Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (5)

In this chapter we will continue to examine the arguments that Elder Sylvester Hassell (1842-1928) put forth in defense of the Hardshell idea that neither the gospel or word of God nor faith in it are necessary means in the eternal salvation of sinners.

As we showed in the previous chapter, Hassell and his Hardshell brethren contradict themselves when they debate the question of "means." They also contradict the scriptures. It contradicts their set of creedal propositions, such as 1) there are no conditions for obtaining eternal life and salvation, and 2) the written word of God and the preaching of the gospel is not a means God uses in salvation from sin, and 3) faith in Christ is an evidence of having eternal life and is not necessary for obtaining eternal life. Since the Bible is abundantly against these propositions, the Hardshells should do as Spurgeon said and revise their creed to conform with the Bible rather than trying to twist the Bible to make it conform to their creed. 

In the previous chapter we cited from "Questions and Answers" published by Elder R.H. Pittman in 1935 which gave Hassell's answers to many bible questions given by Hassell through "The Gospel Messenger" periodical. We now return to that publication.

"Q. Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?

A. While it is true that the ministry is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, as the Spirit of God may direct them, and as the providence of God may open the way to them, and it is the duty of other members to help them on their way after a godly sort, and those to whom they minister in spiritual things should minister to them in carnal things, as the Scripture teach, it is at the same time true that all the elect and redeemed people of God, both infants and adults, will be saved. (Psalm 33:12; Isa. 35:10; 45:17; 53:11; Jer. 31-34; Matt. 1:21; 11:25-27; 16:16,17; John 5:25; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; 17:1-3, 24; Rom. 8:28-39; I Cor. 1:26-31; 12:3; Eph. 1:1-14; I Pet. 1-5; Rev. 5:9,10). 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). (Questions and Answers-Part 11; See here)

This answer is quite interesting and revealing. In the previous chapters we saw how Hassell and his "anti-means" brethren in the late nineteenth century stated that the preaching of the gospel or word of God was no means in regeneration or in giving spiritual life to sinners. However, in the above Hassell says that all the people of God have the Gospel preached to them by Jesus himself and that for salvation. So, does he believe that hearing the gospel is a means of salvation or not? Answer: yes and no. He denies that the preaching by God sent men is a means of saving people but does not deny that the preaching Jesus personally does is a means. 

This seems to have been a position that many anti-means Hardshells began to promote in their debates with the "Primitive Baptists" who espoused means in the time of the division over the "means question" during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. So we have Elder C.H. Cayce, a fellow leader of the Hardshells in the time of Sylvester, who taught similarly to Hassell. In his editorial commenting upon Romans 10: 17 Cayce wrote: 

"So, then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."--Verse 17.

"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)

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

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

The contradiction in these two editorials is quite striking. Cayce, like Hassell, believes that it is the "speech of God" spoken directly to dead sinners that saves them and denies that God speaks through the preachers that he has sent. Yet, Cayce in interpreting I Peter 3: 18-21 says that "there is a preaching which Jesus does by the Holy Spirit" in the "work" of "regeneration." How did Christ preach in the work of regeneration to the antediluvians? Was it not through Noah? Further, how successful was the regenerative preaching of Jesus to the antediluvians? Did not all to whom Christ preached to through Noah die in the flood except seven members of Noah's family? Not only that, but most of the people who heard Christ preaching to them when Christ was here on earth rejected him and his preaching. 

Elder Hassell in his "Questions and Answers" answers this question. 

"Q. Who were “the spirits in prison” to whom Christ preached? (I Pet. 3:18-20).

A. The spirits in the prison of hell when Peter wrote his Epistle, but alive in their bodies on earth when Christ by His Spirit in Noah preached to them. (I Pet. 1:11; II Pet. 2:5)."

So, this shows that Hassell acknowledges that Christ preaches through human agents in the work of regeneration. He says "Christ preached by his Spirit in Noah." When Paul says that Jesus "came and preached peace to you which were afar off" (Eph. 2: 17-18) Cayce believes this was preaching Jesus did personally rather than though Paul or the other apostles. Ridiculous. Why can't the preaching of Christ through men like Noah and Paul not be a means in regeneration? 

Based upon what Hassell and Cayce have stated, you would think that they would believe that 1) a person must hear the gospel preached by Christ himself to be saved, and 2) a person will be made to believe and obey the preaching of Christ in regeneration. That being so, why do they deny that one must hear the gospel and believe it to be saved? So, did Hassell believe that a person had to believe in Christ to be saved from spiritual death, to be eternally saved? 

Elder Cayce wrote:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through the gospel. God does not reach them in the work of regeneration though preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional." (Cayce's Editoria Writings, Volume 6, page 176)

These assertions raise a lot of questions. It certainly contradicts what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans chapter ten, as we have already demonstrated. Further, he and Hassell are on record as saying that Christ preaches the gospel to all the elect in regeneration and that it is this preaching that is the means whereby they obtain "saving knowledge and faith in Christ." So, if "saving knowledge and faith in Christ" does not come through the gospel, how then does it come? Is having that knowledge and faith a necessary condition for salvation or not? Trying to follow these men in their statements has your mind hopping all over the place. 

In the beginning of Volume Twenty of Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898), under the editorial titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" (You can read it on page 12  here) Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"As is usually the case, the most of the controversy in regard to regeneration has been caused by the difference of meanings attached to the word. I will, therefore, at the outset, give these different meanings, concluding with the meaning which I shall adopt, which is the meaning of the word in the latest and fullest Scriptures treating of this subject, and which is also the meaning of the word adopted by the latest and ablest uninspired writers in dictionaries, cyclopaedias, theologies, and commentaries."

I have written numerous articles showing that the first Calvinists at the time of the Protestant Reformation defined "regeneration" broadly so as to include evangelical faith and repentance, or conversion, and that it was later "hair-splitting" Calvinists who began to strictly define or redefine "regeneration" so as to exclude evangelical conversion. Hassell, as we will see, even agrees with this. So, who was right in how they defined the work of regeneration? The original Calvinists or the later Calvinists? It is ironic that Hassell would say that the best definition of regeneration came later, being "adopted by the latest and ablest uninspired writers." So, how is he "old school" or "primitive" then? 

