Elder Waters & Non-cognitive Faith

Elder (Dr.) Charles Waters was a leading Hardshell preacher in the later 19th century. According to Elder R. H. Pittman's book "Biographical History Of Primitive Or Old School Baptist Ministers," first published in 1909, Elder Waters was born in 1849 in Hancock, Maryland. He graduated from medical school in 1871, joined the Columbia "Old School" Baptist church the next year, and began preaching in 1878, a critical point in the history of the Hardshell denomination.  I have previously written about Elder Waters and his view that sinners are "saved, faith or no faith."  See

http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/12/chapter-63-hardshells-on-gill-vi.html

One interesting thing about Elder Waters is the fact that he supported a "Seminary," one for young girls.  In this biography, Pittman wrote this about Elder Waters:

"Having a large family and wishing to educate them well he established, in 1886, the "Fairview Seminary," a school of high reputation and moral standing. In which many Baptist girls not of Baptist persuasion were educated. Among the girls from our own people as patrons of this high-class and popular school might be mentioned, the daughters of..." (a long list of preachers is given)

"The work of this seminary was terminated after eighteen years of usefulness when the furniture and building were destroyed by fire."

"He is also editor of Zion's Advocate." (pg. 284)

It is interesting how Waters could be for such schools but be against Sunday Schools!  It is okay to have schools, but not to teach the gospel!  But, more will be said on this topic when I discuss the Sunday School issue in an upcoming series for my book on the Hardshells.

Waters wrote:

"I do believe that all who are regenerated will and do have faith, but deny that the "faith" -- that is, the believing response to God -- is in all cases "cognitive" or "informed" faith -- for cognitive faith necessarily depends on hearing the rational proclamation of the gospel; rather, I do not hesitate to affirm that it is, in all cases, below the level of consciousness--Lazarus-like, the sinner responds believingly to Christ in response to His Divine fiat in regeneration, being made willing in the day of His power, believing according to the working of His mighty power, and coming to Christ in "vital" relationship (Ps. 110:3; Eph. 2:8; Eph. 1:19; Jno. 6:37, 44)." 

Hardshells cannot deny that all who are regenerated have faith, for it is too plain in scripture that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6) and that whoever "believes" in Christ "shall be saved."  (Acts 16: 31)  A man who in theory is "regenerated" but not a "believer" is one who "cannot please God."  What kind of "regeneration" is it when the "regenerated" person still cannot please God?  To "please God" one must both be regenerated and must have faith in Christ.  Thus, the Hardshell is forced to conclude that a regenerated man is, at the same time, a believer in Christ.  The scriptures know no such character as a "regenerated unbeliever."  Elder Waters acknowledges this much and so he affirms that all who are regenerated are possessors of faith. 

But, in order to uphold his Hardshell premise that "faith in Christ" is not necessary to salvation, he creates a paradigm of two kinds of "faith," one that is cognitive and involves consciousness, and one that is non-cognitive and below the level of consciousness.  Of course, Elder Waters, nor any other Hardshell, presents any biblical evidence for such a division and so asserts it without biblical authority.  If there is no biblical authority for a non-cognitive faith, then Waters and the Hardshells are guilty of perverting scripture in order to uphold their man-made propositions. 

Faith, by its very nature, requires knowledge, and the involvement of the heart, mind, and will.  This is such a fundamental principle that it is absurd for Waters and the Hardshells to deny it.  Waters contradicts himself on this point, for he speaks of believing in Christ as involving the "will," affirming that the unconscious and non-cognitive "believing" that the soul does, in regeneration, is the fulfillment of the promise that "thy people will be willing in the day of thy power."  But, how can a person will or choose non-cognitively or unconsciously?  Such is an absurdity. 

The scriptures not only speak of the experience of regeneration as making an unbeliever into a believer but of also bringing the soul to "know" God in Christ.  But, how can one "know" non-cognitively?  The very word "know" is equated with cognition.  Further, when one is regenerated, he is brought to "love" God in Christ, but how can one "love" one he does not know?  Further, when one is regenerated, he is said to have been "enlightened" in his "understanding," to have received "revelation," but how can this be so without cognition and consciousness? 

If such a definition of "faith" be accepted, then we could not say of any unbeliever, yea, of any "Antichrist," that he is not a "believer," for  though he may be an unbeliever in his conscious mind, nevertheless, he may be a believer in his unconscious mind.  Such absurdities!  The Hardshells can make any unbeliever into a believer by such a paradigm and definition of "faith." 

Waters continued:

"Cognitive faith is indeed present in some, but the gift of faith is present in all of God's children; hence, I concur that no one goes to heaven without faith, but deny that no one goes to heaven without rational knowledge of the truth."

