Hardshell Baptist

The Heretical Twins

2008-10-23T06:57:00.001-07:00

B. H. Caroll Jr., wrote a section of his book, on the "Anti-Mission Movement," titled "Rise of the Hardshells." In that chapter he showed that Alexander Campbell was the "father of twins," the "twins" being "Hardshellism" and "Campbellism."

Anyone familiar with the history of these two sects knows how true is this description. I will be writing upon this in future chapters of my book on the "Primitive Baptist Church."

Dedication

2008-10-21T11:51:00.000-07:00

This web site is dedicated to refuting Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism.

Stephen

The Hardshell Baptist Cult

2008-10-21T11:50:00.000-07:00

Already Published

Chapter 1 - The Primitive Baptist Church
Chapter 2 - Personal Experiences
Chapter 3 - The Hardshell Cult
Chapter 4 - Hardshell History
Chapter 5 - Hardshell Extremism
Chapter 6 - Hardshell Hypocrisy & Peculiarities
Chapter 7 - Time Salvation - A Novel Idea
Chapter 8 - The Spirit Alone Theory of Regeneration
Chapter 9 - Hardshell Logic on Regeneration
Chapter 10 - Hardshellism & The Infant & Idiot
Chapter 11 - Saved By Money?
Chapter 12 - Hardshells on Faith (A Primer)
Chapter 13 - Hardshells On Faith (Conclusion)
Chapter 14 - Hard-Shell Busters (First Cracking)
Chapter 15 - Hardshells On Repentance (Primer)
Chapter 16 - Hardshells On Repentance (Conclusion)
Chapter 17 - Hard-Shell Busters (Second Cracking)
Chapter 18 - Hardshells on Conversion
Chapter 19 - Coming To Christ
Chapter 20 - Direct Voice Speaking (Historical)
Chapter 21 - Direct Voice Speaking (Doctrinal)
Chapter 22 - More On The Voice Of Christ
Chapter 23 - I Peter 1:23
Chapter 24 - James 1:18
Chapter 25 - I Cor. 4:15
Chapter 26 - Hot Shots Returned (1st Volley)
Chapter 27 - Hot Shots Returned (2nd Volley)
Chapter 28 - Hot Shots Returned (3rd Volley)
Chapter 29 - Hot Shots Returned (4th Volley)
Chapter 30 - Hot Shots Returned (5th Volley)
Chapter 31 - Hot Shots Returned (6th Volley)
Chapter 32 - Hot Shots Returned (7th Volley)
Chapter 33 - Romans 10 & Gospel Means
Chapter 34 - Romans 10 (cont.)
Chapter 35 - Parable of the Sower & Seed
Chapter 36 - Pray for the Salvation of your Children?
Chapter 37 - Eternal Children Doctrine
Chapter 38 - Eternal Children Doctrine II
Chapter 39 - Hollow Log Doctrine
Chapter 40 - Biblical Regeneration
Chapter 41 - Infant Regeneration
Chapter 42 - Addresses To The Lost I
Chapter 43 - Addresses To The Lost II
Chapter 44 - Addresses To The Lost III
Chapter 45 - Addresses To The Lost IV
Chapter 46 - Addresses To The Lost V
Chapter 47 - Addresses To The Lost VI
Chapter 48 - Addresses To The Lost VII
Chapter 49 - Elder Leland's Preaching
Chapter 50 - From Law to Grace?
Chapter 51 - Regenerated AND Converted?
Chapter 52 - Beebe-Trott Model
Chapter 53 - Regeneration Evidence?
Chapter 54 - On Conviction I
Chapter 55 - On Conviction II
Chapter 56 - On Conviction III
Chapter 57 - The Original Paradigm
Chapter 58 - Hardshells on Gill I
Chapter 59 - Hardshells on Gill II
Chapter 60 - Hardshells on Gill III
Chapter 61 - Hardshells on Gill IV
Chapter 62 - Hardshells on Gill V
Chapter 63 - Hardshells on Gill VI
Chapter 64 - Hardshells on Gill VII
Chapter 65 - Hardshells on Gill VIII
Chapter 66 - The Great Commission I
Chapter 67 - The Great Commission II
Chapter 68 - The Great Commission III
Chapter 69 - The Great Commission IV
Chapter 70 - The Great Commission V
Chapter 71 - The Great Commission VI
Chapter 72 - The Great Commission VII
Chapter 73 - The Great Commission VIII
Chapter 74 - The Great Commission IX
Chapter 75 - The Great Commission X
Chapter 76 - The Great Commission XIChapter 77 - The Great Commission XII (not yet published)
Chapter 78 - The Great Commission XIII (not yet published)Chapter 79 - Hardshell Proof Texts I
Chapter 80 - Hardshell Proof Texts II
Chapter 81 - Hardshell Proof Textx III
Chapter 82 - Hardshell Proof Texts IV
Chapter 83 - Hardshell Proof Texts V
Chapter 84 - Hardshell Proof Texts VI
Chapter 85 - Hardshell Proof Texts VII
Chapter 86 - Hardshell Proof Texts VIII
Chapter 87 - Hardshell Proof Texts IX
Chapter 88 - Hardshell Proof Texts X
Chapter 89 - Hardshell Proof Texts XI
Chapter 90 - Hardshell Proof Texts XII
Chapter 91 - Hardshell Proof Texts XIII
Chapter 92 - Hardshells & Perseverence I
Chapter 93 - Hardshells & Perseverence II
Chapter 94 - Hardshells & Perseverence III
Chapter 95 - Hardshells & Perseverence IV
Chapter 96 - Hardshells & Perseverence V
Chapter 97 - Hardshells & Perseverence VI
Chapter 98 - Hardshells & Predestination I
Chapter 99 - Hardshells & Predestination II
Chapter 100 - Hardshells & Predestination III
Chapter 101 - Hardshells & Predestination IV
Chapter 102 - Hardshells & Predestination V
Chapter 103 - Hardshells & Predestination VI
Chapter 104 - Hardshells & Predestination VII
Chapter 105 - Hardshells & Predestination VIII
Chapter 106 - Hardshells & Predestination IX
Chapter 107 - Hardshells & Predestination X
Chapter 108 - Hardshells & Predestination XI
Chapter 109 - Hardshells & Predestination XII
Chapter 110 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 111 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 112 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 113 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 114 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 115 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 116 - Mediate or Immediate?
Chapter 117 - Passive or Active?
Chapter 118 - Passive or Active?
Chapter 119 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Chapter 120 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Chapter 121 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Chapter 122 - Conditional or Unconditional?
Chapter 123 - Hardshells & Justification I

