Gold or Stubble?

Jason Brown of "The Primitive Baptist Apologist" has been very busy of late in attempting to answer our writings against Hardshellism.  He is truly an example in Hardshell stubbornness.  Being a former Hardshell myself, I can identify with some of that obstinacy.  However, having turned away from that rebellious spirit now about thirty years, I look at Jason's stubbornness with amazement and bewilderment. 

When I was a Hardshell I held fast to Hardshell unscriptural propositions as if they were the oracles of God.  When I read passages that refuted those propositions, my first reaction was to find ways of "explaining" or "interpreting" those passages that would conform with those Hardshell premises and propositions.  I did not fully realize it at the time, but I see it clearly now, how I was guilty of eisegesis, of "corrupting the word of God" (II Cor. 2: 7) and "handling the word of God deceitfully."  (II Cor. 4: 7)  I resisted the truth.  I resisted the witness of the Spirit as I mishandled those passages that taught against my Hardshell interpretations.  But, thankfully the Lord gave me honesty and sincerity of heart and I was led to repent.  I was given a heart that desires to take God at his word even though it involves me having to "change my mind" (repent). 

I am not alone.  Throughout the history of the Hardshell denomination there have been many who converted out of Hardshellism and were glad of it.  Some of the ablest preachers the Hardshells ever had went through a similar experience to mine.  They saw that Hardshell heresies concerned major Bible doctrine and had enormous negative consequences. 

At times, in my discussions with Brother Jason, I have felt like he was making progress away from Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism, but then, he dashes that hope and reverts back into his old Hardshell way of approaching Scripture and his practice of eisegesis.  If there was ever a heretical group who are a prime example of taking their man-made propositions to Scripture, and making Scripture to conform to them, it is the Hardshells.  They are very good at "reading into" biblical texts their own translations and interpretations, and at "twisting the Scriptures" (II Peter 3: 16).

In some of Jason's latest postings he has gone back to his old Hardshell ways.  Yet, at the same time, he has started a new blog - "The Sculptor's Hammer" - in which he will offer "Constructive criticism of the exegesis and general views of some ministers among the Primitive Baptists."  Thus, Jason has one blog that specifically rebuts what we say about major Hardshell errors and another that attacks some of the minor errors of the Hardshells.  In one blog he is an "apologist," defending Hardshell heresies.  In the other he is an opponent of the false thinking of the "general views" of "some ministers" among the Hardshells.  Maybe we should call Jason a "reformer"?  Well, so are we here at "The Old Baptist" blog! 

The big difference is that Jason is attacking the leaves and the fruit, to a limited degree, while we are "laying the axe to the root of the tree."  Jason is an example of those who "halt between two opinions" (I Kings 18: 21) and who straddle the proverbial fence.  In this respect he is "double minded" and "unstable."  (James 1: 8; II Peter 3: 16) 

In his most recent posting - "Garrett's Straw, Hay, and Stubble" - Jason responds to an older posting of mine - "Jesus Uproots Hardshellism" - and it is quite obvious that what we wrote in that posting was "gold, silver, and precious stones" seeing it has endured the test of fire, the test of opposition.  Jason certainly did not burn up or destroy what I wrote in that posting!  In fact, for all he said, he did not even address the main argument! 

Here are the two verses I cited:

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you...If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10: 26, 37, 38)

^"But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved...And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not...And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life...But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you."  (John 5: 34, 38, 40, 42)

It seems that Jason agrees that these people to whom Christ preached the Gospel were not saved or elect people.  He agrees that the gospel is, in some sense, "preached to" the non-elect. 

But, the main argument in my posting was to emphasize the stated reason that Christ gives for preaching the gospel to the unregenerated and non-elect.  Why was Christ preaching to these people?  Because he had to?  Because they happened to be in the audience with his elect?  That is what Jason and the Hardshells want us to believe!  Is it not absurd? 