The larger question, of course, is how does the Bible define regeneration. When Paul speaks of believers experiencing the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3: 5) does he have evangelical conversion in mind or not? Why did the great Calvinists of the Reformation think that this regeneration was the same as conversion? Is it not because they saw that this is what the Bible taught? Does the Bible teach that any unbeliever has been regenerated, quickened, born again, renewed, etc.? Did Paul not say that people are saved, quickened or regenerated, "by grace through faith"? (Eph. 2: 8) 

Hassell wrote further:

"The word Regeneration is derived from the Latin re- (meaning again) and generare (meaning to beget), and thus, according to its etymology, means a begetting again; otherwise called in the Scriptures a renewal, a new birth, or a new creation, a being born again or from above, a being born of God or of the Spirit."

This is good so far as it goes. But the Greek word palingenesia may also mean a renewal or renovation, or a re-creation, or reproduction. When Jesus spoke of "the regeneration" that will occur when he comes again to sit upon the throne of his glory, nearly all bible scholars agree that this is talking about what Paul wrote about in Romans chapter eight when he said:

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." (Rom. 8: 19-22 nkjv)

The whole creation will experience a new birth when it is renewed and becomes new heavens and earth. They will then, to use the words of President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, experience a "new birth of freedom." It is also what is described in these words:

"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, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3: 19-21 nkjv)

It is what we see occurring in Revelation chapter 21 with the creation of new heavens and earth. In biology a regeneration occurs when living tissue replaces dead tissue, so that there is a "restoration," as when a lizard or salamander grows a new tail or body part. 

Hassell wrote further:

"The ancient Jews used the term Regeneration to express the outward change of state or relation which took place when a heathen became a Jew; and many of the Catholic "Fathers" (or writers of the early centuries) used the term Regeneration similarly to denote the outward change from heathenism to a profession of Christianity; and many advocates of "baptismal regeneration" still so use this term. The Roman Catholic "Church" uses the term Regeneration to express, not only this outward change of state perceptible to men, but also the Divine justification and sanctification from sin; and declares that Regeneration is accomplished only through the instrumentality of baptism, by which they mean the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the head of a person." 

If the ancient Jews and the early church "fathers" saw regeneration as involving being converted, how can such a view then be called new? John Calvin and the Reformation Calvinists, including the Puritans, men such as John Owen (1616-1683), believed that regeneration was another name for evangelical conversion. They believed this because this is what the bible clearly shows to be the case. 

Hassell wrote further:

"The Protestant Reformers, in the sixteenth century, distinguished justification from sanctification, and used the term Regeneration to express the whole process of inward renovation, or sanctification, in all its stages. In the seventeenth century Protestant theologians still further narrowed the meaning of the term Regeneration, using it to express the opening stage of this inward work as distinguished from its continuance in sanctification. And in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the ablest Protestant and Baptist writers have used the term Regeneration to express the initial Divine act in this opening stage, the first infusion of spiritual life, the vital renewing of the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit, as distinguished from Conversion, which is the turning of man from sin to God, the conscious and manifest change from nature to grace or from a lower to a higher spiritual state, consisting in repentance, faith, hope, love, joy, and obedience."

So, did the "Protestant Reformers" teach that sanctification preceded justification, as the Catholics do? Did they not teach that justification preceded sanctification? Did they also not see regeneration as one of the elements of sanctification? I have written several articles on this question. In this post (here) I cited these words:

"Leroy Forlines says that there is a problem for the coherence of Calvinism when it places regeneration before faith, because, as the great Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof states, “Regeneration is the beginning of sanctification” [1]. It is a problem, logically, to place regeneration prior to faith in the ordo salutis (order of salvation) because, if regeneration is the beginning of sanctification, and if justification results from faith, then logically Calvinism is placing sanctification prior to justification."  (here)

This page (here) will give you access to several of my articles on this question. The Reformers had this order: faith, justification, regeneration or sanctification. Later Calvinists who redefined "regeneration" came up with the same order as that of the Catholics, which is: regeneration and sanctification, faith, justification. Calvin placed justification before sanctification and regeneration. Of course, what Forlines says of "Calvinism" is not true of all Calvinists, certainly not of Calvin himself or the first Calvinists. Still, he shows the weakness in the position of those Hyper Calvinists who say regeneration (which is an act of sanctification) precedes faith and justification.

Hassell wrote further:

"In this strict and accurate sense of the term Regeneration, John Gill, in the second volume of his "Body of Divinity," makes Regeneration the subject of one chapter, Effectual Calling the subject of the next chapter, and Conversion the subject of the next chapter. And he very correctly says: "Regeneration is the sole act of God; conversion consists both of God's act upon men in turning them, and of acts done by men under the influence of converting grace; they turned, being turned. (Jer. xxxi. 18, 83; Prov. xxi. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Psalm ex. 3; John vi. 44, 45, 65). Regeneration is the motion of God towards and upon the heart of a sinner; conversion is the motion of a sinner towards God. In Regeneration men are wholly passive, as they also are in the first moment of conversion; but by it they become active: it is therefore sometimes expressed passively — Ye are returned or converted, 1 Pet. ii. 25; and sometimes actively —A great number believed and turned to the Lord, Acts xi. 21; and when it, the body of the people of the Jews, shall turn to the Lord, which has respect to their conversion in their latter day, 2 Cor. iii. 16. Effectual Vocation is the call of men out of darkness to light, and is sometimes by the ministry of the word, but sometimes without such ministry, as in the cases of the disciples of Christ, of the apostle Paul, and of Zaccheus, and others; and Conversion answers to that call, and is the actual turning of men from darkness to light; so that, with propriety, Conversion may be considered as distinct from Regeneration and Effectual Vocation." 

So, does Gill not say that a person is not regenerated till he experiences the effects of God's regenerating work? Does he define regeneration so as to exclude the actual "turning" of the sinner to God? Does he not say that regeneration is expressed both passively and actively? A man cannot be said to have been regenerated until he has actually turned to God? Was Lazarus quickened from the dead when Christ spoke the words "Lazarus come forth" or when he actually came forth? Does quickening and regeneration then not include the effects as well as the cause? In my articel "Regeneration - Devil in the Definition" (here) I wrote:

Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander, wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

This is in keeping with the view of Edwards.

