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.

No Reaping in the Next Life?

Elder C.H. Cayce, champion debater for the "Primitive Baptist" sect, in an editorial in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" titled "Galatians 6:7 AND Ephesians 5:6" for July 16, 1936, wrote: 

"Sister Alma Pate, Avant, Okla., has requested our views on (Galatians 6:7) and (Ephesians 5:6); (Galatians 6:7-8) reads as follows: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” This language was written to the church at Galatia. It is not addressed to alien sinners. But it is true in nature, that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

He then said:

"He does the reaping from the same field where he does the sowing."

This is Hardshellism in a nutshell. It is also a leading tenet of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists. The Two Seeders said that nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven or hell. Cayce believes that all the reaping for sowing good seed occurs in this life and not in the next life or in eternity. He also is affirming that all the reaping from sowing to the flesh is likewise received in a person's life but not in eternity. What about sowing on earth and reaping in hell? What saith the scriptures?

"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 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: 28-29 nkjv)

Here those who do good obtain resurrection life. Those who do evil obtain resurrection of condemnation.

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12: 36 kjv)

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." (Matt. 16: 27 nkjv)

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (II Cor. 5: 10 nkjv)

"But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom. 14: 10-12 nkjv)

"But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,  who "will render to each one according to his deeds":  eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;  but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath,  tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek." (Rom. 2: 5-9 nkjv)

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Rev. 22: 12 kjv)

"For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8 nkjv)

I could add many more texts that show that Cayce is wrong when he avers that all the reaping for good or bad done in life is received in this life, but these should be sufficient.

What "Primitive Baptists" Believed in 1916

Recently in my series on "Two Seedism" I cited from Elder C.H. Cayce's paper "The Primitive Baptist" for November 14, 1916, from his editorial "Curtain Raised Again" and a letter from Elder W. E. Brush who was an assistant editor of Cayce's paper. It seems that Elder Brush also served on the editorial staff of the historical Primitive Baptist publication "Youth's Guardian Friend," founded by Elder J.M. Thompson. At this time both Thompson and Brush had asked Cayce to remove their names from the editorial staff of Cayce's paper because of disagreement over the "whole man" doctrine. Elder John R. Daily writes the following in chapter five of his autobiography "Pilgrimage of a Stranger":

"I wish to say here that while we were living on Dr. Oilar's farm I attended a term of school taught by R. W. Thompson, who was then a young man. His brother, John M. Thompson, was a pupil in the same school. These are both now (1903) able ministers. The former is Editor of the "Primitive Monitor," and the latter is editor of the "Youth's Guardian Friend."

Elder Brush wrote (emphasis mine):

"First, it has stood for the doctrine of election and predestination, and that unconditional on the part of the sinner...And now all that God the Father chose in Christ, Christ died for, the Holy Spirit (the third Person in the divine Trinity) will, here in time, make known to the heirs of promise what God the Father and Jesus Christ have done for them, by going where they are and revealing this one most noble truth to them. And now in this revelation I have understood the P. B. to teach that men and women, together with children as well, were taught to know God, whom to know is life eternal; and that in this teaching they were taught to know God only in soul, spirit, or heart; that this work of regeneration or the new birth did not teach men to know God in the flesh. Am I right? Or have I been mistaken all this long time as to what the P. B. taught on this point? I never understood it to teach that this revelation that the Spirit makes to the heirs of promise here in this life, with its purifying power, reached the entire man and partially purified him all over; or in the revelation, or the work of quickening the heir of promise, it left him, in some mysterious way unexplainable, quickened, both soul and body that is, it did not leave any part of him dead in trespasses and sins, and if not dead in trespasses and sins, then necessarily alive in Christ." 

All this is quite interesting to me as a "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist historian. It seems, from the words of Elder Brush, that at the time this was written (1916) it was the view of the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists that a regenerated person has the Gospel of salvation revealed to him by having been taught to know God. Many of them, after this date, began to teach that people could be regenerated in heathen lands by the direct speaking of Christ to them and yet remain cognitively ignorant of Christ and believers in other deities. 

Elder Sarrels, who was part of this debate about the "whole man" doctrine, as we have seen, later in his life wrote a book titled "Systematic Theology" (1978). I have cited much from this book in several posts which showed that he believed that regeneration did NOT teach people about who is the true God, nor of Jesus Christ and the way of salvation through him. (See this post here for instance) Here are a couple citations from Sarrels in that work that substantiate this fact:

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

"Not only does this view limit salvation to areas where the gospel is preached; it actually limits salvation to those who believe the gospel and obey it. (As the Scriptures themselves do!) The Moslems, the Buddhists, the Brahmans, and all other non-Christian adherents, even in gospel lands, are according to the strict sense of this view doomed. Not only this--strictly interpreted and applied, this view would exclude Jews and Unitarians, and, by some, even Catholics, who do not believe what is preached (like the gospel?) as some religious groups would present the matter. These are hard facts which need to be placed before the world. For reasons which are but briefly alluded to in some parts of the work, but developed more fully in other parts, we hold that God, despite the teachings of man, saves his chosen people all over the world." (page 434)

This view of Sarrels (published in 1978) was the standard view of the "Primitive Baptist Church" when I joined it in 1972 (my father joined them about 1965). They taught that people in other religions had been regenerated and yet not converted to Christ, but who remained in false religions. 

In the "Christian Baptist" periodical for January, 1978, Elder S.T. Tolley, editor (who I knew personally), wrote: 

"Primitive Baptists have always believed that it was unnecessary for the gospel of Christ to be preached in order that sinners be saved from hell."

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

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

Daily, Cayce, and Sylvester Hassell lived about the same time and were each recognized as leaders and defenders of the "Primitive Baptists" in their beliefs. 

Cayce in his day seemed to advocate both sides. At times he would affirm as Elder Brush, saying that all the elect will have the gospel preached to them directly by Christ himself and be made believers thereby. At other times he would say that people had been regenerated but who remained pagans, knowing nothing about Jesus. For instance, in commenting upon Paul's preaching in Athens, Greece and commanding them all to repent, a thing Cayce denied that ministers should do, Cayce wrote (emphasis mine):

“Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word." ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)

So, even though the Athenians did not know about Jesus and his resurrection or his Messiahship, and were believers in many pagan gods and goddesses, yet because Paul says "we are all the offspring of God" (Acts 17: 28), and because Cayce believes that only those who are born again are to be exhorted to believe and repent, Cayce will argue that they had already been regenerated before Paul arrived there and preached the gospel to them. That is a view unique to the Hardshell Baptists. All Bible commentators believe that by Paul saying "we are all the offspring of God" that Paul means that every human being is God's creation. This is because the context shows this to be the case. Notice it:

"25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (kjv) 

If "we are also his offspring" denotes the new birth or regeneration, then we must say that every man who is God's creature and has breath and life from God are all born again and this leads to Universalism.

