"Finish, then, thy new creation"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Spilsbury's Belief About Regeneration

John Spilsbury

1593 -1668

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

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

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

Observations

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

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

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (15)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Latent" or "Seed" Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rayburn said further:

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

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

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

But he then disregarded this and said:

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

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

Rayburn said further:

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

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

Rayburn said further:

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

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

Faith is Belief

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (14)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Faith is always below the level of consciousness

The Few Things He Says That Are Right

1. Teaching takes place in the new birth

2. Cognitive faith depends upon the instrumentality of the word

Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the necessity of repentance, notice these scriptures:

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

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

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

"in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." (II Thess. 1: 8-9 nkjv)

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

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

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

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

The apostle John said:

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

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

Waters says:

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

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

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

Ways Hardshells Define Faith

1. Faith means Christ

2. Faith means Grace

3. Faith means a seed deposit

4. Faith means ability to believe

5. Faith means evidence of salvation

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Here is another question Hassell answered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (13)

We will now continue our examination of Hassell's polemic for his "anti-means" view of salvation as given in his January, 1898 editorial "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (You can read it on page 12 here). 

Hassell said further (emphasis mine):

"Christ said that the unbelieving Jews thought they had eternal life in the Scriptures, but that the Scriptures testified of Him, and that the Jews would not come to Him that they might have life (John v, 39, 40); and John says that eternal life is in the Son of God, and that, he that hath the Son hath life, and that he that hath not the Son hath not life (1 John v. 11, 12). 

Hassell refers to the words of Jesus to the Jews who rejected him, which are these:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 kjv)

Hassell and his brethren believe that Christ is, by these words, condemning the idea that the scriptures are a means for obtaining eternal life. However, by this he shows how anxious he is to find some semblance of a text that upholds such a view. By such an interpretation he sets Christ against what is clearly stated in many passages of scripture. In II Timothy 3:15 Paul said: 

"And how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 

This was what the 1689 London Baptist Confession taught, which confession Hassell accepted as a standard of faith by the Old Baptists. In chapter one titled "Of the Holy Scriptures" they refute Hassell's view. 

"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation."

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word."

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them."

In chapter six of this series I cited from the Kehukee Association's articles of faith. In article Two the confession says:

2. We believe that Almighty God has made known his mind and will to the children of men in his word; which word we believe to be of divine authority, and contains all things necessary to be known for the salvation of men and women. The same is comprehended or contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, as are commonly received.

So, when Sylvester denies that the scriptures are a means of imparting saving knowledge, he is denying his own association's original belief.

What Christ is condemning is the idea of many of the Jews wherein they supposed that by their having the scriptures, and by reading them and professing adherence to them, and by being the custodians of them, they would have eternal life. However, if a man reads the Bible he is not assured of eternal life by simply reading it. Satan himself knew the scriptures and cited them to Jesus in the temptation in the wilderness. Many critics of the Bible read the Bible but reject it. The scriptures are only a means of salvation when and if a person finds Christ therein and puts his faith in him. So we read where the apostle Paul "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18: 28 kjv) So John Gill says in his commentary on the John 5: 39:

 

"But the meaning here is, that they imagined, by having these writings in their hands, and by their reading them, and hearing them expounded every sabbath day, they should obtain and inherit everlasting life..."

Pulpit Commentary agrees, saying:

"Surely our Lord is here condemning the superstitious idea that, in the mere possession of the letter, they were possessors of the eternal life; that, apart from the indwelling Word, apart from the heart of the message itself, some magical advantage was springing...It is not the bare possession of the Scriptures, nor the prolonged examination of its mere letter, that is the condition of eternal life." 

If the mere possession of the scriptures assured one of eternal life, then every person who has a Bible in his house will be saved. But, the problem with the Jews that Jesus addressed is that they did not see him in the scriptures and therefore did not put their trust in him. So Paul said: "But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart" (II Cor. 3: 15 kjv). 

