In a question and answer format, Elders Sylvester Hassell and R. H. Pitman answered questions. Here is one answered by Hassell that I want to focus attention upon.
Q. Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?
A. In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it.
This is a statement that desperately needed enlargement and proof for its validity. Oddly, the learned "historian" failed to give us this. He obviously wrote this for the average unlearned Hardshell cult member who would take his word as fact without checking him out. He certainly would not want to say such a thing with scholarly ears listening. Noble Bereans would call on him to prove this totally unfounded assertion.
Before I enlarge upon all that is apparent from the above words of Sylvester Hassell, I would like to ask who were those designated as "some Baptists"? Were the following named people guilty of giving "careless expressions" when discussing the modus operandi of the Spirit in begetting children of God? And, did they "in their more exact expressions" contradict themselves?
Was this true of the signers of the 1644 and 1689 London Confessions?
Was it true of those who put forth and endorsed the Philadelphia Confession?
Was it true of Willian Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, John Spilsbury, Hercules Collins, Benjamin Keach?
Was it true of John Gill?
Was it true of all the first leaders of the Hardshells of the 1830s? Was it true of Sylvester's own father? Of Joshua Lawrence, Mark Bennett, and those who published the original "Primitive Baptist" periodical?
Hardshells like Hassell think that they are the only ones who now put forth those "more exact expressions" that define the new birth experience, that they are superior theologians to the names mentioned above.
What the question and answer affirms/implies
1. That only a small minority of Baptists have historically and traditionally believed in means. "Some" Baptists have advocated means? Now, Hassell surely knows that this is false, and that all Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells believed in means. So, then, why does he say "some Baptists"? Does he not want to leave the impression that the anti means view has been the view of the great majority of Baptists of prior centuries? Is he not being deceitful?
2. That the Baptist forefathers contradicted themselves in expressing their views on this matter. But, he asserts this but gives no proof for it.
3. That the Baptist forefathers repudiated the means position in their "more exact expressions." Again, if there ever was a need for evidence to prove this assertion, it was here! Why did Hassell not give us samples from those forefathers to substantiate his fantastic claim? Is it not because he had none? I have challenged today's Hardshells to give us those citations and they, like Hassell, remain silent as the grave. They assert things without the least shred of evidence.
4. Hassell does say that these Baptists did sometimes seem to affirm belief in means, but advises the Hardshell cult members to just ignore it as being as example of the fact that the Hardshell forefathers were not exact in their understanding as is Hassell and as are today's Hardshells. In other words, Hardshells are to apply Hassell's formula in interpreting the writings of Baptist forefathers.
5. The Baptist forefathers of the Hardshells denied the use of means and did so in their more exact expressions but did write some things carelessly at times that seemed to imply their belief in means, or to contradict their more exact statements of faith. But, again, we want the proof!
6. That Sylvester Hassell and his brethren, in the late 1800s, had finally given to the world a statement of Baptist belief on the new birth that was the most exact of all, having no careless expressions any longer. That is Hardshell arrogance, a trait that has characterized them from the beginning.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Elder John Clark on Hardshell Arminianism
Elder John Clark, editor of "Zion's Advocate," wrote:
"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)
Today's Hardshells are condemned by these words of Clark. Today's Conditionalist Hardshells are the real Arminians.
"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)
Today's Hardshells are condemned by these words of Clark. Today's Conditionalist Hardshells are the real Arminians.
Friday, June 19, 2015
C. B. Hassell's Creed
In chapter 4 of the
Autobiography of Elder C. B. Hassell (1809-
1880) (see here) this is recorded (emphasis mine):
"The religious sentiments of C. B. H. in part were the following:
1st. One only infinitely wise, holy and Supreme Being, constituted by the Union, - co-eternal, of Father, Son and Holy Ghost - the “three that bear record in heaven”.
2nd. The fall of man, original guilt and consequent depravity of every human heart.
3rd. The absolute predestination of all things by Almighty God, including that of all his Spiritual Israel unto eternal life, through and in Jesus Christ, their head, bishop, King and Priest, who was from eternity deemed precious and elected for this purpose as chief cornerstone of Zion.
4th. The absolute that the Holy Ghost will find all the chosen in Christ, regenerate their soul, lead them unto Christ, and show them the way of salvation and the riches of their inheritance, pure and undefiled in heaven above.
5th. The perseverance of the saints in grace—their final conquest and glory, and the impossibility for all the principalities and powers of earth or hell to defeat, frustrate, or bring to nought, the purposes and decrees of Almighty God.
And these continue to be the firm sentiments of C. B. H. unto this day. Were things otherwise, all would be uncertainty and confusion and much doubt would exist about the final salvation of even one of the human race."
