are "fierce" people, acting wild and crazy, being also "despisers of those that are good," and actually "calling good evil and evil good" (Isaiah 5: 20), a horrible state of existence! Paul then concludes by saying people will be "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God." (verses 2-4)

These prophesied "perilous times" are described in this way:

"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17: 6 kjv)

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (21: 25 kjv)

Is this not what we see today? There are several reasons for it too. Was it not in the days of the Judges because there was no one, no legal authority, to prevent people from doing anything and everything? We see how today there are those who want to do away with the police or any government agency that keeps people from "doing their own thing." In the above texts we see how it was because there was "no king" or restraining authority that people did whatever they wanted without any restraint or consequences. Did you know that when I was born in 1955 that adultery was illegal? That homosexuality was also illegal? That businesses had to close on Sunday? That children in school said the pledge of allegiance and were led in prayer by their teachers? 

LORD God had commanded the people to not do what they thought was right in their own eyes, but were to be governed by the law of God. So we read:

"Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes." (Deut. 12: 8 kjv) 

"And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee." (Exo. 15: 26; See also Deut. 6: 18; 12: 25,28; 21: 9) 

Today’s philosophy disregards this instruction and says “if it feels right, then do it” or “you be you” or “do our own thing.” It is moral subjectivism metastasized or  on steroids. People say to their parents, to the authorities, yea, even to God -- "Who are you to tell me what not to do?" 

Solomon said: "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the hearts." (Prov. 21: 2 nkjv) He also said: "There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14: 12 nkjv)

What people need is a desire for truth and a method for finding it. As for religious and moral truth, it must come from our Creator, from the God of the bible. In Isaiah chapter twenty eight there are people who are said to "have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." (28: 15 nkjv) I wrote about this phenomenon in these posts (here and here). Many people today do not want the truth. They had rather put their trust in lies. As some say in romance, "tell me pretty lies," so do people say that about religious truth. 

People also don't want anyone to challenge their beliefs, to upset the apple cart of their beliefs. Yet, they need the very thing they resist. Said Solomon again: "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." (Prov. 18: 17 kjv) Lately I have been watching numerous videos of a young man named Luke who is a street preacher and a very able apologist for the Christian faith. He often engages people about religious belief, and has battled atheists, Muslims, etc., and issues such as abortion. You can go to this YouTube page (here) to see his many videos. When you watch the interaction he has with people you will see how he is often dealing with people who are comfortable doing what is right in their own eyes and who don't want people showing them their errors or their sins. No one likes to admit he is wrong. That is a sad state of affairs.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (8)

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

I Thessalonians 5: 21

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (Eph. 1: 11-14)

"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (4: 30)

As in preceding chapters in this series, I will begin by citing another text that disproves the view of Hassell and the "Primitive Baptists" before critiquing further Hassell's polemical writing "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12  here). 

I would also call the reader's attention to an old post from 2008 titled "Hardshell Ordo Salutis" (here) wherein I gave a lengthy rebuttal to Sylvester Hassell's article "Order of Salvation Divine" published in "The Gospel Messenger" for December 1896. Combining that old article with this series will give my Hardshell brothers and sisters a through refutation of Hassell and the Hardshells on the question of whether the gospel is a means in the eternal salvation of sinners.

In the above texts the apostle Paul mentions the "sealing" of believers, which he also did in his other epistles. In II Corinthians 1: 22 he wrote: "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." Is he not alluding to what occurs in regeneration or conversion? Is not the "giving" of the "earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" not the salvation experience? Sealed "unto" the day of redemption is also translated as sealed "for" the day of redemption, coming from the Greek preposition "eis." If sealing involves being given the Holy Spirit and is for the purpose of redemption, then it is something essential to redemption, and if it is, then the Hardshell idea that faith is not necessary for being eternally saved is false because the sealing takes place "after you believed." 

The word "sealed" is from the Greek word "sphragizō" and means to mark a thing for the purpose of owning and authenticating it. It is a way of saying of something - "it belongs to me." When a person, in primitive times, "sealed" a letter, he put his stamp or mark upon it. This seal or mark was often done on wax placed on the folded document. In the process of "sealing" the document an "impression" is made in the wax. Thus, when people are saved, after believing, they are "sealed," owned by God, impressed upon or marked by God, which impression or engraving is in the believer's nature, heart and mind. A signet is a seal or personal mark of identification and ownership. Cattle ranchers call their seals "brands." Each cattle owner had his own brand, his own symbol, his own mark, his own seal. Believers are sealed and branded in their renewed spirits when they are taken possession of by the Lord in conversion and this occurs "after" they believe.

