According to Strong, "pisteuō" (the verb "believe") means "to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in," and is "used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled..." It is an "acknowledgment of some fact or event," an "intellectual faith."
Thus, according to Strong, the word "believe" necessarily involves cognition or knowledge. It involves "thinking" and being "persuaded" and "convicted," the "intellect," and "acknowledgment." Thus, the Hardshell notion of a "believing" that excludes the thinking of the mind, or knowledge, is foreign to the idea behind the meaning of the word.
Let us notice some passages that clearly demonstrate that this is how the word is defined in scripture.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. 10: 14)
By the word "heard" Paul includes the idea of knowledge. The Greek word, according to Strong, means "to attend to, consider what is or has been said," and "to understand, perceive the sense of what is said," to "learn," "comprehend," and to "understand." Thus, "how shall they believe in him of whom they have no knowledge."
Clearly Paul defines "faith" (noun) and "believe" (verb) as being cognitive and the result of knowledge and understanding. Hardshells will acknowledge that this is so, but they attempt to circumvent the definition of "faith" and "believe," as given by the inspired apostle, by affirming that what Paul says is not true in all instances, affirming that there is such a "faith" and "believing" that is not a result of "hearing" or of being informed or taught. They would read Paul this way - "this kind of faith (believing) comes by hearing and understanding." But, Paul does not say "this kind of faith," and it is a subverting of his teaching on "faith" to so restructure his words.
Paul also wrote:
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Gal. 3: 8)
Like the passage in Romans 10: 14, this passage connects "faith" with hearing the gospel preached. Again, Paul does not say "this kind of faith," but says simply "faith," stating what is universally true with regard to "faith." He also wrote:
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Gal. 3: 24)
Notice how "schooling" is necessary for coming to "faith." And, again, he does not say that this is true of only one kind of faith, but of "faith" in every instance. Where there is no schooling, no instruction, then there is no faith. Paul also wrote:
"Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness." (Titus 1: 1)
Notice from this passage how "faith" is associated with "acknowledging" the truth. Again, Paul does not say that this is only true in a limited sense, of only a certain kind of "faith," but is what is true of faith universally. Now notice these words:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb. 11: 1, 6)
Notice how the inspired writer defines "faith." He says that faith "is the substance of things hoped for." Faith involves expectation, and expectation involves knowledge and understanding. He further defines faith as "believing" certain propositions of truth, that God "is," and that God "is a rewarder," which demonstrates that faith requires knowledge and is not, as the Hardshells affirm, "non-cognitive." It is impossible to divorce understanding from the very meaning of pisteuō and pistis.
Wrote Paul:
"I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded..." (II Tim. 1: 12)
Notice how Paul connects believing with being persuaded. But how can one be persuaded without his mind and understanding? How can one be persuaded without cognition and without consciousness? To be persuaded means to be convinced and to be convinced cannot be divorced from knowledge and understanding.
Jesus said:
"For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." (John 17: 8)
Notice what is connected with the word "believed." Those who believe do so as a result of "receiving" or accepting the "words" of Jesus, the result of having "known" facts of truth. Again, this definition of what it means to "believe" uproots the Hardshell notion of a non-cognitive "believing."
The apostle John said:
"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us." (I John 4: 16)
Notice that John puts knowledge before believing, saying "known and believed." This too uproots the Hardshell notion that divorces faith from knowledge.
Let the Hardshells come forward and prove from scripture that these definitions are not universal and that there is a kind of faith and believing that is different from the above definitions.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Chapter 105 - Hardshells and Predestination VIII
We begin this chapter with a citation from Elder Sylvester Hassell to W. L. Parker. It was published on May 19, 1925, thirty one years after he wrote of the beginnings of disagreement and "tension" over the doctrine of the "absolute predestination of all things."
"The Bible doctrine of predestination should not be so stated as to make our Most Holy God, in any sense, the cause of sin; and, while the whole world is against us, we should not bite, consume, and devour one another by unprofitable subverting and unwholesome contentions on the deep doctrine of predestination, which is not comprehended by any finite mind thus proving our pride and carnality, and our willingness to sacrifice the church of God to a humanly invented phrase."
Hassell gives sage advice about the manner of teaching and preaching on the great mystery of the divine decrees, of God's eternal purpose, of predestination. Many have not known when to speak dogmatically and when not. Sometimes it is best, in discussions about this subject, for the teacher to ask the student questions in accordance with the "Socratic method." This way the teacher helps the student to arrive at his own conclusions. Inform the student of the various views of Christian theologians and state which you favor. Emphasize the mystery of the doctrine. Emphasize that finite minds cannot comprehend this topic (like others). As Hassell said, the "doctrine of predestination" is "deep," and "not comprehended by any finite mind."
God wants us to think upon these things and has not left us ignorant. God makes plain statements relative to creation, providence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. God speaks of his eternal decrees, of his eternal purpose. Those clear and express statements of God ought to be accepted by faith though they be not fully understood. Oftentimes understanding of them will come later, after one accepts the oracles on faith. Further, teachers need to remember that many Christians are "babies" in their biblical understanding, and are not able to digest "meat." (Heb. 5: 12-14) Certainly the doctrine of the "high mystery of predestination" is "meat" and ought not to pushed down the throat of young disciples. Wise teachers should let the Spirit lead these young disciples to come to their teachers and the teachers need to be prepared to aid the disciple to consider the scriptural statements on the topic and meditate upon the leading questions involved in the topic.
One can see how the lack of graded bible classes, or Sunday Schools, and seminaries, in the Hardshell churches, would lead to a division on the doctrine of the divine decrees. The only teaching done, in Hardshell churches, is to the general congregation, which includes both lost sinners and Christians, and the latter being divided into "babies" and "adults," spiritually speaking. Thus, when a pastor wants to teach on the deep things of God, things that would be better to teach to a class of mature Christians, or ministers, he has to do such teaching to a very diverse group. Thus, when the high mystery of the divine decrees is taught, many go away confused and bewildered. Of course, one way that the Hardshells used to accomplish the same thing, apart from segregated Bible classes, was to write in books and periodicals their views on the fine points of the divine decrees. The readers of the periodicals and books were generally the better informed Bible students and scholars and could handle the topic better.
Further, it is best, as Hassell advised, for teachers on the divine decrees to stick with express statements of scripture. Christians should do this habitually on all Bible topics, but especially on the mysteries. It is often the commentary that men make on the biblical statements on God's will and predeterminations that often generates confusion and strife, rather than the statements themselves.
Further, the Hardshells on both sides of the question of the divine decrees, both Conditionalist and Absoluter factions, should have practiced tolerance and forbearance with each other on the subject. Making the issue into a test of fellowship, as was done, showed a lack of forbearance. But, the Hardshells, sad to say, have a history of intolerance and division. Their denomination began, ironically, by a division which should never have occurred. They declared non-fellowship for all Baptists who supported Sunday Schools and seminaries. Was that not an act of intolerance and lack of love and forbearance? They declared non-fellowship for every Christian who supported societies to help missionaries preach the gospel. Was that also not a gross lack of forbearance? They continued their lack of forbearance, and restricted more and more the "requirements for membership" and "standing" in a Hardshell church.
In the above citation from Hassell, though his advice was good, yet he was in once instance, showing a lack of forbearance himself. He stated that no Hardshell should affirm that God is, "in any sense," a "cause" of sin. Does Hassell deny what the London Confessions says about God being "the First Cause" of all things? Does he deny that "all things" are "of God"? Does he deny the statement that affirms that "nothing can come to pass apart from God's permissive or decreed will"? In fact, Hassell contradicts himself, for he has elsewhere acknowledged that all things come to pass in accordance with the will of God. God is a cause of all things, but he is not the immediate or blameworthy cause of sin.
Here is what "Deacon Jones" wrote to W. L. Parker in the same context of Hassell's words to Parker. It was in the context of further division occurring in the 1920's.
"I am much convinced that absolutism is a God-dishonoring doctrine, and always where you find it you find trouble, and you had as well try to push down a thick rock wall as to try to have peace with characters who preach this heresy. It is most unreasonable, and nothing reasonable can result from its teachings."
Deacon Jones continues:
"We who support Elder Washburn agreed with the body to quit using the expression or phrase ‘time salvation,’ and they agreed to quit using the expression ‘the absolute predestination of all things.’"
Notice the connection between the doctrine of "time salvation" and the doctrine of the divine decrees, or predestination. Later we will see evidence from this same decade where it was stated that those who took the Absoluter side were generally advocates of "one salvation," while those of the Conditionalist side were advocates of "two kinds of salvation." More will be said about this connection later.
Conditionalist Deacon Jones continued:
"They kept this agreement until Sunday, May 7—just one day. A visiting elder loudly proclaimed ‘the predestination of all things,’ with the prefix ‘absolute,’ declaring that Webster said ‘absolute’ meant ‘certain, sure,’ and he wanted a predestination that was sure. We have only used the expression or phrase ‘time salvation’ since the above agreement was made in defending our position, it being forced upon us by our accusers. We are stating frankly that we find no fault with the phrase, because the brethren clearly set forth their meaning of the phrase, which is ‘salvation from error, false doctrine, afflictions, misery, persecutions, perplexities, disasters, calamities, adversities, temptations, etc.,’ in obedience to the commands of our Lord. He who would deny this has either forgotten God or never knew Him in the beauty of obedience."
The one who denies the idea of "two kinds of salvation" and "time salvation," are people who don't know God or have forgotten him? Is that not a harsh un-Christian judgment? Does it not show a lack of love and forbearance? Where is the "charity" and "brotherly love" in that judgment? Was it not divisive for the Conditionalist to insist that one never say "the absolute predestination of all things"?
Which was more justifiable? To insist that the term "time salvation" should not be preached or that the doctrine of God's universal decrees should not be preached? What kind of peace is it when both sides agree simply to not used certain expressions? It seems to me that the extremism of both sides is here evident. The creation of the novel doctrine of "time salvation" and the use of "unguarded expressions" represent the extremes of both sides.
Jones continued:
"Thousands of brethren and sisters over this country know their tactics, because they have already had divisions with these same people (Absoluters - SG), or with this same doctrine (Absolutism - SG). Brethren, if preaching that God did not predestinate all sin and wickedness is heresy, then we are guilty. If they do not believe that He does predestinate all of these things why not leave off the prefix "absolute" and the suffix "all things" then we could begin to agree."
Again, both sides were intolerant and lacked Christian love and forbearance. The Conditionalist faction was asking the Absoluter side to accept the idea that "predestination" did not involve what was "absolute." They were promoting the idea that they believed in a non-absolute kind of "predestination." How could they expect the Absoluters to deny this? How could they expect them to deny what was stated in their confessions? How could they deny that sin occurred only by the willing permission of God? Further, how could they ask the Absoluter to deny that "all things" were the objects of God's decrees? The bible writers and the old confessions did not avoid affirming that "all things" were the result of God's decrees. The Conditionalists were avowing that only some things had been decreed by God.
Jones contined:
"If preaching that we should "save ourselves from this untoward generation," "take heed unto ourselves and the doctrine, for in doing this we save ourselves and them that hear us" is not eternal salvation is heresy, then we are guilty. If preaching that Joseph saved the lives of his people in the day of famine is not eternal salvation is heresy then we are guilty. If preaching that the "great salvation" wrought by Jonathan was a national salvation and not eternal salvation, is heresy, then we are guilty. If preaching these and many other salvations--that is, salvation from many things, is heresy, then we are guilty."
Here the Conditionalist faction shows that it was the faction that promoted the novel doctrine of "time salvation." No one denies that there are temporal deliverances in scripture. Certainly Joseph saved people from starvation and deprivation. But, to carry this idea of temporal salvation to the bulk of biblical passages on salvation, is an extreme. What the Hardshell did was to take his "anti-means" doctrine to scripture and allow it to decide whether salvation, in a given text, was temporal or eternal. Any passage on salvation that involved gospel means was arbitrarily put in the "time salvation" category, regardless of the context, and whenever a text mentioned no means, then it was arbitrarily put into the "eternal salvation" category, though the context demonstrated otherwise.
"Save yourselves from this untoward generation," because it involved a condition, or a "doing" something, according to Hardshell thinking, cannot be eternal salvation, for in their minds, salvation is in no way conditional, or a result of the sinner doing something. Any scripture passage that puts salvation after a sinner doing something, to their thinking, cannot possibly be eternal salvation. However, many passages show otherwise, and to cite them puts the Hardshell in the difficult place of having to twist passages to make them fit into their "time salvation" paradigm. Thus, since "believing" and "repenting," and "calling upon the name of the Lord," involved "doing" something, no passage that connects salvation with these things is interpreted as dealing with eternal salvation. This is a hard position for them to take, however, because many passages show that it is eternal salvation that results from believing and repenting.
Jones continued:
"If preaching and believing that "nothing is gained in obedience and nothing lost in disobedience," is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never preached or believed Old Baptist doctrine. If the doctrine, "I know that many sweet little texts along the line of duty are found in the Bible, but we have no use for them,” is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never been an Old Baptist."
The Absoluter view that "nothing is gained in obedience and nothing lost in disobedience" is indeed an extreme. Some level of obedience and adherence to Christ is essential to perseverance and for being finally saved. Also, the Christian's obedience is essential for obtaining rewards, both now and in the life to come. Wrote Paul:
"For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8)
Notice that "godliness," or evangelical obedience, is profitable, not only for the "life that now is," for merely temporal benefit, but of benefit for "that life which is to come," or for eternal life. For those who "obey not the gospel," there will be loss of eternal salvation. (II Thess. 1: 7-9) For slothful service to the Lord, there will be loss of both temporal and eternal rewards. (I Cor. 3: 11-15)
Jones continued:
"If preaching that Czolgosz was predestinated to kill President McKinley is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never been an Old Baptist. If preaching that "the man who killed Dr. Phoff at Ferrum, Va., was the blessed man, because he only did that which God predestinated that he should do,;" that "Grant was predestinated to kill a man near Mountain Valley, Va., last year and the murder was predestinated" (the constable who delivered Grant to Sheriff Turner at Martinsville, Va., made this declaration to the officers, and he is considered "sound" by what is called the Pig River Association); that a man could not kill another unless it was predestinated that the gun would not fire (this was argued by one of their number at Canton Creek Church at the May, 1924, session of the association); that if a man breaks into your smokehouse and steals a side of meat, or breaks into your corn crib and steals a bushel of corn, he should not be dealt with, because God predestinated it; that "when God gets ready for one to join the church, He will make them come in," is Old Baptist doctrine we have never been an Old Baptist."
Here is a good example of extremism. The Absoluter went to one extreme in saying that the man was "blessed" who committed the above mentioned murder. The Conditionalist went to another extreme in denying that God willingly permitted the murders, and that he could have stopped the murders had he chosen to do so. Obviously both sides were not educated in the fact that the bible speaks of God's "will" in two senses. Sometimes God's will simply means what he desires men to do by their own choice, but sometimes it means what God has determined shall effectually be brought to pass. Being in accordance with God's determinate will does not determine blessedness or holiness. But, being in his preceptive will does determine blessedness and holiness. The Absoluter thought that doing what God had willingly permitted and decreed excused one from guilt, but this was an extreme.
The Conditionalist objected to saying that no man can murder another man unless God "predestinated" it, but would they object to saying that no man can murder another man unless God "permit" it?
The Absoluter did go to another extreme in telling souls that they could not "join the church" unless God had predestined it and unless he forced them to do so. Such preaching is not biblical. Men are to be taught according to God's revealed will, not according to his secret will.
