Do The Non-Elected Hear God's Voice?

To "hear" in scripture is like the word "called" in scripture. As regards hearing, one may hear without heeding what is heard, or may hear in the sense of heeding what is heard. As regards calling, one may have been called but do not answer the call, while another may be called and answer it. 

Regarding two kinds of hearing or hearers, James the Lord's brother, wrote:

"22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." (James 1: 22-25 nkjv)

Here we see these two kinds of hearers. We also see these two types of hearers in the parable of the sower and the seed where each soil type (representing people) "received" the seed, that is, they "heard" the word preached (“When anyone hears the word" - Matt. 13: 19).That parable is recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and in each of them the Lord concluded his explanation of it with an exhortation to listen well to His words (Matt. 13: 9; Mark 4: 9; Luke 8: 8), saying "Therefore take heed how you hear." (Luke 8: 18)

However, in the scriptures a "hearer" of the word is a term for those who have not merely heard the word but believed and obeyed it. We see this usage of "hearer" in these words of our Lord: "He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” (John 8: 47 nkjv) The hearers Christ speaks of in these words are they who are people who are "of God," who have not only heard the word but have been changed by it. In verse 43 Jesus says to the same people: "Why do you not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word." By "cannot hear" he does not mean that they were not hearing audibly what Jesus was saying but that they were not hearing it with understanding nor heeding or believing it. The saved are they who are hearers in the sense that they "listen" attentively with the intent of learning. This is what "hearing" means in these words of the Father:

"While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” (Matt. 17: 5 nkjv)

In this text the command of the Father to "hear" his beloved Son means more than just to hear but means to hear so as to heed what is said. So the writer of Hebrews speaks of "giving the more earnest heed to the things we have heard" from the Lord and his apostles. (Heb. 2: 1) Many translations often use the word "listen" instead of the word "hear" or the word "hearken." So the Lord says: “Oh, that My people would listen to Me, That Israel would walk in My ways!" (Psa. 81: 13 nkjv) And, "Give ear and hear my voice, Listen and hear my speech." (Isa. 28: 23 nkjv)

Salvation is promised to those who not merely hear the word of God but who hear it, heed it, believe it, and obey or follow it. So said the Lord:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5: 24 nkjv)

Jesus also identified the saved with those who hear his voice. In John chapter ten, in that memorial discourse about his being Shepherd of the sheep, Christ said:

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand." (John 10: 27-28 nkjv) 

Many unsaved people heard the voice of Jesus but were not saved by it. The ones who hear it and are saved by it are they who were affected by it so that they became followers of Jesus. These are the kind of hearers of the word or voice of the Lord that are promised eternal life.

In hearing the preaching of the gospel or word of God, people hear God say to them -- "if you will hear his voice" (Heb. 3: 7, 15, 4: 7), they will be saved. Here again the word "hear" does not mean simply hearing the words but hearing them in the sense of listening to them with the intent of believing and doing what the voice of God says. They are told not to "harden" their hearts when hearing the voice of the Lord. 

"Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” (Heb. 4: 6-7 nkjv)

By "if you will hear his voice" means "if you will hear in the sense of heeding his voice." Many hear this voice but do not heed it, but harden their hearts against what they hear. So the same inspired writer warns in the same Hebrew letter:

"See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” (Heb. 12: 25-26 nkjv)

When I was with the "Primitive" (aka "Hardshell") Baptists, I heard it taught that only the elect hear the voice of the Son of God. I often heard them preach upon these words of the Lord:

"25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." (John 5: 25-29 nkjv)

I already mentioned verse 24 above where Jesus said it is those who hear and believe his word who shall be saved. There is no essential difference between hearing the "word" of Jesus versus hearing his "voice." It is rightly believed that the hearing of the voice of the Son of God in verse twenty five is what takes place in raising sinners out of spiritual death when they are saved, regenerated, or reborn. That interpretation is deducible from the fact that Jesus says "the hour is coming and now is" (meaning it is happening now and will continue to happen in the future), whereas verse twenty eight is talking about a strictly physical resurrection, which is future only, and involves "all who are in the graves." It is argued that just as all who hear the voice of the Son of God in the end-time resurrection will in fact be raised, without exception, so all those who hear the voice of the Son of God for spiritual resurrection will in fact be raised in spiritual resurrection. That being so, only those who are saved have heard the voice of the Son of God. 

Is it true that the unsaved never hear that voice? What is meant by "hearing," seeing we have already shown how "hearers" of the word are of two kinds? Are there any scriptures that say that the lost hear the voice of God, or the Son of God, but who are not saved by it? 

The above texts show that people are called upon to "hear" the voice of the Lord and to not refuse to hear (listen or heed) what the Lord says to them. The "if" in Hebrews 4: 7 is what is called a "third class condition." I have written a few posts on the four types of conditionals found in Greek. (See these in particular; here and here) This indicates that it is not certain that anyone in particular will "hear" the voice of the Lord. Some will hear it but will not heed it and this is further evident when the Hebrew writer says "see that refuse not him who speaks from heaven." All the Israelites who were assembled around Mt. Sinai when the Lord appeared there to enter into covenant with them heard the voice of the Lord. Yet, many of them were not saved by merely hearing the voice of the Lord. Many people in the time of Christ heard the voice of Christ but were not saved by hearing it. 

