In the previous chapters in this series it has been shown how the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the teaching of the old Baptist confessions and articles of faith, and has been the accepted faith of the Hardshells till recent years. It has been shown that this modern rejection of perseverance is a further departure from the true primitive Baptist faith and therefore today's Hardshells have no grounds for claiming to be "Primitive Baptists." In this posting further testimony from leading Hardshells of the 19th century will be cited which show that the doctrine of perseverance was their accepted belief. First, let us look at what Elder Grigg Thompson taught on the subject.
Thompson wrote:
"God, by his almighty power, created the world, and it is the same almighty power that supports it, and continues its being; the world owes its preservation, as well as its existence to the power of God. So in the new creation, the same power that creates the sinner anew must preserve and keep him in his new life. "Preserved in Jesus Christ;" Jude i; "Who are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation;" I Pet., i, 5. It is in God we live, move, and have our being; Acts, xvii, 28; and it is equally so in a spiritual sense, for it is by the quickening, renewing, and reviving, influence of his Spirit that we continue to believe and delight in God and his service, and without this continued influence upon our souls, we would perish; John, xv, 5." (From "The Primitive Preacher" by Elder Grigg Thompson, section on the "A New Creature in Christ")
Thompson clearly upholds both preservation and perseverance in these words. He says that God's preservation is what causes one to "continue to believe and delight in God and his service." He said further:
"As God lives to himself, so this regenerated soul lives to God; II Cor., v, 15. As God loves holiness, and is of too pure eyes to look upon sin, so does the new creature, and desires it above all earthly honors or riches." (Ibid)
Here is another clear statement on perseverance. "As God loves holiness...so does the new creature." God does not ever fail to continue in loving holiness, and so it is with the called.
Thompson said:
"But in the new creature you find the cause of this great change, the electing love of God; I Pet., i, 2; Eph., i, 4-6; and in the new creature you find all the effects of an interest in Christ, and the indwelling of his Spirit. These are all the fruits of the Spirit, the works of obedience; Eph., ii, 10; Rom., vii, 4." (Ibid)
I do not believe that today's Hardshells will willingly accept these words of Thompson. Do they believe that "all the effects of an interest in Christ" are in the new creature? Do they not rather believe that only a few of the effects are present in the life of the new creature? Thompson calls these "effects" the "fruits of the Spirit" and the "works of obedience." Is faith in Christ and love to God not "fruits of the Spirit" per Galatians 5: 22, 23?
Thompson continues:
"There is hatred and opposition to sin,; "He that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not;" I John, v, 18."
Thompson says that these things are true of all who are "new creatures." He says that they hate and oppose sin, which is but another way of saying that they overcome sin, and persevere in holiness. He even cites I John 5: 18 that I cited in the previous chapter. Every new creature is not only kept by God, but he "keeps himself," or perseveres.
Thompson continued:
"There is love to the people of God. Every one that loveth is born of God; I John, iv,' 7. There is a conscious respect for the duties and ordinances of the house of God; Eph., iv, 24. There is faith in Christ. "Whosever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;" I John, v, 1."
Remember that Thompson is talking about what characterizes the "new creature," the one who is "born of God." He is talking about what is essential to the "new creature," what is characteristic of all who are "born of the Spirit." Notice how Thompson says that "there is faith in Christ" in the heart of every new creature! Will today's Hardshells accept that view? Will they deny that Thompson was a leader of 19th century Hardshells and expressed what they generally believed? Also, from the way Thompson cites I John 5: 1, he believes that all who are born of God are believers in Christ. He cites it in order to prove his statement which avers that "there is faith in Christ" in all who are "new creatures." Further, Thompson is not talking about some non-cognitive "faith," or simple theism, or some king of "dormant seed faith," but "faith in Christ." An evangelical faith!
Thompson may have rejected the view that the gospel was a means in "regeneration," but such comments of his leads one to believe that he nevertheless, like the first Hardshells, believed that all the elect would also be "converted" by the gospel.
Thompson wrote:
"He delights not in the way of the sinner, "but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day and night;" Ps., i, 2. There is perseverance in the service of God, and victory over all temptations, "For whatsoever is born of. God, overcometh the world;" I John, v, 4. All these fruits of the Spirit are not means or conditions performed by us to get to be new creatures in Christ, but are evidences of our new state and condition, and settle the matter beyond any reasonable doubt, for the Master himself has said, "The tree is known by his fruit;" Matt., xii, 33." (Ibid)
No words could be clearer and contrary to the views of today's Hardshells who deny the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. How they can legitimately claim to be "primitive" and yet deny what Thompson here affirms is fantastic. Thompson says that the new creature is the one who "overcomes," or who perseveres. This overcoming involved "victory over all temptations." With all those who are "begotten" there is "perseverance in the service of God." But, this is denied by today's Hardshells! Shame on them!
Thompson wrote:
"The man that is in Christ is renewed in his practice. The regenerated not being what they were, can not act and live as they once did; Rom., vi, 2; for they have been quickened into a new life. "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in times past ye walked according to the course of this world;" Eph. ii, 1, 2. They were carried away in the stream of sin and iniquity by the strength of their corrupt natures and the customs of this world; but their case is now altered; they are lead (sic) by a new spirit, and walk in the paths of righteousness; Ps., xxiii, 3. When the apostle calls the mind of the saint back to his old companions in sin, and describes their corrupt practices, he says, "And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God;" I Cor., vi, 11. This indeed is a wonderful change in practice, and in the state and condition of the soul; this change is so wonderful and remarkable that it sets all the world wondering at them, for they know not the power by which it is effected..." ("The New Birth")
Again, this is very clear. Grigg Thompson believed in the perseverance of all the chosen and called, and he defined what he meant by "perseverance," which is contrary to neo-hardshellism. Thompson says that the one "born of God," the one who has faith in Jesus, "can not act and live as they once did." Thompson believed that those who were regenerated are they who have experienced a "wonderful change in practice."
Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:
"...by which change (regeneration) the understanding is illuminated, the affections consecrated, and the will rectified, so that the regenerated sinner habitually, though not always, hates and puts away sin, and loves and practices righteousness, and at the same time, the more grace he has in his heart, the more he feels and mourns over the remains of indwelling sin."
"...while the principles which we derive from our heavenly Father, in our birth again or from above, and which habitually control these faculties after we are born of God, are called, in the Scriptures, the seed of God, the new man, the law of our mind, the Israelite, the spiritual, the heavenly..." ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Denial of a Change of the Soul in Regeneration" - The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/836/36/
These words need little comment for they are very clear and express. Sylvestor Hassell is universally recognized, like Grigg Thompson, as one of the greatest leaders of the Hardshell cult. Hassell says that those who are born again do not practice sin as a lifestyle, or habit, for their prior regeneration insures it.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Chapter 95 - Hardshells & Perseverance IV
Augustine wrote:
"I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God." (The Works of Aurelius Augustine, vol 15, Anti-Pelagian Works (ed. M. Dods; T and T Clark, 1876)
Hardshells have historically affirmed that Calvinistic statement which says that faith and repentance are gifts of God, what are effectually given to all the heirs of promise. They are, of course, inconsistent in this, for most Hardshells affirm that faith and repentance are not present in all the elect, at least not what is called "evangelical" faith and repentance. I have shown, however, in previous chapters of this book, that the scriptures know of no faith and repentance which is not evangelical. "Faith," said Paul, "comes by hearing the word," and that it cannot exist apart from one hearing the preacher preach about Christ (Romans 10), but Hardshells come along and say- "that is not true with regard to faith in every respect, for there is one kind of faith that is produced by the gospel and one kind that is not produced by it." But, this is twisting the words of the apostle, putting words into his mouth. Paul did not say - "this kind of saving faith comes by the gospel."
Christ prays for the perseverance of his elect and the Father always hears him. (John 11: 42) He so prayed for Peter.
"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Luke 22: 32)
Is Peter an exception? Or, does Christ not petition the Father for the perseverance of all his chosen people? Hardshells agree that the Father always hears and grants the petitions of his Son Jesus. How then can they deny the doctrine of perseverance? If a professing Christian's faith does in fact "fail," then does it not show that he was not prayed for by Christ? That he was not one of the chosen and called? Further, Peter's perseverance did not entail that he never fall, or lapse in faith, but that he would recover.
One can see how the divorcing of "faith" from "regeneration" has led to errors in regards to preservation and perseverance among the Hardshells. Does God not preserve the faith he gives as he preserves the life he gives? And, does not both the faith and life persevere (continue) because of that preservation?
Wrote Dr. Gill:
"Christ is the advocate of his people; he prays that they might have faith, and then he prays, that it may not fail; and it shall not, notwithstanding all the opposition of hell, and earth, unto it." (Commentary)
I have already shown how perseverance is a requirement for being eternally saved and I have indicated how perseverance is a divine gift. This is what has been universally affirmed by our Baptist forefathers. They taught that perseverance, like faith and repentance, are both duties (responsibilities) as well as divine gifts. However, as Hardshells reject "duty faith," it is only natural that they would also reject "duty perseverance." Further, it is inconsistent for them to affirm that faith and repentance are divine gifts but deny that patience (perseverance) is also a divine gift.
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5: 4,5)
It is inconceivable that anyone, especially Hyper Calvinists, as are Hardshells, could fail to see the clear teachings and implications of these inspired words. In view of those words, let us ask some questions and see if the words answer them.
Is the reference to "whatsoever is born of God" a universal categorical proposition? Answer: it certainly is. If it were not a universal, then it would say "some of what is born of God." Thus, as a universal categorical proposition, it states what is true of all that is "born of God." What is it that is specifically said to be "born of God" in the passage? Answer: "faith" is "born of God." Faith that is born of God is triumphant. It overcomes, and is itself never overcome, at least not totally or finally. Those who have this God begotten faith are therefore overcomers. Further, who can deny that "overcoming" is but another word for "persevering" and "continuing"?
It is a bit ironic that I have had to prove perseverance from these apostolic words to Campbellites, in public debate, and now have to do so with Hardshells, who disclaim any affinity with Campbellism and Hardshellism.
Notice too how John defines those who have "faith." He refers to those who "believe that Jesus is the Son of God." Hardshells, however, will not consistently define those who have "faith" as being those who "believe" in Jesus. So wrote John Gill.
"but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? and this points out what that faith is which obtains the victory over the world." (Commentary)
The apostle John also wrote:
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (I John 3: 9)
Greek scholars show how the Greek word for "commit" (poieo) is linear present tense, not aorist punctiliar, and alludes to what is ongoing, or continuous, or what is practiced as a habit. Again, John gives us a universal categorical proposition, what is true of all the class denominated by the term "born of God." However, rather than using the term "whatsoever" he uses the personal pronoun "whosover," the latter referring to persons while the former referring to things as well as people. Thus, he affirms, that all who are "born of God" do not practice sin. Further, who can deny that "does not practice sin" is equivalent with "does not fail to persevere"?
"He cannot sin" thus means "he cannot practice sin," or "he cannot practice sin as a habit as he did before he was born again." Hardshells, in an attempt to get around the implications of the verse in favor of perseverance, will argue that "he" refers to that part of men which is regenerated, to the "new man." But, again, such an interpretation twists the passage by adding to the words of the apostle. Paul clearly distinguishes the "seed," or what is essentially the "new man," from the "he" and the "him." The seed remains in "him," but if "him" is the "seed," then the apostle would be saying "the seed remains in the seed" or "him remains in him." John does not say that the "seed" does not practice sin, but that the person does not, and that this perseverance of the person is the result of the seed "remaining" in him and in his being "born of God."
If John gives being "born of God" as the reason for not practicing sin, then clearly he believes that being born of God insures that sin will not be practiced, or else his reasoning would not be sound. If only a few of those who are "born of God" are said to not "practice sin," then being born of God cannot be given as the reason for not practicing sin.