Sealing also refers to protection of property in the Scriptures. Sealing protects items from tampering, and makes them safe and secure. "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." (Matt. 27: 66) When the Lord saves his people and the Spirit takes possession of them, he seals their hearts and sets a watch upon their souls. The seal also serves as proof of identity. It is put with a signature or in place of it in letters, agreements and private or public instructions. As such, circumcision, as a seal, authenticates, certifies, and attests to the veracity of the inward faith that Abraham possessed and believers possess (Rom 4:11).

The image of sealing also refers to God’s approval (John 3:33; 6:27; 1 Cor. 9:2). Thus we speak of a product or document having a "Seal of approval." Thus we read: "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (II Tim. 2: 19)

Of course, Hassell, Cayce, and the Hardshells will say that this "sealing" has nothing to do with eternal salvation or becoming children of God. They are forced to do so because to connect it with being raised from spiritual death would overthrow their proposition which says "nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven," which is what their "Two Seed" forefathers taught. But, it is clear that no one is going to heaven who has not been "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." 

I would just call upon my Hardshell brethren to come and "prove me wrong" in what I am saying in this series. Solomon said: "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Prov. 18: 17 nkjv) I am proving you are wrong on the question of means and on what precedes and what occurs when a sinner is born again. If you think I am wrong, come and "prove me wrong." Examine my arguments as I have yours.

Now let us pick up where we left off in reviewing Hassell's article titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION." In it Hassell wrote further (emphasis mine):

"In a similar figurative manner, Paul in Gal. iv. 19, represents himself as the mother of the Galatians. If Paul had said that he gave spiritual life to the Corinthians or Onesimus, he would have flatly contradicted both his own experience and all his other language on this subject." 

This is an example of what is called a "false narrative." Simply because Paul was an instrument God used in saving sinners does not mean that Paul "gave spiritual life" to someone. That is an example of Sophistry and misrepresentation. God gives eternal life but he gives it through his word and when people believe his word they have life through that means. The bringer of the word of God to sinners does make the preacher a means in salvation but he is not the one who does the saving. Paul and all Christians are to put all their effort into "holding fast the word of life." (Phil. 2: 16 nkjv)

"The word of life" is a genitive and it is clear to me that it is an "objective genitive" and so means "word unto or into (or gives) life." The genitive construction here is better taken in the sense of “the message that brings life,” not “the message concerning life." It is the work of the bible interpreter to discern what kind of genitive is intended in a given text. For example, the phrase "the love of God" as an objective genitive means "love for God," but as a subjective genitive means "God's love for us." Therefore "word of life," as an objective genitive would mean "word unto life." It could also be what is called a genitive of apposition and so "word of life" would mean "word which is life." If it is used as a genitive of source it would mean "life which is from the word." N. T. word scholar W.E. Vine says -- 

"The word of life is not here the Living Word, the Person (as in 1 John 1:1); only John uses logos in that sense; it is the (living and life giving) message, the gospel. It is called the Word of life because it ministers spiritual life and imparts the knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, which the Lord said “is eternal life” (John 17:3)." (Collected writings of W. E. Vine; emphasis mine)

Paul perhaps has these words of Christ in mind:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life...But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (John 6: 63, 68-69 nkjv)

These verses show how Hassell's statement questioning whether Paul had given "spiritual life to the Corinthians or Onesimus" is unfounded. Paul merely "held out" the "word of life," the word that quickens the dead. (Psa. 119: 50, 93) Many "Primitive Baptists" developed the idea that "the words" that Christ spoke are only "spirit" and "life" when he personally utters them but are not spirit and life when those same words are spoken by his messengers, which is ridiculous. That idea forces them to say that when they report the words of Jesus to people they are not then spirit or life, and so must be spiritless and dead words. Every Christian who gives to others the message of Christ, or the gospel or word of God, is giving "the words of eternal life" which "are spirit and life." John Gill, who Hassell and his brethren claim as one of them, commented on verse 63 as follows (highlighting mine):

"the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life; the doctrines which Christ had then been delivering concerning himself, his flesh and blood, being spiritually understood, are the means of quickening souls. The Gospel, and the truths of it, which are the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, are the means of conveying the Spirit of God, as a spirit of illumination and sanctification, into the hearts of men, and of quickening sinners dead in trespasses and sins: the Gospel is the Spirit that giveth life, and is the savour of life unto life, when it comes not in word only, or in the bare ministry of it, but with the energy of the Holy Ghost, and the power of divine grace."

