Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (4)

With this chapter we will review more directly Hassell's arguments for the "no means" view of salvation. As we will see, he offers the common arguments that were being made during the debate over means, which debate occurred most vehemently in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, as we have seen. 

Hassell's Polemic on the Means Question

We will begin by looking at "Questions and Answers," a publication of Elder R.H. Pittman in 1935 wherein he gives Elder Sylvester Hassell's answers to bible questions and a few of which Pittman answers himself. You can read them here. We will begin with this question and Hassell's answer to it (emphasis mine):

"Q. Does God use any means in regeneration?

A. None whatever, any more than He does in creation or in resurrection, for regeneration is a creation in Christ (which is all of God, Eph. 2:10; II Cor. 5:17,18), and it is a resurrection from the death in trespasses and sins, which God alone effects by His immediate and irresistible power (Eph. 2:1-10; John 5:25; Ezek. 16:6; Mark 5:41,42; Luke 7:14,15; John 11:43,44). It is being begotten or born of God, with which neither the person born nor any other creature has anything to do (John 1:12,13; 3:3, 5-8; I John 2:29; 5:1). It is a direct quickening by the Three-One God, the Father, Son, and Spirit (Jer. 31:33,34; John 5:21; 6:63). It is the giving of spiritual, eternal, and divine life by God to the sinner who was previously destitute of that life (Rom. 6:23; John 10:28; 17:1-3; I John 5:11,12). It is the free gift by the Three-One God of Himself to all His loved and chosen people, to dwell in and with them forever (Gen. 15:1; Psalm 48:14; 73:26; John 3:16; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:25-27; Titus 2:14; John 6:51,58; Col. 1:27; Ezek. 36:21-38; Zech. 12:10; 13:9; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,5; 2:17,18; John 7:37-39; 14:17; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:18-22). The Lord Jesus Christ, our only Master, commands us to call no man on earth our father, that is our spiritual father, for one is our Father who is in heaven (Matt. 23:8-10). Therefore, when the Apostle Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthian Church (I Cor. 4:15), he means, as he himself explains his language, not their spiritual, but only their ministerial father (II Cor. 3:3), the minister by whom, or under whose preaching, they first believed the gospel, even, he says, as the Lord gave to every man; he was, under God, the founder or planter of that church (I Cor. 3:5, 6) and it was sinful "carnality" for them to say that they were "of him" (I Cor. 3:4). Christ declares that only they who are of God (that is, as explained by the Greek lexicons, "born of God") hear God's words (John 8:47) ; only they that hear the voice of the Son of God live (John 5:25) - indeed, He Himself is their life (John 11:25; 14:19; Col. 3:4). "God, according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again or regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible," etc. (I Pet. 1:3-5). Believing in Christ as the Son of God and our Saviour is not a part, but an evidence of our regeneration (John 1:12,13; 6:47; I John 5:1)." 

It will take all of this chapter to respond to this polemic of the great Hassell. I will take each argument one by one and rebut them. However, I want the reader to notice the text at the head of this chapter. It uproots the "anti-means" view of the "Primitive Baptists." Over the past one hundred and seventy five years or so they have worked hard at twisting this text so as to not contradict their anti-means view. Many of them will say that "the word of God" in the text is not the written word of God, but is a word that God speaks himself to a dead sinner, on the subconscious level, when he says to the sinner "live." Some say the "word" is Christ. Clearly, however, the word of God in the context is shown to be the written word of God. 

In the opening words of I Peter chapter one Peter speaks of the "faith" or "belief" of the people to whom he is writing. Obviously what is believed is the written inspired word of God. (vss. 5-8) In fact, in verses 8-9 he says:

"Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,  receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls." 

What salvation is this? Is it not that salvation which occurs when one is born again, regenerated, and quickened or resurrected out of spiritual death? The salvation of the text comes as a result of faith. Since the Hardshells do not believe that faith is necessary for salvation, they will say that any text that has salvation resulting from faith cannot be eternal salvation, but must be a temporal deliverance which is not necessary for eternal salvation. However, the next verse tells us what salvation is meant, for Peter says:

"Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you." (vs. 10)

Any unbiased person knows that this salvation is eternal salvation in all its aspects, including initial salvation, which includes being reborn of the Spirit, regenerated, quickened, etc. Peter says this salvation is a result of "the sufferings of Christ" (vs. 11) and involves "the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into" (vs. 12). "The things reported to you" are the facts of the "gospel" which is "preached to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven" and which "things" also "the angels desire to look into." So, all this shows that it is eternal salvation that is the subject and it is by faith that this salvation is received. It is absurd for the Hardshells to say that this salvation is a mere time salvation. 

In verse twenty one Peter speaks of those who "believe in God" through Christ and whose "faith and hope is in God." Faith involves believing the word of God. In verse twenty two he says "Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit..." Here we see how the salvation of the context involves being "purified" of sin and how this purification, this "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3: 5), is through "obeying the truth through the Spirit." So, again, we see how the "word of God" by which a person is "born again" is "the truth," the truth of the word of God and the truth of the Gospel. This "word of God" is also identified as that which the old testament prophet had in mind when he wrote: 

"...the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because "All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, 25 But the word of the Lord endures forever."

This is a citation from Isaiah 40: 5-8 and Peter is quoting it. Reading that passage shows that by the "word of God" is meant the words God has spoken and "good tidings" or the gospel. (vs. 9) In fact, the words "all flesh is grass..." are the words of God. Then Peter sums it all up by saying "Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you." (vs. 25) By "the word" (logos) means "the message." So we understand it to say "this is the message which by the gospel was preached unto you." Wrote John Gill on I Peter 1: 23:

"by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever; for the incorruptible seed, and the ever living and abiding word, are two distinct things; though interpreters generally confound them: and by "the word of God" is either meant the essential Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; who is concerned in regeneration as well as the Father and the Spirit; by whose resurrection, and in consequence of it, the elect of God are begotten again; and who, as the Word, is able to build up all the sanctified ones, and give them the inheritance they are born heirs unto: or the Gospel, the word of truth, which is made use of as a means of begetting souls again; and the rather, since it seems to be so interpreted, 1 Peter 1:25...and here added, to show that he can give power and efficacy to his word, to regenerate and quicken, and will continue to preserve and make it useful to all his saving purposes...Or else with the word of God, and is true both of Christ, and of the Gospel...The Gospel also may be said to live, in opposition to the law, which is the killing letter; and because it points out the way of life and salvation to sinners; and is a means of quickening dead sinners, and of ingenerating that faith by which men live on Christ..." 

