Answering a Hardshell Polemic (4)

"But the fearful, and unbelieving...

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

which is the second death." 

(Rev. 21: 8 kjv)

In this fourth post of this series I will continue to examine an Internet article titled "Why Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists" by Elder Gary Harvey (read here). Elder Harvey wrote further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fate of Unbelievers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)

Q. 35. What is effectual calling?

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

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

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

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

Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

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

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

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

Harvey wrote further:

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

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

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

Harvey wrote further:

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

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

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

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

"Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." (I Cor. 15: 1-2 nkjv)

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

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

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

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13-14 nkjv)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."

In another editorial on 1 Peter 3:18-21 for October 23, 1906, Cayce wrote:

"By the same Spirit by which His body was quickened He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. This shows very clearly that there is a work upon spirit which is performed by the direct work of the Spirit. “And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” - (Ephesians 2:17-18). There is a preaching, or a work, which Jesus does by His Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit. This work is what is also called regeneration. Through the work of Jesus, His offering, both Jews and Gentiles have access to the Father by one Spirit in the work of regeneration. The Holy Spirit makes the application of the blood of Christ in the work of regeneration."

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

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

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

Harvey wrote further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvey wrote further:

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

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

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

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

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

Wrote the Apostle Paul:

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

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

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

Harvey wrote further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What think ye?

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

Answering a Hardshell Polemic (3)

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

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

Tenets of Hyper Calvinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a longer list which adds to the above.

1. Regeneration before faith and conversion 

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

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

4. Commands or imperatives imply ability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The apostle Paul preached to the Athenian idolaters and said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So also testified Isaiah the prophet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvey wrote further:

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

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

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

I then responded, writing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answering a Hardshell Polemic (2)

In this second post of this series I will continue to examine an Internet article titled "Why Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists" by Elder Gary Harvey (read here). 

Harvey wrote further:

"So the Baptists were fairly monolithic, as a people. Until, that is, the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries when the great split in the Baptist family occurred." 

I suppose he means the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, for the "great split" he speaks of is no doubt the split that occurred over missions via the "Black Rock Address" (1832). However, if he means the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, surely he knows that at that time there were several groups of Baptists, such as the General Baptists, Particular Baptists, Seventh Day Baptists, etc. Also in the mid eighteenth century in America we had both Regular and Separate Baptists, and then a union of these two that produced the United Baptists in many places. I am not sure what meaning this brother is attaching to the word "monolithic." 

In the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century we did see the rise of Hyper Calvinism epitomized by Congregationalist Joseph Hussey and his book "God's Operations of Grace, but no Offers of Grace" (1707) wherein he denied that sinner's were offered salvation by preachers via the gospel. He also embraced the idea that Christ in his humanity preexisted the creation. So, it is not true that "the Baptists" were ever "monolithic." Also, in England there arose the sect of the "Strict Baptists" coincidental with the "rise of the Hardshells" in American in the first half of the 19th century. Both these groups were Hyper Calvinists but the Hardshells would later go to further extremes than did the Strict Baptists, for the Hardshells would come to deny God's use of the means of his word and Gospel in saving sinners and the Strict Baptists did not. 

When I was a Hardshell Baptist I often heard them say that prior to the division over missions (late 1820s-early 1830s) that all the Baptists believed as do the Hardshells (were monolithic) and that the split occurred because the "Missionary Baptists" brought in new views, such as mission societies, theological education, Sunday Schools, and taught that the word of God was a means in salvation, and a general or universal atonement. In 1887 Elder Lemuel Potter, representing the "Primitive Regular Baptists" had a debate with Dr. W.P. Throgmorton, a Missionary Baptist, on the question of who are the true primitive Baptists. In that debate Potter said:

"I claim that if an organization of any kind be rent by the introduction of new rules, regulations or doctrines, that the innovators, and not the party that adheres to the old rules, regulations and doctrines, are the seceding party." 

