Rebutting Hardshell Arguments (2)

In this second post we will continue to critique an Internet treatise titled "Primitive Baptist Church: Bible Basic Doctrines" (See here) authored by Elders Johnson Vernon, Michael Ivy, and Don Watson, and found at the web page of Denton Primitive Baptist Church (www.dentonpbc.org).

The treatise spends a lot of time trying to prove that a sinner is born again or regenerated or quickened before he believes in Christ or the gospel and before he repents of his sin. This is not only a tenet of the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists but is also a view held to by others, such as the Reformed Baptists, or some Presbyterians such as the late Dr. R.C. Sproul. These folks want to try to get people to believe that this view is the view of Calvinists, which is not the case, for many Calvinists do not believe that sinners are born again before faith. John Calvin himself did not believe it, affirming rather that sinners were born again or regenerated by faith. The older Calvinists at the time of the Protestant Reformation generally agreed with Calvin. 

The above text disproves the proposition that regeneration precedes faith. Believing in Christ the Light precedes becoming children of the Light. Children of the Light is the same as children of God. In First Thessalonians chapter five Paul says to the believers "you are all sons of the light and sons of the day." (vs. 5) We saw in the previous chapter of this critique how John 1: 12-13 taught the same truth, that people believe in Christ and receive him in order to be given the right to become begotten children of God. We are still looking at the section titled "Relationship Between Belief and New Birth"  (pgs. 112-113).

Next, the authors of the treatise wrote:

"B. John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life..." Again, "believeth" is present tense and "hath" is past tense. Thus everlasting life (new birth) precedes belief."

My Response

No, "believeth" is a present tense participle (the one who is believing) in the active voice and "hath" (has) is not a past tense verb in the Greek but is also a present tense indicative active. 

The text cannot be twisted so as to say that people have everlasting life before faith. In the very same chapter Jesus said "whoever believes" in him the Christ "will not perish but have everlasting life." (vs. 16) Obtaining eternal life follows believing. Why would it be different in verse 36? Not only that, but the Hardshells don't simply say that regeneration precedes faith but say most people who are regenerated never come to faith in Christ, a position that the Reformed Baptists and many Presbyterians don't believe, for they say that regeneration only logically precedes faith, not chronologically, affirming that at the very moment a sinner is regenerated he believes in Christ. 

The words of Christ are intended to teach us that unbelievers are not regenerated. That is the point that the Hardshells reject, and yet it is the main point Christ is affirming. Whoever does not believe in him does not have everlasting life! 

Notice also that the authors again omitted a crucial part of the text! What part? The part that says "he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." Why would the above authors leave that part out? Is it not for the same reason that they omitted a crucial part of John 1: 13-14, that part that says "those who received him to them he gave the right to become the children of God"? The very text above that these unscrupulous authors used to try to prove that faith is not a necessary precondition for having eternal life actually says that those who do not believe do not have, nor will they have, eternal life but also says that the wrath of God abides on them. So, unbelievers do not have spiritual life nor are they justified, but are spiritually dead and condemned. 

Many Hardshell lay people will not even attempt to act as the noble Bereans and study the passage to see if what the above authors are saying is correct. They will just accept the view that "hath" is past tense when it is not. Many will even miss the main point which is to say that unbelievers do not have eternal life. They will simply and blindly accept the Hardshell interpretation that says that all Christ is saying is that faith is an evidence of a prior salvation but is no condition for salvation, for they say that many go to heaven who were regenerated but who did not believe.

Next, they wrote:

"C. John 5:24, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." Once again, "heareth" and "believeth" are present tense and "hath" is past tense. Hence, everlasting life comes before we can hear or believe. Thus we must be born again prior to "hearing" or "believing." Hearing and believing are evidences of the new birth."

My Response

No, "hearing" and "believing" are both present tense participles in the active voice and "hath" again is likewise a present tense indicative active verb. "Is passed" is a perfect tense indicative active voice verb, a similar construction to I John 5: 1. However, in John 5: 24 the perfect tense verb is in the active voice but in I John 5: 1 the perfect tense "is born" is in either the passive or middle voice.

When two things are integral to each other, where it is impossible to have one without the other, one may say whoever has A has B and also say whoever has B has A. I could say "whoever is (present tense) a male has (perfect tense) XY chromosomes" or say "whoever has (present tense) XY chromosomes is (perfect tense) a male." Whoever is a present ongoing believer has been born of God. Whoever is born of God has believed. Both statements are true. This is what is called in logic a contrapositive. Example:

Original: If it is raining, then the ground is wet.

Contrapositive: If the ground is not wet, then it is not raining.

So, if a person has been born of God he has believed, and if a person has believed he has been born of God. If a person is of God, then he will be hearing the word of God, and if he is not hearing the word of God, then he is not of God.

Further, as I wrote about in my exegesis of I John 5: 1, there are what are called universal or gnomic present tense participles which are verbal adjectives that express a timeless, general truth, habit, or characteristic without being tied to a specific moment in time. So, when John speaks of "believing ones" he means those who have believed (past tense), are still believing (present tense), and who will continue (future tense) to believe. So, whoever has believed has been born of God is included in the use of a gnomic present tense. 

