The Hardshell God - Unable or Unwilling?

For everything that is God must either be willing or not willing that they are.  As Jonathan Edwards correctly stated:

“Whether God has decreed all things that ever came to pass or not, all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them.”

This is both biblical and logical.  But if God is willing that something should be yet it does not transpire, then the only alternative is that He is not able to bring it to pass.

With that in mind let me ask my Conditionalist friends within the “Primitive” Baptists a few questions, worded in such a way that really exposes what it is they are affirming when they divorce the subjective experience away from the eternal salvation of the family of God.

Is God unable or unwilling to bring the gospel to all of His elect?

Is God unable or unwilling to convert all of His elect?

Is God unable or unwilling to convert “regenerated atheists”?

Is God unable or unwilling to convert “regenerated idolators”?

Is God unable or unwilling to impart evangelical faith to all of His elect?

Is God unable or unwilling to impart evangelical repentance to all of His elect?

Is God unable or unwilling that all of His elect come to know His Son?

Is God unable or unwilling to save all of His elect from their ignorance?

Is God unable or unwilling to give all of His elect a zeal which is according to knowledge?

Is God unable or unwilling to experimentally sanctify all of His elect?

Is God unable or unwilling that all of His elect grow in grace?

Is God unable or unwilling to convert His elect at the moment they are regenerated?

Is God unable or unwilling to preserve His elect in holiness?

Is God unable to unwilling to use instrumentality for His own glory?

Is God unable or unwilling to ordain all which comes to pass?

Is God unable or unwilling to save His people from the practice of sin?

Is God unable or unwilling to grant what He commands?

What say ye?

Hardshell Devotionalist ignores Ephesians 1:13

A local Hardshell elder sends out a daily commentary (actually more of a devotional) to an emailing group of which I have remained a part for several years.  He has lately spent much time in the glorious first chapter of Ephesians.  In the past week he has written on verses 4,5,7,9,11, and 12. Curious as to what thoughts would come from verse 13 my hopes were dashed this morning when out of the blue he forsakes this verse-by-verse approach and jumps to the gospel of John and sends out a devotional from there. Wonder why?

Was this just where his mind was leading him?  Possibly.  Or was he hesitant to confront it, choosing rather to address another portion of God's Word?  Even more possible.  Did he find it difficult to place this gospel-means passage in a temporal framework, seeing that all verses before and after pertain to eternal salvation? If he did see that eternal salvation was established by the context did he see that it was hard to relegate the sinners' activity therein mentioned to the subconscious level?

Yeah, that hardshell hermeneutic ain't workin' too well here!

It certainly does present a challenge!

Elder Preslar on Two Seedism

In previous writings I have referred to Elder Hosea Preslar who was first of North Carolina (Bear Creek Association) in its early days and later a resident of middle Tennessee and friend of Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson.  For instance see my posting "Elder Hosea Preslar & Watson" (see here).

I showed that Elder Preslar believed the Gospel means position, which was the original position of the first generation of Hardshell leaders, including the Bear Creek.  Both Elders Watson and Preslar show that the "no means" view of spiritual birth was one of the foundational principles of Daniel Parker's "Two-Seedism." 

Today's Hardshells tell their members things about their history that are outright falsehoods (which any serious student of Baptist history will soon discover).  When beginning students of Hardshell history ask their Hardshell "historians" about Daniel Parker and his view on the "two seeds," or what was later called "Parkerism," they are told these things (what we might call their "talking points").

1.  Parker was one who rightly opposed the "modern mission system" with all that pertains to that term.

2.  His views on the "two seeds" was quickly declared as a heresy by the Hardshells and his followers were few, mainly in Texas.

3.  The "Primitive Baptist" not only soon disassociated themselves from Parker and his views on the "two seeds," but had no further difficulty with the teachings of Parker.

4.  The "two seed" view had one main error associated with it, and that was of an eternal devil.

5.  Another serious error of this faction (sub cult) was their belief that only the elect fell in Adam, and that the souls of the elect were eternally created in Christ (as a seed) and that these eternal souls or spirits enter the human body in "regeneration."

Generally this is the limit that the "talking points" choose to go.  Further or deeper investigation into the history or "Parkerism" is discouraged.  But, some soon discover, if they persist in their historical studies, that there was more involved in Parker's "two-seedism" than at first meets the eye.

