Questions On Crucial Texts

One of the reasons I joined this site a few years ago was to have a platform to speak on things that I came to see taught in scripture and Baptist history. I have never quite understood the charge of some that I should not be part of this blog doing what I am, as it is quite common for men recently delivered from erroneous groups to have a desire to share their new found knowledge with others. I have watched several youtube videos and read books in which an individual shared his experience of coming out of Masonry, Seventh-Day Adventism, Mormonism, etc., hoping that others would likewise be rescued or warned of associating with something they felt was bad for their souls.

The day that I was excluded from the “Primitive” Baptists I was given little opportunity to offer a defense. What time I was afforded was mostly dedicated to quoting scriptures that, according to the most elementary rules of exegesis, destroyed the casual dismissal ”Oh, that’s talking about a time salvation.”. I was even able to cite men of similar opinion from their very own denomination in support of my claims. But it mattered not. Tradition would rule the day!

Consequently, upon leaving the order I had much bottled up inside me that needed to be released; namely, my newly discovered theological and historical convictions. I had to share it with someone. Who would be willing to hear me out? To this day I can count the number on one hand.

A portion of what had built up inside has been released in the form of questions that I have posted on this blog, mostly appearing in my postings entitled “Time Salvation Challenge” in which I focus on some crucial passage central in the controversy of Calvinism vs. Hardshellism. A few of them I asked the day I was barred from the order, but all I heard was crickets chirping. Of this though I was not surprised.

I thought it would be good to post them again in the hopes that someone…anyone…ingrained in their anti-means, do-nothing, time-salvation philosophy would, if not answer them, at least ponder them in their minds. Maybe, perhaps maybe, they could eventually come to see that they have been in error.

First, we have Romans 11:11-15:

“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them 15. For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?”

1) Is verse 11 treating of eternal or time salvation?

2) Did time salvation come to the Gentiles through the fall of the Jews?

3) Should the context determine what kind of salvation is under consideration in verse 14?

4) Does the Apostle Paul switch from writing of eternal salvation in verse 11 to time salvation in verse 14?

5) Does he then switch back to eternal salvation in verse 15?

6) Did the casting away of the Jews result in a temporal reconciliation of the world (v.15)?

7) If eternal salvation is under consideration in verse 11 and 15, is it reasonable that the same is true with verse 14 which lies between them?

8) Does switching between eternal and time salvation, and back again, interrupt the flow of the apostle’s thought?

9) Paul says that he “might save some of them”. Which one of the following is true?

a) Paul would save them.
b) God would save them without Paul.
c) God would save them through Paul.

10) If Paul saved them, does this mean that God didn't?

11) If God saved them, why does Paul state he would?

12) Was Paul an instrument in the temporal salvation of some?

13) What premises are influencing your interpretation of this passage?

Second, we have Ezekiel 36:26-27:

“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them” (Ezek. 36:26-27)

1) Does this covenant treat of eternal or temporal matters, or both?

2) Are walking in God’s statutes and keeping his judgments elements of conversion?

3) Is conversion yoked with regeneration in this passage?

4) Are walking in God’s statutes and keeping his judgments effects of the indwelling Spirit? If so, are they certain of uncertain effects?

5) Is the certainty or uncertainty of these effects determined by the promise?

6) Are the effects of the indwelling Spirit part of the covenant promise itself, or optional supplements to it?

7) Can the covenant be said to be effected if not all its components come to pass for whomsoever it is intended?

8) Are walking in God’s statutes and keeping his judgments subconscious or cognitive actions?

9) How does one 'walk' on the subconscious level?

10) Is the objective reality of salvation and the subjective experience of it joined together in this passage?

11) Doth God effect the whole of this covenant, or only some of it?

12) Are all the elect embraced in this covenant, or only some?

13) Are receiving a new spirit and a new heart conditions for final salvation?

14) Are walking in God’s statutes and keeping his judgments conditions for final salvation?

15) Are walking in God’s statutes and keeping his judgments caused by God?

16) If walking in God’s statutes and keeping his judgments are part of time salvation, does this mean that a new spirit and heart are received in time salvation?

17) Does a person receive God’s Spirit in regeneration or in time salvation, or both?

18) Do the effects of the indwelling Spirit commence in regeneration or time salvation?

19) Does God cause all the elect to walk in his statutes and keep his judgments?

20) Is it given to all the elect to have a new spirit and new heart?

