Hardshell Quasi Universalism

Elder T. L. Webb Sr., wrote the following in his book "Little Things" (emphasis mine):

"For this reason I have said that every one that sincerely and truly desired to be saved in heaven, would finally reach that happy home. Can you ask for a better system of salvation than one which is sure for all that really want to be saved?" (page 20)

"One comforting thought in the above Scripture (Heb. 11:16) is, if one really desires a better country it is an unmistakable evidence that such an one has an interest there. I have often said publicly, as a rebuttal in defending our people against the charge that our system is not broad enough, that the system advocated by Primitive Baptists is broad enough to embrace all that want to be saved; and why should we think God unjust if He does not save those who do not want to be saved? What better system could we ask for than one which will embrace every one, in all the world, who desires the better country?" (pages 53-54)

"I believe that God is the author of prayer. I have thought, and I believe today with all my heart, that every person in this world, who has prayed, will finally be around the throne of grace in heaven. I say, brethren, these Old Baptists have the broadest system in the world. People say it is narrow. They do not know how broad it is. It is broader than any other theory in the world." (page 99)

"So I say that we have the broadest system that has ever been advocated here in the world. For different reasons the Primitive Baptists have the best system that has ever been preached in the world. How broad is it? It is broad enough that it reaches everyone that has ever prayed a prayer. Heaven will be their home after awhile, if they have ever prayed. Brother Taylor, I love this old doctrine. I get comfort out of it. It reaches me, because, if I am not mistaken, I have, a few times in my life, tried to pray to God, and if I have really prayed, God is the author of that prayer and heaven will be my home after awhile. God answers all prayer." (page 100)

Now, is this not quasi universalism? Do the Hardshells not believe that only a very few people are going to Hell?

(p.s. I am sorry to have learned of the death of Elder T.L. Webb Jr. I met him years ago. He passed away in July. Elder Webb Sr. was an associate editor of "The Primitive Baptist" and worked with Elder C.H. Cayce in Arkansas. He lived in Arkansas and Tennessee as well as North Carolina. In 1941, when his book "Little Things" was published, he was a member here in the Bear Creek association)

Rebutting Hardshell Arguments (3)

In this third post I will continue to critique an Internet treatise titled "Primitive Baptist Church: Bible Basic Doctrines" (See here) authored by Elders Johnson Vernon, Michael Ivy, and Don Watson, and found at the web page of Denton Primitive Baptist Church (www.dentonpbc.org). We are still looking at the section titled "Relationship Between Belief and New Birth"  (pgs. 112-113).

Next, they wrote:

"F. John 10:26-28, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." In this passage the sheep are those to whom Christ gives eternal life. Those who are not given eternal life do not believe. Only those who are given eternal life believe, thus belief is the evidence of the fact that God has given us eternal life (new birth)."

My Response

In all the scriptures these three apologists for Hardshell Hyper Calvinism have brought forth as proofs for their belief that 1) regeneration or rebirth or quickening precedes faith and repentance and that 2) faith and repentance are not necessary conditions for being regenerated or eternally saved, none actually affirm those propositions, but actually deny them. The above text, ironically, does not deny that believing in Christ is a necessary condition for being one of the sheep of the Lord as these authors surmise. Rather, again, they teach just the opposite, affirming that faith in Christ and following him are necessary for being a sheep in the sheepfold of Christ. It is bewildering how anyone could read the above words of Christ and come away saying that faith in Christ is not necessary for being eternally saved.

How does Christ describe and define a sheep of his? 

First, he says that they hear his voice. By "hearing" he means more than just mere hearing but means hearing in the sense of paying attention to the voice of Christ, to heeding it, and following it. That is clear from the context. 

Second, he says that they "follow" Christ and his voice. So, the voice cannot be some voice heard on a sub-conscious level so as not to be understood cognitively. Sheep when they hear the voice of their shepherd respond to it for it commands them. Further, following is what disciples do, and so one cannot be a sheep if one is not a disciple of Jesus. 

Third, the sheep have an intimate relationship with their shepherd. He knows the sheep and the sheep know him. So, to be a sheep one must have an intimate relationship with the shepherd, that being what it means to "know" another. The idea that a person can be a sheep without knowing the shepherd (the Hardshell idea) is ridiculous. 

Fourth, Jesus also says that the voice of a "stranger" (or another shepherd unfamiliar to the sheep) will not be followed, and the sheep will flee from him. (vs. 5) This shows that the sheep are they who remain followers of Christ.

