The Impassibility of God (II)

In the Internet article "Does God Experience Emotional Change? Immutability and Impassibility" Samuel Renihan, author of the above book, wrote (here - emphasis mine):

"You may have seen a popular commercial advertising the Snickers candy bar in which grumpy persons are pacified by eating chocolate, nuts, and caramel. The premise of this scene is summed up in the words “You’re not you when you’re hungry.” We can, of course, resonate with this statement. Some people even talk about being “hangry.” They are angry because they are hungry. We have natural appetites (inclinations and disinclinations), and our moods change as our appetites are satisfied or dissatisfied. There truly are times when the difference between being content and irritable depends on a Snickers bar (or double stuf Oreos)."

Is God like this in regard to his emotions? Does he have "mood swings"? Does he get irritated? Can he be "pestered" by pests? Does he experience angst and anxiety? When he is said to be grieved, is this literally so? Does God suffer? Does he experience emotional pain? If so, how can he be the unchangeable and ever blessed God?

Said Renihan:

"We know what we are like, but is God like this? Does God experience emotional change? If we answer this question based on popular Christian music, and even popular Christian literature, we would reply that God does experience emotional change. But the Christian creeds, the Christian tradition of theology proper (the doctrine of God), and the Protestant and Reformed confessions of faith disagree."

Count me orthodox on this point. God sympathizes with us, but this does not mean that he experiences any changes in himself, but simply that he well knows what we are going through and he cares. 

Said Renihan:

"What do the Scriptures teach about emotions and God, and how can we formulate a responsible and faithful answer? We will consider four points, focusing on how God describes himself in the Scriptures, and how God teaches us to interpret his own language regarding himself."

The scriptures are the place to find out about God. We cannot rely upon any other thing. "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)

Said Renihan:

"1. The Bible describes God in the language of human experience and emotion, but denies that those very experiences are in God. In 1 Samuel 15:11, God declares, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” Later in 1 Samuel 15:29, the same passage, this statement is qualified and controlled. “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” Other passages, like Numbers 23:19-20, reinforce the truth that the difference between God and creatures controls the way we read creaturely language about God. It says, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”

God does not have regret because he is not a creature. That is what scripture affirms. However, it seems to contradict itself when it also says God did regret. Again, in the latter case we must say that the latter is "creaturely language," or a metaphor, used to tell us that something is against the will and mind of God, something that does not have his approval. God does not regret in the same way that creatures regret, but only analogously.

Said Renihan:

"2. The Bible describes God in a way that makes it impossible for him to undergo anything or be acted upon."

James says of God the Father - "with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." (James 1: 17 nkjv) There is no fluctuation in God's emotions or emotional or psychological states; Or only seemingly or as it seems to us as creatures. God seems to change but does not actually change. Is he angry at your sin? Well, he foreknew your sin and has always known this about you. 

Said Renihan:

"Take Genesis 1:1 into consideration. There is a Creator, and there is creation. God did not create something greater or more powerful than himself, nor did he confine himself within the time and space of his creation. God is eternal and a se, of himself, and all things are “from him and through him and to him” (Rom. 11:36). Consequently, God is always the agent, never the patient. God is always fulfilling his purposes and never changing his mind, as stated in Numbers 23:19-20, above."

Here Renihan refers to what is called "the aseity of God." 

Aseity (from Latin ā "from" and sē "self", plus -ity) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It means that God does not depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end, and has within himself his own reason of existence.

Said Renihan:

"Similarly, several of the names of God, especially “I AM THAT I AM,” are self-revelation using the word “to be.” God is that he is. He is perfect absolute independent being, the source of all that exists, the Creator of all things. Nothing can add to God who is I AM. Nothing can subtract from God who is I AM. Neither can God make himself more perfect or reduce his perfection."

We cannot ascribe passions to God without undermining his immutability, blessedness, and other of his attributes.

Said Renihan:

"God himself declares his perfect unchanging nature to his people in Malachi 3:6, “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” And we are told the same in James 1:17, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”"

Yes, God has a "perfect unchanging nature," which would not be the case were God not impassible.

Said Renihan:

"The truth that the Bible describes God in the language of human experience and emotion, yet denies that those experiences are in God, combined with the Scriptures’ description of the perfection of the being of God, provides a firm and certain conclusion."

Agreed. That is what the Bible teaches and is the orthodox belief of bible believers.

Said Renihan:

"3. We must not equate the human language used to describe God with God himself."

Agreed. We must see such language as a means of "accommodation." God is indescribable, so how can we describe him? Language is insufficient, yet for the time being it is all we have. So God speaks to us about himself in human language, in anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, in use of metaphors, similes, figures, and analogous language. The bible speaks about divine things that are "inexpressible." (See for instance II Cor. 12: 4; I Peter 1: 8) Said Dr. Henry Morris (here):

"There are three things called "unspeakable" in the New Testament, with each one translated from a different Greek word. However, they all convey the notion of something which is so marvelous that it simply could not be put into words. II Corinthians 12:4 mentions "unspeakable words," I Peter 1:8 refers to "joy unspeakable" and II Corinthians 9:15 speaks of an "unspeakable gift.""

Said Renihan:

"We can no more contain God in our language than you can contain the ocean in a thimble. The finite cannot contain the infinite. Thus, our minds and language can never wrap themselves around God and fully express him. But although we cannot know God fully, we can know him truly. God’s self-revelation may be suited to our creaturely capacities, but it is not false or empty." 

Thus, as we have been contending, bodily parts and emotions are ascribed to God by way of accommodation. 

Said Renihan:

"For example, when Scripture speaks of God repenting, regretting, or relenting, the point of connection is not between the emotional state of a human that repents and some emotional state in God, but in the action taken. When someone repents, they stop doing what they were doing, and they begin to do something else. So also, God created man, then he destroyed man; God made Saul king, then he removed him; God threatened judgment on Nineveh, then he removed the sentence of judgment."

Exactly. Well stated. 

Said Renihan:

"But God is eternal and has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, accomplishing all his holy will. So, God’s repentance is not an undergoing or a happening to God, but from the creature’s perspective in time it is a reversal of actions, all of which was decreed by God in eternity. God decreed from all eternity both to create man, and to destroy him, to make Saul king, and then to remove him, to threaten Nineveh, and then to deliver it. We see it all play out in time. The sequence of God’s actions in time leads to a fourth point."

