Original Sin Addendum

Recently I wrote these two posts on "original sin" in response to what Pat Donahue wrote on the subject:

"Romans 5:12 and "Born in Sin" (here)

"Answering Donahue on Original Sin" (here)

In the former post I gave Donahue's view, which is the Pelagian view, that says that all men are made sinners, per Romans chapter five, by their imitating Adam and committing sin. I gave several reasons why that is clearly not what Paul intended to communicate. I should have added another argument however. I will do so now in this addendum.

If the imitation view is correct, you would think that it would be Eve, not Adam, who would be the one through whom all the human race becomes sinners. After all, she first sinned and after sinning then came to her husband Adam and led him to eat the forbidden fruit and sin also. Therefore, Adam was imitating Eve. So, Romans 5: 12 should read "As by one woman sin entered into the world and death by sin for all have sinned." Sin did not enter the world through Eve, however. If the sinning of all occurs as a result of imitating the first sin, then sin would have entered the world through Eve. But, Romans chapter five says it entered the world through Adam. Why? Because Adam was the head and representative of the human race, and not Eve. He was therefore "the figure of him who was to come," i.e. Christ, the second or last Adam. 

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (2)

It is interesting that Elder Sylvester Hassell did not attend the Fulton council and expressed reservations about it before it occurred. However, after it was over he spoke favorably of the results. In this post (here) I showed that both C.B and Sylvester Hassell endorsed the 1689 Confession. I devoted several chapters in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" to what the Hardshells have said about the 1689 London Baptist confession. In chapter 129, the fourth chapter in the series titled "Hardshells and the London Confession," I cited from Sylvester where he said the following in the June 1890 issue of "The Gospel Messenger":

"We want no change whatever in our old Articles of Faith...in no other human document, have I seen that truth so fully and correctly presented, without excrescence and without mutilation, (Rev. xxii. 18, 19,) as in the old London Baptist Confession of Faith. It sets forth what I and the great majority of Primitive Baptists of the United States believe to be “the apostles’ doctrine ...Thus the London Baptist Confession of Faith is the most fully and widely authorized statement of what Primitive Baptists believe the Scriptures to teach in regard to spiritual and eternal truths.” 

I find this ironic since the Fulton elders did what they did with their footnotes because they said that the confession had old outdated language that was ambiguous. Hassell, however, says that the old confession was "so fully and correctly presented." But, the Fulton elders tried to correct the confession.

In this post (here) I cited what Sylvester said a few months after the Fulton Meeting. In February 1901 under the editorial title "The Union of all True Primitive Baptists" Hassell wrote the following in "The Gospel Messenger":

"During the last fifty years, and especially during the last twenty or thirty years, there have been many carnal, human (1 Cor. iii.), distressing, and ruinous strifes and divisions among Primitive Baptists, and for the last two or three years the fleshly biting and devouring of one another (Gal. v. 15) have become worse than ever, so that it almost seems, in some parts of the United States, as though the Lord had forsaken some of our people..."

This is basically what the Fulton elders said in their preface to the confession and gave as the reason why they were meeting, to bring about unity and to show how the 1689 confession taught what they taught. 

Though Hassell endorsed the 1689 London Confession, yet he denied means, which is clearly taught in that old Baptist confession. So, he must have agreed with the footnotes that the Fulton ministers attached to those sections dealing with how God uses his word and the preaching of the gospel to save sinners and to make them children of God by a new birth. If he were honest, however, he would have confessed, like many "Primitive Baptist" ministers have stated since the Fulton meeting regarding the footnotes the elders of that meeting added to the old confession, that the old confession did in fact teach means and that he and his brethren did not believe in them. 

In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" in sections under the title "Hardshells and the London Confession" I gave several citations from elders who said this was the case. You can read several of these citations in the first chapter in that section (here). For instance, I cite the following words of Elder Harold Hunt taken from his book "The London Confession: And its Place in Baptist History" (2007) where he states:

"In 1900, the Primitive Baptists were seriously divided.  They were about to split three ways.  A large and representative body of capable Primitive Baptist preachers came together at Fulton, Kentucky.  The Primitive Baptists were in crisis, and they intended to fend off a division if they could.  Like the Regulars and Separates one hundred years before, they tried to use the London Confession as a rallying point.

They reaffirmed what they could accept;  they explained away what they could not accept;  and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away."  (This sentence was in bold in Hunt's book - SG) 

In this chapter (here) I cited Elder Bill Allen's article titled "Article 10 of the London Confession of 1689 Examined," (pastor of the Stephenville, Texas "Primitive Baptist Church") where he wrote the following (emphasis mine - SG):

"Below is just one of the problematic articles, no. 10, of the 1689 with the 3 related Fulton foootnotes.  My problem with the Fulton footnotes is not that they were themselves unsound.  They were quite sound, but the Fulton brethren were deceiving themselves in thinking that the 1689 was basically sound but just not properly understood....If we take the wording of the 1689, particularly in this article, for what it clearly says in plain English it can be easily seen that it is a hopeless wreck of a document that no amount of footnotes, explanations, or wishful thinking can fix...My point is that we should NOT make any endeavors to lay claim to the 1689 Confession but instead should do what the Fulton brethren did not and that is let those who believe such things have it as the Calvinists confession that it clearly is." 

Allen also says:

"...this says the effectual calling is by the Word and Spirit.  It is vital to the understanding of this article to discern exactly what they mean by the use of "Word".  The Fulton brethren correctly insist that on the Living Word, i.e. Christ, is the source of the Effectual Call.  Unfortunately, they would like us to believe that is what this article says.  I contend that this is wishful thinking. They are imposing what we know to be the truth on what other men have said in an effort to white wash something that would have to otherwise rejected if taken for what it says.  I contend the authors of this confession were consistent in their use "Word"."  (see here)

In the introduction to the Fulton Meeting's revision to the 1689 confession, they said they added the footnotes because language had changed dramatically since 1689 and certain parts of the confession were therefore ambiguous and not clear. In the preface they wrote (emphasis mine):

"The London Confession of Faith was approved by a unanimous vote of the meeting. In view of the fact that this instrument was written more than two hundred years ago and that our language naturally undergoes some change in so long a time, it was deemed prudent to add some explanations to those sections that seemed ambiguous."

However, there was nothing "ambiguous" or unintelligible about the wording of the confession. If the 1689 confession is outdated and therefore hard to understand, then why do they not say this about the King James Version that was written in Shakespearean or Elizabethan English? However, this stated reason for adding "explanations" via footnotes was a subterfuge. In 1901 Elder David Bartley saw right through this and wrote the following about the Fulton footnotes:

"So now, let us kindly consider this question of disturbance and compare the points at issue with the London Confession, which all claim to accept upon those points of difference. But why, then, the need or utility of the Fulton Convention? Why the address, the foot-notes and the appendix added to the good old Confession, which had been good enough for the Old Baptist people through the centuries, until this late upheaval? The plea for all this additional supplementary work of the recent convention has been stated in print frequently, and is thus given in the general address: “Language through the lapse of many years undergoes variations in applications and meanings, whereby certain clauses become more or less obscure in meaning. Wherever, in the opinion of this assembly, the meaning of a section was not apparent, foot-notes were added to bring out the meaning.” But if such a change of meaning and obscurity of language is true of one section of the old Confession, it is also true of every section, and just as true of the whole Bible, which is older than the London Confession. In all candor, then, why were the foot-notes confined to a few sections, and these the very places which treat of the doctrines involved in this new issue! This is very strange indeed, if the old Confession has really become doubtful and dark in meaning because of its age! If this is a valid cause for calling a convention of Baptists, why not bring out in easy and plain words the meaning of the entire Confession, so that all the Baptists may now understand and unite upon its meaning? Then, if the plea is a real and valid one, why not also get up a Baptist Convention to “bring out the more or less obscure meaning “of the ancient Bible!" (from chapter 129 of my series - See here and taken from "Review of Fulton Convention Work" - Crawfordsville, Ind., Aug. 22, 1901. Signs Of The Times, Volume 69, No. 18. SEPTEMBER 15, 1901)

I wrote this commentary on Bartley's words:

"These remarks of Elder Bartley are very damaging to the work of the Fulton brethren and unmask the real intentions of the Convention.  He shows that their stated purpose, which was to make plain those portions of the Confession which were too vaguely worded, or too ambiguous, containing too much archaic language, was all pretense!  Why did they avoid explaining most of the sections?  One says it is because they agreed with those sections!  Yet, the same kind of language was used in those sections as in the others that were given footnotes!  It is all too obvious to all, except to the simple minded cultists, that these brethren did not believe the sections which they footnoted."

When Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr. (who died recently) began to object to the doctrine of "time salvation" and to state his belief in the sure and certain perseverance of the saints, he was called before a special meeting of Hardshells to answer charges that he was preaching heresy and was declared to be in disorder because of it. Yet, he for fifty years or so was one of their leading ministers. He argued in that meeting that the Fulton elders put no footnotes to the section of the 1689 confession on the perseverance of saints which showed that they believed it as it was written and needed no explanations or clarifications. Yet, they did not listen to this reasoning. Elder Bartley showed that it was a pretense for the Fulton brethren to claim that their footnotes were a result of making the confession's words less ambiguous. 

Elder Hassell should have been as honest as many other elders have been in acknowledging that the Fulton brethren were not honest in what they said was their reason for their modifying the old confession. Surely Hassell knew that the old confession taught that God used his word and the preaching of it to save sinners. So, the fact that he did not object to the twisting of the confession is a big spot on his record.

In the January, 1901 issue of "The Gospel Messenger" Hassell wrote the following about the Fulton Convention:

"I am very glad to learn that the General Meeting of Primitive Baptists at Fulton, Ky., November 14—18, was largely attended from all sections of the United States, and was very harmonious, and adopted, as an expression of its belief and practice, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, of 1689 (the most elaborate, comprehensive, and scriptural of all the Articles of Faith ever published by the Baptists), and the Digest of those Articles published in The Gospel Messenger of July, 1876, as "The Principles of The Gospel Messenger"; and that the Meeting agreed to publish, in one small volume, the Confession (with foot-notes explaining the obscure passages), and the Digest, and an Address to all Primitive Baptist churches, beseeching them to come together on this solid Bible platform (the faith of our fathers and of the great majority of the Primitive Baptists of to day), and to oppose all declarations of non- fellowship on minor points."

Notice that Hassell says that the 1689 confession was "the most elaborate, comprehensive, and scriptural" statement of faith ever written. That seems to undercut the claim of the Fulton elders who said they were adding footnotes because it was not elaborate or comprehensive. Yet he says: "the Meeting agreed to publish, in one small volume, the Confession (with foot-notes explaining the obscure passages)." "Obscure passages"? I thought he just said the old confession was clear and plain? Why did the Fulton elders need to "elaborate" on a confession that Hassell said was already "elaborate"? 

In that same issue of "The Gospel Messenger" we find a letter from the moderator of the Fulton Meeting, from Elder J.H. Oliphant of Indiana who wrote to Hassell these words (emphasis mine):

"Much Esteemed Brother Hassell: — I attended the meeting at Fulton, Ky. I had felt undecided as to the propriety of going, up to within a few days of the time. I now believe it was best to go. A desire for fellowship and union was plainly manifested in every face and in every word. I prepared a Confession of Faith before I left home, but I found that all present wanted to reaffirm the old London Confession of Faith. It was decided to affix explanatory notes to those sections that seem to be ambiguous, not to change or deny their meaning, but to present the understanding we have of them. Each section of the whole Confession was read before the meeting, and approved separately, one by one; also the notes prepared by a committee were read separately and approved. It was a long, tedious task, but all present patiently waited and labored till all was done. Every section was approved by unanimous vote; in fact, every act of the meeting was done by unanimous vote, both in the open meeting, and in the work of the committee that prepared the notes. I felt that love and the utmost fellowship prevailed in every heart. Many tears were shed as the strong sentiments of that old document were read, and a deep conviction that the statements made in that instrument are true...I would have been so glad to see you there, but it was not so you could come. May the dear Lord bless you abundantly in all your labors. The time of toil will soon pass, and you will enter on your reward. Affectionately, Jas. H. Oliphant."

Why did Elder Oliphant feel a need to go to the Fulton meeting with a new prepared confession of faith? Does this not indicate that he knew that the 1689 confession was against the Hardshell "no means" view? That it taught that evangelical faith in Christ was a requirement for being born again and eternally saved? Oliphant says that when he got to Fulton he discovered that "all present wanted to reaffirm the old London Confession of Faith." Why did they want to do this seeing it clearly taught the means doctrine? Was it not because they had called themselves "primitive" Baptists, meaning that they were the "original" Baptists? So, they were in a proverbial "tight spot." So, they decided to do what they did, which was to endorse the confession but put footnotes in those sections dealing with doctrines that were dividing their sect and to make the confession agree with their "anti-means" doctrine, and their denial that all that comes to pass comes to pass because God has decreed it. 

Hassell wrote the following words after the printed letter above from Oliphant:

"Elder Oliphant was the Moderator of the General Meeting, and also of the committee that examined and reported upon the London Confession."

Elder Oliphant knew that the 1689 confession taught that God uses means in salvation, that is why he intended to bring a draft of a new confession. But, instead, he went along with the other elders and perverted the old confession and show his dishonesty thereby. So too may it be said of Elder Hassell.

In the next chapter we will begin to look at what Elder Hassell wrote about the question of means God uses in the eternal salvation of sinners.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (1)

Elder Sylvester Hassell

1842-1928

In this short series I will examine what Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote concerning the question as to whether the word of God or gospel is a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. 

Elder Sylvester Hassell is an intriguing figure. He was probably one of the most learned and scholarly ministers of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist church and yet, ironically, he took some positions in theology that betrayed that learning. He was the son of Elder Cushing Biggs Hassell and both were leaders in the Kehukee Association of Primitive Baptists (1769), the fourth oldest Baptist Association in America), and it was this association that first published a declaration of non-fellowship against those Baptists who supported missionary enterprises in 1827, five years before the "Black Rock Address" (1832), though the latter is generally given as the date when the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist sect originated. Both father and son were also leaders over the general body of that sect. They were elected each year to be the moderator of the Kehukee Association, an association that became the "flag ship" of the sect. Elder C.B. Hassell was moderator of the association from 1859-1880 and Elder Sylvester Hassell was moderator from 1880 until his death in 1928.

Sylvester's influence rose dramatically in the 1880s as a result of writing, along with his father, the "History of the church of God, from the creation to A.D. 1885; including especially the history of the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Association," which was published in 1886 and authorized by the Kehukee Association and which paid the Hassells for it. Most of the earlier sections of this work were written by the senior Hassell, Sylvester writing most of the later sections. I have read through this voluminous work, and though it contains much historical information, it was also written, mostly by the junior Hassell, as a polemic to try and show that the new sect of "Primitive Baptists" were right in their contention that they were the true "original" Baptists and that the "Missionary Baptists" were the new kids on the block. The later chapters, mostly written by Sylvester, contain much false information and were written with a bias that is quite evident. I have over the years written several articles demonstrating this fact. He often omits pertinent information and gives a false interpretation of other historical events.

