Hardshell Landmarkism I

Chapter 135

In previous chapters I have examined the Hardshell claim to being "the one true Church of Christ," or "kingdom of God," showing that this is one of the evidences that they are a cult and that it is a false claim.  Historian John T. Christian wrote:

"The name by which they designated themselves was Primitive, or Old School, Baptists; and they claimed that all Baptists were originally of their contention, which certainly was not the fact. "They arrogate to themselves," says J. M. Peck who was a contemporary, "the name of Old School Baptists because they reprobate all these measures (missions, education and Sunday schools, etc.), and declare non-fellowship with all Baptists who have anything to do with missionary work or any of those forms of active benevolence, and with all who hold correspondence with or fellowship missionary Baptists. In this charitable act they cut themselves off from at least nineteen-twentieths of all our Baptists in the United States, unless we can admit that a mere fragment of a party can exclude a vast majority." (J. M. Peck, Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, July 4, 1839) ("A History of the Baptists" - CHAPTER VII - "The Anti-Effort Secession from the Baptists")

In our previous series it was shown that though the Hardshells claim to have church succession through the Particular Baptists of the 17th century who wrote the first and second London Confessions, they cannot legitimately claim such for they are not in agreement with them on fundamental doctrine, especially as it relates to the doctrine of effectual calling.  Modern Hardshell historians, such as Elders Harold Hunt and Michael Ivey, have acknowledged this and have sought to find succession through the Welsh Baptists or the AnaBaptists of England.  In a future series I will deal with these other supposed lines of succession.  The bulk of Hardshells have claimed succession through the churches who rallied around the London and Philadelphia Confessions, however.

Since the Hardshells are Landmarkers, and believe that no church or denomination can legitimately claim to be a "church of Christ" who cannot show a clear succession of churches back to the Apostolic churches, the question of succession is paramount.  But, as has already been shown, and will be yet further demonstrated, the Hardshells can show no succession prior to the early 19th century.  Thus, by their own criterion, they cannot be a "church of Christ." 

It would have been better had the Hardshells not been deceived by Landmarker views, for then they could have simply affirmed, as did Alexander Campbell about the same time, that the church had apostatized and needed to be reformed and restored.  This would have led them to simply say that they were finishing the Reformation begun earlier by men such as Luther and Calvin and the Baptists of 17th century England.  In fact, one of the first names that the new Hardshell denomination called themselves, before finally settling on "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist, was "Reformed" Baptists.  If they had not held to Landmark views on "church succession" then they would not have had to try to claim succession through the London Confession and would not have had to try and distort it.  They would also not be burdened with the impossible task of trying to find churches who believed their unique and aberrant views in previous centuries in a chain linked fashion. 

Further, it makes no difference if we admit that the Hardshells can claim succession through the Particular Baptists of the London and Philadelphia Confessions, seeing that the first Particular Baptists who wrote the first London Confession did not come from a previous succession of churches, a fact that the leaders of that first Confession acknowledged, as will be shown.

Further, the attempts of Landmarkers, including Hardshells, to find a link to link succession of churches back to the days of the Apostles has been futile.  As will be seen in future chapters, their piecing together groups such as Donatists, Novations, Albigenses, Lollards, Waldensians, etc., is nothing but a patchwork which proves nothing.  Most Landmarkers simply believe in chain link succession without proof, accepting it on faith. 

In order to understand these matters more clearly, we need to have an understanding of the basic ideas involved in Landmarkism. Bob L. Ross, who wrote the famous book on the subject, "Old Landmarkism and the Baptists," wrote:

"What is the proper definition of church perpetuity? Is it the view of extreme Landmarkism which contends that each new church down through the ages has been mothered by another church’s authority, extending directly back to the first church of apostolic times, thus forming what is called a linked-chain connection? This is what many Landmark Baptists teach, and it is the logical theory where the Romish position on church authority is held. When it is asserted that valid baptism must be administered by an administrator authorized by a church organization which was formed upon the authority of a mother church, then what other view could one adopt? To be consistent, the mother certainly must be as legitimate as what she demands of her children.Among modern Baptists, the ecclesiastical concepts and practices known as Landmarkism revolve around two basic assertions: (1) That God’s authority for fulfilling the commission of Matthew 28:18–20 lies solely in the corporate church (as an organization); and, (2) A valid corporate church, with the above authority, is one composed of validly baptized members, organized upon authority channeled into it by a previously existing valid church. This is often termed linked-chain church succession, and it supposedly extends all the way back to John the Baptist."  (Introduction to "Landmarkism: Unscriptural And Historically Untenable" - see here)

Ross also wrote:

"Landmarkism involves the authenticity of an organization, the administration and administrator of baptism, and the ordination of ministers. It is asserted that a church is unscriptural, baptism is invalid, and ministers are not duly ordained unless there is proper church authority for them. This is Landmarkism’s “chief cornerstone."  (Old Landmarkism and the Baptists," page 9)

Don Burke, in a thesis paper, wrote:

