Elder Zack Guess, a modern day Hardshell, and supporter of Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr., and whose writings I have previously critiqued here, wrote:
"When God's grace enters a sinner's heart, that heart is changed. The will is changed. The sinner who hated the Holy God now loves Him, and longs for holiness (Matt. 5:6). The sinner is now willing to follow God and to please Him. As the psalmist said, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power..." (Ps. 110:3). As God said by Paul, "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13)."
There is nothing wrong with this description of the salvation/regeneration experience, of that time "when God's grace enters a sinner's heart." However, the above description contradicts general Hardshell ideas on the nature of the saving experience. It even contradicts other statements that Guess makes in the same writing, as we shall see.
Guess and the Hardshells do not teach that the "change" that occurs when one is saved includes any experience effected by gospel knowledge and belief. A man is as much a heathen in belief and practice after "regeneration," according to the Hardshells, as before. He becomes a "believer," but not a believer in scripture, nor in the gospel, nor in the one true God, nor in Jesus. Those who are saved are "made willing," but not, according to Guess and the Hardshells, made willing to believe in Christ, not made willing to turn away from heathen faith and practice. A man's heart and mind are "changed," but this change, as characterized by Hardshells, does not include any conversion to Hebrew and Christian faith. It is a mere metaphysical change of the faculties of the soul, of what Hardshell apologist R. V. Sarrels, called the "soul essence." It simply changes the physical nature of the soul to where it is now "enabled" to believe, repent, etc. There is no real faith, nor turning to God, nor any revelation or enlightenment of truth about Christ. According to Guess and the Hardshells, many idol worshippers in non-Christian religions have been "regenerated," and "made willing," but who nevertheless never become believers in the revelation of scripture.
Guess says that a saved person is one who loves the Holy God. But, to know the one holy God, one must have knowledge of him, for "how shall they believe in him whom he has not heard?" Guess does not divorce enlightenment from the saving experience. He does not make it wholly a sub-conscious or non-cognitive experience, at least not in this place, for he mentions loving God, being willing, etc. One of the verses cited by Guess is Phil. 2: 13 and cannot be interpreted outside of the context of Christian conversion. Willingness to do the will and pleasure of God implies a knowledge of God, and a knowledge of Christ, such knowledge that comes through instruction. Can one be "willing" in a non-cognitive sense? Guess says that regeneration makes a man "willing to follow God." But, how can he follow God that he knows nothing about? How can one believe in God of whom he has not heard?
Guess wrote:
"The Ephesian epistle, in very powerful and beautiful language shows emphatically that it takes the same mighty, miracle-working power to make one a believer as it took to raise Christ from the dead: "And what is the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places." (Eph. 1:19,20)."
All this is acceptable and an accurate statement, but who is the "believer" in the passage? What is it that these believers believe? What doctrine do they receive as true? Clearly it is a Christian believer. The context makes this all too clear to be successfully denied. Notice these verses from Ephesians chapter one:
"That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (12, 13)
Guess and the Hardshells are forced to admit that these words describe Christian conversion, a being saved by hearing and believing the gospel. They cannot make the "believing" and the "faith" of these verses into a "non-cognitive faith," or "latent faith," or "hidden faith," or "seed faith," for the faith is produced by the preaching of the gospel and has Christ as the object. So, they will admit that the "believer" of these verses is the one who is converted by the gospel. But, they will affirm that conversion is not regeneration, that the Ephesian converts had been "regenerated" long before they heard the gospel and became converts to Christ. Further, they will make the "salvation" of this passage to be something that occurs some time after "regeneration," and something entirely separate and distinct from "regeneration."
But, in order to uphold their views the Hardshells must show, from the context, how the "salvation" of verses 12 and 13 is not eternal salvation, and how the "believing" of verse 19 is not the same believing of verses 12 and 13. Where, in verses 14-18 does Paul show a change in definition for the term "believer"? Is eternal salvation not under consideration in verses 1-11? Does Paul not talk about being chosen and predestined to eternal salvation in all these verses? How can the salvation of verses 12 and 13 be different from the salvation of verses 1-11?
Guess makes the experience of being made a "believer" in Jesus to be the same as the experience of regeneration. This passage presents all kinds of difficulty for the Hardshells and their "anti-means" view of salvation.
Guess wrote:
"This same truth is taught in I Peter 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." The "word" here is not the preached word nor is it the written word. Rather it is the living truth of God in Jesus Christ which is implanted in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. We will study this verse in depth in another study sheet."
Of course, I have responded to this argumentation in chapters in my book and in postings in my Gadfly and Old Baptist blogs. Hardshell apologist, Elder R. V. Sarrels, in his "Systematic Theology," said that "the word" here could not be the Lord Jesus Christ because the definite article "the" is absent in the Greek of the passage, and yet, in all the passages where Christ is called "the Word of God," the definite article is present. Of course, there are lots of other reasons why this interpretation is false. Certainly the London Confession cited this verse as proof that men were saved by the preaching of the gospel. John Gill also believed that this "word" was not Christ, but was the gospel, which was the means whereby God "begets" his children.
Guess wrote:
"The impartation of saving grace to individuals is also referred to in the Scriptures as a creation. "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. 4:6). Here, of course, Paul is referring back to the Genesis account of the creation of the heaven and the earth. How was light created? God commanded it to shine with irresistible power! "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Gen. 1:3). There was no resistance here. God was the active agent. The thing created was passive (indeed non-existent) until God called it into being."
Not only is it problematic for the Hardshells to make Ephesians 1: 19 to refer to either regeneration or conversion, II Cor. 4: 6 is also problematic for them. Is Paul describing the Christian conversion experience in these words, or not? How do Hardshells answer the question? Guess says it is talking about regeneration, about effectual calling or irresistible grace. But, how can he not see that this experience of regeneration is applied, by the apostle, to the experience of Christian conversion? Guess and the Hardshells affirm that regeneration often exists apart from conversion. Many people, even worshippers of idol gods, are "regenerated," and only need to be "converted."
Clearly Paul is describing Christian conversion in these words for he says that the "light" that illuminates the soul is the "gospel," and the soul is enlightened with "knowledge" of Christ!
Guess wrote:
"The great majority of Christians believe in gospel regeneration. They believe that a person must hear and believe the gospel (or at least read the Word of God) in order to be born again. However, they have a problem with what to do with those who die in infancy or with those who are mentally incapable of hearing and understanding the gospel."
Notice that Guess does not say "however they have a problem with these verses of scripture"? No, he says that those who believe that the gospel is a means in regeneration "have a problem" with explaining how the gospel is a means in the regeneration of those who die in infancy and with those who are mentally incapable. But, I have written extensively on this argumentation in my book on the Hardshell Cult and have completely refuted it. The main purpose of Guess is to convince bible believers that the bible does not make faith in Christ, or conversion, to be necessary to be eternally saved. What an impossible task! The bible is full of verses that affirm that faith in Christ is necessary for being eternally saved.
Guess wrote:
"The Scriptures make plain that God has regenerated individuals before they were able to think in a reasonable manner. This is very plain in the case of David. He said, "Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." (Ps. 22:9). This clause is rendered in Bagster's Interlinerary Hebrew And English Psalter, p. 29, "causing me to trust upon the breasts of my mother." The word for "hope" in Ps. 22:9 is BATACH, which, according to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon To The Old Testament, p. 112 means, "to confide in anyone, to set one's hope and confidence upon any one." So it is obvious that David was regenerated while a suckling. It is just as obvious that this was before the stage of maturity to mentally comprehend either the spoken or written word of God. The conclusion that must be reached is that regeneration takes place on a level below the consciousness. Faith and repentance are those exercises which reveal this subconscious change."
Yes, and all these "carnal reasonings" have been "cast down" in my book. I have shown that the case of David does not exclude the use of means. David is said to "hope," but hope is cognitive and springs from faith in a revelation of truth. Guess even admits that this "hope" included "trusting," and "confiding." Therefore, David was not a non-cognitive infant. But, after admitting that David hoped and trusted in the Lord, and confided in his God, yet this was "before the stage of maturity to comprehend..." What a contradiction of words! Guess and the Hardshells will say, on the one hand, that "the infant is not able to believe, repent, trust, etc.," and yet here we see, on the other hand, how Guess argues that David did exactly the thing he said infants could not do! David hoped! David trusted in the Lord! David had faith in the Lord! David confided in his God! But, it was not possible for him? What contradictions!
David is not said to be sucking upon his mother's breasts, but to be "upon" them. But, many young children sit in mother's lap and recline in her bosom long after they have been weaned.
Guess wrote:
"Another infant who was regenerated in infancy was John the Baptist. In fact John was born again while in his mother's womb. "The babe leaped in her womb" (Luke 1:41) "The babe leaped in my womb for joy" (Luke 1:44).
The occasion of the joy was the presence of his Savior who was in the womb of Mary. This was no ordinary leap of a babe in the womb of its mother. Elisabeth was enlightened by the Holy Spirit and she said the babe leaped for joy."
Again, I refer the reader to my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (hardshellism.blogspot.com) and to those chapters where I deal with the case of the infant and how it gives no support for their anti-means view of regeneration, for their "regeneration" that lacks Christian faith and conversion. The case of the Baptist certainly offers no support, and actually overthrows it! If John the Baptist was truly "regenerated" while in his mother's womb, ever since he became "filled with the Spirit," was it a regeneration that excluded gospel faith and knowledge? That excluded conversion? Did not the Baptist "leap for joy"? How does that prove that there was no gospel faith or knowledge? Does it not rather prove the presence of faith? Further, since the salutation was a gospel announcement, was not the gospel present and believed? Again, one cannot help but notice how the Hardshells speak out of both sides of their mouths and are grossly contradictory. First they say that infants cannot be saved by possessing gospel faith and knowledge because they are incapable of possessing it, and then they cite the case of John the Baptist to prove it! No, but the case of the Baptist disproves their assertion that infants cannot hear and believe the gospel!
Guess wrote:
"How does this square with a Scripture like John 17:3, where it is said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." The answer is simple. One of the basic meanings of know is "to be aware or cognizant of."
There is much misunderstanding in the religious world about "faith" or "belief." Many preachers will say that salvation is by grace but that a person must "put his trust in Jesus Christ" or "believe in Jesus Christ as his personal Savior" or "have faith in Jesus Christ" before he can be saved. This act of faith, thus presented, is an act of the sinner's free will.
These verses make it plain that "saving faith" is not an act of man's so-called "free will" but is a gift of God."
How confusing and contradictory are these words! Hardshells argue that "regeneration" is a non-cognitive experience, that there is no imparting of truth knowledge in it. But, as I have said, they speak out of both sides of their mouths in this regard. For, while they insist that no instruction is integral to the regeneration experience, or involves cognition, or belief of revelation, out of one side of their mouths, they will out of the other side say what Guess says, that having eternal life is essentially connected with "knowing" and "believing" the "only true God," and in "knowing" and "believing" Jesus, as God's appointed Savior. And, he affirms that "knowing" means "to be aware or cognizant of." How can he say, on one hand, that regeneration is non-cognitive and then say, on the other hand, that it is cognitive? It just demonstrates that they are blind to their errors.
Guess once again objects to the idea that faith precedes salvation! But, is this not the universal presentation of scripture? Have I not already given a couple examples? Where does Guess cite any verse that says men "believe because they are already saved"? Is it not always "believe to salvation"?
Guess objects to saving faith being a free will act, and yet he has already affirmed that "the will (choice) is changed" in regeneration, and that being saved involves God making the sinner "willing" and obedient, and making him into a Christian believer, a bringing him to know God and Christ. To what extent, and in what sense, the will of the sinner is "free" in salvation, is beside the point.
Guess also affirms that gospel "faith," or "faith in Jesus," is "the gift of God," and he says this in the context of his apology for the Calvinist doctrine of "irresistible grace" or "effectual calling." But, if gospel faith is the gift of God, then conversion is equally efficacious as is regeneration. Yet, this is denied by Hardshells.
Guess wrote:
"The Greek word most commonly translated "believe" in the New Testament is PISTEUO. The meaning is "to believe, be persuaded of, to place confidence in." (W. E. Vine). Thayer gives the meaning as follows: "of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of his soul." When the object of believing is Jesus Christ, Thayer says that it is "a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah."
The Greek word most commonly translated "faith" in the New Testament is PISTIS. The meaning is "firm persuasion." (W. E. Vine). Thayer says of this word that "when it relates to God, PISTIS is the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ-Heb. 11:6." He says that, "in reference to Christ, it denotes a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation."
