Hardshells will often argue that Abraham being justified by faith, or accounted righteous, before God, cannot be part of salvation, because Abraham's being justified by faith occurred in Genesis 15, though he was a believer, and already saved, in Genesis 12. But, the fact that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 12, when he first believed and obeyed, does not disprove that justification by faith is not required for being eternally saved. I agree with the Hardshells that Abraham was a man of faith prior to Genesis 15 where we first have the words "and Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." But, I do not agree with the inferences and conclusions that they attempt to draw from the facts.
In an article titled "When Was Abraham Justified?" (Part 1), by Phil Gons (see here), this issue is addressed. Gons wrote:
"When was Abraham justified? This might seem like a rather elementary question with an obvious answer: Abraham was justified when he believed the Lord and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness, which is recorded in Genesis 15:6. Certainly Paul’s use of this text in defense of justification by faith apart from works in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 confirms that Genesis 15:6 was the precise point of Abraham’s justification, doesn’t it? This is probably what most people assume."
After saying this, Gons affirms: "Abraham was already justified prior to the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 15."
But, affirming this does not support the Hardshell notion that justification by faith is different from that justification which is by blood and grace.
Gons wrote:
"Removing all doubt, Hebrews 11:8 makes clear that Abraham’s faith in Genesis 12 was genuine faith: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.” The author of Hebrews, in setting forth examples of faith to be followed, intentionally begins the story of Abraham with Genesis 12, when he “by faith” obeyed the Lord, believing His promises to him to be reliable. Had Abraham still been an idolater (cf. Joshua 24:2) and his faith something less than genuine, surely the author of Hebrews would have cited Genesis 15 or some point later in the narrative as the start of Abraham’s exemplary faith.
Paul quotes (with slight modification) Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8 and says that Abraham had the good news preached to him, which—I have sought to demonstrate—he believed. This calls into question the notion that Abraham had substantially different revelatory content—which would have been insufficient for Abraham to have been saved—prior to Genesis 15.
The language of God’s reckoning as righteousness is perhaps used as non-conversion language. Paul’s use of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:22, where he says, “Wherefore it was reckoned to him as righteousness (διὸ [καὶ] ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην),” is connected to Abraham’s faith in Genesis 18, which is post-conversion for both the Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 views. Some argue on this basis that God reckoned Abraham’s subsequent faith as righteousness as well. This would mean that God’s reckoning righteousness need not be connected merely to conversion, but to faith as often as it is exercised throughout the Christian life. This is essentially the point Calvin makes. We are always considered or reckoned righteous through faith—from start to finish.
As confirmation to the above conclusion, it is nice to know that virtually all the commentators and theologians that I have come across who deal with the issue are in agreement that Abraham was justified by the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 12. Luther, Calvin, Brakel, and Spurgeon defend a Genesis 12 justification, as do O. Palmer Robertson and Brian Vickers.
Luther:
Therefore if you should ask whether Abraham was righteous before this time, my answer is: He was righteous because he believed God. But here the Holy Spirit wanted to attest this expressly, since the promise deals with a spiritual Seed. He did so in order that you might conclude on the basis of a correct inference that those who accept this Seed, or those who believe in Christ, are righteous.
Calvin:
Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world...But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death.
Spurgeon:
I take it, beloved friends, that our text does not intend to teach us that Abram was not justified before this time. Faith always justifies whenever it exists, and as soon as it is exercised; its result follows immediately, and is not an aftergrowth needing months of delay.
Robertson:
The fact that this declaration concerning the faith and resulting righteousness of Abraham comes at this particular juncture does not imply that now for the first time he believes and his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness. To the contrary, he continues in a state of faith and its resulting righteousness. But the placing of this declaration of righteousness at this juncture of the patriarch’s life underscores the fact that nothing has been added to faith as the way to righteousness."
Not only was Abraham justified by faith in Genesis 12 and 15 when he believed God and the gospel, but James says that he was also justified when he put his faith into action.
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." (James. 2: 21-23)
When was the scripture "fulfilled" that says "Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness"? We have already seen that it was "fulfilled" when he first believed and obeyed the Lord in Genesis 12, when he forsook his idolatrous surroundings and embraced the living God. We have seen also that it was "fulfilled" in Genesis 15 when he believed God, and when he heard the good news about the coming of his "seed" and of the great salvation that would be the effect of the seed's coming. And, according to James, it was also "fulfilled" when Abraham performed those activities that resulted and proved the genuineness of his faith.
It is sometimes argued that this justification by works was not "before God," or "in his sight," but in the sight of others. But, this is obviously against the text. James does not deny that it is God who "sees" Abraham's work of faith. It is true that we "see" it, but it is more important that God "sees" it. By the works of faith was faith "made perfect." By the works of faith was God's testimony concerning Abraham's faith "fulfilled," or demonstrated. Abraham's works proved the genuineness of his faith. Upon Abraham's offering of Isaac God says to him - "for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." (Gen. 22: 12) Certainly God already "knew" that Abraham feared and believed God, but the statement by God was meant to be a formal declaration of the fact. In other words, God was saying - "now I formally acknowledge that you fear and believe me."
When Abraham believed God, his faith in God and in the gospel promises moved God to declare him righteous. But, every time a believer trusts God and believes his word he is declared righteous, and every time the believer puts his faith into action, God declares him righteous. By the actions of faith a believer is justified in his public person, or in his profession. By faith he is justified in his private person, but faith in action justifies him in his public person. His faith is shown to be real by the actions of faith. Works of faith do not make faith real but only show that it is real. The acts of faith prove the veracity of God's testimony concerning the justified state of a man.
Faith alone saves, but not a faith that is alone. The works of Abraham demonstrated that God's declaration concerning him was true, that he was indeed a man of faith. The actions of Abraham proved that God was true in his declaration concerning Abraham. Every time a person believes God he is declared righteous. Every time a believer demonstrates his faith in works of faith he is declared righteous. God continuously "sees" and "knows" and declares the believer justified.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Tough Time Salvation Questions on Romans 10
The tenth chapter of Romans is perhaps the boldest place in scripture in which the Apostle Paul asserts the gospel as the means whereby God saves sinners. Naturally it presents a significant challenge to those who are opposed to such. It is my hope to look at Romans 10 more closely in the future, but in the meantime I wanted to stir the thoughts of those who are adamant in their claim that this chapter lays out the method for achieving simply a gospel or time salvation.
Practically all our moderns feel that those for whom Paul is praying are already saved eternally (i.e. regenerated), but are not saved temporally.
With that claim in mind, let us ask these questions.
If those for whom Paul is praying (10:1) are already saved eternally, then why does he write in Romans 11 that a remnant of this group only is saved(v.5-7)?
If the WHOLE of whom Paul is praying (10:1) are already saved eternally, then how could there be a remnant (11:5)?
If the remnant only is saved (11:5), does this not suggest that the rest of the nation (10:1) was not?
Can it be said that the WHOLE of something is true (10:1), while it yet be true only of a PORTION OF THE WHOLE (11:5) at the same time?
If the REMNANT of Romans 11:5 is described as receiving eternal salvation (v.6-7), then is this not the SAME salvation Paul has under consideration when praying for the WHOLE (10:1)?
Practically all our moderns feel that those for whom Paul is praying are already saved eternally (i.e. regenerated), but are not saved temporally.
With that claim in mind, let us ask these questions.
If those for whom Paul is praying (10:1) are already saved eternally, then why does he write in Romans 11 that a remnant of this group only is saved(v.5-7)?
If the WHOLE of whom Paul is praying (10:1) are already saved eternally, then how could there be a remnant (11:5)?
If the remnant only is saved (11:5), does this not suggest that the rest of the nation (10:1) was not?
Can it be said that the WHOLE of something is true (10:1), while it yet be true only of a PORTION OF THE WHOLE (11:5) at the same time?
If the REMNANT of Romans 11:5 is described as receiving eternal salvation (v.6-7), then is this not the SAME salvation Paul has under consideration when praying for the WHOLE (10:1)?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Chpt. 124 - Hardshells & Justification II
Dr. A. H. Strong, in the "Relation of Justification to Faith," wrote:
A. We are justified by faith, rather than by love or by any other grace:
(a) not because faith is itself a work of obedience by which we merit justification, for this would be a doctrine of justification by works,
(b) nor because faith is accepted as an equivalent of obedience, for there is no equivalent except the perfect obedience of Christ,
(c) nor because faith is the germ from which obedience may spring hereafter, for it is not the faith which accepts, but the Christ who is accepted, that renders such obedience possible, but
(d) because faith, and not repentance or love or hope is the medium or instrument by which we receive Christ and are united to him. Hence we are never said to be justified dia pistin, = on account of faith, but only dia pisteos, = through faith, or ek pisteos, = by faith. Or, to express the same truth in other words, while the grace of God is the efficient cause of justification and the obedience and sufferings of Christ are the meritorious or procuring cause, faith is the mediate or instrumental cause." (pg. 160, 161)
Strong, a moderate Calvinist, states the correct Calvinistic and Baptist view about union with Christ being first in any sound ordo salutis. And, in that tradition, he says that the Bible teaches that men are joined to Christ "by faith." Thus, faith precedes everything connected with salvation, though faith is the result of God's working through the Spirit and the word. This view of faith being the means of union with Christ, and with justification and salvation, is clearly taught in scripture. For instance, Paul wrote: "...whatsoever is not of faith (relative to salvation - SG) is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) From this proposition it is deducible that all is from faith, since whatever is not from faith is sin. The word "sin" here is "hamartia" and literally means to "miss the mark," and involves faulty aim. Thus, a salvation that is "not of faith," as Hardshellism and many non-Christian religions teach, misses the mark of truth. According to Hardshellism, justification, regeneration, santification, and salvation are "not of faith," and therefore Hardshellism makes the foregoing things to be "sin," an error.
A "regeneration" that is not from or by faith leads to the absurdity that there are regenerated people who cannot please God, for Paul says that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6).
Union with Christ is by faith, by coming to him with the heart. In chapter 11 of Book 3 of his Institutes, John Calvin wrote:
"I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life."
Calvin recognized, of course, as do all Calvinists, that there is an eternal mystical or virtual union between Christ and the chosen people. In God's eternal decree of election the people chosen are joined together, in the mind of God, with Christ their appointed Head. This union does precede faith and salvation. However, actual union in time occurs at the point a soul is brought to faith in Christ. Calvin also appropriately places union with Christ ahead of justification and sanctification, the latter including regeneration.
Paul wrote: "...he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 17) Marriage is one of those kinds of union that the scripture adopts to describe the union that exists between Christ and his church bride. (Eph. 5: 23-33)
Paul wrote:
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (Rom. 7: 4)
Saved people are people who have been "joined" or "married" to the Lord, who are "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh."
Paul also spoke of Christ being made to "dwell in your hearts by faith." (Eph. 3: 17)
Throughout the scriptures people "believe in (Greek "eis," or "into") Christ." Faith is the medium by which Christ is entered and possessed. Without this possession and union with Christ, there is no salvation.
Strong mentions, as have others, such as Berkhof, that scripture never says that men are justified "dia pistin" but "dia pisteuo." Had the biblical writers believed that "by faith" meant that justification was based upon faith, they would have used "dia pistin," the accusative case inflection. Thus, the Hardshell accusation that those who teach that justification is "by faith" must teach that faith is the ground or foundation for justification, is without merit.
Craig Hawkins, on the same point, wrote:
"Another point of misunderstanding that some have is regarding the role and relationship of faith to justification. It is not our faith or the faith of the individual believer that justifies, but God who justifies by grace through faith. That is, faith is what is called the instrumental means or cause of salvation, not what is termed the efficient cause. As J. I. Packer rightly remarks: “Paul says that believers are justified dia pisteos (Rom. 3:25), pistei (Rom. 3:28), and ek pisteos (Rom. 3:30). The dative and the preposition dia represent faith as the instrumental means whereby Christ and his righteousness are appropriated; the preposition ek shows that faith occasions, and logically precedes, our personal justification. That believers are justified dia pistin, on account of faith, Paul never says, and would deny.” Packer also remarks: “faith is…personal trust and confidence in God’s mercy through Christ; that it is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, but rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ….”
Hawkins then cites B.B. Warfield:
"It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace…Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith…The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests…It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ…faith in any other saviour…brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith…" ("Justification – A Right Relationship with GOD" by Craig S. Hawkins see here)
Thus, the argument by Oliphant that those who teach that justification is "by faith" teach that faith is the ground or foundation of justification is without merit.
Oliphant wrote:
"I want first to assign some reasons why faith can not be the ground, or condition, on which justification is based; and then I will try to point out what is intended by those texts in which we are said to be "justified by faith."
Many places speak of "little faith," "O ye of little faith," "Lord, help my unbelief." "Increase our faith," and such texts. Now, if faith is to be understood as the condition or cause of our justification, then justification would necessarily be in different degrees, one man would be just, and another more just, according to the degree of faith, and none could be perfectly justified, seeing that none have perfect faith, for "now we see through a glass darkly." So our justification would have an imperfect cause, or foundation, whereas I think it is admitted on all hands that justification admits of no degrees." ("Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8" - See here)
But, though faith is the "condition" for justification, it is not the "ground" of it. Oliphant, however, thinks that if faith be a condition, it must therefore be the foundation, or the meritorious "basis" for it.
Oliphant's argument is that whatever results from faith cannot be "perfect," for faith is always imperfect. But, this is untenable. Has he not affirmed that faith is the gift of God? God gives an imperfect faith for imperfect results? Oliphant also again affirms that faith being a "condition" makes faith the "foundation" of justification and salvation, but this is false. The righteousness of Christ is the efficient cause of justification, but faith is the instrumental cause.
It is also once again apparent how Oliphant has to resort to such logical arguments to prove his doctrine rather than to express statements of scripture. He denies that justification is by faith because it is not logical, in his mind, and not because he can refute it by scripture.
Oliphant wrote:
"So the righteousness of God’s people is of God, Christ is their righteousness; hence it is not the office of faith to produce it. It exists aside from, and independent of faith."
Yes, it is "of" God, but it is "by" faith. Faith does not "produce" the justifying righteousness of Christ, but merely receives it. It is amazing that Oliphant and the Hardshells fail to see these simple things. Oliphant is very frank in affirming that the righteousness of Christ "exists independent of faith," which is contrary to the whole of Romans chapter four. The scriptures teach that sinners are justified by faith but Hardshells say apart from faith.
