Jason's Improvement

In Jason Brown's latest rebuttal, he says some good things and some bad.  See here

The Good

Jason wrote:

"In mentally competent adults, the principle of grace infused by God at regeneration would embrace the revelation of God in nature as well any special revelation given by God, but it is not Paul's point in Romans 1 to give any hope of eternal salvation apart from special revelation."

"The two converse expressions (know God and believe the gospel) would describe the elect that were under the sound of the gospel."

"It is teaching in principle that those who reject Christ will be damned."

"Gospel disobedience is an evidence of eternal damnation, but obviously, as Peter, an instance of gospel disobedience does not necessarily equate to eternal damnation."

"All those under the sound of the gospel that are truly regenerated will believe in Christ on some cognitive level, as the Spirit would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:14,16)."

"Faith and obedience are characteristic of truly regenerate individuals, and it is characteristic of those preserved in Christ that they persevere in faith and holiness (1 John 5:3-5)."

"One whose life is characterized by unbelief was not saved by Christ, unless they are quickened late or at the end of life, of course. Pervasive unbelief is not characteristic of those truly regenerate. I have never rejected "believer" as being descriptive of the regenerate. What I have argued against is limiting the regenerate to NT, gospel believers. In the Scripture, under the sound of the gospel, believer and unbeliever are titles of those redeemed by Christ and those foreordained to damnation."

"I have stated many times that it is erroneous for some present Primitive Baptists to affirm that, under the sound of the gospel, the regenerate will totally reject Christ. These Primitive Baptists are in error, but these quasi-universalists are not the majority."

"If someone does not believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins, they cannot be judged to have saving faith - this is clear from Mark 16:16. One cannot know about Jesus Christ specifically except from special revelation."

Jason's views are not the view of the majority of today's Hardshells.  He may try to say otherwise, but he is stating a falsehood.  I spent enough years in the Hardshell denomination to know what the majority teach.  My dad is a leading Hardshell elder, for now 45+ years.  He will agree with me that Jason's views are not the views of today's Hardshells.  He would say that it is a minority view and one that most Hardshells would reject. 

Here is what Elder R. V. Sarrels wrote in his "Systematic Theology," a work that gives the standard view of 20th century Hardshells.

“Regeneration is a work of God in the human soul that is below consciousness. There is no internal sensation caused by it. . .God as Savior, though dimly perceived by the regenerated Pygmy, is as objectively real to him as this same God as Savior is to the most enlightened Christian. Whatever may be the Pygmy's degree of perceiving this matter, what all of this means to him as he thinks of the here and of the hereafter is of more value to him than ten thousand worlds. From the standpoint of a living, imperishable hope which bridges the grave and anchors the soul to the 'beyond,' what more could be said of the most enlightened Christian? If this matter is faced squarely and consistently, the conclusion is forced upon us that regeneration, and therefore union with Christ, is not limited to gospel lands (page 349)."

"What sort of logic must a theology create for itself which would make God limit this divine teaching to gospel areas when he does this teaching without the use of the gospel, or of any other means outside of Himself? Why should it seem a thing incredible that God should, by this teaching which he does without any agency outside of Himself, infix in the newly quickened soul the inclination toward the right, however faintly it may be understood by his child who does not have the gospel to bring his life and his blessed immortality to light?" (386)

" If theology can and must hold the innate knowledge of God's existence is creatively inwrought in the spirit essence of even the most backward races, though imperfectly perceived by them, why can theology not consistently hold that people among these same backward races may have the stamp of eternal life inwrought in their spirit essence, and may feel that in some way they are in vital relation with a protecting Reality whom they love and reverence, and whom they hope finally to see?  (Page 348, 349)

"Hence, we hold that as every natural unsaved person has an innate knowledge of the existence of God as Creator and Ruler, every spiritual or saved person, however low he may be in the scale of civilization, has an innate knowledge of the existence of God as Savior and Helper. Creation produces an intuitive conviction of the existence of God as Creator in the soul essence of the natural man, and re-creation produces an intuitive conviction of the existence of God as Savior in the soul essence of the spiritual man." (Page 349)

"None of the systems of conditionalism can consistently accept our view that clean, honest, upright men who may never have publicly professed Christ are almost certainly children of God...It seems to be a case of pure unreason to suppose that these men who love the good and the pure and who perform worthy deeds are in the same category with those men who "love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil" (John 3:19). These good men, though they may never have made a public profession of faith in the Lord, are certainly not to be classed with the haters of God. We simply cannot place such men among the enemies of righteousness and the deliberate rejecters of God. "The fruit of the Spirit...is goodness." (Gal. 5:22)

"The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progresive 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." (Page 386)

Is this Jason's view?  Is it the view of most of today's Hardshells?