Many Hardshells will also argue that by the words "the flesh profits nothing" means that humans cannot be employed in giving the words of Christ to others and cannot in any sense be a means in sinners being saved and receiving spiritual life thereby. No bible commentator takes that view, nor would any bible reader see that in the text. You have to have help from Hardshells to see that interpretation. It is clear from the context that "flesh" means Christ's own flesh. Notice these words from the context:

"53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." (vs. 53-55 nkjv)

If one could literally eat Christ's flesh (as the Catholics say they do), it would avail nothing. Eating Christ's flesh is done by faith when a believer eats Christ the "bread of life" through meditating upon Christ and taking his message into the heart. We eat Christ when we receive his words which are spirit and life. Surely the Hardshells can come up with a better text to prove their no-means belief! Why don't they simply cite a text that affirms their no-means view instead of reading it into the words "the flesh profits nothing"? 

How did Paul's being an instrument in spiritual birth, either as a father or mother, or a kind of midwife, "flatly contradict both his own experience and all his other language on this subject"? God, as we have seen, identifies himself as both father and mother to his people. So, it is not a contradiction for Paul, as God's instrument, to be both. The same is true with regard to "giving eternal life," as I have explained. 

The argument that when a preacher is used in a work, whether of regeneration or conversion, God is not the one doing the regenerating, converting, or resurrecting is ludicrous. If that were so then God did not bring life to the dry dead bones in Ezekiel chapter 37 because he used Ezekiel as an instrument.

Now let me show the reader, especially those of our readers who are "Primitive Baptists," that many of their founding fathers believed that the word of God was a means in spiritual birth. This being true, why did Hassell not tell us this?

Elder John M. Watson in his "Old Baptist Test" (first published in 1855, revised in 1867) wrote:

"To show that the will of God is in His word, of His own will, says James, begat he us with the word of truth. The proof that His everlasting love is in it, is that with loving kindness He draws believers to Christ." (page 421)

Elder R.W. Fain, an associate with Watson (both were physicians in the Nashville area) wrote the foreward to the later edition of "The Old Baptist Test." He and Elder J.B. Stephens (also a physician and associate of Watson) were editors of "The Baptist Watchman" published out of Nashville after the Civil War and they both contended for God's use of the means of his word in the eternal salvation of sinners. I have several posts in this blog that give citations from that periodical to prove this. Fain wrote the introduction to the second edition of the "Old Baptist Test." 

Elder Hosea Preslar, also an associate of Watson, in "Thoughts On Divine Providence" (1867) wrote:

"...the other is the child of God, that was begotten by the word of truth; James 1: 14; I Cor. 4: 15; I John 5: 1." (Page 112)

"This is the new man begotten by the word of truth; yea, begotten of God; I John 5: 18." (page 185)

He says that the gospel "is moreover to be for a witness unto all nations; Matt. 24: 14; and for the awakening of sinners, who are dead in trespasses and in sin." (page 187)

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25."

I have already cited from Elder Joshua Lawrence of the Kehukee Association, a predecessor of Elder Sylvester Hassell, but an associate of his father C.B. Hassell, said:

"...the effects of the preaching of that gospel on good ground hearers produces the children of his kingdom. Hence it is said, born not of flesh, blood, or will of men; but of the word of God, that liveth and abideth forever. And again: I have begotten you through the gospel, etc." (third volume of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical, 1838, page 306)

"Although Christians are sons and daughters of God, yet they are not begotten of a woman; but through the gospel by the same Spirit that begot the body of Christ by Mary; therefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (pg. 310)

Further, if one reads "The Primitive Baptist" periodical of the 1830s up to the time of the Civil War he will see many correspondents who wrote to that paper and espoused the means view. Elder Mark Bennett, the first editor, certainly believed as elder Lawrence. Elder James Osbourn, a recognized leader among the founders of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" sect believed in means as I have shown in several posts in this blog. He was a close friend of Elder C.B. Hassell who we have seen also believed in means. 