Christ certainly does say that he may be found in the Scriptures, and this is what destroys the whole argument of Hassell and his Hardshell brethren. Christ affirms that the Scriptures ought to be searched in order to find Christ and that finding him is salvation. So, rather than denying that the scriptures are a means for obtaining eternal life, Jesus actually affirms that they are necessary. Hassell says that it is by the personal preaching of Christ to dead sinners that they receive spiritual and eternal life, as we have seen. Yet, we see where the apostle Paul was able, by the scriptures, to "convince" and "show" the Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah. So, both Paul and the Scriptures were means used by the Spirit to bring people to faith in Christ, and such faith is necessary for salvation.

Further, Jesus says to these Jews in the next verse -- "you will not come to me that you might have life." These words destroy Hardshell views. These words overthrow several Hardshell propositions. First, Jesus says this to people who have rejected him. They were the very ones who were "persecuting" Christ (vs. 16) and who "sought to kill him" (vs. 18), and who Christ said "had not the word of God abiding in them" (vs. 38) and who did not "believe" in him as the one sent by the Father (vs. 38), and who he said did "not have the love of God in them" (vs. 42), and who did not really believe what Moses wrote (vs. 46-47). So, why is Jesus saying these things to people who the Hardshells say cannot understand anything he is saying and who has no desire to see them come to believe in him? 

Second, they obviously have not come to Christ, for Christ said to them "you will not come to me." So, this too is additional evidence that these people were spiritually dead. So, why does Christ denounce them for not coming to him, for not believing in him? If they have no duty to come to him or to believe in him (which is what they and the Hyper Calvinists believe), then why denounce them for not believing? If they have no commandment to believe in Christ then they sin not by not believing in him. Hardshell Baptists do not believe it is God's will for them to preach the gospel to the unsaved. 

In Cayce's Editorials, we find the following under title "OUR WORK ENDORSED" for October 10, 1905, Cayce cites from the minutes of the Forked Deer Association of Tennessee (which I once visited when I visited Elder S. T. Tolley of that Association but has since dissolved) for September, 1905 and gives the following from their minutes:

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

Cayce endorses this declaration. This is Hardshellism in a nutshell (pun intended). They believe that it is a violation of scripture, thus a sin, to preach the gospel to an "alien sinner" and to admonish him "to repent and believe the gospel." But, this is exactly what Jesus did in the context of John chapter five! It is also what John the Baptist did. He preached to those he called a "brood of vipers" and warned them to flee from the wrath of God and to repent! So, the Hardshells condemn Christ and the Baptist for violating the will of God!

Third, Jesus plainly says that these dead sinners ought to come to him for life, which words show that he was speaking to those who had not come to him and who did not therefore have spiritual life. By those words we also see that Jesus taught that "life" is received by coming to him. But, the Hardshells teach that one must have life before he can come to Jesus. They would have Jesus to rather say -- "you will not have life that you might come unto me." Thus, their ordo salutis (order of salvation) is not the same as Christ's.

Hassell cites I John 5: 11-12 where John says that "whoever has the Son has life." (See my post here on that) This text refutes Hardshellism. How does one "have" or possess the Son? It is by "receiving" the Son. (John 1: 11-12) Paul wrote to the Colossians saying "as you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord..." (2: 6) It is by faith that he is received.

Hassell said further:

"Christ says to the unbelieving Jews, "He that is of God (that is, born of God, as I have proved) heareth God's words; ye, therefore, hear them not, because ye are not of God" (John viii. 47); and John says, "He that is not of God heareth us not" (1 John iv. 6)—thus proving that Regeneration goes before and causes us to hear God's words, whether those words are spoken by God or man; that Regeneration precedes Effectual Calling. 

Why is Christ saying these things to "the unbelieving Jews"? Is it not wrong to preach the gospel to the spiritually dead? Further, if they are spiritually dead, they why teach them about what it means to be "of God" or about "regeneration" seeing they cannot understand what he is saying? If they cannot hear what he is saying, then why is he speaking to them? 

As to the argument that John 8: 47 affirms that one must be "of God" by regeneration before they can "hear God's words" I have already addressed that in this series. You can also read this post (here) where I analyze this argument. First of all Jesus taught that one must first hear God's word or the voice of Christ before they are raised out of spiritual death. In John 5: 25 Jesus says "the dead hear the voice of the Son of God and live." Hearing preceding the coming to life. Even in the case of Lazarus, the word was spoken and heard by Lazarus before he came forth from the dead. "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live" said the Lord of old (Isa. 55: 3 kjv). This was spoken to spiritually dead people, people who are not alive, for why would he tell people who are already alive what to do to become alive? They are told to hear the Lord and come to him in order to live. 