"However, many, perhaps most, Landmarkers take this concept one step further. These understand succession to be an unbroken chain of Baptist churches linked mother-to-daughter since the time the church was first established, although they largely make such assertions based upon faith, not on hard data. “The system [of Landmarkism] further involves the perpetuity, succession, or continuity of Baptist churches through which authority has descended through the ages and will continue...Landmarkers in general profess either an inability to demonstrate the succession or no necessity of doing so...”  This chain-link succession is the view espoused in the popular booklet The Trail of Blood J. M. Carroll), and is also foundational in G. H. Orchard’s History of the Baptists."  Burke cites Ross, saying (emphasis mine - SG): 

"Ross summarizes this doctrinal position thusly: “Graves’ basic presupposition, or axiom, was that the commission was given to the church as a corporate, visible organization institution. He also held that the authority of Christ can come only through this church institution, so that the authority of Christ, in this age, is synonymous to the authority of the church.” Ross then makes a criticism not uncommon among Landmarkism’s opponents: This group is guilty of the same type of evils as those found in Roman Catholicism. “Both agree that the authority of Jesus Christ is now residing in the visible church as a structured organization and can be received from no other source,” and he later notes “Landmarkism therefore makes the same identical claim to authority as the church of Rome and the Pope.”"  (An examination of the erroneous theories of "CHURCH AUTHORITY" and "CHURCH SUCCESSION" of the so-called "LANDMARK BAPTIST" movement see here)

Wrote Ross:

"The term LANDMARKISM is a nickname which refers to ecclesiastical views arranged as a logical system or ecclesiastical order and popularized by the late James Robinson Graves (1820-1893). According to Landmarkers, there is no authority in either the Word or from the Spirit for doing the work of the Great Commission; this authority comes solely from the local Baptist church.

It is held in theory by an undetermined number of Baptists in various conventions, associations, fellowships and independent churches. The system, sometimes called "church truth," is not exclusive to the Association Baptists, but according to Dr. I. K. Cross, the term "Landmarkism" has been widely used in "derision" for those Baptists in the fellowship of the American Baptist Association of Churches with which Dr. Cross is affiliated. There are quite a number of independent churches that are Landmark, but they do not affiliate with a convention or association. Usually, these churches do not believe there is scriptural authority for anything larger than the local church, although many of them do affiliate in "fellowships" and special "conferences."

Landmarkism involves the authenticity of a church as an organization, the administration and administrator of baptism, and the ordination of ministers. It is asserted that a church is unscriptural, baptism is invalid, and ministers are not duly ordained unless there is proper Church Authority for them. This is Landmarkism's "chief cornerstone." Some writers of the past referred to this position as "high churchism." Consequently, the Landmark view is that Baptist Churches ALONE have the authority of Christ to evangelize, baptize and carry out all aspects of the commission. The system further involves the perpetuity, succession, or continuity of Baptist churches through which authority has descended through the ages and will continue. This position, though not uniformly defined among Landmarkers, is believed to have been taught by Christ in such verses as Matthew 16:18, 28:19-20.

While Landmarkers in general profess either an inability to demonstrate the succession or no necessity of doing so, their efforts to advocate their system of "church truth" are almost invariably characterized by several quotations from secondary sources and their own respected authors, supposedly establishing the historical claim. Generally therefore, they believe that 1) the true and scriptural organization of a church, 2) the valid administration of baptism, and -- 3) the proper ordination of a gospel minister, all MUST be enacted upon the authority of a sound and true, scriptural church — namely, a church that was born through the authority of a "mother" church — continuing in like manner back to the original apostolic church of Matthew 28 where "church authority" first "began".

In refuting these errors, Baptists and other Christians today can believe in the continuity of Christianity since Christ and may devote themselves to regulating their faith and practice by the Scriptures (in an orderly manner) without adhering to the Landmark teachings of church authority and succession. The authority which validates baptism, or any other scriptural action of our time, does not reside in the church institution any more than does the authority which validates salvation itself; authority resides in Jesus Christ and is expressed in His Word. The church itself is dependent upon this authority, but this authority is not dependent upon the church. This book advocates no new or novel views in opposition to Landmarkism.

The first Confession of Faith set forth by English Particular Baptists is the well-known Confession of 1644, and in Article 41 it states:

"The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance (baptism), the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered disciples."

Landmarkism, as a system, is of relatively recent origin among the Baptists, although various items in the system have been obvious at certain times in our history. But at least not until J. R. Graves popularized all of the related concepts in systematic form did a significant segment of Baptists finally become a fragmentation from other Baptists (in the Preface of his book, Old Landmarkism — What Is It?, Graves takes credit for "inaugurating the reform" which became known as Landmarkism."  (cited here)

The "Primitive Baptist Church" holds to several basic teachings of Landmarkism except that they generally believe that there are two phases of the "church" in the new testament, a visible body of local churches, and an invisible body encompassing all those who are of the elect. 

Further, the Hardshells do not believe that the Commission was given to the church, as I detailed in those chapters dealing with "Hardshells and the Great Commission."  In this, however, they are inconsistent and contradictory, as I have shown in the above series.  They believe, as do the Landmarkers, in the supremacy of "church authority," and that nothing can be done apart from it.  They would generally reject the view of Dr. Gill who taught that ministers may baptize without requiring permission, in each case, from a church, and that baptism does not automatically add one to a local church.  They certainly would reject the view expressed in the above citation from the first London Confession which affirmed that any disciple may baptize, and the administrator of baptism does not himself have to be baptized.  The inconsistency is seen in the fact that the Hardshells do not believe that the Great Commission was given to the church, yet in their practice they put all the authority for baptizing into the hands of the church. 

