Hardshell Reform Movement

Elder Michael Gowens, pastor of Lexington (Ky.) Primitive Baptist church, a fluent writer among today's Hardshells, and one whom I have cited in my book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," was asked about those ministers who are identifying themselves with the "liberal movement." See here

Gowen's posting can be found here

Here is the question:

"Since the issues are so subtle and technical, it has been difficult for the “rank and file” believer to wrap his arms around the debate. In a nutshell, what are the primary emphases that are causing such unrest among the PB’s?"

Elder Gowens responded by saying:

"One reason it has been difficult for the ordinary church member to recognize the deviations in doctrine is because this new emphasis has been a position “in flux” – an amorphous position—a moving target, if you please. At first, it was very easy to recognize the challenge to orthodoxy because the statements were so blatant. Notice the “uncertain sound” of gospel means in these actual, verbatim quotes from either ordained elders or young men who were exercising for the PB ministry. Again, these are actual, verbatim, unedited quotations from several of our own ministers and “exercising” brethren. Most of these quotations originate from articles written and sermons preached in the early days of this crisis—in 2000 and 2001—and I could supply names and documentation if compelled."

Before I give the "quotations" that Gowens gives, and my response to them, I want to say that what Gowens calls "the uncertain sound of gospel means" is the position that all Particular or Regular Baptists held to prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" (Carroll) in the early 19th century. All the original Hardshell churches subscribed to the Philadelphia and London confessions of faith and the "gospel means" position is the stated belief of those confessions. It was also the position of the first Hardshell founding fathers, the view of men like Gilbert Beebe, Daniel Jewett, John Clark, J.M. Watson, Samuel Trott, James Osbourn, etc. Thus, if the "gospel means" position is that "uncertain sound," then the Baptists who wrote the old confessions preached a false gospel, and the founding fathers preached a gospel that was an "uncertain sound."

First, Gowens says that some Hardshells are saying:

"God uses the gospel minister as His instrument in the eternal salvation of the elect."

But, if they are saying that, is that not what the old confessions say? Is that not what the Baptists universally affirmed prior to the birth of the Hardshell denomination? Is that not what Dr. Gill taught? Further, is that not what the scriptures say? (See for instance Acts 26: 18; I Cor. 4: 15; II Thess. 2: 14)

Gowens says that some Hardshells are saying:

"A certain amount of Christian orthodoxy is necessary to final salvation."

Again, is this not what the old confessions say? What the Baptists prior to the birth of the Hardshells affirmed? Is it not what Dr. Gill taught? Is it not what Elder Watson affirmed in his "Old Baptist Test"? Further, is this not what is stated in scripture? What did Paul tell the jailer? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." What did Paul tell the Romans? "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Rom. 10: 9) Jesus said "if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24) What did the apostle John say? "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (II John 1: 9) It seems clear to me that Gowens and his Hardshell brethren are the ones giving forth a strange "sound."

Gowens then gives this quotation from some in the "liberal movement."

"Salvation is daily therapy…there are ‘means of grace’ which must be employed."

Again, is this not the view of the Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells? Can Gowens give us evidence to show that the Old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries denied it? Is this not the teaching of scripture? "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (I Tim. 4: 16) "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Eph. 4: 11, 12)

Gowens next gives this quotation:

"The Bible is relentless in holding forth both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in relation to salvation."

Why would Gowens deny this? Why would he affirm that it is unscriptural? Does he not show that he is "antinomian" in doing so? Further, is this not the teaching of the old Baptists of the confessions? Of Dr. Gill? Can Gowens give us evidence where the Baptists denied this prior to the rise of the Hardshells?

Gowens next gives this quotation:

"Preaching as a ‘means of grace’ to assist the saints to persevere, and perseverance as necessary for final salvation. Therefore every sermon is a “salvation sermon”; not just because of its aim to convert sinners, but also in its aim to preserve the holy affections of the saints and so enable them to confirm their calling and election, and be saved."

But, again, this is what is affirmed in the confessions, confessions which the old Baptist churches endorsed prior to the rise of the Hardshells. It is what is taught in the scriptures. Hooray for those young preachers who are returning to the faith of their fathers and denying the heresy of Hardshellism.

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"If you don’t believe that your ministry has any eternal consequence, then I seriously doubt that you will have the courage or strength necessary to persevere in the face of opposition and discouragement."

Why is this statement false? Did Paul not believe that his ministry had eternal consequences? Paul said: "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (II Tim. 2: 10)

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"All those who were predestinated unto salvation, Jesus Christ came and died for them, therefore the Holy Spirit will quicken each one of them and they SHALL hear with an effectual ear the gospel and rejoice in Christ as their Savior and be converted."

Is this not the teaching of scripture and of the old Baptist confessions? Of the great Dr. Gill? All the predestined will be "called" (Rom. 8: 30) and this calling is "by the gospel." (II Thess. 2: 14) All those drawn and taught by the Father come to Jesus. (John 6: 37, 44, 45)

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"[Preachers], although worthy of no glory or praise, are [an] inherent part of God’s work in the salvation of His elect and will be until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ."

Is this not what the scriptures teach? (See Acts 26: 18; II Tim. 2: 10)

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"[In the NT], we find that God has made [men] essential elements of his plan. This is especially true when we consider justification…What we learn is that justification comes by faith (Gal. 2:16) and faith comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17). God connects us to His righteousness by faith in Christ, thereby imparting His saving benefits to us. It is faith in Christ that God has ordained to unite us with His Son."

How can Gowens deny this when it is so plainly taught in scripture? How can he claim to be a "primitive" or "old" Baptist and deny it?

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"Believing in Christ and eternal life are married and what God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

It is amazing that any minister of the gospel, especially a Baptist, could deny this as being taught in the scriptures! What does the bible say of those who reject Christ and the gospel? Does it not say that they will be "damned" and be "punished with everlasting destruction"? (II Thess. 1: 9; 2: 12)

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"If belief is a condition to salvation, then where does this belief come from? From the God who elected you to salvation. It’s all part of the plan. I submit that is the historic and Biblical position that has been held by Primitive Baptists in ages past."

If Gowens denies this then he should be able to give scripture that refutes it and also give historical proof that the Baptists believed differently prior to the rise of the Hardshells.

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"Many PB churches today are eliminating the word ‘perseverance’ from their articles of faith and it absolutely blows my mind. Now, the word means that the child of grace will ‘hang in there’ in a state of grace until death. He will continue, at least to some degree, in the way of righteousness. If he sins, he repents—‘The just man falleth down seven times and rises again’ (Pro. 24:16). That’s the doctrine of perseverance."

Again, how can Gowens deny that this is the plain teaching of scripture and of the old Baptist confessions?

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"Jesus prayed that every one of His children would be sanctified by the word and did Jesus’ prayers always get answered? Amen! Sanctification is a guaranteed part of the salvation package."

Gowens denies this? How can he? Does he deny that Jesus prayed that all the elect be sanctified by the word?

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"Conditional time salvation eliminates the Biblical notion that sanctification—daily growth in grace—is a definite and guaranteed part of the salvation package."