Again, this is what I understand the bible to teach. It is the orthodox position, of both Catholics and Protestants. 

Said Renihan:

"4. We need to distinguish between our eternal God in himself, and the outworking of his decree in time and space."

This is so true and bible students need to understand this important fact as they seek to interpret those texts which ascribe bodily parts and passions to God.

Said Renihan:

"God is angry in the sense that he will cause justice and vengeance to be poured out on the unrepentant and wicked. His anger is therefore an eternal perfection, not an emotion as it is in us."

Could not have said it better myself (as they say)!

Said Renihan:

"And though the Scriptures describe God in creaturely language, and though we experience God’s perfections of love, mercy, and justice in temporal sequences, we cannot conclude from our creaturely perspective that God is emotional. Rather, as the Scriptures have taught us, what we call emotions are unchanging essential perfections in God."

God does not weep nor cry. He does not feel pain nor does he suffer (although he identifies with us in our pain and suffering). In the next posting we will continue our look at this most important subject.

Another Excellent Sermon by Charles Lawson

"What God Says About Himself" (here) is another excellent sermon by this man of God.

About forty minutes long. A great homily! I like the amount of scripture he was able to cram into this short amount of time. I like how he handled "I create evil" in Isaiah. If I were teaching young preachers about preaching and homiletics, I would certainly want them to hear this sermon. He was able to talk about predestination without even using the term! He also was able to weave into the message statements about choices and responsibilities. If you have 40 minutes, listen to this and be blessed.  

The Impassibility of God (I)

The 1689 London Baptist Confession says in Chapter 2, article 1, "Of God and the Holy Trinity": 

"The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute..."

This is the same statement in the Westminster Confession. God is "without passions." Thus, God is "impassible." So, does that mean that God does not have emotions or feelings? How can he know our feelings, passions, and sufferings if he cannot experience the same? How can he have empathy or sympathy? How can he know our feelings? An even deeper question concerns whether God has what we call "experience." Does the Deity experience sensations?

In some sense God is impassible and in another sense he is passionate, that is, he has emotions.

What is the relationship between thought and emotion? Which causes which? Can there be emotion without thought, or a state of mind? What connection is there between emotion and physical constitution? Can spirits feel emotion like corporeal beings? These too are deep things to contemplate.

God does not have to feel pain to know pain. He does not have to have sensual feelings (lusts and desires) in order to know what they are.

In an Internet article titled "Does God Actually Get Angry? Why He Reveals Himself in Human Terms" Mark Jones at desiringgod.org (here) has some good things to say on this subject. He begins by saying (highlighting mine):

"However, we also find that much of what pertains to us as humans is also attributed to God. We read of God’s “face” (Exodus 33:20), “eyes” (and “eyelids,” Psalm 11:4), “ear” (Isaiah 59:1), “nostrils” (Isaiah 65:5), “mouth” (Deuteronomy 8:3), “lips” (Isaiah 30:27), “tongue” (Isaiah 30:27), “finger” (Exodus 8:19), and many other body parts. What’s more, sometimes we read of God possessing human emotions. He is sometimes jealous or grieved (Deuteronomy 4:24; 32:21; Psalm 78:40; Isaiah 63:10). After Adam sins, God, who has just made the world by acts of divine power, wisdom, and goodness, asks Adam, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9)."

So, just how are we to interpret such verses? Do we say that God is human like we are, that he has a physical body (as the Mormons teach?). Or do we see them as anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms? Do we see them as metaphors, as symbolic or figurative language? Is God fickle and mutable? Does he change moods as we do? Does he have temper tantrums as we do? Etc.?

Jones continued:

"What are Christians to make of these declarations of God? Is God eternally unchangeable in his being, or does he, like humans, have the capacity to change? Can God really experience distress or learn something new? What does it mean for God, who is Spirit, to “get angry”? Does God really need to ask Adam where he is, as if he can’t find him?"

Excellent questions! These questions with biblical answers could be part of a catechism or bible study lesson. Of course, God being unchangeable and eternally happy in himself, he is not subject to passions as we are. God feels a certain way because he chooses to have a certain attitude or state of mind towards something. He does not experience new sensations as do humans. So wrote the prophet Job - "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." (Job 23: 13) 

God cannot be "turned," which would not be true if he can become altered in his thinking by his passions as we are. God does not change his mind, except seemingly, or analogously. When the bible says that God "repented" (changed his mind), it is not to be interpreted as meaning the same thing as humans changing their minds. Any change in how God deals with men, in reaction to some action of men, was not unforeseen and not predetermined. It denotes a change in God's providential dealings with men.

Jones continued:

"If we are committed to the biblical and theological view that God is unchangeable (see Psalm 102:26–28), we are affirming that in God there is no change in time (he is eternal) or location (he is omnipresent) or essence (he is pure being). God does not change, nor can he change (Malachi 3:6; Isaiah 14:27; 41:4). Thus, there are no “passions” in God, as if in his essence he can be more or less happy or more or less angry. God is what he always was and will be (James 1:17) in the infinite happiness and bliss we call divine “blessedness.”"

I agree with this and so has most of the Christian world, of those who believe in God's immutability. Only people who believe in Process Theology and Open Theism reject this truth (wherein they deny that God has foreknowledge of human choices and knows all things, and thereby denying his immutability). 

The traditional orthodox belief affirms that our sins are not making God essentially unhappy, for that is impossible, because he is the "blessed God," which means that he is eternally and immutably happy. But more on that shortly.

Jones continued:

"An immutable God does not have passions; or, as John Owen famously said, “a mutable god is of the dunghill.” We do not deny that God has affections (for example, wrath or hatred), but affections like wrath in God are either acts of his outward will or they are applied to God figuratively."

Agreed. This is the orthodox view. It is also a truth we should keep in mind. We are not to say that God literally has hands and feet, nor are we to say that God has passions as do human beings, or any other creature with passions. Also, some texts of scripture that speak of God's feelings, are not only to be taken as metaphors and analogies, but as expressions of God's change in the way of dealing with creatures of passion. The change was in mankind which change then alters God's covenantal dealings with mankind. To say God's mood changed would not be precisely theologically correct, but yet such language metaphorically means God's actions towards us is altered, which in human language generally means a change of attitude, mood, or mind.

