An Old Study Note

As can be expected, during my approximate 2-year journey in which I wrestled with critical issues involved in the means/anti-means controversy, I became a bit of a writer.  Not all of which I wrote then I would now totally agree with though.  I did lots of brainstorming over deep theological issues during this time so this is to be expected.  Just last night however I ran across an old note of mine from my personal study which serves as an example of what the Lord was leading me to see, in which I think things are stated correctly:

“We must not hastily discard the use of means.  He who is familiar with the Word of God should know very well that God has often used means for the fulfillment of His purposes.  To the oft-stated one-liner “God doesn’t need the gospel to save His people!”, and like statements, we might well rebut that Jesus didn’t need to spit on the ground to heal the blind man of His sight either…but He did.  We might say that God didn’t have to use the Jordan River to heal leprous Namaan, but it was His pleasure to do so.  The statement, therefore, that God doesn’t have to use His Word to regenerate or convert His people is quite beside the point.  The real issue is not whether God HAS to use His word or not in saving His children, but whether he has CHOSEN OR NOT CHOSEN to do so.  To avoid it by boldly declaring that the power of God doesn’t have to use the gospel to reveal himself to His people, while it sounds pleasant to those with extreme views of God’s sovereignty, reflects much ignorance to the fact that God has often chosen to channel that power through secondary means simply because it pleased Him to do so.”

Little did I know at the time that I was returning back to what my forefathers taught.  A good while after I wrote these words, when I began to dig into history, I read for the first time Elder William Fristoe’s History of the Ketocton Association in which I found words very similar to that of my own:

"THO' a Sovereign God, may work above, beyond, and without means, according to His own good pleasure, yet as He hath been pleased to ordain means, and accompanied them by the displays of His power for the conversion and salvation of multitudes of poor sinners…”

I’m so thankful that the Lord blessed me to see this truth a few years ago.  I often heard the one-liner stated from the pulpit that God was all sovereign and therefore didn’t NEED to use the gospel.  I even met with some, in whom the balance of sovereignty and responsibility was practically non-existent, who felt that God needed us not to even invite people to church.  Correct, He doesn’t!  But we might as well reply that God doesn’t have to use the sun to give light to His creation, make use of Moses to bring Israel from Egypt, Joshua to achieve the conquest of Canaan, ravens to feed Elijah, etc.  But guess what?

Discarding the idea of instrumentality because God doesn’t need it is therefore not the issue.  The question is what has He chosen to do.

For one who has been brought to see this truth, hindsight has indeed become a most precious thing.

Hardshell Pelagianism II

Chapter 139

"To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so." These were the words of Elder Beebe as cited in the previous chapter.  It is also repeated by other leaders in the "Primitive Baptist Church."  It is also a leading premise of Pelagianism.  But, we must ask - does the fact that all men are commanded to keep the commandments of the Lord imply that they have ability to do so?  Did not Solomon say - "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."  (Eccl. 12: 13)  "Man," all men, are commanded to "fear God."  Does this imply that "man" has ability to do this?  Pelagians would say yes.  Hardshells, such as Beebe and the men cited in the previous chapter, also would have to say yes.  Yet, even though they deny that all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel, yet they do not deny that all men are commanded to fear God and keep his law.  If Hardshells can believe that the command to fear God and keep his commandments do not imply ability in man to do so, then why do they argue that the command to repent and believe imply an ability to do so? 

Elder John Clark, editor of Zion's Advocate, and leader of the "Primitive Baptist" church in the middle 19th century, and an oft opponent of some of the views of Beebe, wrote:

"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"

The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.

To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.

The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."

("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)

Elder John Clark understood the error of his fellow Hardshells who argued that Gospel commands implied ability in those addressed and therefore opted to believe that there are no Gospel commands to any other than those who are already saved.  Interesting is the fact that Elder Clark was one of the few remaining believers in the Gospel being a means in regeneration or new birth in the late 19th century.  It would be well if today's Hardshells would understand and accept the insightful words of Elder Clark.  What Clark calls "sublimated Arminianism," "double refined" Arminianism, is really "Pelagianism."  It is the view expressed by Elder Beebe. who said that Gospel commands imply an ability in those commanded, and therefore could not be addressed to the unregenerate.  Clark saw through this and called it for what it is, "sublimated Arminianism" or "Pelagianism."  It is because of these Pelagian errors that Hardshells have been labeled as "Antimomian" as well as "Hyper Calvinist." 

Moral versus Physical or Natural Inability

It is clear that the Hardshells do not understand the nature of the inability of fallen man.  And, because of this, they likewise do not understand the nature of regeneration.  They do not understand that man's inability is moral, not physical (or natural).  They do not understand that regeneration is not physical, does not change the essence of the soul or impart new faculties to it, but is a moral transformation. 

A. W. Pink, a favorite author to read for many Hardshells, wrote (emphasis mine):

"Second, fallen man’s inability is moral, not physical or constitutional. Unless this is clearly perceived we shall be inclined to turn our impotence into an excuse or ground of self-extenuation. Man will be ready to say, "Even though I possess the requisite faculties for the discharge of my duty, if I am powerless I cannot be blamed for not doing it." A person who is paralyzed possesses all the members of his body, but he lacks the physical power to use them; and no one condemns him for his helplessness. It needs to be made plain that when the sinner is said to be morally and spiritually "without strength," his case is entirely different from that of one who is paralyzed physically. The normal or ordinary natural man is not without either mental or physical strength to use his talents. What he lacks is a good heart, a disposition to love and serve God, a desire to please Him; and for that lack he is justly blamable."

And,

"For the sake of those who desire additional insight on the relation of man’s inability to his responsibility, we feel we must further consider this difficult but important (perhaps to some, abstruse and dry) aspect of our subject. Light on it has come to us "here a little, there a little"; but it is our duty to share with others the measure of understanding vouchsafed us. We have sought to show that the problem we are wrestling with appears much less formidable when once the precise nature of man’s impotence is properly defined. It is due neither to the absence of requisite faculties for the performance of duty nor to any force from without which compels him to act contrary to his nature and inclinations. Instead, his bondage to sin is voluntary; he freely chooses the evil. Second, it is a moral inability, and not physical or constitutional."  ("The Doctrine of Man’s Impotence," Chapter 9-Affirmation, see here)

Jonathan Edwards, in his book "Freedom of the Will," SECTION IV., under the heading "Command and Obligation to Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey," wrote:

"What has been said of natural and moral Necessity, may serve to explain what is intended by natural and moral Inability. We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will, either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral Inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination, or the strength of a contrary inclination, or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary. Or both these may be resolved into one; and it may be said in one word, that moral Inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For when a person is unable to will or choose such a thing, through a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, it is the same thing as his being unable through the want of an inclination. or the prevalence of a contrary inclination, in such circumstances, and under the influence of such views."

It must be noted how Edwards uses the term "natural" in the above words.  He does not deny that the lack of inclination and disposition to obey God is "natural" in the sense that it is inbred in the soul, but he uses the term in the sense of what is "physical" or "constitutional." 

Edwards continues:

"It cannot be truly said, according to the ordinary use of language, that a malicious man, let him be ever so malicious, cannot hold his hand from striking, or that he is not able to show his neighbor kindness; or that a drunkard, let his appetite be ever so strong, cannot keep the cup from his mouth. In the strictest propriety of speech, a man has a thing in his power, if he has it in his choice, or at his election: and a man cannot be truly said to be unable to do a thing, when he can do it if he will. It is improperly said, that a person cannot perform those external actions which are dependent on the act of the will, and which would be easily performed, if the act of the will were present . And if it be improperly said, that he cannot perform those external voluntary actions, which depend on the will, it is in some respect more improperly said, that he is unable to exert the acts of the will themselves; because it is more evidently false, with respect to these, that he cannot if he will: for to say so, is a downright contradiction: it is to say, he cannot will, if he does will. And in this case, not only is it true, that it is easy for a man to do the thing if he will, but the very willing is the doing; when once he has willed, the thing is performed; and nothing else remains to be done. Therefore, in these things to ascribe a non-performance to the want of power or ability, is not just; because the thing wanting is not a being able, but a being willing. There are faculties of mind, and capacity of nature, and every thing else sufficient, but a disposition: nothing is wanting but a will."   (see here)

Basically, Edwards argues that man's "cannot" lies strictly in his "will not." 