Jones continued:
"Allowing these doctrines to be preached and holding in fellowship those that teach these doctrines and calling them "sound Baptists" and condemning us for preaching duty and condemning the aforementioned doctrines is the cause of our division."
One can see the extremes of both sides in these words also. Both sides were guilty of failing to preach "duty." Both sides would not preach that it was the duty of all men to believe gospel truth, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Both sides would not preach that it was the duty of all men to repent of their sins. But, the Absoluter side went even farther, for they would not preach duty even to those who were Christians, believing that God would bring about obedience apart from their preaching and exhortations.
Jones wrote:
"When they charge us with preaching "a freedom of will doctrine" that embraces that alien sinner, or "a freedom of will doctrine" in any sense as they charge, they know that they are publishing a falsehood."
But, this charge of preaching "a freedom of will doctrine" was valid as respects the Conditionalist teaching regarding the salvation connected with conversion. The Conditionalist says that conversion, or "time salvation," is that which occurs, not through efficacious grace, as regeneration, but by the free will and effort of Christians. The Conditionalist went to an extreme in denying that any of God's work after regeneration, in the life of the Christian, was of "grace" in the same sense that initial salvation was of grace. Sanctification and perseverance became optional to the Christian, the result of his own will and working, after the Arminian free will fashion.
Jones wrote
"They seem to be unable to distinguish between an attribute of God and an act of God. We hold that which is good is of the Lord; that which is sin is of the devil. We hold salvation is by grace whether eternal or in this time state; but we make a distinction between the given grace (Eph. 2: 6 to 9) and the found grace (Heb. 4: 16); yet we uncompromisingly declare that these salvations are of the Lord."
One can discern the contradiction of the Conditionalist position from the above words. The Conditionalist, in order to avoid being seen as "Arminian," affirmed that "time salvation" was "by grace," and "of the Lord." But, he does not see how this involves him in a contradiction. As Calvinists, the Conditionalist will argue against Arminians by affirming that "salvation is by grace" and that "salvation is of the Lord," meaning it is wholly unconditional, and that it is absolutely effectual and certain for all whom God intends to save. The contradiction is seen in the fact that they do not believe that "time salvation," or "conversion," though being "by grace" and "of the Lord," is wholly unconditional and absolutely effectual and certain for all whom God intends to convert. But, how can he argue that "by grace" and "of the Lord" must denote what is unconditional and irresistible?
Another contradiction is seen in the Conditionalist arguing that all the good in a regenerated soul is "of the Lord." Do they mean "of the Lord" in the same sense that regeneration itself is "of the Lord"? Is the perseverance and sanctification of the believer "by grace" and "of the Lord" in the same sense as regeneration?
The words of Jones in the above citation also border on Daniel Parker's "two seedism," and his view that God and the Devil are both without beginning and one is the source of all the evil and the other is the source of all the good. This has been rightly called "dualism," the old Manichean or Persian scheme. Though most of the Hardshell denomination declared non-fellowship with "Parkerism," they nevertheless retained some of Parker's ideas, or else modified them. Yes, it is true that sin and evil does not come directly from God, but from sinful creatures, yet this does not mean that all did not originally come from God as a first or material cause. Take the evil that Job experienced. It came directly from the Devil, but Job also saw it as coming from the Lord.
Jones wrote:
"We make a distinction in the will of God as revealed to us in His word, to-wit, His decretive will and His preceptive will. We hold that His attitude to holiness is CAUSATIVE; His attitude to sin is PERMISSIVE and OVER-RULING."
Again, one sees further contradiction in these words by the Conditionalist side. If God is the "cause" of "holiness" and good, is he the same kind of "cause" of good as he is of regeneration? Was God's causing of holiness as causative as his causing of regeneration?
It is good that the Conditionalist sees that the "will of God" is used in two senses in scripture. Thus, he should have been able to affirm that though a man's murdering another man is according to God's permissive will, it was therefore not "obedience" in the proper sense of the term, and that it did not excuse the murderer from responsibility.
Jones wrote:
"In my article published in the Gospel Messenger, Feb. 1, 1923, and The Primitive Baptist of March 1, 1923, I charged them with believing and preaching a doctrine that placed the regenerated character under a physical law, as machines, and not under a law to Christ. This they have bitterly denied, and brought many false accusations against me..."
But, let us ask - in God's work of regenerating a sinner, does he put the sinner "under the character of a physical law, as a machine"? If the argument that God's bringing about obedience in the life of Christians, according to the Absoluter scheme, makes the Christian into a machine, then why can the same thing not be said about God's bringing about regeneration in a sinner?
Jones wrote:
"On Sunday at the Pig River Association, May 4, 1924, J. W. Wyatt declared in the pulpit that we were “like a graphophone”—no music in us, no preaching in us, no praying in us, it was all on the record. When the graphophone was wound up, the record put on and the needle placed on the record the music, preaching or praying would come out.”
Again, this is one of the extremes of Absolutism among the Hardshells. The Absoluter so stated matters that the Christian was relieved of all responsibility for singing, preaching, and praying, and for all Christian duties. If the preacher did not preach successfully, then it was because God did not "blow" through him as a "graphophone." No doubt the denial of means helped to create this Absoluter mentality and way of stating things. The Absoluter would have been more scriptural, and on safer ground, to have said "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it, and unless the Lord blesses me to sing, pray, or preach, it will likewise be in vain."
Jones wrote:
"In the introductory sermon by J. F. Good he said, “I want to be submissive to the association. It is not according to my will that I am here, but according to God’s will. I had NO WILL IN THE MATTER.”"
Again, such "unguarded expressions" by the Absoluter faction were harmful and productive of no good. Had Elder Good simply said - "If God did not want me here, he would have kept me from being here" - then there had been little opposition. The Absoluter so stated the matter as to deny that his "will" and choice were at all causes of where he went. He failed to see the doctrine of "concurrence" relative to the doctrine of predestination and providence.
See here for the above citations:
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1400/70/
"The Bible doctrine of predestination should not be so stated as to make our Most Holy God, in any sense, the cause of sin; and, while the whole world is against us, we should not bite, consume, and devour one another by unprofitable subverting and unwholesome contentions on the deep doctrine of predestination, which is not comprehended by any finite mind thus proving our pride and carnality, and our willingness to sacrifice the church of God to a humanly invented phrase."
Hassell gives sage advice about the manner of teaching and preaching on the great mystery of the divine decrees, of God's eternal purpose, of predestination. Many have not known when to speak dogmatically and when not. Sometimes it is best, in discussions about this subject, for the teacher to ask the student questions in accordance with the "Socratic method." This way the teacher helps the student to arrive at his own conclusions. Inform the student of the various views of Christian theologians and state which you favor. Emphasize the mystery of the doctrine. Emphasize that finite minds cannot comprehend this topic (like others). As Hassell said, the "doctrine of predestination" is "deep," and "not comprehended by any finite mind."
God wants us to think upon these things and has not left us ignorant. God makes plain statements relative to creation, providence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. God speaks of his eternal decrees, of his eternal purpose. Those clear and express statements of God ought to be accepted by faith though they be not fully understood. Oftentimes understanding of them will come later, after one accepts the oracles on faith. Further, teachers need to remember that many Christians are "babies" in their biblical understanding, and are not able to digest "meat." (Heb. 5: 12-14) Certainly the doctrine of the "high mystery of predestination" is "meat" and ought not to pushed down the throat of young disciples. Wise teachers should let the Spirit lead these young disciples to come to their teachers and the teachers need to be prepared to aid the disciple to consider the scriptural statements on the topic and meditate upon the leading questions involved in the topic.
One can see how the lack of graded bible classes, or Sunday Schools, and seminaries, in the Hardshell churches, would lead to a division on the doctrine of the divine decrees. The only teaching done, in Hardshell churches, is to the general congregation, which includes both lost sinners and Christians, and the latter being divided into "babies" and "adults," spiritually speaking. Thus, when a pastor wants to teach on the deep things of God, things that would be better to teach to a class of mature Christians, or ministers, he has to do such teaching to a very diverse group. Thus, when the high mystery of the divine decrees is taught, many go away confused and bewildered. Of course, one way that the Hardshells used to accomplish the same thing, apart from segregated Bible classes, was to write in books and periodicals their views on the fine points of the divine decrees. The readers of the periodicals and books were generally the better informed Bible students and scholars and could handle the topic better.
Further, it is best, as Hassell advised, for teachers on the divine decrees to stick with express statements of scripture. Christians should do this habitually on all Bible topics, but especially on the mysteries. It is often the commentary that men make on the biblical statements on God's will and predeterminations that often generates confusion and strife, rather than the statements themselves.
Further, the Hardshells on both sides of the question of the divine decrees, both Conditionalist and Absoluter factions, should have practiced tolerance and forbearance with each other on the subject. Making the issue into a test of fellowship, as was done, showed a lack of forbearance. But, the Hardshells, sad to say, have a history of intolerance and division. Their denomination began, ironically, by a division which should never have occurred. They declared non-fellowship for all Baptists who supported Sunday Schools and seminaries. Was that not an act of intolerance and lack of love and forbearance? They declared non-fellowship for every Christian who supported societies to help missionaries preach the gospel. Was that also not a gross lack of forbearance? They continued their lack of forbearance, and restricted more and more the "requirements for membership" and "standing" in a Hardshell church.
In the above citation from Hassell, though his advice was good, yet he was in once instance, showing a lack of forbearance himself. He stated that no Hardshell should affirm that God is, "in any sense," a "cause" of sin. Does Hassell deny what the London Confessions says about God being "the First Cause" of all things? Does he deny that "all things" are "of God"? Does he deny the statement that affirms that "nothing can come to pass apart from God's permissive or decreed will"? In fact, Hassell contradicts himself, for he has elsewhere acknowledged that all things come to pass in accordance with the will of God. God is a cause of all things, but he is not the immediate or blameworthy cause of sin.
Here is what "Deacon Jones" wrote to W. L. Parker in the same context of Hassell's words to Parker. It was in the context of further division occurring in the 1920's.
"I am much convinced that absolutism is a God-dishonoring doctrine, and always where you find it you find trouble, and you had as well try to push down a thick rock wall as to try to have peace with characters who preach this heresy. It is most unreasonable, and nothing reasonable can result from its teachings."
Deacon Jones continues:
"We who support Elder Washburn agreed with the body to quit using the expression or phrase ‘time salvation,’ and they agreed to quit using the expression ‘the absolute predestination of all things.’"
Notice the connection between the doctrine of "time salvation" and the doctrine of the divine decrees, or predestination. Later we will see evidence from this same decade where it was stated that those who took the Absoluter side were generally advocates of "one salvation," while those of the Conditionalist side were advocates of "two kinds of salvation." More will be said about this connection later.
Conditionalist Deacon Jones continued:
"They kept this agreement until Sunday, May 7—just one day. A visiting elder loudly proclaimed ‘the predestination of all things,’ with the prefix ‘absolute,’ declaring that Webster said ‘absolute’ meant ‘certain, sure,’ and he wanted a predestination that was sure. We have only used the expression or phrase ‘time salvation’ since the above agreement was made in defending our position, it being forced upon us by our accusers. We are stating frankly that we find no fault with the phrase, because the brethren clearly set forth their meaning of the phrase, which is ‘salvation from error, false doctrine, afflictions, misery, persecutions, perplexities, disasters, calamities, adversities, temptations, etc.,’ in obedience to the commands of our Lord. He who would deny this has either forgotten God or never knew Him in the beauty of obedience."
The one who denies the idea of "two kinds of salvation" and "time salvation," are people who don't know God or have forgotten him? Is that not a harsh un-Christian judgment? Does it not show a lack of love and forbearance? Where is the "charity" and "brotherly love" in that judgment? Was it not divisive for the Conditionalist to insist that one never say "the absolute predestination of all things"?
Which was more justifiable? To insist that the term "time salvation" should not be preached or that the doctrine of God's universal decrees should not be preached? What kind of peace is it when both sides agree simply to not used certain expressions? It seems to me that the extremism of both sides is here evident. The creation of the novel doctrine of "time salvation" and the use of "unguarded expressions" represent the extremes of both sides.
Jones continued:
"Thousands of brethren and sisters over this country know their tactics, because they have already had divisions with these same people (Absoluters - SG), or with this same doctrine (Absolutism - SG). Brethren, if preaching that God did not predestinate all sin and wickedness is heresy, then we are guilty. If they do not believe that He does predestinate all of these things why not leave off the prefix "absolute" and the suffix "all things" then we could begin to agree."
Again, both sides were intolerant and lacked Christian love and forbearance. The Conditionalist faction was asking the Absoluter side to accept the idea that "predestination" did not involve what was "absolute." They were promoting the idea that they believed in a non-absolute kind of "predestination." How could they expect the Absoluters to deny this? How could they expect them to deny what was stated in their confessions? How could they deny that sin occurred only by the willing permission of God? Further, how could they ask the Absoluter to deny that "all things" were the objects of God's decrees? The bible writers and the old confessions did not avoid affirming that "all things" were the result of God's decrees. The Conditionalists were avowing that only some things had been decreed by God.
Jones contined:
"If preaching that we should "save ourselves from this untoward generation," "take heed unto ourselves and the doctrine, for in doing this we save ourselves and them that hear us" is not eternal salvation is heresy, then we are guilty. If preaching that Joseph saved the lives of his people in the day of famine is not eternal salvation is heresy then we are guilty. If preaching that the "great salvation" wrought by Jonathan was a national salvation and not eternal salvation, is heresy, then we are guilty. If preaching these and many other salvations--that is, salvation from many things, is heresy, then we are guilty."
Here the Conditionalist faction shows that it was the faction that promoted the novel doctrine of "time salvation." No one denies that there are temporal deliverances in scripture. Certainly Joseph saved people from starvation and deprivation. But, to carry this idea of temporal salvation to the bulk of biblical passages on salvation, is an extreme. What the Hardshell did was to take his "anti-means" doctrine to scripture and allow it to decide whether salvation, in a given text, was temporal or eternal. Any passage on salvation that involved gospel means was arbitrarily put in the "time salvation" category, regardless of the context, and whenever a text mentioned no means, then it was arbitrarily put into the "eternal salvation" category, though the context demonstrated otherwise.
"Save yourselves from this untoward generation," because it involved a condition, or a "doing" something, according to Hardshell thinking, cannot be eternal salvation, for in their minds, salvation is in no way conditional, or a result of the sinner doing something. Any scripture passage that puts salvation after a sinner doing something, to their thinking, cannot possibly be eternal salvation. However, many passages show otherwise, and to cite them puts the Hardshell in the difficult place of having to twist passages to make them fit into their "time salvation" paradigm. Thus, since "believing" and "repenting," and "calling upon the name of the Lord," involved "doing" something, no passage that connects salvation with these things is interpreted as dealing with eternal salvation. This is a hard position for them to take, however, because many passages show that it is eternal salvation that results from believing and repenting.
Jones continued:
"If preaching and believing that "nothing is gained in obedience and nothing lost in disobedience," is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never preached or believed Old Baptist doctrine. If the doctrine, "I know that many sweet little texts along the line of duty are found in the Bible, but we have no use for them,” is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never been an Old Baptist."