Commented Dr. Gill upon the passage:
"doth not commit sin; does not make it his trade and business; it is not the constant course of his life; he does not live and walk in sin, or give up himself to it; he is not without the being of it in him, or free from acts of sin in his life and conversation, but he does not so commit it as to be the servant of it, a slave unto it, or to continue in it."
The apostle also said:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (5: 18)
Here the apostle repeats himself, affirming again that all who are "born of God" are they who "sinneth not." "Sinneth" is again present tense linear, denoting not a one time act, but a continuous practice. But he adds to the thought, saying that "he who is begotten of God keeps himself." Clearly "keeps himself" is equivalent to "perseveres." It is a statement that joins together preservation and perseverance. No plainer words in support of the sure and final perseverance of all the chosen and called could be written. Again, John gives us a universal categorical proposition, what is true of all who are denominated as the "begotten of God." He does not state what is true of only a few of those who are begotten. Notice also how John does not refer to God's "keeping" of the regenerated, but of the regenerated keeping themselves. John does not view any antagonism between God's keeping of the begotten and the begotten keeping themselves, but sees them as intimately connected. Those who God keeps keep themselves. And, certainly God's keeping is the preeminent cause, for in all things he must have the preeminence. Jude wrote:
"Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 1: 21)
Thus, both John and Jude do not exclude the begotten ones, or the believers, keeping themselves in God's keeping of them. They taught that those who God keeps are they who keep themselves, the latter being proof of the former. Thus, preservation clearly involves perseverance, and are not mutually exclusive as today's Hardshells teach.
The apostle John also wrote:
"And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (I John 3: 3)
Dr. Gill wrote:
"and this hope every man has not, only he who is born again; for this grace is implanted in regeneration, when men are of abundant mercy begotten unto it, and have it bestowed upon them as a free grace gift."
Gill knew that the apostle gave a universal categorical proposition, affirming what is true, not of only some of the divinely begotten, but of all of them. Gill also knew that all of those who are begotten of God possess this hope, citing the words of Peter who said that souls are "begotten again unto a lively hope." (I Peter 1: 3)
John says that "everyone who has this hope," everyone who is "born of God," everyone who "believes that Jesus is the Son of God," continuously and in fact "purifies himself." And, again, is not "purifying himself" the same thing as saying that he "perseveres"? Everyone who is born of God perseveres! John says it over and over again. It is hard to missunderstand his words. Hard to twist them!
Wrote the apostle Paul:
"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8: 32)
The apostle's reasoning was this - if the Father has given you his Son, then he will certainly give you "all things," and this must include perseverance. Why would anyone want to exclude patience from this "all things"? Paul affirms that in giving Christ for the elect, proof is given that all things needed for salvation will also be given. Why exclude faith, repentance, and perseverance from these "all things"? Are these things not good things? And, what saith the scriptures about such good things?
"John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." (John 3: 27)
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1: 17)
Surely "faith and patience" are included in the category of "every good and perfect gift," of what is "received" from heaven.
According to God's new covenant promise, God has promised to cause his people to persevere.
"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36: 27)
Here we have cause and effect. God promises to "put" his "spirit within" his chosen people. This is regeneration or what it means to be "born of God." This is the cause. The effect is that those who are given God's Spirit will "walk in my statutes," and "keep my judgments, and do them." Simply put, I will cause them to persevere in holiness. I will cause them to turn from sin being master over them, to my Spirit being master over them.
Paul understood this and wrote rhetorically:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6: 1,2)
Paul saw it as inconsistent and an impossible contradiction to affirm that one who is "dead to sin" should "live any longer in sin." Those who are truly born of God are they who do not have sin as a master, and who are not slaves to sin, who do not practice sin, or make it their trade. "How shall we who are dead to sin fail to persevere in holiness?"
Jesus taught the same truth about perseverance in holiness and righteousness, saying "If a man love me, he will keep my words." (John 14: 23) If a man loves Christ, if a man is born of God, he will, without exception, "keep my words," or "will persevere" in allegiance to Christ and to his word.
Paul plainly taught that those who are God's servants, by their being born of God, will be efficaciously "made to stand."
"Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." (Romans 14: 4 NKJV)
Is not "made to stand" the same as "made to persevere"? All God's servants, saith Paul, will be "made to stand," and this is because God is both willing and able to make them to stand.
It is for this reason that saints cannot credit themselves, but God alone, for their persevering, for all their good works. Wrote Isaiah:
"LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isaish 26: 12 KJV)
Needless to say, there are many verses in addition to the above, that could be cited to demonstrate the sure and certain perseverance of all the chosen and called, but these ought to be sufficient. The Hardshell denial of the perseverance of saints is both against scripture and the old Baptist faith.
"I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God." (The Works of Aurelius Augustine, vol 15, Anti-Pelagian Works (ed. M. Dods; T and T Clark, 1876)
Hardshells have historically affirmed that Calvinistic statement which says that faith and repentance are gifts of God, what are effectually given to all the heirs of promise. They are, of course, inconsistent in this, for most Hardshells affirm that faith and repentance are not present in all the elect, at least not what is called "evangelical" faith and repentance. I have shown, however, in previous chapters of this book, that the scriptures know of no faith and repentance which is not evangelical. "Faith," said Paul, "comes by hearing the word," and that it cannot exist apart from one hearing the preacher preach about Christ (Romans 10), but Hardshells come along and say- "that is not true with regard to faith in every respect, for there is one kind of faith that is produced by the gospel and one kind that is not produced by it." But, this is twisting the words of the apostle, putting words into his mouth. Paul did not say - "this kind of saving faith comes by the gospel."
Christ prays for the perseverance of his elect and the Father always hears him. (John 11: 42) He so prayed for Peter.
"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Luke 22: 32)
Is Peter an exception? Or, does Christ not petition the Father for the perseverance of all his chosen people? Hardshells agree that the Father always hears and grants the petitions of his Son Jesus. How then can they deny the doctrine of perseverance? If a professing Christian's faith does in fact "fail," then does it not show that he was not prayed for by Christ? That he was not one of the chosen and called? Further, Peter's perseverance did not entail that he never fall, or lapse in faith, but that he would recover.
One can see how the divorcing of "faith" from "regeneration" has led to errors in regards to preservation and perseverance among the Hardshells. Does God not preserve the faith he gives as he preserves the life he gives? And, does not both the faith and life persevere (continue) because of that preservation?
Wrote Dr. Gill:
"Christ is the advocate of his people; he prays that they might have faith, and then he prays, that it may not fail; and it shall not, notwithstanding all the opposition of hell, and earth, unto it." (Commentary)
I have already shown how perseverance is a requirement for being eternally saved and I have indicated how perseverance is a divine gift. This is what has been universally affirmed by our Baptist forefathers. They taught that perseverance, like faith and repentance, are both duties (responsibilities) as well as divine gifts. However, as Hardshells reject "duty faith," it is only natural that they would also reject "duty perseverance." Further, it is inconsistent for them to affirm that faith and repentance are divine gifts but deny that patience (perseverance) is also a divine gift.
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5: 4,5)
It is inconceivable that anyone, especially Hyper Calvinists, as are Hardshells, could fail to see the clear teachings and implications of these inspired words. In view of those words, let us ask some questions and see if the words answer them.
Is the reference to "whatsoever is born of God" a universal categorical proposition? Answer: it certainly is. If it were not a universal, then it would say "some of what is born of God." Thus, as a universal categorical proposition, it states what is true of all that is "born of God." What is it that is specifically said to be "born of God" in the passage? Answer: "faith" is "born of God." Faith that is born of God is triumphant. It overcomes, and is itself never overcome, at least not totally or finally. Those who have this God begotten faith are therefore overcomers. Further, who can deny that "overcoming" is but another word for "persevering" and "continuing"?
It is a bit ironic that I have had to prove perseverance from these apostolic words to Campbellites, in public debate, and now have to do so with Hardshells, who disclaim any affinity with Campbellism and Hardshellism.
Notice too how John defines those who have "faith." He refers to those who "believe that Jesus is the Son of God." Hardshells, however, will not consistently define those who have "faith" as being those who "believe" in Jesus. So wrote John Gill.
"but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? and this points out what that faith is which obtains the victory over the world." (Commentary)
The apostle John also wrote:
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (I John 3: 9)
Greek scholars show how the Greek word for "commit" (poieo) is linear present tense, not aorist punctiliar, and alludes to what is ongoing, or continuous, or what is practiced as a habit. Again, John gives us a universal categorical proposition, what is true of all the class denominated by the term "born of God." However, rather than using the term "whatsoever" he uses the personal pronoun "whosover," the latter referring to persons while the former referring to things as well as people. Thus, he affirms, that all who are "born of God" do not practice sin. Further, who can deny that "does not practice sin" is equivalent with "does not fail to persevere"?
"He cannot sin" thus means "he cannot practice sin," or "he cannot practice sin as a habit as he did before he was born again." Hardshells, in an attempt to get around the implications of the verse in favor of perseverance, will argue that "he" refers to that part of men which is regenerated, to the "new man." But, again, such an interpretation twists the passage by adding to the words of the apostle. Paul clearly distinguishes the "seed," or what is essentially the "new man," from the "he" and the "him." The seed remains in "him," but if "him" is the "seed," then the apostle would be saying "the seed remains in the seed" or "him remains in him." John does not say that the "seed" does not practice sin, but that the person does not, and that this perseverance of the person is the result of the seed "remaining" in him and in his being "born of God."
If John gives being "born of God" as the reason for not practicing sin, then clearly he believes that being born of God insures that sin will not be practiced, or else his reasoning would not be sound. If only a few of those who are "born of God" are said to not "practice sin," then being born of God cannot be given as the reason for not practicing sin.
Commented Dr. Gill upon the passage:
"doth not commit sin; does not make it his trade and business; it is not the constant course of his life; he does not live and walk in sin, or give up himself to it; he is not without the being of it in him, or free from acts of sin in his life and conversation, but he does not so commit it as to be the servant of it, a slave unto it, or to continue in it."
The apostle also said:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (5: 18)
Here the apostle repeats himself, affirming again that all who are "born of God" are they who "sinneth not." "Sinneth" is again present tense linear, denoting not a one time act, but a continuous practice. But he adds to the thought, saying that "he who is begotten of God keeps himself." Clearly "keeps himself" is equivalent to "perseveres." It is a statement that joins together preservation and perseverance. No plainer words in support of the sure and final perseverance of all the chosen and called could be written. Again, John gives us a universal categorical proposition, what is true of all who are denominated as the "begotten of God." He does not state what is true of only a few of those who are begotten. Notice also how John does not refer to God's "keeping" of the regenerated, but of the regenerated keeping themselves. John does not view any antagonism between God's keeping of the begotten and the begotten keeping themselves, but sees them as intimately connected. Those who God keeps keep themselves. And, certainly God's keeping is the preeminent cause, for in all things he must have the preeminence. Jude wrote:
"Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 1: 21)
Thus, both John and Jude do not exclude the begotten ones, or the believers, keeping themselves in God's keeping of them. They taught that those who God keeps are they who keep themselves, the latter being proof of the former. Thus, preservation clearly involves perseverance, and are not mutually exclusive as today's Hardshells teach.
The apostle John also wrote:
"And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (I John 3: 3)
Dr. Gill wrote:
"and this hope every man has not, only he who is born again; for this grace is implanted in regeneration, when men are of abundant mercy begotten unto it, and have it bestowed upon them as a free grace gift."
