Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (12)

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

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

"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."

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

Hassell said further:

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

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

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

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

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

Elder William Conrad in his autobiography wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hassell said further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baptism & Washing Away Sins

I have had several debates in my younger years with several ministers of the "Church of Christ" over whether water baptism was essential to salvation. The above text is one they rely heavily upon to uphold their belief. What can we say about it? 

On the surface it does seem to favor their view. But, we must not jump to conclusions. We must examine the context, both the immediate and the general context of the new testament. 

At the time when Ananias said the above words to Saul (who became Paul) he also prayed for him to receive his sight, and before he was baptized he received both his sight and the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17-18) This also was the case with the Gentile Cornelius who also received the Spirit before his baptism. (Acts 10: 44-48) Receiving the Spirit saves a man. 

The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Paul’s calling on the name of Christ surely occurred before his water baptism, for he had been praying. After having been made a believer in Jesus by the appearance of Christ he says to Christ - "Lord, what do you want me to do?" (Acts 9: 6) So, at this point he has already acknowledged Christ as Lord. Later Paul would write, saying -  "no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." (I Cor. 12: 3) The participle may be translated "having called on His name" and thus makes more sense, the context clearly indicating the order of events.

Since Paul was a believer and had confessed Christ as Lord by the Spirit, then he was already saved and cleansed of sin before his water baptism. This is because a believer is one who has "been born of God" (I John 5: 1), and has been "purified by faith" (Acts 15: 9), and has been "justified from all things" (Acts 13: 39), and has been "saved." (Acts 16: 31)

So, since Paul was already washed of his sins, why is he told to get baptized for his sins to be washed away?

Barnes in his commentary wrote:

"And wash away thy sins - Receive baptism as emblematic of the washing away of sins. It cannot be intended that the external rite of baptism was sufficient to make the soul pure, but that it was an ordinance divinely appointed as expressive of the washing away of sins, or of purifying the heart. Compare Hebrews 10:22."

An example of this is seen in these verses from the gospel of Luke:

"And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” (Luke 5: 12-14 kjv)

Jesus told a leper who he had just "cleansed" to "go and offer for your cleansing," meaning for a ceremonial cleansing, or sign of it, or "for a testimony" of it. Water baptism is called a "likeness" (homoiomata; Rom. 6: 5), which word means image, figure, or likeness. Peter calls it a "like figure" of salvation (I Peter 3: 21). Thus baptism is a picture or visible image of the invisible washing of sins that occurs objectively and subjectively, the former as respects legal standing, and the latter as respects cleansing of the soul, mind, heart, conscience, and spirit. So, Baptists who do not believe that water baptism actually cleanses away sin, are able nevertheless to sing --

"1 O bliss of the purified, bliss of the free! I plunge in the crimson tide opened for me. O’er sin and uncleanness exulting I stand, And point to the print of the nails in his hand." (From the Song "Sing of His Mighty Love")

"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. O 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." (From the song "Victory In Jesus")

When Baptists sing of being plunged into the blood they are speaking of the blood of Christ being applied to the inner man when they believed and repented, and their water baptism is the visible image of that mystical invisible event.

Even Alexander Campbell, when he was a Baptist, and before he started his own sect, said the following in his debate with Presbyterian W. L. McCalla (1823):

"The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token, of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins." The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism."

"The intelligent and well instructed Christian, however, is baptized to obtain the formal remission of his sins."

"He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believer's personal acquittal or pardon..." (pg. 135-37)

That is right. This is the true reason for calling baptism a "sacrament." I wrote about this in this post (here). It is the pledge or badge of the Christian. In that post I wrote:

"The English is simply a transliteration of the Latin word "sacramentum" which means an oath. That is the basic meaning of a sacrament. It means an oath, an obligation, a vow. In legal terminology it means a pledge. For example, it means money deposited by the parties before a legal suit. That is, you pledge by paying this money before a legal case.

But this word had a particular meaning. It was used of a military oath of allegiance. A military oath of allegiance was called the sacramento, when the Roman armies made their oath of allegiance to their country and to their emperor. This they sometimes did by the raising of their hands as you see today when a president takes an oath, or when somebody takes an oath in a court of law, symbolizing that he or she is doing this in all honesty and truth, with a good conscience. "I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.""

 Why is baptism called the sacrament? Precisely because there the pledge is made. We make our oath of allegiance to Jesus as our King. We crown Him King of our lives. We owe our loyalty to Him once and for all at baptism. It is a pledge made to God from a good conscience. It is very important that the conscience is good."

See also my post on I Peter 3: 21 (here) and how baptism is "the answer of a good conscience before God" and how Peter says that water baptism does not wash away the "filth of the flesh," i.e. moral filth. I show that Peter says that baptism is the badge of a believer. 