Alexander wrote:

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

This is what Gill was saying in the citation given by Hassell. Regeneration involves BOTH God's act in turning a sinner and in the sinner's actual turning. Also, "turning" is another term for repentance, and so Gill does not believe that anyone can be said to be regenerated who has not turned or repented. Gill gives Acts 11: 21 as an example of what regeneration or turning involves, which is that a "great number believed and turned to the Lord." Hassell leaves out this part of Gill's commentary on Regeneration, in his Body of Divinity:

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

"When" does "regeneration" occur? It is when "the word" is preached and becomes the "vehicle" through which "God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men" and is the time when people believe the word and then receive the Spirit. I would ask Hassell, if he were here today, whether the above is a "careless expression" or rather a "precise" statement of faith and ask whether Gill contradicted himself on this question? 

I have cited Jonathan Edwards much to show how the older Calvinists equated evangelical conversion with regeneration. In this post (here) I cited from "Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War" by E. Brooks Holifield who said (emphasis mine):

"To the Old Calvinists, one of the worst errors of the Hopkinsians was their failure to recognize that regeneration occurred through illumination of the mind by the means of grace. A recurring theme in Old Calvinist polemics was the assertion that "all judicious Calvinist divines" believed that "conversion or regeneration is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth." In the Old Calvinist order of salvation, the Spirit first illumined the mind with a "common doctrinal understanding and belief of truth." This truth brought a sense of guilt, a fear of punishment, and an affecting view of the holiness and mercy of God; and the assent to truth moved the will toward a heartfelt consent and faith. How, the Old Calvinists asked, could the will ever consent to anything without first understanding it? Only the conviction that faith came "through the truth" made such means of grace as sermons and meditations worth defending." (pg. 154-55)

In that same article I cited these words from Edwards:

"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that by regeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"

(pg. 471, from "THE W0RKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS, IN FOUR VOLUMES." A REPRINT OF TBE WORCESTER EDITION, WITH VALUABLE ADDITIONS AND A COPIOUS GENERAL INDEX. VOL. II.) 

You can read many other such quotations from Edwards in my post in the link provided above.

Hassell next wrote:

"Regeneration, thus strictly and accurately distinguished from not only Conversion but also from Effectual Calling, always coming first, and being followed by Effectual Calling and Conversion, is the Divine, miraculous, supernatural, irresistible, everlasting change, back of the will and below consciousness, not in the substance but in the state of the soul, in the prevailing and governing principles, dispositions, tastes, and habits of the soul, which constitute character and determine volitions and actions, by which change the understanding is illuminated, the affections consecrated, and the will rectified, so that the regenerated sinner habitually hates and puts away sin, and habitually loves and practices holiness."

Why is the word "regeneration" not used in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? Is it not because they used the term "effectual calling" to denote it? That being so, Hassell is way off base to say that effectual calling was something that came later after a person was regenerated. Did the old confession distinguish evangelical conversion from regeneration or effectual calling? 

Notice that Hassell in the above citation does not define "regeneration" by its cause alone, as he and his brethren often did, but defines it by the "change" that occurs in the person being regenerated. That is good. However, his description of the change is where the problem lies. He says that regeneration is: 

1. distinguished from "effectual calling" and "conversion."

2. a divine, miraculous, supernatural, irresistible, and everlasting change

3. what takes place "back of the will"

4. what takes place "below consciousness"

5. not a change in the substance but in the state of the soul 

6. a change in the dispositions, tastes, and habits, affections, and character of the soul

7. a change in the understanding, involving illumination

8. a rectifying of the will

If all these things occur in "regeneration," then it is hard to see how it could be "below consciousness." I also ask - where in the bible is initial salvation ever described as being below consciousness and apart from evangelical conversion? Why does Hassell think that such a drastic change in a person excludes a change in a person's views about God and salvation? That it excludes being brought to faith and repentance? Did he not say that regeneration involves "illumination"? Does he not believe that regeneration involves being "taught" and "drawn" by the Father and a "coming" to Christ per John chapter six? What was taught to the sinner by the Father? How can a person be taught, drawn, and come "below consciousness"? How can the "will" be divorced from this? 

What is Paul referring to when he says "for it is God who works in you to will" (Phil. 2: 13)? Is he not talking about that salvation that was worked in a person when he is saved or regenerated? Was the Psalmist not talking about regeneration when he said "your people will be willing in the day of your power"? (Psa. 110: 3) Is the "will" not involved in "receiving" Christ? How can "regeneration" be "back of the will" if it is a "rectifying" of the will? If "regeneration" changes the dispositions, tastes, habits, affections, and character of the soul, how could that occur below consciousness? 

If Christ preaches the gospel to all his chosen people when he regenerates their spirits, why do they not all then believe in him and the gospel? And, why does he not keep preaching personally to them apart from preachers? If he preaches the gospel personally to all, then why did he commission his servants to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"? (Mark 16: 15) Paul says that it was by Apollos and him that the Corinthians became believers. (I Cor. 3: 5) If Jesus had already preached to them and made them believers, then Paul was wrong, was he not? 

Elder C.H. Cayce is on record as saying that the Athenian idolaters who worshiped many gods were already "regenerated," had already had Jesus preach the gospel to them in their regeneration. Notice these words of Cayce:

"That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word."   ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)

So, Jesus had regenerated the Athenians before Paul ever came there and preached the gospel, and Jesus had already preached the gospel to them, but they still did not know Jesus nor believe in him! Elder John R. Daily, a contemporary of Cayce and Hassell, and one of their champion debaters, in his debate with W.P. Throgmorton in 1912 said: "Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel" (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

How could it be "without the gospel" if what Cayce and Hassell and others in his day were saying, i.e. that Christ preaches the gospel to the elect himself when he regenerates them?