Elder John Clark also wrote in his paper "Zion's Advocate" (1854) for June, 1858:

"Now for proof that God does make use of means, or second causes, in awakening dead sinners. "I have begotten you through the gospel" (I Cor. iv. 15). "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5). "Whereunto he calley you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thes. ii:14). "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers, by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man" (I Cor. 3:5) "To OPEN THEIR EYES, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" &c. (Acts xxvi.18) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ FOR IT IS THE POWER OF GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth, the the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16) "Now when THEY HEARD THIS they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD" (Acts xvii.20) "And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the SAYING OF THE WOMAN, which testified, he told me all I ever did" (John iv.36). Of his own will begat he us WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth forever. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH THEM and confirming the word with signs following. So shall MY WORD be that goeth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall ACCOMPLISH that which I please, an it shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it (Isaiah lv.11) If the above named scriptures are not sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that God does make use of means and instrumentalities in awakening and making alive dead sinners, then the bible is of but little use; as well without as with it.

Elder Samuel Trott from his work "The Absolute Predestination of all things," written in 1833, wrote:

"But we as firmly believe that God “has chosen” His people “to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth;” that: “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” (II Thessalonians 2:13) and that while the “preaching of the cross is unto them that perish, foolishness; unto us who are saved it is the power of God” (I Corinthians 1:18)."

For more citations from Trott on this question read my post (here).

In the "Primitive Baptist" periodical for January 8, 1842 (you can read it here) there is a Circular Letter printed by the newly formed South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (1840) and here is what they say about the gospel being a means in new birth or spiritual resurrection:

"We believe, brethren, all those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased in his own appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature. Christ enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. Again, Acts, 26: 18 "to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins." God has said he will take away the heart of stone, and give unto them an heart of flesh. And we believe he renews their wills by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them, to Jesus Christ. Yet they are made willing by that grace given them."

So, why did Sylvester Hassell not tell his readers these things? His arguments on why it is not possible for God to use his word in saving sinners from spiritual death were not believed by his own father C.B. Hassell nor by the first ministers of his own Kehukee Association, nor by most of the first leading ministers of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist church.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (7)

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power." (Eph. 3: 6-7 kjv)

As I have done in preceding chapters in this series, I will first cite a text that disproves the view of Sylvester Hassell and of those who arrogantly and falsely claim to be "Primitive Baptists" before citing further from Hassell's polemical writing "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12  here). 

The above text clearly shows that becoming "partakers of his promise in Christ" was effected "by the gospel." Well did Elliott in his commentary say: "In Christ by the gospel.—These words should be joined with all the three preceding. Of all the privileges of the new life, the being “in Christ” is the substance, the reception of the gospel in faith the instrument." That being correct, we affirm that for anyone to be 1) a "fellow heir" with the children of God, and 2) a member of the body of Christ, or to be "in Christ" (denoting having vital union with Christ), and 3) a "partaker of his promise in Christ," it must be "by the gospel" as a means. Being "in Christ" is "by the gospel." That is because being united with Christ is "by faith" and "faith is by the gospel." Christ is "received" by "faith" (John 1: 12-13) and Christ "dwells" in people "by faith." (Eph. 3: 17) "Faith comes by hearing the word of God" said the apostle Paul. (Rom. 10: 17)

In resisting the truth of this text, the anti-means Hardshell must deny that eternal salvation is what Paul is talking about when he speaks of being a fellow heir, or united to Christ, or being a partaker of the promises of salvation. Anyone who is not biased, however, will see that it is eternal salvation that Paul is talking about. 

Now let us return to our analysis of Sylvester Hassell's article titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" where he writes to defend the "no means" view of salvation. In that article Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"In 1 Cor. iv. 15 and Philemon 10, Paul uses the verb "beget" or "regenerate," not in a primary and literal, but in a secondary and figurative sense, or in its wider meaning as including conversion, as explained by his own language in 1 Cor. iii. 5, 6 ; he did not at all mean that he had given spiritual life to the Corinthians and to Onesimus, but simply that he had been the minister by whom they had first believed in Christ, the planter or founder of the Corinthian Church; it was only to those already called and saved of God that the preaching of the gospel was the power of God (1 Cor. i. 18, 24); it was only of God, and not of Paul, that the Corinthians were in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. i. 30, 31); in this great matter of regeneration, of the infusion of divine and eternal life, a planting Paul and a watering Apollos were equally nothing (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7); and thus he exhorts the Corinthians not to glory in men, but to glory only in the Lord (1 Cor. i. 31 ; iii. 21)."