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (11)

Elder Hosea Preslar

1814-1887

Elder Hosea Preslar's book titled "Thoughts On Divine Providence" lists several of the leading tenets of the Two Seed Primitive Baptists and one of them is as follows:

"Sixthly: That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address." (See this post here for more citations from him on this point)

In my lengthy series on Two Seedism (see the link on this blog page) I cited from several first generation "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists who testified that the "no means" view of salvation was a peculiar tenet of the Two Seeders who followed Daniel Parker, though Parker himself did not deny means. It was also the Two Seeders who taught that regeneration or rebirth did not change a person, but simply deposited an eternal spirit child of God in a person. Though Hassell does not go that far, yet he shows remnants of Two Seed thinking in his polemic writings against the means view. His denial of means is certainly a Two Seed invention. His idea that regeneration excludes conversion and faith and repentance also reflects this "no change" view of spiritual birth. However, recall that I cited these words of Hassell in a preceding chapter:

"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."

This statement confuses the matter. Why? Because Hassell over and over again denies that the preaching of the gospel is a means in being begotten of God, and yet he says the above which makes the preaching of the gospel, done by Jesus through the Spirit, a means unto salvation, and if it is a means to salvation it can't be a mere possible after effect of salvation (which is what Hassell says elsewhere). This view of the subject made it possible for Hassell (and those who agreed with the above statement) to agree with his forefathers who said that the gospel was a means in salvation and yet to also agree with the new prevailing view of the late 19th century that said the gospel (as preached by men) was no means in salvation. 

We will now continue our examination of Hassell's polemic for his "anti-means" view of salvation as given in his January, 1898 editorial "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (You can read it on page 12 here). But, first let me say that it is an insurmountable task to prove that God does not use his word or gospel and the preachers of it in saving sinners. This is because 1) there are so many Bible texts which affirm that God does use such means and because 2) there is no text that says God does not use such means. All the arguments against the "no means" view that are made by the Hardshells are from supposed logical deductions or from twisting of Bible passages. 

For instance, the Hardshells say that when the Bible says that sinners are saved by "grace" it (grace) excludes any conditions or human activities or means for salvation, even the means of his written word, or faith. By such argumentation they are making an argument from logic, and yet ironically, that logic is not logical. Yet, the Bible says that sinners are "saved by grace through faith" (Eph. 2: 8), which shows that faith being a means or condition does not nullify grace. Further, Paul wrote: "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace" (Rom. 4: 16). Faith being a means does not nullify grace because faith is a gift of God, what he begets (I John 5: 4), and because people "believe through grace." (Acts 18: 27) Consider also the fact that the gospel is called a "grace" in the scriptures. 

They do the same when they argue that since it is God who saves (begets, regenerates, quickens, or re-creates), that such a fact excludes human agents being means. Such reasoning leads them to say that if means are used, then it is not God who saves nor is salvation by grace. Such an idea is ridiculous.

They say that when Christ said that people would be born again "by the Spirit" that this logically excludes means, saying that if the Spirit uses the means of the word of God and messengers who bring that word to people, then the birth was not by the Spirit. This logic or illogic forces them to deny that their evangelical conversion, i.e. their faith and repentance, was "by the Spirit" or "of God" and was a result of grace. They even admit that their conversions were by their works and not by grace nor God's doing. However, they are contradictory in their remarks on these things. They will say at times that "faith is a gift of God" and yet at other times say that if salvation is by faith, then that would make salvation by works. Yet, in Romans chapter four Paul plainly says that people are justified by faith and not by works. If faith were a work, however, being justified by faith would then be justification by works. 

Hassell wrote further in the above editorial:

"In such passages as Rom. x. 12—21 and 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14, Paul does not speak of Regeneration, God's first infusion of spiritual life into His chosen and redeemed people, but of the work of the ministry in proclaiming the truth as it is in Jesus, and of the manifestation, by their obedient faith, of the spiritual life which God had, before and as the cause of such manifestation, given to the hearers of that truth."

Hassell makes a surprising statement here. He says that "in such passages as Rom. x. 12—21 and 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14, Paul does not speak of Regeneration." It is astounding, especially in regard to the second passage. In a recent post (here) I showed how the first Hardshells and all Baptists of the past (before Hassell) taught that the salvation of that text was eternal salvation and one that included regeneration. That text does not say that God has chosen people to a "manifestation" of salvation but to salvation itself! I am amazed that such a learned man as Hassell would say such a foolish thing. Is the "sanctification of the Spirit" in that text also only dealing with a "manifestation" of salvation? 

This is a clear case of perverting scripture. Who gave Hassell the right to say that the words "chosen to salvation" means "manifest a person's salvation through belief of the truth." When I was a Hardshell Baptist I used to hear them add that word "manifest" often in interpreting texts that contradicted their ideology. They would say that the words "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 16) means "manifestly children of God by faith." They would do the same with John 1: 12 and say the text means "to as many as received him to them gave he the power to become manifest children of God." They of course have no right to add to the word of God in this manner. A terrible judgment awaits them for doing this, as Christ himself warned. (Rev. 22: 18-19)

As for Romans chapter ten, Hassell takes the view of most of today's "Primitive Baptists" in saying that the salvation of that chapter does not concern eternal salvation but a temporary salvation that is not necessary for eternal salvation. Hassell does what all Hardshells do when they come across a bible verse that says salvation is by faith or by the word or gospel of God. They will say that the salvation in those texts is not eternal salvation but salvation in time which is not necessary for eternal salvation. However, any unbiased person knows that Paul throughout the book of Romans is dealing with eternal salvation. The salvation of chapter ten is the same salvation Paul had been talking about in the chapters leading up to chapter ten. 