Another of the chief tenets of Landmarkism which Hardshells do accept is the view that the validity of each church depends upon having a valid ecclesiastical ancestry, that it must have descended from other valid churches.  They teach that no church can be considered a valid church of Christ that does not have this chain link succession.  There are lots of problems with this view, however.  First, as I have already intimated, they cannot show such a succession, and accept the fact without proof and simply upon a leap of faith.  Secondly, by their own admission, many of the churches have descended from churches that were invalid, and from invalid baptisms and church constitutions.  They confess that these irregularities cannot be corrected, and so simply ignore the fact. 

Fanciful Interpretation

The Hardshells are adept at fanciful interpretation.  It may be due in part to their being against theological education for their ministers.  One example of this may be seen in Elder Guy Hunt, former Governor of Alabama and once a major leader among the Hardshells.  In a book called "Identity of the True Baptist Church," volume I, published in 1971, under an article titled "The Commission," Hunt says this about the command of Christ to "go and preach the Gospel to every creature."  (Mark 16: 15-16)

"The every creature means those who are creatures in Christ.  'Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:  old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new.'  (II Cor. 5: 17.  If you were to try to embrace every human being in 'every creature,' you would have to also embrace beast, fowls, and fish, for they are also creatures."  (pg. 130)

This is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard!  People who are not married to the Hardshell cult will also see it as ridiculous.  With such men as Elder Hunt it makes no difference to point out to them how common sense excludes the inclusion of animals in the term "every creature."  And, it makes no difference to point out how the text puts those who do not believe into the category of "every creature," for the Hardshells believe that most of those who are "new creatures" do not believe the Gospel, or believe in Jesus.  How can one reason with such people who handle the word of God in this manner? 

Jesus says, that among the "every creature" that hears the Gospel, those who do not believe will be "damned," but this is not enough to convince such men as Hunt.  He would say that the damnation is not eternal damnation, but simply a temporal damnation.  He would likewise say that being "saved" in the passage cannot denote eternal salvation, but a temporal salvation. 

Now, is this not fanciful interpretation?  Does it not show how the cults are blinded by their own suppositions, which they take to the Scriptures and make the Scriptures to agree with their preconceived ideas?  By such hermeneutics one can make the Bible say or mean anything.

The Hardshell Baptist Cult

Here is the list of chapters already published (with two chapters on the Great Commission yet to be published but which are reserved). 

