Deniers of God's Universal Love

Hyper Calvinists deny God's universal love to all men. They affirm that "God loves only his elect." This is a fundamental tenet. But, if this is so, then we can state the same proposition in negative form, i.e., "God does not love the non-elect." Or, "God has no love for the non-elect."

Further, if such a proposition be true, then other facts can be deduced from it. For instance, these negative propositions:

"God does not desire the salvation of the non-elect," And,
"God does not call the non-elect to salvation."

The cure for this serious error of Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism is to first administer a dose of Scripture which overthrows the proposition assumed to be true. Next in the treatment, is to show how God's universal love for all men does not negate the fact of his unconditional love and choice of but a small portion of men.

God's Universal Love for All

This is positively stated in Scripture, and absolutely inferred or implied in others. For instance:

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3: 16)

What "world" is this? Is it not a reference to the entire race of men? Is it not the same world that is condemned and in need of salvation? (vs. 17) The same world of men into which Christ entered?

Further, God is said to be "good" and "kind" to all (Psa. 145: 9), and this cannot be said to be void of love, that is, that they are not acts of love.  In fact, the Scriptures affirm that God's goodness towards all is an intended incentive to bring men to repentance and salvation.  (Rom. 2: 4)  The testimony of Scripture is:

"Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14: 17)

This "witness" is God's goodness and kindness to men. And, to what does it bear witness? Is it not to the person and character of God? Further, creation may witness to God's power and essential divinity (Rom. 1: 17), but his goodness to men is a particular witness to the moral character of God, showing him to be Omni benevolent, merciful, and gracious.

Paul, in preaching to fallen unregenerate sinners, in Athens, bore witness to God's general love for men. Paul not only affirmed that God was the Creator of all men, but the benefactor of all and this in spite of their enmity towards him. All along God has been a giving God, giving to all "life and breath and all things." Surely these gifts are from divine grace, love, and mercy. And, again, what is the purpose of showing such love to his fallen creatures? "That they might seek the Lord and find him." (Acts 17: 24-28) In this God shows himself to be "a faithful Creator" (I Peter 4: 19).

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17: 31)

According to Paul, God has given man "all things," so that no man can say that what he has was not a gift of God. Now, God either gives these things in love or in hate. But, the Hyper Calvinist cannot confess that God gives "all things" to men from a principle of love, nor of grace and mercy. Further, he must even deny that God's showing temporal mercies to the lost are acts of love.

Further, Paul looks at a special and particular gift that God has "given" to all men in addition to "life, and breath, and all things." What is that gift? "He has given assurance to all men" by his raising up Christ from the dead.

The word "assurance."

It is interesting that the Greek word translated "assurance" is translated "faith" or "belief" elsewhere.  Thus, the passage says that God has given faith to all men.

"If the gift be the nature of a proof or ground for faith, then it is a kind of witness, and greater than the witness of God's goodness in giving rain and fruitful seasons. But, a witness or testimonial is given in order that men might be persuaded of a truth. Thus, since "all men," and not merely the elect or regenerated, have been "given" evidence to believe, then it must be the duty of all men to receive the proof. Thus, those who deny it to be the duty of all the believe the Gospel must face these facts."

General vs. Special Love

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Timothy 4: 10)

God is the Savior of all men generally speaking. The question must be asked - "Is saving men an act of love?" Is God's deliverance and preservation of men gracious or not? Solomon said that "safety is of the LORD" (Prov. 21: 31). All the safety and escape from danger is of the Lord. Are these daily deliverances not acts of goodness and love towards all? Who can deny it? Will the deniers of God's universal love say that all the good men receive from God originates in God's hatred and wrath?

But notice that God is "specially" the Savior of "those that believe." Thus, it is Paul who taught a general salvation for all and a special salvation for believers, or for the elect.

Further, the sentiment expressed by the Apostle is not altered in the least if we substitute the word "Savior" with other words, such as Benefactor. In other words, "He is the Benefactor of all men, specially of those who believe." Though God is good to all, he is specially good to his own. We could substitute the word "Lover" for "Savior" and read "He is the Lover of all men, specially of those who believe."

Even though God "hated" Esau, this does not eliminate God from having any love for him.

In Deuteronomy 23:5 we are told that because God loved Israel, he refused to curse them. In this context, God's love was for his covenant people. The covenant people certainly contained both elect (e.g. Moses, Joshua, etc.) and reprobate individuals (cf. Deut. 29:4).

In Matthew 5:44-46 Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies in order to be sons of the Father. That is, by loving our enemies we emulate God. The example Jesus provided for God's love of even the unrighteous was that God sends rain on the crops of the unrighteous.

Common vs. Special Grace

The discussion over the issue of general versus special love is about the same as that concerning common grace versus special grace and over common operations of the Spirit versus special operations.

Did Christ Love All Men?

It is said in the law that men are to love their neighbors, that is, they are to love all men. Further, Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies. Is God commanding men to do what he himself does not do?

Did Christ Love His Enemies?

Further, to deny that Christ loved all men is to deny that he fulfilled the law. Yet, Christ kept the law, which means that he loved his neighbor as himself, and loved his enemies. But, these are facts which the deniers of God's universal love must deny. Is what is true of Christ the Son not true of God the Father?

As Long As It's Not Evangelical!

