The Gospel - The Means of Grace XV

A Description of the Saved

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and (tasted) the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb. 6: 4-6)

Who can deny that the saved are described in these verses? Who can deny that being made a "partaker of the Holy Ghost" is salvation? What other characteristics does the writer give for the salvation experience? He says that those who are partakers of the Spirit are also they who have "tasted the good word of God." These two things are joined together, yet the Hardshells divorce them, contending that only a few of those who have been made partakers of the Spirit have also tasted of the good word of God.

Not only does the apostle describe the saved as those who have become partakers of the Spirit and word, but as those who have been "renewed" by "repentance." Do the Hardshells teach that renewing (regeneration) comes via repentance? Do they not rather deny it? Do the scriptures not teach that "repentance" is "unto life"? (Acts 11: 18) Do the Hardshells not rather teach that life is unto repentance? That life is unto an optional repentance?

A Description of the Lost

"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus." (Eph. 4: 17-21)

What Hardshell can deny that Paul describes the unregenerate state in these words? He speaks of the unsaved Gentiles as being "alienated from the life of God," as dead alien sinners. He speaks of them as being "beyond feeling," another characteristic of the "dead." But, this spiritual death is characterized by a darkened understanding, a lack of enlightenment, by blindness and ignorance. Conversely, spiritual life is characterized by enlightenment, by having understanding, by having "learned Christ," by having heard Christ and been taught by him. But, the Hardshells say that the regeneration experience is non-cognitive, an experience that imparts no knowledge. Paul, however, defines the regeneration experience as one in which sinners "learn Christ." Further, this learning of Christ Paul says comes by the gospel. "How shall they believe in him (learn about him) of whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10: 14)

In the same epistle Paul had earlier spoken of their lost state before their conversion, before they came to "learn Christ." He wrote;

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." (2: 11-13)

While they were in "ignorance" of Christ and the gospel, before they had "learned Christ," they were "strangers from the covenant of promise," and were "without hope," and "without God." Not only were they "aliens" from the "life of God," but "aliens" from the "commonwealth of Israel," aliens to Zion, aliens from the gospel truth. Before they had "learned Christ" and been given a saving understanding they were "uncircumcised," or unregenerate.

These descriptions of the saved and lost go contrary to the Hardshell descriptions and show how conversion and regeneration are spoken of as being the same thing by the apostle. Where does Paul make "conversion," or "learning Christ," to be a separate and distinct experience from partaking of the "life of God"? Does the description of the saving experience not show that the gospel is the means?

When Paul says "at that time" and "now," words alluding to two distinct periods of time, is he not referring to times well known by the Ephesians? To that time when they were converted to Christ by the gospel, when they came to know and love him, versus that time when they were ignorant of him?

The Gospel - The Means of Grace XIV

Becoming A Children Of God

"That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom. 9: 8)

Those who are "children" or "sons" of God are also known in scripture as the "people of God" (Rom. 9: 26) or "family of God." (Eph. 3: 15) Not only are saved people the "children of God," but are "children of the day," and "children of the light."

"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." (I Thess. 5: 5)

It is inconsistent to be a child of the light if one is still in darkness, if one is still worshipping false gods, and if one is a stranger to the gospel.

"For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light." (Eph. 5: 8)

When were the Ephesians "darkness"? Was it not before they were converted? Before they heard and believed the gospel? Paul speaks as if the Ephesians knew the time when they were once in darkness and when they came into the light. But, if as the Hardshells teach, most of the children of God do not know the time when they were born again, then they of course would not know when they went from being children of the night to children of the day. Most Hardshells would acknowledge that they know when they were converted, when they became believers in Jesus. Thus, if Paul is speaking of a time when the Ephesians knew that they became children of the light, then they must be referring to their conversion experience, and this conversion experience is when they went from being children of the darkness to children of the light.

"Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (I Peter 2: 10)

Again, what point in time is Peter alluding to? A time when his audience was regenerated in the womb? A time that his audience does not know anything about? Was it not the time when they were not Christians? When did Peter's audience become the people of God? Was it not when they became Christians?

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4: 3-6)

Obviously Paul taught that the work of God in making children of light involved the gospel. Those who are unbelievers in Christ and the gospel are those who are yet darkness and children of the night. Those who are gospel unbelievers are "blind" and have no light in them. Jesus said:

"While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them." (John 12: 36)

Jesus taught that God given faith was a medium through which God begets children of light. Paul taught the same, writing:

"For ye are all the children (sons) of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 26)

In C. H. Spurgeon's commentary on Galatians, he wrote:

"Those only are the children of God who are “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

John taught the same when he wrote:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1: 12)

Thus, it is impossible to say of any unbeliever that he is a child of God. Hardshells, however, teach that many are children of God who do not believe in the God of Israel and who do not believe in Jesus.

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." (Gal. 3: 7)

To be the "children of Abraham" is all the same as being the children of God, spiritually speaking. "For he is not a Jew," said Paul, who is one outwardly in the flesh, but one is a Jew inwardly, by the work of the Spirit in regeneration and conversion. (Rom. 2: 28, 29) A person without faith in God and in Christ is no child of God, no child of light.

To be a child of God, one must bear some likeness to God, the Father, and some resemblance to one's mother, which is the "church of the firstborn" and "general assembly," composed of the "spirits of just men made perfect." (Heb. 12: 23) In the Hardshell system, however, the child of God has no mother, for they teach that the church is no means in the divine begetting. But, it is absurd to speak of one being a child without both a father and mother. God says by the prophet to his children:

"Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him." (Isa. 51: 2)

Paul teaches in Galatians that the child of God has Jerusalem for a mother, which includes the gospel of the new covenant. This was the issue in the writings of Hosea, where God says to some "you are not my people." And why were they not his people? Because they did not recognize Jehovah as their father and Jerusalem as their mother, but gave these honors to other deities. Those who are the children of God are "children of Zion," people who own the teachings of Zion. (See Heb. 12: 22)

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." (John 8:39)

This verse throws a monkey wrench into the Hardshell scheme of things. How so? They affirm that many are the children of God but who do not do the works of Abraham, do not believe in the one true God and in the promised seed through whom all the world will be blessed. Jesus said to those who pretended to be children of God and Abraham - "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me." (John 8: 42) Hardshells teach that there are many who are children of God the Father but who do not love and believe in Jesus.

