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?

A Sad State of Affairs

We are living in what the bible calls "perilous times" (II Tim. 3: 1) characterized by people being "lovers of their own selves," or narcissists, and "covetous," that is "lovers of money," which is the root of every kind of evil (I Tim. 6: 10), and yet who are stingy and selfish at the same time, serving the money god "mammon" (Matt. 6: 24). They are also characterized as being "proud boasters," braggers or self-promoters, egotists and megalomaniacs, "heady" and "highminded." 

They are also characterized as being "blasphemers," spewing forth every kind of evil speaking, even against God, and is prevalent and widespread. When we speak evil of others we are speaking evil against God for they are made in God's image and likeness. (James 3: 9-10) 

Such perilous times are also described by people being "disobedient to parents," and "without natural affection," and rebellious to all authority, which is an example of people doing what is right in their own eyes and who have no moral compass. 

Paul also describes the persons of those perilous times as being "unthankful," and why? Is it not because they feel like they are owed or deserve what they have? He says in those times people will be generally "unholy," morally filthy, irreverent, and will be "trucebreakers," people who cannot keep their word or covenants, being dishonest, "traitors," deceitful, and "false accusers." Think of all the divorces! Think of how many people are calling so many people "racists" unjustly! 

Paul says times will be perilous because people are, with few exceptions, "incontinent," without self control, and who are "fierce" people, acting wild and crazy, being also "despisers of those that are good," and actually "calling good evil and evil good" (Isaiah 5: 20), a horrible state of existence! Paul then concludes by saying people will be "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God." (verses 2-4)

These prophesied "perilous times" are described in this way:

"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17: 6 kjv)

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (21: 25 kjv)

Is this not what we see today? There are several reasons for it too. Was it not in the days of the Judges because there was no one, no legal authority, to prevent people from doing anything and everything? We see how today there are those who want to do away with the police or any government agency that keeps people from "doing their own thing." In the above texts we see how it was because there was "no king" or restraining authority that people did whatever they wanted without any restraint or consequences. Did you know that when I was born in 1955 that adultery was illegal? That homosexuality was also illegal? That businesses had to close on Sunday? That children in school said the pledge of allegiance and were led in prayer by their teachers? 

LORD God had commanded the people to not do what they thought was right in their own eyes, but were to be governed by the law of God. So we read:

"Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes." (Deut. 12: 8 kjv) 

"And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee." (Exo. 15: 26; See also Deut. 6: 18; 12: 25,28; 21: 9) 

Today’s philosophy disregards this instruction and says “if it feels right, then do it” or “you be you” or “do our own thing.” It is moral subjectivism metastasized or  on steroids. People say to their parents, to the authorities, yea, even to God -- "Who are you to tell me what not to do?" 

Solomon said: "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the hearts." (Prov. 21: 2 nkjv) He also said: "There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14: 12 nkjv)

What people need is a desire for truth and a method for finding it. As for religious and moral truth, it must come from our Creator, from the God of the bible. In Isaiah chapter twenty eight there are people who are said to "have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." (28: 15 nkjv) I wrote about this phenomenon in these posts (here and here). Many people today do not want the truth. They had rather put their trust in lies. As some say in romance, "tell me pretty lies," so do people say that about religious truth. 

People also don't want anyone to challenge their beliefs, to upset the apple cart of their beliefs. Yet, they need the very thing they resist. Said Solomon again: "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." (Prov. 18: 17 kjv) Lately I have been watching numerous videos of a young man named Luke who is a street preacher and a very able apologist for the Christian faith. He often engages people about religious belief, and has battled atheists, Muslims, etc., and issues such as abortion. You can go to this YouTube page (here) to see his many videos. When you watch the interaction he has with people you will see how he is often dealing with people who are comfortable doing what is right in their own eyes and who don't want people showing them their errors or their sins. No one likes to admit he is wrong. That is a sad state of affairs.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (8)

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

I Thessalonians 5: 21

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (Eph. 1: 11-14)

"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (4: 30)

As in preceding chapters in this series, I will begin by citing another text that disproves the view of Hassell and the "Primitive Baptists" before critiquing further Hassell's polemical writing "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). 

