Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (7)

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power." (Eph. 3: 6-7 kjv)

As I have done in preceding chapters in this series, I will again cite another text that disproves the view of Sylvester Hassell and of those who arrogantly and falsely claim to be "Primitive Baptists" before citing further from Hassell's polemical writing "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION," published in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12  here). 

The above text clearly shows that becoming "partakers of his promise in Christ" was effected "by the gospel." Well did Elliott in his commentary say: "In Christ by the gospel.—These words should be joined with all the three preceding. Of all the privileges of the new life, the being “in Christ” is the substance, the reception of the gospel in faith the instrument." That being correct, we affirm that for anyone to be 1) a "fellow heir" with the children of God, and 2) a member of the body of Christ, or to be "in Christ" (denoting having vital union with Christ), and 3) a "partaker of his promise in Christ," it must be "by the gospel" as a means. Being "in Christ" is "by the gospel." That is because being united with Christ is "by faith" and "faith is by the gospel." Christ is "received" by "faith" (John 1: 12-13) and Christ "dwells" in people "by faith." (Eph. 3: 17) "Faith comes by hearing the word of God" said the apostle Paul. (Rom. 10: 17)

In resisting the truth of this text, the anti-means Hardshell must deny that eternal salvation is what Paul is talking about when he speaks of being a fellow heir, or united to Christ, or being a partaker of the promises of salvation. Anyone who is not biased, however, will see that it is eternal salvation that Paul is talking about. 

Now let us return to our analysis of Sylvester Hassell's article titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" where he writes to defend the "no means" view of salvation. In that article Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"In 1 Cor. iv. 15 and Philemon 10, Paul uses the verb "beget" or "regenerate," not in a primary and literal, but in a secondary and figurative sense, or in its wider meaning as including conversion, as explained by his own language in 1 Cor. iii. 5, 6 ; he did not at all mean that he had given spiritual life to the Corinthians and to Onesimus, but simply that he had been the minister by whom they had first believed in Christ, the planter or founder of the Corinthian Church; it was only to those already called and saved of God that the preaching of the gospel was the power of God (1 Cor. i. 18, 24); it was only of God, and not of Paul, that the Corinthians were in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. i. 30, 31); in this great matter of regeneration, of the infusion of divine and eternal life, a planting Paul and a watering Apollos were equally nothing (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7); and thus he exhorts the Corinthians not to glory in men, but to glory only in the Lord (1 Cor. i. 31 ; iii. 21)."

I have already responded, in chapter four of this series, to Hassell's baseless assertion that the birthing of I Corinthians 4: 15 and Philemon 1: 10 cannot be that birth that Jesus talked about in his conversation with Nicodemus in John chapter three. It is only the Hardshells of today who think that the birth via the apostle Paul had nothing to do with the birth of the Spirit. Notice that Hassell says that the begetting of the texts may have a wider meaning so as to denote evangelical conversion. In previous chapters in this series we noticed that Hassell agrees that the older Calvinists, including John Calvin himself, viewed conversion (of which faith and repentance are the main elements) as experienced within biblical regeneration and that some later Calvinists began to restrict the definition so as to exclude conversion. In the above words of Hassell he seems to think those two texts do allude to a broader definition of regeneration. 

If there is a broad definition of regeneration or rebirth that includes conversion, and follows faith and repentance, then Hassell cannot legitimately or logically say that the gospel is not a means used by God in that birth. We have already seen, in chapter five of this series, Hassell's answer to the question "Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?" In reply he said: "Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)." We also called attention to Elder C.H. Cayce's declaration which said: "There is a preaching, or a work, which Jesus does by His Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit. This work is what is also called regeneration." So, if there is a preaching of the gospel which Jesus does by his Spirit in regeneration, then why is Hassell saying that the gospel is not a means? 

We have also seen where Hassell and Cayce have affirmed that Jesus preached by the Spirit through Noah. Since that is true, then why fight the view that Christ regenerates by preaching he does through his Spirit filled preachers? In II Corinthians 13: 3 Paul says that Christ was speaking in him when he preached the gospel. Further, Jesus said to his appointed preachers of the gospel -- "whoever hears you hears me." (Luke 10: 16) 

Hassell says that the birth of I Corinthians 4: 15 and Philemon 1: 10 may be used to denote regeneration or rebirth in a "wider meaning as including conversion." If that is so, then is evangelical conversion not effected by the gospel or word of God? It seems that Hassell is chasing his tail in such reasoning. So, why is the idea of God's use of his gospel word as a means in giving spiritual life to dead sinners so vehemently opposed by Hassell and the Hardshells? We have shown how Hassell and his brethren simply make assertions and put forth premises that are not found in scripture. Where in the bible is it said that God uses no means in regeneration or new birth or in initial salvation? 

As I have previously stated, Isaac is said to have been "born after the Spirit," i.e. supernaturally. (Gal. 4: 29) Yet, both Abraham and Sarah were instruments or means in that birth, even though neither of them could have children. Consider also that Isaac's birth "after the Spirit" was a result of the word of God, of God's promise. (Rom. 9: 9) Further, if Paul was born of the Spirit when Christ appeared to him and preached or confirmed the gospel to him on the Damascus road, then the gospel was a means in his rebirth. Also his rebirth involved his conversion, his becoming a believer in Jesus and repentance or change of mind or turning.

The apostle John taught that people were "born of God" by their "receiving" or "believing in" Christ. (John 1: 12-13) See my post on this text (here). John says "to as many as received him to them he gave the right or privilege to become children of God." The words "become" and "children" (Greek tekna) denote those who are children by birth. So, since means are employed by the Spirit to beget faith, and since faith is the medium for becoming birthed children of God, then the view of Hassell and his brethren is therefore overthrown. I know, I know, that they will claim that John's words in verse thirteen "which were born...but of God" are in a tense that shows that the birth preceded the receiving and the believing. However, I show in my post on that text that such argument is not true. In it I wrote:

"Received" in "received him not" and "received him" are Aorist tense (indicative active). "Believe" is a present tense, active participle. "Were born" is Aorist (indicative passive). The argument is often made that since "believe" is a present participle, active voice, and "were born" is Aorist passive, the birth must precede the believing. But, that is simply not the case. For one thing, though the word "believe" is present yet "received" is Aorist. The only difference in "received" and "were born" is that one is active and one passive voice. The tense and aspect are the same. They are both Aorist. Therefore, the argument is null and void that says the "receiving" and the being "born" do not occur together."

Hassell in the above citation said: "in this great matter of regeneration, of the infusion of divine and eternal life, a planting Paul and a watering Apollos were equally nothing (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7)" I am bewildered by this comment. Is he saying that the planting of Paul and the watering of Apollos were not means? Also, does he think that the text deals with regeneration? It seems so. That being the case, we see where Paul and Apollos were indeed means in regeneration. Yes, of course, God must give the increase. The word preached is unsuccessful without God's blessing. The Psalmist said "except the Lord build the house they labor in vain to build it" and "except the Lord keeps or watches over the city the watchman watches in vain." (Psa. 127: 1)

I think Hassell says "the verb "beget" or "regenerate" (used in I Cor. 4:15 and Philemon 1: 10) is used "not in a primary and literal, but in a secondary and figurative sense, or in its wider meaning as including conversion" for another reason. Surely he knew that many of his brethren before him, and even in his day still, believed that there were distinct stages to being "born" of God. These brethren saw two phases of regeneration or rebirth, one restrictive and one broad. Just like human physical birth has both a conception in the womb and a later birth or deliverance from the womb, both being called a birth or begetting, so did a large portion of "Primitive Baptists" of the nineteenth century see two stages or kinds of spiritual birth. I have many articles showing this, giving citations from many nineteenth century Hardshells. I will give some examples now.