Gill is correct in saying that "of incorruptible seed" is not synonymous with "by the word of God." The Greek word for "of" is "ek" which means "out of" or "from" and denotes the source while "by" is from "dia" a preposition that means "though." The birth being "through" the gospel does not negate, as the Hardshells argue, that the birth is "of incorruptible seed" or "of God." 

Gill also says that though it is true that the new birth is through Christ (the Word), yet he says that in the text the "word of God" denotes "the word of truth" or "the Gospel" and is a means or instrument by which regeneration is effected. In the previous chapter I cited the words of Hassell who said: "In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error" (of the gospel being a means in regeneration), "but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." Is this the case with Dr. Gill, who the Hardshells claim believed as they do, i.e. that the gospel is no means in regeneration? Is Gill uttering "careless expressions" in his commentary? 

Further, it is the apostle John who speaks of Christ as the "Word of God." No other new testament writer gives this title to Jesus. Though some bible teachers will interpret other texts that speak of the "word of God," written by other new testament writers, as referencing Jesus, yet those texts are not speaking of Jesus, even though they may be applicable to Jesus. (See John 1: 1, 14; 5: 7; Rev. 19: 13) 

In the above argumentation of Hassell it is quite striking that he does not cite a single verse that says that God does not use a human instrument, or the written word of God, or gospel preaching, in saving sinners, in giving them spiritual and eternal life. He only makes logical arguments or uses deductive logic and even in doing this he fails. He says that being initially saved is a being created, a being made alive, a being born, and all that is true. But, where is the verse that says that God cannot do these things through human instruments? Even Jesus's miraculous birth was through human means, through Mary. Isaac too was miraculously "born after the Spirit" (Gal. 4: 29) but it was through the human means of his parents. Not only is there no text that affirms that God does NOT use means in salvation but there are numerous texts, such as I Peter 1: 23, that affirm that he does use those very means. 

God raised a valley of dry dead bones through the prophesying of the prophet Ezekiel. (Eze. 37) God raised the dead through Elijah, Elisha, Peter, and Paul. In fact, when Jesus sent out his ambassadors, he told them these words:

"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt. 10: 7-8 kjv)

So, that argument about God not being able to use human means to raise the dead is false. I am surprised that a man of Hassell's intelligence would argue in this manner.

Next, birth is also called a "procreation." So, a birth is a creation. So, to say that God does not use human means in creation is false. I am God's creation, but he created me through procreation by both my mother and father.

Sylvester's father, elder C.B. Hassell wrote:

"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." (March 8, 1845 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical; See here)

The senior Hassell says that becoming a "new creation" in Christ is the result of having come to a "belief in Christ" through the Gospel and "the teaching of the Holy Spirit." Was the senior Hassell speaking carelessly or giving an exact expression?

Sylvester says that when Paul says that he had "begotten" the Corinthian believers that it does not refer to the new birth. Why not? Does he not say this because of his presupposition which says "God uses no human means or preachers of the word to bring people to a spiritual birth"? His only argument is that Paul cannot possibly refer to the new birth for it would contradict the prohibition of Christ to "call no man father." Yet, Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthians. Hassell says that Paul was not a "spiritual" father but was a "ministerial" father, as if being a ministerial father was not a spiritual relationship! Further, Paul does not say that he is only the ministerial father of the preachers in the Corinthian church, but was a father to them all, to all who were begotten by his preaching. "Father in the ministry" is generally used to denote a senior elder being a mentor to younger elders and is not generally used to denote a relationship of a senior elder to every lay member. Notice what the apostle John wrote:

"I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father. I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one." (I John 2: 13-14 nkjv)

In these verses nearly all Bible commentators agree that by fathers, young men, and little children, John is speaking of the level of spiritual growth among the Christian community. So, the apostle John did in fact address certain church members as "fathers." Was he violating the injunction of Christ by so doing? Many in the history of the Christian church, including Baptist history, have called aged ministers "father" and the aged holy women "mother." John Gill on Matthew 23: 9 and "calling no man father" wrote the following in his commentary:

"And call no man your father upon the earth,....Not but that children may, and should call their natural parents, fathers; and such who have been instrumental in the conversion of souls, may be rightly called by them their spiritual fathers..." 

Clearly what Jesus is forbidding is to call anyone their heavenly Father, their God. Paul was a father in the sense that he was God's instrument in giving spiritual birth to sinners. Sometimes Paul speaks of himself as the father or sire of those who he brought to faith in Christ and sometimes he spoke of himself as the mother in that birth. So he wrote to the Galatians saying "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." (4: 19) God also refers to himself as both Father and Mother to his begotten children. For instance, Isaiah 49:15 asks, "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?" Additionally, Isaiah 66:13 quotes God saying, "As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you." In the New Testament (Matthew 23:37), Jesus describes His protective love for Jerusalem as a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings. 

Elder S. Hassell also says that in being regenerated that Christ comes to abide in a person. He says that regeneration "is the free gift by the Three-One God of Himself to all His loved and chosen people, to dwell in and with them forever." This inward dwelling of the Father, Son, and Spirit, comes under the doctrinal category of "union with Christ." So, how do the scriptures explain how this happens? How does a sinner enter into Christ and how does Christ enter into a sinner? I have numerous articles on this question and show that union with Christ is by faith in the word and gospel of God. (See here, here, here, here, here)

There are many bible passages that speak of how union with Christ is what brings salvation. In this post I show that Jesus said that people "believe into Christ." (See here) Hassell even says that Christ is the Life, and agrees with the apostle John who said "whoever has the Son has life." (I John 5: 12) So, how does a person come into possession of Christ? Answer: it is by faith, by "receiving" Christ. Paul spoke of it in this manner: "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 17) Being "joined" to Christ is done by an act of faith as the context shows. It is a being married to Christ and again this is done by a choice that is integrally involved in believing, receiving, and trusting in Christ. The apostle John also wrote: 

"He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13 nkjv)

The Greek word for "children" (tekna) denotes one who is a child by birth. When were they made children of God by a birth of God? It was when they received Christ and believed in his name. How do they believe in him? It is by hearing the word of God that informs about Jesus. So wrote the apostle Paul:

"14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

In "Keach's catechism," reflecting the faith expressed in the 1689 London Confession of Baptists and attached to it, we read:

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

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

Surely this was not a careless expression but an exact expression.