"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. 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." (Eph. 2: 2, 3; 5: 6; Col. 3: 6)

Those who are the children of God are contrasted with the children of the devil. The children of God are children of the light and of the day, while the devil's children are children of the darkness and of the night. Further, the lost are "children of disobedience," while God's children are children of obedience. But, how can Hardshells say that those who "obey not the gospel" are children of obedience? Are they not rather children of disobedience? Paul identified the children of darkness as being "children of wrath." Are they not the unbelievers? Did Jesus not say that "the wrath of God abides" on him? (John 3: 36) Peter called the children of the devil, the children of the night, "cursed children" (II Peter 2: 14) Why are they cursed? Is it not because they love not the Lord Jesus as Paul said? (I Cor. 16: 22)

"And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God." (Zech. 13: 9)

Those who have been begotten of the Father are people who not only bear a likeness to him but who recognize him as such. God's people are they who say "The Lord is my God." They say to God "Abba." They know their Father, are not ignorant of him, as the Hardshells teach. (Gal. 4: 6) If one is a heathen and says to a false God - "you are my God and my father," then he is not a child of God.

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." (Heb. 8: 10)

Those who are the children of God are those who have been given understanding of the one true God. Gospel laws, new covenant rules, are written into their hearts and minds. Regeneration produces cognition of the truth about God. The true people of God are they with whom God has made covenant. Making agreement with a person involves cognition.

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (II Cor. 6: 16)

The people of God are described and identified as being those who have God, the true and living God, dwelling in them, and walking with them. But, those who worship idols and acknowledge other gods are not the temple of God. Hardshells teach, however, that many who worship false gods are nevertheless indwelt by God the Father!

Top Ten Blogs

We are thankful to be recognized by sbc today as being in the top 10 blogs of the recent week. Both "The Old Baptist" and "The Baptist Gadfly" blogs made the top ten!

See here

The Gospel - The Means of Grace XIII

The Spirit Via The Gospel

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his...But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you...For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8: 9, 11, 15)

Another aspect of salvation, or another way in which the salvation experience is described, is that of "receiving" the "Holy Spirit," or the "Spirit of Christ," and the "Spirit of the Father." Those who are saved are those who possess the Holy Spirit, who have the Spirit indwelling them. Is it possible to have the Spirit dwelling within and not know it, as the Hardshells teach? Can one "receive" the Holy Spirit without cognition, and without faith? Is this "receiving" done with the heart and mind? What are the evidences of the Spirit possessing a man?

Paul says that a man who belongs to God, who is a child of God, who is spiritually alive, is one who has received the Spirit and who has the Spirit residing within the heart, mind, and soul. How does this happen? Does the Spirit simply "zap" a man? Or, does this receiving of the Spirit involve decision? Does it result from request? The word "receive" often denotes to "welcome," as people "receive" guests into their homes. And, the heart is a house or home.

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received (welcomed) him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1: 11, 12)

People can "receive" willingly or unwillingly. Do we think that the Lord and his Spirit are received unwillingly? Is it not willingly, as the old Baptist confession of 1689 states? How are they made willing? What is the result of this welcoming of Christ? This acceptance of him? Is it not the right to become sons of God? Further, this "receiving" of Christ involves "believing" in him.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Rev. 3: 20)

This verse is talking about how Christ and his Spirit come to enter into a person. It gives his modus operandi. He comes to the heart of the sinner and knocks and speaks. Receiving Christ is all the same as opening the door to him, all the same as welcoming him, of inviting him into our hearts. Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists deny this, however.

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (II Cor. 11: 4)

Notice how "receiving" Christ is connected with "accepting" him. Receiving and accepting Christ and his Spirit is also connected with receiving and accepting the gospel.

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3: 2, 3)

"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (vs. 14)

"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7: 39)

These verses make it clear that the receiving of the Spirit and of being saved and born again is accomplished by the preaching of the gospel, that the Spirit is received "by faith." These verses overthrow the Hardshell notion that the Spirit is received apart from the gospel and apart from faith. People do not receive the Spirit in order to believe, but believe in order to receive the Spirit. The language is clear and unmistakeable. Those who do not believe in Jesus do not have the Spirit, and are therefore not children of God.

"And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (I John 3: 24)

"Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (I John 4: 13)

These verses show that those who have the Spirit are not ignorant of the fact. John says that all those who possess the Spirit, who have welcomed the Spirit into their hearts and lives, are they who know it. The Hardshells, however, speak of people who possess the Spirit, who have received the Spirit, but who do not know it, who do not know that they have received the Spirit.

The Gospel - The Means of Grace XII

The Saved Love God

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8: 28)

In the previous posting in this series we looked at "calling," how the saved are designated as "the called of Jesus Christ," and how this calling was "by the gospel." (II Thess. 2: 14) The verse at the heading of this posting also refers to those who are "called according to his purpose." But, it further describes those who have been "called" as being all the same class as "them that love God." It is impossible to affirm that a person has been "called" (successfully) but who as yet does not "love God." All the called love God and all who love God have been called. These descriptive terms denote members of the same class.

Hardshells, however, do not teach that all the "called" are lovers of God. How can a man love God whom he knows nothing about? Paul said - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" And, we may ask - "how shall they love him of whom they have not heard?" Further, it is not love for any God, or love for Zeus or Apollo, but love for the one true and living God, the God of Abraham, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus, as sinners are "called" to life and salvation "by the gospel," so are they brought to love God by the same means. Will the Hardshells tell us if one can be "called" and yet not know or love God? Will they tell us how any can love God without knowing him, and how they can know him without hearing about him?

Throughout the scriptures the saved are denominated as being those who love God or who have the love of God in their hearts.

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (I Cor. 2: 9)

"But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you." (John 5: 42)

"And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." (Romans 5: 5)

When a man is saved he comes to love God. To affirm that many who do not know or love God, the one true God, are nevertheless the "called" of God, is a serious error. Hardshellism is no minor deviation from the truth.

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 16: 22)

What shall the destiny be for those who do not love God or Christ? Paul says they shall be "accursed" ('anathema'). Dr. Gill says that "anathema maranatha" means "let him be anathema in the coming of our Lord." He says that it is a reference to "the second coming of Christ to judgment, when all the wicked of the earth shall be accursed by him, and all such that love him not will be bid to depart from him." But, the Hardshells teach that many of the called do not love God, do not know and love Christ, and yet will be finally blessed with salvation.