Such further research will discover that Parkerism or two seedism spawned these other doctrinal errors.

1.  "Hollow Log" regeneration or "no change" view of regeneration.

2.  The denial of a physical resurrection of the bodies of both saint and sinner.

3.  A denial that the human nature of Christ was a creature of time, or began its existence when conceived in the womb of the blessed mother, Mary.

4. A denial that conversion to Christ was essential to being regenerated.

5.  A denial that the preaching of the Gospel is a means in spiritual birth or for final salvation.

6.  A denial that the Gospel is to be preached to all men and that they are to be exhorted to believe the Gospel and repent.

Now, the following form the pen of Elder Preslar will help show these things to be true.  Here is what Elder Preslar wrote about his meeting Two Seeders upon his move to Henderson county Tennessee from Anson County North Carolina. 

"From that time forth I was persecuted by some of those people, but I thought, perhaps that Divine Providence had sent me to Tennessee to defend the truths of the gospel, with others of like calling; and that we should suffer together for His sake.  To speak of all the distress this doctrine caused, within my knowledge, would be too tedious.  But for the satisfaction of those that are not acquainted with it, I will endeavor to give the reader a short, but plain sketch of their doctrine, though they, among themselves, seem at times to have it almost every way, any way, and as it were, no way at last.  Some call them the "Sadducees," some "Non-Resurrectionists," but mostly the "Two-Seeders."  Now if there is any system to their doctrine, or if they preach any system, I understand it to be about as follows:

First:  they hold that the foreknowledge of God amounts to a decree, because (say they) it could not be any other way, and therefore denounce the idea that Adam was able to stand, but liable to fall. 

Secondly:  They hold that the Church of God was in eternal union with Him, (not in purpose, but actually so); and that the church is composed of a family of eternal children, that was in eternal union with God. 

Thirdly: That when Adam transgressed the law of his Creator, and fell under its curse, that those eternal children fell in him; but not in the same like sense that the children of the devil fell. 

Fourthly: That the devil is a self-existent devil, or wicked spirit, and that, after Adam had transgressed the law of his Creator, the devil and his children, through Eve, began to make their appearance; and from them came another set of children that they call the children of the devil, or the seed of the serpent.  And that those wicked children are a wicked spiritual family that dwell in mortal bodies; and are therefore called children of the flesh, and that this wicked generation of children constitute the non-elect; and that those eternal children that were in eternal union with God, constitute the elect of God or the church. 

Fifthly: And as they had fallen under the law in Adam, that Christ came and redeemed them back again, and that the Holy Ghost makes manifest this to them in time, and that they are now renewed in the spirit of their mind, that is in the enjoyment of that eternal union they had with God; for (say they), there is nothing the soul receives in time, but a manifestation of what did before exist, not in purpose, for purpose (say they) amounts to nothing, but actually so.

Sixthly: That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address.

Seventhly: That everything must return back again to its origin, and hence, these mortal bodies of ours must return to the dust, and never will be resurrected any more.  They contend for (what they call) a spiritual resurrection, and a spiritual body, that was eternally prepared of God for them; and that this was the kind of body that Jesus ascended into heaven with, and not in the one that was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified upon the Roman cross, and laid in the sepulcher; adding that it is none of our business what became of that body.

Eighthly, and lastly: They say that all other doctrine outside, or differing from this, is unsound, is Armianism, etc.

"The above is a correct and concise account of the items or tenets of doctrine, I understand them to hold forth.  And as I consider their system to be heresy, and having suffered much, as well as many others on account of it, I here give my reasons in a brief way, hoping that Divine Providence may make it a blessing to His church and people hereafter, for of all the systems of heresy that ever I have encountered with yet, I abhor it the most."  (pages 179-80)

"Neither has he told us when or how the devil was made or created, but He has let us know there is a devil, and He has let us know he is a murderer, a liar, and the father of lies, and that he sinned from the beginning, and abode not in the truth; John 8: 44. This much God has been pleased to let us know about the devil.  He does not tell us he never was in possession of the truth, but that he abode not in the truth...Then away with the doctrine of an eternal, self-existent devil."  (pg. 183-84)

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

"But some object to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice."  (pg. 187)

"This is the new man begotten by the word of truth; yea, begotten of God; I John 5: 18." (page 185)