The Absoluter view that "nothing is gained in obedience and nothing lost in disobedience" is indeed an extreme. Some level of obedience and adherence to Christ is essential to perseverance and for being finally saved. Also, the Christian's obedience is essential for obtaining rewards, both now and in the life to come. Wrote Paul:
"For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8)
Notice that "godliness," or evangelical obedience, is profitable, not only for the "life that now is," for merely temporal benefit, but of benefit for "that life which is to come," or for eternal life. For those who "obey not the gospel," there will be loss of eternal salvation. (II Thess. 1: 7-9) For slothful service to the Lord, there will be loss of both temporal and eternal rewards. (I Cor. 3: 11-15)
Jones continued:
"If preaching that Czolgosz was predestinated to kill President McKinley is Old Baptist doctrine, then we have never been an Old Baptist. If preaching that "the man who killed Dr. Phoff at Ferrum, Va., was the blessed man, because he only did that which God predestinated that he should do,;" that "Grant was predestinated to kill a man near Mountain Valley, Va., last year and the murder was predestinated" (the constable who delivered Grant to Sheriff Turner at Martinsville, Va., made this declaration to the officers, and he is considered "sound" by what is called the Pig River Association); that a man could not kill another unless it was predestinated that the gun would not fire (this was argued by one of their number at Canton Creek Church at the May, 1924, session of the association); that if a man breaks into your smokehouse and steals a side of meat, or breaks into your corn crib and steals a bushel of corn, he should not be dealt with, because God predestinated it; that "when God gets ready for one to join the church, He will make them come in," is Old Baptist doctrine we have never been an Old Baptist."
Here is a good example of extremism. The Absoluter went to one extreme in saying that the man was "blessed" who committed the above mentioned murder. The Conditionalist went to another extreme in denying that God willingly permitted the murders, and that he could have stopped the murders had he chosen to do so. Obviously both sides were not educated in the fact that the bible speaks of God's "will" in two senses. Sometimes God's will simply means what he desires men to do by their own choice, but sometimes it means what God has determined shall effectually be brought to pass. Being in accordance with God's determinate will does not determine blessedness or holiness. But, being in his preceptive will does determine blessedness and holiness. The Absoluter thought that doing what God had willingly permitted and decreed excused one from guilt, but this was an extreme.
The Conditionalist objected to saying that no man can murder another man unless God "predestinated" it, but would they object to saying that no man can murder another man unless God "permit" it?
The Absoluter did go to another extreme in telling souls that they could not "join the church" unless God had predestined it and unless he forced them to do so. Such preaching is not biblical. Men are to be taught according to God's revealed will, not according to his secret will.
Jones continued:
"Allowing these doctrines to be preached and holding in fellowship those that teach these doctrines and calling them "sound Baptists" and condemning us for preaching duty and condemning the aforementioned doctrines is the cause of our division."
One can see the extremes of both sides in these words also. Both sides were guilty of failing to preach "duty." Both sides would not preach that it was the duty of all men to believe gospel truth, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Both sides would not preach that it was the duty of all men to repent of their sins. But, the Absoluter side went even farther, for they would not preach duty even to those who were Christians, believing that God would bring about obedience apart from their preaching and exhortations.
Jones wrote:
"When they charge us with preaching "a freedom of will doctrine" that embraces that alien sinner, or "a freedom of will doctrine" in any sense as they charge, they know that they are publishing a falsehood."
But, this charge of preaching "a freedom of will doctrine" was valid as respects the Conditionalist teaching regarding the salvation connected with conversion. The Conditionalist says that conversion, or "time salvation," is that which occurs, not through efficacious grace, as regeneration, but by the free will and effort of Christians. The Conditionalist went to an extreme in denying that any of God's work after regeneration, in the life of the Christian, was of "grace" in the same sense that initial salvation was of grace. Sanctification and perseverance became optional to the Christian, the result of his own will and working, after the Arminian free will fashion.
Jones wrote
"They seem to be unable to distinguish between an attribute of God and an act of God. We hold that which is good is of the Lord; that which is sin is of the devil. We hold salvation is by grace whether eternal or in this time state; but we make a distinction between the given grace (Eph. 2: 6 to 9) and the found grace (Heb. 4: 16); yet we uncompromisingly declare that these salvations are of the Lord."
One can discern the contradiction of the Conditionalist position from the above words. The Conditionalist, in order to avoid being seen as "Arminian," affirmed that "time salvation" was "by grace," and "of the Lord." But, he does not see how this involves him in a contradiction. As Calvinists, the Conditionalist will argue against Arminians by affirming that "salvation is by grace" and that "salvation is of the Lord," meaning it is wholly unconditional, and that it is absolutely effectual and certain for all whom God intends to save. The contradiction is seen in the fact that they do not believe that "time salvation," or "conversion," though being "by grace" and "of the Lord," is wholly unconditional and absolutely effectual and certain for all whom God intends to convert. But, how can he argue that "by grace" and "of the Lord" must denote what is unconditional and irresistible?
Another contradiction is seen in the Conditionalist arguing that all the good in a regenerated soul is "of the Lord." Do they mean "of the Lord" in the same sense that regeneration itself is "of the Lord"? Is the perseverance and sanctification of the believer "by grace" and "of the Lord" in the same sense as regeneration?
The words of Jones in the above citation also border on Daniel Parker's "two seedism," and his view that God and the Devil are both without beginning and one is the source of all the evil and the other is the source of all the good. This has been rightly called "dualism," the old Manichean or Persian scheme. Though most of the Hardshell denomination declared non-fellowship with "Parkerism," they nevertheless retained some of Parker's ideas, or else modified them. Yes, it is true that sin and evil does not come directly from God, but from sinful creatures, yet this does not mean that all did not originally come from God as a first or material cause. Take the evil that Job experienced. It came directly from the Devil, but Job also saw it as coming from the Lord.
Jones wrote:
"We make a distinction in the will of God as revealed to us in His word, to-wit, His decretive will and His preceptive will. We hold that His attitude to holiness is CAUSATIVE; His attitude to sin is PERMISSIVE and OVER-RULING."
Again, one sees further contradiction in these words by the Conditionalist side. If God is the "cause" of "holiness" and good, is he the same kind of "cause" of good as he is of regeneration? Was God's causing of holiness as causative as his causing of regeneration?
It is good that the Conditionalist sees that the "will of God" is used in two senses in scripture. Thus, he should have been able to affirm that though a man's murdering another man is according to God's permissive will, it was therefore not "obedience" in the proper sense of the term, and that it did not excuse the murderer from responsibility.
Jones wrote:
"In my article published in the Gospel Messenger, Feb. 1, 1923, and The Primitive Baptist of March 1, 1923, I charged them with believing and preaching a doctrine that placed the regenerated character under a physical law, as machines, and not under a law to Christ. This they have bitterly denied, and brought many false accusations against me..."
But, let us ask - in God's work of regenerating a sinner, does he put the sinner "under the character of a physical law, as a machine"? If the argument that God's bringing about obedience in the life of Christians, according to the Absoluter scheme, makes the Christian into a machine, then why can the same thing not be said about God's bringing about regeneration in a sinner?
Jones wrote:
"On Sunday at the Pig River Association, May 4, 1924, J. W. Wyatt declared in the pulpit that we were “like a graphophone”—no music in us, no preaching in us, no praying in us, it was all on the record. When the graphophone was wound up, the record put on and the needle placed on the record the music, preaching or praying would come out.”
Again, this is one of the extremes of Absolutism among the Hardshells. The Absoluter so stated matters that the Christian was relieved of all responsibility for singing, preaching, and praying, and for all Christian duties. If the preacher did not preach successfully, then it was because God did not "blow" through him as a "graphophone." No doubt the denial of means helped to create this Absoluter mentality and way of stating things. The Absoluter would have been more scriptural, and on safer ground, to have said "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it, and unless the Lord blesses me to sing, pray, or preach, it will likewise be in vain."
Jones wrote:
"In the introductory sermon by J. F. Good he said, “I want to be submissive to the association. It is not according to my will that I am here, but according to God’s will. I had NO WILL IN THE MATTER.”"
Again, such "unguarded expressions" by the Absoluter faction were harmful and productive of no good. Had Elder Good simply said - "If God did not want me here, he would have kept me from being here" - then there had been little opposition. The Absoluter so stated the matter as to deny that his "will" and choice were at all causes of where he went. He failed to see the doctrine of "concurrence" relative to the doctrine of predestination and providence.
See here for the above citations:
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1400/70/
Delivered From the Hardshell Cult
I have received a number of emails over the past several years from people who have been delivered from the "Hardshell Baptist Cult." I want to share the most recent one. I will leave the writer's name anonymous.
Hello Stephen
I too have been rescued by God from my Egypt, the Primitive Baptists. God opened mine and my wife’s eyes to see alarming things within the PB church that were not biblical. When we began to talk to other members of the congregation about those things to see if they saw them too we were treated unfairly. Church members utilized a combination of guilt and harsh treatment to pressure us to be quiet. After several months we finally had to leave while stating our reasons to the Elders for leaving. They have since changed the story on why we left in a sense rewriting history.
Below are listed Four things that I have witnessed that caused me and my wife to discern that the PB church that we were attending had lost its first love; the love for God and replaced it with a love for their doctrine. I have also determined that this is a problem with many PB church’s.
1) The Pastors sermons would often lift up himself and his doctrine while putting others and theirs down (God instructs us to be a light unto the world, leading by obedient example and receiving blessings accordingly, such that non-believers say to themselves “who is their God I want to know more about Him”. Not by insulting others)
2) The Pastor would punish those he was upset with by preaching at (and not to) them from the pulpit. (There is a biblical means for dealing with disagreement and “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”.)
3) Family’s were shunning their own members, and churches were shunning other churches because they had left the PB church or changed their doctrine slightly. (It is a good thing for those that practice shunning that Gods love is not as conditional as theirs is. Besides it is already challenging enough to be a light unto the world let alone when we are setting the poor example of being asses to former friends and family members because they have left the PB church.)
4) The Pastor would strongly discourage/write articles against bible study’s (In exodus God states his desire to make the Jews a Kingdom of Priests, a Holy Nation, then the new testament states that it is the believers in Yeshua (Christ) who have become the Priests of God the Father. Any pastor who does not prepare his flock of Priests to read and discuss the Bible alone or in groups as they see fit is not doing his job. For a Pastor to deny them the Bible study and then deny the biblical training needed so that they can conduct bible study’s is to lord over his flock (of Priests of God the Father) when in reality he is supposed to be a servant to them.)
I have now discerned a terrible new menace among the PB church. Realizing that they were dying, you showed an article from an Elder on your website stating a loss of membership by as much as 50% since the 1970’s and desperate to build up their numbers they have begun to evangelize in Africa and the Philippines. Spreading their love and faith for their doctrine (NOT love and faith in God) throughout the world.
Thank you for the work that you do
Hello Stephen
I too have been rescued by God from my Egypt, the Primitive Baptists. God opened mine and my wife’s eyes to see alarming things within the PB church that were not biblical. When we began to talk to other members of the congregation about those things to see if they saw them too we were treated unfairly. Church members utilized a combination of guilt and harsh treatment to pressure us to be quiet. After several months we finally had to leave while stating our reasons to the Elders for leaving. They have since changed the story on why we left in a sense rewriting history.
Below are listed Four things that I have witnessed that caused me and my wife to discern that the PB church that we were attending had lost its first love; the love for God and replaced it with a love for their doctrine. I have also determined that this is a problem with many PB church’s.
1) The Pastors sermons would often lift up himself and his doctrine while putting others and theirs down (God instructs us to be a light unto the world, leading by obedient example and receiving blessings accordingly, such that non-believers say to themselves “who is their God I want to know more about Him”. Not by insulting others)
2) The Pastor would punish those he was upset with by preaching at (and not to) them from the pulpit. (There is a biblical means for dealing with disagreement and “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”.)
3) Family’s were shunning their own members, and churches were shunning other churches because they had left the PB church or changed their doctrine slightly. (It is a good thing for those that practice shunning that Gods love is not as conditional as theirs is. Besides it is already challenging enough to be a light unto the world let alone when we are setting the poor example of being asses to former friends and family members because they have left the PB church.)
4) The Pastor would strongly discourage/write articles against bible study’s (In exodus God states his desire to make the Jews a Kingdom of Priests, a Holy Nation, then the new testament states that it is the believers in Yeshua (Christ) who have become the Priests of God the Father. Any pastor who does not prepare his flock of Priests to read and discuss the Bible alone or in groups as they see fit is not doing his job. For a Pastor to deny them the Bible study and then deny the biblical training needed so that they can conduct bible study’s is to lord over his flock (of Priests of God the Father) when in reality he is supposed to be a servant to them.)
I have now discerned a terrible new menace among the PB church. Realizing that they were dying, you showed an article from an Elder on your website stating a loss of membership by as much as 50% since the 1970’s and desperate to build up their numbers they have begun to evangelize in Africa and the Philippines. Spreading their love and faith for their doctrine (NOT love and faith in God) throughout the world.
Thank you for the work that you do
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Hardshells & Gospel Invitations
One of the faults of the Hardshells is how they feel no burden or duty to preach the gospel to the lost. In listening to the sermons of their ministers one will not hear them address the lost and certainly will not hear any loving appeals to them about the state of their souls nor any instruction on how they are sinners and need to be saved. As a young minister with them, I began to feel sick about this, in a similar way to how Elder John Leland (1754-1841) felt at a time in his ministry. Especially when I pastored two small Hardshell churches in eastern North Carolina did I begin to devise ways of earnestly entreating those outside of the church about the state of their souls.
During those early years I once heard Elder Samuel Bryant preach a sermon in which, towards the end of his sermon, asked the audience - "have you trusted him today?" I had never heard any preacher speak this way to an audience, an audience that no doubt included lost souls. When I heard those words of Bryant, I knew I could do the same and I began, like Leland, to think deeply upon the subject of how the lost ought to be addressed. I knew that the new testament preachers addressed sinners in a different way than did my fellow Hardshell ministers.
Note: For more information on this subject, see chapters 42-48 in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," those sections titled "Addresses to the Lost," at hardshellism.blogspot.com.
In this posting we will cite some of the ministers of the past who are accepted by Hardshells as being in their ancestry.
Elder Leland wrote:
"It has always been a question with me of great importance, to know how to address a congregation of sinners, as such, in gospel style. And this winter it attacked my mind with great force. Neither Gill, Hopkins, Fuller nor Wesley, could remove my difficulties. My fears were, that I did not preach right, which was the cause why I was so barren in myself and useless to others. This burden lay heavy upon me a long time. At length, at an evenings meeting at a school house in Cheshire, my heart waxed a little warm with holy zeal, and I gave my spirit vent to the youth and school children, regardless of all authors and systems, which had a good effect. Four of the school children and a young man besides, came forward for baptism in a few weeks, who dated the beginning of their religious impressions at that meeting. This little success, obtained at that trying time, gave me both relief and courage."
"The Gillite mode of addressing sinners, seemed a little different from the New Testament mode. The Hopkinsian method appeared as if it took all the wisdom of God to devise a way for an honorable pretence to damn men. Dr. Fuller only cast snother bundle of straw on the fire. So that the great query which has agitated my mind for more than thirty years, 'How is a congregation of sinners to be addressed?' at the time I am speaking of, fell with such distress upon my mind, that I could hardly contain myself. But in the midst of my difficulties, I had a meeting at a school house; in the time of service my soul got into the trade winds, and without consulting Gill, Hopkins, Fuller, or Wesley, without comparing our translation with the Septuagint, Chaldee, or the King of Spain's Bible, I addressed the scholars and young people in a way I never can without God helps me. The spirit of the Lord fell upon them. Very soon after this, five of them came forward and confessed Christ." (Continuation of MS. 1807)
Notice that the subject of how to address sinners was troublesome to Elder Leland, a "trying time." It would be profitable is today's Hardshells would likewise become interested in this subject and come to the same conclusions as did Leland. Certainly Hardshell ministers know about "barren" and unsuccessful preaching, for they have been dwindling for years, seeing little fruit from their Hyper-Calvinistic style of preaching and address. Leland ultimately found "success," however, and this gave him "both relief and courage." I too found "success" once I came to much the same conclusions as did Leland and I began to address lost sinners in a most direct manner, and exhorted and invited them to come to the Lord Jesus Christ and to trust in him for the salvation of their souls. My preaching took on a greater sense of urgency as I realized the words of Paul who said - "knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." (II Cor. 5: 11) Today I realize that it is my duty to "warn the wicked," as did Ezekiel (Eze. 3: 18, 19; 33: 8, 9) and as the first Baptist (Matt. 3: 7; Luke 3: 7). Today these words of Paul also greatly influence my preaching, teaching, and personal one on one witnessing.
"Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Col. 1: 28, 29)
Leland could not accept the Arminian style of Wesley, but neither could he accept the Hyper-Calvinist style of Hopkins and Gill. He could not accept the moderate Calvinistic style of Andrew Fuller either. Perhaps had he lived in the time of Charles Spurgeon, he would have found a perfect example, outside of the scriptures, for how Calvinistic Baptists should preach to the lost.
What was the "Gillite mode"? Certainly it was not "direct" address, but indirect. Sinners were to be told, most often in the third person, that they were lost and needed salvation, and that this salvation could only be had in Christ. The theory behind this practice avowed that it was the Holy Spirit who would make the indirect address into a direct address, that he would do all the appealing to the conscience, that he would "offer" Christ to the sinner. This theory did not deny that the gospel and its truth was a means in this work of the Spirit, but that only affirmed that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who could effect the preaching to the salvation of souls.
One can understand the opposition of Leland to this "Gillite mode" of "addressing sinners," which is nigh the same as today's Hardshells. No doubt he saw and felt that a lack of direct address to the lost revealed a lack of direct concern for them. He also no doubt saw that this method was not blessed of the Lord to many conversions. He also no doubt saw how this "Gillite" method was not in accordance with scripture commands and examples.
Leland had objections to the method of Wesley and the Arminians, and no doubt, were he alive today, would object strongly to the high pressure tactics, methods, and "altar calls" of many of today's evangelicals.
What was Fuller's method of addressing the lost? It was to use the most fervent appeals to the lost, to give "invitations" to them, and to openly call them to salvation, and was based upon the scriptural model. See my series on "Addresses to the Lost" for more in depth discussion of the scriptural method. What difficulty Leland had with this method is not known, and one can only speculate, based upon a study of his biography and writings. But, one thing is clear; Leland's preaching was in accord with Fuller's method. Perhaps he wanted to distance himself from Fuller, seeing many Baptists of his affiliation were strongly opposing Fuller's view on the atonement being general.
Leland says that he "addressed the scholars and young people in a way I never can without God helps me," and says that, as a result, "the spirit of the Lord fell upon them. Very soon after this, five of them came forward and confessed Christ." What was Leland's new "way" to address sinners? Since he rejected the "Gillite" method, he must have made a direct and empathetic appeal. He already testified that his soul was on fire to win souls for Christ, burdened for the lost. No doubt this fervent emotion revealed itself in the "way" he addressed his audience of sinners. What does Leland mean by saying that sinners "came forward"? Was it not "come forward" to him? And for what purpose? Was it not in order that these burdened sinners might thereby "confess Christ" and ask for the prayer of the minister and church for salvation? Was this not the primitive practice among all the American Baptist churches? A mountain of evidence shows this to be so.
Leland says that he searched the scriptures for answers to his troubling questions about how to address lost sinners. The result of this diligent search led him to his own "way," which as I have said, was much more like Fuller's method, yea, even like Arminians. Certainly like Spurgeon's.
Leland wrote:
"In August, 1799, my soul was again visited with the same peace and holy longings after God and the salvation of men as at former times. My preaching then, through grace, was not coasting around the shallow shores of doubt and uncertainty, but launching out into the deep for a draught. Attention and solemnity followed."
"Before the work made a visible appearance, and for three months afterwards, there was not a day but what I had the spirit of prayer, and a travail for souls; and often felt as if I should sink under the weight of my burden if souls were not delivered. Sometimes, individuals would lay in my heart; at other times, the longings desire would be more general. After three months I felt that spirit of prayer abate, but the spirit of preaching continued for three months afterwards, until the ingathering was over, and then the peculiar impression which I had, subsided." (Elder John Leland "Some Events In The Life of..." Part V)
(From The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland, Miss L. F. Greene, editor, 1845; rept. 1986, pp. 196-199. - jrd)
This is where good evangelistic preaching must originate. It must originate in the heart, out of genuine love and concern for the salvation of one's neighbors. It must also involve belief that God uses means in saving sinners, that God will use his disciple's preaching and praying as means. Certainly Leland had a desire to save and convert sinners. Also, Leland was not desiring a mere "time salvation" or optional "conversion," but to being eternally saved and converted. He must have believed in means to pray and preach for the salvation of others. Hardshells lack the belief and zeal of Leland and have no right to claim him as one of them.
Now that we have seen what was the method of Elder Leland, let us notice the original practice of the "Separate Baptists," how they addressed sinners in preaching and witnessing. G.W. Paschal quotes from the History of the Grassy Creek Church, p. 68, and says:
"When the preacher had finished his sermon he would come down from the pulpit and while he and the brethren were singing an appropriate hymn he would go around among them shaking hands. After the singing of the hymn he would extend an invitation to such persons as felt themselves to be poor, guilty sinners and were anxiously inquiring the way of salvation to come forward and kneel near the stand or if they preferred to do so they would kneel at their seats proffering to unite with them in prayer for their conversion."
http://www.21tnt.com/archive_for_articles/revival_cover_up.htm
Hardshells often claim a "line of church succession" through the Separate Baptists, but the Separate Baptists believed in means and their manner of appealing to sinners demonstrates it. Their manner and practice of addressing sinners is unlike Hardshell manner and practice.
John Gill in commentary upon Matthew 11:28-30 wrote:
"Ver. 28. Come unto me,.... Christ having signified, that the knowledge of God, and the mysteries of grace, are only to be come at through him; and that he has all things relating to the peace, comfort, happiness, and salvation of men in his hands, kindly invites and encourages souls to come unto him for the same...but it is to be understood of believing in Christ, the going of the soul to him, in the exercise of grace on him, of desire after him, love to him, faith and hope in him: believing in Christ, and coming to him, are terms synonymous, Joh 6:35. Those who come to Christ aright, come as sinners, to a full, suitable, able, and willing Saviour; venture their souls upon him, and trust in him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows his willingness to save, and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds.
Hardshells will not accept as true these words of the old Baptist theologian.
Elder John Watson, a leader in the Hardshell movement, wrote critically of some beliefs and practices of the newly formed denomination in his book "The Old Baptist Test" (1866), and he said:
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep." (Pages 84-86)
"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Arminians." (Page 86)
"While we combat this ministerial deviation of ours on the part of some, which affects to find Arminianism where there is none, let us carefully guard against those tenets which do really involve it...But as long as we call on men to repent every where, believing that God only can give repentance, and that he will give it to as many as are ordained unto eternal life, even if He does not to as many as we may address, we may escape all Arminianism, and more especially if our practical course in preaching does not involve any unscriptural methods." (pg. 89)
Watson affirmed that it was his "ultra brethren" who called it "Arminianism" to give "zealous appeal to all" and to "call on men to repent every where." These "ultra brethren" are the ones who took over the Hardshell movement and is what exists today among those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists."
An example of Watson's kind of appeal made to the lost can be seen in these words:
"But alas! you may be altogether an unbeliever, but hardly so, for if that be your character, you would, I fear, have laid aside this book before reaching the conclusion. But you may providentially have opened it just here. What shall I say to you? I must in meekness and in love instruct you, if peradventure, the Lord may give you repentance to an acknowledgment of the truth, as it is in Him. I know no other way but to declare unto you, Jesus Christ our Lord. He is exalted to give repentance, and this you must have or perish. He is the great object of faith, and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
"Do none of the things of Christ move your heart? Have you no relish for His name? No concern about His salvation? If not I must leave you under the law; I am unwilling, knowing the terrors of the law, to leave you there. II Cor. 5:11...Then call upon HIm while He is near, submit to His gracious plan of saving sinners. We regard it as a privilege, and know and feel it to be a duty to tell you these things, though it be in word only, praying that they may reach your heart in the power and assurance of the holy spirit." (pages 53,54)
This type of evangelistic appeal is unheard of among today's Hardshells and yet they wonder why they have been in a continual decline!
Elder R. W. Fain, in his introduction to Watson's book, wrote:
"Upon this principle, the Gospel is preached to all, repentance and an interest in a Saviour's blood is offered to all. The charitable invitation "whosoever will" goes out to all inviting them to "take the water of life freely."
Today's Hardshells are not "primitive," but are "ultra brethren," in their manner of preaching to the lost.
Elder John Clark (1804-1882), editor of "Zion's Advocate," a leading Hardshell periodical, wrote:
"The question is settled, that preaching, which is the Gospel of Christ, is what is in harmony God’s revealed will, and in strict accordance with the word of his grace. Upon the question of how this work is to be performed, we have the examples of Christ and his apostles for our guide."
"The apostles were men of like passions with us. They had the same class of persons to preach to that we have. “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God,” was in the ministry of John the Baptist." In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying,"Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” After the baptism of Jesus and the forty days’ conflict with the Devil, and after John was committed to prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the Gospel." The apostles preached after this example, and according to the command of Christ, repentance and remission of sins among all nations."
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever."
"The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience."
"To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism."
"The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability." ("What To Preach and How To Preach" in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
"When many of our people ran wild, a few years ago, in support of a great many institutions, which we considered as innovations in the house of God, our churches and ministers that remained seemed to have pressed very far to the other extreme, and so many have settled down upon the plan of not doing anything whatever to promote the cause of Christ and display the glory of God. Hence, when a minister exhorts to the performance of works of faith and labors of love, and is himself diligent in business, fervent in spirit serving the Lord, and insists upon the prompt compliance with all that Christ has commanded by those that love him, those hyper straight-laced brethren become alarmed, lest he should run into Arminianism." ("Correction In Churches" in Zion's Advocate--November 1869)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1112/36/
Those who objected to gospel invitations to the lost were called "ultra brethren" by Elder Watson and Elder Clark calls them "hyper straight-laced brethren," which apply to the general body of neo-Hardshells.
Here are examples of the exhortations and invitations given by Elder Watson's ministerial associate, Elder Grigg Thompson, another recognized leader of the Hardshell denomination.
"Dying sinner, is there nothing in Jesus that charms thy heart? Is he a root out of dry ground to thee? Can you see nothing in him to love or desire? Is your heart too hard to be moved when you hear of the cross, and what he suffered on it for poor, condemned, and helpless sinners? I know your sad condition. I have been where you are today, and I know nothing but power Divine can melt and soften the hard and stony heart; but from my heart to hearts I can humbly cry, God be merciful to sinners! O, may the Spirit move and melt the heart of stone! This is all I can do." (Christ, And Him Crucified, in "The Primitive Preacher," pages 59, 60)
"Dying sinner, you, too, will be resurrected. The sea, the grave, the rocks, and the mountains, can not hide you from Him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the face of him you have slighted, for they that pierced him shall see him. You that live and die in sin shall hear his voice, and shall be resurrected unto damnation. O, my soul! what a word to sound in the ears of an ungodly sinner, who is living without hope, and without God in the world! The day is coming when all that know not God, and obey not the gospel, shall be forever destroyed from the glory of his power, and sink down where the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever. This, dear sinner, is the certain doom of all who die in their sins. None can deliver you but Jesus, and the gospel presents him as a full and complete Savior, able to save. O, that the Spirit may enlighten your minds, and that you may be led to feel your need of Christ, and with a broken heart and a contrite spirit come to him, for he will never cast any such away. O, if you are burdened, weary, and heavy-laden with sin, Jesus says, “Come unto me, and I will give you rest? But if you are hard, unfeeling, and in love with sin, and delight in the road that leads to death, I have not a promise for you. I have not an encouraging word, but must take my seat, grieved in heart on your account, and leave you in the hands and to the tender mercies of a just God, who will deal rightly with all his creatures." (THE RESURRECTION, 99, 100)
"To you, my unconverted friend, I want to say a word before I sit down. O that you could realize how miserable the state of all unrenewed souls are! They can lay no claim to Christ; not one of the precious promises of the gospel belong to them, and are therefore under an impossibility of salvation while in their sinful, unregenerated state. O, sinner, if this is the state of thy soul today, and shall be forever, better had it been for thee never to have been God's natural workmanship as a man, except thou be his workmanship as a new creature in Christ. So speaks Christ of Judas, the son of perdition, "It had been good for that man if he had not been born;” Matt., xxvi, 24. Lost beings are without light or comfort; they wander in darkness, and stumble into the pit. They shall indeed see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God, but they themselves shall be shut out; Luke xiii, 28. O, it is better to have no being at all, than to have a being that only capacitates us for misery, and to desire death while death flies from us; Rev., iv, 6. O, sinner, this is thy state; think of it, lay it to thine heart; better thou hadst died from the womb, better the knees had prevented thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked, than that thou shouldst live and die a stranger to the new birth. You today may regard this truth as a hard saying; you may hate it, and try to cast it from your mind, but he before whom you will have to stand in the great day of judgment, has spoken the truth with his own infallible lips, “Except ye be born again, you can not see the kingdom of God.” Dear, dying sinner, don't be deceived; all who point out some other way for you to become a new creature in Christ Jesus are but lying spirits, and to follow their counsel will be eternal ruin. I love you, therefore I tell you the truth; I do not wish to daub you up with untempered mortar, or to beget within you a false, delusive hope. There is no salvation for you unless you be a new creature in Christ; your soul must be regenerated by the Spirit of God; you must be born of God, or be lost forever. O, may God be merciful to you; may he, who by his grace, changed and made a new man out of a persecuting Saul' change you, and make you meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. May God prepare all our hearts to receive the truth in the love of it." (CHAPTER 4—A NEW CREATURE IN CHRIST, pages 180, 181)
"Dear sinner, how do you feel? Is your heart so hard that love can not move it? Are your eyes so blind that you can not see the slippery place upon which you stand, with fiery billows beneath you? Can you hear the groans, see the sweat-like drops of blood, and hear the prayer of the sinner's Friend, and feel no love for him in your heart? Can you sit and witness the tears and prayers of these dear saints, and feel no tender emotions? If this be the case, what can I say, what can I do, to melt your hearts, and fill them with love for the blessed Savior, and cause you to seek an interest in his atoning blood? Nothing! I realize it in my inmost heart. My arm is too short and feeble to reach you, and deliver you from the bondage of sin and death. All the powers of men or angels can not save you. None but Jesus can save you, for there is salvation in none other. 0, may the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead enter your hearts, that they may be melted down in love, and drawn to Christ, for there is salvation in none other for lost, helpless sinners." (Chapter five, LIVING FAITH, page 212)
"Dear friends, I fear that many of you are today in the dark prison of just condemnation, and know it not, feel no concern, but love the chains that bind you down. Your heart is not broken; you feel no pain on account of sin, but drink it down as water. My heart feels for you; Christians feel for you; but our arms are too short to reach you, and my voice is too feeble to move your hearts to feel, or open your eyes to see. But O, dear, dying sinner, may the great Preacher, whose word is spirit and life, speak to thee, and arouse thy guilty fears, and may cords of love divine draw thee to the dear Savior; for there is salvation in no other. “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." (Chapter six, FORGIVENESS OF SINS, pages 284, 285)
"Careless, thoughtless sinner, to you I wish to speak a few words; and what shall I say? You have sat quietly and listened to my imperfect description of what the blessed Savior suffered for poor sinners; you have heard of his tender compassion for his murderers, when he prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do;" you have witnessed this day in his children the same loving, sympathizing spirit; you have heard their groans and prayers. Is all this to you as the chattering of a bird, or as music in the ears of the dumb adder? O how sad is thy condition! and how hard must be thy heart, when the dying groans, and the dying prayer of the Savior of sinners will not melt thee to tears! Can you sit unmoved, while you witness tears flowing from many eyes in this house? O that you could realize your true condition, and see the slippery place upon which you stand, and the fiery billows beneath you! Are your eyes so blinded by sin that you can not see, and your heart so hard that you can not feel? This, to me, and to these saints who are weeping and praying for you, is a sad thought. O that God may this day give you to see your condition, and feel the need of a Savior! Our arms are too short to reach you, we know; we feel it; and our words are too feeble to arouse your fears, or change the hard and stony heart.