Hercules Collins was a leading Particular Baptist pastor in London and was a signer of both the 1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confession. In his Catechism, published in 1680 (read here), we read:

Q. 21 What is true faith? 

A. True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation.

1John 17:3, 17; Heb. 11:1-3; James 2:19
2Rom. 4:18-21; 5:1; 10:10; Heb. 4:14-16
3Matt. 16:15-17; John 3:5; Acts 16:14
4Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21
5Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-10
6Gal. 2:20
7Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:10

It is believed that William Collins, not Keach, wrote the Baptist catechism. He is no relation to Hercules Collins. Both were signatories of the 1689 confession. Both these old Baptist catechisms show that Hassell told a falsehood when he said that only "some" Baptists taught that regeneration was effected by the preaching of the word of God and that the ones who taught it did not speak precisely and contradicted themselves. 

Elder S. Hassell also wrote in the above citation: 

"Christ declares that only they who are of God (that is, as explained by the Greek lexicons, "born of God") hear God's words (John 8:47) ; only they that hear the voice of the Son of God live (John 5:25) - indeed, He Himself is their life (John 11:25; 14:19; Col. 3:4)."  

Hassell and his Hardshell brethren often cite these words of Jesus:

"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 kjv)

Hassell and his brethren correctly say that this text is dealing with being made alive spiritually. However, they will contend that hearing the voice of the Son of God is heard apart from the written word of God and never heard in the preaching of the gospel. Of course, that is simply a case of stubbornly resisting the truth of the text. However, my point in citing this text is to show how their interpretation nevertheless has a spiritually dead sinner hearing the word of Jesus before he is made alive. That being so, John 8: 47 cannot be made to contradict it, but this is exactly what Hassell does. He says that a person must be "of God" by a spiritual birth or resurrection before he can hear the word or voice of Jesus, thus contradicting his interpretation of John 5: 25. 

John 8: 47 is not teaching that a person must be born of God before he hears God's word. That would contradict what John 5: 25 says. Sinners come to spiritual life by hearing the voice or word of Jesus. What John 8: 47 is saying is that no one is "of God" who has not heard the word of God. Hassell said further: 

"Believing in Christ as the Son of God and our Saviour is not a part, but an evidence of our regeneration (John 1:12,13; 6:47; I John 5:1)." 

But, if faith is only an evidence of salvation, then it is not a necessary condition for it, and this is what "Primitive Baptists" believe. But, the scriptures abound with testimony to the fact that faith is a condition for salvation. So Paul wrote:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2: 8-10 nkjv)

This salvation is the "quickening" of verse one of the chapter. It is the same as being God's "workmanship" and being "created in Christ Jesus." Paul says that regeneration, quickening, rebirth, etc., is "by faith in Christ Jesus." Hassell cites John 1: 12-13 as a proof that faith is no condition of salvation, but it is bewildering that he would do so for it plainly says just the opposite as we have shown already. John says that people received Christ and believed in him in order to have the privilege of becoming the children of God. 

Also, I John 5: 1 does not say that faith in Christ is only an evidence of rebirth but is what is essential to it. If you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ then you have not been born of God. That is what John is saying and it flatly contradicts what the Hardshells teach. See my post (here) on that text. The same with John 6: 47 that Hassell cites. In that text Jesus said "whoever believes has eternal life." How does that statement say that faith is not necessary for obtaining eternal life? Jesus however is saying that if you do not believe in him, then you do not have eternal life, but that is just what the Hardshells deny. 

Can't Know Your Name Is In The Book of Life?

"Primitive Baptists" say that none can know that they are saved. They even speak against those who say that they know that they are saved. It is a common practice for the Hardshells to say "I hope I am saved," or to say "I love Jesus if not deceived." One of the arguments they use to uphold their idea that no one can know for sure that he or she is saved is to say that no one knows what names are written in the "book of life." Recently I had a Hardshell Baptist ask me - "can you know that your name, or anyone else's name, is in the book of life?" I immediately said "yes." That answer perplexed the Hardshell. I cited these words of the apostle Paul:

"And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life." (Phil. 4: 3 nkjv)

So, it is possible to know that someone's name is written in the book of life. Said Jesus to his disciples:

"Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10: 20 nkjv)

If we cannot know that our names are written in heaven, in the book of life, then we certainly can't rejoice in that fact. So many Christians sing this wonderful song (one that brother Mann introduced me to several years ago and which I love to hear sung):

1 My name is in the Book of Life,
O bless the name of Jesus!
I rise above all doubt and strife,
And read my title clear.

Chorus:
I know, I know my name is there;
I know, I know My name is written there.

2 My name once stood with sinners, lost,
And bore a painful record;
But by His blood the Savior cross'd,
And placed it on His roll. [Chorus]

3 Yet inward trouble often cast
A shadow o’er my title;
But now with full salvation blest,
Praise God! it’s ever clear. [Chorus]

4 While others climb thro' worldly strife,
To carve a name of honor,
High up in heaven’s Book of Life,
My name is written there. [Chorus]

If you know that you are saved, then you can know that your name is written in the book of life. How can you know that you are saved? Simply by examining yourself and asking yourself whether you truly love and adore the Lord Jesus Christ and have put your trust in him. If you can know that you love another person, whether it be your spouse, or your child, etc., then you ought to know whether you love the Lord or not. So many Christians sing, including Hardshells, 

1 My Jesus, I love thee, I know thou art mine;
for thee all the follies of sin I resign;
my gracious Redeemer, my Savior art thou;
if ever I loved thee, my Jesus, 'tis now.

The apostle Paul said: "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day." (II Tim. 1: 12 nkjv) The following hymn describes the kind of self examination that many believers do in order to find assurance of salvation. 

1 Do not I love Thee, O my Lord?
Behold my heart, and see,
And turn each cursed idol out,
That dares to rival Thee.

2 Do not I love Thee from my soul?
Then let me nothing love;
Dead be my heart to ev’ry joy
When Jesus cannot move.

3 Thou know’st I love Thee, dearest Lord,
But O I long to soar
Far from the sphere of mortal joys,
And learn to love Thee more.

Another hymn that describes this self examination is the following:

1 'Tis a point I long to know,
Oft it causes anxious thought;
Do I love the Lord, or no?
Am I his, or am I not?