Elder Samuel Trott (1783-1866), one of the ringleaders of the old school sect, and a writer for the "Signs of the Times," and an associate with Elder Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), and who was a Two Seeder like Beebe, wrote the following:

"Regeneration, as I hold it, is the implanting in an individual, or adding to his mind, that incorruptible seed which Peter speaks of, even the spiritual seed of Abraham, which is Christ, Christ in you, and which is that life that was in the Word, which is the light of men; for Christ is the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world John 1:9. Hence this individual sees his relation and accountability to God and to the law, and sees his sinfulness as he never saw or felt it before, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

"The new birth I understand to be the being born again of the incorruptible seed by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever. Whether by the word of God in this text is understood the essential Word, who is God, or, as is frequently intended by the word of God, that which God directly speaks or communicates to a person, is immaterial, for both ideas are true. For Christ said, "Verily, verily I say unto you, The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live" John 5:25. This person being, as we showed, dead, killed by the law, is now made to hear the voice of the Son of God, the proclamation of pardon and salvation through Christ's atonement."

"Thus in the new birth there is a striking correspondence to the natural birth; to each there is a seed implanted (1st stage or regeneration- SG), and then a quickening (final stage or rebirth/quickening - SG) by which life is manifested. And when the natural child is brought to the birth, the sorrows of the woman in travail, the fetus being broke loose from that by which alone it had been hitherto nourished, strongly represents the agonies and the killing by the law belonging to the second birth." ("THE NEW BIRTH," from the Signs of the Times, 1853)

"The position I have taken relative to this subject will, I think, be admitted by every reflecting Christian as the Scriptural one when he considers that the promises of salvation run alone through faith in Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 and Mark 16:16). And that faith implies a knowledge of Christ, and this knowledge evidently is only from being taught of God. "No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22). I hope this brother, on a re-examination, will be able to tell us something of what he has learned of Jesus and of His saving power." ("CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE," 1845)

I have many citations from the 1830s till the end of the nineteenth century from many "Primitive Baptists" who espoused the same view. It was the common view. Many taught that the begetting was regeneration (strictly defined) which then produced conviction of sin, a sense of guilt and lost condition (corresponding to being in the darkness of the womb), and it was believed by many that this was often done apart from the means of the gospel or word of God. However, they all believed that after the begetting and after a time spent in the darkness of conviction there would come the birth proper, the deliverance from the womb, when the previously begotten or regenerated soul would be brought to evangelical faith in Christ and experience deliverance and a hope in Christ. That is what Trott was saying in the above citation. 

Many who held this view frequently called the "birth" that followed the "begetting" a "manifestation." But, they did not use it as many later Hardshells have used it. The manifestation was an essential part of being born and when the bible speaks of the necessity of being born of God or the Spirit it included all aspects of birth. A person is not born of God before he has been delivered from the womb of conviction and found assurance of salvation in Christ through the gospel.

The following posts give numerous citations from many "Primitive Baptists" of the 19th century who believed as Trott. (this link here gives other links to other posts that give citations; see also here; here; here; here) Let me give the reader some further citations from those chapters by the first Hardshell Baptists.

The following is from Wilson Thompson's (1788-1866) book "Simple Truth" published in 1821. It is a composite of several of his sermons. His book "Triumph of Truth" was published in 1825. In discourse #6 in "Simple Truth" under "On the Work of the Spirit after Justification" Thompson said (emphasis mine):

"This change wrought by the spirit, is called regeneration because it is begetting them unto a divine nature. The first work of the spirit on the heart is regeneration, or the implanting of that incorruptible seed with cleaves to holiness, and so it is sometimes called quickened, because this is a living seed, that causes the motions of life to appear, and this is always followed by the new birth which is effected when the soul is enabled to view Christ by faith, and lay hold of the comfort contained in the gospel, and so they are said to be born again, not of corruptible seed, but of an incorruptible seed, by the word of God."

Notice that Thompson says that "regeneration" "IS ALWAYS" followed by the new birth, which shows that he did not believe as do later "Primitive Baptists" that a person did not have to believe in Christ to be saved. In other words, he believed that all who were regenerated would later be converted, which is what is stated in many old church articles of faith where they say that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted." Elder William Conrad (1797-1882) of Kentucky, an associate of Thompson, wrote the following in his autobiography ("Life and Travels of William Conrad") in 1876:

"There is also a begetting and being born, but our being born does not give us life; we are born because we have life; but there is a begetting, and previous to this begetting there is no vital or actual existence; but there is eternal decreed, purposed or treasured in Christ before it is given, and in due time we are said to receive it according to the election of grace; and therefore we are said to be the Temple of God, which is holy, which temple ye are." (Chapter 25)

In chapters 52 and 57 of my work titled "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I give citations from Gilbert Beebe and Trott on how the new birth has two separate events connected with it. (See here and here) In chapter 52 I give lengthy citations from Trott as published in the "Signs of the Times." In chapter 57 I give these citations from Beebe:

"We also, with brother Buckles, hold that regeneration, in the order of things, and according to the word, must precede the new birth. How can that be born of God that is not first begotten of him?" (Elder Gilbert Beebe, Middletown, N.Y.June 1, 1868. Editorials, Volume 7 – Pages 198-202)

Notice that he believes that "regeneration precedes the new birth." He also wrote:

"Regeneration, as we understand it, like generation, involves the begetting, conception and birth, of that which is generated...In the order of regeneration, or the development of the children of God, no intermediate agencies are employed, no system of means can bring forth the promised seed..."

"When a sinner is thus quickened, the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, is implanted in his heart, and the evidence of this implantation is first given by a sense of the purity and holiness of God, and the spirituality of his law, contrasted with a sense of guilt, pollution and just condemnation of the person to whom this communication is made, and consequently a struggle for deliverance. The ear is now opened to hear the thunders of Sinai, and the eye is made to see the justice of God as a sin avenger; a brokenness of heart that he or she, as the case may be, has been all their lifetime in open rebellion against so holy, just and righteous a God, who has followed them with his mercies all their days. A sense of his goodness leads them to repentance, contrition and humble acknowledgment of their guilt. Now the quickened and awakened sinner becomes burdened with the load of depravity...Now all this conviction, contrition, lamentation and distress, is the legitimate consequence resulting from life implanted, and indicates to all who know experimentally the way of life, that the poor sin-burdened soul is drawing near to the time of his birth, or deliverance. He who has thus arrested him, and brought him to a sense of his lost and helpless estate, will perform the work in his own time, but the burdened soul must wait until "God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, shines in [not into] his heart, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." -2 Cor. iv. 6. Or, as Paul relates his own experience, "When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me." - Gal. i. 15. Then by the revelation of Christ in us the hope of glory, the way of salvation through him is brought to view, the burden of guilt is removed, the blood of Christ is applied, the demands of the law are canceled, the curse is removed, the prison doors are opened, the captive is delivered, the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, old things are passed away; behold all things have become new; a new song is put in his mouth, even praise unto God, the gospel pours its joyful sound into his quickened ears, his goings are established and he is a new creature..."  ("REGENERATION AND THE NEW BIRTH" in Signs of the Times for September 1, 1857)

Now let me cite from Dr. J. P. Boyce (1827-1888) who was founder and first president of Southern Baptist seminary, on this question as to whether there are two separate stages of spiritual birth and whether evangelical conversion is part of biblical regeneration. Boyce wrote:

"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration." ("Abstract of Systematic Theology," CHAPTER XXXII - "REGENERATION AND CONVERSION")

Boyce, a Calvinist, did not say that conversion was separate from regeneration as did the first Hardshells and as do many five point Calvinists who call themselves "Reformed Baptists" and many Southern Baptists churches that are associated with the "Founders" movement. This organization's web page is (here). My dear departed ministerial brother, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, was a tireless opponent of this organization because it taught the "born again before faith" error. James White and the late R.C. Sproul are leading apologists for this error. Many of the brethren who teach this error praise Boyce and think he agreed with them in teaching that the new birth preceded faith (or conversion). However, in the above citation he does not agree with that view. Boyce's view is the same as John Gill who I cited on this point previously. Boyce in the same section said:

"At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration."