Edwards continues:

"Dr. Whitby's notions of liberty, obligation, virtue, sin, &c., led him into another great inconsistence. He abundantly insists, that necessity is inconsistent with the nature of sin or fault. He says in the forementioned treatise, p. 14, "Who can blame a person for doing what he could not help?" And p. 15, "It being sensibly unjust, to punish any man for doing that which was never in his power to avoid." And in p. 341, to confirm his opinion, he quotes one of the Fathers, saying, " Why doth God command, if man hath not free Will and power to obey 1" And again in the same and the next page, " Who will not cry out, that it is folly to command him, that hath not liberty to do what is commanded; and that it is unjust to condemn him, that has it not in his power to do what is required 1" And in p. 373, he cites another saying: "A law is given to him that can turn to both parts, i. e. obey or transgress it: but no law can be against him who is bound by nature." And yet the same Dr. Whitby asserts, that fallen man is not able to perform perfect obedience. In p. 165, he has these words: "The nature of Adam had power to continue innocent, and without sin; whereas it is certain our nature never had."—But if we have not power to continue innocent and without sin, then sin is inconsistent with Necessity, and we may be sinful in that which we have not power to avoid; and these things cannot be true which he asserts elsewhere, namely, "That if we be necessitated, neither sins of omission nor commission, would deserve that name," (p. 348.) If we have it not in our power to be innocent, then we have it not in our power to to be blameless: and if so, we are under a necessity of being blameworthy.—And how does this consist with what he so often asserts, that necessity is inconsistent with blame or praise"? If we have it not in our power to perform perfect obedience, to all the commands of God, then we are under a necessity of breaking some commands, in some degree; having no power to perform so much as is commanded. And if so, why does he cry out of the unreasonableness and folly of commanding beyond what men have power to do?" 

Edwards continues:

"And Arminians in general are very inconsistent with themselves in what they say of the inability of fallen Man in this respect. They strenuously maintain, that it would be unjust in God, to require any thing of us beyond our present power and ability to perform; and also hold, that we are now unable to perform perfect obedience, and that Christ died to satisfy for the imperfections of our obedience, and has made way, that our imperfect obedience might be accepted instead of perfect: wherein they seem insensibly to run themselves into the grossest inconsistence. For (as I have observed elsewhere),"they hold, that God. in mercy to mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution or law, that they were under originally; and instead of it, has introduced a more mild constitution, and put as under a new law, which requires no more than imperfect sincere obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impotent circumstances since the fall."  (Section II 94-98)

Not only are Arminians "very inconsistent with themselves in what they say of the inability of fallen Man," but so are the Hardshells. 

A. A. Hodge, in his "Outlines of Theology," wrote:

"16. What distinction is intended by the theological terms, natural and moral ability?

By natural ability was intended the possession, on the part of every responsible moral agent, whether holy or unholy, of all the natural faculties, as reason, conscience, free will, requisite to enable him to obey God s law. If any of these were absent, the agent would not be responsible. By moral ability was intended that inherent moral condition of these faculties, that righteous disposition of heart, requisite to the performance of duty. Although these terms have been often used by orthodox writers in a sense which to them expressed the truth, yet they have often been abused, and are not desirable. It is evidently an abuse of the word to say that sinners are naturally able, but morally unable, to obey the law; for that can be no ability which leaves the sinner, as the Scriptures declare, utterly unable either to think, feel, or act aright. Besides, the word “natural,” in the phrase “natural ability,” is used in an unusual sense, as opposite to moral; while in the usual sense of that word it is declared in Scripture that man is by nature, i.e., naturally, a child of wrath."  (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, page 272, as cited in calvinandcalvinism.com, see here)

Hodge explains how Edwards and other Calvinist writers use the term "natural" in opposition to the term "moral" in explaining both man's inability and his regeneration. 

W. G. T. Shedd wrote:

"1) In the Westminster statement, the disability or inability is connected with the disposition and inclination of the will. Man is “indisposed to all spiritual good, and inclined to all [spiritual] evil.” It follows from this, that the cause and seat of the inability in question is in the action and state of the voluntary faculty. It is moral or willing inability.

Nam servit voluntas peccato, non nolens sed volens. Etenim voluntas non noluntas dicitur. Second Helvetic Confession, IX.

In denominating it “moral” inability, it is not meant that it arises merely from habit, or that it is not “natural” in any sense of the word nature. A man is sometimes said to be morally unable to do a thing, when it is very difficult for him to do it by reason of an acquired habit, but not really impossible. This is not the sense of the word “moral” when applied to the sinner’s inability to holiness. He is really and in the full sense of the word impotent. And the cause of this impotence is not a habit of doing evil which he has formed in his individual life, but a natural disposition which he has inherited from Adam. The term “moral,” therefore, when applied to human inability denotes that it is voluntary, in distinction from created. Man’s impotence to good does not arise from the agency of God in creation, but from the agency of man in apostasy.

Whether, therefore, it can ever be called “natural” inability, will depend upon the meaning given to the term “nature.”

(a) If “nature” means that which is created by God, there is no natural inability to good in fallen man. But if “nature” means “natural disposition,” or “natural inclination,” there is a “natural” inability to good in fallen man."  (ibid)

In the writings of Hardshells on the inability of the natural man to obey the law or the Gospel, they conceive of the inability as being natural or physical, as if it results from some lack of a faculty of soul rather than strictly from a lack of moral strength.  This has led them to view regeneration as involving the giving of faculties to the soul which it did not previously have rather than of a strictly moral transformation.  On this we will have more to say later in this series.  What do the Hardshells mean when they insist that God gives the sinner an inner power or ability in regeneration?  Do they mean that God gives it faculties which it did not have before?  Yes, they do, and this results from the fact that they do not understand the nature of the inability that the unregenerate sinner possesses.  If the sinner has a natural or physical inability, then truly he would not be accountable. 

In the next chapter we will continue to show that the Scriptures and the leading Calvinistic authors teach a moral rather than a natural or physical inability and then show how such a view affects one's view on the nature of the change effected in regeneration.

Hardshell Pelagianism I

Chapter 138

Bob Ross, in his book "History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists," chapter 6, wrote under title of "HARDSHELL DOCTRINE IS PELAGIANISM IN A 19TH CENTURY PACKAGE."  In that section Ross gives us these citations from leading Hardshell elders.

 S. T. Tolley, The Christian Baptist (June '85, page 5):

"For it is through the grace and mercy of God that one is CAPACITATED to either hear or believe the message of the gospel, and be saved by and through its influence."

Also, Tolley says:

"Accountability necessarily implies capability".  (TCB, 2/85/ p. 4)

E. D. McCutcheon, Primitive Baptist minister:

"He equips him (the sinner) with ABILITY to repent . . . He  gives  us  the ABILITY to do so . . . "(This We Believe, page 42).

Eddie Garrett, The Hardshell Baptist (March '92, page 4):

"When he Lord gives us life we then have the ABILITY to believe the gospel, even though we may not."  (see here) 

Gilbert Beebe also wrote:

"To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so." 

(Editorials –– Volume 4 pgs 41-46, in th article titled "What is the Gospel, and to Whom is it Addressed?" - see here)

There is no need to multiply citations from leading voices in the Hardshell denomination.  Such statements are oft repeated in sermons and writings by Hardshells.  I heard it often repeated when I was with the Hardshells.

Under the sub heading "The "Command Implies Ability" Theory Strips God's Word of Power" Ross wrote (some emphasis mine - SG):

"What was to develop in the Anti-Mission movement, after the 1827 Kehukee Declaration and the 1832 Black Rock Address, was the subtle use of an old philosophy known as "PELAGIANISM."  [For a study of Pelagianism, see B. B. Warfield's Two Studies in the History of Doctrine and Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Writings in the fifth volume of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, Eerdmans' edition].