Remember how I stated in my latest posting that The Banner of Love periodical frequently publishes articles that promote the unbiblical anti-means pattern of salvation?  Well, a few weeks later another issue arrived in the mail proving what I then stated.  In the current January 2015 issue Elder Josh Winslett wrote an article entitled “Saved through faith”.  Since I was an enemy to the gospel for about 10 years I did not even need to read it to know the general arguments that would be made from Ephesians 2:8, cause I used to do the exact same thing.  The author’s primary task would be to interpret faith to be something other than evangelical faith.  From there he would pursue one of three courses.  He would either argue that men are saved by grace thru 1) seed faith or 2) the faith God had in Christ or 3) the faith Christ had in God.  One of the three, but certainly not the one which context proves involves the gospel (1:13)!  He takes the seed faith position, the majority one, throughout his article.

First, he denies the other views:

"Some have thought Ephesians 2:8 to describe either Christ's faithfulness as Savior or God's trust in His Son, or vice versa.  Could Paul be referring to Christ's legal work on the cross in verses 4-6, and possibly even verses 8-9? Possibly, but not likely." (“Saved through faith”, Banner of Love Jan. 2015)

And then he mentions his own view:

“…this is not an action performed by man, but instead, it is something possessed by the individual.”

However, a fairly new Hardshell website offers this alternate interpretation of the faith mentioned in the classic regeneration passage.

“The faith under consideration then, cannot be yours.  It is not your faith that saves you, and the next verse tells us that – ‘and that not of yourselves’.(Verse 9)

As we’ve shown it can’t be our faith, we conclude this is the faith God had in His Son, Jesus, to fulfill the agreement made before the world was formed.  Christ was faithful to be that sacrifice and pay that price.” ("Saved by Grace, but Whose Faith?")

So we have two different interpretations of one of the Hardshells' favorite passages, Ephesians 2:8, both offered from those of the Conditionalist faction.  I have in the past already called attention to this evolving view of Ephesians 2:8 as well as the general problems they have with this portion of God's Word:

The Faith of Ephesians 2:8
Consistent of Alternating Faith in Ephesians 1-2?
The Latest Invention on Ephesians 2:8

Winslett argues for seed faith throughout his particular article, while the pbgrace webpage feels it is the faith God had in His Son.  This demonstrates the confusion that prevails in the order on this subject as both views are being offered as an explanation to this passage (and others as well) which connect faith with eternal salvation.  Some believe the former; some the latter.  I would have to admit that Winslett gives what I would call the traditional Hardshell take on the passage ever since they became anti-means Baptists. Sinners are saved by grace through a faith which lies below the level of consciousness.  This necessary faith is said to be a gift of God, in contrast with the other unnecessary faith (i.e. evangelical) which is obtained by the works of the regenerate man.  The view held by pbgrace is definitely in the minority, but may be gaining in popularity.

Since those within the order who would assert that Ephesians 2:8 is to be understood as referencing evangelical faith are currently being ostracized, one might wonder why the opposing viewpoints above are not likewise causing a stir.  Why are those who believe that some faith which emanates from God is necessary for salvation not blackballing those who cling to seed faith, or vice versa?  If a big fuss is being made over those who contend for evangelical faith, then why not the same for those who hold to other viewpoints? The answer to this question is very enlightening, and reveals the true reason why such unorthodox explanations are being given to scripture.  You see, even though Elder Winslett’s traditional Hardshell take on the passage and the stance taken by pbgrace.org are opposed to each other, they both give an anti-gospel, anti-means interpretation. Therein they agree, and that’s all that really matters!  As long as an explanation of faith is offered which does not make it evangelical, giving some credence to the gospel means pattern of salvation, then all is well.  I noticed this confusion during my later years I spent among them. I would occasionally hear elders talk about how there was a kind of faith necessary to be saved, and that this was a gift from God.  But at other times I would hear them teach from the same exact passage that the faith God had in His Son was under consideration!  And yet this contradiction was and is being tolerated because both viewpoints, though different, nevertheless agree that evangelical faith is NOT under consideration!

The true reason (a point it did not take long for me to see) behind such takes on the faith passages of the Bible are not because of an honest conviction that seed faith, God’s faith, or Christ’s faith are actually taught therein, but from a spirit which has a previous agenda in defying means theology, and will do anything to run from it.  There is absolutely no way that the average Bible reader would approach Ephesians 2:8 and give faith a description which robs it of all the qualities which make it that very thing, reducing it to some sort of dormant metaphysical deposit which we just happen to call faith.  And there is no way that an average Bible reader would understand the expression “and that not of ourselves” as speaking of someone else’s faith besides our own.  Rather, he would see Ephesians 2:8 as teaching that faith is part of being born again but we do nothing to get it.  “Not of ourselves” means it’s a gift of God.

But as I write, this confusion and contradiction exists.

Seed faith?

God’s faith in Christ?

Christ’s faith in God?

Doesn’t matter which one is offered.  Opposing viewpoints are tolerated as long as they remain in agreement on the point that really matters.

As long as it’s not evangelical!

Will This Article of Faith Be Rewritten?