What is ironically strange about this claim is the fact that it was the Hardshells who were guilty of the new things. Even Elder John M. Watson, who Elder Potter claimed to be one of their leaders, called those who denied God's use of means in salvation "modern innovators." In his book "The Old Baptist Test" (1st edition about 1858, second revised edition 1867) Watson said:

"Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328) 

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14. Paul, it is true, preached the Gospel in word only, while the election of God was manifested in the power and assurance of the Holy Spirit imparted to his words; when received by the elect which apart from that power and assurance would have been received in word only, as it really was by others not embraced in the divine election. I Thess. 1: 4." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 399, 400)

Supporting missionaries was not new among the Baptists. Theological education was not new either. Nor were Sunday Schools new in the history of the Church of Christ. What was new was the Hardshells making support for these things a test of fellowship and is why Dr. R.B.C. Howell, a neighbor and friend of Elder Watson in the Nashville area, called them "new test men." Dr. Howell wrote:

"The name given by them to the antimissionaries is the most appropriate we have yet seen--New Test men. We propose that the self styled Old School, be hereafter called New Test. What say you brethren? It is not reproachful, and conveys the exact description of those brethren and Churches, who have done so much evil by introducing a new test of fellowship that is, making friendship to the Convention a crime for which they will exclude a member, and enmity the ground of his reception." (Page 38 - "The Baptist" - Vol. V. Jan. 1839 No. 1)

In "BAPTIST SUCCESSION" a "HAND-BOOK OF BAPTIST HISTORY," by D. B. Ray, in chapter two titled "THE "MISSIONARY" AND "OLD-SCHOOL" BAPTISTS," wrote:

"The Regular Baptists and the Anti-Mission Baptists were once together as one people; and, therefore, their history up to the separation was the same. The opposition of our Anti-Mission brethren to the mission work, and kindred objects, is a new feature among Baptists...This declaration of Dr. Howell is fully sustained by historic facts. The opposition among Baptists to the mission work, is of recent date. "

So, all that Harvey said in the above citation is false. The truth is, it is the Hardshells who brought into the Baptist family new doctrines, such as denying that the word of God was a means in salvation. The fact that Alexander Campbell, who was a Hyper Arminian, drew off many from among the Baptists, and the fact that many supported missions, theological education, etc., and became known as Missionary Baptists, and the fact that some were Hyper Calvinists, shows that the Baptists in the early 19th century were not all of the same stripe, even among those who were Particular Baptists. The Baptists, both General and Particular, therefore, prior to the rise of Campbell and the Hardshells, had within their body Calvinists, Arminians, semi-Calvinists, and Hyper Calvinists. They also had disagreements over other issues, such as on the millennial question, church government, etc. They were not therefore monolithic. They also did not come from the same stock, as the General and Particular Baptists were never one.

Harvey continued:

"It is sad beyond words that this happened, but it did happen. And here is what caused it: Arminian doctrine and the general atonement theory, accompanied by the idea that the gospel was used in the eternal salvation of people. This is the false idea that people had to respond to the gospel in order to be born again. Which certainly is not primitive faith. Primitive faith says loud and clear that we must be born again first, that people who are dead in sins cannot understand or believe the gospel. Arminian doctrine was fairly young in the late seventeenth century. Thus the churches that adopted the new doctrine were labeled the "new school" Baptists. Those bodies who continued in primitive faith and practice were called "old school," or "primitive" Baptists."

There are so many false statements in these words. Harvey says erroneous things but gives no historical or biblical proof to substantiate them. First, it is a falsehood to say that it was "Arminian doctrine and the general atonement theory" that was the cause of "the great split in the Baptist family." Again, I am thinking by "the great split" he means the split between the Hardshell Anti-Mission Baptists and the Pro-Mission Baptists which is generally said to have occurred in 1832 as a result of the "Black Rock Address," which was a formal declaration of non-fellowship by the Hardshells against several things, such as mission societies. I don't know of a great split in England or America among the Baptists in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. The General Baptists and Particular Baptists never were together and therefore could not split. 

Harvey says it was "Arminian doctrine" to believe in means, but surely he knows that nearly all Calvinists also believe in means. In fact, many "Primitive Baptists" today will say that the authors of the 1689 confession were Calvinists and Missionary Baptists. It was only the Hyper Calvinist Hardshells (who took over the newly formed denomination in the late 19th century) who denied means altogether. Nearly all of the older Hyper Calvinists, such as Joseph Hussey, believed in means.