Many of the first generation of "Primitive Baptists" died in the early 1880s. Elder C.B. Hassell died in 1880. Elder Gilbert Beebe died in 1881. Elder John Clark died in 1882. Elder R.W. Fain died in 1876. All these men were editors and writers for several of the first periodicals of the Old Schoolers. The 1880s was a decade that saw much inner fighting among the new sect. The death of the first generation of the "Old School" leaders created a vacuum in leadership and several arose who were competitors for filling that vacuum. A new generation of "Hardshells" then arose and steered the sect in another direction. In 1892 Sylvester was a contributing editor of the periodical "The Gospel Messenger" which he purchased in either 1895-96 and became its owner and editor. He was a good writer and wrote often against some of the extremes that were becoming far too prevalent within the sect. 

In February 1893 Hassell wrote another article in his series titled "The Literal Interpretation of Scripture" where he denounced how many "Primitive Baptists" were mishandling the word of God in their failure to take the Bible literally. I wrote about this (here) and cited from that article the following, where Hassell wrote:

"It is especially in what claims to be the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures that these ultra, wild, chilling, deadening, bewitching, confusing, dividing, and ruinous errors prevail among us."

Hassell began writing about the gross perversions in bible interpretation that had been plaguing his brethren in the final months of 1892 and continued his series on bible interpretation throughout the year 1893. I wish all of today's "Primitive Baptists" would read this man's writings in this series. 

It is sad to say, however, that Hassell himself was not faultless in his manner of interpreting the scriptures. Particularly is this true relative to his ideas about the doctrine of regeneration or the new birth and how it is effected. Though his father, as I have shown in several writings, believed in means, yet Sylvester would come to deny them. Yet, as we will see, he made contradictory statements on this question, both as a Baptist historian and as a theologian.

If one reads what Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote on the troubling question as to whether the written word of God, or the gospel, or preachers of it, were "means" in the eternal salvation of sinners, he will find that Hassell tried to bridge the divide, or straddle the fence, between those "Primitive Baptists" who espoused means and those who denied means. It was in the last quarter of the 19th century where this question came to a climax and brought about a formal division. That was also true with regard to other doctrines that divided the new sect, such as the extent of predestination, Two Seed ideology, perseverance of the elect, whether evangelical faith was necessary for eternal salvation, "conditional time salvation," and several other more minor issues.

I have shown in numerous articles in this blog, over the past twenty years, that the overwhelming majority of the first generation of "Primitive Baptists" did not reject means altogether. Though some of them said that "regeneration" or "begetting" was without means, they affirmed that the new birth (which came later after one was begotten) involved being converted to Christ by the gospel or by faith. The first "Primitive Baptists" did not believe that unbelievers in Christ were regenerated, as they do today.

Elder John M. Watson (1798-1866) of middle Tennessee was one of the foremost leaders of the newly formed sect. He battled the "Two Seed Primitive Baptists," including its chief proponent, Elder Daniel Parker, and wrote a book titled "Old Baptist Test." He, along with others of his brethren who fought against Two Seedism, said that the "no means" view was a leading distinctive tenet of many Two Seed Primitive Baptists, although few of them, at that time, would affirm that people could be saved who did not believe in Jesus. Today, however, most "Primitive Baptists" of the "Hardshell" variety embrace the view that millions of God's born again people remain in idolatry and do not come to faith in Jesus or the God of the Bible.  

Though many "Primitive Baptists" have asserted that the split that occurred as a result of the Black Rock Address was over the question of whether the gospel or word of God was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners, that is a falsehood that has no evidence to support it. In several posts in past years I have shown that this is not true. For instance, in this post (here) I first cited from Elder David Montgomery who in the not too distant past wrote the following in his attempt to assert that the Black Rock Address document condemned the means view and when they spoke of salvation through the word that they did not have eternal salvation in mind but a temporal salvation (evangelical conversion) that is not necessary for eternal salvation:

"The Black Rock Address of 1832 gives an excellent admonition: "Brethren, while we rejoice in the glorious truth that salvation is of the Lord, may it be manifested by our lives that we are under the influence of that grace which teacheth that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world." This is what I would define as time salvation."

Elder Michael Gowens of the present day has also said that the main issue in the 1832 division of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists from the general Baptist family was over the means question, writing the following (emphasis mine):

"The primary issue at stake might be defined by the question, “Does God employ the use of external means in the eternal salvation of sinners? Is grace mediated to the sinner through human agency? Does the church play an instrumental role in eternal salvation?” Those answering in the affirmative were loosely and informally termed “means” Baptists, and those responding in the negative were labeled “anti-means” Baptists." ("Christ The Only Mediator" - See here)

That assertion, however, is against the historical facts. Gowens also wrote:

"Of course, a label can be misleading, for it never tells the whole story. I don’t particularly like the “anti-means” label, for it suggests an impression that is not entirely accurate. The Bible clearly teaches, for instance, that “means” are involved in Christian discipleship: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (Jno. 17:17). I could not in good conscience, therefore, wear the label “anti-means” without the caveat that Scripture does teach that means are employed in a certain sense."

That sanctification for which Jesus prayed cannot be divorced from eternal salvation. But, since it is by the truth of God, Gowens and his Hardshell brethren must say that it is a sanctification that has nothing to do with being eternally saved from sin and death.

I wrote the following in response to Montgomery's assertion about the Black Rock Address supposedly condemning the doctrine of means:

"It is very clear that Montgomery is reading "time salvation" into these words of the founding fathers of Hardshellism. There is no mention of "time salvation" in those words from the Address. They are "read into" it by Montgomery.  What "salvation" was under consideration when mention is made of "the glorious truth that salvation is of the Lord"?  Is it "time salvation"? Should their words be read as follows - "we rejoice in the glorious truth that time salvation is of the Lord"?" 

But, let us notice these words from the Black Rock Address.

"The plans of these [protracted or 'revival'] meetings are equally as objectionable; for, in the first place, all doctrinal preaching, or in other words, all illustrations of God's plan of salvation, are excluded from these meetings. Hence they would make believers of their converts without presenting any fixed TRUTHS to their minds to believe. Whereas God has chosen his people to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the TRUTH.--2 Thess. 2:13." (Black Rock Address, pp. 35, 36, Primitive Publications' reprint)."

"Obviously the Black Rock Address did not object to the use of gospel truth in salvation. What salvation is under consideration in the passage? Is it not that salvation which is the result of eternal election? How can the Hardshells deny that this is eternal salvation? The first Hardshells objected to certain evangelistic methods whereby converts are made where there is no doctrine or biblical truth is taught, where there is no instruction in "God's plan of salvation." When the Black Rock Address speaks of "salvation," it never refers to some "time salvation." Montgomery simply tries to read "time salvation" into the Address."

"The Address said:

"There is, brethren, one radical difference between us and those who advocate these various institutions which we have noticed to which we wish to call your attention. It is this: they declare the gospel to be a system of means; these means it appears they believe to be of human contrivance; and they act accordingly...we would still be content to preach the word, and would be instant in season and out of season; knowing it has pleased God, not by the wisdom of men, but by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. And that his word will not return unto him void, but it shall accomplish that which he please, and prosper in the thing whereunto he sends it."

Not only have the Hardshells misinterpreted the Black Rock Address, so too have they misinterpreted the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. In the year 1900 fifty one leading elders of the "Primitive Baptist" church met in Fulton, Kentucky and endorsed that confession as being the confession their forefathers endorsed. However, they distorted that old confession by putting footnotes to those sections that they disagreed with, and did so under the guise that they were explaining what was meant in those sections. That old confession taught that God used means in the calling of sinners to salvation. So, the Hardshells had to do one of two things; either reject the confession's teachings on those points or embrace it but give a twisted interpretation of what it said on the question of means. 

I have cited from many Hardshells who have agreed that the elders who assembled in Fulton purposely twisted the meaning of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith on several sections of the confession, especially on the question of whether the word of God is a means in salvation and whether evangelical faith is a necessary condition for salvation. We will talk more about that in the next chapter.