Hassell wrote further:

"The word regeneration does not occur in the Old Testament Scriptures, but its equivalent is found in such passages as Dent. xxx. 6, Jer. xxxi. 33, Ezek, xi. 19, and xxxvi. 26, 27, in which God says that He —no sort of means or instruments being mentioned —will circumcise the hearts of Israel to love Him, will take away their stony hearts and give them hearts of flesh, will give them a new heart and a new spirit, even His own Spirit, put His law in their minds and hearts, and cause them to walk in His statutes. The verb translated "quicken" in the 71st, 80th, and 119th Psalms, does not, in these passages, mean the first communication of spiritual life, but the refreshing or revival of the life already communicated."

Hassell says that the scriptures he cites about regeneration, which he rightly equates with the experience of being "circumcised" in heart, do not mention "means or instruments" being used. However, that the bible affirms this is untrue. The word of God is the means of circumcision. Even physical circumcision requires a cutting instrument. Notice these words of scripture:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn."  (Deut. 10: 16)

"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)

It seems clear that this admonition or word of the Lord was intended to be a means in bringing those who were "uncircumcised in heart and ears" (Acts 7: 51) to cry out to God for this work to be done in them. Why did Stephen, who uttered these words to such lost sinners, say this to the unregenerate? Would any Hardshell Baptist do so today? 

Hassell says that the word "quicken" in the Psalms mentioned (where David says "your word has quickened me") does not mean to bring to life. Why not? Is it not because it contradicts his premise? And, rather than change his belief, he gives a different definition to the word. So, when it suits them, Hassell and his Hardshell brethren will change the meaning of words at any time when it is necessary to make scripture to agree with their theological paradigm. Paul told the Ephesian believers - "and you has he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2: 1) David says this quickening is through God's word. Ergo, Hardshellism is false. 

Yes, regeneration involves getting a heart transplant. But, how could that be "below consciousness"? 

Hassell wrote further:

"In the New Testament Scriptures the English word Regeneration occurs but twice, in Matt. xix. 28 and Titus iii. 5; in the first passage it means "the resurrection," or, as rendered in the old Syriac version of the second century, "the new world "; in the last of these two passages, it means the first infusion of spiritual life, and the Holy Ghost is mentioned as its sole author — "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 

But, the context of Titus 3: 5 shows that by the "washing of regeneration" that Paul has in mind what takes place in conversion, as a result of faith in Christ. To the Ephesians Paul said:

"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." (5: 26-27 kjv)

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

The apostle Peter, in speaking in the Jerusalem council, said: "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

So, we see how the scriptures say that sinners are quickened, regenerated, washed, etc., by the word of God, whether read or heard.

In the next chapter we will continue to review the polemical writings of Hassell on this question.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (4)

With this chapter we will review more directly Hassell's arguments for the "no means" view of salvation. As we will see, he offers the common arguments that were being made during the debate over means, which debate occurred most vehemently in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, as we have seen. 

Hassell's Polemic on the Means Question

We will begin by looking at "Questions and Answers," a publication of Elder R.H. Pittman in 1935 wherein he gives Elder Sylvester Hassell's answers to bible questions and a few of which Pittman answers himself. You can read them here. We will begin with this question and Hassell's answer to it (emphasis mine):

"Q. Does God use any means in regeneration?

A. None whatever, any more than He does in creation or in resurrection, for regeneration is a creation in Christ (which is all of God, Eph. 2:10; II Cor. 5:17,18), and it is a resurrection from the death in trespasses and sins, which God alone effects by His immediate and irresistible power (Eph. 2:1-10; John 5:25; Ezek. 16:6; Mark 5:41,42; Luke 7:14,15; John 11:43,44). It is being begotten or born of God, with which neither the person born nor any other creature has anything to do (John 1:12,13; 3:3, 5-8; I John 2:29; 5:1). It is a direct quickening by the Three-One God, the Father, Son, and Spirit (Jer. 31:33,34; John 5:21; 6:63). It is the giving of spiritual, eternal, and divine life by God to the sinner who was previously destitute of that life (Rom. 6:23; John 10:28; 17:1-3; I John 5:11,12). It is the free gift by the Three-One God of Himself to all His loved and chosen people, to dwell in and with them forever (Gen. 15:1; Psalm 48:14; 73:26; John 3:16; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:25-27; Titus 2:14; John 6:51,58; Col. 1:27; Ezek. 36:21-38; Zech. 12:10; 13:9; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,5; 2:17,18; John 7:37-39; 14:17; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:18-22). The Lord Jesus Christ, our only Master, commands us to call no man on earth our father, that is our spiritual father, for one is our Father who is in heaven (Matt. 23:8-10). Therefore, when the Apostle Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthian Church (I Cor. 4:15), he means, as he himself explains his language, not their spiritual, but only their ministerial father (II Cor. 3:3), the minister by whom, or under whose preaching, they first believed the gospel, even, he says, as the Lord gave to every man; he was, under God, the founder or planter of that church (I Cor. 3:5, 6) and it was sinful "carnality" for them to say that they were "of him" (I Cor. 3:4). Christ declares that only they who are of God (that is, as explained by the Greek lexicons, "born of God") hear God's words (John 8:47) ; only they that hear the voice of the Son of God live (John 5:25) - indeed, He Himself is their life (John 11:25; 14:19; Col. 3:4). "God, according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again or regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible," etc. (I Pet. 1:3-5). Believing in Christ as the Son of God and our Saviour is not a part, but an evidence of our regeneration (John 1:12,13; 6:47; I John 5:1)." 

It will take all of this chapter to respond to this polemic of the great Hassell. I will take each argument one by one and rebut them. However, I want the reader to notice the text at the head of this chapter. It uproots the "anti-means" view of the "Primitive Baptists." Over the past one hundred and seventy five years or so they have worked hard at twisting this text so as to not contradict their anti-means view. Many of them will say that "the word of God" in the text is not the written word of God, but is a word that God speaks himself to a dead sinner, on the subconscious level, when he says to the sinner "live." Some say the "word" is Christ. Clearly, however, the word of God in the context is shown to be the written word of God. 