Notice that Sarrels will not allow that the "divine teaching" that occurs in "regeneration" teaches a man anything about Jesus, nor about the one true and living God.  Sarrels says that heathens who worship false gods are really doing so because they have been "regenerated"!  "Good men," though heathens, though without faith in Christ and in the one true God, are nevertheless "regenerated"!  Who can believe such perversion of scripture?

Sarrels says that Hardshell doctrine does not require faith in the one true and living God, and in his Son Jesus Christ, in order to be regenerated or finally saved!  Jason, however, says that this is not what "most" Hardshells believe! 

But, I congratulate brother Jason for his view, which is much closer to the truth and to the old Baptist faith than that of the majority of neo-Hardshells. 

The steps forward that Jason needs yet to make are these:  1) he must see that heathens are not "believers" or "born again," 2) that the gospel is God's means for effecting the new birth.  He needs to see that God has ordained that all the elect come to Christ for life, and that this coming to Christ is by faith. 

Jason and all the Hardshells have it as their chief end to prove that many heathen, who have not heard the gospel, and who are worshipping false gods, are nevertheless "believers" and "born again."  But, the scriptures clearly teach the damnation of all heathen, and so taught the London Confession and Dr. Gill.  Jason denies that faith in Christ is necessary for being regenerated or finally saved, and yet the scriptures and the old Baptist confessions are against him.  I have repeatedly challenged Jason to show us the biblical passages that declare that faith in Christ is not necessary for being saved, but he has remained silent as the grave.

The bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please God."  (Heb. 11: 6)  But, Hardshells say that faith is not needed to please God, only regeneration is necessary for pleasing God.  Can the Hardshell character of a "regenerated unbeliever" please God?  Further, the "faith" of the above passage cannot be some kind of non-cognitive faith, for Paul defines "faith" by saying -  "for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."  Paul defines "faith" as a "believing" that God "is," that he exists.  Further, this is not belief in any false god, but in the God of Abraham and of Christ.  It is not faith in any "god," but in the one true God.

What is given in regeneration enables one to "please God."  This is professed by all Hardshells.  But, if one cannot please God without faith, without believing in God, then faith must be what is produced in regeneration.  Can Jason show us how the "faith" of Hebrews 11; 6 is devoid of knowledge about God?  That it is non-cognitive?   But, before I address these things at length, let me now cite the bad things Jason said in his most recent posting.

The Bad

Jason wrote:

"No revelation, natural or special, is "sufficient" for saving faith - Garrett should know better than that. In damnation, Gentiles outside of special revelation were no more disadvantaged than Jews who had special revelation, according to Paul in Romans 3:9."

If Jason means that the word and revelation of God are not sufficient, of themselves, apart from the Spirit, then I would agree.  But, if he means that the word or revelation of the gospel is not sufficient when attended by the efficacious grace and power of the Spirit, then he is wrong.  The old London Confession states - "Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto." (Section 20: 4)  Thus, what Jason affirms is not what the old Baptists have said and he is not primitive on this point.

Jason thinks that those who had God's word, in contradistinction to the heathen, who had no such special revelation, had no "advantages," is false.  Jason refers to Rom. 3: 9 to prove his proposition.  But, let us notice verses 1 & 2.

^"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

Jason says that the Jew had no advantage over the heathen!  He says that heathen had as much "advantage" as did the Jews! 

Verse 9 says - "are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." 

How does verse 9 contradict verses 1 & 2?  Yes, all are under sin, but who had the advantage in their lost state?  Paul says the Jew had the advantage.  The Jew had the means of salvation, but the heathen did not.  None are better as far as their standing in sin under the law is concerned, but to deny that those who have God's oracles are better off, so far as "advantage" is concerned, is against the plain statement of the apostle.  Jason tries to set verse nine against verses one and two.  But, they are both true.