Gill knew that the apostle gave a universal categorical proposition, affirming what is true, not of only some of the divinely begotten, but of all of them. Gill also knew that all of those who are begotten of God possess this hope, citing the words of Peter who said that souls are "begotten again unto a lively hope." (I Peter 1: 3)
John says that "everyone who has this hope," everyone who is "born of God," everyone who "believes that Jesus is the Son of God," continuously and in fact "purifies himself." And, again, is not "purifying himself" the same thing as saying that he "perseveres"? Everyone who is born of God perseveres! John says it over and over again. It is hard to missunderstand his words. Hard to twist them!
Wrote the apostle Paul:
"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8: 32)
The apostle's reasoning was this - if the Father has given you his Son, then he will certainly give you "all things," and this must include perseverance. Why would anyone want to exclude patience from this "all things"? Paul affirms that in giving Christ for the elect, proof is given that all things needed for salvation will also be given. Why exclude faith, repentance, and perseverance from these "all things"? Are these things not good things? And, what saith the scriptures about such good things?
"John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." (John 3: 27)
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1: 17)
Surely "faith and patience" are included in the category of "every good and perfect gift," of what is "received" from heaven.
According to God's new covenant promise, God has promised to cause his people to persevere.
"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36: 27)
Here we have cause and effect. God promises to "put" his "spirit within" his chosen people. This is regeneration or what it means to be "born of God." This is the cause. The effect is that those who are given God's Spirit will "walk in my statutes," and "keep my judgments, and do them." Simply put, I will cause them to persevere in holiness. I will cause them to turn from sin being master over them, to my Spirit being master over them.
Paul understood this and wrote rhetorically:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6: 1,2)
Paul saw it as inconsistent and an impossible contradiction to affirm that one who is "dead to sin" should "live any longer in sin." Those who are truly born of God are they who do not have sin as a master, and who are not slaves to sin, who do not practice sin, or make it their trade. "How shall we who are dead to sin fail to persevere in holiness?"
Jesus taught the same truth about perseverance in holiness and righteousness, saying "If a man love me, he will keep my words." (John 14: 23) If a man loves Christ, if a man is born of God, he will, without exception, "keep my words," or "will persevere" in allegiance to Christ and to his word.
Paul plainly taught that those who are God's servants, by their being born of God, will be efficaciously "made to stand."
"Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." (Romans 14: 4 NKJV)
Is not "made to stand" the same as "made to persevere"? All God's servants, saith Paul, will be "made to stand," and this is because God is both willing and able to make them to stand.
It is for this reason that saints cannot credit themselves, but God alone, for their persevering, for all their good works. Wrote Isaiah:
"LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isaish 26: 12 KJV)
Needless to say, there are many verses in addition to the above, that could be cited to demonstrate the sure and certain perseverance of all the chosen and called, but these ought to be sufficient. The Hardshell denial of the perseverance of saints is both against scripture and the old Baptist faith.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Chapter 94 - Hardshells & Perseverance III
Hardshell Objections to the doctrine of perseverance are these:
1. Perseverance depends upon the faithfulness of those saved, and such a system destroys preservation.
2. Perseverence requires the use of creatures as instruments and eternal salvation cannot be secure if creatures are used as means.
3. Perseverance requires perfect obedience, or sinlessness.
4. Scriptures emphasize preservation rather than perseverance.
The last objection was disproved in the preceding chapter. The first objection may have some validity if one assumes that the "faithfulness" of the saved depends upon their own will power, but, seeing that the scriptures demonstrate that perseverance is a gift, and what is certain for the truly regenerated, then this objection has no validity. The third objection is connected with defining what it means, practically speaking, for one to "persevere." Hardshells object to the doctrine of perseverance because, they say, it is never fully defined. I shall enlarge upon it in this series, and show how the scriptures and the old Baptists have defined perseverance, and how they address this objection to the doctrine of the saints certain perseverance. Those who believe in it cannot say exactly what they mean, it is alleged. But, this objection is given mostly in the context of godly living, law keeping, or holiness, which is actually only one aspect of the biblical doctrine of perseverance. How much sin can a child of God commit, after regeneration, and yet still be said to be persevering? If he commits one sin, did he persevere? If he commits a few sins, did he persevere? If he is in the habit of sinning, is he persevering?
In reply, let us recall the several verses cited in the previous chapter that spoke of perseverance and see what was foremost emphasized in connection with it. All the verses cited emphasized perseverance in belief and adherence to Christ and gospel truth. "If ye continue in the faith" and in the "hope of the gospel." "If we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope." "If we don't draw back." "If we abide in the doctrine of Christ." Thus, in these verses, which emphasize perseverance, the emphasis is on perseverance in one's faith in Christ and in the truth of the gospel. It is not perseverance in morality, or in law keeping, although these are sometimes discussed in the context of perseverance.
The old Baptist confessions speak of "persevering in grace" and "in holiness," which would include persevering in the graces of faith and repentance, and include conviction and confession of sin, and allegiance to Christ and his word. Temporary believers, in scripture and in the old Baptist writings, are never judged to have been genuine believers, or regenerated souls.
If we examine the parable of the sower and seed, the temporary believer had a heart that was compared to shallow ground, ground that is not good, while persevering believers had a heart that was compared to good ground. Historically, Hardshells have used this parable to teach that souls are regenerated before they hear and believe the gospel. They affirm that the ground was made good before the seed was sown in it, and that this making of the ground good was equivalent to being born again. I addressed this parable in chapter 35 of my book. But, by their own interpretation on the parable, the temporary believer did not have a regenerated or good heart! So, who is the temporary believer? It is the unregenerated believer. Further, what is said of the regenerated believers? "They brought forth fruit with patience." They believed and endured!
If good seed is sown into good ground, will it fail to produce fruit? If it does not produce good fruit, though both the seed and soil are good, then why did it not produce fruit? That is a hard question for Hardshells.
Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:
"And, if Heb vi. 4-6 and x. 26-31 are applicable to any since the apostolic age, they refer, as proved by Heb. vi. 9 and x. 39, not to heart disciples, true believers, the elect, redeemed, and regenerated people of God, but to head disciples, stony-ground, temporary believers, the merely nominal people of God (like the most of national Israel), never really cleansed by God’s grace any more than the nature of the sick dog and the washed sow is changed, who, after mental illumination and a brief profession of Christianity, renounce that profession, and walk no more with Christ even in name, but become his scoffing and implacable adversaries, who shall, at the judgment of the great day, he consigned to everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels (John vi. 66; Matt. xiii. 20-21; ii Pet. ii.1, 20-22; Matt. vii. 21-23; xxv. 41-46)." ("My Two Months' Tour In Georgia," The Gospel Messenger—July 1895) See here
Clearly Hassell believed that temporary believers were no believers at all, that those who apostasize were not really regenerate. Why do today's Hardshells deny what Hassell believed? Who taught the old Baptist position? Hassell or today's Hardshells?
Wrote Elder C. B. Hassell, the father of Sylvester, cited the following words of Faussett with approval:
“The patience and the final perseverance of the saints, notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions, which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history. God’s people serve Him for His own sake, not merely for the temporary reward which His service may bring; they serve Him even in overwhelming trial. Herein is Job an imperfect type of Christ. Job’s chief agony was, not so much his accumulated losses and sufferings, not even his being misunderstood by friends, but that God hid His face from him, as these calamities too truly seemed to prove (Job 23:3-9). Yet conscience told him he was no hypocrite, nay, though God was slaying him, he still trusted in God (Job 23:10-15; compare Abraham, 22:19).”—Fausset. (chapter II, page 63)
Hassell says that Job is an example of the perseverance of the saints, that what is true of Job is true of all the chosen and called. In this he states what was the original old Baptist position. Today's Hardshells who reject this doctrine are therefore not primitive or original.
The objection to perseverance because it requires the use of preachers and gospel teachers is no objection at all. I have already addressed this objection in earlier chapters of this book. I answered it by showing how the eternal salvation of sinners was conditioned upon Mary giving birth to Christ, and upon the wicked putting Christ to death. Yet, these human means did not in any way make the salvation of sinners uncertain.
W. T. Connor, cited by Davis W. Huckabee, said:
"This does not involve the antinomian position that, since one is in justification delivered from sin, he is, therefore, made eternally safe, no matter what he may become in character and life. This is a perversion of the truth that becomes about as great a heresy as the one which it denies. The New Testament teaching is not that a justified man is saved irrespective of what he may be in character; it is rather that the justifying and regenerating grace of God so revolutionizes his character that he can never be again what he was before. It is not that the Christian is saved whether he persists in faith or not; it is that he will persist in faith and will, therefore, attain to final salvation."
It is clear that the "antinomian position" is the position of today's Hardshells. It is also clear that the reason for not accepting the doctrine of perseverance is due to their not understanding the experience of regeneration.
Conner also said:
"The perseverance of the saints is based on the preservation of the saints. We persevere because he keeps. But it is not true to say that, because he keeps us, we do not need to persevere." (Christian Doctrine, pp. 238, 239. Broadman Press, Nashville, 1949)
It is today's Hardshells who think that God's preservation of his people makes perseverance unnecessary.
Huckabee cites J. L. Dagg, who said:
"Perseverance in holiness is the only infallible proof that the heart is right; and he who ceases to persevere, on the presumption that his heart is right, believes without proper evidence, and is woefully hazarding his eternal interests on his presumption. The doctrine is, that grace in the heart will produce perseverance to the end; and where the effect is not produced, the cause does not exist." (J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, pp. 298-299. Sprinkle Publications Gano Books, Harrisonburg, VA., 22801, 1982)
This has always been the position of all Calvinistic or Particular Baptists, and was the position of the founding fathers of Hardshellism, but today's Hardshells have left the faith of their fathers. Dagg affirms that where perseverance is absent so is regeneration absent. Perseverance is the proof of preservation. This is what was shown to be the teaching of scripture in the previous chapter. Those verses said - "we are saved now if in the future we persevere." Or, conversely, "we are not saved now if we do not persevere in the future." In Hebrews 3 the apostle says two times - "we are saved now if in the future we hold fast." He did not say - "we will be saved in the future if in the future we hold fast." Present salvation is demonstrated only by what follows it. Failure to persevere is proof that there was no genuine salvation in the past.
The apostle John wrote the same, saying:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (I John 2: 19)
John says that these apostates demonstrated that they were never truly saved. Their apostasy showed that they were hypocrites, not genuine believers. He also affirms that true believers "continue" in the fellowship of the gospel.
Davis W. Huckabee wrote:
"The Lord’s preservation of the saints and the saints’ perseverance in holiness are twin sister doctrines, neither of which can be ignored without upsetting the balance of truth. The preservation of the saints in grace is bound up with God’s eternal purpose, and part of the purpose of God is to give enabling grace to the saint so that he will persevere in holiness.
God preserves His people in this world through their perseverance—their use of means and avoidance of what is destructive. We do not mean for a moment that the everlasting purpose of the Most High is made contingent on the actions of the creature. The saints’ perseverance is a Divine gift, as truly as is health and strength of body."
Huckabee cites A. W. Pink, who said:
"Now is the Father’s eternal purpose placed in jeopardy by the human will? Is its fulfillment contingent upon human conduct? Or having ordained the end will He not also make infallibly effectual all the means to that end?" (A. W. Pink, The Saints’ Perseverance, pp. 11-12)
("THE PRESERVATION AND PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS," by Davis W. Huckabee, chapter 13)
See here
In the next chapters I will cite more from leading Hardshells of the 19th century to show that they believed in the perseverance of the saints. I will also show from scriptures that perseverance is a gift that is given to all those who are called by his grace.
1. Perseverance depends upon the faithfulness of those saved, and such a system destroys preservation.
2. Perseverence requires the use of creatures as instruments and eternal salvation cannot be secure if creatures are used as means.