This is a true statement and Gowens offers no rebuttal to it.

Gowens then gives this quotation:

"Now I would not suggest that it’s impossible that an individual in a foreign land without the benefit and aid of the gospel, the Bible, or the church, could be called by God, because we believe in a sovereign Holy Spirit. But the question is, ‘Does a person who has been reached by the Holy Spirit then stay in this element of ignorance and darkness, or is he drawn to Christ?’."

Gowens shows how opposed to the scriptures he is in denying such a statement. Did Jesus not say all his elect would come to him in faith? That they all would hear his voice and follow him?

Gowens then writes the words as commentary upon these statements.

"These are the actual statements from various PB ministers that started this great crisis."

Good for those PB ministers! They are returning to the faith of their fathers and to the truth of scripture. How is a "great crisis" to bring people out of error?

Gowens said:

"But as some of our ministers recognized these statements as a hybrid form of “bullet-in-the-hole Calvinism” and these brethren were challenged on the claim that the gospel is instrumental to eternal salvation, they retreated to other ground. They then began to espouse that “everything happens in the new birth”, that is, when a person is born again, he automatically believes in Christ, repents of his sins, grows in grace, and perseveres in holiness."

Our series on the Gospel as the "Means of Grace" show that conversion happens in the new birth. Gowen's position is that very little happens in the new birth, making it a "hollow log" experience.

Gowens wrote:

"If repentance, believing in Christ, and personal obedience are not “optional”, then obviously, they are “guaranteed” and “certain”. And clearly, that is the argument they were making. They were saying that if a person has truly been born again, he will repent, he will believe, he will persevere; those who do not give evidence by their disobedience that they have never truly been born again."

Again, is this not what the scriptures teach? What the old Baptists taught? The view of Gowens and his Hardshell "ultraists" brethren say a man can be born again and yet be an unbeliever and an impenitent!

Gowens said:

"It all stems from an effort to dismiss the practice of distinguishing between eternal and temporal salvation, the one feature in Biblical interpretation that makes PB theology more consistent than any other theological grid."

But, where do the bible writers distinguish between two kinds of salvation? Such a distinction is a hybrid and novel view created by the Hardshells in order to hold on to their "hollow log" view or "regeneration." This dividing up texts on salvation into temporal and eternal is truly a man-made "theological grid."

Gowens wrote:

"One of these men recently said regarding his labors in a foreign country, “We held up Christ to them in the gospel; they turned to Him and He saved them.” (again, a direct quote). In all candor, that sounds more like Missionary Baptist doctrine to me than Primitive Baptist doctrine. So, to make a long story short, it appears that their position is again morphing back into its original form."

Holding up Christ to sinners in the gospel? That sounds like scripture to me! "They turned to Him and He saved them"? Again, that sounds like scripture to me!

The Lone Pilgrim's Perseverance Denied!

I was reminded today of two of my prior postings, Means Hymn #1 and #2, in which I demonstrate the inconsistency of my former acquaintances in singing one thing and preaching another. Another hymn has been brought to my attention. This one focuses not on the issue of gospel means, but another one closely connected to it: the perseverance of the saints. My former pastor in the Primitive Baptist church used to tell me that Lone Pilgrim was one of his favorites. The song speaks of the Christian experience as being one full of struggles, trials, and temptations. Yet despite all these setbacks, he shall hold on his way. It is a gracious hymn pouring forth the truth that God’s people persevere in their journey to heaven. The hymnist records:

Ye pilgrims of Zion, and chosen of God,
Whose spirits are filled with dismay,
Since ye have eternal redemption thru blood,
Ye cannot but hold on your way.

As Jesus, in covenant love did engage,
A fullness of grace to display,
The powers of darkness n malice may rage,
The righteous shall hold on his way.

This truth, like its Author, eternal shall stand,
Tho' all things in nature decay;
Upheld by Jehovah's omnipotent hand,
The righteous shall hold on his way.

They may on the main of temptation be tossed,
their sorrows may swell as the sea;
But none of the ransomed shall ever be lost;
The righteous shall hold on his way.

Surrounded with sorrows, temptations and cares,
This truth with delight we survey,
And sing as we pass thru this valley of tears,
The righteous shall hold on his way.


It is most unfortunate that these words of truth must sadly be overlooked in certain quarters today. Not only has there been a departure on the true purpose of the gospel, today’s extremists do not have a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal security as well. Now, let us not mislead any here. The question of the elect’s security in Christ is not at all doubted. It is only when the doctrine is expressed as the perseverance of the saints, as opposed to the preservation of the saints, that objections are raised. The reason for this is obvious once one understands what lies at the root of the modern time salvation system. Today’s extremists have a difficult time with maintaining the balance between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, and understanding that there is both an objective and subjective side of salvation. Preservation and perseverance are two sides to the same coin. The former is an objective truth, pointing to what God does outside of us. The latter is subjective and illustrates what God does in us.

Let us demonstrate eternal security from these two perspectives.

PRESERVATION (i.e. objective):

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (JOHN 6:37-39)

“My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand” (JOHN 10:29)

“For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (ROM. 8:38-39)

PERSEVERANCE (i.e. subjective):

“The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger” (Job. 17:9)

“And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister” (Col. 1:20-23)

“But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:6)

A great verse in God’s word which captures both the objective and subjective elements of our security in Christ is 1 Peter 1:5:

“Who are kept by the power of God (objective – KF) through faith (subjective – KF) unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”

The reader will notice that the first set of verses speak of security strictly from the standpoint of God. No mention is made of any virtues or conduct found in those who are preserved. It is merely stated in certain terms that the elect are secure in Christ. It is the second set of verses which speak of security from the perspective of men. Accordingly, their character is described: they hold on their way, continue in the faith grounded and settled, and hold fast their confidence. This is where our moderns are faced with a great dilemma. What to do with these verses which seem to speak of creature effort for attaining final salvation? Of course, the most likely strategy will be to do here what is done everywhere else where some hint is given of human responsibility. The enduring, continuing, or holding fast will be interpreted to speak of attaining to some optional temporal blessing, where the failure to do so will only bring a temporal judgment. In light of the above passages, the end result would be that those who continue in the faith will be made the recipients of some temporal reconciliation, and that those who hold fast their confidence belong to some temporal house of Christ. This is entirely sad, as the context is clearly speaking of eternal matters. We would ask our moderns:

Did Christ effect a temporal reconciliation at the cross (see Col. 1:20-23)???? If so, are there now two kinds of reconciliation to go along with two salvations, two faiths, two sanctifications, two callings, two kinds of knowing God, two kinds of life, etc., which serve as the very pillars of time salvation?????

The charge that perseverance is an Arminian or works based system, as our moderns feel, is superficial and erroneous. It would become such only if the saint did it under his own free will and strength, thereby making his efforts meritous. The truth is that the saints persevere BECAUSE they are preserved. The general course of their lives is one of holiness (1 John 3:19; 5:18); certain because effected by the covenant promises of God (Ez. 36:27; Jer.32:40), who works in His people both “to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). Until this is realized, it is hypocritical to sing that the righteous shall hold on his way when it is denied in the pulpit. Why? Because it could not be stated with any degree of certainty that he shall do so. He may NOT hold on his way! In fact, if he is one of those hypothetical unconverted regenerates that today’s ultraists have invented, he may never even have a “way” of which to let go since he was never converted to begin with!

