Nothing To Do To Be Saved?

The "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists say that there are no conditions, nothing a person does, in order to be saved from sin. They say that if there are things a person must do to be saved, then salvation is not by grace but by works. They are not alone in saying this as some theologians say that to tell sinners that they must do something to be saved is mixing law and gospel. They say the message that tells sinners - "do this and live" is not gospel. I reject that, however, and don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion by reading the scriptures. When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas "what must I do to be saved" they got this answer: "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved and your house." That answer shows that they did not believe that there was nothing a person needed to do to be saved. Nor, did their answer indicate that they were making the gospel into law nor making salvation to be by works. 

Many years ago I learned the following rhyme:

Do this and live the law commands

but gives me neither feet nor hands

Far better news the gospel brings

It bids us fly and gives us wings

Another version (often attributed to John Bunyan) is this:

"Run, John, run, the law commands, 

But gives us neither feet nor hands. 

Far better news the gospel brings: 

It bids us fly and gives us wings."

An earlier version of this is in Charles Spurgeon’s writings, The Salt-Cellars: Being a Collection of Proverbs, Together with Homely Notes Thereon, page 200. It goes: 

 

Run, John and work, the Law commands, 

yet finds me neither feet nor hands. 

But sweeter news the Gospel brings; 

it bids me fly and lends me wings!” 

Spurgeon attributes this to an English revivalist and hymn writer, John Berridge (1716 – 1793). The third quote, however, is: 

 

A rigid matter was the Law, 

demanding brick, denying straw. 

But when with Gospel tongue it sings, 

it bids me fly and gives me wings. 

 

This is ascribed to 17th-18th Century Scottish preacher, Ralph Erskine (1685 – 1752). (Source here)

All these are in essence the same sentiment. The commands of the gospel and new covenant are not like the commands of the law and old covenant. The difference is not always understood, especially when you see what older Calvinists discussed, whether salvation was conditional or unconditional. They argued that it was unconditional in the sense that the conditions are not such that a sinner does them by his own depraved will or by his own strength, but they did believe that the conditions for salvation are sovereignly given to those who God chose to salvation. I wrote several chapters on this in my series The Hardshell Baptist Cult, in chapter 119-122. You can find them in this blog's archives for January - February 2012. The first in that sub-series is (here). See also these posts on this question (here, here). 

In this article I want to look at one or two verses in the Book of Revelation to show that the Hardshell notion that salvation is not conditioned upon anything a person does is false. In introducing those verses I want to cite from a leading song that many Christians sing, even some Hardshell Baptists, titled 

"Are You Washed In The Blood Of The Lamb".

1 Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing pow'r? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? Refrain:

Are you washed in the blood, In the soul-cleansing blood of the Lamb? Are your garments spotless? Are they white as snow? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? 

2 Are you walking daily by the Savior's side? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? Do you rest each moment in the Crucified? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? [Refrain] 

3 When the Bridegroom cometh will your robes be white? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? Will your soul be ready for the mansions bright, and be washed in the blood of the Lamb? [Refrain] 

4 Lay aside the garments that are stained with sin. Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? There’s a fountain flowing for the soul unclean. O be washed in the blood of the Lamb! [Refrain]

Notice that the song begins with a very important question, i.e. "are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?" It ends with the instruction as to how to be so washed, saying "lay aside the garments that are stained with sin" and "O be washed in the blood of the Lamb!" The Hardshell Hyper Calvinists will say that it is wrong to ask such a question of a person, and most surely wrong to tell him to wash his garments and himself in the blood of the Lamb, for that is doing something and there is nothing a person can do or needs to do to be washed of sin. So, is that scriptural or not? Now let us look at those texts in the Book of Revelation.

"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7: 13-14 kjv)

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." (22: 14 kjv)

"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates." (22: 14 esv)

As you see, there are two different translations for Rev. 22: 14. I will not get into which is correct, since the earlier verse says essentially the same thing. Nevertheless, I will give this information:

"Blessed are they that do his commandments. The Revised Version adopts the reading, οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, "they that wash their robes," which is found in א, A, 1, 33, Vulgate, AEthiopic, Armenian, Primasius, and which is probably correct. The reading of the Textus Receptus, ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, "they that do his commandments," is found in B, Syriac, Coptic, etc." (Pulpit Commentary)

In the text (7: 14) the words "they washed" and "made white" are both aorist verbs in the active voice which means the people of the text are the ones who did the washing which made white. There is no way that our Hardshell brethren can try to make the washing in the blood of the text to be what is not necessary for eternal salvation, but for a mere optional "time salvation." They sing the following song which speaks of this being washed in the blood of Christ.

Victory In Jesus

"I heard an old, old story How a Savior came from glory How He gave His life on Calvary To save a wretch like me I heard about His groaning Of His precious blood's atoning Then I repented of my sins And won the victory, yeah 

Oh, victory in Jesus, my Savior forever He sought me and bought me with His redeeming blood He loved me 'ere I knew Him and all my love is due Him He plunged me to victory beneath the cleansing flood 

I heard about His healing Of His cleansing power revealing How He made the lame to walk again And caused the blind to see And then I cried, "Dear Jesus, come and heal my broken spirit" And somehow Jesus came and brought to me the victory"

In the hymnbook of the Hardshells they changed the song, taking out the word "won" in the first stanza and put in the word "saw." Why? Because the "victory" the song celebrates came as a result of repenting of sins due to hearing the gospel and this goes against Hardshell views. However, changing that one word does not help them for other parts of the song would have to be changed also, such as when it is said that it was after the convicted sinner cries out to Jesus to come and heal his broken spirit that "Jesus came and brought to me the victory." 

John Gill in his commentary on Rev. 7: 14 wrote:

"The "robes" which they washed in his blood may either design themselves, their consciences, which this blood purges from dead works; or their outward conversation garments, which have their spots, and need continual washing; or else the robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation, or their justification, which is by the blood of Christ, Romans 5:9. The act of washing from sin, by the blood of Christ, is sometimes ascribed to Christ himself, as in Revelation 1:5; but here to the saints, and designs the concern which faith has in the blood of Christ, which deals with it for justification, peace, and pardon, for the removing of sin from the conscience, and for cleansing from all impurity, both of flesh and Spirit: and the effect of this is, that their robes were "made white"; that is, that they were freed from all sin, were without fault before the throne, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing."

Wrote Charles Spurgeon, a successor to the pastorate of the church Gill pastored:

"That the white robes must refer to their own character is clear; I have taken it for granted that it is so, because the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is the righteousness of the saints, cannot possibly be meant here, since that cannot be either defiled or washed. To speak of washing the righteousness of Christ in the blood of Christ would not only be an erroneous idea, but it would involve a conglomeration of metaphor not to be tolerated for a moment. The white robes here intended are the personal characters of the saints as they appear before God himself. They are washed in the blood of the Lamb, and so cleansed that they are absolutely perfect." (From his sermon "Why The Heavenly Robes Are White" for Sept. 24, 1876)

I believe what these two able Baptist ministers said is correct. 