Chapter 1 - The Primitive Baptist Church

2008-10-21T11:49:00.000-07:00

The Hardshell Cult - By Stephen M. Garrett

This is the general name of a denomination or sect of Baptists that owes its origin to the anti missionary spirit among Baptists in the early 1800's in America. They are also known by other names, such as Old School Baptists, or as Hardshells. They are primarily based in the South, both presently and historically.

"Primitive Baptists" are a group of Baptists that sprang out of the missionary controversy that split American Baptists in the first part of the 19th century.

Those today who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" are descendants of churches and ministers that opposed the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions (organized in 1814), and who also opposed other "innovations" such as seminaries, tract societies, missions, temperance societies, and a host of other things.

Early leaders and founding fathers include Joshua Lawrence, John Leland, Daniel Parker, Samuel Trott, John Taylor, Thomas P. Dudley, Wilson Thompson, James Osbourn, Dr. John Watson, Gilbert Beebe, John Clark, Stephen Gard, C. B. Hassell, Richard Newport, Joel Hume, and several others of lessor import.

Other names by which "Primitive Baptists" are generally known are Predestinarian Baptists, Old School Baptists, Regular Baptists, Particular Baptists and Hardshells, besides other names, as "Old Ironsides," and "Do-Nothings," and "Ignoramuses," and "Anti Effort Baptists," and "feet washing Baptists," etc.