3. Perseverance requires perfect obedience, or sinlessness.
4. Scriptures emphasize preservation rather than perseverance.
The last objection was disproved in the preceding chapter. The first objection may have some validity if one assumes that the "faithfulness" of the saved depends upon their own will power, but, seeing that the scriptures demonstrate that perseverance is a gift, and what is certain for the truly regenerated, then this objection has no validity. The third objection is connected with defining what it means, practically speaking, for one to "persevere." Hardshells object to the doctrine of perseverance because, they say, it is never fully defined. I shall enlarge upon it in this series, and show how the scriptures and the old Baptists have defined perseverance, and how they address this objection to the doctrine of the saints certain perseverance. Those who believe in it cannot say exactly what they mean, it is alleged. But, this objection is given mostly in the context of godly living, law keeping, or holiness, which is actually only one aspect of the biblical doctrine of perseverance. How much sin can a child of God commit, after regeneration, and yet still be said to be persevering? If he commits one sin, did he persevere? If he commits a few sins, did he persevere? If he is in the habit of sinning, is he persevering?
In reply, let us recall the several verses cited in the previous chapter that spoke of perseverance and see what was foremost emphasized in connection with it. All the verses cited emphasized perseverance in belief and adherence to Christ and gospel truth. "If ye continue in the faith" and in the "hope of the gospel." "If we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope." "If we don't draw back." "If we abide in the doctrine of Christ." Thus, in these verses, which emphasize perseverance, the emphasis is on perseverance in one's faith in Christ and in the truth of the gospel. It is not perseverance in morality, or in law keeping, although these are sometimes discussed in the context of perseverance.
The old Baptist confessions speak of "persevering in grace" and "in holiness," which would include persevering in the graces of faith and repentance, and include conviction and confession of sin, and allegiance to Christ and his word. Temporary believers, in scripture and in the old Baptist writings, are never judged to have been genuine believers, or regenerated souls.
If we examine the parable of the sower and seed, the temporary believer had a heart that was compared to shallow ground, ground that is not good, while persevering believers had a heart that was compared to good ground. Historically, Hardshells have used this parable to teach that souls are regenerated before they hear and believe the gospel. They affirm that the ground was made good before the seed was sown in it, and that this making of the ground good was equivalent to being born again. I addressed this parable in chapter 35 of my book. But, by their own interpretation on the parable, the temporary believer did not have a regenerated or good heart! So, who is the temporary believer? It is the unregenerated believer. Further, what is said of the regenerated believers? "They brought forth fruit with patience." They believed and endured!
If good seed is sown into good ground, will it fail to produce fruit? If it does not produce good fruit, though both the seed and soil are good, then why did it not produce fruit? That is a hard question for Hardshells.
Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:
"And, if Heb vi. 4-6 and x. 26-31 are applicable to any since the apostolic age, they refer, as proved by Heb. vi. 9 and x. 39, not to heart disciples, true believers, the elect, redeemed, and regenerated people of God, but to head disciples, stony-ground, temporary believers, the merely nominal people of God (like the most of national Israel), never really cleansed by God’s grace any more than the nature of the sick dog and the washed sow is changed, who, after mental illumination and a brief profession of Christianity, renounce that profession, and walk no more with Christ even in name, but become his scoffing and implacable adversaries, who shall, at the judgment of the great day, he consigned to everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels (John vi. 66; Matt. xiii. 20-21; ii Pet. ii.1, 20-22; Matt. vii. 21-23; xxv. 41-46)." ("My Two Months' Tour In Georgia," The Gospel Messenger—July 1895) See here
Clearly Hassell believed that temporary believers were no believers at all, that those who apostasize were not really regenerate. Why do today's Hardshells deny what Hassell believed? Who taught the old Baptist position? Hassell or today's Hardshells?
Wrote Elder C. B. Hassell, the father of Sylvester, cited the following words of Faussett with approval:
“The patience and the final perseverance of the saints, notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions, which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history. God’s people serve Him for His own sake, not merely for the temporary reward which His service may bring; they serve Him even in overwhelming trial. Herein is Job an imperfect type of Christ. Job’s chief agony was, not so much his accumulated losses and sufferings, not even his being misunderstood by friends, but that God hid His face from him, as these calamities too truly seemed to prove (Job 23:3-9). Yet conscience told him he was no hypocrite, nay, though God was slaying him, he still trusted in God (Job 23:10-15; compare Abraham, 22:19).”—Fausset. (chapter II, page 63)
Hassell says that Job is an example of the perseverance of the saints, that what is true of Job is true of all the chosen and called. In this he states what was the original old Baptist position. Today's Hardshells who reject this doctrine are therefore not primitive or original.
The objection to perseverance because it requires the use of preachers and gospel teachers is no objection at all. I have already addressed this objection in earlier chapters of this book. I answered it by showing how the eternal salvation of sinners was conditioned upon Mary giving birth to Christ, and upon the wicked putting Christ to death. Yet, these human means did not in any way make the salvation of sinners uncertain.
W. T. Connor, cited by Davis W. Huckabee, said:
"This does not involve the antinomian position that, since one is in justification delivered from sin, he is, therefore, made eternally safe, no matter what he may become in character and life. This is a perversion of the truth that becomes about as great a heresy as the one which it denies. The New Testament teaching is not that a justified man is saved irrespective of what he may be in character; it is rather that the justifying and regenerating grace of God so revolutionizes his character that he can never be again what he was before. It is not that the Christian is saved whether he persists in faith or not; it is that he will persist in faith and will, therefore, attain to final salvation."
It is clear that the "antinomian position" is the position of today's Hardshells. It is also clear that the reason for not accepting the doctrine of perseverance is due to their not understanding the experience of regeneration.
Conner also said:
"The perseverance of the saints is based on the preservation of the saints. We persevere because he keeps. But it is not true to say that, because he keeps us, we do not need to persevere." (Christian Doctrine, pp. 238, 239. Broadman Press, Nashville, 1949)
It is today's Hardshells who think that God's preservation of his people makes perseverance unnecessary.
Huckabee cites J. L. Dagg, who said:
"Perseverance in holiness is the only infallible proof that the heart is right; and he who ceases to persevere, on the presumption that his heart is right, believes without proper evidence, and is woefully hazarding his eternal interests on his presumption. The doctrine is, that grace in the heart will produce perseverance to the end; and where the effect is not produced, the cause does not exist." (J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, pp. 298-299. Sprinkle Publications Gano Books, Harrisonburg, VA., 22801, 1982)
This has always been the position of all Calvinistic or Particular Baptists, and was the position of the founding fathers of Hardshellism, but today's Hardshells have left the faith of their fathers. Dagg affirms that where perseverance is absent so is regeneration absent. Perseverance is the proof of preservation. This is what was shown to be the teaching of scripture in the previous chapter. Those verses said - "we are saved now if in the future we persevere." Or, conversely, "we are not saved now if we do not persevere in the future." In Hebrews 3 the apostle says two times - "we are saved now if in the future we hold fast." He did not say - "we will be saved in the future if in the future we hold fast." Present salvation is demonstrated only by what follows it. Failure to persevere is proof that there was no genuine salvation in the past.
The apostle John wrote the same, saying:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (I John 2: 19)
John says that these apostates demonstrated that they were never truly saved. Their apostasy showed that they were hypocrites, not genuine believers. He also affirms that true believers "continue" in the fellowship of the gospel.
Davis W. Huckabee wrote:
"The Lord’s preservation of the saints and the saints’ perseverance in holiness are twin sister doctrines, neither of which can be ignored without upsetting the balance of truth. The preservation of the saints in grace is bound up with God’s eternal purpose, and part of the purpose of God is to give enabling grace to the saint so that he will persevere in holiness.
God preserves His people in this world through their perseverance—their use of means and avoidance of what is destructive. We do not mean for a moment that the everlasting purpose of the Most High is made contingent on the actions of the creature. The saints’ perseverance is a Divine gift, as truly as is health and strength of body."
Huckabee cites A. W. Pink, who said:
"Now is the Father’s eternal purpose placed in jeopardy by the human will? Is its fulfillment contingent upon human conduct? Or having ordained the end will He not also make infallibly effectual all the means to that end?" (A. W. Pink, The Saints’ Perseverance, pp. 11-12)
("THE PRESERVATION AND PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS," by Davis W. Huckabee, chapter 13)
See here
In the next chapters I will cite more from leading Hardshells of the 19th century to show that they believed in the perseverance of the saints. I will also show from scriptures that perseverance is a gift that is given to all those who are called by his grace.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
A Hard Question for Hardshells
If good seed is sown into good ground, will it fail to produce fruit? If it does not produce good fruit, though both the seed and soil are good, then why did it not produce fruit?
Chapter 93 - Hardshells & Perseverance II
In the previous chapter it was shown how the doctrine of the saints sure and certain perseverance was the original old Baptist position, the position set forth in the oldest confessions and articles of faith. It was also shown how the present generation of Hardshells, who claim to be "primitive" or "original" in their Baptist beliefs, are not so as regards their rejection of the doctrine of perseverance. This ought to make them rather uncomfortable regarding their claims to being "primitive" or "old school."
In the previous chapter the reason for this change in doctrine was also introduced. The "no means" position brought about a change in the description of the nature of the change effected in "regeneration" (or in being 'born again'), and that change in doctrine brought about a change in the kind of "preservation" that the scriptures and the old Baptist confessions describe, a preservation that included perseverance.
The denial of perseverance represents an evolution in traditional hardshellism. As the history of the anti-mission movement demonstrates, there has been a varied evolution in doctrine by the members of the movement. Neo-Hardshells may deceive themselves into thinking that they have had no changes in fundamental doctrine over the past two hundred years, but the facts show otherwise. Today's Hardshells are not like the old Baptists of the pre-19th century. They are not even like their founding fathers of the early 19th century, and not like their forefathers who attended the Fulton Convention. Novelty in doctrine is characteristic of the growth and development of the "Primitive Baptist Church."
The original error that spawned all the others was the belief that faith in Christ, by the preaching of the gospel, was unnecessary for being regenerated or eternally saved. Such a view forced the Hardshells to "water down" what it meant to be "born again." In this altogether new paradigm of regeneration, conversion was totally eliminated. Regeneration took on a strictly physical or metaphysical definition. Regeneration became a change of the substance of the heart, mind, or soul. It was no longer viewed as a strictly moral change. Regeneration now became vaguely defined as simply giving ability or powers to the soul, a kind of empowerment. There was no change in beliefs, for regeneration became "non-cognitive" and a "sub-conscious" experience. No longer was regeneration equated with conversion. People could be regenerated who remained impenitent and unbelievers, who remained worshippers of idol gods. Regeneration no longer saved a man from unbelief, or from worship of false gods, nor bring one into a knowledge of truth about God and the way of salvation. Regeneration involved no revelation or enlightenment. One did not come to "know" the Lord in being born again.
Naturally then, such a doctrinal alteration in the nature of the change wrought in regeneration also brought about an alteration in what it means for the regenerated to "persevere." Persevere in what? It could not be a perseverance in grace, holiness, or salvation, for these things, in scriptures and the old confessions, are tied to continuance in faith and repentance. What is it that God keeps and preserves from what was given in the experience of regeneration? Not faith, for there is no faith given in regeneration, according to neo-hardshellism. Not in allegiance to Christ, for there is no allegiance to Christ established in regeneration, according to neo-hardshellism. The only thing that Hardshells can say is "preserved" and maintained is the "life" or "seed" given in regeneration. But, what kind of "life"? It is a "watered down" definition of spiritual "life," a "life" that excludes love for God, faith in Christ, and knowledge of the gospel.