So, John 8: 47 cannot contradict this fact. What the text is saying is that anyone who is "of God" has in fact heard and believed the word of God. It can be said that they are not hearing because they are not of God and they are not of God because they are not hearing.

Hassell also says that "regeneration precedes effectual calling." What about those who are "the called according to his purpose"? (Rom. 8: 28) If that is not regeneration, but a conversion that follows it, then Hassell and the Hardshells are forced to say that God predestined that all the elect not only be regenerated but also to be converted. This is not what Hardshells began to believe towards the end of the 19th century. It is what their forefathers believed however. In their oldest articles of faith, many of their oldest churches said that they believed that all the elect would be "regenerated AND converted." 

In verse thirty Paul wrote: "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called." I do not know of a single "Primitive Baptist" who denies that this being "called" was regeneration or being born of God. Again, if it is not regeneration, but a calling denoting being evangelically converted to Christ, then Hassell is forced to admit that all the predestined will be called to faith in Christ or converted by the gospel. In chapter six of this series I also cited this article from the Kehukee Association's articles faith:

7. We believe that in God’s own appointed time and way, (by means which he has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned and sanctified; and that it is impossible they can utterly refuse the call; but shall be made willing by divine grace to receive the offers of mercy.

I dare say that by being "called" they meant being regenerated, quickened, or born again, just as it did in the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

Hassell said further:

"John says that those who believe (now) in Christ were (previously) born of God (John i. 12 13); that "whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ has already been born of God" (the verb is here in the perfect tense), 1 John v. 1; and that "every one that doeth righteousness has been born of God" (the verb is again in the perfect tense), 1 John ii. 29 —thus proving that Regeneration goes before and causes faith and righteousness, just as Christ says that the tree must first be made good in order for the fruit to be good (Matt. xii. 33)"

I have already addressed this argument and shown that this is a wrong interpretation of the texts he cites. Neither John 1: 12-13 nor I John 5: 1 teach that people are born again before faith. Hassell says that "regeneration goes before and CAUSES faith." If that is so, then everyone who is regenerated will immediately come to faith in Christ or be converted, and this is what Hardshells reject. 

The tree is not good until it is made good by faith, for faith unites to Christ and until a man is united to Christ he is not good. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" says the word of God (Heb. 11: 6), so a person is "no good" or "good for nothing" till he has faith. Further, until a man has saving faith in Christ he is under God's wrath (John 3: 36) and it cannot be that he is "good" until he is no longer under wrath. Further, it is the heart that Jesus is specifically addressing. How is the heart made good? Further, if it is made completely good in initial regeneration, then why do Christians still bring forth evil fruit at times?  The fact is, the heart begins to be made good when a sinner is saved, and it continues to be made better and better in progressive sanctification. I have already called attention to Acts 15: 9 where Peter says the heart is purified by faith. 

Hassell said further:

"Christ says that He is the Resurrection and the Life; that He gives His people eternal life, and they hear His voice and follow Him; that He is the vine and they are the branches, and that they are in Him, and He is in them, and that His Spirit is in them (John xi. 25; x. 27— 30; xv. 1— 8; xiv. lY, 20). In this vital indwelling of Christ and His people, there is no need or possibility of any kind of instrumentality." 

Here Hassell alludes to the doctrine of "union with Christ." He indicates that union with Christ is what brings spiritual life to a dead sinner. So far so good. However, when he says that in "this vital indwelling of Christ" "there is no need or possibility of any kind of instrumentality" he is out of agreement with the scriptures and with his Baptist forefathers. In chapter twenty seven of the 1689 confession on "Of the Communion of Saints" we read that the saints "are united to Christ their head, by his Spirit, and faith." In Keach's Catechism, attached to the confession, we have this question and answer:

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

A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. (Eph. 2:8; 3:17)

This is also what we find in the Charleston Baptist Association's catechism of 1813. This Web Page (here) will give you the several posts I have written on union with Christ and they are filled with citations from Calvinists, including Baptists, who all taught (with the exception of Wilson Thompson) that union with Christ is by faith. This is what the Bible teaches. So Paul spoke of the fact “...that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith...” (Eph. 3: 17) Further, Jesus said: “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." (John 14: 23 nkjv) 

So, since Christ comes to dwell in those who first love and believe him, and since one cannot love nor believe in him apart from knowledge of him (Rom. 10: 13-17), and since the knowledge of him comes through the word of God, and since it is human messengers who bring the word to people, therefore Hassell's statement that no human instrumentality can possibly be involved is clearly a falsehood. 