Hassell on KJV (again)

In a recent post titled "Elder C.H. Cayce on the KJV" (here) I showed where Cayce and Elder Sylvester Hassell showed that they did not believe that the KJV translation was perfect. I want to add another citation from Hassell on this question. In the September 1893 issue (Vol. 15) of "The Gospel Messenger" (available to read here) Elder Sylvester was still writing a series on "The Interpretation of the Scriptures" (since the beginning of that year). In this edition he wrote the following about the King James Version of the Scriptures (emphasis mine):

"3d —Renderings which are now declared incorrect by all critical lexicons and commentaries remain in the King James version. Thus we have apothecary for perfume; bittern for porcupine; borrow for ask; candle for lamp; dragons for monsters; foxes for jackals; groves for pillars; hats for mantles; lamps for torches; linen yarn for droves of horses; mules for warm springs; owl for ostrich; paper reeds for meadows; spider for lizard ; sweet influences for cluster or chain; troop for vault; unicorn for wild ox, etc,

4th—MISUSE OF PREPOSITION. Matt. vi. 10, "in earth" should be "on earth." Heb. iv. 9, "Rest to or for the people of God," the word for "people" being in the dative case, so that either "to " or "for" is correct. Matt. iii. 11, " Baptize with water" should be "baptize in water." John iii. 16 and 18, believe "in" and "on" is exactly the same in the Greek, the proposition being eis. Rom. vi. 23, "Through Jesus Christ" should be "in Jesus Christ." Heb i 1, "By the prophets" should be ''in the prophets." Heb. i. 2, ''By his Son" should be "in his Son." 1 Cor. iii. 9, "We are laborers together with God" should be "we" (that is, Paul and Apollos) "are God's fellow-workers," (that is, companions in labor to the same Master, God ) In Acts ii. 38, "for" or "unto the remission of sins" is right; eis never means "on account of"; baptism is for the symbolical remission of sins, as is proved by Acts iii. 19; xxii. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 21; Heb. ix. 22; 1 John i. 7; v. 8; Rev. i. 5"

So, he believes that the King James translators got many things wrong in their translation.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LXII)

In this chapter we will continue to examine what Elder C.H. Cayce wrote in the first quarter of the twentieth century about one of the controversies about a Two Seed tenet known as "the whole man" doctrine. Some Two Seeders, however, rejected the idea that any part of a man was born of God, favoring a view that came to be called the "hollow log" doctrine, which we wrote about in previous chapters. In that view nothing about the "Adam man" was changed. 

In the previous chapter we began to review a series of editorials by Cayce titled "Curtain Raised" in regard to the "unholy war" that was occurring within the ranks of the Hardshell sect of "Primitive Baptists" about "the whole man doctrine" and the fact that Cayce says he has been constantly accused of believing the whole man doctrine. Cayce, as we saw in the previous chapter, addressed the action of a young minister at that time named R.V. Sarrels, who is the author of the book seen in the picture above and published in 1978 and I suppose I got my copy about that time. I have several posts where I critique several of the things Sarrels advanced in that book. 

After publishing his first editorial Cayce followed up with his second, titled "Curtain Raised Again," for October 3, 1916. In it Cayce wrote:

"Since our issue of Sept. 5, in which appeared our article under the heading, "The Curtain Raised," we have received the following letter from Elder R. V Sarrels, of Texas, whose name was signed to the declaration of non-fellowship as moderator of the church which passed the said declaration: 

DEAR BRO. CAYCE: Today I read your article, "The Curtain Raised," and I was simply shocked to know that you would publish that Resolution as now being on record as a permanent expression of the faith of my church and me. I wrote you Oct. 12-14 and renounced that 2nd statement of the resolution and told you that my church was going to do the same thing the next meeting. At the very next meeting she officially revoked the 2nd part of that resolution. I am not simple enough to try to score you, but unless you have a letter at Temple promising positively to clear up that false impression that you have made I am going to expose you in the debate and in every Primitive Baptist periodical that will permit me the use of their columns. And also I aim to make it known to each of your Associate Editors." 

Cayce responds to the letter of Sarrels as follows:

"As the above letter refers to a letter which Elder Sarrels wrote us dated Oct. 12, 1914, we give that letter below, just as it was written: Anson, Texas, Oct. 12, 1914. 

"ELDER C. H. CAYCE: 

When Elder Downing began to claim what he does in regard to the work of God in Regeneration he was not very clear in making us see just what he believed and as a result we were thrown in a cramp in stating the matter just as it ought to be stated. But there was one thing that we all realized about the matter and that was that he was contending that Regeneration does something for a man in his entirety. This my brethren did not believe, and they were forced to take some kind of a stand against it. You saw what we had to say in regard to the matter. Now since that time we have been able to get him to say just what he does believe on this subject and we are going to change what we have done in that particular complaint and put it just as he has said it. He made use of the following statement when he was being questioned about the matter: "I believe that in Regeneration man is made a real child of God through and through, soul, spirit, and body, just like the Holiness believe that a man is sanctified all over." This I do not believe and neither do my brethren believe this and they are not going to live with it in the church. This very idea is what we were making our complaint against and I want to say now that if you believe this they surely declared against you." 

In the previous chapter I explained where the error was in this debate. I showed that being a "child of God" included the idea that the physical bodies belonged to the Lord as a result of having been purchased by Christ, and were "set apart" or made holy, but that being thus made holy did not mean that there was any change to the physics of the body. So wrote the apostle Paul: "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (I Cor. 6: 20 kjv) The body is not God's possession because it has been regenerated but because he has purchased it and made it his special possession. Further, saints are to "glorify" God in their bodies. 

Sarrels wrote further in his letter to Cayce:

"Now brother Cayce, Elder Downing wrote to you and you immediately made a reply favorably to his position. I wrote to you and you did not answer me. I wrote to you again and you have not noticed me. I wrote to several other of the Eastern brethren at the same time and they have all answered me, and have done so favorably to what I have been contending for. I have often wondered why you did not answer me! Are you afraid to take a stand on the matter? If not, I should certainly be pleased to know why you have remained silent on the matter. You certainly would have done me a favor by writing to me and telling me what you thought about the matter. 

Next Sarrels gives to Cayce these propositions that he proposes to debate with Elder J.S. Newman:

1st: The Scriptures teach that in Regeneration man is made a real child of God in soul, or spirit, only. 

R. V SARRELS Affirms. J. S. NEWMAN Denies. 

2nd: The Scriptures teach that in Regeneration man is made a real child of God in soul, spirit and body. 

R. V SARRELS Denies. J. S. NEWMAN Affirms."

Sarrels then continues:

"I have never meant to claim that the body is no part of a child of God. I Believe that man is made a real child of God: but the body is part of the man, therefore the body is part of the child of God. I have ever preached that man is the subject of God's salvation, and that it is man who is made a child of God by Regeneration. But I notice in your letter to elder Redford that you believe that "The Scriptures abundantly teach that a man is a being composed of soul, body, and spirit; and the Saviour says: 'Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.' The man who is composed of soul, body, and spirit must be born again and the one who is born is a child of God." Now, is a man born again in soul, spirit, and body? If not, and if it takes Regeneration to make one a child of God, will you please explain just how this man is a real child of God to a greater extent than he is born of God? Now, brother Cayce, you or no other man on this globe can show this matter up in any sense. I have been grossly misrepresented in regard to what has been advocated here on the subject of Regeneration." 