Jason wrote:

"Paul was describing the evidences of true possession of saving faith in Romans 10:9-10, not a plan for "magic word recital" that guarantees eternal life."

Jason believes that Paul's statement that "calling upon the name of the Lord" will bring salvation is a "magic word recital."  Is confession that Jesus is Lord a "magic word recital"?  Does Jason not denigrate confessing Christ with words?  Are the words of the publican - "God be merciful to me a sinner" - also a "magic word recital"? 

Romans 10: 9, 10 do not give a plan of salvation?  How can he deny such plain teachings?  Confess Christ and be saved, said the apostle.  And, how does Jason view that statement of the apostle?  He thinks it is a "magic word recital"!  What belittling of the apostle's teachings!  Does Jason deny that confessing Christ is supernatural?  Is supernatural not a better word than "magic"?  Do the words of Paul not give us a condition for salvation?  Believe and be saved?  Call upon the Lord and be saved?  Confess and be saved?  True, for a man just to recite the words "I believe in Jesus," apart from the heart, and from conviction and faith, would avail nothing.  But, to scoff at those who do so genuinely, with the expectation of salvation, is a terrible sin.  Why don't we simply call it a healing prescription?  What is "confession" but the verbal affirmation of what is true?  A stating to be true what God says is true? 

Jason wrote:

"...but why would he say that (Romans 10: 10) if Garrett believes that Paul also taught that God could deliver the gospel directly per 1 Thess. 4:9?"

Because Paul does not exclude the personal preaching of Jesus.  But, even in the personal preaching of Jesus, Paul's statement is still true!  They still are made believers by preachers preaching the gospel!  If an angel were to preach the gospel to a sinner, Paul's statement would still be true, for "how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard," either by human messengers, by angels, or by God or Christ doing the preaching.  Paul is saying that one cannot believe in Jesus until they are informed about Jesus, that is the point.  Knowledge is necessary for faith.  This is what is denied by the Hardshells, however.  But, more on this shortly when I cite Dr. Gill on the state of the heathen.

Jason wrote:

"If a standard of gospel knowledge for viable faith is too high, Peter would have to be concluded as unregenerate..."

But, it is not whether the "standard of gospel knowledge" is "too high," as Jason assumes is the case with my views, but whether the standard is "too low," as in the case of Jason and the Hardshells.  I have continued to challenge Jason to tell us how low is that standard.  What must a person believe to be accounted a "believer" in the sense of "regeneration"?  Will he tell us, or continue to avoid answering the question?  Jason has already said that a "general trust in Jesus Christ" is characteristic of all the regenerated.  Well, "how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?"  Further, how low did Sarrels make the "standard" for saving knowledge?  Pretty low!  Such a low standard amounts to practical universalism.  Basically, Sarrels argues that any seriously religious person is regenerated!  The only ones who are not regenerated are atheists! 

Jason wrote:

"I said "amount" and "quality", not "kind"."

 Does quality not deal with kind?

Jason wrote:

"...we are not at liberty to judge as to the extent of gospel knowledge necessary beyond a general trust in Christ."

These words of Jason are both good and bad.  It is good that he acknowledges that "gospel knowledge" to some degree is "necessary" for salvation, and that this "gospel knowledge" involves a "general trust in Christ."  This is not Hardshell teaching!  If he is teaching this, then he is no Hardshell.  How does Paul say that such gospel knowledge and faith in Christ comes?  Does he not say it is by hearing the gospel preached?

Jason wrote:

"I am simply harmonizing the facts we know of Peter into a more biblical soteriology. Obviously Peter had a basic trust in Jesus as Messiah, but he erred in trust and had incomplete knowledge of how Jesus would be Lord."

But, the basic knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah, and basic trust in him for salvation, is all that is required for salvation.  No one argues that perfect faith and understanding is required for salvation.  But, I am thankful that I have at least gotten Jason to admit that trust in Christ is necessary for salvation, and that this trust in Christ is the result of being taught about him via the gospel.

Jason wrote:

"...whether I called it the "root of faith", "fundamental faith", "rudimentary faith" etc. It was always Gill's principle of grace that was in view."