Of course hymns are not inspired, and are therefore, not the source of authority. In this case, however, this gracious truth that is being neglected the saints of God is nothing more than the teaching of the Bible itself. It is our hope that many would see their grave error and go back to believing the Old teaching that the righteous shall hold on his way.

“We believe that such as are converted, justified and called by His grace, shall persevere in holiness, and never fall away” (Kehukee Association Articles of Faith (1777), Article 10)

The Gospel - The Means of Grace

Chapters in The Means of Grace Series

Chapter One - Aroma of Life unto Life
(II Cor. 2: 14-16)
Chapter Two - The Life Giving Spirit (Gospel)
(II Cor. 3: 6)
Chapter Three - Begotten Through Gospel Truth
(James 1: 18-22)
Chapter Four - Born Again By The Gospel Word
(I Peter 1: 23-25)
Chapter Five - Begotten By The Gospel
(I Cor. 4: 15)
Chapter Six - Saved By Gospel Dynamite
(Rom. 1: 16)
Chapter Seven - Saved By Gospel Faith
(Rom. 10: 13-17)
Chapter Eight - Unbelievers Doomed
(II Thess. 1: 8)
Chapter Nine - Forgiven By Faith
(Rom. 4: 7)
Chapter Ten - Quickened By The Gospel
(Psa. 119: 50)
Chapter Eleven - Calley By The Gospel
(II Thess. 2: 14)
Chapter Twelve - The Saved Love God
(Rom. 8: 28)
Chapter Thirteen - The Spirit Via The Gospel
(Rom. 8: 9-15)
Chapter Fourteen - Becoming A Child Of God
(Rom. 9: 8)
Chapter Fifteen - A Description Of The Saved
(Heb. 6: 4-6)
Chapter Sixteen - Inheriting God's Promise
(Heb. 6: 17)
Chapter Seventeen - Cleansing The Conscience & Application Of The Blood
(Rom. 5: 11)
Chapter Eighteen - Chosen To Gospel Enlightenment
(Rom. 11: 7)
Chapter Nineteen - Saved From Hell By Faith
(Luke 16: 27-30)
Chapter Twenty - Choosing Christ As Husband
(Eph. 5: 22-27)
Chapter Twenty-one - The Lost Found Through The Gospel
(II Cor. 4: 3, 4)
Chapter Twenty-two - Obtaining The Kingdom By Faith
(Mark 10: 15)
Chapter Twenty-three - Saved By The Gospel Preacher
(Acts 26: 15-18)
Chapter Twenty-four - The Fear Of God & Salvation
(Rom. 3: 18)
Chapter Twenty-five - Believe To Life
(John 20: 31)

The Gospel - The Means of Life XXV

Believing Unto Christ and Life

This chapter will represent the conclusion of our series on the gospel as the divine means of grace. I have given twenty four clear biblical arguments that show 1) that the preaching of the gospel is the divinely appointed means of saving sinners, and 2) that the experience of regeneration cannot be divorced from conversion, or from coming to faith and repentance, and 3) that the experience of regeneration is not a non-cognitive, or sub-conscious experience, as the Hyper Calvinists affirm, whether they be Hardshells or "Reformed" Baptists and Paedo-Baptists. I have several chapters in my book on the "Hardshell Baptist Cult" wherein I present the bible proof for regeneration being accomplished through the means of the gospel and by faith in Christ. These twenty four chapters are an enlargement. In fact, I may add some of these present chapter postings, of this series, to my book.

When I left off writing in the "Hardshell Baptist Cult" book, I had already presented the biblical evidence against hardshellism, and for means in salvation, and was nearing completion of rebutting the scriptures and arguments that the Hardshells offer in affirmation of their views on "regeneration." It is my intention to finish that rebuttal section, and move on to other issues, such as the Hardshell teaching regarding perseverance, predestination, the Great Commission, Sunday Schools, ministerial education, etc. I also plan to write extensively about the historical claims of the Hardshells, examining their leading "historians" relative to their history and origins.

In my debates with the advocates of Campbellism (aka "Church of Christ" or "Christ Church") I have had to explain what being "baptized eis (into, unto, for) Christ." (Rom. 6: 3, 4: Gal. 3: 27) I have pointed out that everything a believer does is "eis Christ," or "unto the Lord."

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to (eis) the glory of God." (I Cor. 10: 31)

"And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men." (Colossians 3:23)

Therefore, it is is easy to see how being baptized in water, in obedience to Christ, is "eis Christ."

Water baptism is a picture (or "likeness") of that mystical experience of the soul when it is regenerated, renewed, or begotten. The soul is "plunged into Christ," submerged in his cleansing blood, overwhelmed with the Spirit and with the light of the gospel. Thus, the "baptism" that saves is that mystical baptism of the soul, of which the baptism of the body is a type.

In my debates with those who believe in "baptismal regeneration" I have shown how the scriptures not only speak of being "baptized into (eis) Christ," but also of "believing (eis) Christ." In the New Testament the phrase "eis auton" ("unto him") is used frequently. Notice these verses:

"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and is believing on him (eis - unto or into him), may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye may be believing on him (eis - unto or into him) whom He hath sent." (John 6:29)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that is believing on (eis - unto or into) Me is having everlasting life. I am that bread of life." (John 6:47-48)

Thus, one believes into Christ. And, since one believes before being baptized in water, one is in Christ before baptism.

But, not only does believing into Christ overthrow baptismal regeneration, but it destroys the Hardshell view of regeneration, which will not allow that "believing" has anything to do with being "in Christ."

Believing "unto" eternal life

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31)

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to (eis) life everlasting." (I Tim. 1: 16)

Thus, one believes "unto" or "into" life, just as the scriptures speak of believing "unto righteousness," believing "unto salvation," and believing "unto justification (forgiveness)."

Hardshells, along with some "Reformed" Calvinists, will insist that "regeneration precedes faith," but clearly the preceding scriptural evidence does not support that view. Besides, what is one affirming when they say that spiritual life precedes faith and repentance? In the same sense as saying "regenerated before life"? With the meaning that "before faith" doesn't mean "without faith"? With the idea that there is a "gap in time" between regeneration and faith?