Elder Joe Holder, Hardshell apologist, wrote:
"The Bible speaks of justification by the blood of Christ, by grace, by faith, and by works. Many sincerely attempt to make every statement in the Bible on justification refer to eternal justification. Justification is the New Testament term for a judge's verdict of "Not guilty." In our judicial system there are many different courts to hear and judge the large variety of issues which must be adjudicated. A traffic violation and a mass murder should not be heard by the same court. Applying this principle to the New Testament teaching on justification, we can see the eternal court of justice which heard the evidence against the elect and declared the "Not guilty" verdict at the resurrection of Christ, based on his death and the grace of God, Romans 4:25. Yet in the same chapter, we can see the court of conscience, before which Abraham was justified by works, Romans 4: 3. Paul did not teach that a dead effortless faith is acceptable any more than James taught that eternal justification is by works." (Chapter 5, "Justification By Faith" - see here)
Thus, according to Hardshellism, being justified by faith pertains only to the "court" of the believers conscience. But, this is not what Paul taught. This was shown in the last chapter where Paul does not make justification by grace to be a different justification from that which is by faith. The whole purpose of this paradigm of justification is to affirm that justification by faith is not necessary for being eternally saved. But, where there is no justification by faith, then there is no "peace with God" (Rom. 5: 1), and thus one is not reconciled to God, and is still his enemy.
Holder and the Hardshells fail to understand that the realization of pardon and justification in the conscience occurs when one is actually justified and regenerated. In this experience the conscience is cleansed by the application of the blood of Christ. At the same time that God declares that a sinner is justified, at the same time the sinner experiences peace with God. Or, to state it according to the Hardshell paradigm, when the court of Heaven declares the sinner acquitted, the sinner's "court of conscience" receives and welcomes the verdict.
Not only does Romans chapters three through five show that the same justification is under consideration, but so does the Book of Galatians.
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2: 16)
"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." (Gal. 3: 11)
This "justification" is "in the sight of God." And, it is "by faith." "We have believed," said Paul, "that we might be justified by the faith of Christ."
In closing this chapter, let us notice these verses:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5: 24)
"And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 39)
Who is justified? The believer in Jesus. Who is condemned? The one who does not believe in Jesus.
A. We are justified by faith, rather than by love or by any other grace:
(a) not because faith is itself a work of obedience by which we merit justification, for this would be a doctrine of justification by works,
(b) nor because faith is accepted as an equivalent of obedience, for there is no equivalent except the perfect obedience of Christ,
(c) nor because faith is the germ from which obedience may spring hereafter, for it is not the faith which accepts, but the Christ who is accepted, that renders such obedience possible, but
(d) because faith, and not repentance or love or hope is the medium or instrument by which we receive Christ and are united to him. Hence we are never said to be justified dia pistin, = on account of faith, but only dia pisteos, = through faith, or ek pisteos, = by faith. Or, to express the same truth in other words, while the grace of God is the efficient cause of justification and the obedience and sufferings of Christ are the meritorious or procuring cause, faith is the mediate or instrumental cause." (pg. 160, 161)
Strong, a moderate Calvinist, states the correct Calvinistic and Baptist view about union with Christ being first in any sound ordo salutis. And, in that tradition, he says that the Bible teaches that men are joined to Christ "by faith." Thus, faith precedes everything connected with salvation, though faith is the result of God's working through the Spirit and the word. This view of faith being the means of union with Christ, and with justification and salvation, is clearly taught in scripture. For instance, Paul wrote: "...whatsoever is not of faith (relative to salvation - SG) is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) From this proposition it is deducible that all is from faith, since whatever is not from faith is sin. The word "sin" here is "hamartia" and literally means to "miss the mark," and involves faulty aim. Thus, a salvation that is "not of faith," as Hardshellism and many non-Christian religions teach, misses the mark of truth. According to Hardshellism, justification, regeneration, santification, and salvation are "not of faith," and therefore Hardshellism makes the foregoing things to be "sin," an error.
A "regeneration" that is not from or by faith leads to the absurdity that there are regenerated people who cannot please God, for Paul says that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6).
Union with Christ is by faith, by coming to him with the heart. In chapter 11 of Book 3 of his Institutes, John Calvin wrote:
"I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life."
Calvin recognized, of course, as do all Calvinists, that there is an eternal mystical or virtual union between Christ and the chosen people. In God's eternal decree of election the people chosen are joined together, in the mind of God, with Christ their appointed Head. This union does precede faith and salvation. However, actual union in time occurs at the point a soul is brought to faith in Christ. Calvin also appropriately places union with Christ ahead of justification and sanctification, the latter including regeneration.
Paul wrote: "...he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." (I Cor. 6: 17) Marriage is one of those kinds of union that the scripture adopts to describe the union that exists between Christ and his church bride. (Eph. 5: 23-33)
Paul wrote:
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (Rom. 7: 4)
Saved people are people who have been "joined" or "married" to the Lord, who are "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh."
Paul also spoke of Christ being made to "dwell in your hearts by faith." (Eph. 3: 17)
Throughout the scriptures people "believe in (Greek "eis," or "into") Christ." Faith is the medium by which Christ is entered and possessed. Without this possession and union with Christ, there is no salvation.
Strong mentions, as have others, such as Berkhof, that scripture never says that men are justified "dia pistin" but "dia pisteuo." Had the biblical writers believed that "by faith" meant that justification was based upon faith, they would have used "dia pistin," the accusative case inflection. Thus, the Hardshell accusation that those who teach that justification is "by faith" must teach that faith is the ground or foundation for justification, is without merit.
Craig Hawkins, on the same point, wrote:
"Another point of misunderstanding that some have is regarding the role and relationship of faith to justification. It is not our faith or the faith of the individual believer that justifies, but God who justifies by grace through faith. That is, faith is what is called the instrumental means or cause of salvation, not what is termed the efficient cause. As J. I. Packer rightly remarks: “Paul says that believers are justified dia pisteos (Rom. 3:25), pistei (Rom. 3:28), and ek pisteos (Rom. 3:30). The dative and the preposition dia represent faith as the instrumental means whereby Christ and his righteousness are appropriated; the preposition ek shows that faith occasions, and logically precedes, our personal justification. That believers are justified dia pistin, on account of faith, Paul never says, and would deny.” Packer also remarks: “faith is…personal trust and confidence in God’s mercy through Christ; that it is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, but rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ….”
Hawkins then cites B.B. Warfield:
"It is, accordingly, solely from its object that faith derives its value. This object is uniformly the God of grace…Jesus Christ, God the Redeemer, is accordingly the one object of saving faith…The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests…It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christ…faith in any other saviour…brings not salvation but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the nature of faith, but in the object of faith…" ("Justification – A Right Relationship with GOD" by Craig S. Hawkins see here)
Thus, the argument by Oliphant that those who teach that justification is "by faith" teach that faith is the ground or foundation of justification is without merit.
Oliphant wrote:
"I want first to assign some reasons why faith can not be the ground, or condition, on which justification is based; and then I will try to point out what is intended by those texts in which we are said to be "justified by faith."
Many places speak of "little faith," "O ye of little faith," "Lord, help my unbelief." "Increase our faith," and such texts. Now, if faith is to be understood as the condition or cause of our justification, then justification would necessarily be in different degrees, one man would be just, and another more just, according to the degree of faith, and none could be perfectly justified, seeing that none have perfect faith, for "now we see through a glass darkly." So our justification would have an imperfect cause, or foundation, whereas I think it is admitted on all hands that justification admits of no degrees." ("Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8" - See here)
But, though faith is the "condition" for justification, it is not the "ground" of it. Oliphant, however, thinks that if faith be a condition, it must therefore be the foundation, or the meritorious "basis" for it.
Oliphant's argument is that whatever results from faith cannot be "perfect," for faith is always imperfect. But, this is untenable. Has he not affirmed that faith is the gift of God? God gives an imperfect faith for imperfect results? Oliphant also again affirms that faith being a "condition" makes faith the "foundation" of justification and salvation, but this is false. The righteousness of Christ is the efficient cause of justification, but faith is the instrumental cause.
It is also once again apparent how Oliphant has to resort to such logical arguments to prove his doctrine rather than to express statements of scripture. He denies that justification is by faith because it is not logical, in his mind, and not because he can refute it by scripture.
Oliphant wrote:
"So the righteousness of God’s people is of God, Christ is their righteousness; hence it is not the office of faith to produce it. It exists aside from, and independent of faith."
Yes, it is "of" God, but it is "by" faith. Faith does not "produce" the justifying righteousness of Christ, but merely receives it. It is amazing that Oliphant and the Hardshells fail to see these simple things. Oliphant is very frank in affirming that the righteousness of Christ "exists independent of faith," which is contrary to the whole of Romans chapter four. The scriptures teach that sinners are justified by faith but Hardshells say apart from faith.
Elder Joe Holder, Hardshell apologist, wrote:
"The Bible speaks of justification by the blood of Christ, by grace, by faith, and by works. Many sincerely attempt to make every statement in the Bible on justification refer to eternal justification. Justification is the New Testament term for a judge's verdict of "Not guilty." In our judicial system there are many different courts to hear and judge the large variety of issues which must be adjudicated. A traffic violation and a mass murder should not be heard by the same court. Applying this principle to the New Testament teaching on justification, we can see the eternal court of justice which heard the evidence against the elect and declared the "Not guilty" verdict at the resurrection of Christ, based on his death and the grace of God, Romans 4:25. Yet in the same chapter, we can see the court of conscience, before which Abraham was justified by works, Romans 4: 3. Paul did not teach that a dead effortless faith is acceptable any more than James taught that eternal justification is by works." (Chapter 5, "Justification By Faith" - see here)
Thus, according to Hardshellism, being justified by faith pertains only to the "court" of the believers conscience. But, this is not what Paul taught. This was shown in the last chapter where Paul does not make justification by grace to be a different justification from that which is by faith. The whole purpose of this paradigm of justification is to affirm that justification by faith is not necessary for being eternally saved. But, where there is no justification by faith, then there is no "peace with God" (Rom. 5: 1), and thus one is not reconciled to God, and is still his enemy.
Holder and the Hardshells fail to understand that the realization of pardon and justification in the conscience occurs when one is actually justified and regenerated. In this experience the conscience is cleansed by the application of the blood of Christ. At the same time that God declares that a sinner is justified, at the same time the sinner experiences peace with God. Or, to state it according to the Hardshell paradigm, when the court of Heaven declares the sinner acquitted, the sinner's "court of conscience" receives and welcomes the verdict.
Not only does Romans chapters three through five show that the same justification is under consideration, but so does the Book of Galatians.
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2: 16)
"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." (Gal. 3: 11)
This "justification" is "in the sight of God." And, it is "by faith." "We have believed," said Paul, "that we might be justified by the faith of Christ."
In closing this chapter, let us notice these verses:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5: 24)
"And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 39)
Who is justified? The believer in Jesus. Who is condemned? The one who does not believe in Jesus.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Chpt. 123 - Hardshells & Justification I
In a word, Hardshells reject the belief that justification which is "by faith" has anything to do with a man's actual justification before God or the condemning law. To the Hardshells, justification which is "by faith," is as unnecessary for being eternally saved as is being converted to Christ. The typical manner in which Hardshells attempt to defend this strange and novel idea is to affirm that there are three different kinds of justification in scripture, each pertaining to a different court of justice. Only one of these three kinds of justification, however, is necessary to salvation.
Elder R. V. Sarrels, Hardshell apologist who wrote what is called a "Systematic Theology," wrote the following on "Justification By Faith" in chapter 16:
"The principles set forth in this chapter regarding the Doctrine of Justification by Faith differs fundamentally from the generally accepted view concerning this important doctrine. The opinion of Christian scholarship predominantly favors the idea that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ."
Sarrels basically proves what I have affirmed, that the Hardshell interpretation and understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith is not orthodox, nor the traditional view of Christians in general or Baptists in particular. Sarrels admits that Hardshell teaching on this Bible doctrine is an extreme minority view, and lends credence to the fact that they hold a cultic and novel view. Sarrels admits that the teaching that interprets "by faith," in the context of justification, teaches "that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ." From this citation it is clear that Sarrels shifts from the idea of justification to that of regeneration and union with Christ. Sarrels implies that those theologians who affirm that faith logically precedes justification also affirm, or must logically affirm, that faith precedes regeneration. But, this is not true. Most of today's "Reformed" Baptists, such as James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, believe that faith follows regeneration but precedes justification. The position of the first Particular Baptists, in England and America, taught that faith logically precedes all. It is the means of joining one to Christ. Being justified, regenerated (reborn), and being sanctified are the results of this union. They taught that these things were concomitants, "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) One does not exist without the other. There is no such character who is regenerated but not justified, and vice versa. There is no such character who is justified and regenerated but not joined to Christ. There is no such character, as the Hardshells invent, who is justified, regenerated, sanctified, and joined to Christ, but who "has not faith." I will expand upon this point shortly.
Sarrels also wrote:
"By the phrase "united to Christ" this prevailing view means the work which makes one a new creature in Christ...In contrast to this common idea concerning the place of Justification by Faith in the Christian system, is the view that this justification follows regeneration and that it plays no part in either leading up to or in bringing about the birth from above."
Sarrels is not correct when he says that the "common idea" about "the place of Justification by Faith" among Christian scholars affirms that justification follows regeneration. The "common idea" is rather that justification logically precedes regeneration. This is certainly the teaching of classical Arminians, of men such as Arminius and Wesley. The view of "Reformed" and "Hyper" Calvinists teach that the ordo salutis is: first regeneration, then faith (conversion), and then justification and sanctification. But, many of them argue that regeneration only logically precedes faith and justification, not chronologically. These Calvinists are not consistent nor reflective of the Puritans and old Baptists who wrote the first English confessions of faith.
It has always been the peculiar difference between Protestants and Catholics, relative to the ordo salutis, that justification logically precedes regeneration. Protestants have emphasized, among other things, that Paul says that God "justifies the ungodly," which would not be the case if men were regenerated (made godly) before being justified. To say that men are regenerated before they are justified is to say that men who are yet condemned are "regenerated." Nearly all scholars, both Arminian and Calvinist, affirm that union with Christ logically precedes all, precedes justification, precedes regeneration, precedes sanctification. They also teach that actual union with Christ is "by faith." Those who affirm that union with Christ is primordial, and that union with Christ is "by faith," and who affirm that regeneration precedes faith, are inconsistent. It is good thing, that despite this inconsistency and opposition to Protestant views, these Reformed Calvinist theologians nevertheless teach that there is no chronological order, that justification, regeneration, faith, and sanctification, are all concomitants.
Sarrels identifies the chief error of Hardshellism on the Christian doctrine of justification by faith, saying that justification "plays no part in" being born again. Though he mentioned that being justified does not "lead up to" or "bring about" the new birth, he really believes that being justified does not occur at the same time one is born again. Thus, they have a man born again who is still condemned! If a man is not justified, then he is still condemned.He denies the historic Protestant doctrine that says that justification logically precedes regeneration, and he does not believe that justification is always linked with regeneration. He certainly does not believe that being justified by faith is necessary for escaping Hell and going to Heaven.