It should be obvious that PISTEUO and PISTIS are cognate words. This means that they were derived from a common original form or root. One is a verb; the other is a noun. Simply put it means that "to believe" is "to exercise faith." "Faith" is "the ability to believe." So, if one believes, he is exercising the faith which he already has."
One can read what I have written on pisteuo and pistis here.
All that Guess writes, excepting the last sentence, destroys Hardshellism's teaching about the nature, definition, and use of the word "faith." The definition that Guess gives of "faith" (noun) and "believe" (verb) uproot another Hardshell definition of "faith" and "believe" which is absolutely opposite to the one he gives above. Notice that Guess does not say that the above definition is true only of that faith which comes by hearing the word of God, but not true of "latent faith" of "seed faith." What he does in one sentence after the end of his biblical definition of faith is to say "Faith" is "the ability to believe." Faith is not belief! Faith is without belief! Unbelievers are actually believers!
If "faith is ability to believe," is this true of "seed faith," of "non-cognitive faith," of that "faith" that is given to all in regeneration? The same that is given to infants and the mentally incompetent when they are regenerated? By this logic, Guess creates a infinite chain of causes! One must have faith in order to have faith! If one has to have "ability to believe" even before he has "seed faith" or "hidden faith," then regeneration must occur even before one obtains it! In other words, in order to have gospel faith, one must first have seed faith, and before one can have seed faith he must have the "faith of ability," ad infinite.
Guess, by defining "faith" by "ability to believe," has changed the whole meaning of the word. After Guess cites the definition of faith and believe as given by scholars, then adds to the definition and gives one that no scholar gives, a totally new definition. Is this not a clear example of perverting and corrupting the word of God? Is "repentance" also to be defined as "the ability to repent"? Is "perseverance" to be defined as "the ability to persevere"? Is "knowing" and "trusting" God to be defined as "the ability to know and trust"?
Guess wrote:
"The Scriptures make plain that faith is a gift of God and not an achievement of man's "free-will." "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8,9). These verses tell us that we are saved on the principle of grace (a free unmerited favor); that faith is the instrument used; that salvation is not of works (including a work of faith); and that man cannot take any credit for his salvation. In short these verses say that God gives the individual faith when He saves him. Faith, as used here is almost a synonym for spiritual life."
Guess affirms that the "faith" of Eph. 2: 8, 9 is "the instrument used" in salvation. He even says that such faith is "a synonym for spiritual life." But, what is the meaning of "faith" in this passage? Is it the faith that the word scholars gave and which Guess endorsed? Or, is it that weird definition of "faith" that Guess himself gave to it? Does Paul mean "ability to believe" when he speaks of being "saved through faith"? Let us read the passage with the Hardshell definition. "For by grace are you saved through ability to believe." How does that make any sense? Where does Guess give us any proof from the Book of Ephesians where "faith" meant "ability to believe"? Where does Guess prove that the "faith" and "believing" of the Book of Ephesians is non-cognitive, that it is not what came by the preaching of the gospel? It is good that Guess admits that faith is "a synonym for spiritual life," but he needs to accept the biblical definition of "faith" and throw his man-made definition away.
In Ephesians 1 Paul speaks of "your faith in the Lord Jesus" (vs. 15), and of a faith that involves "revelation in the knowledge of him," and "enlightenment" (vs. 17).
Guess wrote:
"For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Phil. 1:29). This verse makes it plain that the ability to believe on Christ is a gift of God, and not a power exercised by the "free-will" of the sinner."
To apply this passage to regeneration is as damaging to Hardshellism as the application of Eph. 1; 19 to regeneration. Guess and many Hardshells want to affirm, and actually do affirm, that "faith" is "given in regeneration." Too many scriptures uphold that truth. But, they do not want to make this "faith" that which "comes by hearing the word of God" (Rom. 10: 14), and thus have to create a whole new definition of "faith," one that is diametrically different from the one given in the scriptures. But, as we have shown, the "believing" of Eph. 1: 19 is clearly shown, by the context, to be that believing in Christ that comes by the gospel, the same kind that Paul had in mind when he said - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a preacher?" But, Guess cannot make the "believing" of Phil. 1: 29 to be "ability to believe," or "latent faith," or "hidden faith," or "seed faith," for it is a believing in Christ. All Hardshells confess that believing in Christ necessitates that one hear the gospel, as Paul taught, and yet Guess applies believing in Christ as what is the gift of God, what is given effectually in regeneration.
Guess wrote:
"To further show that Jesus finishes what He has begun He said to Peter, "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." (Luke 22:32). Christ prays for all His people as their Intercessor. Though they lapse into sin from time to time their faith (practically a synonym for spiritual life) will never fail. The fact that Jesus is both the author and finisher of faith is what is being emphasized in the following verse: "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5:4)."
For what kind of "faith" does Guess think that Jesus prayed? For "faith" that is defined as "the ability to believe"? "I have prayed for thee that your ability to believe fail not"? Did Jesus pray for a hidden, latent, invisible "faith"? For a "faith" which did not have him for an object? For a "faith" that was without knowledge and cognition? Again, Guess says that "faith" is "a synonym for spiritual life." What kind of "faith" did John have in mind in I John 5? Did he not refer to "whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ" in verse 1? And to him "who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" in verse 5? And to one who believes "the record that God gave of his Son" in verse 10?
Guess wrote:
"Another verse that shows that the ability to believe is entirely of God and is not of man is I Peter 1:21: "Who by Him do believe in God, that raised Him up from the dead and gave Him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God." The gift of faith was purchased for the elect on the cross: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." (I Peter 3:18). We are brought to God in vital, living union by faith. That faith is entirely by Christ is further pointed out in Acts 3:16: "And His name through faith in His name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea the faith which is by Him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.""
Notice how Guess says that the word "faith" in the passages he cites is "ability to believe." But, he has no authority from word scholars in Greek or Hebrew for his definition, and the context shows that the novel and man-made definition of Guess is false. The "faith" of these passages is a "faith in His name," a faith in Christ, a faith that Hardshells admit can only come through the preaching of the gospel per Romans 10. It is a "believing in God," but how can one believe in Israel's God without any revelation or knowledge of him?
Guess wrote:
"Faith is not the work of man. Man only exercises that which God has already worked in him. "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." (John 6:29). John Gill says of this verse, "This, as a principle, is purely God's work; as it is an act, or as it is exercised under the influence of divine grace it is man's act." He is saying what I have said above -- man only exercises what God has already worked in him. The Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson says, "So here Jesus terms belief in Him as the work of God.""
Yes, Gill gave all the credit to God for faith, but he did not interpret "faith" as did Guess, and Gill affirmed that faith in Christ was produced through the gospel, and that God regenerates through the gospel as a means. Notice that Robertson's words contradict those of Guess! Faith is "belief in Him," that is, belief in Jesus!
Guess wrote:
"It takes the same power to truly believe as it took to raise Christ from the dead. "And what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raise Him from the dead ... " (Eph. 1:19,20).
The pattern of how one becomes a believer is Paul the Apostle. He wrote, "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 life everlasting. (I Tim. 1:16).
Paul became a believer on the road to Damascus by a direct operation of the Spirit of God. He was not under the sound of the gospel when this occurred. Since this was a "pattern" conversion, all sinners who become believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are born again by the immediate power and grace of God, and not by the ministry of the Word."
It is interesting that Guess cites the words "believe on Him to life everlasting," for they uproot his Hardshell notions about believing not being "to life everlasting," but teach rather that men believe because of everlasting life.
I have already shown how Guess is wrong about the regeneration and conversion of the apostle Paul in my posting pointed to earlier in the link given. Paul was converted when he was regenerated and the gospel was present in his mind and believed at the time of his regeneration. When Guess says that Paul "became a believer" when he was regenerated, was it not a believer in Christ?
Zack Guess's article, titled "Irresistible Grace," can be read here.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Examining a Typical Hardshell View on Romans 1:16
Not long ago I received the October 2011 issue of The Banner of Love, a Primitive Baptist monthly periodical. On the cover is a brief article entitled ‘The Gospel of Jesus Christ’ by Elder Cleveland Bass in which he gives his view of Romans 1:16. For those who perhaps are not familiar with time salvation, this will serve as a pretty good sampling of what the heresy teaches. In short, it is a doctrinal novelty invented to give an alternate answer to those passages in the Bible which are actually teaching the gospel-means pattern for salvation. This, however, will become evident as the article is read.
I of course shall follow the article with my own observation.
Elder Bass wrote:
“Paul says in Rom. 1:16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone that believeth.
Notice that the gospel is the power, not a power, but Is the power of God, not the power of man. The gospel has power not to save eternally, but to save timely. First Thess. 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in Word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance to those who believe. It saves the believer, not the unbeliever.
The gospel never has and never will save one eternally. It is for our salvation here in time, and for our benefit while we live here. It teaches us how great things the Lord has done for us, how he gave his life for us that we might live with him in glory. It teaches us how that we ought to live and server Him because of what he has done for us.
In order for one to be taught the things of nature, he must have natural life, so in order for one to be taught spiritual things, he must have spiritual life. God calls men to preach the gospel and tells us what the Gospel is for in Eph. 4:11 And he gave some apostles; some, prophets; and some, evangelists, and some pastors and teachers (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the statue of the fullness of Christ (14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. The gospel teaches the child of God, comforts the broken hearted. Instructs us in the way we should go.
It never will give life to anyone, but brings that life to light. Thank the Lord for giving us the gospel of truth while we live here in this evil present world. Amen."
What Bass writes here is typical argumentation from one within the conditional time salvation camp. It includes the usual superficial one-liners which they incessantly repeat in order to propagate their theory and, at the same time, attack the Calvinism that they detest. He begins by erecting their traditional straw man argument by claiming a gospel-means salvation would be accomplished by ‘the power of man’, and dismisses it based on his false assumption.
Herein lies the whole problem. Our ultraists feel that if an instrument is used in the accomplishment of divine purposes then the transaction ceases to be of God or executed by His power. According to this system, the way to relieve this difficulty is by reducing the text from treating of an eternal application to a temporal one. Hence, his statement follows: “The gospel has power not to save eternally, but to save timely". By doing this, it is thought that any “Arminian” features are thereby removed from the text. Such argumentation, however, places Bass and advocates of time salvation in quite a predicament. By such handling of the scriptures, they are (whether aware or not) nevertheless still teaching the very thing that they are attempting to avoid! By his own admission, any saving done by the gospel is through the POWER OF MAN! According to his system, God is NOT THE SAVIOR in any salvation which comes by the gospel! MAN IS!
Such heresy!
Our observations substantiate what critics of this doctrine have often pointed out. The Primitive Baptists’ beloved time salvation doctrine is nothing more than an Arminian system expressed on a temporal scale; and in proclaiming it, they manifest themselves as “timely Arminians”! Such a label is something which they definitely would want to avoid, but as long as they continue to equate instrumental with efficient causes, the charge is unavoidable.
Bass then inscribes the cliche expression that never fails to surface when Hardshells address Romans 1:16. I cannot recollect how many times I've heard this one-liner uttered in sermons.
"It saves the believer, not the unbeliever".
He, like all other advocates of time salvation, make a play in this passage on the order in which salvation appears in relation to faith. In their minds, a person becomes a believer (below the level of consciousness) apart from any gospel influence. This "believer" then, if blessed to come under the gospel sound, can be saved temporally after he has already been saved eternally. One of the root problems with this reasoning is the failure to take into account final salvation. A study into the tenses of salvation is definitely in order for these innovators. Just because salvation is mentioned as taking place AFTER coming to faith is no warrant to construct it into an optional temporal framework. We could say that the “resurrection will save everyone that believeth”. Because the resurrection takes place AFTER one comes to faith, would you argue that a “temporal resurrection" was under consideration? No. On the day of the resurrection final salvation shall be received by those who have already been brought to a saving faith in Christ! They "believe to the saving (final - KF) of the soul" (Heb. 10:39).
Continuing with his cliché one-liners, Bass then states that "the gospel never has and never will save anyone eternally". What a statement! Why is it, sir, that the gospel cannot do so? Is it because the Spirit does not accompany the Word when declared? Or is the Holy Spirit limited in His power to execute something of an eternal nature? Or doth the Father lack the power to carry it to His people?
To think that the application of scriptural truth has never contributed to the salvation of a single soul who has ever been born is absolutely unthinkable! Instead, he says it is for our salvation here “in time”, or expressed another way, “while we live here”. These are two clichés which I used to hear repeated over and over again in the pulpit. A minister is practically guaranteed an “Amen” from the congregation every time he uses these worn-out expressions. Worse still is the fact that they are unclear and, therefore, deceptive phrases. It may lead one to conclude that simply because something takes place “in time” that this must mean it only applies to time, which is not true. We reply by saying that Jesus died “in time” and that regeneration, justification, sanctification, and conversion all take place “while we live here”, but the benefits of these blessings extend outside of time. The truth is that God’s elect are saved in time for all eternity! Unless, however, one understands what Hardshells mean by these clichés he shall probably get confused.