2 Could my heart so hard remain,
Prayer a task and burden prove,
Every trifle give me pain,
If I knew a Saviour's love?

3 Yet I mourn my stubborn will,
Find my sin a grief and thrall;
Should I grieve for what I feel,
If I did not love at all?

4 Could I joy with saints to meet,
Choose the ways I once abhorred,
Find at times the promise sweet,
If I did not love the Lord?

5 Lord, decide the doubtful case,
Thou who art thy people's Sun;
Shine upon thy work of grace,
If it be indeed begun.

These self examinations should lead a believer to say "yes, thank God, I'm saved." They should also lead false believers to confess that they need to be saved, and to call upon the Lord for it. Wrote the apostle John: 

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (I John 5: 13 nkjv)

John wanted believers to know that they had eternal life. How does he say that one can know that he or she is saved? By discerning whether they truly believe in Jesus. He said in the first verse of this chapter: "whoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." If you doubt whether your faith is real, then you must look at your life to see if you have a "living faith" rather than a "dead faith," for a living faith produces good works. (James 2: 14-25) True faith is known by its fruits. 

Jesus said that saved people "know" him. (John 10: 14) Jesus will say to unbelievers in the day of judgment - "depart from me for I never knew you." (Matt. 7: 23) Paul said that in that same day that those who "know not God" will be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord." (II Thess. 1: 9)

Surely if you know the Lord then you will know that you know.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (3)

The above picture is of the periodical in which Elder Sylvester Hassell did most of his writing. It is from this periodical that I have been citing and will continue to do so. The previous two chapters in this short series have been an introduction for further analysis of Elder Hassell and his polemical writings on the "means question." 

The Primitive Baptist Library's web site has a page titled "Divisions in Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia, over the Means Doctrine, 1882-1892" (See here). This shows that up until the time period mentioned there existed within the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists some who believed that the Bible taught that God used the means of his word and gospel in saving sinners from sin and death and some who denied that God used such means, nor any other "human means." Those on the "anti-means" side accused those of the means side of introducing the means doctrine into the sect in that time period. On the other hand, those of the means side argued that it was the "no means" side which were the innovators, arguing that the means view was the historic view of their forefathers. 

I am one of the most knowledgeable person alive today who has studied the history of the "Primitive Baptist" sect far more than others, having once been one of their ministers for several years, and my father being a leading minister with them for well over fifty years. I can tell you that my many years of studying the history of this sect led me to see that those of the anti-means side were the ones who pushed their views on everybody else, declaring non-fellowship for all their brethren who believed in means. This blog is filled with citations from the first leaders of the "Primitive Baptist" sect, from the 1830s and 1840s, that showed they believed in means. 

I have many posts under the title "What the First Hardshells Believed" wherein I cite from such leaders and show this to be true. (See this post HERE which is one such post and also gives links to others in that series) For instance, I cited from Elder James Osbourn who historians acknowledge was one of the ringleaders of the newly formed sect of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. You can read about him in this post (here). One example is seen in this citation:

"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began...That God ordained the GOSPEL, and promulgated the same, with a settled purpose to save sinners thereby..."

Elder Osbourn was a close ministerial friend of elder C.B. Hassell, the father of Sylvester, and even died in C.B. Hassell's home in 1850. I have shown also that C.B. Hassell believed in means. In this post (here) I cited these words of the senior Hassell, taken from the first periodical called "The Primitive Baptist":

"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." (March 8, 1845 issue of "The Primitive Baptist"; See here)

Certainly Elder John M. Watson of middle Tennessee was a recognized leader of the new sect when it separated from the larger Baptist community and he believed in means. This is evident if one reads his book "The Old Baptist Test." I have numerous posts where I cited from this work and showed that Watson believed in means. Here are some citations from him in that work:

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

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14." (pages 399-400)

"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." (pages 327-28)

I could multiply such citations from the first generation leaders of the new sect who called themselves "Primitive Baptists." Surely Elder Hassell knew what Osbourn believed, knew what Watson believed, knew what his father believed, knew what the 1689 confession taught and what the signatories to it believed. It is therefore bewildering that in his "Questions and Answers" (that was published by his disciple, Elder R.H. Pittman, in 1935), that Hassell would say the following in answer to a question on the means debate (emphasis mine). 

(You can find this publication by Pittman here; A lot of the answers to questions by Hassell were taken from his paper "The Gospel Messenger") 

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

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

I am stunned that Elder Hassell answered this question as he did. Surely he knew that nearly all Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells believed that the gospel or word of God was a means in saving sinners. It is true that some made a distinction between a restricted versus a broad definition of "regeneration," and some of them (especially among the founders of the "Primitive Baptist" sect) believed that regeneration was not the same as the new birth, that regeneration was the giving of spiritual life and often took place apart from the means of the word of God, but spiritual birth followed regeneration, often after a long period of time, and occurred when a sinner was brought to faith in Christ or was evangelically converted.

Why did Hassell not tell the truth in this question? Why did he not elaborate? Why did he not say that it was the almost universal belief of Baptists of prior centuries that the gospel was a "means" in saving sinners and giving them eternal life? Surely Hassell knew what the 1689 London Confession taught about the means of salvation. Surely he was familiar with Keach's catechism which was attached to the confession shortly after it was published. In that catechism we have these questions and answers:

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

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

(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)

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

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

Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

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

(Heb. 10:39; John 1:12; Phil. 3-9; Gal. 2:15,16)

Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.

(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)

Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.

(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)

These sentiments are not simply what "some Baptists" believed. They are also not "careless expressions" but "exact expressions," therefore Hassell's statement is out of place and shows that he is attempting to create a false narrative for the benefit of the Hardshell cult. But, let us notice some more of these "careless expressions" where Baptists have taught the means view.

The Baptist catechism of the Charleston association, which was organized in 1751 (second oldest in America), and put forth in 1813, says the same things about salvation as did Keach's catechism.This association preceded the formation of the Kehukee Association by many years. Notice these questions and answers:

Q. How may we know there is a God? 

A. The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God (Rom. 1:19,20; Ps. 19:1, 2, 3; Acts 17:24); but his word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners (1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Tim. 3:15,16). 

Q. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ? 

A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us (John 1:11,12) by his Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5,6). 

Q. How doth the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? 

A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us (Eph. 1:13, 14; John 6:37, 39; Eph. 2:8), and thereby uniting us to Christ, in our effectual calling (Eph. 3:17; 1 Cor. 1:9). 

Again, these also are not "careless expressions" but "exact expressions," affirming means.