Sarrels wrote:
"It is the purpose of the author in this chapter to show that this, exactly this, is what the Bible teaches concerning this doctrine. But it must not be inferred from what is here stated that a new concept in theology has been born. From the days of the apostles till now there has been a succession of Christian thinkers, in the main unaccredited by the world, who have, with varying degrees of clearness, stood forthrightly and unafraid in defense of the view we hold." (pg. 373)
Sarrels claims that they has always been Christians who believed as he does, "from the days of the apostles till now," he says, "there has been a succession" of Christians who believed as Hardshells do on the doctrine of salvation, on justification and regeneration. But, he states a falsehood, for Hardshellism was born in the early to mid 19th century in America. I have repeatedly challenged the Hardshells to prove this "succession." They cannot find anyone, prior to the 19th century, who held to their peculiar views and so it is the height of deception for them to state that their views have a "succession" of adherents since the days of the apostles. The typical Hardshell will read such claims as Sarrels gives and, being a good cult member, simply accept what Sarrels avers, and will not study the matter for himself.
The Hardshells say that the only justification that is necessary for being eternally saved is that justification which is "by grace" (Rom. 3: 24; Titus 3: 7) or "by his blood" (Rom. 5: 9). Being justified "by faith" (Rom. 3: 28; 5: 1), however, is a "different kind of justification" than that which is by grace and the blood of Christ. Thus, they teach that many are justified by grace and blood who are not justified by faith.
The Hardshells argue that justification by grace and blood is "before God," or "in his sight," or before the court of Heaven, or before the law. On the other hand, justification by faith is not "before God," or "in his sight," but simply and solely in the "court of conscience," before the eyes of believers themselves. Being "justified by faith," to the Hardshell, is receiving assurance that one is already elected and regenerated, equivalent to conversion or to their "time salvation." And, "justification by works" is also not "before God," but "before men," in the "court of public opinion."
In Hardshellism, justification occurs by faith when the previously "regenerated" soul trusts in the atoning death and righteousness of Christ and receives a sense of acquittal in his conscience, when he comes to realize that he is "freed from condemnation." Hardshells argue that this is not when God actually justifies the sinner before the law, and removes actual guilt before the eyes and judgment of God, but when guilt is removed from the burdened and convicted conscience.
One of the problems with this view is the fact that it makes the Holy Spirit to bear witness to a falsehood. In the Hardshell paradigm, the Holy Spirit convicts the regenerated soul of his guilt. But, the soul is not really guilty of sin, for he has already been justified prior to his conviction of sin and faith in Christ. Thus, when the Spirit convinces a soul that it is guilty, he is convincing him of what is not true, for the soul the Spirit convicts has already been justified by blood and grace.
But, the scriptures are clear about all who do not believe in the one true God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the only Savior and Lord. Jesus said:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3: 18)
The soul that does not believe in Jesus "is condemned." The soul that believes in Jesus, however, is one who is "not condemned," that is, is "justified." This simple teaching overthrows Hardshellism and its unscriptural teaching that many unbelievers are "not condemned."
Jesus also said:
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36)
To be justified is to be delivered from the judicial "wrath of God." All sinners are condemned, and are therefore "under sin" and "under wrath." Unbelievers are condemned and under wrath. But, Hardshells will not accept this to be true. That makes them enemies of the gospel of Christ.
Another problem with this paradigm is the fact that Paul, in Romans and Galatians, where he discusses justification in detail, does not distinguish between that justification which is by grace and blood from that which is by faith. In Romans 3: 20-31 Paul speaks of the same justification, not of different kinds of justification. The Hardshells do the same thing with the word "salvation" as they do with the word "justification." Just as they make all passages that make salvation to be conditioned upon faith and repentance to be a temporal or time salvation, so they make all passages that make justification to be conditioned upon faith to be a temporal justification. In verse 20 of Romans chapter three Paul speaks of being "justified in his sight." The context clearly shows that the justification that Paul is discussing is that which justifies a sinner in God's sight, before his law. Paul then continues with these words:
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (vs. 24-28)
It requires great dishonesty to make the justification which is "by faith" (vs. 28) to be different from that justification which is "by his grace" (vs. 24). When Paul says "therefore we conclude," he shows that he is not making that justification which is "by faith" to be different from that which is "by grace."
Further, Paul says that "faith" in Christ "excludes" any possibility of "boasting," and shows that he does not consider faith to be "works," for works promote boasting. The Hardshells often argue that salvation cannot be "by faith" because faith is a "work" and Paul says we are not saved or justified "by works," that is, "not by faith." But, such hermeneutics has Paul contradicting himself, saying on one hand that salvation and justification are "by faith" and then turning around and saying that they are not "by faith (work of faith)." Salvation and justification are "by faith" but "not by works," which clearly shows that Paul did not, like the Hardshells, see faith as a work.
Elder R. V. Sarrels, Hardshell apologist who wrote what is called a "Systematic Theology," wrote the following on "Justification By Faith" in chapter 16:
"The principles set forth in this chapter regarding the Doctrine of Justification by Faith differs fundamentally from the generally accepted view concerning this important doctrine. The opinion of Christian scholarship predominantly favors the idea that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ."
Sarrels basically proves what I have affirmed, that the Hardshell interpretation and understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith is not orthodox, nor the traditional view of Christians in general or Baptists in particular. Sarrels admits that Hardshell teaching on this Bible doctrine is an extreme minority view, and lends credence to the fact that they hold a cultic and novel view. Sarrels admits that the teaching that interprets "by faith," in the context of justification, teaches "that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ." From this citation it is clear that Sarrels shifts from the idea of justification to that of regeneration and union with Christ. Sarrels implies that those theologians who affirm that faith logically precedes justification also affirm, or must logically affirm, that faith precedes regeneration. But, this is not true. Most of today's "Reformed" Baptists, such as James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, believe that faith follows regeneration but precedes justification. The position of the first Particular Baptists, in England and America, taught that faith logically precedes all. It is the means of joining one to Christ. Being justified, regenerated (reborn), and being sanctified are the results of this union. They taught that these things were concomitants, "things that accompany salvation." (Heb. 6: 9) One does not exist without the other. There is no such character who is regenerated but not justified, and vice versa. There is no such character who is justified and regenerated but not joined to Christ. There is no such character, as the Hardshells invent, who is justified, regenerated, sanctified, and joined to Christ, but who "has not faith." I will expand upon this point shortly.
Sarrels also wrote:
"By the phrase "united to Christ" this prevailing view means the work which makes one a new creature in Christ...In contrast to this common idea concerning the place of Justification by Faith in the Christian system, is the view that this justification follows regeneration and that it plays no part in either leading up to or in bringing about the birth from above."
Sarrels is not correct when he says that the "common idea" about "the place of Justification by Faith" among Christian scholars affirms that justification follows regeneration. The "common idea" is rather that justification logically precedes regeneration. This is certainly the teaching of classical Arminians, of men such as Arminius and Wesley. The view of "Reformed" and "Hyper" Calvinists teach that the ordo salutis is: first regeneration, then faith (conversion), and then justification and sanctification. But, many of them argue that regeneration only logically precedes faith and justification, not chronologically. These Calvinists are not consistent nor reflective of the Puritans and old Baptists who wrote the first English confessions of faith.
It has always been the peculiar difference between Protestants and Catholics, relative to the ordo salutis, that justification logically precedes regeneration. Protestants have emphasized, among other things, that Paul says that God "justifies the ungodly," which would not be the case if men were regenerated (made godly) before being justified. To say that men are regenerated before they are justified is to say that men who are yet condemned are "regenerated." Nearly all scholars, both Arminian and Calvinist, affirm that union with Christ logically precedes all, precedes justification, precedes regeneration, precedes sanctification. They also teach that actual union with Christ is "by faith." Those who affirm that union with Christ is primordial, and that union with Christ is "by faith," and who affirm that regeneration precedes faith, are inconsistent. It is good thing, that despite this inconsistency and opposition to Protestant views, these Reformed Calvinist theologians nevertheless teach that there is no chronological order, that justification, regeneration, faith, and sanctification, are all concomitants.
Sarrels identifies the chief error of Hardshellism on the Christian doctrine of justification by faith, saying that justification "plays no part in" being born again. Though he mentioned that being justified does not "lead up to" or "bring about" the new birth, he really believes that being justified does not occur at the same time one is born again. Thus, they have a man born again who is still condemned! If a man is not justified, then he is still condemned.He denies the historic Protestant doctrine that says that justification logically precedes regeneration, and he does not believe that justification is always linked with regeneration. He certainly does not believe that being justified by faith is necessary for escaping Hell and going to Heaven.
Sarrels wrote:
"It is the purpose of the author in this chapter to show that this, exactly this, is what the Bible teaches concerning this doctrine. But it must not be inferred from what is here stated that a new concept in theology has been born. From the days of the apostles till now there has been a succession of Christian thinkers, in the main unaccredited by the world, who have, with varying degrees of clearness, stood forthrightly and unafraid in defense of the view we hold." (pg. 373)
Sarrels claims that they has always been Christians who believed as he does, "from the days of the apostles till now," he says, "there has been a succession" of Christians who believed as Hardshells do on the doctrine of salvation, on justification and regeneration. But, he states a falsehood, for Hardshellism was born in the early to mid 19th century in America. I have repeatedly challenged the Hardshells to prove this "succession." They cannot find anyone, prior to the 19th century, who held to their peculiar views and so it is the height of deception for them to state that their views have a "succession" of adherents since the days of the apostles. The typical Hardshell will read such claims as Sarrels gives and, being a good cult member, simply accept what Sarrels avers, and will not study the matter for himself.
The Hardshells say that the only justification that is necessary for being eternally saved is that justification which is "by grace" (Rom. 3: 24; Titus 3: 7) or "by his blood" (Rom. 5: 9). Being justified "by faith" (Rom. 3: 28; 5: 1), however, is a "different kind of justification" than that which is by grace and the blood of Christ. Thus, they teach that many are justified by grace and blood who are not justified by faith.
The Hardshells argue that justification by grace and blood is "before God," or "in his sight," or before the court of Heaven, or before the law. On the other hand, justification by faith is not "before God," or "in his sight," but simply and solely in the "court of conscience," before the eyes of believers themselves. Being "justified by faith," to the Hardshell, is receiving assurance that one is already elected and regenerated, equivalent to conversion or to their "time salvation." And, "justification by works" is also not "before God," but "before men," in the "court of public opinion."
In Hardshellism, justification occurs by faith when the previously "regenerated" soul trusts in the atoning death and righteousness of Christ and receives a sense of acquittal in his conscience, when he comes to realize that he is "freed from condemnation." Hardshells argue that this is not when God actually justifies the sinner before the law, and removes actual guilt before the eyes and judgment of God, but when guilt is removed from the burdened and convicted conscience.
One of the problems with this view is the fact that it makes the Holy Spirit to bear witness to a falsehood. In the Hardshell paradigm, the Holy Spirit convicts the regenerated soul of his guilt. But, the soul is not really guilty of sin, for he has already been justified prior to his conviction of sin and faith in Christ. Thus, when the Spirit convinces a soul that it is guilty, he is convincing him of what is not true, for the soul the Spirit convicts has already been justified by blood and grace.
But, the scriptures are clear about all who do not believe in the one true God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the only Savior and Lord. Jesus said:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3: 18)
The soul that does not believe in Jesus "is condemned." The soul that believes in Jesus, however, is one who is "not condemned," that is, is "justified." This simple teaching overthrows Hardshellism and its unscriptural teaching that many unbelievers are "not condemned."
Jesus also said:
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36)
To be justified is to be delivered from the judicial "wrath of God." All sinners are condemned, and are therefore "under sin" and "under wrath." Unbelievers are condemned and under wrath. But, Hardshells will not accept this to be true. That makes them enemies of the gospel of Christ.
Another problem with this paradigm is the fact that Paul, in Romans and Galatians, where he discusses justification in detail, does not distinguish between that justification which is by grace and blood from that which is by faith. In Romans 3: 20-31 Paul speaks of the same justification, not of different kinds of justification. The Hardshells do the same thing with the word "salvation" as they do with the word "justification." Just as they make all passages that make salvation to be conditioned upon faith and repentance to be a temporal or time salvation, so they make all passages that make justification to be conditioned upon faith to be a temporal justification. In verse 20 of Romans chapter three Paul speaks of being "justified in his sight." The context clearly shows that the justification that Paul is discussing is that which justifies a sinner in God's sight, before his law. Paul then continues with these words:
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (vs. 24-28)
It requires great dishonesty to make the justification which is "by faith" (vs. 28) to be different from that justification which is "by his grace" (vs. 24). When Paul says "therefore we conclude," he shows that he is not making that justification which is "by faith" to be different from that which is "by grace."
Further, Paul says that "faith" in Christ "excludes" any possibility of "boasting," and shows that he does not consider faith to be "works," for works promote boasting. The Hardshells often argue that salvation cannot be "by faith" because faith is a "work" and Paul says we are not saved or justified "by works," that is, "not by faith." But, such hermeneutics has Paul contradicting himself, saying on one hand that salvation and justification are "by faith" and then turning around and saying that they are not "by faith (work of faith)." Salvation and justification are "by faith" but "not by works," which clearly shows that Paul did not, like the Hardshells, see faith as a work.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Chpt. 122 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Elder Oliphant, who was critiqued in the last chapter, wrote:
"A system of salvation that provides for the absolute justification of those stained and blackened by sin, could originate with God only. It may be difficult to see how we may be pardoned and justified both, but the gospel reveals both to be true. If I should forever be unable to explain how God both pardons and justifies sinners, or how these apparent opposites unite in the salvation of man, I say, if I never can explain how they both can exist in the sinners’ case, yet they are both taught in the Bible beyond dispute.
There are many things, both in nature and in grace, that we know to be true, which we cannot explain." (Chpt. 4 Justification and Kindred Subjects - see here)
It is odd that Oliphant would appeal so much to logical deduction to support Hardshellism and then confess that there are "many things" in scripture that seem contradictory, things "which we cannot explain," or harmonize, and yet say that those things "we know to be true." Throughout my writings against Hardshellism I have often charged the Hardshells with relying too much upon their human reasoning rather than upon plain declarations of scripture. In spite of Oliphant's failure to see how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, logically speaking, he should have acknowledged nevertheless that it is so in scripture. He could not "explain" how salvation could be sure and certain for all the elect if faith and repentance were conditions for salvation, and yet these truths are clear in scripture. Why could he not say that he knew it was true that salvation was conditioned upon faith, what he knew to be true from scripture, though he could not "explain" how it could be so and yet salvation be unconditional? Though he could not "explain" how salvation was the result of the mediate as well as immediate work of God, why could he not say "yet we know it is so from scripture"? Though he could not "explain" how the salvation experience includes both passive and active elements, why could he not say "yet we know it is so from scripture"?