Jones continued:

"Passions refer to an internal emotional change, which are suitable to humans. Think of our blood pressure rising with anger. God’s jealousy — a metaphorical way to speak of him — helps us to understand outward acts of his will. When God wills for the wicked to be punished, sometimes in the most severe way (like the flood in Noah’s time), we can speak of the “anger of the Lord.” Because God is holy and righteous, he must punish sin. When he outwardly executes his punishment, the Scriptures often speak of his fury or wrath. But to suggest that Achan, for example, could upset God so that God is less happy is to make Achan into God and God into Achan (see Joshua 7)."

The idea that any creature can cause God to experience pain and suffering, can be changed in his degrees of joy and happiness, or pleasure, is to affirm that God was not immutable, and not always perfect. 

Satan in "Paradise Lost" determines to work so that he can at least make God unhappy if he cannot overthrow him. In Book 1 Satan says to his fallen comrades (See here):

"What though the field be lost? [105] All is not lost; the unconquerable Will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield: And what is else not to be overcome? That Glory never shall his wrath or might [110] Extort from me."

"Fall'n Cherube, to be weak is miserable Doing or Suffering: but of this be sure, To do ought good never will be our task, But ever to do ill our sole delight, [160] As being the contrary to his high will Whom we resist. If then his Providence Out of our evil seek to bring forth good, Our labour must be to pervert that end, And out of good still to find means of evil; [165] Which oft times may succeed, so as perhaps Shall grieve him, if I fail not, and disturb His inmost counsels from thir destind aim."

If God can be altered in his state of blessedness by his creatures, then Satan will be rejoicing in his ability to "disturb" God and thus show that he is mutable, and if mutable then maybe not omniscient, maybe not omnipotent, etc. Maybe God is only conceived of as omnipotent because no one has ever put him to the test. He is just like the one who "holds the title" as in boxing. Just because he is "undefeated" does not mean he may stay that way. Every "contender for the title" believes that he can become "number one." 

God cannot be disturbed in his eternal blessedness. Satan is deluded to think he can make God mad, and to irritate God, so as to make him not so happy. Such thinking manifests the utter hate that Satan has for his Maker, the Almighty.

Jones continued:

"He condescends and, for our sake, sometimes appropriates to himself “passions” that, while not properly true of his being, are ways of speaking that help us to understand how he will relate to us in terms of his purposes and will."

That is why we call such language as anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. Human features applied to God is "analogous language." It is saying "it is something like that." They are metaphors and figurative language. These are "the deep things of God" (I Cor. 2: 10). We will continue our homily on this topic in the next posting.

On Defining a Religious Cult

Through the years I have been criticized by some, particularly those who are Hardshell Baptists, for calling them a cult and I have been asked how to define a cult. In my book (blog) "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I titled chapter three "The Hardshell Cult" and defined what is a religious cult. I cited from Bob L. Ross who wrote extensively against Hardshellism on the criteria for judging whether a church or denomination is a cult. Here are some excerpts from that chapter (see here):

Brother Ross said:

“A group becomes such a cult when it becomes so distinct from other sects within the Christianity cult that it has reason to reject all of the other sects as not being basically Christian. In other words, the group declares "exclusivity" for itself, and theoretically and practically separates as "an island unto itself."

“In declaring its own uniqueness from all other Christian sects, and from all other religions as such, it has "culticized" itself.” When does this happen? It happens when (1) no other sect is regarded as having any "true Christians" in that sect, and (2) no other sect is regarded as preaching the true Gospel which is capable of producing a "true Christian."

Thus, as Baptists and other Christians of the same basic Gospel faith and brotherhood, we do not unilaterally declare "who" is a cult by our own determinations; rather, the cult creates and declares its very own "culticization." The cult REJECTS US. It declares itself to be exclusive from others, and considers itself to be a distinct and unique entity from all other sects, a group wherein, they say, alone, may the truth of God be found, along with the legitimate adherents of that truth."

(From his article entitled "Cult" - emphasis mine)

I believe cult has come to be recognized by the following characteristics.

1) A denial of some fundamental teaching of the Bible. Such a denial being unique to that group (i.e. their “hobby horse” or “unifying principle”).

2) Exclusiveness – the belief that this group consists of the “one and only ones,” the purest religion and the only true representatives of “the faith.” Involved here are bigotry, pride, and egotism.

3) Psychological Entrapment – wherein the individual members are “brainwashed” and “mesmerized.” The leaders manipulate and control the minds of the members. Escape from the group becomes rare. These folks are ruled by intimidation and the fear of man.

4) False Claims – wherein the cult expresses its extravagant view of itself. Many cults believe that they are “special,” yea, in the highest and most restrictive sense, the “chosen” or “favorites” of the Lord. For instance, a cult might claim that their members are the 144,000 of the Apocalypse. They also may claim to have “special revelation” that other groups do not have.

In each of these areas, the Hardshells “fit the bill.” They are by scriptural definition a “heresy”; that is, they are a “schism,” “sect,” “faction,” “party,” “division,” “split,” etc. They are “apostate” because they have “removed,” “departed,” “left,” and “changed positions” from the faith of the apostles, early church, and of the historic Baptists. They are anything but “primitive,” “original,” or “Old” Baptists.

Now let me add to all this by citing from an article I recently read titled "Character of the Cults Article" (contributed by Probe Ministries) at bible.org (here - emphasis mine). 

"What is a cult? The greatest authority on the cults, the late Dr. Walter Martin, described a cult as “A group of people gathered around a specific person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.” Cults are groups that claim to be in harmony with Christianity but deny foundational Christian doctrines such as the Trinity or the unique deity of Jesus Christ."

The only thing I would disagree with is the limiting of the false novel interpretation to a single person. It could be a group of persons as it is in the Hardshell Baptist cult. Some of those men are Daniel Parker, Gilbert Beebe, Joshua Lawrence, James Osbourn, Wilson Thompson, and Samuel Trott. Further, as I have pointed out before, many of the first PB leaders were anti Trinitarian and Two Seeders. Their novel doctrines led their followers to finally say (in the latter part of the 19th century) that conversion to Christ by the gospel was not a necessity for being eternally saved (for adults). 

