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! 

By Grace Through Faith

I am amazed at those Calvinists who say that regeneration or quickening occurs before faith in their preaching on Ephesians chapter two. They will say that the salvation of that chapter is the quickening of verse one. In verse five when Paul says "even when we were dead in trespasses and sins he made us alive together with Christ (for by grace are you saved)," they cannot deny that the salvation of this text is the being made alive or regeneration. But, when they get to verse eight where Paul says "for by grace are you saved through faith" they will say the salvation of the chapter precedes faith. Huh?

Paul says the dead are quickened by grace through faith and that this quickening is a being "created in Christ Jesus" or being God's "workmanship" (verse 10) and says people are saved by grace through faith "UNTO good works." Why did he not say created in Christ Jesus "UNTO faith"? Is that not what those Hyper Calvinists who put regeneration before faith teach? Why does the text not say "for by grace are you saved unto faith"? Where in the Bible is there a single text that says people are saved before faith?

Some of these Hyper Calvinists, such as the Hardshell Primitive Baptists, say that being saved by faith is a case of being saved by works. But, that won't work, for in the text Paul says "through faith unto good works," clearly showing that faith is not a work, which is what he also said in Romans 4: 5.

Some of these Hyper Calvinists will argue that being created in Christ cannot be by faith because an uncreated non-existing person cannot choose to be created. However, did not David say to God -- "create in me a clean heart and renew a right spirit within me"? (Psa. 51: 10)

I challenge any of the advocates for the born again before faith view, whether James White or anyone else, to come and debate whether Ephesians chapter two shows that regeneration precedes faith. I challenged White to debate this years ago, but he declined.

I have shown that the authors of the 1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith did not say that regeneration (effectual calling) occurred before faith. Their Catechism, approved in 1680 and attached to the 1689 confession, says:

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

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

I have numerous writings of many of the authors of both these old confessions where they affirm the same thing, men such as John Spilsbury, Hanserd Knollys, Hercules Collins, Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, etc.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXIII)

Elder John M. Thompson

1844 - 1940

In this chapter we will continue to examine the editorial writings of elder C.H. Cayce in his paper "The Primitive Baptist" and what he wrote about the controversy he was engaged in about "the whole man" doctrine. In the previous chapter we ended it with what Cayce said about the above minister, who was a grandson of Elder Wilson Thompson, a leading minister who we have referred to in earlier chapters. We ended the previous chapter with these words:

"Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"We have some letters from Elder John M. Thompson which we will publish soon, in which he denies that regeneration makes a man better. We will publish his letters so our readers can see for themselves what he says. We want no man to preach in our churches who is not made better by regeneration.""

In the next issue of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical under the title "CURTAIN RAISED AGAIN," being "Article No. 3" for October 10, 1916, Cayce wrote: 

"We promised last week that we would give some letters from Elder J. M. Thompson soon, and we do that this week. In our issue of Nov. 16, 1915, we published our views on regeneration, and stated that we would not publish more on that question, hoping the brethren would drop the matter and not continue the unholy war. Elder John M. Thompson evidently did not endorse our article, so he wrote us the following letter on Jan. 18th, 1916: -Tipton, Ind., 1-18-16."

"ELDER C. H. CAYCE:- 

Dear Brother--In sorrow I write you owing to the strange position you have taken on the vital subject of regeneration. Regeneration is one of the essentials in the eternal salvation of sinners, on which there should be agreement."

Actually the history of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists is filled with strange views on the subject of regeneration or the birth of the Spirit. Thompson continued:

In your article on regeneration, P. B., p.p. 5,9,10, Nov. 1915, you say regeneration is a spiritual work by the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man; that in that work the sinner is formed anew in his soul, or spirit, or heart; that the body is not formed anew in regeneration, but that it will be formed anew, will be made spiritual, in the resurrection; and you quote as your belief: "The apostles' doctrine teaches that it is the man that is dead in sin that is quickened...that is made a child and fellow citizen." In this I understand you to teach, that in regeneration the spirit of man is formed anew, is made spiritual, but the body is not, but that it will be formed anew in regeneration (we suppose he means to say in the resurrection.-C. H. C.), will then be made spiritual; that man in spirit is quickened in regeneration, is made a child of God. Yet, strange indeed, you say, that the work of regeneration does not take the old nature away, but gives him another nature. This you say of that that is regenerated-the spirit."