Recall our logical formula which says "If P, then Q"; And, therefore, "if not Q, then not P." So, if you are a sheep, then you will be a follower of Christ, which is what is the essence of faith. You will know Christ and know his voice and heed that voice. If you do not follow Christ, do not know him, and do not heed his voice, then you are not a sheep. Sheep follow their shepherd because they know and trust him. If you follow another Savior or God, then you are not of the sheep, a proposition denied by most Hardshells who say that many of the sheep (regenerated) remain believers in false gods and do not know Christ nor believe in him.

Where in the text does Christ say that the sheep have everlasting life before or apart from their knowing and believing and following Christ the Shepherd? Answer: no place. Hardshells say that many who do not know Jesus and who follow other gods are sheep as Christ describes them. Huh? In this post (here) I give several citations where Hardshell leaders have affirmed this very thing. In this post (here) I cited these words from Elder T.L. Webb Sr.:

"I believe that God is the author of prayer. I have thought, and I believe today with all my heart, that every person in this world, who has prayed, will finally be around the throne of grace in heaven."

So, every religious person in the world is a regenerated, born again, sheep of Christ!

Next, they wrote: 

"G. John 13:37, 38, "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" It is not the miracles we see with our natural eyes that enable or entice us to believe, but it is the miracle performed within us (new birth) that enables or causes us to believe. God must first cause us to be born again (reveal his holy arm within us) and then we can "believe the report.""

My Response

What an unscholarly commentary! First, the text cited is from John chapter twelve, not thirteen. Second, these Hardshell apologists read things into the text that are not there and make statements on the text that are foreign to it. In a recent series, where I gave a critique of another Hardshell apologist (Elder Harvey) who argued that when Jesus said the Sodomites would have repented had they seen the miracles Christ was doing that this proved that the Sodomites were children of God. (See here) Well, if the above authors are correct, the Sodomites did have the greatest miracle of all, i.e. the new birth. Third, verse 36, which I cited in the previous chapter, and which the authors of the treatise we are now examining left out, goes against what they say in their commentary on verses 37-38 in the above citation! In it Jesus says "believe in the light that you may children of the light." So, if faith precedes becoming birthed children of God in verse 36, why do the above authors say that verses 37-38 teach the reverse? 

Next, they wrote:

"H. 1 John 5:1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Once again, "believeth" is in the present tense and "is born" is in the past tense, thus again showing us that the new birth precedes belief and in this case "belief that Jesus is the Christ." Plainly it can be seen from the several verses quoted that John taught that the new birth comes before belief." 

This argument has been often made by those who believe that the new birth precedes faith. I have shown however that this argument is weak and does not prove that the birth preceded the believing of the text. (See these posts here, here, here, here) I give examples where a present participle is used with a perfect verb and where it is evident that the action of the verb did not precede the action of the participle, such as in this sentence:

"All thinking people (present active participle) have realized (perfect passive) this truth." 

Here we see where the verb realized did not occur before the thinking, but was the result of the thinking. I could also say - "whoever is saying such things has shown himself to be a fool" where the participle "whoever is saying" is a present tense participle and "has shown" is a perfect tense. In that sentence the saying action of the participle preceded the verb has shown. 

I also show that it is likely that the present tense participle (the ones believing) is a universal or gnomic present tense so that a past tense believing is included in the present tense, and so the text may be read thusly - "whoever has believed and who continues to believe has been born of God." I even cited Daniel Wallace, Greek scholar, who wrote the following:

“The gnomic present is distinct from the customary present in that customary present refers to a regularly recurring action while the gnomic present refers to a general, timeless fact…The gnomic present is generally atemporal.”

That is probably the case with I John 5: 1 and I John 2: 29. Said Wallace further:

"Further, the present participle, especially in such formulaic expression Πᾶς ὁ + present participle and the like, routinely belong here." (Greek Grammar here)

Πᾶς ὁ + present participle is what we have in I John 5: 1 and Wallace says such expression "routinely belongs" to such a gnomic class of present tense. 

The text says "whoever is believing continually that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." We can write the same sentence this way: "whoever is not believing continually that Jesus is the Christ has not been born of God." Can we say that the unborn state preceded and caused the unbelieving state? 

