I probably should not have titled this short series using the word "polemic" because Elder Harvey did not give a scriptural or rational defense of Hardshellism's unscriptural propositions, but simply stated them, in his attempt to give the reason why Hardshells are not Calvinists. Of course, they are Calvinists, because they believe in the five points of Calvinism and because they are not Arminians. They are in fact Hyper Calvinists because they hold to the tenets of Hyper Calvinism, tenets that increased through the years since its first rise at the start of the seventeenth century. In Hassell's History we find both Hassells, father and son, speaking well of Calvinism and not disdaining it. My own father who was a "Primitive Baptist" minister for over fifty five years took issue with those Hardshells who refused to identify themselves as Calvinists. In Hassell's History we read these words:
"Prof. Henry Drummond, in his recent able work entitled "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," has some admirable pages unanswerably evincing the united and harmonious testimony of both science and Scripture to the truth of the Pauline or Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrine of salvation, and I will now give the substance of some of his remarks upon this subject..." (Chapter twelve, page 404)
Tenets of Hyper Calvinism
In my post titled "Evolutionary History of Hyper Calvinism" (here) I gave a list of the various tenets of Hyper Calvinism as they have accumulated over the centuries. In that post I gave Dr. Phil Johnson's list of those tenets as follows:
I have a longer list which adds to the above.
Tenet number one would indict Phil Johnson for he believes that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith, and if so, then he must also believe that the gospel or word of God is no means in regeneration. This view also makes him believe tenet number two as well as the first part of number eight.
The first proposition of Hyper Calvinism was articulated by Josehp Hussey in 1707 in his book "God's Operations Of Grace But No Offers Of His Grace," wherein he argued against the idea that gospel ministers should universally or conditionally invite or call every single hearer to believe in or accept Christ, or that God actively offers saving grace to those who ultimately perish.
The next proposition of Hyper Calvinism was the denial of "duty faith," that it was the obligation of all men to believe the word of God and to believe in Christ. I have several posts on this question in this blog. (See here, here, here, here) If men are not required to believe in Christ or the Bible, then it is no sin for any not to believe it. So, rejecting Christ and the word of God is no sin. If the Bible says it is a sin to reject God, Christ, and the word of God, then it must be because God commands it. So, let us show that all men are commanded to believe and repent. Wrote the apostle John:
"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." (I John 3: 23 kjv)
The apostle Paul preached to the Athenian idolaters and said:
"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31 nkjv)
Those initial propositions of the Hyper Calvinists naturally led to others, such as the belief that God shows no grace (or common grace) to the non-elect, and has no love for them, and is why they say that no offers of salvation are given to them in preaching. It also led to the idea that there are no conditions for being saved, affirming that men must be first saved or regenerated before they can believe, repent, come to Jesus, receive Christ, etc. Andrew Fuller unloaded on the Hyper Calvinists who taught these things. His famous treatise "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, or, The Duty of Sinners to Believe in Jesus Christ" refutes these tenets of Hyper Calvinists. The title of his work is taken from that apostle Paul's words to Timothy:
"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (I Tim. 1: 15 kjv)
Not all the first generation of Hardshell Baptists rejected duty faith. In an article in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1839, titled "Duty Faith & Repentance. An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray," (see here) Elder Samuel Trott wrote: (emphasis mine)
Now let us return to what Harvey said in his polemic. Harvey continued (emphasis mine):
"The moment we say, "Salvation is by grace, but here is what you must do to get it," we have annihilated grace. It is just that simple. That is what Paul is saying in Romans 11:6. Grace and works are mutually exclusive when it comes to eternal salvation. We are not allowed to say, "It is by grace, but here is what you must do to get it." Nor can we say, "It is by grace, but here is what you must do to keep it." We are not even allowed to say, "You must do this, but it is not really you doing it; it is Christ in you doing it." No. That is still salvation by works. Do you understand, my friend?"
"Doing" something is not to be equated with "works." Hardshells are frequently saying that salvation cannot be by faith for faith is doing something and that is works. Yet, the scriptures say faith is not in the category of works. So wrote and testified the apostle Paul:
"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." (Rom. 4: 5 nkjv)
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph. 2: 8-9 nkjv)
Here "believing" in Christ is not classified as "work." So, how can a man who claims to be a Bible teacher for Christ utter such anti-biblical things? These texts affirm that salvation is by grace and yet it is through something people do, i.e. believe. Further, we are told in scripture that people "believed through grace" (Acts 18: 27), and that justification from sin is "by faith that it might be by grace" (Rom. 4: 16), which clearly demonstrates that the proposition of Harvey and his Hardshell brethren is against scripture. Romans 11: 6 does not say that salvation is not by faith, nor not by repentance or coming to Christ, or by being taught and drawn by the Father, etc.