It can be easily shown that Elder C. B. Hassell believed that the new birth was accomplished by the Spirit's use of the word or Gospel, and the above can be added to the list of proofs. Notice that he says that all the elect would be converted, that is, that they all would be lead to embrace Christ and shown the way of salvation. Today's Hardshells do not believe this. Did Sylvester Hassell?
Notice how the senior Hassell is against today's conditionalist Hardshells because he 1) believed in means, 2) he believed in the absolute predestination of all things, 3) he believed in perseverance. For these reasons he would not be in fellowship with today's Hardshells. So, how can they claim to be primitive, old, or original?
"The religious sentiments of C. B. H. in part were the following:
1st. One only infinitely wise, holy and Supreme Being, constituted by the Union, - co-eternal, of Father, Son and Holy Ghost - the “three that bear record in heaven”.
2nd. The fall of man, original guilt and consequent depravity of every human heart.
3rd. The absolute predestination of all things by Almighty God, including that of all his Spiritual Israel unto eternal life, through and in Jesus Christ, their head, bishop, King and Priest, who was from eternity deemed precious and elected for this purpose as chief cornerstone of Zion.
4th. The absolute that the Holy Ghost will find all the chosen in Christ, regenerate their soul, lead them unto Christ, and show them the way of salvation and the riches of their inheritance, pure and undefiled in heaven above.
5th. The perseverance of the saints in grace—their final conquest and glory, and the impossibility for all the principalities and powers of earth or hell to defeat, frustrate, or bring to nought, the purposes and decrees of Almighty God.
And these continue to be the firm sentiments of C. B. H. unto this day. Were things otherwise, all would be uncertainty and confusion and much doubt would exist about the final salvation of even one of the human race."
It can be easily shown that Elder C. B. Hassell believed that the new birth was accomplished by the Spirit's use of the word or Gospel, and the above can be added to the list of proofs. Notice that he says that all the elect would be converted, that is, that they all would be lead to embrace Christ and shown the way of salvation. Today's Hardshells do not believe this. Did Sylvester Hassell?
Notice how the senior Hassell is against today's conditionalist Hardshells because he 1) believed in means, 2) he believed in the absolute predestination of all things, 3) he believed in perseverance. For these reasons he would not be in fellowship with today's Hardshells. So, how can they claim to be primitive, old, or original?
Saturday, June 13, 2015
More on Lemuel's Inconsistency
In a recent posting about Hardshell leader Lemuel Potter's contradiction (see here), I gave a citation which had Potter saying-
"I do not serve a God who will invent a plan for the salvation of his people that he knows will fail and never save them." (Discussion on Foreign Missions, page 538)
I have one simple question. Is this true in regard to Gospel salvation?
"I do not serve a God who will invent a plan for the salvation of his people that he knows will fail and never save them." (Discussion on Foreign Missions, page 538)
I have one simple question. Is this true in regard to Gospel salvation?
Meeting Hardshellism (for the first time)
Over the past several days I have been in e-mail correspondence with a young person who has been introduced to the "Primitive Baptist" or Hardshell sect. In the last e-mail I was asked some questions which I thought would be of interest to others and so take this as an opportunity to answer not only this person but also to put something forth that would help others.
I will keep this person's name and info private. This person asks:
"Do you have any recommendations on where would be a good place to start? Or some major chapters to be sure to read?"
I would first suggest reading articles in the Old Baptist Test blog In the ongoing book I would definitely read the first 25 chapters or so, then skip to those chapters coming in a series of chapters, such as these series:
Addresses To The Lost (42-48)
On Conviction (54-56)
The Great Commission (66-76)
Mediate or Immediate? (110-116)
Passive or Active? (117-118)
Conditional or Unconditional? (118-122)
Hardshell Pelagianism (138-142)
Hardshell Antinomianism (175-180)
"Regarding my thoughts on Primitive Baptists, I must take one step further back and address Calvinism in general...I have come to the conclusion that Calvinism is not supported by scripture. I am not sure what your stance on the subject is, and I do not mean to offend or to engage in a debate. So it logically follows that if I believe Calvinism to be in err then the Hyper-Calvinistic views of the PB would clearly throw up a red flag...In general, it's the Calvinistic and Hyper-Calvinistic doctrines that I have the most issue with."
I am Calvinistic in the tradition of men like Spurgeon and Whitefield.