Next, the article says:

"The second factor in the growth of the cults is the breakdown of the family. Cults provide the family atmosphere many from broken homes long for; the cult leader often takes the place of a father figure."

From my years spent among the "Primitive Baptists" of the Hyper Calvinist wing I can say that this is true. Many of their churches are made up mainly of a few families and some individuals do join their churches because they long to be part of a family. Many Hardshell churches function as "clans." In some respects they are "tribal." In my book on the Hardshells I mention how they can be much like social clubs and fraternal organizations with exclusive memberships. Cults can fill a social and psychological need, at least superficially. 

Next, the article says the following under the sub heading "Doctrinal Character of the Cults": 

"How do you know if a religious group is a cult? Jesus said that you will know false prophets by their fruits. In stating this he was not only speaking of their words and actions but of their doctrinal beliefs as well. Cults deviate from biblical Christianity in several key areas of doctrine."

In my chapter on the cultist nature of the Hardshell church I delineated on those "key areas" of bible doctrine where they fit this description. When you hold to a doctrine that is held only by a very small number of people and churches, then you probably are holding to a wrong view, and if it deals with fundamental doctrine it will be heresy. That fits the Hardshells. 

Next, the article says:

 

"Fourth, there is extra-biblical revelation and the denial of the sole authority of the Bible. Cults claim that extra revelation is given to the leader whose words are seen as inspired by God and equal to the Bible."

Though it might seem not to be such a case with the Hardshells, yet it is really not. Many of them think, for instance, that the views of Hardshell leader C.H. Cayce, leading debater and editor of the later 19th century periodical "The Primitive Baptist" (which is not to be confused with a periodical of the same name that was begun in the 1830s and published in North Carolina), as "the sole authority" for what is authoritative PB doctrine. His "editorial writings" are consulted as if he were inspired. Daniel Parker certainly believed that he was inspired and that his "two seed" doctrine was given to him by God. Many of them think Sylvester Hassell's history is an inspired book without errors. Also, as I have pointed out before, they believe that their novel doctrine of "time salvation" is their cultic secret. (See my posting on this here) Also, Elder Gilbert Beebe, signer of the Black Rock Address and editor of the "Old School" first leading periodical "The Signs of the Times" was the one who came up with the "direct speaking" idea in the 1840s and this too is a key cult doctrine of the Hardshells.

Next, under the sub heading "Sociological Structure of the Cults" the article says: 

"Not only do cults deviate doctrinally from biblical Christianity, they have distinctive sociological characteristics. The first is authoritarianism. The leader or organization exercises complete control over a follower’s life. The words of the leadership are ultimate and often considered divinely inspired. Going against the leadership is equivalent to going against the commands of God."  

I mentioned these things in my chapter on defining cult. They are indeed authoritarian. People are afraid of either being excluded from the cult or shunned and ostracized. They have used "church councils" to threaten preachers and to keep them in line, to keep them from going against the central doctrines of the cults. They do not allow independent thought but pressure all to conform. 

Next, the article says:

 

"The second characteristic is an elitist mentality. Most cults believe they are the true church and the only ones who will be saved. This is because the group believes they have new revelation or understanding that gives them superior standing."

This certainly fits the Hardshells as I have stated and shown many times through the years. They are indeed elitist, believing that they are are "the elect within the elect," or "the very elect." They believe that they and they alone are the true church of Christ and only they dispense valid baptism. They are an extremely exclusivist group. They have also said that they are the only ones who preach the gospel. Like most cults, they make great claims for themselves. 

Next, the article says:

 

"Third is isolationism. Due to their elitist mentality, cultists believe those who do not agree with them are deceived or under the influence of Satan. Therefore, many feel their members must be protected from the outside world, and physical or psychological barriers are created. Members are prohibited from communicating with those outside the organization who do not agree with the teachings of the group."

This is certainly true and I have shown it to be so by citations from their writings. The first periodicals of the PBs were filled with denunciations of all other groups other than their own and which they thought were of the whore of Babylon or Antichrist. They also excluded any member who gave a penny to support a missionary, or sent a child to a Sunday School, etc. Many of them won't even sing songs that are sung by Missionary Baptists.

Next, the article says:

 

"Fourth, there is closed-mindedness and the discouragement of individual thinking. Because of its authoritarian nature, leaders are the only ones thought to be able to properly interpret the Bible. All members are to turn to the organization for biblical interpretation and advice on life decisions. Therefore, individual thinking and questioning is discouraged. There is an unwillingness to dialogue and consider other viewpoints."

Well, that is certainly true of the Hardshell Old School Baptist church! 

Next, the article says:

"Fifth is a legalistic lifestyle. As mentioned earlier, salvation is not based on grace; cults teach a works-oriented gospel. This leads to a lifestyle of legalism. Followers must live up to the group’s standards in order to attain or maintain their membership and hope for eternal life. Followers are required to faithfully serve, and attend meetings, studies, and services. As a result, there is tremendous pressure to live up to the requirements of the organization."

You certainly find a legalistic lifestyle in many Hardshell churches, and this has been true of them historically and traditionally, although there are always exceptions. My father was a very strict Hardshell pastor and he delighted in telling us all how strict the "Old Baptists" have been, especially in the 19th century. He spoke of how they tolerated very little and were quick to "deal with" (exclude) disobedient members. When they threatened exclusion for every member of their churches who supported a missionary of any other church other than their churches, or ever allowed their children to attend a Sunday school or bible class given by Missionary Baptists churches, etc., they manifested their "legalistic" thinking and practice.  

Further, as we have pointed out in this blog many times (brother Fralick and I), the PBs are indeed Arminian and even Pelagian in their views about conversion (their "time salvation"). They even say that this time salvation is by works (but don't worry, say they, time salvation is not essential to eternal salvation). They also teach an Arminian view of "time salvation." Even two of the first leaders of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist Church," Elders John Clark (Luray, Virginia) and (Dr.) John M. Watson (Nashville, Tennessee) spoke out against those who began to say that preaching to dead sinners was Arminianism. These elders said that the real Arminians were those who taught time salvation ideas. Though the Hardshells would deny that they teach salvation by works, they mean that they teach that eternal salvation is not by works (but by grace), but that time salvation is by works. 