I would also call the reader's attention to an old post from 2008 titled "Hardshell Ordo Salutis" (here) wherein I gave a lengthy rebuttal to Sylvester Hassell's article "Order of Salvation Divine" published in "The Gospel Messenger" for December 1896. Combining that old article with this series will give my Hardshell brothers and sisters a through refutation of Hassell and the Hardshells on the question of whether the gospel is a means in the eternal salvation of sinners.

In the above texts the apostle Paul mentions the "sealing" of believers, which he also did in his other epistles. In II Corinthians 1: 22 he wrote: "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." Is he not alluding to what occurs in regeneration or conversion? Is not the "giving" of the "earnest of the Spirit in our hearts" not the salvation experience? Sealed "unto" the day of redemption is also translated as sealed "for" the day of redemption, coming from the Greek preposition "eis." If sealing involves being given the Holy Spirit and is for the purpose of redemption, then it is something essential to redemption, and if it is, then the Hardshell idea that faith is not necessary for being eternally saved is false because the sealing takes place "after you believed." 

The word "sealed" is from the Greek word "sphragizō" and means to mark a thing for the purpose of owning and authenticating it. It is a way of saying of something - "it belongs to me." When a person, in primitive times, "sealed" a letter, he put his stamp or mark upon it. This seal or mark was often done on wax placed on the folded document. In the process of "sealing" the document an "impression" is made in the wax. Thus, when people are saved, after believing, they are "sealed," owned by God, impressed upon or marked by God, which impression or engraving is in the believer's nature, heart and mind. A signet is a seal or personal mark of identification and ownership. Cattle ranchers call their seals "brands." Each cattle owner had his own brand, his own symbol, his own mark, his own seal. Believers are sealed and branded in their renewed spirits when they are taken possession of by the Lord in conversion and this occurs "after" they believe.

Sealing also refers to protection of property in the Scriptures. Sealing protects items from tampering, and makes them safe and secure. "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." (Matt. 27: 66) When the Lord saves his people and the Spirit takes possession of them, he seals their hearts and sets a watch upon their souls. The seal also serves as proof of identity. It is put with a signature or in place of it in letters, agreements and private or public instructions. As such, circumcision, as a seal, authenticates, certifies, and attests to the veracity of the inward faith that Abraham possessed and believers possess (Rom 4:11).

The image of sealing also refers to God’s approval (John 3:33; 6:27; 1 Cor. 9:2). Thus we speak of a product or document having a "Seal of approval." Thus we read: "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." (II Tim. 2: 19)

Of course, Hassell, Cayce, and the Hardshells will say that this "sealing" has nothing to do with eternal salvation or becoming children of God. They are forced to do so because to connect it with being raised from spiritual death would overthrow their proposition which says "nothing a person does in his life determines whether he goes to heaven," which is what their "Two Seed" forefathers taught. But, it is clear that no one is going to heaven who has not been "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." 

I would just call upon my Hardshell brethren to come and "prove me wrong" in what I am saying in this series. Solomon said: "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Prov. 18: 17 nkjv) I am proving you are wrong on the question of means and on what precedes and what occurs when a sinner is born again. If you think I am wrong, come and "prove me wrong." Examine my arguments as I have yours.

Now let us pick up where we left off in reviewing Hassell's article titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION." In it Hassell wrote further (emphasis mine):

"In a similar figurative manner, Paul in Gal. iv. 19, represents himself as the mother of the Galatians. If Paul had said that he gave spiritual life to the Corinthians or Onesimus, he would have flatly contradicted both his own experience and all his other language on this subject." 