Oliphant wrote:
"As to what is meant by those texts that speak of our being "justified by faith," we have seen that faith is to be regarded as a gift, and hence it is something to be thankful for, "for which our praise is due." Paul says many times over, "The just shall live by faith," Gal. iii. 11, Rom. i. 17, Heb. x. 38, and also Heb. ii. 4. I should think that in these places faith, as an instrument in the way of prevention, appropriates the blessings in God’s word and promises to our growth and strength. It receives and applies the finished righteousness of Christ, in a way to quiet our fears and to silence the accusations of conscience. The inner man receives his food by faith. The food is not produced by faith, but he receives it by faith. Paul speaks of some whom the word did not profit, "not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." The truth that we are the redeemed of God, and heirs of God, is not produced or made by faith, but these things are understood and enjoyed by faith, and in some sense we are justified in the court of conscience by faith, for conscience will accuse and condemn us until faith applies the atonement of Christ, which brings peace with God, that is, we realize in our hearts a peace. Nothing satisfies our conscience but that which satisfies law and justice, and the atonement and finished righteousness of Christ satisfies law and removes every claim against us, and when faith understands and applies this truth; peace and contentment ensue in the conscience. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God." (chpt. 8)
Oliphant affirms that "faith is the gift of God," what is given efficaciously to all the elect, and yet he will not allow that this faith is what brings actual salvation, but only what brings recognition and peace about salvation. In the next short series, I will deal with the Hardshell teaching about justification in more detail.
Elder S. F. Cayce, father of C. H. Cayce, argued for "Unconditional Salvation" and did not allow that it was conditional in any sense. According to a Hardshell Internet web page:
"Elder S. F. Cayce met Elder Lee Jackson (a Campbellite) in a public debate at Lafayette Springs, Mississippi, in November 1895. The first proposition was: The eternal salvation of sinners, as set forth in the Scriptures, is the work of God, independent of any conditions to be performed by man.
In support of this proposition Elder S. F. Cayce made the following thirty-six affirmative arguments."
Elder S. F. Cayce was the originator of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical, the one that his son, C. H. Cayce, expanded and turned into a leading voice for the Hardshell denomination in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. This was not the first periodical called "The Primitive Baptist," however, as one was begun in the 1830s in North Carolina and sponsored by the Kehukee Hardshells. Cayce, as we shall see, went to extremes in his affirmation of "unconditional salvation." When he speaks of salvation being "unconditional" he means that men are saved whether they believe or not, whether they repent or not. This, however, is not true Old Baptist doctrine.
Cayce begins his defense of unconditional salvation with these arguments:
1. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none in nature do good. Proof: Ps. xiv. 1-3; Jer. 13:23; Romans 3:12.
2. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none seek God. Proof: Rom. 3:11; Psalms 10:4.
These arguments by Cayce show that he, like Gowens and today's Hardshells, do not understand how salvation is both unconditional and conditional. They failed to see that unconditional salvation guarantees that the conditions of salvation will be performed by the elect in their effectual calling. That is, God's unconditional decree to save a person causes him to call them by the gospel, and causes them to believe and obey it. Thus, doing good and seeking God are conditions produced in the hearts and lives of the elect by the Lord. The verses cited by Oliphant state what men cannot do in themselves, apart from divine grace. For a fuller treatment of Hardshell false reasoning on the doctrine of total depravity, see chapter 85.
"For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live: But seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beersheba: for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nought. Seek the LORD, and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, and there be none to quench it in Bethel." (Amos 5: 4-6)
Here the Lord advises sinners to "seek" him so that "you shall live." In order that they might escape the avenging unquenchable fire of the Lord.
"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." (Isa. 55: 6, 7)
In this passage seeking the Lord is a condition for finding the Lord, for obtaining mercy and being pardoned by him. How could anyone divorce these blessings from salvation? But, the Hardshell has no difficulty asserting that men will find the Lord without seeking him, will be saved whether they "return" to him or not, will find saving mercy of the Lord whether they find him or not, will be pardoned whether they seek him or not.
"Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD's anger." (Zeph. 2: 3)
Here the Lord commands men to seek him and his righteousness so that they may be "hid in the day of the Lord's anger." Surely this is dealing with salvation.
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." (Acts 17: 26, 27)
Notice that it is "all nations of men" that God commands to "seek" and "find" him. Obviously the statement of Paul that "none seeks after God" cannot be interpreted to mean that seeking is not a condition of salvation. Again, Paul was simply affirming that men do not seek God apart from God's word and Spirit, apart from God's initiative.
Throughout scripture the Lord's people are specifically styled as they who seek the Lord while the wicked are styled as they who seek him not. But, this must be denied by the Hardshells.
Cayce continues with his list of arguments in favor of a strict unconditional salvation:
3. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that man, being corrupt, has to be made good before he can bear good fruit. Proof: Matthew 7:17,18; Luke 6:43,44; Heb. 9:14.
The fallaciousness of this argument is evident when one considers the fact that Oliphant affirms that a man's heart may be made good without being made a believing heart. Oliphant affirms that an "unbelieving heart" is a good heart, yet the apostle calls such an "evil heart." (Heb. 3: 12) If God make the heart good in salvation, then he of necessity makes it a believing heart.
Cayce then gives his next argument:
4. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none can come to Christ until DRAWN to him by the father. Proof: John 6:44, 45; Psalms 65:4.
The error of Cayce is in equating being "drawn" with actual salvation, rather than what is the cause of salvation. If the drawing is the actual saving, then what is meant by "coming to Christ"? Cayce's interpretation would affirm that a man is saved before he comes to Christ. How can he be saved if he is apart from Christ? Further, what does it mean to "come to Christ"? Surely it means all the same as "believing in Christ." But, this affirmation of Christ condemns Hardshell views, for they do not teach that all who are drawn come to, or believe in, Christ! Cayce and the Hardshells would have done well to have read the writings of Bunyan on this passage.
Cayce continues with his list of arguments:
5. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those in the flesh (those in an unregenerate state, not born of God) cannot please God. Proof: Rom. 8:7-9; Heb. 11:6.
But, what Cayce fails to understand is this: the scriptures also say that "without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11: 6) Cayce creates a fictional character when he creates a creature who is "in the Spirit" (and "not in the flesh") but who does not have faith. Can such a man "please God"? At the very moment a man believes he is no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit. At the same time a man becomes a man "in the Spirit" he becomes a believer. In the same passage Paul says: "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (vs. 6)
How can one be "spiritually minded" who has an unbelieving and impenitent heart? Is not the unbelieving and impenitent heart equated with being "carnally minded"? Paul says that they are "dead" who are "carnally minded," who have a mind devoid of faith, saving knowledge, and repentance. But, he affirms that they have spiritual "life" who are "spiritually minded," who have the mind of Christ, a mind that embraces Christ.
Cayce gives his next argument:
6. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the natural (unregenerate) man is not susceptible of being taught spiritual things. Proof: 1st Cor. 2:14; I. Cor. 1:23; John 8:43-47; I. John 4:6.
God is not able to teach the unregenerate? Does Cayce not deny the omnipotence of God? In the same chapter where Jesus talked about the "drawing" of the Father, and of men "coming to Christ" for life, Christ said:
"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." (John 6: 45)
Notice how God teaches sinners before they come to Jesus. And, what do sinners come to Jesus for? Jesus said to alien sinners - "you will not come to me that you might have life." (John 5: 40) Taught by the Father in order to come to Jesus for life! Hardshellism uprooted! "Learning" is integral to the "drawing" of the Father. The Father draws when he teaches.
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3)
These words affirm the same thing taught by Jesus in John 6. Sinners are taught, or incline the ear, and they come to Jesus and they live.
Cayce gives his next argument in support of unconditional salvation:
7. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the sinner is in a state of death, hence, not able to act in order to life. Proof: Gen. 2:17; Gen. 3:22-24; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1.
Not able to act before living? Was this true in the case of the bringing to life of the dry dead bones in Ezekiel's vision? Did the bones not act and move prior to the breath of life entering into the re-formed body? Also, did Jesus not say that "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and live"? (John 5: 25) The dead "hear" before they are alive! Further, what is impossible with the dead is possible with God.
8. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the sinner is quickened (or made alive) by the same power and means that it takes to resurrect those who are naturally (or corporeally) dead. Proof: John 5:21; Eph. 2:1-7; John 5:24, 25.
Yes, but God has used prophets and apostles to resurrect the dead! Cayce even refers to John 5: 25, already referred to, where the dead hear and live.
Cayce gives his next argument:
9. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the sinner undergoes (in being prepared for heaven) is represented, in the Bible, as a resurrection or passing from death unto life, hence, he is passive in that work. Proof: Col. 3:1-4; I. John 3:14; Eph. 2:1-7.
He is passive in the action of coming to life, yes. But, the whole work of quickening includes believing in Jesus (Eph. 1: 19) and sinners are active in "receiving" Christ and "believing" in him.
10. Salvation is unconditional because this change is represented in the Bible as a birth, therefore a work in which the sinner must be passive. Proof: John 3:1-7; John 1:11-13.
Again, no one denies that some aspects of spiritual birth and resurrection are passive, but to limit it all to only what is passive is an error, as I have shown in previous chapters. When Jacob and Esau were in the womb it is said that they "struggled" and that Jacob actively took hold of the heel of Esau in the act of birth. Thus, there is action on the part of infants when they are in the womb and in the process of birth.
11. Salvation is unconditional because those who do righteousness are (already) born of God. Proof: I. John 2:29; I. John 3:7; I. Peter 1:22,23.
Certainly men must be born of God before they can "do" good works, as Ephesians 2: 10 affirms. But, the scriptures teach that men believe in order to be "saved." Paul said to the trembling jailer - "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your house." (Acts 16: 31)
Cayce's next argument is this:
12. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the child of God has undergone is represented, in the Bible, as a death, hence a work in which he was passive. Proof: Rom. 6:2-8; Col. 2:20; I. Peter 2:24; II. Tim. 2:11.
Just because an action of a sinner in being saved is passive does not mean that the action is not a means or condition for being saved. Cayce speaks of "the change which the child of God" experiences as being passive, but it is still a change or action that the child of God experiences and does. Further, this "change" does not exclude a change of heart, does not exclude the changing of the heart from one of unbelief to belief.
Cayce continued:
13. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the sinner undergoes is represented, in the Bible, as a deliverance; hence, a work performed by a higher power. Proof: Col. 1:13; II. Cor. 1:9,19; I. Thess. 1:10; Psalms 56:13.
In answer to this argument all we have to do is to remind the Hardshells that they believe that conversion is also called salvation, what they call "time salvation." But, they do not deny that faith and repentance are necessary for being saved through conversion. By such argumentation of Cayce, however, Hardshells do not believe that being saved by faith is a "deliverance," a "work performed by a higher power"! If God give faith and repentance, the conditions of salvation, then this argument has no validity.
Cayce continued:
14. Salvation is unconditional because the work which puts the sinner in Christ or makes him (manifestly) a child of God, is represented as the work of God. Proof: I. Cor. 1:30; Eph. 2:10; I. Cor. 6:11; I. Cor. 12:13.
But, is not conversion also the work of God? Is not coming to Jesus the work of God? Are not faith and repentance the work of God? Was the healing of the man with the withered hand not the work of God? Yet, Jesus told him to "stretch forth thine hand." The healing of the paralytic man by Peter and John in the Temple was the work of God, yet it was done through the apostles. Notice how Cayce inserts the word "manifestly." This is a common tactic of the Hardshells in dealing with those passages that speak of the instrumentality of faith and repentance for salvation and for being made a child of God. When Paul says - "you are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 26), the Hardshells will add the word "manifestly" and read it as saying - "you are all the sons of God manifestly by faith." They do the same with Acts 26: 18 and other passages. But, Cayce says that being manifested as a child of God, in conversion, is "the work of God," and "unconditional." Has he not contradicted himself?
Cayce continued:
15. Salvation is unconditional because the work done in making us children of God is represented as a creative work, and because we are then NEW creatures (not merely reformed creatures) and because, also, this work is UNTO, hence, prior to the performing of good works. Proof: II. Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10.
But, God creates faith and repentance when he makes new creatures. If these "new creatures" are still unbelievers and impenitent, how can we say that their heart is "new"? Yes, it is true that one is created unto good works, but faith and works are set opposite to each other in scripture, as I have shown. In the passage in Ephesians 2: 8-10 salvation is "through faith" but "unto good works."
Cayce continued:
16. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that eternal life and all things pertaining thereto, is a gift, not something merited or purchased. Proof: Romans 6:23; John 17:2; John 10:27,28; Romans 8:32.
This argument has no weight for Hardshells confess that faith and repentance, like salvation itself, are gifts of God. The fact that salvation is a gift does not exclude faith and repentance from being conditions of salvation.
Cayce continued:
17. Salvation is unconditional because faith is represented as being a fruit of the Spirit, therefore, not possessed by any until they have the Spirit, or have been born again. Proof: Hebrews 12:2; Gal. 5:22; I. Cor. 12: 6-9; Romans 12:3; I. Peter 1:21-23; John 6:47; I. John 5:1.
The word "fruit" in Gal. 5: 22 means what is "begotten," and is in agreement with the words of the apostle John who also said that faith is "begotten." (I John 5: 4) Faith is begotten at the same time that life is begotten. Scriptures also represent life as being a fruit of the Spirit, but man is not alive till he possesses the fruit of the divine begetting.
Cayce continued:
18. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that obedience to the commands of God (properly or acceptably rendered) is an evidence of an internal work having been done by the Lord. Proof: Phil. 2:12,13; Heb. 11:6; Matt. 7:18.
Regeneration or spiritual resurrection is an act of obedience, however. Jesus speaks to the dead, commands them to come forth, and they obey. Obedience is not an after effect of regeneration, but integral to it.
Cayce continued:
19. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that it is not of works, neither a debt, but all of grace. Proof: Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 11:6; II. Tim. 1:9; Rom. 3:23,24; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 4:4,5.
But, faith is not a work of the law, but the gift of God, even as Hardshells admit. Faith thus given is not meritorious, though it be a condition. This line of argument forces the Hardshells to confess that their conversion to Christ is a matter of debt and given on the basis of merit, and is not "all of grace."
Cayce continued:
20. Salvation is unconditional because it is the work of God and according to His purposes. Proof: Matt. 19:16-26; Jonah 2:9; Isa. 53:1-5; Isa. 52:16; II. Tim. 1:9.
But, Paul affirms that faith and repentance are the work of God. The healing of the man with the withered hand was the "work of God" and yet he was commanded to stretch forth his hand.
Cayce continued:
21. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the mission of Christ was to SAVE, not to offer, nor to try, but to SAVE SINNERS; not those who have ceased to be sinners by complying with terms, etc. Proof: Matt. 1:21; Matt. 16:11; Luke 19:10; I. Tim. 1:15.
But, conversion is also salvation, and is the result of faith and repentance, as Hardshells admit. It is the work of God to cause all that he draws and teaches to come to Christ in conversion. The offer of salvation is guaranteed success in the case of the elect.
Cayce continued:
22. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God has, and ever has had, but one way of saving people; whether they be infants, adults, idiots, heathens, learned or unlearned, in whatever age of the world. All therefore, who are saved at all, are saved in precisely the same way. Proof: John 6:44,45; John 14:6; Luke 18:16,17; Acts 15:11; Rev. 5:9.
This argumentation has already been answered in our book on Hardshellism. It is true that God has only one way of saving people, and it is "through faith." All are "begotten by the gospel." Further, conversion is the work of God, a salvation that is the same for all who are converted.