Hassell also contradicts himself in the above citation. As we saw in the preceding chapter, he says that regeneration involves a person being enlightened, saying "Paul declares that God quickens His people from the death of trespasses and sins, creates them in Christ Jesus unto good works, shines in their hearts to give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus." So quickening makes a person to know and believe in Christ, but Hassell then says that the salvation of Romans chapter ten, which involves knowing and believing in Christ, or coming to the saving knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, is not integral to regeneration. 

Hassell said further:

"The commission of Christ to all His Apostles and ministers (Matt, xxviii. 18—20), and His special commission to Paul (Acts xxvi. 16 —20), and Paul's description of the work of the ministry (2 Cor. v. 17—21; vi; Eph. iv. 11—16), show that God sends His ministers, not to give spiritual life to the unregenerate, but to teach, bear witness to, warn, exhort, beseech, guide, comfort, perfect, unite, and edify all their hearers whom the Lord has, by His regenerating grace, prepared to receive such teaching —these hearers being called, in some of these Scriptures, "new creatures," "saints," "the body of Christ."

On the Acts 26 passage I have written upon in this post (here). The passage reads as follows:

"And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 15-18)

This passage is referred to by Hassell in the above citation. Hassell and the Hardshells are forced to say that neither regeneration nor eternal salvation is under consideration in the above text. Why? Because Paul is appointed by Christ to be a means in the salvation of the text and if it describes eternal salvation then their proposition that says no such means are used by God in saving sinners would be overthrown. So, rather than throwing away their proposition, they rather try to convince others that the salvation of the text is a mere temporal salvation that is not essential to eternal salvation. 

But, this effort is futile, for any unbiased mind will admit that it is eternal salvation, including initial salvation (regeneration or new birth), that is described. That is evident because being "turned from darkness to light" and "turned from the power of Satan unto God" and "receiving the forgiveness of sins" and "inheritance" among those who are "sanctified by faith" in Christ is what occurs when one is regenerated or quickened from spiritual death. Denying these things forces the Hardshells to say that the things enumerated are not necessary for being eternally saved! 

Because ministers or preachers, by bringing the word of God or the gospel to sinners, are means for sinners being able to obtain spiritual life by that word they bring, it cannot be therefore concluded that they are the source of eternal life, as the Hardshells argue. I am again surprised that Hassell would argue in this manner. God used Ezekiel to raise the dead bones to life but that does not mean that Ezekiel was the source of life. We have already addressed the several Psalms that say that people are "quickened" from the dead by "the word of God," texts which Hassell tried to say did not mean quicken but meant to revive an already existing life. It is ironic that the Hardshells rely so much on logical arguments and yet make such an illogical argument when they say -- "if means are used in salvation then the salvation is not God's work." 

Hassell said further:

"Life precedes all action and all capacity to understand. Those dead in trespasses and sins, the unregenerate, cannot be spiritually taught. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for the are foolishness unto Him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. ii. 14). The seed of the preached word does not change the ground where it is sowed; it is only those hearers who already have the ground of a good and honest heart (made so by God's grace) who properly receive and understand the word, and bring forth fruit (Matt. xiii. 1—23; Luke viii. 5— 15)"

Here is an example of how the Hardshells use carnal logic to persuade others of their doctrine of salvation. It is also an example of how they twist and pervert the meaning of scripture. The argument that "life precedes all action" and that a person must be alive before he can act, taken by itself, is a powerful argument that has convinced many that the Hardshells were right in their insistence that a person must be raised from spiritual death before he can hear and believe the gospel. But, upon further examination it is seen to be unfounded.

It is not true that life precedes all action. It was not so in the case of the bones being restored to human form and being made alive. So we read:

"So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them." (Eze. 37: 7-8 kjv)

Notice the action of the bones and the shaking before life was breathed into them. Notice also how God says through Isaiah "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live" (Isa. 55: 3 kjv). Here we see where inclining the ear, coming to the Lord, and hearing his word precedes the soul being made alive. Jesus taught the same when he said that sinners "hear" his voice before they are made alive there by. (John 5: 25) Eternal life is a gift and all through the Bible this gift is received by faith.

Hassell gives another argument from a misinterpretation of texts which say that a spiritually dead sinner "cannot" believe, repent, etc. He and his Hardshell brethren do not understand the difference between a physical inability and a moral inability, as many of our old Baptists and Calvinist theologians explained. 

A. W. Pink, a favorite author to read for many Hardshells, wrote (emphasis mine):

"Second, fallen man’s inability is moral, not physical or constitutional...The normal or ordinary natural man is not without either mental or physical strength to use his talents."