"You teach that the evil man is made good by the Lord making his heart good. Then you say, "If that does not make a man a better man, we confess that we do not know what would make him better." Primitive Baptists have held and do hold that alien sinners are totally depraved, not good. If not good naturally, by nature the children of wrath--Paul--morally depraved, how is it possible that regeneration can or does make them better? Man prior to regeneration is a good man if regeneration makes him a better man--good, better, best. He has to be good before he can be made better. So the Newman-Collings contention cannot be true."

"As to the two natures in regenerated people, Paul locates the bad nature in the body, but never in the regenerated soul, spirit, or heart. I cannot conceive that it is possible for a man in spirit, soul, or heart to possess a vile-nature according to your presentation of the great change in regeneration in soul, spirit, heart." 

I have addressed this issue in the preceding chapters. I agree that the body is a source for doing evil. This is why Paul said that he worked hard to "discipline" and "bring into subjection" his "body" (I Cor. 9: 27) and prayed to be "delivered" from "the body of this death." (Rom. 7: 24) I also agree that it is the heart or spirit that is the object that is changed in regeneration and renewing. However, I don't believe as many of the Hardshells, such as Lemuel Potter, that whatever inner part of a man is born again cannot sin, a view that they in part derive from their interpretation of I John 3: 9 where it is said that "whoever is born of God cannot sin." 

We saw how Paul, for instance, exhorted believers as follows: "let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1) So, though the heart or spirit is renewed when a sinner is born again, that renewal continues (II Cor. 4: 16) and there is a need for daily cleansing and for progressive sanctification. 

About Thompson's picking a fight over whether it is correct to say that being saved or regenerated makes a person "better" versus making him "good," I will have more to say shortly after we hear Cayce's response to this point. 

Thompson continued:

"You inform us that communications arguing regeneration will go into the fire. Strange! Truth relative to regeneration cannot be argued and error exposed! A fundamental tenet of our faith suppressed! thus it appears to me. I feel constrained to request that my name be discontinued and your paper to me be discontinued. - I am for principle regardless of financial consideration. The Lord bless truth and faithfulness." J. M. Thompson 

I have said it many times over my lifetime since leaving the Hardshell cult. If you are on the good side of the Hardshells they will patronize you to death, as they did my father (Elder Eddie K. Garrett) and Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. for a long time. But, when they turn against you, as they did to father and Bradley, you will become the object of their wrath and scorn. The history of the Hardshells is full of such vicious fighting.

Elder Cayce responded to Thompson as follows (emphasis mine):

"We sent the following letter to Brother Thompson in reply: Feb. 19, 1916. 

ELDER JOHN M. THOMPSON: 

Dear Brother--I am very much surprised at the tone and contents of your letter of Jan. 18th. According to your statement and argument a good man is no better than a bad man; a good tree is no better than a bad tree; and if a thing that is bad cannot be made better, then the soul or spirit of the unregenerate must be good, or else they are not made good in regeneration, and are, therefore, still bad. I am utterly surprised that you would take such a position. My brother, please do not think me presumptuous or impertinent when I tell you that you know too much about language to make such an argument, or to take such a position. I am sorry to see that you would do this. Now, I wish to say that I do not care to discuss the matter further. I have said my say in the paper, and there is no room for misunderstanding. You and others may read things into the article which I did not say, but I am not responsible for that. I have no more to say concerning the matter. I have today had your name taken off the editorial staff, and also had your name dropped from the mailing list, as you requested. I hold no ill feeling nor malice toward you. I trust that after you have carefully considered the matter you will feel differently to the way you manifested in your letter. Yours in sorrow, C. H. CAYCE."

Thompson was a school teacher, having gone to college to become such. I am sure that he taught his students grammar about "good, better, best." Of course, Cayce is right. Being made better does not strictly imply a previous state of being good; it only implies an improvement relative to a previous condition, which could have been neutral or even bad.

After Cayce published his reply to Thompson, and his promise to say no more about the matter, he gets a letter from Thompson which Cayce published as follows (emphasis mine):

"In reply to this letter Brother Thompson wrote us as follows: Tipton, Ind., 3-18-16 

ELDER C. H. CAYCE: Martin, Tenn.- 

In as much as you impertinently charge me with insincerity, with making a false statement, and misrepresent me, I do not consider it proper that I address you as I would otherwise have done." 