The Hardshell description of one who is spiritually alive is similar to a person who is comatose, or in a vegetative state. However, in scripture, spiritual "life" involves being "spiritually minded" (Rom. 8: 6), and in knowing God and Christ (John 17: 3), a coming to Christ in faith (John 5: 40; 20: 31), a "repentance unto life" (Acts 11: 18), and "justification of life" (Rom. 5: 18), because "the Spirit is life because of righteousness" (Rom. 8: 10). Further, spiritual "death," in scripture, involves inner "blindness" and "ignorance," and so spiritual "life" involves enlightenment. (Eph. 4: 18) Further, the "life" given in regeneration is that which is "lived," as Paul said - "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God..." (Gal. 2: 20) This "life" is connected with "faith." The apostle John said:
"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (I John 5: 12)
The word "hath" (echō) means to have or to hold, to have (hold) in the hand, for instance. To have or hold in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind, to hold fast, keep, to have or comprise or involve. Thus, to "have" Christ is to lay hold of Christ with the heart, mind, and understanding. It is a cognitive "having." It is simply preposterous to affirm that heathens "have" Christ even though they have no knowledge or faith in him.
A couple typical neo-Hardshells wrote:
"Calvinism asserts that all the elect will persevere in faith and holiness. If an individual does not persevere, then he proves by his apostasy that he was merely a professor, not a possessor, of eternal life. Primitive Baptists insist that Divine Preservation, rather than human perseverance, is the Biblical emphasis, preservation being the term employed in Scripture to describe the eternal security of God’s people." ("Ten Reasons Primitive Baptists Are Not Calvinists" By Elders Michael Gowens and Lonnie Mozingo, Jr.)
See here
The above comments set up a false dichotomy between preservation and perseverance. The scriptures, rather than emphasizing only the former, emphasize both. The above statement affirms that perseverance is not emphasized in scripture, and yet nothing is more false. The scriptures abound with emphasis on perseverance. Let us notice some of the verses that emphasize perseverance in the context of salvation.
"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matt. 24: 13; see also Matt. 10: 22)
"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel..." (Col. 1: 21-23)
"But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (Heb. 3: 6)
"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (Heb. 3: 14)
"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (Heb. 10: 38, 39)
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (II John 1: 9)
"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (Rev. 2: 7)
"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Rev. 2: 11)
"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." (Rev. 3: 5)
Obviously there are many more scriptures that might be cited to demonstrate how perseverance is greatly emphasized, which overthrows the assertion of Mozingo and Gowens. Clearly the above verses deal with eternal salvation and affirm that perseverance is required. The scriptures put both faith and perseverance together as conditions for being finally and eternally saved.
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)
"Patience" here is from the Greek word "hupomeno" and may be translated as "perseverance." This fact disproves another false assertion of today's Hardshells which asserts that the word "perseverance" is only used once or twice in scripture. Yes, it is true that the word "persevere" is only used once or twice in scripture, but synonymous words are used, such as the words endure, continue, patience, overcome, etc.
Clearly two things are essential for "obtaining the promises." They are faith and patience (perseverance). However, Hardshells deny that faith and perseverance are necessary conditions for being eternally saved. They believe that most people who go to Heaven do not have faith and perseverance.
Clearly today's Hardshells are against both the scriptures and their own oldest confessions of faith.
In the previous chapter the reason for this change in doctrine was also introduced. The "no means" position brought about a change in the description of the nature of the change effected in "regeneration" (or in being 'born again'), and that change in doctrine brought about a change in the kind of "preservation" that the scriptures and the old Baptist confessions describe, a preservation that included perseverance.
The denial of perseverance represents an evolution in traditional hardshellism. As the history of the anti-mission movement demonstrates, there has been a varied evolution in doctrine by the members of the movement. Neo-Hardshells may deceive themselves into thinking that they have had no changes in fundamental doctrine over the past two hundred years, but the facts show otherwise. Today's Hardshells are not like the old Baptists of the pre-19th century. They are not even like their founding fathers of the early 19th century, and not like their forefathers who attended the Fulton Convention. Novelty in doctrine is characteristic of the growth and development of the "Primitive Baptist Church."
The original error that spawned all the others was the belief that faith in Christ, by the preaching of the gospel, was unnecessary for being regenerated or eternally saved. Such a view forced the Hardshells to "water down" what it meant to be "born again." In this altogether new paradigm of regeneration, conversion was totally eliminated. Regeneration took on a strictly physical or metaphysical definition. Regeneration became a change of the substance of the heart, mind, or soul. It was no longer viewed as a strictly moral change. Regeneration now became vaguely defined as simply giving ability or powers to the soul, a kind of empowerment. There was no change in beliefs, for regeneration became "non-cognitive" and a "sub-conscious" experience. No longer was regeneration equated with conversion. People could be regenerated who remained impenitent and unbelievers, who remained worshippers of idol gods. Regeneration no longer saved a man from unbelief, or from worship of false gods, nor bring one into a knowledge of truth about God and the way of salvation. Regeneration involved no revelation or enlightenment. One did not come to "know" the Lord in being born again.
Naturally then, such a doctrinal alteration in the nature of the change wrought in regeneration also brought about an alteration in what it means for the regenerated to "persevere." Persevere in what? It could not be a perseverance in grace, holiness, or salvation, for these things, in scriptures and the old confessions, are tied to continuance in faith and repentance. What is it that God keeps and preserves from what was given in the experience of regeneration? Not faith, for there is no faith given in regeneration, according to neo-hardshellism. Not in allegiance to Christ, for there is no allegiance to Christ established in regeneration, according to neo-hardshellism. The only thing that Hardshells can say is "preserved" and maintained is the "life" or "seed" given in regeneration. But, what kind of "life"? It is a "watered down" definition of spiritual "life," a "life" that excludes love for God, faith in Christ, and knowledge of the gospel.
The Hardshell description of one who is spiritually alive is similar to a person who is comatose, or in a vegetative state. However, in scripture, spiritual "life" involves being "spiritually minded" (Rom. 8: 6), and in knowing God and Christ (John 17: 3), a coming to Christ in faith (John 5: 40; 20: 31), a "repentance unto life" (Acts 11: 18), and "justification of life" (Rom. 5: 18), because "the Spirit is life because of righteousness" (Rom. 8: 10). Further, spiritual "death," in scripture, involves inner "blindness" and "ignorance," and so spiritual "life" involves enlightenment. (Eph. 4: 18) Further, the "life" given in regeneration is that which is "lived," as Paul said - "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God..." (Gal. 2: 20) This "life" is connected with "faith." The apostle John said:
"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (I John 5: 12)
The word "hath" (echō) means to have or to hold, to have (hold) in the hand, for instance. To have or hold in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind, to hold fast, keep, to have or comprise or involve. Thus, to "have" Christ is to lay hold of Christ with the heart, mind, and understanding. It is a cognitive "having." It is simply preposterous to affirm that heathens "have" Christ even though they have no knowledge or faith in him.
A couple typical neo-Hardshells wrote:
"Calvinism asserts that all the elect will persevere in faith and holiness. If an individual does not persevere, then he proves by his apostasy that he was merely a professor, not a possessor, of eternal life. Primitive Baptists insist that Divine Preservation, rather than human perseverance, is the Biblical emphasis, preservation being the term employed in Scripture to describe the eternal security of God’s people." ("Ten Reasons Primitive Baptists Are Not Calvinists" By Elders Michael Gowens and Lonnie Mozingo, Jr.)
See here
The above comments set up a false dichotomy between preservation and perseverance. The scriptures, rather than emphasizing only the former, emphasize both. The above statement affirms that perseverance is not emphasized in scripture, and yet nothing is more false. The scriptures abound with emphasis on perseverance. Let us notice some of the verses that emphasize perseverance in the context of salvation.
"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matt. 24: 13; see also Matt. 10: 22)
"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel..." (Col. 1: 21-23)
"But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (Heb. 3: 6)
"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (Heb. 3: 14)
"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (Heb. 10: 38, 39)
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (II John 1: 9)
"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (Rev. 2: 7)
"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Rev. 2: 11)
"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." (Rev. 3: 5)
Obviously there are many more scriptures that might be cited to demonstrate how perseverance is greatly emphasized, which overthrows the assertion of Mozingo and Gowens. Clearly the above verses deal with eternal salvation and affirm that perseverance is required. The scriptures put both faith and perseverance together as conditions for being finally and eternally saved.
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)
"Patience" here is from the Greek word "hupomeno" and may be translated as "perseverance." This fact disproves another false assertion of today's Hardshells which asserts that the word "perseverance" is only used once or twice in scripture. Yes, it is true that the word "persevere" is only used once or twice in scripture, but synonymous words are used, such as the words endure, continue, patience, overcome, etc.
Clearly two things are essential for "obtaining the promises." They are faith and patience (perseverance). However, Hardshells deny that faith and perseverance are necessary conditions for being eternally saved. They believe that most people who go to Heaven do not have faith and perseverance.
Clearly today's Hardshells are against both the scriptures and their own oldest confessions of faith.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Hassell vs. Hassell
Hassell's Church History is a virtual second bible to Hardshells. It has great weight of authority for Hardshells. Many consider it almost infallible. However, Hassell's History is full of contradictions, biased opinion, unfounded assertions, and incorrect facts. This I will show when I get into the deeper historical chapters, where I will be critically reviewing the major histories of the Hardshells.
Actually, "Hassell's History" is only partially "history," for there is much of the nature of a body of divinity in it, even some diatribe and propaganda. It was begun by Elder C. B. Hassell, who wrote the first sections of it. The son, Elder Sylvester Hassell, completed the work. Both father and son received direct financial support for the work from the Kehukee Association and indirect support from Hardshells far and near. It is called "The Church of God From The Creation to A.D. 1885." You can find it on the Internet here.
C. B. Hassell's work follows the previous authorized history of the Kehukee Association, from her beginning, by Elders Lemuel Burkett and Jesse Read, whose work is known as "Concise History of the Kehukee Baptist Association." The Hardshells have never been concerned with keeping this older history of the Kehukee in print. Perhaps it is because it states things contrary to Hardshell historical claims?
Present day Hardshell elder, Claude McKee, wrote:
"If you read the History of the Kehukee Assoc.(1765-1803), by Elder's Burkett and Read, you will see the seeds of the modern missionary movement being planted." ("Introduction of Missions in America" by Claude Mckee. Article 1 - As printed in The Christian Baptist, November 1995)
See here
In "Hassell's History" there are, as I stated, numerous contradictions. Sometimes Sylvester contradicts himself and sometimes he contradicts his father. But, pointing those out will come when I take up writing my critical reviews of the various "histories" written by Hardshells.
Notice what the senior Hassell wrote about the question of whether all the elect will hear the gospel and see if today's Hardshells can agree with it.
C. B. Hassell wrote:
"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)
It does appear that this is a citation of some writer, by the elder Hassell, however he is clearly citing it with approval, as expressing his own sentiments, and those of his fellow Hardshells. Clearly the words of Hassell affirm that the Lord will get the gospel to all the elect once they have been regenerated.
Hassell junior seemed to waiver on this point, but he did affirm the following (emphasis mine SG):
Q. Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?
A. While it is true that the ministry is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, as the Spirit of God may direct them, and as the providence of God may open the way to them, and it is the duty of other members to help them on their way after a godly sort, and those to whom they minister in spiritual things should minister to them in carnal things, as the Scripture teach, it is at the same time true that all the elect and redeemed people of God, both infants and adults, will be saved. (Psalm 33:12; Isa. 35:10; 45:17; 53:11; Jer. 31-34; Matt. 1:21; 11:25-27; 16:16,17; John 5:25; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; 17:1-3, 24; Rom. 8:28-39; I Cor. 1:26-31; 12:3; Eph. 1:1-14; I Pet. 1-5; Rev. 5:9,10). Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3). (Questions and Answers-Part 11)
See here
He also wrote:
"There is no salvation, no eternal life, no enjoyment of heaven, without the renewing power of the Holy Ghost and the atoning death of the Son of God; and, unless we are first regenerated, or born again, or born from above, or born of God, or born of the purifying power of the Holy Spirit (called by Paul "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit," Titus 3:5), we will never truly repent or believe or obey or enter heaven; and, if we are thus born of God, we will certainly repent, believe, obey, and inherit the fullness of eternal life." (Gospel Messenger, 1896)
It appears that Sylvester wanted to hold to the view of his father and affirm that all the elect will hear the gospel, even if it must be preached by God himself.