Problems with the "gap theory"

1. A man may be regenerated and not a believer.
2. A man may be regenerated and not justified (reconciled, at peace with God).
3. A man may be regenerated and not sanctified (washed and purified).
4. A man may be regenerated and not pardoned or forgiven.
5. A man may be regenerated who cannot please God (without faith cannot please).
6. A man may be regenerated who does not know God or Jesus.
7. A man may be regenerated who does not love God or Jesus.
8. A man may be regenerated who has not received the Spirit of God.
9. A man may be regenerated who is not sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.
10. A man may be regenerated who is still dead.
11. A man may be regenerated who is not converted.
12. A man may be regenerated who is not born again.
13. A man may be regenerated who is not penitent or convicted of sin.
14. A man may be regenerated who is not enlightened and has no revelation.
15. A man may be regenerated who has not been taught by God.
16. A man may be regenerated who has not come to Jesus.
17. A man may be regenerated who has not called upon or confessed Jesus as Lord
18. A man may be regenerated and be opposed to Christ
19. A man may be regenerated and and not have the mind of Christ
20. A man may be regenerated and yet not enter the kingdom of God
21. A man may be regenerated and yet still be lost
22. A man may be regenerated and yet has not turned to the Lord (repented)
23. A man may be regenerated and yet have no fear of God.

Thus, it would be absurd to speak of a man who is "regenerated" who is not, at the same time, a believer.

It is my hope that this series on the means of grace will help many to see the truth about the glorious phenomenon of regeneration, which is also an epiphany.

The Gospel - The Means of Grace XXIV

Fear Of God & Salvation

"A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." (Acts 10: 2)

This was said of the Gentile centurion, Cornelius, before he became a Christian through the preaching of Peter. Cornelius was a devout religionist, dedicated to religious life. Nevertheless he was a lost sinner. The angel that appeared to Cornelius told him to send to Joppa for Peter to come to him so that Cornelius would "hear words whereby you and your house may be saved." (Acts 11; 14) Obviously Cornelius was not "saved" before he heard the gospel from the mouth of Peter and believed it.

But, such a plain declaration of the condition of Cornelius before he became a convert to Christ is dismissed by the Hardshell apologists. They affirm that he was "saved" before he heard the preaching of Jesus, before he was a "believer," or had "faith," before he repented of his sins and turned to the Lord Jesus. So, they deny what Peter said about the matter!

They then twist the text by giving a strange and novel definition to the word "saved" as used by Peter. Peter, the Hardshell apologist affirms, already knew that Cornelius and his house were "saved," and so was simply saying that he would preach to them in order to "save" them from their religious ignorance.

It is true that Peter desired the salvation of Cornelius, a salvation that involved his being brought out of religious ignorance, but Peter did not believe that this salvation was different from the one that is connected with regeneration. So, what reasons do the Hardshells offer, apologetically, for affirming that Cornelius was already "saved" (in spite of what the text says)?

First, they say that the description of Cornelius' spiritual state, as given in Acts 10, shows that Cornelius was already "saved" or "regenerated." For instance, he is said to be one who "fears God." But, if one studies the scriptures, he will see that simple "fearing God" is not only said of saved people. But, this is a false premise, and shall demonstrate it to be so from the scriptures, which deny the premise.

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2: 19)

The "trembling" arises from the fear that the "demons" have of the "one God" they know and recognize. If having a fear of God is a proof of "regeneration," or "salvation," then "the devils" are "regenerated"!

So, the fact that Cornelius "feared God" does not mean he was "saved." First of all, it was not necessarily the one true God of Israel alone that he feared, though he was a friend and supporter of Judaism, nor of the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." We will look at this further shortly.

Next, Cornelius was a "devout man," and Hardshells argue that this also identifies him as already "saved," for only regenerated people are "devout." The Greek word used here is similar to that used in other places. The Greek word "eulabēs" means "taking hold well," or "carefully and surely, or cautiously," or "reverencing God, pious, religious." A "devout" person is a pious or dutiful person. In verse ten there is mention of a "devout soldier," which may mean a "religious soldier" or simply a "dutiful soldier." In Acts 22: 12 we read of Annanias being "a devout man according to the law."

Next, Cornelius was one that "prayed to God always," which must be a description of someone already saved. But, many lost Jews pray. This is clear throughout the gospels, where Jesus condemned the praying of the religious hypocrites among the Jews. Unsaved people pray, and the bible is filled with examples of it. In fact, salvation is the result of calling upon the name of the Lord in prayer, a fact clearly taught in scripture.

Next, Cornelius was one whose "prayer was heard" by the one true God. Does God not hear the prayers of only the righteous, of those who are already saved and regenerated? The Hardshells ask. Some will try to prove this by citing the words of the self-righteous Jews who said to Jesus - "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth." (John 9: 31) On this Dr. Gill wrote:

"All mankind are sinners, even God's elect; yea, such who are truly gracious and righteous persons; for there is no man without sin; and God hears such who cry unto him day and night; such Christ came to save; for such he died; and these he calls to repentance; and every penitent sinner God hears: but by "sinners" are meant notorious sinners, such in whom sin reigns, who live in sin, and particularly impostors. The man takes up the word the Jews had made use of, and applied to Christ, John 9:24, and suggests, that had Jesus been a sinner, that is, an impostor, God would not have heard him, or have assisted him in doing a miracle, to support an imposture, or cover and encourage a fraud..." (Commentary)

Gill says God hears the prayers of unsaved sinners when they pray for saving mercy and that the argument of the man was that Jesus could not be the notorious sinner that the Jewish religious leaders were affirming of him.

"And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." (Luke 18: 9-11)

Notice how this "Pharisee" was "devout," dedicated to his religious exercises, and how he "prayed" regularly as part of his obedience to the external law, and was a "God-fearer," at least by profession. Yet, Jesus says that he was a man "who trusted in himself that he was righteous," but who was not, but was deceived and self-righteous, and who felt like he "had no need of a physician" (no need for Christ as Savior). The Pharisee did not leave the temple "justified" as did the "publican" (sinner).

The case story of Cornelius only shows what preparatory work God does in the life of those sinners whom he intends to call and save. What is said of him may be said of many sinners just prior to their salvation.

Next, Cornelius did "good works," or "worked righteousness" that was acceptable and pleasing to God, by his giving alms to the poor and to the local Jewish synagogue. But, were they "good works"? Yes, they were good in a sense, being good in themselves, but not good because not done with the proper motive and understanding, not done with "faith," for "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6) and "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) Thus, since Cornelius was not yet a "believer" in Jesus and the gospel before he heard the words of Peter, he could not please God. The Hardshell notion that he pleased God before he became a believer is contrary to scripture.

"But as for thee (Pharoah) and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God." (Exo. 9: 30)

By the end of the plagues Pharoah had come to fear the Lord and to tremble, like demons, at the destructive power of Lord God. When Pharoah was brought to a state of fear and dread of God, was he then "regenerated"?

"And the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of those countries, when they had heard that the LORD fought against the enemies of Israel." (II Chron. 20: 29)

This is said of people who were not saved, who were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel," and "without God" and "without hope." (Eph. 2: 12) When the Lord "roars" in destructive power, "who cannot but fear?" (See Prov. 20: 2 & Amos 3: 8)

Duty Of All Men To Fear God

"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." (Eccl. 3: 14)

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (Eccl. 12: 13)

"And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul." (Deut. 10: 12)

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." (I Peter 2: 17)

"For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods." (I Chron. 16: 25)

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6, 7)

All these verses show clearly that all men are required, by duty, to "fear" the Lord. But, if the fear of God is what only characterizes saved people, then the duty to fear God is a duty to save themselves. Hardshells, however, reject what is called "duty faith," not believing that all men are required to believe the gospel. So, as they have rejected faith as a duty and requirement, so too do they reject godly fear as a duty and requirement.