Of course, getting one's garments washed in the blood of Christ the sacrificial Lamb is not literal. A believer's physical garments are not washed by him in the literal blood of Christ. It is symbolic of how the blood of Christ is applied to the garments of the saints. Further, the text is not meant to say that it was only garments that were washed in the blood to the exclusion of their persons. The garments represent the righteousnesses or holy lives of the saints. Earlier in Revelation Christ said this to a few members of the church in Sardis:

"Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment..." (Rev. 3: 4-5a kjv)

I think the defiling of garments in this text refers to a Christian's profession and character, to what the Bible calls his "conversation" which denotes a person's manner of life.

"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts." (Eph. 4: 22 kjv)

I wish space allowed for me to cite the many passages in the new testament (kjv) that speak of the Christian and his "conversation" in the world. The character and manner of life is what is meant by a person's conversation or "garments." In keeping their lives morally clean Christians are keeping their garments white. I encourage the reader to look at all the texts in the KJV new testament that uses the word conversation and see how it is important for every Christian to maintain a good manner of life.

"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." (Rev. 16: 15 kjv)

By "keeping" one's garments means to protect them from being stolen or defiled. You can discern a lot about a person by the clothes he wears. Keeping one's character (garments) unsoiled is the same as keeping a good name, and by name I mean not a label but one's reputation. When the Bible speaks of having a "good name" (Prov. 22: 1; See also Eccl. 7:1) it means keeping a good character or conversation. Sin in the life of a believer, especially those of the most depraved kind, defile one's garments. Wrote James:  

"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." (James 1 27 nkjv)

If a professing Christian leaves the Christian religion and embraces another, he has defiled himself. If he does not live his religion, his Christian profession shows it to be worthless and he has become spotted by the world. Jude describes unsaved people this way: "but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh." (Jude 1: 23 nkjv)

The Lord Jesus advised the church of Laodicea as follows: 

"I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see." (Rev. 3: 18)

As a result of sin and depravity, sinners are described as follows:

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isa. 64: 6 kjv)

Notice that "righteousness" is in the plural, i.e. "righteousnesses." The righteousness therefore alludes not to the imputed righteousness of Christ, but to a person's righteous living, to his righteous deeds. To have one's conduct to be "as filthy rags" means his righteousnesses are really unrighteous. 

A truly saved Christian will begin to live righteously, to have more and more "righteous acts." So we read: "It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints." (Rev. 19: 8) The apostle John also wrote: 

"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him." (I John 2:29 nkjv)

Everyone who is truly born of God "practices righteousness." If you are a professing Christian and yet do not practice righteousness, but sin habitually without remorse and repentance, then you have not been born of God but are a hypocrite and one of those called "false brethren." (Gal. 2:4) When a person is saved and born of the Spirit, he "puts on the new man" (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10), "puts on Christ" (Romans 13:14; Galatians 3:27), the word for "put on" is ἐνδύεσθαι, meaning "to be clothed with."

Christians need continual washing of sin by the blood of Christ. So wrote the apostle John:

"But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin...If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1: 9 nkjv)

"Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; 

put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: 

for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean." 

(Isa. 52: 1 kjv)

Thank You Lord for Pruning & Chastening (1)

In this short series I want to show why every believer in Christ should thank God for his work in pruning, chastening, humbling, and trying him or her. I doubt that many Christians thank God for such things when they are telling the Lord what things they are thankful to him for. I doubt many say "thank you Lord for whipping me" or "thank you Lord for that great trial." First, we will speak of the good that comes from the pruning work of the Lord on the fruitful branches that are in him the true Vine.

Pruning the Branches of the Vine

"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. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples." (John 15: 1-9 nkjv)

The first thing I want to call the reader's attention to is the fact that every Christian is one who "abides" in Christ Jesus and one in whom Christ abides. If a professing Christian does not abide in Christ he shows that he is not a true Christian, being a branch that does not abide in the vine, a branch that had been grafted into the vine but which did not form a vital connection with the vine. After all, not all grafts are successful in forming a life connection with the vine. Had there been a vital connection with the vine so that the life-giving sap entered into the graft, there would have been fruit. The fact that a branch bore no fruit and withered and died shows that though the graft was stuck into the vine it did not form a life connection with the vine. 

The unfruitful Christian is doomed to be thrown into the fire and burned. His attachment to Christ was shallow, a vital union with Christ the Vine not having been established. 

The next thing I want the reader to notice is that a person who is abiding in Christ has the "words" of Christ abiding in him or her, as Jesus said. As we will see, it is the abiding presence of Christ and his words in a believer that makes him fruitful.

Gardeners understand the concept of pruning vines and trees. They understand why it is necessary for the health of the plant and for greater fruitfulness. Dead foliage must be removed. Too much plant growth can block out sunlight from parts of the vine or tree. So, how is the work of the Father, the vinedresser, performed? We know what it is designed to do, i.e, to increase fruit and make the fruit better. But, not all Bible teachers agree on how this pruning is done in the life of the true believer. 

Some say that God sent afflictions and trials are the ways God prunes true believers. Though I agree that these do work for the good of believers (and I will have more to say on that in the next chapters), yet I do not think this is the pruning instrument Christ has in mind in the text. The Bible speaks of pruninghooks, which is a pruning knife, a cutting instrument. So, what pruning knife does the Father use? And, what is it that he is cutting off? 

We know that the unfruitful branches are "cast out" or "cut off" from the vine, but what is cut away from the fruitful branches? The fruitful branches are not cut off from the vine, but some unhealthy growth on those branches are cut off, or lopped. In the text this lopping off, this pruning, is a "cleansing." In both pruning and cleaning something is removed or separated from the thing being pruned or cleansed. When we bathe we remove the dirt and grime, the filth. The same thing occurs in circumcision. Something is cut away, i.e. a man's foreskin. The same thing also occurs in harvesting grain, in separating grain, such as separating wheat from tares, or chaff. The same idea is also seen in shaping quarried stone into a perfect ashlar stone fit for the temple of the Lord. The stone mason, or sculptor, must chip away at the rough ashlar in order to produce the finished product.  

Thayer in his Greek lexicon says this about the Greek word for "clean" (katharos) in the above text: "...in a similitude, like a vine cleansed by pruning and so fitted to bear fruit, John 15:3." In the above text about pruning, Christ says "you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you." By being cleaned by the word Christ means "now are you fit to bear fruit." Jesus is saying: "now you are cleansed, purged, pruned, by the word I have spoken to you." 

Bible teachers know that a large part of teaching truth is to rid students of their false ideas, to un-teach them. Often this must be done before students can see the truth. They must be dispossessed of their errors before they can possess the truth. Dr. Albert Barnes in his excellent commentary on our text wrote:

"Now ye are clean - Still keeping up the figure καθαροί katharoi. It does not mean that they were perfect, but that they had been under a process of purifying by his instructions all the time he had been with them. He had removed their erroneous notions of the Messiah; he had gradually reclaimed them from their fond and foolish views respecting earthly honors; he had taught them to be willing to forsake all things; and he had so trained and disciplined them that immediately after his death they would be ready to go and bear fruit among all nations to the honor of his name."