Are these terms the same as Sarrel's "embryonic faith"?  Sarrels would point to a pygmy who is worshipping creatures as gods and say of him - "in his sub-conscious mind he believes differently than what he does outwardly with his conscious mind."  He is an unbeliever by profession, but he is really a believer in God and Jesus, though he does not know that he is!  How farfetched!  Further, Gill never defined "faith" as being a non-cognitive "principle of grace."  Gill believed that knowledge was necessary for faith. 

Jason wrote:

"This text, as Garrett understands it, makes public confession of Christ requisite for saving faith. Garrett's concession that Peter lacked courage and commitment is in direct contradiction with Paul's statement that whosoever truly believes will not be ashamed to confess Jesus Christ publicly (Romans 10:11)."

Confession of Christ is the immediate result of faith.  The heart acknowledges the truth about Christ.  Also, it was Paul who made confession of Christ necessary for salvation, not I.  I only agree with Paul, while Jason does not. 

Jason wrote:

"So we see that Garrett logically qualifies the confession of Romans 10:9,10 as an evidence only of eternal life. Then Garrett must allow that it is possible, though not characteristic of truly regenerate children of God, that faith can be an inner belief only without the evidence of confession, as in the case of Peter's unbelief."

True believers confess Christ and will be finally saved.  That is what Paul taught.  Why deny it?  Paul gives no hope for any pretended believer who does not confess Christ.  Certainly faith precedes confession, but where faith is present, so also is confession present.  That is the point.  Paul is affirming that a confessing faith saves, not a secret or silent faith.  Those who will not confess Christ openly show that they do not have saving faith and they will not be saved in the end.  Finally, the salvation under consideration in this chapter is final salvation, not regeneration, justification, or present salvation, just like Mark 16: 16. 

Jason wrote:

"What, then, could the salvation of confession be in Romans 10:10? It cannot be eternal salvation proper as if the confession of Jesus Christ causes eternal salvation, as Peter in his denial, as a regenerate man, fails this standard...not that eternal salvation is actually conferred by confession."

Why can it not be "eternal salvation"?  How can it not be eternal salvation?  Is not eternal salvation the subject of the preceding chapters?  Is Paul not talking about how to be accounted "righteous" before God?  What is the "shame" that the unbeliever will receive?  Is it not "everlasting shame and contempt"?  (Dan. 12: 2)  This statement about the shame that will come upon all who do not believe in Christ was first stated in the last verse of chapter nine -  "and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."  It was also repeated in chapter ten.  The salvation of both chapters are therefore the same.  Will Jason say that the salvation of chapter nine is different from the salvation of chapter ten?  When Paul said that he was praying for the "salvation" of his fellow Jews, was he not praying for their eternal salvation?  Did he believe that his fellow Jews who reject Christ were saved?  Here is what he said in 9: 2, 3:

"That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." 

Paul is here only praying for and earnestly desiring a temporal salvation?  He would wish to be "accursed from Christ" so that those already eternally saved might be temporally saved?  The salvation Paul has under consideration, however, is the result of election (Rom. 9 and 11), involves being made the "children of God" (9: 25, 26), involves escaping the fate of the Sodomites (9: 29), who Jude said are "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 1: 7).

"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."  (Rom. 11: 7)

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:  For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."  (11: 26, 27) 
 
If Romans 10 is not talking about eternal salvation, then neither is chapter nine or chapter eleven.  But, clearly the above verses show that eternal salvation is the subject.  Does the "election" obtain eternal salvation or time salvation?  The latter verse speaks of the salvation of Israel.  Is this not eternal salvation?  Is not the work of the "Deliverer" to save eternally?  Is not the "covenant" connected with being saved eternally?  Is not the "taking away of sins" part of eternal salvation?
 
Further, Paul speaks of the "all Israel" being "saved."  Why is this salvation different from the salvation Paul prayed for with regard to Israel in Romans 10: 1? 

Jason wrote:

"Those descriptions are universally descriptive of the non-elect during the entire gospel era, but all of the non-elect do not seem to be Paul's contextual reference, as he refers to those that militate against the Church."

So, Paul is not affirming that all the non-elect, all unbelievers and all who do not know God, will be lost?  Were Paul's two descriptions (know not God and obey not the gospel) not true of the non-elect during all ages, other than the "gospel era"? 

Further, Paul, like other bible writers, says "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  "Whosoever" cannot be limited to "whoever is already saved." 