Elder Ronald Lawrence, who pastors Bethel Primitive Baptist Church in Tennessee stated the following in a sermon entitled “Predestination & Providence/Perseverance & Preservation”:

"The last time we read anything about Lot in Genesis, chapter nineteen, he is in an immoral relationship with his two daughters; they are going to bear two sons by him, and he is drunk. Hardly an example of perseverance. He did not persevere, did he? Obviously not." (Predestination & Providence/Perseverance & Preservation, Elder Ronald Lawrence)

 Yet the article of faith per the church he pastors says:

"We believe that such as are called by His grace and justified shall finally persevere in Holiness, and never fall finally away." (see Here)

So the sermon denies perseverance, yet the article of faith confirms it.   What sort of message is being sent to the members of the church when they hear one thing from the pulpit, but read the exact opposite when they venture onto their home church’s website?  Why, which one are they to believe?  Perseverance is true or not true?

More than likely the local church is thoroughly ingrained in their anti-means, Antinomian system just like most of their contemporaries and are in firm opposition to the idea that the saints of God shall persevere in holiness.  However, they have yet to do what most of their sister churches have been doing in recent years, which is alter this particular article of faith to make it palatable to modern day Hardshellism.

When will the word perseverance be taken out and substituted with preserved? And what about that word holiness?  Surely, they can’t have people thinking that only “they that have done good” (John 5:29) will make it to Heaven!  Lots of unconverted folks that Jesus failed to save from the habit of sin must be given a place as well, correct?  Yeah, the article of faith can’t possibly say what the word of God says on this matter:

“Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14)

So that needs to be omitted as well.

What the first Hardshells Believed IX

"If all the sins, that ever were conceived in thought, together with all the practical ungodliness, that was ever committed, from Adam to this hour, were together laid upon thee, the efficacy of Christ's blood is sufficient for the atonement of them all.  And if he gave thee faith in his atonement, thou wouldest be presented without spot or blemish before the throne of God.  On the other hand, if thou didst never commit but one sin, and that sin was only in thy thought, and if thou finally didst leave the world without faith in this Propitiation; that very little sin, as some might call it, would suffice to sink thee down into a world of woe."  (From the Dec. 1841 issue of "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," page 99, - SEE HERE)

Notice that evangelical faith in the atonement, or faith in the Gospel, is that faith which is necessary to being regenerated and finally saved.  No one can believe in Christ' atonement and propitiation without being first informed (cognition) about the career of Christ.  But, today's Hardshells do not believe, like their forefathers, that such a cognitive, evangelical, or Gospel faith, is essential to "the faith of God's elect."

Gill on the Causes of Regeneration

John Gill wrote the following on Efficacious Grace in his "Cause of God and Truth."  (emphasis mine)  Please keep in mind that Gill, in referring to "conversion," is not referring to what is distinct from "regeneration."

"If such a divine unfrustrable operation is necessary to the conversion of a sinner then the word read or preached can be no instrument of their conversion, without this divine and infrustrable impulse, because that only acts by moral suasion." I answer it is very true that the word read or preached is not, nor can it be an instrument of conversion, without the powerful and efficacious grace of God ; (here Gill denies the 'word alone' view - SG) and it is abundantly evident, that it is read and preached to multitudes on whom it has no effect, and to whom it is of no use and service. Some persons are, indeed, begotten with the word of truth, and through the gospel; and are born again of incorruptible seed by the word of God; but then all this is by and through it, not as it comes in word only, or as it acts by moral suasion, or as it is a mere moral instrument, but as it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, or with the demonstration of the Spirit and of power. The Spirit of God is the efficient cause of regeneration and conversion, the word is only a means which he makes use of when he pleases; for though he, generally speaking, works upon men by and under the means, yet not always; the work of grace upon the soul is not such an effect as doth entirely depend upon these two causes, so that, without the concurrence of them both, it will not be produced: wherefore the argument will not ­hold, that "he that hath it always in his power to resist, that is, to hinder the operation of the one upon him, must also frustrate the other, and consequently hinder the effect." For though the word, unattended with the Spirit and power of God, may be resisted, so as to be of no effect, yet neither the operations of the Spirit, nor the word, as attended with them, can be resisted, so as either of them should be ineffectual. And though the work of grace is wrought by an irresistible and unfrustrable operation, and the word without it is insufficient to produce it, yet it is not unnecessary; for it pleases God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe; whereby he confounds the wisdom of the world; and, by making use of weak means, he magnifies his own grace and power; he puts the treasure of the gospel in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power in conversion may appear to be of God, of his operation, and not of man's moral suasion."

Hardshells have historically argued that though John Gill advocated means in regeneration in his Commentary, written earlier in his life, he denied such in his Body of Divinity and Cause of God and Truth.  This claim, however, I have before disproven by giving such citations.  Notice how Gill clearly opposes hardshellism.  Gill, though he may have helped produce Hyper Calvinism, yet he can never be said to be a proponent of Hardshellism.

Brown's Admission

Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, in one of his responses to me, wrote:

"Primitive Baptists who attempt to argue for the justification of the description "Primitive" on the basis of unchanged doctrinal purity are blind to history. There has certainly been an evolution or devolution (in Garrett's view) of doctrine within the Primitive Baptists in reaction to controversy. No doubt about that from a historical perspective."  (See the Saturday, October 29, 2011 posting "Jason Brown's Latest")

I would like for any Hardshell to come forward and prove Brown wrong.  Again, who then is the real old or primitive Baptist?  Those, like Kevin and I, who believe like the real old Baptists or those who cannot find exponents of their doctrine prior to the mid 19th century?