"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8: 42)

This is another verse that destroys hardshellism, for hardshellism teaches that not all those who are children of God, who have God as their Father, believe in or love Christ. But, Jesus plainly says that if one is a child of God, then he will love Christ. If a man does not love Christ, then he reveals the fact that he is not a child of God. Ask any Hardshell this question - "do all the regenerate love Christ?" They will say "no." But, what does Jesus say? Can a man love one without cognition? Can he love sub-consciously and unknowingly?

"For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God." (John 16: 27)

Jesus says that those who are loved by the Father are those who love and believe him. But, the Hardshells do not confess this, but avow that many who do not believe in Jesus, and who do not love him, are nevertheless "regenerated."

"Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?" (James 2: 5)

Those who will inherit the kingdom are they who have been "born again" (John 3: 3-5) and who "love" God. But, a man cannot love God if he has not heard the gospel. Contrary to hardshellism, James taught that the kingdom will only be enjoyed by those who love Jesus.

"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (I John 4: 7, 8)

"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (I John 4: 16)

John equates being "born of God" with knowing and loving God, but Hardshells deny that being born again brings a man to know and love God and his Son Jesus Christ.

"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (II Tim. 4: 8)

"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him." (James 1: 12)

Not only are those who love Christ promised the eternal kingdom, but are promised the "crown of righteousness," the crown of victory. Those who do not love Christ are promised no righteousness and no victory. This crown is promised to "all" who love Christ, not just to some of them.

The Gospel - The Means of Grace XI

Called By The Gospel 

"Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 14) 

 

These words annihilate the Hardshell "Spirit alone" or "no means" view of regeneration. When I was a Hardshell, these words deeply troubled me, for I saw how they taught contrary to what I had been trained to believe. The Hardshells have tried hard to make this passage to deal with their "time salvation," or to optional conversion and discipleship, in order to keep their view unscathed. But, this has proved impossible for them, for the context clearly connects this "calling" with being "chosen to salvation," and with being "sanctified by the Spirit," and with "obtaining the glory" of Christ. Some will simply add words to the text, as they do with other passages that destroy their Hardshell views. Some will say that the words of Paul mean - "whereunto he called you manifestly to the manifest obtaining..." Such perversion! Such rebellion! 

 

Wrote Dr. Gill: "Whereunto he called you by our Gospel,.... Salvation being appointed as the end in the decree of election, and sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, as means; the elect in the effectual calling are called to the participation of each of these; first to the one, and then to the other; to grace here, and glory hereafter: and the means by which they are called is the Gospel, which the apostle calls "our Gospel", not because they were the authors, or the subject of it; for with regard to these it is styled the Gospel of God, and the Gospel of Christ; but because they were intrusted with it, and faithfully preached it, and in opposition to another Gospel published by false teachers." (Commentary) 

 

Now, who are the real "Old Baptists"? Those who agree with Gill or those who do not? 

  

1689 London Confession Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling 1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, 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; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace. 

 

(Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Canticles 1:4 ) 

 

These words are clear in their denial of the Hardshell paradigm of regeneration and conversion. Most Hardshells do not believe that "effectual calling" is by both God's "word" and "Spirit," but say it is by the "Spirit alone," by the Spirit separate and apart from the "word." Notice also the scriptures cited by these old Baptists to support their view. One of them is II Thess. 2: 13, 14, the passage we are investigating. Notice also their reference to Eph. 1: 17, 18. Many Hardshells deny that these verses are talking about the divine quickening, for it speaks of being made a Christian "believer." But, the old Baptists who wrote the confession believed that regeneration consisted in being made a Christian "believer." They believed that effectual calling produced believers in Jesus. 

 

Notice also how the old Baptists said that effectual calling enlightens the mind, gives understanding, but Hardshells deny this, affirming that regeneration is non-cognitive, sub-conscious, and that no ideas, beliefs, or knowledge is imparted in it. Notice also how the old Baptists said that effectual calling consisted in causing the elect to freely come to Christ, in their being made willing, in their being made to choose and obey. This too is contrary to many Hardshells who teach that obedience and choice can never be irresistible, or caused by God's sovereign power. 

 

2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead. 

 

(2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20) 

 

The old Baptists of the confession believed that "this effectual call" produced, instantly, an "answer" to the call, such "answer" being the "embracing of the grace offered and conveyed." Do the Hardshells believe in a "grace offered"? Do they believe that the grace of regeneration is "conveyed" in such an evangelical offer? Do they believe that the acceptance of this offer of grace is a result of irresistible power and a part of effectual calling? 

 

3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. 

 

These words have been debated and variously interpreted. Some have read far too much into them and charged the old Baptists with believing what they did not believe. Clearly they teach that at least some of those who die in infancy are elect and called. Some affirm that these words do not affirm that all who die in infancy were thought to be elect and called. Others deny such an inference, believing that the words affirm that all who die in infancy are elect and called. 

Further, some affirm that these old Baptists are affirming that some are "called" apart from the gospel, by the "Spirit alone," and thus uphold Hardshell views in some cases. Is this so? The distinction is not between those called by the word and those not, but between those called "outwardly" (externally) versus those called "inwardly" (internally). Both groups are called by the word and Spirit. The difference consisted in how the truth was applied to the heart and conscience. Infants, and others, like imbeciles, who were not humanly capable of understanding truth, were called to faith in the truth in an extraordinary way. They were called by the word but not externally so. After all, Paul says that the elect are "chosen unto salvation" through the means of "belief of the truth," and this is what is true of all the elect, not just of some of them. 

 

By "others" who are "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word" the old Baptists did not allude to the heathen, as some have imagined. If the old Baptists had the heathen in mind, they would be affirming the universal salvation of all those who have died without hearing the gospel. But, the confession plainly states that all the heathen are lost. 

  

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." (Gal. 1: 6) 

 

In this verse the apostle, like the London confession, connects being called into the grace of salvation with being called by the gospel. Being removed from the one who called is equated with being removed from the gospel. 

 

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace." (Gal. 1: 15) 

 

How did the Lord call the apostle? Was it not with a revelation? By enlightening the mind and understanding of the apostle? By bringing him to confess Christ as Lord? Was Paul's calling not both a regeneration and a conversion? Also, consider how Paul uses, in this epistle and in all his epistles, the words "grace" and "gospel" as denoting the same thing. Also, Paul says this calling was in order "to reveal his Son in me." Thus, Paul's regeneration and conversion was not non-cognitive, but included his coming to faith and understanding. 