But, one wonders why the Athenians did not know anything about Jesus and were worshipers of other gods if Christ had already personally appeared to each of them and preached the gospel to them. Elder Sylvester Hassell, who lived in the time of Cayce, and who was a recognized leader as he was, wrote in "Question and Answer" the following:

"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)." (see here)

This viewed was shared by Cayce, who often argued in his debates with others, on the subject of whether the gospel (as preached by preachers) was a means in regeneration, that Jesus spoke directly to each one of the elect in his regenerating them. 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."

Cayce also said:

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

So, what can we conclude from all this? Answer: that at the beginning of the twentieth century there was no unified answer to the question as to whether a person must hear the gospel and believe in Jesus to be saved. Some said yes but that it was only by the personal preaching of Jesus. Others said that Jesus does not personally preach the gospel to people, though he speaks to them in commanding them to arise from the dead, and so they remain worshipers of false gods. 

The last statement by Cayce is ridiculous and against the plain declarations of scripture. It contradicts what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans chapter ten, where he says: 

"14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (nkjv) 

Paul also wrote:

"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?" (I Cor. 3: 5 kjv)

We also read this about the preaching of John the Baptist:

"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1: 6-7 kjv)

These scriptures overthrow Cayce's statement that knowledge and faith in Christ does not come by the gospel. Further, if Hassell is right, and if what Cayce said in other places is right, then such saving faith does come by the gospel when Christ preaches it personally to all in regeneration.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXIV)

 

In this chapter we will continue to review what Elder C.H. Cayce called an "unholy war" (or the biting and devouring of the above text) that was occurring in the first part of the twentieth century among those who called themselves "Primitive Baptists" concerning what was known as the "whole man doctrine." This was one extreme that came out over the controversies over Two Seedism. The other extreme was known as the "hollow log doctrine." We discussed these two doctrines in previous chapters. These issues were periphery issues to the central question as to what is "regeneration" and being "born again" or "born from above," whether the written word of God is a means the Spirit uses to effect it, and whether faith and repentance are means thereunto. It also involves the question of whether evangelical conversion is essentially the regeneration Paul speaks of in Titus 3:5, or whether conversion is an after effect.

The several articles we have been examining are from Cayce's periodical "The Primitive Baptist" under the title "Curtain Raised." In this chapter we look at another article titled "Curtain Raised Again" for November 14, 1916, being Number four in that series. In it Cayce wrote (emphasis mine): 

"In our last article we promised to let our readers see some things concerning some parties nearer home. According to that promise we now raise the curtain again and let our readers see some of the productions from Elder W. E. Brush. Under date of May 9, 1916, he wrote us the following letter while we were in Georgia filling appointments in that country: 

Greenfield, Tenn., May 9, 1916. ELDER C. H. CAYCE:

My Dear Brother-After long and due and prayerful consideration, as I hope, have decided that it would be best for me to come off the staff of THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper. It's indeed sad to me for us to come where the ways separate (and I don't mean by this that I declare non-fellowship for you), as I have been with the paper so long, and have walked together with its former editor, Elder S. F. Cayce, your dear father, and my father also in the ministry, and a man whose sacred memory lingers still, and shall ever linger in my poor heart, and it's with tender emotion that I remember his kindness to one so unworthy as myself. And since his departure to the better land our association together has been just as sweet and pleasant until this unhappy affair came up in Texas, and from there came on to this country to the extent, at least, that it has caused confusion among our dear brethren." 

In the previous chapters we saw where Hardshell leader Elder J.M. Thompson was so sharply against Elder C.H. Cayce for his views on the nature of "regeneration" that he had his name removed from the editorial staff of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical, edited by Cayce, and also canceled his subscription to it, and went even further and would not call Cayce "brother." Next to do the same is Elder W.E. Brush.

Elder Brush letter continues:

"But now to get at my reason for coming off the corresponding staff of the P. B. is because I feel that you are in sentiment lined up with the Primitive Baptist Signal, of Texas, edited by Elder Collings, in which such statements as the following are found, and that, too, from the pen of Elder M. W. Miracle, who is the editor of the "Good Old Songs Department" of the P. B. to-wit: 

"I am forced to the conclusion that man in his completeness or complexity is born again in the change we call from nature to grace. No man can arrive at any other logical fact from the context. It is to say that man is born again in spirit, but such an expression does violence to the whole tenor of the Scriptures. Just as well say that a man is out of debt in part." -P. B. Signal, Jan. 4, 1916. 

"Now Elder Miracle has come out plainer in this statement than anyone that I have read after, but I only think the more of him for that. But now, Brother Claud, if the above statement is old or primitive doctrine, or in other words, the doctrine of the Bible, I have never known nor believed it yet. One thing I know, and you know it as well as I do, that doctrine like the above statement contains has not been advocated among the Old Baptists for the past twenty years, and if very many of them receive it today I will be very much surprised."

Up till this time Elder Cayce has repeatedly said that Brethren were accusing him of believing the "whole man" doctrine and that he continued to deny that he believed it. However, Brush is giving evidence that Cayce either does in fact believe it or else tolerates those who do.

Brush continued:

"Now, my dear brother, you may say that you don't believe what Elder Miracle has said. If you don't, why do you keep him as the editor of the "Good Old Songs Department" of your paper? And if you do believe as Elder Miracle, why don't you come out plain and above-board and say so, so the Baptists would know where to place you? There are not very many of your readers that read the Signal, and therefore have no opportunity to know the doctrine that is being advocated by the Signal, but are led by the writings of Elder Lee Hanks, especially, to believe that the Newman faction in Texas are the sound element of Baptists out there." 

Obviously Elder Brush believes the "whole man doctrine" is a heresy and should be a reason to break fellowship. Also, Elder Cayce either did not know that Elder Miracle held to that doctrine or did not think it was a reason to declare non-fellowship.

Brush continued:

"Neither do I think that all the error has been on one side, for I condemned Elder Sarrels' idea that these bodies, or the bodies of the saints, do not render service to God. But, as I told Elder Newman, in my condemning his erroneous idea that our bodies did not serve God, I did not mean that our bodies had been quickened or made alive-but simply meant, as I have believed all the way along that it's the man that is born again, but not born again all over. If he is born again all over why not come out and say so." 

It is true that the body does not need to be regenerated in order for it to be sanctified for use in the service of God. (Rom. 12: 1) That is because the body is controlled by the brain (or mind) and it is controlled by the soul or spirit, especially in renewed spirits.