Jonathan Edwards, in his book "Freedom of the Will," SECTION IV., under the heading "Command and Obligation to Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey," wrote:

"What has been said of natural and moral Necessity, may serve to explain what is intended by natural and moral Inability. We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will, either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral Inability consists not in any of these things..."

(See this post here of mine for more such citations)

As regards I Corinthians 2: 14, a favorite of Hyper Calvinists, see my post (here). If a natural man, a dead alien sinner, cannot receive anything spiritual, then how can he be saved since he must receive the Spirit to be saved? And must receive spiritual life to be saved? And must receive Christ to be saved? Etc.

Elder John Clark, editor of Zion's Advocate, and leader of the "Primitive Baptist" church in the middle 19th century, and an oft opponent of some of the views of Beebe, wrote:

"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"

The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.

To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.

The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."

("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)

Clark taught rightly on this issue and Hassell did not. 

Hassell said further:

"The Jews who believed Peter's word were already "devout men" (Acts ii. 5) before he addressed them; and Cornelius, before he ever saw Peter, was "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always"; he was already "cleansed of God" and "accepted with God" (Acts x. 2, 15, 35). On neither of these occasions is there the slightest intimation that the Divine, Life-giving, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent Spirit passed through Peter to get into his hearers."

On the case of Cornelius see this post (here) where I answer the argumentation of the Hardshells which avers that Cornelius was already saved and spiritually alive before Peter preached the gospel to him. Here is what the apostle Peter said about it (and he would know for he was the one who first preached the gospel to Cornelius):

“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15: 7b-9 nkjv)

Peter reports what the angel who appeared to Cornelius said to him:

"And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11: 113-14 kjv)

These texts tell us that Cornelius was not a believer before he heard the gospel preached to him by Peter. They also tell us that he was not saved until he believed, and that his heart was not purified till he believed, and had not received the Spirit till he believed. That nullifies the argumentation offered by Hassell and his Hardshell brethren.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (10)

Again, I will begin this chapter with another counter argument against the view espoused by Elder Sylvester Hassell and his Hardshell Baptist brethren. We will then continue our examination of Hassell's polemic for his "anti-means" view of salvation as given in his January, 1898 editorial "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (You can read it on page 12 here). 

The above text is a difficult one for the Hardshells in light of their views on salvation. It is a text that has also divided Calvinists and Arminians. Many Calvinists, including the Hardshells, will argue that "all men" means "all the elect who are from all kinds or classes of humans." Not all Calvinists explain the passage in this way. Spurgeon did not. Nor do I. (See my posts on that here, here, here, and here)

Spurgeon said:

"You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, - "that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth...So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 26, Pilgrim Publications, p.50.)  

But, let us take the Hardshell view, which is held to by many Calvinists, and asks them what is meant by God's "willing" that all men (i.e. all the elect) be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth? Their view says that the "will" of God means his irresistible will as when Paul asks "for who has resisted his will?" (Rom. 9: 19). So, all under consideration, i.e. the "all men" or "all the elect," will be saved. So far so good. But, what about the second part, about all "coming to a knowledge of the truth"? Their interpretation forces them to affirm that all the elect will come to a knowledge of the truth, the truth about God, the truth of the Gospel! And, how does one come to this knowledge? Is it not through the Spirit's use of the written word of God? 

In the preceding chapter I ended with these words:

Why is Hassell, and his brethren, so vehemently opposed to the idea that the "word of God" means the written revelation or good news? Is it because there are some texts that say the word of God cannot be a means? Is it not rather because they base it upon their own reasoning and carnal logic? 

I then cited several verses that say that the gospel or word of God is the power of God to save and as such is therefore able to regenerate the degenerate and to quicken the spiritually dead.

I think that one of the major reasons why the Hardshell Primitive Baptists so strongly oppose the idea that the word of God is a means in the saving of sinners is because they have a proposition that says "there can be no human means in redemption." We have already noted that one of their other propositions, first promoted by their "Two Seed" forefathers, said that "nothing a person does determines whether he goes to heaven or hell." Both these propositions however are not stated in scripture but are inventions that they believe are implied in scripture. But, in this they are clearly wrong. 

That human beings are used as means in the eternal salvation of sinners is undeniable, and yet the Hardshells deny it anyway. They say "God is not dependent on means" and that is true, but that is not the issue, but what God has chosen to do is the question. God uses his word to save, and God uses his people to bring that saving word to the lost. Further, God used Abraham, David, the Jewish nation, and Mary to bring forth the Messiah, and so they were means in salvation. God also used wicked men to crucify Christ, and it was the crucifixion that brought salvation. (Acts 2: 23) Therefore, Hardshell Hyper Calvinists see problems where there are none. They think the above invented propositions are inspired absolute truth and when they come to texts which contradict those two propositions, they twist those scriptures to make them agree with their propositions. They should however throw away their man-made propositions. 