John Gill in his section of "Regeneration" in his "Body of Divinity" 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."

On I Cor. 4: 15 Gill wrote:

"...which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature..."

"...he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion..."

"...no regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith nor holiness come this way, but through the preaching of the Gospel; in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a spirit of regeneration and faith..."

On James 1: 18 Gill wrote:

"Of his own will begat he us...The apostle instances in one of those good and perfect gifts, regeneration...it is done at once; there are no degrees in it...is born again, at once...no one is more regenerated than another, or the same person more regenerated at one time than at another...it is called a being born from above, in Joh 3:3...who in it produces light, in darkness, and whose gifts of grace bestowed along with it...This act of begetting here ascribed to God, is what is elsewhere called a begetting again, that is, regeneration; it is an implantation of new principles of light and life, grace and holiness, in men; a quickening of them, when dead in trespasses and sins; a forming of Christ in their souls; and a making them partakers of the divine nature...Earthly parents cannot beget in this sense; nor ministers of the word, not causally, but only instrumentally, as they are instruments and means, which God makes use of..."

Again, these also are not "careless expressions" but "exact expressions," affirming means.

Hassell in his history says this about the 1689 London Confession's signatories:

"And they say in their Appendix: "If any of the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ shall, in the spirit of meekness, attempt to convince us of any mistake, either in judgment or practice, we shall diligently ponder his arguments, and account him our chiefest friend that shall be an instrument to convert us from any error that is in our ways; for we cannot wittingly do anything against the truth, but all things for the truth." (page 525)

Those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" today and who deny means do not have this same attitude. They do not want anyone to show them their errors. I have the same attitude as these old Baptists, for I desire all who read the articles in this blog to come and show me where I am wrong. I have invited and challenged the Hardshells to come and reason together out of the scriptures. None want to do that. That is a characteristic of cults. They do not heed the wise words of the inspired king who wrote: "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Prov. 18: 17 nkjv) The Hardshells do not want anyone to come and examine them.

I find it interesting that Sylvester Hassell never had a public debate, and yet in his day his fellow ministers were often engage in debates with those of the "Church of Christ," with "Missionary Baptists," with "Universalists," etc. 

Original Sin Addendum

Recently I wrote these two posts on "original sin" in response to what Pat Donahue wrote on the subject:

"Romans 5:12 and "Born in Sin" (here)

"Answering Donahue on Original Sin" (here)

In the former post I gave Donahue's view, which is the Pelagian view, that says that all men are made sinners, per Romans chapter five, by their imitating Adam and committing sin. I gave several reasons why that is clearly not what Paul intended to communicate. I should have added another argument however. I will do so now in this addendum.

If the imitation view is correct, you would think that it would be Eve, not Adam, who would be the one through whom all the human race becomes sinners. After all, she first sinned and after sinning then came to her husband Adam and led him to eat the forbidden fruit and sin also. Therefore, Adam was imitating Eve. So, Romans 5: 12 should read "As by one woman sin entered into the world and death by sin for all have sinned." Sin did not enter the world through Eve, however. If the sinning of all occurs as a result of imitating the first sin, then sin would have entered the world through Eve. But, Romans chapter five says it entered the world through Adam. Why? Because Adam was the head and representative of the human race, and not Eve. He was therefore "the figure of him who was to come," i.e. Christ, the second or last Adam. 

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (2)

It is interesting that Elder Sylvester Hassell did not attend the Fulton council and expressed reservations about it before it occurred. However, after it was over he spoke favorably of the results. In this post (here) I showed that both C.B and Sylvester Hassell endorsed the 1689 Confession. I devoted several chapters in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" to what the Hardshells have said about the 1689 London Baptist confession. In chapter 129, the fourth chapter in the series titled "Hardshells and the London Confession," I cited from Sylvester where he said the following in the June 1890 issue of "The Gospel Messenger":

"We want no change whatever in our old Articles of Faith...in no other human document, have I seen that truth so fully and correctly presented, without excrescence and without mutilation, (Rev. xxii. 18, 19,) as in the old London Baptist Confession of Faith. It sets forth what I and the great majority of Primitive Baptists of the United States believe to be “the apostles’ doctrine ...Thus the London Baptist Confession of Faith is the most fully and widely authorized statement of what Primitive Baptists believe the Scriptures to teach in regard to spiritual and eternal truths.” 

I find this ironic since the Fulton elders did what they did with their footnotes because they said that the confession had old outdated language that was ambiguous. Hassell, however, says that the old confession was "so fully and correctly presented." But, the Fulton elders tried to correct the confession.

In this post (here) I cited what Sylvester said a few months after the Fulton Meeting. In February 1901 under the editorial title "The Union of all True Primitive Baptists" Hassell wrote the following in "The Gospel Messenger":

"During the last fifty years, and especially during the last twenty or thirty years, there have been many carnal, human (1 Cor. iii.), distressing, and ruinous strifes and divisions among Primitive Baptists, and for the last two or three years the fleshly biting and devouring of one another (Gal. v. 15) have become worse than ever, so that it almost seems, in some parts of the United States, as though the Lord had forsaken some of our people..."

This is basically what the Fulton elders said in their preface to the confession and gave as the reason why they were meeting, to bring about unity and to show how the 1689 confession taught what they taught. 

Though Hassell endorsed the 1689 London Confession, yet he denied means, which is clearly taught in that old Baptist confession. So, he must have agreed with the footnotes that the Fulton ministers attached to those sections dealing with how God uses his word and the preaching of the gospel to save sinners and to make them children of God by a new birth. If he were honest, however, he would have confessed, like many "Primitive Baptist" ministers have stated since the Fulton meeting regarding the footnotes the elders of that meeting added to the old confession, that the old confession did in fact teach means and that he and his brethren did not believe in them. 

In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" in sections under the title "Hardshells and the London Confession" I gave several citations from elders who said this was the case. You can read several of these citations in the first chapter in that section (here). For instance, I cite the following words of Elder Harold Hunt taken from his book "The London Confession: And its Place in Baptist History" (2007) where he states:

"In 1900, the Primitive Baptists were seriously divided.  They were about to split three ways.  A large and representative body of capable Primitive Baptist preachers came together at Fulton, Kentucky.  The Primitive Baptists were in crisis, and they intended to fend off a division if they could.  Like the Regulars and Separates one hundred years before, they tried to use the London Confession as a rallying point.