Meaning he cannot address Cayce as "Brother" or "Elder." This attitude is quite prevalent in the many wars that have occurred among the Hardshells. Thompson continued:

"In language good is positive, better is Comparative, and best is superlative. Bad is positive, worse is comparative, and worst is superlative. An alien sinner is a bad man in soul. Regeneration makes him good or righteous in soul, but it does not make him better in soul. He would have to be good in soul before regeneration for regeneration to make him better in soul. If you understand grammatical comparison of adjectives you know I am right in this. You surprise me in your opposing note. You can exercise your pleasure concerning any further say. I am confident I am correct, and am willing to submit the question to any unprejudiced scholar. If you see your error and scripturally confess it will correct your unjust offense. J. M.Thompson."

So, why is Thompson denying that regeneration makes a sinner better? Is he not picking a fight? Nitpicking? A saved man is better in his conduct, in his morality or ethics, in the way he treats others. Thompson then attaches this postscript:

"P. S. If a thing that is black can be made whiter (which is impossible) then it might reasonably be said that a bad man morally can be made a better man morally. A thing has to be white before it can be made whiter, even so a man has to be a good man morally before he can be made a better man morally. When a thing is black it may be made to be white, but not whiter, even so a bad man morally may be made to be a good man morally, but not to be a better man morally." 

I believe this war over the "whole man" doctrine and the experience of regeneration, though it had a doctrinal basis, yet it often included rivalries about who will have the preeminence among the cult, arising over preacher jealousy. 

Cayce wrote an editorial after this titled "QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS COPIED" and wrote:

"In or about the first part of the year 1913 Elder J. L. Collings, of Glen Rose, Texas, sent out a list of questions, which we suppose was sent to quite a number of brethren. A copy of them was sent to Elder John M. Thompson, and he replied under date of May 21, 1913. We have before us a copy of the questions and a copy of his reply. We give the questions and his answers as follows:

Q. Do you believe that regeneration makes a man better morally? 

A. I do not believe that regeneration makes a man better morally. I believe it causes a man to think, desire and do better morally. It makes him better in soul morally but not in act. It enables him to do better morally. "Makes" is too strong here as pertains to his actions morally. 

Q. What according to the Scriptures is the child of God? 

A. The inner man in regeneration is the child of God; God is the Father of spirits.- Paul. 

Q. To whom are the Scriptures addressed--to the inner man or the child of God as a complex being? 

A. The Scriptures are addressed to the regenerate soul,--not to the body, which is only natural, without spiritual discernment. 

Q. Do the righteous acts of men make them better at heart, or are the righteous acts fruits of the righteous heart? 

A. Righteous works are fruits of the righteous heart. They do not make men better at heart. 

Q. Does a Christian obey because he is better in heart, or does he obey to become better in heart and soul by God's grace? 

A. A Christian obeys because he is better in heart. God's grace makes them better in heart. 

Q. Does grace in the heart make men better or worse, or does it change him at all? 

A. Grace in the heart makes men better in heart. The change is in the inner man. Grace does not force obedience: "Let us come boldly unto a throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need."-- {(Hebrews 4:16)} not to force. 

Q. I believe the sinner is passive in regeneration but active in obedience. Do you? 

A. I do believe the sinner is passive in regeneration. 

Q. Do you believe that Paul persecuted the church of God after regeneration, either in whole or part? 

A. I do not believe Paul persecuted the church after regeneration, if regenerated on his way to Damascus. 

Q. Is it the whole man doctrine to say that regeneration makes an immoral man better morally? 

A. The whole man doctrine as I understand its advocates, is, that the body as well as the inner man, is born of the spirit, - born again; and not to say that regeneration makes a man better morally. Both statements are wrong. Regeneration causes men to do better morally, but does not make him do better, does not force him to do better. 

Q. Is it the whole man doctrine that in regeneration the man, in body, soul, and spirit, is make spiritual, sinless, and pure? 

A. It may be, and it may not be the whole man doctrine that in regeneration man is made spiritual, sinless and pure; some may teach that way, and others to the contrary. The contention in Texas is wrong. "Make" is too strong in the use some make of it. 

Cayce then writes this commentary on Thompson's answers:

"The above answers were signed by Elder John M. Thompson. From these answers it appears that, according to Elder Thompson, regeneration made a man better in soul in 1913; but from his letters it appears that regeneration does not make a man better in soul now."

I think Cayce, the champion debater, showed that Thompson spoke out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, with one caveat however. Thompson says that when he denied that regeneration "makes" a man better, he is denying that regeneration forces or unconditionally causes a regenerated person to live a more moral life.