Boyce says that in the scriptures "the whole work of regeneration and conversion is included under the one term regeneration." So, the Founders organization and others who espouse the view that regeneration precedes conversion cannot claim Boyce as agreeing with them. As I have previously said, many who hold the "born again before faith" error have used an analogy for their view which is to say that regeneration and conversion are two sides of a coin. The regeneration side is the side where God acts and the sinner is passive and the conversion side is where the sinner acts and is active. The first Hardshells would say that one side of the coin is "begetting" and the other side is "birthing." Boyce however says that the coin itself is regeneration and has two parts, one involving the cause (God) and the other the effects (sinners believing and repenting or being made alive). 

In the above citation Hassell said: "it was only to those already called and saved of God that the preaching of the gospel was the power of God (1 Cor. i. 18, 24)."

That is hardshellism in a nutshell. Recall the words of C.H. Cayce who said:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through the gospel. God does not reach them in the work of regeneration through preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional."   (Cayce's Editoria Writings, Volume 6, page 176)

In another editorial titled "SALVATION BEFORE FAITH," published October 30, 1906, C.H. Cayce wrote (emphasis mine): 

"We most assuredly think you are correct in saying salvation precedes faith." 

So, both Hassell and Cayce say one is saved before faith. In saying this it is quite puzzling that neither of them cited a single bible passage that plainly says such a thing. On the other hand, we have numerous texts that say salvation follows faith. One of the most famous is Ephesians 2: 8 which says people are saved by grace through faith. Let us cite the context, being verses one through ten.

"1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (KJV)

This text is very troublesome for the view of the so-called Primitive Baptists. They have come up with several devious ways of attempting to make it harmonize with their views, one of which is given by Hassell and Cayce and affirms that salvation from sin, or initial salvation, occurs before and apart from faith in Christ. Reader, does the above text say that salvation is before or after faith? Clearly it is after faith. So, how is it possible for the view of Hassell and Cayce be true? 

It is useless for the scripture twisting apologists for Hardshellism to successfully deny that it is eternal salvation, including regeneration or quickening, that is the subject of verse eight. That being so, we see that salvation, regeneration, rebirth, quickening, and being a new creation is "by grace through faith." There is no "time salvation" in the passage, nor a salvation that is not necessary for going to heaven. The salvation of verse five ("for by grace are you saved") all Hardshells say is eternal salvation and obviously it is for it is a summary statement the apostle gives for why a person is "quickened" from being "dead in sins," and this is why he says "for" which is the same as "therefore." The salvation of the chapter is therefore an eternal salvation, and particularly that salvation that had already occurred in the lives of the Ephesian believers. 

The salvation of the verses entails being "raised with Christ," being "quickened" to life from "death in sin," becoming God's "workmanship" or new "creation," having one's "course" in life drastically changed from living in sin to living for Christ, being no longer under the power of Satan or "prince of the power of the air," no longer possessed of his "spirit," no longer "children of wrath." When does a sinner come out from being under the wrath of God? Jesus answered this question by saying: 

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36 KJV)

So, the point in time when the Ephesians Paul is addressing were "regenerated" and were no longer "children of wrath" was not through a regeneration that occurred before they believed in Jesus but when they believed and turned to the Lord. In the passage there are several time signatures, such as I highlighted in red. These words point to the demarcation point when the Ephesian believers went from being dead to being alive, went from being unsaved to being saved, etc. When did that occur? What point in time is Paul referring to? Is it not to the time when they became believers in Jesus? Clearly it was not before they possessed faith and were converted. If the salvation was "by faith" then the time Paul is alluding to is the time when they became believers. 

Nearly all bible believers would be shocked to hear it said that people are saved before and apart from faith. That is simply not what the bible says. I repeat, there is no verse in the bible that says people are saved before or apart from faith.

My Hardshell brothers should also consider the fact that if "time salvation" is under consideration in Ephesians 2: 8, then they ought to affirm that every person to whom God gives saving grace or intends to save will in fact be saved in a "timely sense." Further, my brothers, you all say that eternal salvation is by grace, which means it is unconditional and always effectual. If that is so, then the grace of "time salvation" ought to be as sure, effectual, and certain as eternal salvation. Is your "time salvation" by grace or not?

In the next chapter we will continue to review Hassell's polemic for the Hardshell "no means" view of salvation.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (6)

In this chapter we will continue our critique of Elder Sylvester Hassell's defence of the "no means" view of salvation. In the previous chapter we began examining Hassell's editorial titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" in Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898; You can read it on page 12  here). But, before doing that I wish to call attention to the above text from Romans 1: 16 that clearly refutes the "Primitive Baptist" idea that sinners are saved apart from faith and apart from the means of the word of God. 

Hassell believed, like all Hardshell Primitive Baptists, that the salvation of the text is not eternal salvation, or regeneration, but is rather a "time salvation" which is not necessary to be saved in heaven. If Hassell were here today I would challenge him to cite one Baptist, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who taught that the salvation of this text (Rom. 1:16) was not eternal salvation. John Gill believed that the gospel was the power of God unto eternal salvation. If one reads the issues of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical from the 1830s through the 1850s (you can read them at this web site here) you will see that those who wrote for that periodical believed that the gospel was a means in saving sinners from sin and death and often cited Romans 1: 16 as a text in support of it. 

They also often cited II Thessalonians 2: 13-14, where the apostle Paul says that the salvation to which people were chosen to obtain, from the beginning, was "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth," and did so to support the means view. See my recent post on that text (here).

Hardshell Baptists use several tactics in trying to harmonize Romans 1:16 with their anti-means view. That the text prima facie overthrows their anti-means view is evident to all. If the salvation of the text is eternal salvation, and includes regeneration or rebirth, then clearly the apostle Paul is affirming that the gospel, whether read or heard orally, is God's ordained means of salvation. Many Hardshells will argue that the salvation of the text is not eternal salvation, but a "time salvation" or "gospel salvation" which is not necessary for eternal salvation. However, that is clearly against the context.

Paul does not talk about an optional "time salvation" in the book of Romans. The whole letter is talking about eternal salvation. The first several chapters are talking about man's lost depraved condition and need of salvation from it. Chapter four begins with an introduction into the doctrines of justification and imputation, which are connected with eternal salvation, and he continues to talk about eternal salvation in chapters five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven.

Other Hardshells will argue that the salvation of Romans 1: 16 is to "everyone who believes" and will argue that by "everyone who believes" means "everyone who was previously regenerated" before the gospel was preached. That being the case, the salvation was a salvation that came after a prior salvation or regeneration. But, this interpretation creates several difficulties for them. 

First, the text means the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes the gospel when they hear it preached. People are not believers before they hear the gospel. If they are "believers" before they hear the gospel, it cannot be because they are believers in the gospel. Men like Cayce and Hassell might say that they were believers because Christ had previously preached the gospel to the Romans in regeneration. But, if this is so, then Paul would not be the one who first preached it to them. 