There is a cause and effect relationship between knowing truth and bearing fruit. Believing religious errors will decrease the quality and quantity of fruit. Jesus connected "fruit" with what activities, or works, that people do when he said of false prophets "you will know them by their fruits." 

"15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them." (Matt. 7: 15-20 kjv)

If a tree or branch is not bearing good fruit, then it reveals that it is not good. Every good tree or branch will bear good fruit. If a professing Christian is not bearing good fruit, then he shows thereby that he is not a true believer, but a hypocrite. Jude agrees, writing:

"These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." (Jude 1: 12-13 nkjv)

The people Jude is describing are wicked and spiritually dead even though they profess otherwise. Jude says they will spend eternity in darkness and that they are "twice dead," hardly a description of a true believer. When he says they are "clouds without water" he means they are pretenders to true salvation. He also says such people are "without fruit," meaning without good fruit, for they do produce, as Jesus said, "bad fruit," because they are bad trees. 

Believing truth or right doctrine, healthy doctrine, will produce right behavior. So Jesus taught when he said: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7: 17 kjv) A believer who is "doing" God's will, via his works, shows that he knows "the doctrine" of God. 

Now let me give some examples where a false belief causes a believer to either produce less fruit or bad fruit. First, I think of the errors of the "Primitive" Hardshell Baptists. They believe that it is wrong to preach the gospel to those who are not saved. In several posts of the past I have cited from the minutes of the Forked Deer Association of Primitive Baptists for the year 1905 when they declared non-fellowship for any who believed that the "commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry," or "that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel." 

Obviously, it was not those who believed that the commission was binding on all Christians until the end of the age and that alien sinners should be admonished to repent and believe the gospel who held to serious errors, but it was the Hardshells who denied such truths. Further, such a false belief caused the Hardshells to not support the spread of the gospel to all everywhere and to not obey the Lord in that matter. Their false doctrine kept them from bearing good fruit. 

Another one of their errors is in denying that a believer must persevere in his allegiance to Christ and his word to be finally saved. They teach a serious error when they say that a professing Christian can live a unrepentant life of sin and yet still be saved, or that he can depart from the faith and remain so and still be saved. When they tell their members such things, they are aiding and abetting those members in their failure to not persevere. 

I am thankful that God has been pruning me for the past fifty five years or so and that the way he has done this is to show me my errors and bring me into greater truth. That has affected what I do and how I do it. When he delivered me from Hardshell and Hyper Calvinistic errors, he pruned me so that I have been bringing forth more and better fruit. So, I thank God for pruning me and pray he will continue to do so.

Rebutting Hardshell Arguments (4)

In this fourth and final post I will continue to critique an Internet treatise titled "Primitive Baptist Church: Bible Basic Doctrines" (See here) authored by Elders Johnson Vernon, Michael Ivy, and Don Watson, and found at the web page of Denton Primitive Baptist Church (www.dentonpbc.org). As I have been showing, their treatise is full of examples where they twist and distort the scriptures and seem to do so with much carelessness.

There are so many things in their long apologetic for Hardshell beliefs that are wrong that it would take much labor to address them. The preceding ones are enough to show how the way they approach scripture impugns their motives and methods. But, before I close this series, let me give the reader a few more examples of how they give forced and unnatural interpretations of scripture so that they can retain their man-made propositions. For instance, they wrote further:

"First, the gospel is directed to God's people. Mark 16:15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The creature is the spirit born children of God." (pg. 56) 

Here they uphold their view that it was never God's will for the gospel to be preached to every man. In the preceding chapter I cited from one of their associations in 1905 which declared non-fellowship for the belief that the gospel is to be preached to unregenerate sinners, saying they "declare non-fellowship for the idea that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel." So, it is no wonder that they would not want to believe that "every creature" meant every man. So, they say that "every creature" means "every new creature." That is a ridiculous interpretation and invention, made so that it doesn't contradict their proposition. 

The above view is easily refuted. First, because it is far-fetched, not being what the ordinary person would understand. Second, the next verse says "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned." So, among the "every creature" class to whom the gospel is to be sent there are those who are believers and those who are unbelievers, those who will be saved and those who will be damned. That disproves such a ridiculous interpretation. I question the honesty, and even the salvation, of men who can handle the word of God so deceitfully. It disproves their idea that says the gospel is not to be preached to every creature and they ought to throw away their idea and accept what the text says. But, because of their greater loyalty to their own man-made set of propositions they would rather pervert the scriptures than uproot those propositions! 

Further, how could the ministers Christ is commissioning know who was a new creature and who was not so as to only preach to the new creatures? So, no one should announce the good news to anyone until they can discover that they have already been made a new creature?

Other verses of the scriptures confirm that the gospel is to be preached to every person and that it is the duty of every Christian to tell others the good news. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily." (Col. 1: 28-29 nkjv)

Paul preached to "every man." In the Greek text "man" is from "anthropon" which means a human being, whether male or female. In the text "every man" is mentioned three times. 

Further, as we have seen, Christ preached the gospel to those who he identified as unregenerate children of the Devil. So too did John the Baptist preach to those he called snakes and who he warned to flee from the coming wrath. So too did all the apostles preach to those who they knew were unregenerate sinners.

They also wrote:

"We do not teach people to know the Lord! Heb. 8:11 “And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” The Lord’s born again children know the Lord through the miracle of the new birth." (pg. 65) 

I have refuted the nonsensical interpretation that Hardshells put upon this text. First of all, we are indeed to teach people to know the Lord. This is clear if we look at the passage in Jeremiah that the Hebrew writer is citing, which says:

"No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD." (Jer. 31: 34 nkjv) 

Notice the words "no more." Those words tell us that it was the case in the old testament that every man (in Israel) taught his Hebrew neighbor and brother to know the Lord. So, it cannot be argued that it was never good for a man to so teach his neighbor or brother. What the text is saying is that this old covenant teaching of people to know Yahweh was to no longer be restricted to Jews teaching Jews but under the new covenant was to be extended to teaching everyone, including the Gentiles. Also, it will be true when the new heavens and new earth are realized on earth, when "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9; Hab. 2: 14), just as there is no need to teach people in heaven to know the Lord. Why? Paul says "for they shall all know me." Once everyone knows the Lord, there will no longer be a need to teach people to know the Lord.

During Christ's ministry on earth he restricted his preaching to the Jews, saying to his missionaries - "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 10: 5-6 kjv) After his resurrection, Christ then commissions his missionaries to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" or "every man." The purpose of this is to teach people about who God is, who Christ is, who the Spirit is, and the way of salvation. Paul said in Romans chapter ten that no one can know Christ unless someone tells him or her about Christ.