Hassell said further:

"John says that the life of Jesus was the light of men (John i. 4); then only those men who have that life in them, whose understandings, hearts, and eyes the Lord has opened, see the light of Divine truth (Luke xxiv. 45; Acts xvi. 14; Psalm cxix. IS); no matter how bright the light; the eye of the dead cannot see it. Light has no power to give life or to open the eyes of the blind; but" it enables those who have life and sight to see."

The relationship between life and light I have already addressed. Hassell again asserts the idea that life must exist in a person before that person can see the light. He says this because he will not allow that light, or knowledge, or enlightenment, or illumination, are means for obtaining spiritual life. I have shown however that it is by means of seeing the light that life comes, as J.C. Philpot stated, who I cited on this point previously. We have already looked at a verse Hassell cited which spoke of regeneration in these words:

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4: 6 kjv)

The genitive "light of the knowledge" I understand to be an appositive or explicative genitive and means that the knowledge is the light. So, spiritual life comes by the impartation of knowledge. So the Psalmist says "your word is a lamp unto my feet and a light to my path" and "The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple" (Psa. 119: 105, 130) and that includes "the light of life." Jesus said: "While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light." (John 12: 36) There is a famous Christian hymn titled "Alas and did my Savior Bleed" written by Isaac Watts in 1707 but a chorus was added in 1885 by Ralph E. Hudson which says:

"At the cross, at the cross Where I first saw the light, And the burden of my heart rolled away, It was there by faith I received my sight, And now I am happy all the day!"

When I was a child my father started a church called "New Testament Baptist Church" in Hamilton, Ohio. This was several years before he became a Hardshell Baptist. I can remember us singing the above chorus. It is interesting that most "Primitive Baptist" churches omit the chorus. Why? Is it not because they reject that the light of the cross, or the light of the gospel, are means of salvation?

Further, as we saw from the citations from the 1689 London Baptist confession, "inward illumination by the Spirit of God" was a necessary prerequisite to being saved.

Hassell said further:

"Regeneration is declared in the Scriptures to be a Creation and a Resurrection (Eph. ii. 1—10; 2 Cor. v. 17, 18), in neither of which does God use means. After, but not before a person is created and raised from the dead, which God alone can do, may means be used to feed,- clothe, teach, guide, warn, exhort, and comfort him; and so, while the unregenerate may be morally benefited, only those persons whom God has regenerated can be spiritually edified by the written or preached word or by the 'ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper."

I have already addressed this unfounded assertion by Hassell and his brethren that in creation and resurrection God does not use means. I have shown this to be false. When he says that the word of God can only be a means to feed, etc., those already spiritually alive, he echoes one of the tenets of Two Seedism. In chapter eleven of this series I cited the words of Elder Hosea Preslar on this fact. He said Two Seed Primitive Baptists believe "That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address." 

I don't see how a man as well versed in the scriptures as Hassell can say -- "only those persons whom God has regenerated can be spiritually edified by the written or preached word." We have already seen that the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom. 1: 16), and that people are "born again by the word of God" (I Peter 1: 23) or "begotten with the word of truth" (James 1: 18). James spoke of "receiving the engrafted or implanted word is able to save the soul." (James 1: 21)

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (12)

All through the new testament scriptures we see how one must "know," intimately and personally, the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved from sin, and we also see where one must "love" him too to be saved. I have already dealt with how the Hardshell Baptists deny that one must know the one true God and Christ as Lord and Savior to be saved and denied that such saving knowledge comes by the means of the gospel. It is also true that one cannot love a person that he does not know. 

Wrote the apostle Paul: "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 16: 22) Perhaps it is this problem that led Hassell (and C.H. Cayce too) to say:

"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)."

