Whosoever Will

"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8: 34-38)

The first thing to notice about this passage is the audience to whom Jesus addressed these words. It was not only to those who were already saved and born again. Jesus "called" (invited) both "the people" generally and "his disciples." Surely "the people" were not all saved people. Probably not all who were "disciples" were saved, for "disciple" simply means learner and many are learners who never get saved.

The next thing to notice is the fact that Jesus was here preaching the Gospel and that preaching the Gospel included reasoning with men about what they must do to be saved and also involved teaching the unregenerate.

The next thing to notice is that Jesus is informing sinners what they must do to be saved and that this is no temporal salvation, but eternal salvation, for it is set in opposition to losing one's soul. The salvation obtained by one denying himself, taking up his cross, and following Christ, is connected with the second coming of Christ. At the second coming Christ will be ashamed of those who were ashamed of Christ, and who did not take up the cross to follow him, but those who have done so will not experience that fate. Further, those who do not follow Christ will "lose" their life. This does not refer to physical death, for all die, even the righteous. On this Dr. Gill said in his commentary.

"shall lose it: he shall not enjoy it with honour and comfort now, and much less with peace, pleasure, and happiness hereafter, but shall be under the power of the second death."

It is to lose one's life and soul forever. So, why do the Hardshells not tell people this? Why do they rather tell them that millions will find their life who did not follow him?

And on what Christ meant by a person finding/saving his life by denying himself and following Jesus, Dr. Gill wrote:

"the same shall save it: though he will lose it now, he will find it again in the resurrection of life; for he will rise to eternal life..."

Further, Christ asks "the people," including lost souls, this piercing interrogative - "what will it profit a man if he gain and the whole world and lose his soul?" This is similar to the question - "where will you go when you die?" The question itself has no power in itself to save anyone, but the question, when made efficacious by the power of the Spirit, has such power. Such questions are made use of by the Lord to waken dead consciences, to get the attention of hardened hearts. Such evangelical questions are evident in the preaching of Christ, the prophets, and in that of the apostles.

Why do Hardshells not make use of such interrogatives? Is it not because they have falsely believed that such a method is "Arminian" and are contrary to the doctrine of sovereign grace? The fact that they do not is one of the reasons why so very few are converted to Christ by their preaching.

"He that heareth you heareth me"

As a former member and minister within the "Primitive Baptists" direct-voice regeneration was central to my understanding of salvation. It had to be, for the only alternative was to hold to gospel regeneration which I was firmly against.

In studying history I eventually came across the words of Elder John Clark published in the Zion’s Advocate in 1880 (emphasis mine – KF):

"Under the quickening power and influence of the Holy Ghost, the Word preached comes to God's people in power, by which they live, hear, and believe with the heart unto righteousness. Now, when the Gospel is preached they know it. It is the voice of their Shepherd, the great Shepherd...For with the heart, man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." [Rom. x., 6, 8, 10]"

According to this Old Baptist, to hear the gospel is to hear the voice of Christ himself! On top of that, he cites Romans 10 in support of his argument, meaning that he did not make the salvation taught in that chapter different than the one expressed in the previous chapters, unlike our moderns today.

The primary verse of scripture, obviously more important than any man's opinion, which persuaded me that I was making a distinction which God’s Word did not was Luke 10:16. There we find our Lord saying to the seventy disciples:

"He that heareth you heareth me…" (Luke 10:16)

The disciples went forward with the understanding that when others heard them speak, they were in fact hearing Christ! The idea that the voice of Christ is not contained in the gospel, or that there are “two kinds” of hearing the voice of Christ would have been absolutely foreign to their minds.

If you died today, where would you go?

I remember reading how Elder Ambrose Dudley (father of Hardshell founding father Thomas P. Dudley), at a service at Bryan's Station church in Kentucky (one of the oldest in that state, if not the oldest), asked this question of those who were present. Why do not Hardshells do so? Elder Ambrose Dudley (who died just before the Black Rock Address) had no reluctance doing so. He also was no Arminian. Why do Hardshells ignore the unregenerate in their addresses? Their forefathers did not have such a reluctance to do so. Do they not know that the Holy Spirit has often attended such interogatives to awaken the consciences of alien sinners? Why do the Hardshells think that the Holy Spirit cannot attend such Gospel addresses with his power?

Hearing the Voice of Christ

In chapters 20 & 21 (see here and here) I wrote against the Hardshell doctrinal innovation called "Direct Voice Speaking." Such a view was first promulgated by Elder Gilbert Beebe who insisted that the voice that a sinner hears in regeneration or new birth was the literal voice of Christ and not the Gospel.  When the Hardshells see passages that connect hearing the voice of Christ with regeneration (such as John 5 and John 10), they interpret this to mean that Christ personally speaks to the soul of a sinner, and that the voice cannot mean the same as hearing the words of Christ by a preacher. But, the following verse proves the Hardshell contention to be wrong.