Brush continued:

"And, as it presents itself to me, if I object to you saying that man is born again in part, I certainly must believe that he is born again in whole. If I don't, please tell me what I would believe. Now, my dear brother, if any man on earth can work out this problem for me he certainly will do me a great favor. When a man says, "Oh, it won't do to say that man is only born again in part," and then, in the face of this statement, say that he don't believe that man is born again in whole-now then the man that neither believes that man is born again in part nor in the whole, pray, for the sake of truth, tell me what that man does believe." 

The real you is your cognitive self, your mind, soul, and spirit. Your corporeal self is controlled by your incorporeal self. It is the heart, mind, and spirit that is positively changed by regeneration, repentance, renewal, and rebirth. So, it is true that a man is born again in part, meaning that it is the inner self that experiences it.

Brush continued:

"First, it has stood for the doctrine of election and predestination, and that unconditional on the part of the sinner...And now all that God the Father chose in Christ, Christ died for, the Holy Spirit (the third Person in the divine Trinity) will, here in time, make known to the heirs of promise what God the Father and Jesus Christ have done for them, by going where they are and revealing this one most noble truth to them. And now in this revelation I have understood the P. B. to teach that men and women, together with children as well, were taught to know God, whom to know is life eternal; and that in this teaching they were taught to know God only in soul, spirit, or heart; that this work of regeneration or the new birth did not teach men to know God in the flesh. Am I right? Or have I been mistaken all this long time as to what the P. B. taught on this point? I never understood it to teach that this revelation that the Spirit makes to the heirs of promise here in this life, with its purifying power, reached the entire man and partially purified him all over; or in the revelation, or the work of quickening the heir of promise, it left him, in some mysterious way unexplainable, quickened, both soul and body that is, it did not leave any part of him dead in trespasses and sins, and if not dead in trespasses and sins, then necessarily alive in Christ." 

All this is quite interesting to me as a "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist historian. It seems, from the words of Elder Brush, that at the time this was written (1916) it was the view of the "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists that a regenerated person has the Gospel of salvation revealed to him by having been taught to know God. Many of them, after this date, began to teach that people could be regenerated in heathen lands by the direct speaking of Christ to them and yet remain cognitively ignorant of Christ and believers in other deities. Elder Sarrels, who was part of this debate about the "whole man" doctrine, as we have seen, later in his life wrote a book titled "Systematic Theology" (1978). I have cited much from this book in several posts which showed that he believed that regeneration did NOT teach people about who is the true God, nor of Jesus Christ and the way of salvation through him. (See this post here for instance)

Brush continued:

"Now if the P. B. stood for this late (to me) heard doctrine, I confess I never knew it until a recent date. But at this point, and with reference to this point of doctrine, I always understood the P. B. to stand for this principle-that in the work of the new birth, or regeneration, or quickening, or giving His sheep eternal life (and many other expressions that have reference to the same great change), that this work was wrought in the soul, or spirit, or heart, of God's people while they yet live here in time; that this change was an inward work, and only brought eternal life to the soul, or spirit, or heart, and left the body just as it was before the Spirit of God entered the heart; that is, it left the body in an unquickened state, or in an unregenerated state. Am I mistaken with reference to this point? If I am, will you please explain to me wherein I have been mistaken all this long time? Further, at this point I have understood the P. B. to believe that where Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” that the Spirit in this work gives eternal life to His people in soul, or spirit, or heart. Am I right or wrong? Will you tell me? Is it not a fact, my dear brother, that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper has ever (until late) stood for the truth that in regeneration the saint receives eternal life in his soul or heart, and that while this body is still natural, that God's people may and can, and, in fact, ought to bring this old body under subjection by the Spirit, that we should present these vile bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service; that we should mortify the deeds of the body. Then I have always understood the P. B. to teach that the saint is two in one, composed of an inward and an outward man, the inward man being the renewed soul, or spirit, or heart of man, and the outward man being this old body that is still subject to death and must die, because it has no eternal life. Paul said, {(II Corinthians 4:16)}" 

"P. S.-Brother Claud, here is what Elder Sylvester Hassell says on the subject under consideration, in the three questions asked by himself or some other one, and answered by him, as found in his paper of a recent date: 1. What is regeneration? A. It is the impartation of spiritual or eternal life to a human being. 2. What part of that work takes place in time? A. The impartation of such life to the soul, or spirit, or hearts, of men. (Romans 2:29); (Jeremiah 31:33). 3. When is the body regenerated? A. At the final resurrection at the second personal coming of Christ to the world. (Romans 8:23); ((20) (Philippians 3:20-21)." 

As I have stated in the immediately preceding chapters, the error in thinking of those who Espoused the "whole man doctrine" was the belief that the body 1) could not be considered a child of God or a special possession of the Lord unless it was also regenerated, and 2) could not serve God without experiencing regeneration. Though the body will not be perfected until the resurrection, yet it belongs to the Lord by his purchase of it via his atoning death. So wrote Paul:

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s." (I Cor. 6: 19-20 nkjv)

Paul does not say "glorify God in your body because it has been regenerated as the spirit" but glorify God in your body because it has been purchased and belongs to the Lord, and is Lord of it, rather than yourself owning it and have Lordship over it. 

In reply to Elder Brush Elder Cayce wrote:

"Concerning the foregoing we have to say, first, that this paper stands for the same principles and the same truths which it has stood for since the first issue was sent out on January 1st, 1886...Therefore, as we stand where we have always stood, if Elder Brush and we have come to the parting of the ways, it is Elder Brush who has left the old path and not us." 

"Again, Elder Brush said, "Is it not a fact, my dear brother, that THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST paper has ever (until late) stood for the truth that in regeneration the saint receives eternal life in his soul or heart, and that while this body is still natural-and then these words follow with a pencil mark through them-or carnal or a child of-Now, what did he start to say? Could he have started to say anything else only that the body is still a child of wrath? Why did he mark those words out and not finish his sentence? Evidently that is what he believes now, and what he started to say. Has Elder Brush always believed that? Let the following article answer, which is copied from the Primitive Baptist Signal of April 1, 1915: Jan. 21, 1915."

"ELDER R. V. SARRELS: My Dear Brother-I have read your article in the Trumpet of Dec. 17 on the subject of the new birth, and it seems that the subject is very clear to you, but to me your article is very confusing." 

"We come now to notice your text at the head of your article already named, "Therefore, if any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature." Now, the first question I want to ask you is, What does it take to constitute the man? Paul said it was the MAN that was in Christ Jesus. It makes no difference how it may appear to us, nor to what extreme we may go on either side, it still remains a fact that Paul said the MAN. Our Master said to Nicodemus, "Except a MAN be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This was a mystery to this ruler of the Jews, nevertheless our Master did not modify it to suit his understanding. Now, my brother, if you can, tell me how a MAN can be in Christ and his body in no way changed or affected, when he is not a man without his body and the MAN is in Christ-not simply his spirit, but the MAN. That is what the Bible says. It makes no difference what you may think about the matter, nor what I think; our think so's do not weigh very much, unless they are in keeping with a "Thus saith the Lord.""