Some Have No Fear Of God

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes." (Psa. 36: 1)

"There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom. 3: 18)

It is true that some of the lost have "no fear of God," but some of the lost do fear God, just as demons also do.

Learning To Fear The Lord

"Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children." (Deut. 4: 10)

"And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them." (Deut. 17: 19)

"And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day." (Deut. 6: 24)

"Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it." (Deut. 31: 12, 13)

These verses show that the "fear of the Lord" results from being taught the word of God, which is contrary to the Hardshell "no means" and "Spirit alone" view of "regeneration."

"Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience...Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent." (Acts 13: 16, 26)

These words are often cited by Hardshells to prove that the gospel is to be "addressed" only to those who have been saved in regeneration, that it is only of use to those who are already saved, and has no power to save the unregenerate. First, the Hardshells argue that "whosoever among you fears God" means "whosoever among you is already born again." Thus, they equate "God fearer" with "regenerated person." But, we have already seen how unsaved men and devils have a "fear of God," and so their argument is invalid.

Scholarly opinion states that the term "God-fearer" was used by Luke to designate those Gentiles who were sympathetic to the Jewish faith, possibly "proselytes," or those who are partial converts to Judaism.

Having said all this, it is not denied that all who have been saved (or regenerated) do have a fear of God. It is simply denied that only the saved have any fear of God. The "fear of God" that saved people have is no doubt qualitatively and quantitatively superior to the fear of God that unregenerate men and devils have. The fear of God possessed by born again people is a fear that imparts wisdom that brings salvation, a fear that involves a holy reverence and adoration, and faith and delight in the God who is feared.

"Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him. But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God." (Eccl. 8: 12, 13)

Certainly it will be well with those who fear God, both now and forever. It is like "godly living," which is both profitable for "the life that now is," and "for that life which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8) It is "well" for the devils to fear God, for Pharoah to fear God, but it is superlatively well for men to fear God enough to serve and acknowledge him to salvation.

Also, since the Hardshells believe that a "fear of God" is equivalent to being "regenerated," then how can they say that the "regeneration" experience is "non-cognitive" and "on the sub-conscious level"? How can one fear one that he has no cognition of? Besides, we have already seen how the "fear of the Lord" is taught and begotten through the instrumentality of the word of God. So, we may ask - "how shall they fear him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

The Gospel - The Means of Grace XXIII

Saved Through The Gospel Preacher

"And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26: 15-18)

This passage of scripture is detrimental to the Hardshell "Spirit alone" or "no-means" view of regeneration (salvation). Clearly salvation is the the result of Paul's preaching the gospel. This salvation is described as being "turned" by God "from" darkness and the power of Satan, and being turned "to" light and God. It is described as "receiving forgiveness of sins," and "receiving inheritance among the sanctified." Finally, this salvation (sanctification) is "by faith."

The Hardshells will take several approaches in trying to make these words to harmonize with their aberrant views. First, some will say that the word "manifestly" should be inserted before each description of salvation. I am sending you that they may "manifestly receive pardon," may "manifestly turn from Satan to God," etc. But, this is adding to the word of God.

Second, some will say that the description is not of salvation proper, or of regeneration, but to a "time salvation" or to "conversion," neither being necessary for being regenerated or eternally saved. Such a view represents "regeneration" as not delivering one from the power of Satan and from darkness, and as not connected with receiving forgiveness and inheritance, which is absurd.

On this passage, Dr. Gill wrote:

"Now though this is all the work of the Spirit, by whom only the eyes of the understanding are enlightened; yet this is ascribed to the apostle, not as the efficient cause, but as the instrument and means through preaching of the Gospel, which the Spirit of God would, and did make use of..."

"...and this inheritance these sanctified ones receive by faith now, as they do the forgiveness of their sins; that is, they now receive by faith the promise of the inheritance, and the earnest and pledge of it, and their right unto it, and claim upon it..."

In fulfilling the commission of Christ to save sinners by the preaching of the gospel, Paul is said to have gone out and preached to the Gentiles "that they should repent." (vs. 20) On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:

"...this is not a national repentance which the ministers of the Gospel are to show to men the necessity of; though this is not unworthy of them, when there is a call in Providence to it, and the state of things require it; much less a legal one, but an evangelical repentance; which has along with it faith in Christ Jesus, dealing with his blood and righteousness for the remission of their sins, and their justification before God; and which springs from, and is encouraged and heightened by, a sense of the love of God: and now this being a part of the Gospel ministry, does not suppose it to be in the power of men to repent of themselves, since no man, whilst he remains insensible of the evil nature of sin, and the hardness of his heart continues, which none but God can remove, can repent; and when he becomes truly sensible, he then prays to God to give him repentance, and to turn him: nor does it at all contradict its being a blessing of the covenant, a gift of Christ, and a grace of the Spirit of God; nor does it suggest, that the preaching of the word is sufficient of itself to produce it; the contrary of which the ministry of John the Baptist, of Christ, and of his apostles, declares; but the design of its being insisted on in the Gospel ministry, is to show that men are sinners, and in such a state and condition, that they are in need of repentance, and that without it they must perish; and the rather this is to be quietly inculcated, since true repentance is unto life, is the beginning and evidence of spiritual life, and issues in eternal life; and since there is a close connection between that and salvation, and that without it there is no salvation." (Commentary)

Dr. Gill expresses the "Old Baptist" position, and yet Hardshells deny it, and yet they claim to be the "Old Baptists"!

Further, Hardshells are inconsistent on the experience of being saved from darkness and being given light. When gospel means and faith are involved, then it does not refer to regeneration or eternal salvation, but when there is no mention of faith or means, then regeneration and eternal salvation are referred to. For instance, notice this passage:

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Col. 1: 13)

When I was with the Hardshells I always heard this verse applied to the experience of "regeneration." Many Hardshells argued that the word "translation," like the words "creation," "resurrection," and "birth," is used to describe the experience of regeneration, and denotes passivity and what is unconditional. However, this translation experience into the kingdom of Jesus is described as being "delivered from" the "power of darkness," the very thing that Paul is said to effect by his preaching the gospel in Acts 26: 18. Thus, some Hardshells will affirm that the deliverance from darkness in Acts 26: 18 is not regeneration, but the deliverance from darkness in Colossians 1: 13 is regeneration. The honest interpreter, however, will see them both as speaking of regeneration.

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth." (Acts 13: 46, 47)

"That you (Paul and Barnabas) may be for salvation unto the ends of the earth." This is denied by Hardshells. They reject the statement and will make it to mean something other than what it says. Certainly the words were originally said to Isaiah, and applied to him, but in a greater way, to the Lord Jesus Christ. But, here the words are applied to Paul and Barnabas, in their character as gospel preachers.