In the opening words of I Peter chapter one Peter speaks of the "faith" or "belief" of the people to whom he is writing. Obviously what is believed is the written inspired word of God. (vss. 5-8) In fact, in verses 8-9 he says:

"Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,  receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls." 

What salvation is this? Is it not that salvation which occurs when one is born again, regenerated, and quickened or resurrected out of spiritual death? The salvation of the text comes as a result of faith. Since the Hardshells do not believe that faith is necessary for salvation, they will say that any text that has salvation resulting from faith cannot be eternal salvation, but must be a temporal deliverance which is not necessary for eternal salvation. However, the next verse tells us what salvation is meant, for Peter says:

"Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you." (vs. 10)

Any unbiased person knows that this salvation is eternal salvation in all its aspects, including initial salvation, which includes being reborn of the Spirit, regenerated, quickened, etc. Peter says this salvation is a result of "the sufferings of Christ" (vs. 11) and involves "the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into" (vs. 12). "The things reported to you" are the facts of the "gospel" which is "preached to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven" and which "things" also "the angels desire to look into." So, all this shows that it is eternal salvation that is the subject and it is by faith that this salvation is received. It is absurd for the Hardshells to say that this salvation is a mere time salvation. 

In verse twenty one Peter speaks of those who "believe in God" through Christ and whose "faith and hope is in God." Faith involves believing the word of God. In verse twenty two he says "Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit..." Here we see how the salvation of the context involves being "purified" of sin and how this purification, this "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3: 5), is through "obeying the truth through the Spirit." So, again, we see how the "word of God" by which a person is "born again" is "the truth," the truth of the word of God and the truth of the Gospel. This "word of God" is also identified as that which the old testament prophet had in mind when he wrote: 

"...the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because "All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, 25 But the word of the Lord endures forever."

This is a citation from Isaiah 40: 5-8 and Peter is quoting it. Reading that passage shows that by the "word of God" is meant the words God has spoken and "good tidings" or the gospel. (vs. 9) In fact, the words "all flesh is grass..." are the words of God. Then Peter sums it all up by saying "Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you." (vs. 25) By "the word" (logos) means "the message." So we understand it to say "this is the message which by the gospel was preached unto you." Wrote John Gill on I Peter 1: 23:

"by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever; for the incorruptible seed, and the ever living and abiding word, are two distinct things; though interpreters generally confound them: and by "the word of God" is either meant the essential Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; who is concerned in regeneration as well as the Father and the Spirit; by whose resurrection, and in consequence of it, the elect of God are begotten again; and who, as the Word, is able to build up all the sanctified ones, and give them the inheritance they are born heirs unto: or the Gospel, the word of truth, which is made use of as a means of begetting souls again; and the rather, since it seems to be so interpreted, 1 Peter 1:25...and here added, to show that he can give power and efficacy to his word, to regenerate and quicken, and will continue to preserve and make it useful to all his saving purposes...Or else with the word of God, and is true both of Christ, and of the Gospel...The Gospel also may be said to live, in opposition to the law, which is the killing letter; and because it points out the way of life and salvation to sinners; and is a means of quickening dead sinners, and of ingenerating that faith by which men live on Christ..." 

Gill is correct in saying that "of incorruptible seed" is not synonymous with "by the word of God." The Greek word for "of" is "ek" which means "out of" or "from" and denotes the source while "by" is from "dia" a preposition that means "though." The birth being "through" the gospel does not negate, as the Hardshells argue, that the birth is "of incorruptible seed" or "of God." 

Gill also says that though it is true that the new birth is through Christ (the Word), yet he says that in the text the "word of God" denotes "the word of truth" or "the Gospel" and is a means or instrument by which regeneration is effected. In the previous chapter I cited the words of Hassell who said: "In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error" (of the gospel being a means in regeneration), "but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." Is this the case with Dr. Gill, who the Hardshells claim believed as they do, i.e. that the gospel is no means in regeneration? Is Gill uttering "careless expressions" in his commentary? 

Further, it is the apostle John who speaks of Christ as the "Word of God." No other new testament writer gives this title to Jesus. Though some bible teachers will interpret other texts that speak of the "word of God," written by other new testament writers, as referencing Jesus, yet those texts are not speaking of Jesus, even though they may be applicable to Jesus. (See John 1: 1, 14; 5: 7; Rev. 19: 13) 

In the above argumentation of Hassell it is quite striking that he does not cite a single verse that says that God does not use a human instrument, or the written word of God, or gospel preaching, in saving sinners, in giving them spiritual and eternal life. He only makes logical arguments or uses deductive logic and even in doing this he fails. He says that being initially saved is a being created, a being made alive, a being born, and all that is true. But, where is the verse that says that God cannot do these things through human instruments? Even Jesus's miraculous birth was through human means, through Mary. Isaac too was miraculously "born after the Spirit" (Gal. 4: 29) but it was through the human means of his parents. Not only is there no text that affirms that God does NOT use means in salvation there are numerous texts, such as I Peter 1: 23, that affirm that he does use those very means. 

God raised a valley of dry dead bones through the prophesying of the prophet Ezekiel. (Eze. 37) God raised the dead through Elijah, Elisha, Peter, and Paul. In fact, when Jesus sent out his ambassadors, he told them these words:

"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt. 10: 7-8 kjv)

So, that argument about God not being able to use human means to raise the dead is false. I am surprised that a man of Hassell's intelligence would argue in this manner.

Next, birth is also called a "procreation." So, a birth is a creation. So, to say that God does not use human means in creation is false. I am God's creation, but he created me through procreation by both my mother and father.

Sylvester's father, elder C.B. Hassell wrote:

"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." (March 8, 1845 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical; See here)

The senior Hassell says that becoming a "new creation" in Christ is the result of having come to a "belief in Christ" through the Gospel and "the teaching of the Holy Spirit." Was the senior Hassell speaking carelessly or giving an exact expression?