Again, there is a sense in which people are children of God by God having chosen them to salvation from before the world began, and both Cayce and Sarrels would agree with that. It is also true that those chosen have been purchased by the price of the blood of Christ, the Son of God, and therefore belong to the Lord even before they are born or born again. In being born again, born of God, or regenerated, those chosen and purchased actually become the children of God for they are born of divine incorruptible seed and partake of the divine nature, and bear their Father's image and likeness. This begetting takes place in the heart or spirit and not in the body. The bodies of the elect will not be transformed and glorified until the resurrection. 

Sarrels continued:

"I am sending you one of my pamphlets on Regeneration, and when you have read it I do really want you to tell me what you think about it. I want you to notice that I stress the point that it is man who is the subject of salvation, and that something that is foreign to man is not that that is saved. I want you to notice that I claim that man is saved or born again in soul, or spirit, and that since it takes Regeneration to make a real child of God, this man is by Regeneration a child of God just like he is regenerated. Will you deny this? It is not given to me to say what part of Paul was a child of God, for I verily believe that this idea that the spirit is the child of God is wrong, but we do certainly have a right to tell just how Paul was a child of God. I believe that man is born again now in his spirit, or soul, and it is very easy for me to see that this man is a real child of God just like he is born again. Man is now born again in part; man is now a real child of God in part." 

Again, from these words it is easy to see where all the confusion exists. Regeneration does not have to include the body for the person or his body to be a child of God. Sarrels says "the real issue" is "what God does for a man in the work of Regeneration."

Cayce wrote in response:

"We received a letter from Elder Sarrels before we received the above, and it may not be amiss to let our readers have the benefit of that letter also. Here it is, dated April 25, 1914: Anson, Texas, April 25, 1914." 

"DEAR BRO: 

From some remarks found in a letter from several of the brethren I am sure that some of you have been asked whether it is incorrect to say that the body is no part of the child of God; I am sorry that things have been said that have forced a strict analysis of this thing, but we are driven to state the matter in a way that will, stand a rigorous test. I do not deny, but grant, that man as a complex being is scripturally addressed as a child of God; I do not deny, but believe, that the body is an essential constituent of the being that is now born of God in spirit; But I give verbatim a statement that is causing us trouble: "I believe that in Regeneration a man, is made a child of God through and through, soul, body, and spirit." Do you believe this statement?"

Sarrels also wrote:

"Before Regeneration no part of the man is a real child of God. In regeneration the spirit of the man is made a spiritually existing, holy subject of the eternal kingdom of God. But this is just what the body is not made. Whatever the new birth does for the spirit, this is just what is not yet done for the body."

Cayce responds by saying:

"He says they all realized that Elder Downing was contending that regeneration does something for a man in his "intirety." We suppose he meant entirety. If we grant that this was what they meant to declare non-fellowship for, then we must conclude that they do not believe a single thing is done for the body in regeneration. If they do not believe that, then they believe that not a single thing is done for the body in regeneration. If they believe that, and if they believe the truth, then the man does not receive a single thing in regeneration that wields a better influence over the body. Again, he says: "I believe that the sinful body is not in Christ." If the body is not in Christ, in any sense, then in death the body is not asleep in Christ. If the soul or spirit does not sleep in Jesus, then nothing sleeps in Him, if the body is not in Him."

Cayce is confused. He is altering or conflating the points at issue. He says regeneration of a man "wields a better influence over the body." However, that is not the same as saying that the body is regenerated. The regeneration of the heart or spirit does impart power to the believer to control the body's lust and sinful cravings. God promises to give believing sinners a "new heart" and a "new spirit" (Eze. 11: 19; 36: 26), the old heart and spirit characterized by the adjective phrase "hard of stone" which refers to a sinner's stubborn opposition to God and divine truth, and its pride, while the new heart and spirit refers to a heart that is now soft, pliable, humble, contrite, receptive to God, honest, and good. This new heart and spirit will indeed be the means whereby the body and its urgings may be controlled. 

Cayce also seems to put the body "in Christ" as a result of regeneration, and if so, then it is no wonder that he was constantly being accused of believing the "whole man" doctrine. It would have been better for Cayce to have averred that the body belongs to the Lord as a result of having been purchased by him and to say that the rebirth of the heart and spirit leads to Lordship over the body. The apostle Paul wrote:

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thess. 5: 23 kjv)

By being "sanctified wholly" Paul does not mean regeneration. If it did then we must say that the soul, spirit, and body are regenerated. As I have stated, the sanctification of the body is not a result of a regeneration of the body but is a result of the governance of the body by the renewed mind and spirit. So the believer presents his body a living sacrifice, holy or set apart, for use in service to God. In checking the leading commentaries to see what they thought was meant by preserving the body blameless I found that very few addressed that point. They all addressed the question as to whether man is a tripartite being and whether the soul and spirit are the same. In what way is the body of a believer "blameless"?

The Greek word for "blameless" means to be without censure or blame, that the body be used only for doing good. So Paul wrote: "Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." (I Cor. 6: 13 nkjv) So, to have the body kept blameless is to have it always "for the Lord." The Lord is "for the body." But, that does not mean that he regenerates or transforms the body as he regenerates and transforms the spirit. 

Because the body of the believer "belongs to" the Lord he is to "glorify God in his body." (I Cor. 6: 20) He is to use every bodily member or faculty in service to God, as Paul exhorted:

"...do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts...And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God...I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness." (Rom. 6: 12-13, 19 nkjv)

I think "flesh" in these words includes the "mortal body" which often controls people by its lusts. Paul is addressing believers, their renewed minds and spirits, and exhorts them to "not let sin reign in" their "mortal bodies," and to rather "present" their bodily "members" to God as "instruments of righteousness," to use their minds, feet, hands, tongues, etc., in the service of God. This is how we preserve the body "blameless" until Christ returns and transforms the body. By "blameless" he means that the body is to be preserved and guarded so that it is not used for immoral or criminal activities. 

Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"It is the MAN that is in Christ after regeneration, or else inspiration is a lie, for the apostle said, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." As it is the MAN that is in Christ, and the body is a part of the man, then the body is a part of the MAN that is in Christ. The body, then, is the mortal part of the child of God, and sleeps in Jesus. So far as we are able to see, Elder Sarrels and those who are with him had as well deny the resurrection and be done with it."

The body becomes a temple when God, Father, Son, and Spirit take up their abode in the heart. (I Cor. 6: 19) It is such even though it has not been changed by a regeneration. "The inward man" is being "renewed day by day" in a believer but the "outer man" (the body) is "perishing." (II Cor. 4: 16) If the body was regenerated as the soul or spirit, then the body likewise would be renewed day by day.

Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"Again, he says, of the body, that it "is not in the strict sense of the term a child of God." Then, we suppose the body is a child of wrath, and the regenerated spirit in the body is a child of God. According to this notion the child of God dwells in the child of wrath until the child of wrath dies, and then the child of God goes to heaven, and the child of wrath goes to the grave. This denies any resurrection from the grave, for a child of God, for it is not a child of God, but a child of wrath, that is in the grave. If there is any resurrection of the body at all, according to this notion, it is a universal resurrection to condemnation, for the child of wrath will be resurrected to condemnation."

Of course the body of a child of God is God's child, but not because it has been regenerated. All men are God's "offspring" (Acts 17: 28). Therefore it is not necessary for the body to be "born again" in order to be God's child, or for the body of the believer to be God's special possession. However, what is born again is man's core being, his heart or spirit, his mind. To speak of the body being born again and a child of God is ridiculous. Are my fingernails born again? 

Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

"Poor Sarrels! This young "smart Alex" is wise above what is written. That is what is the matter with the Old Baptists--they have some young preachers who are too smart. They have learned more than is written, and more than our fathers knew. And they have some preachers who have not been made better by regeneration, and who claim that they love sin as well as they ever did."

I find this statement intriguing. The problem with the "Old Baptists" in 1916 was that they had some young preachers who are too smart and who think they knew more than their forefathers? What about Cayce himself? Is he not guilty of what he condemns? Did he not think he was smarter than the preachers who wrote the 1689 London Baptist Confession? 