An explanation as to the purpose of the gospel is then given by the author. He states:
“It teaches us how great things the Lord has done for us, how he gave his life for us that we might live with him in glory. It teaches us how that we ought to live and server Him because of what he has done for us.”
And again:
“The gospel teaches the child of God, comforts the broken hearted. Instructs us in the way we should go.”
Correct. The gospel does do the things. Then why do I respond to it, you ask? Because this is what he feels is the ONLY thing it does. No one denies that the gospel instructs in righteousness, or that it comforts those with broken hearts. However, these particular purposes of the gospel are mentioned in order to detract the reader into thinking that it does that and nothing more! We would like to ask the elder what took place when Ezekiel preached to dry bones? Did Ezekiel instruct them in righteousness “while we live here” or comfort them by discoursing on election and predestination? Was not, rather, something else demonstrated under the sound of preaching? Indeed, what purpose did the gospel play on this occasion? We let God's Word speak here.
“…O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live” (Ezekiel 37:4-5)
When Hardshells place emphasis on secondary purposes of the gospel, it is in reality done in an attempt to deny that there is a greater, primary purpose. Thus, in their attempted answers to the purpose of God's Word focus is always upon such verses as Eph. 4:11-14 mentioned by the elder above, whereas little to no attention is paid to those which are exhortative in their nature in showing the way of salvation or in producing the same.
In closing, Bass states another cliché one-liner used to deny the gospel means pattern of salvation:
“It never will give life to anyone, but brings that life to light.”
His thought is derived from 2 Tim. 1:10 in which Paul writes that salvation “…is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel”.
To help their case, Hardshells place an ordo salutis spin on the passage and claim that Paul is saying that the gospel does not bring life, but only brings it to the light of understanding. But the problem is that Paul is not inscribing an ordo salutis text. Instead, he is saying that with the advent of Christ came a fuller revelation of the gospel into the New Testament age as compared to a lesser view of it under the Old. Christ HATH brought life and immortality to light! It is not Christ is NOW IN THE PROCESS of doing so upon each and every case of regeneration. The question as to whether life preceeds light in the happenings surrounding regeneration is a profitable discussion, but the point is that it should not be argued from this passage. However, even if it could be proven that life preceeds light, a Hardshell difficulty remains. We would ask the elder “Does the light necessarily follow the giving of life? You see, the Hardshell tenet is purported to be “life before light” or “regeneration before faith, when it reality it is “life and NEVER light” and “regeneration and NEVER faith” with multitudes of God’s elect.
I of course shall follow the article with my own observation.
Elder Bass wrote:
“Paul says in Rom. 1:16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone that believeth.
Notice that the gospel is the power, not a power, but Is the power of God, not the power of man. The gospel has power not to save eternally, but to save timely. First Thess. 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in Word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance to those who believe. It saves the believer, not the unbeliever.
The gospel never has and never will save one eternally. It is for our salvation here in time, and for our benefit while we live here. It teaches us how great things the Lord has done for us, how he gave his life for us that we might live with him in glory. It teaches us how that we ought to live and server Him because of what he has done for us.
In order for one to be taught the things of nature, he must have natural life, so in order for one to be taught spiritual things, he must have spiritual life. God calls men to preach the gospel and tells us what the Gospel is for in Eph. 4:11 And he gave some apostles; some, prophets; and some, evangelists, and some pastors and teachers (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the statue of the fullness of Christ (14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. The gospel teaches the child of God, comforts the broken hearted. Instructs us in the way we should go.
It never will give life to anyone, but brings that life to light. Thank the Lord for giving us the gospel of truth while we live here in this evil present world. Amen."
What Bass writes here is typical argumentation from one within the conditional time salvation camp. It includes the usual superficial one-liners which they incessantly repeat in order to propagate their theory and, at the same time, attack the Calvinism that they detest. He begins by erecting their traditional straw man argument by claiming a gospel-means salvation would be accomplished by ‘the power of man’, and dismisses it based on his false assumption.
Herein lies the whole problem. Our ultraists feel that if an instrument is used in the accomplishment of divine purposes then the transaction ceases to be of God or executed by His power. According to this system, the way to relieve this difficulty is by reducing the text from treating of an eternal application to a temporal one. Hence, his statement follows: “The gospel has power not to save eternally, but to save timely". By doing this, it is thought that any “Arminian” features are thereby removed from the text. Such argumentation, however, places Bass and advocates of time salvation in quite a predicament. By such handling of the scriptures, they are (whether aware or not) nevertheless still teaching the very thing that they are attempting to avoid! By his own admission, any saving done by the gospel is through the POWER OF MAN! According to his system, God is NOT THE SAVIOR in any salvation which comes by the gospel! MAN IS!
Such heresy!
Our observations substantiate what critics of this doctrine have often pointed out. The Primitive Baptists’ beloved time salvation doctrine is nothing more than an Arminian system expressed on a temporal scale; and in proclaiming it, they manifest themselves as “timely Arminians”! Such a label is something which they definitely would want to avoid, but as long as they continue to equate instrumental with efficient causes, the charge is unavoidable.
Bass then inscribes the cliche expression that never fails to surface when Hardshells address Romans 1:16. I cannot recollect how many times I've heard this one-liner uttered in sermons.
"It saves the believer, not the unbeliever".
He, like all other advocates of time salvation, make a play in this passage on the order in which salvation appears in relation to faith. In their minds, a person becomes a believer (below the level of consciousness) apart from any gospel influence. This "believer" then, if blessed to come under the gospel sound, can be saved temporally after he has already been saved eternally. One of the root problems with this reasoning is the failure to take into account final salvation. A study into the tenses of salvation is definitely in order for these innovators. Just because salvation is mentioned as taking place AFTER coming to faith is no warrant to construct it into an optional temporal framework. We could say that the “resurrection will save everyone that believeth”. Because the resurrection takes place AFTER one comes to faith, would you argue that a “temporal resurrection" was under consideration? No. On the day of the resurrection final salvation shall be received by those who have already been brought to a saving faith in Christ! They "believe to the saving (final - KF) of the soul" (Heb. 10:39).
Continuing with his cliché one-liners, Bass then states that "the gospel never has and never will save anyone eternally". What a statement! Why is it, sir, that the gospel cannot do so? Is it because the Spirit does not accompany the Word when declared? Or is the Holy Spirit limited in His power to execute something of an eternal nature? Or doth the Father lack the power to carry it to His people?
To think that the application of scriptural truth has never contributed to the salvation of a single soul who has ever been born is absolutely unthinkable! Instead, he says it is for our salvation here “in time”, or expressed another way, “while we live here”. These are two clichés which I used to hear repeated over and over again in the pulpit. A minister is practically guaranteed an “Amen” from the congregation every time he uses these worn-out expressions. Worse still is the fact that they are unclear and, therefore, deceptive phrases. It may lead one to conclude that simply because something takes place “in time” that this must mean it only applies to time, which is not true. We reply by saying that Jesus died “in time” and that regeneration, justification, sanctification, and conversion all take place “while we live here”, but the benefits of these blessings extend outside of time. The truth is that God’s elect are saved in time for all eternity! Unless, however, one understands what Hardshells mean by these clichés he shall probably get confused.
An explanation as to the purpose of the gospel is then given by the author. He states:
“It teaches us how great things the Lord has done for us, how he gave his life for us that we might live with him in glory. It teaches us how that we ought to live and server Him because of what he has done for us.”
And again:
“The gospel teaches the child of God, comforts the broken hearted. Instructs us in the way we should go.”
Correct. The gospel does do the things. Then why do I respond to it, you ask? Because this is what he feels is the ONLY thing it does. No one denies that the gospel instructs in righteousness, or that it comforts those with broken hearts. However, these particular purposes of the gospel are mentioned in order to detract the reader into thinking that it does that and nothing more! We would like to ask the elder what took place when Ezekiel preached to dry bones? Did Ezekiel instruct them in righteousness “while we live here” or comfort them by discoursing on election and predestination? Was not, rather, something else demonstrated under the sound of preaching? Indeed, what purpose did the gospel play on this occasion? We let God's Word speak here.
“…O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live” (Ezekiel 37:4-5)
When Hardshells place emphasis on secondary purposes of the gospel, it is in reality done in an attempt to deny that there is a greater, primary purpose. Thus, in their attempted answers to the purpose of God's Word focus is always upon such verses as Eph. 4:11-14 mentioned by the elder above, whereas little to no attention is paid to those which are exhortative in their nature in showing the way of salvation or in producing the same.
In closing, Bass states another cliché one-liner used to deny the gospel means pattern of salvation:
“It never will give life to anyone, but brings that life to light.”
His thought is derived from 2 Tim. 1:10 in which Paul writes that salvation “…is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel”.
To help their case, Hardshells place an ordo salutis spin on the passage and claim that Paul is saying that the gospel does not bring life, but only brings it to the light of understanding. But the problem is that Paul is not inscribing an ordo salutis text. Instead, he is saying that with the advent of Christ came a fuller revelation of the gospel into the New Testament age as compared to a lesser view of it under the Old. Christ HATH brought life and immortality to light! It is not Christ is NOW IN THE PROCESS of doing so upon each and every case of regeneration. The question as to whether life preceeds light in the happenings surrounding regeneration is a profitable discussion, but the point is that it should not be argued from this passage. However, even if it could be proven that life preceeds light, a Hardshell difficulty remains. We would ask the elder “Does the light necessarily follow the giving of life? You see, the Hardshell tenet is purported to be “life before light” or “regeneration before faith, when it reality it is “life and NEVER light” and “regeneration and NEVER faith” with multitudes of God’s elect.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Hassell on Faith
Sylvester Hassell, leading Hardshell apologist and historian, primarily of the 19th century, but also into the 20th, wrote these words on the subject of "Faith."
"Faith," he wrote, is “a divinely wrought, loving, and hearty reliance upon God and His promise of salvation through Christ.” He then says that "this is the best definition of evangelical faith that I have ever seen."
This is a good and scriptural definition. Sadly, however, as we shall see, he does not stick with this definition. He defines "faith" as "evangelical faith" and gives no hint that there is such a thing as non-evangelic faith. He defines faith as involving belief and cognition. He also does not divorce Christ from being the necessary object of faith and love.
He wrote further:
"Faith itself, instead of being a work, wholly or partly of the sinner, and a condition or prerequisite of salvation, is divinely wrought, is the work of God in the sinner, and is thus an integral part and evidence of his salvation." He also said that "faith is the gift of God, the work of God, the fruit of His Spirit."
Hassell in these words is not so correct, as compared with his words of the first citation. It is true that faith is the "work of God," and is the "gift of God." But, believing this does not mean that faith is not, nor cannot be, a "condition" or "prerequisite" for salvation. Can God not do any work, or give anything, prior to salvation? Why is it false to say that "God works before salvation, in salvation, and after salvation"? Why is it false to say that "God gives before salvation, gives in salvation, and gives after salvation"? Is there not grace that precedes salvation as well as comes in and after salvation?
Hassell should know that salvation, even in the Calvinistic scheme, is both conditional and unconditional. Salvation is conditioned upon faith and faith is conditioned upon God giving it, and God's giving faith is the result of his unconditional choice to give it.
Hassell says that faith is "an integral part and evidence of his salvation." Hassell says that "faith," or "evangelical faith," is "an integral part of salvation." This is a statement that Hardshells will not affirm today. What Hassell here says not only contradicts what today's Hardshells believe, but can even be shown to be contradictory to other things Hassell says about faith in this same writing. Hassell will not say that faith comes before salvation, for that would endorse conditional salvation, a view Hassell is prejudiced against, and so affirms that faith in Christ comes at the same time as salvation, being what is "integral" to salvation.
Hassell wrote:
"Even in that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, and in evangelical repentance towards God for sins against Him, there is latent or hidden faith, just as there may be in a liquid a dissolved and unseen solid; and this latent faith, while it does not comfort, yet does something even more important in humbling the soul and causing it to hate sin..."