In the Black Rock Address there is not a single word said about the extent of the atonement being a reason for their declaration of non-fellowship. You can read that Address (here). The declaration and address does not declare against the view that the preaching of the word of God is a means in saving sinners, though Hardshells continue to claim that it did. Rather, the Address upholds the means view. (See my posts on this here, here, here) The "split" was over evangelistic and mission methods, and not over whether the gospel was a means in salvation, and over whether preachers should be schooled in seminaries. 

There was no split in the Particular Baptist family prior to this time over the extent of the atonement, over whether the gospel or word of God was a means in saving sinners, simply because they all believed in limited atonement and that the word of God was a means. Even the first "Primitive Baptists" immediately after 1832 confessed their belief not only in the perseverance of the saints but also in God's use of the gospel and word of God as a means in saving sinners. This blog is filled with citations from the leaders of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" denomination from the 1830s and onward that show that they believed in means. See my series "What The First Hardshells Believed." This Page (here) gives you links to the several articles in that series. Elder John M. Watson was recognized as one of those leaders and in the above citations from him he states that the "no means" view was an "innovation" among them and that it arose from the Two Seed Primitives. 

So, Harvey's statement that the means view was not the Primitive view is false. Many Hardshells say this but I have many times challenged them to give the proof of this. They have not done so because there is no evidence of it. All the Baptists, with very few exceptions, believed that God used his word as a means in saving sinners. This is the teaching of the 1689 confession and all the oldest Baptist confessions. It is not true that "Arminian doctrine was fairly young in the late seventeenth century." The General Baptists existed long before this time and they were always Arminian. Further, even among the Particular or Regular Baptists of that time period, some were Arminian leaning or partial Calvinists and some were Hyper Calvinists in several points. 

Harvey then said "Thus the churches that adopted the new doctrine were labeled the "new school" Baptists. Those bodies who continued in primitive faith and practice were called "old school," or "primitive" Baptists." This statement leads me to believe even further that by the "end of the seventeenth century" he means rather the end of the eighteenth century, or the time period after 1832, for these labels were then coined. Also, Harvey gives no proof for his assertions. They are false. Who gave these labels? Who was the judge whether a church after 1832 was Old or New School? Was it not the Hardshells? Did not the Missionary Baptists, who the Hardshells labeled as "New School," deny this charge? Did they not claim to be the original Baptists or the old school? I have already cited from Howell who said that it was the Hardshells who were the "new test men" and even Elder Watson testified that his Hardshell Brethren who were beginning to deny means were the "innovators." 

In the next chapter we will continue to examine the polemic for Hardshellism as given by Elder Harvey.

Answering a Hardshell Polemic (1)

 

Recently I read an article titled "Why Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists" By Elder Gary Harvey (read here) and was provoked to write a rebuttal to what he wrote about Hardshell doctrine. From my search he is the pastor of Point Remove Primitive Baptist Church in Russellville, AR. You can see a picture of him in the church's web page (here). In this article Harvey begins by saying:

"Calvinists usually assert the perseverance of the saints, and this is a drastically different doctrine than the preservation of the saints. I assure you, my friends, this is not a mere matter of semantics. The perseverance of the saints is the idea that all the elect will hear the gospel, and obey the gospel, and persevere in obedience to the gospel throughout their lives."

Throughout this article Harvey disdains being labeled a "Calvinist." That is a new phenomenon among the "Primitive" "Old School" "Hardshell" Baptists as their forefathers did not disdain it. Not only that, but his forefathers believed in the perseverance of the saints and not preservation only. This is the view of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and is the confession his forefathers endorsed when they assembled in Fulton, Kentucky in 1900 and though they put footnotes to those sections that they sought to alter, they put no footnotes on the section dealing with perseverance (chapter 17; See here) It was not until the end of the 19th century that some "Primitive Baptists" began to denounce perseverance as a result of denying that faith was a necessary means or condition for eternal salvation. 

In the Mt. Carmel church trial (1909) we have this testimony from Elder Burnham from the faction that held to a belief in means and in perseverance. Elder Burnam was questioned as follows:

Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?

A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.

Q. By whom has that departure been made?

A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.

Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”

A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.

Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?