Hassell wrote further:

"In his persecuting journey to Damascus, Christ arrested him and gave him to know Him, whom to know is life eternal (Acts ix. 5; John xvii. 3; Gal. i. 11—17; 1 Cor. xv. 8). And Paul declares that God quickens His people from the death of trespasses and sins, creates them in Christ Jesus unto good works, shines in their hearts to give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus, begins the good work in them and performs it unto the day of Jesus Christ, that salvation is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, and that all things in this new creation are of God ( Eph. ii. 1_10; 2 Cor. iv. 6; v. 17, 18; Phil. 1. 6; Rom. ix. 16)."

When the apostle Paul was regenerated or quickened it was the result of his having been encountered by the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, his regeneration included his conversion. In the above citation from Hassell he seems to believe that a regenerated person is "given to know" Christ and that when people are quickened the "light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" is made to "shine in their hearts." That is not what today's "Primitive Baptists" believe. Hassell clearly is using conversion language to describe Paul's regeneration, as Paul did himself. The text he cites shows that obtaining saving knowledge of God and Christ Jesus are essential to salvation. This is also what the 1689 London Baptist Confession says. In chapter one it says:

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

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture...those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture..." 

Notice the word "necessary." Some things are necessary to be known for "salvation." Hardshells deny that these things are necessary to be known for being spiritually alive. That is why they teach that one can be regenerated and yet remain ignorant of the one true God and Christ and remain believers in false gods. In chapter fourteen "Of Saving Faith" the confession said that saving faith is obtained through the word of God as a "means." In chapter twenty, "Of the Gospel and the Extent of Grace Thereof," it says the Edenic "promise" given by God of a coming Redeemer, or protoevangelium, was a "means of calling the elect" and "begetting in them faith and repentance" and identifies "this promise" as "the gospel," and that "as to the substance of it" was "revealed" for "the conversion and salvation of sinners," and which "is therein effectual" thereunto.  

I have heard Hardshells ask the question about Abel's faith, asking "where did Abel get his faith?" They ask this and contend that his faith could not have come through the written word of God because the Bible had not been written yet. They say this because they believe Abel was given faith apart from any word of God, but that is ridiculous and against the plain teaching of scripture, which says "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) They often do this and then redefine "faith" so as to make it some kind of "deposit," like a germ or virus, which does not really believe anything, but only is the giving of an ability to believe. In this post (here) I cited from Elder Zach Guess who said: "Faith" is "the ability to believe." So, if one believes, he is exercising the faith which he already has." He even said 

"There is much misunderstanding in the religious world about "faith" or "belief." Many preachers will say that salvation is by grace but that a person must "put his trust in Jesus Christ" or "believe in Jesus Christ as his personal Savior" or "have faith in Jesus Christ" before he can be saved."

This is ironic and laughable. He criticizes the actual meaning of "faith" which is "belief" which includes the idea of trust, and gives a definition of it that no scholar ever gives. But, the Hardshells do this often. They give meanings to words that are of their own invention. 

Notice also that the text Hassell cites shows that "life" comes through the medium of "light." There have been historical debates among Calvinistic Baptists as to whether life precedes light. In my post titled "J.C. Philpot on Means" (here) I cited several passages where Philpot affirmed that the word of God was a means in the saving of sinners. I also cited these words on the question of which comes first, light or life (emphasis mine):

"Nor shall we, as we wish to avoid controversial topics, enter at any length into the question whether light or life first enters into the heart—”The entrance of your words gives light.” (Psalm 119:130.) There it would seem that light came first. And so the passage—”To open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light.” (Acts 26:18.) So Saul at Damascus’ gate saw and was struck down by the light before the quickening words came—”Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4.) In grace, if not in nature, it would seem evident that we see before we feel; and thus the disciples “beheld his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father,” before they received the Son of God into their hearts and believed on his name. It will be seen from these hints that without entering into the controversy, or pronouncing any dogmatical opinion, our own view inclines to the point held by Mr. Huntington, that light precedes life. And yet, when we look back on our own experience, how difficult it is to determine whether we saw light before we felt life, or whether the same ray which brought light into the mind did not bring at the same moment life into the heart. At any rate we saw what we felt, and we felt what we saw. “In your light do we see light.” To see this light is to be “enlightened with the light of the living.” (Job 33:30.) And this our blessed Lord calls “the light of life.” “Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world; he who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12.)"

The Hardshells respond by saying that a man must have life and eyes before he can see the light. That may be true in regard to seeing physical light, but it is not so in regard to seeing the light of the truth. Here again we see how the "Primitive Baptists" rely on carnal logic for their belief rather than on the word of God, as I have stated before. In the scriptures "light" may carry the meaning of energy or power. In the creation account God says "let there be light" days before he created the sun and stars. I think in that instance "light" does mean energy. "Light" may also denote life itself. So Jesus said:

"Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” (John 8: 12 nkjv)

The genitive "light of life" is I believe a genitive of apposition and means "light which is life." It could also be an objective genitive and mean "light unto life." We see this same genitive of apposition in these words of the same apostle:

"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it...That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world." (John 1: 4-5, 9 nkjv)

Notice "the life was the light." When the text says that Christ, the "true Light," "gives light to every man coming into the world" he means giving life. This is also true with having spiritual life. A spiritually alive man has the "light of life" and is saved by that light. So wrote the Psalmist in Psalm 80:19: "Restore us, Lord God Almighty; make your face shine on us, that we may be saved." 