He says these young preachers think that sinners are "not made better by regeneration." Is this idea not a remnant of Two Seedism? Cayce says he believes that regeneration makes a person better by being regenerated. How better? He certainly does not believe that regeneration delivers a person from idolatry or makes him a believer in Jesus or the gospel. Cayce even taught that the Athenian idolaters in Acts chapter seventeen were regenerated even while they were polytheists and knew nothing about Jesus. In his editorial titled "The Spirituality Of The Gospel" (Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99), Cayce wrote:

"He does not quote all of the 28th verse. 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." (Ibid)

So, how did regeneration make these Greek polytheists better? They were regenerated but still worshiped many gods and knew not Jesus. It seems regeneration did not make them better.

Cayce continued his reply to Sarrels:

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

Elder John M. Thompson was a grandson of Elder Wilson Thompson. In previous chapters we have mentioned Elder Wilson Thompson and his eldest son Elder Matthew Grigg Thompson. There was also another man who was of this lineage and who also was a "Primitive Baptist" preacher, and that was Elder R.W. Thompson. In the next several chapters we will observe the heated debate that took place between John Thompson and C.H. Cayce.

Fellowship With God & Salvation (2)

In the previous post on this subject we showed how koinōnia, the word that gives us our word fellowship or communion, involves participation or partaking. Paul spoke of how all members of the body of Christ jointly partake or participate in the blessings of communion with the head of the body. He wrote:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (koinōnia) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (koinōnia)  of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread." (I Cor. 10: 16-17 nkjv)

Here we see where koinōnia involves "partaking" of "that one bread" which is Christ, the true bread that came down from heaven. In order to "live forever" a person must partake of this bread. (John 6: 51) It is  therefore stunning that our Hardshell brothers say that communion with Christ, or partaking of him as the bread of life, is not essential for obtaining eternal life.

Thus koinōnia may be viewed both vertically and horizontally. Vertically it speaks of the communion of a renewed spirit with God that results from a faith union with God. It may be viewed horizontally when it speaks of a communion between believers in the church community. If a member of the body is in union with the head (Christ), then it will have interaction with the head, or a sharing between them. So too will members of the body have union with one another and a mutual sharing with each other and with the head. Therefore, you cannot separate union from communion as Elder Gowens has done. If my head or brain is not interacting with my heart and lungs, I will die. So koinōnia involves "shared life." 

We could also say that same thing regarding Christ being the "true vine" and professing Christians being the "branches." Jesus said:

"1 I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." (John 15: 1-5 nkjv)

A branch is joined to the vine, that speaks of union. A branch receives its life sustaining sap from the vine, and that speaks of communion. Jesus speaks of believers being "in" him and him being "in" the believer. I had a brother ask me years ago how something could be in something while that something is in it. That seemed illogical. If I have a piece of paper in my bible book, how can the book be in the piece of paper? I told him to think of a glass jar in the water and how the glass is in the water and the water is in the glass. 

Think of a baby in the womb of its mother. It is joined to its mother by an umbilical cord. It is impossible to conceive how it could have union without communion. The communion is seen in the fact that the baby is participating in the life of the mother, receiving nourishment from its mother, and this is communion. We must also keep in mind that the root of koinōnia  is the word "common." It was a word that the ancient Greeks used to speak of business partnerships and joint ventures. "Partaking" is the literal, experiential translation of the verb form (koinōneō) or the state of being a partner (koinōnos). So, we have our word "commonwealth," which is a social or political group, such as a nation or other community, and which originally was derived from what was called the "common weal," and the philosophy that what was good for the community was good for the individual. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (politeia) of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." (Eph. 2: 12 kjv)

Christians have many things in common, things they share. More on that shortly.

A person who is a believer in Christ is a member of Christ's mystical body, or the church. He may not be a member of any local church, but he is a member of the universal body that contains every believer. By virtue of their new birth and union with Christ Christians are part of the larger Christian community or commonwealth and can participate in the "fellowship of the mystery" (Eph. 3: 9), and in "fellowship in the gospel" (Phil. 1: 5), and can give to other believers the "right hands of fellowship" (Gal. 2: 9), and be involved in "the fellowship of the ministering to the saints" (II Cor. 8: 3-5) by giving financial support to ministers and evangelists, by giving "a certain contribution for the poor" (Rom. 15: 26), where the word "contribution" is from koinōnia. Here the idea of joint partnership is evident. That is horizontal koinōnia resulting from vertical koinōnia.

Partakers of Christ

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (Eph. 3: 6 kjv)

To be a "partaker" is to be a participant or sharer. To be a sharer in the promise of salvation one must receive Christ or enter into him and for Christ to enter into the believer and to dwell in his heart. This entails both union and communion. To become "fellowheirs" and a member "of the same body" is to be united to Christ and to all other believers. It is also for those only who have "partaken of his promise in Christ." What is that promise? It is the promise of salvation from sin, condemnation, and death, and of an eternal inheritance, of eternal life and immortality. This promise is in Christ and realized "by the gospel," which means by believing in the gospel. This destroys the Hardshell belief that the salvation that comes by the gospel is not an eternal salvation, for eternal salvation is what is described in this text. Wrote the apostle Paul further:

"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (Heb. 3: 14 kjv)

Partaking of Christ brings salvation. It is the way Christ is received. Apart from Christ there is no union or communion. Having Christ is having eternal life. So wrote the apostle John: "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." (I John 5: 12 nkjv) Partaking of Christ means the same thing as receiving or sharing in Christ. All the blessings of salvation result from union with Christ. I cannot imagine, as did Gowens, and as do the Hardshell Baptists, partaking of Christ, being in union with Christ, without having communion with him. If Christ is abiding in a person, then that person will enjoy communion with Christ. The word "enthusiasm" originally meant "God within," and if God, Father, Son, and Spirit, are dwelling in you, then you will experience fellowship and communion with him. Further, born again believers are described as being lovers of God and lovers of Christ the Son of God. It is hard to believe that people can love Christ without enjoying communion with him. 

The apostle Paul, who I believe wrote the Book of Hebrews, spoke of those who are "partakers of the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 6: 4). He also wrote about the "fellowship of the Spirit" (Phil. 2: 1) and of "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit." (II Cor. 13: 14) Again, I cannot conceive of anyone being a partaker of the Spirit and not enjoying blessed communion with him. He is called the "Comforter" because he comforts the people of God. If Gowens is right, that many people have union with the Spirit and yet do not experience communion with him, then they receive no comfort from him, for to comfort would be part of what it means to have communion with him.

The apostle Peter spoke of believers being "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1: 4) That means they participate or share in the divine nature as a result of being "born of God" and becoming his children and that is included in what it means to have been "called into the koinonian" of the Son of God. (I Cor. 1: 9) Therefore it is ludicrous for Gowens and the Hardshells to say that eternal salvation does not involve fellowship or communion or participation with God. 

Things Christians Have In Common (or share)

In koinōnia there is not only union but a sharing of things in common. This is true in vertical koinōnia and in horizontal koinōnia. We have already seen where believers share the divine nature with God. Being the children of God they also share God's likeness and image. Here are some things that believers share in common with each other and with God and which is part of their fellowship with God.