"And as to their views of the use and design of the gospel being for nothing but for the edification of the Church, and believers being the only subjects of gospel address, I believe it not." (Page 186)

He says that the gospel "is moreover to be for a witness unto all nations; Matt. 24: 14; and for the awakening of sinners, who are dead in trespasses and in sin." (page 187)

"...the other is the child of God, that was begotten by the word of truth; James 1: 14; I Cor. 4: 15; I John 5: 1." (Page 112)

"About this time there came to hand a work written by Elder Watson of Nashville, Tenn., entitled The Old Baptist Test, or the Bible Signs of the Lord's People.  Well, when I read it, I thanked God and took, as it were, fresh courage, for it contained and explained the very things that we were contending about, and I thought surely my accusers will now yield their ground...So along about this time, perhaps in the year 1858, I visited my old native State (North Carolina) again, and had one more opportunity of preaching to the members at my old association (Bear Creek)...I then made my way to the eastern parts of the State, and had good days among the brethren of the old Kehukee Association."  (pgs. 190-91)

"It was not long after my return home before I went to Nashville.  My sister having been afflicted in a very serious and critical way...I thought, now perhaps, I shall get to see Dr. Watson, the author of the old Baptist Test, as he is an able physician, as well as a minister of the gospel...I at once found him a plain and loving brother.  He took to his house and treated me with all the kindness of a father, and he and Brigs commenced waiting on my sister...I made brother Watson's house my home by his request, and he was a father, as well as a brother to us; he did not only board me free of charge, but bestowed much on me and my sister beside."  (pgs. 192-93)

Two Seedism in the Bear Creek?

Preslar wrote about his return trip to North Carolina (80 days) in the Feb. 11, 1860 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical.  His letter to the editor, Elder Temples, begins on the front page.  Here are some excerpts (see here):

"And while in my mother State, (North Carolina) and in my old section (Anson and Union counties) I met with many that seemed greatly to rejoice at my presence among them: and this being the region of my birth country (of both body and soul) and also in the bounds of my old Association (to wit, Bear Creek), I watched things closely...And although this was one view I took of the case, yet in taking another view, perhaps a large majority of that section are the professed followers of Christ."

"But in the midst of all this confusion, my desire and prayer to God was that the Bear Creek Association might be saved,--saved from the many errors by which she was surrounded, (her well known enemies) And also from some erroneous things or principles, that are now in her midst, or in her ranks, going under the name of "Old Baptist;"  but when named by those who are better acquainted with its signs and marks, is the old Two Seed Parkerite heresy."

Today's Hardshells, including the Bear Creek, though they may reject some of Parker's "Two-Seedism," nevertheless hold to its "no means" view.  Remnants of Parkerism still remain.

Tennessee Association Originally Espoused Means

In the previous posting I showed where the Powell's Valley Association of Primitive Baptists as late as 1879 still espoused the Gospel means position, which was the position of most "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists up till the Civil War and was still the position of many Hardshell churches well into the twentieth century. 

Most Hardshells who know most about their history will want their fellow cult members to believe that the anti means view was the view of nearly all Hardshells from 1832 till about 1890 when Elders Pence and Burnam (means side) and Potter (anti means side) butted heads in debate over the issue.  Then, these Hardshell "historians" want their fellow Hardshells to believe that the split that resulted from this debate showed 1) that the means view was new among the Hardshells, and 2) that those favoring Pence and Burnam represented an extreme minority.  But, the historical facts will not substantiate this Hardshell revision of history.

It can be shown that the rejection of the Gospel means position among the Hardshells was gradual, and occurred mostly during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century.  In this posting I will cite from the minutes of the Tennessee Association of Primitive Baptists, but first let me cite this from the web page of today's "Progressive" Primitive Baptist Tennessee Association.  (emphasis mine)

