Is the Hardshell Apologetic Against the Necessity of Faith Evolving?

During the years I was among the Primitive Baptists the default explanation for those passages which marry faith in Christ with eternal life was that seed faith was under consideration.  In other words, all the biblical passages (and there are many) where faith is set forth as a necessity or condition in order to have eternal life were not asserting that a cognitive trust in the Lord produced by gospel revelation was essential to being saved, as the average Bible reader would conclude.  Rather, the passages had in mind a faith below the level of consciousness; in a “seed” form so to speak. 

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 20^th 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?"

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?