So, as Cayce is showing, Elder Brush at one time believed in the whole man doctrine. But, does Cayce? As we have seen previously, Elder Cayce denied believing it though he was often accused of believing it and would often emphasize that Christ said that it was the "man" who was born again and created in Christ Jesus, often implying that by "man" meant the whole man, body, soul, and spirit.

Brush continued further in is letter to Sarrels:

"My brother, is it not a fact that it takes soul, body and spirit to make man? If it does, and the MAN is in Christ, is not the body in Christ in some sense of the word? If not, please explain how the MAN could be in Christ, and at the same time the body, which is one of the component parts of MAN (in fact, if it were not for the body there would be no man), is not changed in any way at all no not so much as to be under the commandments of Christ, for I note that you say in your article that no living man can prove by God's word that we serve God in our flesh or body relation. Now I suppose that you mean by this statement that we don't serve God in, or with, our bodies. Why don't you come out plain and above-board so people of ordinary sense would know just what you mean? I take it for granted that you mean that no living man can prove by the Bible that men serve God with their bodies. If this is not what you mean, please tell me what you do mean. Paul said to the Roman brethren, "I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."-(Romans 12)."

The body does not need to be regenerated or born again in order for the renewed spirit to use it in the service of God. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God." (Rom. 6: 12-13 nkjv) 

Here we see how the "mortal body" of the regenerated believer is still a source of sin and lust and when it is followed or obeyed becomes an instrument of unrighteousness. The believer's renewed spirit that is indwelt by Christ and the Holy Spirit and is possessed of the divine life and nature ought to be the lord of the body and its members. The members of the body ought to be servants of the renewed spirit and not the king of the spirit. So we read of such exhortations as these:

"Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need." (Eph. 4: 28)

"I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (I Tim. 2: 8 nkjv)

By "holy hands" we are not to think that the hands experienced a regeneration or spiritual cleansing. Rather, that they are "set apart for religious service." 

Likewise we read in James where he admonished Christians about using their "tongues" for good purpose, to control it, and not allow it to be used for evil. (James 1: 26; 3: 5-8; See also I Peter 3: 10) The same is true for the feet. Prior to being saved, when under depravity's control, the "feet are swift to shed blood" (Rom. 3: 15). After conversion, however, the feet begin to bring "glad tidings" to a lost and dying world. (Rom. 10: 15) 

Brush continued further in his letter to Sarrels:

"I am sure you will agree with me that it's only in service to God that we can glorify Him, and if so, we can serve God in our bodies as well as our spirits. "For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (I Corinthians 6:20)." 

Yes, but as I said, the body needs not be regenerated in order for the regenerated spirit to make use of it in the service of God. The body belongs to the Lord because it has been purchased and will experience its own rebirth in the resurrection.

Brush continued further in addressing Sarrels:

"I note in your same article you say, "I think it is not safe to say that the body is not a part of the new creature." Now, how could the body be a part of the new creature without having been changed in some sense? Please answer this question, for it is one of great importance. Could not the soul or spirit just as well be a part of the new creature without a change as the body? If not, why not? seeing that the entire man is alike contaminated in sin-or, in other words, the whole man is dead in trespasses and sins. Now, I have never understood, neither do I yet understand, that a man is so changed that he cannot sin in any sense of the word. We know that John said, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." The same writer said, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

So, clearly Brush at that time believed in the "whole man doctrine" and that the body experiences a regeneration just as the soul or spirit. 

Brush continued further:

"Then I believe just as Elder J. S. Newman expressed himself to me in a letter, "I believe that eternal life is implanted in the heart or soul of man, but it so affects his whole being that -it makes him hate the things he once loved and love the things he once hated. Yes, the very lips that we used to curse with, we now praise God with; and the feet that once carried us to the ballroom now carry us to the church of God." My dear brother, if you had a neighbor that had been a wicked man, and he claims to have been changed from nature by grace, and yet he still lives the same wicked life that he has been living heretofore, what evidence have you that he has met with any change?"

It is interesting that in 1916 the "Primitive Baptists" seemed still to hold to some beliefs connected with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and not to a mere preservation. In the above citation we see where Elder Newman believes that when a sinner is given eternal life that he no longer lives the same wicked life he did before. Many "Primitive Baptists" today believe that many of the regenerated children of God are never converted, but remain in idolatry and in a wicked lifestyle.

Brush continued further:

"Elder Sarrels, it does seem to me such a pity for the Baptists of Texas to divide over nothing but preacher jealousy. I feel sure that if there were, or had been, one half dozen preachers taken away from Texas, and not allowed to return, that you would have had NO trouble over the WHOLE MAN DOCTRINE as it is called."

I have stated that many of the divisions in the "Primitive" or "Old School" denomination have been due to a large degree a result of preacher feuds where preachers were contending for supremacy in a given area or association. I write about this in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." I witnessed this myself after I had been in the "Primitive Baptist Church" for two years when Elder John Robbins of the Powell Valley Association of Primitive Baptists began to fight against my father, Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr., who he felt threatened his ascension in that association, and used father's view on the origin of Satan as the way to bring charges against him, and convening a "council" of churches, of which he was the moderator, he led them to declare that his view that Satan fell from heaven was heresy and unless he agreed to never preach that view that they would declare him in disorder. Father, of course, could not allow his conscience to be brought under the tyranny of him or his followers. Many "Primitive Baptist" ministers and historians have also confessed to this fact about preacher jealousies.

Cayce replied to Brush as follows:

"This letter from Elder Brush to Elder Sarrels will serve as an answer to the letter from Elder Brush to us. Elder Brush has a long article in the Trumpet of Oct. 19, giving us "down the country." This letter of his to Elder Sarrels will serve as an answer to that also. We simply answer Elder Brush with Elder Brush. It appears to us that he should observe a little of the advice he gave Elder Sarrels-"Let's be careful that we don't take a position that we will meet ourselves coming back before we get far." Elder Brush has simply met himself coming back, and did not get far, either."

It is obvious that Elder Brush had in fact changed his mind on the "whole man" doctrine.

Why I Am A Calvinist

I hear lots of people tell why they are NOT Calvinists. In this post I will tell you why I am a Calvinist. It is not because I am a follower of John Calvin, although I agree with him on many things. The doctrines Calvin taught did not begin with Calvin, of course. Nor did the counterpoint of Calvinism, i.e. Armianism, begin with James Arminius. These are simply terms now used to denote what Bible believers believe about sin, salvation, and the sovereignty of God. 