So, a man may be an unbeliever, cognitively speaking, but a believer non-cognitively, all at the same time!  Who can believe such nonsense?  Who ever heard of a person "believing" something "without rational knowledge"?  Where is the scriptural authority for such a definition of "believing"?  Clearly the scriptures uproot such an idea.

^"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"  (Rom. 10: 14)

How shall they believe without knowledge?  That is Paul's question.  They can't!  So, Hardshells are in error to teach that sinners can believe without knowledge. 

Waters continues:

"A teaching does indeed take place in the new birth, for God teaches the heart directly and immediately to know Him (Jno. 6:65). Cognitive faith, however, must necessarily come after this initial work of grace in the soul, for it depends on the instrumentality of the preached word."

Waters makes some admissions here that go against him, involving him in serious contradiction.  He admits that "teaching does indeed take place in the new birth."  But, how can he then say that this teaching and the faith it produces is non-cognitive?  How can teaching be non-cognitive?  Is that not a most absurd idea?  Who can believe it?  He says this divine teaching causes a sinner "to know Him."  But, how can one "know" God unconsciously and non-cognitively?  Waters affirms that such divine teaching produces a "non-cognitive faith."  It is pure silliness!  It goes against both scripture and reason.  Waters says that "cognitive faith...depends on the instrumentality of the preached word."  But, is his divine "teaching" not a "preached word"?  Has Waters given any scripture or reason for asserting that teaching, knowing, and believing can be non-cognitive?  The person knows, but doesn't know, all at the same time.  A contradiction indeed!  His "learning" is non-cognitive learning!  But, anyone who is honest and unbiased, knows that this is all nonsense.  It is an oxymoron to speak of non-cognitive learning or non-cognitive faith.

Waters wrote:

"Obviously, if such cognitive (or evangelical) faith is necessary to eternal salvation, then every infant who dies in infancy and every individual without average mental capacities would miss salvation. But my position -- i.e. the position that defines "saving faith" (if I must use the term) as that faith that is given to the soul in the work of regeneration -- is adequate to include every potential case in which a person is in need of salvation. By the same token, I do believe that the ultimate evidence that a person possesses salvation is an evangelical faith in the Lord Jesus Christ -- a faith that expresses itself in voluntary obedience to Christ. Where such faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is present, a person gives indisputable evidence of salvation."

What a strange doctrinal invention!  All the regenerated have "non-cognitive faith," but very few of them have "cognitive faith."  Faith is defined by Waters as a "believing response to God," but this "believing response" may be done without knowing it!  May be done without cognition or knowledge!  May be done while in a coma!  May be done without the participation of the heart, will, or mind!   

Is there such a division in scripture of saving faith into "cognitive" and "non-cognitive" kinds?  Dr. Waters admits that saving "faith" that is "cognitive" is produced by the gospel, but thinks that this kind of "faith" is not necessary for eternal salvation.  But, this division of saving faith into cognitive and non-cognitive, is an invention of the Hardshells and has no scriptural or traditional Baptist basis for it.  They will call it "rightly dividing the word of truth," but it is rather a "dividing asunder of what God has joined together."  Anyone can see this if he simply looks at all the bible passages where faith and belief (nouns), and believe, trust, receive (verbs or participles), are used and defined, and he will see that there is no evidence that "faith" was ever non-cognitive or was not produced by the application of gospel truth to the mind or cognitive powers.  Rather than being a "rightly dividing of the word of truth" it is rather an example of "twisting" or distortion of the scriptures.  Hardshells have given a novel and strange definition to the word faith.

The verses in Romans 10 are enough to overthrow Hardshellism, at least the modern variety of it.  This passage is a devil of difficulty for the Hardshell anti-means scheme.  Hardshell ingenuity has gone to work on the passage to make it conform to Hardshell anti-means propositions.  Though the passage affirms that those only will be saved who "call upon the name of the Lord," meaning the Lord Jesus Christ, the Hardshell resists what it says because his scheme on no-means is denied by what it says.  And, rather than discarding his unscriptural schemes and propositions, he rather retains them and goes to work on the passage to make it say something different from what it says.  He even convinces himself that the obvious meaning cannot be right, so he begins by imposing false definitions on leading terms in the passages, such as "believe," "hear," "faith," "salvation," etc. 

The Hardshell cannot believe that "calling upon the name of the Lord" can be a condition for obtaining eternal salvation, because this would mean, he thinks, the condemnation of all those who die in infancy, and of those who are mentally incapable of cognitive thought and understanding. 