John says when "the light shines in the darkness" it dispels the darkness. In the Bible the experience of salvation dispels the darkness of depravity. When the Lord sent Paul to take the good news to the nations, one of the things to be accomplished thereby was to "turn them from darkness to light" (Acts 26: 18), but more on that text shortly. Hassell has already stated that "God shines in the heart" of those "dead in trespasses and sins" and thereby quickens them and gives them that saving knowledge which is necessary for salvation, per the apostle Paul. So, the entrance of this light is what brings life. This truth is confirmed in several other texts of scripture. For instance, Paul wrote: 

"For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light." (Eph. 5: 8 nkjv)

"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love." (Col. 1: 13 nkjv)

"You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness." (I Thess. 5: 5 nkjv)

It was light that delivered them from darkness. "Children" or "sons" "of light" means that they became children by the light. The apostle Peter also agreed, writing: 

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." (I Peter 2: 9 nkjv)

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (9)

The Bible teaches that one must come to know God and his Son Jesus Christ in order to be saved and to go to heaven. Here are some of the proof-texts for that affirmation:

"...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." (II Thess. 1: 7-9 nkjv)

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

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10: 14)

If you ask the typical "Primitive Baptist" today whether a person needs to know God and Jesus Christ to be saved, you will generally get a "no" for an answer. Some will hedge, however, and contend that people do come to know God and his Son but on the subconscious level, which is ridiculous. It is saying that there are people who don't know that they know Jesus and his Father. In saying this they will identify those who are worshipers of other gods as people who on the sub-conscious level actually know the one true and living God and his Son Christ Jesus. Hardshell apologist R.V. Sarrels actually taught this in his book "Systematic Theology." They say that many people who worship other gods are "born again" and "know God" which is ridiculous. Sarrels wrote:

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion–repentance, faith, and justification–may be present only embryonically...The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progressive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands. The child of God, be he heathen or cultured, may not understand all that is woven around his life in God, yet in germ all is there. (See Rom:2:14)" (Systematic Theology, page 369) 

"We here give some attention to a matter mentioned earlier in this chapter: Since we hold, (a) that God, without the use of the gospel as a means, regenerates his loved ones in heathen lands as well as in cultured lands, and, (b) that in all of these lands, both heathen and cultured, the Holy Spirit performs his convicting work, we make the following differential observation: As the innate knowledge of God's existence, or First Truths, may exist in only faintly discernible ideas about the Supreme Being, and may range from this all but dormant and little understood stamp of the Maker to the highest and most enlightened concept of God's existence, so the facts connected with conviction--and conversion--may begin with the faintly dim ideas about sin, righteousness, and judgment, about repentance, faith, and justification, and range from this to the most advanced intellectual concepts concerning these progressive steps in the experience of a believer in gospel lands." (pages 365, 366)

Elder C.H. Cayce wrote:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through or by the gospel." (Vol. VI, page 176)

"Elder John R. Daily in a debate with W. P. Throgmorton in 1912 said: 

"Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

Since the above texts about knowing God and the Lord Jesus tell us that one must intimately know God and Jesus, how then does one come to know them? The above text in the heading tells us. You cannot know God nor Jesus unless you are informed about who they are, and the way anyone comes to be informed is by the word of God in the Bible. That is what the inspired apostle said and yet what he said is not believed by the Hardshell Baptists, and the citations from Sarrels, Cayce, and Daily show this.

People must know God and know Christ to be saved and this knowledge is necessary for having faith or belief. You cannot know that George Washington was the first U.S. president unless you are informed of that fact. 

Some of them will tell us that "faith" is a gift of God given to all the elect ("faith of God's elect"; Titus 1:1) and that Christ is known because the Father reveals Christ to each elect person (Matt. 16: 17) and that the Father is known because Christ reveals the Father to each of the elect (Matt. 11: 27; Luke 10: 22), all which is true. However, if that is true, then why do many of them teach that many of the elect never come to know Christ or the Father but remain pagans? They often talk about the American Indians being children of God and born again even before the white man came and brought to them the word of God. But, if the above texts about having the Father and Son revealed to a person is what occurs when he is born again, then why did the American Indians know nothing about the Father and the Son? 

Is the saving knowledge of God present in a heathen idolater as a "germ" or virus, the person having it being unaware that he has it? Is that not ridiculous?

Elder C.H. Cayce taught that the Athenian idolaters to whom Paul preached Jesus and his resurrection in Acts chapter seventeen had already been born again and were the children of God even though they did not yet know Jesus nor the Father and were worshiping other gods when Paul came there. See my post (here) on that, where I cite Cayce on that point. The apostle Paul however did not believe that anyone who did not know the one true God nor the way of salvation through Christ were regenerated children of God. He wrote to the Galatian believers saying "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods." (Gal. 4: 8 nkjv) Notice that people who do not know God, the one true God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, worship and serve many false gods. There is no one who worships many false gods and at the same time knows God.