A. I have.

This is taken from a book published by Elder R.H. Pittman (1909) of the anti-means side wherein he gave much of the testimony from that trial. I purchased this book when I was a young Hardshell. You can read a synopsis of this trial at the web page of the "Primitive Baptist Library" (here). 

So, Elder Harvey is correct to say that there is a drastic difference between perseverance and preservation. It is obvious that the reason why the Hardshells rejected perseverance at the end of the 19th century is a result of their having embraced the view that faith is no condition for salvation, and accepting the Two Seed Primitive Baptist tenet that says "nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell." 

If one reads the first periodicals of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect (1832), in the 1830s-1850's, for instance, he will see that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints was the common view. For instance, Elder C. B. Hassell, the father of Sylvester, and co-author of the recognized history which they universally accept, "The History of the Church of God," cited the following words of Faussett with approval:

“The patience and the final perseverance of the saints, notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions, which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history. God’s people serve Him for His own sake, not merely for the temporary reward which His service may bring; they serve Him even in overwhelming trial. Herein is Job an imperfect type of Christ. Job’s chief agony was, not so much his accumulated losses and sufferings, not even his being misunderstood by friends, but that God hid His face from him, as these calamities too truly seemed to prove (Job 23:3-9). Yet conscience told him he was no hypocrite, nay, though God was slaying him, he still trusted in God (Job 23:10-15; compare Abraham, 22:19).”—Fausset. (chapter II, page 63)

In chapter nine of this history, page 270, under the title "TWELVE MARKS OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH," the first mark is given as follows: 

"The apostolic church consisted only of those persons who had been convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and who had given signs of repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Their faith was the faith of God's elect (Titus i. 1), a steadfast and earnest adherence to the doctrine of the Apostles and prophets (Acts ii. 42; Eph. ii. 20; Jude 3), including the total depravity of the human race in consequence of the fall of our first parents, the special eternal election of God's people to everlasting life, the particular redemption purchased by the blood of Christ for all His people, the effectual calling and the final perseverance of the saints to glory."

In chapter seventeen, page 525, this history says the following about the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

"What is called the Confession of 1688, in thirty-two chapters, by far the most important and authoritative of all uninspired Baptist Confessions, and still generally received by all Baptists who hold the doctrine of personal election and the certainty of the final perseverance of the saints, first appeared in 1677 at London, and was, in 1688 and 1689, approved and recommended by' the ministers and messengers of above a hundred churches who were in session in London July 4-11, 1689. It was adopted by the Philadelphia Baptist Association, in Philadelphia, Sept. 25th, 1742, and is hence also called the Philadelphia Confession — the latter retaining all the old London Confession, and adding two other Articles (Chapter xxiii., Of Singing of Psalms, and Chapter xxxi., Of Laying on of Hands). The Charleston (South Carolina) Association was organized, in 1751, on the basis of the old London Confession; and the Kehukee (North Carolina) Association was organized in 1765 on the same Confession, adding, from the Philadelphia Confession, the Chapter on the Singing of Psalms, but not adding the Chapter on the Laying on of Hands."

So, the 1689 London confession, the 1742 Philadelphia confession, the 1751 Charleston confession, and the 1765 Kehukee confession affirmed the doctrine of the perseverance of all the truly regenerate. 

In chapter eighteen, pages 566-567, Hassell writes:

"The Circular Letter of 1791, written by Elder Wm. Vanhorn, treats of the final perseverance of the saints, and contains the following paragraph: 