Cayce continued:

"Since he boasts of his scholarship (so it appears to us; we do not mean this as an insinuation), we wonder what institution of learning he has graduated from during the past three years. Any how, his answers to those questions and his letters show a change. We wonder whether that change was wrought in the "inner man"-that is, in his soul or spirit-or was it in his material body of flesh? Evidently there has been a change with him. We wonder if that change was wrought by the direct and immediate operation of the Spirit of God upon the inner man. Perhaps it was just the inner man that has been changed, and not Elder Thompson at all. If that is the way of it, we humbly beg Elder Thompson's pardon for even thinking such a thing as that he has changed; and we humbly beg the pardon of that inner man in him for charging what he had done to Elder Thompson. Of course, if the inner man is made as pure and sinless in regeneration as God is, and the inner man in Elder Thompson has been regenerated, then the inner man in Elder Thompson never does wrong or makes a mistake. - And if that inner man never does wrong nor makes a mistake, and if that inner man wrote those answers, - then they were correct when written. And if that be true, then in 1913 regeneration did make men better in soul, but it does not make them better now. So, according to this, regeneration did something for men then that it does not do now. We wonder why it does not do as much for them now as it did then. Perhaps that infallible inner man can tell us. If he can, we would be glad for him to do so. But perhaps that inner man did not write both, the answers and the letters. If not, we wonder which or what part of the writing Elder Thompson did himself. It is really Elder Thompson we would like to reply to. We do not know how to preach or write to spirits." 

Here Cayce shows his debate skills, and his Sophistry. He makes fun of Thompson's views and his change of positions, and him being so uncompromising on an issue where there was basic agreement.

Cayce wrote further:

"Elder Thompson does not wish to call us brother. Very well. Our letter to him was intended to have been written in the very best of feeling, and we told the truth when we said we had no ill feeling toward him. The reader can judge for himself as to whether we misrepresented him or not. Now, this was not Elder Thompson that does not wish to call us brother. It was Elder Thompson's regenerated spirit saying this to our flesh; and as his regenerated spirit is the child of God, and as our flesh or 'body is no part of a child of God,' of course we are not brothers. He was not saying this to our spirit, of course. Perhaps Elder Thompson would admit that our spirit is a child of God, and perhaps he would not."

I had this same problem when I first began to debate with Hardshell Jason Brown back in 2011 (see archives for that year). When he first began to address me he would not call me "brother." I found that odd since Hardshells have become quasi-Universalists and make nearly all religious people children of God. He did start calling me brother. As I have shown in postings in the past, the first Hardshells considered most of the religious world to be unsaved, part of the system of Antichrist and Mystery Babylon. See this post (here) where I write about this. What a change!

Cayce wrote further:

"But Elder Thompson says that the "spirit of man" in (I Corinthians 2:11) signifies that the spirit of man is a man. This is another new thing to us. We never knew before that the spirit of man was a man. According to this, there is a man in a man, and the man in the man is regenerated. The man who has the man in him is not regenerated. It is the Adam sinner, then, who has the regenerated man in him, and the Adam sinner is left out of the matter entirely, only as he is tormented and worried and crossed with and by the child of God that is in him- for awhile. This is evidently Elder Thompson's view of the matter, for he says that the regenerated man departs from the body. As the regenerated man departs from the body, then the body is no part of the regenerated man. This simply leaves Adam sinners out, and they are not regenerated at all. So far as we are concerned, if it is not us, it makes no difference to us if it should be a mule. But in (Philippians 1:21-26) the apostle is teaching no such thing as that the regenerated man departs from the unregenerated man; but he is teaching that there is a better life for him beyond this vale of tears, and that he had a desire to depart this mode of existence, and to be present with the Lord. - There is nothing in the apostle's language that even intimates that the body is no part of the child of God, or that there was a child of God dwelling in him, and that he was not a child of God."

Here again we see two extremes. We see Cayce accusing Thompson of not believing that the physical body is a part of a child of God, because it is not regenerated, and Cayce seemingly taking the view that the whole man, including the body, is a child of God by regeneration, even though Cayce denies this to be his view. As I stated in previous chapters, the body belongs to Lord because he purchased it by this death on the cross, and not because it is regenerated like the heart or spirit. The body is "part of the regenerated man" but it is not regenerated but purchased or owned by the Lord. Cayce is wrong to say that it is not true that "the regenerated man departs from the unregenerate man" however. The regenerated spirit (or part of the man) does depart from the unregenerated body (or other part of the man). 