Consider also that among all those who are in the graves and who hear the voice of the Son of God in the coming day of the resurrection are all not resurrected "unto life," for some are resurrected "to condemnation" or eternal death. Likewise, many who hear the gospel or word of God through preachers, or by reading the bible, will not be saved by hearing the voice, while others will be saved. Some will hear the word of voice of the Lord via preaching but who will not be saved (resurrected to spiritual life) by it for they will "refuse him who speaks to them from heaven." This truth is further substantiated by these words of the apostle Paul:

"14 Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. 15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?" (II Cor. 2: 14-16 nkjv) 

Both the saved and the perishing were recipients of the diffusion of the fragrance or aroma of the knowledge of the Lord and yet in one case that fragrant knowledge gives life to the spiritually dead and to others it leads to further death, yea, to the "second death." 

Further, we must decide what kind of hearer is alluded to by Jesus when he says "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and  those who hear shall live." What is meant by "those who hear"? Is it all who merely hear the word audibly or rather they who hear in the sense of listening and heeding? Recall the words of the Father who said "this is my beloved Son, hear him." Does he mean simply give him an audience without giving credence to what he says? 

The Called of Jesus Christ

Paul addressed believers as "the called of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1: 6). By this he does not designate any who have been called by the gospel but who did not answer or positively respond to the call. Jesus indicated that many are thus called but who never heed the call and were not of the chosen when he said: "For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22: 14). 

In chapter fourteen of my series on "Prevenient Grace" I showed how "the called" may designate two different sets of people. (See here) In that post I wrote:

"When anything is drawn it is drawn away from something and to something else. A thing cannot be said to have been drawn to something if it has not reached the point to which it is being drawn. You cannot therefore say that a sinner has been drawn until he has come to Christ. It is like the word "called." We can see two ways to interpret the word "called." If I call a person on the telephone, I can say that I called that person even if the person does not answer the call. On the other hand, by saying that we called a person may mean we called a person and that person answered our call."

When Paul speaks of "the called of Jesus Christ" he does not denote all those who hear the call of the gospel but rather those who hear it and positively answer the call. In Proverbs "Wisdom" says to all:

"24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, 25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke, 26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes, 27 When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you." (Prov. 1: 24-27 nkjv)

So, some are called by Wisdom, or God, and yet refuse and reject that call and the results of doing that are stated in the text.

So, in conclusion we say that the non-elect do often hear the voice, word, or call of the Lord when they hear or read the word of God but are not saved by it. They hear it in one sense but not in another.

Praying For Salvation?

Are sinners ever saved by praying? Many Calvinists, especially the Hyper Calvinists, are highly critical of other Christians, especially Arminians, who tell sinners that if they will pray a certain prayer, such as the "sinner's prayer," that they will be saved thereby. I believe there are extremes on both sides of this question. It is wrong for evangelists to tell lost sinners that they will be saved by uttering a certain prayer, a prayer that they will give as an example. That is an extreme and makes salvation to be the result of merely uttering certain words, a kind of magical or mystical incantation. However, it is also an extreme for some to say that prayer is no means at all for salvation. 

Got Questions web page in an article titled "What is the prayer of salvation" (See here) said (emphasis mine):

"Many people ask, “Is there a prayer I can pray that will guarantee my salvation?” It is important to remember that salvation is not received by reciting a prayer or uttering certain words. The Bible nowhere records a person’s receiving salvation by a prayer. Saying a prayer is not the biblical way of salvation. The biblical method of salvation is faith in Jesus Christ."

I don't think that is true. Ironically, as we will see, the same article ends up saying just the opposite. One example of a sinner being saved by prayer is in the salvation of the thief who was crucified with Christ on his right side.

"Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23: 39-43 nkjv)

If we define "prayer" as a word spoken to God or a petition to God, then the thief prayed for salvation when he said "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom." In fact, in another web article titled "What is Prayer?", Got Questions wrote (See here): 

"The most basic definition of prayer is “talking to God.” Prayer is not meditation or passive reflection; it is direct address to God...We pray to make requests...When we make petitions to God, we let God know exactly where we stand and what we would like to see happen."

If we deny that people are saved by prayer, then we must say that they are saved apart from asking God to save them. Yet, in the case of the above thief, we see that he requested to be remembered.

The Got Questions authors then wrote this:

"Now, that does not mean prayer cannot be involved in receiving salvation. If you understand the gospel, believe it to be true, and have accepted Jesus as your salvation, it is good and appropriate to express that faith to God in prayer. Communicating with God through prayer can be a way to progress from accepting facts about Jesus to fully trusting in Him as Savior. Prayer can be connected to the act of placing your faith in Jesus alone for salvation."

It seems to me that by these words the authors have contradicted what they said in the previous opening citation of their article.

We know from scripture that salvation is a result of 1) calling upon the name of the Lord in faith, and 2) confessing sins to the Lord and asking for his forgiveness and salvation, and this is often done in prayer. 