21) Is it given to all the elect to walk in God’s statutes and keep his judgments?

22) Doth God intend to give a new heart and spirit to ALL the elect, but cause only SOME to walk in his statutes?

23) Are all the elect under consideration in verse 26, but only some of the elect in verse 27?

24) Does the "regenerate heathen" walk in God’s statutes or keep his judgments?

25) Does the Spirit of God work effectually or ineffectually in bringing these fruits to pass?

26) If an elect child of God does not walk in God’s statutes, doth God fail in His covenant purpose?

27) Does walking in God’s statutes denote continual or momentary behavior?

28) If some of the elect go to Heaven having walked in God’s statutes while others have not, then how is it said that the elect are all saved the “same way”?

29) If the regenerate infant dying in infancy never walks in God’s statutes, does this mean that no adult can be made to do so, seeing that God’s spirit only has “one way” of saving His people?

30) If the infant and adult are saved the “same way”, does it not follow that the Spirit must cause either ALL of them or NONE of them to walk in God’s statutes?

Third, we have Ephesians 1:13-19:

“In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power” (Eph. 1:13-19)

1) Is Ephesians 1 dealing with eternal or temporal blessings?

2) Does Paul treat of eternal salvation prior to verse 13, switch to time salvation in verse 13, and then return to eternal salvation for the rest of the chapter?

3) If so, did you reach this interpretation based on the context and sound hermeneutics?

4) Must sinners “trust” in Christ for salvation?

5) Is seed trust under consideration in verse 13? If so, is this the same thing as seed faith?

6) Is the belief of verse 13 evangelical?

7) Does the sealing of the Holy Spirit take place in time salvation or regeneration?

8) Is this sealing optional or definite?

9) Is the belief of verse 13 the same or different than the belief in verse 19?

10) If different, does this mean that the Apostle has pulled yet another switch on us?

11) If they are the same, does this mean that God’s power (v. 19) works through the gospel (v. 13)?

12) Is the “word of truth” Jesus or “the gospel of your salvation”?

13) Is the earnest of the Spirit given to all the elect or some only? In regeneration or time salvation?

Fourth, we have Romans 6:17-23:

“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:17-23)

1) Is “the servants of sin” a reference to the unregenerate state?

2) Was the doctrine delivered to the Romans while in this state?

3) Was the doctrine, in some way, connected to the transition between death and life, whether regeneration be considered narrowly or broadly?

4) Did the gospel proclaimers wait for the Romans to be born again, and THEN deliver the doctrine unto them?

5) If they did not wait, were they wrong in doing so?

6) If they did not wait, why do you?

7) Is one made free from sin in regeneration or time salvation?

8) Is being made free from sin necessary or unnecessary?

9) If necessary, does this mean that the doctrine played some role in effecting something necessary?

10) If not necessary, then is it not necessary to receive everlasting life at the end?

11) If the Roman believers were set free by obeying the doctrine presented them, why are not all, seeing that all are “saved the same way”?

12) Is “becoming the servants of righteousness” the necessary effect of being made free from sin?

13) Is the “regenerated heathen” a servant of righteousness?

14) Is everlasting life actually temporal life?

15) Is everlasting life (v.23) the same as eternal life (v.24)?

16) Does one receive temporal life at "the end"?

17) If obeying the doctrine (v. 17) involves time salvation, does Paul pull a switcheroo when he speaks of eternal salvation in verse 23?

Fifth, we have a few questions regarding Romans 10 in which Paul prays for the salvation of his Jewish brethren. This is only an overview, for many more could be added exposing the error of restricting the verses within to time salvation.

1) If those for whom Paul is praying (10:1) are already saved eternally, then why does he write in Romans 11 that a remnant of this group only is saved(v.5-7)?

2) If the WHOLE of whom Paul is praying (10:1) are already saved eternally, then how could there be a remnant (11:5)?

3) If the remnant only is saved (11:5), does this not suggest that the rest of the nation (10:1) was not?

4) Can it be said that the WHOLE of something is true (10:1), while it yet be true only of a PORTION OF THE WHOLE (11:5) at the same time?

5) If the REMNANT of Romans 11:5 is described as receiving eternal salvation (v.6-7), then is this not the SAME salvation Paul has under consideration when praying for the WHOLE (10:1)?