  

"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen." (Matt. 20: 16 & 22: 14) 

This verse shows that more are called than who are elect, or who are actually saved by it. But, Hardshells do not believe that God calls any, by the gospel, but the elect, or only those who are already regenerated. Unto what are all men, who hear the gospel, called? Is it not to grace and salvation? 

  

"And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come." (Matt. 22: 3) 

This verse shows how the word "called" often denotes an invitation, but Hardshells deny that God invites all to come to Christ for salvation. 

  

"God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." (I Cor. 1: 9) 

 

This verse shows that sinners are not only called to "life," but also called into the fellowship (communion) of Christ. To affirm that one has been called to life but who has not also been called into fellowship with Christ is to contradict the scriptures. "

"This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." (Gal. 5: 8) 

 

The idea here is that a persuasion comes with God's calling. But, Hardshells deny that any persuasion comes in effectual calling. 

  

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." (Gal. 5: 13) 

Liberty, like life, results from this calling of God by the gospel. Liberty from sin, idolatry, and spiritual darkness and ignorance. Hardshells affirm, however, that many who are "the called of Jesus Christ" remain in heathen bondage and darkness. 

  

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful." (Col. 3: 15) 

 

This calling brings about the rule of God, and his peace, in the heart. But, this is not what is believed by the Hardshells. 

  

"That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory." (I Thess. 2: 12) 

 

To be called into the kingdom of Christ involves becoming willing subjects of Christ the king, which is a cognitive experience. 

  

"For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness." (I Thess. 4: 7) 

 

To be called to life involves also being called to cleanliness and to holiness, which involves cognition of what is clean and holy. 

  

"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses." (I Tim. 6: 12) 

 

This call is not only to life, but to a "vocation" (Eph. 4: 1) and to be soldier, engaged in the "good fight of faith." But, Hardshells deny that the call to life includes these things. 

  

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." (I Peter 2: 9) 

 

The calling to life includes being called out of darkness and into light. Therefore, it is cognitive, and involves being called to a belief of the truth. 

  

"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue." (II Peter 1: 3) 

 

One is not only called to life and salvation but is called to "virtue," which involves cognition, revelation, enlightenment, and faith. 

  

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God...For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." (I Cor. 1: 23, 24, 26) 

 

Many Hardshells use Paul's language in this chapter in an attempt to affirm that one is called before they hear and believe the gospel, but such is not Paul's meaning. First, it would contradict what he said elsewhere, where he affirmed that this call is "by the gospel." 

If one is "called by the gospel," then he is not called before he hears it. Paul said - "how shall they call upon him whom they have not heard?" Likewise, we may ask - "how shall they be called by the gospel before they hear it?" Hardshells say that Paul is affirming that the gospel saves those who are already saved (called). But, this is a perversion and makes Paul to contradict himself. 

  

"The called" may denote all who hear the gospel and its offer and invitation. But, it may also denote those who willingly respond to the call, or who hear it with faith, or savingly. Context will determine which sense is meant. Clearly Paul is using the class term "the called," in this chapter, in the latter sense. To those who have "answered" the call positively, as the London confession states, or those who become the actually or successfully called. These own and acknowledge (cognition) that the gospel and Christ are the power and wisdom of God. 

 

Notice how Paul describes and defines those who are "the called." He says they recognize Christ as the wisdom and power of God. "Unto us who are the called," says Paul, Christ is the wisdom and power of God. But, Hardshells affirm, that this is not true with most of the elect and regenerated! They say that many of those who are savingly "called" are unbelievers in Jesus and in the gospel! But, rather than the verses upholding a Hardshell "ordo salutis," they destroy Hardshellism by its definition and description of that class of people termed "the called of Jesus Christ." 

Paul, if he were a Hardshell, would have said rather - "unto some few of us who are called, Christ is (recognized as) the wisdom and power of God." But, what Paul says of the class termed "the called," is that they believe in Jesus as God's wisdom and power. 

 

In the circular letter for the Philadelphia Baptist Association in 1784, John Gano, the famous old Baptist preacher, wrote on "Effectual Calling," and said: 

  

IV. Its efficacy. It is effectual to bring the subjects of it to a piercing sense of their guilt and impurity. The mind is deeply convicted, that the fountain is in his very heart or nature, from which all its criminal actions have sprung; and that the lust within disposes us to violate the laws of God in as great a variety of ways as nature is capable of exerting itself, agreeable to Paul's expression, "Sin revived and I died." The soul is affected with a view of its sinfulness and the malignity of sin in its nature, as entirely opposed to the holy law of God; hence arises an abhorrence of sin, as vile and odious, and a sense of its demerit as deserving eternal death. This call produces a consciousness of the absolute impossibility of our contributing in the least degree towards a recovery from this wretched condition, and destroys all confidence of help in the flesh. It is a call to Christ, and gives a view of him in his suitableness and ability as a Saviour; the merit of his obedience and sacrifice, and the treasures of his grace are all brought into view, which creates desires of an interest in him, and resolutions of looking unto and relying wholly upon him for salvation; at the same time cordially acknowledging desert of rejection from him, and yet strengthened to rely entirely upon and surrender all unto the disposal of Christ; setting to our seals that God is true; believing the record he has given of his Son, which is eternal life, and that this life is in his Son. The changes produced are from darkness to light, from bondage to liberty, from alienation and estrangedness to Christ to a state of nearness and fellowship with him and his saints. This call administers peace of conscience towards God, and disposes its subjects to peace with mankind, so far as is consistent with righteousness." See here 

Obviously, John Gano expressed the view of the old Baptists of the 19th century, before "the rise of the Hardshells" and was no Hardshell in his views on effectual calling. The Hardshells, though calling their views "primitive" or "original" are clearly not so at all, but represent a novel or hybrid view.

Jason's Latest on Gill & The Welsh

Jason Brown, the Hardshell apologist, rather than responding to my latest rebuttal, went back to a previous rebuttal of mine and made some additional comments. Jason gave this title to his post - "Garrett's Response 1.1." See here

Jason wrote:

"John Gill plainly entertains interpretations of James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:25, and 1 Cor. 4:15 in his Body of Divinity consistent with how PB's view those texts today."