In a nutshell, I am a Calvinist because I believe that God can save a sinner any time he pleases. This is the way the apostle Paul prayed, saying: "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." (Rom. 10: 1) I also believe that everyone God saves, he chose to save before the world began.

Arminianism says God cannot save sinners unless they let God do so. Yet, even though Arminians affirm this, they often do not pray like this. Rather, they pray like Calvinists when they pray for God to save another person, for such a prayer implies that God can save them any time he chooses. The same is true when we pray for God to heal another person, our prayer is based upon our belief that God can heal anyone any time he desires. They also are willing to admit that God convicts people of sin apart from people allowing him to do so.

A.W. Tozer, well known Bible teacher is reported to have once said: "I preach like an Arminian but I pray like a Calvinist." I have not been able to find where he said this, however.

Said Spurgeon:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say, but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it." (Sermon - “Free-Will A Slave,” 12/2/1855)

I wrote about this in this post (here), writing:

Such a prayer reveals that the ultimate deciding factor in the salvation of any soul is the prerogative of God.  It shows that the one uttering such a prayer believes that the one for whom they are praying can only be saved if God simply wills and makes it so.  If God is already doing all he can to save the friend who is being prayed for, and is already as disposed as he can be to save that friend, then why pray that God save that friend?  Would it not be more apropos to Arminian theology to pray to the sinner rather than to God?

The fact is, God is able to conquer the will, for we are told that God "is able to subdue all things" (Phil. 3: 21) and that would include the stubborn will of sinners, God taming the will as a man tames a wild horse. Christians sing about their conversion experiences by saying they "surrendered" to God as in the song "I surrender all." They surrendered and God conquered or subdued.

God is able, when he pleases, to work in people so as to make them willing to will what God wants them to will and do. (Psa. 110:3; Phil. 2:13; Rev. 17:17) He has "the king's heart" in his hand, under his control, and can turn the heart "withersoever he will." (Prov. 21: 1) He is able to "move" people, to "stir them up," and to do things in providence so as to cause people to do and act as he wants. (Ezra 1:1, 5; Hag. 1:14)

Why pray to God for our leaders, for all in authority over us (per I Tim. 2: 1-2), so that we "may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," if God cannot control what such authorities choose to do, or actually do? We pray that God will give them wisdom, for instance. We assume he can give them wisdom any time he chooses, and even in cases where those in authority are not asking for it themselves; And, giving this wisdom will cause those authorities to make choices different than they would have made otherwise. 

By Grace Through Faith (2)

I had not intended to write a follow up to the previous article I published Sunday. However, I did a Google search using this question -- "is the salvation of Ephesians 2:8 quickening?" One of the Web pages given was from a "Primitive" (Hardshell) Baptist and the article was titled "Saved Through Faith" posted by Joshua Winslett on September 10, 2020 for the Web page "March To Zion" (here). I have written against some of the writings of Elder Ben Winslett who writes for this Web site (this link HERE will take you to those articles). I assume that Joshua Winslett is a relative of Ben. When I began to read Joshua's article I was surprised that he rightly affirmed that the "salvation" of Ephesians 2:8 was the quickening or regeneration described in verses 1-7 and in verses 9-10. So I, with some increased interest, kept reading.

What I discovered was that, in order to deny that belief in Christ and the Gospel was essential for salvation, Joshua, rather than denying that the salvation was regeneration or eternal salvation, denied that the "faith" of the text referred to a cognitive belief resulting from knowledge, making the faith to be some kind of a seed deposit that has no knowledge of Christ. I also saw where Joshua would say something about the text and then say something just the opposite. His article, as we will see, had several glaring contradictions in it. So, let us begin our critical look at what he wrote. 

Joshua wrote (emphasis mine): 

"There are many Bible passages that can bring both comfort and debate among Christians. Among these verses is Ephesians 2:8. Is this verse describing regeneration? Is this verse speaking of Christ’s legal work on the cross? Is this verse saying that a person must do something to be saved? There is no small assortment of views concerning this text. The following essay will consider the verse in context, as well as the various other components of the verse."

So, is the verse describing regeneration? Clearly, yes, as I showed in the previous article. Does the verse say that a person must do something to be saved or quickened? Obviously yes, for faith, or believing something, is something someone does. In the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, "coming" to Jesus with the heart and mind, is what is involved in believing or having faith in Christ. (See John 5: 40; 6: 35, 65; Heb. 11: 6; I Peter 2: 4-7) Now, let us see if Joshua will affirm or deny that the salvation of the text is regeneration and whether faith is a necessary condition and something a person must do to be saved.

Joshua wrote further:

"Ephesians 2:8 describes regeneration. Ephesians 2:1 starts with “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” The context seems to build up to regeneration."

Absolutely true! I am glad that this Hardshell brother sees that this is what the context demands us to understand. But, I tell you, trying to get his fellow Hardshells to take this view is not going to be easy! Most of them are going to say that the salvation of the text is a mere "time salvation" corresponding to evangelical conversion, which they deny is a necessity for being regenerated or saved in the end with an eternal salvation. Joshua says that regeneration is "through faith." Great! But, don't hold your breath! As we will see, he will so dramatically change the meaning of "faith" so as to uphold Hardshell Hyper Calvinism, and this unfounded definition of "faith" will lead him to deny that the salvation of the text shows that people must do something to be saved or quickened. 

First, let me give some more statements that he made affirming that the context shows that quickening (or regeneration) is the salvation of the text. Joshua wrote further:

"Being that these chapter breaks are not original to Paul, the end of chapter 1 leads perfectly into the discussion of regeneration in chapter 2. There is no disconnection."

"Furthermore, both verse 8 and 10 starts with the word ‘for’. The word ‘for’ denotes the idea of an explanatory reason...How are we saved (regenerated)? By God’s grace through faith." 

"Also, the context of Ephesians 2:1-7 shows consistent pattern and flow that points toward the context as being regeneration."

"The overwhelming context of verse 8 seems to be directed towards regeneration."

"In chapter 2, Paul is explaining why God had called the Ephesians from death to life. Regeneration is a necessary part of the purpose of salvation."

"If the above exegesis is correct then the salvation mentioned in verse 8 is being vitally saved at regeneration. Though Christ accomplished the legal work of redemption on the cross, the elect sinner must also have this redemptive work applied to the soul. Regeneration makes the soul fit for heaven. This deliverance then is being saved from a death in sins unto a life in Christ. The person is also saved from the full bondage of sin in their life as their soul has now been radically changed."

So, this is great. He agrees that the salvation of Ephesians 2: 8 is the quickening and is through faith. That is different from how others, who affirm that regeneration precedes faith, or other Hardshells, interpret the text. Many Hardshells say the salvation of the text is a "time salvation" (conversion) that is not necessary for eternal salvation. Reformed Baptists who teach the regeneration before faith view will also say that the salvation is what occurs immediately when a person is regenerated and given faith.