"By 1843, the Tennessee Association of Primitive Baptist was comprised of 9 churches in Sevier and Blount Counties, Tennessee. These churches embrace the original twelve “Articles of Faith”, or religious principles, that they had in their beginning with the addition of a thirteenth article that states: We believe that the Church of Jesus Christ should have no organic connection to any society or institution of man not authorized by God’s word. The association grew to include churches in North and South Carolina, as well as Tennessee, which totaled 22 by 1912. It was at the 110th annual session of the Tennessee Association of Primitive Baptist held at the Green Brier Church, Sevier County, that Elder William Brickey addressed the association by letter concerning the topics of: Eternal Two-Seedism, or Parkerism, Absolute Predestinarianism, Eternal Vital-Unionism, and Arminianism. At the 1913 session the association recommended that the churches which comprised the Tennessee Association to say by church act whether they adopt or accept the said advice concerning preaching of repentance to unregenerated sinners. Part of the Tennessee Association split off and joined with the Nolachucky Association and remain with them to this day. The remaining seven churches assumed the name The Original Tennessee Association of Primitive Baptist in 1914."

We are progressive in relation to most Primitive Baptists, we preach repentance to unregenerated sinners, have Sunday school, attend worship service weekly, have a mid-week service, and support footwashing meetings and revivals in each church."

When I was traveling among the Hardshells as a young Hardshell preacher, I visited with folks who were members of the "Tennessee-Nolachucky Association of Primitive Baptists."  This association was created in 1913 as a result of the Gospel means division.  Now, who held to the original view of the old Tennessee Association, the means or the anti means side?  Well, we shall see.

In the Association minutes for 1897 we have this circular given to the churches. (emphasis mine)

TO THE CHURCHES OF THE TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION:

Very Dear Brethren

We are glad the time has come when we address you in an epistolary way, for which purpose we have chosen for our subject - "Preaching the gospel to sinners."  We are glad to believe that you are a unit upon this subject, but we wish to stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance how "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24-27)  This is the language of our blessed Saviour to His Apostles after his resurrection and is today our authority as His ministers for preaching the gospel to sinners."  But let us go back a moment to the Old Testament and see if the prophets did not warn the wicked...Jonah preached to wicked Nineveh, and Jesus tell us they repented at his preaching.  John the Baptist preached repentance to sinners, and many believed and were baptized.  Jesus preached, "Repent ye, and except ye repent ye shall perish.  But while he was preaching to sinners and they drew near to Him, there was some murmured against Him, just like some professing Primitive Baptists are going (sic) today, calling us Armenians (sic) for preaching the gospel to sinners.  One of them (a preacher too) called the very language of Jesus in Matthew 23:37 Arminianism.  So if they call the Master of the house Beelzebub how much more shall they call those of his household.  But let us see if it was Baptists, or even Christians, that murmured against Him.  Nay, verily, it was the Scribes and Pharisees.  Now is it possible, dear brethren, that this same opposing spirit has found its way among Primitive Baptists, if so pray that good Lord to move it away, and show them that Jesus died for sinners, and would have His ministers to tell them so.

In the first commission the apostles were limited to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but in the second commission, in all the world to every creature, but begin at Jerusalem. Jerusalem at this time was the very sink of sin and seat of hypocrisy, and gulf where true religion was tried to be drowned.  The very shambles and slaughter-shop for saints, and, to heighten their crimes, cried for the blood of Christ to be upon them and their children.  Paul said they were contrary to all men...and yet they must be the first to have the gospel preached to them.  So when the time had fully come that the Holy Ghost was poured out upon them, Peter gets up and goes to preaching the death and resurrection of Christ to some of the very ones that crucified Him, and when they heard his preaching they were convicted for sin and cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"  And Peter again exhorted them, and they gladly received his word and were baptized, and now it does seem to us that any Bible reader could see that the Lord, by His Spirit, make the preaching of the gospel effectual in the conviction and conversion of sinners.

It was the same power that converted Saul of Tarsus that converted those on the day of Pentecost.  To Saul it was the word of Jesus without the apostles; to them it was the word of Jesus by the mouth of the apostle Peter.  To each it was the power of God unto salvation.  Jesus said to dead Lazarus, "come forth," and he came forth. Peter said to Tabitha, "arise," and she opened her eyes and sat up.  The same power that raised Lazarus raised Tabitha.  The same power that attended the preaching of Jesus to the conversion of sinners attends the preaching of His ministers today to the conversion of sinners, to the extent of His purpose in sending it. It is by his spirit and in His name that His ministers preach the gospel,  It is by His spirit their preaching is made effectual to both saint and sinner.  The power is His, the work is His, and the glory shall be His.