John is affirming that those who are not believers have not been born of God. John's purpose is not to establish an ordo salutis. His purpose is to identify those who have been born of God. John is not in the above text contradicting what he wrote elsewhere. In John 1: 12-13 he plainly says that people received Christ and believed in him and as a result Christ gave them the right or privilege to become the birth children of God, saying that those who received him were born of God when they received him. He recorded the words of Jesus who said "believe in the light that you may become sons of light." (John 12: 36) 

Also, folks who believe that the text teaches that the birth precedes the believing will say that the perfect tense means that something that happened in the past has present effects. That is true. However, they err when they say that the effect implied is the believing, when in fact the birth itself or becoming children of God thereby, is the continued effect. 

In the first post in this short series I cited what the authors said about John 1: 12-13 and focused in on how they omitted very important parts of this text, parts that contradicted their interpretation. They actually did it more than once. In another section of their work they wrote:

"Similarly, John 1:11-13 teaches us that God is sovereign in bringing about the new birth: "He came unto his own...even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." This passage teaches the Sovereignty of God in causing us to be born again by first ruling all other possible causes. First, man's belief is ruled out as a cause for the passage shows that the birth took place prior to man's belief. This leaves us with the only logical conclusion that belief cannot be a cause of the new birth...Fourthly, the new birth is not the result of man's will or choice. Thus, man does not choose to be born again and because of his choice the new birth comes about. " (pgs. 101-102)

Notice the ellipsis once again (the...). They again left out the part that says "to as many as received him to them gave he the right to become children of God." I wrote about how the Hardshells have often used the ellipsis to take words out of context, whether it be from texts of scripture or texts from human writings. This is a tactic of dishonest people. See these posts here, here, here where I give examples of this. 

Man's will is not excluded in his being saved, quickened, born again, or regenerated. John 1: 12-13 does not exclude the will of the one being born of God. How do I know that? First, because the text says that people "receive" and "believe" Christ in order for them to be given the privilege of becoming begotten children of God and members of the family of God. People choose to receive and believe. Both those words in the Greek are in the active voice which means that those people were the ones who actively did those two things and not passively. 

Second, it is true that one cannot be saved or born again by the will of the flesh, which means it is not a choice that is originated by an impulse coming from the depraved nature of the sinner nor the result of natural generation. It is also true that no one can be saved or born again by the will of another person, such as a parent. But, this does not exclude God working in a sinner "to will" to receive Christ and to believe in him, and a will to be saved or born again. (Phil. 2: 13) The Psalmist said "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" (110: 3) and Paul says that sinners willingly and actively "believe" when God exerts "the working of his mighty power" (Eph. 1: 19) to make that happen.

In the Hardshell doctrinal treatise I am examining the authors have a section where they correctly say that being born again is also described as being "circumcised in heart." People choose, by God's grace and working, for that to happen. Moses told Israel, “Circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.” (Deut. 10:16) Jeremiah exhorted: 

"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)

Commented Dr. Gill:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart - Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it." (Gill's Commentary)

See my posting on spiritual circumcision (here).

So, it is not against scripture for sinners, by God's grace and inner working, to will for God to circumcise their hearts, to make them new men, transform them, to give them repentance and faith. We are told in scripture that "whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Joel 2: 32; Acts 2: 21; Rom. 10: 13). Surely people do that because they willed or chose to do so.

Jesus also said that people "come" to the Lord (which is equated with believing in him) because they willed to do so. So Jesus said to some alien sinners - "you will not come to me that you might have life." (John 5: 40) The Bible speaks of a "willing mind" (II Cor. 8: 12) and surely the grace of God at work in a sinner's heart preparatory to his regeneration produces such. Paul said "to will is present with me" and that was a will to do God's will. (Rom. 7: 18) The question for my Hardshell friends is this - can God produce a willing mind before regeneration? If not, why not? Solomon said "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord" to turn it in whatever direction the Lord pleases. (Prov. 21: 1). Christians sing "Oh happy day! That fixed my choice on thee my Savior and my God." Even Hardshells sing this song. 

Answering a Hardshell Polemic (3)

I probably should not have titled this short series using the word "polemic" because Elder Harvey did not give a scriptural or rational defense of Hardshellism's unscriptural propositions, but simply stated them, in his attempt to give the reason why Hardshells are not Calvinists. Of course, they are Calvinists, because they believe in the five points of Calvinism and because they are not Arminians. They are in fact Hyper Calvinists because they hold to the tenets of Hyper Calvinism, tenets that increased through the years since its first rise at the start of the seventeenth century. In Hassell's History we find both Hassells, father and son, speaking well of Calvinism and not disdaining it. My own father who was a "Primitive Baptist" minister for over fifty five years took issue with those Hardshells who refused to identify themselves as Calvinists. In Hassell's History we read these words:

"Prof. Henry Drummond, in his recent able work entitled "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," has some admirable pages unanswerably evincing the united and harmonious testimony of both science and Scripture to the truth of the Pauline or Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrine of salvation, and I will now give the substance of some of his remarks upon this subject..." (Chapter twelve, page 404)

Tenets of Hyper Calvinism

In my post titled "Evolutionary History of Hyper Calvinism" (here) I gave a list of the various tenets of Hyper Calvinism as they have accumulated over the centuries. In that post I gave Dr. Phil Johnson's list of those tenets as follows:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, 

2. OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, 

3. OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), 

4. OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” 

5. OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect. 

I have a longer list which adds to the above.