"...the doctrine of immediate regeneration apart from the preached word...this is plainly entertained by Gill."

This is all utter falsehood and I have shown it to be so. I question the profitability of further debating with Jason if he is going to simply tell falsehoods that are clearly against the facts. Gill mentioned, in speculation, in one section of his Body of Divinity, the Hardshell teaching regarding regeneration apart from the gospel, yet he denied that the scriptures taught it! He said, in that same section, that the scriptures are "clear" in affirming that regeneration is affected by the Spirit's use of the word of the gospel. Jason wants to say that Gill gave countenance to Hardshell views when Gill "plainly" says the scriptures do not teach his speculation! Gill "plainly entertains" Hardshell teachings on those passages? Where is the proof? Jason is simply dishonest to go around saying that Gill endorsed hardshellism!

Further, Gill mentioned the possibility that "the word" of I Peter 1: 23, by which men are born again, could be interpreted to mean "Christ," but he rejected that view! He ever preached that men were born again by the preaching of the gospel.

Gill on James 1: 18

"with the word of truth; not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is sometimes ascribed to him; and this act of begetting is done by the Father, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead; but the Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again; see Eph 1:13 and hence ministers of it are accounted spiritual fathers. Faith, and every other grace in regeneration, and even the Spirit himself, the Regenerator, come this way."

Jason is a liar to affirm that Gill believed that the "word" of James 1: 18 was Christ!

Gill on I Peter 1: 23

"by the word of God" is either meant the essential Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; who is concerned in regeneration as well as the Father and the Spirit; by whose resurrection, and in consequence of it, the elect of God are begotten again; and who, as the Word, is able to build up all the sanctified ones, and give them the inheritance they are born heirs unto: or the Gospel, the word of truth, which is made use of as a means of begetting souls again; and the rather, since it seems to be so interpreted, 1Pe 1:25 the phrases, "which liveth and abideth forever", may be either read in connection only with "God", and as descriptive of him, who is the living God, is from everlasting to everlasting, in distinction from idols; and here added, to show that he can give power and efficacy to his word, to regenerate and quicken, and will continue to preserve and make it useful to all his saving purposes."

Gill says that it is in the realm of the possible that the word of this passage could be Christ, but dismisses that view as unlikely, based on the context and the rest of scripture. He "plainly" says that the "word" is "rather" to be interpreted as being "the gospel"! He says that it is the Spirit giving "power and efficacy" to the gospel word that produces regeneration or quickening. Where does Gill endorse Hardshell views?

This manner of twisting facts about the text of Gill's writings is revealing of the "spirit" of the Hardshell cult, which is not to be honest with their research, but to stubbornly refuse to accept plain facts. They are so wedded to their cultic view of themselves that they will not allow clear facts to change them. We are called upon by the apostle John to "try the spirits," to see whether they are of God or not. We have put the Hardshell cultic "spirit" to the test, weighed their teachings in the balance, and found them wanting.

John Gill on I Cor. 4: 15

"for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the Gospel; which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature; which the apostle ascribes to himself, not as the efficient cause thereof, for regeneration is not of men but of God; not of the will of the flesh, of a man's own free will and power, nor of the will of any other man, or minister; but of the sovereign will, grace, and mercy of God, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father of Christ beget us again according to his abundant mercy; and the Son quickens whom he will; and we are born again of water and of the Spirit, of the grace of the Spirit; hence the washing of regeneration, and renewing work are ascribed to him: but the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument or means, which God made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phrases show: for he is said to do it "in Christ"; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion: and which were brought about "through the Gospel";"

Jason accused Dr. Gill of embracing Hardshell views on this passage! But, he has brought no evidence to prove it. He is a perverter of the words of the great Baptist, a teller of falsehoods. Does Jason believe that I Cor. 4: 15 is talking about regeneration, as did Dr. Gill? Does Jason believe that the verse teaches that preachers and gospel preaching are means in this divine work of regeneration? Gill did. Jason needs to be severely rebuked for telling falsehoods. But, it is good that the public see this kind of perverting of texts as evidence of the cultic nature of the "Primitive Baptist Church."

Jason wrote:

"Consistency with what Primitive Baptists teach today is not clearly and consistently seen in the London Confession or in the writings of Gill..."

You see how Jason talks out of both sides of his mouth! First, he says that Gill "plainly entertained" the Hardshell view and then says these words! If he cannot see how this is a contradiction, then I have little hope of showing him his numerous other contradictions.

Jason wrote:

"When Primitive Baptists state that it is foolish to preach to dead people they are saying that unless individuals are quickened by God, words alone will be ineffectual. This still proves true of the valley of dry bones."

Jason admits that Hardshells "state that it is foolish to preach to dead people"! But, he then attempts to give us his "apology" for that by saying "here is what we mean when we say it"! God and Ezekiel are "fools" according to the Hardshells! By Jason's own admission! God told Ezekiel to preach to the dead bones! He knows that this fact destroy's Hardshellism and demonstrates Hardshell stubbornness and rebellion. Jason mentions "words alone," as though I believe that! I have condemned both Campbellism ("word alone") and Hardshellism ("Spirit alone")! Yes, Jason, the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones destroys the "word alone" idea, but it also destroys the "Spirit alone" view! This story destroys Hardshellism and some of them know it but won't admit it, but go to work on twisting the text to say something other than it says! Will Jason agree with Elder R. W. Thompson, a Hardshell apologist of yesteryear, who said that the "dry dead bones represent living children of God"? Also, I thought that the traditional Hardshell apology is that "we preach the gospel to every creature"? Did Jesus not preach to and talk to the dead?

Jason wrote:

"If the Old Baptists at Olchon were "one" with the London Baptists, why did Olchon send no representatives to subsequent meetings of the London Confession Conferences, held regularly for several years after the 1644 Confession was signed, and none to the 1689 Conference?"

Well, first of all, you have not presented any factual evidence to prove that none did attend! Also, the facts show that there was cordial fellowship between the Welsh Baptists and the Midlands Association and the London churches, facts which Jason has failed to take note of. But, even if we grant that some in Wales did not attend for a while, after the signing of the 1644 confession, how can you assume that it was because they disagreed over the means question? You cannot just assert such without some evidence! Why not answer the evidence I presented to show the close connection between the Welsh and London brethren? I will say this: the first London confession said that any disciple may baptize, but the later confession seemed to be made up of those of Landmarker views, and held that only ordained elders could baptize. Maybe the disagreement, if there was any, was over this issue. Also, the early churches of the Particular Baptists of England were divided over whether to sing in church! How do we not know that that was an issue? They were divided on the issue of "laying on of hands" also. Jason puts forth wild speculation and expects us to accept it as fact!