I have already responded, in chapter four of this series, to Hassell's baseless assertion that the birthing of I Corinthians 4: 15 and Philemon 1: 10 cannot be that birth that Jesus talked about in his conversation with Nicodemus in John chapter three. It is only the Hardshells of today who think that the birth via the apostle Paul had nothing to do with the birth of the Spirit. Notice that Hassell says that the begetting of the texts may have a wider meaning so as to denote evangelical conversion. In previous chapters in this series we noticed that Hassell agrees that the older Calvinists, including John Calvin himself, viewed conversion (of which faith and repentance are the main elements) as experienced within biblical regeneration and that some later Calvinists began to restrict the definition so as to exclude conversion. In the above words of Hassell he seems to think those two texts do allude to a broader definition of regeneration. 

If there is a broad definition of regeneration or rebirth that includes conversion, and follows faith and repentance, then Hassell cannot legitimately or logically say that the gospel is not a means used by God in that birth. We have already seen, in chapter five of this series, Hassell's answer to the question "Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?" In reply he said: "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)." We also called attention to Elder C.H. Cayce's declaration which said: "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." So, if there is a preaching of the gospel which Jesus does by his Spirit in regeneration, then why is Hassell saying that the gospel is not a means? 

We have also seen where Hassell and Cayce have affirmed that Jesus preached by the Spirit through Noah. Since that is true, then why fight the view that Christ regenerates by preaching he does through his Spirit filled preachers? In II Corinthians 13: 3 Paul says that Christ was speaking in him when he preached the gospel. Further, Jesus said to his appointed preachers of the gospel -- "whoever hears you hears me." (Luke 10: 16) 

Hassell says that the birth of I Corinthians 4: 15 and Philemon 1: 10 may be used to denote regeneration or rebirth in a "wider meaning as including conversion." If that is so, then is evangelical conversion not effected by the gospel or word of God? It seems that Hassell is chasing his tail in such reasoning. So, why is the idea of God's use of his gospel word as a means in giving spiritual life to dead sinners so vehemently opposed by Hassell and the Hardshells? We have shown how Hassell and his brethren simply make assertions and put forth premises that are not found in scripture. Where in the bible is it said that God uses no means in regeneration or new birth or in initial salvation? 

As I have previously stated, Isaac is said to have been "born after the Spirit," i.e. supernaturally. (Gal. 4: 29) Yet, both Abraham and Sarah were instruments or means in that birth, even though neither of them could have children. Consider also that Isaac's birth "after the Spirit" was a result of the word of God, of God's promise. (Rom. 9: 9) Further, if Paul was born of the Spirit when Christ appeared to him and preached or confirmed the gospel to him on the Damascus road, then the gospel was a means in his rebirth. Also his rebirth involved his conversion, his becoming a believer in Jesus and repentance or change of mind or turning.

The apostle John taught that people were "born of God" by their "receiving" or "believing in" Christ. (John 1: 12-13) See my post on this text (here). John says "to as many as received him to them he gave the right or privilege to become children of God." The words "become" and "children" (Greek tekna) denote those who are children by birth. So, since means are employed by the Spirit to beget faith, and since faith is the medium for becoming birthed children of God, then the view of Hassell and his brethren is therefore overthrown. I know, I know, that they will claim that John's words in verse thirteen "which were born...but of God" are in a tense that shows that the birth preceded the receiving and the believing. However, I show in my post on that text that such argument is not true. In it I wrote:

"Received" in "received him not" and "received him" are Aorist tense (indicative active). "Believe" is a present tense, active participle. "Were born" is Aorist (indicative passive). The argument is often made that since "believe" is a present participle, active voice, and "were born" is Aorist passive, the birth must precede the believing. But, that is simply not the case. For one thing, though the word "believe" is present yet "received" is Aorist. The only difference in "received" and "were born" is that one is active and one passive voice. The tense and aspect are the same. They are both Aorist. Therefore, the argument is null and void that says the "receiving" and the being "born" do not occur together."

