The Primitive Baptist Overreaction

In a recent posting by Brother Stephen I was encouraged to read these words by Elder Ben Winslett:

“"While controversy often results in precision in how theology is expressed, we must be careful not to rush to the opposite extreme of that which we disagree. There is a ditch on each side of the road. Opposing an idea by swerving to the opposite extreme renders one in just as much error as he initially and rightly rejected.”

This is extremely sound advice, as the Elder is absolutely correct on this.  But sound advice must be heeded, and the unfortunate thing is that the very system which he and those of like mind have chosen to embrace is the epitome of overreacting to error! Hardshellism is an extreme reaction to Arminianism on the left, and an embracing of Hyper-Calvinism on the right!

It did not begin this way however.  The conception of the Primitive Baptist denomination was a reaction to modern missionary methods but it was not initially what we might call "extreme" or an "overreaction", for, as an examination of the historical data will reveal, the early founders adhered to gospel means and those methods which they thought were of God.  This is a point thoroughly documented on this site. The “throwing out of the baby with the bath water” (i.e. anti-means) would come later once the evolution of doctrine began and the missionary movement began to be attacked at the root.

Primitive Baptists rightly see Arminianism as error. Where it becomes an overreaction, however, is by advocating a total rejection of that which gives even the slightest appearance of it.  We say ‘appearance’ of Arminianism, for Primitive Baptists see it in some instances where it really does not exist.  Preaching the gospel to the lost, the necessity upon men to repent and believe, endurance to the end, are examples of the responsibility God has imposed upon mankind.  PBs feel that the enforcement of this responsibility amounts to salvation by works, and is thus erroneously labeled Arminianism.  Dismissing any inkling of human involvement in salvation, a system of doctrine is developed which eliminates responsibility from the outworking of salvation.  To put it in terms consistent with our illustration, the ditch on the left side of the road is avoided, the middle road of truth is passed over, and into the ditch on the other side of the road they sadly plunge.  In other words, Arminianism is denied, the balanced system of Calvinism (so I'm led to believe) is missed, and a form of Hyper-Calvinism is embraced.  The result is an overly simplistic and irreverent proposal of how to reconcile the apparent tension of the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man by simply divorcing the concepts altogether.

“But the doctrine (of modern PBs – KF) has made it very easy to say, we are completely separate and distinct from kind of a free-will view of salvation. But therein I think is even a challenge itself because what we tend to do in reacting to one error, is do what? Go into another error. Overreact. So our theology can’t be derived from studying an error, and saying, “Now how can I refute that”? That's what happens in debates; you wind up overstating your case because, after all I've got to beat, I've got to win. Okay?

So we’ve got to be cautious, not to just look out there and see the landscape in the religious world and say “How can we refute all those things and here's my arguments”?And so we build them bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and as the generations go on, they get even larger.” (Elder Thomas Mann)

Mann is spot on here.

So we have now cited two elders, Elder Mann and Winslett, both admonishing the propriety of using caution when reacting to error.  Elder Mann, however, sees that it is Hardshell doctrine itself which resulted from failure to exercise this caution!  He is absolutely correct in his assessment. The arguments against Arminianism by PBs are large.  Too large in fact, where they end up overstating their case by a complete repudiation of things which they ought to retain.

"What happened? Probably, we went into another ditch trying to refute an error, right? (Mann)

Went into another ditch?  Yes.

In my mind this happened in the latter part of the 19^th century, possibly early 20^th, when the discussions surrounding gospel means really began to heat up. The anti-means view gained the supremacy within the denomination, and the doctrine of gospel time salvation was invented along with all the new definitions of words and re-interpreting of certain passages that such a view demanded.

Search this site and you will find tons of evidence showing how the PBs of the 1800s were much more balanced, however, asserting the necessity of faith and repentance, and gospel preaching:  

"In order to salvation, it is necessary that we be born again; that we have faith, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; but as salvation is of the Lord, these things are as much of him as our redemption, calling or justification..." (Elder W. M. Mitchell, The Southern Baptist Messenger, 1860)


"Not, however, without repentance and faith, though some have been so full of folly, as to affirm that if sinners are saved upon the principles we maintain, then repentance and faith are needless things....Whereas none ever have, or will repent and believe, evangelically, except under the influence of special grace applied to them." (Elder John Rowe, "My Grace is Sufficient for Thee", The Gospel Messenger, 1881)

As one approaches the turn of the century, however, this balance began to be lost.  Take for example the statement of Elder Waters who wrote in 1890 that sinners were 'saved, faith or no faith'.