And last, I wrote a response to Elder Michael Gowens’s wrongful handling of Galatians 1:4 (see Here), as if it was supportive of this modern novelty. In reference to Christ, the text reads:

"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world; according to the will of God, and our Father." (Gal. 1:4)

The following questions show what an error it is to employ this passage in such a manner.

1) Are those for whom Christ gave himself the same as those who shall be delivered from the present evil world?

2) If they are the same and Christ gave himself for all His elect, then does this mean that all shall receive time salvation?

3) Is it true that Christ gave himself for all his elect, but shall grant time salvation to only a portion of them?

e.g. "Who gave himself for ALL, that he might save SOME of them from this present evil world"?

4) Is being delivered from this present evil world a "second" salvation or part of eternal salvation?

5) Does eternal salvation involve being delivered from this present evil world?

6) Does the expression "that he might" mean that Christ intended to render time salvation possible, or to make it certain?

7) Is it true to say that Christ might save His people from the present evil world, or that they might save themselves?

8) Is it the absolute intent of the Lord Jesus to give His people a time salvation, or something He has left contingent on the human will?

9) If the former, then why is it effected only for a remnant of God's elect?

10) Are there any blessings connected to the death of Christ that shall not certainly be given (Rom. 8:32) to those for whom he died?

11) Is the blessing of time salvation freely given as a result of Christ’s death?

12) Is time salvation the effect of Christ's work at the cross or the effect of human free-will?

13) Is the deliverance promised the inevitable effect of the redeeming work of Christ?

14) Was it the intent of Christ to accomplish an eternal salvation for all the elect, and a time salvation for the "elect within the elect"?

15) Is time salvation according to God's decretive will?

Some of these questions are so basic, but others are a little more complex as they go into the deeper things of theology. Both of them were used by the Lord in convincing me that I was not being honest with the scriptures. My pre-conceived opposition to the Calvinistic “means” position was influencing me to the point that I was ignoring the most basic rules of bible interpretation. If a text seemed to teach gospel regeneration, perseverance, absolutism, the necessity of evangelical faith, repentance, or personal holiness, the “Primitive Baptist Grid” would rise up within me, and I’d force the text to say what I wanted it to say.

My plea is that those entrenched in this doctrine would confront the above questions honestly by casting to the side their anti-means preconceptions and interpret the passages cited within their context.

Conversion is Regeneration (Edwards)

Though some affirm that Jonathan Edwards taught the hybrid "born again before faith" view, the following citations show otherwise. Edwards did not think that regeneration was different from conversion. 

Edwards wrote (all emphasis mine - SG):

"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that by regeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"

"This inward change, called regeneration and circumcision of the heart, which is wrought in repentance and conversion, is the same with that spiritual resurrection so often spoken of, and represented as a dying unto sin, and living unto righteousness...That a spiritual resurrection to a new divine life, should be called a being born again, is agreeable to the language of Scripture, in which we find a resurrection is called a being born, or begotten...This change, which men are the subjects of when they are born again, and circumcised in heart, when they repent, and are converted, and spiritually raised from the dead, is the same change which is meant when the Scripture speaks of making the heart and spirit new, or giving a new heart and spirit....Thus repentance (metanoia) or the change of the mind, is the same as being changed to a new mind, or a new heart and spirit. Conversion is the turning of the heart; which is the same thing as changing it so, that there shall be another heart, or a new heart, or a new spirit."

"The apostle does in effect tell us, that when he speaks of that spiritual death and resurrection which is in conversion, he means the same thing as crucifying and burying the old man, and rising a new man."  (pgs. 466-470)

Citations from "THE W0RKS of PRESIDENT EDWARDS, IN FOUR VOLUMES." A REPRINT OF TBE WORCESTER EDITION, WITH VALUABLE ADDITIONS AND A COPIOUS GENERAL INDEX. VOL. II.

See here

(see my posting here for more citations)

The first Hardshells believed that regeneration included conversion to Christ.  Today's Hardshells have forsaken the Old Baptist faith.

Wilson Thompson - 1 Peter 1:23 And The Certainty Of Conversion

I recently read a brief blog posting on one of the more popular Hardshell Baptist websites (see Here), in which author Josh Winslett shared a quotation of Elder Wilson Thompson, a first-generation preacher of this faith and order. It is obviously posted in an attempt to prove that he is “in succession” with the conditional time salvation line of thinking invented in the late 1800s and advocated by the majority of the current generation.

The quotation is taken from Thompson’s autobiography, which can be found on www.primitivebaptist.org, a site managed by David Montgomery.