Dr. Gill wrote:

"that thou shouldest be for salvation to the ends of the earth; impetratively as the author of it, and applicatively by means of the Gospel, which publishes salvation by Christ; and is the power of God unto salvation, to Gentiles as well as Jews, even to all that believe, in what part of the world soever they live: thus what was decreed and resolved on by God the Father, and was declared by him to his Son, is applied to his ministers and ambassadors, who represented him; so that what they did, he may be said to do; and who by them was to go, and did go to the Gentiles, and enlighten them with the light of the Gospel, and became salvation to them; so that this prophecy is produced by the apostles, to vindicate their conduct..."

The Infant Hermeneutic

Elect infants dying in infancy are (John 3:3-6) regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how He pleaseth; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (London Confession of Faith of 1689: Chapter 10, Article 3)

One of the arguments set forth by many of my former acquaintances who deny a "means" form of salvation is by speculating about the salvation of those who die in infancy. Even here, however, they demonstrate a novelty. Our Old Baptist forefathers looked at the "no-means" salvation of little ones as an exception to the rule. Not so with our moderns! Their minds have been conditioned to think that God has exactly one way of saving souls. Since infants, as far as our finite minds can tell, are saved without being exposed to the outward ministry of the Word then the same must be true of adults. To many, this infant extrapolation is enough to settle the matter that salvation can not be the means of salvation, and any scriptural passages which seem to suggest otherwise must be interpreted another way. Thus an avenue is created which may lead into the time salvation argument.

The salvation of the infant has evolved into somewhat of a hermeneutic employed by those who stand in opposition to gospel means. I know this is true because it used to be one of my own; that is until the Lord showed me my error. I started seeing that the framers of the confession were correct on this issue. The measuring stick for how salvation occurs should be the plain statements of the Bible. They should have the priority over an unwarranted extrapolation of the salvation of infants to that of cognitive agents.

A few years ago I attempted to write some on this problem facing many of those who are opposed to the means scheme. I thought I would post it in hopes that the Lord would use it to demonstrate that infant salvation is no cause for rejecting the position occupied by the Particular Baptists.

....

Let us begin with what is probably the strongest objection of all: the certain failure of the gospel to reach the dying fetus and/or infant. We ourselves think it very telling that we are forced to even treat of this issue. Our Baptist forefathers did not see the regeneration of infants as a major hindrance, but explicitly declared in their Confessions the use of means in effectual calling. It must be admitted that in our day and amongst our people this is no longer the case. It is not our present inquiry to ascertain what it is that has caused such a shift in thinking, but let it suffice for now to know that infant salvation plays a MAJOR role in shaping the beliefs of many of today’s Primitive Baptists, or so we ourselves have found. It is our belief that many of our moderns place too much emphasis on this subject, some even making it a personal hermeneutic around which they fashion their entire theological framework! The logic goes like this. Little ones can’t hear the gospel, can’t believe, and can’t repent. Therefore, subjective faith and holiness aren’t necessarily integrated with regeneration and the subsequent life of those thus regenerated. This is a tragic conclusion, as it is an utter repudiation of the New Testament description of eternal salvation. It sorrows us to bring an indictment upon many, but “to draw from speculation about the regeneration of infants a deduction which flies in the face of Scripture is thoroughly unjustifiable procedure” (Waldron, A MODERN EXPOSITION OF THE 1689 BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH). In other words, an honest unbiased approach to the scriptures will lead one to the conclusion that regeneration is accomplished through means. A no-means form of regeneration inferred from infant speculation clashes with what the scriptures explicitly declare about the subject. Several key passages exist within the Bible in which the Word of God and regeneration are clearly yoked together (e.g. Acts 26:15-18; Rom. 6:17; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 1 Peter 1:22-25) . To confront such texts with the preconception that infants are regenerated without means, deduce from it the notion that the same must therefore apply to the audience unto whom these texts were addressed (i.e. adults), is a dangerous rule of interpretation. A bible believer should not allow that which is shrouded in mystery such as the exact “how” of infant salvation influence and shape the development of his soteriology. The subject of infant salvation is something of which the scriptures say very little. To draw a conclusion from that which may very well be a “secret thing” which belongs to the Lord, and push it upon texts where the audience, unlike infants, are cognitive agents, is dangerous exegesis! The sad result of this would be (and we are seeing it happen) is that many passages which treat of gospel instrumentality are interpreted erroneously; the most popular of which being, of course, looking at it in a ‘timely’ framework. In addition, it results in an interpretation of the text which has absolutely no historical warrant. Our Baptist forefathers prior to the 19th century and other great men of God in the past did not view passages in this light, but let the plain teachings of “means” texts dictate their position on regeneration and viewed the case of little ones as an exception to this general rule. The pattern of thinking today is completely opposite to this, as many now treat little ones as the rule by which the whole mechanism of regeneration must be formulated. To writers of antiquity, the salvation of infants was the exception. To our moderns, it's the standard!

Our own experience in this controversy is what originally stirred our minds into viewing this infant logic as detrimental to a proper understanding of regeneration; yea, even biblical interpretation as a whole. The author cannot tell you how often he has sat amongst a circle of church-goers pondering a particular idea (not just our current topic), only to have it denied simply because it would not fit with the fetus that was only alive for ten seconds!!! Indeed, no sooner than it is even suggested that the Word of God might possibly play some role in regeneration it is promptly dismissed with ‘What about the fetus’? Reader, are you so bold as to renounce the whole New Testament teaching on regeneration based on something the Bible never really talks about. Our Baptist forefathers were not motivated with such an interpretative spirit as this, nor should we. It is terribly wrong to reject the use of means based solely on this infant deduction when it “flies in the face” of God’s word.

This brings us then to the ever-important question: Does the Bible allow room for exceptions, or must we pursue a single method of regeneration characteristic of all the elect without exception, including the fetus, the infant, the mentally disabled, and any other extraordinary cases? If the latter, then we must reject the confessional point above and charge the Baptist forefathers with error, ever claiming that infants are regenerated in the exact same way as adults. If the former, then it becomes our duty to determine by what authority we can declare infants an exception to the rule of regeneration through means. We must locate how and where the Bible sanctions such a position which would allow infants to become such. We ourselves know of no explicit text(s) which treat of the mode of infant regeneration, so either one of two things must be true. Either the scriptures are absolutely silent on the matter, or it is implicitly revealed within the same. As for our part, we hold to the latter, and now adventure to set forth our case, bearing one very important point in mind. It is unsafe for anyone to dogmatically proclaim anything in regards to infant salvation as the full disclosure of it exists only within the mind of God. Nevertheless, we now make an attempt to provide an answer to this foreseen objection by our critics. We will do so by appealing to a general lesson found within God’s word.

The Bible reveals the children of God. It tells us who they are and what they do. The scriptures are literally full of texts which describe the elect family of God in some way or another. Yet let us pause here for one moment and ponder a very important question. When the bible makes such references, are the descriptions given always inclusive of infants, or are they declarations for the elect in general? Consider this question deeply, dear reader, for it is a crucial one. Let us take a simple description from scripture, shall we? In the book of Malachi a very touching description of the people of God is given:

“Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him” (3:16-17).