God also has providential ways that he uses to bring people to know him. So we read:

"And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them." (Exo. 7:5, 17; 8:10,22; 14:4, 18 kjv)

"Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him." (Deut. 4: 6 kjv)

There are many such verses in the old testament that say the same thing. Rahab the harlot learned of Yahweh and claimed to believe in him. How? We read this testimony of Rahab to the Hebrew spies:

“9 I know that the Lord has given you the land, that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are fainthearted because of you. 10 For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were on the other side of the Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. 11 And as soon as we heard these things, our hearts melted; neither did there remain any more courage in anyone because of you, for the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath. 12 Now therefore, I beg you, swear to me by the Lord, since I have shown you kindness, that you also will show kindness to my father’s house, and give me a true token, 13 and spare my father, my mother, my brothers, my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.” (Josh. 2: 9-13 nkjv) 

So, how did Rahab come to know and believe in Yahweh? We know that she was a believer from this testimony: 

"By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace." (Heb. 11: 31 nkjv)

How did she come to know the Lord and place her faith in him? It was by hearing about him, about his providential doings in destroying Israel's enemies and delivering Israel from bondage. This was what God intended. He wanted the news of what he had done in judging the enemies of his people and in delivering them to be spread abroad and by that means bring many to know him. So we read:

"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."" (Rom. 9:17 nkjv)

People come to know the Lord through hearing about him, learning of his attributes and character, his works and ways. Notice how this is affirmed in this text:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye (all) may know how that I am the LORD." (Exo. 10: 1-2 kjv)

The pronoun "thou" (you) in the text is a singular and denotes Moses, but the pronoun "ye" (you) is plural and means "you all." I say this because the text says that sons and grandsons are to be taught the ways and works of the LORD in order that they might thereby come to know the LORD. So, the idea that people cannot come to know the LORD by hearing his word, or that he cannot reveal himself through his word, is not scriptural and thus the Hardshells are wrong when they say that God does not reveal himself through his word. Wrote the Psalmist:

"Know that the LORD, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture." (Psa. 100:3 nkjv)

Here people are commanded to know the Lord and to know that Yahweh is God. But, this is what is denied by the above authors who are defending Hardshellism. They do not think it is right for preachers to exhort sinners (those who do not know LORD God) to know God. Nor do they think that men choose to know God, to do what the Psalmist commanded them to do. Yet, we read of people who "through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD." (Jer. 9: 6 kjv) If they can choose not to know the LORD, they surely can choose to know him.

They also wrote:

"Flesh and blood did not reveal Christ to Peter, but the Father in heaven revealed him to Peter. While we do not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, “Know the Lord” we do teach about the Lord." (pg. 66)

If such revelation occurs in being regenerated or born again, then why have Hardshell leaders over decades averred that believing in Jesus is not necessary for salvation from sin and that myriads of people are going to heaven who never heard about Jesus, and if they did, never believed in him? Why do they say there are born again people who are polytheists or Muslim monotheists?  

Why do the authors of this treatise assume that God does not use his commissioned preachers as means to reveal Jesus? Did Paul not say that no one can believe in Jesus unless a preacher informs him about him? (Romans chapter ten) Did Paul not say that he and Apollos were "ministers by whom you believed"? (I Cor. 3: 5) Jesus said that the Father teaches and draws a sinner prior to that sinner coming to Jesus for life. (John 6: 44-45) Surely it is by the Father and Spirit opening the eyes to hear and understand the gospel that this revelation of the person of Christ is revealed. 

Further, just because a few people have had a revelation of Christ by a personal appearing of God, Father, Son, or Spirit, as Saul of Tarsus, does not mean that everyone obtains that revelation the same way. 

Further, though teachers of the word give the word of God to people and the people, by that word, obtain a revelation of who Christ is, yet it is not the giver of the word that does the revealing but the Father, Son, and Spirit who blesses that word to impart that revelation to sinners and thereby make believers of them.

They also wrote:

"When we were "dead in trespasses and sins we heard the life giving voice of the Son of God speaking spiritual life into our very being and thus we now live spiritually." (pg. 103)

So, dead people "hear" before they are made alive? I thought the Hardshells taught that the dead can't hear the word of God? That people must be made alive before they can hear? 

Also, in Ephesians chapter two, where the above words about being made alive from being dead in sins are found (2: 1,5), Paul says this salvation from death is "by grace through faith." (vs. 8) So, these dead people heard the word or voice of the Son of God and believed it before they were saved from spiritual death. 

The Hardshells will say that this "voice" is not heard in hearing the word of God or the gospel but is a direct speaking of the Son of God apart from the word to the sub-conscious mind. However, that is far from being scriptural. Many times you will hear their preachers say, in expressing this idea, "folks, you are hearing the words of God in my preaching but you are hearing my voice." To them the "voice" of the Lord is a direct vocal speaking of Christ personally and directly apart from the written word of God. However, that is not what is meant by the "voice" of God or Son of God. 

First, in the scriptures we read about "the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day" (Acts 13:27 kjv). Notice that the "voices" of the prophets are "read" in the synagogue each Sabbath. This fact alone destroys the Hardshell invention about the voice of the Lord not being what is heard in hearing the word of God read. Yes, "voice" (Greek phōnē) may denote the "sound" or noise of speech, but it also means speech or the word spoken. 

By the argumentation of the Hardshells about what "voice" of the Son of God means they are admitting that people cannot hear Christ's voice when they hear Hardshell preachers preach the word! When I was saved as a young man of sixteen I heard the voice of the Lord calling me when I heard preaching of the word. I specifically remember hearing Christ in my head when the invitation hymn was being sung that said "Where he leads me I will follow" and the line "I'll go with him all the way" and heard Christ say to me "I will go with you all the way" and I in turn said to Christ "I will follow you all the way." The apostle Paul said that Christ was "speaking in him." (II Cor. 13:3) Jesus said to his missionaries - "whoever hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16). Notice these words of Paul:

"So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." (I Cor. 14:9-11 kjv)

Here "voices" are associated with words heard and understood. Not only that, but those who hear the word of God and reject it are refusing to hear the voice of the Lord. Notice the proof of this:

"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness...For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation." (Heb. 3:7-7-8, 13-14 kjv) 

"Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." (4:7) 

"See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." (12: 25 kjv)

They also wrote:

"How many ways are there for being born again? Were people in the Old Testament days born-again in a different way than in these New Testament days? Are those who die in infancy or those who are mentally incapable of responding to the gospel born-again in a different way than those who do hear the gospel? Are people who never have an opportunity to hear the gospel born-again in a different way than those who hear the gospel?" -- "every one" is born of the Spirit in the same way." (pg. 110) 

There is only one way to be born again. Peter said it is "by the word of God which lives and abides forever" and which "by the gospel is announced." (I Peter 1: 23-25) James said God "begat us with the word of truth." Paul says people are "begotten by the gospel." (I Cor. 4: 15) Where is the text that says it is not by the word of God? 

Are these brethren saying that people go to heaven as unbelievers? We cannot base our ideas about how God saves adult sinners on how he saves those who die in infancy or the mentally incapacitated, especially since the scriptures do not address that issue specifically. We must simply take what the scriptures say about how people who are able to think and do are saved and that is clear in scripture. They must hear the gospel and believe it, and believe in the one true and living God, and in the Son of God as the Messiah, and in his resurrection. 