Writing in reference to our Baptist forefathers, Thompson states:

"They denied that the preaching of the gospel had any power to convert the dead sinner, or to give him life, and declared that man in nature was dead in trespasses and sins, and that as no means could be used to give life to one literally dead, even so no means could be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sins, that God effects that work of Himself, by His holy Spirit, without means or instruments, and the gospel is a proclamation of good tidings, of great joy to the soul that is prepared with a hearing ear and an understanding heart to receive it. To those who thus believe it is the power of God unto salvation, and it saves them from the false doctrines of men, and feeds and makes them strong in the truth."

It is not my present purpose to here address Thompson’s own error in misrepresenting our Baptist forefathers, yet I simply point out to the reader that he does so. As far as the rest of his statement is concerned I will be the first one to admit that on the cover these words seem to convey some semblance to the modern scheme mentioned above. Immediate or no-means regeneration, though not sufficient evidence to document conditional time salvation, is nevertheless a central component of it. In addition, his expression that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and it saves them from the false doctrines of men, and feeds and makes them strong in the truth” is language very similar to what usually comes from this camp, and gives weight to the notion that Thompson was considering the salvation of Romans 1:16 as a post-regeneration experience. Let it be clearly understood, though, that Thompson can be said to be an advocate of time salvation if and ONLY if he felt that acquaintance with the gospel was an optional experience for the people of God. However, when we consult further writings of Thompson we see that such is not the case!

Brother Stephen has made the assertion in the past that the first generation “Primitive” Baptists made a very close analogy between natural birth and spiritual birth. They held to a three-stage model of the whole death to life process in which there was a point of initial conception (i.e. regeneration), followed by a period of conviction analogous to the babe in the darkness of the womb, and then deliverance (i.e. new birth).

In chapter six of his work Simple Truth is contained the particular statement of Thompson which shows that this too was his stated position (emphasis mine – KF):

" This change wrought by the spirit, is called regeneration because it is begetting them unto a divine nature. The first work of the spirit on the heart is regeneration, or the implanting of that incorruptible seed with cleaves to holiness, and so it is sometimes called quickened, because this is a living seed, that causes the motions of life to appear, and this is always followed by the new birth which is effected when the soul is enabled to view Christ by faith, and lay hold of the comfort contained in the gospel, and so they are said to be born again, not of corruptable seed, but of an incorruptable seed, by the word of God." (Simple Truth, Wilson Thompson)

It is the highlighted portion of Thompson’s statement which overthrows any potential argument for portraying him as an advocate for modern-day conditionalism. A regeneration experience which is “always followed” by a gospel birthing is equivalent to saying that conditional time salvation is certain to the elect. This attacks the very heart of the modern-day heresy, which teaches that acquaintance with the gospel is no guarantee. Rather, it is something achieved only by ”a few” of God’s people. Furthermore, it is clear that Thompson treated 1 Peter 1:23 as respecting the last stage of his model (i.e. the new birth), being effected by the gospel, or the “word of God”.

Were Thompson to be ”invited into the stands” of the typical Hardshell church today and began to teach that the Word of 1 Peter 1:23 was not Christ, but the gospel (which is correct – KF), or that gospel conversion always follows regeneration, thereby not leaving room for regenerated heathens, unbelievers, idolators, and apostates, he would be muzzled, branded a heretic, declared ”out of order”, and promptly ostracized for the rest of his life.

It is this citation of Thompson which shows that the first one, cited by Winslett on marchtozion.com, cannot be used as evidence for conditionalism. The only thing that can be gathered from it is that Thompson was simply trying to avoid gospel instrumentality in the initial spark of his three-stage model of the saving process. The moment he makes the addition that gospel birthing always follows regeneration, as the latter citation exhibits, he leaves conditional Hardshellism.

Thompson and the rest of his contemporaries of similar opinion constitute a brick wall through which any attempt to find a succession of churches advocating conditionalism cannot penetrate.

As if Elder John Watson’s Old Baptist Test, written later, had not already done so.

Hardshells & The American Indian

The Hardshells of today make arguments, relative to the heathen (those who are ignorant of the one true and living God and of the Gospel), based upon emotion rather than upon the plain statements of Scripture. Relative to these heathen, the American Indians are often brought up as an example. Can we say that they are all lost because they knew nothing about the Father and Son? Emotion would want us to deny that they were all lost because they lacked knowledge of and faith in Father and Son, or in the Gospel revelation. An appeal is often made to man's sense of fairness in consideration of the question. Is it fair (or just) for God to deny salvation to the heathen who, through no fault of his own, was never taught the truth? If the American Indian died without faith in Christ because he had not heard of Christ, how can such a system be right?