Here we are given a wonderful description of the holiness of the elect family of God and are told that a book was written on their behalf. They are said to be those which “feared the Lord” and “thought upon his name”. On behalf of no one else is this book to be written. Yet if we apply the IT-MUST-APPLY-TO-EVERY-CHILD-OF-GOD rule in order to be an acceptable assertion, then we run into a big problem. The infant does not “fear the Lord” and he does not think upon the Lord’s name, as he has not the current mental capacity to do so. But if I or any other minister were to ascend into the pulpit and trumpet forth the truth that the people of God fear the Lord and think on His name, what man would stand up in objection, claim it heresy, because it cannot be made to square with little ones???? Ah, there would be no alarm, for it is obvious that they are an exception!

You probably see now, dear reader, what we are asserting. If biblical declarations which reference the family of God must always be inclusive of fetuses and/or infants before it is true, then we will find ourselves denying many other biblical assertions as well.

In order to affirm how important this revelation is let us consider more statements from the word of God. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (12:6), and those without such chastisement are “bastards, and not sons” (12:8). But can we adhere to this, knowing full well that the dying fetus never lives long enough to be chastened by God? And God forbid that we should go further and claim that they are not sons of God and the objects of His love! Obviously, there is an implicit exception contained in this passage. There are some which the Lord does love whom he does not chasten! What of Paul’s statement to the Galatians where we are informed that they which belong to Christ “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (5:24)? Is Paul misinformed here, for the dying fetus never has an opportunity to do such a thing, or do they mortify their carnal appetites in the fleeting moments before they pass from this life? Again, we are informed that eternal life shall be given to those who “seek for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:7). But what of the fate of the dying fetus which never seeks for anything, much less, for immortality? Shall God not give him immortality? Lastly, Jesus tells us that every branch in Him that bears no fruit shall be taken away (John 15:1). Will the fetus be included in this judgment because they die before they can ever become fruit-bearers? Certainly not!

In not one of these examples can the case of little ones who perish be made to fit with the persons in view. None of them are chastened by God! None of them crucify their affections! And none of them seek for immortality! Yet not one of us stands up in objection to these doctrines, but we all in unison proclaim them as truth! So why then would we deny the proposal that God regenerates His people via the gospel because it cannot meet with the case of little ones, and yet receive the above assertions when they obviously exclude the same company!!!!!? Shocking inconsistency!

It is here that we uncover an important fundamental characteristic of the inspired word of God. It is the design of the scriptures to make general declarations for the whole of the body. Is it not understood that the above examples make reference to the elect in a general manner? Does the failure of little ones meeting such descriptions hinder us in any way of proclaiming those statements as solid truth!? God forbid! The Holy Spirit did not hesitate or refrain from asserting a truth through the apostles’ pen simply because He knew it would not apply to the infant/fetus! He knew that his audience would be those who had come to some age of maturity, and it was unto them He catered his teachings. When the bible describes the family of God, it goes without saying that it is appealing to them as having come to some measure of adulthood with a rational conscious! In other words, cognitive agents! It is in that light in which we ourselves ought to read the scriptures. We should not pause at every instance in reading God’s word and ascertain as to whether it applies to fetuses and infants before we acknowledge it as truth! Were it our practice to do so, we would reject every elect-focused text in the Bible in which they are described as having a cognitive disposition.

Thus, while one may disagree with our proposal, we do not think that the case of the dying fetus and infant are sufficient reasons presented to refute it. What we are saying amounts to this. Dying fetuses and infants are an exception to the rule of regeneration by means of the Word, as far as our finite minds can tell. But the exception to the rule should not compel us to change the rule, or hinder us from proclaiming it! We still contend for a uniform method of salvation, not letting special cases which meet not the criteria alter our opinion.

“The Holy Spirit doth make use of it [the Word] in the regeneration or conversion of all that are adult, and that either immediately in and by the preaching of it, or by some other application of light and truth unto the mind derived from the Word” (John Owen).

The Gospel - The Means of Grace XXII

Obtaining The Kingdom By Faith

"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." (Mark 10: 15)

The great Hardshell debater, C. H. Cayce, often used this verse in debate in an attempt to prove that sinners are born again apart from the gospel and faith. He argued that adults "receive the kingdom," or are born again, in the same way as infants. Since infants "receive the kingdom," he argued, apart from hearing and believing the gospel, then so are adults. But, this is fanciful and totally against the meaning and intent of the words of Jesus. Hardshells are always intent on finding any verse that says "adults are regenerated just like infants," that is, apart from conversion, apart from faith and repentance. They think they find it in John 3: 8, where Jesus said - "SO is everyone who is born of the Spirit." If they can find one person who was regenerated apart from faith and conversion, then they will argue that all are born again in the same manner.

First of all, the "little child" in the above passage is not an infant, but young child. It is the same class of people mentioned by Christ when he said - "suffer little children to come unto me." (Matt. 19: 14, etc.) But, how can one let and encourage infants to come to Jesus?

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18: 3)

In this account of Matthew, Jesus connected being "converted" with "entering" the "kingdom of heaven." Obviously a "little child" can be converted.

Second, the word "receive" is from the Greek word "dechomai" and is in the active voice and means to accept. Vine, in his new testament words, said that dechomai "signifies 'to accept,' by a deliberate and ready reception of what is offered (cp. No. 4), e.g., 1Th 2:13, RV, 'accepted;' 2Cr 8:17; 11:4. See RECEIVE, TAKE."

This certainly disproves the Hardshell notion that the "little child" is an infant and an infant who is receiving passively, and unconsciously, or non-cognitively, the kingdom of God.

The Greek word for "little child" is "paidion" and means "a young child, a little boy, a little girl." It does not mean "infant" or one just a few days old.

Hardshells have several man-made propositions that they take to the scriptures and twist the scriptures to make them harmonize with them. This is their hermeneutic method. For instance, when they read verses where "faith" is a requirement for eternal salvation, they will deny that it is belief, but will make it to deal with God's faith (so called), or Christ's faith (so called), or with some kind of "seed faith" that believes nothing, but is a kind of spiritual substance deposited in the nature of one who is "regenerated," a seed substance that is "dormant." (Which is nonsense, of course) This is their method of interpretation regarding passages dealing with faith and salvation.

Another instance of their false hermeneutic method is seen in how they handle those verses that speak of "salvation." In those passages where salvation is seen as conditioned upon faith and perseverance, they will not make it deal with "eternal" salvation, but with a "time salvation." The remaining passages they will say deal with eternal salvation, the ones where God seems to be doing all and requiring nothing. In such a method the context is ignored and their purpose becomes finding a way to interpret the passage, by twist, so as not to oppose their man-made propositions. Those passages which seem to contradict Hardshell propositions must be made, by hook or crook, to harmonize with the Hardshell propositions.