Cayce wrote further:

"It is true, and the Scriptures abundantly so teach, that the spirit or soul does not die when the body dies. When the body dies the spirit goes to God. The body dies because it is mortal, and on account of sin; but it is the mortal part of the child of God." 

This being so, why does Cayce fault saying that the inner or regenerated man departs from the outer or unregenerated man? Is it because the word "man" is used for one part of a man? Does not Paul however refer to an inner and an outer "man"? Cayce was often insisting that the man is regenerated and seemed to suggest that this meant the whole man. Notice what he says next:

"The Saviour said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." - (John 3:3). To Nicodemus He said, "Ye must be born again." - (John 3:7). He was not talking to a spirit when He said this, but He was talking to a MAN. In this new birth the Spirit of God operates on the spirit of man, and that operation of the Spirit makes the MAN a child of God." 

Here is the problem in what Cayce says, and which I have addressed in previous chapters. Cayce clearly affirms that the body becomes a child of God by the man being born again. Is he affirming that the birth of the man's spirit makes the body a child of God? Is he saying that the body becomes a child of God by it, like the inner spirit, also having been born of the Spirit? 

Cayce wrote further:

"It does not make the body of the man spiritual; but it does make the man a child of God, and that child of God has a mortal body. We know that the Scriptures teach this, no matter what we may think about it, and no matter how mysterious it may appear to us. There are mysteries about this thing that no man on earth can explain, and all this effort to explain an inexplainable thing only serves to mystify the matter all the more. And that is what causes the trouble among the Old Baptists, too." 

So, spiritual birth does not make the body spiritual or holy but it does make the man, including his body, a child of God? This idea forces one to say that the body of a believer is a child of God because it has been born of God. Cayce does not distinguish, as he should, between being God's possession or ownership of a believer's body versus it being regenerated or transformed (as it will be in the resurrection). 

Cayce wrote further:

"But Elder Thompson claims now that regeneration makes a bad man a good man in soul, but does not make him a better man in soul, and he also claims that in regeneration the soul or spirit is made pure and sinless. If regeneration makes the soul pure and sinless, we do not see how it could be made any better, unless it can be made better than pure and sinless. If regeneration makes the soul or spirit good, and it cannot be made better than pure and sinless, then we do not see how the soul or spirit of the child of God could be made any better. So it seems that, according to Elder Thompson's contention, the soul or spirit is not simply made good in regeneration, but it is made as good as the best! If the soul or spirit is made as pure and sinless in regeneration as God is, and is made good, as Elder Thompson claims, and can then be made better, as he says, then God can be made better, too." 

Thompson, when he affirms that "in regeneration the soul or spirit is made pure and sinless," is expressing the view of Elder Lemuel Potter of Illinois. This view Cayce rightly rejects. In chapter forty eight of this series I cited from Potter's book "Labors and Travels of Elder Lemuel Potter." In chapter nineteen of that work Potter wrote:

"During the year 1871, and '72, I began to get acquainted with the brethren of Wabash District Association. I visited their Association once or twice, and visited a number of their churches, and found that among them and some of their correspondents, the question was being agitated as to what it is that is born again in the work of regeneration. Some of the preachers of that, and some other Associations, differed so widely about it that they were accused of taking positions that were very extreme. One man was accused of claiming that the body was no part of the child of God. Another denied any distinction of soul and body, claiming that the man that was born again, to use their own language, was, the man that ate bacon and cabbage. 

The question as to what part of a person experiences regeneration was still a question being fought over in Cayce's battle with Thompson, and also the question as to whether the part of a person that is regenerated is able to sin. In chapter fifty four I cited from Potter's 1895 treatise titled "A Treatise on Regeneration and Christian Warfare." In that work Potter wrote the following in chapter seven under the title "The Renewed Soul Clear of Sin":

"Some who believe in a distinction of soul and body, and that the soul of the saint goes immediately into conscious joy at the death of the body, have claimed that, in the work of the new birth, the soul is not made entirely clear of sin, as the body will be in the resurrection; but that when the soul leaves the body, it will be pure and sinless. It is argued that the soul comprises the whole mind of man, and that the body could neither do good nor evil, only as it did so at the instance of the soul; that the body was the instrument of the soul, in doing good and evil both."

"I have always thought that, in the christian warfare, the soul was always on the side of holiness, and that it always did oppose evil." 