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)

People call upon the Lord and confess their sins and their faith in Christ in prayer.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1: 9 nkjv)

This confession is often given to God in prayer. 

The apostle Peter certainly did not believe that people could not find salvation through praying to God. Notice what is recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles:

"18 And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! 21 You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.” (Acts 8: 18-22 nkjv)

Nearly all bible teachers agree that Simon (the sorcerer) was not a true believer, but was a pretender, that he became a professed follower of Jesus for ulterior motives, thinking that he could thereby obtain the powers possessed by the apostles. Further, Peter's description of Simon shows that Peter did not believe that Simon had truly been saved, saying that Simon was destined to "perish," and had "neither part nor portion in this matter," and whose "heart is not right in the sight of God," and who was "poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity." But, for salvation, Peter told Simon to "repent" and to "pray to God" so that he might be forgiven.

Another example where prayer was a means of salvation is seen in these words of Christ concerning a hated "tax collector" who was under conviction of sin:

"And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18: 13 nkjv)

Here we see where a convicted sinner prayed for God to "be merciful" or ("be propitious") to him a sinner and the result was that he was "justified." Of course, just saying these words without truly believing them will avail nothing. But, praying to God in genuine faith with such confession and such repentance will indeed bring salvation.

The scripture at the head of this post affirms the truth that people pray for salvation. It says: "Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; Save me, and I shall be saved, For You are my praise."

That scripture surely proves that people are saved by prayer uttered in faith. 

Divine Impassibility

In September, 2022, I did a series titled "The Impassibility of God" which had seven chapters. You can find those in the archives for that month. In the past couple days I have watched a short video titled "Divine Impassibility Explained" by Kevin DeYoung (here) and I recommend it as a good Reader's Digest treatise of this important doctrine. 

Unconditional Salvation?

The question as to whether salvation is conditional or unconditional is an old one among Baptists of the Particular Baptist tradition, though not among General or Free Will Baptists. I don't like telling people that I believe in unconditional salvation because it gives people the wrong idea. It suggests that a person does not have to do anything to be saved. However, many Baptists of the past plainly said that they did not believe in conditional salvation. I have written much on this question. 

In my series on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," in chapters 119-122, I dealt with this subject under the title of "Conditional or Unconditional?" You can read those chapters in a blog giving all those chapters (here). In chapter nineteen I cite from Spencer's history of Kentucky Baptists as follows:

"Thus was Elkhorn Association constituted, on Saturday, October 1, 1785. William Cave was chosen Moderator. The Association decided that all matters of business should be determined by a majority. At the request of Gilberts Creek, the oldest church in the Association, a committee was sent to inquire into its standing. In answer to a query from Tates Creek,the churches were advised to use all tenderness to reclaim persons holding the error of conditional salvation, but if they could not be reclaimed, to exclude them." (Spencer's History of Kentucky Baptists Volume II, 1886 - See here)

When Baptists of the past and of the Calvinist tradition denied "conditional salvation" they did not mean to imply that a person could go to heaven without faith in Christ or repentance. Nevertheless, I think such denial has done more harm than good and should not have ever been said. In the following citations, taken from those chapters on that question, I give citations from Baptists of the past who explained what they meant by saying that salvation was unconditional. We will begin with John Bunyan (1628-1688)  who wrote (emphasis mine):

"The conditional promise calls for repentance, the absolute promise gives it (Acts 5:31). The conditional promise calls for faith, the absolute promise gives it (Zeph 3:12; Rom 15:12). The conditional promise calls for a new heart, the absolute promise gives it (Eze 36:25,26). The conditional promise calleth for holy obedience, the absolute promise giveth it, or causeth it (Eze 36:27)."

Next, we will cite from Benjamen Keach (1640-1704), a signer of the second London Confession (1689), wrote the following in "THE DISPLAY OF GLORIOUS GRACE: OR, THE COVENANT OF PEACE OPENED. IN FOURTEEN SERMONS" (You can read it here):

"From hence we may infer, That in the Covenant of Peace, the Promises of God are Absolute; and that this Absoluteness implies, that all the Conditions that are required on the Creature's part, Grace is promised to them to perform them on God's part, Who works in us to will and to do of his own good Pleasure."

"The Gospel doth not proclaim a Conditional Peace, or Reconciliation, or that God is only reconcilable; so that if the Sinner performs his part, God will be fully reconciled; that is, if the Sinner repents, believes is Regenerated, or answers the Rule of the Promise, as some speak. I know no such Conditional Gospel, or Proclamation; but those Conditions which Jesus Christ was to perform, which was not only to reconcile God to us, but us also to God: Can that be the Condition of Life on our part which Christ hath engaged in the Covenant to do?"

"Moreover, whatsoever Duties God requires of us as to our actual Justification, in our own Consciences, and as to our Sanctification-also, he hath promised to give us his Spirit to perform and work in us."

"My Brethren, Doth a Child contribute any thing to its own Formation in the Womb? Alas, What is in us before we are Born again? And of his own Will begat he us, &c.

Object. But doth not the Gospel require Faith and Repentance, as the Condition of Justification, and Eternal Life?

