Loudermilk & Hardshell Hermeneutics

Heretics and cults are skilled in twisting scripture 

(to their own destruction - II Peter 3: 16)

In an article titled "Keep it in Context," by elder Ronnie Loudermilk (for August 2, 2022 - here), pastor of Union Grove Primitive Baptist church here in my hometown (Monroe, NC), Loudermilk cites three texts of scripture and gives his view of them as seen through Hardshell spectacles. (I have critiqued Loudermilk several other times, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here)

In his comments upon them he gives us the standard Hardshell "grid" which he brings to the texts and uses to interpret them; And yet in a instance of spectacular irony he tells us that false interpretations arise from the failure to pay attention to context! He seems blinded to the fact that he violates this very fundamental rule of interpretation. In this he needs to practice what he preaches (like his Hardshell brethren also,  who are infamous for twisting scripture and taking verses out of context). Loudermilk often ignores the context by his imposing upon those passages his grid. 

Here are the three texts he gives at the head of his apologetic writing:

(a) John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” 

(b) John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:…” 

 

(c) Romans 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Here then is what he said in regard to properly interpreting them:

"When reading scripture, it is very important to keep verses in context. So often we converse with Bible students who interpret verses that are in the temporal context as an eternal lesson. When we say temporal, we are saying that it is a verse which is for the child of grace in this temporal world and has temporal consequences or blessings (often referred to as Time Salvation). When we say a verse is in the eternal context, we are saying the verse is about the eternal salvation of the covenant children of God, which is by grace and God’s grace alone. One of the biggest differences between a Primitive Baptist and a Calvinist is the Calvinist often interprets the temporal verses in the eternal context, and the eternal verses in the temporal context, this makes one sound exactly like an absolute predestinarian."

Rebuttal Observations

He is basically giving us his grid (paradigm perhaps we could say, or his set of presuppositions) the one I referred to in that popular post titled Montgomery On Time Salvation), in which I cite these words from Elder David Montgomery, a modern day spokesman for Hardshell ideas. He cites from Texas elder Afton Richards (who I met when in Texas preaching in 1976). Elder Richards passed on that Hardshell grid to brothers like Elder Montgomery. 

Elder Montgomery begins (emphasis mine):

"Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist". On page 21, he gives a definition of time salvation. Elder Richards says, "Primitive Baptists read the Scriptures with the desire of getting the harmony taught therein, and they enjoy much comfort that others do not get. When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. 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.""

Loudermilk is affirming the same thing. He says you must know when a verse is speaking of "time salvation," and when it speaks of things dealing with what is eternal, including eternal salvation. But, you see, the hermeneutic principle of Richards, Montgomery, and Loudermilk, is not induced (nor deduced) from scripture, as I have shown in numerous articles. 

In another posting in the series "Conditional or Unconditional?" (here) I wrote:

Elder Michael Gowens, present day Hardshell writer, wrote:

"Further, the Bible employs both unconditional and conditional language. In one text we are told that salvation is “ordered in all things and sure”; in another that a person is saved “if [he] keeps in memory what was preached” (2 Sam. 23:5; 1 Cor. 15:2). How can the same object be both unconditional and conditional simultaneously? How can it both depend on man and not depend on man at the same time? Obviously, the only legitimate way of interpreting these kinds of apparently contrary ideas is to understand that not every “salvation” verse is talking about salvation in the ultimate sense."

I then responded by writing:

"In these words there is revelation of the problem that modern Hardshells have as regards the historic teaching of the old Baptists regarding unconditional salvation.  Gowens admits that salvation in the Bible "employs both unconditional and conditional language" and sees this as contradictory and then queries - "How can the same object be both unconditional and conditional simultaneously?"  He then answers his own query by saying "the only legitimate way of interpreting" such incongruity is "to understand that not every 'salvation' verse is talking about salvation in the ultimate sense."  But, this is not the "only" way to deal with the incongruity, and is certainly not the "way" the old Baptists who wrote the old London Confession of 1689 resolved the seeming difficulty, as we shall see."   

Wrote Loudermilk:

"One of the biggest differences between a Primitive Baptist and a Calvinist is the Calvinist often interprets the temporal verses in the eternal context, and the eternal verses in the temporal context, this makes one sound exactly like an absolute predestinarian."

No, brother Loudermilk, "thou art the man." You show that you are controlled by a system (what we call hardshellism). Dr. John Piper recently said (in his article on Predestination here) this about this:

"I’m very, very jealous here not to be controlled by a system. I know that whatever view you have, it is very easy to be controlled by other truths besides the text you’re dealing with, rather than looking in the context to see what it really means." 

Elder Sylvester Hassell also condemned many of his Hardshell brethren for their ignoring sound rules of interpretation. (See Hassell On Interpretation) Hassell well describes the kind of interpretation that we get from Loudermilk, Montgomery, Gowens, et. als. 