Reformed Baptists (like James White) and Presbyterians (like R.C. Sproul) will say that the text is talking about conversion and see it as saying that regeneration instantly produces faith which then instantly produces the salvation of conversion and justification. This interpretation, however, denies that the salvation of the text includes regeneration, for if regeneration precedes faith, then the salvation of the text cannot be regeneration because it is declared to be "though faith," and that shows that faith preceded the salvation.

Union With Christ

Joshua said:

"Notice that these verses flow from active depravity to the factor of change brought about by the new birth. This living spiritual union is described by Paul with three different prepositions; with, in, and through. We have been made alive with Christ."

I agree that union with Christ is described by two of the prepositions he names. Paul is affirming that spiritual life is obtained by union with Christ by faith. It is when a sinner goes from being outside of Christ to being "in Christ" that he is made alive spiritually. Christ is "the Life." (John 14: 6) To have spiritual life, one must be joined to him as that Life. So the apostle John said: "he who has the Son has life." (I John 5: 12) How is Christ received into the heart? It is by faith. 

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis-into 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-into him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29)

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

These verses show that it is by believing in Christ that one enters into Christ or becomes "in Christ." Also, notice that the verbal participle is used (believing ones) rather than the noun (faith). 

"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)

"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him." (Col. 2: 6 kjv)

These verses speak of receiving Christ, which is how Christ comes to be with or in the one who receives him. We also notice that this "receiving" is done in the "believing." Christ is not possessed nor is he abiding in a person until that person has received Christ. Christ enters believers at the same time believers enter into Christ. 

Paul spoke of believers dwelling "in his heart" (I Cor. 7: 3; Phil. 1: 7), which is what is characteristic of people who love each other. Christ is in believers because believers love Christ and "faith works by love" (Gal. 5" 6). So Jesus said: "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14: 23 kjv) Likewise, believers are in the heart of  Christ because he loves them, especially since they have become "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 26). Believers are married to Christ (Eph. 5: 22-33) by love and this is how they become one with Christ. So Paul says:

"30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

So, people are "joined" to Christ by marrying him, or by entering into his covenant, by "cleaving" to him in love and marriage. That is when they become "one" with Christ. Paul also wrote of this union through love and marriage in these words:

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Rom. 7: 4 nkjv)

And to the Corinthians he also wrote: "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” And, "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him." (I Cor. 6: 16 nkjv)

Christ is received and enters the heart by eating him as the bread of life by faith. So Jesus said:

"50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”...53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me." (John 6: 50-51, 53-57 nkjv)

In order for Christ to enter a person, a person must take him into himself, typified by eating him as a loaf of bread, eating his flesh and blood, the sacrificial lamb, by receiving that sacrifice by believing in his sacrificial death and trusting in it.

So, in Ephesians chapter two, being "with Christ" or "in Christ" denotes a union that brings every spiritual blessing, including spiritual life and communion with God; And, this union or being in Christ, or Christ being in you, is effected by believing and trusting in Christ, by receiving him. However, Joshua is wrong to say that the preposition "through" as in "through faith" or "through Christ" has the same meaning as "with" or "in." Notice what Paul says in verses 12-13:

"...that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

What "time" is Paul alluding to? Is he not alluding to the time when they heard the gospel or word of salvation and were made believers, repented, and were converted? In verse two Paul indicates that their quickening occurred in conjunction with their repentance. Prior to this "time" they "walked according to the course of this world, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind," but at the time of their quickening they turned and changed their conduct. 

So too do the Scriptures speak of receiving the Spirit for salvation and this receiving is done by faith, a faith that is the result of "hearing" the gospel. Wrote Paul:

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2 kjv)

Receiving the Spirit is how sinners are saved and the Spirit is received when Christ is received. How are Christ and the Spirit received? "By the hearing of faith," which means the same thing as "faith comes by hearing the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) 

Keep in mind also that believing and receiving are actions done by sinners. These verbs are in the active voice. It is true that in some aspects of salvation a person is passive, God doing the work, but to insist that no part of the salvation process involves any active doing of people is false. See my chapters titled "Passive or Active?" in my long series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." (here and here)

Dr. John Piper, though he believes that a sinner is first regenerated before he receives Jesus by faith, nevertheless sometimes contradicted that belief, affirming that sinners are quickened by faith. In this post (here) I cited these words of Piper:

"The way this happens (as we have seen in the first six messages in this series) is that the Spirit of God supernaturally gives us new spiritual life by connecting us with Jesus Christ through faith. The new spiritual life that we receive in the new birth is not separate from union with Jesus, and it is not separate from faith. When God in the riches of his mercy and the greatness of his love and the sovereignty of his grace chooses to regenerate us, he gives us new life by uniting us to Christ." ("Born Again Through the Living and Abiding Word"; here)

Notice that "spiritual life" comes by the Spirit of God "connecting us with Jesus Christ through faith." In that statement he puts faith before receiving spiritual life or regeneration.

Joshua said:

"Faith itself is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Being a fruit, it is an effect and evidence of the Spirit within a person and not the cause. A person must first have the Spirit of God in them before they can have faith."

When Joshua says that a person must have the Spirit of God in them before they can have faith, he not only contradicts himself, as we will see, but the apostle Paul who said in the above text that the Galatians received the Spirit by the hearing of faith. Yes, faith is a gift of God, a product of the Spirit, but this does not necessitate that faith follows salvation. Ephesians 2: 8 says faith preceded salvation, and Joshua even agrees with that, but he here says faith comes after salvation. 

So, it is good that Joshua sees that the salvation of verse eight is the quickening, spiritual resurrection or regeneration, and being created in Christ Jesus. So, is he then no longer a Hardshell denying that one must believe in Christ by hearing the gospel in order to be regenerated, born again, or eternally saved? Sadly, no, for the reasons he will next explain.

Joshua said:

"Some may be under the assumption that man can exercise faith in order to be born again. One must always remember that depravity is literally a death and regeneration is literally a resurrection. It would be utterly ridiculous to expect the dead to do anything of themselves to get life."

Of course saving faith is not what a person authors or produces. There is no physical or natural inability to believe, though there is a moral or spiritual inability. So, a man "can" believe in the former sense, but not in the latter. Admitting that dead sinners lack the spiritual ability to believe savingly does not necessitate that we believe that faith can therefore be no means unto salvation. Has Joshua forgotten Ephesians 1: 19 that he himself cited in his article? It says that sinners believe by the working of God's mighty power. So, though the power to believe is not in the dead sinner, it is in God. 