I am sure that these elders thought that they had given unanswerable proofs for their Hyper Calvinistic beliefs. But, if they really believed that, why do none of them engage with others in debate, such as I, on these topics? 

This will conclude this short series.

Rebutting Hardshell Arguments (3)

In this third post I will continue to critique an Internet treatise titled "Primitive Baptist Church: Bible Basic Doctrines" (See here) authored by Elders Johnson Vernon, Michael Ivy, and Don Watson, and found at the web page of Denton Primitive Baptist Church (www.dentonpbc.org). We are still looking at the section titled "Relationship Between Belief and New Birth"  (pgs. 112-113).

Next, they wrote:

"F. John 10:26-28, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." In this passage the sheep are those to whom Christ gives eternal life. Those who are not given eternal life do not believe. Only those who are given eternal life believe, thus belief is the evidence of the fact that God has given us eternal life (new birth)."

My Response

In all the scriptures these three apologists for Hardshell Hyper Calvinism have brought forth as proofs for their belief that 1) regeneration or rebirth or quickening precedes faith and repentance and that 2) faith and repentance are not necessary conditions for being regenerated or eternally saved, none actually affirm those propositions, but actually deny them. The above text, ironically, does not deny that believing in Christ is a necessary condition for being one of the sheep of the Lord as these authors surmise. Rather, again, they teach just the opposite, affirming that faith in Christ and following him are necessary for being a sheep in the sheepfold of Christ. It is bewildering how anyone could read the above words of Christ and come away saying that faith in Christ is not necessary for being eternally saved.

How does Christ describe and define a sheep of his? 

First, he says that they hear his voice. By "hearing" he means more than just mere hearing but means hearing in the sense of paying attention to the voice of Christ, to heeding it, and following it. That is clear from the context. 

Second, he says that they "follow" Christ and his voice. So, the voice cannot be some voice heard on a sub-conscious level so as not to be understood cognitively. Sheep when they hear the voice of their shepherd respond to it for it commands them. Further, following is what disciples do, and so one cannot be a sheep if one is not a disciple of Jesus. 

Third, the sheep have an intimate relationship with their shepherd. He knows the sheep and the sheep know him. So, to be a sheep one must have an intimate relationship with the shepherd, that being what it means to "know" another. The idea that a person can be a sheep without knowing the shepherd (the Hardshell idea) is ridiculous. 

Fourth, Jesus also says that the voice of a "stranger" (or another shepherd unfamiliar to the sheep) will not be followed, and the sheep will flee from him. (vs. 5) This shows that the sheep are they who remain followers of Christ.

Recall our logical formula which says "If P, then Q"; And, therefore, "if not Q, then not P." So, if you are a sheep, then you will be a follower of Christ, which is what is the essence of faith. You will know Christ and know his voice and heed that voice. If you do not follow Christ, do not know him, and do not heed his voice, then you are not a sheep. Sheep follow their shepherd because they know and trust him. If you follow another Savior or God, then you are not of the sheep, a proposition denied by most Hardshells who say that many of the sheep (regenerated) remain believers in false gods and do not know Christ nor believe in him.

Where in the text does Christ say that the sheep have everlasting life before or apart from their knowing and believing and following Christ the Shepherd? Answer: no place. Hardshells say that many who do not know Jesus and who follow other gods are sheep as Christ describes them. Huh? In this post (here) I give several citations where Hardshell leaders have affirmed this very thing. In this post (here) I cited these words from Elder T.L. Webb Sr.:

"I believe that God is the author of prayer. I have thought, and I believe today with all my heart, that every person in this world, who has prayed, will finally be around the throne of grace in heaven."

So, every religious person in the world is a regenerated, born again, sheep of Christ!

Next, they wrote: 

"G. John 13:37, 38, "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" It is not the miracles we see with our natural eyes that enable or entice us to believe, but it is the miracle performed within us (new birth) that enables or causes us to believe. God must first cause us to be born again (reveal his holy arm within us) and then we can "believe the report.""

My Response

What an unscholarly commentary! First, the text cited is from John chapter twelve, not thirteen. Second, these Hardshell apologists read things into the text that are not there and make statements on the text that are foreign to it. In a recent series, where I gave a critique of another Hardshell apologist (Elder Harvey) who argued that when Jesus said the Sodomites would have repented had they seen the miracles Christ was doing that this proved that the Sodomites were children of God. (See here) Well, if the above authors are correct, the Sodomites did have the greatest miracle of all, i.e. the new birth. Third, verse 36, which I cited in the previous chapter, and which the authors of the treatise we are now examining left out, goes against what they say in their commentary on verses 37-38 in the above citation! In it Jesus says "believe in the light that you may children of the light." So, if faith precedes becoming birthed children of God in verse 36, why do the above authors say that verses 37-38 teach the reverse? 

Next, they wrote:

"H. 1 John 5:1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Once again, "believeth" is in the present tense and "is born" is in the past tense, thus again showing us that the new birth precedes belief and in this case "belief that Jesus is the Christ." Plainly it can be seen from the several verses quoted that John taught that the new birth comes before belief." 

This argument has been often made by those who believe that the new birth precedes faith. I have shown however that this argument is weak and does not prove that the birth preceded the believing of the text. (See these posts here, here, here, here) I give examples where a present participle is used with a perfect verb and where it is evident that the action of the verb did not precede the action of the participle, such as in this sentence:

"All thinking people (present active participle) have realized (perfect passive) this truth." 

Here we see where the verb realized did not occur before the thinking, but was the result of the thinking. I could also say - "whoever is saying such things has shown himself to be a fool" where the participle "whoever is saying" is a present tense participle and "has shown" is a perfect tense. In that sentence the saying action of the participle preceded the verb has shown. 

I also show that it is likely that the present tense participle (the ones believing) is a universal or gnomic present tense so that a past tense believing is included in the present tense, and so the text may be read thusly - "whoever has believed and who continues to believe has been born of God." I even cited Daniel Wallace, Greek scholar, who wrote the following:

“The gnomic present is distinct from the customary present in that customary present refers to a regularly recurring action while the gnomic present refers to a general, timeless fact…The gnomic present is generally atemporal.”

That is probably the case with I John 5: 1 and I John 2: 29. Said Wallace further:

"Further, the present participle, especially in such formulaic expression Πᾶς ὁ + present participle and the like, routinely belong here." (Greek Grammar here)

Πᾶς ὁ + present participle is what we have in I John 5: 1 and Wallace says such expression "routinely belongs" to such a gnomic class of present tense. 

The text says "whoever is believing continually that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." We can write the same sentence this way: "whoever is not believing continually that Jesus is the Christ has not been born of God." Can we say that the unborn state preceded and caused the unbelieving state? 

