I’m convinced this idea
was invented from recognizing that the scriptures so obviously set forth faith
in Christ as a condition, but it could not be tolerated that faith cometh by
hearing (Rom. 10:17). The proponents of anti-means were left with
figuring out how to get faith to the elect, but bypass the gospel as the
vehicle.
This novelty, though an
error, met the demands of their soteriological grid. It was an
anti-means interpretation first and foremost (which was the ultimate goal) which gave an answer to all the faith texts in the Bible. And much to the
satisfaction of those who wished to pine for the salvation of the heathen, it
allowed room for many of the unevangelized to yet make it to heaven, as it
could be said of the elect among them that were in fact “believers” in some
sense. Outwardly and cognitively, they were unbelievers having not
been exposed to the gospel. Yet below their consciousness lied
a seed faith imparted in the new birth, of which they
were not aware. And this constituted them “believers”. And
so the anti-gospel, anti-means mind had an answer for the claim of mainstream
Christianity that men must hear the gospel in order to receive
faith and be thus saved. God gives faith directly to the elect in the new birth, but it’s a
different “kind” of faith than that imparted by the gospel, which they may or
may not receive at some point in the future.
I believe that my friend and colleague Brother Garrett will agree with me that seed faith was
the default PB apologetic against the necessity of gospel faith for
the bulk of the 20th century.
However, in the last few
years that I was with the Hardshells I began to notice an increasing number
begin to set forth the idea that the faith Christ had in God was
what was under consideration in the faith texts of the scriptures. This often
left me puzzled as I had always held to seed faith as the
default explanation. Who was right?
Not long ago I followed
a conversation on Facebook between several Primitive Baptists in which the
faith of Ephesians 2:8 was being debated. It was extremely sad to
read the various opinions which were set forth. Some claimed that
this great regeneration passage was not talking about eternal salvation at
all! Rather, it too was a reference to a time salvation,
a novelty I never heard any Hardshell set forth in the 10 years I was with
them! Why, this is one of the most treasured verses among
Christians, and one of the most treasured among the Primitive Baptists, for it
trumpets forth the wonderful declaration that salvation is of the Lord and by
His grace! Why, this was the very first passage I learned and
rejoiced in when I came to understand the doctrines of grace. And I can’t even begin to recall how many
Sundays I heard this passage quoted from the pulpits!
Things are getting
pretty sad if one of the most classic “salvation by grace” passages in the
Hardshell arsenal is itself being turned into a proof text for time
salvation!
But others were atleast claiming
that eternal salvation was under consideration, only that we are saved
through Christ’s faith. I was not surprised by this
fanciful interpretation. What I was shocked to see was that not one stood up in
defense of Ephesians 2:8 as referencing eternal salvation with the “traditional”
PB response to the faith under consideration.
And by traditional, I mean the one used for the past 100 years. Certainly not before that. I was utterly
amazed that not one stood up in defense of the salvation here as eternal,
only with the caveat that we are saved by grace thru seed faith! It
was what I did for 10 years, and what I always heard every other elder always
propose! If it were not for the fact that it would have been about ten
against one, I would have entered the discussion and stated the
obvious:
“Guys, you’ve had a rebuttal to the necessity of faith argument for about 100 years. Two kinds of faith, remember? To go along with the two kinds of salvation, two kinds of having peace with God, two kinds of knowing God, two kinds of following Christ, two kinds of being delivered from darkness, two kinds of having your eyes opened, etc. that your paradigm demands. Do you no longer believe in that? Is there no kind of faith at all imparted to the elect in regeneration? Conscious or subconscious?"
“Guys, you’ve had a rebuttal to the necessity of faith argument for about 100 years. Two kinds of faith, remember? To go along with the two kinds of salvation, two kinds of having peace with God, two kinds of knowing God, two kinds of following Christ, two kinds of being delivered from darkness, two kinds of having your eyes opened, etc. that your paradigm demands. Do you no longer believe in that? Is there no kind of faith at all imparted to the elect in regeneration? Conscious or subconscious?"
Is the Hardshell
doctrine continuing to evolve? Is seed faith no
longer the default answer as to what kind of faith is
essential to being saved?
1 comment:
Dear Brother Kevin:
Shortly after I was saved (in a Southern Baptist Church), I joined the church father pastored and was baptized. Soon I started to speak in service and I recall speaking of how faith in Christ is what saved me and others. I still have this cassette of that introductory message. Father got up after me and stated that the faith that is "given in regeneration" was not a "doctrinal" or "creed" faith, but a kind of "seed faith." So, yes, I was taught that also. However, looking back, I see how this was all a bunch of nonsense and that my first understanding of what is faith, and of its role in salvation, was the correct one.
Blessings,
Stephen
Post a Comment