The "Primitive Baptist" are in the habit of interpreting texts that deal with eternal salvation as dealing with temporal and optional salvation. 

Wrote Loudermilk:

"When reading the three verses previously cited, we cannot and should not interpret these in a temporal context. Please consider:

(a) John 6:37 is not and cannot be interpreted in a temporal context. If a person interprets this verse as a person coming to the Lord to trust Him for everlasting life, they have without question missed the mark. The verse teaches “All” that the Father gave the Son “shall” come to Him. There are only two times when all the covenant (Father gave) children of God come to the Lord. These two times are in Regeneration and in the Resurrection. The verse cannot be interpreted as coming to Jesus in trusting, otherwise we would be forced to conclude all infants and all mentally challenged are NOT children of God (which is heresy).

Why does John 6: 37 deal with eternal salvation according to Loudermilk? Because, he says, it is something that all the elect (those given by the Father to Christ) are said to experience. We agree with him on this. However, when he says that "coming" to Christ is not a "coming to the Lord to trust him for everlasting life" we must part ways with him, for that is exactly what it means. Further, that is the position of our old Baptist forefathers. In stating this he is giving an interpretation of what it means to "come" to Christ that is against the context, both the immediate and general. In chapter 19 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" on what is meant by "coming" to Christ in John 6 I wrote the following:

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (vs. 64-66)" (See here)

Lots of new testament texts speak of coming to Christ and they never mean what hardshellism affirms, which is no coming at all, being something that somebody does on the non cognitive or subconscious level, something that even infants and idiots can do (a silly thesis). Coming to Christ is a believing in Christ, and believing involves trusting Christ. I also wrote the following in that chapter:

Furthermore, they are forced, by their aberrant soteriology, to make this "coming to Christ" something on the "sub-conscious level." How a man can read the passages above, paying close attention to the context, and come up with such a notion is truly bewildering, if not bewitching. The "coming to Christ" is absolutely equivocated to mean "believe in Christ." It is all the same as "learning" the truth about Christ from the Father. Everyone who reads these passages on coming to Christ sees that it is all the same as believing in Christ, everyone except the Hardshells of course, who make this coming to Christ to be totally unconnected with believing and trusting in Jesus for salvation. They say this and then have the gall to say that they are careful to interpret by the context.

I am so tired of hearing Hardshell apologists talk about how they are the ones who "go by the context" of passages in their hermeneutics. Only they, they constantly affirm, "rightly divide the word of truth." Yet, as I have shown, and will continue to do, they absolutely ignore "context" and place their theorems into the Bible by twisting and distorting the sacred words of truth. Brother, show me anywhere in this "context" where the "coming to Christ for life" is any other thing than what the "context" shows and as Spurgeon said and I also have been affirming.

Here is what Spurgeon said it means to "come to Christ."

"To whom coming."—1 Peter 2:4

"To whom coming." Coming to Christ does not mean coming with any natural motion of the body, for he is in heaven, and we cannot climb up to the place where he is; but it is a mental coming, a spiritual coming; it is, in one word, a trusting in and upon him. He who believes Jesus Christ to be God, and to be the appointed atonement for sin, and relies upon him as such, has come to him, and it is this coming which saves the soul. Whoever the wide world over has relied upon Jesus Christ, and is still relying upon him for the pardon of his iniquities, and for his complete salvation, is saved."

Loudermilk says that John 6: 37 "cannot be interpreted in a temporal context" and I agree except with this qualifier: the coming is a temporal act (act occurring in time) but it is a necessary requirement for obtaining eternal life. But, if Loudermilk were following the rule of Afton Richards and David Montgomery, then he would not connect it with eternal salvation for "coming" is a verb and shows action and this makes it to deal with temporal salvation by that rule. Thus, Montgomery and Richards would be forced to deny Loudermilk's assertion that coming to Christ deals with eternal salvation for coming is what someone does and their proposition (or presupposition) is that anytime salvation is conditioned upon something people do then it is not dealing with eternal salvation. 

But, Loudermilk wants to say that coming to Christ is not dealing with a mere temporal salvation (one not required for going to heaven). He wants to affirm that it is dealing with eternal salvation (good for him). He says that it is dealing with eternal salvation because it is something that is said of all the elect (without exception). Again, good for him. Loudermilk's way to deal with the problem (that the text presents to Hardshellism), is different however, for he said - "If a person interprets this verse as a person coming to the Lord to trust Him for everlasting life, they have without question missed the mark." He wants to alter what it means to "come to Christ." He does not want to say that it has anything to do with being converted, with evangelical faith and repentance. Why? Because of the way "coming to Christ" is described and defined in the scriptures (context)? No, for in them it is defined in terms of conversion. 