John is affirming that those who are not believers have not been born of God. John's purpose is not to establish an ordo salutis. His purpose is to identify those who have been born of God. John is not in the above text contradicting what he wrote elsewhere. In John 1: 12-13 he plainly says that people received Christ and believed in him and as a result Christ gave them the right or privilege to become the birth children of God, saying that those who received him were born of God when they received him. He recorded the words of Jesus who said "believe in the light that you may become sons of light." (John 12: 36) 

Also, folks who believe that the text teaches that the birth precedes the believing will say that the perfect tense means that something that happened in the past has present effects. That is true. However, they err when they say that the effect implied is the believing, when in fact the birth itself or becoming children of God thereby, is the continued effect. 

In the first post in this short series I cited what the authors said about John 1: 12-13 and focused in on how they omitted very important parts of this text, parts that contradicted their interpretation. They actually did it more than once. In another section of their work they wrote:

"Similarly, John 1:11-13 teaches us that God is sovereign in bringing about the new birth: "He came unto his own...even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." This passage teaches the Sovereignty of God in causing us to be born again by first ruling all other possible causes. First, man's belief is ruled out as a cause for the passage shows that the birth took place prior to man's belief. This leaves us with the only logical conclusion that belief cannot be a cause of the new birth...Fourthly, the new birth is not the result of man's will or choice. Thus, man does not choose to be born again and because of his choice the new birth comes about. " (pgs. 101-102)

Notice the ellipsis once again (the...). They again left out the part that says "to as many as received him to them gave he the right to become children of God." I wrote about how the Hardshells have often used the ellipsis to take words out of context, whether it be from texts of scripture or texts from human writings. This is a tactic of dishonest people. See these posts here, here, here where I give examples of this. 

Man's will is not excluded in his being saved, quickened, born again, or regenerated. John 1: 12-13 does not exclude the will of the one being born of God. How do I know that? First, because the text says that people "receive" and "believe" Christ in order for them to be given the privilege of becoming begotten children of God and members of the family of God. People choose to receive and believe. Both those words in the Greek are in the active voice which means that those people were the ones who actively did those two things and not passively. 

Second, it is true that one cannot be saved or born again by the will of the flesh, which means it is not a choice that is originated by an impulse coming from the depraved nature of the sinner nor the result of natural generation. It is also true that no one can be saved or born again by the will of another person, such as a parent. But, this does not exclude God working in a sinner "to will" to receive Christ and to believe in him, and a will to be saved or born again. (Phil. 2: 13) The Psalmist said "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (110: 3) and Paul says that sinners willingly and actively "believe" when God exerts "the working of his mighty power" (Eph. 1: 19) to make that happen.

In the Hardshell doctrinal treatise I am examining the authors have a section where they correctly say that being born again is also described as being "circumcised in heart." People choose, by God's grace and working, for that to happen. Moses told Israel, “Circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.” (Deut. 10:16) Jeremiah exhorted: 

"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)

Commented Dr. Gill:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart - Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it." (Gill's Commentary)

See my posting on spiritual circumcision (here).

So, it is not against scripture for sinners, by God's grace and inner working, to will for God to circumcise their hearts, to make them new men, transform them, to give them repentance and faith. We are told in scripture that "whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Joel 2: 32; Acts 2: 21; Rom. 10: 13). Surely people do that because they willed or chose to do so.

Jesus also said that people "come" to the Lord (which is equated with believing in him) because they willed to do so. So Jesus said to some alien sinners - "you will not come to me that you might have life." (John 5: 40) The Bible speaks of a "willing mind" (II Cor. 8: 12) and surely the grace of God at work in a sinner's heart preparatory to his regeneration produces such. Paul said "to will is present with me" and that was a will to do God's will. (Rom. 7: 18) The question for my Hardshell friends is this - can God produce a willing mind before regeneration? If not, why not? Solomon said "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord" to turn it in whatever direction the Lord pleases. (Prov. 21: 1). Christians sing "Oh happy day! That fixed my choice on thee my Savior and my God." Even Hardshells sing this song. 

Rebutting Hardshell Arguments (2)

In this second post we will continue to critique an Internet treatise titled "Primitive Baptist Church: Bible Basic Doctrines" (See here) authored by Elders Johnson Vernon, Michael Ivy, and Don Watson, and found at the web page of Denton Primitive Baptist Church (www.dentonpbc.org).

The treatise spends a lot of time trying to prove that a sinner is born again or regenerated or quickened before he believes in Christ or the gospel and before he repents of his sin. This is not only a tenet of the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists but is also a view held to by others, such as the Reformed Baptists, or some Presbyterians such as the late Dr. R.C. Sproul. These folks want to try to get people to believe that this view is the view of Calvinists, which is not the case, for many Calvinists do not believe that sinners are born again before faith. John Calvin himself did not believe it, affirming rather that sinners were born again or regenerated by faith. The older Calvinists at the time of the Protestant Reformation generally agreed with Calvin. 

The above text disproves the proposition that regeneration precedes faith. Believing in Christ the Light precedes becoming children of the Light. Children of the Light is the same as children of God. In First Thessalonians chapter five Paul says to the believers "you are all sons of the light and sons of the day." (vs. 5) We saw in the previous chapter of this critique how John 1: 12-13 taught the same truth, that people believe in Christ and receive him in order to be given the right to become begotten children of God. We are still looking at the section titled "Relationship Between Belief and New Birth"  (pgs. 112-113).

Next, the authors of the treatise wrote:

"B. John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life..." Again, "believeth" is present tense and "hath" is past tense. Thus everlasting life (new birth) precedes belief."

My Response

No, "believeth" is a present tense participle (the one who is believing) in the active voice and "hath" (has) is not a past tense verb in the Greek but is also a present tense indicative active. 

The text cannot be twisted so as to say that people have everlasting life before faith. In the very same chapter Jesus said "whoever believes" in him the Christ "will not perish but have everlasting life." (vs. 16) Obtaining eternal life follows believing. Why would it be different in verse 36? Not only that, but the Hardshells don't simply say that regeneration precedes faith but say most people who are regenerated never come to faith in Christ, a position that the Reformed Baptists and many Presbyterians don't believe, for they say that regeneration only logically precedes faith, not chronologically, affirming that at the very moment a sinner is regenerated he believes in Christ. 

The words of Christ are intended to teach us that unbelievers are not regenerated. That is the point that the Hardshells reject, and yet it is the main point Christ is affirming. Whoever does not believe in him does not have everlasting life! 

Notice also that the authors again omitted a crucial part of the text! What part? The part that says "he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." Why would the above authors leave that part out? Is it not for the same reason that they omitted a crucial part of John 1: 13-14, that part that says "those who received him to them he gave the right to become the children of God"? The very text above that these unscrupulous authors used to try to prove that faith is not a necessary precondition for having eternal life actually says that those who do not believe do not have, nor will they have, eternal life but also says that the wrath of God abides on them. So, unbelievers do not have spiritual life nor are they justified, but are spiritually dead and condemned. 

Many Hardshell lay people will not even attempt to act as the noble Bereans and study the passage to see if what the above authors are saying is correct. They will just accept the view that "hath" is past tense when it is not. Many will even miss the main point which is to say that unbelievers do not have eternal life. They will simply and blindly accept the Hardshell interpretation that says that all Christ is saying is that faith is an evidence of a prior salvation but is no condition for salvation, for they say that many go to heaven who were regenerated but who did not believe.

