The Bible teaches that one must come to know God and his Son Jesus Christ in order to be saved and to go to heaven. Here are some of the proof-texts for that affirmation:
"...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." (II Thess. 1: 7-9 nkjv)
"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" (Matt. 7: 23 nkjv)
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10: 14)
If you ask the typical "Primitive Baptist" today whether a person needs to know God and Jesus Christ to be saved, you will generally get a "no" for an answer. Some will hedge, however, and contend that people do come to know God and his Son but on the subconscious level, which is ridiculous. It is saying that there are people who don't know that they know Jesus and his Father. In saying this they will identify those who are worshipers of other gods as people who on the sub-conscious level actually know the one true and living God and his Son Christ Jesus. Hardshell apologist R.V. Sarrels actually taught this in his book "Systematic Theology." They say that many people who worship other gods are "born again" and "know God" which is ridiculous. Sarrels wrote:
"...in perhaps the vast majority of cases the elements of conversion–repentance, faith, and justification–may be present only embryonically...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)" (Systematic Theology, page 369)
"We here give some attention to a matter mentioned earlier in this chapter: Since we hold, (a) that God, without the use of the gospel as a means, regenerates his loved ones in heathen lands as well as in cultured lands, and, (b) that in all of these lands, both heathen and cultured, the Holy Spirit performs his convicting work, we make the following differential observation: As the innate knowledge of God's existence, or First Truths, may exist in only faintly discernible ideas about the Supreme Being, and may range from this all but dormant and little understood stamp of the Maker to the highest and most enlightened concept of God's existence, so the facts connected with conviction--and conversion--may begin with the faintly dim ideas about sin, righteousness, and judgment, about repentance, faith, and justification, and range from this to the most advanced intellectual concepts concerning these progressive steps in the experience of a believer in gospel lands." (pages 365, 366)
Elder C.H. 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 or by the gospel." (Vol. VI, page 176)
"Elder John R. Daily in a 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).
Since the above texts about knowing God and the Lord Jesus tell us that one must intimately know God and Jesus, how then does one come to know them? The above text in the heading tells us. You cannot know God nor Jesus unless you are informed about who they are, and the way anyone comes to be informed is by the word of God in the Bible. That is what the inspired apostle said and yet what he said is not believed by the Hardshell Baptists, and the citations from Sarrels, Cayce, and Daily show this.
People must know God and know Christ to be saved and this knowledge is necessary for having faith or belief. You cannot know that George Washington was the first U.S. president unless you are informed of that fact.
Some of them will tell us that "faith" is a gift of God given to all the elect ("faith of God's elect"; Titus 1:1) and that Christ is known because the Father reveals Christ to each elect person (Matt. 16: 17) and that the Father is known because Christ reveals the Father to each of the elect (Matt. 11: 27; Luke 10: 22), all which is true. However, if that is true, then why do many of them teach that many of the elect never come to know Christ or the Father but remain pagans? They often talk about the American Indians being children of God and born again even before the white man came and brought to them the word of God. But, if the above texts about having the Father and Son revealed to a person is what occurs when he is born again, then why did the American Indians know nothing about the Father and the Son?
Is the saving knowledge of God present in a heathen idolater as a "germ" or virus, the person having it being unaware that he has it? Is that not ridiculous?
Elder C.H. Cayce taught that the Athenian idolaters to whom Paul preached Jesus and his resurrection in Acts chapter seventeen had already been born again and were the children of God even though they did not yet know Jesus nor the Father and were worshiping other gods when Paul came there. See my post (here) on that, where I cite Cayce on that point. The apostle Paul however did not believe that anyone who did not know the one true God nor the way of salvation through Christ were regenerated children of God. He wrote to the Galatian believers saying "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods." (Gal. 4: 8 nkjv) Notice that people who do not know God, the one true God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, worship and serve many false gods. There is no one who worships many false gods and at the same time knows God.
Elder Samuel Trott, predecessor of Sylvester and leader of the "Old School" Baptists wrote the following in "CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE" in 1845; You can read here on page 41 of his several writings; emphasis mine):
"A coming to Christ is admitted as necessary by all professors. I will, therefore, here show that
Christ has said that none can come unto Him except they are taught of God. The words are, “No
man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at
the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall be all taught of God. Every man
therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me,” &c. (John 6:44-45).
Thus he evidently represents the drawing and teaching as the same thing. Teaching has to do
with the mind, not the animal feelings; it is an instruction of the judgment, or a giving of
understanding to the things taught. But God’s teaching is not like man’s, a mere enlightening of
the head whilst the heart is untouched. It is a revelation of truth in the heart, so that the affections
are arrested; there is a heart-feeling of the truth taught, and a heart love for it. To come to Christ,
or to be believers on Him, we must know Him in His true character as the Savior of sinners."