Pelagianism held that God bestowed on man the "capacity for his will and work" and that man's capacity, or ability, "come from God alone."  This "capacity" was "implanted in us by God," according to Pelagius, a fifth century British monk after whom this school of thought is named. 

While Hardshellism is certainly not Pelagian on the matter of man's nature in relation to the effect of the Fall of Man, it has adorned the old Pelagian concept of "command implies ability" in a new garb, format, or "package."  What Pelagianism says of man in his natural state, Hardshellism merely shifts to man in a supposed "regenerated" state, before faith.

Basically, this is the same view being advocated by some today who called themselves "Reformed." They have the sinner "capacitated" with an "ability" prior to faith so as to be "enabled" to become a believer. They therefore say "regeneration precedes faith," for it is allegedly necessary for the sinner to be "alive" in order to have the "ability" to believe.

In effect, this logically denies that the power of the Word of God is suficient, in the hands of the Spirit, to resurrect the "dead" sinner, as illustrated by Ezekiel's dry bones (Ez. 37). It makes faith the act by the "regenerated" sinner's "ability" rather than the creative gift of the Holy Spirit."

I have already dealt with these issues in chapter nine, titled "Hardshell Logic on Regeneration" (see here)  and in chapter 86, titled Hardshell Proof Texts VIII" (see here).  So, in this series there will simply be an expansion on how Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism are a kind of Pelagianism.

William Hendry Stowell, editor of the nineteenth century publication "The Eclectic Review," cites Dr. Williams, who said:

"But as the Holy Scriptures abound with calls, invitations, proposals, and inducements to sinners, in order that they may repent, believe, and obey,—with awful denunciations for their want of compliance; so they abundantly testify concerning the ignorance, hardness of heart, moral impotence, and enmity of men to God, to his law, and the light of truth, while they continue in an unregenerate state. Now the question is, are these two representations to be taken in their full extent, or is one of them to be reduced in meaning? The consistent Calvinist asserts the former; but Pelagians and Hyper Calvinists (for they occasionally concur) plead for the latter. The Pelagians prefer an attempt to reduce the doctrine of human depravity; the Hyper-Calvinists, the extent of the gospel call. Now, it is remarkable that those respectively who hold both extremes, (which here amicably meet) attempt their plan of reduction or extenuation on the very same principle, viz. That moral ability is requisite to constitute moral obligation. It is plain, from Scripture, says the Pelagian, that the gospel call is general; therefore all men must be possessed of moral ability to comply, which is incompatible with native depravity. But it is plain from Scripture, says the Hyper-Calvinist, that men in their unregcnerate state arc totally depraved; therefore the gospel call is addressed only to those who are divinely quickened to feel their need of the gospel remedy.

The consistent Calvinist rejects both these inferences, and admits the above statements in their full extent of meaning. The reasons are, because neither can be denied without doing great violence to the plain declarations of God's word; and because both may be perfectly reconciled on satisfactory principles. These principles are,—the true grounds of moral obligation,—and the difference between the rectoral and the sovereign designs of God." 

(In the article "Williams Essays" wherein Stowell cites from Dr. Williams's "Essay on the Equity of Divine Government and the Sovereignty of Divine Grace" in the Eclectic Review, 1814, pages 333-34, see here)

These two critics of Pelagianism and Hyper Calvinism state the matter very well.  The Hardshells, though at times agreeing that commands do not imply ability, and reject Pelagianism, nevertheless argue the basic premise of Pelagianism when they affirm that biblical commands to fallen sinners imply ability.  They are therefore inconsistent.  What most Hardshells do, in view of this, is to deny that there are any biblical commands to all men wherein they are commanded to believe and repent, or to be regenerated.  Thus, to overthrow Hardshell Pelagianism, one need only prove that there are universal commands in Scripture in which all men are commanded to believe and repent.  Hardshells already accept the view that no man is able to believe and repent, or come to Jesus, so to prove that they are commanded to do so, disproves their contention that such commands imply ability.  Dr. Williams was correct to state that the Scriptures uphold both ideas and are not contradictory.

Thomas Boston wrote (as cited, ironically, on a Hardshell Internet web page):

"Objection 1: If we be under an utter inability to do any good, how can God require us to do it?

Answer: God making man upright (Eccl. 7.29), gave him a power to do everything that He should require of him; this power man lost by his own fault. We were bound to serve God, and do whatever He commanded us, as being His creatures; and also, we were under the superadded tie of a covenant, for that purpose. Now, we having, by our own fault, disabled ourselves, shall God lose His right of requiring our task, because we have thrown away the strength He gave us whereby to perform it? Has the creditor no right to require payment of his money because the debtor had squandered it away, and is not able to pay him? Truly, if God can require no more of us than we are able to do, we need no more to save us from wrath, but to make ourselves unable for every duty, and to incapacitate ourselves for serving God any manner of way, as profane men frequently do. So the deeper a man is plunged in sin, he will be the more secure from wrath, for where God can require no duty of us, we do not sin in omitting it; and where there is no sin there can be no wrath. As to what may be urged by the unhumbled soul, against the putting our stock in Adam's hand, the righteousness of that dispensation was explained before. But moreover, the unrenewed man is daily throwing away the very remains of natural abilities, that rational light and strength which are to be found amongst the ruins of mankind. Nay, further, he will not believe his own utter inability to help himself; so that out of his own mouth, he must be condemned. Even those who make their natural impotency to good a covert to their sloth, do, with others, delay the work of turning to God from time to time, and, under convictions, make large promises of reformation, which afterwards they never regard, and delay their repentance to a death bed, as if they could help themselves in a moment; which shows them to be far from a due sense of their natural inability, whatever they pretend.

Now, if God can require of men the duty they are not able to do, He can in justice punish them for their not doing it, notwithstanding their inability. If He has power to exact the debt of obedience, He has also power to cast the insolvent debtor into prison, for his not paying it. Further, though unregenerate men have no gracious abilities, yet they want not natural abilities which nevertheless they will not improve. There are many things they can do, which they do not; they will not do them, and therefore their damnation will be just. Nay, all their inability to do good is voluntary; they will not come to Christ (John 5.40). They will not repent, they will die (Ezek. 18.31). So they will be justly condemned, because they will neither turn to God, nor come to Christ, but love their chains better than their liberty, and darkness rather than light (John 3.19)

Objection 2: Why do you then preach Christ to us, call us to come to Him, to believe., repent, and use the means of salvation?

Answer: Because it is your duty so to do. It is your duty to accept of Christ, as He is offered in the Gospel, to repent of your sins, and to be holy in all manner of conversation; these things are commanded you of God; and His command, not your ability, is the measure of your duty. Moreover, these calls and exhortations are the means that God is pleased to make use of, for converting His elect, and working grace in their hearts: to them, 'faith cometh by hearing' (Rom 10.17), while they are as unable to help themselves as the rest of mankind are. Upon very good grounds may we, at the command of God, who raises the dead, go to their graves, and cry in His name, 'Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light' (Eph. 5. 14)."  (pages 7-9, see here)

Elder Sylvester Hassell, in answer to the question, "Who are "the all-men-everywhere" whom Paul says in his discourse at Athens "God commands to repent?" (Acts 17:30), answered:

"The whole world of human beings, the whole human race, whom Paul says, in the next verse, God will judge by Jesus Christ. God is the same since the fall of man that He was before, and His holy law, which requires all His intelligent creatures to love and worship Him exclusively and supremely, is the standard of all creature obedience, and cannot change, even if man, by his own will and sin, has rendered himself unable to obey that law. If a man owes another a thousand dollars, and is not able to pay him a cent, he owes him just the same. Ability is not the limit of obligation. If it were, no human being would be under any obligation to God; for no human being in the present state can spiritually and perfectly fulfill any commandment of God. All men should be told, as Christ told His hearers, that "unless they repent they will perish." (Luke 13:3-5)."  (Questions and Answers-Part 10 - (Questions and Answers-Part 10 - see here)

In his book "History of the Church of God," page 339, Hassell wrote:

"It is the superficial declaration of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent that Divine commands necessarily imply human" ability—-just as though man had never fallen. Though man has fallen and become unable to obey the commandments of God, the nature and law and requirements of God are unchanged and unchangeable."