Another instance of their hermeneutic method is seen in how they deal with those passages which speak of salvation being a "receiving" or an "entering" of the kingdom of God (or of Christ or heaven). Those passages that seem to show that the entering of the kingdom is the work of God without mention of means or conditions the Hardshells will say is dealing with eternal salvation. But, with those passages that seem to connect the receiving and entering of the kingdom with those who believe and persevere in the Christian faith, they will want to say that they are talking about "time salvation," or to the regenerated sinner's "joining the church," or being baptized into the "one true church," which is "the kingdom that God set up." This kingdom, the Hardshells affirm, applies to them alone, to the "Primitive Baptist Church."

When a person reads the bible, he must not bring any preconceptions to it. He must approach it "honestly." He must desire to know its true interpretation. "An honest and good heart" (Luke 8: 15) is required if one is to know the truth of scripture. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine," said Jesus. (John 7: 17) "If any man has the will to do his will," or "if anyone really, honestly, and sincerely wants to know the truth, he WILL know the truth."

Seeking the Kingdom

"seek ye first the kingdom of God." (Matt. 6: 33)

The kingdom, like the Lord and salvation, is to be "sought" if it is ever to be "found."

The Hardshells will not make this "kingdom of God" to be connected with final, or eternal, salvation for it puts a condition upon obtaining the kingdom of God. So, they will affirm that the "kingdom of God" in this passage must refer to the church, which to them is the "Primitive Baptist Church," to the exclusion of all others, and refers to the experience of "conversion," an optional experience that comes after "regeneration."

"...the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found..." (Matt. 13: 44)

What is this "treasure" that is "found"? The Hardshells will not connect this finding of the treasure with being regenerated, but to their "conversion." To many of them the "treasure" is the church, and they alone are "the church."

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 7: 21)

This entering of the kingdom the Hardshells will deny is talking about eternal salvation, but to a "time salvation," when one "joins the old Baptist church." Since the passage speaks of "doing" the "will of God" as a condition, the Hardshells cannot accept that it refers to the "eternal kingdom" or with eternal salvation, but to entering the old Hardshell church. Clearly Jesus put the entering of the kingdom in the future, however.

Jesus spoke of those who would be "...instructed unto the kingdom of heaven..." (Matt. 13: 52) Being taught is a necessary step for entering God's kingdom. Jesus said elsewhere - "everyone therefore who has heard and learned of the Father comes unto me." Again, being taught precedes coming to Christ, and coming to Christ precedes "life." Being "instructed into (unto) the kingdom" is the same as being "instructed unto salvation," for entering the kingdom is equated with being saved. One becomes a citizen of this kingdom when he receives, by faith, the gospel of Christ.

"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (Luke 12: 32)

Every Hardshell preacher I ever heard cite these words of Jesus, have made them apply strictly to themselves as a denomination. To them, the "little flock" is a reference to the "one true visible church of Christ," now known as, they say proudly, the "Primitive Baptist Church." This is part of what it means to be a "cult," for a group to say "we be the only ones."

But, the truth is, the "little flock" of Jesus is the body of the elect, and they have ever been a minority or remnant. A person asked Jesus - "Lord, are there few that be saved?" (Luke 13: 23) Jesus replied - "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Luke 13: 23, 24) Jesus said "few there be that find" the strait way. (Matt. 7: 14) The "little flock" are the "few" who shall be saved. In this way the story of Noah's situation becomes typical, for Peter says that only a "few," that is, "eight souls," were "saved through water." (I Peter 3: 20)

And who does Jesus identify as this "little flock," with these "few"? Those who have "entered" the "strait gate," and who travel the "strait way," these are they.

Most Hardshells say that the saved (elect) are on both roads, the broad that leads to destruction, and the strait that leads to life, and that it is not eternal life or eternal destruction that is meant, but "timely" or "temporal" destinies, to things that only pertain to this mortal life. But, this is not the common use of the terms in the new testament, but a rare usage. Second, "leads to" is future oriented, and therefore the life and destruction are not viewed as present realities. If entering the strait gate, and beginning the walk on the strait way, denotes conversion, or becoming a Christian, then the "road" that is traveled by the Christian must be equivelent to his whole Christian life and walk. This road "leads to life," being that which comes at the end of the road! What comes at the end of the Christian life, when he dies? "Life"! Eternal life! What comes at the end of the worldly life, when one dies? "Destruction"! Eternal destruction!

Further, walking of this Christian road, where are the few, is necessary for obtaining that "life" that comes at the end of the road, that comes at the end of one's life.

"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (Luke 16: 16)

Not only are sinners "instructed unto" the kingdom, and "seek for" and "find" it, and "receive" it by choice, but they are said to "press into it." Again, this is another way of expressing the salvation experience, but Hardshells will deny that it deals with salvation, for it requires men to "press into" it, and so will make the "kingdom" to be their denomination, which men should "press into." But, again, they are simply applying their man-made proposition to the verse and they refuse to justify interpreting "entering the kingdom" as not dealing with its normal new testament usage and sense.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:4, 6)

Most Hardshells will say that this "kingdom" is a reference to the church, or to that institution known today as the "Primitive Baptist Church." It is good that Hardshells teach that the church is to be composed only of those who have been "born again." But, is Christ speaking of "seeing" and "entering" the local church? Is he not rather referring to inheriting the kingdom of God when Jesus comes again and sets up the kingdom on earth? The Hardshells, like those called "Reform Baptists," will insist that these words of Christ affirm that "regeneration precedes conversion," or precedes faith. They think that Jesus' affirmation that one must be born again in order to "see" the kingdom affirms it. "Seeing" the kingdom is interpreted as a perceiving of the kingdom, and such a perception is part of faith, they argue.

But, it is clear that Jesus is referring to final salvation, to that time when Christ returns and resurrects the bodies of the sanctified, and glorifies them, and when they "inherit the kingdom" that was "prepared" for them "from before the foundation of the world." (Matt. 25: 34) This latter passage is admitted by Hardshells to be dealing with final salvation, or with the "eternal kingdom."

The new testament scriptures speak of the kingdom of God being both a present reality, in some sense, with those who are elected and called, and also a future reality after Christ comes and glorifies believers.

Throughout the Book of Acts we find the message of the gospel to be a message concerning salvation and the kingdom of God. Notice this survey:

"...speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God..." (Acts 1: 3)

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 8: 12)

"Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." (Acts 14: 22)

"...disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 19: 8)

"And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more." (Acts 20: 25)

"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening...Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him." (Acts 28: 23, 31)

These verses show that the kingdom of God is connected with being saved. The saved will inherit the kingdom, while those who are not saved will not.

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Rom. 14: 17)

"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (I Cor. 4: 20)

These verse identify the leading aspects of the kingdom of God. This is a description of what is received when one receives the kingdom. How does this fit with Cayce's idea of what infants in the womb receive when they are "regenerated"?

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

To be "called to" salvation is at the same time to be "called unto his kingdom and glory." This calling is by the gospel. (II Thess. 2: 14)

"And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (II Tim. 4: 18)

"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 11)

"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." (Rev. 12: 10)

These verses give the predominant teaching concerning the kingdom of God and show how it is mostly yet future and is connected with being eternally saved.

The kingdom, in scripture, being viewed as both now received and as yet future, is like what is said of receiving eternal life. It is likewise sometimes presented as a present reality, but sometimes as a future reality.