Elder Samuel Trott, predecessor of Sylvester and leader of the "Old School" Baptists wrote the following in "CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE" in 1845; You can read here on page 41 of his several writings; emphasis mine):

"A coming to Christ is admitted as necessary by all professors. I will, therefore, here show that Christ has said that none can come unto Him except they are taught of God. The words are, “No man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me,” &c. (John 6:44-45). Thus he evidently represents the drawing and teaching as the same thing. Teaching has to do with the mind, not the animal feelings; it is an instruction of the judgment, or a giving of understanding to the things taught. But God’s teaching is not like man’s, a mere enlightening of the head whilst the heart is untouched. It is a revelation of truth in the heart, so that the affections are arrested; there is a heart-feeling of the truth taught, and a heart love for it. To come to Christ, or to be believers on Him, we must know Him in His true character as the Savior of sinners."

"The position I have taken relative to this subject will, I think, be admitted by every reflecting Christian as the Scriptural one when he considers that the promises of salvation run alone through faith in Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 and Mark 16:16). And that faith implies a knowledge of Christ, and this knowledge evidently is only from being taught of God. "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22). I hope this brother, on a re-examination, will be able to tell us something of what he has learned of Jesus and of His saving power." 

That was the general view of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. They did not believe that a person was saved who did not believe in Christ and the Father and who did not place his faith in Christ for salvation.

Present day Hardshell apologist Elder David Pyles, in his work "Perfections Of Grace," wrote the following on page 56 (emphasis mine): 

"Sylvester Hassell also testified to the antiquity of the doctrine in private correspondence with William Crouse where he said:

"So far as I know, the Kehukee Association never entertained or endorsed the doctrine that God sometimes uses the preached gospel in regenerating sinners...Man, not regenerated by God’s Spirit, may have a natural conviction of sin and conversion (a turning from their outward evil conduct). In my time I never knew one of our ministers or members to believe or maintain that the preaching of man is a means of regeneration; nor do I suppose that in 1778 any minister or member of the Kehukee Association held that the Holy Spirit comes through the human preacher to quicken into life a person who is dead in sin. He may regenerate a sinner while the minister is preaching, but He does so by His own direct operation in the sinner’s heart or spirit. True conviction and conversion are the effects of immediate Divine regeneration. – (Regeneration or the New Birth, p 73-74)

However, in the preceding chapters of this series I have shown where many "Primitive Baptists" in the days preceding Hassell, and even in his day, taught that sinners were begotten by the gospel. I have shown that even his father C.B. Hassell taught that view. I cited from Elder Joshua Lawrence who taught that view and he was a leader in the Kehukee Association before Sylvester. In chapter six of this series I cited from the Kehukee's original articles of faith which said:

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

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

As I have stated, the literature of "Primitive Baptists" is full of falsehoods. The Lord willing I hope to assemble all these falsehoods in the future. Their "historians" often gave false information and a false narrative concerning historical events. 

Pyles also cites these texts and comments as follows:

"The scriptures that Calvinists most commonly cast against immediate regeneration are: 

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. – 1Cor 4:15 

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. – James 1:18 

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. – 1Peter 1:23 

These are also the texts with which Gill struggled in his indecision on this subject." (pg. 57) 

These texts do teach that God uses his word or gospel in producing birth children and it is believed by both Calvinists and Arminians. Also, Pyles is giving a falsehood when he says that "Gill struggled in his indecision on this subject." Gill, in all his writings, in his commentary, Body of Divinity, etc., never denied that the gospel or word of God was a means. In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) in chapters 58-65 I showed where Gill taught the means view and never changed his mind on it. I showed where the Hardshells pick one sentence from his Body of Divinity, from his section on "Regeneration," where they think he changed his mind, and which is not the case. In that section Gill wrote:

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

So, Pyles and his brethren tell a falsehood when they say Gill taught that the gospel was no means in regeneration in his Body of Divinity.

Now, let us return to Sylvester Hassell's polemic against means via his editorial "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12 here). Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"In James i. 18, "Of his own will begat He us with the word of truth," the verb rendered "begat" occurs in only one other passage of the Scriptures, James i. 15, where it is correctly rendered, in the King James Version, "bri" (John 10: 14 kjv)ng forth," and so it is correctly rendered in James i. 18, in the Revised Version and the latest Baptist Version; it never means "beget," but always means "bring forth"; it thus refers not to the communication, but to the manifestation of life. The verb rendered "beget again" or "born again" (it is the same word in the original, and should always be rendered "beget again ") occurs in 1 Pet. i. 3 and 23. In the first of these verses, there is not the slightest allusion to human instrumentality; Peter says that God hath, according to His abundant mercy, begotten us again or regenerated us by, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" —the resurrection of Christ, who is our resurrection and life, being the virtual or procuring cause of the resurrection from death in sin or the regeneration of all the members of His mystical body (John xi. 25; Eph. ii. 5)." "

Is Hassell saying that the "bringing forth" is not a birth? Is he agreeing with his older brethren who taught that the "begetting" preceded the "birth" or the "bringing forth"? Does he believe that a person is born who has not been brought forth in birth? Does he believe that only the begetting is necessary for eternal salvation but the birth is not? Who is it that begets? Is it not the father who sires or plants the sperm? Who is it that "brings forth" in the birth? Is it not the mother? But, notice in the text that James says it is the Father who "begets" or "brings forth" in the birth. This shows that James does not see two stages to spiritual birth as there are in physical birth, and as most first generation Hardshells believed. The passage speaks analogically of how lust begets sin that gives birth to death.