See here
Sylvester took sides with the "anti-means" side in the late 19th century, and affirmed that the gospel was not a means in regeneration, but he seems to strongly favor, nonetheless, the view that all the called will be brought to hear and believe the gospel. Will Hardshells affirm that Sylvester was stating the predominant view of the Hardshells of the 19th century?
Actually, "Hassell's History" is only partially "history," for there is much of the nature of a body of divinity in it, even some diatribe and propaganda. It was begun by Elder C. B. Hassell, who wrote the first sections of it. The son, Elder Sylvester Hassell, completed the work. Both father and son received direct financial support for the work from the Kehukee Association and indirect support from Hardshells far and near. It is called "The Church of God From The Creation to A.D. 1885." You can find it on the Internet here.
C. B. Hassell's work follows the previous authorized history of the Kehukee Association, from her beginning, by Elders Lemuel Burkett and Jesse Read, whose work is known as "Concise History of the Kehukee Baptist Association." The Hardshells have never been concerned with keeping this older history of the Kehukee in print. Perhaps it is because it states things contrary to Hardshell historical claims?
Present day Hardshell elder, Claude McKee, wrote:
"If you read the History of the Kehukee Assoc.(1765-1803), by Elder's Burkett and Read, you will see the seeds of the modern missionary movement being planted." ("Introduction of Missions in America" by Claude Mckee. Article 1 - As printed in The Christian Baptist, November 1995)
See here
In "Hassell's History" there are, as I stated, numerous contradictions. Sometimes Sylvester contradicts himself and sometimes he contradicts his father. But, pointing those out will come when I take up writing my critical reviews of the various "histories" written by Hardshells.
Notice what the senior Hassell wrote about the question of whether all the elect will hear the gospel and see if today's Hardshells can agree with it.
C. B. Hassell wrote:
"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)
It does appear that this is a citation of some writer, by the elder Hassell, however he is clearly citing it with approval, as expressing his own sentiments, and those of his fellow Hardshells. Clearly the words of Hassell affirm that the Lord will get the gospel to all the elect once they have been regenerated.
Hassell junior seemed to waiver on this point, but he did affirm the following (emphasis mine SG):
Q. Will any persons be saved unless the gospel is preached to them?
A. While it is true that the ministry is to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, as the Spirit of God may direct them, and as the providence of God may open the way to them, and it is the duty of other members to help them on their way after a godly sort, and those to whom they minister in spiritual things should minister to them in carnal things, as the Scripture teach, it is at the same time true that all the elect and redeemed people of God, both infants and adults, will be saved. (Psalm 33:12; Isa. 35:10; 45:17; 53:11; Jer. 31-34; Matt. 1:21; 11:25-27; 16:16,17; John 5:25; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; 17:1-3, 24; Rom. 8:28-39; I Cor. 1:26-31; 12:3; Eph. 1:1-14; I Pet. 1-5; Rev. 5:9,10). Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3). (Questions and Answers-Part 11)
See here
He also wrote:
"There is no salvation, no eternal life, no enjoyment of heaven, without the renewing power of the Holy Ghost and the atoning death of the Son of God; and, unless we are first regenerated, or born again, or born from above, or born of God, or born of the purifying power of the Holy Spirit (called by Paul "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit," Titus 3:5), we will never truly repent or believe or obey or enter heaven; and, if we are thus born of God, we will certainly repent, believe, obey, and inherit the fullness of eternal life." (Gospel Messenger, 1896)
It appears that Sylvester wanted to hold to the view of his father and affirm that all the elect will hear the gospel, even if it must be preached by God himself.
See here
Sylvester took sides with the "anti-means" side in the late 19th century, and affirmed that the gospel was not a means in regeneration, but he seems to strongly favor, nonetheless, the view that all the called will be brought to hear and believe the gospel. Will Hardshells affirm that Sylvester was stating the predominant view of the Hardshells of the 19th century?
Historical Criteria for Conditional Time Salvation
One of the things which the Lord used in delivering me from the teachings of conditional time salvation and all the baggage that it brings was the lack of historical proof showing where it had been taught before. I speak not of the recent past, for I could find some who did. What I could not find was a significant theologian, church, or confession prior to 1850 or so which held to these views. I found it not in the Westminster, London, or Philadelphia confessions, nor did I find it in the Puritan writers who compiled a wealth of Christian literature. It was not in the writings of John Gill, which is especially interesting seeing how he is generally held in high esteem by modernists today. And as far as The Black Rock Address and the first generation of Primitives are concerned, I found no mention about time salvation being the primary function of the preached gospel. I was now faced with a dilemma. If conditional time salvation is true, then where is the succession in doctrine to be found? This presented a serious challenge to my Landmarkism.
My interest in this matter has recently been renewed by the happenings of this blog. In Brother Stephen's online debate with Jason Brown, the position of the Welsh Baptists was discussed. Counter evidence was presented by Brother Stephen in order to show that the Welsh Baptists are not "in succession" with the ultraists today, despite the claims made by Michael Ivey. I'm quite sure that today's extremists would breathe a sigh of relief were someone to come forward with the needed evidence. It would certainly help their claim for church succession which now stands on shaky legs, seeing as how an increasing number have questioned its historicity and have concluded that it is not OLD, but NEW Baptist doctrine. Until such time that it is presented, I am pretty sure they will continue to ostracize the ones who are vocal about there being no evidence for its existence, and that it is a departure from what the Primitive Baptists generally believed prior to the rise of conditionalism.
In the historical search for evidence of conditional time salvation my mind has been made to reflect upon what it is that would have to be discovered. What points of doctrine must be found in the writers of antiquity in order to label them as advocates of this doctrine? Since I'm very familiar with its teachings, I thought it would be interesting to post what I think are some leading points of doctrine which compose this paradigm. Until the following things are discovered, the conditional time salvation scavenger hunt will have to continue.
Let me first state 1) that it is not enough to substantiate a past for conditional time salvation by finding some who taught immediate regeneration. This seems to be the foremost thing presented in an attempt to discover evidence of its existence. Some are under the impression that if one can be found who did not advocate gospel agency in regeneration, that this is sufficient proof to give conditional time salvation a historical warrant. It isn't, and let me explain why.
The term regeneration is ambiguous in the hands of writers, some giving it a broad definition, whereas others give it a narrow one. Most of the writers who contended for immediate regeneration were proponents of the ordo salutis, and claimed only that the first initial act of God upon the soul was void of gospel means. They maintained that regeneration and conversion were concurrent in the order of time, but that there was a logical priority. Regeneration apart from the gospel was followed logically by gospel conversion, but not chronologically. Others, however, would allow for an expanse of time between the two. Regeneration would occur, to be followed by gospel conversion at some point in the future. In both of these scenarios, its respective proponents may contend for immediate regeneration. Yet the point we wish to stress to our readers and to those who contend for conditional time salvation is that they believed gospel conversion would IN FACT follow!
This is a far cry from the teachings of conditional time salvation, the root assertion of which is that conversion is optional, and so may never happen at all! It doesn't follow regeneration logically OR chronologically! Therefore, in order to find historical evidence for conditional time salvation, its proponents should not necessarily look for teachers of immediate regeneration, but look for those who taught that...
2) Gospel conversion is optional. This is actually the very heart of the matter. Evidence would have to be shown that there were some who claimed that conversion has no place in the salvation of the elect. It is neither yoked with regeneration, nor does it necessarily follow. For an even stronger argument, this should be claimed as being the norm for the elect in order to give room for all the regenerate heathens, unbelievers, and even Christ-rejecters that this heretical system invents. It must be shown that many regenerated children of God spent the whole of their lives void of any evangelical virtues. They may "have God" but NOT have to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).
3) Justification is either by:
a) seed faith
b) the faith OF Christ
c) the faith OF God
We apologize to the reader if he is confused by what we have just written. Concerning the subject of faith, the greatest confusion prevails among the advocates of conditional time salvation today. In a desperate attempt to explain the doctrine of justification apart from evangelical faith, which is what the normal bible reader sees (e.g. Rom. 10:17; Eph. 1:13), the above three permutations of the doctrine are being juggled. The reason why each one arose as an alternative explanation for justification is because they each bypass the gospel as a necessary element, and are therefore acceptable to the anti-means paradigm.
In looking for any evidence of conditional time salvation in the past, the search should be for some who claimed that justification takes place via seed faith, the faith Christ has in the Father, or the faith God has in His Son---anything except justification by the faith which comes by hearing the gospel (Rom. 10:17) or cognitive faith involving the mind and heart of the sinner.
4) Progressive sanctification is optional. Elder Thomas Mann made this point in his 2002 sermon "Re-thinking Conditional Time Salvation", and he is absolutely correct. Just like our above thoughts on conversion being optional, the same holds true in this case. The experimental side of sanctification must be shown as not being a definite part of the salvation scheme. It must be shown that upon regeneration, God does not necessarily work in His people the will and the doing of His good pleasure (Philip. 2:12-13). Christ must be shown as being a Savior who delivers from the penalty of sin, but not necessarily from the power of it.
And lastly, that which is most obvious:
5) The primary purpose of the gospel is to grant a second optional salvation to the regenerate family of God. This is the teaching of conditional time salvation in its most extreme form. A search in antiquity would need to show where men advocated that the gospel had nothing to do with regeneration when defined either narrowly or broadly as inclusive of initial conversion. It would have to be shown as something which comes to a person who just happens to be "fortunate" enough to hear it, there having been no prior decree of God or exertion of His providence to ensure that his elect shall be exposed to it in some form. When it is thus heard, it must be shown that an additional temporal salvation is granted to the person who already has one salvation (eternal) in his possession. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that all the key passages in scripture which unite the gospel with salvation (e.g. Mark 16:16; John 17:17-20; Acts 13:47-48; 26:16-18; Rom. 1:16; 10; 1 Cor. 1:18-21; 15:2; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thes. 2:10,13-14; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23-25) were interpreted in the same manner by which our moderns do.
These are some of the assertions upon which conditional time salvation is built, and are therefore points which must be found in order for the system, as a complete package, to have any historical warrant. There are, of course, other points of doctrine which supplement its teaching, but what we've written above are some of its major claims. What makes this search very difficult is when Confessions of faith are confronted or local church articles in which assertions are made which knock this heresy to the ground. Any declared statement which says that God's elect SHALL be converted, SHALL believe savingly, or SHALL persevere are destructive of the teaching of conditional time salvation.
It should serve as a sign to the seeker that he must look elsewhere.
Kehukee Association Articles of Faith (1777):
"We believe, in like manner, that God's elect shall not only be called, and justified, but that they shall be converted, born again and changed by the effectual workings of God's Holy Spirit."
"We believe that such as are converted, justified and called by His grace, shall persevere in holiness, and never fall away."
My interest in this matter has recently been renewed by the happenings of this blog. In Brother Stephen's online debate with Jason Brown, the position of the Welsh Baptists was discussed. Counter evidence was presented by Brother Stephen in order to show that the Welsh Baptists are not "in succession" with the ultraists today, despite the claims made by Michael Ivey. I'm quite sure that today's extremists would breathe a sigh of relief were someone to come forward with the needed evidence. It would certainly help their claim for church succession which now stands on shaky legs, seeing as how an increasing number have questioned its historicity and have concluded that it is not OLD, but NEW Baptist doctrine. Until such time that it is presented, I am pretty sure they will continue to ostracize the ones who are vocal about there being no evidence for its existence, and that it is a departure from what the Primitive Baptists generally believed prior to the rise of conditionalism.