We will now continue our examination of Hassell's polemic for his "anti-means" view of salvation as given in his January, 1898 editorial "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (You can read it on page 12 here). 

Hassell said further:

"John was the last surviving Apostle, the last inspired and infallible teacher of the Church of Christ. Preeminently endowed with the Spirit of Christ, he caught, retained, recorded, and expounded the deepest sayings of his Master. His writings contain more of the words of Christ than any other Scriptures; and they treat more clearly and fully the vital subject of the Regeneration or the New Birth than any other Scriptures, and in such a manner as to throw a flood of light upon all the apparent obscurities and ambiguities found in other Scriptures on this subject." 

If we are speaking of the words "born" or "begotten" or "begat" it is true that the apostle John uses those terms more than any other writer. But, he never used the term "regeneration." Hassell is assuming that the "birth" of the Spirit or God the Father is the same as "regeneration." However, he surely knew that the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists did not believe that they were the same. In this blog I have numerous citations from the first leaders in the new sect who did not believe that regeneration was the same as the "birthing." For instance Elder Joshua Lawrence of the Kehukee Association (Hassell's own association) wrote (emphasis mine):

"Was Jesus Christ a born child of God, when he was conceived by his mother Mary. I answer no, because conception is not born, nor born again, in no sense of that word. Born is a very different word from conception; conception means a child in embryo, but born, or born again, means a child brought forth in full perfection. Then conception is not a born child...Or, to make it plainer, a predestinated child, a promised child, a conceived child, is not an actual child, is not a born child; what say you to this? Then a predestinated child, a promised child, nor a conceived child, is not a born child in no sense of that word, born; for the word born is the finishing stroke, but predestination, promising, and conception of a child, are preparatory causes to produce the effect, born child, or born again — what say you to this? A born child is not a born child until he is born." (See my post here on this)

The following is from Wilson Thompson's book "Simple Truth" published in 1821. It can be downloaded and read (here or read here). It is a composite of several of his sermons. In DISCOURSE #6 "On the Work of the Spirit after Justification" Thompson wrote (emphasis mine):

"This change wrought by the spirit, is called regeneration because it is begetting them unto a divine nature. The first work of the spirit on the heart is regeneration, or the implanting of that incorruptible seed with cleaves to holiness, and so it is sometimes called quickened, because this is a living seed, that causes the motions of life to appear, and this is always followed by the new birth which is effected when the soul is enabled to view Christ by faith, and lay hold of the comfort contained in the gospel, and so they are said to be born again, not of corruptible seed, but of an incorruptible seed, by the word of God."

Elder William Conrad in his autobiography wrote:

"There is also a begetting and being born, but our being born does not give us life; we are born because we have life; but there is a begetting, and previous to this begetting there is no vital or actual existence..." (Chapter 25) (See my post here for further citations from Conrad)

I could multiply such statements from the Hardshells of the 19th century. So, why does Hassell insist the regeneration is the same as being born? 

Just because the apostle John used the term "born of God" or its cognates does not mean that he had a better understanding of it than the other new testament writers, nor that he contradicted them. James, as we have seen, spoke of it, saying that sinners are "begotten with the word of truth." Peter says sinners are "born again by the word of God." Paul says he "begat" the Corinthian believers and the slave Onesimus by the gospel. Though Paul did not use the word "born" or "begotten" as much as John, yet he used other words that denoted the same experience, such as being "quickened" or "washed" of sin. Paul often spoke of being "in Christ" which John did not do as often. 

So, Hassell is wrong to say that the apostle John had superior understanding of spiritual birth or regeneration that Peter, James, or Paul. John taught the same truth about it as they did, that one must hear the gospel, believe it, and receive Christ by its means to be saved or born again.