"We exclude, in the consideration of this subject, all false professors of religion, of every description, whatever may be their attainments, as in the grace of knowledge, talents or tongues, and power of working miracles, who, nevertheless, are and continue destitute of the Renewing grace of God. Hence, those who have made a fair show in Religion for a time, as the foolish virgins, Matthew xxv. The branches who were in the true vine, either by profession only, or in relation to Abraham, John xv. Those who in a sense may have tasted of the good word of God, as the stony-ground hearers, Matthew xiii; or as Herod, who heard John gladly, Matthew vi. 20. Those who may have embraced the doctrine of the gospel, frequently styled 'The Faith,' in the New Testament, Acts xxiv. 24; 1 Timothy i. 21; 2 Timothy iii. 8; as Hymeneus and Alexander, who in time made shipwreck thereof, 1 Timothy i. 20. Those who have been enlightened, and had the gift of prophecy, as Balaam, 1 Cor. xiii. 2; or who had the gift of tongues— power to work miracles, and as such tasted of the powers of the world to come, or of the gospel dispensation, as Judas, Hebrews vi. 5— all such we exclude— of all such there is no sufficient evidence that any of them were renewed by the grace of God, but of many of them the fullest testimony that they were not. We therefore cannot plead their perseverance in grace, which they never had; nor can such instances of defection, with any propriety, he produced as objections to the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints. We assert that those only will persevere in the way of eternal life and attain unto it, in whom the regenerating grace of God has or will take place. This fact is proved by the everlasting love of God to His people; by the covenant of grace, ordered in all things and sure; redemption by Christ Jesus; the charge He has taken of His people; the promises of the gospel; the perfections of God, His immutability, justice, power, wisdom, faithfulness and truth, all engaged to bring the heirs of grace, through perseverance therein, to glory. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in grace is not the doctrine of their perseverance in wickedness— is not a licentious doctrine. How shall they, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans vi. 1, 2."

So, clearly, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the historic doctrine of the Particular Baptists and of the founders of the "Primitive Baptist" church in the early nineteenth century. So, Harvey's denial of the doctrine shows that he is really not a "primitive" or "original" Baptist. In the year 1900 fifty one of the most well known leaders of the "Primitive Baptist Church" assembled in Fulton, Kentucky and endorsed the 1689 London Baptist Confession as being the confession believed by their forbears. They of course felt a need to put footnotes to the old confession on those sections that they disagreed with, but they did not put any footnotes to the section on perseverance. The 1689 Confession clearly upholds the doctrine of perseverance. 

In chapters 92-97 of my work titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I dealt with the subject of Perseverance and its historical treatment among the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. They can all be read in this blog in the archives for September, 2011. The first can be read (here). In that chapter I cited these words from Elder J. H. Purifoy (1837-1908) and his work titled "God's Saving Power Made Manifest In The Everlasting Preservation of the Saints," under the sub-section titled "The Power of God Unto Eternal Salvation," where he said (emphasis mine):

"To my mind, everlasting preservation is a more thoroughly Scriptural expression than the 'final perseverance' of the saints. If our eternal salvation at last depends on our 'final perseverance,' what are we to persevere in? Are we to persevere in grace, or faithfulness to God, His cause and each other, or persevere in obedience to God?

I have failed in it so often myself, and have seen so much of it on every hand that I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints, for our eternal salvation does depend on that, if we are what we profess to be."

Again, this recommendation by Purifoy was generally accepted by the "Primitive Baptists" and so they changed their articles of faith and removed the word "perseverance" and substituted the word "preservation." Ironically, they did this while all along claiming to have not changed their beliefs since they became a separate denomination, arguing that the word "primitive" means "original." The reason for this change in doctrine I have already shown was due to their changing their views on the nature of regeneration (or rebirth) and of the means God has ordained to effect it, denying that faith is a condition of salvation.

Elder Zach Guess (born 1941 and yet living so far as I know) agrees with what I have written and he is a "Primitive Baptist" minister, pastoring Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, and has pastored other churches in his lifetime. Their web page can be seen (here). He is the brother-in-law, I believe, of Elder Sonny Pyles, who was one of the leading ministers of the Hardshells in his lifetime. Elder Guess is one of the most learned men among the Hardshells and he has sons who are likewise ministers in the "Primitive Baptist" church. Guess wrote the following in this Internet article (2002) titled "Thoughts about the Doctrine of Perseverance" (Available here; emphasis mine):

"It is quite obvious that in some instances the doctrine of perseverance is misunderstood. What people need to do is to thoroughly research the subject before jumping to conclusions. In some cases an inaccurate “straw man” is erected and then torn down. I would like to make some observations that I hope will be enlightening and helpful."