1 Answ. I told you but even now, there are Conditions of Connection by way of order and dependence of things one upon another (Page 186):

As in Logic (saith the same Reverend Divine) if a Creature be a Man, he is a Rational Creature; or if God be the first Cause, he is the Creator of all things: And in this sense (saith he) Creation is a Condition of Salvation; if a Man be Saved, he must be Created: So if a Man believe he shall be Saved, believing is a Condition of Connection, a State of Grace is thus a Condition to a State of Glory, by way of Connection in the Promise; but one is not the Federal Condition of another, but both come in as the Gift of Grace; in this sense the Covenant contains all the Conditions of Order and Dependence in the Exhibition and Performance; the hearing the Word is the Condition of Faith, but hearing is not a Federal Condition; so the giving the Spirit is the Condition of Union to Christ and Faith, and Faith the Condition of receiving of Pardon, and living in Holiness and the giving of Pardon the Condition of receiving it, and Holiness the Condition of seeing God, and of having Eternal Happiness; but these kind of Conditions are not Federal Entitling Conditions to the Promise, but are contained in the Promise, and denote the Connection and Dependence of one promised Benefit upon another."

So, both Bunyan and Keach affirm that salvation is conditional in one sense but not in another. They deny that salvation is conditional if by that someone means a condition which a sinner does himself without God's grace being the cause, a condition of merit. They affirm that salvation is conditional upon God producing faith and repentance and every other thing necessary to salvation, or what they call a "condition of connection." 

Bob L. Ross of Pilgram Publications (now deceased) was once an editor of the "Baptist Examiner" published out of Ashland, Kentucky. In the 1958 edition of that paper (which my father used to write articles for) Ross wrote (you can read it here) the following under the sub-title "UNCONDITIONAL SALVATION" (emphasis mine):

"There ARE NO meritorious acts whereby salvation is gained. God is not in the business of peddling His grace upon certain conditions. Merit-mongers despise salvation by grace, and the God of all grace equally despises the doctrine of salvation by human effort. There are no meritorious conditions to salvation. God does not say, “I will save you, if you perform such and such an act.” That would be salvation by works."

The key point in these words are "no meritorious conditions." He is not denying that faith and repentance and confession of sins and confession of Christ are necessary prerequisites to salvation, but is denying that people do these things "by human effort" apart from the power of the gospel and Spirit of God.

Ross wrote further:

"Furthermore, it would be a denial of man’s total depravity and inability (John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1). Grace brings salvation to the spiritually helpless sinner. Some Baptists refer to repentance and faith as “conditions” of salvation. But if salvation is conditioned upon the sinner in the very beginning, then why not all the way to the end? Repentance and faith are not conditions to salvation; they are the means of God in bringing His people from sin unto Christ. I say the “means of God,” for repentance and faith are “inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God. (Baptist Confession of Faith, New Hampshire). The elect do not of themselves perform repentance and faith but the Spirit produces these graces in the elect, “in connection with divine truth.” Our salvation is conditioned upon one only, even our God. If we, as helpless sinners, are to be saved, it depends entirely upon Him. We are what we are “by the grace of God.” (I Corinthians 15:10)."

This was written when Brother Ross was a young man in the faith. I knew brother Ross personally. I don't think that he later in life objected to saying that salvation was conditional. He still believed that faith and repentance were means, or conditions of connection.

Sylvester Hassell, a recognized leader of the "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptist, 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 - See here)

It is an instance of further departure from the truth for later Hardshells to say that there are no conditions for sinners, in any sense, to obtain salvation. 

Elder John Rowe, another 19th century Hardshell, wrote:

"Not, however, without repentance and faith, though some have been so full of folly, as to affirm that if sinners are saved upon the principles we maintain, then repentance and faith are needless things....Whereas none ever have, or will repent and believe, evangelically, except under the influence of special grace applied to them." (Elder John Rowe, "My Grace is Sufficient for Thee," in the Gospel Messenger, 1881, pg. 9)

Elder W. M. Mitchell, another 19th century "Primitive Baptist" leader, wrote:

"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." ("The Southern Baptist Messenger," Oct. 1, 1880)

That there are necessary conditions or prerequisites for sinners to be saved is evident from many biblical texts. 

Jesus Counsels the Rich Young Ruler

"17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” 18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ” 20 And he answered and said to Him, “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.” 21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” 22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions." (Mark 10: 17-22 nkjv)

Why did Jesus not say to this man -- "you don't have to do anything"?

Paul and Silas to the Jailer

"27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16: 27-31 nkjv)

Why did Paul and Silas not say to this man -- "you don't have to do anything"?

If salvation was in every way unconditional, why did John the Baptist preach as he did in the following text?

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Matt. 3: 7 kjv)

First, notice that these words were spoken to those who were dead alien sinners, for that is evident in the Baptist calling those he addressed as a "generation of vipers." Second, if there are no conditions for salvation, then why did the Baptist say "flee from the wrath to come"?

It is true that sinners need to be told and need to learn that they cannot believe, repent, or obey Christ, apart from the Lord's power and grace. They need to be told to seek such grace from the Lord out of realization of their own inability.