Cayce always spoke highly of Potter. How could he not, seeing Potter was highly venerated at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the twentieth. Cayce could hardly speak against Potter and expect it not to hurt his efforts to obtain subscribers to his paper and promote himself. However, in condemning the view of Thompson on the belief that the regenerated part of a man cannot sin he also condemns Potter. As I have shown, being born again or regenerated does not make the soul or spirit incapable of sinning. So, does the "new" or "divine" nature that believers receive commit sin? No, it does not, no more than does Christ who dwells in the believer. But, the heart, soul, spirit, or mind is not completely of one holy divine nature when it experiences initial salvation. The new nature begins to operate and change the heart and spirit but that work is never completed in this life. 

If the old depraved nature is the source of all the sin and the new divine nature is the source of all the holiness and right doing, then do I not have anything to do with which one controls what I do? If so, then are there not three entities at work? Am I a mere bystander in the war between the new and old nature? When I sin, is it because the old nature won and the new nature lost? My beloved father used to say that the two natures of a believer were comparable to a black dog warring with a white dog. So, which one wins? Father said -- "the one to whom I say 'sic em' to." So, that makes three entities. When Paul tells believers to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh, who is he addressing? The sinful nature? The new nature? Or the one who stands between the two?

Cayce wrote further:

"Again, according to his contention, a good man in soul is no better than a bad man in soul. If a thing has to be made good before it can be made better, then a good thing is no better than a bad thing. We have always thought that a good thing was better than a bad thing, and we confess that we think so yet. But Elder Thompson says that he is willing to leave it to any unprejudiced scholar. Perhaps he could not find One that is unprejudiced. If a scholar should say he is wrong, of course he would be prejudiced. If Elder Thompson is right in his contention, then a sound apple is no better than a rotten one; sound meat is no better than tainted meat."

Cayce shows his debate skills in this exchange and has Thompson cornered or in a tight spot. Cayce wrote further:

"Elder Thompson says that "the Scriptures are addressed to the regenerated soul not to the body, which is only natural, without spiritual discernment." The commandments, admonitions, and exhortations, then, are all given to the soul or spirit in the man, and not to the man himself. And the regenerated soul or spirit is pure and holy and cannot sin, and therefore cannot disobey. And the body is still a child of wrath, still dead in sin, like the unregenerate sinner, and cannot obey, and is not even required to obey. No commandment is given in which it is embraced." 

Cayce is demonstrating the absurdity of the view that says that the body or old nature cannot do good and the renewed spirit or new nature cannot sin. By his reasoning he shows how absurd it is to think of a believer through this paradigm. The fact is, a "regenerated soul or spirit" can indeed sin. So Paul exhorted the believers, saying to them "let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (II Cor. 7: 1) Notice that Paul includes himself. If he believed that the "spirit" of the regenerated believer could not sin, then why this exhortation? Cayce argues the same way when he wrote further:

(6) (James 5:16) says, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." We wonder what was the matter with them. Remember that Elder Thompson says the Scriptures are addressed to the regenerate soul, and the regenerate soul is as pure and sinless as God is; yet they needed a healing of some kind...The regenerated soul, then, could not obey this command; and the body could not obey it, for it has no spiritual discernment, so EIder Thompson says. Others say it is still dead in sin, just like the alien sinner, and cannot obey. Pray, then, who could obey this command? The spirit could not, for it has no faults to confess; and the body could not obey it, for it is still dead in sin like the alien sinner; besides, it is not required to obey it, for Elder Thompson says the Scriptures are addressed to the spirit."

The Bible with its exhortations, commands, and admonitions are addressed to people, whether they are lost people who only have a fallen nature, or whether they are saved people who have both a fallen nature (called "the flesh") and a renewed nature (called "the divine nature" or  "new man"). Technically the nature in each person is not what is addressed, but the person who has those natures. In our attempt to persuade people we may say to them "I appeal to your better nature in what I say" or "I appeal to your sense of right or wrong or sense of justice" in your judgment of this or that. But, the meaning is that the person is addressed to consider his conscience, or his "good side." 

Misc. News

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

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

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

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

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

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (16)

By John Spilsbury

1593 - 1668

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Bakewell's Attack

Bakewell writes to Spilsbury as follows (emphasis mine):

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Faith means Christ

2. Faith means Grace

3. Faith means a seed deposit

4. Faith means ability to believe

5. Faith means evidence of salvation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hassell wrote further:

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

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

Hassell wrote further:

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

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

Hassell wrote further and defines faith as follows:

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

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

Hassell wrote further: 

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

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

Hassell wrote further: 

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

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

Hassell wrote further: 

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

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

Hassell wrote further: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hassell wrote further:

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

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

Hassell wrote further:

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

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

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