It is true that many reject the doctrine of perseverance because 1) they do not understand it or 2) they are in error in their soteriological views and do not understand what occurs when a person is united to Christ by faith and born of the Spirit. It is also true that many "jump to conclusions," especially among the Hardshells and those in the "free grace" movement, who think that a person can be saved by simply believing intellectually without repentance or a reformation of their lives. These people speak against the idea of "lordship salvation," which simply says that when a sinner is joined to Christ by a living faith that good works will follow and Christ will be Lord over the believer and his ways. It is also true that the opponents of the doctrine of perseverance among the Hardshells of today give a false caricature of the doctrine or a "straw man."  

Next, under the sub-heading "Historical Considerations" Guess wrote:

"In light of some recent discussions one would think that the doctrine of perseverance is a new thing being advocated by some Primitive Baptists. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the term, “perseverance” was not invented by me nor by others of my brethren who advocate this doctrine. Historically the great majority of Primitive Baptist ministers have held to this doctrine. It is also true that many, many of the Articles of Faith of Old Line Primitive Baptist churches, and of Old Line Primitive Baptist associations have contained the very word, “perseverance” as well as what I believe and teach about this doctrine. It is very sad to me that many present day Primitive Baptists are either grossly ignorant of our history or care nothing for it."

When Guess spoke of "some recent discussions" among the "Primitive Baptists" he refers to issues that were taking place at the start of this century over what some called "the liberal movement" where some of the Hardshell churches were beginning to support missions, have ministerial education seminars, Bible classes, and who rejected much of what is called the "time salvation" doctrine and upheld the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. There are articles in this blog on this schism, one which led to a declaration of non-fellowship for Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr. and others, and a split in the Lexington Primitive Baptist church. Just put "liberal movement" in the search engine for this blog and you will find them.

Next, Guess, under the sub-heading "Evidence From Primitive Baptist History" wrote further:

"What I write now will not be exhaustive. It would be easy to produce hundreds of pages of evidence. However, if one will not be convinced by a few plain examples, he would not be convinced by a thousand pages. He would reveal a biased and closed mind."

Agreed. If the Hardshells reject one or a few texts that go against their views, there is no need to multiply texts. Guess then shows, as I have, how the Fulton Assembly and resulting Confession affirmed the doctrine of perseverance, and how Hassell’s History affirmed that it was the belief of the "Primitive Baptists" of the nineteenth century, and how the moderator of the Fulton Assembly and a leader of the Hardshells, Elder J. H. Oliphant, also confessed a belief in it. Guess said:

"Elder J. H. Oliphant, one of the most respected Primitive Baptist preachers of the late 19th and the early 20th centuries wrote a book in 1878. The title of the book? Final Perseverance of the Saints." 

Next, Guess says that the oldest "Church and Associational Records" of the "Primitive Baptist" churches likewise affirmed their belief in perseverance. The above citation from Purifoy also shows this is true. Guess said:

"Many, many Primitive Baptist church and associational Articles of Faith have the expression “Perseverance of the Saints” or “Final Perseverance of the Saints” in them. This expression did not bother the vast majority of our forefathers." 

Not only is the doctrine of the sure and certain perseverance of all the called and justified the traditional and orthodox view of the Particular or Regular Baptists who identify with the churches who endorsed the 1689 London Baptist Confession but it is the teaching of the scriptures. The scriptures are very clear in affirming that perseverance in faith to Christ and his word is a necessary condition for obtaining eternal life and being vindicated and declared just in the judgment of the quick and the dead. Let us notice a few of them.

"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12 kjv)

The Greek word for "patience" is "makrothymia" and denotes not only patience, but endurance, constancy, steadfastness, and perseverance. By "the promises" we must include final salvation, or the "eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 15) These promises are "inherited," what is given to those who are the heirs of God. Two things are required to inherit those promises, both of which are denied to be necessary by Hardshell Baptists. Those two things are faith and perseverance. Jesus taught the same, saying: "But he who endures to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 24: 13 nkjv) Wrote the apostle John:

"Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." (II John 1: 9 nkjv)

That is clear enough, is it not? John also wrote:

"Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (I John 2: 24 nkjv)

That is saying the same thing. It is what the apostle Paul also taught when he wrote:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain." (I Cor. 15: 1-2 nkjv)

"And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister." (Col. 1: 21-23 nkjv)

"but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end...For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end." (Heb. 3: 6, 14 nkjv)

"Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” (Heb. 10: 38 nkjv)

These verses tell us that if a professing Christian fails to keep trusting in Christ and the good news of his saving work, if he fails to abide in Christ, if he does not remain a believer, he will be damned and will show that he was not a true believer. So wrote the apostle John of some professors who did this very thing, writing these words:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (I John 2: 19 nkjv)

Those who turn away from Christ and the gospel show that they were not true or real Christians, but were "false professors," or "hypocrites." Further, John testifies that those who are true believers, truly of the community of saints, that they will in fact "continue" in the community, in the doctrine of Christ. 