Wilson Thompson on Union With Christ

One of the tenets of Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism is to deny that union with Christ is by faith, affirming rather that union with Christ, vital union, occurs prior to faith. This is because they teach that sinners are regenerated or born again before they believe or have faith. It is in this regeneration before faith that a sinner is vitally joined to Christ, and this being so there is a denial that union with Christ is by faith.

In writing my present series on "Prevenient Grace" I went looking at the Autobiography of Elder Wilson Thompson (1788-1866), published in 1866 (which can be read here), a founder of the sect that calls itself "Primitive" or "Old School" (aka "Hardshell") Baptists, because I recalled something I remember reading in that autobiography that I thought I would cite in that series. While doing that I came across the following words of Thompson (emphasis mine):

"He (Wilson's father) said no more, and the conversation turned on certain subjects of Scripture, for my mind was working hard on the doctrine of the union of Christ and his people before faith. The preaching I had heard was, that God's people became united to Christ by a living faith; but I saw things differently, for I conceived that such an union was indispensable to the legal imputation of our sins to Christ, and of His righteousness to us, and that, too, before faith could act upon, or lay hold of, that mystical union, or draw any comfort from it. This was the sense in which I understood the doctrine, and I was laboring hard to discover the true principles upon which it was based, as revealed in the Scriptures of truth, and by the Spirit in the hearts of God's people. This subject engrossed most of our conversation, as I found father also was much exercised on the same point. The evening meetings were continued, from time to time — sometimes nearly every night in the week, and they were attended with great interest." (pg. 161-162) 

Thompson later in his autobiography also wrote:

"If He were not man He could not have died for my sins. Nay, if He were not a holy, sinless, and undefiled man in Himself, standing in an indissoluble, legal, vital union to His body, the Church, our sins could not in justice or in law have been laid on Him, nor the righteousness of Him imputed to us." (pg. 364)

First, notice that Thompson confesses that the Baptists, in the early days of his ministry, taught that people become "united to Christ by a living faith." Second, notice that Thompson disagrees with this historic Baptist teaching, and affirms that living union with Christ is effected before and without faith. 

Most Baptists would agree that there was some kind of union with Christ before faith, yea even from past eternity. Those Baptists of the Calvinist tradition would agree that in eternity past, in the covenantal agreement between the Father and Son, that there was a representative union created between Christ and those chosen to salvation, these being the ones the Father "gave" to Christ. Also, all Baptists, whether of the Calvinist tradition or not, believe that a union with man occurred when the Son of God became a man via his incarnation and that without this union of the divine Son of God with humanity there would be no salvation.

The Two Seed Primitive Baptists, as I have shown in my ongoing series "Two Seed Baptist Ideology," of which Elder Thompson was in agreement, believed in what was called "eternal vital union," which involved the idea that the elect existed from eternity and were "in Christ" and had a union of life with Christ from eternity. Had he simply believed in an eternal representative union by election and the gifting of the Father of the elect to Christ, or simply believed that a union with the elect or race of men was created when Christ became a man, he would have remained orthodox in his views. But, when he denied that vital union with Christ was effected in time by faith and taught that vital union existed from eternity between the elect (body of Christ) and Christ he embraced what is clearly heterodox and a heresy of the worst sort.  

Thompson says that the Baptists of his day, even among those who would later join the "anti-mission movement," all believed that a vital (living) union with Christ was brought about by faith. If it is brought about by faith, then regeneration or new birth could not occur before faith, for in that case regeneration did not create such a union. 

Blog News Update

I am reading through two books that will help me complete my series on "Prevenient Grace" being 

1) "Prepared by Grace, for Grace The Puritans on God’s Ordinary Way of Leading Sinners to Christ" By Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley

2) "Puritans and Calvinism" by Peter Toon (Read here)

I am also working on some chapters to add to my series "Two Seed Baptist Ideology" and on some other draft articles.

I am still saddened by the recent decease of Ken Mann, one of the contributing editors of this blog. He was only 63. He and I first met by telephone back in 2017. I wrote a post on that at the time (See here). He called me to find out information about the "Primitive Baptists" who I once was affiliated with. Later I asked him to become a contributing editor of this blog. He was a Southern Baptist and a historian of Baptist history. He was not a Calvinist and I wondered whether I had done the right thing in asking him to be an editor of this blog. However, as time went on, and we became close friends, often communicating by e-mail and talking on the telephone, I knew I had made the right decision. 

The Lord used my association with brother Mann to make me more meek and gentle with other Christians who rejected some aspects of Calvinism. I thank the Lord for that. Too many Calvinists are not able to have fellowship with their Arminian brothers and I think that is not good. Brother Kenny was also very kind and gentle towards me. We both cared about saving the lost. I attribute this fact due to my being delivered from the errors of Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism. Those brethren can be quite stand-offish and possess a holier than thou attitude. God used Kenny to temper me, so that I am now more of a "softie." I have learned how to disagree with brethren on the bible without being so disagreeable. 

I miss my dear brother. I miss getting e-mails from him, asking how I am doing, or sending me a new song, or asking me a question on the bible or church history. I miss being able to share hymns and new songs with him. We would often call each other "reverend" after I wrote an article on how some go overboard in saying that preachers should never be called reverend. 