"Then when lust hath conceived (syllambanō - to conceive, to become pregnant), it bringeth forth (tiktō - produce or generate, as of a woman giving birth) sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth (apokyeō - give birth to) death." (James 1: 15)

There is no doubt that James uses the several stages of birth to illustrate how death is produced. Lust conceives sin and then sin is developed as a child in the womb, and then finally sin, when matured, gives birth to death. Does James affirm that spiritual birth likewise has stages to it? That there are gaps in time between being conceived by God and being brought to the birth by God? The first Hardshells believed so. However, I don't think that James intended to teach this. He does however use a word that focuses upon being born from the womb. In the book of Isaiah God said:

"Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God."  (Isa. 66: 9)

Here we see where birth is viewed from the standpoint of delivery from the womb. God says in his birthing children into his family that there are no abortions or miscarriages. All who are begotten are brought to the full birth, a fact that is denied by today's Hardshells, but not denied by their forefathers. On this passage and the verse preceding it John Gill wrote the following in his commentary:

"As in the natural birth it is he that gives strength to conceive, forms the embryo in the womb, ripens it for the birth, and takes the child out of its mother's womb; so he does all that answers hereunto in the spiritual birth...God will not shut the womb of conversion until they are all brought to faith in Christ, and repentance towards God."

Today's Hardshells, however, do believe that "the womb of conversion" is shut for most of those who God has begotten. Gill comments further upon these words of the text - "for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children" (vs. 8), saying:

"...this is to be understood of the pains which Gospel ministers take in preaching the word, which is the means of regeneration, and they the instruments of it; and so are called fathers, who through the Gospel beget souls to Christ; and of their anxious concern for the conversion of sinners, and the formation of Christ in them, which is called a travailing in birth; see (1 Peter 1:23) (James 3:18) (1 Corinthians 4:15) (Galatians 4:19) (Romans 8:22 Romans 8:23)

Hassell said further:

"In the other verse (the 23d) Peter says that we are "born or begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Here the construction of the phrase "by the word of God" (the preposition dia with the genitive case) is exactly the same as that of the phrase, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," in the 3d verse; and as that of the phrase, "by Him" — "who by Him (that is, by Christ) do believe in God," in the 21st verse; and as that of the phrase, "through the Spirit"—"obeying the truth through the Spirit," in the 22d verse; so that it would seem, from the context and the construction that Peter means, by "the word of God" in the 23d verse, not the written or preached word, but the incarnate, personal, essential Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, once crucified, but now risen and glorified, and ever living, and pouring out His Spirit of life, faith, and obedience upon His people, by which Word all things were created and are upheld, and which Word is preached or proclaimed by the gospel. By "the word of God" is sometimes meant, in the Scriptures, His effective will (Psalm cxlviii. 8 ; Heb. i. 3 ; xi. 3; 2 Pet. iii. 5, 7). If Peter here means the preached word, he uses the term "regenerate" (as Paul does in 1 Cor. iv. 15 and Philemon 10) in its wider sense as including conversion (see Acts ii. 38 and iii. 19). Christ did not commission Peter to regenerate His people, but to "feed His lambs and sheep" (John xxi. 15— 17); and Peter similarly exhorts other elders. (1 Pet. v. 1—4)."

Hassell gives three interpretations that he will accept in regard to I Peter 1: 23 and one that he will not accept. He says that "the word of God" 1) may denote Christ, or 2) may denote a word God speaks apart from his written word, as when he created the heavens and earth, or 3) may denote regeneration in its broad definition which involves conversion. However, if the latter is accepted, then surely he must admit that the written word or gospel is a means, for even the Hardshells admit that conversion is by such means. But, Hassell has already denied that the word of God in the text has reference to the written word of God. As far as the "word of God" denoting Christ, I have already responded to that idea in the preceding chapters of this series. 

Why is Hassell, and his brethren, so vehemently opposed to the idea that the "word of God" means the written revelation or good news? Is it because there are some texts that say the word of God cannot be a means? Is it not rather because they base it upon their own reasoning and carnal logic? In chapter six of this series I cited Romans 1: 16 where Paul said that "the gospel of Christ" is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes." In Hebrews it is also written:

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4: 12 nkjv)

To the Thessalonian Believers Paul wrote:

"For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 5)

Since these texts say that the gospel or word of God is an instrument of divine power, why should anyone be opposed to the idea that such divine power is instrumental in raising the spiritually dead?