Here Hassell forgets what he wrote earlier in his definition of "faith" and now offers a new definition. He earlier argued that "faith" was "evangelical" and it was "integral" to salvation, but now he creates a dichotomy of two kinds of genuine saving faith. One is "latent," and one is not latent. That is, evangelical faith is open, not latent. According to Hassell, conviction of sin is the result of "latent" or "hidden" faith, but conversion, deliverance from the sense of guilt experienced in conviction, is the result of "evangelical," non-latent, faith. "Latent faith" humbles the soul in the work of conviction, making it to detest the sin that it discovers dwelling within itself. But, according to Hassell, "latent faith" does not yet have any faith in Christ, nor any sense of the forgiveness of sins, no comfort. There is "latent faith," but no evangelic faith, no faith in Christ and in the good news, no cleansing of the conscience from the guilt of sin.
According to Hassell, "latent faith" merely "manifests" itself in sorrow for sin and in publicly believing in Christ. Faith was there, but it was "hidden," not yet manifested. Hassell attributes "latent faith" to all who have ever felt themselves guilty before God. "Latent faith" is given in regeneration, and what is "integral" to being eternally saved, but "evangelical faith" in Christ is not given in regeneration, nor is what is "integral" to being eternally saved. Thus, a Hindu worshipper of the elephant god Ganesha, according to Hassell and the Hardshells, may have "latent" and "hidden faith," and feel guilty before his god(s), though he have no evangelical faith in Christ and the Christian God.
It is obvious, however, that the scriptures uphold Hassell's original definition of "faith," but not his second definition that creates a "latent, hidden, faith." There is no such definition or usage of the word "faith" in the scriptures. At first, Hassell defined "faith" as being nothing but "evangelical faith." But then he affirms that there is a kind of "faith" that is not "evangelical." Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!
When the biblical writer says that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6), does it refer to "latent faith" or "evangelical faith"? Will our Hardshell friends tell us? Does the convicted sinner who worships Ganesha please God?
Hassell wrote:
"...we cannot fear God or repent toward Him unless we really believe in Him; it is simply an increase of true faith, when we not only fear and repent towards God, but also realize a loving and hearty trust in Christ as His perfect Son and our all-sufficient Saviour."
The debate over which comes first, faith or repentance, has a long history. Some affirm that faith is first, others that repentance is first. Christ did say "repent ye and believe the gospel." (Mark 1: 15) But, this debate is often unprofitable, seeing that they are integrally joined together in scripture. Though one may be logically before the other, yet not chronologically. But, the point of Hassell's argumentation is to show that one is a believer before he repents, and thus is saved, or born again, before repentance. He also makes the point that being converted by evangelical faith and repentance results from "latent faith," but does not produce it. "Latent faith" will often, perhaps even universally, produce "evangelical faith," but one is "born again" when he possesses "latent faith," not when he possesses "evangelical faith." According to Hassell and the Hardshells, this "latent faith" only "believes" in the sense that there is belief that one is a sinner before God, though not necessarily before the one true and living God. If you believe in a deity, and feel guilt over sin, according to the Hardshells, then you are a "believer" according to the scriptures. How absurd!
Hassell wrote:
"Faith has been called the eye, the ear, the tongue, the hand, and the foot of the renewed soul; it is the organ of the life of Christ in the soul—the method in which that life manifests itself."
Hassell here seems to forget that he said that evangelical faith was an "integral part of salvation." Now he only wants to make it a "manifestation" of spiritual life and "latent" and "hidden faith." Thus, the worshipper of Ganesha, though having no outward evidence of knowing, loving, and believing in Christ, or the Father, nevertheless has "latent faith," the evidence of regeneration! Here he makes "faith" into some metaphysical substance, but the scriptures equate the word "faith" with "belief." It necessarily involves knowledge and cognition.
Hassell wrote:
"It is looking to Christ, hearing Him, tasting, eating, and praising Him, laying hold upon Him, receiving Him, coming to Him, fleeing unto Him, and resting upon Him. Evangelical faith is not merely intellectual belief: but, mingled with such belief, it is love, at the sight of an object who is altogether lovely; and gratitude, at the sight of an object who has done so much, even to the laying down of His life for us: and desire, at the sight of an object who in all respects is so desirable; and trust, at the sight of an object who has given such proofs of His trustworthiness..."
Hassell is cunning here. He does not make looking to Christ, etc., integral to salvation itself, but only with the manifestation of salvation. "Looking to Christ" is "because of salvation," not "unto salvation." But, the latter is the normal scriptural order. "Believe unto salvation." (Rom. 1: 16; 10: 10) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 45: 22)
Hassell also defines "looking to Christ," or believing in Christ, as equated with "coming to Christ." Jesus said - "all that the Father gives to me (elect) shall come to me (shall believe in me)." And, "everyone therefore that has heard and learned of the Father (elect and internally called) comes to me (looks to me for salvation)." But, this overthrows Hardshellism's proposition that affirms that only a few of the chosen and called "come to Christ." Hassell was correct to include "intellectual belief" in "evangelical faith." He also included belief in Christ and love for him.
Hassell wrote:
"In an act of faith, of course it is not God who believes (for God believes nothing, He knows all things, but it is the creature who believes; yet the Scriptures already cited prove that the revelation and power of God cause the faith, whether we regard faith as a feeling, act, principle, habit, or state of the soul."
When Hassell says that coming to Christ, believing in him, is "an act of faith," he means that it is merely a "manifestation" of an already existing "latent faith," a hidden regeneration. He believes that the act of believing in Christ is not the genesis of faith, but simply an act or manifestation of an already existing "hidden faith." In conversion a man only becomes more of a believer, he only receives more revelation. Most Hardshells will affirm that the only revelation and knowledge that are universally present in the regeneration experience is the knowledge that there is a "god" of some kind, to whom allegiance is owed, and against whom sin has been committed, and which needs atonement or forgiveness. Knowledge of the God of scripture, of the Hebrew and Christian tradition, or of Christ, as Lord, Savior, and Son of God, is not part of the regeneration experience, according to the Hardshells. Any knowledge and faith that can only come from holy scripture, according to the Hardshells, is not an integral part of salvation, and not necessary for being eternally saved. Only that bare knowledge of God that is discoverable from creation is thus made the sum of the "latent faith" of the Hardshells. But, the scriptures know no such nonsense.
Hassell wrote:
"And when the Scriptures state that we are saved, justified, sanctified, or kept by or through faith, the language is of an experimental nature, and the meaning is that, by or through believing in God, we experience or realize our interest in His saving, justifying, sanctifying, and keeping power—faith is the manner in which the power of God, the life of Christ, in our souls, manifests itself in our salvation."
Hassell says men are not actually "saved by faith," not "justified by faith," not "sanctified by faith," and not "kept by faith"! They only "realize" or "experience" salvation, justification, sanctification, and preservation. And, if they never "realize" or "experience" such, they will nevertheless be saved in Heaven! "Faith" in Christ only "manifests" that a person is already saved, is an "evidence" that he has already been saved. In other words, many of the worshippers of Ganesha are "regenerated," and have the "faith of God's elect," or "latent faith," and will therefore go to Heaven! "Faith" is not really a means in God actually keeping his people, but only evidence that he has been keeping them?
Hassell wrote:
"It is the very essence of faith to utterly renounce all dependence upon self, and to rely entirely upon Christ. His righteousness, wisdom, and strength, for salvation."
Does Hassell's above definition of "faith" apply to both "latent faith" and to "evangelical faith"? Again, Hassell seems to want to give two different definitions of biblical saving "faith," one that is scriptural and the other is a Hardshell invention. Hassell affirms that "latent faith" lacks what is the very "essence" of faith, what is "essential" to it! Men do not have to possess the "essence of faith" in order to be saved!
Notice also that Hassell says "for (unto) salvation." Why would he say this when he has been arguing that believing in Christ is "because of salvation"?
Hassell wrote:
"The faith of God’s elect is the effect and evidence of regeneration or the new birth (John i. 12. 13; iii. 3—16; 1 Pet. i. 21—23; 1 John v. 1); and it is the source or spring of obedience (2 Cor. iv. 13; Gal. v. 6; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. Ii; Tit. iii. 8: Heb. xi; James ii.) Mere theoretical or historical or intellectual or moral faith or the faith of miracles are natural and perishing things (Mark i. 24; v. 7; James ii. 14—26; Matt. xiii. 20, 21; Mark iv. 16, 17; Luke viii. 13; Matt. vii. 22, 23; x. 1, 4; 1 Cor. xiii. 2); but true evangelical faith is spiritual and imperishable (John xvi. 13, 14; 1 Cor. xii. 3; Gal. v. 22; Matt. xvi. 16, 17; 2 Cor. iv. 5; Luke xxii. 32; John iii. 15, 16; vi. 47; x. 27—30; xvii. 3: Acts xiii. 48; Heb. x. 39; xii. 2; 1 Pet. i. 1—5, 9; 1 John ii. 27)." ("Faith and it's Relation to Salvation" in "The Gospel Messenger," May 1898)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/590/36/
In the above words Hassell identifies "the faith of God's elect" with "true evangelical faith." But, Hassell believed that all the elect would believe the gospel. Hassell wrote: "...if we are thus born of God, we will certainly repent, believe, obey, and inherit the fullness of eternal life." (Gospel Messenger, 1896) But, today's Hardshells do not believe this but have gone farther and farther away from the old Baptist faith and need to retrace their steps.
"Faith," he wrote, is “a divinely wrought, loving, and hearty reliance upon God and His promise of salvation through Christ.” He then says that "this is the best definition of evangelical faith that I have ever seen."
This is a good and scriptural definition. Sadly, however, as we shall see, he does not stick with this definition. He defines "faith" as "evangelical faith" and gives no hint that there is such a thing as non-evangelic faith. He defines faith as involving belief and cognition. He also does not divorce Christ from being the necessary object of faith and love.
He wrote further:
"Faith itself, instead of being a work, wholly or partly of the sinner, and a condition or prerequisite of salvation, is divinely wrought, is the work of God in the sinner, and is thus an integral part and evidence of his salvation." He also said that "faith is the gift of God, the work of God, the fruit of His Spirit."
Hassell in these words is not so correct, as compared with his words of the first citation. It is true that faith is the "work of God," and is the "gift of God." But, believing this does not mean that faith is not, nor cannot be, a "condition" or "prerequisite" for salvation. Can God not do any work, or give anything, prior to salvation? Why is it false to say that "God works before salvation, in salvation, and after salvation"? Why is it false to say that "God gives before salvation, gives in salvation, and gives after salvation"? Is there not grace that precedes salvation as well as comes in and after salvation?
Hassell should know that salvation, even in the Calvinistic scheme, is both conditional and unconditional. Salvation is conditioned upon faith and faith is conditioned upon God giving it, and God's giving faith is the result of his unconditional choice to give it.
Hassell says that faith is "an integral part and evidence of his salvation." Hassell says that "faith," or "evangelical faith," is "an integral part of salvation." This is a statement that Hardshells will not affirm today. What Hassell here says not only contradicts what today's Hardshells believe, but can even be shown to be contradictory to other things Hassell says about faith in this same writing. Hassell will not say that faith comes before salvation, for that would endorse conditional salvation, a view Hassell is prejudiced against, and so affirms that faith in Christ comes at the same time as salvation, being what is "integral" to salvation.
Hassell wrote:
"Even in that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom, and in evangelical repentance towards God for sins against Him, there is latent or hidden faith, just as there may be in a liquid a dissolved and unseen solid; and this latent faith, while it does not comfort, yet does something even more important in humbling the soul and causing it to hate sin..."
Here Hassell forgets what he wrote earlier in his definition of "faith" and now offers a new definition. He earlier argued that "faith" was "evangelical" and it was "integral" to salvation, but now he creates a dichotomy of two kinds of genuine saving faith. One is "latent," and one is not latent. That is, evangelical faith is open, not latent. According to Hassell, conviction of sin is the result of "latent" or "hidden" faith, but conversion, deliverance from the sense of guilt experienced in conviction, is the result of "evangelical," non-latent, faith. "Latent faith" humbles the soul in the work of conviction, making it to detest the sin that it discovers dwelling within itself. But, according to Hassell, "latent faith" does not yet have any faith in Christ, nor any sense of the forgiveness of sins, no comfort. There is "latent faith," but no evangelic faith, no faith in Christ and in the good news, no cleansing of the conscience from the guilt of sin.
According to Hassell, "latent faith" merely "manifests" itself in sorrow for sin and in publicly believing in Christ. Faith was there, but it was "hidden," not yet manifested. Hassell attributes "latent faith" to all who have ever felt themselves guilty before God. "Latent faith" is given in regeneration, and what is "integral" to being eternally saved, but "evangelical faith" in Christ is not given in regeneration, nor is what is "integral" to being eternally saved. Thus, a Hindu worshipper of the elephant god Ganesha, according to Hassell and the Hardshells, may have "latent" and "hidden faith," and feel guilty before his god(s), though he have no evangelical faith in Christ and the Christian God.