You can read these chapters at http://hardshellism.blogspot.com/

Already Published

Chapter 1 - The Primitive Baptist Church
Chapter 2 - Personal Experiences
Chapter 3 - The Hardshell Cult
Chapter 4 - Hardshell History
Chapter 5 - Hardshell Extremism
Chapter 6 - Hardshell Hypocrisy & Peculiarities
Chapter 7 - Time Salvation - A Novel Idea
Chapter 8 - The Spirit Alone Theory of Regeneration
Chapter 9 - Hardshell Logic on Regeneration
Chapter 10 - Hardshellism & The Infant & Idiot
Chapter 11 - Saved By Money?
Chapter 12 - Hardshells on Faith (A Primer)
Chapter 13 - Hardshells On Faith (Conclusion)
Chapter 14 - Hard-Shell Busters (First Cracking)
Chapter 15 - Hardshells On Repentance (Primer)
Chapter 16 - Hardshells On Repentance (Conclusion)
Chapter 17 - Hard-Shell Busters (Second Cracking)
Chapter 18 - Hardshells on Conversion
Chapter 19 - Coming To Christ
Chapter 20 - Direct Voice Speaking (Historical)
Chapter 21 - Direct Voice Speaking (Doctrinal)
Chapter 22 - More On The Voice Of Christ
Chapter 23 - I Peter 1:23
Chapter 24 - James 1:18
Chapter 25 - I Cor. 4:15
Chapter 26 - Hot Shots Returned (1st Volley)
Chapter 27 - Hot Shots Returned (2nd Volley)
Chapter 28 - Hot Shots Returned (3rd Volley)
Chapter 29 - Hot Shots Returned (4th Volley)
Chapter 30 - Hot Shots Returned (5th Volley)
Chapter 31 - Hot Shots Returned (6th Volley)
Chapter 32 - Hot Shots Returned (7th Volley)
Chapter 33 - Romans 10 & Gospel Means
Chapter 34 - Romans 10 (cont.)
Chapter 35 - Parable of the Sower & Seed
Chapter 36 - Pray for the Salvation of your Children?
Chapter 37 - Eternal Children Doctrine
Chapter 38 - Eternal Children Doctrine II
Chapter 39 - Hollow Log Doctrine
Chapter 40 - Biblical Regeneration
Chapter 41 - Infant Regeneration
Chapter 42 - Addresses To The Lost I
Chapter 43 - Addresses To The Lost II
Chapter 44 - Addresses To The Lost III
Chapter 45 - Addresses To The Lost IV
Chapter 46 - Addresses To The Lost V
Chapter 47 - Addresses To The Lost VI
Chapter 48 - Addresses To The Lost VII
Chapter 49 - Elder Leland's Preaching
Chapter 50 - From Law to Grace?
Chapter 51 - Regenerated AND Converted?
Chapter 52 - Beebe-Trott Model
Chapter 53 - Regeneration Evidence?
Chapter 54 - On Conviction I
Chapter 55 - On Conviction II
Chapter 56 - On Conviction III
Chapter 57 - The Original Paradigm
Chapter 58 - Hardshells on Gill I
Chapter 59 - Hardshells on Gill II
Chapter 60 - Hardshells on Gill III
Chapter 61 - Hardshells on Gill IV
Chapter 62 - Hardshells on Gill V
Chapter 63 - Hardshells on Gill VI
Chapter 64 - Hardshells on Gill VII
Chapter 65 - Hardshells on Gill VIII
Chapter 66 - The Great Commission I
Chapter 67 - The Great Commission II
Chapter 68 - The Great Commission III
Chapter 69 - The Great Commission IV
Chapter 70 - The Great Commission V
Chapter 71 - The Great Commission VI
Chapter 72 - The Great Commission VII
Chapter 73 - The Great Commission VIII
Chapter 74 - The Great Commission IX
Chapter 75 - The Great Commission X
Chapter 76 - The Great Commission XI
Chapter 77 - The Great Commission XII (not yet published)
Chapter 78 - The Great Commission XIII (not yet published)
Chapter 79 - Hardshell Proof Texts I
Chapter 80 - Hardshell Proof Texts II
Chapter 81 - Hardshell Proof Textx III
Chapter 82 - Hardshell Proof Texts IV
Chapter 83 - Hardshell Proof Texts V
Chapter 84 - Hardshell Proof Texts VI
Chapter 85 - Hardshell Proof Texts VII
Chapter 86 - Hardshell Proof Texts VIII
Chapter 87 - Hardshell Proof Texts IX
Chapter 88 - Hardshell Proof Texts X
Chapter 89 - Hardshell Proof Texts XI
Chapter 90 - Hardshell Proof Texts XII
Chapter 91 - Hardshell Proof Texts XIII
Chapter 92 - Hardshells & Perseverence I
Chapter 93 - Hardshells & Perseverence II
Chapter 94 - Hardshells & Perseverence III
Chapter 95 - Hardshells & Perseverence IV
Chapter 96 - Hardshells & Perseverence V
Chapter 97 - Hardshells & Perseverence VI
Chapter 98 - Hardshells & Predestination I
Chapter 99 - Hardshells & Predestination II
Chapter 100 - Hardshells & Predestination III
Chapter 101 - Hardshells & Predestination IV
Chapter 102 - Hardshells & Predestination V
Chapter 103 - Hardshells & Predestination VI
Chapter 104 - Hardshells & Predestination VII
Chapter 105 - Hardshells & Predestination VIII
Chapter 106 - Hardshells & Predestination IX
Chapter 107 - Hardshells & Predestination X
Chapter 108 - Hardshells & Predestination XI
Chapter 109 - Hardshells & Predestination XII
Chapter 110 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 111 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 112 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 113 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 114 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 115 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 116 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 117 - Passive or Active?
Chapter 118 - Passive or Active?
Chapter 119 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Chapter 120 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Chapter 121 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Chapter 122 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Chapter 123 - Hardshells & Justification I
Chapter 124 - Hardshells & Justification II
Chapter 125 - Hardshells & Justification III
Chapter 126 - Hardshells & The London Confession I
Chapter 127 - Hardshells & The London Confession II
Chapter 128 - Hardshells & The London Confession III
Chapter 129 - Hardshells & The London Confession IV
Chapter 130 - Hardshells & The London Confession V
Chapter 131 - Hardshells & The London Confession VI
Chapter 132 - Hardshells & The London Confession VII
Chapter 133 - Hardshells & The London Confession VIII
Chapter 134 - Hardshells & The London Confession IX

Upcoming chapter series will deal with these topics.

Hardshell Landmarkism
Hardshell Pelagianism
Missions
Evangelism
Theological Schools
Sunday Schools
Protracted/Revival Meetings
Musical Instruments & Choirs
Amillenialism
Hardshell Hermeneutics
The KJV Controversy
Hardshell Histories

Hardshells & The London Confession IX

Chapter 134

In the previous chapters it was observed how the Hardshells have historically endorsed the London Confession of 1689, and by extension the Philadelphia Confession, and have claimed that it was through the English Particular Baptists who wrote the old Confession that they claimed to have a "succession" back to the days of the Apostles.  It was further observed that the Hardshells have claimed to be "primitive" or "original" Baptists based upon their identification with those churches who wrote and endorsed the old Confession.  However, as was shown, the Hardshells, for the most part, have departed from what the Confession teaches regarding the absolute predestination of all things and the perseverence of believers.  They have all but totally rejected the Confession's teachings regarding God's use of the word in the effectual calling of the elect.  Though the Confession states clearly that all heathen, all who are not Christian in faith, are lost, Hardshellism denies this.  It was also shown that the work of the Fulton Hardshells was a work of perversion as respects the true teaching of the Confession on these doctrines.  It was shown how many Hardshells candidly acknowledge this and so divorce themselves from the old Confession and attempt to find a "succession" for their churches through some other avenue, as has Elders Michael Ivey and Harold Hunt. 

