In this posting I want to critique an article by Elder Sylvester Hassell from "The Gospel Messenger" for May 1926. In his article "ANOTHER UNPROFITABLE AND DEPLORABLE STRIFE OF WORDS" Hassell made some statements that reflect his acceptation of new Hardshell theological novelties, born in the mid to late 19th century. I want to examine those statements in the light of the scriptures and the teachings of our Baptist forefathers.
Wrote Hassell:
"Another equally unnecessary and unprofitable verbal contention among a few Primitive Baptists is one similar to, if not connected with, the controversy on predestination. It is the question concerning what is called "the conditionality of time salvation," and, connected with this, the question as to the ability of the child of God to obey the commandments of his Heavenly Father."
Recall my recent postings about Elder John Clark and his writings in Zion's Advocate in the mid 1850s and how I showed that one of the questions being debated at that time was the "ability" of either the regenerated or unregenerate to do things for salvation, either for time or eternity. Clark affirmed that men were to be preached to and exhorted to do irrespective of ability. He claimed that the unregenerate had no ability, but still must be preached to, and that God would give ability to obey as it pleased him. He also fought against the idea that commands to the regenerated imply ability in them. Hassell mentions "the question concerning the ability of the child of God to obey." What would Clark say to Hassell had he been alive when Hassell wrote the above words?
Hassell continued:
"All Primitive Baptists are agreed upon the unconditionality of our eternal salvation, and the inability of those who are dead in sin to render spiritual obedience to the law of God. Instead of repentance and faith being conditions prerequisite to salvation, we understand that they are the work of the Holy Spirit in the renewed heart, and are thus essential parts of salvation; and, until this spiritual renewal, the fallen child of Adam will love sin and hate holiness and continue in rebellion against God."
Here it is clear that Hassell at this time has accepted the new PB paradigm on salvation. He seems to uphold the premise of Beebe (and of the Pelagians) that "commands imply ability." Yet, in other writings by Hassell, he condemns that motto. He also in other places states that "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."
Hassell continued:
"But there is an apparent disagreement in two or three of our Associations, among worthy and lovely brethren, who would be heartily fellowshipped and gladly welcomed by other Primitive Baptists everywhere, as to whether our time salvation, that is, our deliverance from spiritual darkness, coldness, distress, and chastisement during the present life is conditioned or dependent upon our obedience to God, and as to whether the child of God is able to obey or not."
Yes, one of the questions is "whether our time salvation...is conditioned or dependent upon our obedience." But, the bigger question, and one not asked it seems, is "whether our time salvation is necessary for final salvation?" Or, "whether our time salvation is the result of God's grace, predestination, and work, just as is our eternal salvation?"
Hassell continued:
"Now, even the authors of dictionaries have no right to manufacture or change the meanings of words; their business is simply to ascertain and state the meanings which words actually and already have in the language of which they treat. It would be deceptive to use words in a different sense from that which they generally have, unless we explain the sense which we mean. The most of controversies are strifes of words; and when words are properly defined, and their correct meaning is accepted by both parties, the controversy ends."
Well, amen to that! Did Hassell himself follow his own advice?
Hassell continued:
"It cannot be denied by any informed and honest man that such Scriptures as the following are conditional: "If His children forsake My law, I will visit their transgression with the rod, nevertheless My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from Him.." {Ps 89:30-33} "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.." {Isa 1:19-20} "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.." {Joh 13:17} "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.." {Ro 8:13} "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" {Heb 2:3} "If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.." {1Jo 2:7} See, also, such scriptures as Le 26; De 4:29-31; 7:12-26; 11:13-32; 28; Eze 18:32: Not only is it certain that these Scriptures are conditional, but it is equally certain that the condition, introduced by "if," necessarily precedes the conclusion, which would not take place unless the condition took place first. If the conclusion in these sentences means eternal punishment, then Arminianism is true; but either the text itself, or the context and other Scriptures, prove that the punishment or chastisement threatened in case of disobedience, is temporal and corrective, and not eternal and destructive, for God gives His children eternal life, and they shall never perish, and though their voluntary sins separate them from His face, nothing present or future can ever separate them from His love. {Joh 10:28-30; Heb 12; Isa 59:2; Ro 8:28-39} Thus the conditionality of time salvation is just as certain as the truth of the eternal word of God. Baptists have always heretofore understood it so; nearly all Baptists understand it so now; and this truth is in perfect accordance with Christian experience."
"If the conclusion in these sentences means eternal punishment, then Arminianism is true."
That is not a true statement. In the next posting, I will prove it. Any thoughts on Hassell's statement before I put it to the test?
No comments:
Post a Comment