Ricky Harcrow on the Means of Salvation

I have been receiving the Banner of Love periodical for quite some time now.  Someone obviously paid for my subscription ever since I departed the Primitive Baptists, all in an obvious effort to save me from my new-found Calvinistic beliefs.  Yet if there’s one thing I’ve learned since I have been receiving it, it is this.  The periodical devotes much of its time to propagating the distinct views of Hardshellism.  In many of the issues can be found an article or some short excerpt supporting their anti-means doctrine.  It has gotten to the point that when I receive a new one I immediately start looking for the “Bash Calvinism” feature of the month.

On the front cover of the December 2014 issue is an article entitled “The means of salvation” by Elder Ricky Harcrow, in which he gives his views on what I claim is the chief error of Hardshellism.   I’ve been in the company of Elder Harcrow on a few occasions, and must say that I always enjoyed his preaching and found him to be a very intelligent individual.  Sadly though, in this article is given a typical apologetic against the gospel means doctrine, and I feel compelled to correct these falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Harcrow wrote:

“I have been asked to give my views on the ‘means’ doctrine that so pervades the religious systems of our land today."

Correct. The gospel means doctrine does pervade the “religious systems” but not just those of today.  It is seen all throughout history, in particular Baptist history, which should give the author and his denomination reason to question their claim of being Primitive on this issue, instead of just assuming it to be the case.  And it pervades it, not because it is wicked leaven as the author wants to suggest, but rather a fundamental truth of the gospel.  Most all orthodox Christians, whether they incline towards an Arminian or Calvinistic way of thinking, feel that it is their responsibility to tell men to repent and believe in Christ, and that God saves through such.  Can the overwhelming majority of Christians for centuries be wrong on the very basic concept of witnessing to the lost?  Instead, they are to give the cold shoulder to anyone in their sins and wait for them to get some sort of feeling.  Then, and only then, can they be told about Christ?

Harcrow wrote:

“I think we have time after time given our views and the views of our people on such but perhaps the inquirer has not read such from our pen or other writings.”

What the inquirer really needs to know is that the pen of Primitive Baptists is writing something differently now than it did once before.  Were he to read after the pen of men who lived in the 1800s he would see that they generally believed in gospel means, the predestination of all things, and that perseverance was an acceptable term describing the security of the saints.  It was only towards the end of this period that these truths were exchanged for the entirely new conditional time salvation paradigm.  From what Elder Harcrow states later in his article, it seems that he has some particular inquirer in mind.  If so, maybe this person will stumble across this blog and be able to see the true, authentic Old Baptist position upheld!  He could see the much broader "views of our people", and not just those cut from the 20th century Conditionalist cloth!  He would get to see the “other writings” of men such as John Leland, Clark, Watson, and many others!

Harcrow wrote:

“We preach that the work of Christ through his shed blood is the means or avenue by which all sinners are saved and fitted for that place called heaven.”

In this statement and the one which follows Elder Harcrow’s strategy is to narrow the subject to deal specifically with the matter of redemption by stating that the blood of Christ is the means by which sinners are saved.  This allows him to then falsely portray anyone who believes in gospel means as either not believing this or that they are undermining the blood of Christ by giving the Word an undue place in the saving of lost souls.  Can the author or any of his contemporaries cite the name of a single “gospel regenerationist” who does not also preach that the blood of Christ is a means by which sinners are saved?  I say “a means” as opposed to “the means”, for the author’s intent seems to be that of convincing his audience that the death and blood of Christ are the ONLY means of salvation.  This is true in one sense, and not true in another.

Hmm.  What if I were to say that the electing grace of God is the means by which sinners are saved?  Or that the Holy Spirit alone is the means by which sinners are regenerated?  Or that the “direct voice” of Jesus is the means by which dead sinners come to life?  My confused friends, do you not believe that these also can be called means of salvation? They aren’t objections or additions to the blood of Christ being THE MEANS of salvation, are they?  No, they’re not.  Why?  Because there are other doctrines which serve to make up the grand subject of salvation.  One cannot dismiss gospel means by confining the discussion to that of redemption, but we most look at other areas, mainly regeneration and sanctification, for those too are necessities in a sinner’s salvation. “The redemption wrought and procured by the blood of Christ is the procuring cause (emphasis mine – KF) of all this  (John Owen).”  It is the means which procures all other means (e.g. effectual calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, faith, repentance, holiness) which are needed to make the people of God fit for heaven.

Harcrow wrote:

“Those who shall be saved were ordained to that great end by an act of God as the great architect of salvation.  Hebrews 9:15 says, ‘And for this cause He is the mediator of the New Testament, that by MEANS of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are CALLED might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Here we are told in no uncertain terms that by Means of DEATH…..they which are called (and no other) might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

What a weak argument this is.  For two reasons.  Simply emphasizing a text where the word ‘MEANS’ expressly occurs is no sufficient argument that this is the only place where the subject can be debated, any more than having to see the expression “Holy Trinity” in a text to argue for a Triune God.  If a bible text reveals that someone or something is to be the manner by which an end is realized, then that thing necessarily becomes the means by which it is brought to pass.  This is how we can say that Moses was the means by which Israel was delivered from Egypt, Joshua the means by which they conquered Canaan, the prophets the means by which the Word of God was conveyed to His people, the clay and spittle the means by which the blind man received sight, etc.  Moreover, the New Testament writers use specific prepositions that suggest the use of means: by, with, and through.  We are called by the gospel (2 Thes. 2:13), begotten with the word of truth (James 1:18), born again by the word of God (1 Peter 1:23) and so forth.  That which follows the preposition is the means by which the event transpires.