Jason wrote:

"The Midland Baptists have been variously characterized by Underhill, Tull, Gwynn Owen and perhaps other Baptist historians as hyper-Calvinists. This term implies they went farther with the doctrine of regeneration than did Calvin. Specifically, the distinction between Calvinism and High-Calvinism relates to the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration. It is a name that is routinely applied to modern Primitive Baptists."

False! Writers of the past used the term "hyper-Calvinism" as dealing with the well meant offer of the gospel, not with whether the gospel was a means! Jason needs to cite these authors to show that they were using the term "hyper-Calvinism" in an unusual way, to denote the "Spirit alone," or Hardshell, view. Also, Jason needs to know that the terms "hyper-Calvinism" and "High-Calvinism" are not terms meaning the same thing. He should look at the first two chapters of my book on the Hardshells where I give the proper definitions of these two terms. Jason needs to give us the evidence to prove that "High-Calvinism" was used by historians to include the idea that the gospel was not a means in regeneration. But, Jason cannot do this, as will be apparent. "High-Calvinism" denoted those who believed in the absolute predestination of all things and in the supralapsarian scheme.

It is true that since the rise of the Hardshell Hyper-Calvinists, in the 19th century, that the no means view should be included as one element of modern Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism, after all, has several elements.

Jason wrote, citing Hardshell Ivey:

"Owen erroneously labels the beliefs of the original Elders of the Midland as High Calvinism. However, he accurately presents their doctrinal position concerning the relationship of gospel agency and new birth..."

This statement is revealing! Ivey rejects Owen's use of the term "High Calvinism" but accepts his use of the term "Hyper Calvinism"! Yet, Jason wants us to accept the view that Owens was using the term "Hyper Calvinism" as though it included, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the belief that the gospel was not a means in regeneration! Why doesn't Jason simply cite a work from Particular Baptists where they expressly, clearly, and plainly affirmed that regeneration is accomplished apart from means? That they believed that conversion to Christ was not necessary for eternal salvation? Can he find something clear and express? Obviously he cannot or he would cite it.

Jason wrote:

"To admit that ministers of the 18th century opposed human agency in the preaching of the gospel to effect regeneration indicates that these ministers denied that the gospel as preached by man was necessarily God's means of effecting regeneration."

I admit no such thing! I deny it! Further, Jason has given us no clear-cut evidence to prove his assertion! What I said was that sometimes writers stated opposition to certain human means, not to the use of humans in the work of salvation. For instance, some in the 19th century objected to "mission boards," as they were "human means," but who did not object to the gospel being a means.

Jason wrote:

"Old Baptists before the Missionary controversy did not make precise theological distinctions in regard to a debate that was not yet in context."

Jason continues to assert that the question of the relationship of faith to regeneration, and of the nature of the regeneration and conversion experience, had not been clearly debated. Yet, this is far from the case. Those writers put these issues and topics under a theological microscope and wrote volumns on their findings.

Jason wrote:

"The subject of their disagreement (Ryland and Carey) was the instrumentality of the gospel in eternal salvation, not a particular method of evangelizing."

Jason wrote that the "eternal salvation of the heathen hinges on the gospel...was the very subject proposed by Carey for debate!"

But, this is another falsehood and Jason gave no evidence to prove it. Again, he asserts something and expects us to receive it as fact. The truth is, the disagreement between Ryland and Carey was NOT about the nature of regeneration, or the necessity of conversion by the gospel, but to the eschatological timing of mass heathen conversion.

John Ryland Jr. wrote:

“I well remember the discussion of this question, which fully occupied the evening. Another had been discussed, after dinner, respecting village-preaching–What was a sufficient call, to attempt introducing it into places where it had not been usual before?–which, therefore, seems to leave no room for that ill-natured anecdote, respecting my father and young Carey, to have taken place this year, which is said to have been before the end of 1786; whereas my father had left Northampton before the Minister’ Meeting in 1786. And I must consider it as very unlikely to have occurred in 1785, for several strong reasons. I never heard of it, till I saw it in print, and cannot credit it. No man prayed and preached about the latter-day glory, more than my father; nor did I ever hear such sentiments proceed from his lips, as tre there ascribed to him.”

The author who gave this citation wrote:

"Let us not just quote John Marshman’s statement about what happened without stating that there is a debate about this event in the life of William Carey."

See here

Again, all historians, at least the honest ones, acknowledge that there is no clear undeniable evidence that Ryland actually said the words credited to him.

Another writer on this topic wrote:

"According to another pastor who was actually present at this meeting of the Northamptonshire Association ministers, John Webster Morris (1763–1836), then pastor of Clipston Baptist Church in Northamptonshire, Ryland responded with some vehemence to Carey’s suggestion and bluntly told the young pastor:

You are a miserable enthusiast for asking such a question. Certainly nothing can be done before another Pentecost, when an effusion of miraculous gifts, including the gift of tongues, will give effect to the commission of Christ as at first. What, Sir! Can you preach in Arabic, in Persic, in Hindustani, in Bengali, that you think it your duty to send the gospel to the heathens?

When Carey came to draw up a written defence of cross-cultural missions, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians, to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (1792), he noted that some of his contemporaries had argued that the command to make disciples from all the nations was no longer incumbent upon the church. The Ancient Church, they maintained, had actually fulfilled that command. Moreover, according to Carey, they argued thus: ―we have enough to do to attend to the salvation of our own countrymen; and that, if God intends the salvation of the heathen, he will some way or other bring them to the gospel, or the gospel to them."

See here

This is evidence that overthrows Jason's baseless assertion. They believed they were involved in the work of saving their own countrymen! And, they affirmed the use of the gospel in that saving!

On the same web site, a writer said:

"What then of his rebuke of the young Carey? The heart of that rebuke had to do with eschatological timing: Ryland had adopted the end-times thinking of John Gill (1697-1771), where the gospel could not be taken unhindered to the nations till the two witnesses of Revelation 11 were slain, which would not happen till well into the nineteenth century! Wrong thinking, yes. But not the Hyper-Calvinist bogeyman of far too many treatments of Baptist history."

