Effects Arising From Denying Means

The PB split over the doctrine of means in the eternal salvation of sinners occurred in the end of the 19th century, about the same time as the split over the extent of predestination (or what is called "the absolute predestination of all things"). What this denial of means led to (by the side who denied means) was a denial of the "perseverance of the saints" and promotion of the idea that the bible and the old Baptists historically only taught the "preservation" of the saints. It also led to the idea that preaching the gospel to the unregenerate or non elect was against the will of God. In my posting titled "Hardshells Declare Non Fellowship Against Gospel Preaching" (See here) I cited this historical information:

In Cayce's Editorials, we find the following under title "OUR WORK ENDORSED" for October 10, 1905 (emphasis mine):

"The Forked Deer Association met with the church at Flowers Chapel, near Rutherford, Gibson county, Tenn., on Friday before the second Sunday in September, 1905. Elder John Grist, of Friendship, Tenn., was moderator, and L. J. Law, Trenton, Tenn., was clerk. The following appears in their minutes as the third and fourth items of their business on Saturday:

By motion and second, agreed that we adopt as the sense of this association the action of five of our churches as expressed in their letters, that we declare non-fellowship for the idea of a federal form of government, that the commission was given to the church and not to the apostles or ministry, that it is the duty of the ministry to admonish the alien sinner to repent and believe the gospel, and against affiliation in and with secret institutions."

So, along with throwing away the true doctrine of predestination, and perseverance, they also threw out the practice of preaching to the lost. Further, they began to take on new interpretations of certain passages of scripture. Again, Hassell writes of this. In another posting titled "Hassell On Interpretation" (See here), Sylvester Hassell writes the following in 1893:

"It seems to me that there is among Primitive Baptists an urgent need of a recurrence to the true principles of Scripture interpretation... In various sections of our extended country we see--some of these errors more operative in one section, and some in another--a tendency to dualism and fatalism, and to relapse into something like old heathen pantheistic Hindoo, Egyptian, Greek, Gnostic, Cabalistic doctrine of the pre-existence, metemphycosis, or transmigration of souls; to deny the immortality (in the sense of everlasting duration), the regeneration, and even the very existence of the soul, the responsibility of man (all elements of Two Seedism - SG), and the Second Personal Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the general judgment, and hell, and heaven; a tendency to eliminate from the Scriptures the essential distinction between the elect, the believing, the saved, on the one hand, and the non-elect, the unbelieving, the lost, on the other hand; a tendency to evacuate the Scriptures of their future eternal meaning, to confuse the divinely established order of events, to push back all the events of time into the past eternity, and the events of the future eternity into time..."

But, this drastic change in how certain passages are interpreted resulted from denying means! (With some exceptions, such as Sylvester himself) Once the proposition was accepted that said that God does not use gospel preaching via preachers to regenerate sinners and that evangelical faith was not necessary for eternal salvation, it became a slippery slope so that twisted and perverted interpretations began to proliferate. Hassell bears witness to it in 1893. He also said:

"And who that properly reverences the Divine Teacher will presume to say that there is the slightest falsehood in the past tenses of the verbs that He uses in Lu 16:19-31, wherein He tells of the Rich Man and Lazarus, or in the future tenses of the verbs that he uses in Mt 25:31-46, wherein He tells of His coming in final judgment to the world? In fact, neither of these passages is a parable, nor anywhere called so in Scripture, though misnamed such by a few uninspired men. The passage in Luke is a literal history, and that in Matthew is a literal prophecy--the latter being emphatically distinguished from the preceding parables of the Virgins and the Talents in the same chapter by the adversative conjunction de, but, at the beginning of the 31st verse ("But when the Son of man shall come in His glory, etc."), this conjunction being unwarrantably omitted by the King James translators, but properly expressed by the Victorian Revisers. Some of the parables seem prophetic, or predictive of future events; and I have shown in my article in the March number of the GOSPEL MESSENGER that the prophecies of Scripture are both literally and spiritually true."

Elder Hassell lived at the same time as Elder C.H. Cayce and it seems that Cayce is the man that is well described by Hassell. He led the way in the kind of NEW interpretations that began to take over the denomination.

(Note: notice in the above citation how Hassell again decries some of the translating of the KJV)

In my article "S. Hassell On PB Perils" (See here) I cite from his article titled "The Danger of Applying All Scripture to the Children of God" and published in his paper "The Gospel Messenger" for February, 1894. Here is one of the citations from that old article:

"This most pestilent innovation upon Primitive Baptist faith is perhaps the youngest and weakest of all the errors launched upon us in this conceited and degenerate and unbelieving age; I myself never heard of it nor read of it till three years ago. It is the child of Presumption and Philosophy, treats with equal contempt all the religious views of former generations and the most pointed declarations of the Inspired Scriptures, makes black white and white black by a dexterous system of expository legerdemain, and either makes the Bible a huge lie or inevitably leads to one of these three false and monstrous results-universal salvation, or universal damnation, or universal annihilation. It seems almost incredible that any sane and reverent mind can for a moment be so captivated and deceived by Satan as to believe that Cain, and Balaam, and Judas, and all the most horrible and diabolical criminals that ever lived on earth, were the children of God; that the elect and the non-elect, the penitent and the impenitent, the believing and the unbelieving, the loving and the hating, the obedient and the disobedient, the saved and the damned, are the very same persons; that election, and repentance, and faith, and love, and obedience, and salvation, as well as their opposites, are nothing but empty names; that words have no meaning; that the universe is only a delusive phantasmagory, containing nothing but shadows and dreams. Such false and ruinous systems of interpreting the Scriptures seem to me far more becoming to a lunatic asylum than a Primitive Baptist pulpit."

"Innovations" among the "primitive" or "original" Baptists? From those who say that they have never changed their beliefs as a denomination? Not only did Hassell call his brethren (who were straying from the views of their forefathers) "innovators" but so did Elder John M. Watson, one of the founders of the PB church (a thing Hassell acknowledges). See my post titled "Watson - Ultraists (Hardshells) = Innovators" (See here) See also "Hassell - "Rebuke the ultraist" (here). In that posting I cite these words of Hassell about the credentials of Watson:

"Nearly thirty years ago “the beloved physician,” Eld. John M. Watson, professor of obstetrics in the medical department of the University of Nashville, Tenn, wrote in the "Old Baptist Test,' these wise and warning words: "We have become too ultra in most things. How great the change! Watchman! what of the night? I hear one respond, All is not well! another, that strange winds of doctrine are blowing; another, that the sickly dews of heresy are falling thickly around us, many are sickly and weak; another, that the sound of another gospel is heard in our midst, whereby many are being bewitched. I hear something of heavenly origin! Listen: "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' O, Israel, to you tents! Gird on the sword of the Spirit! put on the whole armor of God! Set up the waymarks and, in holy boldness and meekness, defend them against all heretical defacers! Above all things, avoid those prevailing ultraisms which are now eating on the Old Baptist Church as doth a canker--dividing churches and Associations, and disturbing the order and peace of the Baptists generally. Rebuke the ultraist whenever you meet with him--reclaim or reject him--let him be regarded constantly as the worst enemy of the Baptists of the present day!""

One of the changes in interpretations that occurred in the time period we are talking about (late 19th century) concerned the parable of the sower and seed (or of the various soil types). I wrote about this in my rough draft book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" in chapter 35 - "Parable of The Sower & Seed" (here). First, let us notice what Elder Cayce says.

"We do not wish to set our views up as a standard...On this parable of the sower we do not agree with many of our brethren. They may be right and we wrong. This makes us fearful of expressing our views...We are aware that many of our brethren hold the position that the hearers denominated as the "wayside," the "stony places," and the "thorns" were all unregenerated, and that the hearers called the "dry ground," and these only, were children of God. We know that there is a preparation of heart that is necessary in order that the preaching of the gospel be of spiritual benefit to anyone." (Editorials, Vol. I, page 132)

Do you see how Cayce admits that his view on the parable is a minor view, and not the view of "many of our brethren"? It was not only against the majority view, but also against the view of the PB founders. That original view (which is my view also) is that only the good ground represents saved people. This was the view of Hassell. Said Cayce:

"But we do not think these represent three classes of unregenerate and the good ground, and that only, represents the regenerate. This would give us three classes of unregenerate and only one class of children of God. All God's children, according to this view, would be a fruit-bearing class. It is true they all have that faith that God gives, which is called a fruit of the Spirit, but they do not all bear fruit in the sense of this parable, for the fruit bearing here, we think, is in rendering obedience to the Saviour...Many of the Lord's dear children hear the word of the kingdom and do not understand it...Many of God's dear children, too, are not in the way, but are by the way--hence way side hearers. "These received seed by the way side." Mark the expression, the statement of the Saviour, "they received seed." Then remember Paul says "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." These received seed." (Pages 132, 133)

That view of Cayce has become the predominant view among Hardshells today. But, it was not the predominant view for PBs in the first half of the 19th century. So, what happened?

In concluding these remarks, let me cite from another founder of the Hardshell sect, from Elder Grigg Thompson who said: 

We are not of that people who were never called to preach to sinners. The command we have received from our King is, "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." But we are nowhere commanded to prepare their hearts to receive it, but he that can prepare their hearts has promised to be with us always. With this promise, we go sowing the seed, and leaving the event with him who can prepare the heart for its reception, and fertilize it so that a crop can be produced, to his honor and glory."
(From "The Primitive Preacher," chapter on "The New Birth")

So, the PBs who agreed with the Forked Deer Association and their declaration of non fellowship for those who preach to sinners would call Grigg Thompson an heretic!

Of course, there are other effects from this change in doctrine that we could mention, but the above are the most serious. 

What think ye? My Hardshell brothers, what do you think of this information? Penny for your thoughts?