Hassell in the above citation said: "in this great matter of regeneration, of the infusion of divine and eternal life, a planting Paul and a watering Apollos were equally nothing (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7)" I am bewildered by this comment. Is he saying that the planting of Paul and the watering of Apollos were not means? Also, does he think that the text deals with regeneration? It seems so. That being the case, we see where Paul and Apollos were indeed means in regeneration. Yes, of course, God must give the increase. The word preached is unsuccessful without God's blessing. The Psalmist said "except the Lord build the house they labor in vain to build it" and "except the Lord keeps or watches over the city the watchman watches in vain." (Psa. 127: 1)

I think Hassell says "the verb "beget" or "regenerate" (used in I Cor. 4:15 and Philemon 1: 10) is used "not in a primary and literal, but in a secondary and figurative sense, or in its wider meaning as including conversion" for another reason. Surely he knew that many of his brethren before him, and even in his day still, believed that there were distinct stages to being "born" of God. These brethren saw two phases of regeneration or rebirth, one restrictive and one broad. Just like human physical birth has both a conception in the womb and a later birth or deliverance from the womb, both being called a birth or begetting, so did a large portion of "Primitive Baptists" of the nineteenth century see two stages or kinds of spiritual birth. I have many articles showing this, giving citations from many nineteenth century Hardshells. I will give some examples now.

Elder Samuel Trott (1783-1866), one of the ringleaders of the old school sect, and a writer for the "Signs of the Times," and an associate with Elder Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), and who was a Two Seeder like Beebe, wrote the following:

"Regeneration, as I hold it, is the implanting in an individual, or adding to his mind, that incorruptible seed which Peter speaks of, even the spiritual seed of Abraham, which is Christ, Christ in you, and which is that life that was in the Word, which is the light of men; for Christ is the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world John 1:9. Hence this individual sees his relation and accountability to God and to the law, and sees his sinfulness as he never saw or felt it before, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

"The new birth I understand to be the being born again of the incorruptible seed by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever. Whether by the word of God in this text is understood the essential Word, who is God, or, as is frequently intended by the word of God, that which God directly speaks or communicates to a person, is immaterial, for both ideas are true. For Christ said, "Verily, verily I say unto you, The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live" John 5:25. This person being, as we showed, dead, killed by the law, is now made to hear the voice of the Son of God, the proclamation of pardon and salvation through Christ's atonement."

"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted (1st stage or regeneration- SG), and then a quickening (final stage or rebirth/quickening - SG) by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth." ("THE NEW BIRTH," from the Signs of the Times, 1853)

"The position I have taken relative to this subject will, I think, be admitted by every reflecting Christian as the Scriptural one when he considers that the promises of salvation run alone through faith in Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 and Mark 16:16). And that faith implies a knowledge of Christ, and this knowledge evidently is only from being taught of God. "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22). I hope this brother, on a re-examination, will be able to tell us something of what he has learned of Jesus and of His saving power." ("CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE," 1845)

I have many citations from the 1830s till the end of the nineteenth century from many "Primitive Baptists" who espoused the same view. It was the common view. Many taught that the begetting was regeneration (strictly defined) which then produced conviction of sin, a sense of guilt and lost condition (corresponding to being in the darkness of the womb), and it was believed by many that this was often done apart from the means of the gospel or word of God. However, they all believed that after the begetting and after a time spent in the darkness of conviction there would come the birth proper, the deliverance from the womb, when the previously begotten or regenerated soul would be brought to evangelical faith in Christ and experience deliverance and a hope in Christ. That is what Trott was saying in the above citation. 

Many who held this view frequently called the "birth" that followed the "begetting" a "manifestation." But, they did not use it as many later Hardshells have used it. The manifestation was an essential part of being born and when the bible speaks of the necessity of being born of God or the Spirit it included all aspects of birth. A person is not born of God before he has been delivered from the womb of conviction and found assurance of salvation in Christ through the gospel.

The following posts give numerous citations from many "Primitive Baptists" of the 19th century who believed as Trott. (this link here gives other links to other posts that give citations; see also here; here; here; here) Let me give the reader some further citations from those chapters by the first Hardshell Baptists.

The following is from Wilson Thompson's (1788-1866) book "Simple Truth" published in 1821. It is a composite of several of his sermons. His book "Triumph of Truth" was published in 1825. In discourse #6 in "Simple Truth" under "On the Work of the Spirit after Justification" Thompson said (emphasis mine):

"This change wrought by the spirit, is called regeneration because it is begetting them unto a divine nature. The first work of the spirit on the heart is regeneration, or the implanting of that incorruptible seed with cleaves to holiness, and so it is sometimes called quickened, because this is a living seed, that causes the motions of life to appear, and this is always followed by the new birth which is effected when the soul is enabled to view Christ by faith, and lay hold of the comfort contained in the gospel, and so they are said to be born again, not of corruptible seed, but of an incorruptible seed, by the word of God."