Hassell said further, speaking of John's writings on being born of God:

"He uses the word meaning to regenerate (usually translated, in the King James version, "born," "begat," or "begotten") sixteen times in the 1st and 3d chapters of his Gospel, and the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th chapters of his First Epistle; and he uses the expression "of God" two times in the 47th verse of the 8th chapter of his Gospel, and five times in his First Epistle, and by this expression it is certain that he means begotten or born of God (see Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, 7th edition, page 428, 1st column "Of Origin"; compare John viii. 42, 44, 47 ; 1 John ii. 29; iii. 10; iv. 6, 7; v. 19). Thus John refers directly to God's work in regeneration twenty-three times, which is far more than all the direct allusions to regeneration in all the other Scriptures; and in not one of these twenty-three passages does he intimate, in the most remote manner, that regeneration is by the written or preached word, nor indeed by any other means or instrumentality, except in John iii. 5, where Christ, in explaining and expounding John iii. 3, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God," says, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Several things need to be rebutted in the above commentary. First, as far as "regenerate" meaning the same thing as to be reborn, I have already addressed that. It does not, though both words are used to denote what occurs when a person is initially saved. One of the two times the word is used in the Bible it refers to the creating of a new heaven and earth, to a re-genesis. Second, the regeneration of the soul, spirit, heart, or mind of a sinner is also called a "renewing." 

The only passage where the word "regeneration" clearly refers to initial salvation (Titus 3:5) we read "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Renewing is clearly something that occurs in sinners by faith and by a choice, God working in them "to will" (Phil. 2: 13).

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom. 12: 2 kjv) 

"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4: 16 kjv) And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;" (Eph. 4: 23 kjv)

"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Col. 3: 10 kjv)

"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." (Psa. 51: 10 kjv)

"Renew" means to make new, and involves a continuous change of the mind or thinking. It is connected with "repentance" which also denotes a change of mind. Paul spoke of being "renewed again unto repentance." (Heb. 6: 6) In the above texts we see how renewal is viewed as something being done to believers and in believers and is continuous and not a one time action. We also see where being renewed is an action of God and in some respects the believer is passive in it. On the other hand we also see where people are commanded to be renewed, to choose to be renewed, and we see where the Psalmist David prays for God to "renew a right spirit within" him. We also see that renewing, which begins when one experiences the "washing of regeneration," is a renewal of the inward man, a renewal of knowledge and of the mind, and a renewal of a right spirit. It is inconceivable that anyone could be thus renewed without knowing the word and having the knowledge of God. 

Also, "washing" is a chief part of being "regenerated" as the text says that being "saved" involves "the washing of regeneration." So, does this washing exclude the word of God or faith in it as a means? Notice these texts for an answer:

"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15: 3 kjv)

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5: 25-27 kjv)

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15: 7-9 kjv)

So, seeing that both renewing and cleansing of sin are essential elements of regeneration and are the result of the word of God and faith in it, Hassell's argument that regeneration is not by the word or faith is wrong. Further, as we have seen, since people are born again by faith, and "faith comes by hearing the word of God" (Rom. 10:17), John could not have been teaching differently as Hassell suggests. As far as whether the apostle John rejected the idea that the word of God was a means in regeneration, rebirth, initial salvation, quickening from spiritual death, Hassell is wrong, for the apostle did not contradict Paul, Peter, and James. The apostle John wrote:

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13 kjv)

John is very clear that people become birthed children of God as a result of "receiving" or "believing" in Christ. They were "born of God" when they received him, "were born" and "received" are in the same tense. John also wrote:

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31 kjv)

Obtaining spiritual "life" occurs when one is born of God, and John says people believe in Christ in order to "have life through his name," or to "be born again." John also wrote:

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him...For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. " (I John 5: 1,4 nkjv)

Of course, Hassell and his Brethren will insist that the present tense of the participle "whoever is believing" and the words "is born" is in a past perfect tense and therefore show that the believing resulted from being born of God. However, that argument will not hold water. See my posts on this here, here, here, here. But, let me just say this much now. The text denies that anyone who is not believing in Christ is born of God and that, my friends, uproots Hardshellism. The Hardshell reads the verse this way -- "whoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and also many more who do not believe that Jesus is the Christ have also been born of God."

The apostle John also records in his gospel the fact that people believe in order to enter into Christ, and believing of course is by hearing the word of God. In the Gospel of John the phrase "eis auton" (unto him) is used frequently.