Stephen died at the hands of those he was preaching to.  Paul preached to sinners and he was a minister by whom they believed.  Some tell us that the sinner is dead, and cannot therefore hear the word of the Lord when preached to them.  But does not the apostle tell us that hearing comes by the word of God.  Peter says that we are born by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.  And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.  So then how shall they hear without a preacher.  Some tell us that there are two words or gospel - one preached by the spirit, the other by God's called ministers.  But unless there had been two Lords crucified, there could be no ground for two gospels, but one Lord, and in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.  Now the apostles tell us that the gospel is the power of God, the wisdom of God the word of God, the gospel of God, the grace of God-the Son of God, crucified, risen and exalted form poor lost sinners.  And now, dear brethren, if this gospel is not sufficient to save poor lost sinners we know that we are all lost world without end.

And now, if the Lord Jesus Himself and His holy apostles traveled and preached this gospel to poor lost sinners and many were converted by their preaching, how can we claim to be His ministers if we do not preach the same thing.  John Bunyan, a strong Baptist preacher of the sixteenth century, preached this gospel to sinners, for which he lay in Bedford jail twelve years;  not accepting deliverance on the ground that he would not preach it any more.  The churches of the Kehuke Association of one hundred years ago maintained that in order to the ordination of a minister, his preaching was to tend to the conviction and conversion of sinners.  The Tennessee Association was organized upon the same principle:  and her ministers have ever since its organization preached the gospel to sinners in the name of Jesus.  And by it the churches have been built up and God's name glorified thereby.  We will here give you a brief extract from the pen of Elder Wm. Brickey, in Towaliga Messenger, on which he says, "The apostle Paul thought it necessary that the gospel should first be preached to the unbelieving Jews:  How many of us claiming to be Primitive Baptists believe it necessary that the gospel be preached to unbelievers.  If we differ from the apostles in faith and practice, how can we claim to be apostolic Baptists."  Again he says "How many thousands of the Lord's people in all days past and present have borne testimony that they were convicted and converted under the preaching of the gospel by the Lord's ministers.  How can we get up in the face of all these witnesses and say it was all a delusion, and they were all mistaken.

So now, dear brethren, it is the spirit of Christ to weep over poor lost sinners and preach the gospel to them, and we rejoice to know that this spirit is with the churches and ministers of the Tennessee Association today."

Associations in correspondence with the Tennessee Association were the Powell's Valley, the Nola Chuckey, and the Hiwassee, all which previously also held to the means position.

The old and historic Cades Cove church was a member of this association and remained true to the means position of their forefathers, just like the Alabaha Association.

The baptisms of today's Hardshells descend from men who held to the Gospel means view, which is the original view of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination. 

Powell's Valley Originally Espoused Gospel Means

In "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee" by Lawrence Edwards (August, 1940), University of Tennessee - Knoxville (see here), a work I have just read, I found some interesting information about the history of the Hardshells.  Some of this information I will give in this posting.

Preliminary Observations and Comments

1. The facts here presented by this historian can be added to the other historical proofs I already have put forth and help to substantiate my claim that the no means view of today's Hardshells had its birth among the "two seed" followers of Daniel Parker, but was not the general view of the other Hardshells.

2. The citations to be given are from the Powell's Valley Association of which I was once a member when I first joined the Hardshells and one that is a close ally of the Bear Creek Association here in North Carolina, of which I was also once a member.  These citations will show the Powell's Valley Association, as late as 1879, held to the Gospel means position, though they were "anti missionary." 

As a prelude to the citations regarding the Powell's Valley Association I wish to cite these words of our historian.  It is from Chapter IV, titled "ANTI-MISSION BAPTISTS OCCUPIED BY DOCTRINAL DISPUTES."

"After the mission schism the anti-mission or Primitive Bap­tist churches lapsed into a period of doctrinal disputation that threatened their utter dissolution. Condemning missions as institutions of men unauthorized by the Scriptures, they withdrew doggedly into their stern predestinarian doctrine and for a few years were torn by grave doctrinal disputes."

All I can say is amen!  Anyone who has studied the history of the Hardshells know this.  Further, I don't know any man living who knows more about it than I do.