Secondly, it is a weak argument for it ignores the biblical texts where the means doctrine is to be found.  The Hardshell objection is specifically towards 1) gospel regeneration and 2) the certainty that the regenerate will be converted by the gospel.  But as mentioned above, Elder Harcrow cited Heb. 9:15, narrowing the issue to the means of redemption, which is only one chapter in the story of salvation. In order to refute the gospel means position, one must address those passages where the gospel appears to be the means of regeneration and the means of sanctification, additional steps in the order of salvation.  If the declaration that by means of death is sufficient to debunk the gospel means position, then why the need for the Hardshells to abuse and twist the language of such passages as Romans 1:16, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23 for the past century?  Would not simply saying that the death and blood of Christ is the means of redemption be enough to end the debate? I am quite sure the elder has his opinion on these passages, and I’m about 99% sure of what they would be.  The point, though, is that he doesn’t cite them in this article.  Consequently, the gospel means position is not really being addressed, much less refuted.

In addition, the author’s argument is partially contradictory for after intending to show that the debate can be settled by citing the death and blood of Christ as the means for redemption he proves that the discussion must move beyond this by stating sinners must be called!

“they which are called (and no other) might receive the promise of eternal inheritance”.  

Now here is where we can approach and discuss the matter of gospel means because he has introduced a subject around which the matter circulates. The elect must not only be redeemed, but called! And that call must take place in a certain way.  Whichever way it is becomes the means by which it occurs.  It is either by the Holy Spirit alone, the Word alone, or the Spirit and the Word.  What saith the scripture in answer to this question?  It says this:

“Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Rom. 8:30)

And this:

“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Whereunto he called you by our gospel (emphasis mine – KF), to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thes. 2:13-14)

Thus, we are called by God in conjunction with the gospel.

Harcrow wrote:

“Those who believe that God regenerates (St. Jn. 6:63), quickens (Eph. 2:21), and communicates (2^nd Tim. 1:9) eternal life through MEANS of the Holy Spirit, independent of the MEANS of men or of second causes, ask for no stronger testimony other than that found in the word of God.”

Well that's the question isn't it?  What is indeed "found in the word of God"?  As a former teacher within this order, I claim that the anti-means doctrine is not found in the word of God.  It is found rather in a set of preconceptions and premises which have been ingrained in the Hardshell mind.  This Primitive Baptist Grid is forcefully imposed upon the Bible each and every time a text emphasizing man's responsibility to his Maker is confronted.  The text is twisted and made to harmonize with the premise that has been judged in advance to be true.  We cite a couple of examples. 

1)     If a text mentions somebody “doing something” to be saved, then it can’t be eternal salvation.

      2)     If a gospel command is given, then the recipient must “already” be regenerated.

Eisegesis, not exegesis, is what is required to glean the anti-means theory from scripture. None of the passages cited by the author refute the gospel means position.  John 6:63 actually teaches the opposite.  Eph. 2:21 is not even dealing with regeneration. And 2^nd Tim. 1:9 simply says that God calls His people with an holy calling, but does not address the matter of how the call takes place. We have to turn to other places in scripture to find the answer.

Harcrow wrote:

“The gentleman who asks the questions to me says that our old fathers believed in ‘GOSPEL MEANS AFTER A FASHION’.  I concede I do not understand who he was speaking of and he does not say.”

I would like to know more about this gentleman who asks this question for he is absolutely correct!  Who is he and where is from?  Is he himself one among them who has come to see the truth of gospel means and the history of the denomination?  Or an outsider who simply knows Baptist history fairly well?  Our ‘old fathers’, whether it be referring to the Baptists prior to the 1832 split or the 19^th century Primitive Baptists themselves did most certainly believe in gospel means.  This fact raised by the gentleman utterly annihilates any claim to church succession by either the author or his order! The author concedes that he does not know of whom the gentleman is speaking.  If this is an honest, humble confession, then it is also a sad one, for it becomes an expression of the general ignorance that prevails in the order with regards to its own history.  But this should not be. It’s a very simple thing, for example, to read the Black Rock Address and see how the brethren, despite objections to mission methodology, nevertheless handled gospel means passages within an eternal context. And Elder John Watson’s The Old Baptist Test is the ultimate proof that gospel means was the original accepted position.

I’m particularly interested that the gentleman said our fathers believed in GOSPEL MEANS AFTER A FASHION!  Although this may be unclear to some I have a pretty good guess what he means.  The first generation of Hardshells did not believe in “gospel regeneration” but rather believed in a “gospel conversion” that was certain to follow. To them, conversion was no mere optional time salvation, but the completion of an event which had begun in regeneration. Though they agreed that regeneration was immediate, accomplished by the Spirit alone or the direct literal voice of Jesus, they nevertheless believed that conversion was certain to occur at some juncture, bringing all the elect to a real living acquaintance with the Savior.  Thus, they believed in GOSPEL MEANS AFTER A FASHION!  It was as certain to the people of God as was their election, redemption, and regeneration.