Thus it is clear that Hassell understood the basic premise of Pelagianism and rejected it.  Hassell also admits that all men are commanded to repent, which pits him against what most Hardshells believe.  Hassell admits that that "all men should be told, as Christ told His hearers, that unless they repent they will perish."  Hassell then would reject the views expressed by men such as Beebe who said that "To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so." Yet, after saying this, however, notice how Hassell seems to forget what he has just said and says: 

"The gospel addresses of the Scriptures are addressed, we believe, to gospel characters—to those persons who have spiritual life, hearing, needs and appetites. These limitations are either directly expressed or implied by the circumstances. Even the letter of the word, where there is any fullness of narration, and the dictates of common sense teach this important fact."

But, he admits that the command to repent, to change one's mind about Christ, is addressed to all men, in the previous citations, and yet here he denies that such "addresses" are to be made to all men.  This is a glaring contradiction.  When was Hassell right?  When he admitted that the Gospel calls and commands all men to repent or perish, or when he says that such commands are limited to "gospel characters," to those who were already saved and born again?  Surely he was right in the former and wrong in the latter.

Hassell continued:

"Inspired men could, far better than we, read the hearts of those whom they addressed; and they addressed hearers of different characters, and therefore used sometimes the imperative and sometimes the indicative mood. God's under-shepherds are directed, not to create, but to tend the flock. I cannot conceive what benefit can be supposed by a believer in sovereign and efficacious grace to be derived from universally and untruthfully extending the comforting spiritual addresses of the gospel to those declared in the Scriptures to be dead in trespasses and sins—Christ expressly forbids that pearls should be cast before swine (Matt. vii. 6)."

When Hassell says that inspired men "addressed hearers of different charcters," does he not mean saved and lost characters?  So again he admits that the Gospel does address all men and yet he contradcts himself in the same breath.   Hassell thinks that to "address" all men in the Gospel is an example of "universally and untruthfully extending the comforting spiritual addresses of the gospel to those declared to be dead in tresspasses and sins."  But, he is confusing matters.  He admits that all men should be addressed as sinners and be told to repent or perish.  Yet, he thinks that this kind of address is to be equated with telling men that they are saved.  Certainly only believers are addressed with such words of comfort.  That is not the issue.  The issue is, does the Gospel address sinners with warnings about their lost condition and with exhortations about how they might be saved? 

About the argument that it is casting pearls before swine to preach the Gospel to the unregenerated, I have already dealt with this weak argument in my series "Addresses to the Lost."  But, notice that Hassell again contradicts himself.  He admits that all men are to be addressed with the exhortation to repent or perish.  Was Paul casting pearl before swine when he commanded all men everywhere to repent?  Was Jesus casting pearl before swine when he preached to the lost?

Hassell continued:

"Unless the Spirit of God first come and impart Divine life and light to the hearer, such addresses will be forever and totally vain. The imperative mood has no more power than the indicative mood, in the mouth of a preacher, to awaken the dead to life. No language or labor of man, and no fact in creation or providence, independently of the Divine Spirit, has the slightest efficacy to take away the sinner's heart of stone and give him a heart of flesh. I do not deny that the minister may at times have a Divine persuasion that some of his hearers are spiritually alive, and that he may not then properly address them in the imperative mood."

If one substitutes the word "attends" for the words "first come and impart Divine life and light to the hearer" in the above highlighted words of Hassell, he would be stating a truth.  "Unless the Spirit of God attends, such addresses will be forever and totally vain."  If one must first be saved before he can be called upon to repent or believe, then why did Paul call upon all men to repent in Acts 17, as Hassell admits?  Certainly no preacing "independently of the Divine Spirit" will have "the slightest efficacy to take away the sinner's heart and give him a heart of flesh."  But, the question is, cannot the preaching of the Gospel when attended by the power of the Sprit not do so?  The Old Baptists who wrote the first and second London Confessions believed that it was by God's word and Spirit that regeneration was effected.

As was said earlier, one either has to deny that the Scriptures command all men to repent and believe the Gospel or give up the Pelagian idea that a command implies ability.  Which did Hassell do?  Did he not speak out of both sides of his mouth? 

In future chapters in this series we will see how the Bible clearly shows that the Gospel is addressed to all men, a fact that Hassell was some times willing to admit.

Luke 13:3 and the Analogy of Faith

If there is such a thing as a timely salvation it is easily understood that there must be a timely judgment alongside of it. If evangelical faith and repentance are only meant to save us from temporary dangers then the failure to acquire them must usher in only a temporal condemnation from the Lord. It is for that very reason that the Primitive Baptist grid used to twist those passages in the Bible which teach some conditions or necessities for salvation must also give an answer to those passages which speak of judgment coming upon those who fail to meet them. These too must be understood in a temporal light.

Case and point is the judgment declared upon the Jews by Jesus in Luke 13:

"I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (v.3)

It is the almost universal opinion within this system that no eternal threatening is under consideration in this passage. Jesus is impressing upon the people that if they feel to repent they shall experience some temporal damnation.

Matthew Henry writes on this passage (emphasis mine - KF):

"Some lay emphasis upon the word likewise, and apply it to the destruction that was coming upon the people of the Jews, and particularly upon Jerusalem, who were destroyed the Romans at the time of the passover, and so, like the Galileans, they had their blood mingled with their sacrifices; and many of them, both in Jerusalem and in other places, were destroyed by the fall of walls and buildings which were battered down about their ears, as those that died by the fall of the tower of Siloam. But certainly it looks further; except we repent, we shall perish eternally, as they perished out of this world."

Henry mentions how some view that the temporal destruction of the Jews at the hand of Romans is under consideration, but rightly asserts that it must be carried further than that. If we employ the simple rule of letting scripture interpret scripture, we will see how this is so. If it be true that repentance is not necessary for salvation, then there can be no other passages in God's Word which teach otherwise. In like manner, every passage which declares judgment upon the impenitent must be considered as speaking solely of temporal damnation. Applying the analogy of faith, let us see if such a position is feasible.

The Psalmist David records the attitude of God towards sin:

”God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors." (Ps. 7:11-12)

If repentance is not required for salvation, then one will find these words a mighty challenge. Since I know the heresy of conditional time salvation well, I know that there are but two alternatives to get around this passage, and that is to assert a temporal judgment is under consideration, or to assert that the unregenerate sinner must repent on the subconscious level. The latter is ridiculous, and is simply the consequence of following a grid which has gone to extremes at the thought of conditions, yet at times must surrender that there must atleast be some "subconscious conditions" for salvation, a point I have always found humorous.

As pertains the first alternative, can we imagine that David is informing us that if the regenerate elect who are not “converted” fail to repent, then they can be assured that God is whetting his “temporal sword” and has his “temporal bow” at the ready? No one doubts that God chastises His people but this is not under consideration here, for the passage is not directed to some fictional class of “unconverted regenerates” but the WICKED, which must necessarily refer of men in their fallen state. It is to the unregenerate sinner that these words are directed! Therefore, the wickeds’ turn from his way must be connected to that salvation which involves deliverance from that condition! Regeneration, which is when repentance is wrought (Jer. 31:19; Acts 11:18, Luke 15:17-20)!

The words of Paul to the Greeks at Athens also serves as a good supplement that Luke 13 is speaking of eternal judgment. He warns:

”And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

It is important to note how the Apostle does not say that God commands only his regenerate children to repent but rather all men, which is something in itself against the opposers of duty-faith. He speaks of a day in which God will judge the world in righteousness. What other purpose could the Apostle have in mentioning such a day if it were not for the express purpose of teaching that the failure to repent was to be declared guilty on this day? Will God punish temporally on the day of judgment? It is absolutely clear to one not completely blinded that the necessity of repentance is here demonstrated. The Primitives need to exchange the premise which says that all conditions should be dropped in the optional time salvation bucket for the Biblical teaching which says that whatsoever is required is provided (Compare Acts 5:31).