But, even if we admit that Christ was forced into preaching to the non-elect, why does he specifically address them?  Why does he point them out for special notice and address?  Why does Jason avoid addressing this pivotal point?  He attempts to respond to my argument by not addressing the main argument?  It is stunning.  My whole argument rested upon the fact that Christ specifically addressed the non-elect and said that he was preaching to them "that you may believe" and "that you may be saved."  This plain fact does in fact "uproot Hardshellism"!  The argument still stands unrefuted and is truly to be equated with "gold, silver, and precious stones."  It is Hardshellism's opposition to the words of Christ in the above texts that is "wood, hay, and stubble." 

Jason wrote:

"...it is plain that the gospel has purpose to the non-elect anyway; albeit not positive purpose..."

In these words Jason reveals the Hardshell leaven (corruption).  The Gospel is preached to the non-elect for no positive purpose!  It is preached to the non-elect only because it cannot only be preached to elect, because they "have to" or must do it, because they are forced to do so!  They had rather not preach the gospel to the non-elect, but since they do not know who they are, they must do what they would rather not do!  Preaching to the non-elect has only the negative purpose of sealing their damnation!  The preaching that God sends to the non-elect has an evil intention!  What leaven!  What heresy!  How degrading to the goodness and mercy of God! 

Jason wrote:

"I find in 1 Peter 4:6, that the gospel was with cause preached to the spiritually dead non-elect that they might be judged by Him who judges the quick and the dead (vs. 5)."

But, what does it mean to "preach to" a person?  Jason admits that the Gospel is to be "preached to" the non-elect.  But, his interpretation of what it means to preach the Gospel "to" a doomed person is rather to "preach at" the person.  The Hardshell "gospel" is no Gospel at all!  It has no good news for the non-elect!  It only has a negative message, a "ministry of condemnation" rather than of salvation.  Jason and the Hardshells can have their kind of "preaching" to the lost, but we will take the kind Jesus had!  He preached "to" the hearts of those he said were unregenerated and non-elect "so that you might believe," and "so that you might be saved."  The "Jesus" of Hardshellism was not sincere and honest when he spoke those words to those who were "not of my sheep."  Hardshells see no heart-felt appeal in the words of Christ spoken to these lost souls.  The Hardshells are to be pitied for their willful opposition to the teachings of these verses and how they "uproot Hardshellism." 

I am glad that Jason admits that the Gospel, by divine intention, is to be preached to the "spiritually dead" non-elect.  But, I Peter 4: 6 is not even talking about the spiritually dead, but to the physically dead!  Also, the ones referred to are not the "spiritually dead," but dead Christians!  

On I Peter 4: 6 Dr. Gill wrote:

 "not in a figurative sense, dead in trespasses and sins; though this is the case of all mankind, and of God's elect, in a state of nature, whether Jews or Gentiles; and the Gospel is preached to such, as it is ordered to be preached to all nations, to every creature, and is the means of quickening dead sinners; and this follows upon it, that such as receive it are judged and condemned by men, and live spiritually here, according to the will of God, and an eternal life hereafter; but the word "dead" is used in the same sense as in the preceding verse, where it manifestly signifies such who had been alive, but were now dead in a natural sense, whom Christ would judge as well as those that will be found alive when he comes; wherefore the Gospel has been preached also to them that are already dead, as well as to those who are now alive...but such are intended, to whom the Gospel had been preached, and to whom it had been effectual unto salvation; who had received it in the love of it, had sincerely professed it, and had suffered for it even death itself; such are designed who had suffered in the flesh, or were dead in their bodies, 1Pe 4:1 who either were dead in the Lord, or especially had suffered death for his sake, as Stephen and others: and this, with what follows, is mentioned with a general view to encourage the saints to patient suffering for Christ..."  (Commentary)

Again, Jason's interpretation of the passage is more evidence of how Jason and the Hardshells need to learn basic Biblical hermeneutics. 

Jason wrote:

"Mark 16:16 speaks of damnation upon gospel rejection, and 2 Thess. 1:7-9 can be seen as the divine response to opposition to the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Doublespeak!  More double talk!  We have already seen how Jason only wants to affirm that gospel rejection is not the "norm" for regenerated souls who hear the gospel, but does not want to say that all who hear and reject the gospel are lost.  He wants to say that there are some few regenerated souls do reject the Gospel.  He tried to make the Apostle Peter into a Gospel and Christ rejector.  According to Jason, if a person rejects the Gospel all the time, he is probably not saved, but if someone accepts the Gospel at least some of the time, then he is probably saved. 

