Misc. News

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

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

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

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

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

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (16)

By John Spilsbury

1593 - 1668

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Bakewell's Attack

Bakewell writes to Spilsbury as follows (emphasis mine):

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Faith means Christ

2. Faith means Grace

3. Faith means a seed deposit

4. Faith means ability to believe

5. Faith means evidence of salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hassell wrote further:

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

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

Hassell wrote further:

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

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

Hassell wrote further and defines faith as follows:

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

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

Hassell wrote further: 

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

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

Hassell wrote further: 

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

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

Hassell wrote further: 

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

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

Hassell wrote further: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hassell wrote further:

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

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

Hassell wrote further:

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

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

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

Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church Name Change

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Finish, then, thy new creation"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Spilsbury's Belief About Regeneration

John Spilsbury

1593 -1668

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

In this blog I have numerous articles from the authors of these old Baptist confessions which show that they believed that sinners are saved by faith, which faith is the result of hearing the word of God, truths denied by those who falsely claim to be "original" or "primitive" Baptists. Here is what John Spilsbury wrote as article number five in his "Personal Confession of Faith" (you can read here; emphasis mine):

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

Observations

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

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

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (15)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Notice that Pittman gives no scripture that says 1) that the faith of God's elect is not a faith in the gospel or word of God, and 2) that "saving faith of God's elect may exist in those who never hear or understand the preaching of the gospel." Further, how can he say this since his mentor, Sylvester Hassell, is on record as saying: "Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)"? How can he say this when Paul says "faith comes by hearing the word of God"? (Rom. 10: 17) Paul did not say: "one kind of faith comes by the word of God and another kind of faith does not come by the word of God." 

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

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

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

"When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they (Hardshells) know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world."

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

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

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

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

"Latent" or "Seed" Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rayburn said further:

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

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

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

But he then disregarded this and said:

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

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

Rayburn said further:

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

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

Rayburn said further:

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

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

Faith is Belief

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (14)

One of the most difficult subjects for "Primitive" "Hardshell" Baptists is faith and its relation to salvation. Since they deny that the gospel or word of God is a means or instrument that God uses to save sinners, they have been led to take positions on faith and its relation to salvation that are unbiblical, strange, and not Baptistic. They have several tactics in use when discussing this question. Sometimes they will say that faith has no role in salvation, affirming that unbelievers go to heaven. After all, they say, those who die in infancy are saved and go to heaven without faith. Other times they will give a definition to the word "faith" that they have no right to do. In this post (here) I cited from Elder Charles Waters (1849-1920) who exemplifies these claims. I will also have things to say about what Sylvester Hassell said about faith and its definition and relation to salvation. In that post I cited Waters who said these things (all emphasis mine):

"I do believe that all who are regenerated will and do have faith, but deny that the "faith" -- that is, the believing response to God -- is in all cases "cognitive" or "informed" faith -- for cognitive faith necessarily depends on hearing the rational proclamation of the gospel; rather, I do not hesitate to affirm that it is, in all cases, below the level of consciousness--Lazarus-like, the sinner responds believingly to Christ in response to His Divine fiat in regeneration, being made willing in the day of His power, believing according to the working of His mighty power, and coming to Christ in "vital" relationship (Ps. 110:3; Eph. 2:8; Eph. 1:19; Jno. 6:37, 44)." 

"Cognitive faith is indeed present in some, but the gift of faith is present in all of God's children; hence, I concur that no one goes to heaven without faith, but deny that no one goes to heaven without rational knowledge of the truth."

"A teaching does indeed take place in the new birth, for God teaches the heart directly and immediately to know Him (Jno. 6:65). Cognitive faith, however, must necessarily come after this initial work of grace in the soul, for it depends on the instrumentality of the preached word."

"Obviously, if such cognitive (or evangelical) faith is necessary to eternal salvation, then every infant who dies in infancy and every individual without average mental capacities would miss salvation. But my position -- i.e. the position that defines "saving faith" (if I must use the term) as that faith that is given to the soul in the work of regeneration -- is adequate to include every potential case in which a person is in need of salvation. By the same token, I do believe that the ultimate evidence that a person possesses salvation is an evangelical faith in the Lord Jesus Christ -- a faith that expresses itself in voluntary obedience to Christ. Where such faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is present, a person gives indisputable evidence of salvation."

In Zion’s Advocate for August, 1898, page 225, Elder Waters stated - "Every saved child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith; infants and idiots must be so saved for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated, faith (belief) therefore is not necessary to eternal salvation.”