Next, they wrote:

"D. John 6:47, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." You show me someone who believes on Jesus and I will show you someone who already has everlasting life."

My Response

No, once again "he who believes" is a present tense nominative participle in the active voice and "hath" is also again a present tense active verb. The text does not say that the believing ones possessed everlasting life before they became believers. This is a case of "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4: 2) and of "twisting" scripture. (II Peter 3: 16) In the previous chapter we saw where these authors said that the new birth was the cause and believing was the effect. If that is true, then everyone who is born again should believe or else we have a case of a cause not producing an effect. 

So, what is the state of those who believe not? What happens to them? When Jesus says it is those who believe that have everlasting life, he intends to say that those who do not believe do not have spiritual life. Further, Christ actually says this many times. Jesus said in John 3: 16 that those who believe will be given everlasting life as a result of believing and said "he who believes not is condemned already because he has not believed in Christ." (vs. 18) The condemnation is contrasted with having eternal life and so it too is eternal. Christ said the same in Mark 16:16 - "the one who believes not shall be condemned." We also saw this in John 3: 36 where Christ gave the negative, "the one who does not believe shall not see life but has the wrath of God abiding on them." Jesus also plainly declared: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." 

Next, they wrote:

"E. John 8:43, 47, "Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word." "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." Clearly, you must first be of God (born again) before you can hear God's words (gospel)."

My Response

No, that is false reasoning. In this text we have another contrapositive. It is another "if, then." In logic it is "if P, then Q." In that logical formula it also implies "if not Q, then not P." But the implied contrapositive, "if you are of God, then you will hear God's word," is what is denied by the Hardshells, for they teach that the overwhelming majority of those who are "of God" will never hear and believe God's word! The text's logic says "If you are not of God, then you have not heard God's word." Such a statement also says "if you do not hear God's word, then you are not of God." We can rightly say "whoever is alive is breathing" as well as say "whoever is breathing is alive." As I have stated, when two things are essentially and necessarily joined together in such a way that one cannot exist by itself, then one may say to have one is to have the other, and vice versa.

Verse 47 of this chapter is addressed to those who Christ identifies as not being of God as Jesus said. He even says to them that "the Devil" is their father. So, why is Christ even preaching to them? Hardshellism says it is wrong to preach the gospel to the unregenerate. In this article (here) I cited these words from a sermon by Elder Sonny Pyles:

"It would be just as ridiculous to go down in Virginia or Kentucky and start yelling at the rock and the mountains as it would be for me to preach the gospel to an alien sinner never born again of the Spirit of God."

"It would be just as foolish to go over to the shopping center, walk up to a brick wall and start saying "by grace are ye saved through faith" - and people would think I was a moron."

Pyles makes Jesus a moron for he was doing that very thing in John chapter eight! He tells spiritually dead and unregenerate sinners what it takes to be saved, i.e. believe in Christ. In that same article I cited the following from Elder C.H. Cayce's paper "The Primitive Baptist," from an editorial written by Cayce in the year 1905, where Cayce wrote:

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

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

So, Christ is not only a moron for wasting his time telling those children of the Devil how to be saved but he is also violating the will of God in doing so! Unbelievable! In the same chapter we have another contrapositive in these words said to the same people:

“You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, (then) you would have known My Father also." (vs. 19) 

Here we have another "if, then" logical statement, involving the protasis "if" and the apodosis "then" (which is often implied). The Bible is full of them, just as every day speech is full of them. We see where two things are so essentially linked together so that neither can exist by itself. It is impossible to know the Father without knowing the Son, and vice versa. It is another "if P, then Q" and "if not Q, then not P." So, there is no such character who is "of God" but who is not at the same time one who is hearing (listening or heeding) the word of God. Yet, this is exactly what the Hardshells try to convince others that this is what the Bible teaches. Here is another "if, then" from the same discourse to the same people:

"And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, (then) you will die in your sins.” (vs. 23-24)

Notice the "if" (protasis) in the text. The apodosis (then) is implied. Hardshells do not believe that faith in Christ is essential for being saved from sin, death, and eternal punishment. Yet, the above text proves otherwise. "If P (you don't believe), then Q (you will die in your sins)." What is the contrapositive? "If not Q (you do not die in your sins), then you had believed." 

Notice again how Christ clearly identifies these people not only as children of the Devil but as being "from beneath," who he would later refer to as being "children of Hell" or Hell's offspring (Matt. 23: 15), and as being "of this world." 

Now I invite any of the above elders to come here and answer my refutation of their interpretations of scripture. The same is true with any other Hardshell. If I am wrong, come and show me how I am wrong and how you are right. The fact that I have been calling on you all to do this for the past eighteen years through these blogs and only one of you attempted to debate the issues shows that you all know that you cannot refute them. Why not come here and debate these issues? Each month we get thousands of visitors, even over 300,000 per month over the past year. So, let all these people see that you all are not cowards or perverters of the word of God by coming here and discussing these things in the way Christ would want us to do.

In the next chapter I will continue, and probably finish, this rebuttal to the argumentation of the elders who wrote the apologetic for the Denton Primitive Baptist Church.