Yes, you certainly would want to avoid Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism, especially if your sentiments are Arminian (or the opposite of "Calvinism"). Further, it is your duty as a Christian, not only to be converted to truth but to convert others. If you can help the Hardshells to be delivered from their errors, then you should know how to answer their arguments and scripture distortions. I have several online debates with Arminians on issues of Calvinism and Arminianism. I fight Hyper Calvinism and rank Arminianism. Yet, I have greater affinity for many classical Arminians than I do the Hyper Calvinists.
"Oddly enough I think there are many things about the PB that I like: they do not Salary their leaders, or demand a tithe, and they have many men in a church body teach (plurality of elders as is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3)."
I agree. But the things that are unattractive about them greatly obscure what is seemly.
"Thank you for spending time to talk with me. I am just a young person, hungry for the truth, honestly seeking and trusting that the Lord will lead me to truth. Your input and effort is greatly appreciated as I search."
I will keep this person's name and info private. This person asks:
"Do you have any recommendations on where would be a good place to start? Or some major chapters to be sure to read?"
I would first suggest reading articles in the Old Baptist Test blog In the ongoing book I would definitely read the first 25 chapters or so, then skip to those chapters coming in a series of chapters, such as these series:
Addresses To The Lost (42-48)
On Conviction (54-56)
The Great Commission (66-76)
Mediate or Immediate? (110-116)
Passive or Active? (117-118)
Conditional or Unconditional? (118-122)
Hardshell Pelagianism (138-142)
Hardshell Antinomianism (175-180)
"Regarding my thoughts on Primitive Baptists, I must take one step further back and address Calvinism in general...I have come to the conclusion that Calvinism is not supported by scripture. I am not sure what your stance on the subject is, and I do not mean to offend or to engage in a debate. So it logically follows that if I believe Calvinism to be in err then the Hyper-Calvinistic views of the PB would clearly throw up a red flag...In general, it's the Calvinistic and Hyper-Calvinistic doctrines that I have the most issue with."
I am Calvinistic in the tradition of men like Spurgeon and Whitefield.
Yes, you certainly would want to avoid Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism, especially if your sentiments are Arminian (or the opposite of "Calvinism"). Further, it is your duty as a Christian, not only to be converted to truth but to convert others. If you can help the Hardshells to be delivered from their errors, then you should know how to answer their arguments and scripture distortions. I have several online debates with Arminians on issues of Calvinism and Arminianism. I fight Hyper Calvinism and rank Arminianism. Yet, I have greater affinity for many classical Arminians than I do the Hyper Calvinists.
"Oddly enough I think there are many things about the PB that I like: they do not Salary their leaders, or demand a tithe, and they have many men in a church body teach (plurality of elders as is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3)."
I agree. But the things that are unattractive about them greatly obscure what is seemly.
"A couple questions: I've heard teaching from Bradley regarding the Gospel not being important for salvation. That the Gospel just brings peace and awareness to a salvation that was already present in the individual (I heard this on a video on youtube, not in person). Has he ever recanted that belief? Has he admitted that he was wrong? Or simply stopped teaching that doctrine? I have read some things on your blog to indicate that he no longer teaches it, but does he still agree with it?"
I don't think he has recanted that belief publicly, although he should! He seems willing to fellowship with those who have either recanted it or are close to doing so. His criticism of the Hardshell "time salvation" doctrine indicates a change in direction. So also does his views on perseverance.
"Do most Hardshells agree that the Gospel is not important in one's eternal destiny? Or do they believe that it is?"
Nearly all of today's Hardshells believe that the Gospel has nothing to do with saving people eternally. However, as I have shown, the first Hardshells (1830s-1860s) believed otherwise.
"I'm just trying to get more of a handle on what they do in fact believe, and what they don't."
You are to be commended for this. There is no better place to find out what they believe than here in this blog.
"Thank you for spending time to talk with me. I am just a young person, hungry for the truth, honestly seeking and trusting that the Lord will lead me to truth. Your input and effort is greatly appreciated as I search."
You are one of the reasons why brother Kevin and I spend our time here. We want to save you from a dangerous cult. God bless you. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
What Sylvester Hassell Did Not Tell You
Remember that Hardshell historian Griffin said:
"...were we not bound by the truth of history to speak of these things [the missionary zeal of those early Baptists-S.G.] we would gladly hide them in oblivion." (from chapter four of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult")
Hassell Did Not Tell You
(or what he hid in oblivion)
1. That his father (C.B.) believed in Gospel means and that all the elect would be converted to Christ by faith in the Gospel.
2. That the Hardshell forefathers of prior centuries supported theological education and mission organizations.
3. That many of the first Hardshells were Arians and Sabellians.
4. That many of the first Hardshells were infected with Daniel Parker's heresies, such as eternal vital union, hollow log regeneration, etc.