Notice that Thompson says that "regeneration" "IS ALWAYS" followed by the new birth, which shows that he did not believe as do later "Primitive Baptists" that a person did not have to believe in Christ to be saved. In other words, he believed that all who were regenerated would later be converted, which is what is stated in many old church articles of faith where they say that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted." Elder William Conrad (1797-1882) of Kentucky, an associate of Thompson, wrote the following in his autobiography ("Life and Travels of William Conrad") in 1876:

"There is also a begetting and being born, but our being born does not give us life; we are born because we have life; but there is a begetting, and previous to this begetting there is no vital or actual existence; but there is eternal decreed, purposed or treasured in Christ before it is given, and in due time we are said to receive it according to the election of grace; and therefore we are said to be the Temple of God, which is holy, which temple ye are." (Chapter 25)

In chapters 52 and 57 of my work titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I give citations from Gilbert Beebe and Trott on how the new birth has two separate events connected with it. (See here and here) In chapter 52 I give lengthy citations from Trott as published in the "Signs of the Times." In chapter 57 I give these citations from Beebe:

"We also, with brother Buckles, hold that regeneration, in the order of things, and according to the word, must precede the new birth. How can that be born of God that is not first begotten of him?" (Elder Gilbert Beebe, Middletown, N.Y.June 1, 1868. Editorials, Volume 7 – Pages 198-202)

Notice that he believes that "regeneration precedes the new birth." He also wrote:

"Regeneration, as we understand it, like generation, involves the begetting, conception and birth, of that which is generated...In the order of regeneration, or the development of the children of God, no intermediate agencies are employed, no system of means can bring forth the promised seed..."

"When a sinner is thus quickened, the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, is implanted in his heart, and the evidence of this implantation is first given by a sense of the purity and holiness of God, and the spirituality of his law, contrasted with a sense of guilt, pollution and just condemnation of the person to whom this communication is made, and consequently a struggle for deliverance. The ear is now opened to hear the thunders of Sinai, and the eye is made to see the justice of God as a sin avenger; a brokenness of heart that he or she, as the case may be, has been all their lifetime in open rebellion against so holy, just and righteous a God, who has followed them with his mercies all their days. A sense of his goodness leads them to repentance, contrition and humble acknowledgment of their guilt. Now the quickened and awakened sinner becomes burdened with the load of depravity...Now all this conviction, contrition, lamentation and distress, is the legitimate consequence resulting from life implanted, and indicates to all who know experimentally the way of life, that the poor sin-burdened soul is drawing near to the time of his birth, or deliverance. He who has thus arrested him, and brought him to a sense of his lost and helpless estate, will perform the work in his own time, but the burdened soul must wait until "God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, shines in [not into] his heart, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." -2 Cor. iv. 6. Or, as Paul relates his own experience, "When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me." - Gal. i. 15. Then by the revelation of Christ in us the hope of glory, the way of salvation through him is brought to view, the burden of guilt is removed, the blood of Christ is applied, the demands of the law are canceled, the curse is removed, the prison doors are opened, the captive is delivered, the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, old things are passed away; behold all things have become new; a new song is put in his mouth, even praise unto God, the gospel pours its joyful sound into his quickened ears, his goings are established and he is a new creature..."  ("REGENERATION AND THE NEW BIRTH" in Signs of the Times for September 1, 1857)

Now let me cite from Dr. J. P. Boyce (1827-1888) who was founder and first president of Southern Baptist seminary, on this question as to whether there are two separate stages of spiritual birth and whether evangelical conversion is part of biblical regeneration. Boyce wrote:

"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration." ("Abstract of Systematic Theology," CHAPTER XXXII - "REGENERATION AND CONVERSION")

Boyce, a Calvinist, did not say that conversion was separate from regeneration as did the first Hardshells and as do many five point Calvinists who call themselves "Reformed Baptists" and many Southern Baptists churches that are associated with the "Founders" movement. This organization's web page is (here). My dear departed ministerial brother, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, was a tireless opponent of this organization because it taught the "born again before faith" error. James White and the late R.C. Sproul are leading apologists for this error. Many of the brethren who teach this error praise Boyce and think he agreed with them in teaching that the new birth preceded faith (or conversion). However, in the above citation he does not agree with that view. Boyce's view is the same as John Gill who I cited on this point previously. Boyce in the same section said:

"At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration."