It is obvious, however, that the scriptures uphold Hassell's original definition of "faith," but not his second definition that creates a "latent, hidden, faith." There is no such definition or usage of the word "faith" in the scriptures. At first, Hassell defined "faith" as being nothing but "evangelical faith." But then he affirms that there is a kind of "faith" that is not "evangelical." Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!
When the biblical writer says that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6), does it refer to "latent faith" or "evangelical faith"? Will our Hardshell friends tell us? Does the convicted sinner who worships Ganesha please God?
Hassell wrote:
"...we cannot fear God or repent toward Him unless we really believe in Him; it is simply an increase of true faith, when we not only fear and repent towards God, but also realize a loving and hearty trust in Christ as His perfect Son and our all-sufficient Saviour."
The debate over which comes first, faith or repentance, has a long history. Some affirm that faith is first, others that repentance is first. Christ did say "repent ye and believe the gospel." (Mark 1: 15) But, this debate is often unprofitable, seeing that they are integrally joined together in scripture. Though one may be logically before the other, yet not chronologically. But, the point of Hassell's argumentation is to show that one is a believer before he repents, and thus is saved, or born again, before repentance. He also makes the point that being converted by evangelical faith and repentance results from "latent faith," but does not produce it. "Latent faith" will often, perhaps even universally, produce "evangelical faith," but one is "born again" when he possesses "latent faith," not when he possesses "evangelical faith." According to Hassell and the Hardshells, this "latent faith" only "believes" in the sense that there is belief that one is a sinner before God, though not necessarily before the one true and living God. If you believe in a deity, and feel guilt over sin, according to the Hardshells, then you are a "believer" according to the scriptures. How absurd!
Hassell wrote:
"Faith has been called the eye, the ear, the tongue, the hand, and the foot of the renewed soul; it is the organ of the life of Christ in the soul—the method in which that life manifests itself."
Hassell here seems to forget that he said that evangelical faith was an "integral part of salvation." Now he only wants to make it a "manifestation" of spiritual life and "latent" and "hidden faith." Thus, the worshipper of Ganesha, though having no outward evidence of knowing, loving, and believing in Christ, or the Father, nevertheless has "latent faith," the evidence of regeneration! Here he makes "faith" into some metaphysical substance, but the scriptures equate the word "faith" with "belief." It necessarily involves knowledge and cognition.
Hassell wrote:
"It is looking to Christ, hearing Him, tasting, eating, and praising Him, laying hold upon Him, receiving Him, coming to Him, fleeing unto Him, and resting upon Him. Evangelical faith is not merely intellectual belief: but, mingled with such belief, it is love, at the sight of an object who is altogether lovely; and gratitude, at the sight of an object who has done so much, even to the laying down of His life for us: and desire, at the sight of an object who in all respects is so desirable; and trust, at the sight of an object who has given such proofs of His trustworthiness..."
Hassell is cunning here. He does not make looking to Christ, etc., integral to salvation itself, but only with the manifestation of salvation. "Looking to Christ" is "because of salvation," not "unto salvation." But, the latter is the normal scriptural order. "Believe unto salvation." (Rom. 1: 16; 10: 10) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 45: 22)
Hassell also defines "looking to Christ," or believing in Christ, as equated with "coming to Christ." Jesus said - "all that the Father gives to me (elect) shall come to me (shall believe in me)." And, "everyone therefore that has heard and learned of the Father (elect and internally called) comes to me (looks to me for salvation)." But, this overthrows Hardshellism's proposition that affirms that only a few of the chosen and called "come to Christ." Hassell was correct to include "intellectual belief" in "evangelical faith." He also included belief in Christ and love for him.
Hassell wrote:
"In an act of faith, of course it is not God who believes (for God believes nothing, He knows all things, but it is the creature who believes; yet the Scriptures already cited prove that the revelation and power of God cause the faith, whether we regard faith as a feeling, act, principle, habit, or state of the soul."
When Hassell says that coming to Christ, believing in him, is "an act of faith," he means that it is merely a "manifestation" of an already existing "latent faith," a hidden regeneration. He believes that the act of believing in Christ is not the genesis of faith, but simply an act or manifestation of an already existing "hidden faith." In conversion a man only becomes more of a believer, he only receives more revelation. Most Hardshells will affirm that the only revelation and knowledge that are universally present in the regeneration experience is the knowledge that there is a "god" of some kind, to whom allegiance is owed, and against whom sin has been committed, and which needs atonement or forgiveness. Knowledge of the God of scripture, of the Hebrew and Christian tradition, or of Christ, as Lord, Savior, and Son of God, is not part of the regeneration experience, according to the Hardshells. Any knowledge and faith that can only come from holy scripture, according to the Hardshells, is not an integral part of salvation, and not necessary for being eternally saved. Only that bare knowledge of God that is discoverable from creation is thus made the sum of the "latent faith" of the Hardshells. But, the scriptures know no such nonsense.
Hassell wrote:
"And when the Scriptures state that we are saved, justified, sanctified, or kept by or through faith, the language is of an experimental nature, and the meaning is that, by or through believing in God, we experience or realize our interest in His saving, justifying, sanctifying, and keeping power—faith is the manner in which the power of God, the life of Christ, in our souls, manifests itself in our salvation."
Hassell says men are not actually "saved by faith," not "justified by faith," not "sanctified by faith," and not "kept by faith"! They only "realize" or "experience" salvation, justification, sanctification, and preservation. And, if they never "realize" or "experience" such, they will nevertheless be saved in Heaven! "Faith" in Christ only "manifests" that a person is already saved, is an "evidence" that he has already been saved. In other words, many of the worshippers of Ganesha are "regenerated," and have the "faith of God's elect," or "latent faith," and will therefore go to Heaven! "Faith" is not really a means in God actually keeping his people, but only evidence that he has been keeping them?
Hassell wrote:
"It is the very essence of faith to utterly renounce all dependence upon self, and to rely entirely upon Christ. His righteousness, wisdom, and strength, for salvation."
Does Hassell's above definition of "faith" apply to both "latent faith" and to "evangelical faith"? Again, Hassell seems to want to give two different definitions of biblical saving "faith," one that is scriptural and the other is a Hardshell invention. Hassell affirms that "latent faith" lacks what is the very "essence" of faith, what is "essential" to it! Men do not have to possess the "essence of faith" in order to be saved!
Notice also that Hassell says "for (unto) salvation." Why would he say this when he has been arguing that believing in Christ is "because of salvation"?
Hassell wrote:
"The faith of God’s elect is the effect and evidence of regeneration or the new birth (John i. 12. 13; iii. 3—16; 1 Pet. i. 21—23; 1 John v. 1); and it is the source or spring of obedience (2 Cor. iv. 13; Gal. v. 6; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. Ii; Tit. iii. 8: Heb. xi; James ii.) Mere theoretical or historical or intellectual or moral faith or the faith of miracles are natural and perishing things (Mark i. 24; v. 7; James ii. 14—26; Matt. xiii. 20, 21; Mark iv. 16, 17; Luke viii. 13; Matt. vii. 22, 23; x. 1, 4; 1 Cor. xiii. 2); but true evangelical faith is spiritual and imperishable (John xvi. 13, 14; 1 Cor. xii. 3; Gal. v. 22; Matt. xvi. 16, 17; 2 Cor. iv. 5; Luke xxii. 32; John iii. 15, 16; vi. 47; x. 27—30; xvii. 3: Acts xiii. 48; Heb. x. 39; xii. 2; 1 Pet. i. 1—5, 9; 1 John ii. 27)." ("Faith and it's Relation to Salvation" in "The Gospel Messenger," May 1898)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/590/36/
In the above words Hassell identifies "the faith of God's elect" with "true evangelical faith." But, Hassell believed that all the elect would believe the gospel. Hassell wrote: "...if we are thus born of God, we will certainly repent, believe, obey, and inherit the fullness of eternal life." (Gospel Messenger, 1896) But, today's Hardshells do not believe this but have gone farther and farther away from the old Baptist faith and need to retrace their steps.
Difficult, Especially for Hardshells
"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (I Tim. 2: 1-6)
These verses have been the subject of disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians and present some difficulty for both groups. The first area of debate is over who is meant by the term "all men." Arminians affirm that "all men" means every human being. Calvinists are not uniform in their interpretation. Some affirm that "all men" simply means "all kinds or classes of men," or "all men without distinction," or "some men." Other Calvinists will agree with the Arminians that "all men" literally means all men without exception. With these Calvinists, the discussion moves from discerning who is meant by "all men" to discerning what is meant by God being "willing" that all men be saved. Is God's predetermined will or predestination the thing alluded to by reference to the will of God, or is God's will of precept alluded to? These Calvinists will affirm that the "will of God" has two significations in scripture, sometimes it refers to what God has decreed will absolutely and unconditionally come to pass and sometimes to what God calls upon creatures to do of their own wills.
For myself, I agree with Spurgeon, a five point Calvinist, who believed that "all men" did not mean "some men" only, but that the "will" of God denoted what God wishes to see occur as a result of the choices of men. Does God want all men to tell the truth? Certainly. Does he decree postitively that they all will in fact tell the truth? Certainly not.
Did the text say simply "who will have all men to be saved," there would be less reason to believe that "all men" literally meant every person without exception. But, it also adds "and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Obviously God does not want all men to be saved, for many will not be saved. Even Arminians admit that God does not want unbelievers to be saved. Paul is not saying that God "will have all men, both believers and unbelievers, to be saved." Only the Universalists would affirm such from Paul's words.
Why would any Calvinist see a need to deny that God wants all men not only to tell the truth, but to believe the truth? Admitting that God wants all to know the truth, including the truth about God and salvation, does not overthrow Calvinism nor endorse Arminianism.
Do all Calvinists deny that God "wants every sinner to be saved"? Some do, but not all. Spurgeon believed, as I said, that "all men" excluded no one. But, he nevertheless still taught that Christ died only for the elect, for believers. God has a general will and a special will. Paul wrote:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)
Here Paul plainly says that God is the "Saviour of all men." And, if he is the "Savior of all men," then he is so because he wants to be so. And, if he wants to be the Savior of all men, then this is all the same as saying that God "wants to have all men saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Thus what Paul affirms in I Tim. 2: 1-6 is no different from what Paul says in I Tim. 4: 10. Both Calvinists and Arminians should be able to agree that God is the Savior of all men, that he wants all men to know the truth and to be saved.
Both should agree and affirm that God, however, is not in fact the Savior of all men. Both agree that all men will not be saved. God is the Savior of those who perish, in some sense, but is also not their Savior, in some sense. If a person is in Hell, he can hardly say that God is his Savior and Deliverer. When a person says of another person - "he is my rescuer," he may mean either 1) "he is my appointed rescuer in case I ever need one," or 2) "he is the one who actually rescued me." In the first case a savior/rescuer was provided, and in the latter case a savior actually rescued.
Paul says that God is "especially" the Savior of believers. Thus, we may say that God is not especially the Savior of unbelievers. The term "savior" is not apropos for unbelievers. Again, both Arminians and Calvinists should affirm that God is not the Savior of unbelievers, especially speaking. But, they should also both affirm that God is the Savior of all men, believers and unbelievers, generally speaking.
Both Arminians and Calvinists should also agree that God's wishing to see all sinners saved, to see all become believers in the truth, is not sufficient in itself to save all. If God's wishing it was all that was needed, then Universalism would be true. God wishes that all men keep his laws, but this in itself is obviously not sufficient to make it so.
If then God's general wishing of the salvation of all is not sufficient to save, then what ultimately does make the difference in why one believes and is saved and one not? Or, to put the same question into words of scripture, "who makes you to differ from another?" (I Cor. 4: 7) The apostolic question shows that such a question is not one of those "foolish and unlearned questions." (II Tim. 2: 23) Our inquiry into "why" one person believes, and is saved, and "why" another believes not, and is not saved, is a good question, one raised in scripture. Both Calvinists and Arminians should agree that Paul affirms that God is the reason for one differing from another. The reason lies in God. The outcome of gospel preaching is owing to God. Paul does not say "you made yourself to differ," but "God made you to differ from another." So he also taught in I Cor. 3: 6, 7:
"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."
When a sinner hears and believes the gospel and is saved, it is because God "gave the increase," and that he was the cause or reason why the seed germinated, or why the plant that was planted in their hearts produced fruit. God is to be credited for "making the difference."