In the preceding chapters it was shown how the Fulton "footnotes" were but distortions of the old Confession made under the pretense of "clarifying" language that was now archaic.  However, it is interesting that the only places in the Confession where the language was judged to have changed and so needed "explanation" was the sections that the Hardshells reject.  Yet, the same English was used in those sections that did not get any "explanation." 

In my disputations on my Old Baptist blog, Hardshell apologist Jason Brown affirmed that the reason why the Fulton brethren did not offer footnotes to the section dealing with perseverence was because they agreed with that section.  What does this say but that the sections they offered "footnotes" were the sections that they did not agree with and therefore sought to pervert? 

It is clear that the purpose of the Fulton gathering was not for the purpose of convincing any outside of the Hardshell cult of the fact that they were in agreement with the old Confession but simply to deceive the existing Hardshell cult following. 

Elder Crouse, it must be remembered, stated that it was the "right" of every Hardshell to interpret the old Confession as they see fit.  But, as I responded, the Hardshells have no right to affirm that the authors of the Confession agreed with them without proof to the contrary.  Our examination of the Confession showed that the Hardshell interpretation was baseless and nothing but a "torturing" of the language as Elder Sarrels confessed, and an attempt to "explain away" the clear meaning of the Confession as Elder Hunt confessed.  Further, the additional evidence that was presented from the leading authors of the Confession proved conclusively what was meant by the authors of the Confession.

In this final chapter in this series I want to cite from some of the first generation leaders of the Particular Baptists, men who were dead in 1689 but who nevertheless reflected what was the belief of those ancient Baptists.  In the June, 1971 issue of the Christian Baptist, cited in the first chapter of this series, Elder Tolley was cited.  In the following issue of August, Elder G. E. Griffin, a leading Hardshell, wrote to Tolley and said:

"There are some statements in the 'London Confession' that most Primitive Baptist ministers consider contradictive - this seems so to me - but if we could have talked to the ministers who published the Confession, we may have understood them more clearly." 

But, Elder Griffin should have had no need to talk to them!  His making such a statement shows that he had not read any of the numerous writings of the authors of the Confession!  For, had he, he would have realized that they believed exactly what they clearly expressed in their Confession!  In Tolley's article he says ""We believe that there will be millions of the 'elect' saved in heaven who have never, nor will they ever, hear the gospel of the Son of God."  (pg. 13)  This of course was not what the Confession taught, as we have already seen.

John Spilsbury was one of the first leaders of the Baptists who wrote the first and second London Confessions.  Therefore, to ascertain his views on the question of how God saves his elect is further evidence of what was the belief of the Baptists who wrote those old Confessions. 

Wrote John Spilsbury: (see here)

"To which union with Christ, these three things must be minded, as essential to the same:

First, God's revealing and tending of Christ, as the all sufficient and only way to life.
Secondly, a heart fitly disposed by faith to apprehend and receive Christ so tendered.
And lastly, The Spirit of grace uniting and knitting of the heart and Christ together, as aforesaid.

And this I understand to be that effectual and substantial union with Christ, to justification of life, which the Word of God approves of; that must decide all differences in matters of Religion. For justification to life ever presupposes apprehension of Christ, as the subject of life, and a true application of the same by faith, as aforesaid. The Gospel holds forth no other justification to salvation, but what is of faith; and faith ever presupposes the party's knowledge of the thing believe, Rom. 10:14, Heb. 11:6."

This clearly shows that the old Baptists of the Confession did not believe Hardshell views regarding faith and salvation.  It clearly shows what was the doctrine of the Confession, how the word of God was the means employed by the Holy Spirit in effectual calling. 

He also wrote:

"And for any to appoint God a way how to save Infants, or to draw out to themselves a way how the Holy Spirit of Grace must sanctify them to salvation, above what is written, I think it is somewhat too much boldness. God will have His creature to keep only to His Word, as the Rule by which man must judge all things; and the Word of God shows that he has elected persons to the means as well as to the end, being the way unto the same. And that was the Adoption of Sons, to be called and justified by believing in Jesus Christ, as Eph. 1:4,5; Rom. 8:29, 30; I Pet. 1:2; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. And therefore the ground of God's calling us, and our believing is attributed unto our Election, Acts 2:47; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28; Rom. 11:7. And to the glory of God, as the cause of all, by the dispensation of His grace upon His chosen in Christ, and their free obedience unto Him again, Rom. 9:23, 24; Eph. 1:6, 12.

These things God has revealed in His Word, and further, I dare not go, but leave the secret things to God, Who gives not account of all His ways.""

Here Spilsbury affirms that the word of God is "the means" whereby sinners are called and justified, and how it is "by believing in Jesus" that they are saved.  Spilsbury and the old Baptists did not know of such a thing as "non-cognitive faith," or a faith that was merely "embryonic" (as Sarrels taught) or a "faith" that was defined as "ability to believe" (Montgomery & Guess). 

He said:

"Not that I hold all that die in their infancy to be damned, but being a secret thing, I leave the same to God."