Boyce says that in the scriptures "the whole work of regeneration and conversion is included under the one term regeneration." So, the Founders organization and others who espouse the view that regeneration precedes conversion cannot claim Boyce as agreeing with them. As I have previously said, many who hold the "born again before faith" error have used an analogy for their view which is to say that regeneration and conversion are two sides of a coin. The regeneration side is the side where God acts and the sinner is passive and the conversion side is where the sinner acts and is active. The first Hardshells would say that one side of the coin is "begetting" and the other side is "birthing." Boyce however says that the coin itself is regeneration and has two parts, one involving the cause (God) and the other the effects (sinners believing and repenting or being made alive). 

In the above citation Hassell said: "it was only to those already called and saved of God that the preaching of the gospel was the power of God (1 Cor. i. 18, 24)."

That is hardshellism in a nutshell. Recall the words of C.H. Cayce who said:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through the gospel. God does not reach them in the work of regeneration through preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional."   (Cayce's Editoria Writings, Volume 6, page 176)

In another editorial titled "SALVATION BEFORE FAITH," published October 30, 1906, C.H. Cayce wrote (emphasis mine): 

"We most assuredly think you are correct in saying salvation precedes faith." 

So, both Hassell and Cayce say one is saved before faith. In saying this it is quite puzzling that neither of them cited a single bible passage that plainly says such a thing. On the other hand, we have numerous texts that say salvation follows faith. One of the most famous is Ephesians 2: 8 which says people are saved by grace through faith. Let us cite the context, being verses one through ten.

"1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (KJV)

This text is very troublesome for the view of the so-called Primitive Baptists. They have come up with several devious ways of attempting to make it harmonize with their views, one of which is given by Hassell and Cayce and affirms that salvation from sin, or initial salvation, occurs before and apart from faith in Christ. Reader, does the above text say that salvation is before or after faith? Clearly it is after faith. So, how is it possible for the view of Hassell and Cayce be true? 

It is useless for the scripture twisting apologists for Hardshellism to successfully deny that it is eternal salvation, including regeneration or quickening, that is the subject of verse eight. That being so, we see that salvation, regeneration, rebirth, quickening, and being a new creation is "by grace through faith." There is no "time salvation" in the passage, nor a salvation that is not necessary for going to heaven. The salvation of verse five ("for by grace are you saved") all Hardshells say is eternal salvation and obviously it is for it is a summary statement the apostle gives for why a person is "quickened" from being "dead in sins," and this is why he says "for" which is the same as "therefore." The salvation of the chapter is therefore an eternal salvation, and particularly that salvation that had already occurred in the lives of the Ephesian believers. 

The salvation of the verses entails being "raised with Christ," being "quickened" to life from "death in sin," becoming God's "workmanship" or new "creation," having one's "course" in life drastically changed from living in sin to living for Christ, being no longer under the power of Satan or "prince of the power of the air," no longer possessed of his "spirit," no longer "children of wrath." When does a sinner come out from being under the wrath of God? Jesus answered this question by saying: 

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

So, the point in time when the Ephesians Paul is addressing were "regenerated" and were no longer "children of wrath" was not through a regeneration that occurred before they believed in Jesus but when they believed and turned to the Lord. In the passage there are several time signatures, such as I highlighted in red. These words point to the demarcation point when the Ephesian believers went from being dead to being alive, went from being unsaved to being saved, etc. When did that occur? What point in time is Paul referring to? Is it not to the time when they became believers in Jesus? Clearly it was not before they possessed faith and were converted. If the salvation was "by faith" then the time Paul is alluding to is the time when they became believers. 

Nearly all bible believers would be shocked to hear it said that people are saved before and apart from faith. That is simply not what the bible says. I repeat, there is no verse in the bible that says people are saved before or apart from faith.

My Hardshell brothers should also consider the fact that if "time salvation" is under consideration in Ephesians 2: 8, then they ought to affirm that every person to whom God gives saving grace or intends to save will in fact be saved in a "timely sense." Further, my brothers, you all say that eternal salvation is by grace, which means it is unconditional and always effectual. If that is so, then the grace of "time salvation" ought to be as sure, effectual, and certain as eternal salvation. Is your "time salvation" by grace or not?

In the next chapter we will continue to review Hassell's polemic for the Hardshell "no means" view of salvation.