The word “Primitive” does not mean “backward,” but “original,” for it was the claim of the first Hardshells that they, and they alone, were holding to the original and historic Baptist teaching by their opposing the things enumerated above, and that the other churches, adopting them, were apostates from the bible and historic Baptist teaching.

The first Hardshells saw themselves as both "restorers" and "preservers" of the "true faith." They were dedicated Landmarkers, and they believed that they alone had proper right to the title of "church of Christ."

They attempted to retain and/or restore "primitive" (or original) "patterns" of the church, such as unsalaried ministers, a capella singing, and feet washing.

Their history cannot be fully understood without also understanding the history of Alexander Campbell and of his movement, called the "Restoration Movement," and which culminated in his leaving the Baptists and founding a new denomination, with the help of others.

Campell has rightly been noted as one of the leading opponents, with the Hardshells, of missions, salaried ministry, seminaries, and such like, although he was opposed to the Calvinism, yea, the Hyper Calvinism, of the Harshell segment of the "Anti Mission Movement." In fact, as we shall see in future chapters, Campbellism and Hardshellism are "twin brothers."

The Primitive Baptists can be sub-divided into four main groups:

1)Absolute Predestinarians (known as "Absoluters")

2) Limited Predestinarians (known as "Conditionalists")

3) Progressive (known as "Progressives")

(4) Universalists. This last group is the smallest and consists of 5 or 6 small associations in Appalachia that adapted the theory of universal atonement to the doctrines of Primitive Baptists.

The Progressive Primitive Baptists separated from the main body around the turn of the 20th century, adopting such practices as Sunday School, instrumental music, seminaries, missions, etc.

The division of “Primitive Baptists” and “Missionary Baptists” cannot be recognized as occurring at any one particular time. The Baptists of the early 19th century were separated by distance and lack of communication, and each congregation was independent and autonomous.

The declaration now known as the "Black Rock Address" (1832) delineated the issues and marked the time of official separation of the two different factions.

The Primitive Baptist Church has had an interesting history. I am familiar with it, having been an ordained minister and pastor in that denomination from 1974-1982. My father is still a leading elder in that denomination. I have read most of their literature, know most of their leading ministers, both present and past, and am familiar with their theology and peculiarities.

The PB Church is a cult, a Baptist cult, a rare thing. What it is that constitutes them a cult will be the substance of this book. There are several key essential elements necessary to constitute one a cult and thus a serious danger to religious souls. One of those elements is what the Bible calls heresy.

All error in Bible doctrine and interpretation is not heresy and worthy of anathemas. It has been said – “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity.” Heresy concerns essential teachings of the Bible, the very bedrock of fundamental truth. To be a heretic is to be guilty of believing and teaching contrary to the essentials of the faith.

The PB Church, or “Hardshells,” are heretics on several matters relative to essential articles of faith of the Bible and of the real Old Baptists. This will become clear from the evidence presented in this volume.

Not only will I show evidence from the Scriptures that the Hardshells are heretics on essential Bible teaching, answering all their arguments in support of their heresies, and also correcting all their false statements regarding their own and Baptist history, but will also show that the Hardshells are infamous for their distortions, both of the sacred record of Scripture and of the records of Baptist history.

I will also record my personal experiences among them, noting their peculiarities, sociologically and psychologically, and of their other characteristics as a cult and heresy.

The Hardshells are indeed an odd sort, having their own peculiar social mentality, as a group; for instance, they view themselves as peculiarly favored above all other Christians, being a veritable “elect within the elect,” or super elect. This too is characteristic of a cult; cult followers view themselves as the elite of the elite, the “we be Abraham’s seed” or “we be the only ones” self view (or self portrait).

The Hardshells, as a cult group, are egocentric and a certain fleshly pride is often pervasive in cults and heresies. Some cult groups will seek to identify the exclusivity of the cult by labeling them or otherwise identifying the group with a special group in the Bible, like the “144,000" of the Book of Revelation.