"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."
That was the general view of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. They did not believe that a person was saved who did not believe in Christ and the Father and who did not place his faith in Christ for salvation.
Present day Hardshell apologist Elder David Pyles, in his work "Perfections Of Grace," wrote the following on page 56 (emphasis mine):
"Sylvester
Hassell also testified to the antiquity of the doctrine in private correspondence with William
Crouse where he said:
"So far as I know, the Kehukee Association never entertained or endorsed the doctrine that God
sometimes uses the preached gospel in regenerating sinners...Man, not regenerated by God’s
Spirit, may have a natural conviction of sin and conversion (a turning from their outward evil
conduct). In my time I never knew one of our ministers or members to believe or maintain that
the preaching of man is a means of regeneration; nor do I suppose that in 1778 any minister or
member of the Kehukee Association held that the Holy Spirit comes through the human preacher
to quicken into life a person who is dead in sin. He may regenerate a sinner while the minister is
preaching, but He does so by His own direct operation in the sinner’s heart or spirit. True
conviction and conversion are the effects of immediate Divine regeneration. – (Regeneration or
the New Birth, p 73-74)
However, in the preceding chapters of this series I have shown where many "Primitive Baptists" in the days preceding Hassell, and even in his day, taught that sinners were begotten by the gospel. I have shown that even his father C.B. Hassell taught that view. I cited from Elder Joshua Lawrence who taught that view and he was a leader in the Kehukee Association before Sylvester. In chapter six of this series I cited from the Kehukee's original articles of faith which said:
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.
As I have stated, the literature of "Primitive Baptists" is full of falsehoods. The Lord willing I hope to assemble all these falsehoods in the future. Their "historians" often gave false information and a false narrative concerning historical events.
Pyles also cites these texts and comments as follows:
"The scriptures that Calvinists most commonly cast against immediate regeneration are:
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. – 1Cor 4:15
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his
creatures. – James 1:18
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth
and abideth for ever. – 1Peter 1:23
These are also the texts with which Gill struggled in his indecision on this subject." (pg. 57)
These texts do teach that God uses his word or gospel in producing birth children and it is believed by both Calvinists and Arminians. Also, Pyles is giving a falsehood when he says that "Gill struggled in his indecision on this subject." Gill, in all his writings, in his commentary, Body of Divinity, etc., never denied that the gospel or word of God was a means. In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (See here) in chapters 58-65 I showed where Gill taught the means view and never changed his mind on it. I showed where the Hardshells pick one sentence from his Body of Divinity, from his section on "Regeneration," where they think he changed his mind, and which is not the case. In that section Gill wrote:
"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."
So, Pyles and his brethren tell a falsehood when they say Gill taught that the gospel was no means in regeneration in his Body of Divinity.
Now, let us return to Sylvester Hassell's polemic against means via his editorial "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). Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):
"In James i. 18, "Of his own will begat He us with the word of truth," the verb rendered "begat" occurs in only one other passage of the Scriptures, James i. 15, where it is correctly rendered, in the King James Version, "bri" (John 10: 14 kjv)ng forth," and so it is correctly rendered in James i. 18, in the Revised Version and the latest Baptist Version; it never means "beget," but always means "bring forth"; it thus refers not to the communication, but to the manifestation of life. The verb rendered "beget again" or "born again" (it is the same word in the original, and should always be rendered "beget again ") occurs in 1 Pet. i. 3 and 23. In the first of these verses, there is not the slightest allusion to human instrumentality; Peter says that God hath, according to His abundant mercy, begotten us again or regenerated us by, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" —the resurrection of Christ, who is our resurrection and life, being the virtual or procuring cause of the resurrection from death in sin or the regeneration of all the members of His mystical body (John xi. 25; Eph. ii. 5)." "
Is Hassell saying that the "bringing forth" is not a birth? Is he agreeing with his older brethren who taught that the "begetting" preceded the "birth" or the "bringing forth"? Does he believe that a person is born who has not been brought forth in birth? Does he believe that only the begetting is necessary for eternal salvation but the birth is not? Who is it that begets? Is it not the father who sires or plants the sperm? Who is it that "brings forth" in the birth? Is it not the mother? But, notice in the text that James says it is the Father who "begets" or "brings forth" in the birth. This shows that James does not see two stages to spiritual birth as there are in physical birth, and as most first generation Hardshells believed. The passage speaks analogically of how lust begets sin that gives birth to death.