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4: 4-6 nkjv)

This is what it means to be called into the koinonia of the Son of God. This is what is shared by the people of the koinonia within the body of Christ or of the Christian community. They all participate in the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same God the Father, and partake of the same hope and calling, having the same faith or creed, and experience the same baptism. We read of the "common faith" (Titus 1: 4) and of the "common salvation." (Jude 1: 3) 

Interesting is the fact that the Greek word for "common" in these passages is koinos. It's original meaning denoted what is shared by all, though it came to be associated with the general population, or with the ordinary people, who were often viewed as "commoners," or unclean people, those not of the aristocracy or elite. Koinonia is derived from koinos. To be called into the fellowship of God and the Christian community is to share or partake in common the things itemized above. So we read:

"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers...And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2: 42, 44-45 nkjv)

The idea that people can have union with the Father, Son, or Spirit, and yet not have communion with the three divine persons, or the idea that people may be saved without participating, or sharing in, or partaking of the things we have enumerated, is outlandish. It is certainly not an example of "rightly dividing the word of truth"! Any of our Hardshell brothers want to come and show where I am wrong in my rebuttal to what Gowens said?

Fellowship With God & Salvation (1)

"God is faithful, by whom you were 

called into the fellowship of His Son, 

Jesus Christ our Lord." 

(I Cor. 1: 9 nkjv)

Hardshell Baptists tell us that having fellowship with God is not essential for salvation. In fact, they tell us that many of God's born again people have a relationship to God the Father, Son and Spirit but who do not have fellowship with him, that most of them have union with God but not communion with him. Here is what Elder Michael Gowens, an apologist for the "Primitive," "Old School," or "Hardshell" Baptist church (who I have written much against), said in an article titled "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist" (which you can read here; emphasis mine):

"Second, I am a Primitive Baptist because I agree with the way they interpret Scripture. No one makes sense of the whole Bible like the Primitive Baptists. No other group interprets Scripture with greater consistency than these people who understand the discipline of “rightly dividing the word of truth.” The habit of distinguishing between sonship and discipleship—between unconditional and gospel salvation—between relationship and fellowship—between union with Christ and communion with Him—between regeneration and conversion—between eternity and time—between judicial and parental judgment—between reality and the perception of that reality—is the hallmark that separates Primitive Baptists from virtually every other school of Biblical interpretation."

Here he gives the common belief of the vast majority of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists," although there are some groups, such as the churches of the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists, who are not connected with the main body of those who go by that church name. After all, there are some who go by that name that are not five point Calvinists. 

According to Gowens, only his group of "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists "rightly divide the word of truth" on the doctrine of salvation. That is cultist language. According to the above citation, a person can be a son of God but not be a disciple of God or his Son the Messiah. Where is that taught in scripture? Did not Jesus say "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me"? (John 10: 27) Gowens and his Hardshell brethren say that by "sheep" in John chapter ten we are to understand the elect, or those who are the children of God. That being so, Christ says that the sheep, all of them, "follow me." What does it mean to be a disciple? It means to follow another, to follow his teachings and his leadership. The apostle John also disagrees with Gowens and the Hardshells for he wrote:

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (II John 1: 9 kjv)

Here the inspired apostle connects sonship with discipleship as did Jesus. It is no wonder that the Hardshells do not want to come and debate such beliefs with me for they know that I will keep such verses up front before their eyes. We also see where on this point the Hardshells do not "rightly divide the word of truth," but have rather distorted the teachings of the bible, and that "to their own destruction." (II Peter 3: 16) 

Next, Gowens says that the Hardshells rightly divide the word of God as no one else because they are able to distinguish between "unconditional and gospel salvation." Hardshells believe eternal salvation is unconditional but "gospel salvation" is conditional. By affirming this proposition, they believe that most of the elect, most born again children of God, though saved with an eternal salvation, are not saved by a gospel salvation, and by this we see how they teach that millions of heathen, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or Polytheists, are saved from sin but who do not believe the gospel, do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and do not accept the bible as the word of God. This belief is the result of decades of deviation from their sect's original belief, for their founding fathers at the time of their formation in 1827-1832 would not have agreed with this ideology. One of their leaders was Elder Sylvester Hassell, son of Elder C.B. Hassell, co-authors of their "Primitive Baptist" church history, and he wrote the following:

"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation (Gen. iii. 15; xii. 3; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Psalm cx. 3; Isa. xxvii. 13; xxxv. 10; xlii. 16; xlv. 17; liii.-lv.; Jer. xxxi. 33-37; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; xxxvii. 1-14; Zech. xii. 10-14; xiii. 1, 7-9; Matt. i. 21; xxv. 34; John vi. 37-40; x. 15, 27-30; xvii. 2, 3, 24; Acts xiii. 48; Rom. v. 19-21; viii. 28-39; Eph. i.-iii.; 2 Thess. 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; 1 Pet. i., ii.; 1 John v. 11, 12; Rev. i. 5, 6; xxi. 27)."  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Conditionalism" by Sylvester Hassell, The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894)

His forefathers of the 1830s accepted both the 1689 London Baptist and the 1742 Philadelphia Baptist Confessions of Faith and those confessions and the authors of them affirm what Hassell said. They taught that the salvation that comes by faith in the gospel (Rom. 1:16; etc.) was eternal salvation and was a necessary condition for it, and yet they also taught that "all the conditions of the conditional promises" are the result of "the unconditional spiritual promises of God." So, faith in Christ and the gospel is a gift of God, and no one will be saved from sin who is not given this faith. 

He also says that Hardshells distinguish "between union with Christ and communion with Him." By that he means that though union with Christ is necessary for eternal salvation, communion with Christ is not. It is impossible to imagine, however, how a person can read the bible and think that a person can be in union with Christ but not have communion with him. Can I love and be joined to my wife in marriage without having communion with her? I trow not, as the old English would say. 

A man who says that a person can be joined to Christ without having communion with him is a theological idiot and shows that he understands very little or nothing about what he is talking about and it is a joke for this man and his Hardshell brothers to tell us that this is an example of how the Hardshells "rightly divide the word of truth"! But, as respecting communion with Christ I will have more to say shortly.

He also says that Hardshells rightly distinguish between "regeneration and conversion," and again the idea is that people can be regenerate but who are not converted, who have not believed the gospel nor repented of their sins. Sadly, Hardshells are not alone in this view for there are many other Calvinists who say that "regeneration precedes faith or conversion." Many of them will say, however, that regeneration is only logically prior to faith and repentance, not chronologically, for they believe that as soon as a sinner is regenerated or born again that he will then instantly believe and repent. But neo-Hardshells don't even believe this, for they believe that most "regenerated" people are never converted to Christ, but remain worshipers of other gods. But, as we have seen, everyone of the sheep follows Christ, or are his disciples, and discipleship includes the idea of being evangelically converted. What did the apostle Peter say about the matter? To sinners he said:

"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)

Gowens and his Hardshell brethren do not believe that anyone has to repent and be converted to Christ in order to be pardoned of his sins!

Now let us talk about the claim that only "Primitive Baptists" rightly distinguish between relationship and fellowship. Again, his idea is that a person can have a relationship with Christ as his Father's child or son, without having fellowship or communion with either the Father or with Christ. We have already addressed relationship versus fellowship, which is intimately connected with union versus communion. So, let us dive deeper now into this question.

The text at the heading of this post speaks of Christians who have been "called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." Hardshells are forced to say that this "calling" is not that calling which is unto salvation, eternal salvation, is not that "calling" of Romans 8: 30, for that text says all who God predestined to salvation are called by God. If the calling of I Cor. 1: 9 is that calling, then all the chosen and foreknown, all the predestined to salvation, will be called into the fellowship or communion of Christ.

Not only that, but this "calling" of the Lord (that is essential for justification and glorification) is stated to be made "by the gospel." I wrote about this in a recent post concerning II Thessalonians 2: 12-13. (See here) In that text the apostle Paul speaks of salvation to which the Philippian Christians had been chosen to from the beginning, and he says that this salvation is effected by "the sanctification of the Spirit and by a belief of the truth," by the gospel truth, for Paul says "whereunto he called you by our gospel." So, the Hardshell Baptists are gravely wrong on two accounts when it comes to this "calling" of God that is for salvation. First, they deny that it is a calling into fellowship and communion with God. Second, they deny that it is a calling of God by the gospel.