They reaffirmed what they could accept;  they explained away what they could not accept;  and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away."  (This sentence was in bold in Hunt's book - SG) 

In this chapter (here) I cited Elder Bill Allen's article titled "Article 10 of the London Confession of 1689 Examined," (pastor of the Stephenville, Texas "Primitive Baptist Church") where he wrote the following (emphasis mine - SG):

"Below is just one of the problematic articles, no. 10, of the 1689 with the 3 related Fulton foootnotes.  My problem with the Fulton footnotes is not that they were themselves unsound.  They were quite sound, but the Fulton brethren were deceiving themselves in thinking that the 1689 was basically sound but just not properly understood....If we take the wording of the 1689, particularly in this article, for what it clearly says in plain English it can be easily seen that it is a hopeless wreck of a document that no amount of footnotes, explanations, or wishful thinking can fix...My point is that we should NOT make any endeavors to lay claim to the 1689 Confession but instead should do what the Fulton brethren did not and that is let those who believe such things have it as the Calvinists confession that it clearly is." 

Allen also says:

"...this says the effectual calling is by the Word and Spirit.  It is vital to the understanding of this article to discern exactly what they mean by the use of "Word".  The Fulton brethren correctly insist that on the Living Word, i.e. Christ, is the source of the Effectual Call.  Unfortunately, they would like us to believe that is what this article says.  I contend that this is wishful thinking. They are imposing what we know to be the truth on what other men have said in an effort to white wash something that would have to otherwise rejected if taken for what it says.  I contend the authors of this confession were consistent in their use "Word"."  (see here)

In the introduction to the Fulton Meeting's revision to the 1689 confession, they said they added the footnotes because language had changed dramatically since 1689 and certain parts of the confession were therefore ambiguous and not clear. In the preface they wrote (emphasis mine):

"The London Confession of Faith was approved by a unanimous vote of the meeting. In view of the fact that this instrument was written more than two hundred years ago and that our language naturally undergoes some change in so long a time, it was deemed prudent to add some explanations to those sections that seemed ambiguous."

However, there was nothing "ambiguous" or unintelligible about the wording of the confession. If the 1689 confession is outdated and therefore hard to understand, then why do they not say this about the King James Version that was written in Shakespearean or Elizabethan English? However, this stated reason for adding "explanations" via footnotes was a subterfuge. In 1901 Elder David Bartley saw right through this and wrote the following about the Fulton footnotes:

"So now, let us kindly consider this question of disturbance and compare the points at issue with the London Confession, which all claim to accept upon those points of difference. But why, then, the need or utility of the Fulton Convention? Why the address, the foot-notes and the appendix added to the good old Confession, which had been good enough for the Old Baptist people through the centuries, until this late upheaval? The plea for all this additional supplementary work of the recent convention has been stated in print frequently, and is thus given in the general address: “Language through the lapse of many years undergoes variations in applications and meanings, whereby certain clauses become more or less obscure in meaning. Wherever, in the opinion of this assembly, the meaning of a section was not apparent, foot-notes were added to bring out the meaning.” But if such a change of meaning and obscurity of language is true of one section of the old Confession, it is also true of every section, and just as true of the whole Bible, which is older than the London Confession. In all candor, then, why were the foot-notes confined to a few sections, and these the very places which treat of the doctrines involved in this new issue! This is very strange indeed, if the old Confession has really become doubtful and dark in meaning because of its age! If this is a valid cause for calling a convention of Baptists, why not bring out in easy and plain words the meaning of the entire Confession, so that all the Baptists may now understand and unite upon its meaning? Then, if the plea is a real and valid one, why not also get up a Baptist Convention to “bring out the more or less obscure meaning “of the ancient Bible!" (from chapter 129 of my series - See here and taken from "Review of Fulton Convention Work" - Crawfordsville, Ind., Aug. 22, 1901. Signs Of The Times, Volume 69, No. 18. SEPTEMBER 15, 1901)

I wrote this commentary on Bartley's words:

"These remarks of Elder Bartley are very damaging to the work of the Fulton brethren and unmask the real intentions of the Convention.  He shows that their stated purpose, which was to make plain those portions of the Confession which were too vaguely worded, or too ambiguous, containing too much archaic language, was all pretense!  Why did they avoid explaining most of the sections?  One says it is because they agreed with those sections!  Yet, the same kind of language was used in those sections as in the others that were given footnotes!  It is all too obvious to all, except to the simple minded cultists, that these brethren did not believe the sections which they footnoted."

When Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr. (who died recently) began to object to the doctrine of "time salvation" and to state his belief in the sure and certain perseverance of the saints, he was called before a special meeting of Hardshells to answer charges that he was preaching heresy and was declared to be in disorder because of it. Yet, he for fifty years or so was one of their leading ministers. He argued in that meeting that the Fulton elders put no footnotes to the section of the 1689 confession on the perseverance of saints which showed that they believed it as it was written and needed no explanations or clarifications. Yet, they did not listen to this reasoning. Elder Bartley showed that it was a pretense for the Fulton brethren to claim that their footnotes were a result of making the confession's words less ambiguous. 

Elder Hassell should have been as honest as many other elders have been in acknowledging that the Fulton brethren were not honest in what they said was their reason for their modifying the old confession. Surely Hassell knew that the old confession taught that God used his word and the preaching of it to save sinners. So, the fact that he did not object to the twisting of the confession is a big spot on his record.

In the January, 1901 issue of "The Gospel Messenger" Hassell wrote the following about the Fulton Convention:

"I am very glad to learn that the General Meeting of Primitive Baptists at Fulton, Ky., November 14—18, was largely attended from all sections of the United States, and was very harmonious, and adopted, as an expression of its belief and practice, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, of 1689 (the most elaborate, comprehensive, and scriptural of all the Articles of Faith ever published by the Baptists), and the Digest of those Articles published in The Gospel Messenger of July, 1876, as "The Principles of The Gospel Messenger"; and that the Meeting agreed to publish, in one small volume, the Confession (with foot-notes explaining the obscure passages), and the Digest, and an Address to all Primitive Baptist churches, beseeching them to come together on this solid Bible platform (the faith of our fathers and of the great majority of the Primitive Baptists of to day), and to oppose all declarations of non- fellowship on minor points."