The Hardshells will also argue that the Devil is more successful than God, which they say proves that the Gospel means position cannot be true.

If the American Indian was saved in spite of his having died without evangelical faith and knowledge, then being called, quickened, regenerated, born again, created anew, renewed, transformed, etc., do not involve cognition, enlightenment, nor evangelical faith, repentance, and conversion.

We can expect such arguments to be made by Universalists. And, interestingly, the Hardshells have had problems over Universalism and No-Hellism.

We are not to be guided by our reasoning or judgments, but by what is clearly taught in Scripture. When the Hardshells give us the Scripture evidence that affirms that those who die as heathens or pagans are nevertheless saved, we will be glad to listen to them. But when they put forth arguments and reasonings not founded on the express teaching of Scripture, we will turn away from them.

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." (Prov. 3: 5)

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8: 20)

Where in "the law and the testimony" is the salvation of faithless people affirmed? The burden is on the Hardshells to give us the Scriptural evidence. Keep in mind that we want plain statements of Scripture and not faulty deductions from texts of Scripture.

The Hardshell thinks that there are serious theological problems in denying the salvation of many of the heathen, such as the American Indians who died knowing nothing of Christ or true religion. That may or may not be, but let the Hardshell acknowledge how his own position creates far more theological problems.

Further, consider the historical evidence concerning the American Indian. Who took the Gospel to the Indians? The Hardshells or the Missionary Baptists? If the Hardshells had such a concern for the state of the Indian's soul, why has he not had any preachers to preach to the Indians? Was it not Missionary Baptists or other evangelicals who gave the good news to the Indians? The Hardshells have been no friend to the Indians, and had it been left to them alone, the Indians never would have heard the Gospel. I'll take the example of Isaac McCoy over that of Wilson Thompson, I'll take the example of J.M. Peck over that of Daniel Parker. When the Scripture speaks of "those who turn many to righteousness" (Dan. 12: 3), were they describing men like McCoy and Peck, or Thompson and Parker?

John Leland, in writing to John Taylor, cited this verse and thought that it was expressive of men like Taylor who were instrumental in winning the lost to Christ. Who is more like the character "they who turn many"? The Hardshells or non-Hardshells?

They who turn many to righteousness "shall shine like the brightness of the sky above," "like the stars forever and ever." God help us to be evangelical! More like Paul! More like Spurgeon and Moody! More like Carey and Fuller!

What Advantage?

What advantage has it been to me to have been delivered from the Hardshell or "Primitive" Baptist cult? I was delivered from the heresies of Hardshellism in the mid 80s and I have been glad for it ever since. I regularly give thanks to the Lord for delivering me from the errors of Hyper Calvinism, Antinomianism, and Hardshellism.

I think of the many positive effects to my spiritual thinking, character transformation, increased sanctification, and perseverance, etc., as a result of my deliverance.

First, I have no reluctance to preach to the spiritually dead, to witness to the sinner, and to counsel him about his need of salvation. I am eager to witness to all, to plead with the lost.

Second, I have greater appreciation and assurance of salvation, my deliverance from heresy being evidence of God's care for me.

Third, I am more careful in my Christian walk, knowing that if I do not persevere and overcome, then I will not be finally saved. Contrary to my former Hardshell beliefs, my actions do have eternal consequences both for others and for myself.

Fourth, I am also more soberly aware of how my actions may be a means either in the obtaining of salvation or of damnation. I am not only a means in the salvation of dead sinners but also in the continuous salvation and perseverance of the regenerate.

Fifth, I have greater fellowship with other Christians who are not five point Calvinists, even with Arminians, being opposed to schismatic thinking and behavior. I appreciate these Christians and realize that they are people who love the Lord and seek to follow his will. I realize that they may be right in some areas where there is disagreement and I may be wrong. I am more patient and tolerant, and less stubborn, less a "Hardshell" "straightjacket."

Sixth, I am more humble in my view of myself, less ambitious, more respectful to those who know more and have superior experience. I am less given to rail, to accuse, to attack. I am far more removed from a "know it all" mentality now that I am no longer a hardheaded Hardshell. I have a greater appreciation for the gifts of others with whom I do not fully agree.