5. That all the great first leaders of the Hardshells were believers in Gospel means, such as Joshua Lawrence, Mark Bennett, John Watson, John Clark, James Osbourn, Daniel Jewett, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, Wilson Thompson, Stephen Gard, John Taylor, William Conrad, etc.
6. That the first Hardshells all believed in the absolute predestination of all things.
7. That the first Hardshells believed in perseverance as well as in preservation.
8. That the original split was over methods of evangelism and not over the issue of Gospel means.
9. Not all who were "new school" (supporters of missions) were Arminians.
10. The first Hardshells endorsed the London Confession of 1689 and interpreted it as teaching means.
11. That the first Hardshells believed that regeneration and the new birth were distinct and separate experiences.
12. That the first Hardshells believed that conversion to Christ by faith was the new birth.
13. That the first Hardshells exhorted lost sinners to come to Christ for salvation.
14. That the first Hardshells were not promoters of "time salvation" doctrine.
15. That the first Hardshells were not promoters of KJV onlyism.
16, That there were no anti means Hardshells prior to the 19th century.
17. That the first Hardshells believed that the faith of God's elect was evangelical.
"...were we not bound by the truth of history to speak of these things [the missionary zeal of those early Baptists-S.G.] we would gladly hide them in oblivion." (from chapter four of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult")
Hassell Did Not Tell You
(or what he hid in oblivion)
1. That his father (C.B.) believed in Gospel means and that all the elect would be converted to Christ by faith in the Gospel.
2. That the Hardshell forefathers of prior centuries supported theological education and mission organizations.
3. That many of the first Hardshells were Arians and Sabellians.
4. That many of the first Hardshells were infected with Daniel Parker's heresies, such as eternal vital union, hollow log regeneration, etc.
5. That all the great first leaders of the Hardshells were believers in Gospel means, such as Joshua Lawrence, Mark Bennett, John Watson, John Clark, James Osbourn, Daniel Jewett, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, Wilson Thompson, Stephen Gard, John Taylor, William Conrad, etc.
6. That the first Hardshells all believed in the absolute predestination of all things.
7. That the first Hardshells believed in perseverance as well as in preservation.
8. That the original split was over methods of evangelism and not over the issue of Gospel means.
9. Not all who were "new school" (supporters of missions) were Arminians.
10. The first Hardshells endorsed the London Confession of 1689 and interpreted it as teaching means.
11. That the first Hardshells believed that regeneration and the new birth were distinct and separate experiences.
12. That the first Hardshells believed that conversion to Christ by faith was the new birth.
13. That the first Hardshells exhorted lost sinners to come to Christ for salvation.
14. That the first Hardshells were not promoters of "time salvation" doctrine.
15. That the first Hardshells were not promoters of KJV onlyism.
16, That there were no anti means Hardshells prior to the 19th century.
17. That the first Hardshells believed that the faith of God's elect was evangelical.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Blame the Lord!
In the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," edited and published by Elder Daniel E. Jewett, a leading "Old School" or "Hardshell" editor in the late 1830's and early 1840's, I found this interesting commentary from a circular from an "Old Baptist" association. Let me first give the entire citation and then make my observations.
"Now the sum of what we have written is this : whilst the New School Baptists, together with all the different orders of the anti-christian interest, may transgress the Laws of Christ with impunity, may change his ordinances, add to his commands, take from any of the prophecies of his book—the Old School Baptists, from the profession which they have made, are not at liberty to separate that which God has joined together, nor to prefer any of his commandments one above another, but to observe all things whatsoever he has commanded.
Holding as we do, brethren, the faith once delivered to the saints; and standing aloof from all other denominations in the world, it certainly becomes us, above all others, to see that we love one another with a pure heart fervently—to manifest that we are taught of God to love one another; and to give evidence of this by works of faith and labors of love in doing good unto all men, but, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
The letters from the churches, that have been read in our meeting, bring us the pleasing intelligence of the prevalence of peace and harmony among the brethren, but complain of coldness and barrenness in divine things. We believe however, that the Lord's set time to favor zion cannot be hastened, and although we feel inclined to pray for a manifestation of his presence in the churches, in building up the waste places of His Zion; yet we dare not resort to unscriptural and unauthorized measures to hasten that event. We would remember the experiment which our old mother Sarah made in days of old, to hasten the accomplishment of the Lord's promise, and from the effect thereof learn wisdom:—no mechanical efforts of ours can revive the Lord's work." (Page 36)
Now, I recognize that success, like victory and safety, is "of the Lord" (Proverbs 21: 31 KJV); And, that "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it," etc. (Psalm 127: 1); However, we cannot blame the Lord for our failures as the Hardshells are ever in the habit of doing. Certainly the above writer blames the Lord for the coldness and barrenness in their churches following their division with their brethren who supported missions. Rather than blaming the desolations on themselves, they rather blame the Lord, telling the people that it is cold and barren because the Lord has not chosen to bless them.