If I have understood the gentleman’s language correctly, then he should very thankful that he has been blessed to learn something few others have.

Harcrow wrote:

“However, I may have read after someone who claimed the name Old School or Primitive Baptist that did believe and preach the GOSPEL MEANS DOCTRINE TO SOME DEGREE.  I, personally, have known some along the way.  Many good and able men have gone into error and I confess that any of us are not above such.  I just pray that we may be spared from such a direction.”

So the litmus test for being an Old School Baptist is if they are anti-means?  In that case, no one prior to the time this objection began to dominate the order can be called an Old Baptist.  The Black Rock brethren, Elder John Leland, Samuel Trott, Gilbert Beebe, the Kehukee Assocation, etc.  None of these were Old Baptists?  Again, what does this do to any claim to church succession?

He prays that they be spared from going the direction of Means doctrine.  And I would pray that they be spared from going into Arminianism, Pelagianism, Free-Willism, Antinomianism, Legalism, No-Hellism, and Quasi-Universalism, but their acceptance of the conditional time salvation paradigm has already landed them in the middle of it all.

Harcrow wrote:

“What then is the gospel?  That is the question.  What power does the gospel possess? I say it (the gospel) is the POWER OF GOD to everyone that believes.  It is the message of Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone that is born again.”

Let me express it in the usual way that Hardshells understand this text.  The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that possesses “seed faith”.  It has the power to give a timely salvation to the one who currently has faith below the level of consciousness; a non-cognitive faith which knows nothing and is directed at nothing.  Yet the text affirms that it is the power of God unto salvation to EVERYONE that believeth. So even if we were to espouse this absolutely ludicrous interpretation of Romans 1:16 it would nevertheless affirm the evangelization of all the elect!  The gospel saves EVERYONE that believeth.  Or, in the Hardshell manner, it saves EVERYONE that has “seed faith”. Not just some, or a “few”.

Furthermore, if the gospel is the POWER OF GOD to the man “already regenerated” how can it be said that he may reject this message?  Does the power of God succumb to the power of man in this instance?  This is a glaring problem for the Hardshells who deny that gospel conversion is an act of God, but something made effectual or not based on the free-will of the regenerate.

Harcrow wrote:

"Jesus instructed his apostles to ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature’.  Mark 16:15-16.  That the preaching of the gospel is ordained by Christ there is no argument or doubt; it was and is.  It was to be preached, but it was not designed as a MEANS for the regeneration of sinners.  The Bible says, ‘And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word signs following. Amen.’  That Jesus called, qualified, sent forth, went with and worked with his apostles with signs, etc. NONE will dispute; but that this display of his power and Godhead either says or implies that God is in need of a MEANS or anything else to secure the great work of salvation, we deny."  

Question sir. Did God NEED to use Moses to deliver Israel?  Did God NEED for Israel to walk around Jericho seven times before the city could be taken?  Did He NEED men such as Paul and Peter to pen down the Bible?  Did all the Israelites who fought battles in Canaan HELP God secure the victory? Did He NEED the assistance of the tree in order to make sweet Marah’s bitter streams? I see this weak argument and caricature all the time in Hardshell apologetics.  They have adopted the premise that if any instrument is used in performing some event, then this means that God requires help. What usually follows is an appeal to Isaiah 63:5 where the prophet shows God looking but finding none to help, and then use this as an argument that God doesn’t need the gospel or its proclaimers to help Him save His people.

How many times must we respond to this misrepresentation?  God uses instruments, not because He lacks the power to carry it out in a direct manner, but because He has ordained it to occur this way.  How foolish would it be to say that since God is deficient in power that He must use the sun in order to assist Him in granting light to His creation?  Or that God requires the help of the male/female union in order to bring His people into the world because He lacks the power to just cause them to sprout out of the ground like hobbits?

Are these things not so simply because God chose it to be that way? Do you see?  The subject of gospel means is not a question of God’s power, but a question of how He has chosen to operate.  Thus, the lost NEED to hear the gospel, not because of any want of divine power, but because this is the manner revealed in the scripture by which the effectual call transpires. We "Means" Baptists, the real "Old" Baptists, have no spirit in us of wanting to help God, and shame on the Hardshells for repeatedly saying as much!  Rather, we recognize that where God has ordained salvation He has also ordained the manner by which it unfolds.

This charge actually (like so many others) comes back to haunt those who trumpet if forth.  Does God NEED the help of ministers to give His people a time salvation? Is He not able to just do it Himself?  Is there some want of power in God that He can’t convert His people, so the regenerate child of God must “save himself”, per Acts 2:40?!!!  He must "work" to get his own evangelical faith!!! He must "work" to get his own evangelical repentance!!!  Because if it comes through the gospel it ceases to be a gift of God, right?

How about it?

Harcrow wrote:

"It is not the WORD MEANS that I or my people object to but the unscriptural use which is made of it in dividing the honor of our salvation and giving credit for something outside the purpose of God in the salvation of sinners.  I find NO system of MEANS appointed of the Lord, outside His own work, to be used by men to AID them in their efforts to save sinners.  Call it what you will but a new name will not change the falsehood or heresy.”