Earlier in "Zion’s Advocate and Herald of Truth" for June 1891 Waters wrote:

“Faith is the fruit of the spirit and not the soil into which the spirit is planted. Hence it, like repentance, knowledge of the truth, power to hear the gospel and further the growth in Christ is the evidence of spiritual life in the soul and not the means by which life is obtained. Eternal life may exist without all or any of these evidences. Take, for instance, the case of John, the Baptist, had he not the spirit before his natural birth when he leaped at the salutation of the mother of his Lord? Regeneration had certainly taken place but could it have been manifested by his exercise of faith, repentance, etc.? Certainly not. Upon this principle we can rejoice in the hope of the salvation of the infant, the idiot and the heathen who has never heard the name of Jesus. Spiritual and eternal life may exist then apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance towards God or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration, and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of his grace from this time state, ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the River.”  (Zion’s Advocate and Herald of Truth of June 1891)

There are so many absurd statements in the above citations that it boggles the mind. There are also many contradictions. It is also very revealing that Waters gives no scripture to prove the several propositions he states. He speaks of "the definition that he gives of saving faith." But, his definition of "faith" has no validity, being an invention of his own. He cites no lexicon or dictionary that defines faith as he does. His unfounded statements about faith and his several contradictions are these:

1. Faith is not always cognitive requiring knowledge or something to believe

2. Faith is below the level of consciousness and without rational knowledge of truth

3. Faith (belief) is not necessary for eternal salvation

4. Eternal life may exist without faith, repentance, or knowledge of the truth

5. Faith is given in regeneration but is also a later evidence of regeneration

6. There are two kinds of faith, only one which is necessary for salvation

7. Truth is taught in regeneration but not cognitively nor imparts any knowledge of truth

8. A believing response to God is not cognitive or consciously done

9. Faith is always below the level of consciousness

The Few Things He Says That Are Right

1. Teaching takes place in the new birth

2. Cognitive faith depends upon the instrumentality of the word

Questions

1. Does Waters say faith is necessary for salvation or not?

2. Does Waters give any scripture to support his definition of faith?

3. Does Waters tell us what is learned in regeneration?

Everything Waters said in the above citations may be summed up in this one sentence that he wrote:

"Spiritual and eternal life may exist then apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance towards God or knowledge of spiritual things." 

Where is the scripture that affirms this? This summary statement of Hardshell belief is so strikingly against the scriptures that anyone familiar with the scriptures must be stunned that anyone would say such a thing. Let us see a few texts of scripture that totally refute what Waters said, which is what Sylvester Hassell and his Hardshell brothers also believed. First, concerning the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation and the fate of those who believe not.

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8: 24 nkjv)

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3: 36 nkjv)

Concerning the necessity of repentance, notice these scriptures:

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19 nkjv)

"When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” (Acts 11: 18 nkjv)

Concerning the necessity of knowing the Father and Son, notice these scriptures:

"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: 8-9 nkjv)

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

As concerning the biblical definition of faith see my post titled "pisteuō and pistis" (here). In it I wrote:

According to Strong, "pisteuō" (the verb "believe") means "to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in," and is "used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled..." It is an "acknowledgment of some fact or event," an "intellectual faith." 

Thus, according to Strong, the word "believe" necessarily involves cognition or knowledge.  It involves "thinking" and being "persuaded" and "convicted," the "intellect," and "acknowledgment."  Thus, the Hardshell notion of a "believing" that excludes the thinking of the mind, or knowledge, is foreign to the idea behind the meaning of the word. 

The apostle John said:

"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us." (I John 4: 16)

Notice that John puts knowledge before believing, saying "known and believed."  This too uproots the Hardshell notion that divorces faith from knowledge. 

Waters says:

"...the sinner responds believingly to Christ in response to His Divine fiat in regeneration, being made willing in the day of His power, believing according to the working of His mighty power, and coming to Christ in "vital" relationship (Ps. 110:3; Eph. 2:8; Eph. 1:19; Jno. 6:37, 44)." 

This contradicts what he said elsewhere in the citations. If a sinner responds believingly, then how is this non-cognitive or below consciousness? By this statement Waters affirms that one comes to believe in Christ when he is regenerated. Then why does he say that faith in Christ is not necessary for it? He said "Spiritual and eternal life may exist then apart from a belief in Jesus" but now he says a sinner responds in faith to Christ when he is regenerated, and is made willing, and comes to Christ. This is speaking out of both sides of the mouth, blatantly contradicting himself. Also, notice the scriptures he references to uphold this affirmation (which affirmation is true). 