Notice that Hassell says that the 1689 confession was "the most elaborate, comprehensive, and scriptural" statement of faith ever written. That seems to undercut the claim of the Fulton elders who said they were adding footnotes because it was not elaborate or comprehensive. Yet he says: "the Meeting agreed to publish, in one small volume, the Confession (with foot-notes explaining the obscure passages)." "Obscure passages"? I thought he just said the old confession was clear and plain? Why did the Fulton elders need to "elaborate" on a confession that Hassell said was already "elaborate"? 

In that same issue of "The Gospel Messenger" we find a letter from the moderator of the Fulton Meeting, from Elder J.H. Oliphant of Indiana who wrote to Hassell these words (emphasis mine):

"Much Esteemed Brother Hassell: — I attended the meeting at Fulton, Ky. I had felt undecided as to the propriety of going, up to within a few days of the time. I now believe it was best to go. A desire for fellowship and union was plainly manifested in every face and in every word. I prepared a Confession of Faith before I left home, but I found that all present wanted to reaffirm the old London Confession of Faith. It was decided to affix explanatory notes to those sections that seem to be ambiguous, not to change or deny their meaning, but to present the understanding we have of them. Each section of the whole Confession was read before the meeting, and approved separately, one by one; also the notes prepared by a committee were read separately and approved. It was a long, tedious task, but all present patiently waited and labored till all was done. Every section was approved by unanimous vote; in fact, every act of the meeting was done by unanimous vote, both in the open meeting, and in the work of the committee that prepared the notes. I felt that love and the utmost fellowship prevailed in every heart. Many tears were shed as the strong sentiments of that old document were read, and a deep conviction that the statements made in that instrument are true...I would have been so glad to see you there, but it was not so you could come. May the dear Lord bless you abundantly in all your labors. The time of toil will soon pass, and you will enter on your reward. Affectionately, Jas. H. Oliphant."

Why did Elder Oliphant feel a need to go to the Fulton meeting with a new prepared confession of faith? Does this not indicate that he knew that the 1689 confession was against the Hardshell "no means" view? That it taught that evangelical faith in Christ was a requirement for being born again and eternally saved? Oliphant says that when he got to Fulton he discovered that "all present wanted to reaffirm the old London Confession of Faith." Why did they want to do this seeing it clearly taught the means doctrine? Was it not because they had called themselves "primitive" Baptists, meaning that they were the "original" Baptists? So, they were in a proverbial "tight spot." So, they decided to do what they did, which was to endorse the confession but put footnotes in those sections dealing with doctrines that were dividing their sect and to make the confession agree with their "anti-means" doctrine, and their denial that all that comes to pass comes to pass because God has decreed it. 

Hassell wrote the following words after the printed letter above from Oliphant:

"Elder Oliphant was the Moderator of the General Meeting, and also of the committee that examined and reported upon the London Confession."

Elder Oliphant knew that the 1689 confession taught that God uses means in salvation, that is why he intended to bring a draft of a new confession. But, instead, he went along with the other elders and perverted the old confession and show his dishonesty thereby. So too may it be said of Elder Hassell.

In the next chapter we will begin to look at what Elder Hassell wrote about the question of means God uses in the eternal salvation of sinners.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (1)

Elder Sylvester Hassell

1842-1928

In this short series I will examine what Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote concerning the question as to whether the word of God or gospel is a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. 

Elder Sylvester Hassell is an intriguing figure. He was probably one of the most learned and scholarly ministers of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist church and yet, ironically, he took some positions in theology that betrayed that learning. He was the son of Elder Cushing Biggs Hassell and both were leaders in the Kehukee Association of Primitive Baptists (1765), the fourth oldest Baptist Association in America), and it was this association that first published a declaration of non-fellowship against those Baptists who supported missionary enterprises in 1827, five years before the "Black Rock Address" (1832), though the latter is generally given as the date when the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect originated. Both father and son were also leaders over the general body of that sect. They were elected each year to be the moderator of the Kehukee Association, an association that became the "flag ship" of the sect. Elder C.B. Hassell was moderator of the association from 1859-1880 and Elder Sylvester Hassell was moderator from 1880 until his death in 1928.

Sylvester's influence rose dramatically in the 1880s as a result of writing, along with his father, the "History of the church of God, from the creation to A.D. 1885; including especially the history of the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Association," which was published in 1886 and authorized by the Kehukee Association and which paid the Hassells for it. Most of the earlier sections of this work were written by the senior Hassell, Sylvester writing most of the later sections. I have read through this voluminous work, and though it contains much historical information, it was also written, mostly by the junior Hassell, as a polemic to try and show that the new sect of "Primitive Baptists" were right in their contention that they were the true "original" Baptists and that the "Missionary Baptists" were the new kids on the block. The later chapters, mostly written by Sylvester, contain much false information and were written with a bias that is quite evident. I have over the years written several articles demonstrating this fact. He often omits pertinent information and gives a false interpretation of other historical events.

Many of the first generation of "Primitive Baptists" died in the early 1880s. Elder C.B. Hassell died in 1880. Elder Gilbert Beebe died in 1881. Elder John Clark died in 1882. Elder R.W. Fain died in 1876. All these men were editors and writers for several of the first periodicals of the Old Schoolers. The 1880s was a decade that saw much inner fighting among the new sect. The death of the first generation of the "Old School" leaders created a vacuum in leadership and several arose who were competitors for filling that vacuum. A new generation of "Hardshells" then arose and steered the sect in another direction. In 1892 Sylvester was a contributing editor of the periodical "The Gospel Messenger" which he purchased in either 1895-96 and became its owner and editor. He was a good writer and wrote often against some of the extremes that were becoming far too prevalent within the sect. 

In February 1893 Hassell wrote another article in his series titled "The Literal Interpretation of Scripture" where he denounced how many "Primitive Baptists" were mishandling the word of God in their failure to take the Bible literally. I wrote about this (here) and cited from that article the following, where Hassell wrote:

"It is especially in what claims to be the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures that these ultra, wild, chilling, deadening, bewitching, confusing, dividing, and ruinous errors prevail among us."

Hassell began writing about the gross perversions in bible interpretation that had been plaguing his brethren in the final months of 1892 and continued his series on bible interpretation throughout the year 1893. I wish all of today's "Primitive Baptists" would read this man's writings in this series. 

It is sad to say, however, that Hassell himself was not faultless in his manner of interpreting the scriptures. Particularly is this true relative to his ideas about the doctrine of regeneration or the new birth and how it is effected. Though his father, as I have shown in several writings, believed in means, yet Sylvester would come to deny them. Yet, as we will see, he made contradictory statements on this question, both as a Baptist historian and as a theologian.