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

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

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

Now let us consider a few things the apostle John wrote in his first epistle. Wrote the man who Jesus loved:

"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (I John 2: 22-23 nkjv)

"Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." (I John 4: 2-3 nkjv)

These verses tell us that Muslims cannot be saved because they deny that God is a Father, deny that he has a Son, deny his incarnation. The Hardshells teach, however, that myriads of Gospel rejecting people who are religious have been born of God. According to them heathens who worship many gods and goddesses are born of the Spirit. John also wrote:

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (I John 4: 7-8 nkjv)

In this verse we have the negative for loving God. Everyone who loves God is born of God is the positive. Everyone who does not love God is the negative. Everyone who does not love (and the same is true with believing) God is not born of God. I say this because it is a common tactic for Hardshell apologists to say that faith in Christ is evidence of regeneration, and in no sense is it essential to it. So, when we cite a positive that says "whoever believes or loves the Lord is saved" they reply by saying the belief and the love is evidence of salvation but such texts do not say belief and love are conditions for salvation. 

But, they cannot use this tactic when texts give us the negative. In the above words of the apostle he says "whoever does NOT love God," that is, the one true God, does not know God. Jesus often gave us the negative saying "he who believes not is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the the only begotten Son." (John 3: 18) "He that believes not shall be damned." (Mark 16: 16) The apostle Paul wrote: "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 16: 22 kjv) John also wrote in the Book of Revelation: 

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." 21: 8 kjv)

So, one must know God and his Son Jesus to be saved. One must love God and his Son Jesus to be saved. One must believe in God and his Son Jesus to be saved. One cannot know, love, and "believe in him of whom they have not heard," and cannot hear about Jesus except through a preacher. (Rom. 10)

So, Hassell is dead wrong about the apostle John teaching Hardshell ideas about salvation.

Hassell said further:

"John says that Regeneration is alone of God—that it is not of blood, or the will of the flesh, or the will of man (John i. 13); that is, that Regeneration is not at all of human agency; that the human will, whether of the preacher or the hearer, is not at all concerned in the work; that God regenerates His people, back of or before their will, by an immediate act of His omnipotence, just as He performed all the material and mental miracles recorded in the Scriptures, no medium intervening between His volition and the effect (the attending circumstances not being co-operating causes or means); and all these natural and temporal miracles were intended to symbolize His spiritual and eternal miracles in the salvation of His people."

There are so many things wrong with this commentary and as anyone knows, it takes longer to clean up a mess than it is to make one. Notice that Hassell gives propositions that he has no scripture to support. He cites no scripture in the above words. He says "regeneration is alone of God" and that is about the only thing he got right. He then cites John 1:13 about being "born of God" but then adds his commentary on it, saying "human agency" is "not at all" involved in it. But, that is not true, as we have seen. Paul was God's instrument in begetting the Corinthians and Onesimus. We have also seen where the word of God is a means in people being "born again" per the apostle Peter. 

No where in scripture is it taught that the "will" of preachers (tellers of the gospel whoever they may be) is not involved as agents in salvation. Paul preached the gospel because he chose to do so. He said:

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (II Tim. 2: 10 kjv)

"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 22 kjv)

Where in the Bible did Hassell get his proposition that says "the human will, whether of the preacher or the hearer, is not at all concerned in the work"? Where is the book, chapter, and verse that says this? Where in the Bible does it say "God regenerates His people, back of or before their will"? In the above citation Hassell cites no text of scripture that says such a thing. Believing in Christ is what a man wills to do. In fact, when I was a Hardshell minister I often heard the Hardshells cite the words of Paul who said "work out your own salvation...for it is God who works in you to will..." (Phil. 2: 12-13) and the Psalmist said "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (Psalm 110: 3), all which occurs when one is saved.

I cannot believe that such a learned man as Hassell would say:

"...just as He performed all the material and mental miracles recorded in the Scriptures, no medium intervening between His volition and the effect (the attending circumstances not being co-operating causes or means); and all these natural and temporal miracles were intended to symbolize His spiritual and eternal miracles in the salvation of His people."

God never used human beings as instruments in miracles? Huh? Was not bringing back to life the dry dead bones a miracle? Did God not use the prophesying of Ezekiel to effect it? When Peter and John healed the lame man in Acts chapter three, they said to the people who witnessed it:

"Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?" (3: 12 kjv) 

It was Christ and the power of God that miraculously healed the man, and yet Peter and John were means and they both testify to this fact.