Some will say that people are "believers" before becoming believers in the gospel or word of God, by their idea of "regeneration," and contend that the belief is in some kind of deity or deities, which would take in nearly all religionists. In the previous chapters I cited C.H. Cayce who said that the Athenian idolaters to whom Paul preached (Acts chapter seventeen) were children of God, born of God, because they worshiped false gods and "the unknown god" and yet who did not believe in the one God of Abraham nor in salvation through Christ. I also cited elder John Daily who said in his debate with W.P. Throgmorton - "Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel" (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

I have also cited from Elder R.V. Sarrels and his "Systematic Theology" where he defended this view that heathens are "believers" and "regenerated" but still worship false gods and know or believe nothing about Jesus Christ. For instance Sarrels wrote:

"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion–repentance, faith, and justification–may be present only embryonically..." (Systematic Theology, page 369)

"The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progressive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands. The child of God, be he heathen or cultured, may not understand all that is woven around his life in God, yet in germ all is there. (See Rom:2:14)

"We have the mind of Christ," says Paul (I Cor. 2:16)...However embryonic this mind of Christ may be in one's conscious life, even among civilized people, or however indistinct and distorted this may be in saved people who have no knowledge of Christ in the gospel sense, the mind of Christ is there; as something absolutely native to the new creation, it is there in every person on earth. Paul did not preach ANOTHER God to the men of Athens who had gathered on Mars' Hill; he preached to them the very God WHOM THEY IGNORANTLY WORSHIPPED." (pg. 423)

"Not only does this view limit salvation to areas where the gospel is preached; it actually limits salvation to those who believe the gospel and obey it. The Moslems, the Buddhists, the Brahmans, and all other non-Christian adherents, even in gospel lands, are according to the strict sense of this view doomed. Not only this--strictly interpreted and applied, this view would exclude Jews and Unitarians, and, by some, even Catholics, who do not believe what is preached as some religious groups would present the matter. These are hard facts which need to be placed before the world. For reasons which are but briefly alluded to in some parts of the work, but developed more fully in other parts, we hold that God, despite the teachings of man, saves his chosen people all over the world." (page 434) (See these posts of mine for more citations from Sarrels on this point --- here and here)

You ask any Hardshell Baptist today if a person has to believe in the God of the Bible or in Christ the Son of God to be saved and they will say "no."

Consider also that in chapter ten Paul asks rhetorically - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" He then concludes by saying "so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (vs. 10-17) In I Corinthians 3: 5 Paul says that he and Apollos were "ministers by whom you believed." 

Hassell could not cite one Baptist prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" (a term used by Dr. B.H. Carroll Jr. in his work "The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism" in 1902) who denied that Romans 1: 16 was talking about eternal salvation and that the gospel was a means thereto. Surely Hassell also knew that Elder Mark Bennett, editor of "The Primitive Baptist," published the Kehukee Association articles of faith in said periodical in 1838. Here are some of those articles with Bennett's introductory remarks:

“An abstract of the principles then agreed to, and the substance of which afterwards was published in print, by order of the Association at Whitfield’s meeting house, Pitt county, North Carolina, 1779, is as follows:

2. We believe that Almighty God has made known his mind and will to the children of men in his word; which word we believe to be of divine authority, and contains all things necessary to be known for the salvation of men and women. The same is comprehended or contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, as are commonly received.

7. We believe that in God’s own appointed time and way, (by means which he has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned and sanctified; and that it is impossible they can utterly refuse the call; but shall be made willing by divine grace to receive the offers of mercy.

Those articles show that the Kehukee brethren believed in means and believed that the written word of God was a means to impart that knowledge that is necessary for salvation and that people who hear the gospel must answer the gospel call and receive the offers of mercy therein to be saved.

Elder Joshua Lawrence was a leader in the Kehukee Association and the person who brought about the creation of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical and who chose Elder Mark Bennett to be its editor, and who wrote many articles for it. In the March 11th, 1837 issue of that paper (you can read it here) Lawrence wrote (emphasis mine):

"4th. That of an effectual calling of the elect from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and satan unto God, to be a partaker of eternal salvation, is also an apostolic doctrine. First, the foreknown and the predestinated to a conformity to his Son, are also predestinated to be called. Romans 8:30. And here are two verses that show who are called, and the design of calling. Romans 9:23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. Verse 24: Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. And also who he calls, the vessels of his mercy, afore prepared unto glory. And here you see the design of God is, to make known the riches of his glory on these vessels of mercy. I Cor. 7:17: As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. It is a calling of God's grace. Gal. 1:15: It pleased God, who called me by his grace. I Thess. 2:12: Who called you to his kingdom and glory. 4:7: For God hath not called us to uncleanness. 2 Thess. 2:14: Whereunto God called you by his gospel. I Peter 5: 10: The God of all grace who hath called us. Now all these texts prove that the calling of a sinner is the act of God by his grace, and Romans 11:19 prove that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Philippians 3:14: For the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 1:0: An holy calling. Heb. The heavenly calling. I need not multiply texts further on this doctrine, for it would be almost to transcribe the scriptures, it is so full of proof that the elect shall be called of God."

Recall that Hassell said that "effectual calling" was not "regeneration" but denoted "conversion" which followed regeneration in many, but not all, cases. That, of course, is not what the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession believed, as I have shown. It is also not what Lawrence and the supporters of the "Primitive Baptist" periodical believed. That is quite evident from the citation above. If one reads that periodical in the decades leading up to the Civil War he will see that this periodical supported the means doctrine. This paper was supported by Elders John M. Watson, John Clark, James Osbourn, C.B. Hassell, and even Wilson and Grigg Thompson. 

Surely Hassell knew all this and yet he said, as we noted in chapter three of this series, in answer to the question -- "Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?" gave this answer: "In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." Was this true of his father, of James Osbourn, of John Watson, of John Clark, of Joshua Lawrence, etc.? Writing in the third volume of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical (1838), Lawrence wrote (emphasis mine):

"The first parable showeth the effect of the gospel preached by the Son of man with its effect on different persons, compared to the way side, stony ground, thorn, and good ground hearers; which showeth that three-fourths of his gospel preaching is lost, as only the good ground hearers bro't fruit. And this is true under the preaching of all his ministers, as well as his. So then the field in the first parable is the world, in which the gospel or word is preached; the field, in the second parable, is the world, in which the effects of the preaching of that gospel on good ground hearers produces the children of his kingdom. Hence it is said, born not of flesh, blood, or will of men; but of the word of God, that liveth and abideth forever. And again: I have begotten you through the gospel, etc...Well then, this is the true meaning of the kingdom of heaven in this text: the church of Christ in the field of this world, or Christians by the agency of the Spirit of God and gospel preaching sowed among mankind..." (pg. 306)

So, clearly Lawrence believed in means as did C.B. Hassell who supported Lawrence and the "Primitive Baptist" periodical. Lawrence says the "effects of the preaching of that gospel" was to "produce children of his kingdom" and says that they were "born of God," or "of the word of God," being "begotten through the gospel." 

It is no wonder that Hassell never had any public debates, unlike his contemporaries, such as Lemuel Potter, C.H. Cayce, and John R. Daily, to name a few. No wonder that today's "Primitive Baptists" don't want to debate me on "who are the real primitive Baptists" or on the "means question." They know that I would show them that their no-means view was not the predominant view of their founding fathers nor of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. It was easy for Sylvester to give false narratives about the views of his forbears and to give perverted interpretations of scripture as it relates to the means question since he was preaching to the choir. 