Next, they wrote:

"C. John 5:24, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." Once again, "heareth" and "believeth" are present tense and "hath" is past tense. Hence, everlasting life comes before we can hear or believe. Thus we must be born again prior to "hearing" or "believing." Hearing and believing are evidences of the new birth."

My Response

No, "hearing" and "believing" are both present tense participles in the active voice and "hath" again is likewise a present tense indicative active verb. "Is passed" is a perfect tense indicative active voice verb, a similar construction to I John 5: 1. However, in John 5: 24 the perfect tense verb is in the active voice but in I John 5: 1 the perfect tense "is born" is in either the passive or middle voice.

When two things are integral to each other, where it is impossible to have one without the other, one may say whoever has A has B and also say whoever has B has A. I could say "whoever is (present tense) a male has (perfect tense) XY chromosomes" or say "whoever has (present tense) XY chromosomes is (perfect tense) a male." Whoever is a present ongoing believer has been born of God. Whoever is born of God has believed. Both statements are true. This is what is called in logic a contrapositive. Example:

Original: If it is raining, then the ground is wet.

Contrapositive: If the ground is not wet, then it is not raining.

So, if a person has been born of God he has believed, and if a person has believed he has been born of God. If a person is of God, then he will be hearing the word of God, and if he is not hearing the word of God, then he is not of God.

Further, as I wrote about in my exegesis of I John 5: 1, there are what are called universal or gnomic present tense participles which are verbal adjectives that express a timeless, general truth, habit, or characteristic without being tied to a specific moment in time. So, when John speaks of "believing ones" he means those who have believed (past tense), are still believing (present tense), and who will continue (future tense) to believe. So, whoever has believed has been born of God is included in the use of a gnomic present tense. 

Next, they wrote:

"D. John 6:47, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." You show me someone who believes on Jesus and I will show you someone who already has everlasting life."

My Response

No, once again "he who believes" is a present tense nominative participle in the active voice and "hath" is also again a present tense active verb. The text does not say that the believing ones possessed everlasting life before they became believers. This is a case of "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2) and of "twisting" scripture. (II Peter 3: 16) In the previous chapter we saw where these authors said that the new birth was the cause and believing was the effect. If that is true, then everyone who is born again should believe or else we have a case of a cause not producing an effect. 

So, what is the state of those who believe not? What happens to them? When Jesus says it is those who believe that have everlasting life, he intends to say that those who do not believe do not have spiritual life. Further, Christ actually says this many times. Jesus said in John 3: 16 that those who believe will be given everlasting life as a result of believing and said "he who believes not is condemned already because he has not believed in Christ." (vs. 18) The condemnation is contrasted with having eternal life and so it too is eternal. Christ said the same in Mark 16:16 - "the one who believes not shall be condemned." We also saw this in John 3: 36 where Christ gave the negative, "the one who does not believe shall not see life but has the wrath of God abiding on them." Jesus also plainly declared: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." 

Next, they wrote:

"E. John 8:43, 47, "Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word." "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." Clearly, you must first be of God (born again) before you can hear God's words (gospel)."

My Response

No, that is false reasoning. In this text we have another contrapositive. It is another "if, then." In logic it is "if P, then Q." In that logical formula it also implies "if not Q, then not P." But the implied contrapositive, "if you are of God, then you will hear God's word," is what is denied by the Hardshells, for they teach that the overwhelming majority of those who are "of God" will never hear and believe God's word! The text's logic says "If you are not of God, then you have not heard God's word." Such a statement also says "if you do not hear God's word, then you are not of God." We can rightly say "whoever is alive is breathing" as well as say "whoever is breathing is alive." As I have stated, when two things are essentially and necessarily joined together in such a way that one cannot exist by itself, then one may say to have one is to have the other, and vice versa.

Verse 47 of this chapter is addressed to those who Christ identifies as not being of God as Jesus said. He even says to them that "the Devil" is their father. So, why is Christ even preaching to them? Hardshellism says it is wrong to preach the gospel to the unregenerate. In this article (here) I cited these words from a sermon by Elder Sonny Pyles:

"It would be just as ridiculous to go down in Virginia or Kentucky and start yelling at the rock and the mountains as it would be for me to preach the gospel to an alien sinner never born again of the Spirit of God."

"It would be just as foolish to go over to the shopping center, walk up to a brick wall and start saying "by grace are ye saved through faith" - and people would think I was a moron."

Pyles makes Jesus a moron for he was doing that very thing in John chapter eight! He tells spiritually dead and unregenerate sinners what it takes to be saved, i.e. believe in Christ. In that same article I cited the following from Elder C.H. Cayce's paper "The Primitive Baptist," from an editorial written by Cayce in the year 1905, where Cayce wrote:

"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:

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

So, Christ is not only a moron for wasting his time telling those children of the Devil how to be saved but he is also violating the will of God in doing so! Unbelievable! In the same chapter we have another contrapositive in these words said to the same people:

“You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, (then) you would have known My Father also." (vs. 19) 

Here we have another "if, then" logical statement, involving the protasis "if" and the apodosis "then" (which is often implied). The Bible is full of them, just as every day speech is full of them. We see where two things are so essentially linked together so that neither can exist by itself. It is impossible to know the Father without knowing the Son, and vice versa. It is another "if P, then Q" and "if not Q, then not P." So, there is no such character who is "of God" but who is not at the same time one who is hearing (listening or heeding) the word of God. Yet, this is exactly what the Hardshells try to convince others that this is what the Bible teaches. Here is another "if, then" from the same discourse to the same people:

"And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, (then) you will die in your sins.” (vs. 23-24)

Notice the "if" (protasis) in the text. The apodosis (then) is implied. Hardshells do not believe that faith in Christ is essential for being saved from sin, death, and eternal punishment. Yet, the above text proves otherwise. "If P (you don't believe), then Q (you will die in your sins)." What is the contrapositive? "If not Q (you do not die in your sins), then you had believed." 

Notice again how Christ clearly identifies these people not only as children of the Devil but as being "from beneath," who he would later refer to as being "children of Hell" or Hell's offspring (Matt. 23: 15), and as being "of this world." 

Now I invite any of the above elders to come here and answer my refutation of their interpretations of scripture. The same is true with any other Hardshell. If I am wrong, come and show me how I am wrong and how you are right. The fact that I have been calling on you all to do this for the past eighteen years through these blogs and only one of you attempted to debate the issues shows that you all know that you cannot refute them. Why not come here and debate these issues? Each month we get thousands of visitors, even over 300,000 per month over the past year. So, let all these people see that you all are not cowards or perverters of the word of God by coming here and discussing these things in the way Christ would want us to do.

In the next chapter I will continue, and probably finish, this rebuttal to the argumentation of the elders who wrote the apologetic for the Denton Primitive Baptist Church.