The Hardshells are Calvinists of a sort, or believers in the Doctrines of Grace. Some are High Calvinists (“Absoluters”), others Low Calvinists (“Conditionalists” or believers in “time salvation”), but all factions are Hyper (or Hybrid) Calvinists. What is a Hyper Calvinist?

In my studies in theology and its history, including systems commonly and traditionally known as Calvinism and Arminianism, I accept these definitions regarding variants of Calvinism.

High Calvinism - the belief in absolute predestination of all things, the belief that everything that exists or comes to pass does so due to the will and decree of God. High Calvinists are often known as supralapsarians, and some supralapsarians are Hyper Calvinists, but not all. I am a supralapsarian Calvinist, like other great Baptists theologians, as John Gill and A.W. Pink, and I believe in the proclamation of the gospel to all men and that Christ invites, yea, commands all men to receive him and to acknowledge him and his salvation.

Low Calvinism - the belief in either conditional or limited predestination or the absolute predestination of some things only, certainly not of all things. Low Calvinists are always infralapsarians.

Hyper (or Hybrid) Calvinism - The belief that God works independently of human means in the saving of sinners, the belief that regeneration precedes faith in Christ, that faith in Christ or conversion to the Christian religion are not necessary for regeneration.

Hardshells have a sect that are High Calvinists (Absoluters) and a sect that are Low Calvinists. But, they all are Hyper Calvinists.

PB’s or Hardshell Baptists believe that the gospel is not a means used by God to regenerate, birth or save his elect. They believe that regeneration is something that happens to men on the “sub-conscious level.” Men are regenerated, born again, according to Hardshellism, who are heathen and pagan worshipers and who have no knowledge of, or allegiance to, the God of Abraham or to the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is a fantastic idea, and one that has no foundation is holy scripture, nor in true primitive Baptist history. They are, therefore, appropriately known as Anti-Mission and Anti-Means Baptists.

I will deal with these things in greater detail in later chapters, going into a deeper discussion of their peculiar beliefs and practices, the things that are distinctive about them and which constitutes them as an heretical cult.

I will take notice of their leading figures, their founding fathers and leading apologists, as well as their outlandish claims and unfounded assertions relative to their heresies and their history. In doing so I will be judging their claim to being the truly Primitive or Original Baptists, and whether they are in line with the Old Baptist Confessions of Faith.

In other words, Who are the REAL Primitive Baptists? Also, how did the “primitives” get the nickname of “Hardshells”? And, what is meant by the terms “Old School” or “New School” in relation to Baptist history and theology?

I too will show, thanks to B.H. Carroll, and Brother Bob Ross, that Hardshellism is but the “Twin Brother” of Campbellism and that their descendants, religiously speaking, are of the same mold as their theological parents, namely, Daniel Parker and Alexander Campbell.

Brother Bob Ross and I have issued challenges to the PB’s to come forth and debate these issues. Some of their forefathers did it (far more with the Campbellites than with those Baptists who remain believers in the Old Confessions, which is an interesting fact in itself, very revealing). Will any of them stand up today and defend their positions on their novel, heretical views?

Will any of them come forth and debate the question, “Who are the real Primitive Baptists?” As Hardshell forefathers John Daily and Lemuel Potter were willing to do? It is hoped and believed, nevertheless, that many of the Hardshells will read what Brother Ross and I have written and make an attempt to “face the music.”

Definition of the word “cult.”

“In Religion and Sociology a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics. In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of reasons.” (Ibid)

An internet web site by a Hardshell seeks to answer the question, “WHAT IS MEANT BY "OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS" OR "HARDSHELLS"?” The Elder Writes:

“These terms were given to Primitive Baptists after the division among Baptists in 1832. The term Old School does not refer to a college or university, but to a school of thought or belief. The missionary Baptists were referred to as New School because of their new beliefs. The term Hardshell is a colloquial expression given to Primitive Baptists in certain sections. Ideas about the origin of this term vary. Some believe it is derived from the emphasis that Primitive Baptist preachers placed on the "shalls" of the Bible. They emphasized greatly the word shall as in "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" (John 6:37). Eventually the expression hard shall changed to the term Hardshells.”