The faith of Eph. 1: 19 and 2: 8 is faith in Christ via hearing the gospel. Also, the salvation in those passages is eternal salvation, quickening, or regeneration, so we affirm that quickening is "by grace through faith." He says "coming to Christ" per John 6: 37,44 is the means for becoming joined to Christ in a "vital" relationship or in regeneration. That being so, his whole system of soteriology is overthrown. Coming to Jesus or believing and trusting in him is something people do cognitively. Further, Jesus said that "all who the Father has given to me" do in fact "come" to him. But, Hardshells do not believe that all the saved (elect) come to Christ, for coming to Christ is conversion, and they do not believe that all the regenerated are converted. 

Ways Hardshells Define Faith

1. Faith means Christ

2. Faith means Grace

3. Faith means a seed deposit

4. Faith means ability to believe

5. Faith means evidence of salvation

All these definitions are man-made. They do not reflect the true meaning as used in the Bible. I will have more to say on this point in the next chapter. Now let us return to Hassell and his views on faith and its definition and relation to salvation. In the past I have written extensively on Hassell's views on faith. See my post "Hassell on Faith" (here). In that post I cited from his editorial "Faith and it's Relation to Salvation" in "The Gospel Messenger" for May, 1898. In my post I cited from that editorial where he said that "Faith," is “a divinely wrought, loving, and hearty re­liance upon God and His promise of salvation through Christ.” He then says that "this is the best definition of evangelical faith that I have ever seen." In "Questions and Answers," from which I have previously cited, Hassell answers the following question:

"Q. What is the difference between faith and grace? 

 

A. Faith is belief, and grace is favor or gift; it is of God's free favor or gracious gift that we, in our hearts, believe in His Son as our Saviour (Rom. 4:16; I Cor. 12:3; II Cor. 4:6; Gal.5: 22; Eph. 1:19,20; 2:8,9; Philip 1:29; Heb. 12:2)." (you can read "Questions and Answers" here)

This is important. In both these instances Hassell gives the correct definition of faith. But, we will see that he also in other places gives a totally different definition to it, speaking as his companion Elder Waters. In the above editorial I cited these words of Hassell:

"Faith itself, instead of being a work, wholly or partly of the sinner, and a condition or prerequisite of salvation, is divinely wrought, is the work of God in the sinner, and is thus an integral part and evidence of his salvation." 

How can faith be both "an integral part" of salvation and yet be what comes later after salvation as evidence of salvation? Notice this question and Hassell's answer.

"Q. “By grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8); how through faith? 

 

A. The Pharisaic and heathen doctrine of salvation by works is false; we are saved entirely by the free grace or unmerited favor of God; and true faith, the fruit of His Spirit (Gal. 5:22; John 16:13, 14; I Cor. 12:3), is the channel or medium through which we realize our interest in His salvation. Even John Wesley, one of the wisest of Arminians, in expounding Eph. 2:8-10, says that not only grace but also faith and salvation are all the gifts of God. “It is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed,” says the Apostle Paul in Rom. 4:16."

Here he contradicts what he previously said. Earlier he said faith was an "integral part" of regeneration and now says it is merely "the channel or medium through which we realize our interest in His salvation." Notice that he gives no scripture that says that faith is not a means in salvation but only a means in realizing or manifesting salvation. It is also a gross corruption of scripture for Hassell to say that "saved by grace through faith" means "discovering by faith that you were saved before faith." That is clearly a case of "handling the word of God deceitfully." (II Cor. 4: 2) 

Here is another question Hassell answered:

"Q. Are there any conditions in the New Testament?

A. There are, as in Luke 13:3,5; John 8:34; 13:17; but these conditions of repentance, faith, and obedience are wrought in us by the Spirit of God (Ezek. 36:26,27,31; Zech. 12:10-14; Acts 11: 18; Gal. 5:22; John 16:7-14; I Cor. 12:3; Isa. 26:12; Philip 2:12,13)."

Hassell says just the opposite in other places. So, by the above statement, does he believe that repentance, faith, and obedience are necessary prerequisites for being saved? 

In Hassell's editorial, which I analyzed in my post critiquing his views on faith, he changes the meaning of faith as did Waters, writing as follows:

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

So, just as the Hardshells say that there are "two kinds of salvation," one eternal and one not eternal ("time salvation"), the former not requiring any action of the sinner, such as faith, repentance, coming to Christ, etc., and the latter requiring works of the regenerated sinner or believer but which is not necessary for being eternally saved, so there are "two kinds of faith," one that is a necessary component of regeneration and the other not necessary for it nor for eternal salvation. In the next chapter I will elaborate on this doctrinal invention and address this idea of "seed faith," an idea that Hardshells borrowed from Paedo-Baptists.