This is an example of what is called a "false narrative." Simply because Paul was an instrument God used in saving sinners does not mean that Paul "gave spiritual life" to someone. That is an example of Sophistry and misrepresentation. God gives eternal life but he gives it through his word and when people believe his word they have life through that means. The bringer of the word of God to sinners does make the preacher a means in salvation but he is not the one who does the saving. Paul and all Christians are to put all their effort into "holding fast the word of life." (Phil. 2: 16 nkjv)

"The word of life" is a genitive and it is clear to me that it is an "objective genitive" and so means "word unto or into (or gives) life." The genitive construction here is better taken in the sense of “the message that brings life,” not “the message concerning life." It is the work of the bible interpreter to discern what kind of genitive is intended in a given text. For example, the phrase "the love of God" as an objective genitive means "love for God," but as a subjective genitive means "God's love for us." Therefore "word of life," as an objective genitive would mean "word unto life." It could also be what is called a genitive of apposition and so "word of life" would mean "word which is life." If it is used as a genitive of source it would mean "life which is from the word." N. T. word scholar W.E. Vine says -- 

"The word of life is not here the Living Word, the Person (as in 1 John 1:1); only John uses logos in that sense; it is the (living and life giving) message, the gospel. It is called the Word of life because it ministers spiritual life and imparts the knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, which the Lord said “is eternal life” (John 17:3)." (Collected writings of W. E. Vine; emphasis mine)

Paul perhaps has these words of Christ in mind:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life...But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (John 6: 63, 68-69 nkjv)

These verses show how Hassell's statement questioning whether Paul had given "spiritual life to the Corinthians or Onesimus" is unfounded. Paul merely "held out" the "word of life," the word that quickens the dead. (Psa. 119: 50, 93) Many "Primitive Baptists" developed the idea that "the words" that Christ spoke are only "spirit" and "life" when he personally utters them but are not spirit and life when those same words are spoken by his messengers, which is ridiculous. That idea forces them to say that when they report the words of Jesus to people they are not then spirit or life, and so must be spiritless and dead words. Every Christian who gives to others the message of Christ, or the gospel or word of God, is giving "the words of eternal life" which "are spirit and life." John Gill, who Hassell and his brethren claim as one of them, commented on verse 63 as follows (highlighting mine):

"the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life; the doctrines which Christ had then been delivering concerning himself, his flesh and blood, being spiritually understood, are the means of quickening souls. The Gospel, and the truths of it, which are the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, are the means of conveying the Spirit of God, as a spirit of illumination and sanctification, into the hearts of men, and of quickening sinners dead in trespasses and sins: the Gospel is the Spirit that giveth life, and is the savour of life unto life, when it comes not in word only, or in the bare ministry of it, but with the energy of the Holy Ghost, and the power of divine grace."

Many Hardshells will also argue that by the words "the flesh profits nothing" means that humans cannot be employed in giving the words of Christ to others and cannot in any sense be a means in sinners being saved and receiving spiritual life thereby. No bible commentator takes that view, nor would any bible reader see that in the text. You have to have help from Hardshells to see that interpretation. It is clear from the context that "flesh" means Christ's own flesh. Notice these words from the context:

"53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." (vs. 53-55 nkjv)

If one could literally eat Christ's flesh (as the Catholics say they do), it would avail nothing. Eating Christ's flesh is done by faith when a believer eats Christ the "bread of life" through meditating upon Christ and taking his message into the heart. We eat Christ when we receive his words which are spirit and life. Surely the Hardshells can come up with a better text to prove their no-means belief! Why don't they simply cite a text that affirms their no-means view instead of reading it into the words "the flesh profits nothing"? 

How did Paul's being an instrument in spiritual birth, either as a father or mother, or a kind of midwife, "flatly contradict both his own experience and all his other language on this subject"? God, as we have seen, identifies himself as both father and mother to his people. So, it is not a contradiction for Paul, as God's instrument, to be both. The same is true with regard to "giving eternal life," as I have explained. 

The argument that when a preacher is used in a work, whether of regeneration or conversion, God is not the one doing the regenerating, converting, or resurrecting is ludicrous. If that were so then God did not bring life to the dry dead bones in Ezekiel chapter 37 because he used Ezekiel as an instrument.

Now let me show the reader, especially those of our readers who are "Primitive Baptists," that many of their founding fathers believed that the word of God was a means in spiritual birth. This being true, why did Hassell not tell us this?