"For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." (Acts 13: 27)

Notice that in hearing the words of the prophets read and proclaimed the people were hearing the "voices" of the prophets. The "voices" of the prophets were "read" each Sabbath. So, all the argumentation of the Hardshells that hearing the word of Christ is not the same as hearing the voice of Christ is false. To hear the word of Christ is to hear his voice just as to hear the word of the prophets was to hear their voices.

Further, in reading the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s it is clear that the first Hardshells interpreted the voice of Christ to be the Gospel, just as did Dr. Gill. Beebe's view was an innovation.

Solomon Persevered

As a follow-up to my posting below, and a second to what Brother Stephen wrote in his, I wanted to pen the thoughts of some notable men on the case of Solomon. This will expose how presumptuous it is to conclude that he was either eternally lost, or to do as the Hardshells, find support for their modern-day teaching that perseverance is not guaranteed by preservation, but that they may be separated so that the former becomes uncertain.

Matthew Henry writes:

"The account we have of Solomon's apostasy from God, in the latter end of his reign (1 Kings xi. 1), is the tragical part of his story; we may suppose that he spoke his Proverbs in the prime of his time, while he kept his integrity, but delivered his Ecclesiastes when he had grown old (for of the burdens and decays of age he speaks feelingly ch. xii.), and was, by the grace of God, recovered from his backslidings."

Matthew Poole comments as well:

"Three things in general are to be noted concerning this book: 1. The author of it, who was Solomon, as is manifest both from the common consent of Jewish and Christian writers, and from the express words of the first verse. Nor can any thing be opposed to it but bold and groundless conjectures. That he wrote it in his old age is more than probable from divers passages in it, as, that he did it after his buildings, Eccles 2:4, which yet took up twenty years of his life, 1 Kings 9:10, and after some considerable enjoyment of them, and planting of gardens and orchards, and reaping the fruit of them, Eccles 2:5-6, and after long and much consideration and experience of all those methods in which men expected to find happiness, and after he had been deeply plunged in impure and inordinate loves, Eccles 7:27, etc., and from many other places, which may be observed by any diligent reader. And so this book was written by him as a public testimony of his repentance and detestation of all those vain and wicked courses to which he had addicted himself; wherein he followed the example of his father David, who after his sad fall penned Ps 51. And the truth of this opinion may be confirmed by that expression, 2 Chron 11:17, they walked in the way of David and Solomon, i.e. wherein they walked both before their falls, and after their repentance."

Puritan James Durham says:

"It's of weight also, that it seems more than probable, that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes after his recovery; it being neither amongst the Proverbs, nor Songs which are mentioned, I Kings 4:32. And in it, he speaks out of experiences he had both of folly and madness, and the vanity he had found in all created things, even when he had finished his experiment of all the possible ways of attaining, either the knowledge of their perfections, or satisfaction in the enjoyment of them."

A.W. Pink writes:

"With others, it is our own conviction that before the end of his earthly pilgrimage Solomon was made to repent deeply of his waywardness and wickedness. We base this conviction upon three things. First, the fact that he was the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes (1:1) and that it was penned at a later period of his life than the Proverbs and Canticles (see 1 Kings 4:32). Now to us it seems impossible to ponder Ecclesiastes without being struck with its prevailing note of sadness and without feeling that its writer is there expressing the contrition of one who has mournfully returned from the paths of error. In that book he speaks out the bitter experiences he had gone through in pursuing a course of folly and madness and of the resultant "vexation of spirit"—see especially 7:2, 3, 26, 27 which is surely a voicing of his repentance. Second, hereby God made good His express promise to David concerning Solomon: "I will be his Father and he shall be My son. If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but My mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul" (2 Sam. 7:14, 15). Third, centuries after his death the Spirit declared, "Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God" (Neh. 13:26)."

In his recent posting Brother Stephen cited the words of Dr. Gill to which the reader may turn as well.

From these sound opinions based on Bible facts it is obvious that Solomon is no poster-child for denying the perseverance of the saints.

Case Studies a Problem Among the Hardshells

In the defense of their peculiar teachings I have noticed a trend among the Hardshells to lean heavily upon case studies. Lot and Solomon are frequently cited as "proof" that God's children, while preserved, do not persevere. King Agrippa is often used to prove that men may be regenerate but yet reject the gospel and still be saved. The Greeks at Athens are "proof" that men may be regenerate and remain engaged in idolatrous worship. Cornelius is the famed poster-child for the dogma that men may be regenerated or eternally saved without means of the gospel. I even knew one Hardshell elder who was convinced, upon reading the account of John the Baptist, that all the elect were born again in their mother's womb!