They also fail to see what is meant by the "fellowship" and "communion" associated with this divine calling. The word translated "fellowship" in the text at the heading of this post is from the Greek word koinōnia and means, according to Strong, Thayer, and other Greek scholars: partnership, i.e. (literally) participation, or to share in something, (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction, communication, intercourse, communion, fellowship, association. The word koinōnia is an ancient Greek noun, derived from the root word koinos (meaning "common" or "shared"). It denotes an active, intimate relationship or partnership rather than a casual social gathering. Koinonia also involves being in agreement with one another, or being united in purpose with another person. This is what Gowens and his Hardshell brethren don't understand.

John Gill, who the Hardshells claim supports their soteriological views, wrote the following in his commentary on our main text at the head of this post:

"into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord; to partake of his grace, and to be heirs of glory with him; to enjoy communion with him in private and public exercises of religion, which is an evidence of being in him, and of union to him; for it is not merely into the fellowship of his saints or churches, but into the fellowship of his Son they are said to be called; and such are members of Christ, of his body, of his flesh, and of his bone; and shall never be lost and perish, but shall be confirmed to the end; be preserved in him blameless, and presented to him faultless, and have everlasting life."

Here we see where Gill rightly divides the word of God in saying that being called into the fellowship of Christ the Lord means to "partake of his grace." We cannot remove the idea of participation from the Greek word. A marriage is a joint participation. That being "called into the fellowship or communion of the Lord Jesus Christ" is essential for salvation is seen in the following texts also. The apostle Paul prayed:

"That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Phil. 3: 10-11 nkjv)

To "know the fellowship of his sufferings" is not a desire to experience the sufferings of Christ but to be accounted as having participated in those sufferings, to be identified with Christ in his sufferings, his death and crucifixion, as well as in his resurrection. It is a prayer to be benefited from the sufferings of Christ. Just as the Christian's suffering for Christ's sake are owned by the Lord as his sufferings (Acts 9: 4-5; Isa. 63: 9), so too are the sufferings of Christ owned by Christians as their own. When Christ died, every believer died because they were "in him," because they were represented by him. So Paul wrote: "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died." (II Cor. 5: 14 nkjv)

Just as "knowing him," and "knowing the power of his resurrection," and "being made conformable unto his death," and "attaining unto the resurrection of the dead" are aspects of eternal salvation, so too is a participation in the death and sufferings of Christ likewise an aspect of eternal salvation. 

Notice also these words of the same apostle:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (I Cor. 10: 16-18 nkjv)

This text clearly shows that koinōnia involves salvation, and not a mere temporal salvation. What Paul says here about the Lord's Supper is similar to what he says about Christian water baptism. Both these ordinances are symbols of salvation. Salvation is the result of partaking of Christ the Bread of Life, of participating or sharing in his sacrifice. "Partaking" of the blood of Christ, partaking of him as the Bread of Life, partaking of the sacrifice of the altar, is what brings salvation to a believing sinner. Communion with Christ and the Father involves "partaking." Water baptism symbolizes a sinner's mystical entrance into Christ, his inner cleansing of spirit and heart, his participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. So Paul wrote:

"3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6: 3-11 n kjv)

Here baptism is shown to be a "likeness" or picture of what happens when a sinner is united to Christ by faith. All the descriptive items highlighted in red show that salvation from sin and death is what is being described. This entering into Christ is what initiates all the aspects of salvation Paul mentions and he avers that it is by being "united" with Christ and his death and resurrection that these saving benefits are received. Union with Christ is a participation or koinōnia or communion.

So too do we see salvation pictorially represented in the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist). As baptism pictures a believer's entrance into Christ so the Supper pictures Christ's entrance into the believer.

In John chapter six Jesus declares that he is the "bread which came down from heaven," being the "true bread," or antitype of the manna. (vss. 32-33) Christ said further:

"47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

This discourse of our Lord destroys what Gowens has written as the belief of "Primitive Baptists." He will look in vain for any Baptist prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" in the early 19th century who taught what Gowens gives as the belief of Hardshell Baptists. When Paul spoke of what occurs in communion with Christ he is giving the same teaching as given by Christ in John chapter six. In the above words of Jesus he speaks of those who "abide in" him and of those in whom Christ abides. Baptism is a pictorial of a believer's entrance into Christ and the Communion Supper is a pictorial of Christ entering into and "abiding in" the believer. Communion or fellowship with Christ involves partaking of Christ. 

Therefore, for Hardshells to say that communion with Christ is unessential for salvation is diametrically opposed to what the scriptures cited teach, and it is therefore a joke for Gowens to say that communion with Christ is not essential for salvation. It is clearly not "rightly dividing the word of truth." 

In the above discourse of Christ he spoke of "eating" and "drinking" as means of receiving Christ for salvation. I highlighted in red those words in red above. To be saved from sin and death a sinner must receive Christ by faith, and "feed on him." The apostle Paul also says the following in agreement with Christ:

"7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (I Cor. 5: 7-8 kjv)

By "keeping the feast" he means partaking of the sacrificial lamb by eating it. This is done this way: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev. 3: 20 nkjv) Here is internal koinōnia or communion, the way believers "feed" on Christ, how they eat his flesh and drink his blood. It is in meditating upon the sacrifice of Christ and enjoying that meditation. The apostle John wrote:

"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1: 6-7 nkjv)

Here we see that having "fellowship (koinōnia) with him," that is, with Christ, and with his mystical body, the church or body of believers, is a requirement for experiencing cleansing from all sin by the blood of Christ. So, for Hardshells to say that fellowship with Christ, and participation in him and his death and sufferings, is no condition for being eternally saved, is far from "rightly dividing the word of truth" and is a most dangerous heresy. The apostle also wrote:

"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." (I John 1: 3 kjv)

In these words we can substitute the words "union and communion" for the word "fellowship" or koinōnia and read the text as: "that you also may have union and communion with us, and truly our union and communion is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." We could also use the word "participation" for koinōnia (which is another way to translate the word) so as to read the text as saying --"that you also may jointly participate with us, and truly our participation is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."

It is not "rightly dividing the word of truth" for the Hardshells to say that it is not necessary for a person to share, participate, or feed on Christ to be eternally saved. In the above text the apostle John speaks of having fellowship or communion with both the Father and the Son. 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) This is koinōnia, the Father and Son making their home in the heart and is what Jesus said in Revelation 3: 20 cited previously. To say that this communion with the Father and Son is not necessary for eternal salvation is an awful perversion of the word of God.

Not only is fellowship or communion with the Father and Son an aspect of salvation, or one of the "things that accompany salvation" (Heb. 6: 9), but so also is fellowship with the third person of the Trinity, with the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul spoke of the "fellowship of the Spirit" (Phil. 2: 1) and "the communion of the Holy Spirit" (II Cor. 13: 14) and said that one could not have fellowship with God and have "fellowship with demons" (I Cor. 10: 20) at the same time. He also wrote:

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" (II Cor. 6: 14 nkjv)

Here we are given more light on what it means to have koinōnia with the Father, Son, and Spirit. It involves being "yoked together" with God, and with other believers in the body of Christ. So Jesus said: "Take my yoke upon you" (Matt. 11: 29). This yoke involves two entities, which is Christ and the Christian, both being yoked together and this is what it means to be connected to Christ. We also see that koinōnia with the Father, Son, and Spirit entails having communion with the light to the exclusion of communion with the darkness, and having a connection with righteousness rather than with lawlessness. A true Christian who is in union and communion with God can have "no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5: 11). 

In the next post I will conclude my treatise on what it means to have fellowship with God.