Cayce continued:
23. Salvation is unconditional because the church is (figuratively) represented, in the Bible, as a building, hence the material of which the church is composed must be passive in its preparation. Proof: Proverbs 9:1; Matthew 16:18; I. Peter 2:4,5; Eph. 2:19-22; Psalms 127:1.
But, the error of Cayce and the Hardshells, as I have shown, is to view the whole of the salvation experience as being passive, and to exclude all active verbs and participles from the experience. All the oldest Hardshells affirmed that God's people are "made willing" in the work of regeneration.
Cayce continued:
24. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God is a Sovereign, that He does His will, and that He, therefore, saves all whom He purposes, or desire, to save. Proof: Genesis 1 (entire chapter); Isaiah 46:9-11; Isaiah 14:26,27; Romans 8:28-39; Isaiah 55:8-11.
But, is it not God's will that all the elect come to Christ, and be converted? Do not all the oldest Hardshell churches have articles of faith that say - "we believe that all the elect will be regenerated and converted"? Further, God's willing to save sinners also includes his willing of the means and conditions.
Cayce continued:
25. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God's love, like Himself, is eternal and immutable, and that those saved are embraced in His love. Proof: Jeremiah 31:3; Malachi 3:6; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:25-27; John 17:22-24; I. John 3:1; Romans 9:11-16; Romans 5:7-9.
How does such an argument exclude faith and repentance as conditions? It is out of unconditional love that God gives faith and repentance unto salvation.
Cayce continued:
26. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God's love for His people, when manifested to them, produces in them love for God, and that His love for us, is, therefore, the cause of why we love Him. Proof: I. John 4:19.
All of the old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries also taught that God's love for his people is effectual, but this fact did not lead them to affirm that faith and repentance were not necessary for being saved. Further, Cayce says that God's unconditional love for his chosen people produces "in them love for God," and if he can produce love for God in regeneration, then surely he can, and does, create faith in him also. How can one love God if he does not know him? Or believe in him? Or turn to him?
Cayce continued:
27. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the heirs of salvation were elected thereunto before the world began. Proof: Psalms 65:4; Romans 8:28-33; Romans 9:8-16; Ephesians 1:3-5; II. Timothy 1:9.
But, Cayce has already admitted that God's unconditional choice of sinners before the world began does not exclude God's bringing them to love him when he calls them. Has he not affirmed that love for God is a necessary element of being saved and regenerated? If he can say that love exists in all the called, why not faith and repentance also?
Cayce continued:
28. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ suffered (to render satisfaction) for the sins of those for whom he died, and bring them to God. Proof: Isaiah 42:4; I. Peter 3:18.
But, how can they be brought to God apart from faith and repentance? How can they be brought to God without coming to Christ in faith? Does he bring them to himself apart from faith?
Cayce continued:
29. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those for whom Christ died are justified by his blood, and made righteous. Proof: Romans 5:6-9; Romans 3:24; Romans 4:25; 5:15-19; Matthew 5:18; Isaiah 53:11.
This argument, like most of those already noticed, are not logical. It is true that election is unconditional, but salvation itself is not conditional. God gives faith to a man because he has previously chosen to justify him. It is all the work of God. He secures the condition in bringing about the end (salvation).
Cayce continued:
30. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those for whom Christ died are reconciled to God, by his death, and that being reconciled they SHALL BE SAVED by his life. Proof: Romans 5:8-10; II. Cor. 6:18-21.
But the scriptures also affirm that men are justified by faith, that they are reconciled to God when they "receive the atonement (reconciliation)" by faith. (Rom. 5: 11)
Cayce continued:
31. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the people for whom Christ died are designated in the Bible as his seed, his generation, his people, his portion, his sheep, etc., and that to these eternal life is GIVEN. Proof: Isaiah 53 (entire chapter); John 10:11-16, 27, 28; John 5:37-39; John 17:1-5.
The fact that the Bible teaches that the elect are designated has his offspring and that he gives to them eternal life does not exclude his giving them love for him, faith in him, and repentance towards him, when they are in fact saved. One cannot divorce knowing God and Christ from having eternal life. (John 17: 3)
Cayce continued:
32. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ gave his life a ransom for those for whom he died, and that he purchased them with his blood. Proof: Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; I. Corinthians 6:20; I. Peter 1:18,19.
But, again, this argumentation is illogical. Those who have been redeemed and purchased by Christ are guaranteed to receive the fruit of his mediatorial work, which include love for God and faith in Christ.
Cayce continued:
33. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those who have redemption in Christ (those redeemed by him) have, also, forgiveness of sins. Proof: Colossians 1:13; Ephesians 1:7; Matthew 26:28.
Yes, but "forgiveness of sins" is conditioned upon faith. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19) God, in ordaining the end (forgiveness of sins) also ordained the means and conditions, as the old Baptists have ever taught.
Cayce continued:
34. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ gave himself to redeem the people for whom he died FROM ALL INIQUITY. Proof: Psalms 130:8; Titus 2:14; Isaiah 53:6.
But, unbelief is sin (iniquity). Thus, if Christ gave himself to redeem from "all" iniquity, then he died to redeem them from unbelief and impenitence.
Cayce continued:
35. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION for those for whom he died. Proof: Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 10:13,14; I. Peter 1:18,19.
Christ indeed died to obtain eternal life and redemption for the elect, but he died in order that they obtain faith and repentance too. He died to redeem them from death, from unbelief, from an impenitent heart.
Cayce continued:
36. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ redeemed the people for whom he died (all the way) to God. Proof: Isaiah 35:8,9; Revelation 5:9. (see here)
But, this is a repetition of previous arguments. Christ redeemed his people from unbelief and impenitence.
In conclusion we emphasize the fact that the Hardshells went to an extreme in their defense of unconditional salvation and failed to see, as did Bunyan, Keach, Gill, and Hassell, how salvation was also conditional, that faith and repentance were conditions and means of God's salvation.
"A system of salvation that provides for the absolute justification of those stained and blackened by sin, could originate with God only. It may be difficult to see how we may be pardoned and justified both, but the gospel reveals both to be true. If I should forever be unable to explain how God both pardons and justifies sinners, or how these apparent opposites unite in the salvation of man, I say, if I never can explain how they both can exist in the sinners’ case, yet they are both taught in the Bible beyond dispute.
There are many things, both in nature and in grace, that we know to be true, which we cannot explain." (Chpt. 4 Justification and Kindred Subjects - see here)
It is odd that Oliphant would appeal so much to logical deduction to support Hardshellism and then confess that there are "many things" in scripture that seem contradictory, things "which we cannot explain," or harmonize, and yet say that those things "we know to be true." Throughout my writings against Hardshellism I have often charged the Hardshells with relying too much upon their human reasoning rather than upon plain declarations of scripture. In spite of Oliphant's failure to see how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, logically speaking, he should have acknowledged nevertheless that it is so in scripture. He could not "explain" how salvation could be sure and certain for all the elect if faith and repentance were conditions for salvation, and yet these truths are clear in scripture. Why could he not say that he knew it was true that salvation was conditioned upon faith, what he knew to be true from scripture, though he could not "explain" how it could be so and yet salvation be unconditional? Though he could not "explain" how salvation was the result of the mediate as well as immediate work of God, why could he not say "yet we know it is so from scripture"? Though he could not "explain" how the salvation experience includes both passive and active elements, why could he not say "yet we know it is so from scripture"?
Oliphant wrote:
"As to what is meant by those texts that speak of our being "justified by faith," we have seen that faith is to be regarded as a gift, and hence it is something to be thankful for, "for which our praise is due." Paul says many times over, "The just shall live by faith," Gal. iii. 11, Rom. i. 17, Heb. x. 38, and also Heb. ii. 4. I should think that in these places faith, as an instrument in the way of prevention, appropriates the blessings in God’s word and promises to our growth and strength. It receives and applies the finished righteousness of Christ, in a way to quiet our fears and to silence the accusations of conscience. The inner man receives his food by faith. The food is not produced by faith, but he receives it by faith. Paul speaks of some whom the word did not profit, "not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." The truth that we are the redeemed of God, and heirs of God, is not produced or made by faith, but these things are understood and enjoyed by faith, and in some sense we are justified in the court of conscience by faith, for conscience will accuse and condemn us until faith applies the atonement of Christ, which brings peace with God, that is, we realize in our hearts a peace. Nothing satisfies our conscience but that which satisfies law and justice, and the atonement and finished righteousness of Christ satisfies law and removes every claim against us, and when faith understands and applies this truth; peace and contentment ensue in the conscience. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God." (chpt. 8)
Oliphant affirms that "faith is the gift of God," what is given efficaciously to all the elect, and yet he will not allow that this faith is what brings actual salvation, but only what brings recognition and peace about salvation. In the next short series, I will deal with the Hardshell teaching about justification in more detail.
Elder S. F. Cayce, father of C. H. Cayce, argued for "Unconditional Salvation" and did not allow that it was conditional in any sense. According to a Hardshell Internet web page:
"Elder S. F. Cayce met Elder Lee Jackson (a Campbellite) in a public debate at Lafayette Springs, Mississippi, in November 1895. The first proposition was: The eternal salvation of sinners, as set forth in the Scriptures, is the work of God, independent of any conditions to be performed by man.
In support of this proposition Elder S. F. Cayce made the following thirty-six affirmative arguments."
Elder S. F. Cayce was the originator of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical, the one that his son, C. H. Cayce, expanded and turned into a leading voice for the Hardshell denomination in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. This was not the first periodical called "The Primitive Baptist," however, as one was begun in the 1830s in North Carolina and sponsored by the Kehukee Hardshells. Cayce, as we shall see, went to extremes in his affirmation of "unconditional salvation." When he speaks of salvation being "unconditional" he means that men are saved whether they believe or not, whether they repent or not. This, however, is not true Old Baptist doctrine.
Cayce begins his defense of unconditional salvation with these arguments:
1. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none in nature do good. Proof: Ps. xiv. 1-3; Jer. 13:23; Romans 3:12.
2. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none seek God. Proof: Rom. 3:11; Psalms 10:4.
These arguments by Cayce show that he, like Gowens and today's Hardshells, do not understand how salvation is both unconditional and conditional. They failed to see that unconditional salvation guarantees that the conditions of salvation will be performed by the elect in their effectual calling. That is, God's unconditional decree to save a person causes him to call them by the gospel, and causes them to believe and obey it. Thus, doing good and seeking God are conditions produced in the hearts and lives of the elect by the Lord. The verses cited by Oliphant state what men cannot do in themselves, apart from divine grace. For a fuller treatment of Hardshell false reasoning on the doctrine of total depravity, see chapter 85.
"For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live: But seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beersheba: for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nought. Seek the LORD, and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, and there be none to quench it in Bethel." (Amos 5: 4-6)
Here the Lord advises sinners to "seek" him so that "you shall live." In order that they might escape the avenging unquenchable fire of the Lord.
"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." (Isa. 55: 6, 7)
In this passage seeking the Lord is a condition for finding the Lord, for obtaining mercy and being pardoned by him. How could anyone divorce these blessings from salvation? But, the Hardshell has no difficulty asserting that men will find the Lord without seeking him, will be saved whether they "return" to him or not, will find saving mercy of the Lord whether they find him or not, will be pardoned whether they seek him or not.
"Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD's anger." (Zeph. 2: 3)
Here the Lord commands men to seek him and his righteousness so that they may be "hid in the day of the Lord's anger." Surely this is dealing with salvation.
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." (Acts 17: 26, 27)
Notice that it is "all nations of men" that God commands to "seek" and "find" him. Obviously the statement of Paul that "none seeks after God" cannot be interpreted to mean that seeking is not a condition of salvation. Again, Paul was simply affirming that men do not seek God apart from God's word and Spirit, apart from God's initiative.
Throughout scripture the Lord's people are specifically styled as they who seek the Lord while the wicked are styled as they who seek him not. But, this must be denied by the Hardshells.
Cayce continues with his list of arguments in favor of a strict unconditional salvation:
3. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that man, being corrupt, has to be made good before he can bear good fruit. Proof: Matthew 7:17,18; Luke 6:43,44; Heb. 9:14.
The fallaciousness of this argument is evident when one considers the fact that Oliphant affirms that a man's heart may be made good without being made a believing heart. Oliphant affirms that an "unbelieving heart" is a good heart, yet the apostle calls such an "evil heart." (Heb. 3: 12) If God make the heart good in salvation, then he of necessity makes it a believing heart.
Cayce then gives his next argument:
4. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none can come to Christ until DRAWN to him by the father. Proof: John 6:44, 45; Psalms 65:4.
The error of Cayce is in equating being "drawn" with actual salvation, rather than what is the cause of salvation. If the drawing is the actual saving, then what is meant by "coming to Christ"? Cayce's interpretation would affirm that a man is saved before he comes to Christ. How can he be saved if he is apart from Christ? Further, what does it mean to "come to Christ"? Surely it means all the same as "believing in Christ." But, this affirmation of Christ condemns Hardshell views, for they do not teach that all who are drawn come to, or believe in, Christ! Cayce and the Hardshells would have done well to have read the writings of Bunyan on this passage.
Cayce continues with his list of arguments:
5. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those in the flesh (those in an unregenerate state, not born of God) cannot please God. Proof: Rom. 8:7-9; Heb. 11:6.
But, what Cayce fails to understand is this: the scriptures also say that "without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11: 6) Cayce creates a fictional character when he creates a creature who is "in the Spirit" (and "not in the flesh") but who does not have faith. Can such a man "please God"? At the very moment a man believes he is no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit. At the same time a man becomes a man "in the Spirit" he becomes a believer. In the same passage Paul says: "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (vs. 6)
How can one be "spiritually minded" who has an unbelieving and impenitent heart? Is not the unbelieving and impenitent heart equated with being "carnally minded"? Paul says that they are "dead" who are "carnally minded," who have a mind devoid of faith, saving knowledge, and repentance. But, he affirms that they have spiritual "life" who are "spiritually minded," who have the mind of Christ, a mind that embraces Christ.
Cayce gives his next argument:
6. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the natural (unregenerate) man is not susceptible of being taught spiritual things. Proof: 1st Cor. 2:14; I. Cor. 1:23; John 8:43-47; I. John 4:6.
God is not able to teach the unregenerate? Does Cayce not deny the omnipotence of God? In the same chapter where Jesus talked about the "drawing" of the Father, and of men "coming to Christ" for life, Christ said:
"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." (John 6: 45)
Notice how God teaches sinners before they come to Jesus. And, what do sinners come to Jesus for? Jesus said to alien sinners - "you will not come to me that you might have life." (John 5: 40) Taught by the Father in order to come to Jesus for life! Hardshellism uprooted! "Learning" is integral to the "drawing" of the Father. The Father draws when he teaches.
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3)
These words affirm the same thing taught by Jesus in John 6. Sinners are taught, or incline the ear, and they come to Jesus and they live.
Cayce gives his next argument in support of unconditional salvation:
7. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the sinner is in a state of death, hence, not able to act in order to life. Proof: Gen. 2:17; Gen. 3:22-24; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1.