In previous chapters I have answered all the arguments that Hardshells make regarding the regeneration of infants and have shown how the Confession taught that the regeneration of those who die in infancy was not exactly like the regeneration of adults.  Spilsbury did not teach, as do Hardshells, that the regeneration of infants was exactly like the regeneration of adults.  Spilsbury's opponent, the Presbyterian Blakewell, was arguing that the regeneration of infants proves that the 1644 Confession could not be correct in its assertion that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation, but Spilsbury rejected Blakewell's assertion, which shows what the old Baptists believed. 

Spilsbury wrote:

"But I would not be understood to oppose Infants so, as to exclude them from salvation, no, I am so far from this, that I do not so much as impose any such work of grace upon them, as essential to life, in this or that way, as many do, but leave all in respect of them, as a secret thing to the wisdom and grace of God in Christ, by whom the sin of all the Elect are forever done away at once."

Spilsbury, unlike the Hardshells, refused to make the supposed regeneration of infants the paradigm for how all the elect are regenerated.  With Spilsbury the regeneration of infants was a "secret thing," but with our modern Hardshells it is no secret at all.

In his confession of faith, Spilsbury wrote:

"I believe that God of his grace, in his own time, effectually calls such as shall be saved to the knowledge of the truth, who is said, of his own will to beget us by the word of truth: in which work of grace, nature is as passive, as a child in the parents begetting of it; and so God by His Spirit works faith in the hearts of all such to believe in Christ, and his righteousness, only for justification. And thus they are made righteous before God in Christ, and so conformable to the will of God the Father through the Son; and also made holy through the work of regeneration, and the holy Spirit of grace dwelling in them; yet all such have still, as long as they live here in the flesh, remaining in them, an old man, that original corruption, the flesh that wars against the spirit, which hinders them in their obedience both to God and to man, and many times draws them to that which is evil, and contrary to their intentions; yet all of them shall through Christ overcome, and safely be brought to glory at last."  (Article 5)

Elder Griffin, had he read such writings, would have no doubt about what was in the mind of the writers of the London Confessions.  Not that the Confession itself is unclear. 

Elder J. M. Peck was one of the first to battle the Hardshells in their modern innovation in denying the use of means in effectual calling.  He debated Daniel Parker, one of the first leaders in the anti mission movement.  Peck wrote:

"But there are some things which Regular Baptists have been accused of propagating, and some speculations preached by good men, which cannot be found, or legitimately inferred, by implication from this Confession of Faith (Philadelphia). These things are not there, and can not be implied from the doctrines taught..."

"Some may yet imagine and teach that the Spirit regenerates the elect without means, or the subordinate agency of his gospel. But in this they teach directly contrary to the unequivocal declarations of the Confession of Faith, no less than against the scriptures. The doctrine of means, or the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration, as well as in all its adjuncts, is taught very plainly and directly in chapters 1st, 7th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 14th, and 20th; and is taught by implication in several other chapters. The only exception made is in chapter X, under "Effectual Calling," sec. 3: --

"Elect Infants, dying in Infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh, when and where, and how he pleaseth. So also all other persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."

The construction put on the first clause of this section by brethren in the Philadelphia Association was this: That the phrase "Elect Infants" includes all who died in a state of unconscious infancy -- that the second clause referred to adult idiots, and others, who were rendered incapable of being "outwardly called by the ministry of the word," by some providential acts.

The authors and revisors [sic] of this "Confession" would have repudiated with the expressions of horror, the mischievous speculation that God has an elect people, scattered among the nations of the earth -- that he knows his own -- and that he quickens or regenerates these without the gospel or any of the instrumentalities he has provided. REGULAR BAPTISTS were missionary Baptists, and knew the meaning of the great commission to preach the gospel to every creature, specially in view of their conversion and salvation.

The Confession of Faith teaches the doctrine of "particular election," without regard to human merit; but it also teaches the necessity of preaching the gospel to all men, without which sinners capable of hearing the gospel cannot be saved. The anti-christian dogma that the gospel need not be preached to sinners of every class and grade, for the specific purpose of being the instrument of their conversion and salvation through the mighty working of the Holy Spirit, has no place in the Confession of Faith of Regular Baptists." (THE BAPTISTS - Regular, Separate and United" By John M. Peck, 1855) (see here)

Hardshell elder Mark Green wrote:

"It is an easily documented fact that among uninspired writings, the London Confession of Faith and the works of John Gill have been held by Primitive Baptists in high regard and with great respect. We have claimed them as our own and have referred to them time and time again in our defense of the faith against Arminianism and Fullerism. They provided a very visible link for us with the “old country” and those brethren who were not only of our faith, but also of our own language and a similar culture."  ("Two Old and Honored Friends," in the foreward - see here) 

One thing is very clear to any unbiased and honest mind.  The chapters in this book on "Gill and the Hardshells" and "Hardshells and the London Confession" show conclusively that neither Dr. Gill nor the London Confession are "two old and honored friends" of the Hardshells.  No one but a blinded Hardshell cult member could believe otherwise. 

Gowens's Question

Let's ask a question.

"Does the objective fact of redemption by Christ depend on man's perception or understanding of that fact?" (Michael Gowens, Temporal Salvation: A Bogus or Biblical Concept?)