Next, the article says:

"Finally there is a difficult exit process. Since salvation is found in the organization, leaving the organization is considered by many to be leaving God. All former members who leave cults are shunned by members which often includes members of their own family. Many are warned that if they leave, they will be condemned to hell, or seduced by Satan. Many ex-members are harassed by the organization even after they leave. Exiting members often end up distrusting any religious organization and end up feeling isolated and alone." 

 

Well, all this well describes the "Primitive Baptist" church (with some exceptions, like in the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptist churches). I have been shunned by the cult for leaving the Hardshells and preaching against their errors. So too have others, such as elder Fralick, Elder Sarber, Elder Emmons, etc. Elder Ben Winslet even derogatorily said that this blog is for "former" and "disgruntled" PBs, and that it is simply a "gossip" blog. (See Answering Elder Ben Winslet)

I said to my father years ago, in one of our disagreement spats, "when you are a humble obedient member of the Hardshell church, they heap all kinds of love and kindness upon you, but when you get on their bad side, they can be most viciously unkind and unloving." He could not disagree with this assessment and said "well, it was like that in the early church also." (Meaning that the early church had members who behaved like this) 

Yes, if you leave the Hardshell cult, then you will certainly be "harassed." It is interesting that most of my persecution for my faith has not come from unbelievers, but from fellow believers, especially from leaders of the Hardshell cult. The many Hardshell cult leaders who have visited this blog have, with few exceptions, simply practiced taking "pot shots" at us (see the posting Hit And Run?). 

So, yes, by this criteria and standard, the "Primitive Baptist Church" (aka "Hardshell," "Old School") is a cult and those who have left it at some point experience epiphany and say to themselves "I have been in a cult and didn't even know it"; And "How could I have been so wrong, so deceived?" They also go on to say "thank you Lord for delivering me" (which is a good time salvation).

Does this mean that all members of the Hardshell cult are lost in sin? No. However, there are indeed some cults that to be part of would be a sign of lost condition. But, those PBs who truly believe in, love and serve, our Lord Jesus Christ, I have no doubt are elect and called, God's children. I regret that they have accepted serious errors which, ironically, affects their time salvation! Because of their heresies they are not involved in evangelism with zeal, are not exhorting and persuading sinners to believe in Christ, are not supporting their preachers properly, nor missionaries of the church, in not having bible classes (education ministries) for children and young adults, etc. Their errors have made them practically, if not theologically, Antinomians. It has led them to be like the servant who hid his Lord's money (talent) without using it to make money for his Lord and to be styled by other believers as "Do Nothings."  

Another Text on the Ordo Salutis

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (II Cor. 6: 17-18)

When will God become a Father to sinners? When will they become his sons and daughters? Answer: When they come out from among them, out from among the dead (Eph. 5: 14), and come to God through Christ. 

These words of God are addressed to people who have not done so, who have not come out (nor come to), who are not separated, who had not yet been received by God. In other words, it was addressed to people who were not yet his sons and daughters, who had not yet been born of God. Becoming God's people requires being born of God. When will people become by birth the offspring of God? When they come out from the world and come to God, and when they are received by God. 

Some of those who promote the born again before faith view might be tempted to say that becoming sons and daughters (of the text) is a reference to being adopted by God and not to becoming sons and daughters by spiritual birth. But, in that case, the address would be towards those who are already his children by birth to come and once again become his children by being adopted. But, as we have seen, the words are addressed to people who are not his people and so not born of God. It is addressed to people who are not yet separated from the world, from sinful society, and who have not come to God and who have not been received by God, who have not been called his sons and daughters.

One must first get a divorce from sin and the world (separate) before he becomes married to Christ. The call to come out and to be separate is a call to a divorce, in order that a marriage to Christ may be effected. (See Rom. 7: 4)

To be "received" (welcomed or accepted) by God and to become children of God is the result of coming to God, as we have already seen (John 5: 40; 20: 31). "You shall be my sons and daughters" is the result of coming to God by faith. 

This text is saying essentially the same thing as Galatians 3: 26 - "for you are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus." It is also essentially saying the same thing as John 12: 36 - “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” Since separation from sin and the world, and coming to God, are involved in what it means to "believe," so the passage is saying "be converted and I will receive you and you shall be my sons and daughters." 

To have a familial relationship with God one must leave his earthly connection with the world and with sin. 

To be in agreement with God we must come to disagree with the ungodly world. 

To be joined to God we must be disjoined to sin, self, and the world. In order to live unto God one must die to sin, self, and the world. 

We must be divorced from idols and false gods. 

This is all described when Paul says - "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household." (Eph. 2:19) 

Separatism is implied in the very word “church,” which comes from the Greek word ekklesia meaning “a called-out assembly.” In other words, those born of God, though in the world, are not any longer of it. (John 15: 19; 17: 14; etc.) To become children of God (born of God) one must become separated from the world, from what it values, believes, and practices. That makes regeneration to be the same as conversion and upholds the thesis that faith precedes and is the catalyst for regeneration. 

I argue very simply on this. The bible teaches, as Calvin himself taught, that so long as any sinner is not attached (or joined, connected, united with, etc.) to God and to Christ, he or she is spiritually dead. To be alive the dead must come in touch with Christ. How and when is a sinner joined to Christ? The scriptures everywhere testify that union with Christ is by faith. Ergo, spiritual life comes by union with Christ by faith.

What think ye?

Loudermilk & Hardshell Hermeneutics

Heretics and cults are skilled in twisting scripture 

(to their own destruction - II Peter 3: 16)

In an article titled "Keep it in Context," by elder Ronnie Loudermilk (for August 2, 2022 - here), pastor of Union Grove Primitive Baptist church here in my hometown (Monroe, NC), Loudermilk cites three texts of scripture and gives his view of them as seen through Hardshell spectacles. (I have critiqued Loudermilk several other times, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here)

In his comments upon them he gives us the standard Hardshell "grid" which he brings to the texts and uses to interpret them; And yet in a instance of spectacular irony he tells us that false interpretations arise from the failure to pay attention to context! He seems blinded to the fact that he violates this very fundamental rule of interpretation. In this he needs to practice what he preaches (like his Hardshell brethren also,  who are infamous for twisting scripture and taking verses out of context). Loudermilk often ignores the context by his imposing upon those passages his grid. 