In the historical search for evidence of conditional time salvation my mind has been made to reflect upon what it is that would have to be discovered. What points of doctrine must be found in the writers of antiquity in order to label them as advocates of this doctrine? Since I'm very familiar with its teachings, I thought it would be interesting to post what I think are some leading points of doctrine which compose this paradigm. Until the following things are discovered, the conditional time salvation scavenger hunt will have to continue.
Let me first state 1) that it is not enough to substantiate a past for conditional time salvation by finding some who taught immediate regeneration. This seems to be the foremost thing presented in an attempt to discover evidence of its existence. Some are under the impression that if one can be found who did not advocate gospel agency in regeneration, that this is sufficient proof to give conditional time salvation a historical warrant. It isn't, and let me explain why.
The term regeneration is ambiguous in the hands of writers, some giving it a broad definition, whereas others give it a narrow one. Most of the writers who contended for immediate regeneration were proponents of the ordo salutis, and claimed only that the first initial act of God upon the soul was void of gospel means. They maintained that regeneration and conversion were concurrent in the order of time, but that there was a logical priority. Regeneration apart from the gospel was followed logically by gospel conversion, but not chronologically. Others, however, would allow for an expanse of time between the two. Regeneration would occur, to be followed by gospel conversion at some point in the future. In both of these scenarios, its respective proponents may contend for immediate regeneration. Yet the point we wish to stress to our readers and to those who contend for conditional time salvation is that they believed gospel conversion would IN FACT follow!
This is a far cry from the teachings of conditional time salvation, the root assertion of which is that conversion is optional, and so may never happen at all! It doesn't follow regeneration logically OR chronologically! Therefore, in order to find historical evidence for conditional time salvation, its proponents should not necessarily look for teachers of immediate regeneration, but look for those who taught that...
2) Gospel conversion is optional. This is actually the very heart of the matter. Evidence would have to be shown that there were some who claimed that conversion has no place in the salvation of the elect. It is neither yoked with regeneration, nor does it necessarily follow. For an even stronger argument, this should be claimed as being the norm for the elect in order to give room for all the regenerate heathens, unbelievers, and even Christ-rejecters that this heretical system invents. It must be shown that many regenerated children of God spent the whole of their lives void of any evangelical virtues. They may "have God" but NOT have to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).
3) Justification is either by:
a) seed faith
b) the faith OF Christ
c) the faith OF God
We apologize to the reader if he is confused by what we have just written. Concerning the subject of faith, the greatest confusion prevails among the advocates of conditional time salvation today. In a desperate attempt to explain the doctrine of justification apart from evangelical faith, which is what the normal bible reader sees (e.g. Rom. 10:17; Eph. 1:13), the above three permutations of the doctrine are being juggled. The reason why each one arose as an alternative explanation for justification is because they each bypass the gospel as a necessary element, and are therefore acceptable to the anti-means paradigm.
In looking for any evidence of conditional time salvation in the past, the search should be for some who claimed that justification takes place via seed faith, the faith Christ has in the Father, or the faith God has in His Son---anything except justification by the faith which comes by hearing the gospel (Rom. 10:17) or cognitive faith involving the mind and heart of the sinner.
4) Progressive sanctification is optional. Elder Thomas Mann made this point in his 2002 sermon "Re-thinking Conditional Time Salvation", and he is absolutely correct. Just like our above thoughts on conversion being optional, the same holds true in this case. The experimental side of sanctification must be shown as not being a definite part of the salvation scheme. It must be shown that upon regeneration, God does not necessarily work in His people the will and the doing of His good pleasure (Philip. 2:12-13). Christ must be shown as being a Savior who delivers from the penalty of sin, but not necessarily from the power of it.
And lastly, that which is most obvious:
5) The primary purpose of the gospel is to grant a second optional salvation to the regenerate family of God. This is the teaching of conditional time salvation in its most extreme form. A search in antiquity would need to show where men advocated that the gospel had nothing to do with regeneration when defined either narrowly or broadly as inclusive of initial conversion. It would have to be shown as something which comes to a person who just happens to be "fortunate" enough to hear it, there having been no prior decree of God or exertion of His providence to ensure that his elect shall be exposed to it in some form. When it is thus heard, it must be shown that an additional temporal salvation is granted to the person who already has one salvation (eternal) in his possession. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that all the key passages in scripture which unite the gospel with salvation (e.g. Mark 16:16; John 17:17-20; Acts 13:47-48; 26:16-18; Rom. 1:16; 10; 1 Cor. 1:18-21; 15:2; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thes. 2:10,13-14; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23-25) were interpreted in the same manner by which our moderns do.
These are some of the assertions upon which conditional time salvation is built, and are therefore points which must be found in order for the system, as a complete package, to have any historical warrant. There are, of course, other points of doctrine which supplement its teaching, but what we've written above are some of its major claims. What makes this search very difficult is when Confessions of faith are confronted or local church articles in which assertions are made which knock this heresy to the ground. Any declared statement which says that God's elect SHALL be converted, SHALL believe savingly, or SHALL persevere are destructive of the teaching of conditional time salvation.
It should serve as a sign to the seeker that he must look elsewhere.
Kehukee Association Articles of Faith (1777):
"We believe, in like manner, that God's elect shall not only be called, and justified, but that they shall be converted, born again and changed by the effectual workings of God's Holy Spirit."
"We believe that such as are converted, justified and called by His grace, shall persevere in holiness, and never fall away."
Monday, September 19, 2011
Chapter 92 - Hardshells & Perseverence I
Hardshell J. H. Purifoy (1837-1908), in "God's Saving Power Made Manifest In The Everlasting Preservation of the Saints," wrote the following in his sub-section "The Power of God Unto Eternal Salvation."
"To my mind, everlasting preservation is a more thoroughly Scriptural expression than the 'final perseverance' of the saints. If our eternal salvation at last depends on our 'final perseverance,' what are we to persevere in? Are we to persevere in grace, or faithfulness to God, His cause and each other, or persevere in obedience to God?
I have failed in it so often myself, and have seen so much of it on every hand that I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints, for our eternal salvation does depend on that, if we are what we profess to be."
See here
Elder Purefoy (M.D.) lived during the division of 1889-1892 over the "means question," when the Hardshells divided over the question of whether the gospel was a means in regeneration, or eternal salvation, and over whether faith in Christ was necessary to be eternally saved. Elders Pence and Burnam were leaders for the "means" side and Elder Purefoy, with others, were leaders on the "anti-means" side. The famous Mt. Carmel Church trial grew out of this division. Both sides testified in this trial, which is available now on the internet. Another issue that naturally arose from the debate about means was the question of "perseverance." The means side defended the old Baptist traditional belief regarding "perseverance," while the anti-means side rejected it, and confessed to believe only in "preservation."
In the book, "Biographical Sketches of Primitive or Old School Baptists Ministers," the following words are written about Elder Purefoy and his role in the division.
"When Elder E. H. Burnam began to advocate publicly the doctrine of regeneration through the written and preached word, followed by his pleas for toleration while at the same time pressing his Armenian (sic) practices, Elder Purefoy was one of the first to warn the Baptists of the Ketocton and Ebenezer Associations against these things and to publicly condemn this heresy." (pg. 221)
Purefoy said - "I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith." And, in this he got what he wished. Hardshells today mostly reject a belief in "perseverance," and claim to believe only in "preservation."
Purefoy admits that the doctrine of the saints final perseverance is taught in the old articles of faith of the Hardshell churches. He cannot therefore legitimately claim to be "primitive" or "original" in denying the faith of his forefathers! Not only do the articles of faith of the oldest Hardshell churches aver belief in the "final perseverance of the saints," but so does the Philadelphia/London Confession aver it, and which is the confession historically accepted by Hardshells as an expression of their faith. Here is what the London Confession says in Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints:
1. Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
(John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6)
2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
(Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40)
3. And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
(Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62)
These words will be referred to several times in this series as the present denial of this article, by the Hardshells, is examined. Clearly, however, the old Baptists who wrote the confession believed in both preservation and perseverance. By this standard, therefore, Hardshells are not the real primitive or old Baptists.
In the Mt. Carmel church trial, Elder Burnam was questioned as follows:
Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?
A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.
Q. By whom has that departure been made?
A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.
Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”
A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.
Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?
A. I have.
Q. Please tell the commissioner whether or not it is your belief that God has predestined one to be saved, whether that one can by means of his own fall from grace?
A. He cannot.
Q. He cannot be lost?
A. He cannot be lost, because the means as well as the end has been provided for.
Q. Then he will be finally preserved?
A. He will finally be kept by the power of God through faith up to salvation.
Q. Won’t preserve be as good a word as perseverance?
A. It will not.
Q. He will be finally saved, will he not?
A. He will not be finally saved simply by preservation. He will be finally saved by perseverance through faith.
Q. What has his perseverance to do with it?
A. God imparts, Mr. Leedy, grace of faith to work out his course, to work out his salvation according as God has worked in him with his regenerating grace.
Q. After all, God does it all, doesn’t he?
A. Certainly, it is God working in us to will and to do according to his will and pleasure.
See here
From the foregoing testimony we can conclude that the change from believing in perseverance to denying it, is affirmed by both sides, to have occurred with the Hardshell anti-means side. Today's Hardshells represent the descendents of those anti-means Baptists who wanted to throw out what the old confessions taught about perseverance. Who then is "primitive" on this issue? Today's Hardshells, like Purefoy, deny the traditional confessional view of the old Baptists, and cannot legitimately claim therefore to be "primitive" on this point. Their claim to being "primitive" is farcical and a veritable falsehood. There is really no debate on this point. While the first Hardshells all professed allegiance to the London Confession and its statements on perseverance, their 20th century descendents do not.
The Fulton Convention of 1900 was an assembly of fifty-one leading Hardshell elders who representated the Hardshell position regarding their historic and traditional acceptance of the London Confession.
Wrote Hardshell elder, Mark Green, under the title "The Fulton Confession of Faith" :
"In the year 1900, with many trials afflicting Zion, as has always been the case, two meetings of Primitive Baptist ministers took place. The first was at Oakland City, Indiana, on September 27, involving fifteen ministers, including Elders James H. and John T. Oliphant. At this meeting a general address to Primitive Baptists was written, in which various subjects were discussed, and in which the London Confession was recommended to the denomination. Then in November, fifty-one ministers met at Fulton, Kentucky. They republished the Confession, adding some explanatory footnotes and a general address, and appended the Oakland City address." Green said that "the London Confession of Faith was approved by a unanimous vote of the meeting."
See here
The Fulton address said this about the London Confession:
"We recommend the London Confession of Faith as an expression of Bible truth. The articles of faith of our churches are substantially in harmony with the doctrine and practice set forth in that instrument, and we do heartily recommend the London Confession to the household of faith everywhere."
Today's Hardshells, however, have departed even from this view, affirming that they do not recognize the London Confession as stating their faith, and that they do not recognize those churches who have endorsed it as being in the true "succession" of the "churches of Christ."
Hardshells are forced to take one of two positions relative to the Fulton Convention of 1900. They can agree with the Convention's affirmation of the London Confession, and agree that it has been historically the criterion for deciding who was orthodox and original, or they can reject the position of the Fulton Convention. Either choice, however, involves the Hardshells in "hot water."