One of the things that Jason fails to see, based upon his statement above, is that the words of Christ not only show that "damnation" (which Jason seems to affirm is eternal damnation), is the result of "gospel rejection," but also "salvation" is the result of Gospel reception!  What is the "divine response" to rejecting the Gospel?  Eternal damnation!  Why don't the Hardshells preach this?  I never heard any preach this when I was with the Hardshells.  I never heard a preacher tell sinners that they would be doomed if they did not believe in Christ! 

Jason wrote:

"Add on to all of this that Primitive Baptists must logically concede that they do not know the elect from the non-elect, which, consequently, means they will inevitably preach to at least some who are damned."

I have several responses to these words.  First, I ask - "did Jesus not know who was elect and who was not?"  Did I not cite verses where Jesus clearly identified those to whom he spoke as being non-elect?  Did I not show that he said that he preached the good news to them so that they would believe and be saved?  What Jason implies is that he would not preach the Gospel to the non-elect if he knew that they were in fact non-elect.  How unlike Jesus!  And, though he may not know who is non-elect, he certainly ought to be able to know who is saved and regenerated!  So, the question is twofold:  1) Do you know what are the clear evidences of the unregenerate state (i.e. judge men by their fruits), and can therefore discern the saved or lost state of a man? and 2) If you learn that a man is truly unregenerated, will you preach the Gospel to that man and tell him to believe and be saved?  Will you preach to them as did Christ?  Will you tell them that they are lost?  Will you tell them about Christ and salvation?  Will you tell him that his rejection of Christ will seal his eternal doom, but believing in him will seal his eternal salvation?  Is that not what Christ said to tell to the lost in Mark 16: 16?

Notice that Jason speaks of what the Hardshells "must logically concede."  Instead of merely having to "logically concede" the fact, why doesn't he just accept the plain declarations of Scripture?  Certainly the reader can see how this is a most distasteful and reluctant concession, however.  He will "logically concede" that the Gospel will "inevitably" be "preached to" the non-elect, but he will not concede that God has any good intention for it being preached to the non-elect. 

Many Hardshells have traditionally advocated the belief that "preaching the Gospel to the regenerated elect" was announcing to them that they are God's children and have been saved by Christ and are sure of heaven. By such a definition of what it means to "preach the Gospel" it was not possible to say this to "every creature" for that would affirm Universalism.  If the Gospel being preached to a man means saying to that man - "you are one of the elect and shall surely be saved" - then the Gospel is not to be preached to all.  But, if  "preach the Gospel" means to tell people of the person and work of Christ for salvation (I Cor. 15: 1-4), with the promise of salvation to all who believe it (John 3: 16; Mark 16: 16), then Hardshells say that they do this only out of necessity, but not for salvation.

Notice also that Jason speaks of having to "inevitably preach to" the non-elect.  He had rather not!  He has nothing of good news to say to them! 

Jason wrote:

"Finally, the manifest absurdity of such a position that Brother Garrett ascribes to "all PB's" is that the radicals that take this view also believe that most of the world is made up of regenerate children of God anyway! So, obviously, what would be the harm of getting on the street corner? The probability is quite high that a disobedient child of God is within earshot." 

Those who Jason calls "the radicals" are actually the view of the overwhelming majority of Hardshells since the start of the twentieth century.  Most Hardshells I ever heard interpreted "the many" (Matt. 26: 28) to mean "the majority of the human race."  All Hardshells I ever heard preached that "the multitude that no man can number" that is "out of every kindred, nation, tongue, and people," represents a majority of the human race.  All I ever heard preach on the two roads, the broad and the narrow, taught that the elect were on both roads!  The Hardshells have typically believed that the elect were many and the non-elect were few, contrary to Jesus.  (Luke 13: 23; Matt. 20: 16)

Can a believer in the Hindu gods, with no knowledge of the true and living God, or Christ, be styled "a disobedient child of God"?  Will you tell us Jason?  Were those Athenian idolaters in Acts "born again children of God" while they were polytheistic heathens?  As C. H. Cayce taught?