In chapter V, "THE TWO-SEED HERESY AND ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION," Lawrence wrote:

"The Two-Seed doctrine, which was beginning to occupy the attention of the churches in the early 1870's, continued to plague the Primitive Baptists, especially those of the Powell Valley association, until 1889, when a split occurred in the association. The Nolachucky association, too, felt the impact of this conflict, but no complete rift, such as the Powell Valley experienced, occurred in any of the other East Tennessee associations.

At the 1879 meeting of the Powell Valley association the tenth item of business said: Committee appointed to draft advice to the churches in regard to the Two-Seed doctrine, who reported as follows:

We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address. We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church.

But the Powell Valley seems to feed on division and dissension, for in the early years of the twentieth century it was again torn asunder."  (pg. 89)

Now, today's Hardshells of the Powell's Valley and Bear Creek Associations do not declare non-fellowship for those who believe in the Two Seed heresy of anti means, but are two seeders themselves or imbibers of Daniel Parker's heresies!  Those who Elder Watson (who is mentioned in this history) called "ultraists" and "modern innovators" are those who are of the anti means heresy and who Elder Watson and Elder Hosea Preslar identified as being an invention of the two seeders or Parkerites.  (See my posting Hosea Preslar)

Of course, after I found this information about the Powell's Valley, I had to share it with dad, who I am sure was shocked to know that the Powell's Valley believed in means till at least 1879.

What will you do with such facts, my Hardshell brethren?

Praying for the Lost?

Today's Hardshell Baptists do not think it is proper for them to pray for the lost, for any who are unregenerate.  Thus, a Hardshell pastor recently told me how he was scolded for advising a brother to pray for his rebellious son (who has no appearance of regeneration).  Many outside of the Hardshell cult will be shocked to learn that some who profess to be Christians actually think it wrong to pray for the salvation of the lost. 

Is the sin in praying or not praying?

It is a serious error to believe that it is wrong to pray for the salvation of the unregenerate.  Many Scriptures, as we shall see, support the practice, duty, and privilege of praying for the salvation of lost sinners. 

Before we look at those Scriptures which authorize the kind of prayers neo Hardshells think wrong, let us notice how it is a violation of the law not to pray for the salvation of lost souls.  Said the Lord Jesus:

"Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matt. 22: 36-40)

I know of no Hardshell who would say that it is not the duty of all men to obey the law, which includes loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. The duty is not to simply love some of our fellow men, as if we could choose to exempt some, but to love all men, for all are our neighbors.

But, how can I love my neighbor if I do not desire his well being? How can I exclude desiring his eternal salvation in desiring his well being? Surely not to desire it, or pray for it, is a failure to love, and is sin or a transgression of the law.  Hardshells, by not desiring and praying for the salvation of their fellow men, their neighbors, are sinning against God.  Notice these words of the prophet Samuel:

"Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way." (I Samuel 12: 23)

Because the Hardshells do not desire the salvation of all men and refuse to pray for their neighbor's eternal well being, they "sin against the LORD."  In Christ's stead I call them to repentance in this regard.

Christ our Example

Christ prayed for his murderers and is our example. So did Stephen the martyr. 

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men...For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." (I Tim. 2: 1-4)

Is it the Hardshell view that these verses exclude Christians from the duty of praying for the eternal well being of "all men"?  Who can believe that they would make a virtue out of their sin?

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom. 10: 1)

Who can believe that today's Hardshells vehemently oppose the common interpretation that affirms that the apostle was praying for the eternal salvation of lost Israelis?  That they think such a prayer to be sin?

Hardshell Prayers

Theology dictates the manner of praying.  Or, we might say, the type of praying reveals the kind of theology. A.W. Tozer once said: "I preach like an Arminian but I pray like a Calvinist."

Tozer reflected the sentiment of many believers in sovereign grace (Calvinists).  Some even say that they, though Calvinists and Predestinarians, not only "preach" like Arminians but "work" like Arminians. 

What the prayers of the apostles and saints of the new testament reveal about the Calvinist/Arminian controversy has long been a matter of debate and discussion.  The denier of Predestinarian theology will find it contradictory for Calvinists to pray at all, for why pray at all if it is already fixed and determined?  It is ironic that Hardshell Hyper Calvinists share this Arminian reasoning, although they would agree with Calvinists who affirm that Arminians belie their belief in the kinds of prayers they offer to God (which are generally like those of Calvinists).