Not able to act before living? Was this true in the case of the bringing to life of the dry dead bones in Ezekiel's vision? Did the bones not act and move prior to the breath of life entering into the re-formed body? Also, did Jesus not say that "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and live"? (John 5: 25) The dead "hear" before they are alive! Further, what is impossible with the dead is possible with God.
8. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the sinner is quickened (or made alive) by the same power and means that it takes to resurrect those who are naturally (or corporeally) dead. Proof: John 5:21; Eph. 2:1-7; John 5:24, 25.
Yes, but God has used prophets and apostles to resurrect the dead! Cayce even refers to John 5: 25, already referred to, where the dead hear and live.
Cayce gives his next argument:
9. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the sinner undergoes (in being prepared for heaven) is represented, in the Bible, as a resurrection or passing from death unto life, hence, he is passive in that work. Proof: Col. 3:1-4; I. John 3:14; Eph. 2:1-7.
He is passive in the action of coming to life, yes. But, the whole work of quickening includes believing in Jesus (Eph. 1: 19) and sinners are active in "receiving" Christ and "believing" in him.
10. Salvation is unconditional because this change is represented in the Bible as a birth, therefore a work in which the sinner must be passive. Proof: John 3:1-7; John 1:11-13.
Again, no one denies that some aspects of spiritual birth and resurrection are passive, but to limit it all to only what is passive is an error, as I have shown in previous chapters. When Jacob and Esau were in the womb it is said that they "struggled" and that Jacob actively took hold of the heel of Esau in the act of birth. Thus, there is action on the part of infants when they are in the womb and in the process of birth.
11. Salvation is unconditional because those who do righteousness are (already) born of God. Proof: I. John 2:29; I. John 3:7; I. Peter 1:22,23.
Certainly men must be born of God before they can "do" good works, as Ephesians 2: 10 affirms. But, the scriptures teach that men believe in order to be "saved." Paul said to the trembling jailer - "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your house." (Acts 16: 31)
Cayce's next argument is this:
12. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the child of God has undergone is represented, in the Bible, as a death, hence a work in which he was passive. Proof: Rom. 6:2-8; Col. 2:20; I. Peter 2:24; II. Tim. 2:11.
Just because an action of a sinner in being saved is passive does not mean that the action is not a means or condition for being saved. Cayce speaks of "the change which the child of God" experiences as being passive, but it is still a change or action that the child of God experiences and does. Further, this "change" does not exclude a change of heart, does not exclude the changing of the heart from one of unbelief to belief.
Cayce continued:
13. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the sinner undergoes is represented, in the Bible, as a deliverance; hence, a work performed by a higher power. Proof: Col. 1:13; II. Cor. 1:9,19; I. Thess. 1:10; Psalms 56:13.
In answer to this argument all we have to do is to remind the Hardshells that they believe that conversion is also called salvation, what they call "time salvation." But, they do not deny that faith and repentance are necessary for being saved through conversion. By such argumentation of Cayce, however, Hardshells do not believe that being saved by faith is a "deliverance," a "work performed by a higher power"! If God give faith and repentance, the conditions of salvation, then this argument has no validity.
Cayce continued:
14. Salvation is unconditional because the work which puts the sinner in Christ or makes him (manifestly) a child of God, is represented as the work of God. Proof: I. Cor. 1:30; Eph. 2:10; I. Cor. 6:11; I. Cor. 12:13.
But, is not conversion also the work of God? Is not coming to Jesus the work of God? Are not faith and repentance the work of God? Was the healing of the man with the withered hand not the work of God? Yet, Jesus told him to "stretch forth thine hand." The healing of the paralytic man by Peter and John in the Temple was the work of God, yet it was done through the apostles. Notice how Cayce inserts the word "manifestly." This is a common tactic of the Hardshells in dealing with those passages that speak of the instrumentality of faith and repentance for salvation and for being made a child of God. When Paul says - "you are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 26), the Hardshells will add the word "manifestly" and read it as saying - "you are all the sons of God manifestly by faith." They do the same with Acts 26: 18 and other passages. But, Cayce says that being manifested as a child of God, in conversion, is "the work of God," and "unconditional." Has he not contradicted himself?
Cayce continued:
15. Salvation is unconditional because the work done in making us children of God is represented as a creative work, and because we are then NEW creatures (not merely reformed creatures) and because, also, this work is UNTO, hence, prior to the performing of good works. Proof: II. Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10.
But, God creates faith and repentance when he makes new creatures. If these "new creatures" are still unbelievers and impenitent, how can we say that their heart is "new"? Yes, it is true that one is created unto good works, but faith and works are set opposite to each other in scripture, as I have shown. In the passage in Ephesians 2: 8-10 salvation is "through faith" but "unto good works."
Cayce continued:
16. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that eternal life and all things pertaining thereto, is a gift, not something merited or purchased. Proof: Romans 6:23; John 17:2; John 10:27,28; Romans 8:32.
This argument has no weight for Hardshells confess that faith and repentance, like salvation itself, are gifts of God. The fact that salvation is a gift does not exclude faith and repentance from being conditions of salvation.
Cayce continued:
17. Salvation is unconditional because faith is represented as being a fruit of the Spirit, therefore, not possessed by any until they have the Spirit, or have been born again. Proof: Hebrews 12:2; Gal. 5:22; I. Cor. 12: 6-9; Romans 12:3; I. Peter 1:21-23; John 6:47; I. John 5:1.
The word "fruit" in Gal. 5: 22 means what is "begotten," and is in agreement with the words of the apostle John who also said that faith is "begotten." (I John 5: 4) Faith is begotten at the same time that life is begotten. Scriptures also represent life as being a fruit of the Spirit, but man is not alive till he possesses the fruit of the divine begetting.
Cayce continued:
18. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that obedience to the commands of God (properly or acceptably rendered) is an evidence of an internal work having been done by the Lord. Proof: Phil. 2:12,13; Heb. 11:6; Matt. 7:18.
Regeneration or spiritual resurrection is an act of obedience, however. Jesus speaks to the dead, commands them to come forth, and they obey. Obedience is not an after effect of regeneration, but integral to it.
Cayce continued:
19. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that it is not of works, neither a debt, but all of grace. Proof: Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 11:6; II. Tim. 1:9; Rom. 3:23,24; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 4:4,5.
But, faith is not a work of the law, but the gift of God, even as Hardshells admit. Faith thus given is not meritorious, though it be a condition. This line of argument forces the Hardshells to confess that their conversion to Christ is a matter of debt and given on the basis of merit, and is not "all of grace."
Cayce continued:
20. Salvation is unconditional because it is the work of God and according to His purposes. Proof: Matt. 19:16-26; Jonah 2:9; Isa. 53:1-5; Isa. 52:16; II. Tim. 1:9.
But, Paul affirms that faith and repentance are the work of God. The healing of the man with the withered hand was the "work of God" and yet he was commanded to stretch forth his hand.
Cayce continued:
21. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the mission of Christ was to SAVE, not to offer, nor to try, but to SAVE SINNERS; not those who have ceased to be sinners by complying with terms, etc. Proof: Matt. 1:21; Matt. 16:11; Luke 19:10; I. Tim. 1:15.
But, conversion is also salvation, and is the result of faith and repentance, as Hardshells admit. It is the work of God to cause all that he draws and teaches to come to Christ in conversion. The offer of salvation is guaranteed success in the case of the elect.
Cayce continued:
22. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God has, and ever has had, but one way of saving people; whether they be infants, adults, idiots, heathens, learned or unlearned, in whatever age of the world. All therefore, who are saved at all, are saved in precisely the same way. Proof: John 6:44,45; John 14:6; Luke 18:16,17; Acts 15:11; Rev. 5:9.
This argumentation has already been answered in our book on Hardshellism. It is true that God has only one way of saving people, and it is "through faith." All are "begotten by the gospel." Further, conversion is the work of God, a salvation that is the same for all who are converted.
Cayce continued:
23. Salvation is unconditional because the church is (figuratively) represented, in the Bible, as a building, hence the material of which the church is composed must be passive in its preparation. Proof: Proverbs 9:1; Matthew 16:18; I. Peter 2:4,5; Eph. 2:19-22; Psalms 127:1.
But, the error of Cayce and the Hardshells, as I have shown, is to view the whole of the salvation experience as being passive, and to exclude all active verbs and participles from the experience. All the oldest Hardshells affirmed that God's people are "made willing" in the work of regeneration.
Cayce continued:
24. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God is a Sovereign, that He does His will, and that He, therefore, saves all whom He purposes, or desire, to save. Proof: Genesis 1 (entire chapter); Isaiah 46:9-11; Isaiah 14:26,27; Romans 8:28-39; Isaiah 55:8-11.
But, is it not God's will that all the elect come to Christ, and be converted? Do not all the oldest Hardshell churches have articles of faith that say - "we believe that all the elect will be regenerated and converted"? Further, God's willing to save sinners also includes his willing of the means and conditions.
Cayce continued:
25. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God's love, like Himself, is eternal and immutable, and that those saved are embraced in His love. Proof: Jeremiah 31:3; Malachi 3:6; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:25-27; John 17:22-24; I. John 3:1; Romans 9:11-16; Romans 5:7-9.
How does such an argument exclude faith and repentance as conditions? It is out of unconditional love that God gives faith and repentance unto salvation.
Cayce continued:
26. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God's love for His people, when manifested to them, produces in them love for God, and that His love for us, is, therefore, the cause of why we love Him. Proof: I. John 4:19.
All of the old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries also taught that God's love for his people is effectual, but this fact did not lead them to affirm that faith and repentance were not necessary for being saved. Further, Cayce says that God's unconditional love for his chosen people produces "in them love for God," and if he can produce love for God in regeneration, then surely he can, and does, create faith in him also. How can one love God if he does not know him? Or believe in him? Or turn to him?
Cayce continued:
27. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the heirs of salvation were elected thereunto before the world began. Proof: Psalms 65:4; Romans 8:28-33; Romans 9:8-16; Ephesians 1:3-5; II. Timothy 1:9.
But, Cayce has already admitted that God's unconditional choice of sinners before the world began does not exclude God's bringing them to love him when he calls them. Has he not affirmed that love for God is a necessary element of being saved and regenerated? If he can say that love exists in all the called, why not faith and repentance also?
Cayce continued:
28. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ suffered (to render satisfaction) for the sins of those for whom he died, and bring them to God. Proof: Isaiah 42:4; I. Peter 3:18.
But, how can they be brought to God apart from faith and repentance? How can they be brought to God without coming to Christ in faith? Does he bring them to himself apart from faith?
Cayce continued:
29. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those for whom Christ died are justified by his blood, and made righteous. Proof: Romans 5:6-9; Romans 3:24; Romans 4:25; 5:15-19; Matthew 5:18; Isaiah 53:11.
This argument, like most of those already noticed, are not logical. It is true that election is unconditional, but salvation itself is not conditional. God gives faith to a man because he has previously chosen to justify him. It is all the work of God. He secures the condition in bringing about the end (salvation).
Cayce continued:
30. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those for whom Christ died are reconciled to God, by his death, and that being reconciled they SHALL BE SAVED by his life. Proof: Romans 5:8-10; II. Cor. 6:18-21.
But the scriptures also affirm that men are justified by faith, that they are reconciled to God when they "receive the atonement (reconciliation)" by faith. (Rom. 5: 11)
Cayce continued:
31. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the people for whom Christ died are designated in the Bible as his seed, his generation, his people, his portion, his sheep, etc., and that to these eternal life is GIVEN. Proof: Isaiah 53 (entire chapter); John 10:11-16, 27, 28; John 5:37-39; John 17:1-5.
The fact that the Bible teaches that the elect are designated has his offspring and that he gives to them eternal life does not exclude his giving them love for him, faith in him, and repentance towards him, when they are in fact saved. One cannot divorce knowing God and Christ from having eternal life. (John 17: 3)
Cayce continued:
32. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ gave his life a ransom for those for whom he died, and that he purchased them with his blood. Proof: Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; I. Corinthians 6:20; I. Peter 1:18,19.
But, again, this argumentation is illogical. Those who have been redeemed and purchased by Christ are guaranteed to receive the fruit of his mediatorial work, which include love for God and faith in Christ.
Cayce continued:
33. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those who have redemption in Christ (those redeemed by him) have, also, forgiveness of sins. Proof: Colossians 1:13; Ephesians 1:7; Matthew 26:28.
Yes, but "forgiveness of sins" is conditioned upon faith. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19) God, in ordaining the end (forgiveness of sins) also ordained the means and conditions, as the old Baptists have ever taught.
Cayce continued:
34. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ gave himself to redeem the people for whom he died FROM ALL INIQUITY. Proof: Psalms 130:8; Titus 2:14; Isaiah 53:6.
But, unbelief is sin (iniquity). Thus, if Christ gave himself to redeem from "all" iniquity, then he died to redeem them from unbelief and impenitence.
Cayce continued:
35. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION for those for whom he died. Proof: Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 10:13,14; I. Peter 1:18,19.
Christ indeed died to obtain eternal life and redemption for the elect, but he died in order that they obtain faith and repentance too. He died to redeem them from death, from unbelief, from an impenitent heart.
Cayce continued:
36. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ redeemed the people for whom he died (all the way) to God. Proof: Isaiah 35:8,9; Revelation 5:9. (see here)
But, this is a repetition of previous arguments. Christ redeemed his people from unbelief and impenitence.
In conclusion we emphasize the fact that the Hardshells went to an extreme in their defense of unconditional salvation and failed to see, as did Bunyan, Keach, Gill, and Hassell, how salvation was also conditional, that faith and repentance were conditions and means of God's salvation.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Chpt. 121 - Conditional or Unconditional?
In this chapter it will be good to review what the London Confession of 1689 says about both the conditional and unconditional nature of salvation. For instance, in Chapter 7, "OF GOD’S COVENANT," in paragraph 2, it reads:
"Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe."
Though the old Baptists who wrote this confession would acknowledge that salvation was unconditional they nevertheless taught that "life and salvation" are what the Lord "freely offers unto sinners" in the gospel and that he "requires" that they have "faith in Him, that they may be saved."
Elder (Dr.) R. W. Fain, first generation Hardshell leader, who wrote the introduction to Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test," wrote these excerpts:
“Upon this principle, the Gospel is preached to all, repentance and an interest in a Savior’s blood is offered to all. The charitable invitation “whosoever will” goes out to all inviting them to “take the water of life freely."
"While all Gospel Ministers feel the weight of duty in extending this invitation, yet they know at the same time, that a depraved will is under a wicked influence, and that such a will never leads a soul to Christ. But that God is able to subdue the stubborn will, to change the evil disposition, and to prepare the sinner for salvation, in opposition to the devil and all his unholy influences."
"Then, Brethren in the ministry, we should take courage. Let us go forth “with the whole armor of God” and do battle for his cause. Let us preach Jesus Christ our Saviour “the way, the truth, and the life.” Let us preach Him a choosing, Electing, and loving Saviour. Let us rear the blood stained BANNER OF THE CROSS, with the blessed and heavenly watchword “whosoever will,” inscribed in living letters over its ample folds.” (pages 9-16 of "The Old Baptist Test")
Fain and the first Hardshells were in agreement with the London Confession, but today's Hardshells have removed from the Old Baptist faith.