I recently read a posting entitled "Was Solomon A Child of God?" by a blogger who relies upon the case of Solomon to deny the perseverance of the saints. It is simply part of the modern neo-Hardshell movement in rewriting their articles of faith to divide the two-sided coin of preservation/perseverance, claiming that only the former is permissible. This is a denial of both the scripture and the teachings of their very own forefathers.

Case studies ought to be interpreted in the light of explicit texts which directly address important bible doctrines. Clear bible passages should not be given secondary attention while we attempt to deduce doctrine from a biographical anecdote. It is simply bad hermeneutics to suggest that sinners may lose their salvation or that regenerate souls may not persevere, using Solomon as our supposed proof, when there are biblical texts which directly speak to those subjects. When determining whether the saints shall persevere (and they shall) certain passages such as Job 17:9, Col. 1:21-23, 1 Peter 1:5 should be given the utmost attention with Solomon, Lot, and Peter interpreted in their light.

Does Solomon's Case Disprove Perseverence?

In an article titled "Was Solomon a child of God?", a Hardshell thinks that the case of Solomon disproves the doctrine of the perseverence of the saints.  The writer does what is typical with those who profess to believe in preservation while denying perseverence.  He brings up the case of Solomon's sins and apostasy as if this proved that Solomon did not persevere.  Sometimes such writers will bring up the case of Peter's apostasy, or that of Lot, to also prove that perseverence is not true.  But, these writers do not understand the doctrine of perseverence, a doctrine that their Old Baptist forefathers professed to believe.  It is not the teaching of perseverence that the saints cannot sin or fall, but that they shall be corrected and successfully chastened of the Lord and brought to repentance. 

The Scriptures show that Solomon was indeed brought to repentance prior to his death.  He wrote the Book of Ecclesisastes as a token of his repentance.  His confessions and repentance in that book show that he had been restored, just as Peter also was brought to repentance.

Dr. Gill wrote:

"Secondly, objections are raised against the doctrine of the saints final perseverance from the sins and failures of persons eminent for faith and holiness; as Noah, Lot, David, Solomon, Peter, and others. But these are no proofs of their final and total falling away. As to Noah and Lot, though guilty of great sins, they have after this the character of truly good and righteous men. As for David, though by his fall his bones were broken, and the joy of his salvation was taken from him, and grace lay some time unexercised by him; yet the Spirit of God was not taken from him, as appears from his own words, when most sensible of his case (Ps. 51:11, 12). As for Solomon, though his backsliding was great, attended with aggravated circumstances, yet not total, see 1 Kings 11:4, 6 nor final, as to perish everlastingly; which would have been contrary to the promise of God, that his mercy should not depart from him (2 Sam. 7:14, 15). Besides, he was restored by repentance; and the book of Ecclesiastes was penned by him in his old age, as an acknowledgment and retractation of his former follies; and some persons, after his death, are spoken of with commendation, for walking in the way of Solomon, as well as in the way of David (2 Chron. 11:17). As for Peter, his fall was not total; Christ prayed for him, that his faith failed not; nor final; for he was quickly restored by repentance. And these various instances are recorded in scripture, not as instances of final and total apostasy, but of the weakness of the best of men in themselves; and for our caution and instruction, "to take heed lest we fall"." (A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 6—Chapter 15 - Of the Perseverance of the Saints)

John Watson vs. Harold Hunt

In chapter 126 of my book titled Hardshells & The London Confession I I cited the words of would be Hardshell historian Elder Harold Hunt. Hunt confessed that the 1689 London Confession did not teach Hardshell doctrine and that the Hardshells had done wrong to claim church succession through those Baptists, who he says were Calvinistic Missionary Baptists. Instead, Hunt tried to find Hardshell church succession through the AnaBaptists. But, here is what Elder Watson wrote in his book "The Old Baptist Test."

"About 1633, a Church of Regular Baptists was constituted in London. Their enemies have often tried to identify them with the Ana Baptists; but even the imperfect ecclesiastical history of those times, shows most conclusively, that they always disclaimed the fanaticism of that sect." (page239)

Of course, Watson was correct, and Hunt is not. The AnaBaptists were indeed fanatics and those who wrote and endorsed the London Confession did not support nor fellowship their errors. Watson claimed succession from those old "Regular Baptists" and not through the fanatical AnaBaptists.