We could respond to this statement just like the previous.  Who gets the credit when a previously regenerated child of God is converted?  We know that conversion is not of the Lord because means are involved, correct?  And we know that evangelical faith and repentance are not of the Lord, because they too require the preaching of the gospel?  So in gospel time salvation, God is robbed of all the glory, and the praise is divided between the preacher and the child of God, who “work” to get this salvation not provided to them by God!!!!! 

Until my deceived brethren come to see that God’s employment of means in no way denies Him as being the author or receiving all the glory and praise, they will continue to meet with these same gross Christ-dishonouring conclusions in their own system that they think result from the gospel means position.

Harcrow wrote:

“Primitive Baptists have had the charge laid against them that they do not believe in preaching the gospel. I will challenge those who make the charge to produce a man among us that does NOT believe in preaching the gospel.  I know many of them today and many who have passed off the stage and I have NEVER heard one say or imply that he did not believe in preaching the gospel."

I can’t help but chuckle when I read this.  Surely the author knows that what folks mean when they make this charge is that you do not believe in preaching the gospel as it is understood by almost every other Christian....you know, in the sense of having a desire to witness to all men everywhere, to reach the lost and point them to Christ for salvation.  So I will answer his challenge by asking him to produce a man among them who believes in preaching the gospel to the unregenerate. That's the point.

But what do we mean by “preaching the gospel”?  Do we mean calling upon men to repent and believe in Christ, or simply going around telling everyone that has a holy grunt that they are already saved?  Do we mean travelling to other places to witness to men of the Savior, or going to previously established Primitive Baptist churches and fill appointments?  Is it pleading with men to come to Christ, or just be converted to Hardshellism?

Harcrow wrote:

“In fact I do not know of a religious order on earth fact believes in preaching the Gospel MORE than my people who are called Primitive Baptists.”

So the man who endeavors to only preach to the elect actually desires to preach the gospel more than the one who will preach it to all men indiscriminately?  The man who will preach only to those “already regenerated” really desires to preach the gospel more than the one who preaches to both the lost and the saved?  The man who will only preach at a Hardshell church has a greater urge to share the message more than the one who will do it anytime anywhere?  And the man whose church only meets once or twice a month wants to share the message of Christ with others more than he whose church meets every Sunday and/or Wednesday night?

Yeah, that makes a whole bunch of sense.  Harcrow is simply feeding the pride of his Hardshell brethren here.  If it were true that the Hardshells generally have a greater desire to preach the gospel, then we must ask the question why is that desire seldom acted upon? Is it not because his theology and rules of church order prevent him from doing so?  If he felt compelled to preach to everyone, his conclusion that the gospel is not for the lost would prevent him from acting upon his compulsion.  If he had a desire to preach the gospel to an unregenerate sinner he couldn’t do so, for his views of man’s depravity tells him he’s not supposed to.  If he had a desire to preach in distant lands, his view that the Great Commission was given strictly to the apostles would run contrary to his desire. If he wanted to go to an “Arminian” church, he wouldn't because he knows that he would probably be reprimanded by his home church for doing so.

It seems to me that it would be a case of his head versus his heart.  He has the desire but this desire would be curbed by what he believes.

Harcrow wrote:

“It is fact however, that we preach the gospel for a far different reason than others who may claim the name Baptist or any other religion.  WE PREACH THAT THE GOSPEL IS NOT A MEANS TO ETERNAL LIFE BUT RATHER A TESTIMONY OF CHRIST WHO IS ETERNAL LIFE PERSONIFIED."

Here we see that “one and only” mentality rear itself as it so often does.  So now a person can’t even be called a Baptist unless they object to gospel means?  Even though it would still be an error, I kind of hope that the elder meant to say ‘Primitive” for to deny that anyone can be called a Baptist unless they subscribe to Hardshell views of the gospel and its purpose is about the most extreme statement that one can make.  Harcrow creates a false dichotomy when he says that the gospel cannot be a means because it is rather a testimony of Christ.  Why must it be one or the other?  Why, the very reason it is a means of salvation is because it testifies of Christ, the one whom sinners must come to know and trust if they are to be saved.  Paul writes in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation and then follows in v. 17 with the reason why.  “For” (because – KF) therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith.  In other words, for sinners to be saved there must be something revealed upon which their hearts and minds may grasp.  The reason why the gospel can save sinners is because it IS a testimony of Christ!

Harcrow wrote:

"This is common knowledge to our people but we suppose that some may not have understood the REASON why the Gospel is necessary.  Well here it is: 2^nd Tim. 3:16, ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God (child of God) may be perfect (mature), thoroughly (completely) furnished unto all good works’.  Can any sensible bible reader read into this anywhere that the inspired word is ‘A MEANS’ or ‘THE MEANS’ to secure the eternal salvation of the soul?  No, it is not to be found in this verse of any other verse.”

How can it be said that the gospel is necessary when it really isn’t necessary for men to be saved thereby?  Necessary only for the reasons here inscribed?  Are there not other scriptures which show that the gospel does more than just produce a mature upstanding Christian?  I could just as easily refer to a passage in scripture which states that Jesus is the Son of God, and deny that He is as well fully man, all because it doesn’t mention it in that one specific verse.  Emphasizing a text which shows that the gospel is instrumental in sanctification is no implicit denial that it is not likewise instrumental in regeneration or eternal salvation.