Jason wrote:

"If Garrett qualifies 2 Thess. 1:7-9 away from any acts of gospel disobedience by the regenerate, like Peter, he must concede that the gospel disobedience of 2 Thess is a degree of disobedience, not just any disobedience, which is what I always argued about this passage!"

Jason is saying that the elect believe and obey only a little and the non-elect only disbelieve and disobey a little?  Why quantify what Paul did not quantify?  Paul did not believe it was hard to discern just who he had in mind by these descriptive terms, as does Jason. 

Jason wrote:

"I was indicating the degree of unbelief that can exist in the regenerate."

"The examples I gave of the degree of unbelief of which the regenerate are capable - and the consequence of physical death - were not my own. They are plainly in the Scripture in Samson and King Josiah. Does Garrett place Samson and King Josiah in eternal death? My examples were Scriptural."

But, we have already discussed the level of unbelief and doubt that genuine believers may experience and there is no need to keep rehashing it.  The big question is the level of belief that one must have in order to be saved.  Sarrels said that it is a belief in some god and some kind of afterlife!  He excluded any belief in the one true God and in his Son Jesus Christ.  He excluded any knowledge of the truth about God, Christ, and the way of salvation.  Further, it is true that physical death is sometimes a judgment that God brings upon professing Christians for disobedience and apostasy.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether the "corruption" and death of Galatians 6: 7, 8 are to be limited to physical or temporal death.

Jason wrote:

"Why limit the context of Gal. 6:7,8 to an eternal context?"

"There is no compelling reason to limit the use of this word to eternal death in this context."

"The word for corruption - φθοράν - denotes temporal decay, as in 1 Cor. 15:42 or 2 Peter 2:12."

"Gill agrees with this exegesis."

Gill wrote, however:

"shall of the flesh reap corruption...shall fall into the pit of corruption and be punished with everlasting destruction, and die the second death in the world to come.

shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting; in the use of such spiritual means, though not as meritorious, or as causes, he shall attain to, and enjoy eternal happiness in the other world; or of, and by the Spirit of God, by whose grace and strength he sows, and does all the good things he does, by and of him sanctifying him, and making him meet for it, and not of himself, or any works of righteousness done by him, shall he inherit eternal life; which is the pure gift of God through Jesus Christ, and bestowed as a reward of his own grace."

How can you read these words and say that Gill did not see the death and corruption as being eternal?  No one doubts that the word "corruption," when referring to the physical body, is not an eternal process.  Sometimes the word "life" may also refer to temporal physical life, but it sometimes denotes eternal life.  So also with the word "death" and "corruption."  Clearly eternal life is set in contrast with eternal death in the passage.  To say that Paul spoke of eternal life as the result of sowing to the Spirit but only temporal death as a result of sowing to the flesh, is gross inconsistency.  Further, I never limited the consequences of sowing to the flesh to eternal death to the exclusion of present death!  But, Jason is wrong to limit the death to a temporal or physical death.

Jason wrote:

"Garrett obviously does not believe the gospel has been preached by man to all nations that have ever existed. So he must consider that God has preached the gospel directly. But, how does this square with Paul in Romans 10:14? Paul does not allow in this text that any outside of special revelation can hear unless a preacher be sent. Sending a preacher is not God going Himself."

I already answered this, but will add these thoughts.  God preached the gospel to Abraham.  Jesus, while here in the flesh, preached the gospel to thousands.  In the Book of Revelation we read of "angels" who fly in the midst of the heavens "having the everlasting gospel to preach."  (14: 6)  In all these cases, however, Paul's statement is still true that says no man can believe without hearing information, or without first receiving knowledge, from a "preacher" or "teacher."  If an angel appears to a man and preaches the gospel, Paul's statement would still be true!  They cannot believe until they first hear information, and they must hear this information from a teacher or preacher, whether it be God, Christ, an angel, or a human preacher. 

Jason wrote:

"Gill stated that faith could be made to grasp "the proper object of faith". Gill did not - in this context - state that the faith of the unevangelized had Christ as it's object. My argument was that if Gill intended to say that the object of faith was Christ, he would have stated it as such. But, it is clear that Gill was not referring to the knowledge of Christ because the faith Gill was theorizing that God could work in the unevangelized was APART FROM THE WORD. Gill stated this clearly in his commentary."