Look at all the places in the bible where coming to either God or Christ is defined and see if it is defined in the way Hardshellism defines it. You will see that it is never defined as something infants and idiots do, something on the subconscious level, something that is non cognitive, something not involving conscious faith. No, all those texts unanimously say that "whoever comes to God must believe" (Heb. 11: 6) just as the context of John 6 does. But, if that is true (and it is), then the text is saying "all that the Father gives to me will believe and trust in me," the very thing Hardshellism denies. Again, Christ asserts that all the elect will come to him in faith, that union with Christ will come through faith.

In response I also say - If a person in interpreting this verse denies that it involves a person coming to Christ with his heart, will, and mind, and a trusting and confiding in Christ, then he is the one who has missed the mark! Why would Loudermilk deny that coming to Christ is cognitive and involves believing and trusting? Especially seeing it is so novel and strange an idea and contrary to the thinking of all bible believers? 

Loudermilk says - "here are only two times when all the covenant (Father gave) children of God come to the Lord. These two times are in Regeneration and in the Resurrection."

What a gross misinterpretation! Such statements as these show that Loudermilk does not believe that the sheep continue to come to Christ throughout their lives. As far as his paradigm is concerned, a man is left in a vegetative state between regeneration and resurrection! He came to the Lord in his regeneration but after that he did not come any more! Only few of the elect, in the mind of Lourdermilk, come to the Lord in daily life after their first coming to the Lord in regeneration. However, the coming, though it has a beginning in regeneration or conversion, does not stop and start, but is linear, continuous, and progressive, just as is the hearing and following of the sheep (John 10). 

Loudermilk says - "The verse cannot be interpreted as coming to Jesus in trusting, otherwise we would be forced to conclude all infants and all mentally challenged are NOT children of God (which is heresy)."

Is that how he interprets texts? Whatever happened to his rule of the context? Coming to Christ in the context is equated with believing in Christ. He shows that he is guided by his human logic rather than what is plainly revealed. How does he know that those who die in infancy and mentally incapacitated people cannot come to Christ? If that happens to them the instant before their deaths, then how could such be known? We cannot interview any and they will not be alive to speak of their having come to Christ. If God can raise up children unto Abraham from rocks, then he can bring dying infants and idiots to faith. (See Matt. 3: 9) Do they enter heaven without such a faith in Christ? Are they in heaven now who are not trusting him? 

Further, it is probable that Christ means "all the elect who are mentally able to come to me will come to me." It is probable that he does not have the case of infants and idiots in mind when he makes that statement. In either case, however, coming to Christ is something that involves believing and trusting in Christ, the very thing Hardshells like Loudermilk deny! They affirm that not all adult elect come to Christ in conversion and yet all their oldest confessions say "we believe all the elect will be regenerated AND converted." Let Loudermilk come forward and give us the texts which show that coming to Christ is non cognitive! 

No, the coming is the same that Jesus spoke about when he said "suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not." (Matt. 19: 14; Luke 18: 16) That coming to Christ was not without cognition, not without faith and repentance.

Wrote Loudermilk:

(b) John 10:27 is a verse which must be interpreted in the eternal context for the same reasons. The previous verse (John 10:26) declares the Lord’s knowledge in knowing His sheep. Those did not come to Him in the context considered, nor believe in Him because they were not His. There are many reasons why people will not believe, and because we cannot see as the Lord sees, we cannot thus judge. But the Lord knows why these did not believe. He knows they are not His.

Rebuttal Observations

Well, if we go by the rule of Richards and Montgomery, then we cannot say John 10 is dealing with eternal salvation for being sheep involves them in doing something, such as hearing, believing, and following Christ. But, in the passage all the sheep hear the Shepherd, follow the Shepherd (continuously and consciously), and do not follow strangers. Since this is so, Loudermilk will be forced to say that infants and idiots also hear and follow Christ. After all, both John 6 and 10 affirm what is true of all the elect, including those who die in infancy and those who are in a vegetative state in their lives. 

The truth is, it is doubtful that Christ has idiots and those who die in infancy in his mind when he says all will come to him, and that all the sheep will hear his voice and follow him. And, if he did have them in mind, the only answer is not to change the meaning of coming, hearing, following, etc. The best answer is the one I gave if it is accepted that Christ has infants and idiots in mind when he said what he said. Further, when Paul affirms that all the sons of God are chastened of the Lord does he have regenerated infants and idiots in mind? (Heb. 12: 6-7)

Wrote Loudermilk:

"John 10:27-30 teaches us about the covenant children of God following the Lord, without fail." 

Good for him! I agree and this is what our old Baptist forefathers taught. It is what the text requires us to believe and it is in agreement with many other bible texts. But, do infants and idiots follow the Lord, brother Loudermilk? Can one follow another sub consciously and non cognitively? 