And then we have Romans 2 as our witness:

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:” (2:5-10)

Who can imagine that a temporal judgment is under consideration here when the Apostle’s business is to show in this portion of his letter that the whole world is guilty before God? Unless men are changed into such characters which obey righteousness and truth, then eternal wrath is their doom.

In light of these passages it is most evident that Luke 13:3 is no mere threatening only of temporary damnation. The analogy of faith will not allow it.

Hardshell Landmarkism III

Chapter 137

The issues discussed in these chapters on Hardshell Landmarkism are important in light of Hardshell claims about themselves.  They claim to be churches of Christ and deny that any other churches are such.  One of the proofs that they offer to prove their assertion is the fact that they have existed in visible form since the days of the Apostles in a succession of churches and deny this to be the case with all other churches.  They view themselves as being the only kingdom of God that exists on earth, and this, as has been shown, makes them a cult.  They see themselves as the "simon pures" of Christianity and the only ones who have valid churches and baptisms.  Exclusivism is a key characteristic of the "Primitive Baptist Church." 

It is an error for the Hardshells to refuse to recognize the baptism of other Baptists and groups that practice scriptural baptism (immersion).  It is no error to refuse to recognize the baptism of infants or baptism that is by sprinkling or pouring, but it is not right to refuse baptism that is in all points proper except that it was done by the authority of non Hardshell churches.  It is the error of the Landmarkers to think that baptism requires a valid administrator, one that is appointed by their particular fellowship of churches. 

At least one Hardshell elder has come to see the truth of this.  Donnie Halbgewachs Jr., in a 2005 Internet article titled "The True Church is Not Limited to Primitive Baptists," wrote an article giving his reasons for leaving the Hardshell church.  He began the article with the following note of introduction.  (all emphasis mine - SG)

"The following is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion about the ‘one true church’ principle. It is simply a brief explanation for those who may be wondering why I am moving to a non-Primitive Baptist church. My heart felt desire is let you know that I love Primitive Baptists. Karma and my decision is not based in anger or resentment. We hope to continue to fellowship with Primitive Baptists as much as possible. I believe the church we are moving to is being blessed with the Lord’s candlestick. And it is my prayer that all of our Lord’s churches, whether Primitive Baptists or not, will be blessed to be salt and light for a dark and dieing world. The Lord has His candlestick in many Primitive Baptist Churches, but His true Church is not limited to the Primitive Baptists. My simple belief is; the Son of God decides where He places His candlestick. There is not a single church in the world that is perfect. Why God deals with any group certainly is based more in mercy and longsuffering than flawless doctrine or an impeccable format of worship. I am by no means saying that anything goes, and many difficult decisions must be made that aren’t spelled out precisely in Scripture. The correct way to deal with things like closed communion or re-baptism is to let each church stand on its own. Each pastor is responsible to God for the decisions he makes, and each local body answers ultimately to the Lord Jesus Christ."

It would be good if today's Hardshells would follow the example of Halbgewachs and acknowledge that they are not the only ones who are to be judged as churches of Christ.  Halbgewachs next gives his reasons for his leaving the Hardshells and for the views he has expressed.  He wrote:

"Networks and fellowships are a natural development of churches in any region or time period. The New Testament mentions various dealings between churches; members traveling from one place to another and money being sent from one church to another. The early churches had to deal with various inter-church issues like evangelism to the Gentiles, circumcision, keeping the traditions from the Law of Moses, etc. But, when it comes to interchurch dealings I see more latitude in Scripture than currently being practiced among most Primitive Baptists. I don’t say this to criticize, I just think we all ought to re-examine this. Based on my understanding of Scriptures I have seen the Lord’s presence in churches that are not Primitive Baptists."

All I can say is "amen" to such testimony.  Again, it would be desirable if other Hardshells could come to see the same truth.

Halbgewachs continued:

"We ought to be very careful we don’t slip into the attitude of John in Luke 9:49 “And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” Just because a group doesn’t follow a certain way does not necessarily mean they are in disobedience. We should always be diligently seeking to worship in spirit and in truth but, no one has a corner on all truth. I am thankful that I was raised Primitive Baptist, but I have learned much from other churches. The Lord has revealed himself to me powerfully in prayer meetings, worship services and outreach ministries affiliated with other churches. Some of these blessings are greater and more Biblical than anything I have seen among Primitive Baptists."

Again, Halbgewachs is correct, though the Hardshells do believe that they have "a corner on all truth," which is the cultic mentality I have often pinpointed as characteristic of them.

Halbgewachs continued:

"Being part of a Godly church heritage can be a marvelous blessing. Many of the non-Primitive Baptist Christians I have worked with have been blessed by my heritage. But may we remember the dangerous trap the Pharisees plunged into by saying only someone within a certain lineage can be accepted of God. Luke 3:8 says, “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Acts 10:35 tells us the joyous truth of our day “…in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” May we not get the cart before the horse. Fearing God and working righteousness creates a Godly heritage. But a historical lineage doesn’t guarantee that we fear God or work righteousness."

In these words Halbgewachs shows the errors of Landmarkism and an awareness of the arrogance and cult mentality that such a view promotes.  It is the attitude that says "we be the only ones," that we only are the simon pures, the only ones the Lord recognizes as valid churches of Christ.

Halbgewachs continued:

"When we hold to a strict ‘one true church’ principle some inconsistencies arise. We are forced to draw up detailed lists of what is acceptable doctrine and practice and what is not. Obviously some things are clearly un-Biblical and should not be tolerated in the Lord’s house. But many things are not so clear. For example: how do we determine that feet washing is optional and acapella singing is not. How do we decide when to declare non-fellowship with a group of churches and then some time later drop the bars and receive each other again. If we are true to the ‘one true church’ principle many ordinations, constitutions, and baptisms would have to be re-examined within the ranks of Primitive Baptists."

This is an insightful statement and declares truths that I have presented in this book and in this series on Hardshell Landmarkism. 

Halbgewachs continued:

"Sometimes we say, “That person is not a Primitive Baptist but he is a good Christian.” It seems inconsistent to call non-Primitive Baptist believers ‘truly Christian,’ but when they assemble they are not recognized as ‘true Christian churches.’ Either they are true Christians assembling into true churches or they are not Christian at all."

Another insightful comment!   Would to God that many more Hardshells would come to make the same confession!

Halbgewachs continued:

"Many more issues could be discussed, but it is not my purpose to be exhaustive. The answer is not to drop all standards but, rather to honestly take care of our own congregations while allowing others to take care of theirs. We still must learn from each other, exhort one another, have fellowship with each other and assist each other in official work. But may each individual in every generation seek to re-examine our assumptions, follow Scriptural guidelines and continue to humbly walk in faith."  (from Donnie Halbgewachs Jr.s blog of Dec. 31, 2005,  - see here)

I am sure that Halbgewachs saw how the teaching of the Hardshells that affirms that they alone are the true churches of Christ led to the "holier than thou" attitude that exists in the minds of Hardshells. 

It is a truth that a church may still be a church even though it has errors.  This is a truth that Hardshells do not want to acknowledge.  Yet, as has been shown, their own acknowledged geneology of churches shows this to be a fact.  Who can deny that some of the first churches established by the Apostles held to serious errors?  Did not the church at Corinth have those in their membership who denied the resurrection of the body?  Did they not abuse the Lord's Supper?  Did they not retain immoral members in their communion?  Did not the churches of Galatia hold to serious errors regarding justification, even to the extent of embracing "another Gospel"?  Did not some of the seven churches of Asia (Rev. chpt. 2-3) hold to serious errors?  Did they cease at once to be churches of Christ because of this? 

Landmarkism breeds a spirit of non-cooperation with other churches.  This has been characteristic of Hardshell churches since their beginning.  Landmarkism severely restricts the right to communion as it does to baptism, which is another error.  True, communion is to be restricted to those who have been immersed as believers, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it should not be restricted simply over disagreements over doctrine.  Communion should be open to all baptized believers, to all the children of God who are in good standing with their home churches.  It is the Lord's table, not the table of men. 