Sylvester says that when Paul says that he had "begotten" the Corinthian believers that it does not refer to the new birth. Why not? Does he not say this because of his presupposition which says "God uses no human means or preachers of the word to bring people to a spiritual birth"? His only argument is that Paul cannot possibly refer to the new birth for it would contradict the prohibition of Christ to "call no man father." Yet, Paul calls himself the father of the Corinthians. Hassell says that Paul was not a "spiritual" father but was a "ministerial" father, as if being a ministerial father was not a spiritual relationship! Further, Paul does not say that he is only the ministerial father of the preachers in the Corinthian church, but was a father to them all, to all who were begotten by his preaching. "Father in the ministry" is generally used to denote a senior elder being a mentor to younger elders and is not generally used to denote a relationship of a senior elder to every lay member. Notice what the apostle John wrote:

"I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father. I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one." (I John 2: 13-14 nkjv)

In these verses nearly all Bible commentators agree that by fathers, young men, and little children, John is speaking of the level of spiritual growth among the Christian community. So, the apostle John did in fact address certain church members as "fathers." Was he violating the injunction of Christ by so doing? Many in the history of the Christian church, including Baptist history, have called aged ministers "father" and the aged holy women "mother." John Gill on Matthew 23: 9 and "calling no man father" wrote the following in his commentary:

"And call no man your father upon the earth,....Not but that children may, and should call their natural parents, fathers; and such who have been instrumental in the conversion of souls, may be rightly called by them their spiritual fathers..." 

Clearly what Jesus is forbidding is to call anyone their heavenly Father, their God. Paul was a father in the sense that he was God's instrument in giving spiritual birth to sinners. Sometimes Paul speaks of himself as the father or sire of those who he brought to faith in Christ and sometimes he spoke of himself as the mother in that birth. So he wrote to the Galatians saying "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." (4: 19) God also refers to himself as both Father and Mother to his begotten children. For instance, Isaiah 49:15 asks, "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?" Additionally, Isaiah 66:13 quotes God saying, "As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you." In the New Testament (Matthew 23:37), Jesus describes His protective love for Jerusalem as a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings. 

Elder S. Hassell also says that in being regenerated that Christ comes to abide in a person. He says that regeneration "is the free gift by the Three-One God of Himself to all His loved and chosen people, to dwell in and with them forever." This inward dwelling of the Father, Son, and Spirit, comes under the doctrinal category of "union with Christ." So, how do the scriptures explain how this happens? How does a sinner enter into Christ and how does Christ enter into a sinner? I have numerous articles on this question and show that union with Christ is by faith in the word and gospel of God. (See here, here, here, here, here)

There are many bible passages that speak of how union with Christ is what brings salvation. In this post I show that Jesus said that people "believe into Christ." (See here) Hassell even says that Christ is the Life, and agrees with the apostle John who said "whoever has the Son has life." (I John 5: 12) So, how does a person come into possession of Christ? Answer: it is by faith, by "receiving" Christ. Paul spoke of it in this manner: "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 17) Being "joined" to Christ is done by an act of faith as the context shows. It is a being married to Christ and again this is done by a choice that is integrally involved in believing, receiving, and trusting in Christ. The apostle John also wrote: 

"He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13 nkjv)

The Greek word for "children" (tekna) denotes one who is a child by birth. When were they made children of God by a birth of God? It was when they received Christ and believed in his name. How do they believe in him? It is by hearing the word of God that informs about Jesus. So wrote the apostle Paul:

"14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

In "Keach's catechism," reflecting the faith expressed in the 1689 London Confession of Baptists and attached to it, we read:

"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." 

Surely this was not a careless expression but an exact expression.

Hercules Collins was a leading Particular Baptist pastor in London and was a signer of both the 1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confession. In his Catechism, published in 1680 (read here), we read:

Q. 21 What is true faith? 

A. True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation.

1John 17:3, 17; Heb. 11:1-3; James 2:19
2Rom. 4:18-21; 5:1; 10:10; Heb. 4:14-16
3Matt. 16:15-17; John 3:5; Acts 16:14
4Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21
5Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-10
6Gal. 2:20
7Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:10

It is believed that William Collins, not Keach, wrote the Baptist catechism. He is no relation to Hercules Collins. Both were signatories of the 1689 confession. Both these old Baptist catechisms show that Hassell told a falsehood when he said that only "some" Baptists taught that regeneration was effected by the preaching of the word of God and that the ones who taught it did not speak precisely and contradicted themselves. 

Elder S. Hassell also wrote in the above citation: 

"Christ declares that only they who are of God (that is, as explained by the Greek lexicons, "born of God") hear God's words (John 8:47) ; only they that hear the voice of the Son of God live (John 5:25) - indeed, He Himself is their life (John 11:25; 14:19; Col. 3:4)."  

Hassell and his Hardshell brethren often cite these words of Jesus:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." (John 5: 25 kjv)

Hassell and his brethren correctly say that this text is dealing with being made alive spiritually. However, they will contend that hearing the voice of the Son of God is heard apart from the written word of God and never heard in the preaching of the gospel. Of course, that is simply a case of stubbornly resisting the truth of the text. However, my point in citing this text is to show how their interpretation nevertheless has a spiritually dead sinner hearing the word of Jesus before he is made alive. That being so, John 8: 47 cannot be made to contradict it, but this is exactly what Hassell does. He says that a person must be "of God" by a spiritual birth or resurrection before he can hear the word or voice of Jesus, thus contradicting his interpretation of John 5: 25. 

John 8: 47 is not teaching that a person must be born of God before he hears God's word. That would contradict what John 5: 25 says. Sinners come to spiritual life by hearing the voice or word of Jesus. What John 8: 47 is saying is that no one is "of God" who has not heard the word of God. Hassell said further: 

"Believing in Christ as the Son of God and our Saviour is not a part, but an evidence of our regeneration (John 1:12,13; 6:47; I John 5:1)." 

But, if faith is only an evidence of salvation, then it is not a necessary condition for it, and this is what "Primitive Baptists" believe. But, the scriptures abound with testimony to the fact that faith is a condition for salvation. So Paul wrote:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2: 8-10 nkjv)

This salvation is the "quickening" of verse one of the chapter. It is the same as being God's "workmanship" and being "created in Christ Jesus." Paul says that regeneration, quickening, rebirth, etc., is "by faith in Christ Jesus." Hassell cites John 1: 12-13 as a proof that faith is no condition of salvation, but it is bewildering that he would do so for it plainly says just the opposite as we have shown already. John says that people received Christ and believed in him in order to have the privilege of becoming the children of God. 