It indeed "would be utterly ridiculous to expect the dead to do anything of themselves to get life." But, that does not equate to saying that the spiritually dead don't do things by the power of God to get life. "The dead" must first "hear" the voice of the Son of God in order to live. (John 5: 25) Ezekiel prophesied to the dry dead bones as a means in resurrecting them. (Ezekiel chapter 37) Said God: "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live." (Isa. 55: 3) In John 5: 40 Christ said to dead sinners - "you will not come unto me that you might have life." The coming is an action the dead sinner does in order to obtain spiritual life. 

Joshua wrote:

"Whereas I agree that regeneration precedes the gift of faith, we cannot be born again without also being given the gift of faith."

How in the name of reason can Joshua say that regeneration precedes faith when he has already admitted that the salvation of Ephesians 2:8 is regeneration? That text says "by grace you are saved (regenerated or quickened) through faith." So, faith precedes regeneration. Joshua is contradicting himself and it is amazing that he seems to be totally unaware of it. Further, in the above statement he says that regeneration precedes faith and then says faith is given in regeneration. Huh? How could faith precede regeneration if it comes in regeneration? 

Joshua said:

"The gift mentioned is God’s grace causativally acting in the vital work of regeneration, by which we are given the gift of faith."

Here Joshua does the same thing again. Even though he sees the text as saying "for by grace are you regenerated through faith" he nevertheless says faith is through regeneration. He is being somewhat like Dr. Piper in contradicting himself, all which shows how confused Joshua is on the text and how he is allowing his Hardshell biases to affect his interpretation of the text.

Joshua said:

"This initial gift of faith that is worked in the child of God at regeneration is the foundation by which we are able to understand the gospel..."

How can the regeneration be "through faith" if faith comes in or after regeneration? Further, it is ridiculous to say that faith is given in order to believe the gospel. Paul says "faith comes by hearing the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Where is his proof from scripture that faith comes apart from hearing any word of God and that there is faith that believes or knows nothing?

What is the "Faith" of the Text

As we just saw, Joshua is going to affirm that the "faith" of the text is not faith as it is defined in scripture but is defined in a new way so as to not contradict their view that says cognitive evangelical faith in Christ and the Gospel are not means in regeneration or any aspect of salvation.

In further affirmations of this view Joshua says:

"Faith: This is probably the most debated part of the text at hand. What is the faith here mentioned? Does the word faith always have reference to gospel belief?" 

The only people who make the faith of the text to be something different than faith or trust in Christ and the good news are the Hardshells and those Paedo-Baptists who teach that infants have a seed or root faith. I just wrote about this in a recent series (See here) showing the debate between Paedo-Baptist Thomas Bakewell and Particular Baptist John Spilsbury in 1646 where Bakewell tried to defend infants having faith and Spilsbury denying it. Years ago I gave a written critique of Elder Sonny Pyles's sermon wherein he denied that God uses the means of his word in effecting regeneration (See here). In it he argued that infants are not able to have faith (believe the Gospel).

Yes, the word "faith" implies cognitive knowledge. You cannot place faith or trust in a person you know nothing about. You cannot believe truth claims or propositions apart from knowledge of those truths. Why do the Hardshells disregard what Paul said on this point? Paul clearly affirms that a person cannot have faith apart from knowledge.

"How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. 10: 14-15 nkjv)

What does it say about a Bible teacher who, in light of the above, would say that people do have saving faith apart from hearing the word of God, who have it in a person they do not know, who have it but believe no truth?

Joshua says:

"Is faith always a verb, meaning something performed by the believer in Christ? I would contend that there is both a gospel or evangelical faith which not all of God’s children will experience, and an intrinsic faith given to every child of God at the new birth."

Joshua says he "would contend that there is a gospel or evangelical faith" and also contend for an "intrinsic faith" that does not believe the Gospel or word of God, a kind that is without knowledge or cognition! Unbelievable! Where in the context of Ephesians 2:8 is faith used or defined to mean that people have faith in Christ without knowing Christ or any truth? In the first chapter of Ephesians Paul speaks of the Ephesians and himself ("we") "who first trusted in Christ" and says that they trusted Christ "after you heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation." (1: 12-13) In verse fifteen Paul says he had heard of their "faith in the Lord Jesus." This is not a non-cognitive faith that knows nothing. 

Then, in verse nineteen, a verse Joshua has already cited, Paul says that the omnipotence of God is what made believers of the Ephesians. That is not some "intrinsic" or "seed" or "root" or "dormant hidden latent" faith, for there is no such thing. There is not a single text in scripture that uses the word faith (noun) or believe (verb) to denote a non-cognitive faith. Paul says that he was made a believer or came to faith by the same working of God's almighty power. Did Paul become a cognitive believer in Jesus when this power converted him on the Damascus Road? Did he come away with a faith that did not know Jesus?

Joshua says:

"What then is this gift of faith? The word faith in Ephesians 2:8 is not a verb, it is a noun. From that we can gather that this is not an action performed by man, but instead, it is something possessed by the individual."

So, faith, the noun, does not know or believe anything? Why then did Paul speak of being saved by a "belief (noun for faith; pistei) of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 13) "Faith of the truth"! Paul uses the noun when he says "so then faith comes by hearing the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Yes, faith is something possessed, like love, but how does that prove that faith or love in or for a person or creed is non-cognitive? Further, why does Joshua say such things and gives absolutely no proof for what he says? Where is the Greek scholar who defines "pistis" as do the Hardshells? Where is the verse in the Bible that says people who know nothing of Jesus or the Gospel nevertheless have faith in Jesus? Or that infants have faith and that apart from hearing the word of God or knowing anything? Can I possess love (noun) for my wife without loving (verb) or knowing her? 

Joshua says:

"Faith proceeds from God, as is caused by his operation, or work of regeneration on the soul."

This is true. But, is it also true of evangelical faith, cognitive faith? Can God use his word or gospel as a means in this "operation"? Is the Gospel not "the power of God unto salvation to all who believe" it? (Rom. 1: 16)

Joshua says:

"If Ephesians 2:8 taught that man must do anything of his own ability and volition to be saved, then it would contradict itself, as well as the entirety of the written word. Salvation is by grace and grace alone."

Faith is doing something. It is an action of the heart and mind, the act of placing trust. Granted, sinners do this by the power of God and the power of the Gospel, but that fact does not lead to denying that sinners must do something to be saved, such as believe and repent. Yes, salvation is by grace alone, but it is also by penitent faith alone, for the text says "by grace are you saved through faith." 

Joshua says:

"Some have thought Ephesians 2:8 to describe either Christ’s faithfulness as Savior or God’s trust in His son, or vice versa."