Halbgewachs was right to see the harm that the Hardshells have done to themselves in cutting themselves off from the fellowship of other Christians. 

Hardshell Landmarkism II

Chapter 136

John Spilsbury wrote:

"The Orderly Way To Come to The Lord's Baptism

And thus having found the place or subject, wherein baptism ever subsists, as an ordinance of God, we are in the next place to know how such as want it may come orderly by it; for though that God has joined His word and ordinances together, yet He has also ordained an orderly way for His people to come to enjoy them, which orderly way, as of old, even so now, if any be convicted of the truth, such may receive baptism from the hands of those whom God used as instruments to bring His truth and their hearts to be one, this being ever the way that persons came unto the administrations of Christ's New Testament, as these Scriptures do witness, Matt. 3:5, 6; Acts 2:38, 41; Acts 8:12, 35, 38; Acts 10:46, 47, 48. For where the blessings of God go together with His word to call persons to the knowledge of truth, there is also power to admit such unto the obedience of the same, John 1:22; Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 8:36-38; & 10:34-47; I Cor. 3:5, 7."  (see here)

The logic of this argumentation is unanswerable.  The one who is the means of bringing another to the saving knowledge of Christ is able to baptize the convert.  Baptism is a symbol of salvation.  If I can be the means of conveying salvation, the reality of the symbol of baptism, I ought to be able to be the means of conferring the symbol of salvation. 

In the Great Commission, the ones who did the converting were authorized to do the baptizing.  It is useless for the Hardshells to affirm that the Great Commission was only given to the Apostles or to the ordained ministry.  First, as has been shown, it is inconsistent to affirm that the Commission, which authorizes the baptizing of converts by the teachers of the Commission, is a "church ordinance," as do the Hardshells, and yet claim that the Great Commission was not given to the church.  Second, even the Hardshells must admit that many converts to the Gospel have been made by unordained Christians, and this being so, these unordained Christians have the right to baptize those they convert. 

Further, seeing this was the teaching of the Old Baptists who wrote the first London Baptist Confession, a people who the Hardshells generally acknowledge as their ancestors, the Hardshells can hardly claim to be "primitive" or "original" on this important point.

Spilsbury continued:

"No Place For Schism Or Self-Baptism

I think by the same rule, I must disclaim them, and so separate away from them, if they do not repent, and not to leave a true Church, and true ordinances, and go apart and erect another Church, ordinances and worship of ourselves apart from it, in opposition to it, this in my judgment is as far from any Rule in the Gospel of Christ, as for a MAN TO BAPTIZE HIMSELF. Neither of which do I approve of.

John The Baptist Baptized Without Being Himself Baptized

Yet a word by the way, because of such an error that some make, and how far off from any rule or example, for a man to baptize others, and himself unbaptized, and so thinking hereby to shut up the ordinance of God in such a strait, that none can come by it, but through the authority of the Popedome of Rome. But for the opening of this cloud that seems so to darken the sky, let the reader consider who baptized John the Baptist, before he baptized others, and no man did, then whether he did not baptize others, he himself being unbaptized, and if he was baptized, whether it were not by an unbaptized person; and all Scriptures being written for our learning, and this being one, we are taught by this what to do upon the like occasion."

Though Spilsbury and the Old Baptists believed that one did not himself have to be baptized in order to baptize others, yet they believed that no one could baptize himself and that the one who does the baptizing should be himself a believer.  This is not only the speculative view of Spilsbury and the first Old Baptists of 17th century England, but was the actual way in which they were themselves baptized when they withdrew from PedoBaptist churches and formed Baptist churches.

Spilsbury continued:

"Understanding Matthew 16:18

And for the continuation of the Church from Christ's words, The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, etc. I confess the same with this distinction: which Church is to be considered either with respect to her instituted state, as it lies in the Scripture, in the rules of the foundation, or in her constitution, or constituted form in her visible order.

Against the first hell's gates shall never prevail, the foundation stands sure, but against the last it has often prevailed, for the Church in her outward visible order, has been often scattered through persecution, and the like, in which sense she is said to be prevailed against, as Dan. 7, Rev. 12; and Acts 8:1. Otherwise, where there was a Church, before it came under the defection.

Again, That which once was in such a way of being, and ceases for a time, and then comes to the same estate again, is, and may truly be said, to have ever a continuance, as Matt. 22:31, 32 with Luke 20:38. In which sense the Church may truly be said ever to continue, for though she be cast down at one time, yet God will raise her up at another, so that she shall never be so prevailed against, as to be utterly destroyed.

Christ's Succession is Though the Truth Which is Maintained by the Power of God

What is the cause of this, that men can do all from the Word, but only Baptism? And that must come by man, yea, and that by the man of sin? But we are to know this, that truth depends not upon Churches, nor any mortal creature, but only upon the immortal God, Who by His Word and Spirit, reveals the same, when and to whom He pleases. And for succession of truth, it comes now by the promise of God, and faith of His people, whom He as aforesaid, has taken out of the world unto Himself, in the fellowship of the Gospel: to whom the ordinances of Christ stand only by succession of faith, and not of persons; for the same power and authority the Apostles had in their time for direction in godliness, the Scriptures have now in the hand of Christ, as the head of His Church, which make up but one body, I Cor. 12:12, 27; Eph. 1:22, 23; Eph. 4:15, 16. So that what the Church and the Apostles together might do then, the same may the Head and Body, together with the Scriptures do now, the Scriptures having the same authority in the Church now as the Apostles then had, the same Spirit being present now to reveal them, as then to write them, I Cor. 5:4, 5; 2 Tim. 3:15, 16."

It is obvious that Spilsbury and the Old Baptists who wrote the first and second London Confessions did not believe in a chain link succession of churches as do most Hardshells.  He and the Old Baptists of the Confessions did not believe that Matthew 16: 18 taught such a doctrine.  As was shown in the previous chapter, it is the Catholic view that the Hardshells and Landmarkers uphold.  Further, no Baptist church today can show a chain link succession of churches back to the Apostles.

Spilsbury continued:

"The Word of God Gives Being to All Order and All Actions

The Scriptures remaining in the place of the Apostles for us to have recourse unto, and serve as the mouth of Christ to all believers, as the Apostles did before they were written, Matt. 28:20; 2 Peter 1:19, 20, 21; Rom. 10:6, 7, 8. And as the people of old conferred with the Prophets and Apostles about their great affairs, so have the Lord's people now Moses and the Prophets, Christ and His Apostles in their writings, Luke 16:29, 30, 31. Which are to us with the Spirit of life in them as effectual, as their personal presence, if not more, as John 6:62, 63, 2 Peter 1:18, 19; Rev. 11:3, 5, 11. And thus all succession from the beginning came to Christ, and from Christ to the Apostles, and from them to the Scriptures, which are the headsrping of us to all, so that, all succession now is only spiritual, according to faith, and follows not the personal succession of any, but only the word, that gives being to all order and ordinances that are of God."

These are the views of men such as Bob Ross, who was cited in the previous chapter, in his opposition to the basic tenets of Landmarkism.  It is also the view of many able Baptist historians.  There is a succession of the truth, of the Gospel, though not of visible churches linked together in a chain link fashion without a break.  The church in its constitution has had a continuous existence, though not in its institutional form, as Spilsbury observed.