See here

Thus, as these writers state, the elder Ryland was not rejecting the view that sinners are saved by the gospel, but rejecting the presumption of Carey as to the time when missionary efforts to the heathen should be made. Hardshells are reading too much into the supposed objections of Ryland senior. Dr. Michael Haykin has a section in his recent book where he gives evidence to support the view that Ryland was against Carey for eschatological reasons, not because he rejected offers of grace or the means of the gospel in salvation. A friend of mine, Ian Elsasser, wrote Dr. Haykin and here is what Ian said:

Stephen:

"I wrote to Michael Haykin, who is a friend, and ask him about sources for his assessment that Ryland's comment to Carey was driven from an eschatological outlook. He says the documentation is found on pages 193-196 and respective footnotes in his book, One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his friends and his times. I have seen the book but do not have a copy. It is published and sold by Evangelical Press and is also available through Christian Book Distributors.

I appreciate the discussion since Ryland's comment is oft quoted. It is important to ascertain context in order to understand what he was saying and why he was saying it."

See here

Why don't the Hardshells simply give a citation from Ryland where he overtly taught the no means view?

One historian on the 17th century Welsh Baptists wrote:

In the year of our Lord 1620, Erbury and Wroth, ministers of the gospel of the church of England, established by law in Wales, dissented from that establishment. In what particular steeple-house Mr. Erbury officiated, what were the means of his conversion, and what were his reasons and motives for dissenting, we have not been able to ascertain from any written or printed document; but from what we have read of him, since he became a Baptist minister, we evidently see that he was a good man, and a very eminent minister of the gospel of Christ, who had his share of persecution as well as Mr. Wroth.

This circumstance was the means of his conversion to God. He then began to study the word of God, and preached with power and energy, as one having authority. Now he most earnestly endeavored to glorify God, to exalt the Savior of sinners, and to save precious and immortal souls. This new way and new manner of preaching, made a most wonderful excitement in the country; so that many cried out, “what shall we do to be saved,” and others persecuted them. But they travelled and preached together, through the whole region, showing the nature and the requirements of the religion of Christ, in such a manner that the vicars and the great men were most dreadfully offended at them. But these two missionaries of the cross were not discouraged by the rage of carnal and wordly-minded men. The cause in which their hearts were engaged was the cause of God. Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth and good-will to men, was their motto. They considered the man who becomes instrumental in saving one soul from eternal ruin, as doing more good for his fellow creature, than if he were to give him all the riches of the universe."

"Our Welsh brethren were great advocates for the ancient order of things. They adopted the old plan of supporting missionaries."

"Is it absolutely necessary that sinners who live in darkness, without hope, and without God in the world, should hear the gospel? that they should repent and believe the gospel? that they should be partakers of that faith that purifieth the heart? that repentance that needeth not to be repented of? that Christian watchfulness against sin? that vehement desire for a holy life? and that zeal which is according to knowledge? If it is, will not that love which is stronger than death, constrain them to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow the Lord through evil and good report? And how are they to be made partakers of these precious graces? Faith comes by hearing the gospel, and the gospel comes by the means of missionaries. But how can missionaries preach except they be sent? And who is going to send them empty-handed? The age of miracles is gone; and God has ordained that those who devote themselves entirely to the preaching of the gospel should live of the gospel."

It is interesting how Jason and Ivey can claim that the old Welsh Baptists were Hardshells when we look at Roger Williams and at the old Welsh Tract church, the oldest that formed the Philadelphia Association.

Was Roger Williams a Hardshell?

“Roger Williams was born in Wales, in the year 1598. He was brought up a lawyer, under the patronage of Sir Edward Coke; but finding that employment not agreeable to his taste, he turned his attention to divinity. His preaching was highly esteemed, and his private character very much revered; but as he embraced the sentiments of the Puritans, he was so much exposed to suffering, that he was compelled to leave his native country. He embarked for America, on the 5th day of February, 1631. He preached first at Salem, and afterwards at Plymouth, New England; but on account of his Baptist sentiments, and the doctrine of liberty of conscience, of which he was a great advocate, he was banished from New England in the year 1636."

Roger Williams wrote:

"But so did never the Lord Jesus bring any unto his most pure worship, for he abhors an unwilling Spouse, and to enter into a forced bed: The will in worship, if true, is like a free Vote, nec cogit, nec cogitur: JESUS CHRIST compels by the mighty persuasions of his Messengers to come in, but otherwise with earthly weapons he never did compel nor can be compelled."

"In particular: First, it (being saved) must be by the free proclaiming or preaching of Repentance & forgiveness of sins. Luke 24 by such Messengers as can prove their lawful sending and Commission from the Lord Jesus, to make Diciples out of all nations: and so to baptize or wash them into the name or profession of the holy Trinity, Mat. 28: 19, Rom. 10: 14, 15."

"Thirdly, Visibly it is a turning from Idols not only of conversation but of worship to the Living and true God in the ways of his holy worship, appointed by his Son, I Thess. 1: 9.

"It is confessed by all, that the Christians are the followers of Jesus, are now the onely People of God, his holy nation, I Peter 2: 9." ("A Briefe Discourse concerning that name Heathen, commonly given to the Indians - As also concerning that great point of their conversion")

See here

"Where spiritual life is there is always a professed willingness to get more and more knowledge of this heavenly Father, of his name, of his works, of his word, of his Christ, of his Spirit, his Saints, and Ordinances.

Hence Believers in Jesus, both Men and Women, are called Disciples, or Scholars of Christ Jesus, professing continually to learn more and more of this heavenly teacher." ("The Letter which the Author sent with this Discourse to his Wife M.W. upon her recovery from a dangerous skickness")

"And who knows whether it will please God in infinite mercy and compassion to deliver them by vouchsaving repentance in Christ Jesus, as he hath done to us?"

"Beyoind all question therefore Christ Jesus foretels most sure and inconceivable plagures to all that know not God, and obey not his glorious gospel: And by this Worms that never dies, and this fire that never goes out, declares a torment to be inflicted upon both men and devils which shall be extreme like fire which shall be universal upon the whole sinful creature, no part exempted, which shall be also eternal, never dying, never ending, yet we may adore God's righteous judgements and make sure of a Jesus a Saviour to deliver us from the wrath that is to come."