He cannot accept that this "calling upon" the Lord is necessary for salvation, for he thinks that this would make salvation to depend upon human agents, and that this would make salvation uncertain.

He also thinks that this would be unfair of God to condition salvation upon this calling on the Lord, unless he gives to all the opportunity to hear the gospel.  The heathen would be damned if this statement of Paul is true relative to eternal salvation, they think, for then the heathen would be damned for no fault of their own.

Many Hardshells today will affirm that the "salvation" of this passage is not "eternal salvation," but a "time salvation" for those already eternally saved.  Others take a different route, such as Dr. Waters, and will say that all the regenerated, including infants and the mentally incompetent, do call on the name of the Lord, and believe in him, though it is not cognitive nor done on the conscious level.  These say that this "calling upon the Lord," and "believing" in his name, and "learning" of Christ, is non-cognitive, and is done while in state of unconsciousness, a kind of "subliminal" learning, a kind of giving instinctual knowledge.  But, it is all just absurd.

Thus, in combating both Hardshell explanations of the Romans 10 passage, one needs only to show two things from the context:  1) the "salvation" is eternal, 2) the "faith" is faith that is produced by the gospel, or faith that involves cognition or knowledge.  This is not hard to do.  The Hardshell apologist who attempts to prove that the salvation is not eternal is in a tough spot.  He has much explaining to do.  The Hardshell defender who tries to make the "calling upon" the Lord and "believing in him" to be non-cognitive has an equally difficult time. 

First, there is nothing in the context of Romans, nor of the tenth chapter, that would naturally give anyone the impression that the salvation it discusses is a temporal salvation from temporal evils, and that the faith and believing of the book was non-cognitive.  Hardshells have to read "time salvation" into the Book of Romans.  They also have to give a novel and uncommon definition to the word faith to make it lack cognition and understanding. 

Besides, scripture not only puts "faith" as a condition of salvation, but also "knowing" and "loving" God.  How can these words also be defined as being non-cognitive?  Those who are saved are always denominated as they who know the Lord and love him.  How can one know without cognition?  The idea is preposterous. 

Further, Paul says "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."  He does not say "one kind of faith comes by knowledge and information," but that "faith" comes, or is produced this way.  Hardshells disagree with Paul and deny that faith comes by hearing and so twist the words of the apostle.  Paul asks - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?"  But, the Hardshell does not accept the implications of Paul's rhetorical.   Paul argues that "believing" requires information, but such an assertion goes against Hardshellism.  Before anyone can believe in Jesus he must first be informed about Jesus.  Faith must have an object, be it a person or proposition.

In Zion’s Advocate for August, 1898, page 225, Elder Waters stated - "Every saved child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith; infants and idiots must be so saved for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated, faith (belief) therefore is not necessary to eternal salvation.”

See http://primitivebaptist.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=825&Itemid=56

Notice that Waters here speaks of "faith" as "belief," its standard meaning in the scriptures.  There is no definition of "faith" in scripture that excludes the idea of belief, and there can be no belief without knowledge.   In fact, I have often heard Hardshell preachers say that "faith" requires testimony, and argue that one cannot believe that he is saved unless he has evidence that he is so.  But, they contradict themselves when they say, at other times, that there is such a thing as a non-cognitive faith that requires no evidence, and which needs no cognition.

This view of Elder Waters was not the original teaching of the Hardshells, but was a view that developed later in the denomination, during the latter part of the 19th century.  This view was introduced first by affirming that there were "two kinds" of saving faith clearly described in the bible.  One kind was "seed faith" that is "planted" in the hearts and minds of all who are regenerated, and this they would appear to be in agreement with all those numerous passages which affirm the necessity of faith for eternal salvation.  When a Hardshell confronts a passage that he cannot deny that the "salvation" is eternal, he will go with the option of affirming that the "faith" that it is predicated upon is not "belief," or cognitive faith.  When he confronts a passage where he cannot deny that the "faith" is cognitive, then he will go with the option of affirming that the "salvation" is temporal.  He will not accept that any scripture affirms that eternal salvation is predicated upon a cognitive faith.