In chapter 10, "OF EFFECTUAL CALLING," the confession states:
"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead."
Again, though affirming unconditional salvation, the Confession also affirms conditional salvation, making faith, answering the call, and embracing the salvation offered, to be means or conditions.
In chapter 20; "OF THE GOSPEL AND OF THE EXTENT OF THE GRACE THEREOF," in paragraph 1, the confession says:
"The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners."
The promise, or the word of the promise, says the Confession, is "the means of calling the elect," the means for "begetting in them faith and repentance," and "for the conversion and salvation of sinners."
Elder J. H. Oliphant, a well known leader and spokesman for the Hardshell denomination, at the turn of the twentieth century, and moderator of the infamous "Fulton Convention" (1900), wrote:
"Conditionality is a necessary element of moral government. I do not regard the resurrection of the dead, or regeneration, as acts of obedience, as a vice or virtue on our part, because they are not our acts at all. They are the simple acts of God. They do not properly belong to moral government, but to another system of things. Some of our brethren object to the word, "conditional," but I think it represents the truth on the subject as well as any word we could use. "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love." The word "IF" in this text denotes conditionality. Webster in defining the word says, "It introduces a conditional sentence." This is not the only use of the word, "if," but Webster mentions it first. There are hundreds of places in the Bible where the word is used as in the above text. I have conferred with some of the educators of this city relative to the meaning of the word, and I doubt whether there is a single college or institution of learning among English speaking people that would deny Webster’s definition. "If ye do these things ye shall never fall." If we tell our people this is not conditional, they would not know the meaning of any text." (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 2)
There is nothing to seriously disagree with what Oliphant says about "conditionality" and the use of the word "if" in scripture. He could have added, however, the fact that conditional statements, with a protasis and apodosis (if, then), are in either one of four categories. From the web page ntgreek.org, these are delineated as follows (See here):
First Class Condition - Is considered the 'Simple Condition' and assumes that the premise (protasis) is true for the sake of argument. The protasis is formed with the helping word ei ('if') with the main verb in the indicative mood, in any tense; with any mood and tense in the apodosis.
Second Class Condition - Is known as the 'Contrary-to-Fact Condition' and assumes the premise as false for the sake of argument. The protasis is again formed with the helping word ei ('if') and the main verb in the indicative mood. The tense of the verb (in the protasis) must also be in a past-time tense (aorist or imperfect). The apodosis will usually have the particle an as a marking word, showing some contingency.
Third Class Condition - Traditionally known as the 'More Probable Future Condition', the third class condition should actually be split into two different categories, the 'Future More Probable Condition' (indicating either a probable future action or a hypothetical situation) and the 'Present General Condition' (indicating a generic situation or universal truth at the present time). It is formed in the protasis using the word ean (ei plus an = 'if') and a verb in the subjunctive mood. The main verb of the protasis can be in any tense, but if the condition is a 'Present General', the verb must be in the present tense.
Fourth Class Condition - Is usually called the 'Less Probable Future Condition' and does not have a complete example in the New Testament. The fulfillment of this condition was considered even more remote than the Third Class Condition. It was formed with the helping word ei and the optative mood in the protasis. The apodosis had the helping word an and its verb was also in the optative mood.
Ignorance of these facts has probably helped to cause today's Hardshells not to understand what Bunyan, Keach, and Hassell understood about the various connotations and denotations attached to the word "conditional." A condition, most often in scripture, simply denotes a connection between one thing and another, and says nothing about the nature and causes of the condition. Thus, to say that faith is a condition for salvation simply says that faith precedes salvation by way of connection. In itself it does not affirm that the condition existed because of the free will and effort of those who have faith. The conditon for salvation is faith, but faith itself is conditioned upon the sovereign and efficacious work of God. So, though salvation depends upon faith, faith depends upon the will and working of God.
Oliphant continues:
"It is urged that we are "justified by faith" in the sense that faith is a TERM or CONDITION on which our salvation depends. "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." ---Rom. iii. 28. Also Rom. v. 1, "Being justified by faith." I want first to assign some reasons why faith can not be the ground, or condition, on which justification is based; and then I will try to point out what is intended by those texts in which we are said to be "justified by faith."" (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8)
Oliphant, like his Hardshell brethren, appeared confused when he said such things. He denies that faith is a "condition" of either justification or salvation, but he limits the definition of the word "condition" to that which is "the ground" for justification and salvation. But, the word "condition" does not always denote "grounds" or "basis," but is often used simply to denote that one thing precedes another thing, what is a means of reception. It is on the basis and grounds of what Christ did in his life and death that anyone is saved and justified. But, this justification is not received or made applicable to any but believers.
Oliphant, because he cannot see how justification and salvation are conditioned upon faith, judges that faith cannot therefore be a condition for justification and salvation. Thus, he says that faith has nothing to do with a sinner being justified or made righteous, that one may lack faith in Christ and still be saved and justified. It is in this extreme view that alienates Hardshells from historic Reformed thinking and from the teaching of the Old Baptists and constitutes them enemies to the gospel of Christ. To tell sinners that they are justified and saved whether they believe or not, is to hinder the gospel and the salvation of souls, and constitutes them a "damnable heresy." (II Peter 2: 1)
Oliphant continued:
"Faith is a gift from God; it is not a mere voluntary act of man, as produced by him, but it is to be understood as one of the blessings provided for us by God, and hence it would be incorrect to call it a CONDITION of salvation." (chapter 8)
Notice how Oliphant restricts the meaning of the word "condition" to conditions that result from a "voluntary act of man," to something that is "produced by him." So, in summation, Oliphant says that there can be no "conditions" for salvation, for anything that is a condition of salvation implies that the "conditions" result from human free will and effort, and are what becomes the "grounds" or basis for salvation. He affirms that anything which is a means unto salvation must be a "condition" as he defines the word. But, let us test his proposition. First, let us ask the Hardshells whether they believe that the act of Mary giving birth to Jesus was a necessary "means" or "condition" for the saving of sinners. Surely they will have to confess that it was so. But, how can they apply Oliphant's definition of the word "condition" (or its equivalents, such as use of the word "if") to the case of Mary's conception of Christ? Did Mary, in and of herself, "produce" Christ? Second, let us ask them about those "wicked men" whose "hands" were instruments in the Crucifixion of Christ? What if we apply Oliphant's strict and limited definition of a "condition" to this instance? Were not the wicked acts of the murderers of Christ means and conditions of his death? And, was his death not the means or conditions for salvation?
Basically Oliphant is claiming that faith is, and is not, a "condition." He is basically affirming that salvation is both conditional and unconditional.
Oliphant continued:
"Paul says, "Therefore it is of faith, that is might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." Rom. iv. 16. "It is of faith that is might be by grace." If we are to regard faith as a condition of our salvation, it would not be sure, for whatever is conditional is uncertain and not sure, and Paul here shows plainly that faith is not a condition to be performed on our part in order to salvation, for in such a case our salvation would be as uncertain as if it depended on any other thing to be done by us. Besides, it would not be of grace, if we are to hold faith as the price of justification. "It is of faith" denotes that what faith apprehends is the atonement of Christ, which is certain in its results, and a sure ground of our acceptance and final salvation." (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8 - see here)
"Whatever is conditional is uncertain and not sure"? The birth and death of Christ were not sure and certain? Obviously Mary's act and the act of the wicked who crucified Christ were means and conditions for the birth and death of Christ. So, by Oliphant's logic, both the birth and death of Christ were "uncertain and not sure"!
Oliphant affirms that faith is not a condition of salvation! And, why? Because he has express scriptural statements that say such a thing? Or, because he falsely "deduces" this by his false premises and invalid deductions? Doubtless, because of the latter.
He also tries to "have it both ways" in his apology. He first tries to say that "faith" is the "gift of God," meaning what is effectually and certainly given, and then he tries to say that "faith" being a condition makes salvation ineffectual and uncertain.
Where is Oliphant's problem? If he truly believes that the faith that is the condition for salvation is the sure and certain result of God's will and work, what is always successful, or the gift of God, then why does he think that saying faith is a condition of salvation makes salvation uncertain? It seems best to see that a predestined giving of faith insures certain salvation. He does admit, however, that faith "apprehends," but this contradicts his affirmation that men who have not faith "apprehend" Christ. Or, does he affirm that men are saved even if they do not "apprehend" (get a hold of) Christ?
Oliphant wrote:
"Many texts relied on by Arminians, to prove conditional salvation, only prove us as his children to be under his parental government, and should be so applied." (chapter 1)
Notice how Oliphant affirms that it is Arminianism to teach that salvation is, in any sense, "conditional." But, this is a falsehood. Oliphant does not deny that there are means and conditions operative in God's "parental government" of his regenerated people. Does he deny that this parental government involves God's keeping his people saved? He also shows a severe prejudice against any kind of "conditional salvation" as it respects eternal salvation. But, in doing so, he has denied that conversion through faith and repentance are necessary for being eternally saved.
Oliphant wrote:
"The doctrine of total depravity is wholly unreconcilable with a conditional plan of salvation. Hence, if this be true, then salvation is wholly of grace." (chpt. 7)
Oliphant argues that the "doctrine of total depravity" proves that salvation is in no way based upon conditions, but this is not proven, only stated. I dealt with this argumentation in my series on "Hardshell Proof Texts" in chapter 86. He also argues that if salvation were conditioned upon faith and repentance, or if conversion were necessary for eternal salvation, then salvation would not be by "grace." It is interesting how all the great old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries believed in total depravity and salvation by grace but who affirmed that faith and repentance were necessary conditions for salvation.
Oliphant wrote:
"Believing cannot be the CONDITION of justification, because it is not a matter in which we can act voluntarily. That is, men cannot believe as they choose about things. It is absurd to talk of men believing or not believing as they choose, but if we hold faith to be a condition of salvation, then we must needs hold that men can do as they like about believing, which is absurd. Besides, the believing of any truth is in no sense the cause of that truth. To believe in God, or to have faith in him, is to trust in him. This I suppose none will deny. When we trust in anything, even of a temporal nature, we do not suppose our trusting to give any strength or additional value to that in which we trust. Our trusting is produced by a discovery of something to trust in. We trust in Jesus when we have evidence that he is our Saviour. There is no proposition in the natural or spiritual world, which is in any sense made true by believing it." (chpt. 8)
Oliphant plainly denies that believing in Jesus via the gospel is not necessary for being justified and freed from condemnation. This is a gross departure from the Baptist and Reformed faith. Oliphant says that those who teach the necessity of faith for justification and salvation are Arminians, making the conditions to depend upon the free will and effort of sinners. But, again, our Baptist forefathers were not Arminians and yet they taught that faith and repentance were conditions of salvation. Oliphant should have heeded the words of Hassell about how the unconditional promises of God guarantee that the chosen and called will meet the conditions.
Oliphant then makes the argument that belief of a truth does not make it to be truth. It is true whether one believes it or not. This is a common Hardshell argument. But, it is really no argument at all. What is the particular truth that Oliphant refers to? The particular truth that is to be believed for salvation? He says that it is believing that one is chosen and called. But, this is not what the scriptures affirm to be the thing that sinners are called upon to believe! They are called upon to believe the gospel concerning the work of Christ, and to believe that they will be saved if they call upon the name of the Lord.
Oliphant shows that he does not believe that all men are commanded to "believe" and to "repent," for he believes that only those who are saved are called upon to believe and repent. But, the scriptures affirm that all men are called upon to believe and repent! This truth forces Hardshells into affirming universal salvation.
Oliphant contends for one of the tenets of Hyper Calvinism, the view that only those are called upon to believe who are already saved, and that they only have a "warrant" to believe. But, this view was rejected by the old Baptists. Fuller and Spurgeon were great opponents of this view.
Oliphant wrote:
"Paul, in Rom. iv. 4., says, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." He opposed the doctrine that works secure salvation on the ground that is would be a matter of debt, and not of grace. Now I argue, that if our salvation be procured by obeying the commands in the gospel, it would be as truly of debt, and not of grace, as if it were procured by obeying the commands in the gospel, it would be as truly of debt, and not of grace, as if it were procured by observing the ceremonies of the Jews, and Paul here sets aside works in general in the matter of our salvation." (chpt. 9)
One cannot help but notice how Oliphant continues to find support for his false premises by appeal to logical deductions from scripture, rather than from clear statements of scripture. Why cannot he simply cite passages which affirm the salvation of unbelievers? He argues that faith cannot be a condition for salvation because it would involve deducing that salvation is based upon works, would be a reward, and not be a result of grace. It is an indictment of the old Baptists, who wrote the oldest confessions, and of the views of Dr. Gill, however, for Oliphant to argue such. They did not "deduce" Hardshellism from the passages of scripture that teach the necessity of faith for salvation.
Oliphant also contradicts himself again, for he has previously argued that "faith is the gift of God," what God works effectually, and without fail, what he imparts to his elect when they are called. How can he, in one breath, make faith to be the work of God, and then in another breath, make faith to be a work of the creature? In the passage cited by Oliphant, in Romans, Paul does not put faith into the category of works!
Oliphant wrote:
"Paul argues the matter (Rom. xi. 6), "If by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then is it no more of grace," etc. The doctrine that our salvation is secured by obeying the gospel would be as destructive to grace as to say it is secured by the ceremonies of the law. In either case it would make the obedience of men as essential to justification as the blood and righteousness of Christ, and the grace of God would be dependent on an unholy and imperfect thing, as the works of men, all of which Paul here sets aside by the words, "If by grace, then it is no more of works." (chpt. 9)
Oliphant again argues that salvation cannot be by the gospel because this would destroy the idea that salvation is "by grace." But, how can he argue this when he has already affirmed that faith is the gift of God? Further, Oliphant does not deny that a temporal salvation (conversion) is conditioned upon faith. Does he not then confess that conversion is not by grace? Oliphant denies that faith is essential to justification and salvation, just as do the Universalists.
Oliphant argues that if salvation is conditioned upon faith, then salvation would be "dependent on an unholy and imperfect thing." But, has he not already said that faith is the gift of God? If faith be God's work in the heart of sinners, does the Bible not say of God's work, that it is "perfect"? (Deut. 32: 4)
The scriptures teach that God gives faith unconditionally and this faith is the condition of salvation.
"Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe."
Though the old Baptists who wrote this confession would acknowledge that salvation was unconditional they nevertheless taught that "life and salvation" are what the Lord "freely offers unto sinners" in the gospel and that he "requires" that they have "faith in Him, that they may be saved."
Elder (Dr.) R. W. Fain, first generation Hardshell leader, who wrote the introduction to Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test," wrote these excerpts:
“Upon this principle, the Gospel is preached to all, repentance and an interest in a Savior’s blood is offered to all. The charitable invitation “whosoever will” goes out to all inviting them to “take the water of life freely."