The idea that it is a violation of scripture to teach that sinners must do something to be saved is an invention of the Hardshells, coming from their Two Seed Primitive Baptists ancestors. They too said that nothing a person did in life determined whether he went to heaven or hell. Further, Paul ascribed all his working for the Lord to God's grace, writing:
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10 kjv)
So also testified Isaiah the prophet:
"LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12 kjv)
This refutes the statement of Harvey that averred - "We are not even allowed to say, "You must do this, but it is not really you doing it; it is Christ in you doing it." How a Bible man can claim that believers cannot say that what they do in faith is God's gracious doing is amazing and diametrically opposite of the above verses and others I could cite. Just as Paul said of his transgressing, in Romans chapter seven, that "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me" (vs. 17 and 20), so he likewise says his acts of righteousness were not done by him but by God's work of grace in him. A believer confesses that all the good he does is a result of God "working in him to do that which is well pleasing in his sight." (Heb. 13: 21)
Next, Harvey wrote: "Prevenient grace is no grace at all."
Where is that affirmed in the Bible? Is he denying that God was graciously and providentially at work in him before he was converted? Wrote the apostle Paul: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." (Titus 2: 11 nkjv) The apostle Peter says that married couples are "heirs together of the grace of life." (I Peter 3: 7 kjv) The apostle John wrote this about the Lord Jesus Christ: "For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace." (John 1: 16 esv) Notice these texts:
“The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made” (Psa. 145:9). Jesus said God causes “his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45) and “is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Luke 6:35). Barnabas and Paul said the same thing: “He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:17). This divine compassion, benevolent goodness, kindness, and longsuffering to all, are instances of God's common grace.
Elder John M. Watson was one of the widely recognized leaders of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist" sect, as Elder Sylvester Hassell, Elder Lemuel Potter, and Elder Gilbert Beebe have stated. He believed in prevenient grace, as have other Calvinists, though not in the same way as some Arminians or as the Catholics. Watson wrote:
By the Lord "going out before" the preachers Watson alludes to God's prevenient grace, to his preparation of people to hear the word of God savingly. This shows that Watson believed in some preparations or prevenient grace prior to actual salvation. So too did the biblical writers. Wrote Solomon: "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord." (Prov. 16: 1 kjv) The Puritan Calvinists believed in preparations and gracious operations of the Spirit upon a lost sinner before he is regenerated or born again.
The great men of the "Primitive Baptist" sect in the 19th century did not deny that there were conditions for salvation, but taught that all those conditions are effected by God's sovereign and efficacious grace.
In the paper "The Southern Baptist Messenger," begun by Gilbert Beebe's son, William L. Beebe, Elder W.M. Mitchell (1819-1901) wrote:
"The saving of sinners from their sins with an everlasting salvation is a great work, but God is a Great God and all his works are great. When it is said that “salvation is of the Lord” it is thereby declared that everything pertaining to salvation from first to last is of him. There is no salvation without the choice of God in Christ. He hath therefore from the beginning chosen us unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth...In conclusion, let us not overlook the fact that in order to salvation, it is necessary that we be born again; that we have faith, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; but as salvation is of the Lord, these things are as much of him as our redemption, calling or justification, for his “divine power hath given us all things that pertain unto, life and godliness.” 2 Pet. i. 4. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things ?” (You can read that issue of that periodical here).
Elder Sylvester Hassell, another great leader of the Hardshells, wrote:
"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation (Gen. iii. 15; xii. 3; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Psalm cx. 3; Isa. xxvii. 13; xxxv. 10; xlii. 16; xlv. 17; liii.-lv.; Jer. xxxi. 33-37; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; xxxvii. 1-14; Zech. xii. 10-14; xiii. 1, 7-9; Matt. i. 21; xxv. 34; John vi. 37-40; x. 15, 27-30; xvii. 2, 3, 24; Acts xiii. 48; Rom. v. 19-21; viii. 28-39; Eph. i.-iii.; 2 Thess. 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; 1 Pet. i., ii.; 1 John v. 11, 12; Rev. i. 5, 6; xxi. 27)." ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Conditionalism" by Sylvester Hassell, The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894)
So, Harvey's views are not the original views of the first Hardshells and his views, being expressive of what most "Primitive Baptists" today believe, show how much he and they have changed from their origin in the early 19th century, and this is laughable considering how they boast of having changed not in their views since their beginning.