Seventh, I am a far more careful exegete of Scripture, and less inclined to take my presuppositions to Scripture. I am less likely to twist Scripture, being more honest in my reading of Scripture. In a nutshell, my hermeneutics are much better.

I am sure that there are other good things that have come to me as a result of my having been delivered from a cult. I know cult thinking. I know the dangers of being in a cult. I believe God wants me to use my experience to help people in the Hardshell cult to experience the same deliverance as I have.

What the first Hardshells Believed VIII

For the "Primitive Baptist" periodical for 1845 (see here)

"Shall Baptists admit in their churches this long-condemned heresy?  Shall they unite with those who hold the doctrine of Cassian, Pelagius, or the Roman church, and reject the doctrine of the Reformation, the doctrine of the Baptists published in their Confession of Faith more than 200 years ago, and adopted by the first Association of Baptists in the United States, viz. the Philadelphia Association? Shall they reject the doctrine of the Bible, and shrink from a faithful discharge of duty, from faithfully declaring all the counsel of God, for the sake of money, applause, or members, or for fear of offending a gainsaying world?"

The "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists of 1845 thought ill of those Baptists who "reject" 1) the doctrine of the Reformation, or "Reformed" doctrine, and 2) the doctrine of the 1689 London Confession, and 3) the beliefs of the Philadelphia Association.  Yet, today's Hardshells claim to oppose "Reformed" doctrine, rejecting its teaching regarding the absolute predestination of all things, of the use of means in the eternal salvation of sinners, and its teaching regarding justification by faith. They also disclaim the 1689 Confession but the first Hardshells did not. Today's Hardshells also reject being styled "Calvinists" for these reasons, though their forefathers had no hesitancy in claiming to be Calvinists. It seems that today's Hardshells are far less "primitive" or "original" than what they think.

What the first Hardshells Believed VII

From June through November last I wrote six postings titled "What the first Hardshells Believed." From those posts it is clear that today's "Primitive Baptists" are not in agreement with their own founding fathers of the 1830-1860 period. Those previous postings contained citations from "The Primitive Baptist" periodical of the 1830s and 1840s. This posting will give a citation from the same paper for the year 1860 and it will be seen that the public stated view of the Hardshells, even at that time, was that people had to be converted in order to be finally and eternally saved. They were still teaching that the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of the elect.

It also must be remembered how it was in 1866-67 that Elder John Watson and Elder R.W. Fain published "The Old Baptist Test" and in this book Watson mentions how the anti means faction among the followers of Elder Daniel Parker were increasing in strength and is why Watson called, at that time (and in his last days), for a debate among the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists on this issue. In fact, Watson had been a writer and supporter of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical since its inception and clearly both Watson and that periodical taught the Gospel means position, as the following citations will further show.

From "The Primitive Baptist" (see here)

"Awful meditation! distressing thought! but it is true, --that all the world--our nearest friends and our bitterest enemies, which have not obtained repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus, --will hear his voice, and come forth unto eternal condemnation.--"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

Today's Hardshells do not believe that evangelical faith and repentance are essential to eternal salvation, but the above words are in direct contradiction to that view. Further, it is not some non-cognitive "faith" but "faith in the Lord Jesus."

Further, no Hardshell today interprets the perishing of the above cited verse to be eternal. They do not believe that Jesus was saying "repent or eternally perish." Yet, the first Hardshells did not believe such. And, in this light, who is the "primitive" Baptist?

I wonder if any of today's Hardshells would so warn the sinner? They love to boast of their popularity as funeral preachers, but I doubt that they would be found saying the things in the above citation. Spurgeon would have had no reluctance in using a funeral to warn the sinner. The Hardshells of today, because they do not warn the wicked, as did the first Hardshells, are doing harm to souls and displeasing God.

The article continued:

"Dear brethren and sisters, pray for sinners...that God would open their blinded eyes to see their awful condition, and that Jesus, who is "exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel," may give them "godly sorrow, which worketh repentance unto salvation, not to be repented of, but that leadeth to life eternal,"--that the awful judgment of "coming forth unto the resurrection of damnation," may be averted from their poor souls.

Pray for sinners to be eternally saved? No Hardshell today believes or practices this (to their shame). I have written about this in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Notice that being convicted of sin is not enough, but one must also repent, or actually turn, from sin to God, or be converted, in order to experience escaping final damnation.