Also, I John 5: 1 does not say that faith in Christ is only an evidence of rebirth but is what is essential to it. If you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ then you have not been born of God. That is what John is saying and it flatly contradicts what the Hardshells teach. See my post (here) on that text. The same with John 6: 47 that Hassell cites. In that text Jesus said "whoever believes has eternal life." How does that statement say that faith is not necessary for obtaining eternal life? Jesus however is saying that if you do not believe in him, then you do not have eternal life, but that is just what the Hardshells deny. 

Can't Know Your Name Is In The Book of Life?

"Primitive Baptists" say that none can know that they are saved. They even speak against those who say that they know that they are saved. It is a common practice for the Hardshells to say "I hope I am saved," or to say "I love Jesus if not deceived." One of the arguments they use to uphold their idea that no one can know for sure that he or she is saved is to say that no one knows what names are written in the "book of life." Recently I had a Hardshell Baptist ask me - "can you know that your name, or anyone else's name, is in the book of life?" I immediately said "yes." That answer perplexed the Hardshell. I cited these words of the apostle Paul:

"And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life." (Phil. 4: 3 nkjv)

So, it is possible to know that someone's name is written in the book of life. Said Jesus to his disciples:

"Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10: 20 nkjv)

If we cannot know that our names are written in heaven, in the book of life, then we certainly can't rejoice in that fact. So many Christians sing this wonderful song (one that brother Mann introduced me to several years ago and which I love to hear sung):

1 My name is in the Book of Life,
O bless the name of Jesus!
I rise above all doubt and strife,
And read my title clear.

Chorus:
I know, I know my name is there;
I know, I know My name is written there.

2 My name once stood with sinners, lost,
And bore a painful record;
But by His blood the Savior cross'd,
And placed it on His roll. [Chorus]

3 Yet inward trouble often cast
A shadow o’er my title;
But now with full salvation blest,
Praise God! it’s ever clear. [Chorus]

4 While others climb thro' worldly strife,
To carve a name of honor,
High up in heaven’s Book of Life,
My name is written there. [Chorus]

If you know that you are saved, then you can know that your name is written in the book of life. How can you know that you are saved? Simply by examining yourself and asking yourself whether you truly love and adore the Lord Jesus Christ and have put your trust in him. If you can know that you love another person, whether it be your spouse, or your child, etc., then you ought to know whether you love the Lord or not. So many Christians sing, including Hardshells, 

1 My Jesus, I love thee, I know thou art mine;
for thee all the follies of sin I resign;
my gracious Redeemer, my Savior art thou;
if ever I loved thee, my Jesus, 'tis now.

The apostle Paul said: "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day." (II Tim. 1: 12 nkjv) The following hymn describes the kind of self examination that many believers do in order to find assurance of salvation. 

1 Do not I love Thee, O my Lord?
Behold my heart, and see,
And turn each cursed idol out,
That dares to rival Thee.

2 Do not I love Thee from my soul?
Then let me nothing love;
Dead be my heart to ev’ry joy
When Jesus cannot move.

3 Thou know’st I love Thee, dearest Lord,
But O I long to soar
Far from the sphere of mortal joys,
And learn to love Thee more.

Another hymn that describes this self examination is the following:

1 'Tis a point I long to know,
Oft it causes anxious thought;
Do I love the Lord, or no?
Am I his, or am I not?

2 Could my heart so hard remain,
Prayer a task and burden prove,
Every trifle give me pain,
If I knew a Saviour's love?

3 Yet I mourn my stubborn will,
Find my sin a grief and thrall;
Should I grieve for what I feel,
If I did not love at all?

4 Could I joy with saints to meet,
Choose the ways I once abhorred,
Find at times the promise sweet,
If I did not love the Lord?

5 Lord, decide the doubtful case,
Thou who art thy people's Sun;
Shine upon thy work of grace,
If it be indeed begun.

These self examinations should lead a believer to say "yes, thank God, I'm saved." They should also lead false believers to confess that they need to be saved, and to call upon the Lord for it. Wrote the apostle John: 

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (I John 5: 13 nkjv)

John wanted believers to know that they had eternal life. How does he say that one can know that he or she is saved? By discerning whether they truly believe in Jesus. He said in the first verse of this chapter: "whoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." If you doubt whether your faith is real, then you must look at your life to see if you have a "living faith" rather than a "dead faith," for a living faith produces good works. (James 2: 14-25) True faith is known by its fruits. 

Jesus said that saved people "know" him. (John 10: 14) Jesus will say to unbelievers in the day of judgment - "depart from me for I never knew you." (Matt. 7: 23) Paul said that in that same day that those who "know not God" will be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord." (II Thess. 1: 9)

Surely if you know the Lord then you will know that you know.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (3)

The above picture is of the periodical in which Elder Sylvester Hassell did most of his writing. It is from this periodical that I have been citing and will continue to do so. The previous two chapters in this short series have been an introduction for further analysis of Elder Hassell and his polemical writings on the "means question." 

The Primitive Baptist Library's web site has a page titled "Divisions in Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia, over the Means Doctrine, 1882-1892" (See here). This shows that up until the time period mentioned there existed within the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists some who believed that the Bible taught that God used the means of his word and gospel in saving sinners from sin and death and some who denied that God used such means, nor any other "human means." Those on the "anti-means" side accused those of the means side of introducing the means doctrine into the sect in that time period. On the other hand, those of the means side argued that it was the "no means" side which were the innovators, arguing that the means view was the historic view of their forefathers. 

I am one of the most knowledgeable person alive today who has studied the history of the "Primitive Baptist" sect far more than others, having once been one of their ministers for several years, and my father being a leading minister with them for well over fifty years. I can tell you that my many years of studying the history of this sect led me to see that those of the anti-means side were the ones who pushed their views on everybody else, declaring non-fellowship for all their brethren who believed in means. This blog is filled with citations from the first leaders of the "Primitive Baptist" sect, from the 1830s and 1840s, that showed they believed in means. 