He then says:

"The only two times this happens is in regeneration and in the resurrection. If these verses are used to teach gospel obedience, the Bible student has missed the mark."

Coming to the Lord in regeneration and the resurrection do not involve obedience? Further, the coming connected with the bodily resurrection is not a coming to Christ per se but a coming to life. Coming to Christ in regeneration is evangelical conversion and this is what Loudermilk denies and his view is heretical and cultist thinking. Jesus said that it is they who have "done good" who will experience the resurrection of the righteous or resurrection unto life. (John 5: 28) What good do dying infants and idiots do brother Loudermilk? 

Wrote Loudermilk:

"(c) Romans 8:29-30 is a precious portion of scripture to many Bible students. The verses teach us about God’s eternal grace in saving His people from the condemnation of sin. Nowhere in these verses does it teach that this work will result in the recipient of grace manifesting faith in God. Every born again (called) child of grace has the Spirit in them." 

Of course it does! Everywhere in the new testament God's calling is talked about it is in the context of people being called by the gospel and being called to faith. (See II Thess. 2: 13-14 for example) He says "every born again child of grace has the Spirit in them" and I agree and just how is that Spirit received? Wrote Paul: "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)

Wrote Loudermilk:

"Every child of grace has an ability to manifest the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), but these verses do not teach that every child of grace will manifest these fruit to be seen by those present." 

There is an example of the Hardshell mind, how it reasons. "Every child of grace has an ability...but." They all have the ability to believe or have faith, but only few of them exercise that ability in actual believing! They all have ability to repent but only few of them exercise that ability in actual repenting! Etcetera. 

Wrote Loudermilk:

"If a person says that eternal salvation will always result in faith in the truth being manifested, my question to them is, what do you call truth?"

What does he mean by "manifested"? Does he mean actually believing? I think he does. And thus here is the Hardshell cultist heresy. Many will go to heaven who did not believe in the God of Abraham, who did not believe in Christ Jesus the Son of God! The bible affirms no such thing. What "truth"? Why the truth of II Thess. 2: 13-14! "Chosen to salvation through belief of the truth." 

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Notice that the salvation to which the elect have been chosen to obtain is "by belief in the truth" and that the calling of God that brings this salvation is "by our gospel." Thus, this one text destroys the reasoning and presuppositions of Loudermilk and Hardshellism. This was a verse that the first PBs in the 1830s often cited and they always saw it the way I see it and not the way Loudermilk sees it.

Notice also what he wrote in his first epistle to the Thessalonians.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

This answers Loudermilk's question about what "truth" is believed by all those who come to Christ! It is the word of God, especially those portions that deal with God's promise of salvation through the Messiah.

Wrote Loudermilk:

"The second question is, Do you believe everyone who uses the name Jesus in their teaching is declaring truth?" 

That is a "red herring." It has nothing to do with the question. However, even in heretical groups, like the Hardshell cult, preachers sometimes preach the truth, especially when they confine themselves to the words of holy scripture. 

Wrote Loudermilk:

"If God’s eternal grace will always result in the recipient manifesting faith in God, heaven will be a small place in my opinion. Why? Because most of God’s children do not believe the truth, and that’s a fact. The majority of God’s children, in this world, are taught everything but the truth." 

How is this type of reasoning, which he uses to interpret scripture, interpreting by the context? When he says "most of God’s children do not believe the truth, and that’s a fact," he is not stating a fact but a Hardshell presupposition that has no scripture that testifies to such a proposition. Want to give us the text that affirms that not all the children of God believe the truth? If it is a fact, where is the evidence? Jesus quoted the text from Isaiah which said "all your children will be taught of God." (John 6: 45; Isa. 54: 13) Jesus said that this teaching of the Father involves "hearing" and "learning" from the Father. How is that non cognitive? How does Loudermilk read the bible and come up with the proposition that says "the majority of God's children" don't believe the truth? What text says that? I find many texts that say just the opposite.

Wrote Loudermilk:

"I wish more believed the truth, that’s why I keep trying to preach. But most do not. If more did, there would be more Primitive Baptists, Amen!"

Well, good luck with that!

Wrote Loudermilk:

"In closing, I truly want the reader to understand why I enjoy trying to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have a longing desire for more of God’s little children to follow Jesus in gospel obedience. But while preaching this gospel I’m also comforted in believing that God shall eternally save all His sheep and not one of them will be lost from His precious and loving hands. So whether they manifest belief or not; whether they follow Him in gospel obedience or not; they shall all be with Him in glory. Amen!"

That is hardshellism in a nutshell! You can be a pagan, or non Christian, and yet go to heaven! Do you see the harm in such teaching? Do you see how it is quasi Universalism?