The article continued:

O, sinner! this is your condition! You must obtain the favor of God,--"the Spirit of God bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God,"--or we must realize this dreadful "resurrection;" "He that believeth not is condemned already."  "Turn ye, turn ye, for why will you die, O house of Israel." O, Sinner! pray for yourself; and if you feel that you are "living without God and without hope in the world," and see your great need of a Savior, we would say to you, Come boldly to a throne of grace; come just as you are; plead the name and righteous merits of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; put your whole trust in him, and cast your whole care upon him, for he careth for you."

Do Hardshells preach like this today? I do. Who is more "Primitive" then? Who is more in agreement with the first Hardshells?

God NOT Sovereign In Conditionalism

From time to time I come across certain assertions made by my former acquaintances of the “Primitive” Baptists in which they contradict themselves; and I strongly suspect, do not even know it. I blame a lot on this on the general ignorance of systematic theology, failing to know the implications that the modern time salvation paradigm has on basic bible doctrines. On the cover the statement seems to uphold their doctrine as exalting God higher than any other belief system found within Christendom (which is their intention), yet when it is actually applied to their novel paradigm, He is abased and their teaching is in fact revealed to be a cloaked form of Arminianism.

In answer to the question “What’s the difference between Primitive Baptists and other Baptists?”, the Camp Creek Primitive Baptist Church website says:

“We firmly believe that God is sovereign in all matters….” (See Here)

To which I reply, no, you do not believe this! I should know since I’m a former teacher within this order. There are particular areas where Hardshellism does NOT recognize where God is sovereign, and it is the point of this brief article to show the two main areas of doctrine where this is so.

First, God is not sovereign in limited predestination.

If God were sovereign in all matters, He would be so over those things which the limited or conditionalist view of predestination says He has not in any sense caused. But to be sovereign over a matter presupposes that God is actually involved in the execution of the event! Except for the salvation of God’s people, however, and possibly those few events where God is said to have “intervened”, Conditionalism makes free-will the FIRST cause of what remains. This was one of the major things I saw when the Lord was delivering me from this teaching. Everything must have a FIRST cause, and if God is not that FIRST cause, then what is? Gravity? Dirt? The Big Bang? The only alternative outside of some scientific or evolutionary response is to reply the free-will of man. Conditionalism cannot reply that God is sovereign over all events, for most of those events it is said He has not caused!

So how can God be sovereign over that which conditional predestination says He is not even involved in bringing to pass? I’m sure Martin Luther would have a field day with this, seeing that is similar to Erasmus's free-will philosophy.

Second, God is not sovereign in conditional time salvation.

Now here's a sad admission! A woeful depiction of the Almighty God! That Hardshellism does not believe that God is sovereign in all matters is proven when the question is really pondered:

”Is God sovereign in gospel conversion (i.e. time salvation)?”

This is a stickler in the "Primitive Baptist" paradigm, and a question which, when honestly pursued, will expose the Arminianism implicit within Conditionalism. Being overly protective of God's sovereignty in eternal salvation (which is of course to be commended of all Christians), they have so sliced and diced the scriptures, separating those things God has joined together, that they have left themselves vulnerable to the charge of being Arminian with respect to their beloved time salvation doctrine. This hypothetical "second" salvation available to the elect child of God "already regenerated" is said to be accomplished by free-will. Just ask one to preach from Acts 2:40 and you'll see. So how can one speak of God being sovereign in time salvation when He doesn't even have anything to do with bringing it to pass? It sounds strange seeing that is a works-system, but I can remember my deceived friends being almost boastful of there being a salvation that only they can do, which God wouldn't do for them.

So how can it be said on one hand that God is sovereign in time salvation, and on the other say that I must save myself (per their view of Acts 2:40)? Which one is it? The question really is not even permissible, for it must first be allowed that God is actually involved in the event. Only then could one begin to entertain the question of whether the grace of God was irresistible or not in performing it.

In this system it cannot be said that God is sovereign, for according to the teaching of time salvation many of the regenerate reject the gospel, reject Christ, refute to repent, believe, practice holiness, or persevere in the faith. Otherwise, the irresistible grace of God would successfully impart these virtues into His people.

To admit that God is sovereign in gospel conversion would also mean that He is so despite the fact that means are involved, something which our moderns say renders the transaction not secure because it is dependent upon man.