He would often make a comment on something I wrote. We get very few comments any more even though we have been getting 200,000 page views per month. That is a little strange. His insights were appreciated by me. When I would write on some of the beliefs of Calvinists I would write with brother Kenny in mind and this would prevent me from being too harsh in my writing against Arminian views.

I also am saddened by the death of Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. However, his decease was not a surprise as was that of Kenny's departure. Bradley was 91. I watched his funeral at the church last Friday. I was glad that I had gotten to see him in person a couple years ago when I visited the Cincinnati church. 

My wife is still battling lung cancer and undergoing immunotherapy. Her recent CT scan showed that the cancer had shrunk almost 50%. I ask for your continued prayers for her. As for me, I still have several health issues. I have had pulmonary fibrosis for five years now, so my time is very short. I have been having severe headaches for the past 2-3 months and I have a CT head and neck scan scheduled in June (the earliest I could get). I also was recently diagnosed with eczema and suffer from rashes and itching. I also have several other health issues to deal with.

With the way things are going in the world I am hoping the Lord takes Paulette and me before things get worse, which I firmly believe they will. I believe that the year 2030 will be an important date in bible prophecy, and many others agree. Recall that the World Economic Forum said, a few years ago, that "by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy." That will also mark two thousand years since the death of Christ and the Lord by the prophet said "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." (Hosea 6: 2) Taking a "day" for a "thousand years" and assuming Christ died on the cross in 30 A.D., this prophecy could well be fulfilled in 2030. I don't mind the Lord taking me out of the world before the time of the great tribulation begins. I do, however, feel fretful for my younger loved ones. 

Thanking all our readers and visitors for your prayers and support, I also ask for your continued prayers.

Prevenient Grace (16)

Dr. John Piper

As stated before, I get irritated when people say that Calvinists believe that sinners are born again before faith and deny prevenient grace. It is worse when scholars and theologians say such when they ought to know better, and perhaps some of them do know better, but say this in order to poison the well against Calvinism or who want to be the authoritative definers of what is Calvinism. In the preceding chapters I have cited from several great Calvinist theologians who did believe that sinners were born again by faith and that God, via his prevenient grace, does things in the hearts, minds, and lives of lost sinners which are intended to bring them to salvation. 

Dr. John Piper deals with this subject very concisely (here) and cites Dr. Roger Olson, an historic or classical Arminian on the subject, and then gives his own thoughts upon it. Piper cites from Olson's book, giving us these citations from Olson:

"If anyone comes to Christ with repentance and faith, it is only because they are enabled by God’s “prevenient grace” to do so." (66) 

 

"Arminianism has always insisted that the initiative in salvation is God’s; it is called “prevenient grace,” and it is enabling but resistible." (169) 

 

"[Wesley] affirmed original sin, including total depravity in the sense of spiritual helplessness. But he also affirmed God’s universal gift of prevenient or enabling grace that restores freedom of the will." (129) 

 

"Classical Arminian theology...attributes the sinners’ ability to respond to the gospel with repentance and faith to prevenient grace." (67)

"[Prevenient grace is] the illuminating, convicting, calling, enabling power of the Holy Spirit working on the sinner’s soul and making them free to choose saving grace (or reject it)." (67)

"So in Arminian theology, a partial regeneration does precede conversion, but it is not a complete regeneration. It is an awakening and enabling, but not an irresistible force...[Prevenient grace is] God’s powerful attracting and persuading power that actually imparts free will to be saved or not." (171)

Piper says in rebuttal:

"Now, that’s the end of my quotations so that you could hear how a historic Arminian would describe his own understanding of prevenient grace."

Under the sub-title "What’s Ultimately Decisive?" Piper said: 

"Calvinism says God’s grace doesn’t just bring us up to a point of “partial regeneration” (that’s Olson’s term). Calvinism says God’s grace doesn’t stop and leave the outcome to our ultimate self-determination — now, that’s my term, ultimate self-determination." 

Here Piper is clearly wrong. In fact, he ought to agree with most of the citations from Olson. Piper objects to any idea of a "partial regeneration." However, he is himself guilty of such a fallacy. In the previous chapter I cited from Dr. Shedd who said that some post Reformation Calvinists gave a restricted definition to the term "regeneration" and other prior Calvinists gave a broad definition of it. The older Calvinists included evangelical conversion in the experience of regeneration, or actually saw them as being the same experience, but later Calvinists divorced conversion from regeneration and narrowly defined it. Many other theologians besides Shedd also have said the same thing. So, I find it ironic that Piper, who believes that regeneration precedes faith, and who divorces conversion from regeneration, would say that Calvinism does not believe in "partial regeneration," for clearly he is the one who believes in a partial regeneration.

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.

We have affirmed in previous chapters the fact that regeneration has been defined by Calvinists in both a restricted way and in a broad way. The fact is, Piper, by divorcing conversion from regeneration has taught a partial regeneration. The very idea that a man may be said to have been regenerated before he has believed, repented, or received Christ and been united to him is absurd, biblically speaking. To affirm such a thing is indeed to speak of a very limited or partial regeneration.