1. Regeneration before faith and conversion 

2. Regeneration (which is a part of sanctification) is before justification

3. Total depravity denotes physical, as well as moral, disability

4. Commands or imperatives imply ability

5. God has no will or desire for the salvation of the non elect

6. There are no conditions for salvation (like in election)

7. Hardshellism - elect saved apart from faith and all human means

8. The written word of God is no means in regeneration or eternal salvation

Tenet number one would indict Phil Johnson for he believes that regeneration or rebirth precedes faith, and if so, then he must also believe that the gospel or word of God is no means in regeneration. This view also makes him believe tenet number two as well as the first part of number eight. 

The first proposition of Hyper Calvinism was articulated by Josehp Hussey in 1707 in his book "God's Operations Of Grace But No Offers Of His Grace," wherein he argued against the idea that gospel ministers should universally or conditionally invite or call every single hearer to believe in or accept Christ, or that God actively offers saving grace to those who ultimately perish. 

The next proposition of Hyper Calvinism was the denial of "duty faith," that it was the obligation of all men to believe the word of God and to believe in Christ. I have several posts on this question in this blog. (See here, here, here, here) If men are not required to believe in Christ or the Bible, then it is no sin for any not to believe it. So, rejecting Christ and the word of God is no sin. If the Bible says it is a sin to reject God, Christ, and the word of God, then it must be because God commands it. So, let us show that all men are commanded to believe and repent. Wrote the apostle John:

"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." (I John 3: 23 kjv)

The apostle Paul preached to the Athenian idolaters and said:

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31 nkjv)

Those initial propositions of the Hyper Calvinists naturally led to others, such as the belief that God shows no grace (or common grace) to the non-elect, and has no love for them, and is why they say that no offers of salvation are given to them in preaching. It also led to the idea that there are no conditions for being saved, affirming that men must be first saved or regenerated before they can believe, repent, come to Jesus, receive Christ, etc. Andrew Fuller unloaded on the Hyper Calvinists who taught these things. His famous treatise "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, or, The Duty of Sinners to Believe in Jesus Christ" refutes these tenets of Hyper Calvinists. The title of his work is taken from that apostle Paul's words to Timothy:

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (I Tim. 1: 15 kjv)

Not all the first generation of Hardshell Baptists rejected duty faith. In an article in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1839, titled "Duty Faith & Repentance. An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray," (see here) Elder Samuel Trott wrote:  (emphasis mine)

"On the other hand, I understand the Old School doctrine to be, that it is the duty of all rational beings to believe all God has spoken in the scriptures as they have access to them directly or indirectly, and to believe the testimony of the works of creation and providence, where the scriptures have not come. To disbelieve the record, which God hath given of His Son, is to make God a liar (I John 5:10;) and surely no person can do this and be guiltless. The obligation man is under thus to believe God, arises, not from any demand which the gospel as such peculiarly makes upon him, but from the nature and fitness of things, and from what God is. It is a law of our creation."

Now let us return to what Harvey said in his polemic. Harvey continued (emphasis mine):

"The moment we say, "Salvation is by grace, but here is what you must do to get it," we have annihilated grace. It is just that simple. That is what Paul is saying in Romans 11:6. Grace and works are mutually exclusive when it comes to eternal salvation. We are not allowed to say, "It is by grace, but here is what you must do to get it." Nor can we say, "It is by grace, but here is what you must do to keep it." We are not even allowed to say, "You must do this, but it is not really you doing it; it is Christ in you doing it." No. That is still salvation by works. Do you understand, my friend?" 