This is the question posed by Elder Gowens at the beginning of his work.  An answer in the negative is the starting point for his treatise, and the ultimate starting point for extreme conditional time salvation.  Based on such an answer, salvation can be considered solely an objective thing outside of us which may not affect a real subjective change within us.  If correct, then salvation may exist without perception, knowledge, understanding, faith, repentance and experimental holiness.  Talk about regenerated souls being spiritual vegetables!  What a proposal!

First, it must be stated that the answer to such a question will not be settled by human logic. No amount of reasoning that perception doesn’t make something a fact will suffice. The Word of God alone must provide the answer.  Gowens provides no scripture(s) which prove that salvation can exist without cognitive perception, but merely assumes that it is the case, and proceeds to build his argument upon it.  The question is posed to the reader to see if they will reason to the same conclusion.

Second, there is need of some clarification in understanding "the objective fact of redemption".  There’s a reason why this is so.  During the years I was among this people I noticed the tendency of many to go to the extreme on the finished work of Christ by thinking that nothing else had to happen in the future for the elect to be saved.  “It is finished”, they say, which is certainly true, but not to be construed as they do. “How terribly have these blessed words of Christ been misunderstood, misappropriated and misapplied (Arthur W. Pink)”!  In light of this problem, I can't help but think of John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied and the important biblical lesson conveyed by the title. There is the securing of our redemption accomplished by the Lord at Calvary, and then there is the application of it in regeneration, both essential for salvation.  Now the redeeming work of Christ certainly did not depend upon my subjective awareness any more than my election by the Father did, for these are objective elements of salvation accomplished before I came to be.  However, when we come to consider the application of redemption (and we must) the answer is an absolute yes.  Faith is the instrument through which sinners are saved.

“For by grace are ye saved thru faith…”  (Eph. 2:8)

I find it absolutely amazing how one can especially read the Gospel of John, the books of Romans and Galatians, and deny such.

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

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;" (Rom. 4:24)

"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (Gal. 3:14)

Since salvation does not involve solely the death of Christ without the effectual communication of its benefits, the question which ought to be asked is...

“Does the application of redemption by Christ depend on man’s subjective perception or understanding of that fact?”

Unless one understands that salvation involves both the death of Christ, already accomplished, and the on-going application of it to sinners in the new birth, he may be deceived into thinking that since my faith came after the finished work of Christ, therefore it is not necessary for my salvation.  What a lie to tell sinners! The "objective fact of redemption" therefore is most misleading.  Salvation can never be completely viewed as an objective thing.  It may be viewed as such only if we view our election by God and the death of Christ as stand-alone acts without taking into consideration the work of the Holy Spirit in communicating the benefits of these saving works of God.  However, God’s elect were chosen to attain to the subjective experience.  That’s what it means to be saved!  The merits of Christ's work must be applied to our bodies for this end result to be realized, at which time salvation becomes a most "subjective" thing!

Any attempt to strip the subjective experience away from salvation exposes an ignorance as to what salvation is. It's as if, as Elder Thomas Mann correctly noted, that God is only concerned with populating heaven. This is a woeful error for those in the time salvation camp.

Let us suppose for a moment, though, that nothing of a subjective nature is necessary for the objective fact of salvation.  Would this be enough to deny the claim that the two are nevertheless joined together?

Let us suppose that God decreed that eternal salvation was not dependent upon man’s faith, but for whatever reason He was pleased that it would nevertheless accompany those whom He would save.  Consider the sun which shines in the sky.  I am no scientist, but I do not think that the light which comes forth causes the sun to exist, nor does the sun depend upon it to continue.  Now what man would be so foolish to reason that since the sun doesn’t rely upon the sunlight, that must mean we may have one without the other?  Simply turn our eyes to the heaven and what do we see?  Where there is the sun, there is sunlight, for God has joined them together!  In like manner, speaking hypothetically it could have been the case that while God decreed that faith was not to be an instrument in the salvation of sinners, He nevertheless ordained that it would be a definite fruit in those whom He would save.  Gowen’s question does not address this as a possibility, yet rather makes an appeal to logic which says that since an objective fact does not depend upon the subjective perception of such, salvation may thus bypass the mind and the fruits of conversion do not necessarily follow.  Totally unscriptural.

The question which Gowens needs to confront in order to substantiate the doctrine of conditional time salvation is not simply if eternal salvation depends upon the subjective experience but whether or not the latter accompanies eternal salvation (Heb. 6:9).

It would have to be proven that it doesn’t. 

Such a hopeless task, for the subjective experience is what salvation is meant to effect. 

Warwick Association Circular

As more evidence that the first Hardshells were not as radical as are today's Hardshells, the following citation from one of their oldest associations will demonstrate.  In the 1834 circular letter of the Warwick Association there was an attempt by the Hardshells to answer some of the charges being leveled against them as a result of their declaring against such things as mission societies and Sunday Schools.