Our tears and prayers can never wash your sin and guilt away; none but Jesus can save from sin, cleanse the guilty sinner, and save him from sinking down into the pit of endless woe! and all I can do is to close this feeble address with the humble prayer, God be merciful to sinners." (Chapter seven, ABIDING AND WALKING WITH CHRIST, pages 321, 322)
"Dear sinner, your joys and pleasures are all delusive, and will soon be gone forever. The awful hour when you must quit this world, and enter the eternal world, is rapidly approaching you; it is not far off. Are you careless and thoughtless about that solemn hour? I tremble for you, and from my heart of hearts I pray God be merciful to the sinner. Jesus on the cross prayed for his cruel enemies; Stephen, the first martyr, with his dying breath prayed for his murderers. And with a heart full of love for you, and a strong desire for your eternal well-being, we can humbly pray, God be merciful to the sinner. But we close with the words of the Savior, when he prayed in the gloomy garden "Thy will be done." (Chapter 16, THE TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCH, pages 523, 524)
This kind of address to sinners at the close of sermons is absent from today's Hardshell ministers. They do not pray for sinners to be saved nor tell them how they can be saved, but Thompson was not like unto them.
Elder T. P. Dudley, a Hardshell founding father, wrote about his father, Elder Ambrose Dudley, in his autobiography. He wrote:
"At the conclusion of the discourse, (delivered by brother Trott) my father arose and made a few remarks, when he said, “Sinner, suppose you were called to the judgment bar of God to-morrow, how would you feel?” I found myself just about to speak out and say, I am perfectly willing, if he sinks me to hell; I feel that I deserve it; and if he saves me, free and sovereign grace alone shall have the praise. To this day, although it has been well nigh thirty-one years, I have never found another resting place." (Signs of the Times--October 1851)
The above was written by Elder T. P. Dudley, the son of Ambrose, and one who became a leader of the Hardshells. Elder Ambrose Dudley was one of the oldest Regular Baptist preachers in the state of Kentucky and the pastor of Bryan's Station church.
I find enough in the above testimony to show me that old Elder Ambrose was no Hardshell. Notice the kind of appeal that Ambrose made to sinners. Where will you spend eternity? Today's Hardshells do not address sinners with such a question.
Hardshells need to return to the practice of their old Baptist forefathers and start preaching the gospel directly to the lost.
During those early years I once heard Elder Samuel Bryant preach a sermon in which, towards the end of his sermon, asked the audience - "have you trusted him today?" I had never heard any preacher speak this way to an audience, an audience that no doubt included lost souls. When I heard those words of Bryant, I knew I could do the same and I began, like Leland, to think deeply upon the subject of how the lost ought to be addressed. I knew that the new testament preachers addressed sinners in a different way than did my fellow Hardshell ministers.
Note: For more information on this subject, see chapters 42-48 in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," those sections titled "Addresses to the Lost," at hardshellism.blogspot.com.
In this posting we will cite some of the ministers of the past who are accepted by Hardshells as being in their ancestry.
Elder Leland wrote:
"It has always been a question with me of great importance, to know how to address a congregation of sinners, as such, in gospel style. And this winter it attacked my mind with great force. Neither Gill, Hopkins, Fuller nor Wesley, could remove my difficulties. My fears were, that I did not preach right, which was the cause why I was so barren in myself and useless to others. This burden lay heavy upon me a long time. At length, at an evenings meeting at a school house in Cheshire, my heart waxed a little warm with holy zeal, and I gave my spirit vent to the youth and school children, regardless of all authors and systems, which had a good effect. Four of the school children and a young man besides, came forward for baptism in a few weeks, who dated the beginning of their religious impressions at that meeting. This little success, obtained at that trying time, gave me both relief and courage."
"The Gillite mode of addressing sinners, seemed a little different from the New Testament mode. The Hopkinsian method appeared as if it took all the wisdom of God to devise a way for an honorable pretence to damn men. Dr. Fuller only cast snother bundle of straw on the fire. So that the great query which has agitated my mind for more than thirty years, 'How is a congregation of sinners to be addressed?' at the time I am speaking of, fell with such distress upon my mind, that I could hardly contain myself. But in the midst of my difficulties, I had a meeting at a school house; in the time of service my soul got into the trade winds, and without consulting Gill, Hopkins, Fuller, or Wesley, without comparing our translation with the Septuagint, Chaldee, or the King of Spain's Bible, I addressed the scholars and young people in a way I never can without God helps me. The spirit of the Lord fell upon them. Very soon after this, five of them came forward and confessed Christ." (Continuation of MS. 1807)
Notice that the subject of how to address sinners was troublesome to Elder Leland, a "trying time." It would be profitable is today's Hardshells would likewise become interested in this subject and come to the same conclusions as did Leland. Certainly Hardshell ministers know about "barren" and unsuccessful preaching, for they have been dwindling for years, seeing little fruit from their Hyper-Calvinistic style of preaching and address. Leland ultimately found "success," however, and this gave him "both relief and courage." I too found "success" once I came to much the same conclusions as did Leland and I began to address lost sinners in a most direct manner, and exhorted and invited them to come to the Lord Jesus Christ and to trust in him for the salvation of their souls. My preaching took on a greater sense of urgency as I realized the words of Paul who said - "knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." (II Cor. 5: 11) Today I realize that it is my duty to "warn the wicked," as did Ezekiel (Eze. 3: 18, 19; 33: 8, 9) and as the first Baptist (Matt. 3: 7; Luke 3: 7). Today these words of Paul also greatly influence my preaching, teaching, and personal one on one witnessing.
"Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Col. 1: 28, 29)
Leland could not accept the Arminian style of Wesley, but neither could he accept the Hyper-Calvinist style of Hopkins and Gill. He could not accept the moderate Calvinistic style of Andrew Fuller either. Perhaps had he lived in the time of Charles Spurgeon, he would have found a perfect example, outside of the scriptures, for how Calvinistic Baptists should preach to the lost.
What was the "Gillite mode"? Certainly it was not "direct" address, but indirect. Sinners were to be told, most often in the third person, that they were lost and needed salvation, and that this salvation could only be had in Christ. The theory behind this practice avowed that it was the Holy Spirit who would make the indirect address into a direct address, that he would do all the appealing to the conscience, that he would "offer" Christ to the sinner. This theory did not deny that the gospel and its truth was a means in this work of the Spirit, but that only affirmed that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who could effect the preaching to the salvation of souls.
One can understand the opposition of Leland to this "Gillite mode" of "addressing sinners," which is nigh the same as today's Hardshells. No doubt he saw and felt that a lack of direct address to the lost revealed a lack of direct concern for them. He also no doubt saw that this method was not blessed of the Lord to many conversions. He also no doubt saw how this "Gillite" method was not in accordance with scripture commands and examples.
Leland had objections to the method of Wesley and the Arminians, and no doubt, were he alive today, would object strongly to the high pressure tactics, methods, and "altar calls" of many of today's evangelicals.
What was Fuller's method of addressing the lost? It was to use the most fervent appeals to the lost, to give "invitations" to them, and to openly call them to salvation, and was based upon the scriptural model. See my series on "Addresses to the Lost" for more in depth discussion of the scriptural method. What difficulty Leland had with this method is not known, and one can only speculate, based upon a study of his biography and writings. But, one thing is clear; Leland's preaching was in accord with Fuller's method. Perhaps he wanted to distance himself from Fuller, seeing many Baptists of his affiliation were strongly opposing Fuller's view on the atonement being general.
Leland says that he "addressed the scholars and young people in a way I never can without God helps me," and says that, as a result, "the spirit of the Lord fell upon them. Very soon after this, five of them came forward and confessed Christ." What was Leland's new "way" to address sinners? Since he rejected the "Gillite" method, he must have made a direct and empathetic appeal. He already testified that his soul was on fire to win souls for Christ, burdened for the lost. No doubt this fervent emotion revealed itself in the "way" he addressed his audience of sinners. What does Leland mean by saying that sinners "came forward"? Was it not "come forward" to him? And for what purpose? Was it not in order that these burdened sinners might thereby "confess Christ" and ask for the prayer of the minister and church for salvation? Was this not the primitive practice among all the American Baptist churches? A mountain of evidence shows this to be so.
Leland says that he searched the scriptures for answers to his troubling questions about how to address lost sinners. The result of this diligent search led him to his own "way," which as I have said, was much more like Fuller's method, yea, even like Arminians. Certainly like Spurgeon's.
Leland wrote:
"In August, 1799, my soul was again visited with the same peace and holy longings after God and the salvation of men as at former times. My preaching then, through grace, was not coasting around the shallow shores of doubt and uncertainty, but launching out into the deep for a draught. Attention and solemnity followed."
"Before the work made a visible appearance, and for three months afterwards, there was not a day but what I had the spirit of prayer, and a travail for souls; and often felt as if I should sink under the weight of my burden if souls were not delivered. Sometimes, individuals would lay in my heart; at other times, the longings desire would be more general. After three months I felt that spirit of prayer abate, but the spirit of preaching continued for three months afterwards, until the ingathering was over, and then the peculiar impression which I had, subsided." (Elder John Leland "Some Events In The Life of..." Part V)
(From The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland, Miss L. F. Greene, editor, 1845; rept. 1986, pp. 196-199. - jrd)
This is where good evangelistic preaching must originate. It must originate in the heart, out of genuine love and concern for the salvation of one's neighbors. It must also involve belief that God uses means in saving sinners, that God will use his disciple's preaching and praying as means. Certainly Leland had a desire to save and convert sinners. Also, Leland was not desiring a mere "time salvation" or optional "conversion," but to being eternally saved and converted. He must have believed in means to pray and preach for the salvation of others. Hardshells lack the belief and zeal of Leland and have no right to claim him as one of them.
Now that we have seen what was the method of Elder Leland, let us notice the original practice of the "Separate Baptists," how they addressed sinners in preaching and witnessing. G.W. Paschal quotes from the History of the Grassy Creek Church, p. 68, and says:
"When the preacher had finished his sermon he would come down from the pulpit and while he and the brethren were singing an appropriate hymn he would go around among them shaking hands. After the singing of the hymn he would extend an invitation to such persons as felt themselves to be poor, guilty sinners and were anxiously inquiring the way of salvation to come forward and kneel near the stand or if they preferred to do so they would kneel at their seats proffering to unite with them in prayer for their conversion."
http://www.21tnt.com/archive_for_articles/revival_cover_up.htm
Hardshells often claim a "line of church succession" through the Separate Baptists, but the Separate Baptists believed in means and their manner of appealing to sinners demonstrates it. Their manner and practice of addressing sinners is unlike Hardshell manner and practice.
John Gill in commentary upon Matthew 11:28-30 wrote:
"Ver. 28. Come unto me,.... Christ having signified, that the knowledge of God, and the mysteries of grace, are only to be come at through him; and that he has all things relating to the peace, comfort, happiness, and salvation of men in his hands, kindly invites and encourages souls to come unto him for the same...but it is to be understood of believing in Christ, the going of the soul to him, in the exercise of grace on him, of desire after him, love to him, faith and hope in him: believing in Christ, and coming to him, are terms synonymous, Joh 6:35. Those who come to Christ aright, come as sinners, to a full, suitable, able, and willing Saviour; venture their souls upon him, and trust in him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows his willingness to save, and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds.
Hardshells will not accept as true these words of the old Baptist theologian.
Elder John Watson, a leader in the Hardshell movement, wrote critically of some beliefs and practices of the newly formed denomination in his book "The Old Baptist Test" (1866), and he said:
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep." (Pages 84-86)
"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Arminians." (Page 86)
"While we combat this ministerial deviation of ours on the part of some, which affects to find Arminianism where there is none, let us carefully guard against those tenets which do really involve it...But as long as we call on men to repent every where, believing that God only can give repentance, and that he will give it to as many as are ordained unto eternal life, even if He does not to as many as we may address, we may escape all Arminianism, and more especially if our practical course in preaching does not involve any unscriptural methods." (pg. 89)
Watson affirmed that it was his "ultra brethren" who called it "Arminianism" to give "zealous appeal to all" and to "call on men to repent every where." These "ultra brethren" are the ones who took over the Hardshell movement and is what exists today among those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists."
An example of Watson's kind of appeal made to the lost can be seen in these words:
"But alas! you may be altogether an unbeliever, but hardly so, for if that be your character, you would, I fear, have laid aside this book before reaching the conclusion. But you may providentially have opened it just here. What shall I say to you? I must in meekness and in love instruct you, if peradventure, the Lord may give you repentance to an acknowledgment of the truth, as it is in Him. I know no other way but to declare unto you, Jesus Christ our Lord. He is exalted to give repentance, and this you must have or perish. He is the great object of faith, and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
"Do none of the things of Christ move your heart? Have you no relish for His name? No concern about His salvation? If not I must leave you under the law; I am unwilling, knowing the terrors of the law, to leave you there. II Cor. 5:11...Then call upon HIm while He is near, submit to His gracious plan of saving sinners. We regard it as a privilege, and know and feel it to be a duty to tell you these things, though it be in word only, praying that they may reach your heart in the power and assurance of the holy spirit." (pages 53,54)
This type of evangelistic appeal is unheard of among today's Hardshells and yet they wonder why they have been in a continual decline!
Elder R. W. Fain, in his introduction to Watson's book, wrote:
"Upon this principle, the Gospel is preached to all, repentance and an interest in a Saviour's blood is offered to all. The charitable invitation "whosoever will" goes out to all inviting them to "take the water of life freely."
Today's Hardshells are not "primitive," but are "ultra brethren," in their manner of preaching to the lost.
Elder John Clark (1804-1882), editor of "Zion's Advocate," a leading Hardshell periodical, wrote:
"The question is settled, that preaching, which is the Gospel of Christ, is what is in harmony God’s revealed will, and in strict accordance with the word of his grace. Upon the question of how this work is to be performed, we have the examples of Christ and his apostles for our guide."
"The apostles were men of like passions with us. They had the same class of persons to preach to that we have. “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God,” was in the ministry of John the Baptist." In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying,"Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” After the baptism of Jesus and the forty days’ conflict with the Devil, and after John was committed to prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the Gospel." The apostles preached after this example, and according to the command of Christ, repentance and remission of sins among all nations."
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever."
"The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience."
"To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism."