If one reads what Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote on the troubling question as to whether the written word of God, or the gospel, or preachers of it, were "means" in the eternal salvation of sinners, he will find that Hassell tried to bridge the divide, or straddle the fence, between those "Primitive Baptists" who espoused means and those who denied means. It was in the last quarter of the 19th century where this question came to a climax and brought about a formal division. That was also true with regard to other doctrines that divided the new sect, such as the extent of predestination, Two Seed ideology, perseverance of the elect, whether evangelical faith was necessary for eternal salvation, "conditional time salvation," and several other more minor issues.

I have shown in numerous articles in this blog, over the past twenty years, that the overwhelming majority of the first generation of "Primitive Baptists" did not reject means altogether. Though some of them said that "regeneration" or "begetting" was without means, they affirmed that the new birth (which came later after one was begotten) involved being converted to Christ by the gospel or by faith. The first "Primitive Baptists" did not believe that unbelievers in Christ were regenerated, as they do today.

Elder John M. Watson (1798-1866) of middle Tennessee was one of the foremost leaders of the newly formed sect. He battled the "Two Seed Primitive Baptists," including its chief proponent, Elder Daniel Parker, and wrote a book titled "Old Baptist Test." He, along with others of his brethren who fought against Two Seedism, said that the "no means" view was a leading distinctive tenet of many Two Seed Primitive Baptists, although few of them, at that time, would affirm that people could be saved who did not believe in Jesus. Today, however, most "Primitive Baptists" of the "Hardshell" variety embrace the view that millions of God's born again people remain in idolatry and do not come to faith in Jesus or the God of the Bible.  

Though many "Primitive Baptists" have asserted that the split that occurred as a result of the Black Rock Address was over the question of whether the gospel or word of God was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners, that is a falsehood that has no evidence to support it. In several posts in past years I have shown that this is not true. For instance, in this post (here) I first cited from Elder David Montgomery who in the not too distant past wrote the following in his attempt to assert that the Black Rock Address document condemned the means view and when they spoke of salvation through the word that they did not have eternal salvation in mind but a temporal salvation (evangelical conversion) that is not necessary for eternal salvation:

"The Black Rock Address of 1832 gives an excellent admonition: "Brethren, while we rejoice in the glorious truth that salvation is of the Lord, may it be manifested by our lives that we are under the influence of that grace which teacheth that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world." This is what I would define as time salvation."

Elder Michael Gowens of the present day has also said that the main issue in the 1832 division of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists from the general Baptist family was over the means question, writing the following (emphasis mine):

"The primary issue at stake might be defined by the question, “Does God employ the use of external means in the eternal salvation of sinners? Is grace mediated to the sinner through human agency? Does the church play an instrumental role in eternal salvation?” Those answering in the affirmative were loosely and informally termed “means” Baptists, and those responding in the negative were labeled “anti-means” Baptists." ("Christ The Only Mediator" - See here)

That assertion, however, is against the historical facts. Gowens also wrote:

"Of course, a label can be misleading, for it never tells the whole story. I don’t particularly like the “anti-means” label, for it suggests an impression that is not entirely accurate. The Bible clearly teaches, for instance, that “means” are involved in Christian discipleship: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (Jno. 17:17). I could not in good conscience, therefore, wear the label “anti-means” without the caveat that Scripture does teach that means are employed in a certain sense."

That sanctification for which Jesus prayed cannot be divorced from eternal salvation. But, since it is by the truth of God, Gowens and his Hardshell brethren must say that it is a sanctification that has nothing to do with being eternally saved from sin and death.

I wrote the following in response to Montgomery's assertion about the Black Rock Address supposedly condemning the doctrine of means:

"It is very clear that Montgomery is reading "time salvation" into these words of the founding fathers of Hardshellism. There is no mention of "time salvation" in those words from the Address. They are "read into" it by Montgomery.  What "salvation" was under consideration when mention is made of "the glorious truth that salvation is of the Lord"?  Is it "time salvation"? Should their words be read as follows - "we rejoice in the glorious truth that time salvation is of the Lord"?" 

But, let us notice these words from the Black Rock Address.

"The plans of these [protracted or 'revival'] meetings are equally as objectionable; for, in the first place, all doctrinal preaching, or in other words, all illustrations of God's plan of salvation, are excluded from these meetings. Hence they would make believers of their converts without presenting any fixed TRUTHS to their minds to believe. Whereas God has chosen his people to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the TRUTH.--2 Thess. 2:13." (Black Rock Address, pp. 35, 36, Primitive Publications' reprint)."

"Obviously the Black Rock Address did not object to the use of gospel truth in salvation. What salvation is under consideration in the passage? Is it not that salvation which is the result of eternal election? How can the Hardshells deny that this is eternal salvation? The first Hardshells objected to certain evangelistic methods whereby converts are made where there no doctrine or biblical truth is taught, where there is no instruction in "God's plan of salvation." When the Black Rock Address speaks of "salvation," it never refers to some "time salvation." Montgomery simply tries to read "time salvation" into the Address."

"The Address said:

"There is, brethren, one radical difference between us and those who advocate these various institutions which we have noticed to which we wish to call your attention. It is this: they declare the gospel to be a system of means; these means it appears they believe to be of human contrivance; and they act accordingly...we would still be content to preach the word, and would be instant in season and out of season; knowing it has pleased God, not by the wisdom of men, but by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. And that his word will not return unto him void, but it shall accomplish that which he please, and prosper in the thing whereunto he sends it."

Not only have the Hardshells misinterpreted the Black Rock Address, so too have they misinterpreted the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. In the year 1900 fifty one leading elders of the "Primitive Baptist" church met in Fulton, Kentucky and endorsed that confession as being the confession their forefathers endorsed. However, they distorted that old confession by putting footnotes to those sections that they disagreed with, and did so under the guise that they were explaining what was meant in those sections. That old confession taught that God used means in the calling of sinners to salvation. So, the Hardshells had to do one of two things; either reject the confession's teachings on those points or embrace it but give a twisted interpretation of what it said on the question of means. 

I have cited from many Hardshells who have agreed that the elders who assembled in Fulton purposely twisted the meaning of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith on several sections of the confession, especially on the question of whether the word of God is a means in salvation and whether evangelical faith is a necessary condition for salvation. We will talk more about that in the next chapter.