See here

Was the old Welsh Tract Church Hardshell?

The following is taken from a Primitive Baptist web site. There it is said, concerning the old Welsh Baptists:

"In 1680 representatives of over one hundred congregations of Baptists from England and Wales, meeting in London, put forth what is generally known as "The London Confession of Faith.," There articles of faith were adopted by this church in February 1716. It is mentioned in the original church records that this confession of faith held the following principles of Faith; believers Baptism; election and final perseverance of the Saints.

This was one of the five original churches forming the Philadelphia Association in 1707, and according to history was for many years the most influential member of that body."

Instead of the Welsh Baptists disagreeing with their London brethren, they endorsed the second London confession! The old Welsh tract church, though claimed to have been a Hardshell church, in the beginning, nevertheless was not! They endorsed the London confession, which taught means, as Jason acknowledges.

Jason wrote:

"Many PB's today err in regard to the response of regenerated sons to the gospel when the regenerate are under the sound of it."

And what is that error? What is the difference between Jason's view and the view of the majority of today's Hardshells? Jason believes that many, or most, of the regenerated, will be converted by the gospel when they hear it, but the majority believes that only a few who are regenerated and hear the gospel, will be converted? That is laughable! Both are wrong! Both are against the articles of faith of their oldest churches! Those articles said - "we believe all the elect will be regenerated, converted, and sanctified"!

Jason wrote:

"The nature of this promise in Gen. 15:6 is hardly "gospel preaching" as we think of it today, unless we define "gospel" more minimally to be the good news that God is our general deliverer..."

So what? Who denies that the gospel message is much clearer since the coming of Christ? That is not the point! But, the question is, did the old testament saints believe the gospel as God had given it to them? Did they believe in the coming of a Messiah who would save them and who would be king and lord? Also, did Paul not say that God "preached the gospel" unto Abraham? Why does Jason come along and deny the fact?

"Means" Hymn #2

"Look and see poor mourners around you, Fearing trembling as they go,

Longing for a consolation, Will you comfort them or no?

Let us tell them of the Savior; Tell them that He will be found;

Let us pray that holy mana May be showered all around.

Is there here a trembling jailor, Seeking peace and filled with fears?

Is there here a weeping Mary, Pouring forth a flood of tears?

Let us join our prayers to help them; Let our faith and love abound;

Let us pray that holy manna May be showered all around."

The above is a big portion of the hymn 'Brethren, We Have Met To Worship'. When I was among the Primitives this was one of the more popular hymns that was sung. It was often used as the "opening hymn" when the time had come to "switch over" to the preaching portion of the worship service. It was especially popular at district or associational meetings. I can remember singing it without having any awareness that it was in opposition to the anti-means theology that I once advocated, nor against the heretical time salvation system which I used to defend in the pulpit. It is with great sadness that I must confess that many of my dear friends are still preaching one thing, but are singing another! Sadder still it is when they don't even know that they're doing this!

'Let us tell them of the Savior'. These words are pro-evangelical. They speak of a willingness and readiness on the part of the saints of God to speak to others of Christ. They are zealous to tell those who have not viewed the Savior that Christ 'will be found'. But not so among today's extremists. You see, one of the sad consequences that time salvation has had on many on the churches is the deadening effect it has had on the ministry. Elder John Watson took notice of this in the middle part of the 19th century demonstrating the terrrible influence that hyper-calvinism was having on the preached Word:

"Our cold doctrinal, non-exhorting way of preaching, has doubtless already produced bad results"(The Old Baptist Test, page 516)

And again:

"We have lost both the spirit and words of exhortation" (page 516)

Ministers are afraid to hold Christ forth for sinners to view and lay hold of, for fear of being labeled an "Arminian". They dare not speak of Christ to those whom they feel are lost, nor of his great salvation. When we understand as well that some of today's ultraists feel that a man may be saved, but yet have no conscious understanding of the Savior, then it's not necessary as well that Christ must be found!

'Let us NOT tell them of the Savior' OR 'Tell them that He DOES NOT NEED TO BE FOUND;'

This is what is actually preached and believed by some of the more extreme ones in the time salvation camp. Or, is it possible that the hymnist had this heretical idea under consideration? Yes, that's it, isn't it? He was thinking of mourning sinners who were looking for a temporal consolation. If only I could stop laughing, I might would elaborate more on this point.

Probably the biggest point in the hymn, however, which clashes with the anti-means theology declared today is the historical reference to the Philippian jailor (Acts 16). This is actually deserving of its own posting in order to fully demonstrate how this text has been so twisted in order to escape gospel instrumentality. This wonderful story is one of the grandest cases of conversion we have provided for us in the scriptures. To confine the salvation received by the jailor to some temporal deliverance is to strip the text of its loveliness, and rob what ordinary Bible readers behold when viewing it: a a case of one alarmed in his conscience who was brought to lay hold upon Christ for salvation! It can not possibly be imagined that the hymnist meant to suggest that the jailor had in mind a salvation from the earthquake or from Roman punishment!

"Is there here a trembling jailor...

Looking for a time salvation.

Say what?????????????????????

Of this salvation received the hymnist then says that prayers are to work toward this end. 'Let us join our prayers to help them'.

Let me kill two birds with one stone here. In order to demonstrate both the bible truth on this matter and the historical position of real 'Old' Baptist teaching, let us hear the words of our forefather John Leland:

"Souls appeared very precious to me, and my heart was drawn out in prayer for their salvation. Now, for the first time, I knew what it was to travail in birth for the conversion of sinners. The words of Rachel to Jacob were the words of my heart to God: "Give me children or else I die." One night, as I lay on my bed weeping and praying, I though if it was spring instead of autumn, I would spend all my time at the feet of Jesus in prayer, and at the feet of sinners, praying them to be reconciled to God..." (Some Events In The Life Of...Part III)

SUMMARY CHALLENGES:

1) Do you sing this song?

2) Is it an Old Baptist hymn, or a New Baptist hymn?

3) Do you believe its contents?

4) Should sinners be told of Christ?

5) Must Christ 'be found' for salvation?

6) Is Christ found on the subconscious level, or the conscious level?

7) Is 'finding Christ' a work?

8) Is prayer a "Means" of receiving time salvation? If so, does this mean you're a "Means" Baptist after all?