Here are the three texts he gives at the head of his apologetic writing:

(a) John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” 

(b) John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:…” 

 

(c) Romans 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Here then is what he said in regard to properly interpreting them:

"When reading scripture, it is very important to keep verses in context. So often we converse with Bible students who interpret verses that are in the temporal context as an eternal lesson. When we say temporal, we are saying that it is a verse which is for the child of grace in this temporal world and has temporal consequences or blessings (often referred to as Time Salvation). When we say a verse is in the eternal context, we are saying the verse is about the eternal salvation of the covenant children of God, which is by grace and God’s grace alone. One of the biggest differences between a Primitive Baptist and a Calvinist is the Calvinist often interprets the temporal verses in the eternal context, and the eternal verses in the temporal context, this makes one sound exactly like an absolute predestinarian."

Rebuttal Observations

He is basically giving us his grid (paradigm perhaps we could say, or his set of presuppositions) the one I referred to in that popular post titled Montgomery On Time Salvation), in which I cite these words from Elder David Montgomery, a modern day spokesman for Hardshell ideas. He cites from Texas elder Afton Richards (who I met when in Texas preaching in 1976). Elder Richards passed on that Hardshell grid to brothers like Elder Montgomery. 

Elder Montgomery begins (emphasis mine):

"Elder Afton Richards wrote a pamphlet in 1956 entitled, "Why I Am A Primitive Baptist". On page 21, he gives a definition of time salvation. Elder Richards says, "Primitive Baptists read the Scriptures with the desire of getting the harmony taught therein, and they enjoy much comfort that others do not get. When salvation refers to what God does for man without action on his part, and by the meritorious work of Christ, they know and realize that it refers to salvation in its highest order; preparing one to live with God in glory after death. When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world.""

Loudermilk is affirming the same thing. He says you must know when a verse is speaking of "time salvation," and when it speaks of things dealing with what is eternal, including eternal salvation. But, you see, the hermeneutic principle of Richards, Montgomery, and Loudermilk, is not induced (nor deduced) from scripture, as I have shown in numerous articles. 

In another posting in the series "Conditional or Unconditional?" (here) I wrote:

Elder Michael Gowens, present day Hardshell writer, wrote:

"Further, the Bible employs both unconditional and conditional language. In one text we are told that salvation is “ordered in all things and sure”; in another that a person is saved “if [he] keeps in memory what was preached” (2 Sam. 23:5; 1 Cor. 15:2). How can the same object be both unconditional and conditional simultaneously? How can it both depend on man and not depend on man at the same time? Obviously, the only legitimate way of interpreting these kinds of apparently contrary ideas is to understand that not every “salvation” verse is talking about salvation in the ultimate sense."

I then responded by writing:

"In these words there is revelation of the problem that modern Hardshells have as regards the historic teaching of the old Baptists regarding unconditional salvation.  Gowens admits that salvation in the Bible "employs both unconditional and conditional language" and sees this as contradictory and then queries - "How can the same object be both unconditional and conditional simultaneously?"  He then answers his own query by saying "the only legitimate way of interpreting" such incongruity is "to understand that not every 'salvation' verse is talking about salvation in the ultimate sense."  But, this is not the "only" way to deal with the incongruity, and is certainly not the "way" the old Baptists who wrote the old London Confession of 1689 resolved the seeming difficulty, as we shall see."   

Wrote Loudermilk:

"One of the biggest differences between a Primitive Baptist and a Calvinist is the Calvinist often interprets the temporal verses in the eternal context, and the eternal verses in the temporal context, this makes one sound exactly like an absolute predestinarian."

No, brother Loudermilk, "thou art the man." You show that you are controlled by a system (what we call hardshellism). Dr. John Piper recently said (in his article on Predestination here) this about this:

"I’m very, very jealous here not to be controlled by a system. I know that whatever view you have, it is very easy to be controlled by other truths besides the text you’re dealing with, rather than looking in the context to see what it really means." 

Elder Sylvester Hassell also condemned many of his Hardshell brethren for their ignoring sound rules of interpretation. (See Hassell On Interpretation) Hassell well describes the kind of interpretation that we get from Loudermilk, Montgomery, Gowens, et. als. 

The "Primitive Baptist" are in the habit of interpreting texts that deal with eternal salvation as dealing with temporal and optional salvation. 

Wrote Loudermilk:

"When reading the three verses previously cited, we cannot and should not interpret these in a temporal context. Please consider:

(a) John 6:37 is not and cannot be interpreted in a temporal context. If a person interprets this verse as a person coming to the Lord to trust Him for everlasting life, they have without question missed the mark. The verse teaches “All” that the Father gave the Son “shall” come to Him. There are only two times when all the covenant (Father gave) children of God come to the Lord. These two times are in Regeneration and in the Resurrection. The verse cannot be interpreted as coming to Jesus in trusting, otherwise we would be forced to conclude all infants and all mentally challenged are NOT children of God (which is heresy).

Why does John 6: 37 deal with eternal salvation according to Loudermilk? Because, he says, it is something that all the elect (those given by the Father to Christ) are said to experience. We agree with him on this. However, when he says that "coming" to Christ is not a "coming to the Lord to trust him for everlasting life" we must part ways with him, for that is exactly what it means. Further, that is the position of our old Baptist forefathers. In stating this he is giving an interpretation of what it means to "come" to Christ that is against the context, both the immediate and general. In chapter 19 of "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" on what is meant by "coming" to Christ in John 6 I wrote the following:

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (vs. 64-66)" (See here)

Lots of new testament texts speak of coming to Christ and they never mean what hardshellism affirms, which is no coming at all, being something that somebody does on the non cognitive or subconscious level, something that even infants and idiots can do (a silly thesis). Coming to Christ is a believing in Christ, and believing involves trusting Christ. I also wrote the following in that chapter:

Furthermore, they are forced, by their aberrant soteriology, to make this "coming to Christ" something on the "sub-conscious level." How a man can read the passages above, paying close attention to the context, and come up with such a notion is truly bewildering, if not bewitching. The "coming to Christ" is absolutely equivocated to mean "believe in Christ." It is all the same as "learning" the truth about Christ from the Father. Everyone who reads these passages on coming to Christ sees that it is all the same as believing in Christ, everyone except the Hardshells of course, who make this coming to Christ to be totally unconnected with believing and trusting in Jesus for salvation. They say this and then have the gall to say that they are careful to interpret by the context.