"We are represented as being opposed to preaching “the necessity of faith and repentance;” whereas we constantly affirm the necessity of “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” in order to happiness here and hereafter. But we do not tell impenitent sinners, that they are penitent, and therefore the promises of the Gospel are for them – that they are mourners, therefore they shall be comforted – that they are weary and heavy laden, and therefore they shall find rest – that they hungry and thirsting after righteousness, therefore they can see, hear, and understand – that they are alive, either in whole or in part and that nominal faith and natural repentance being conditions of salvation, they are therefore to perform those conditions. Neither do we tell them, that although they are dead in trespasses and sins – yet they possess natural powers, with which they can perform spiritual things. Nay, but we tell them, that they are deaf, and dumb, and blind, yea dead - that they have no power whatever to perform spiritual things; no will; for Christ said, “Ye will not come unto Me that ye might have life.” No ability; “for no man can come unto Me, except the Father which sent Me draw him.” We tell them, “they were conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity,” that “the whole head is sick and the whole heart faith; that, from the sole of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores.” – that, “destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known, and that there is no fear of God before their eyes.” – that “they are under condemnation already, and the wrath of God falling on them.” Therefore in this condition, there is not a comforting promise for them in all the Word of God – but on the contrary the woes and threatening, the thundering and curses of the Word of God are their portion, and without repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, they must perish – that a mere external repentance or turning, however socially good in its place, is by no means sufficient – that there is nothing short of that repentance which flows from a Godly sorrow for sin, “which is eternal life,” and “needs not to be repented of,” – that will answer."  (1834 Circular Warwick Baptist Association by Gabriel Conklin, emphasis mine SG see here)

From this it is seen that the first Hardshells did not affirm that faith in Christ was not necessary to be eternally saved.  Yet this is the teaching of today's Hardshells.  This is interesting seeing most Hardshells think that they have not changed in doctrine over the past two hundred years!  If, however, they would do a little more research and reading of their forefathers, they might be led to see the truth about what the modern Hardshell church has become.

Hardshell Doctrine

In the June 1971 issue of "The Christian Baptist," a leading periodical of the time, editor Elder S. T. Tolley wrote:

"We believe that there will be millions of the 'elect' saved in heaven who have never, nor will they ever, hear the gospel of the Son of God."  (pg. 13)  This was said in Elder Tolley's article  "A Re-Statement of our Faith Needed" in which he showed how the Hardshells do not believe what the London Confession says about salvation, about the Gospel being God's means of begetting faith, which faith is necessary to salvation. 

In the past, in this blog, Elder Fralick and I have affirmed that it is the nigh universal belief of Hardshells that one does not have to believe in Christ in order to be saved, and that many idol worshipping heathen will be saved in heaven.  Hardshell apologist Jason Brown, with whom we have debated here in this blog, has said that this is not true.  Yet, we have presented all kinds of evidence to prove that what Elder Tolley affirms is in fact the view of Hardshells and we have called upon Jason Brown to give us the citations from Hardshells today who believe otherwise, but which he has not been able or willing to do. 

In the issues that followed Tolley's article, there were numerous letters published from Hardshells and not one of them objected to Tolley's statement, but those that commented were all in agreement. 

This is the fatal error of Hardshellism!  They tell people, such as Muslims, Buddhists, Hindos, etc., that they may be saved in spite of their not being Christian.  This is truly a "damnable heresy." 

Stanley Phillips Agrees

Stanley Phillips, a present day elder with the Absoluter faction of Hardshells, and editor of the Hardshell web page "asweetsavor," wrote:

"Between 1814 and 1840's, this “Means and Measures” Old School party grew rapidly on the frontiers, and were basically considered “brethren” by all other Old School groups. The Means Baptists had no particular quibble about suing churches of our Lord, “brethren” or not; and in the 1840's law-suits by them to claim church properties, strained that relationship between them. By the 1850's the separation between the “Means Baptists,” and the “Anti-Means” Baptists was close to completion. Some who were members of Predestinarian Old School Baptists joined in fellowship with the Means Baptists. The Means Baptists found these former Predestinarians very capable leaders, among the most notable was John Clark, WITH the Ketocton, and William Conrad of the Licking Particular, and their law-suits and bitter slanderous misinformation is still correct tidbits today."  (Stanley C. Phillips January 2009 - see here)

Elder Phillips admits that for many years the "Primitive" or "Old School" denomination had within it many who believed that God saved (regenerated or begat) by means of the Gospel during the first generation of the anti mission movement.  He says that "by the 1850s the separation between the 'Means Baptists,' and the "Anti-Means' Baptists was close to completion."  Actually, however, it was not till about 1890 when there was a formal division.  This is an admission that many of today's Hardshells are not willing to make, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.  Most Hardshells have been led to believe that the Hardshells have always rejected means, and that the original division in the 1827-32 period was over the question of means.  But, the fact is, the original division was not over the question of the use of means in salvation, but over methods, and over "humanly devised means," such as mission organizations and Sunday Schools. 

Elder Phillips also acknowledges that Elders John Clark and William Conrad, who I have cited in previous postings, were "Means Baptists."  Yet, many Hardshells today acknowledge that Clark was "one of them."  It just shows how little they really know of their own history and how far they have removed from what was originally believed by their founding fathers.  Further, Elder Conrad was fellowshipped by Elder Wilson Thompson and labored together.  The first Hardshells could recognize and fellowship those who believed in means but today's Hardshells will not.