Also, Olson is not saying that a person is partially regenerated before he believes, repents, and is converted, but is rather affirming that a person is not regenerated until he is converted. I think he is simply saying that a person is not regenerated until he has believed. Besides, why does Piper object to this when he believes the very thing he condemns? 

John Gill, who many consider to be a Hyper Calvinist, in his body of Doctrinal Divinity, in chapter 11, on "Regeneration," begins with this statement:

"Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace infused into the soul; which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven." 

So, which way did he believe was the scriptural idea of it? In the same section Gill wrote:

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

On I Cor. 4: 15 he wrote:

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

On James 1: 18 Gill wrote: 

"Of his own will begat he us...The apostle instances in one of those good and perfect gifts, regeneration...it is done at once; there are no degrees in it...is born again, at once...no one is more regenerated than another, or the same person more regenerated at one time than at another."

I hardly see how the word of God can be a means to salvation before that word is believed. This fact is why those who say that regeneration precedes faith will deny that the word of God is a means in regeneration. If faith in the word follows regeneration, then how was the word a means of regeneration? 

Piper also said:

"According to Arminianism, the very final act that brings me into Christ, that decisive moment in conversion, is one that I perform, not God."

Is "believing" not an act people do to be saved? Is "coming" to Christ not something people do to enter into Christ? In fact, the Bible says that people "believe into Christ." I wrote about this in this post (here). I cited these texts:

In the New Testament the phrase "eis auton" (unto him) is used frequently.

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-unto him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may be believing on him (eis-unto him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis, unto) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48)

Now of course faith is God's gift and becoming a believer is due to the working of God's mighty power. (See John 6: 65; Eph. 1: 19-20) Furthermore, many Calvinists agree with many Arminians that it is at the point of faith in Christ that a person is united to Christ, which is what "into Christ" signifies. 

Piper in this article (here), titled "What Is Union With Christ?" actually said that one is united to Christ by faith. He said (emphasis mine):

"I’m saving my definition of union with Christ, which he asked for, for the end. It hangs in great measure on what the word “in” means in the phrase “in Christ.”

Under the sub-heading "From God, Through Faith" he also said: "What’s the cause of this in-ness — this being in Christ Jesus?" He then says:

"How then do we experience this day by day? Paul answers, “by faith”: “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith” (Colossians 2:12). So you identify with him, and you die with him, and you rise with him through faith."

If faith in Christ is the means of union with Christ, as Piper clearly and rightly affirms in the above words, then it is indeed the "decisive moment" of salvation. So, why is Piper criticizing Olson, or any Arminian, for saying the same thing? Granted, Olson and Piper would disagree on how faith is produced in a sinner, but still it is true that faith is the demarcation point where a sinner who was dead is made alive. 

But Piper contradicts himself on this matter if one looks at his writings on this subject. He believes one is regenerated before faith, and if faith is the medium of union with Christ, then he has an odd character, one who is regenerated without union with Christ.

Charles Spurgeon in his "Morning and Evening" on I John 1: 6 titled “Fellowship with him" said: 

"When we were united by faith to Christ, we were brought into such complete fellowship with him, that we were made one with him, and his interests and ours became mutual and identical." (See here)

Piper also said:

"Calvinism says that God does more in our conversion; namely, he overcomes all of our resistance and opens the eyes of our hearts to make Christ so real and so beautiful and so compelling that our will gladly embraces Christ as our Savior and Lord and Treasure."

What does Piper mean by "conversion"? Does he not believe it is a separate experience that follows regeneration? Does he teach that conversion is not a part of regeneration?

Under the sub-title "Raised from the Dead" Piper said: 

"The question is, Which of those is the biblical view of how God’s grace brings us to faith and salvation? Does it make us free to choose grace or reject it? Or does it overcome our rebellion and blindness so that we are drawn triumphantly by the beauty of Christ to embrace what is true and real?"

I don't see how believing in prevenient grace is unbiblical. I agree that the Calvinists who believe in prevenient grace do not believe that it makes a depraved sinner free from sin. The Puritan Calvinists, as we have seen, believed that God did things prior to regeneration as preparations for regeneration. As I have shown, it is because of special or abundant grace, and of greater divine power exerted, that some sinners (the elect) are made believers, and that grace preceded their salvation. If Piper believes that the word or gospel of God is a means in regeneration, then he believes in prevenient grace. However, those like Piper, who say regeneration precedes faith, often deny that the word or gospel of God is a means thereto. 

Piper said further:

"'I’ll point to one passage of Scripture that I think shows the complete saving effectiveness of God’s grace and that God provides more than a partial regeneration in order to bring us to faith. That passage is Ephesians 2:4–7. So let me read it.'"

After reading the text above, Piper said:

"I don’t think that text can be fairly interpreted to mean that there is a split in regeneration or a split in making alive."