I have many posts under the title "What the First Hardshells Believed" wherein I cite from such leaders and show this to be true. (See this post HERE which is one such post and also gives links to others in that series) For instance, I cited from Elder James Osbourn who historians acknowledge was one of the ringleaders of the newly formed sect of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. You can read about him in this post (here). One example is seen in this citation:

"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began...That God ordained the GOSPEL, and promulgated the same, with a settled purpose to save sinners thereby..."

Elder Osbourn was a close ministerial friend of elder C.B. Hassell, the father of Sylvester, and even died in C.B. Hassell's home in 1850. I have shown also that C.B. Hassell believed in means. In this post (here) I cited these words of the senior Hassell, taken from the first periodical called "The Primitive Baptist":

"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." (March 8, 1845 issue of "The Primitive Baptist"; See here)

Certainly Elder John M. Watson of middle Tennessee was a recognized leader of the new sect when it separated from the larger Baptist community and he believed in means. This is evident if one reads his book "The Old Baptist Test." I have numerous posts where I cited from this work and showed that Watson believed in means. Here are some citations from him in that work:

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

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14." (pages 399-400)

"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." (pages 327-28)

I could multiply such citations from the first generation leaders of the new sect who called themselves "Primitive Baptists." Surely Elder Hassell knew what Osbourn believed, knew what Watson believed, knew what his father believed, knew what the 1689 confession taught and what the signatories to it believed. It is therefore bewildering that in his "Questions and Answers" (that was published by his disciple, Elder R.H. Pittman, in 1935), that Hassell would say the following in answer to a question on the means debate (emphasis mine). 

(You can find this publication by Pittman here; A lot of the answers to questions by Hassell were taken from his paper "The Gospel Messenger") 

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

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

I am stunned that Elder Hassell answered this question as he did. Surely he knew that nearly all Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells believed that the gospel or word of God was a means in saving sinners. It is true that some made a distinction between a restricted versus a broad definition of "regeneration," and some of them (especially among the founders of the "Primitive Baptist" sect) believed that regeneration was not the same as the new birth, that regeneration was the giving of spiritual life and often took place apart from the means of the word of God, but spiritual birth followed regeneration, often after a long period of time, and occurred when a sinner was brought to faith in Christ or was evangelically converted.

Why did Hassell not tell the truth in this question? Why did he not elaborate? Why did he not say that it was the almost universal belief of Baptists of prior centuries that the gospel was a "means" in saving sinners and giving them eternal life? Surely Hassell knew what the 1689 London Confession taught about the means of salvation. Surely he was familiar with Keach's catechism which was attached to the confession shortly after it was published. In that catechism we have these questions and answers:

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

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

(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)

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

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

Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

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

(Heb. 10:39; John 1:12; Phil. 3-9; Gal. 2:15,16)

Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.

(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)

Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?

A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.

(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)

These sentiments are not simply what "some Baptists" believed. They are also not "careless expressions" but "exact expressions," therefore Hassell's statement is out of place and shows that he is attempting to create a false narrative for the benefit of the Hardshell cult. But, let us notice some more of these "careless expressions" where Baptists have taught the means view.

The Baptist catechism of the Charleston association, which was organized in 1751 (second oldest in America), and put forth in 1813, says the same things about salvation as did Keach's catechism.This association preceded the formation of the Kehukee Association by many years. Notice these questions and answers:

Q. How may we know there is a God? 

A. The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God (Rom. 1:19,20; Ps. 19:1, 2, 3; Acts 17:24); but his word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners (1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Tim. 3:15,16). 

Q. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ? 

A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us (John 1:11,12) by his Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5,6). 

Q. How doth the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? 

A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us (Eph. 1:13, 14; John 6:37, 39; Eph. 2:8), and thereby uniting us to Christ, in our effectual calling (Eph. 3:17; 1 Cor. 1:9). 

Again, these also are not "careless expressions" but "exact expressions," affirming means.

John Gill in his section of "Regeneration" in his "Body of Divinity" wrote:

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

On I Cor. 4: 15 Gill wrote:

"...which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature..."

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

"...no regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith nor holiness come this way, but through the preaching of the Gospel; in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a spirit of regeneration and faith..."

On James 1: 18 Gill wrote:

"Of his own will begat he us...The apostle instances in one of those good and perfect gifts, regeneration...it is done at once; there are no degrees in it...is born again, at once...no one is more regenerated than another, or the same person more regenerated at one time than at another...it is called a being born from above, in Joh 3:3...who in it produces light, in darkness, and whose gifts of grace bestowed along with it...This act of begetting here ascribed to God, is what is elsewhere called a begetting again, that is, regeneration; it is an implantation of new principles of light and life, grace and holiness, in men; a quickening of them, when dead in trespasses and sins; a forming of Christ in their souls; and a making them partakers of the divine nature...Earthly parents cannot beget in this sense; nor ministers of the word, not causally, but only instrumentally, as they are instruments and means, which God makes use of..."

Again, these also are not "careless expressions" but "exact expressions," affirming means.

Hassell in his history says this about the 1689 London Confession's signatories:

"And they say in their Appendix: "If any of the servants of our Lord Jesus Christ shall, in the spirit of meekness, attempt to convince us of any mistake, either in judgment or practice, we shall diligently ponder his arguments, and account him our chiefest friend that shall be an instrument to convert us from any error that is in our ways; for we cannot wittingly do anything against the truth, but all things for the truth." (page 525)

Those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" today and who deny means do not have this same attitude. They do not want anyone to show them their errors. I have the same attitude as these old Baptists, for I desire all who read the articles in this blog to come and show me where I am wrong. I have invited and challenged the Hardshells to come and reason together out of the scriptures. None want to do that. That is a characteristic of cults. They do not heed the wise words of the inspired king who wrote: "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Prov. 18: 17 nkjv) The Hardshells do not want anyone to come and examine them.

I find it interesting that Sylvester Hassell never had a public debate, and yet in his day his fellow ministers were often engage in debates with those of the "Church of Christ," with "Missionary Baptists," with "Universalists," etc.