The Hardshell ministry is also infamous for this type of blame for their lack of preaching effectively. When they begin to preach they can be heard to caution their hearers with these words - "now brethren, I cannot preach except the Lord bless me to preach and we will hope and pray he will." Then, when they quit in miserable failure, they say "the Lord did not bless"!
What they ought to do is blame themselves for their "do nothing" attitude, for their own failure to study and prepare, and not blame the Lord.
I rather think the coldness and barrenness that the above circular alluded to is a result, not of God failing in his will to bless, but rather a failure of the Hardshells to do what God has said.
"Now the sum of what we have written is this : whilst the New School Baptists, together with all the different orders of the anti-christian interest, may transgress the Laws of Christ with impunity, may change his ordinances, add to his commands, take from any of the prophecies of his book—the Old School Baptists, from the profession which they have made, are not at liberty to separate that which God has joined together, nor to prefer any of his commandments one above another, but to observe all things whatsoever he has commanded.
Holding as we do, brethren, the faith once delivered to the saints; and standing aloof from all other denominations in the world, it certainly becomes us, above all others, to see that we love one another with a pure heart fervently—to manifest that we are taught of God to love one another; and to give evidence of this by works of faith and labors of love in doing good unto all men, but, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
The letters from the churches, that have been read in our meeting, bring us the pleasing intelligence of the prevalence of peace and harmony among the brethren, but complain of coldness and barrenness in divine things. We believe however, that the Lord's set time to favor zion cannot be hastened, and although we feel inclined to pray for a manifestation of his presence in the churches, in building up the waste places of His Zion; yet we dare not resort to unscriptural and unauthorized measures to hasten that event. We would remember the experiment which our old mother Sarah made in days of old, to hasten the accomplishment of the Lord's promise, and from the effect thereof learn wisdom:—no mechanical efforts of ours can revive the Lord's work." (Page 36)
Now, I recognize that success, like victory and safety, is "of the Lord" (Proverbs 21: 31 KJV); And, that "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it," etc. (Psalm 127: 1); However, we cannot blame the Lord for our failures as the Hardshells are ever in the habit of doing. Certainly the above writer blames the Lord for the coldness and barrenness in their churches following their division with their brethren who supported missions. Rather than blaming the desolations on themselves, they rather blame the Lord, telling the people that it is cold and barren because the Lord has not chosen to bless them.
The Hardshell ministry is also infamous for this type of blame for their lack of preaching effectively. When they begin to preach they can be heard to caution their hearers with these words - "now brethren, I cannot preach except the Lord bless me to preach and we will hope and pray he will." Then, when they quit in miserable failure, they say "the Lord did not bless"!
What they ought to do is blame themselves for their "do nothing" attitude, for their own failure to study and prepare, and not blame the Lord.
I rather think the coldness and barrenness that the above circular alluded to is a result, not of God failing in his will to bless, but rather a failure of the Hardshells to do what God has said.
(This is a reprint from March 2, 2009 Baptist Gadfly blog)
Shocking Hermeneutics
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb. 6: 4-6)
Who Are They?
1. Once for all enlightened
2. Tasters of the heavenly gift
3. Made partakers of the Holy Spirit
4. Tasters of the good word of God
5. Tasters of the powers of the world to come
6. Renewed unto repentance
According to some Calvinists, these descriptions are of unregenerate people. That is shocking hermeneutics indeed!
"Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26:17-18)
Who Are They?
1. Eyes closed
2. Turned to darkness and away from light
3. Turned to Satan and away from God
4. Unforgiven of sins
5. No inheritance among the sanctified
According to some Hyper Calvinists, such as the Hardshell Baptists, these descriptions are of regenerated people! That is also shocking hermeneutics indeed!
Who Are They?
1. Once for all enlightened
2. Tasters of the heavenly gift
3. Made partakers of the Holy Spirit
4. Tasters of the good word of God
5. Tasters of the powers of the world to come
6. Renewed unto repentance
According to some Calvinists, these descriptions are of unregenerate people. That is shocking hermeneutics indeed!
"Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26:17-18)
Who Are They?
1. Eyes closed
2. Turned to darkness and away from light
3. Turned to Satan and away from God
4. Unforgiven of sins
5. No inheritance among the sanctified
According to some Hyper Calvinists, such as the Hardshell Baptists, these descriptions are of regenerated people! That is also shocking hermeneutics indeed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)