God then has a general will and a special will in regard to the salvation of sinners. We are authorized to say that God has a general will that all men believe and be saved, but not a special will for such an end. Generally willing a man's salvation is insufficient for salvation, as I have shown. It is the special willingness of God that makes the difference in why the seed germinates in one heart and not in another, why one believes and is saved and another is not. Cannot both Calvinists and Arminians agree on this much?
Certainly they can both agree that the number of the elect is equal to the number of believers. All Arminians would affirm such, and most Calvinists. Those Calvinists who would not affirm such would be the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshell Baptists. These believe that the number of the elect is greater than the number of believers, for not all the elect, they affirm, become believers. But, more on them later.
The chief disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists involves the question of whether faith is the cause or the effect of the divine choice to salvation. Am I chosen to believe or chosen because I believed? To my mind the answer to this question has already been demonstrated. God gives the increase, he is the reason for why one is different, why one believes and another does not. He had a general will that all believe, but he had a special will for some to believe. While the general will is not sufficient to save anyone embraced in it, the special will actually guarantees salvation for all embraced in the special will.
There are three expressions in I Tim. 2: 1-6 where the discussion is focused. They are 1) "who will have all men to be saved," and 2) "who will have all men to come to a knowledge of the truth," and 3) "who gave himself a ransom for all." The first two have been discussed, so the latter will now draw our attention.
"All" refers of course to "all men." Here the debate continues regarding whether "all men" means "some of all kinds," or "every person." Those Calvinists who believe that Christ died only for the elect defend their views, relative to this passage, in one of two ways. Some will say that "all men" does not mean "every single person without exception," but means "all men without distinction, not all men without exception," or "all classes or kinds of men." Other Calvinists, though affirming that "all men" does in fact refer to every person, will rather focus on determining how Christ can be said to be the ransom for all and yet be the ransom for some only, for only the elect.
Both Arminians and Calvinists should agree that Christ is not, in every respect, the Redeemer and Ransomer of all. That Christ has ransomed all, generally speaking, and the elect (believers), especially speaking, ought to be affirmed by all.
It is said that Calvinists have difficulty with Christ giving himself a ransom for all men (I Tim. 2), and that Arminians have difficulty with Christ shedding his blood "for many" (Matt. 26: 28), and with his "giving his life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20: 28) How can one reconcile "for many" and "for all"? It is argued by Calvinists that "many can mean all but all cannot mean many." I think this is irrefutable.
Obviously Christ is, in some sense, a ransom "for all," and is in some sense only a ransom "for many." Becoming more precise in defining and describing wherein this difference lies is not easy. But, if we could stick to what has been said thus far, both Calvinists and Arminians should be in agreement. As the terms "general" and "special" may be used in regard to what God wills, so also in regard to what he does, or to his works. It seems that Calvinists need to affirm that atonement and redemption are, in some respects, general and unlimited, and that Arminians need to affirm that atonement and redemption are, in some respects, particular and limited.
One of the ways that theologians have sought to restate the teaching of scripture on this point is to say that the atonement and ransom of Christ is "sufficient for all, efficient to the elect (believers)." It is only the Hyper and extreme Calvinists, however, who would not accept such a statement. They do not believe that God, in any sense, or in any degree, desires or wills that all men believe and know the truth, or be saved, nor that Christ, in any sense, died for, or provided himself a ransom for, all men.
"Sufficient for all" often involves the idea of provision, and so may include the idea of "provided for all." Thus the question - "was salvation provided for all?" And, who can deny, that the answer is "both yes and no"? Christ made what we may call, in keeping with one of our themes, a "general" provision, in his death, and also what we may safely call a "special" provision.
But, into the depths of that question, we will not descend, but hopefully what has been stated thus far should be acceptable to both Calvinists and Arminians. But, let us recap a few points and then see how Hardshells and Hyperists have the greater difficulty relative to I Tim. 2: 1-6.
The salvation of the passage cannot be made into what the Hardshells call "time salvation" because the salvation under consideration is paired with being ransomed by the death of Christ. Being ransomed by the death of Christ is the same as being eternally saved, and no Hardshell will deny this. But, if they admit that this salvation is equated with being ransomed by the death of Christ, then they are confronted by the words - "who will have all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Coming to a knowledge of the truth, and becoming a believer, is said to be as much the result of God's wishing and willing as is being saved. Paul couples together being "saved" with "believing." How can the Hardshells deny that this salvation is eternal? How can they deny that those under consideration, the "all men," or "the elect," are as much willed to a knowledge and belief of the truth as to eternal salvation?
If they argue that "God will have" means "God absolutely and unconditionally will have," then they must affirm, to be consistent, that God is then saying that he "will in fact absolutely and unconditionally have them both saved and to know and believe the truth."
If the reference to God's will be interpreted to refer to his decree, to his predestination, then it is detrimental to Hardshellism, for they do not believe that all the elect will be both saved and believe the truth. If the reference be made to God's preceptive will, to his mere general wish and will, then the Hardshell still has difficulty, for he then must make eternal salvation to be through means, through the means of precept.
In closing let me present some further observations and questions for further investigation.
1. If "all men" means "every human being," does it include Christ himself? Does it include those who are not sinners, to those who die in infancy and before the "age of accountability"?
2. If "all men" means "every human being," are we to pray for those who are in Hell, seeing that we are to pray for all men? Does it include Judas Iscariot?
3. If "all men" means "every human being," does this include those who died never having heard the gospel?
Let me close this posting by noting that the great evangelist, D. L. Moody, is reported to have said that "whosoever will" is on the front side of the door to heaven, but that "chosen to salvation" is on the other side. Moody used to say - “The elect are the ‘whosoever wills’; the non-elect are the ‘whosoever wont's.'”
These verses have been the subject of disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians and present some difficulty for both groups. The first area of debate is over who is meant by the term "all men." Arminians affirm that "all men" means every human being. Calvinists are not uniform in their interpretation. Some affirm that "all men" simply means "all kinds or classes of men," or "all men without distinction," or "some men." Other Calvinists will agree with the Arminians that "all men" literally means all men without exception. With these Calvinists, the discussion moves from discerning who is meant by "all men" to discerning what is meant by God being "willing" that all men be saved. Is God's predetermined will or predestination the thing alluded to by reference to the will of God, or is God's will of precept alluded to? These Calvinists will affirm that the "will of God" has two significations in scripture, sometimes it refers to what God has decreed will absolutely and unconditionally come to pass and sometimes to what God calls upon creatures to do of their own wills.
For myself, I agree with Spurgeon, a five point Calvinist, who believed that "all men" did not mean "some men" only, but that the "will" of God denoted what God wishes to see occur as a result of the choices of men. Does God want all men to tell the truth? Certainly. Does he decree postitively that they all will in fact tell the truth? Certainly not.
Did the text say simply "who will have all men to be saved," there would be less reason to believe that "all men" literally meant every person without exception. But, it also adds "and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Obviously God does not want all men to be saved, for many will not be saved. Even Arminians admit that God does not want unbelievers to be saved. Paul is not saying that God "will have all men, both believers and unbelievers, to be saved." Only the Universalists would affirm such from Paul's words.
Why would any Calvinist see a need to deny that God wants all men not only to tell the truth, but to believe the truth? Admitting that God wants all to know the truth, including the truth about God and salvation, does not overthrow Calvinism nor endorse Arminianism.
Do all Calvinists deny that God "wants every sinner to be saved"? Some do, but not all. Spurgeon believed, as I said, that "all men" excluded no one. But, he nevertheless still taught that Christ died only for the elect, for believers. God has a general will and a special will. Paul wrote:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)
Here Paul plainly says that God is the "Saviour of all men." And, if he is the "Savior of all men," then he is so because he wants to be so. And, if he wants to be the Savior of all men, then this is all the same as saying that God "wants to have all men saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Thus what Paul affirms in I Tim. 2: 1-6 is no different from what Paul says in I Tim. 4: 10. Both Calvinists and Arminians should be able to agree that God is the Savior of all men, that he wants all men to know the truth and to be saved.
Both should agree and affirm that God, however, is not in fact the Savior of all men. Both agree that all men will not be saved. God is the Savior of those who perish, in some sense, but is also not their Savior, in some sense. If a person is in Hell, he can hardly say that God is his Savior and Deliverer. When a person says of another person - "he is my rescuer," he may mean either 1) "he is my appointed rescuer in case I ever need one," or 2) "he is the one who actually rescued me." In the first case a savior/rescuer was provided, and in the latter case a savior actually rescued.
Paul says that God is "especially" the Savior of believers. Thus, we may say that God is not especially the Savior of unbelievers. The term "savior" is not apropos for unbelievers. Again, both Arminians and Calvinists should affirm that God is not the Savior of unbelievers, especially speaking. But, they should also both affirm that God is the Savior of all men, believers and unbelievers, generally speaking.
Both Arminians and Calvinists should also agree that God's wishing to see all sinners saved, to see all become believers in the truth, is not sufficient in itself to save all. If God's wishing it was all that was needed, then Universalism would be true. God wishes that all men keep his laws, but this in itself is obviously not sufficient to make it so.
If then God's general wishing of the salvation of all is not sufficient to save, then what ultimately does make the difference in why one believes and is saved and one not? Or, to put the same question into words of scripture, "who makes you to differ from another?" (I Cor. 4: 7) The apostolic question shows that such a question is not one of those "foolish and unlearned questions." (II Tim. 2: 23) Our inquiry into "why" one person believes, and is saved, and "why" another believes not, and is not saved, is a good question, one raised in scripture. Both Calvinists and Arminians should agree that Paul affirms that God is the reason for one differing from another. The reason lies in God. The outcome of gospel preaching is owing to God. Paul does not say "you made yourself to differ," but "God made you to differ from another." So he also taught in I Cor. 3: 6, 7:
"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."
When a sinner hears and believes the gospel and is saved, it is because God "gave the increase," and that he was the cause or reason why the seed germinated, or why the plant that was planted in their hearts produced fruit. God is to be credited for "making the difference."
God then has a general will and a special will in regard to the salvation of sinners. We are authorized to say that God has a general will that all men believe and be saved, but not a special will for such an end. Generally willing a man's salvation is insufficient for salvation, as I have shown. It is the special willingness of God that makes the difference in why the seed germinates in one heart and not in another, why one believes and is saved and another is not. Cannot both Calvinists and Arminians agree on this much?
Certainly they can both agree that the number of the elect is equal to the number of believers. All Arminians would affirm such, and most Calvinists. Those Calvinists who would not affirm such would be the Hyper Calvinists and Hardshell Baptists. These believe that the number of the elect is greater than the number of believers, for not all the elect, they affirm, become believers. But, more on them later.
The chief disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists involves the question of whether faith is the cause or the effect of the divine choice to salvation. Am I chosen to believe or chosen because I believed? To my mind the answer to this question has already been demonstrated. God gives the increase, he is the reason for why one is different, why one believes and another does not. He had a general will that all believe, but he had a special will for some to believe. While the general will is not sufficient to save anyone embraced in it, the special will actually guarantees salvation for all embraced in the special will.
There are three expressions in I Tim. 2: 1-6 where the discussion is focused. They are 1) "who will have all men to be saved," and 2) "who will have all men to come to a knowledge of the truth," and 3) "who gave himself a ransom for all." The first two have been discussed, so the latter will now draw our attention.
"All" refers of course to "all men." Here the debate continues regarding whether "all men" means "some of all kinds," or "every person." Those Calvinists who believe that Christ died only for the elect defend their views, relative to this passage, in one of two ways. Some will say that "all men" does not mean "every single person without exception," but means "all men without distinction, not all men without exception," or "all classes or kinds of men." Other Calvinists, though affirming that "all men" does in fact refer to every person, will rather focus on determining how Christ can be said to be the ransom for all and yet be the ransom for some only, for only the elect.
Both Arminians and Calvinists should agree that Christ is not, in every respect, the Redeemer and Ransomer of all. That Christ has ransomed all, generally speaking, and the elect (believers), especially speaking, ought to be affirmed by all.
It is said that Calvinists have difficulty with Christ giving himself a ransom for all men (I Tim. 2), and that Arminians have difficulty with Christ shedding his blood "for many" (Matt. 26: 28), and with his "giving his life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20: 28) How can one reconcile "for many" and "for all"? It is argued by Calvinists that "many can mean all but all cannot mean many." I think this is irrefutable.
Obviously Christ is, in some sense, a ransom "for all," and is in some sense only a ransom "for many." Becoming more precise in defining and describing wherein this difference lies is not easy. But, if we could stick to what has been said thus far, both Calvinists and Arminians should be in agreement. As the terms "general" and "special" may be used in regard to what God wills, so also in regard to what he does, or to his works. It seems that Calvinists need to affirm that atonement and redemption are, in some respects, general and unlimited, and that Arminians need to affirm that atonement and redemption are, in some respects, particular and limited.