"The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability." ("What To Preach and How To Preach" in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
"When many of our people ran wild, a few years ago, in support of a great many institutions, which we considered as innovations in the house of God, our churches and ministers that remained seemed to have pressed very far to the other extreme, and so many have settled down upon the plan of not doing anything whatever to promote the cause of Christ and display the glory of God. Hence, when a minister exhorts to the performance of works of faith and labors of love, and is himself diligent in business, fervent in spirit serving the Lord, and insists upon the prompt compliance with all that Christ has commanded by those that love him, those hyper straight-laced brethren become alarmed, lest he should run into Arminianism." ("Correction In Churches" in Zion's Advocate--November 1869)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1112/36/
Those who objected to gospel invitations to the lost were called "ultra brethren" by Elder Watson and Elder Clark calls them "hyper straight-laced brethren," which apply to the general body of neo-Hardshells.
Here are examples of the exhortations and invitations given by Elder Watson's ministerial associate, Elder Grigg Thompson, another recognized leader of the Hardshell denomination.
"Dying sinner, is there nothing in Jesus that charms thy heart? Is he a root out of dry ground to thee? Can you see nothing in him to love or desire? Is your heart too hard to be moved when you hear of the cross, and what he suffered on it for poor, condemned, and helpless sinners? I know your sad condition. I have been where you are today, and I know nothing but power Divine can melt and soften the hard and stony heart; but from my heart to hearts I can humbly cry, God be merciful to sinners! O, may the Spirit move and melt the heart of stone! This is all I can do." (Christ, And Him Crucified, in "The Primitive Preacher," pages 59, 60)
"Dying sinner, you, too, will be resurrected. The sea, the grave, the rocks, and the mountains, can not hide you from Him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the face of him you have slighted, for they that pierced him shall see him. You that live and die in sin shall hear his voice, and shall be resurrected unto damnation. O, my soul! what a word to sound in the ears of an ungodly sinner, who is living without hope, and without God in the world! The day is coming when all that know not God, and obey not the gospel, shall be forever destroyed from the glory of his power, and sink down where the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever. This, dear sinner, is the certain doom of all who die in their sins. None can deliver you but Jesus, and the gospel presents him as a full and complete Savior, able to save. O, that the Spirit may enlighten your minds, and that you may be led to feel your need of Christ, and with a broken heart and a contrite spirit come to him, for he will never cast any such away. O, if you are burdened, weary, and heavy-laden with sin, Jesus says, “Come unto me, and I will give you rest? But if you are hard, unfeeling, and in love with sin, and delight in the road that leads to death, I have not a promise for you. I have not an encouraging word, but must take my seat, grieved in heart on your account, and leave you in the hands and to the tender mercies of a just God, who will deal rightly with all his creatures." (THE RESURRECTION, 99, 100)
"To you, my unconverted friend, I want to say a word before I sit down. O that you could realize how miserable the state of all unrenewed souls are! They can lay no claim to Christ; not one of the precious promises of the gospel belong to them, and are therefore under an impossibility of salvation while in their sinful, unregenerated state. O, sinner, if this is the state of thy soul today, and shall be forever, better had it been for thee never to have been God's natural workmanship as a man, except thou be his workmanship as a new creature in Christ. So speaks Christ of Judas, the son of perdition, "It had been good for that man if he had not been born;” Matt., xxvi, 24. Lost beings are without light or comfort; they wander in darkness, and stumble into the pit. They shall indeed see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God, but they themselves shall be shut out; Luke xiii, 28. O, it is better to have no being at all, than to have a being that only capacitates us for misery, and to desire death while death flies from us; Rev., iv, 6. O, sinner, this is thy state; think of it, lay it to thine heart; better thou hadst died from the womb, better the knees had prevented thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked, than that thou shouldst live and die a stranger to the new birth. You today may regard this truth as a hard saying; you may hate it, and try to cast it from your mind, but he before whom you will have to stand in the great day of judgment, has spoken the truth with his own infallible lips, “Except ye be born again, you can not see the kingdom of God.” Dear, dying sinner, don't be deceived; all who point out some other way for you to become a new creature in Christ Jesus are but lying spirits, and to follow their counsel will be eternal ruin. I love you, therefore I tell you the truth; I do not wish to daub you up with untempered mortar, or to beget within you a false, delusive hope. There is no salvation for you unless you be a new creature in Christ; your soul must be regenerated by the Spirit of God; you must be born of God, or be lost forever. O, may God be merciful to you; may he, who by his grace, changed and made a new man out of a persecuting Saul' change you, and make you meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. May God prepare all our hearts to receive the truth in the love of it." (CHAPTER 4—A NEW CREATURE IN CHRIST, pages 180, 181)
"Dear sinner, how do you feel? Is your heart so hard that love can not move it? Are your eyes so blind that you can not see the slippery place upon which you stand, with fiery billows beneath you? Can you hear the groans, see the sweat-like drops of blood, and hear the prayer of the sinner's Friend, and feel no love for him in your heart? Can you sit and witness the tears and prayers of these dear saints, and feel no tender emotions? If this be the case, what can I say, what can I do, to melt your hearts, and fill them with love for the blessed Savior, and cause you to seek an interest in his atoning blood? Nothing! I realize it in my inmost heart. My arm is too short and feeble to reach you, and deliver you from the bondage of sin and death. All the powers of men or angels can not save you. None but Jesus can save you, for there is salvation in none other. 0, may the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead enter your hearts, that they may be melted down in love, and drawn to Christ, for there is salvation in none other for lost, helpless sinners." (Chapter five, LIVING FAITH, page 212)
"Dear friends, I fear that many of you are today in the dark prison of just condemnation, and know it not, feel no concern, but love the chains that bind you down. Your heart is not broken; you feel no pain on account of sin, but drink it down as water. My heart feels for you; Christians feel for you; but our arms are too short to reach you, and my voice is too feeble to move your hearts to feel, or open your eyes to see. But O, dear, dying sinner, may the great Preacher, whose word is spirit and life, speak to thee, and arouse thy guilty fears, and may cords of love divine draw thee to the dear Savior; for there is salvation in no other. “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." (Chapter six, FORGIVENESS OF SINS, pages 284, 285)
"Careless, thoughtless sinner, to you I wish to speak a few words; and what shall I say? You have sat quietly and listened to my imperfect description of what the blessed Savior suffered for poor sinners; you have heard of his tender compassion for his murderers, when he prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do;" you have witnessed this day in his children the same loving, sympathizing spirit; you have heard their groans and prayers. Is all this to you as the chattering of a bird, or as music in the ears of the dumb adder? O how sad is thy condition! and how hard must be thy heart, when the dying groans, and the dying prayer of the Savior of sinners will not melt thee to tears! Can you sit unmoved, while you witness tears flowing from many eyes in this house? O that you could realize your true condition, and see the slippery place upon which you stand, and the fiery billows beneath you! Are your eyes so blinded by sin that you can not see, and your heart so hard that you can not feel? This, to me, and to these saints who are weeping and praying for you, is a sad thought. O that God may this day give you to see your condition, and feel the need of a Savior! Our arms are too short to reach you, we know; we feel it; and our words are too feeble to arouse your fears, or change the hard and stony heart.
Our tears and prayers can never wash your sin and guilt away; none but Jesus can save from sin, cleanse the guilty sinner, and save him from sinking down into the pit of endless woe! and all I can do is to close this feeble address with the humble prayer, God be merciful to sinners." (Chapter seven, ABIDING AND WALKING WITH CHRIST, pages 321, 322)
"Dear sinner, your joys and pleasures are all delusive, and will soon be gone forever. The awful hour when you must quit this world, and enter the eternal world, is rapidly approaching you; it is not far off. Are you careless and thoughtless about that solemn hour? I tremble for you, and from my heart of hearts I pray God be merciful to the sinner. Jesus on the cross prayed for his cruel enemies; Stephen, the first martyr, with his dying breath prayed for his murderers. And with a heart full of love for you, and a strong desire for your eternal well-being, we can humbly pray, God be merciful to the sinner. But we close with the words of the Savior, when he prayed in the gloomy garden "Thy will be done." (Chapter 16, THE TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCH, pages 523, 524)
This kind of address to sinners at the close of sermons is absent from today's Hardshell ministers. They do not pray for sinners to be saved nor tell them how they can be saved, but Thompson was not like unto them.
Elder T. P. Dudley, a Hardshell founding father, wrote about his father, Elder Ambrose Dudley, in his autobiography. He wrote:
"At the conclusion of the discourse, (delivered by brother Trott) my father arose and made a few remarks, when he said, “Sinner, suppose you were called to the judgment bar of God to-morrow, how would you feel?” I found myself just about to speak out and say, I am perfectly willing, if he sinks me to hell; I feel that I deserve it; and if he saves me, free and sovereign grace alone shall have the praise. To this day, although it has been well nigh thirty-one years, I have never found another resting place." (Signs of the Times--October 1851)
The above was written by Elder T. P. Dudley, the son of Ambrose, and one who became a leader of the Hardshells. Elder Ambrose Dudley was one of the oldest Regular Baptist preachers in the state of Kentucky and the pastor of Bryan's Station church.
I find enough in the above testimony to show me that old Elder Ambrose was no Hardshell. Notice the kind of appeal that Ambrose made to sinners. Where will you spend eternity? Today's Hardshells do not address sinners with such a question.
Hardshells need to return to the practice of their old Baptist forefathers and start preaching the gospel directly to the lost.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Time Salvation Challenge: Eph. 1:13-19
When I was among the Primitive Baptists few verses caused me more distress of mind than our text of choice today. The first chapter of Ephesians is a staple portion of God’s Word among them, yet a portion of the chapter causes great discomfort for those willing to confront it. There are only two alternatives for those who adhere to conditional time salvation. Either sweep the passage under the rug, or put some sort of temporal twist on it to fit it within their anti-means prejudices. I rarely heard the text mentioned, much less preached upon, so I cannot say for certain how each individual minister chooses to escape the obvious teaching here.
There’s one thing we wish for our reader to know about this heretical system. Take it from one who used to teach this doctrine. When it comes to exegeting the scripture, the method followed strongly resembles that of a tennis match in which the Bible text is often seen as alternating back and forth between eternal and time salvation, sometimes as sudden as one verse to the next. The whole idea of interpreting a passage based on the context is thus destroyed, as certain prejudices consistent with the anti-means paradigm become the determining factor into which category the verse must fall, no matter what may have preceded it. At one moment, the Bible authors may be writing of eternal salvation, yet in the very next breath, they may now be speaking of time salvation!! Back and forth we go…where it lands, only our innovators know!
The book of Romans is where this alternating feature is found the most, especially in chapters 9-11. Yet we also see it here; that is, if our modernists are consistent with their own teaching. I for one know of no significant commentator, author, or theologian who has ever handled the scriptures in this manner. It is our hope and prayer that many would see their own error in this regard and return to the OLD Baptist faith.
“In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16. Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18. The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19. And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power” (Eph. 1:13-19)
1) Is Ephesians 1 dealing with eternal or temporal blessings?
2) Does Paul treat of eternal salvation prior to verse 13, switch to time salvation in verse 13, and then return to eternal salvation for the rest of the chapter?
3) If so, did you reach this interpretation based on the context and sound hermeneutics?
4) Must sinners “trust” in Christ for salvation?
5) Is seed trust under consideration in verse 13? If so, is this the same thing as seed faith?
6) Is the belief of verse 13 evangelical?
7) Does the sealing of the Holy Spirit take place in time salvation or regeneration?
8) Is this sealing optional or definite?
9) Is the belief of verse 13 the same or different than the belief in verse 19?
10) If different, does this mean that the Apostle has pulled yet another switch on us?
11) If they are the same, does this mean that God’s power (v. 19) works through the gospel (v. 13)?
12) Is the “word of truth” Jesus or “the gospel of your salvation”?
13) Is the earnest of the Spirit given to all the elect or some only? In regeneration or time salvation?
There’s one thing we wish for our reader to know about this heretical system. Take it from one who used to teach this doctrine. When it comes to exegeting the scripture, the method followed strongly resembles that of a tennis match in which the Bible text is often seen as alternating back and forth between eternal and time salvation, sometimes as sudden as one verse to the next. The whole idea of interpreting a passage based on the context is thus destroyed, as certain prejudices consistent with the anti-means paradigm become the determining factor into which category the verse must fall, no matter what may have preceded it. At one moment, the Bible authors may be writing of eternal salvation, yet in the very next breath, they may now be speaking of time salvation!! Back and forth we go…where it lands, only our innovators know!
The book of Romans is where this alternating feature is found the most, especially in chapters 9-11. Yet we also see it here; that is, if our modernists are consistent with their own teaching. I for one know of no significant commentator, author, or theologian who has ever handled the scriptures in this manner. It is our hope and prayer that many would see their own error in this regard and return to the OLD Baptist faith.
“In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16. Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18. The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19. And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power” (Eph. 1:13-19)
1) Is Ephesians 1 dealing with eternal or temporal blessings?
2) Does Paul treat of eternal salvation prior to verse 13, switch to time salvation in verse 13, and then return to eternal salvation for the rest of the chapter?
3) If so, did you reach this interpretation based on the context and sound hermeneutics?
4) Must sinners “trust” in Christ for salvation?
5) Is seed trust under consideration in verse 13? If so, is this the same thing as seed faith?
6) Is the belief of verse 13 evangelical?
7) Does the sealing of the Holy Spirit take place in time salvation or regeneration?
8) Is this sealing optional or definite?
9) Is the belief of verse 13 the same or different than the belief in verse 19?
10) If different, does this mean that the Apostle has pulled yet another switch on us?
11) If they are the same, does this mean that God’s power (v. 19) works through the gospel (v. 13)?
12) Is the “word of truth” Jesus or “the gospel of your salvation”?
13) Is the earnest of the Spirit given to all the elect or some only? In regeneration or time salvation?
Elder Joel Hume
Elder Joel Hume (1807-1901) was a first generation leader of the Hardshells and one of their first debaters. He had a number of debates with the Campbellites. Elder Hume was a Conditionalist Hardshell, denying that God had, as the old London Confession stated, decreed all things. But, it is not clear that he denied the use of means in being born of God, at least not in his early years as a Hardshell minister and apologist. He certainly did believe that "faith" was necessary for being saved, and he defined saving faith as involving gospel knowledge.
Hume, in his debate with Campbellite Stinson, said:
"I understand, my friends, that the Apostle is here introducing, for the instruction of his brethren, a system of salvation that embraces the finally and eternally beatified in glory--I had like to have said, the elect of God. It embraces the whole human family that ever did believe the gospel, and those are the only men that will be saved; and we maintain that they will be saved. There is no mistake; God will not be disappointed." (1st speech, emphasis mine)
Today's Hardshells do not teach what Hume taught and cannot therefore claim to be "primitive" or "original" in their views on faith and salvation. Hume is talking about eternal salvation, not a "time salvation." He affirms that only "believers" will be eternally saved and that these "believers" are those who "believe the gospel."
Hume said:
"...then we can speak of the glorious gospel of the Son of God, saying, go ye, teach all nations; tell them that Christ has died and that in him alone is their salvation; let them know that he is exalted to give repentance; let them know he is the king in Zion; it is him that has died and that has ascended on high; tell them this gospel brings the glorious news of deliverance, and promises a home in heaven to all them that believe." (1st speech)
Again, Hume affirms that salvation is promised to believers in the gospel.
Hume said:
"Who are the elect? Why, all the family of believers." (3rd speech)
Again, this is not taught by today's Hardshells. They do not believe that all the elect are gospel believers and that only believers will be saved.
Hume said:
"Understand me, then: I believe that all persons to whom justification unto life is given, believers in any church, whether Calvinists, general Baptists, or in any other church, are involved." (3rd speech)
Again, Hume says that all those who are given that "justification unto life" are "believers," gospel believers, or Christians.
Hume wrote:
"Now, that is the generation of vipers that the Saviour refers to here; but did not embrace that portion who believed on him."
