As was seen in the previous chapter, the old Baptists have always had a bias against affirming that salvation was conditional. Such a bias has often put them on the defensive with the Arminians and led them to clarify what they meant and what they did not mean. In defending what they intended by their denial of conditional salvation, they showed that they did not go to extremes, as have today's Hardshells. They did not go to an extreme and affirm that salvation was unconditional in every sense of the term, but maintained that faith and repentance, or conversion and perseverance, were necessary for being eternally saved, that they were conditions of connection.
It seems that it was a common trait of many old Baptists to often speak in favor of "unconditional salvation" and to denounce "conditional salvation." In further proof of this, notice these remarks of Dr. John Gill, a man who had leanings toward Hyper Calvinism.
Gill wrote:
"...salvation is through faith, not as a cause or condition of salvation, or as what adds anything to the blessing itself; but it is the way, or means, or instrument, which God has appointed, for the receiving and enjoying it, that so it might appear to be all of grace..." (Commentary on Eph. 2: 8)
"Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace...Meaning either the promise of being heir of the world, or the inheritance itself, or adoption which gives heirship, or remission of Sin, or the blessing of justification, either and all of these are of faith; not as the cause or condition of them, but as the means of God's fixing and appointing to be the recipient of all and each of them..." (Commentary on Rom. 4: 16)
“...faith is not the cause, or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follows upon it.” (Commentary on Acts 13: 48)
One can easily see the bias of Gill towards affirming that salvation was unconditional. Yet, one can also see his need to further explain what he means. Gill realized that denying conditions in salvation often gave a wrong impression to many, who would ask - "are not faith and repentance conditions for salvation?" To this Gill and the old Baptists would promptly clarify themselves and their clarification was always for the purposing of affirming that faith and repentance were necessary requirements for salvation. Thus, Keach and Bunyan were careful to distinguish between absolute promises and conditions and those that are conditional, and that the performance of the latter were dependent upon the former. Leading Hardshell of the late 19th century, Sylvester Hassell, related the view of Keach and Bunyan and showed that all the conditions of salvation were guaranteed fulfillment by the terms of the absolute and unconditional promises of salvation. They did not take the view of Gowens, and modern Hardshells, which says that the salvation that is conditional, in scripture, is a different salvation from the one that is unconditional, one being temporal and the other being eternal. It was their inability to understand how the same salvation was both conditional and unconditional, as the old Baptists explained, that led them into their error.
Andrew Fuller wrote:
"I have no partiality for calling faith, or any thing done by us, the condition of salvation; and if by the term were meant a deed to be performed of which the promised good is the reward, it would be inadmissible. If I had used the term, it would have been merely to express the necessary connection of things, or that faith is that without which there is no salvation; and, in this sense, it is no less a condition in Mr. A.'s scheme than in that which he opposes. He thinks, however, that the promises of God are, by his statement of things, disencumbered of conditions; yet how he can prove that God has absolutely given Christ and spiritual blessings to multitudes who will never possess them, I am at a loss to conceive. I should have supposed that whatever God has absolutely promised would take effect." (pgs. 24, 25, The works of Andrew Fuller, Vol. I, "The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation," - See here)
Fuller shows the same reluctance to affirm that salvation was conditional as Bunyan, Keach, and Gill, and also manifested the same need to guard against the connotations that are often associated with denying salvation to be conditional. Fuller says that he does not mean "condition" in the Pelagian or Arminian sense, that it implies that salvation is by deeds and meritorious. When Fuller refers to "any thing done by us," he means to oppose the idea that faith and repentance of "done by us," i.e., done by our own free will and power. He certainly is not denying that they are actual believers and penitents who do the believing and repenting. What Fuller and the old Baptists were affirming was that they believed that faith and repentance were more properly the work of Christ in us, were gifts of grace, resulting from divine choice, being the "fruit (or effects) of election." They resisted any attempts to make faith and repentance to be primary causes, but rather affirmed them to be secondary causes and conditions. Fuller says he accepts the fact that salvation is conditional in order to show "the necessary connection of things," and to affirm "that faith is that without which there is no salvation."
Dr. Kenneth Keathley, present day author, wrote:
"Faith is not the means to deserve salvation, but it is the means to obtain it (John 3:36; Acts 16:31). Faith is not the condition for God to give salvation, but it is the condition to receive it. Therefore exercising faith is not meriting salvation. When a free gift is given, the merit belongs to the giver of the gift, not the recipient (Rom.4:16; Eph. 2:8-9)." (See here)
This is exactly what Bunyan, Keach, Gill, and Hassell affirmed. Gill, though reluctant to use the word "conditional" as an adjective with "salvation," nevertheless was not reluctant to use the word "means," to affirm that faith and were repentance were "means." And, what is a "means" but a "condition"? They also were not reluctant to say that faith is the means for "receiving" salvation.