I am so tired of hearing Hardshell apologists talk about how they are the ones who "go by the context" of passages in their hermeneutics. Only they, they constantly affirm, "rightly divide the word of truth." Yet, as I have shown, and will continue to do, they absolutely ignore "context" and place their theorems into the Bible by twisting and distorting the sacred words of truth. Brother, show me anywhere in this "context" where the "coming to Christ for life" is any other thing than what the "context" shows and as Spurgeon said and I also have been affirming.

Here is what Spurgeon said it means to "come to Christ."

"To whom coming."—1 Peter 2:4

"To whom coming." Coming to Christ does not mean coming with any natural motion of the body, for he is in heaven, and we cannot climb up to the place where he is; but it is a mental coming, a spiritual coming; it is, in one word, a trusting in and upon him. He who believes Jesus Christ to be God, and to be the appointed atonement for sin, and relies upon him as such, has come to him, and it is this coming which saves the soul. Whoever the wide world over has relied upon Jesus Christ, and is still relying upon him for the pardon of his iniquities, and for his complete salvation, is saved."

Loudermilk says that John 6: 37 "cannot be interpreted in a temporal context" and I agree except with this qualifier: the coming is a temporal act (act occurring in time) but it is a necessary requirement for obtaining eternal life. But, if Loudermilk were following the rule of Afton Richards and David Montgomery, then he would not connect it with eternal salvation for "coming" is a verb and shows action and this makes it to deal with temporal salvation by that rule. Thus, Montgomery and Richards would be forced to deny Loudermilk's assertion that coming to Christ deals with eternal salvation for coming is what someone does and their proposition (or presupposition) is that anytime salvation is conditioned upon something people do then it is not dealing with eternal salvation. 

But, Loudermilk wants to say that coming to Christ is not dealing with a mere temporal salvation (one not required for going to heaven). He wants to affirm that it is dealing with eternal salvation (good for him). He says that it is dealing with eternal salvation because it is something that is said of all the elect (without exception). Again, good for him. Loudermilk's way to deal with the problem (that the text presents to Hardshellism), is different however, for he said - "If a person interprets this verse as a person coming to the Lord to trust Him for everlasting life, they have without question missed the mark." He wants to alter what it means to "come to Christ." He does not want to say that it has anything to do with being converted, with evangelical faith and repentance. Why? Because of the way "coming to Christ" is described and defined in the scriptures (context)? No, for in them it is defined in terms of conversion. 

Look at all the places in the bible where coming to either God or Christ is defined and see if it is defined in the way Hardshellism defines it. You will see that it is never defined as something infants and idiots do, something on the subconscious level, something that is non cognitive, something not involving conscious faith. No, all those texts unanimously say that "whoever comes to God must believe" (Heb. 11: 6) just as the context of John 6 does. But, if that is true (and it is), then the text is saying "all that the Father gives to me will believe and trust in me," the very thing Hardshellism denies. Again, Christ asserts that all the elect will come to him in faith, that union with Christ will come through faith.

In response I also say - If a person in interpreting this verse denies that it involves a person coming to Christ with his heart, will, and mind, and a trusting and confiding in Christ, then he is the one who has missed the mark! Why would Loudermilk deny that coming to Christ is cognitive and involves believing and trusting? Especially seeing it is so novel and strange an idea and contrary to the thinking of all bible believers? 

Loudermilk says - "here are only two times when all the covenant (Father gave) children of God come to the Lord. These two times are in Regeneration and in the Resurrection."

What a gross misinterpretation! Such statements as these show that Loudermilk does not believe that the sheep continue to come to Christ throughout their lives. As far as his paradigm is concerned, a man is left in a vegetative state between regeneration and resurrection! He came to the Lord in his regeneration but after that he did not come any more! Only few of the elect, in the mind of Lourdermilk, come to the Lord in daily life after their first coming to the Lord in regeneration. However, the coming, though it has a beginning in regeneration or conversion, does not stop and start, but is linear, continuous, and progressive, just as is the hearing and following of the sheep (John 10). 

Loudermilk says - "The verse cannot be interpreted as coming to Jesus in trusting, otherwise we would be forced to conclude all infants and all mentally challenged are NOT children of God (which is heresy)."

Is that how he interprets texts? Whatever happened to his rule of the context? Coming to Christ in the context is equated with believing in Christ. He shows that he is guided by his human logic rather than what is plainly revealed. How does he know that those who die in infancy and mentally incapacitated people cannot come to Christ? If that happens to them the instant before their deaths, then how could such be known? We cannot interview any and they will not be alive to speak of their having come to Christ. If God can raise up children unto Abraham from rocks, then he can bring dying infants and idiots to faith. (See Matt. 3: 9) Do they enter heaven without such a faith in Christ? Are they in heaven now who are not trusting him? 

Further, it is probable that Christ means "all the elect who are mentally able to come to me will come to me." It is probable that he does not have the case of infants and idiots in mind when he makes that statement. In either case, however, coming to Christ is something that involves believing and trusting in Christ, the very thing Hardshells like Loudermilk deny! They affirm that not all adult elect come to Christ in conversion and yet all their oldest confessions say "we believe all the elect will be regenerated AND converted." Let Loudermilk come forward and give us the texts which show that coming to Christ is non cognitive! 

No, the coming is the same that Jesus spoke about when he said "suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not." (Matt. 19: 14; Luke 18: 16) That coming to Christ was not without cognition, not without faith and repentance.

Wrote Loudermilk:

(b) John 10:27 is a verse which must be interpreted in the eternal context for the same reasons. The previous verse (John 10:26) declares the Lord’s knowledge in knowing His sheep. Those did not come to Him in the context considered, nor believe in Him because they were not His. There are many reasons why people will not believe, and because we cannot see as the Lord sees, we cannot thus judge. But the Lord knows why these did not believe. He knows they are not His.