One of the ways that theologians have sought to restate the teaching of scripture on this point is to say that the atonement and ransom of Christ is "sufficient for all, efficient to the elect (believers)." It is only the Hyper and extreme Calvinists, however, who would not accept such a statement. They do not believe that God, in any sense, or in any degree, desires or wills that all men believe and know the truth, or be saved, nor that Christ, in any sense, died for, or provided himself a ransom for, all men.
"Sufficient for all" often involves the idea of provision, and so may include the idea of "provided for all." Thus the question - "was salvation provided for all?" And, who can deny, that the answer is "both yes and no"? Christ made what we may call, in keeping with one of our themes, a "general" provision, in his death, and also what we may safely call a "special" provision.
But, into the depths of that question, we will not descend, but hopefully what has been stated thus far should be acceptable to both Calvinists and Arminians. But, let us recap a few points and then see how Hardshells and Hyperists have the greater difficulty relative to I Tim. 2: 1-6.
The salvation of the passage cannot be made into what the Hardshells call "time salvation" because the salvation under consideration is paired with being ransomed by the death of Christ. Being ransomed by the death of Christ is the same as being eternally saved, and no Hardshell will deny this. But, if they admit that this salvation is equated with being ransomed by the death of Christ, then they are confronted by the words - "who will have all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Coming to a knowledge of the truth, and becoming a believer, is said to be as much the result of God's wishing and willing as is being saved. Paul couples together being "saved" with "believing." How can the Hardshells deny that this salvation is eternal? How can they deny that those under consideration, the "all men," or "the elect," are as much willed to a knowledge and belief of the truth as to eternal salvation?
If they argue that "God will have" means "God absolutely and unconditionally will have," then they must affirm, to be consistent, that God is then saying that he "will in fact absolutely and unconditionally have them both saved and to know and believe the truth."
If the reference to God's will be interpreted to refer to his decree, to his predestination, then it is detrimental to Hardshellism, for they do not believe that all the elect will be both saved and believe the truth. If the reference be made to God's preceptive will, to his mere general wish and will, then the Hardshell still has difficulty, for he then must make eternal salvation to be through means, through the means of precept.
In closing let me present some further observations and questions for further investigation.
1. If "all men" means "every human being," does it include Christ himself? Does it include those who are not sinners, to those who die in infancy and before the "age of accountability"?
2. If "all men" means "every human being," are we to pray for those who are in Hell, seeing that we are to pray for all men? Does it include Judas Iscariot?
3. If "all men" means "every human being," does this include those who died never having heard the gospel?
Let me close this posting by noting that the great evangelist, D. L. Moody, is reported to have said that "whosoever will" is on the front side of the door to heaven, but that "chosen to salvation" is on the other side. Moody used to say - “The elect are the ‘whosoever wills’; the non-elect are the ‘whosoever wont's.'”
Saturday, December 3, 2011
God Gives The Increase
"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (I Cor. 3: 5-7)
Paul is clearly talking about the experience of conversion in these verses, about how sinners are converted into Christians, about how unbelievers are made into believers. "Ministers" of the gospel are instruments, in the hand of God, "by whom you believed." This is confirmed in many other verses of scripture. Notice these:
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1: 6, 7)
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." (John 17: 20)
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10: 14, 15)
Clearly the "believing" that Paul has under consideration, in I Corinthians 3, is that believing which is effected by the preaching of the gospel. Not even the Hardshells can deny this plain fact.
But, the "believing" is also said to be the result of an act of God in conjunction with the preaching and planting of the apostle. People believe because God "gave to" them. "Man" is not in the original. Those who God directed his "giving" work to were the ones who believed. What is the nature of this divine giving? Paul says that God "gives the increase," that is, he is the reason for its success, for its productivity or germination. This recalls the testimony of the Psalmist who said:
"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psalm 127: 1)
Except the Lord bless the preaching to a particular heart, there will be no success. Solomon said that "safety (victory) is of the LORD." (Prov. 21: 31) "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich," also testified Solomon. (Prov. 10: 22) The blessing of the Lord is the reason for success.
Thus, the credit is given to the Lord for the success of preaching in making believers. Some reject this teaching because they think that to give all the credit to the Lord for the success necessarily means that he likewise receives all the blame for the lack of success in preaching. But, this argument could only have weight if it were proven that God were under obligation to do for all what he does only for some. But, God is under no obligation to cause the preaching of the gospel to succeed with everyone.
The Hardshells are good Calvinists to constantly affirm that "faith is the gift of God," what is effectually given to all the elect when they are called to life and salvation. The problem they have, with this verse, however, is the fact that the faith that is "given" in this verse is clearly faith that comes by the preaching of the gospel. And, they do not believe that "gospel faith" is sovereignly and effectually given to all the elect when they hear the gospel. They do not believe that gospel faith is "given" of God to the elect in the same way that "seed faith" is given in "regeneration." When they argue with Arminians they will affirm that "faith is the gift of God," meaning it is effectually given, being by "irresistible grace." But, when their attention is called to these words in I Corinthians 3, they will forget all their argumentation against the Arminians and now argue that this giving of gospel faith does not mean that it is effectually given. Thus, "the legs of the lame are not equal." They do not see that "conversion" is as much the work of God as is "regeneration." But, the real old Baptists did not divorce conversion from regeneration, and saw the giving of faith, by the gospel, to be an effectual calling.
Paul is clearly talking about the experience of conversion in these verses, about how sinners are converted into Christians, about how unbelievers are made into believers. "Ministers" of the gospel are instruments, in the hand of God, "by whom you believed." This is confirmed in many other verses of scripture. Notice these:
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1: 6, 7)
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." (John 17: 20)
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10: 14, 15)
Clearly the "believing" that Paul has under consideration, in I Corinthians 3, is that believing which is effected by the preaching of the gospel. Not even the Hardshells can deny this plain fact.
But, the "believing" is also said to be the result of an act of God in conjunction with the preaching and planting of the apostle. People believe because God "gave to" them. "Man" is not in the original. Those who God directed his "giving" work to were the ones who believed. What is the nature of this divine giving? Paul says that God "gives the increase," that is, he is the reason for its success, for its productivity or germination. This recalls the testimony of the Psalmist who said:
"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psalm 127: 1)
Except the Lord bless the preaching to a particular heart, there will be no success. Solomon said that "safety (victory) is of the LORD." (Prov. 21: 31) "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich," also testified Solomon. (Prov. 10: 22) The blessing of the Lord is the reason for success.
Thus, the credit is given to the Lord for the success of preaching in making believers. Some reject this teaching because they think that to give all the credit to the Lord for the success necessarily means that he likewise receives all the blame for the lack of success in preaching. But, this argument could only have weight if it were proven that God were under obligation to do for all what he does only for some. But, God is under no obligation to cause the preaching of the gospel to succeed with everyone.
The Hardshells are good Calvinists to constantly affirm that "faith is the gift of God," what is effectually given to all the elect when they are called to life and salvation. The problem they have, with this verse, however, is the fact that the faith that is "given" in this verse is clearly faith that comes by the preaching of the gospel. And, they do not believe that "gospel faith" is sovereignly and effectually given to all the elect when they hear the gospel. They do not believe that gospel faith is "given" of God to the elect in the same way that "seed faith" is given in "regeneration." When they argue with Arminians they will affirm that "faith is the gift of God," meaning it is effectually given, being by "irresistible grace." But, when their attention is called to these words in I Corinthians 3, they will forget all their argumentation against the Arminians and now argue that this giving of gospel faith does not mean that it is effectually given. Thus, "the legs of the lame are not equal." They do not see that "conversion" is as much the work of God as is "regeneration." But, the real old Baptists did not divorce conversion from regeneration, and saw the giving of faith, by the gospel, to be an effectual calling.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Elder Hassell on Means
Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:
"...no true Primitive Baptist believes that any instrumentality of man has ever sent, or will ever send, a single soul to glory. As no means can be used to give natural life to one literally dead, so no means can be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sin." ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Meansism," in The Gospel Messenger, September, 1894)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/834/36/
"No means can be used to give natural life to one literally dead"? Did not God raise the dead through prophets and apostles? Did not God use Ezekiel's preaching to bring the dry dead bones to life? How can such a learned Elder say such things? How did God give you and me natural life? Was it not through natural birth? Was it not through the medium of mothers and fathers? Through procreation?
"...no true Primitive Baptist believes that any instrumentality of man has ever sent, or will ever send, a single soul to glory. As no means can be used to give natural life to one literally dead, so no means can be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sin." ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Meansism," in The Gospel Messenger, September, 1894)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/834/36/
"No means can be used to give natural life to one literally dead"? Did not God raise the dead through prophets and apostles? Did not God use Ezekiel's preaching to bring the dry dead bones to life? How can such a learned Elder say such things? How did God give you and me natural life? Was it not through natural birth? Was it not through the medium of mothers and fathers? Through procreation?
Chapter 106 - Hardshells and Predestination IX
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (I Cor. 10: 13)
What does this verse teach us about the permissive will of God? It speaks of God not suffering, permitting, or allowing the occurrence of events. It shows that God's "will" is involved in his permitting. God's permission is "willing" permission. Thus, as we have shown, God's permitting is both done willingly and knowingly. Thus, what is permitted to exist, or to occur, is still the result of God's prior willing, and his willing is his decreeing (or predestinating), and therefore cannot be excluded from the decrees of God. Can temptations occur if God declares that he "will not suffer" them? Certainly not. Thus, to say that nothing occurs that God does not permit is all the same as saying that nothing occurs that God did not will or choose to occur. Notice these other instances where divine permission was required for the occurrence of things.
"And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ." (Luke 4: 41)
"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." (Acts 14: 16)
"So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine." (Matt. 8: 31)
Clearly these verses also show how the divine permission is necessary for the occurrence of acts and events. The demons could speak only as they were permitted to do so, could move here or there only as they were suffered. Nations could only walk in their own ways because God allowed it. Thus Paul said that it is "in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17: 28)
Clearly the story of Job also teaches the same things relative to the permissive will of God. All that Satan did to Job was a result of God's willing permission. Satan could do no more than what God willingly allowed him to do. God's willing permission was even viewed by Job as the cause of his sufferings. Though it was Satan who directly "took away" what Job possessed, yet Job says of God - "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away." (Job 1: 21) Job said - "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips." (2: 10) This is similar to the words of Jeremiah, that were cited in a previous chapter: "Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (3: 37, 38) What can "come to pass" apart from God "commanding," God willing it? Further, Jeremiah is in agreement with Job and affirms that this includes both "evil and good." The experience of Job was a "temptation," and we have already seen that Paul says that "no temptation" occurs apart from God's willingly allowing it.
These simple facts should have brought agreement between the Conditonalist and Absoluter factions, or at least kept them from dividing and declaring each other in disorder. Sin occurs because God allows it, not because he directly produces it. But, this allowance is necessary for sin's occurrence. Further, God has good reason for permitting things, including sin. He has determined to bring a greater good into existence by his permitting sin.
In the last chapter the extremism of the Absoluter faction was examined, chiefly by looking at the analysis of Elder Sylvester Hassell. Most of the Absoluter extremes cited by Hassell were shown to be worthy of valid criticism. A modern Hardshell, Elder Joe Hildreth, wrote:
"The Absolute view continued to be evidenced even among churches not engulfed with this doctrine. For instance, such expressions as, “Brother Joe, you have to be born a Primitive Baptist,” and, “You will join the church when God gets ready for you.” Yet, many, many times since a child have I heard preachers say, “God is not going to take you by the hair of your head and bring you into the church.” I have never heard it preached from the pulpit, but some advocated that “all events and things are working together for good.” ("Primitive Baptists And The 20th Century," 2010)
http://www.marchtozion.com/history/93-primitive-baptists-and-the-20th-century
Elder Hildreth, who I met in my early years in the Hardshell church, sees remnants of "Absolutism" even among his Conditionalist faction. The first of those remnants regarded joining the Hardshell cult. The view that one becomes a member of the Hardshell church in the same way he is regenerated, i.e. unconditionally and irresistibly, was indeed a teaching of the Absoluter faction. But, how did such a view originate? Was it not because the first Hardshells saw conversion as being born again? Like all Calvinists, the Hardshells believe that being "born again" is irresistible, the result of an efficacious or effectual call. Joining the church of Christ, or becoming a member of the "body of Christ," was part of that conversion/new birth experience, according to the first Hardshells.