"Then when lust hath conceived (syllambanō - to conceive, to become pregnant), it bringeth forth (tiktō - produce or generate, as of a woman giving birth) sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth (apokyeō - give birth to) death." (James 1: 15)
There is no doubt that James uses the several stages of birth to illustrate how death is produced. Lust conceives sin and then sin is developed as a child in the womb, and then finally sin, when matured, gives birth to death. Does James affirm that spiritual birth likewise has stages to it? That there are gaps in time between being conceived by God and being brought to the birth by God? The first Hardshells believed so. However, I don't think that James intended to teach this. He does however use a word that focuses upon being born from the womb. In the book of Isaiah God said:
"Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God." (Isa. 66: 9)
Here we see where birth is viewed from the standpoint of delivery from the womb. God says in his birthing children into his family that there are no abortions or miscarriages. All who are begotten are brought to the full birth, a fact that is denied by today's Hardshells, but not denied by their forefathers. On this passage and the verse preceding it John Gill wrote the following in his commentary:
"As in the natural birth it is he that gives strength to conceive, forms the embryo in the womb, ripens it for the birth, and takes the child out of its mother's womb; so he does all that answers hereunto in the spiritual birth...God will not shut the womb of conversion until they are all brought to faith in Christ, and repentance towards God."
Today's Hardshells, however, do believe that "the womb of conversion" is shut for most of those who God has begotten. Gill comments further upon these words of the text - "for as soon as Zion travailed she brought forth her children" (vs. 8), saying:
"...this is to be understood of the pains which Gospel ministers take in preaching the word, which is the means of regeneration, and they the instruments of it; and so are called fathers, who through the Gospel beget souls to Christ; and of their anxious concern for the conversion of sinners, and the formation of Christ in them, which is called a travailing in birth; see (1 Peter 1:23) (James 3:18) (1 Corinthians 4:15) (Galatians 4:19) (Romans 8:22 Romans 8:23)
Hassell said further:
"In the other verse (the 23d) Peter says that we are "born or begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Here the construction of the phrase "by the word of God" (the preposition dia with the genitive case) is exactly the same as that of the phrase, "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," in the 3d verse; and as that of the phrase, "by Him" — "who by Him (that is, by Christ) do believe in God," in the 21st verse; and as that of the phrase, "through the Spirit"—"obeying the truth through the Spirit," in the 22d verse; so that it would seem, from the context and the construction that Peter means, by "the word of God" in the 23d verse, not the written or preached word, but the incarnate, personal, essential Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, once crucified, but now risen and glorified, and ever living, and pouring out His Spirit of life, faith, and obedience upon His people, by which Word all things were created and are upheld, and which Word is preached or proclaimed by the gospel. By "the word of God" is sometimes meant, in the Scriptures, His effective will (Psalm cxlviii. 8 ; Heb. i. 3 ; xi. 3; 2 Pet. iii. 5, 7). If Peter here means the preached word, he uses the term "regenerate" (as Paul does in 1 Cor. iv. 15 and Philemon 10) in its wider sense as including conversion (see Acts ii. 38 and iii. 19). Christ did not commission Peter to regenerate His people, but to "feed His lambs and sheep" (John xxi. 15— 17); and Peter similarly exhorts other elders. (1 Pet. v. 1—4)."
Hassell gives three interpretations that he will accept in regard to I Peter 1: 23 and one that he will not accept. He says that "the word of God" 1) may denote Christ, or 2) may denote a word God speaks apart from his written word, as when he created the heavens and earth, or 3) may denote regeneration in its broad definition which involves conversion. However, if the latter is accepted, then surely he must admit that the written word or gospel is a means, for even the Hardshells admit that conversion is by such means. But, Hassell has already denied that the word of God in the text has reference to the written word of God. As far as the "word of God" denoting Christ, I have already responded to that idea in the preceding chapters of this series.
Why is Hassell, and his brethren, so vehemently opposed to the idea that the "word of God" means the written revelation or good news? Is it because there are some texts that say the word of God cannot be a means? Is it not rather because they base it upon their own reasoning and carnal logic? In chapter six of this series I cited Romans 1: 16 where Paul said that "the gospel of Christ" is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes." In Hebrews it is also written:
"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4: 12 nkjv)
To the Thessalonian Believers Paul wrote:
"For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 5)
Since these texts say that the gospel or word of God is an instrument of divine power, why should anyone be opposed to the idea that such divine power is instrumental in raising the spiritually dead?
No comments:
Post a Comment