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," 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.