Lawrence also wrote:

"Although Christians are sons and daughters of God, yet they are not begotten of a woman; but through the gospel by the same Spirit that begot the body of Christ by Mary; therefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (pg. 310)

So, twice we have seen where Lawrence said that sinners were "begotten through the gospel." That was the original position of most of the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists and is a fact that Hassell hid from the body of the "Old Schoolers." This blog is also filled with citations from Elder John M. Watson's "Old Baptist Test" that show Watson believed in means. Here are some examples of what Watson wrote in that work:

"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." (page 357)

"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14." (pg. 399)

"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." (pages 327-28) 

Notice what Elder Hassell wrote about Watson (emphasis mine).

"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...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!"  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture" - The Gospel Messenger--April 1893)

Why did Hassell not tell his people that Watson believed in means? Why have the Hardshells since the days of Hassell not mentioned Watson? It is because they don't want their brethren to know that the means view was the original view of even the founders and first generation leaders of the anti-mission movement. 

Here is what Elder Gilbert Beebe said about Elder Watson in his paper "The Signs of the Times" and as published in "The Primitive Baptist" for September 28, 1839 (you can read it here on page 282):

"The "Correspondent." - The 2nd number of this paper published at Murfreesborough, Ten. and edited by our Brother John M. Watson, M.D., has just reached us. The first number we have not seen: by the number now before us we learn that the Correspondent is a continuance of "The Old Baptist Banner." Of the orthodoxy and the ability of Brother Watson, we have no doubt: some of his communications published in back numbers of the "Signs of the Times," will satisfy our readers that Brother W. is thorough going Old School Baptist, and we wish him great success in setting forth truth and opposing error in the "far west"."

("The Correspondent" Vol. II, No. 4, for August 1839, published out of Murfreesborough, Tenn. and being copied by Elder Watson from the periodical "Signs of the Times" edited by Elder Gilbert Beebe)

In both the "Old Baptist Banner" and "The Correspondent" we find endorsements and articles from such PB leaders as James Osbourn, Daniel Jewett, William Conrad, and other such men who were leaders in the anti-mission movement. I have many issues of these two periodicals of Elder Watson on a USB drive that I bought from the Southern Baptist Library in Nashville several years ago. 

Here is what Elder Lemuel Potter said of Watson (as cited by me here): "In the first place, I will state that Dr. Watson was an old Baptist. He was one of our brethren."

Sadly, however, Potter told a falsehood about the beliefs of Watson in his debates with Throgmorton. He said that Watson denied means and surely he knew better. The above citations from Watson show that he lied for I am sure he had read "The Old Baptist Test" and also was familiar with "The Baptist Watchman" periodical that was started after the death of Watson (1866) and edited by Elder (Dr.) R.W. Fain and Elder (Dr.) J.B. Stephens, both who also believed in means. I also have many copies of this periodical also on a USB drive and Potter sometimes wrote to the Watchman. 

I have proof that it was common for many of the Hardshells to lie about their history. I have plans to write an article showing this to be the case, putting together such proofs that I have given in previous articles.

Elder C.B. Hassell, who wrote the bulk of "Hassell's History," and the earlier chapters of that work, wrote the following in chapter nine, page 317 and which you can read online (here; emphasis mine):

"Just before His ascension He told His Apostles that they should, in a few days, be endued with the power of the Holy Ghost, and they should be witnesses unto Him both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth (Acts i. 5-8). He said, "All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, unto the end of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 18-20). Or, as Mark gives the commission, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 15, 16). Instead of preaching only to the Jews, as He had commanded them during His ministry (Matt. x. 5, 6), the Apostles, after the ascension of Christ, were to preach to any human being that they met in all the world; and they were to go forward in simple dependence upon Him who had all power in Heaven and earth, and who would always be with them; and they were everywhere to preach the gospel, that is, according to inspired authority, "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, whether Jew or Greek"--" Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (Rom. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 23, 24). 

Ezekiel, in the valley of very dry bones representing the whole house of Israel, simply prophesied, by Divine direction, the almighty power of God that was soon to be exerted in their behalf — how that God would open their graves, and cause them to come up out of their graves, and put sinews and flesh and skin upon them, and breath within them, and they should live, and know that the Lord had performed this mighty work (Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14); it was not the work of the bones or of the prophet or of any created arm, but exclusively the work of Almighty God, and all the living house of Israel know it. So the Apostles were commanded by Christ to preach, and did preach, not the power of dead sinners or of human appliances of any kind, but the power of a Divine and Almighty Savior to save every sin-laden soul— yea, even the amazing power of the voice of the Son of God to penetrate the soul of the spiritually dead."

I have read a lot of the writings of Elder Sylvester Hassell and I don't ever recall reading where he ever quoted or gave his view on Romans 1: 16. Yet, we see how his father did so in the above citation. He does not say as do the Hardshells of the late 19th century that the salvation of the text is a "time salvation" which he would do if he believed that the gospel was not a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. 

Further, the context of his remarks show that he believes that it is eternal salvation that Paul refers to. He even mentions the case of Ezekiel prophesying to the dry dead bones as a case where the preaching of the prophet was the means God used to exert his power in giving life to the dead bones. He mentions the gospel preaching by the apostles as the instrument to raise to life "dead sinners," the "spiritually dead," to "save every sin-laden soul" but says the power was God's operating through his ministers. He also equates the preaching of the gospel with the "voice of the Son of God," something that today's Hardshells do not do. 

Romans 1: 16 says that the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation." If it is the power of God, why then can it not be a means of raising the dead or regenerating a degenerate? The apostle Paul also in his first letter to the Thessalonians said "for our gospel came not unto you in word only but in power and in the Holy Spirit." (1: 5) If it comes in such a manner, why could it not save a soul from spiritual death? In the article by C.B. Hassell he even referred to this verse also.

These are not "careless expressions" about gospel means but "exact expressions." I find no place where the senior Hassell ever spoke differently. So, why did Sylvester not tell us that his father believed in means?

In the previous chapter we cited Hassell as saying that "effectual calling" was not the same experience as denoted by the experience of regeneration. He implied that this is what John Gill and the 1689 London Baptist Confession believed. However, that is false. We have already seen that Elder Lawrence did not think effectual calling was different from being quickened or regenerated or born again. Hassell would have supported his friend and senior Lawrence. In chapter ten of the old London confession it says:

"Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ." 

The scriptures the confession gives as proof of this statement are these: (1) Rom. 8:30, 11:7; Eph. 1:10–11; 2 Thess. 2:13–14.

In the same paragraph the old confession says: "effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."6 

So, what Lawrence believed about "effectual calling" is what Gill believed about it, and is what the 1689 London Baptist confession also taught. In paragraph four the confession said: "much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved." This certainly is not what Hardshells believe. In paragraph one of chapter fifteen the confession said "effectual calling gives them repentance to life" and gives as the supporting text Titus 3:2–5 which speaks of "the washing of regeneration." So, in the minds of those who put forth the confession "effectual calling" was the same as "the washing of regeneration" and involved being given the gift of repentance and spiritual life. In paragraph one of chapter twenty the old confession said:

"The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance;1 in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.2"

By "the promise of Christ" they mean the protoevangelium or the word of God that promised a Redeemer and was the gospel in substance, a revealed revelation, and that word was "the means of calling the elect and begetting in them faith and repentance" and "effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." One has to ask -- are these "careless expressions some Baptists have advanced" in teaching gospel means? Where did these men ever "in their more exact expressions, repudiate" what they wrote on that question? 

The 1689 Confession also wrote in paragraph two of chapter twenty: 

"This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God;3 neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way;4 much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.5" 

That paragraph says, in an "exact expression," that one must be a believer in the gospel in order to be saved. That is the real "primitive" Baptist teaching. In the next chapter we will continue our review of Sylvester Hassell's defence of the "no means" view.

Elder Sylvester Hassell on Means (5)

In this chapter we will continue to examine the arguments that Elder Sylvester Hassell (1842-1928) put forth in defense of the Hardshell idea that neither the gospel or word of God nor faith in it are necessary means in the eternal salvation of sinners.