So, we first show that perseverance in the faith is necessary for final salvation. Next, we show that the truly saved will in fact continue in the faith, will keep in memory the blessed Gospel, and will not draw back. Next, we give the reason why all the truly born again will indeed persevere, endure, or continue in their allegiance to Christ. So John expressly affirms, writing:

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5: 4-5 nkjv)

"We know that whoever is born of God does not sin (miss the mark); but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him." (vs. 18)

John does not say that a few of those who are born of God will overcome the world, but that they all will. They all will "keep themselves."  Further, such a fact does not exclude giving exhortations to professing Christians to "Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 1: 21 kjv) For those who are born of God such exhortations will serve as means to help them keep themselves.

In the seven letters to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation chapters two and three, Christ ends his letters with a promise to those who "overcome." Those who overcome will go to heaven and enjoy all its promised blessings. Those who do not overcome, or persevere, will not obtain those promised things. What are they? The overcomers will eat of the tree of life in paradise, will not be hurt of the second death, receive a white stone and hidden manna with a new name (identity), the name of God and of the city of God written in their foreheads, and Christ's new name, receive power over the nations to rule them with a rod of iron, being seated with Christ on his throne, be given the morning star, be clothed in white raiment, will not have their names blotted out of the book of life, will have their names confessed in heaven before the Father and the angels, be made a permanent pillar in the heavenly temple, 

The Vine and the Branches

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15: 6 nkjv)

These verses tell us that one must abide in Christ, the true Vine, in order to be saved from being destroyed in the fire. We have already shown how abiding in Christ is a necessary condition for final salvation and how the apostles exhorted professing Christians to so abide. Union with Christ the Vine is salvation. To be disjoined from Christ is damnation. What happens to every branch that does not bear fruit (which is essentially what it means to endure, persevere, etc.)? It is "taken away," and "thrown into the fire" and "burned." What happens to those branches that bear fruit? They are "pruned" so that they then "bear more fruit." Those, therefore, who have a genuine connection with Christ will be progressively sanctified, will regularly be pruned so that they bear more and more fruit. This text shows that continuance in bearing fruit is a necessary condition for final salvation, and such a continuance is the essence of what we mean by the perseverance of the saints.

Defining Perseverance

Those who deny perseverance think that the doctrine of perseverance entails that a believer live above sin. However, that is not what is intended. However, we must question what is meant by "sin." We have already seen where the apostle John said "whoever is born of God does not commit sin." The Greek word for sin is "hamartia" and means to "miss the mark." Yes, every believer sins in the sense of transgressing or disobeying the commands of the Lord, but none of them "miss the mark" in the larger sense. Christ is the mark, and to be with him in glory is the end goal, the chief aim. So wrote the apostle Paul:

"Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3: 12-14 kjv)

All the truly born again will hit the mark, will win the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, will reach perfection, will apprehend the prize and all that God has promised to those who overcome.

Some Bible teachers say that by "does not commit sin" means "does not habitually commit sin" as a way of life, and it is true that those who are born of God cannot live in sin for God's chastening rod will ensure that they are corrected. (Heb. 12: 6-11; Psa. 89: 29-34) The Lord promised that the new covenant's new heart would ensure obedience. Said the LORD: "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Eze. 36: 27 kjv)

All the above texts about perseverance tell us what is meant by persevering. It means to abide in Christ and in his doctrine, to keep in memory the gospel and be not moved away from it, and to continue to bear fruit.

Further, being preserved does not exclude faith and perseverance. Jude says "keep yourselves in the love of God" as we have seen. John says every born again child of God "keeps himself." Peter says they are "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." (I Peter 1: 5)

In the next chapter I will continue to review Elder Harvey's defense of Hardshell ideas about salvation.