"Doing" something is not to be equated with "works." Hardshells are frequently saying that salvation cannot be by faith for faith is doing something and that is works. Yet, the scriptures say faith is not in the category of works. So wrote and testified the apostle Paul:

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." (Rom. 4: 5 nkjv)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph. 2: 8-9 nkjv)

Here "believing" in Christ is not classified as "work." So, how can a man who claims to be a Bible teacher for Christ utter such anti-biblical things? These texts affirm that salvation is by grace and yet it is through something people do, i.e. believe. Further, we are told in scripture that people "believed through grace" (Acts 18: 27), and that justification from sin is "by faith that it might be by grace" (Rom. 4: 16), which clearly demonstrates that the proposition of Harvey and his Hardshell brethren is against scripture. Romans 11: 6 does not say that salvation is not by faith, nor not by repentance or coming to Christ, or by being taught and drawn by the Father, etc. 

The idea that it is a violation of scripture to teach that sinners must do something to be saved is an invention of the Hardshells, coming from their Two Seed Primitive Baptists ancestors. They too said that nothing a person did in life determined whether he went to heaven or hell. Further, Paul ascribed all his working for the Lord to God's grace, writing:

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10 kjv)

So also testified Isaiah the prophet:

"LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12 kjv)

This refutes the statement of Harvey that averred - "We are not even allowed to say, "You must do this, but it is not really you doing it; it is Christ in you doing it." How a Bible man can claim that believers cannot say that what they do in faith is God's gracious doing is amazing and diametrically opposite of the above verses and others I could cite. Just as Paul said of his transgressing, in Romans chapter seven, that "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me" (vs. 17 and 20), so he likewise says his acts of righteousness were not done by him but by God's work of grace in him. A believer confesses that all the good he does is a result of God "working in him to do that which is well pleasing in his sight." (Heb. 13: 21)

Next, Harvey wrote: "Prevenient grace is no grace at all." 

Where is that affirmed in the Bible? Is he denying that God was graciously and providentially at work in him before he was converted? Wrote the apostle Paul: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." (Titus 2: 11 nkjv) The apostle Peter says that married couples are "heirs together of the grace of life." (I Peter 3: 7 kjv) The apostle John wrote this about the Lord Jesus Christ: "For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace." (John 1: 16 esv) Notice these texts:

“The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made” (Psa. 145:9). Jesus said God causes “his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45) and “is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Luke 6:35). Barnabas and Paul said the same thing: “He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:17). This divine compassion, benevolent goodness, kindness, and longsuffering to all, are instances of God's common grace. 

Elder John M. Watson was one of the widely recognized leaders of the newly formed "Primitive Baptist" sect, as Elder Sylvester Hassell, Elder Lemuel Potter, and Elder Gilbert Beebe have stated. He believed in prevenient grace, as have other Calvinists, though not in the same way as some Arminians or as the Catholics. Watson wrote:

"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." ("Old Baptist Test," page 357)

By the Lord "going out before" the preachers Watson alludes to God's prevenient grace, to his preparation of people to hear the word of God savingly. This shows that Watson believed in some preparations or prevenient grace prior to actual salvation. So too did the biblical writers. Wrote Solomon: "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord." (Prov. 16: 1 kjv) The Puritan Calvinists believed in preparations and gracious operations of the Spirit upon a lost sinner before he is regenerated or born again.

The great men of the "Primitive Baptist" sect in the 19th century did not deny that there were conditions for salvation, but taught that all those conditions are effected by God's sovereign and efficacious grace.

In the paper "The Southern Baptist Messenger," begun by Gilbert Beebe's son, William L. Beebe, Elder W.M. Mitchell (1819-1901) wrote:

"The saving of sinners from their sins with an everlasting salvation is a great work, but God is a Great God and all his works are great. When it is said that “salvation is of the Lord” it is thereby declared that everything pertaining to salvation from first to last is of him. There is no salvation without the choice of God in Christ. He hath therefore from the beginning chosen us unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth...In conclusion, let us not overlook the fact that in order to salvation, it is necessary that we be born again; that we have faith, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; but as salvation is of the Lord, these things are as much of him as our redemption, calling or justification, for his “divine power hath given us all things that pertain unto, life and godliness.” 2 Pet. i. 4. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things ?” (You can read that issue of that periodical here).

Elder Sylvester Hassell, another great leader of the Hardshells, wrote:

"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation (Gen. iii. 15; xii. 3; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Psalm cx. 3; Isa. xxvii. 13; xxxv. 10; xlii. 16; xlv. 17; liii.-lv.; Jer. xxxi. 33-37; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; xxxvii. 1-14; Zech. xii. 10-14; xiii. 1, 7-9; Matt. i. 21; xxv. 34; John vi. 37-40; x. 15, 27-30; xvii. 2, 3, 24; Acts xiii. 48; Rom. v. 19-21; viii. 28-39; Eph. i.-iii.; 2 Thess. 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; 1 Pet. i., ii.; 1 John v. 11, 12; Rev. i. 5, 6; xxi. 27)."  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Conditionalism" by Sylvester Hassell, The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894)

So, Harvey's views are not the original views of the first Hardshells and his views, being expressive of what most "Primitive Baptists" today believe, show how much he and they have changed from their origin in the early 19th century, and this is laughable considering how they boast of having changed not in their views since their beginning.