Yes, the "some" are the Hardshells who spend lots of time trying to figure out ways to interpret Ephesians 2: 8 so as not to contradict their foundational propositions, one of which says that a person does not have to do anything to be saved. One of those ways is to deny that the salvation mentioned in any text that is conditioned upon faith or repentance can be eternal salvation. Another way is to say that the "faith" that is a means in salvation is some ill-defined thing that is deposited in someone, like a virus, and that knows nor believes nothing cognitively. These will say "faith" means Christ, or faith means grace, or faith means faith of God, or faith of Christ, or seed faith, etc. All these are efforts to twist scripture so as to make it conform to their unscriptural propositions! In this post (here) I wrote about how the Hardshells give all sorts of synonyms for "faith" that are totally unfounded.

"Ways Hardshells Define Faith":

1. Faith means Christ

2. Faith means Grace

3. Faith means a seed deposit

4. Faith means ability to believe

5. Faith means evidence of salvation

Joshua also said along this line:

"Faith is Christ in you! Faith is also literally Christ in you, the hope of glory."

"John equates the gift of faith as being Christ in you."

So, Joshua does the very thing he seems to disallow. Though he does not believe that the faith by which sinners are saved and regenerated denotes "God's faith in his Son" or the "faith that Christ himself had" (See my series titled "God's Faith?" on this point in the archives for January through March, 2016), yet he also tries to redefine saving faith.

Joshua wrote further:

"The Greek word for faith in Ephesians 2:8 is PISTIS. One definition of the word PISTIS is “firm persuasion.”...This firm persuasion happens to every elect upon regeneration."

"Again, faith is a persuasion."

"It is evident that our God-given faith is most certainly a persuasion."

Here is another blatant contradiction by Joshua and these glaring contradictions are quite revealing about the way Hardshells read and interpret the bible. How can he not see his contradiction? He rightly says faith is a "firm persuasion." But, why then does he say it may also not mean such? What is it that "all the elect" in their "regeneration" are persuaded of? Joshua has already said that the faith that is given in regeneration is not cognitive. He says that "firm persuasion" is but "one definition" of pistis. Where is there another kind defined by Greek scholars or by the new testament writers? Paul said "faith" comes by hearing the word of God, and did not say "this kind of faith comes by hearing the word of God." Paul defined what faith means. Where did he ever define it differently? 

After giving the right definition of faith as "firm persuasion" Joshua wrote:

"It must again be pointed out that this gift of faith is not measured by or is dependent upon knowledge."

Well, tell that to the apostle Paul! I tell you, these Hardshells simply do not believe what Paul wrote in Romans chapter ten about what faith is and how it is produced! When Paul asks rhetorically "how shall they believe (or have faith in) in him of whom they have not heard," Paul is denying that one can have faith without knowledge, and in this contention he is uprooting Hardshell definitions of faith.

Joshua wrote further:

"Of faith and Ephesians 2:8, Elder Michael Gowens writes,

“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).”

Where is there a single verse in the Bible that shows that faith is without knowledge or "below the level of consciousness"? Notice that Gowens (whose writings I have critiqued thoroughly) admits that "the dead" must "hear" the voice or word of Christ before they are made alive! That is the dead doing something in order to come to life! Lazarus "responded." Would he have come to life without responding? By the way, in John 11: 44 the words "came forth" are in the active voice! 

The faith of Ephesians 1: 19 and 2: 8 is a cognitive belief in Christ and the Gospel. The context clearly shows that to be the case.

Joshua next says this about what occurs in regeneration:

• We are taught to know God and Christ. –John 17:3, Hebrews 8:10-13
• We are taught to deny ungodliness. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to deny worldly lusts. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to live soberly. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to live righteously. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to live godly. –Titus 2:12
• We are taught to groan for deliverance from sin. –Titus 2:13, Romans 8:20-23
• We are taught to love. –1 John 3:14

How is all this non-cognitive? So, all the elect come to know the one true God and Jesus Christ? This is not the general view of today's Hardshell Baptists. If all these things are "taught" and learned in regeneration, then why contend for a nonsensible or non-cognitive faith? Further, why exclude the preaching of the Gospel and word of God as a means God uses in doing this teaching? Especially seeing what Paul said about it in Romans chapter ten? 

Earlier Joshua said the "faith" of Ephesians 2: 8 was a synonym for "Christ." He seems to be jumping all over the place in his attempt to uphold his view that people must have cognitive faith in Christ and the Gospel to be regenerated or eternally saved. 

Joshua said further:

"Now, lets specifically consider the faith mentioned in Ephesians 2:8-9. This specific principle of faith is what all the elect are saved through in regeneration. This is a universal principle for all of the elect and must, by necessity, be identical to every child of God. In other word’s, being that it is a principle that will apply to all the elect, it also must be something that is applicable to infants, mentally handicapped, adults, and Old Testament saints."

I thought the faith of the text was a "firm persuasion" wherein a person was taught the enumerated things above? Why then turn around and say the above things about the faith of the text? Where is there a text in all the Bible that says people have faith without knowing or believing anything?

Joshua, in order to teach that people have faith apart from the word of God, and to contradict what the apostle Paul said, wrote:

"Old Testament Saint: There was a time when full gospel knowledge was not revealed...Full historic gospel information was not completely revealed until the time of Christ."

"There was a time before full gospel knowledge. Yet, God had a people before the gospel dispensation that served him through faith (Hebrews 11). If gospel faith was nonexistent during the law dispensation and faith is always evangelical gospel faith, how did these OT saints exercise faith?"

"There was a time before full gospel knowledge. Yet, God had a people before the gospel dispensation that served him through faith (Hebrews 11). If gospel faith was nonexistent during the law dispensation and faith is always evangelical gospel faith, how did these OT saints exercise faith?"

The old testament saints may not have had as much information about Christ and the good news concerning his salvation, but they had enough knowledge to be saved. It is not necessary for a person to have "full knowledge" of Christ and the Gospel to be saved. This is a classic "red herring." The new testament writers tell us that the saved people of the old testament had the Gospel. (Gal. 3: 8: Heb. 4: 1-2; Rom. 1: 1-2) Abel, son of Adam and Eve, had faith (Heb. 11:4) and his faith came via the word of God given in Genesis 3: 15 through what is called the "protoevangelium," which means "the first Gospel," for in the divine oracle a Savior and Redeemer is promised to come and undo what the Serpent had done, and from that time forward the Messiah was called "the desired one." (See Hag. 2: 7; Dan. 11: 37) Abel put his faith in this promised Redeemer who his parents told him about via the Oracle of God.

Notice that Joshua speaks about the old testament saints not having "full knowledge" of the Gospel and then concludes that this lack of full knowledge means that they did not have "gospel faith." Huh? Be astonished oh heavens! No one in the old testament believed the good news of a Messiah!