The Conditionalist faction, however, rejected the idea that "conversion" was any part of being "born again." To them, being converted was a mere "time salvation," what was not certain for all the elect and called, but what was only true of those regenerated souls who chose, or who did not resist, becoming a Christian. Becoming a Christian, or member of Christ's visible body, to the Conditionalist, was not necessary for being eternally saved, but was a free choice that the born again child of God made, apart from any divine compulsion. Becoming a member of the church was a result of willing obedience, not a result of irresistible grace.
The Absoluter no doubt erred in telling people that they should wait upon the Lord to drag them into the church. Even it is true that men become Christians by irresistible grace, it is not apart from commands and exhortations to duty that this is accomplished. This was the error of the Absoluter.
Next, Hildreth mentions the fact that some in the Conditionalist faction were saying that "all things work together for good to those who love God" (Rom. 8: 28) and he sees this as being "Absolutism," and what is false. But, the view that "all things work together for good" for the Christian is what the scriptures plainly affirm, and is what all the first Hardshells affirmed to be the truth. Numerous citations from the first generation Hardshells could be given to prove this fact. Thus, the "primitive" view of Romans 8: 28 was to interpret "all things" as all inclusive, and so the Conditionalist view that "all things" really mean only "some things," is a novel interpretation.
The Romans 8: 28 Battleground
All the first, and most of the second generation of Hardshells, had no problem with interpreting "all things" in Romans 8: 28 to include the evils in the lives of the people of God. They included their temptations, and both their failures and successes.
Do "all things" work together for evil to those who do not love God? Who can deny that this is so? Of course, the working together "for good" has ultimacy in view, what is the end, final destiny, or final fulfillment of all things. Paul is not affirming that all things work together for the mere temporal good of God's chosen and foreknown. "For (unto) good" is not fulfilled or completely realized in this life, but in the life to come, when the elect are glorified and dwell in their eternal state.
All things will finally work to the detriment (evil) of those who do not love God when they are confined in the eternal prison of Gehenna and Lake of Fire. All their works will judged as evil, even those that are externally good. This is evident because "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) This is why the great king said - "the plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. 21: 4)
Do the sins of the saints produce eternal good? That is the chief question in debate. But, have we not shown that the sins of the wicked produce eternal evil? Have we not shown that all that occurs can only occur if God wills it, permissively or otherwise? Do not both sides agree that the existence of evil is owing to God's willing it? Do not both sides agree that God chose to permit the existence of sin and evil for good reasons? For a good end? To bring some greater good out it by overruling it?
How comforting is it to believe that only a few things work together for the eternal good of the elect? How is it comforting to believe that sin exists without any good purpose? That it's existence is meaningless? That sin is an unforeseen accident?
Further, let it be remembered that God's permitting an event, or suffering its existence, does not necessitate that one believe that God permits evil because evil is the end, that this is what he ultimately takes pleasure in. Sin is a distasteful means. For instance, men choose to suffer the evil of pain, in physical exercise, not because they enjoy the pain, as an end in itself, but because it is a means to a greater good, the good of health.
In the final chapters in this series we will look at some more historical writings on this subject.
"Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." (James 4: 13-15)
What does this verse teach us about the permissive will of God? It speaks of God not suffering, permitting, or allowing the occurrence of events. It shows that God's "will" is involved in his permitting. God's permission is "willing" permission. Thus, as we have shown, God's permitting is both done willingly and knowingly. Thus, what is permitted to exist, or to occur, is still the result of God's prior willing, and his willing is his decreeing (or predestinating), and therefore cannot be excluded from the decrees of God. Can temptations occur if God declares that he "will not suffer" them? Certainly not. Thus, to say that nothing occurs that God does not permit is all the same as saying that nothing occurs that God did not will or choose to occur. Notice these other instances where divine permission was required for the occurrence of things.
"And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ." (Luke 4: 41)
"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." (Acts 14: 16)
"So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine." (Matt. 8: 31)
Clearly these verses also show how the divine permission is necessary for the occurrence of acts and events. The demons could speak only as they were permitted to do so, could move here or there only as they were suffered. Nations could only walk in their own ways because God allowed it. Thus Paul said that it is "in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17: 28)
Clearly the story of Job also teaches the same things relative to the permissive will of God. All that Satan did to Job was a result of God's willing permission. Satan could do no more than what God willingly allowed him to do. God's willing permission was even viewed by Job as the cause of his sufferings. Though it was Satan who directly "took away" what Job possessed, yet Job says of God - "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away." (Job 1: 21) Job said - "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips." (2: 10) This is similar to the words of Jeremiah, that were cited in a previous chapter: "Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (3: 37, 38) What can "come to pass" apart from God "commanding," God willing it? Further, Jeremiah is in agreement with Job and affirms that this includes both "evil and good." The experience of Job was a "temptation," and we have already seen that Paul says that "no temptation" occurs apart from God's willingly allowing it.
These simple facts should have brought agreement between the Conditonalist and Absoluter factions, or at least kept them from dividing and declaring each other in disorder. Sin occurs because God allows it, not because he directly produces it. But, this allowance is necessary for sin's occurrence. Further, God has good reason for permitting things, including sin. He has determined to bring a greater good into existence by his permitting sin.
In the last chapter the extremism of the Absoluter faction was examined, chiefly by looking at the analysis of Elder Sylvester Hassell. Most of the Absoluter extremes cited by Hassell were shown to be worthy of valid criticism. A modern Hardshell, Elder Joe Hildreth, wrote:
"The Absolute view continued to be evidenced even among churches not engulfed with this doctrine. For instance, such expressions as, “Brother Joe, you have to be born a Primitive Baptist,” and, “You will join the church when God gets ready for you.” Yet, many, many times since a child have I heard preachers say, “God is not going to take you by the hair of your head and bring you into the church.” I have never heard it preached from the pulpit, but some advocated that “all events and things are working together for good.” ("Primitive Baptists And The 20th Century," 2010)
http://www.marchtozion.com/history/93-primitive-baptists-and-the-20th-century
Elder Hildreth, who I met in my early years in the Hardshell church, sees remnants of "Absolutism" even among his Conditionalist faction. The first of those remnants regarded joining the Hardshell cult. The view that one becomes a member of the Hardshell church in the same way he is regenerated, i.e. unconditionally and irresistibly, was indeed a teaching of the Absoluter faction. But, how did such a view originate? Was it not because the first Hardshells saw conversion as being born again? Like all Calvinists, the Hardshells believe that being "born again" is irresistible, the result of an efficacious or effectual call. Joining the church of Christ, or becoming a member of the "body of Christ," was part of that conversion/new birth experience, according to the first Hardshells.
The Conditionalist faction, however, rejected the idea that "conversion" was any part of being "born again." To them, being converted was a mere "time salvation," what was not certain for all the elect and called, but what was only true of those regenerated souls who chose, or who did not resist, becoming a Christian. Becoming a Christian, or member of Christ's visible body, to the Conditionalist, was not necessary for being eternally saved, but was a free choice that the born again child of God made, apart from any divine compulsion. Becoming a member of the church was a result of willing obedience, not a result of irresistible grace.
The Absoluter no doubt erred in telling people that they should wait upon the Lord to drag them into the church. Even it is true that men become Christians by irresistible grace, it is not apart from commands and exhortations to duty that this is accomplished. This was the error of the Absoluter.
Next, Hildreth mentions the fact that some in the Conditionalist faction were saying that "all things work together for good to those who love God" (Rom. 8: 28) and he sees this as being "Absolutism," and what is false. But, the view that "all things work together for good" for the Christian is what the scriptures plainly affirm, and is what all the first Hardshells affirmed to be the truth. Numerous citations from the first generation Hardshells could be given to prove this fact. Thus, the "primitive" view of Romans 8: 28 was to interpret "all things" as all inclusive, and so the Conditionalist view that "all things" really mean only "some things," is a novel interpretation.
The Romans 8: 28 Battleground
All the first, and most of the second generation of Hardshells, had no problem with interpreting "all things" in Romans 8: 28 to include the evils in the lives of the people of God. They included their temptations, and both their failures and successes.
Do "all things" work together for evil to those who do not love God? Who can deny that this is so? Of course, the working together "for good" has ultimacy in view, what is the end, final destiny, or final fulfillment of all things. Paul is not affirming that all things work together for the mere temporal good of God's chosen and foreknown. "For (unto) good" is not fulfilled or completely realized in this life, but in the life to come, when the elect are glorified and dwell in their eternal state.
All things will finally work to the detriment (evil) of those who do not love God when they are confined in the eternal prison of Gehenna and Lake of Fire. All their works will judged as evil, even those that are externally good. This is evident because "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) This is why the great king said - "the plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. 21: 4)
Do the sins of the saints produce eternal good? That is the chief question in debate. But, have we not shown that the sins of the wicked produce eternal evil? Have we not shown that all that occurs can only occur if God wills it, permissively or otherwise? Do not both sides agree that the existence of evil is owing to God's willing it? Do not both sides agree that God chose to permit the existence of sin and evil for good reasons? For a good end? To bring some greater good out it by overruling it?
How comforting is it to believe that only a few things work together for the eternal good of the elect? How is it comforting to believe that sin exists without any good purpose? That it's existence is meaningless? That sin is an unforeseen accident?
Further, let it be remembered that God's permitting an event, or suffering its existence, does not necessitate that one believe that God permits evil because evil is the end, that this is what he ultimately takes pleasure in. Sin is a distasteful means. For instance, men choose to suffer the evil of pain, in physical exercise, not because they enjoy the pain, as an end in itself, but because it is a means to a greater good, the good of health.
In the final chapters in this series we will look at some more historical writings on this subject.
"Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." (James 4: 13-15)
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Identifying the Saved
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God...For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe...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." (I Cor. 1: 18, 21, 23, 24)
How do the Hardshells deal with these verses? They clearly say, like Romans 1: 16, that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" to all who "believe." The common "apology" given by the Hardshells is to say that these verses simply say that the gospel "saves" those who are already saved, that it saves temporally those who are already saved eternally. They further affirm that the "believer" is not a gospel believer, or believer in Christ, but a simple theist, or simply one who believes that he is a lost sinner. The difficulties with this twisted "interpretation" are several, however. First, it is impossible to make the "salvation" resulting from believing, in the many bible passages which state the fact, anything other than eternal salvation. Second, it is impossible to make the "believer" of the bible into a simple theist, or applicable to pagans and polytheists.
But, another thing that overthrows the Hardshell perversion of these words is to realize that Paul is identifying or describing those who are "saved" and "called." Who are they? Paul says that they are they who "believe" the gospel, who accept Christ as being the Wisdom and Power of God. Paul says that "them who are the called," or "the saved," are they who recognize Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God, or who believe the gospel testimony. However, this is denied by the Hardshells. They do not believe that this is a description of the saved, or what is true of all of those who are saved, for they teach that most of those who are saved do not believe the gospel, do not accept Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God. Paul does not say - "to some of them who are saved, Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God." What he says about the "saved," about "believers," is true of all of them, being what is characteristic of them. Thus, the passage destroys Hardshellism, for it says that those who are saved believe in Christ, that he is God's Wisdom and Power. Those who are saved are those who recognize the gospel as the power of God.
How do the Hardshells deal with these verses? They clearly say, like Romans 1: 16, that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" to all who "believe." The common "apology" given by the Hardshells is to say that these verses simply say that the gospel "saves" those who are already saved, that it saves temporally those who are already saved eternally. They further affirm that the "believer" is not a gospel believer, or believer in Christ, but a simple theist, or simply one who believes that he is a lost sinner. The difficulties with this twisted "interpretation" are several, however. First, it is impossible to make the "salvation" resulting from believing, in the many bible passages which state the fact, anything other than eternal salvation. Second, it is impossible to make the "believer" of the bible into a simple theist, or applicable to pagans and polytheists.
But, another thing that overthrows the Hardshell perversion of these words is to realize that Paul is identifying or describing those who are "saved" and "called." Who are they? Paul says that they are they who "believe" the gospel, who accept Christ as being the Wisdom and Power of God. Paul says that "them who are the called," or "the saved," are they who recognize Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God, or who believe the gospel testimony. However, this is denied by the Hardshells. They do not believe that this is a description of the saved, or what is true of all of those who are saved, for they teach that most of those who are saved do not believe the gospel, do not accept Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God. Paul does not say - "to some of them who are saved, Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God." What he says about the "saved," about "believers," is true of all of them, being what is characteristic of them. Thus, the passage destroys Hardshellism, for it says that those who are saved believe in Christ, that he is God's Wisdom and Power. Those who are saved are those who recognize the gospel as the power of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)