Elder John M. Watson in his "Old Baptist Test" (first published in 1855, revised in 1867) wrote:

"To show that the will of God is in His word, of His own will, says James, begat he us with the word of truth. The proof that His everlasting love is in it, is that with loving kindness He draws believers to Christ." (page 421)

Elder R.W. Fain, an associate with Watson (both were physicians in the Nashville area) wrote the foreward to the later edition of "The Old Baptist Test." He and Elder J.B. Stephens (also a physician and associate of Watson) were editors of "The Baptist Watchman" published out of Nashville after the Civil War and they both contended for God's use of the means of his word in the eternal salvation of sinners. I have several posts in this blog that give citations from that periodical to prove this. Fain wrote the introduction to the second edition of the "Old Baptist Test." 

Elder Hosea Preslar, also an associate of Watson, in "Thoughts On Divine Providence" (1867) wrote:

"...the other is the child of God, that was begotten by the word of truth; James 1: 14; I Cor. 4: 15; I John 5: 1." (Page 112)

"This is the new man begotten by the word of truth; yea, begotten of God; I John 5: 18." (page 185)

He says that the gospel "is moreover to be for a witness unto all nations; Matt. 24: 14; and for the awakening of sinners, who are dead in trespasses and in sin." (page 187)

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25."

I have already cited from Elder Joshua Lawrence of the Kehukee Association, a predecessor of Elder Sylvester Hassell, but an associate of his father C.B. Hassell, said:

"...the effects of the preaching of that gospel on good ground hearers produces the children of his kingdom. Hence it is said, born not of flesh, blood, or will of men; but of the word of God, that liveth and abideth forever. And again: I have begotten you through the gospel, etc." (third volume of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical, 1838, page 306)

"Although Christians are sons and daughters of God, yet they are not begotten of a woman; but through the gospel by the same Spirit that begot the body of Christ by Mary; therefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (pg. 310)

Further, if one reads "The Primitive Baptist" periodical of the 1830s up to the time of the Civil War he will see many correspondents who wrote to that paper and espoused the means view. Elder Mark Bennett, the first editor, certainly believed as elder Lawrence. Elder James Osbourn, a recognized leader among the founders of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" sect believed in means as I have shown in several posts in this blog. He was a close friend of Elder C.B. Hassell who we have seen also believed in means. 

Elder John Clark also wrote in his paper "Zion's Advocate" (1854) for June, 1858:

"Now for proof that God does make use of means, or second causes, in awakening dead sinners. "I have begotten you through the gospel" (I Cor. iv. 15). "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5). "Whereunto he calley you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thes. ii:14). "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers, by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man" (I Cor. 3:5) "To OPEN THEIR EYES, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" &c. (Acts xxvi.18) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ FOR IT IS THE POWER OF GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth, the the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16) "Now when THEY HEARD THIS they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD" (Acts xvii.20) "And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the SAYING OF THE WOMAN, which testified, he told me all I ever did" (John iv.36). Of his own will begat he us WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth forever. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH THEM and confirming the word with signs following. So shall MY WORD be that goeth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall ACCOMPLISH that which I please, an it shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it (Isaiah lv.11) If the above named scriptures are not sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that God does make use of means and instrumentalities in awakening and making alive dead sinners, then the bible is of but little use; as well without as with it.

Elder Samuel Trott from his work "The Absolute Predestination of all things," written in 1833, wrote:

"But we as firmly believe that God “has chosen” His people “to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth;” that: “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” (II Thessalonians 2:13) and that while the “preaching of the cross is unto them that perish, foolishness; unto us who are saved it is the power of God” (I Corinthians 1:18)."

For more citations from Trott on this question read my post (here).

In the "Primitive Baptist" periodical for January 8, 1842 (you can read it here) there is a Circular Letter printed by the newly formed South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (1840) and here is what they say about the gospel being a means in new birth or spiritual resurrection:

"We believe, brethren, all those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased in his own appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature. Christ enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. Again, Acts, 26: 18 "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." God has said he will take away the heart of stone, and give unto them an heart of flesh. And we believe he renews their wills by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them, to Jesus Christ. Yet they are made willing by that grace given them."

So, why did Sylvester Hassell not tell his readers these things? His arguments on why it is not possible for God to use his word in saving sinners from spiritual death were not believed by his own father C.B. Hassell nor by the first ministers of his own Kehukee Association, nor by most of the first leading ministers of the newly formed "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist church.