"While all Gospel Ministers feel the weight of duty in extending this invitation, yet they know at the same time, that a depraved will is under a wicked influence, and that such a will never leads a soul to Christ. But that God is able to subdue the stubborn will, to change the evil disposition, and to prepare the sinner for salvation, in opposition to the devil and all his unholy influences."
"Then, Brethren in the ministry, we should take courage. Let us go forth “with the whole armor of God” and do battle for his cause. Let us preach Jesus Christ our Saviour “the way, the truth, and the life.” Let us preach Him a choosing, Electing, and loving Saviour. Let us rear the blood stained BANNER OF THE CROSS, with the blessed and heavenly watchword “whosoever will,” inscribed in living letters over its ample folds.” (pages 9-16 of "The Old Baptist Test")
Fain and the first Hardshells were in agreement with the London Confession, but today's Hardshells have removed from the Old Baptist faith.
In chapter 10, "OF EFFECTUAL CALLING," the confession states:
"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead."
Again, though affirming unconditional salvation, the Confession also affirms conditional salvation, making faith, answering the call, and embracing the salvation offered, to be means or conditions.
In chapter 20; "OF THE GOSPEL AND OF THE EXTENT OF THE GRACE THEREOF," in paragraph 1, the confession says:
"The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners."
The promise, or the word of the promise, says the Confession, is "the means of calling the elect," the means for "begetting in them faith and repentance," and "for the conversion and salvation of sinners."
Elder J. H. Oliphant, a well known leader and spokesman for the Hardshell denomination, at the turn of the twentieth century, and moderator of the infamous "Fulton Convention" (1900), wrote:
"Conditionality is a necessary element of moral government. I do not regard the resurrection of the dead, or regeneration, as acts of obedience, as a vice or virtue on our part, because they are not our acts at all. They are the simple acts of God. They do not properly belong to moral government, but to another system of things. Some of our brethren object to the word, "conditional," but I think it represents the truth on the subject as well as any word we could use. "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love." The word "IF" in this text denotes conditionality. Webster in defining the word says, "It introduces a conditional sentence." This is not the only use of the word, "if," but Webster mentions it first. There are hundreds of places in the Bible where the word is used as in the above text. I have conferred with some of the educators of this city relative to the meaning of the word, and I doubt whether there is a single college or institution of learning among English speaking people that would deny Webster’s definition. "If ye do these things ye shall never fall." If we tell our people this is not conditional, they would not know the meaning of any text." (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 2)
There is nothing to seriously disagree with what Oliphant says about "conditionality" and the use of the word "if" in scripture. He could have added, however, the fact that conditional statements, with a protasis and apodosis (if, then), are in either one of four categories. From the web page ntgreek.org, these are delineated as follows (See here):
First Class Condition - Is considered the 'Simple Condition' and assumes that the premise (protasis) is true for the sake of argument. The protasis is formed with the helping word ei ('if') with the main verb in the indicative mood, in any tense; with any mood and tense in the apodosis.
Second Class Condition - Is known as the 'Contrary-to-Fact Condition' and assumes the premise as false for the sake of argument. The protasis is again formed with the helping word ei ('if') and the main verb in the indicative mood. The tense of the verb (in the protasis) must also be in a past-time tense (aorist or imperfect). The apodosis will usually have the particle an as a marking word, showing some contingency.
Third Class Condition - Traditionally known as the 'More Probable Future Condition', the third class condition should actually be split into two different categories, the 'Future More Probable Condition' (indicating either a probable future action or a hypothetical situation) and the 'Present General Condition' (indicating a generic situation or universal truth at the present time). It is formed in the protasis using the word ean (ei plus an = 'if') and a verb in the subjunctive mood. The main verb of the protasis can be in any tense, but if the condition is a 'Present General', the verb must be in the present tense.
Fourth Class Condition - Is usually called the 'Less Probable Future Condition' and does not have a complete example in the New Testament. The fulfillment of this condition was considered even more remote than the Third Class Condition. It was formed with the helping word ei and the optative mood in the protasis. The apodosis had the helping word an and its verb was also in the optative mood.
Ignorance of these facts has probably helped to cause today's Hardshells not to understand what Bunyan, Keach, and Hassell understood about the various connotations and denotations attached to the word "conditional." A condition, most often in scripture, simply denotes a connection between one thing and another, and says nothing about the nature and causes of the condition. Thus, to say that faith is a condition for salvation simply says that faith precedes salvation by way of connection. In itself it does not affirm that the condition existed because of the free will and effort of those who have faith. The conditon for salvation is faith, but faith itself is conditioned upon the sovereign and efficacious work of God. So, though salvation depends upon faith, faith depends upon the will and working of God.
Oliphant continues:
"It is urged that we are "justified by faith" in the sense that faith is a TERM or CONDITION on which our salvation depends. "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." ---Rom. iii. 28. Also Rom. v. 1, "Being justified by faith." I want first to assign some reasons why faith can not be the ground, or condition, on which justification is based; and then I will try to point out what is intended by those texts in which we are said to be "justified by faith."" (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8)
Oliphant, like his Hardshell brethren, appeared confused when he said such things. He denies that faith is a "condition" of either justification or salvation, but he limits the definition of the word "condition" to that which is "the ground" for justification and salvation. But, the word "condition" does not always denote "grounds" or "basis," but is often used simply to denote that one thing precedes another thing, what is a means of reception. It is on the basis and grounds of what Christ did in his life and death that anyone is saved and justified. But, this justification is not received or made applicable to any but believers.
Oliphant, because he cannot see how justification and salvation are conditioned upon faith, judges that faith cannot therefore be a condition for justification and salvation. Thus, he says that faith has nothing to do with a sinner being justified or made righteous, that one may lack faith in Christ and still be saved and justified. It is in this extreme view that alienates Hardshells from historic Reformed thinking and from the teaching of the Old Baptists and constitutes them enemies to the gospel of Christ. To tell sinners that they are justified and saved whether they believe or not, is to hinder the gospel and the salvation of souls, and constitutes them a "damnable heresy." (II Peter 2: 1)
Oliphant continued:
"Faith is a gift from God; it is not a mere voluntary act of man, as produced by him, but it is to be understood as one of the blessings provided for us by God, and hence it would be incorrect to call it a CONDITION of salvation." (chapter 8)
Notice how Oliphant restricts the meaning of the word "condition" to conditions that result from a "voluntary act of man," to something that is "produced by him." So, in summation, Oliphant says that there can be no "conditions" for salvation, for anything that is a condition of salvation implies that the "conditions" result from human free will and effort, and are what becomes the "grounds" or basis for salvation. He affirms that anything which is a means unto salvation must be a "condition" as he defines the word. But, let us test his proposition. First, let us ask the Hardshells whether they believe that the act of Mary giving birth to Jesus was a necessary "means" or "condition" for the saving of sinners. Surely they will have to confess that it was so. But, how can they apply Oliphant's definition of the word "condition" (or its equivalents, such as use of the word "if") to the case of Mary's conception of Christ? Did Mary, in and of herself, "produce" Christ? Second, let us ask them about those "wicked men" whose "hands" were instruments in the Crucifixion of Christ? What if we apply Oliphant's strict and limited definition of a "condition" to this instance? Were not the wicked acts of the murderers of Christ means and conditions of his death? And, was his death not the means or conditions for salvation?
Basically Oliphant is claiming that faith is, and is not, a "condition." He is basically affirming that salvation is both conditional and unconditional.
Oliphant continued:
"Paul says, "Therefore it is of faith, that is might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." Rom. iv. 16. "It is of faith that is might be by grace." If we are to regard faith as a condition of our salvation, it would not be sure, for whatever is conditional is uncertain and not sure, and Paul here shows plainly that faith is not a condition to be performed on our part in order to salvation, for in such a case our salvation would be as uncertain as if it depended on any other thing to be done by us. Besides, it would not be of grace, if we are to hold faith as the price of justification. "It is of faith" denotes that what faith apprehends is the atonement of Christ, which is certain in its results, and a sure ground of our acceptance and final salvation." (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8 - see here)
"Whatever is conditional is uncertain and not sure"? The birth and death of Christ were not sure and certain? Obviously Mary's act and the act of the wicked who crucified Christ were means and conditions for the birth and death of Christ. So, by Oliphant's logic, both the birth and death of Christ were "uncertain and not sure"!
Oliphant affirms that faith is not a condition of salvation! And, why? Because he has express scriptural statements that say such a thing? Or, because he falsely "deduces" this by his false premises and invalid deductions? Doubtless, because of the latter.
He also tries to "have it both ways" in his apology. He first tries to say that "faith" is the "gift of God," meaning what is effectually and certainly given, and then he tries to say that "faith" being a condition makes salvation ineffectual and uncertain.
Where is Oliphant's problem? If he truly believes that the faith that is the condition for salvation is the sure and certain result of God's will and work, what is always successful, or the gift of God, then why does he think that saying faith is a condition of salvation makes salvation uncertain? It seems best to see that a predestined giving of faith insures certain salvation. He does admit, however, that faith "apprehends," but this contradicts his affirmation that men who have not faith "apprehend" Christ. Or, does he affirm that men are saved even if they do not "apprehend" (get a hold of) Christ?
Oliphant wrote:
"Many texts relied on by Arminians, to prove conditional salvation, only prove us as his children to be under his parental government, and should be so applied." (chapter 1)
Notice how Oliphant affirms that it is Arminianism to teach that salvation is, in any sense, "conditional." But, this is a falsehood. Oliphant does not deny that there are means and conditions operative in God's "parental government" of his regenerated people. Does he deny that this parental government involves God's keeping his people saved? He also shows a severe prejudice against any kind of "conditional salvation" as it respects eternal salvation. But, in doing so, he has denied that conversion through faith and repentance are necessary for being eternally saved.
Oliphant wrote:
"The doctrine of total depravity is wholly unreconcilable with a conditional plan of salvation. Hence, if this be true, then salvation is wholly of grace." (chpt. 7)
Oliphant argues that the "doctrine of total depravity" proves that salvation is in no way based upon conditions, but this is not proven, only stated. I dealt with this argumentation in my series on "Hardshell Proof Texts" in chapter 86. He also argues that if salvation were conditioned upon faith and repentance, or if conversion were necessary for eternal salvation, then salvation would not be by "grace." It is interesting how all the great old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries believed in total depravity and salvation by grace but who affirmed that faith and repentance were necessary conditions for salvation.
Oliphant wrote:
"Believing cannot be the CONDITION of justification, because it is not a matter in which we can act voluntarily. That is, men cannot believe as they choose about things. It is absurd to talk of men believing or not believing as they choose, but if we hold faith to be a condition of salvation, then we must needs hold that men can do as they like about believing, which is absurd. Besides, the believing of any truth is in no sense the cause of that truth. To believe in God, or to have faith in him, is to trust in him. This I suppose none will deny. When we trust in anything, even of a temporal nature, we do not suppose our trusting to give any strength or additional value to that in which we trust. Our trusting is produced by a discovery of something to trust in. We trust in Jesus when we have evidence that he is our Saviour. There is no proposition in the natural or spiritual world, which is in any sense made true by believing it." (chpt. 8)
Oliphant plainly denies that believing in Jesus via the gospel is not necessary for being justified and freed from condemnation. This is a gross departure from the Baptist and Reformed faith. Oliphant says that those who teach the necessity of faith for justification and salvation are Arminians, making the conditions to depend upon the free will and effort of sinners. But, again, our Baptist forefathers were not Arminians and yet they taught that faith and repentance were conditions of salvation. Oliphant should have heeded the words of Hassell about how the unconditional promises of God guarantee that the chosen and called will meet the conditions.
Oliphant then makes the argument that belief of a truth does not make it to be truth. It is true whether one believes it or not. This is a common Hardshell argument. But, it is really no argument at all. What is the particular truth that Oliphant refers to? The particular truth that is to be believed for salvation? He says that it is believing that one is chosen and called. But, this is not what the scriptures affirm to be the thing that sinners are called upon to believe! They are called upon to believe the gospel concerning the work of Christ, and to believe that they will be saved if they call upon the name of the Lord.
Oliphant shows that he does not believe that all men are commanded to "believe" and to "repent," for he believes that only those who are saved are called upon to believe and repent. But, the scriptures affirm that all men are called upon to believe and repent! This truth forces Hardshells into affirming universal salvation.
Oliphant contends for one of the tenets of Hyper Calvinism, the view that only those are called upon to believe who are already saved, and that they only have a "warrant" to believe. But, this view was rejected by the old Baptists. Fuller and Spurgeon were great opponents of this view.
Oliphant wrote:
"Paul, in Rom. iv. 4., says, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." He opposed the doctrine that works secure salvation on the ground that is would be a matter of debt, and not of grace. Now I argue, that if our salvation be procured by obeying the commands in the gospel, it would be as truly of debt, and not of grace, as if it were procured by obeying the commands in the gospel, it would be as truly of debt, and not of grace, as if it were procured by observing the ceremonies of the Jews, and Paul here sets aside works in general in the matter of our salvation." (chpt. 9)
One cannot help but notice how Oliphant continues to find support for his false premises by appeal to logical deductions from scripture, rather than from clear statements of scripture. Why cannot he simply cite passages which affirm the salvation of unbelievers? He argues that faith cannot be a condition for salvation because it would involve deducing that salvation is based upon works, would be a reward, and not be a result of grace. It is an indictment of the old Baptists, who wrote the oldest confessions, and of the views of Dr. Gill, however, for Oliphant to argue such. They did not "deduce" Hardshellism from the passages of scripture that teach the necessity of faith for salvation.
Oliphant also contradicts himself again, for he has previously argued that "faith is the gift of God," what God works effectually, and without fail, what he imparts to his elect when they are called. How can he, in one breath, make faith to be the work of God, and then in another breath, make faith to be a work of the creature? In the passage cited by Oliphant, in Romans, Paul does not put faith into the category of works!
Oliphant wrote:
"Paul argues the matter (Rom. xi. 6), "If by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then is it no more of grace," etc. The doctrine that our salvation is secured by obeying the gospel would be as destructive to grace as to say it is secured by the ceremonies of the law. In either case it would make the obedience of men as essential to justification as the blood and righteousness of Christ, and the grace of God would be dependent on an unholy and imperfect thing, as the works of men, all of which Paul here sets aside by the words, "If by grace, then it is no more of works." (chpt. 9)
Oliphant again argues that salvation cannot be by the gospel because this would destroy the idea that salvation is "by grace." But, how can he argue this when he has already affirmed that faith is the gift of God? Further, Oliphant does not deny that a temporal salvation (conversion) is conditioned upon faith. Does he not then confess that conversion is not by grace? Oliphant denies that faith is essential to justification and salvation, just as do the Universalists.
Oliphant argues that if salvation is conditioned upon faith, then salvation would be "dependent on an unholy and imperfect thing." But, has he not already said that faith is the gift of God? If faith be God's work in the heart of sinners, does the Bible not say of God's work, that it is "perfect"? (Deut. 32: 4)
The scriptures teach that God gives faith unconditionally and this faith is the condition of salvation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)