As we showed in the previous chapter, Hassell and his Hardshell brethren contradict themselves when they debate the question of "means." They also contradict the scriptures. It contradicts their set of creedal propositions, such as 1) there are no conditions for obtaining eternal life and salvation, and 2) the written word of God and the preaching of the gospel are not means God uses in salvation from sin, and 3) faith in Christ is an evidence of having eternal life and is not necessary for obtaining eternal life. Since the Bible is abundantly against these propositions, the Hardshells should do as Spurgeon said and revise their creed to conform with the Bible rather than trying to twist the Bible to make it conform to their creed. 

In the previous chapter we cited from "Questions and Answers" published by Elder R.H. Pittman in 1935 which gave Hassell's answers to many bible questions given by Hassell through "The Gospel Messenger" periodical. We now return to that publication.

"Q. Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?

A. While it is true that the ministry is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, as the Spirit of God may direct them, and as the providence of God may open the way to them, and it is the duty of other members to help them on their way after a godly sort, and those to whom they minister in spiritual things should minister to them in carnal things, as the Scripture teach, it is at the same time true that all the elect and redeemed people of God, both infants and adults, will be saved. (Psalm 33:12; Isa. 35:10; 45:17; 53:11; Jer. 31-34; Matt. 1:21; 11:25-27; 16:16,17; John 5:25; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; 17:1-3, 24; Rom. 8:28-39; I Cor. 1:26-31; 12:3; Eph. 1:1-14; I Pet. 1-5; Rev. 5:9,10). Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3). (Questions and Answers-Part 11; See here)

This answer is quite interesting and revealing. In the previous chapters we saw how Hassell and his "anti-means" brethren in the late nineteenth century stated that the preaching of the gospel or word of God was no means in regeneration or in giving spiritual life to sinners. However, in the above Hassell says that all the people of God have the Gospel preached to them by Jesus himself and that for salvation. So, does he believe that hearing the gospel is a means of salvation or not? Answer: yes and no. He denies that the preaching by God sent men is a means of saving people but does not deny that the preaching Jesus personally does is a means. 

This seems to have been a position that many anti-means Hardshells began to promote in their debates with the "Primitive Baptists" who espoused means in the time of the division over the "means question" during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. So we have Elder C.H. Cayce, a fellow leader of the Hardshells in the time of Sylvester, who taught similarly to Hassell. In his editorial commenting upon Romans 10: 17 Cayce wrote: 

"So, then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."--Verse 17.

"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)

In another editorial on 1 Peter 3:18-21 for October 23, 1906, Cayce wrote:

"By the same Spirit by which His body was quickened He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. This shows very clearly that there is a work upon spirit which is performed by the direct work of the Spirit. “And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” - (Ephesians 2:17-18). There is a preaching, or a work, which Jesus does by His Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit. This work is what is also called regeneration. Through the work of Jesus, His offering, both Jews and Gentiles have access to the Father by one Spirit in the work of regeneration. The Holy Spirit makes the application of the blood of Christ in the work of regeneration."

The contradiction in these two editorials is quite striking. Cayce, like Hassell, believes that it is the "speech of God" spoken directly to dead sinners that saves them and denies that God speaks through the preachers that he has sent. Yet, Cayce in interpreting I Peter 3: 18-21 says that "there is a preaching which Jesus does by the Holy Spirit" in the "work" of "regeneration." How did Christ preach in the work of regeneration to the antediluvians? Was it not through Noah? Further, how successful was the regenerative preaching of Jesus to the antediluvians? Did not all they to whom Christ preached through Noah die in the flood except seven members of Noah's family? Not only that, but most of the people who heard Christ preaching to them when Christ was here on earth rejected him and his preaching. 

Elder Hassell in his "Questions and Answers" answers this question. 

"Q. Who were “the spirits in prison” to whom Christ preached? (I Pet. 3:18-20).

A. The spirits in the prison of hell when Peter wrote his Epistle, but alive in their bodies on earth when Christ by His Spirit in Noah preached to them. (I Pet. 1:11; II Pet. 2:5)."

So, this shows that Hassell acknowledges that Christ preaches through human agents in the work of regeneration. He says "Christ preached by his Spirit in Noah." When Paul says that Jesus "came and preached peace to you which were afar off" (Eph. 2: 17-18) Cayce believes this was preaching Jesus did personally rather than through Paul or the other apostles. Ridiculous. Why can't the preaching of Christ through men like Noah and Paul be a means in regeneration? When we read that "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John" (John 4: 1) we learn that Jesus did not directly baptize anyone for in verse two it is said "though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." So, we can say that Jesus regenerates, though it is accomplished by the means of those who "bring glad tidings." When a preacher baptizes, it may be said that Jesus baptized. When a preacher begets a sinner, it may likewise be said that God begat that sinner.

Based upon what Hassell and Cayce have stated, you would think that they would believe that 1) a person must hear the gospel preached by Christ himself to be saved, and 2) a person will be made to believe and obey the preaching of Christ in regeneration. That being so, why then do they deny that one must hear the gospel and believe it to be saved? So, did Hassell believe that a person had to believe in Christ to be saved from spiritual death, to be eternally saved? 

Elder Cayce wrote:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through the gospel. God does not reach them in the work of regeneration though preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional." (Cayce's Editoria Writings, Volume 6, page 176)

These assertions raise a lot of questions. It certainly contradicts what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans chapter ten, as we have already demonstrated. Further, he and Hassell are on record as saying that Christ preaches the gospel to all the elect in regeneration and that it is this preaching that is the means whereby they obtain "saving knowledge and faith in Christ." So, if "saving knowledge and faith in Christ" does not come through the gospel, how then does it come? Is having that knowledge and faith a necessary condition for salvation or not? Trying to follow these men in their statements has your mind hopping all over the place. 

In the beginning of Volume Twenty of Hassell's paper "The Gospel Messenger" (No. 10 for January, 1898), under the editorial titled "NO HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY IN REGENERATION" (You can read it on page 12  here) Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"As is usually the case, the most of the controversy in regard to regeneration has been caused by the difference of meanings attached to the word. I will, therefore, at the outset, give these different meanings, concluding with the meaning which I shall adopt, which is the meaning of the word in the latest and fullest Scriptures treating of this subject, and which is also the meaning of the word adopted by the latest and ablest uninspired writers in dictionaries, cyclopaedias, theologies, and commentaries."

I have written numerous articles showing that the first Calvinists at the time of the Protestant Reformation defined "regeneration" broadly so as to include evangelical faith and repentance, or conversion, and that it was later "hair-splitting" Calvinists who began to strictly define or redefine "regeneration" so as to exclude evangelical conversion. Hassell, as we will see, even agrees with this. So, who was right in how to define the work of regeneration? The original Calvinists or the later Calvinists? It is ironic that Hassell would say that the best definition of regeneration came later, being "adopted by the latest and ablest uninspired writers." So, how is he "old school" or "primitive" then? Also, since when have the Hardshells argued that the truth was whatever "the latest and ablest uninspired writers" said? If that is a criteria, then they should reject their anti-means view.

The larger question, of course is, how does the Bible define regeneration? When Paul speaks of believers experiencing the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3: 5) does he have evangelical conversion in mind or not? Why did the great Calvinists of the Reformation think that regeneration was the same as conversion? Is it not because they saw that this is what the Bible taught? Does the Bible teach that any unbeliever has been regenerated, quickened, born again, renewed, etc.? Did Paul not say that people are saved, quickened or regenerated, "by grace through faith"? (Eph. 2: 8) 

Hassell wrote further:

"The word Regeneration is derived from the Latin re- (meaning again) and generare (meaning to beget), and thus, according to its etymology, means a begetting again; otherwise called in the Scriptures a renewal, a new birth, or a new creation, a being born again or from above, a being born of God or of the Spirit."