Elder Waters wrote:  

“Faith is the fruit of the spirit and not the soil into which the spirit is planted. Hence it, like repentance, knowledge of the truth, power to hear the gospel and further the growth in Christ is the evidence of spiritual life in the soul and not the means by which life is obtained. Eternal life may exist without all or any of these evidences. Take, for instance, the case of John, the Baptist, had he not the spirit before his natural birth when he leaped at the salutation of the mother of his Lord. Regeneration had certainly taken place but could it have been manifested by his exercise of faith, repentance, etc.? Certainly not. Upon this principle we can rejoice in the hope of the salvation of the infant, the idiot and the heathen who has never heard the name of Jesus. Spiritual and eternal life may exist then apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance towards God or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration, and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of his grace from this time state, ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the River.”  (Zion’s Advocate and Herald of Truth of June 1891)

Waters says that life must come before repentance, and may exist without repentance.  But, do the scriptures not speak of  "repentance unto life"?  (Acts 11: 18)  These words uproot the view of Waters and of the Hardshells.  Had Luke been a Hardshell he would have rather said "life unto repentance."  If spiritual "life" may exist without a change of mind, without faith and repentance, then what kind of "life" is it?  Certainly not the kind of "life" the scriptures describe.  Where is the scriptural authority for calling a man spiritually alive who is still an unbeliever, still impenitent?  What kind of "life" is it that does not involve "coming" to Jesus?  Jesus spoke of sinners coming to him that they might have "life."  (John 5: 40)  It speaks of sinners believing "that they might have life."  (John 20: 31)

To speak of spiritual life, "the life of God" (Eph. 4: 18),  that lacks love, faith, knowledge, righteousness, peace, joy, etc., is like saying a man is "alive" who is not breathing, and whose heart is not beating, and whose brain is dead.  To speak of life existing without its essential elements or attributes is to define "life" by "death."

Most Hardshells simply contradict themselves on this most important subject.  Sometimes you will hear them say that they believe that sinners come to know God in regeneration and then hear them say, at other times, that knowing God is on the sub-conscious level or non-cognitive.  Sometimes you will hear them say that they believe that all the regenerated love God, but will say that they love him who they do not know.  Sometimes you will hear them say that regeneration teaches a man, or gives him revelation, and then at other times, you will hear them say that a man's mind or cognitive abilities are not involved in it. 

Some Hardshells see the force of Paul's words in Romans 10 and admit that the "faith" mentioned is cognitive, for they see that such faith requires knowledge and revelation.  So, their only choice is to make the salvation of Romans 10 to be a strictly temporal salvation.

But, they admit that eternal salvation, in all its parts, including election, calling, justification, and sanctification, has been Paul's topic in the chapters leading up to the tenth chapter.  Thus, they have a problem making the "salvation" of the tenth chapter into a different "salvation" than mentioned in the preceding nine chapters.  How can they legitimately do this?  Is there anything in the context to indicate that Paul is now going to talk about a salvation which is not eternal?  Romans chapter ten begins this way.

^"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."  (vs. 1)

Clearly Paul must be talking about the same salvation that he was talking about in the preceding verses, where he spoke of being foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified, and kept in the love of God.  This fact will not be denied by the Hardshells.  They will agree that eternal salvation is what is under consideration in the preceding verses.  So, they must find something in the above words of verse one in order to justify their affirmation that Paul has only a temporary salvation of those already eternally saved in mind. 

But, clearly, "that they might be saved" refers to the salvation Paul has been discussing up to this point.  The first mention of the word "salvation" is in Romans 1: 16 where Paul says - "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes."

This is the same "salvation" that is discussed throughout the Book of Romans.  Thus, Paul is either speaking about a time salvation or an eternal salvation, in the epistle, but not both. 

"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."  (Rom. 5: 9, 10)

"For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"  (Rom. 8: 24)

"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved."  (Rom. 9: 27)

Are these passages not talking about eternal salvation?  Paul speaks of being "saved" as the same as being made righteous, or receiving the righteousness of God, of being justified, reconciled, propitiated, liberated, and called.

What rule do the Hardshells use to decide which passages are talking about the "two kinds of salvation"?  Is it not by applying their man-made proposition to each passage where salvation is discussed?  If the salvation involves hearing the gospel, or "cognitive faith," then the Hardshell will affirm that the salvation cannot be eternal.  He does this in spite of the context, and will alter the context to make it harmonize with his interpretation and application.  They show that they are not honest interpreters of scripture in doing so.

Waters said - "Spiritual and eternal life may exist then apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance towards God or knowledge of spiritual things."

He surely defined Hardshellism!  Who can read the scriptures and accept such a proposition?  Notice how Waters contradicts what he said earlier, when he said a person can and does "believe" in Jesus on the sub-conscious level, non-cognitively!  But, here he affirms that one who is regenerated and has eternal life does not believe in Jesus!  He here affirms that "belief in Jesus" and "repentance towards God," and "knowledge of spiritual things," was not produced when the Lord directly taught the sinner in his non-cognitive regeneration!