Take that Missionary Baptists! 

Take that Means Baptists!

Sinners don't even have to believe in Christ so why speak of missions? Why talk of gospel means?

It doesn't get more extreme than that!

It’s important for me to point out that this middle ground of truth for which we contend is understood to be within the context of eternal salvation.  That all talk regarding human responsibility belongs to the Primitive Baptist invention of a second, unnecessary, temporal salvation where the hypothetical ‘already regenerated’ man becomes his own Savior, is not middle ground for there is a changing of context from matters eternal to that of temporal. To shout ‘salvation by grace’ but that men only need to repent and believe for reasons ‘while we live here below’ is a denial of the balance of truth.  To emphasize one side at the exclusion of the other is to lie in the ditch, either to the left or to the right, whereas the truth lies right down the middle.

If any object that Hardshellism is an overreaction to Arminianism (or should I say ‘apparent’ Arminianism), what might I ask would constitute an overreaction?  What could be a more extreme response, for instance, to missionary work than by replying that sinners don’t need to hear the gospel at all?  What more extreme take on the necessity of faith and repentance can there be but to affirm they are in fact not necessary?  With regard to free-will (a true error) what more extreme view exists but to affirm that the will can actually be bypassed in both regeneration and the ensuing life? And what more extreme reaction to the view that salvation necessarily produces changes in our lives by denying that any thing of a subjective nature is required?

What greater overreaction to something can there be but the flat denial of that certain something?

A true, sound, balanced position allows for the use of conditions, necessities, secondary causation, good works, responsibility, etc. when explaining the outworking of salvation.  To the typical Primitive Baptist however, these are distinctive marks of Arminianism, buzzwords which send up red flags as soon as they are confronted. There is little to no deliberation in the mind as to what is actually meant by these terms and in what sense they are necessary but are immediately deemed inadmissible and the result is an overreaction. 

I can tell you this. I have been delivered from Hardshellism for about 10 years now and have since read behind lots of authors. It is absolutely crucial to understand what writers mean when they use these terms for distinctions are to be made. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is. I am absolutely convinced that part of the overreaction of Primitive Baptists lies in a failure to think matters through clearly before immediately discarding it.

Take for instance this statement by Elder Alton Richards in 1956:

"When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world."

Note as well these words from Elder S.N. Redford:

""I told him further that God's Word teaches that the eternal salvation of sinners is unconditional on the sinner's part, and that in every instance where it bases salvation on conditions it has reference to a temporal, or time salvation of God's people."

"This salvation could not mean eternal salvation because it is based on conditions, and we know our eternal salvation depends alone upon what Christ does for us.  Then it must mean a Time or Common salvation."

So there you have it.  Basically, blanket rules that if you confront certain terms such as conditions or the actions of men when reading a salvation text, you immediately infer that it can have nothing to do with eternal salvation.  Notwithstanding the terrible error here, note that there is no deliberation, no pause to consider or think through the plausability of secondary causation, or that there can be such things as conditions of connections. This is careless and demonstrative of great ignorance.

Now contrast these statements with the following, from men who obviously knew how to make certain distinctions:

"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation" (Sylvester Hassell).

Likewise, Elder John Watson:

"This doctrine does not stop here, but includes all ordinances, conditions, means, and modes of divine "workmanship." None of these are accidental or fortuitous as we may suppose, Reader, "Is not the Lord gone out before thee" in all these?" (Elder John Watson)

Notice no fear or hesitation on the part of Hassell or Watson to use such terms as conditions and means. Why? Because they were far more learned than their descendants and understood that they could use these terms, as long as they were explained correctly.

In closing, here are a few questions I would like to ask my former friends to ponder, in order to demonstrate the importance of thinking matters through clearly before rebelling to the opposite extreme.

1)     Does denial in free-will mean that God saves APART from the will?

      2)     Can salvation be thought of as conditional if God meets those conditions?

      3)     Are all conditions meritorious?

      4)     Are good works certain fruits of regeneration? If so does this mean that they are in some sense necessary to final salvation?

      5)   Does the inclusion of means in the outworking of salvation render it insecure if those means are guaranteed to come?

Walking the middle road of truth is where I long for you to be.