And again:

“At one time only one group of Baptists was in existence, with all Baptists holding similar beliefs concerning the basic doctrine of the Bible, especially those Bible teachings relating to the salvation of sinners. About 1832 the first division of Baptists occurred with one group becoming known as "Primitive Baptists" and the other as "Missionary Baptists." Since that time the Primitive Baptists have held to the original beliefs of Baptists while other Baptist groups have divided many times until a great many different Baptist factions are now in existence.”

(www.grace-through-faith.com)

Of course this Elder makes numerous false assertions, parroting what he has been told by his Hardshell forefathers and Hardshell “historians”. I will deal with these falsities and the “revisionist histories” put forth by the Hardshells in detail in the appropriate sections of this book. But, now I want to call attention to how many Hardshells view their nickname of “HARDSHELL.”

Is it true, regarding this nickname, that “ideas about the origin of this term vary,” as the Elder says? He offers one explanation that I have heard some Hardshells spout. It is a cute twist.

Hardshells are such because they emphasize, in their preaching, the “shalls” of the Bible?! I can, of course, think about several “shalls” in the New Testament dealing with preaching the gospel to all men, but these “shalls” the Hardshells emphasize not at all!

Where did this Elder get any proof at all for his vain assertion that “eventually the expression hard shall changed to the term Hardshells”? Did he cite any works on word etymology? Actually, as will become more evident, this is the same type of bold unfounded assertions that Hardshells make about many things relative to history.

I have heard other Hardshells argue that the term denotes someone who is “stedfast, unmoveable, and unwavering” in his views on Bible doctrine. I even remember reading a defense of the term (a virtual proud acceptance of the nickname) by Elder S. T. Tolley (to be referred to again in this book and also referred to by Brother Ross in his book on the “History and Heresies of Hardshellism”) where he equated the term “Hardshell” with stedfastness in the faith. He cited Paul’s command, “be you stedfast, unmoveable,” as being all the same as saying, “Be you Hardshell.”

My dad even published a periodical for years called “The Hardshell Baptist.” Not all PB’s are so fond of the nickname and therefore do not like to be called Hardshells. These few view the use of the term in the same way the followers of Alexander Campbell don’t like the term Campbellites.

I rather think that the term was given to the anti mission Baptists to signify their stubbornness and hardheadedness, their unwillingness to listen to reason.

I think it is also connected with a kind of ignorance and false humility, willing or not, and a cantankerousness that is often seen in those who, though having little real knowledge of truth and things, nevertheless boast great things. Truly, with the Hardshells, as a cult, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

On the term “Hard-shell” (hyphenated) Webster says:

Adjective

“Unyielding; insensible to argument; uncompromising; strict.” Some of the Synonyms given for the adjective are:

“severe, strict, hard, harsh, dour, rigid, stiff, stern, rigorous, uncompromising, exacting, exigent, inexorable, inflexible, obdurate, austere, hard-headed, hard-nosed, hard-shell, relentless, Spartan, Draconian, stringent, strait-laced, searching, unsparing, iron-handed, peremptory, absolute, positive, arbitrary, imperative; coercive; tyrannical, extortionate, grinding, withering, oppressive, inquisitorial; inclement; (ruthless) a; cruel; (malevolent); haughty, arrogant...”

I affirm, by both personal experience within the cult, and by a thorough examination of the beliefs and practices of this sect, that they fit these words.

Such a people will naturally draw a circle around themselves and have inflated views of themselves. With such it will always be a question of us versus them. Cults practice exclusivity to a very high degree and this is true of the Hardshells. They also use methods of intimidation and mind control over each other to keep the group cohesive and secretive.

One of the famous mottos of the Hardshells has been – “Give us our Bible and leave us alone.” They practice it too, putting their churches as far away from communities as possible, often locating in some backwoods hollow.

Rather than following the example of the truly Old Sovereign Grace Missionary Baptists, of the pre-Hardshell period, who took the Bible to heathen peoples who did not have it, the Hardshells want to keep it to themselves!