T. P. Simmons, in his Systematic Theology, wrote:
"Arminians charge that unconditional election means unconditional salvation, and that we teach that men were actually saved in eternity. Both charges are groundless, for election is not salvation. We were unconditionally elected in eternity to a conditional salvation in time. And when we speak of salvation as being conditional we do not mean that the salvation of the elect is in any way fortuitous or uncertain, but only that certain conditions (repentance and faith) must be fulfilled before they come to possess salvation."
One should recall the citation of Gowens, in the previous chapter, where Gowens was unable to see how the scriptures could be talking about the same salvation when it spoke of salvation in both conditional and unconditional terminology, and how he thought that making all the verses speaking of conditions to deal with a strictly temporal salvation, and that making all the verses speaking of what is unconditional to be dealing with eternal salvation, answered the difficulty. I responded by affirming that this new paradigm ought not to have been forced on scripture, and that the Hardshells should go back to the faith of their forefathers, like Bunyan, Keach, Gill, Fuller, and Hassell, and see that the same salvation is both conditional and unconditional, in the sense that they explained.
Simmons, like Keathley, accurately affirms the old Baptist position about how salvation is both conditional and unconditional and that there was no contradiction in saying so. Simmons spoke of being "unconditionally elected in eternity to a conditional salvation in time."
Simmons continued:
"A condition is "something that necessarily precedes a result, but does not produce it." In eternity the salvation of the elect was purposed, and the elect are spoken of in the purpose of God as called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8: 29, 30), but this is simply the language of Him, who in His purpose, "calleth the things that are not, as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). Many passages clearly teach that actual salvation takes place in time. For this we strongly contend. We have no patience whatsoever with the theory that the salvation which takes place in time is only temporal salvation, or salvation as it respects this life." (VI. ELECTION IS UNTO SALVATION)
Simmons explains that salvation is conditional in the sense that faith and repentance "necessarily precedes a result." He then condemns the Hardshell explanation of "temporal salvation" in their attempts to make salvation unconditional in every respect.
Simmons continued:
"At the same time God chose His people He ordained all the means necessary to accomplish their full and final salvation. See Rom. 8:29, 30. These means were inseparably joined to election in the decree of God. We have no sympathy with Hardshellism, hypercalvinism. To say that the elect will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not is to misunderstand completely the connection between election and the means God has ordained for the accomplishment of the end of election."
Simmons was correct in his denunciation of Hardshellism in its rejection of the means and conditions of salvation.
Simmons continued:
"Salvation—spiritual, temporal, and eternal—is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 8:26). All the heathen that die without hearing the gospel will be lost (Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:12). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17)."
Wherever God has an elect soul, in the fullness of His own time, He will in some way send the gospel to call that one from darkness to light. See 2 Thess. 2:14. Thus Philip was sent to the elect eunuch, and thus it was given to Paul to endure that the elect might obtain eternal salvation (11 Tim. 2:10). Thus we have the divine tie between election and missions."
Simmons affirms the scriptural and primitive Baptist belief and shows how the Hardshells are not "Primitive" as they claim.
Simmons continued:
"Some charge that unconditional election makes all means useless. They say if the case is so with man that he cannot by nature receive spiritual things and must be quickened by the Spirit before he can turn from sin, being sure to turn when he is quickened, then why preach to him? We preach to him, first of all, because God has commanded it. We accept God’s Word whether we can reason out why He speaks thus and so or not. We do not make our reason the standard of obedience or truth, as is the case with Arminians. But, on the other hand, we find God’s Word to teach that God calls His elect by the Word, since the Word is the instrument of the Spirit in regeneration (John 3:5; Eph. 5:25, 26; Titus 3:5; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). There is no more incongruity in preaching the gospel to the spiritually dead than there was in Christ’s standing before the tomb of Lazarus, dead four days, and saying, "Lazarus, come forth." As long as he remained dead Lazarus could not hear, much less obey, the command. But the life-giving power of God accompanied the Word of God, and Lazarus both heard and came forth. It is ours to preach the gospel to every creature, for so has Christ commanded. It is God’s part to bring the dead to life. See also the parable of the dry bones in the valley, where we have a picture of conversion through preaching (Ezek. 37). The dry bones represent the state of sinners by nature. The bones were lifeless; yet preaching to them was not in vain."
Gowens and the Hardshells, unlike Simmons and the Old Baptists, make human logic and "reason" into the "standard of truth," but the Old Baptists relied solely upon express scriptural statements. The Old Baptists did not deny means and divorce faith from its necessary connection with salvation. They rejected both the "word alone" and "Spirit alone" extreme views.