Actually, the learned bible reader does see MEANS in this passage.  He sees that sanctification is under consideration, and that this is a work which God performs for His people with the Word being one of the primary means.  He does not follow Hardshell doctrine, which fails to recognize that the grace which regenerates also sanctifies.

Harcrow wrote:

“Outside the doctrines of Grace all religions of men basically require the creaturely will of man to stand sovereign over God, so that no matter how much weight is given to God and His Grace, in the final analysis, it is the man who is in control of the FINAL decision of his salvation."

What a misrepresentation of those who adhere to gospel means!  There are without a doubt some who do feel that the will of man can overrule the grace of God in regeneration and salvation, but it is not this one.  Nor is it the view of any Calvinists! They are clear to point out that God changes the person, making him willing in the day of His power (Ps. 110:3).  God does not save him according to His will, but neither does He save him APART from his will.  The sinner does make a choice but it is a choice made under divine influence.  Salvation does not bypass the mind, nor does God deal with His people like robots, but rather with the faculties with which he has equipped them.  They think.  They feel.  They know. They choose.  In their opposition to any and all activity of the violation of the will in regeneration, the Hardshell brand of the new birth has become a changeless experience.

Let me turn this question upon the author and his brethren.  Does the will of man stand sovereign over God in conversion for those "regenerated" children of God who reject the gospel when they hear it?  Is it not the final decision of the regenerated child of God whether or not he is converted? 

Harcrow wrote:

“In their view there must be a MEANS other than the blood of Christ to make salvation effective and real.”

In this place Harcrow contradicts his own self, for earlier in his article he admitted the existence of the means of the Holy Spirit! Is the Holy Spirit not necessary as well to make salvation effective and real?

Harcrow wrote:

 “We say that if it takes another MEANS apart from the death of Christ then Christ’s work, by MEANS of his death, was NOT and cannot be sufficient. Amen.”

Again we pose this question to show the error behind the thinking here.  Since the Holy Spirit must regenerate the child of God for whom Christ died, does this mean that the death of Christ was not sufficient?  Must they not yet hear the voice of Christ and live?

All things necessary for the elect to be regenerated and saved into heaven were procured by Christ in his redeeming work.  The only way it could not be sufficient is if God were to detach himself from controlling the MEANS, instead leaving them contingent upon the free-will of man as to whether or not they become effectual.

Amen.

Is Salvation Offered To All in the Gospel?

Hyper Calvinists deny that salvation is offered to all in the Gospel.  They think that the fact that God only desires the salvation of the elect precludes any such offer.  I want to say a few things about this.

Fuss over the word "offer"

Hyper Calvinists make much of the fact that the KJV English Bible never uses the word "offer" or "invitation," using such a fact to deny that there are any offers of God to men made in the word of God or that he ever invites men. While this is true, it is not to be inferred from this that there are no offers and invitations in the preaching of the Gospel. One word generally used in Scripture to denote an invitation is the word "called." Of course, depending upon the nature of the call, it can either be refused or heeded.

"Called"

To be "called" may mean, as all know, "invited" as well as "summoned." It also of course may mean "named" as in "he shall be called Immanuel." In the New Testament the word "called" (or its forms, such as call, calling) is not uniformly translated from the same Greek word. Thus, each instance of the English word should be checked in the light of its particular Greek word. To assume, as do the deniers of offers and invitations in the Gospel (for salvation), that the word "call" never means invite is an error.

Another word generally used in Scripture to denote an invitation is the word "come."

"Come"

Though this is given in the imperative mood in Scripture, denoting what is demanded or commanded, it nevertheless does not take away from its also being given as an invitation.

"Whosoever will, let him come" (Rev. 22: 17)

Who can deny that these are words of invitation? If I say to a crowd "whoever wants to eat, come and dine," is that not an invitation?

For the word "offer" we can substitute "make available," or "present," or even the word "give," which is often used in Scripture.

"Give"

Who can deny that the word "give" (in the new testament is translated from several different Greek words) may be such a gift that can be either accepted (received) or rejected, and if so, then to give means to present for acceptance or rejection, and this is the nature of an "offer."

Another word that is essentially involved in this debate is the word "receive," again which in the Greek comes from one of several distinct words.

"Receive"

May mean to "take," which of course implies taking what is offered or presented.

It may also simply mean to obtain. Most of the time this word is given in the imperative mood and takes the form of a command. It is also most often in the active voice, and so means to welcome or to willingly take.

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 15)

"Called" here is from the Greek word "kaleo" and means, according to Strong, A. to call aloud, utter in a loud voice, and B. to invite.

"Might receive" is from the Greek word "lambano" and means to "take" or to "receive what is offered."

"Bid" (bidding, bidden)

"antikaleō" - "to invite in turn"

Luke 14: 12 "bidden to the wedding"

Since the word "bid," like the other words mentioned, may mean "to invite," then how can the Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists deny that all are invited by the Gospel?

Christ "Proffered"

If one reads the old writings of the Puritans and Particular Baptists of the 17th century, he will see how they often spoke of Christ and salvation being "proffered" to men in the preaching of the Gospel. What does "proffer" mean? Webster says the word denotes "to offer or give (something) to someone." Synonyms: extend, give, offer, tender, trot out.