The idea that a lost sinner is to do nothing to be saved is so glaringly opposed to the most explicit and clear declarations of scripture that nearly all Christians will be stunned to know that there are professing Christians, as the Hardshells, who affirm such.

From the scriptures we learn that one must "receive" Christ and the Spirit to be saved, and that is doing something. We also learn that a sinner must "come" to Christ and that is doing something. We learn also that a sinner must believe in Christ, confess Christ, and be instructed and drawn by the Father. These are things the sinner does. We learn that a sinner must "repent" or "turn" to the Lord and that is something he does. We also learn from the scriptures that a lost sinner must "convert" in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, and that he must "call upon the name of the Lord" and calling is something the sinner does. Many scriptures affirm these things, as any Bible student knows.

Harvey wrote further:

"Thus I conclude that Calvinism is worse than Arminianism for the simple reason that it can logically expect far fewer to be saved!...Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists, although we are sometimes falsely accused of being so. We believe far more are going to heaven than any Calvinist (or Arminian either, for that matter) could ever conceive of!"

I have responded to this line of reasoning before. In this post I cited from Elder Harold Hunt in this post (here) who said:

"I would hate to believe the family of God is limited to the little number we preachers can reach. But that is clearly not what the Bible teaches. God will have the victory, even in numbers."

I then responded, writing:

"I would hate to believe"? Is that how Hunt decides what to believe? His emotions control his faith? His likes and dislikes determine his biblical interpretations? By his logic, he should be a "no-heller," for surely he would hate to believe that anyone would suffer in Hell forever, right?"

I have also heard Hardshells argue that more must go to heaven than go to hell for if not then Satan will have won more to his side than God did to his. Absurd logic! Using this same twisted logic we ask why they teach that most of those who God regenerates are never converted to the true religion but remain in false religions? Jesus sent Paul to preach the gospel so that people might be "turned from darkness to light" and turned "from the power of Satan unto God" (Acts 26: 18). So, since most of the chosen and called, according to Hardshellism, never hear the gospel, they remain in darkness and under the power of Satan. So, who wins more converts then, my Hardshell brothers, God or Satan? 

In my post titled "Hardshell Quasi Universalism" (See here) I cited the following from Elder T.L. Webb Sr. (who was once on the editorial staff of Elder C.H. Cayce's paper "The Primitive Baptist") and his book "Little Things" (1941):

"For this reason I have said that every one that sincerely and truly desired to be saved in heaven, would finally reach that happy home. Can you ask for a better system of salvation than one which is sure for all that really want to be saved?" (page 20)

"One comforting thought in the above Scripture (Heb. 11:16) is, if one really desires a better country it is an unmistakable evidence that such an one has an interest there. I have often said publicly, as a rebuttal in defending our people against the charge that our system is not broad enough, that the system advocated by Primitive Baptists is broad enough to embrace all that want to be saved; and why should we think God unjust if He does not save those who do not want to be saved? What better system could we ask for than one which will embrace every one, in all the world, who desires the better country?" (pages 53-54)

"I believe that God is the author of prayer. I have thought, and I believe today with all my heart, that every person in this world, who has prayed, will finally be around the throne of grace in heaven. I say, brethren, these Old Baptists have the broadest system in the world. People say it is narrow. They do not know how broad it is. It is broader than any other theory in the world." (page 99)

"So I say that we have the broadest system that has ever been advocated here in the world. For different reasons the Primitive Baptists have the best system that has ever been preached in the world. How broad is it? It is broad enough that it reaches everyone that has ever prayed a prayer. Heaven will be their home after awhile, if they have ever prayed. Brother Taylor, I love this old doctrine. I get comfort out of it. It reaches me, because, if I am not mistaken, I have, a few times in my life, tried to pray to God, and if I have really prayed, God is the author of that prayer and heaven will be my home after awhile. God answers all prayer." (page 100)

Friends, that is so close to Universalism! That is where Hardshellism leads. It is why in the twentieth century we saw the rise of those who are called "Primitive Baptist Universalist" churches.