Rebutting Hardshell Arguments (1)

The Greek word "logismos" in the above text is translated as "imaginations" (kjv), "reasonings," and "arguments," and "speculations" in other translations. Anyone who is in the business of "correcting" errors in religion or Christian doctrine, in doing "apologetics" (what the apostle Peter called giving a defense or answer to those who inquire into why you believe the way you do - I Peter 3:15), will be involved in "casting down arguments" that heretics give to support their heresies. One of the things that the "scriptures" do is to "correct" people who hold to religious errors. (II Tim. 3: 16) 

In my writings over the past eighteen years via my blogs I have been "casting down arguments" against many false teachers and their teachings and that is certainly true in regard to the errors of the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshell Baptists. I have also written and debated much against Arminianism, such as from those of the "Church of Christ" or the followers of Alexander Campbell. I have refuted all the arguments of the Hyper Calvinists and the Hardshell Primitive Baptists and the Hyper Arminians concerning the doctrine of salvation (soteriology). 

I have written rebuttals to Hardshell apologists such as Elders Bernard Gowens, Ben Winslett, Ronnie Loudermilk, Joseph Holder, Gary Harvey, Jason Brown, Michael Ivey, Harold Hunt, Sonny Pyles, David Pyles, and other present day defenders of Hyper Calvinism, as well as recognized Hardshell leaders of the past, such as Elders Sylvester Hassell, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, Wilson Thompson, Grigg Thompson, Thomas Dudley, S.F. and C.H. Cayce, Lemuel Potter, John R. Daily, R.V. Sarrels, etc. 

I have, of course, cited from several first generation "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists who I thought taught the truth and who were at odds with other Hardshellers who were going astray after strange doctrines, such as Two Seedism, men such as Elders John M. Watson, John Clark, James Osbourn, C.B. Hassell, R.W. Fain, J.B. Stephens, J.R. Respass.

One of the errors of Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists says that people are born again or regenerated before faith and repentance, and the error of some of them that say people can be regenerated and never embrace the Christian faith but remain believers in false gods. It is a very serious error to say that regeneration is distinct from evangelical conversion. Another of their errors says that the written word of God, or the preaching of the gospel, is no means in effecting regeneration or in obtaining eternal salvation, another very serious error with perilous consequences. Another Hardshell error says that regenerated people may be kept or preserved from losing salvation but most will not persevere in faith and holiness, or allegiance to Christ.

I have a series titled "The Means of Grace" where I refute the arguments of those who deny that the word of God is a means in regeneration and in eternal salvation and present affirmative arguments for the means view. All are in their own blog (see the link on this page "The Gospel - The Means of Grace" here).

I also have a series titled "Regeneration Before Faith Proof Texts" where I answer the arguments of those Hyper Calvinists who say that people are born again before faith and I have also given arguments for the belief that people are born again by faith. All these articles also are in their own blog titled "Ordo Salutis Debate" (see link on this blog here). In that series I showed that the view that says regeneration precedes faith leads to another error which affirms that regeneration precedes justification. I argue that the historic Protestant doctrine affirms that justification by faith precedes regeneration by faith.

This writing will be another rebuttal to the apologists of Hardshellism, particularly from an Internet treatise titled "Primitive Baptist Church: Bible Basic Doctrines" (See here) authored by Elders Johnson Vernon, Michael Ivy, and Don Watson, compiled by Brother Filden Oroni and found at the web page of Denton Primitive Baptist Church (www.dentonpbc.org). I have written a lengthy rebuttal to Michael Ivey's book "Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists." 

I will begin with the section titled "Relationship Between Belief and New Birth"  (pgs. 112-113), where they say (emphasis mine throughout):

"In this essay we will look at the relationship between belief and the new birth. Most people today are taught and believe that you must hear and believe the gospel in order to be born again. In a cause/effect relationship, they think that "belief" is the "cause" and that the "new birth" is the "effect." This concept is to them supported by an erroneous belief in what John 3:16 teaches. In truth, the "new birth" is the "cause" and "belief" is the "effect" of the new birth."

"A. John 1:11-13...to them that believe on his name: which were born...of God." For the sake of brevity we didn't quote all the above passage, but please note "believe" is in the present tense, while "were born" is in the past tense. Grammatically, therefore, the birth must precede the belief; i.e., they were born of God prior to believing."

My Response

Why not "quote all the above passage" from John 1? They say it was "for the sake of brevity"! Who can believe that? Is it not because the part left out refutes their argument about the grammar supposedly proving that the birth precedes receiving Christ? Let us cite all the verses.

"11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (nkjv)

The word "received" is an aorist past tense or action, meaning "it happened." Likewise, "were born" is an aorist past tense. So, to say that the birth occurred before the receiving is false. It is true that the participle "the ones believing" is a linear present tense. The participle is simply a declaratory statement identifying the ones who savingly "received" Jesus as Christ. John may have given this explanatory comment about the receivers of Christ in order to let readers know that John does not include those who simply invited Christ into their homes or gave him a hearing. Simon the Pharisee is one such person. We read about him in Luke 7: 36-50. He invited, welcomed, or received Christ into his home. Yet, the story shows that he was not a true believer in Christ. Let us give the story.

"36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. 37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.” 

Jesus says to Simon, 

“44 Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much." 

Notice that Simon "asked" or "invited" Christ to enter into his house. But, he did not believe in Christ, not even believing he was a prophet of God. He also did not believe he was a sin sick sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness. Christ also described how Simon did not show him the loving kindness that the sinner woman did who was washing his feet. Christ said to Simon that her sins, though many, were forgiven, implying that Simon's sins were not forgiven. He "received" Christ into his house but not into his heart and did not become a believer. Perhaps John therefore says those who "received" Christ are they who are believing and trusting in Christ.

So, did the birth occur when the receiving and believing occurred? The argument by our Hardshell apologists says that the birth preceded both the receiving and the believing. Why? Because, say they, the tense for the participle "the believing ones" is present tense while the tense for the verb "born" is, say they, "past tense." Actually, however, "born" is an aorist past tense just as is the word "received." So, their argument is invalid. The birth occurred when they received Christ and this receiving of Christ was by faith, by believing in him. What the text is saying is that those who are the believing ones are they who have previously received Christ and been born of God. 

Our Hardshell "scholars" want to try to make John contradict himself in the text. John clearly says that receiving Christ preceded obtaining the privilege of becoming the children of God. Why would he then say that they were born children of God before they received him? When did they become children of God? When they 1) received Christ and 2) were born of God. So we have the order thus: 1) received Christ by believing in him, 2) born of God, 3) become children of God. 

Also, the Greek word for "children" is from "teknon" and denotes a birthed child. Becoming a birth child follows receiving Christ. 

To say that John is affirming that those who received Christ and believed in him were born again children of God before they received and believed is to affirm that receiving Christ is not the way people receive spiritual life and all the blessings of redemption. To say people are born again before they receive Christ is to say that they were children of God and spiritually alive while separated from Christ. Yet, the Bible is very clear that spiritual life comes by being united to Christ who is Life.

In the next chapter we will look at more of the arguments for the Hardshell ideas about how to be saved and on whether regeneration or rebirth occurs apart from faith in Christ.\