But, I have already answered this by citing the words of Gill where he stated that faith must have knowledge of Christ, and must accept that knowledge as true.  Just because he did not mention this in his commentary on this one verse does not negate what he elsewhere taught was absolutely essential to faith.  Jason is twisting the words of Gill.

"Of The State and Case of the Heathens" by John Gill

See here

"We also know of no such covenant made with, nor of any tender of it, nor of any publication of it to the heathen world; but rather, that all that are destitute of revelation, are strangers to the covenant of promise (Eph. 2:12), which passage likewise acquaints us, that such as are without the knowledge of Christ, and God in Christ, are without hope; and that such who live and die so, have no good ground of hope of eternal life and salvation; which plainly points out the state and case of the heathens, and leaves us at no great uncertainty about it..."

"It will not be denied, that God may make use of extraordinary means; send an angel from heaven to acquaint men with the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, or by some other secret method, unknown to us; yet from the possibility of things to the certainty of them, we cannot argue: and though we would be far from judging of and determining the final state of such who are destitute of revelation; yet, according to the Scripture account of them, we cannot but conclude, that as such, and while such, they are without the means of grace, being without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

"...and from the words themselves, that believing is absolutely requisite to coming to him; not only that he exists, but that he is, in Christ, a God gracious and merciful, and a rewarder, in a way of grace, of all them that diligently seek him in his Son, in whom only he is to be so found. And since heathens are without any knowledge of him or faith in him, as such; for, how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom. 10:14). It follows, that this passage of Scripture proves the reverse of what it is brought for; namely, that it is impossible for heathens to come to God aright, to serve him acceptably; or to do what is well-pleasing to him, because they are destitute of faith; and whatsoever, is not of faith, is sin (Rom. 14:23)...But since the heathens, destitute of divine revelation are without Christ, and the knowledge of him, as the way to the Father, they must be without hope, and without God in the world (Eph. 2:12), and know not how to come to him, nor can they come to him aright...it follows not that heathens may have that faith in God which is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen; for how should they who are strangers from the covenant of promise hope, look for, and expect those things of which they have no revelation, no promise, on which to ground their faith, hope, and expectations?"

"...and indeed how should they do any thing out of love to God, and with a view to his glory, when they know him not? For though they have means of knowing the being and perfections of God, yet they know not who the true God is; but being left to the mere light of nature, fix upon that which is not God, to be so; and consequently can have no true love to the only true God, nor true faith in him, nor a true regard to his glory."

"What secret methods God may make use of to impart his grace to heathens, to afford them the aid that is requisite to perform their duty acceptably; to communicate his mercy to them, and apply the meritorious performances of Christ; are, indeed, secrets to us; and secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed, belong, to us and to our children (Deut. 29:29)."

"...that the heathens, destitute of revelation, know not God (1 Thess. 4:5); are without Christ, strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope and God in the world (Eph. 2:12); and consequently, according to all the views of things we are capable of taking from hence, must be without any means of grace and salvation."

"...but the heathens are strangers to the covenants, of promise (Eph. 2:12); they have no such promise, and are incapable of having any, without a revelation..." (Part 3 - Section 8)

Here is what the London and Philadelphia Confessions say about the state of the heathen.

Chapter 20: 2. "This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance."  ( Romans 1:17; Romans 10:14,15,17; Proverbs 29:18; Isaiah 25:7; Isaiah 60:2, 3 )

Thus, the Hardshells, in arguing for the salvation of the heathen, of those without faith, are not "primitive."  The old Baptists knew nothing about a "non-cognitive faith."  Faith is always cognitive.  Even the great Hardshell, Sylvester Hassell, knew this.  In answer to a written question sent in to Hassell, that asked What is the difference between faith and grace?, he wrote:

"Faith is belief, and grace is favor or gift; it is of God's free favor or gracious gift that we, in our hearts, believe in His Son as our Saviour (Rom. 4:16; I Cor. 12:3; II Cor. 4:6; Gal.5: 22; Eph. 1:19,20; 2:8,9; Philip 1:29; Heb. 12:2). (Elder Sylvester Hassell, Copied from the "Gospel Messenger" and from the "Advocate and Messenger" Compiled by R.H. Pittman)