This is good so far as it goes. But the Greek word palingenesia may also mean a renewal or renovation, or a re-creation, or reproduction. When Jesus spoke of "the regeneration" that will occur when he comes again to sit upon the throne of his glory, nearly all bible scholars agree that this is talking about what Paul wrote about in Romans chapter eight when he said:

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." (Rom. 8: 19-22 nkjv)

The whole creation will experience a new birth when it is renewed and becomes new heavens and earth. They will then, to use the words of President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, experience a "new birth of freedom." It is also what is described in these words:

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3: 19-21 nkjv)

It is what we see occurring in Revelation chapter 21 with the creation of new heavens and earth. In biology a regeneration occurs when living tissue replaces dead tissue, so that there is a "restoration," as when a lizard or salamander grows a new tail or body part. 

Hassell wrote further:

"The ancient Jews used the term Regeneration to express the outward change of state or relation which took place when a heathen became a Jew; and many of the Catholic "Fathers" (or writers of the early centuries) used the term Regeneration similarly to denote the outward change from heathenism to a profession of Christianity; and many advocates of "baptismal regeneration" still so use this term. The Roman Catholic "Church" uses the term Regeneration to express, not only this outward change of state perceptible to men, but also the Divine justification and sanctification from sin; and declares that Regeneration is accomplished only through the instrumentality of baptism, by which they mean the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the head of a person." 

If the ancient Jews and the early church "fathers" saw regeneration as involving being converted, how can such a view then be called new? John Calvin and the Reformation Calvinists, including the Puritans, men such as John Owen (1616-1683), believed that regeneration was another name for evangelical conversion. They believed this because this is what the bible clearly shows to be the case. 

Hassell wrote further:

"The Protestant Reformers, in the sixteenth century, distinguished justification from sanctification, and used the term Regeneration to express the whole process of inward renovation, or sanctification, in all its stages. In the seventeenth century Protestant theologians still further narrowed the meaning of the term Regeneration, using it to express the opening stage of this inward work as distinguished from its continuance in sanctification. And in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the ablest Protestant and Baptist writers have used the term Regeneration to express the initial Divine act in this opening stage, the first infusion of spiritual life, the vital renewing of the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit, as distinguished from Conversion, which is the turning of man from sin to God, the conscious and manifest change from nature to grace or from a lower to a higher spiritual state, consisting in repentance, faith, hope, love, joy, and obedience."

So, did the "Protestant Reformers" teach that sanctification preceded justification, as the Catholics do? Did they not rather teach that justification preceded sanctification? Did they also not see regeneration as one of the elements of sanctification? I have written several articles on this question. In this post (here) I cited these words:

"Leroy Forlines says that there is a problem for the coherence of Calvinism when it places regeneration before faith, because, as the great Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof states, “Regeneration is the beginning of sanctification” [1]. It is a problem, logically, to place regeneration prior to faith in the ordo salutis (order of salvation) because, if regeneration is the beginning of sanctification, and if justification results from faith, then logically Calvinism is placing sanctification prior to justification."  (here)

This page (here) will give you access to several of my articles on this question. The Reformers had this order: faith, justification, regeneration or sanctification. Later Calvinists who redefined "regeneration" came up with the same order as that of the Catholics, which is: regeneration and sanctification, and then justification. Calvin placed justification before sanctification and regeneration. Of course, what Forlines says of "Calvinism" is not true of all Calvinists, certainly not of Calvin himself or the first Calvinists. Still, he shows the weakness in the position of those Hyper Calvinists who say regeneration (which is an act of sanctification) precedes faith and justification.

Hassell wrote further:

"In this strict and accurate sense of the term Regeneration, John Gill, in the second volume of his "Body of Divinity," makes Regeneration the subject of one chapter, Effectual Calling the subject of the next chapter, and Conversion the subject of the next chapter. And he very correctly says: "Regeneration is the sole act of God; conversion consists both of God's act upon men in turning them, and of acts done by men under the influence of converting grace; they turned, being turned. (Jer. xxxi. 18, 83; Prov. xxi. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Psalm ex. 3; John vi. 44, 45, 65). Regeneration is the motion of God towards and upon the heart of a sinner; conversion is the motion of a sinner towards God. In Regeneration men are wholly passive, as they also are in the first moment of conversion; but by it they become active: it is therefore sometimes expressed passively — Ye are returned or converted, 1 Pet. ii. 25; and sometimes actively —A great number believed and turned to the Lord, Acts xi. 21; and when it, the body of the people of the Jews, shall turn to the Lord, which has respect to their conversion in their latter day, 2 Cor. iii. 16. Effectual Vocation is the call of men out of darkness to light, and is sometimes by the ministry of the word, but sometimes without such ministry, as in the cases of the disciples of Christ, of the apostle Paul, and of Zaccheus, and others; and Conversion answers to that call, and is the actual turning of men from darkness to light; so that, with propriety, Conversion may be considered as distinct from Regeneration and Effectual Vocation." 

So, doesn't Gill say that a person is not regenerated till he experiences the effects of God's regenerating work? Does he define regeneration so as to exclude the actual "turning" of the sinner to God? Does he not say that regeneration is expressed both passively and actively? A man cannot be said to have been regenerated until he has actually turned to God. Was Lazarus quickened from the dead when Christ spoke the words "Lazarus come forth" or when he actually came forth? Does quickening and regeneration then not include the effects as well as the cause? In my article "Regeneration - Devil in the Definition" (here) I wrote:

Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander, wrote:

"Evangelical repentance, conversion and regeneration, are substantially the same. They all signify a thorough change of views, affections, purposes and conduct; and this change is every where declared to be essential to salvation."

This is in keeping with the view of Edwards.

Alexander wrote:

"Curious inquiries respecting the way in which the word is instrumental in the production of this change are not for edification. Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form. The instrumentality of the word can never derogate from the efficient agency of the Spirit in this work. The Spirit operates by and through the word. The word derives all its power and penetrating energy from the Spirit. Without the omnipotence of God the word would be as inefficient as clay and spittle, to restore sight to the blind."

This is what Gill was saying in the citation given by Hassell. Regeneration involves BOTH God's act in turning a sinner and in the sinner's actual turning. Also, "turning" is another term for repentance, and so Gill does not believe that anyone can be said to be regenerated who has not turned or repented. Gill gives Acts 11: 21 as an example of what regeneration or turning involves, which is that a "great number believed and turned to the Lord." So, even Gill acknowledges that being regenerated a sinner is both acted upon (passive) but also acts (active). See these two chapters of mine (here and here) on that question. Hassell leaves out this part of Gill's commentary on Regeneration, in his Body of Divinity:

"Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": (Gal. 3:2), that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."

"When" does "regeneration" occur? It is when "the word" is preached and becomes the "vehicle" through which "God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men" and is the time when people believe the word and then receive the Spirit as a result. I would ask Hassell, if he were here today, whether the above is a "careless expression" or rather a "precise" statement of faith and ask whether Gill contradicted himself on this question? 