The idea that a lost sinner is to do nothing to be saved is so glaringly opposed to the most explicit and clear declarations of scripture that nearly all Christians will be stunned to know that there are professing Christians, as the Hardshells, who affirm such.
From the scriptures we learn that one must "receive" Christ and the Spirit to be saved, and that is doing something. We also learn that a sinner must "come" to Christ and that is doing something. We learn also that a sinner must believe in Christ, confess Christ, and be instructed and drawn by the Father. These are things the sinner does. We learn that a sinner must "repent" or "turn" to the Lord and that is something he does. We also learn from the scriptures that a lost sinner must "convert" in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, and that he must "call upon the name of the Lord" and calling is something the sinner does. Many scriptures affirm these things, as any Bible student knows.
Harvey wrote further:
"Thus I conclude that Calvinism is worse than Arminianism for the simple reason that it can logically expect far fewer to be saved!...Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists, although we are sometimes falsely accused of being so. We believe far more are going to heaven than any Calvinist (or Arminian either, for that matter) could ever conceive of!"
I have responded to this line of reasoning before. In this post I cited from Elder Harold Hunt in this post (here) who said:
"I would hate to believe the family of God is limited to the little number we preachers can reach. But that is clearly not what the Bible teaches. God will have the victory, even in numbers."
I then responded, writing:
"I would hate to believe"? Is that how Hunt decides what to believe? His emotions control his faith? His likes and dislikes determine his biblical interpretations? By his logic, he should be a "no-heller," for surely he would hate to believe that anyone would suffer in Hell forever, right?"
I have also heard Hardshells argue that more must go to heaven than go to hell for if not then Satan will have won more to his side than God did to his. Absurd logic! Using this same twisted logic we ask why they teach that most of those who God regenerates are never converted to the true religion but remain in false religions? Jesus sent Paul to preach the gospel so that people might be "turned from darkness to light" and turned "from the power of Satan unto God" (Acts 26: 18). So, since most of the chosen and called, according to Hardshellism, never hear the gospel, they remain in darkness and under the power of Satan. So, who wins more converts then, my Hardshell brothers, God or Satan?
In my post titled "Hardshell Quasi Universalism" (See here) I cited the following from Elder T.L. Webb Sr. (who was once on the editorial staff of Elder C.H. Cayce's paper "The Primitive Baptist") and his book "Little Things" (1941):
"For this reason I have said that every one that sincerely and truly desired to be saved in heaven, would finally reach that happy home. Can you ask for a better system of salvation than one which is sure for all that really want to be saved?" (page 20)
"One comforting thought in the above Scripture (Heb. 11:16) is, if one really desires a better country it is an unmistakable evidence that such an one has an interest there. I have often said publicly, as a rebuttal in defending our people against the charge that our system is not broad enough, that the system advocated by Primitive Baptists is broad enough to embrace all that want to be saved; and why should we think God unjust if He does not save those who do not want to be saved? What better system could we ask for than one which will embrace every one, in all the world, who desires the better country?" (pages 53-54)
"I believe that God is the author of prayer. I have thought, and I believe today with all my heart, that every person in this world, who has prayed, will finally be around the throne of grace in heaven. I say, brethren, these Old Baptists have the broadest system in the world. People say it is narrow. They do not know how broad it is. It is broader than any other theory in the world." (page 99)
"So I say that we have the broadest system that has ever been advocated here in the world. For different reasons the Primitive Baptists have the best system that has ever been preached in the world. How broad is it? It is broad enough that it reaches everyone that has ever prayed a prayer. Heaven will be their home after awhile, if they have ever prayed. Brother Taylor, I love this old doctrine. I get comfort out of it. It reaches me, because, if I am not mistaken, I have, a few times in my life, tried to pray to God, and if I have really prayed, God is the author of that prayer and heaven will be my home after awhile. God answers all prayer." (page 100)
Friends, that is so close to Universalism! That is where Hardshellism leads. It is why in the twentieth century we saw the rise of those who are called "Primitive Baptist Universalist" churches.
No comments:
Post a Comment