Rebuttal Observations

Well, if we go by the rule of Richards and Montgomery, then we cannot say John 10 is dealing with eternal salvation for being sheep involves them in doing something, such as hearing, believing, and following Christ. But, in the passage all the sheep hear the Shepherd, follow the Shepherd (continuously and consciously), and do not follow strangers. Since this is so, Loudermilk will be forced to say that infants and idiots also hear and follow Christ. After all, both John 6 and 10 affirm what is true of all the elect, including those who die in infancy and those who are in a vegetative state in their lives. 

The truth is, it is doubtful that Christ has idiots and those who die in infancy in his mind when he says all will come to him, and that all the sheep will hear his voice and follow him. And, if he did have them in mind, the only answer is not to change the meaning of coming, hearing, following, etc. The best answer is the one I gave if it is accepted that Christ has infants and idiots in mind when he said what he said. Further, when Paul affirms that all the sons of God are chastened of the Lord does he have regenerated infants and idiots in mind? (Heb. 12: 6-7)

Wrote Loudermilk:

"John 10:27-30 teaches us about the covenant children of God following the Lord, without fail." 

Good for him! I agree and this is what our old Baptist forefathers taught. It is what the text requires us to believe and it is in agreement with many other bible texts. But, do infants and idiots follow the Lord, brother Loudermilk? Can one follow another sub consciously and non cognitively? 

He then says:

"The only two times this happens is in regeneration and in the resurrection. If these verses are used to teach gospel obedience, the Bible student has missed the mark."

Coming to the Lord in regeneration and the resurrection do not involve obedience? Further, the coming connected with the bodily resurrection is not a coming to Christ per se but a coming to life. Coming to Christ in regeneration is evangelical conversion and this is what Loudermilk denies and his view is heretical and cultist thinking. Jesus said that it is they who have "done good" who will experience the resurrection of the righteous or resurrection unto life. (John 5: 28) What good do dying infants and idiots do brother Loudermilk? 

Wrote Loudermilk:

"(c) Romans 8:29-30 is a precious portion of scripture to many Bible students. The verses teach us about God’s eternal grace in saving His people from the condemnation of sin. Nowhere in these verses does it teach that this work will result in the recipient of grace manifesting faith in God. Every born again (called) child of grace has the Spirit in them." 

Of course it does! Everywhere in the new testament God's calling is talked about it is in the context of people being called by the gospel and being called to faith. (See II Thess. 2: 13-14 for example) He says "every born again child of grace has the Spirit in them" and I agree and just how is that Spirit received? Wrote Paul: "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3: 2)

Wrote Loudermilk:

"Every child of grace has an ability to manifest the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), but these verses do not teach that every child of grace will manifest these fruit to be seen by those present." 

There is an example of the Hardshell mind, how it reasons. "Every child of grace has an ability...but." They all have the ability to believe or have faith, but only few of them exercise that ability in actual believing! They all have ability to repent but only few of them exercise that ability in actual repenting! Etcetera. 

Wrote Loudermilk:

"If a person says that eternal salvation will always result in faith in the truth being manifested, my question to them is, what do you call truth?"

What does he mean by "manifested"? Does he mean actually believing? I think he does. And thus here is the Hardshell cultist heresy. Many will go to heaven who did not believe in the God of Abraham, who did not believe in Christ Jesus the Son of God! The bible affirms no such thing. What "truth"? Why the truth of II Thess. 2: 13-14! "Chosen to salvation through belief of the truth." 

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Notice that the salvation to which the elect have been chosen to obtain is "by belief in the truth" and that the calling of God that brings this salvation is "by our gospel." Thus, this one text destroys the reasoning and presuppositions of Loudermilk and Hardshellism. This was a verse that the first PBs in the 1830s often cited and they always saw it the way I see it and not the way Loudermilk sees it.

Notice also what he wrote in his first epistle to the Thessalonians.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

This answers Loudermilk's question about what "truth" is believed by all those who come to Christ! It is the word of God, especially those portions that deal with God's promise of salvation through the Messiah.

Wrote Loudermilk:

"The second question is, Do you believe everyone who uses the name Jesus in their teaching is declaring truth?" 

That is a "red herring." It has nothing to do with the question. However, even in heretical groups, like the Hardshell cult, preachers sometimes preach the truth, especially when they confine themselves to the words of holy scripture. 

Wrote Loudermilk:

"If God’s eternal grace will always result in the recipient manifesting faith in God, heaven will be a small place in my opinion. Why? Because most of God’s children do not believe the truth, and that’s a fact. The majority of God’s children, in this world, are taught everything but the truth." 

How is this type of reasoning, which he uses to interpret scripture, interpreting by the context? When he says "most of God’s children do not believe the truth, and that’s a fact," he is not stating a fact but a Hardshell presupposition that has no scripture that testifies to such a proposition. Want to give us the text that affirms that not all the children of God believe the truth? If it is a fact, where is the evidence? Jesus quoted the text from Isaiah which said "all your children will be taught of God." (John 6: 45; Isa. 54: 13) Jesus said that this teaching of the Father involves "hearing" and "learning" from the Father. How is that non cognitive? How does Loudermilk read the bible and come up with the proposition that says "the majority of God's children" don't believe the truth? What text says that? I find many texts that say just the opposite.

Wrote Loudermilk:

"I wish more believed the truth, that’s why I keep trying to preach. But most do not. If more did, there would be more Primitive Baptists, Amen!"

Well, good luck with that!

Wrote Loudermilk:

"In closing, I truly want the reader to understand why I enjoy trying to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have a longing desire for more of God’s little children to follow Jesus in gospel obedience. But while preaching this gospel I’m also comforted in believing that God shall eternally save all His sheep and not one of them will be lost from His precious and loving hands. So whether they manifest belief or not; whether they follow Him in gospel obedience or not; they shall all be with Him in glory. Amen!"

That is hardshellism in a nutshell! You can be a pagan, or non Christian, and yet go to heaven! Do you see the harm in such teaching? Do you see how it is quasi Universalism?