If there is no split in regeneration as Piper affirms, then the question must be asked - "does he believe conversion (evangelical faith and repentance) is part of regeneration?" Also, if one looks at how Paul describes "regeneration" in Ephesians chapter two he will see that Paul describes it in terms of evangelical conversion. In verse eight of that chapter the apostle says - "for by grace are you saved through faith." By "saved" he is talking about what he has been describing in verses one through seven which Piper says is regeneration. That being so, Paul affirms that people are regenerated by faith. Also, one cannot be made spiritually alive apart from being joined to Christ who is Life and Piper has already said that union with Christ is by faith. The apostle John said - "whoever has the Son has life." (I John 5: 12) A person receives and possesses the Son by "receiving" the Son and this "receiving" is equated with "believing" into the Son. So the same apostle wrote:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name." (John 1: 12 nkjv)

People become children of God when they receive Christ and believe in him. According to the apostle this is the decisive moment.

In verses eleven through thirteen of Ephesians chapter two Paul speaks of the time when the Ephesian believers were "without Christ," "without God," and were "strangers and aliens" from the commonwealth of Israel, and were "without hope." Paul's regeneration or salvation brought a believer into union with the Father and Son and a "good hope through grace." (II Thess. 2: 16)

Piper continued:

"Now, let me insert a comment here. Just to be clear, he (Olson) says the ability to respond is given with prevenient grace. But it’s an ability to believe or not to believe. And he’ll make that really plain in just a minute."

The kind of prevenient grace I am positing is the same kind posited by other Calvinists, such as the Puritan Calvinists. The word of God is able to convict sinners before they are converted. The law of God is able to show a lost man that he is guilty. Man is therefore able to feel guilt and to realize his need for salvation while still lost in sin. "By the law," said the apostle Paul, "is the knowledge of sin." (Rom. 3: 20) It is by the law that men realize that they are "guilty before God." (vs. 19) In chapter seven he says "I would not have known sin except through the law." (vs. 7) He says that the law arouses his sinful nature and makes sin to revive. (vs. 5, 8-9) He says the law killed him. (vs. 10-11) In verse 13 he says:

"But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful."

The Puritans believed that God used the law to show depraved sinners that they were guilty and exceedingly sinful and to kill them and that this killing was a necessary step to humble them, to bring them to seek salvation in Christ. In this way "the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." (Gal. 3: 24) The law has that power and sinners are able to feel guilt and be convicted of sin while they are dead in trespasses and sins. The gospel also, being "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1: 16), is also able to do things in the hearts of dead sinners. 

Piper continued:

"I don’t think that text can be fairly interpreted to mean that there is a split in regeneration or a split in making alive. It is not as if he does part of it, and then he waits to see what we will do with the rest of it, if we will finish the making alive and bringing ourselves into union with Christ. I don’t think that will work."

Again, I say, it is Piper and his brethren who say "regeneration precedes faith" who split up regeneration into parts. Further, many Calvinists, who believe that regeneration is synonymous with rebirth, say that rebirth is a process like physical birth. Physical birth takes in conception, then development in the womb, and then birth deliverance from the womb. This was the prevalent view of most Hardshell Baptists of the nineteenth century. It was also the view of many Presbyterians. It was the view of Arthur Pink, a well known Calvinist, who I am sure Piper has read. In this post (here) I cited from several Calvinists who held this view. Is this not a splitting up regeneration? So, the point is, Piper condemns Olson for splitting up regeneration into a partial regeneration versus a full regeneration and yet many Calvinists do the same, even Piper himself. 

Under the sub-title "The Real Difference" Piper said: 

"The difference between me (and I think I speak for virtually all Calvinists on this point) and Arminians is not that one believes in total depravity and the other doesn’t. No, that’s not it. And the difference is not that one believes that grace must precede faith and the other doesn’t. No, that’s not the difference either. Rather, I believe that God’s saving grace not merely restores a kind of free will that can accept or reject Christ, but rather opens our blind eyes and grants us to see the compelling truth and beauty and worth of Jesus in such a way that we find him irresistible. Then we gladly and willingly embrace him as our Savior and Lord and Treasure. He brings us all the way to the point of conversion so that we give him all the glory for our receiving of Jesus."

Much of what Dr. Piper says is true. However, he fails to see how both common grace and prevenient grace, like common operations of the Spirit, may be given in a greater measure to the elect than to those not chosen to salvation. He rightly says that some are so enlightened that they are compelled by the truth and are so attracted to the beauty they have seen in Christ that they find him irresistible. What he fails to understand, however, is that common and prevenient grace is shown even to the non-elect and they experience some common operations of the Spirit and it is these that they resist as Stephen said. (Acts 7: 51) 

Elder Bradley Has Passed Away

Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr.

May 6, 1935 - May 9, 2026

I am sorry to hear of the death of this great man of God. You can read his obituary (here). Elder Bradley at one time was one of the two most popular preachers in the "Primitive Baptist" church until a few years ago when he was generally declared in disorder and rejected by the Hardshells because he rejected their "time salvation" ideology and contended for the old Baptist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

I have known Elder Bradley since 1972. When I lived in Ohio I would visit Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church which he founded. He had me fill in for him once after I had moved to North Carolina. I last saw him a couple years ago when I visited Cincinnati church again and enjoyed talking with him.

He leaves on record an immense amount of literature, sermons, and testimonials. May he rest in peace.