If they agree with the Fulton brethren and accept the London Confession as an expression of the doctrinal views of the ancient Baptists of England, Wales, and America, then they will either have to 1) admit that, in many ways, they are not primitive or original, or 2) accept the twisted interpretation of the Fulton Convention as given in their infamous "footnotes." Most Hardshells today acknowledge that the "footnotes" distorted the actual words of the confession, and twisted those sections dealing with means and faith by rewriting them. In this they show themselves more honest than their Fulton forefathers.
It is very interesting, however, to observe how the Fulton Confession, though inserting "footnotes" in those sections dealing with predestination and effectual calling, left out adding any footnotes to the section of the confession dealing with "perseverance"!
In an article titled "Two Old and Honored Friends," see here, Elder Mark Green writes (emphasis mine):
"It is an easily documented fact that among uninspired writings, the London Confession of Faith and the works of John Gill have been held by Primitive Baptists in high regard and with great respect. We have claimed them as our own..." (foreword)
He also wrote:
"Probably no other works have been so frequently alluded to by our ministers in their writings concerning the agreement of Primitive Baptist faith and that of our forefathers...Included in the contents of this article are numerous quotes from a number of leading Primitive Baptist ministers over the years concerning their affection for the London Confession and the writings of that fierce opponent of Arminianism, Dr. Gill." (ibid)
He also wrote:
"It should be noted that Elders C. B. Hassell, Sylvester Hassell, J. S. Newman, and W. S. Craig in particular were well-known as experts in the history of our denomination. Others, including Elders J. Harvey Daily, S. N. Redford, R. H. Pittman, Jesse Cox, and Lee Hanks, published works in this field, and were serious students of the subject. Elder Lemuel Potter’s references to church history in his debates and lectures were so extensive that his knowledge in that field is unquestionable. When these men recommended these “two old friends” to their people, they knew whereof they spoke."
Elder Potter is cited as saying, in his debate with Elder Throgmorton, that "...the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a 'Hardshell' Baptist document..." He is further cited, from his work - "Treatise on Regeneration," as saying - "In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine."
Green cites from the "History of the Primitive Baptist Church" by Elder J. Harvey Daily [1909], where Daily wrote:
"In 1643 the English Baptists drew up a “confession of faith,” which was afterwards revised and published in 1689, known as the “London Confession of Faith,” which contains all the doctrinal and practical features of all the former 'confessions of faith' but forth by the Baptists. It has ever been recognized as the nearest correct expression of faith of true Baptists every where, until the present time, that has ever been published in a like form."
Green also cites from "The Autobiography of Elder J. H. Oliphant" where Oliphant wrote:
"I served as moderator of the meeting (Fulton)...The meeting was made up, for the most part, of true Primitive Baptists."
Thus, we prove the following:
Today's so-called "Primitive Baptists" are not really primitive at all respecting their denial of the doctrine of the "perseverance" of the elect and called.
In the next chapter we will discuss how the novel change in doctrine concerning the nature of regeneration (new birth), by the Hardshells, forced them into a change regarding perseverance. Elder Burnam expressed that fact when he showed that the belief that "regeneration" excluded faith and repentance, evangelical graces, is what led to a denial of "perseverance," because perseverance requires such faith and repentance.
"To my mind, everlasting preservation is a more thoroughly Scriptural expression than the 'final perseverance' of the saints. If our eternal salvation at last depends on our 'final perseverance,' what are we to persevere in? Are we to persevere in grace, or faithfulness to God, His cause and each other, or persevere in obedience to God?
I have failed in it so often myself, and have seen so much of it on every hand that I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints, for our eternal salvation does depend on that, if we are what we profess to be."
See here
Elder Purefoy (M.D.) lived during the division of 1889-1892 over the "means question," when the Hardshells divided over the question of whether the gospel was a means in regeneration, or eternal salvation, and over whether faith in Christ was necessary to be eternally saved. Elders Pence and Burnam were leaders for the "means" side and Elder Purefoy, with others, were leaders on the "anti-means" side. The famous Mt. Carmel Church trial grew out of this division. Both sides testified in this trial, which is available now on the internet. Another issue that naturally arose from the debate about means was the question of "perseverance." The means side defended the old Baptist traditional belief regarding "perseverance," while the anti-means side rejected it, and confessed to believe only in "preservation."
In the book, "Biographical Sketches of Primitive or Old School Baptists Ministers," the following words are written about Elder Purefoy and his role in the division.
"When Elder E. H. Burnam began to advocate publicly the doctrine of regeneration through the written and preached word, followed by his pleas for toleration while at the same time pressing his Armenian (sic) practices, Elder Purefoy was one of the first to warn the Baptists of the Ketocton and Ebenezer Associations against these things and to publicly condemn this heresy." (pg. 221)
Purefoy said - "I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith." And, in this he got what he wished. Hardshells today mostly reject a belief in "perseverance," and claim to believe only in "preservation."
Purefoy admits that the doctrine of the saints final perseverance is taught in the old articles of faith of the Hardshell churches. He cannot therefore legitimately claim to be "primitive" or "original" in denying the faith of his forefathers! Not only do the articles of faith of the oldest Hardshell churches aver belief in the "final perseverance of the saints," but so does the Philadelphia/London Confession aver it, and which is the confession historically accepted by Hardshells as an expression of their faith. Here is what the London Confession says in Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints:
1. Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
(John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6)
2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
(Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40)
3. And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
(Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62)
These words will be referred to several times in this series as the present denial of this article, by the Hardshells, is examined. Clearly, however, the old Baptists who wrote the confession believed in both preservation and perseverance. By this standard, therefore, Hardshells are not the real primitive or old Baptists.
In the Mt. Carmel church trial, Elder Burnam was questioned as follows:
Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?
A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.
Q. By whom has that departure been made?
A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.
Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”
A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.
Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?
A. I have.
Q. Please tell the commissioner whether or not it is your belief that God has predestined one to be saved, whether that one can by means of his own fall from grace?
A. He cannot.
Q. He cannot be lost?
A. He cannot be lost, because the means as well as the end has been provided for.
Q. Then he will be finally preserved?
A. He will finally be kept by the power of God through faith up to salvation.
Q. Won’t preserve be as good a word as perseverance?
A. It will not.
Q. He will be finally saved, will he not?
A. He will not be finally saved simply by preservation. He will be finally saved by perseverance through faith.
Q. What has his perseverance to do with it?
A. God imparts, Mr. Leedy, grace of faith to work out his course, to work out his salvation according as God has worked in him with his regenerating grace.
Q. After all, God does it all, doesn’t he?
A. Certainly, it is God working in us to will and to do according to his will and pleasure.
See here
From the foregoing testimony we can conclude that the change from believing in perseverance to denying it, is affirmed by both sides, to have occurred with the Hardshell anti-means side. Today's Hardshells represent the descendents of those anti-means Baptists who wanted to throw out what the old confessions taught about perseverance. Who then is "primitive" on this issue? Today's Hardshells, like Purefoy, deny the traditional confessional view of the old Baptists, and cannot legitimately claim therefore to be "primitive" on this point. Their claim to being "primitive" is farcical and a veritable falsehood. There is really no debate on this point. While the first Hardshells all professed allegiance to the London Confession and its statements on perseverance, their 20th century descendents do not.
The Fulton Convention of 1900 was an assembly of fifty-one leading Hardshell elders who representated the Hardshell position regarding their historic and traditional acceptance of the London Confession.
Wrote Hardshell elder, Mark Green, under the title "The Fulton Confession of Faith" :
"In the year 1900, with many trials afflicting Zion, as has always been the case, two meetings of Primitive Baptist ministers took place. The first was at Oakland City, Indiana, on September 27, involving fifteen ministers, including Elders James H. and John T. Oliphant. At this meeting a general address to Primitive Baptists was written, in which various subjects were discussed, and in which the London Confession was recommended to the denomination. Then in November, fifty-one ministers met at Fulton, Kentucky. They republished the Confession, adding some explanatory footnotes and a general address, and appended the Oakland City address." Green said that "the London Confession of Faith was approved by a unanimous vote of the meeting."
See here
The Fulton address said this about the London Confession:
"We recommend the London Confession of Faith as an expression of Bible truth. The articles of faith of our churches are substantially in harmony with the doctrine and practice set forth in that instrument, and we do heartily recommend the London Confession to the household of faith everywhere."
Today's Hardshells, however, have departed even from this view, affirming that they do not recognize the London Confession as stating their faith, and that they do not recognize those churches who have endorsed it as being in the true "succession" of the "churches of Christ."
Hardshells are forced to take one of two positions relative to the Fulton Convention of 1900. They can agree with the Convention's affirmation of the London Confession, and agree that it has been historically the criterion for deciding who was orthodox and original, or they can reject the position of the Fulton Convention. Either choice, however, involves the Hardshells in "hot water."
If they agree with the Fulton brethren and accept the London Confession as an expression of the doctrinal views of the ancient Baptists of England, Wales, and America, then they will either have to 1) admit that, in many ways, they are not primitive or original, or 2) accept the twisted interpretation of the Fulton Convention as given in their infamous "footnotes." Most Hardshells today acknowledge that the "footnotes" distorted the actual words of the confession, and twisted those sections dealing with means and faith by rewriting them. In this they show themselves more honest than their Fulton forefathers.
It is very interesting, however, to observe how the Fulton Confession, though inserting "footnotes" in those sections dealing with predestination and effectual calling, left out adding any footnotes to the section of the confession dealing with "perseverance"!
In an article titled "Two Old and Honored Friends," see here, Elder Mark Green writes (emphasis mine):
"It is an easily documented fact that among uninspired writings, the London Confession of Faith and the works of John Gill have been held by Primitive Baptists in high regard and with great respect. We have claimed them as our own..." (foreword)
He also wrote:
"Probably no other works have been so frequently alluded to by our ministers in their writings concerning the agreement of Primitive Baptist faith and that of our forefathers...Included in the contents of this article are numerous quotes from a number of leading Primitive Baptist ministers over the years concerning their affection for the London Confession and the writings of that fierce opponent of Arminianism, Dr. Gill." (ibid)
He also wrote:
"It should be noted that Elders C. B. Hassell, Sylvester Hassell, J. S. Newman, and W. S. Craig in particular were well-known as experts in the history of our denomination. Others, including Elders J. Harvey Daily, S. N. Redford, R. H. Pittman, Jesse Cox, and Lee Hanks, published works in this field, and were serious students of the subject. Elder Lemuel Potter’s references to church history in his debates and lectures were so extensive that his knowledge in that field is unquestionable. When these men recommended these “two old friends” to their people, they knew whereof they spoke."
Elder Potter is cited as saying, in his debate with Elder Throgmorton, that "...the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a 'Hardshell' Baptist document..." He is further cited, from his work - "Treatise on Regeneration," as saying - "In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine."
Green cites from the "History of the Primitive Baptist Church" by Elder J. Harvey Daily [1909], where Daily wrote:
"In 1643 the English Baptists drew up a “confession of faith,” which was afterwards revised and published in 1689, known as the “London Confession of Faith,” which contains all the doctrinal and practical features of all the former 'confessions of faith' but forth by the Baptists. It has ever been recognized as the nearest correct expression of faith of true Baptists every where, until the present time, that has ever been published in a like form."
Green also cites from "The Autobiography of Elder J. H. Oliphant" where Oliphant wrote:
"I served as moderator of the meeting (Fulton)...The meeting was made up, for the most part, of true Primitive Baptists."
Thus, we prove the following:
Today's so-called "Primitive Baptists" are not really primitive at all respecting their denial of the doctrine of the "perseverance" of the elect and called.
In the next chapter we will discuss how the novel change in doctrine concerning the nature of regeneration (new birth), by the Hardshells, forced them into a change regarding perseverance. Elder Burnam expressed that fact when he showed that the belief that "regeneration" excluded faith and repentance, evangelical graces, is what led to a denial of "perseverance," because perseverance requires such faith and repentance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)