John T. Christian, in commenting upon the views of Spilsbury and of the first London Confession, wrote:

"Not only is this Confession plain on the subject of dipping for baptism, but it is equally plain on the subject of the administrator of baptism. The makers of this Confession of 1643 did not affirm the doctrine of church succession or baptismal succession. The view of Spilsbury prevailed, and was put into this Confession. Spilsbury held that if baptism were lost, that any disciple could begin baptism by administering it himself, and quoting the example of John the Baptist as a Scripture in point. None of the signers of this Confession avow that immersion was lost, but they do affirm that it is not necessary to send anywhere for baptism. Baptism, they declare, may be begun at any moment, in any place where there are believers. Men who believed this and put it in their Confession of Faith could not have sent to Holland only one or two years before for a baptism according to church succession or any other kind of succession. It would have been a queer commentary on the Particular Baptists of England of 1643 that in 1641 they sent to Holland for immersion to be in line of church succession, introduced immersion in England in Jan., 1642, in that theory and in a little more than a year they declared in a Confession of Faith that they believed in nothing of the sort! If the XL. article, as quoted above is plain on dipping, the XLI as here given is equally plain on the administrator of baptism. That article says: "The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scriptures holds forth to be a disciple; it being nowhere tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission injoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples. being men able to preach the Gospel." This declaration of the Confession of Faith of 1643 is directly opposed to the statement of the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript. Which am I to believe? To ask the question is to answer it. The Confession of Faith is a Baptist document, genuine and an honor to the Baptists; the Gould Kiffin Manuscript is a fraud and absolutely untrustworthy. The Baptists of 1641-4 did not have an agent "EXTRAORDINARILY SENT" to Holland for immersion. They said they did not, and I believe them; the fraud known as the Gould "Kiffin" Manuscript says they did have Blunt "extraordinarily sent," and hence it is not worthy of credence."  (Baptist History Vindicated By John T. Christian, D.D., LL.D., 1899 Chapter IX - see here)

Christian refers to the infamous "Kiffin Manuscript" which was a forged document created by some primitive Baptists who held to Landmarker views, and who sought to show that some of the first Particular Baptists sent persons to the Dutch Baptists in order to obtain valid baptism.  But, it is not a fact that such ever happened, as Christian and other historians have proved.  Further, why would Spilsbury so vehemently defend baptism by unbaptized disciples if this was not in fact how the first Particular Baptist churches were formed?

Dr. Pius cites Professor H. C. Vedder on this point:

"To Baptists, indeed, of all people, the question of tracing their history to remote antiquity should appear nothing more than an interesting study. Our theory of the church as deduced from the Scriptures requires no outward and visible succession from the apostles. If every church of Christ were today to become apostate, it would be possible and right for any true believers to organize tomorrow another church on the apostolic model of faith and practice, and that church would have the only apostolic succession worth having--a succession of faith in the Lord Christ and obedience to him. Baptists have not the slightest interest therefore in wresting the facts of history from their true significance; our reliance is on the New Testament, and not on antiquity; on present conformance to Christ's teachings, not on an ecclesiastical pedigree, or the validity of our church organizations, our ordinances and our ministry. By some writers who have failed to grasp this principle, there has been a distressful effort to show a succession of Baptist churches from the apostolic age until now. It is certain, as impartial historians and critics allow, that the early churches, including the first century after the New Testament period, were organized as Baptist churches are now organized, and professed the faith that Baptist churches now profess."  ("An Outline of Baptist History" by N.H. Pius, 1911, pg. 12-13, as cited here)

Again, only die hard Landmarkers would challenge the veracity of this statement by Vedder.  The Hardshell "theory of the church" is not deduced from the Scriptures, but is borrowed from Catholicism.

Dr. Pius wrote:

"It is a matter of history that for several centuries before the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church was kept busy trying to annihilate various bodies of "heretics" that sprang up in different sections at different times. These "heretics" who are known to us as Christians, and called by various names, fought and died for the faith and practices of modern Baptists, some believing and contending for nearly all and others for not so many of these principles. But we must not lose sight of the fact that there was a long period when the Roman church was the only organized visible church, and they had departed from the faith. It therefore appears impossible to trace a succession of Baptist churches during that time."

Dr. Pius then gives this information:

"Dr. S. H. Ford, the renowned editor of Ford's Christian Repository, published during the last half of the nineteenth century, said:

"Succession among Baptists is not a linked chain of Churches or ministers, uninterrupted and traceable at this distant day...The true and defensible doctrine is, that baptized believers have existed in every age since John baptized in Jordan, and have met as a baptized congregation in covenant and fellowship where an opportunity afforded."  (Quoted in W. A. Jarrell, op. cit., p. 1. "THE PROBLEM OF BAPTIST SUCCESSION" By Wendell H. Rone, Sr. - see here)

At least one Hardshell agrees with these statements.  Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:

"As I have shown, on page 335 of my Church History, all Non-Catholics of the Dark Ages, before the invention of printing, when they had no Bibles, seem to have been Arminians; and so were the Baptists of the early part of the 17th Century, and at first the Churches of the Ketocton Association, until they were taught the way of God more perfectly (Church History, page 336). They were babes in grace, unable to eat strong meat; they were like nine of the ten cleansed lepers, and, though cleansed by Christ, they did not give proper glory to God. Though enabled by Christ to see, their sight was very imperfect--they saw men as trees walking. And so now the great majority of nominal Protestants, and even those called Baptists, though they may have been born of the Holy Spirit, in Europe and the United States, are unscripturally taught, and are Arminians. Of course, many have, like the most of the Catholics, never been Spiritually renewed; and we expect them to believe in salvation by forms and profession and dead works (the works of those who are dead in trespasses and sin). But since the middle of the 18th Century, I do not know of any Primitive or Old School Baptists who are Arminians; if there are any, I do not know of them."  ("What is Arminianism," 1926, see here)

The reference that Hassell refers to, from his history, reads as follows:

"As established by Ludwig Keller, the present royal archivist at Munster, in his thorough and authoritative work on "The Reformation and the Older Reforming Parties Exhibited in their Connection," published at Leipzig in 1885, the evangelical Anti-Catholic Christians from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries, known as Petrobrusiaus, Henricians, Waldenses, Pikards, Beghards, Beguins, Spirituales, Sabbuti, Insabbati, Apostolic Brethren, Poor men in Christ, Friends of God, Mystics and Bohemians, were, in the darkness of the Dark Ages, Arminians. They exalted the Scriptures above all human books, and accepted the doctrine of justification by faith; but they earnestly insisted on the freedom of man's will to accept or reject the provisions of Divine grace, and emphasized the necessity of imitating Christ in His life of self-denial. The Mennonites of the sixteenth century were also Arminians; but they strenuously maintained the spirituality of the church of Christ, and the necessity of strict Church discipline, and they suffered great persecutions for conscience' sake."  (Chpt. 10, pg. 335 in "History of the Church of God")

Hassell also wrote:

"During the remaining period, from A.D. 100 to 1885, I have earnestly endeavored, in tracing the footsteps of the flock of Christ, to be entirely guided, not by the unscriptural writings and opinions of fallible men, but by the light of Divine revelation. The humanly ascribed titles of spiritual father, confessor, doctor, rabbi, pope, cardinal, archdeacon, archbishop, reverend, etc., which are utterly out of place, and unscriptural, and worthless in the kingdom of God, have exercised no influence in the composition of this volume. The tracing of God’s spiritual or hidden people through the wilderness of the eighteen centuries since the apostolic age is of course a most difficult undertaking; and I do not suppose, neither do I claim, that I have made absolutely no mistakes in this delicate and important delineation. The Scriptures mentioned under “Footsteps of the Flock,” before the Preface, have been, with the aid of the Divine Spirit, as I hope, my chief guide. As for a nominal, natural, outward, or mechanical succession, the God of providence and grace, eighteen centuries ago, forever buried all such claims in the dark, impenetrable gulf of the seculum obscurum, or obscure age, immediately succeeding the death of the leading Apostles and the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, and extending to A.D. 100, as freely acknowledged by the ablest scholars of Europe; the irreconcilable inconsistencies and contradictions of the leading Roman Catholic authorities in regard to the pretended Romish succession during this period furnish a sufficient illustration of this fact.  According to the entire tenor of the New Testament Scriptures, what we are to look for is, not such outward succession, but a spiritual succession of principles, of inward, vital, heartfelt religion. Names are nothing, principles are everything, in the true kingdom of God. In all ages and countries, that people who, in all spiritual matters, acknowledge Christ as their only Head and King, form a part of the true church of God. They have mostly been dissenters from “state churches” and political religions—Christ having declared that His kingdom is not of this world; and, like the prophets and Apostles and Christ Himself, and as he predicted, they have been hated, slandered and persecuted to the death by worldly religionists, not only by heathens and Mohammedans, but even far more numerously by professed Christians, both Papists and Protestants (Matthew 5:10-12; 13:34; Mark 10:30; Luke 21:12;  John 5:16; 15:18-21; 16:33; Acts 7:52; 8:1;  9:5; 14:22; Gal. 4:29; 2 Cor. 4:9; 2 Tim. 3:11,12;  Heb. 11:35-38; Rev. 7:14; 12:13; 13:7,15,17; 17:6; 20:4); and, instead of persecuting their enemies in return, they have returned good for evil and prayed for them (Matthew 5:44-48; Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60; Rom. 12:14,18-21; 1 Cor. 4:12; 13:4-8; 1 Pet. 2:23; 3:9). So the inoffensive lamb and dove and sheep, used in the Scriptures to represent the Son and the Spirit and the people of God, are slain and devoured by predaceous animals and birds. These persecuted people of God have had, since the first century, a variety of names, generally given them by their enemies, and derived from their location, or from some of their leading ministers, or from some doctrine or practice of theirs which distinguished them from worldly religionists.  Until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, they were known as Montanists, Tertullianists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Arnoldists, Waldenses, Albigenses, United Brethren of Bohemia, and Lollards; many of these were called by the general name of Ana-Baptists (or Re-Baptizers), because they did not acknowledge the scripturalness or validity of infant baptism, and therefore baptized (Paedobaptists said they baptized again) those who joined them on a profession of faith.  While these various classes of people differed in minor particulars, and while some of them were in much darkness and error on certain points of truth, they yet held substantially to the same general doctrine and practice—insisting, above all, upon the spirituality of the church of God and her heavenly obligation to walk in humble and loving obedience to all His holy commandments, both in an individual and a church capacity, and not in obedience to the unscriptural traditions and commandments of men. For the last 365 years (since A.D. 1520) they have been called Baptists (for about the first 100 years of this period, also Ana-Baptists), because they baptized (that is, immersed in water, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost) all who, upon a credible profession of their repentance towards God and faith in Christ, desired to unite with them in a church capacity. The cardinal tenets of Bible Baptists, being also those held by the apostolic churches, as set forth in the New Testament, and those held, in the main, by the people of God in former times, are..."  (from the Introduction)

It is sad that today's Hardshells reject this view of Hassell and have embraced the Landmarker view on church succession.  It is sad that they can claim such varied groups as their spiritual ancestors, who did not agree with Hardshells on many points, and yet cannot accept the baptism of Baptists and other immersionists today.  Hassell said - "In all ages and countries, that people who, in all spiritual matters, acknowledge Christ as their only Head and King, form a part of the true church of God."

Hassell even acknowledges that the churches of the dark ages were Arminian, and yet he says that these churches were composed of those who "acknowledge Christ as their only Head and King."  Hassell knew also that the original members of the Kehukee Association were Arminians before converted into the Regular Baptist faith.  Yet, they were not re-baptized.  Let the Hardshell Landmarkers of today come and explain this to us!  Today's Hardshells would have to say that all the later churches of the Kehukee Association were not valid churches because of this!  Hassell also admits that the first Particular Baptists who wrote the old London Confessions were first Arminians and yet Hassell claims succession through them!  Again, let today's Hardshell Landmarkers explain this to us!

"Acknowledge Christ as their only Head and King" was all Hassell required for a church to be recognized as valid, and to be claimed as an ancestor to Baptist churches.  Of course, Hassell contradicted himself in this matter, insisting that Missionary Baptist baptism was not valid and that their churches not true churches of Christ.  Yet, are they not formed of a people who "acknowledge Christ as their only Head and King"?  Today's Hardshell Landmarkers put themselves under the obligation of showing how their particular church, with its unique views on doctrine, have been believed by churches in chain link succession since the Apostles.  Hassell was enlightened enough not to go to that extreme. 

Reverencing Elders

"He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name."  (Psa. 111: 9)

"God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him."  (Psa. 89: 7)

"Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear."  (Heb. 12: 28)

When I was with the Hardshells I commonly heard them declare how they were against their ministers being called "reverend" and often said, based upon the above Scriptures, that such a title belonged only to God and that it would be robbing God of what belongs to him to call any minister, or any man, "reverend."  For instance, an early 20th century Hardshell leader, Elder James Bibler, wrote:

"The Primitive Baptist ministers are called "El­ders," a New Testament word. (It is interesting to note: that the Strict Baptists of England refer to their ministers only as "Mr.") The title "Reverend" belongs only to God, never to man."  ("What is a Primitive Baptist," see here)

On a leading Hardshell web site we read:

"Question: Why do Primitive Baptists refer to their ministers as elders?

The scriptures offer two alternate titles for preachers. These are bishop and elder (I Tim 3:1-7, Tit 1:5-9, I Pet 5:1). The importance of using these scripturally authorized titles is emphasized by Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees for taking aggrandizing titles to themselves (Mt 23:5-12). The term reverend is use only once in the scriptures where it has reference to God (Ps 111:9). We are therefore unworthy to wear this title."  (see here)

Elder Hoyt Simms answers the same question and says:

"The Bible gives the title elder to preachers; therefore, we would use no other title. "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder..." (I Peter 5:1). New Testament preachers are referred to as "elders" or "bishops." The term bishop is much misunderstood and we do not use it for that reason, but it would be a legal title for a minister. We do not use the term reverend because it is never used in connection with a man in God's Word. This title appears only once in God's Word and there it has reference to God alone: "holy and reverend is his name" (Psalm 111:9). Should any man take upon himself a title that is reserved for God alone?"  (see here)

Yet, such a reasoning is unreasonable.  Have the Hardshells not read the following verses?

"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence (phobeō) her husband."  (Eph. 5: 33)

"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement."  (I Peter 3: 6)

"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence (entrepō): shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"  (Heb. 12: 9)

From these verses we see that there is no reason why one cannot call one's husband or father "reverend," or to give them reverence.  In the old testament, kings were reverenced, as was David.  Certainly elders deserve also to be reverenced. 

The same text that says of God - "holy and reverend is his name" would as much condemn calling any man "holy" as calling any man "reverend," if Hardshell logic is accepted.  But, do we find the word "holy" applied to men and angels in Scripture?  We read of holy angels (Matt. 25: 31; Rev. 14: 10), holy apostles (Eph. 3: 5; Rev. 18: 20), holy brethren (I Thess. 5: 27; Heb. 3: 1), holy men of God (II Peter 1: 21), holy prophets (II Peter 3: 2; Rev. 22: 6)

Many of these Hardshells who condemn calling any man holy or reverend will nevertheless use the word "saint" when referring to Matthew, Mark, or Luke.  But, "saint" means holy.  When they say "saint Paul" or "saint Peter," do they not realize that they have violated their own rule? 

It seems to me that their extremism regarding the use of "reverend" for ministers is simply a mere "show of humility." It is a kind of "putting on airs." 

A False Charge Returned

A false charge made against Means Baptists or those who have been dubbed Burnamites is that they have a desire to “help God”.  They’re accused of not believing that salvation is all of grace because they feel that they are instruments in the hand of God for accomplishing His purposes.   This charge actually comes back to haunt the very ones who make this unfounded accusation however, as we demonstrate below.

Instrumentality is established by simple grammar in the form of prepositions used by the Bible writers: through, with, and by.

For example, Paul writes to the Corinthians (emphasis mine – KF):

“Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?” (3:5)

In this passage, evangelical faith is under consideration, and Paul asserts that he and Apollos were ministers by (instrumentally) whom the Corinthians believed.  Following the Hardshell grid, the text must be placed in the category of time salvation.

Let us therefore turn this charge upon the chargers:

Does God need help in accomplishing gospel time salvation?  Did Paul and Apollos help God bring the Corinthians to faith?

If so, then time salvation is not all of grace.  If not, then the charge that something wrought instrumentally is not all of grace is false.

Of course, the real Old Baptists face no such dilemna.  They do not so partition the Bible, nor are they driven to call upon man-made premises to escape instrumentality.  They realize that they are not “helping God” save His people.

They’re discharging their responsibility.