Arminians pray like Calvinists

"Lord, save my friend."  This would be the gist of most Christian prayers for others for whom they fear are lost and in need of salvation. 

What such a prayer request reveals

Such a prayer reveals that the ultimate deciding factor in the salvation of any soul is the prerogative of God.  It shows that the one uttering such a prayer believes that the one for whom they are praying can only be saved if God simply wills and makes it so.  If God is already doing all he can to save the friend who is being prayer for, and is already as disposed as he can be to save that friend, then why pray that God save that friend?  Would it not be more apropos to Arminian theology to pray to the sinner rather than to God?

Said Spurgeon:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say, but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,

'Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a change, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them.'"

I am sure that every Hardshell apologist would agree with Spurgeon.

Hardshell Prayers

One Hardshell elder wrote this about our topic:

"I as a Primitive Baptist pray that those lost in darkness...Not eternal darkness either might be shown the light in the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ!...That they might know the extent of their eternal salvation. That they might be brought to the truth...The Biblical Truth!"  (see here)

What does such a view of prayer reveal?  Before that question is answered, let us first notice the Hardshell presuppositions that the above reveals.

Hardshell Presuppositions

1. Anything connected with eternal salvation is not to be prayed for
2. No prayer is to be for the regeneration of sinners
3. Prayer requests for the unregenerate must only be for temporal good
4. Prayer requests for the regenerate must likewise concern only temporal good

Hardshells Pray Like Absoluters

A typical Hardshell will pray, for instance, "Lord, save my friend (who is already born again) from error."  In looking at this prayer, can we not apply the same reasoning we used in regard to how Arminians betray their theology by their prayers?  Do not Hardshells (Conditionalist faction) betray their theology by their prayers?  Does their prayers not reveal that the time salvation of their friends is a matter solely up to God?  But, they do not  believe this, but like the Arminian believe that temporal salvation is not up to God to determine, but up to the friend for whom they pray.  Whether a man believes in Christ, repents of his sins, is converted to God and Gospel truth, perseveres and grows, etc., is not ultimately up to God, but is all the result of the will and effort of that friend for whom prayer is made.

A Sample of Paul's Payers

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."  (Eph, 3:14-19)

"I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."  I Thess. 5: 23)

According to neo Hardshell soteriology, Paul is being inconsistent to pray to God to do the things enumerated in the above passages, for it is not God who ultimately decides whether a Christian receives the good things listed, such as being strengthened to persevere, or to have Christ to dwell in the heart by faith, or to know the love of Christ, or to be preserved blameless to the coming again of Christ, for these are the result of the Christian's own free will and effort.

Further, note how Paul uproots Hardshell presuppositions and carnal reasonings by his praying for the saint's preservation to final salvation.

"by the gospel"

"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it (the mystery) is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;  That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:  Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.   Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;   And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ..."  (Eph. 3: 5-9)

What is meant by "partakers of his promise in Christ"?  Would not even the Hardshells be inclined to interpret this as relating to their eternal salvation?  What does it mean to be saved if it does not involve partaking of God's promise in Christ? 

However, when the Hardshell reads "by the gospel" he is at once prejudiced against the idea that eternal salvation is involved in becoming "partakers of his promise in Christ."  He must do one of two things.  He must either give up his anti means position or twist the words, take them out of context, and make them to deal with a mere temporal salvation.

John Gill wrote the following in his commentary:

"Now all these promises, and all others, are in Christ, yea and amen, safe and secure; and it is through being in Christ that any come to partake of them; and that by the means of the Gospel, as these Gentiles were to do, and did: the Gospel is a declaration of what God has promised in covenant to his people; this was carried among the Gentiles, and was made effectual to their participation of the things contained in it."

The other problem that Hardshells have regarding these inspired words of the Apostle is the fact that Paul says that all his preaching was for the purpose of enlightening all.

"to make all men see—Greek, "to enlighten all" (Eph 1:18; Ps 18:28; Heb 6:4). "All" (compare Col 1:28)...the same word used above (Ephesians 1:18), “the eyes of your heart being enlightened.”

 

 And what did Paul say in that companion passage in Colossians 1: 28?

"Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus."

Combining these verses we see that Paul preached with the purpose of warning, teaching, and enlightening and that his audience, the ones to whom he was sent and who he addressed, were "all," and "every man." 

These verses destroy Hardshellism.