I have cited Jonathan Edwards much to show how the older Calvinists equated evangelical conversion with regeneration. In this post (here) I cited from "Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War" by E. Brooks Holifield who said (emphasis mine):

"To the Old Calvinists, one of the worst errors of the Hopkinsians was their failure to recognize that regeneration occurred through illumination of the mind by the means of grace. A recurring theme in Old Calvinist polemics was the assertion that "all judicious Calvinist divines" believed that "conversion or regeneration is wrought by light, by the moral power of divine truth." In the Old Calvinist order of salvation, the Spirit first illumined the mind with a "common doctrinal understanding and belief of truth." This truth brought a sense of guilt, a fear of punishment, and an affecting view of the holiness and mercy of God; and the assent to truth moved the will toward a heartfelt consent and faith. How, the Old Calvinists asked, could the will ever consent to anything without first understanding it? Only the conviction that faith came "through the truth" made such means of grace as sermons and meditations worth defending." (pg. 154-55)

In that same article I cited these words from Edwards:

"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that by regeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"

(pg. 471, from "THE W0RKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS, IN FOUR VOLUMES." A REPRINT OF TBE WORCESTER EDITION, WITH VALUABLE ADDITIONS AND A COPIOUS GENERAL INDEX. VOL. II.) 

You can read many other such quotations from Edwards in my post in the link provided above.

Hassell next wrote:

"Regeneration, thus strictly and accurately distinguished from not only Conversion but also from Effectual Calling, always coming first, and being followed by Effectual Calling and Conversion, is the Divine, miraculous, supernatural, irresistible, everlasting change, back of the will and below consciousness, not in the substance but in the state of the soul, in the prevailing and governing principles, dispositions, tastes, and habits of the soul, which constitute character and determine volitions and actions, by which change the understanding is illuminated, the affections consecrated, and the will rectified, so that the regenerated sinner habitually hates and puts away sin, and habitually loves and practices holiness."

Why is the word "regeneration" not used in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? Is it not because they used the term "effectual calling" to denote it? That being so, Hassell is way off base to say that effectual calling was something that came later after a person was regenerated. Did the old confession distinguish evangelical conversion from regeneration or effectual calling? 

Notice that Hassell in the above citation does not define "regeneration" by its cause alone, as he and his brethren often did, but defines it by the "change" that occurs in the person being regenerated. That is good. However, his description of the change is where the problem lies. He says that regeneration is: 

1. distinguished from "effectual calling" and "conversion."

2. a divine, miraculous, supernatural, irresistible, and everlasting change

3. what takes place "back of the will"

4. what takes place "below consciousness"

5. not a change in the substance but in the state of the soul 

6. a change in the dispositions, tastes, and habits, affections, and character of the soul

7. a change in the understanding, involving illumination

8. a rectifying of the will

If all these things occur in "regeneration," then it is hard to see how it could be "below consciousness." I also ask - where in the bible is initial salvation ever described as being below consciousness and apart from evangelical conversion? Why does Hassell think that such a drastic change in a person excludes a change in a person's views about God and salvation? That it excludes being brought to faith and repentance? Did he not say that regeneration involves "illumination"? Does he not believe that regeneration involves being "taught" and "drawn" by the Father and a "coming" to Christ per John chapter six? What was taught to the sinner by the Father? How can a person be taught, drawn, and come "below consciousness"? How can the "will" be divorced from this? When Jesus said to Peter that it was the Father who blessed him so that he saw and believed that Jesus was the Christ, was he not speaking of what occurs in regeneration? When Jesus said that "no one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him," was he not talking about what occurs in regeneration? (See Matt. 16: 17: 11: 27) 

What is Paul referring to when he says "for it is God who works in you to will" (Phil. 2: 13)? Is he not talking about that salvation that was worked in a person when he was saved or regenerated? Was the Psalmist not talking about regeneration when he said "your people will be willing in the day of your power"? (Psa. 110: 3) Is the "will" not involved in "receiving" Christ? How can "regeneration" be "back of the will" if it is a "rectifying" of the will? If "regeneration" drastically changes the dispositions, tastes, habits, affections, and character of the soul, how could that occur below consciousness? 

If Christ preaches the gospel to all his chosen people when he regenerates their spirits, why do they not all then believe in him and the gospel? And, why does he not keep preaching personally to them apart from preachers? If he preaches the gospel personally to all, then why did he commission his servants to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"? (Mark 16: 15) Paul says that it was by Apollos and him that the Corinthians became believers. (I Cor. 3: 5) If Jesus had already preached to them and made them believers, then Paul was wrong, was he not? 

Elder C.H. Cayce is on record as saying that the Athenian idolaters who worshiped many gods were already "regenerated," had already had Jesus preach the gospel to them in their regeneration. Notice these words of Cayce:

"That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word."   ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)

So, Jesus had regenerated the Athenians before Paul ever came there and preached the gospel, and Jesus had already preached the gospel to them, but they still did not know Jesus nor believe in him?! Elder John R. Daily, a contemporary of Cayce and Hassell, and one of their champion debaters, in his debate with W.P. Throgmorton in 1912 said: "Men in heathendom are regenerated by the Spirit of God without the Gospel" (Daily-Throgmorton Debate, p. 273).

How could it be "without the gospel" if what Cayce and Hassell and others in his day were saying is true, i.e. that Christ preaches the gospel to the elect himself when he regenerates them?

Hassell wrote further:

"The word regeneration does not occur in the Old Testament Scriptures, but its equivalent is found in such passages as Dent. xxx. 6, Jer. xxxi. 33, Ezek, xi. 19, and xxxvi. 26, 27, in which God says that He —no sort of means or instruments being mentioned —will circumcise the hearts of Israel to love Him, will take away their stony hearts and give them hearts of flesh, will give them a new heart and a new spirit, even His own Spirit, put His law in their minds and hearts, and cause them to walk in His statutes. The verb translated "quicken" in the 71st, 80th, and 119th Psalms, does not, in these passages, mean the first communication of spiritual life, but the refreshing or revival of the life already communicated."

Hassell says that the scriptures he cites about regeneration, which he rightly equates with the experience of being "circumcised" in heart, do not mention "means or instruments" being used. However, that the bible affirms means is true. The word of God is the means of circumcision. Even physical circumcision requires a cutting instrument. Notice these words of scripture:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn."  (Deut. 10: 16)

"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)

It seems clear that these admonitions or word of the Lord were intended to be a means in bringing those who were "uncircumcised in heart and ears" (Acts 7: 51) to cry out to God for this work to be done in them. Why did Stephen, who uttered these words to such lost sinners, say this to the unregenerate? Would any Hardshell Baptist do so today? 

Hassell says that the word "quicken" in the Psalms mentioned (where David says "your word has quickened me") does not mean to bring to life. Why not? Is it not because it contradicts his premise? And, rather than change his belief, he gives a different definition to the word. So, when it suits them, Hassell and his Hardshell brethren will change the meaning of words at any time when it is necessary to make scripture to agree with their theological paradigm. They certainly do this with the word "faith." Paul told the Ephesian believers - "and you has he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2: 1) David says this quickening is through God's word. Ergo, Hardshellism is false. 

Yes, regeneration involves getting a heart transplant. But, how could that be "below consciousness"? 

Hassell wrote further:

"In the New Testament Scriptures the English word Regeneration occurs but twice, in Matt. xix. 28 and Titus iii. 5; in the first passage it means "the resurrection," or, as rendered in the old Syriac version of the second century, "the new world "; in the last of these two passages, it means the first infusion of spiritual life, and the Holy Ghost is mentioned as its sole author — "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 

But, the context of Titus 3: 5 shows that by the "washing of regeneration" that Paul has in mind what takes place in conversion, as a result of faith in Christ. To the Ephesians Paul said:

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (5: 26-27 kjv)

Said Jesus to his followers: "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15: 3 kjv)

The apostle Peter, in speaking in the Jerusalem council, said: "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

So, we see how the scriptures say that sinners are quickened, regenerated, washed, etc., by the word of God, whether read or heard.

In the next chapter we will continue to review the polemical writings of Hassell on this question.