Again, Hume uses "believer" with those who are saved. Unbelievers are "vipers."
Hume said:
"I say God never has required them to exercise faith in him while in that condition. I repeat God never has, and never can, require individuals to exercise faith in him, in Jesus Christ, in that condition: for this reason, God never requires spiritual action from spiritual agents. Consequently, before the sinner can exercise spiritual faith or any of the Christian graces, he must become spiritual. To wind up the matter, in regard to repentance, my brother tells you, men possess the volition of will, and that they can repent. I propose to show that he is greatly mistaken. Turn to Acts v, 31; you will there find this language: when speaking of the exhortation of the Son of God, the apostle says: "Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Now, if that was the mission of Christ, the sinner can not perform till he gives repentance." (2nd reply on 2nd proposition)
I cite these words of Hume to show that I am telling the whole story about the views of Hume relative to faith and salvation. Here he clearly argues for an "ordo salutis" that puts regeneration before faith. But, this does not mean that he denied that a soul was made a believer in being born of God. He would have argued, as do many Reformed Baptists do today, that regeneration precedes faith logically but not chronologically. In the above words, Hume clearly says that the repentance that is given in regeneration is evangelical.
Hume said:
"If I used the language that sinners were damned for unbelief, I would change the phraseology; I would make at read thus, "sinners are condemned because of unbelief;" not to be condemned in the future, but already are; hence the language of the Saviour: "You are condemned already;" not that the time is to come, but the language is, you are condemned already, because you have not believed; a matter already settled." (3rd reply on 2nd proposition)
Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Hume says that all "unbelievers" are condemned, and are not saved and regenerated.
Hume said:
"In the humble conceptions of my mind, all enlightened sinners choose Christ, from the fact that their eyes are opened, because they see."
Today's Hardshells will not generally accept these words of Hume, yet Hume reflected the views of the founding fathers of Hardshellism. Hardshells are not primitive in their views.
Hume said:
"If I know anything about Christian experience, I will say there was a time when I cared no more about my own soul than if I had had none. I had no desire to go to church, nor to read the Bible; I had no desire to hear any talk upon that subject. I was not seeking the Saviour; I was running away from God--sinning against him with a high hand and an outstretched arm; but I shall never forget, while I am allowed a place upon God's footstool, the first serious thought that crossed my mind upon the subject of Christianity. I have heard men talk about agencies and instrumentalities in this grand work, but if there was any agency in my awakening to my condition as a sinner, it was the abominable practice of blaspheming the name of God."
I again cite these words in order to dispell any charges from Hardshells who might say that I did not cite words from Hume that might show him consistent with today's Hardshells. But, notice that Hume speaks of his "awakening," not his rebirth in Christ. Further, it is evident that Hume, at this time (1863) was showing inclinations to deny instrumentalities, even though he affirmed that the faith that saves was a gospel faith. Perhaps he was like his fellow "Regular" Baptists in that he held that initial "regeneration" or "awakening" occurred apart from the gospel and faith, but that the "birth" did occur by faith and by the gospel. Perhaps he was inconsistent and contradictory. Did he deny that he was without gospel knowledge even when in sin, and at the time of his "awakening"?
Hume continued with relating his Christian experience, and said:
"At that time I was working as a hand upon a steamboat. There I heard the most blasphemous oaths that ever disgraced humanity, and the thought occurred to my mind what an awful wicked set of beings you are; and the next thought was, you are as bad as they. These men pour out all that is in them, while you conceal it up as filth. I ask you, friends, was I choosing--was I desiring? Surely not. But from that hour till the day I trusted in God, I was unable to see how God could be just and save sinners. I chose holiness and despised sin, and never shall I forget the last afternoon of the deep agony of my soul; it was in a paw-paw thicket, in the east end of this state. My soul feels deeply interested when I think upon that dark and gloomy evening. I left the spot with this conviction: hell is my portion; I am doomed, and there is no mercy for such a rebel as you. I went to the little cabin in which I was living, and I leaned against the wall and closed my eyes. Oh, Christian friends! if my tongue had been taken out by the roots, every breath would have gone up to God in prayer. Till then I was not seeking Christ, but he sought and found me. Christ revealed himself to me. I would say to every sinner, I care not what your names, if you live as Christians, have not these been some of your exercises?" (3rd reply on 2nd proposition)
Hume speaks of the time of his "awakening" as a time when he fell under "conviction" for his sins, when he came to believe that he was lost and needed to be saved. He speaks of there being a gap in time between the time when he was awakened and convicted and when he came to trust in God. The old Regular Baptist Hardshells believed that Hume was "regenerated" when he fell under conviction but that he was not "born again" till he believed the gospel and trusted in Christ alone for salvation. For those who are interested, read my chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction" regarding their errors on the relationship of conviction to salvation.
Hume continues:
"And here I will make an admission that my friends are welcome to the benefit of, if any can be derived from it; it is this: the 15th verse of the 1st chapter of Mark has caused me more serious study, more close attention, more intense application, and perhaps more prayer to God, than any other one passage found in the Bible; and I confess now that there has been no passage introduced into this discussion about which my mind is as unsettled: "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel." That is the whole text; and I can not, as an honest man, tell you that this address was made to the disciples; (people already saved - SG) consequently, the mystery in my mind is in regard to its application. I can not reconcile that single verse with the general tenor of Revelation upon the subject. The best I can do is this: I learn from the Bible that where the word of a king is, there is power. Jesus Christ was the king, and when he made this commandment, he possessed power to enforce it, and understood to whom it was to be applied. Now, if that is not the meaning, I confess I do not understand it. I would not know how to reconcile that expression with what the apostle says, in Acts v, 31, where it says that God has exalted Christ with his own right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Now, if repentance is an act of the creature, and if mankind possess that power, I can not see the propriety of Christ being exalted to give it. It is either a gift of Christ, or an act of the creature; it is not both. Here we have an emphatic declaration that God has exalted Christ for that purpose, not only to give repentance to Israel, but forgiveness of sins. This is precisely the view I entertain of the gospel plan." (1st speech 3rd proposition)
What was Hume's answer to his difficulty? The belief that the gospel command to "repent and believe" was the means by which God would give repentance to his elect! He said "where the word of the king is," that is what he sees the gospel command to be, "there is power," power as a means. This he says is "the gospel plan." Hume had difficulty seeing how faith and repentance could be "gifts" of God vouchsaved to all the elect, and yet how faith and repentance could be commanded of all men. He reconciled himself by affirming that the command must be the way God has chosen to produce faith and repentance, the manner in which he gives these gifts. Hume was honest enough to admit that the command to believe and repent was not made to only "disciples," to only those who were already saved and regenerated.
Hume said:
"The question, then, is this, will Jehovah require spiritual action from natural agents, and then damn that agent for not performing that action?" (1st speech 3rd proposition)
This is a question that many Hardshells continue, like Hume, to have trouble reconciling in their minds. They have trouble with Pelagianism, with the proposition that says that a "command implies ability." God commands all men to repent and believe the gospel. Hume knew that such was taught in scripture. Yet, he also knew that men had no power to do so, as a result of their totally depraved nature. The answer to his difficulty was to realize 1) commands do not imply ability, and 2) the commands are used by God as a means to effect what he commands.
Hume said:
"So with every child of God, when the evidence comes before them that Jesus Christ is their Saviour, faith is irresistible. You know this is so, when you believed in the Lord Jesus; you could not help it. I do not remember how many kinds of faith there are in the Bible; there is such a theory spoken of as the faith of men and the faith of devils, as false faith, as little faith, as great faith; but the faith I have in view here, is the faith of God's elect. I inquire, who has this faith? The answer is, God's spiritual Israel possess that faith, and nobody else." (Hume's closing reply on the 3rd proposition)
Did Hume believe that all the elect would believe the gospel when they heard it? That faith in Jesus Christ, by the gospel, was "irresistible"? Clearly he did. Do most Hardshells today believe as did Hume? Clearly not. How then can they claim to be "primitive"? Did Hume affirm that "the faith of God's elect," the faith which all the elect receive, was a faith that did not have Christ as the object?
Hume said:
"Acts xiii, 48: "And when the gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." I suppose the reason why the rest did not believe, was because they were not ordained to eternal life; for the text says as many as were ordained believed." (1st speech of first affirmative proposition)
Again, Hume affirms that all the elect will believe the gospel.
Hume said:
"In his other speech he told us that the gospel is the power of God to every one that believeth. No man believes that stronger than I; but mark, it doesn't say to unbelievers. Hence, before the gospel can be the power of God to a man, he must be a believer." (2nd spped of first aff. prop)
Here is another example that shows that I am being fair in my citations from Hume. In this statement he does seem to take the modern Hardshell view by affirming that one is made a "believer" before he hears the gospel. But, in this he contradicts what he has earlier affirmed. But, it is possible that Hume is simply affirming that the gospel will not save a man until he believes it.
Hume said:
"Respecting Brother Stinson's passage, "he that believeth shall be saved," the question is, how does faith come? Upon what principles do men realize faith? I read in the first chapter of Ephesians, that they believed according to the working of the mighty power of God, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead. What is the conclusion? It requires the same power to enable the sinner to believe in Jesus Christ that it requires to raise Christ from the dead." (last speech)
In these words Hume equates becoming a "believer" with being raised from the dead, and again affirms that being made a believer is the result of an irresistible act of God. Further, he defines that "believing" of Ephesians 1: 19 as being the same kind of "believing" of Mark 16: 16, which he has affirmed is gospel believing.
Hume said:
"Now, if it requires this, such exercise of faith is the gift of God, and not the act of the creature. Faith is irresistible. I ask you, when you were first enabled to believe, could you help it; when you were first enabled to embrace Christ, to rejoice in God? I know the Christian says, no; and I know you could not neither. You were glad to know that the thing was so, and you received it as the gift of God. This is the way we understand faith." (last speech)
Again, this is a denial of modern Hardshellism. He makes that faith which is given in regeneration to be a gospel faith, a believing in and embracing of Christ. He also says "this is the way we understand faith." Hume did not understand faith to be non-cognitive, or such a faith in which Christ and his salvation are not the objects, or such a faith that did not come via the preaching of the gospel.
Hume said:
"He wants to know, forsooth, if I believed in regard to the text, Go compel them to come in, that it meant binding them hand and foot, manacling them, and forcing them in physically? I believe no such thing. We remark, in the first place, that the language of God to the servant presented the idea that "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." We do not believe that God saves any man against his will. We believe that when the man is renewed, he realizes that holy will. With that will, God brings the sinner. Every sinner who desires to come may come; hence, the language is addressed to that kind of character, and none other. We do not believe in physical force, but in the power of divine truth, to overwhelm the judgment of the sinner, and obtain the consent of his will. In that way he is brought into the kingdom of the blessed." (last speech)
This is a clear affirmation of gospel means! It is by "the power of divine truth" that the sinner is saved or born again! It is by "the power of divine truth" that the sinner's will is conquered and won to the Lord and is the "way he is brought into the kingdom of the blessed."
Hume said:
"I will make a remark here about faith. I have a quotation, which my brother gave us: "He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." I will shake hands with him over that text; but does it read, if you will believe, you shall have everlasting life?"
[STINSON--I will find one that does.]
If you will show me a text of that kind, I will surrender. The point I make is, he that believeth hath everlasting life, being in possession of faith; hence the man that does believe in Christ Jesus, is already in possession of it, for he that believeth hath everlasting life. In the present tense, he has it already, and that is the reason he believes in it." (last speech)
Here Hume argues much like today's Hardshells in saying that one is saved before he believes. But, this does not mean that he believed that faith in Christ was not produced in being born again. He has already affirmed that all unbelievers will be lost and that all the elect will believe and embrace Christ. Further, there are many verses that say that "if you will believe, you will have (future tense) eternal life."
For these citations, see the "Stinson-Hume Debate" at
http://www.gospeltruth.net/Hume_Stinson_atonement/hume_stinson_entiretext.htm
Hume, in his debate with Campbellite Stinson, said:
"I understand, my friends, that the Apostle is here introducing, for the instruction of his brethren, a system of salvation that embraces the finally and eternally beatified in glory--I had like to have said, the elect of God. It embraces the whole human family that ever did believe the gospel, and those are the only men that will be saved; and we maintain that they will be saved. There is no mistake; God will not be disappointed." (1st speech, emphasis mine)
Today's Hardshells do not teach what Hume taught and cannot therefore claim to be "primitive" or "original" in their views on faith and salvation. Hume is talking about eternal salvation, not a "time salvation." He affirms that only "believers" will be eternally saved and that these "believers" are those who "believe the gospel."
Hume said:
"...then we can speak of the glorious gospel of the Son of God, saying, go ye, teach all nations; tell them that Christ has died and that in him alone is their salvation; let them know that he is exalted to give repentance; let them know he is the king in Zion; it is him that has died and that has ascended on high; tell them this gospel brings the glorious news of deliverance, and promises a home in heaven to all them that believe." (1st speech)
Again, Hume affirms that salvation is promised to believers in the gospel.
Hume said:
"Who are the elect? Why, all the family of believers." (3rd speech)
Again, this is not taught by today's Hardshells. They do not believe that all the elect are gospel believers and that only believers will be saved.
Hume said:
"Understand me, then: I believe that all persons to whom justification unto life is given, believers in any church, whether Calvinists, general Baptists, or in any other church, are involved." (3rd speech)
Again, Hume says that all those who are given that "justification unto life" are "believers," gospel believers, or Christians.
Hume wrote:
"Now, that is the generation of vipers that the Saviour refers to here; but did not embrace that portion who believed on him."
Again, Hume uses "believer" with those who are saved. Unbelievers are "vipers."
Hume said:
"I say God never has required them to exercise faith in him while in that condition. I repeat God never has, and never can, require individuals to exercise faith in him, in Jesus Christ, in that condition: for this reason, God never requires spiritual action from spiritual agents. Consequently, before the sinner can exercise spiritual faith or any of the Christian graces, he must become spiritual. To wind up the matter, in regard to repentance, my brother tells you, men possess the volition of will, and that they can repent. I propose to show that he is greatly mistaken. Turn to Acts v, 31; you will there find this language: when speaking of the exhortation of the Son of God, the apostle says: "Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Now, if that was the mission of Christ, the sinner can not perform till he gives repentance." (2nd reply on 2nd proposition)
I cite these words of Hume to show that I am telling the whole story about the views of Hume relative to faith and salvation. Here he clearly argues for an "ordo salutis" that puts regeneration before faith. But, this does not mean that he denied that a soul was made a believer in being born of God. He would have argued, as do many Reformed Baptists do today, that regeneration precedes faith logically but not chronologically. In the above words, Hume clearly says that the repentance that is given in regeneration is evangelical.
Hume said:
"If I used the language that sinners were damned for unbelief, I would change the phraseology; I would make at read thus, "sinners are condemned because of unbelief;" not to be condemned in the future, but already are; hence the language of the Saviour: "You are condemned already;" not that the time is to come, but the language is, you are condemned already, because you have not believed; a matter already settled." (3rd reply on 2nd proposition)
Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Hume says that all "unbelievers" are condemned, and are not saved and regenerated.
Hume said:
"In the humble conceptions of my mind, all enlightened sinners choose Christ, from the fact that their eyes are opened, because they see."
Today's Hardshells will not generally accept these words of Hume, yet Hume reflected the views of the founding fathers of Hardshellism. Hardshells are not primitive in their views.