Simmons continued:
"And Arminians ask, "Why pray for the lost, since all God’s elect will be saved and none others can be saved?" We pray for the lost for the same reason that Paul prayed for men, even though he taught unconditional election. We pray for the lost for the same reason that Christ prayed for the security of believers, even though that security was already certain. See John 17:11. Christ also prayed for a restoration of His former glory with the Father. See John 17:5. Was that in any sense uncertain? Prayer, as well as preaching, is a means of God in carrying out His will. His purposes are sovereignly fixed and eternally immutable, but He did not fix them independent of means."
The Hardshells departed from scripture and the Old Baptist faith when they denied preaching, faith, repentance, and perseverance, to be means and conditions for salvation and that God's eternal decree of salvation involved their conversion to Christ by the gospel, that the absolute and unconditional promises of God secured the fulfillment of all the conditions done by his chosen people in effectual calling.
In section IV, titled "Election is not Hardshellism," Simmons wrote:
"It is customary for Arminians to reproach the Bible doctrine of election by referring to it as "Hardshellism." May God forgive them, for they know not what they do. That election is not Hardshellism is proved by the following facts:
1. ELECTION IS INDISSOLUBLY JOINED TO THE GOSPEL AS GOD’S MEANS OF CALLING HIS ELECT TO SALVATION.
This is proved by the Scriptures given above that show that regeneration is through the Word. And it is also proved by 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. The elect have been chosen to "salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." To this, Paul says, they are "called by our gospel." Typical Hardshells deny the indispensable necessity of the knowledge of the gospel in regeneration. For that reason they show little concern in the carrying out of the great commission.
2. THE HARDSHELLS AND MISSIONARIES DID NOT SPLIT OVER ELECTION.
(1) They split over "mission, education, support of pastors, and other religious enterprises" (Jarrell, p. 431).
(2) In the split both parties held to unconditional election.
It will not be challenged that the Hardshells held to this doctrine. That the Missionaries did too is proved by the testimony of Spencer, who says that the Missionaries, "which embraced the main body of the denomination, held the doctrinal sentiments of Andrew Fuller," who believed in unconditional election, even though he taught an atonement of universal sufficiency. See History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 1, p. 645.
3. THERE IS YET NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MISSIONARIES AND HARDSHELLS ON THE MATTER OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.
This is proved by—
(1) The fact that both accept the statement on election in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
Hardshells still accept this. And among the Missionaries this confession "is stiff widely used, and in the South it is probably the most influential of all confessions" (McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 298).
(2) The fact that unconditional election is taught in the other great American Baptist confession—the New Hampshire.
(3) The fact that all our standard theological text books and all doctrinal books written by representative and recognized Baptists teach this doctrine.
4. BAPTIST BELIEVERS IN UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, COUPLED WITH THE GOSPEL AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS IN REGENERATION, HAVE EVER BEEN MOST AGGRESSIVE IN THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL.
Modem missionary vision and effort originated, not among the General (Arminian) Baptists, nor yet among any other Arminian denomination, but among the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists of England. See the record in most any Baptist history. Robert Hall, Sr., Andrew Fuller, and William Carey were the leading lights.
American world-wide missionary effort originated in the Philadelphia Association, which adopted the hated Philadelphia Confession of Faith. See "The Story of Baptists," Cook, p. 327. "The Philadelphia Association speedily became the leading body of American Baptists—a position that it has not wholly lost to this day (1897). Pretty much everything good in our history, from 1700 to 1850, may be traced to its initiative or active cooperation" (Vedder, Short History of Baptists, p. 204)." (Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, Chapter 20)
These words of Simmons show a great understanding of the errors of Hardshellism and give a complete refutation of their false claims about being scriptural and primitive Baptists.
H. Boyce Taylor, who I cited in chapter ten, wrote:
"The second heresy of Hardshellism is like the first, a half-truth. They teach the doctrine of personal, unconditional, eternal election. That is the truth, but not all the truth on that subject. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). But they warp and wrest and twist that truth and make it teach a lie, namely, that if God elected a man unto salvation, he will be saved, whether he ever hears the gospel or not. The God, who elected the men unto salvation, also elected the means for their salvation. To preach the personal election of men, as Hardshells do, and leave out or deny the divinely chosen means, is not only not the truth, but is a wicked perversion of the truth...God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel. These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel. Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth. Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation. Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means. But once more Paul said: "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10). The elect will obtain eternal glory; but how? By the missionaries enduring all things that they may preach the gospel by which the elect are called unto salvation. Since Hardshell election leaves out missions it is not God's kind, not Paul's kind and not the truth."
These words of Boyce, like those of Simmons, need little comment. Boyce shows how the leading error of Hardshellism is no minor departure from the truth, and how it is really anti gospel, anti salvation, anti biblical.
No comments:
Post a Comment