Hume said:
"If I know anything about Christian experience, I will say there was a time when I cared no more about my own soul than if I had had none. I had no desire to go to church, nor to read the Bible; I had no desire to hear any talk upon that subject. I was not seeking the Saviour; I was running away from God--sinning against him with a high hand and an outstretched arm; but I shall never forget, while I am allowed a place upon God's footstool, the first serious thought that crossed my mind upon the subject of Christianity. I have heard men talk about agencies and instrumentalities in this grand work, but if there was any agency in my awakening to my condition as a sinner, it was the abominable practice of blaspheming the name of God."
I again cite these words in order to dispell any charges from Hardshells who might say that I did not cite words from Hume that might show him consistent with today's Hardshells. But, notice that Hume speaks of his "awakening," not his rebirth in Christ. Further, it is evident that Hume, at this time (1863) was showing inclinations to deny instrumentalities, even though he affirmed that the faith that saves was a gospel faith. Perhaps he was like his fellow "Regular" Baptists in that he held that initial "regeneration" or "awakening" occurred apart from the gospel and faith, but that the "birth" did occur by faith and by the gospel. Perhaps he was inconsistent and contradictory. Did he deny that he was without gospel knowledge even when in sin, and at the time of his "awakening"?
Hume continued with relating his Christian experience, and said:
"At that time I was working as a hand upon a steamboat. There I heard the most blasphemous oaths that ever disgraced humanity, and the thought occurred to my mind what an awful wicked set of beings you are; and the next thought was, you are as bad as they. These men pour out all that is in them, while you conceal it up as filth. I ask you, friends, was I choosing--was I desiring? Surely not. But from that hour till the day I trusted in God, I was unable to see how God could be just and save sinners. I chose holiness and despised sin, and never shall I forget the last afternoon of the deep agony of my soul; it was in a paw-paw thicket, in the east end of this state. My soul feels deeply interested when I think upon that dark and gloomy evening. I left the spot with this conviction: hell is my portion; I am doomed, and there is no mercy for such a rebel as you. I went to the little cabin in which I was living, and I leaned against the wall and closed my eyes. Oh, Christian friends! if my tongue had been taken out by the roots, every breath would have gone up to God in prayer. Till then I was not seeking Christ, but he sought and found me. Christ revealed himself to me. I would say to every sinner, I care not what your names, if you live as Christians, have not these been some of your exercises?" (3rd reply on 2nd proposition)
Hume speaks of the time of his "awakening" as a time when he fell under "conviction" for his sins, when he came to believe that he was lost and needed to be saved. He speaks of there being a gap in time between the time when he was awakened and convicted and when he came to trust in God. The old Regular Baptist Hardshells believed that Hume was "regenerated" when he fell under conviction but that he was not "born again" till he believed the gospel and trusted in Christ alone for salvation. For those who are interested, read my chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction" regarding their errors on the relationship of conviction to salvation.
Hume continues:
"And here I will make an admission that my friends are welcome to the benefit of, if any can be derived from it; it is this: the 15th verse of the 1st chapter of Mark has caused me more serious study, more close attention, more intense application, and perhaps more prayer to God, than any other one passage found in the Bible; and I confess now that there has been no passage introduced into this discussion about which my mind is as unsettled: "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel." That is the whole text; and I can not, as an honest man, tell you that this address was made to the disciples; (people already saved - SG) consequently, the mystery in my mind is in regard to its application. I can not reconcile that single verse with the general tenor of Revelation upon the subject. The best I can do is this: I learn from the Bible that where the word of a king is, there is power. Jesus Christ was the king, and when he made this commandment, he possessed power to enforce it, and understood to whom it was to be applied. Now, if that is not the meaning, I confess I do not understand it. I would not know how to reconcile that expression with what the apostle says, in Acts v, 31, where it says that God has exalted Christ with his own right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Now, if repentance is an act of the creature, and if mankind possess that power, I can not see the propriety of Christ being exalted to give it. It is either a gift of Christ, or an act of the creature; it is not both. Here we have an emphatic declaration that God has exalted Christ for that purpose, not only to give repentance to Israel, but forgiveness of sins. This is precisely the view I entertain of the gospel plan." (1st speech 3rd proposition)
What was Hume's answer to his difficulty? The belief that the gospel command to "repent and believe" was the means by which God would give repentance to his elect! He said "where the word of the king is," that is what he sees the gospel command to be, "there is power," power as a means. This he says is "the gospel plan." Hume had difficulty seeing how faith and repentance could be "gifts" of God vouchsaved to all the elect, and yet how faith and repentance could be commanded of all men. He reconciled himself by affirming that the command must be the way God has chosen to produce faith and repentance, the manner in which he gives these gifts. Hume was honest enough to admit that the command to believe and repent was not made to only "disciples," to only those who were already saved and regenerated.
Hume said:
"The question, then, is this, will Jehovah require spiritual action from natural agents, and then damn that agent for not performing that action?" (1st speech 3rd proposition)
This is a question that many Hardshells continue, like Hume, to have trouble reconciling in their minds. They have trouble with Pelagianism, with the proposition that says that a "command implies ability." God commands all men to repent and believe the gospel. Hume knew that such was taught in scripture. Yet, he also knew that men had no power to do so, as a result of their totally depraved nature. The answer to his difficulty was to realize 1) commands do not imply ability, and 2) the commands are used by God as a means to effect what he commands.
Hume said:
"So with every child of God, when the evidence comes before them that Jesus Christ is their Saviour, faith is irresistible. You know this is so, when you believed in the Lord Jesus; you could not help it. I do not remember how many kinds of faith there are in the Bible; there is such a theory spoken of as the faith of men and the faith of devils, as false faith, as little faith, as great faith; but the faith I have in view here, is the faith of God's elect. I inquire, who has this faith? The answer is, God's spiritual Israel possess that faith, and nobody else." (Hume's closing reply on the 3rd proposition)
Did Hume believe that all the elect would believe the gospel when they heard it? That faith in Jesus Christ, by the gospel, was "irresistible"? Clearly he did. Do most Hardshells today believe as did Hume? Clearly not. How then can they claim to be "primitive"? Did Hume affirm that "the faith of God's elect," the faith which all the elect receive, was a faith that did not have Christ as the object?
Hume said:
"Acts xiii, 48: "And when the gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." I suppose the reason why the rest did not believe, was because they were not ordained to eternal life; for the text says as many as were ordained believed." (1st speech of first affirmative proposition)
Again, Hume affirms that all the elect will believe the gospel.
Hume said:
"In his other speech he told us that the gospel is the power of God to every one that believeth. No man believes that stronger than I; but mark, it doesn't say to unbelievers. Hence, before the gospel can be the power of God to a man, he must be a believer." (2nd spped of first aff. prop)
Here is another example that shows that I am being fair in my citations from Hume. In this statement he does seem to take the modern Hardshell view by affirming that one is made a "believer" before he hears the gospel. But, in this he contradicts what he has earlier affirmed. But, it is possible that Hume is simply affirming that the gospel will not save a man until he believes it.
Hume said:
"Respecting Brother Stinson's passage, "he that believeth shall be saved," the question is, how does faith come? Upon what principles do men realize faith? I read in the first chapter of Ephesians, that they believed according to the working of the mighty power of God, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead. What is the conclusion? It requires the same power to enable the sinner to believe in Jesus Christ that it requires to raise Christ from the dead." (last speech)
In these words Hume equates becoming a "believer" with being raised from the dead, and again affirms that being made a believer is the result of an irresistible act of God. Further, he defines that "believing" of Ephesians 1: 19 as being the same kind of "believing" of Mark 16: 16, which he has affirmed is gospel believing.
Hume said:
"Now, if it requires this, such exercise of faith is the gift of God, and not the act of the creature. Faith is irresistible. I ask you, when you were first enabled to believe, could you help it; when you were first enabled to embrace Christ, to rejoice in God? I know the Christian says, no; and I know you could not neither. You were glad to know that the thing was so, and you received it as the gift of God. This is the way we understand faith." (last speech)
Again, this is a denial of modern Hardshellism. He makes that faith which is given in regeneration to be a gospel faith, a believing in and embracing of Christ. He also says "this is the way we understand faith." Hume did not understand faith to be non-cognitive, or such a faith in which Christ and his salvation are not the objects, or such a faith that did not come via the preaching of the gospel.
Hume said:
"He wants to know, forsooth, if I believed in regard to the text, Go compel them to come in, that it meant binding them hand and foot, manacling them, and forcing them in physically? I believe no such thing. We remark, in the first place, that the language of God to the servant presented the idea that "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." We do not believe that God saves any man against his will. We believe that when the man is renewed, he realizes that holy will. With that will, God brings the sinner. Every sinner who desires to come may come; hence, the language is addressed to that kind of character, and none other. We do not believe in physical force, but in the power of divine truth, to overwhelm the judgment of the sinner, and obtain the consent of his will. In that way he is brought into the kingdom of the blessed." (last speech)
This is a clear affirmation of gospel means! It is by "the power of divine truth" that the sinner is saved or born again! It is by "the power of divine truth" that the sinner's will is conquered and won to the Lord and is the "way he is brought into the kingdom of the blessed."
Hume said:
"I will make a remark here about faith. I have a quotation, which my brother gave us: "He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life." I will shake hands with him over that text; but does it read, if you will believe, you shall have everlasting life?"
[STINSON--I will find one that does.]
If you will show me a text of that kind, I will surrender. The point I make is, he that believeth hath everlasting life, being in possession of faith; hence the man that does believe in Christ Jesus, is already in possession of it, for he that believeth hath everlasting life. In the present tense, he has it already, and that is the reason he believes in it." (last speech)
Here Hume argues much like today's Hardshells in saying that one is saved before he believes. But, this does not mean that he believed that faith in Christ was not produced in being born again. He has already affirmed that all unbelievers will be lost and that all the elect will believe and embrace Christ. Further, there are many verses that say that "if you will believe, you will have (future tense) eternal life."
For these citations, see the "Stinson-Hume Debate" at
http://www.gospeltruth.net/Hume_Stinson_atonement/hume_stinson_entiretext.htm
Crouse - Elect are not Believers
Hardshells contradict themselves on the use of the term "believer." Sometimes they will say that the regenerated man is designated a "believer" in scripture. But, at other times, they will say that one does not have to be a "believer" in order to be saved or regenerated.
Some will try to avoid this glaring contradiction by saying that all the regenerated are "believers" but not gospel "believers," not believers in Jesus or in the one true God. All the regenerated have "faith," but not that "faith" which comes by hearing the gospel.
Elder W. H. Crouse, in 1928, wrote a book in which he tried to show that the historical position of the original Baptists denied the use of the gospel in saving the elect. The book was titled "Regeneration or The New Birth." In this book he wrote:
"They say they believe in election as firmly as any man, and that ALL the elect will be saved in spite of all the powers that may oppose. That sounds good. And they say they believe that everyone for whom Christ died will be saved. That sounds good. BUT they then explain that the elect, and those for whom Christ died, are BELIEVERS.
Turn back and read Elder Screws’ interpretation of this text and you will see that he states that ALL the elect who were to be given to Christ, as above explained, were those who should believe on Christ through the word preached. True, they try to explain that this belief is as much the gift of God as eternal life; but we know that the Bible teaches that men believe through the gospel (Romans 10); and they time and again cite us to this scripture to show how faith comes; and if this be true, deny as they may, salvation is confined to the scope of the gospel." (Chapter 1, page 34)
This book is highly valued by the Hardshells. But, it is easy to prove its errors. Crouse says that John Gill believed Hardshell views, but he clearly does not. Crouse even denies that Elder John Watson believed in means, but this too is a gross falsehood.
But, notice from the above citations, that Crouse confesses: 1) The term believer is not a term for the regenerated person, and 2) one is made a believer through the gospel.
Crouse was being honest in these confessions. Most Hardshells, however, will not affirm these things, but will rather argue that "faith is implanted in the soul when one is regenerated" and that "there are two kinds of faith," one that comes apart from knowledge of the gospel and one that comes through it.
When these Hardshells are asked - "what is it that the regenerated soul believes?" - they generally refuse to answer. R. V. Sarrels, Hardshell apologist, however, did answer it in his book on "Systematic Theology." He stated that the regenerated soul believes that God is Creator, Savior, and Helper. By this definition he was able to make pagans into "believers." The idol worshipping "Pygmy," he affirmed, had as much a genuine faith as any Christian believer, and was a "regenerated" soul. His "gods" were viewed by him as being creators, deliverers, and helpers, and this proves that he was a "believer." By this definition, Sarrels would call Muslims "believers."
But, the confession of Crouse is the more honest Hardshell position. Hardshells really believe that "regenerated" souls are not "believers." In disproving the position of Crouse, all one has to do is to show how the scriptures join faith and salvation together in an inseparable manner and to show that the destiny of all unbelievers is one of eternal condemnation and death. This, of course, is easy to do, for the scriptures are clear in showing the unbreakable bond between faith and regeneration, and that all unbelievers will be damned, and in showing how saving faith comes by hearing the gospel, and that it knows of no other kind of saving faith.
Some will try to avoid this glaring contradiction by saying that all the regenerated are "believers" but not gospel "believers," not believers in Jesus or in the one true God. All the regenerated have "faith," but not that "faith" which comes by hearing the gospel.
Elder W. H. Crouse, in 1928, wrote a book in which he tried to show that the historical position of the original Baptists denied the use of the gospel in saving the elect. The book was titled "Regeneration or The New Birth." In this book he wrote:
"They say they believe in election as firmly as any man, and that ALL the elect will be saved in spite of all the powers that may oppose. That sounds good. And they say they believe that everyone for whom Christ died will be saved. That sounds good. BUT they then explain that the elect, and those for whom Christ died, are BELIEVERS.
Turn back and read Elder Screws’ interpretation of this text and you will see that he states that ALL the elect who were to be given to Christ, as above explained, were those who should believe on Christ through the word preached. True, they try to explain that this belief is as much the gift of God as eternal life; but we know that the Bible teaches that men believe through the gospel (Romans 10); and they time and again cite us to this scripture to show how faith comes; and if this be true, deny as they may, salvation is confined to the scope of the gospel." (Chapter 1, page 34)
This book is highly valued by the Hardshells. But, it is easy to prove its errors. Crouse says that John Gill believed Hardshell views, but he clearly does not. Crouse even denies that Elder John Watson believed in means, but this too is a gross falsehood.
But, notice from the above citations, that Crouse confesses: 1) The term believer is not a term for the regenerated person, and 2) one is made a believer through the gospel.
Crouse was being honest in these confessions. Most Hardshells, however, will not affirm these things, but will rather argue that "faith is implanted in the soul when one is regenerated" and that "there are two kinds of faith," one that comes apart from knowledge of the gospel and one that comes through it.
When these Hardshells are asked - "what is it that the regenerated soul believes?" - they generally refuse to answer. R. V. Sarrels, Hardshell apologist, however, did answer it in his book on "Systematic Theology." He stated that the regenerated soul believes that God is Creator, Savior, and Helper. By this definition he was able to make pagans into "believers." The idol worshipping "Pygmy," he affirmed, had as much a genuine faith as any Christian believer, and was a "regenerated" soul. His "gods" were viewed by him as being creators, deliverers, and helpers, and this proves that he was a "believer." By this definition, Sarrels would call Muslims "believers."
But, the confession of Crouse is the more honest Hardshell position. Hardshells really believe that "regenerated" souls are not "believers." In disproving the position of Crouse, all one has to do is to show how the scriptures join faith and salvation together in an inseparable manner and to show that the destiny of all unbelievers is one of eternal condemnation and death. This, of course, is easy to do, for the scriptures are clear in showing the unbreakable bond between faith and regeneration, and that all unbelievers will be damned, and in showing how saving faith comes by hearing the gospel, and that it knows of no other kind of saving faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)