Not all of the original Hardshell forefathers, in the late 1700's and early 1800's, objected to the mission movement, then sweeping the Baptists with great fervor, for doctrinal reasons, or because they believed in “Spirit Alone Regeneration,” or “Pre-Faith Regeneration,” (that would become a later novel idea, intended to justify the movement, by mostly second generation Hardshells), but rather, as Brother Bob Ross has pointed out, was mainly due to “mission methodology”.

Brother Ross stated it very clearly when he said,

“The ORIGINAL issue in the Anti-Missionism Movement was METHODOLOGY, NOT THEOLOGY”.

He also was correct in saying that the “Hardshell "Spirit Alone" Regeneration Theory Was of Later Development”.

As I will show also, this novel idea, with others to follow, were reactionary views created to justify opposition to some of the methods being practiced by some Baptists in the area of missions.

Brother Ross states further:

“The very heart of the PRIMITIVE BAPTIST religious denomination is its opposition to the Gospel's being preached to the unregenerate as a means providentially and sovereignly used by the Holy Spirit in bringing lost souls to Christ for salvation. The Hardshells contend that regeneration, or the New Birth, is a work performed by the Holy Spirit apart from and without the necessary use of any means whatsoever.”

And further:

“Originally, at the rise of "anti-missionism" in the early 1800's, this does not appear to have been the case. If the Baptist histories can be relied upon, the original issues in the anti-missionism schism focused upon MISSION METHODOLOGY. The Kehukee Declaration, set forth by the Kehukee Association (North Carolina) in October 1827, objected to "the modern missionary movement and other institutions of men," and it specified "Missionary Societies, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, Dorcas Societies, Mite Societies, Religious Fairs and Festivals, Temperance Societies, Sectarian Schools and Theological Seminaries" as the objects of their repudiation.”

“Likewise, the Black Rock Address, put together by GILBERT BEEBE (1800-1881), and set forth at Black Rock meeting-house, Baltimore, Maryland, September 1832, focused on similar mission methods, and not the particular theory of regeneration which later became the central issue with Hardshellism. All references to regeneration, or the new birth, in both the Kehukee Declaration and the Black Rock Address, appear perfectly consistent with the Baptist position set forth on Effectual Calling "by His Word and Spirit" in the London Confession of Faith. For example, note this statement:

"The plans of these [protracted or 'revival'] meetings are equally as objectionable; for, in the first place, all doctrinal preaching, or in other words, all illustrations of God's plan of salvation, are excluded from these meetings. Hence they would make believers of their converts without presenting any fixed TRUTHS to their minds to believe. Whereas God has chosen his people to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the TRUTH.--2 Thess. 2:13." (Black Rock Address, pp. 35, 36, Primitive Publications' reprint).

This objection sounds more like a Calvinist objection to Hardshellism than vice versa. It emphasizes the importance of "truth" in God's saving of His people.

The "means" to which the original anti-mission Baptists objected was not the Gospel as such, but to the METHODS which were being devised and used in various mission efforts. The objectors do not focus their opposition upon the Gospel as a "means" as presented in the London Confession which affirms that the elect are effectually called out of their state of sin and death "by His Word and Spirit" (London Confession, chapter 10, para. 1).”

(Chapter 3 in “History and Heresies of Hardshellism” - emphasis mine)

Brother Ross makes some very important points here; points, I might add, that no Hardshell has come forward to dispute. Why did the first anti mission Baptists, or Hardshells, not oppose the mission enterprises based upon a doctrinal departure on the subject of regeneration? Because it was not a departure at all but was rather the faith of the Baptists generally, except for some few closet Hyper Calvinists, prior to what B.H. Carroll, Jr. called the “rise of the Hardshells.”

Further, it was the stated belief of all the Old Baptist confessions. I have asked my dad to produce one Hardshell article of faith, from one leading Baptist preacher or church, prior to the 1800's, who espoused Hardshell views on regeneration. Not one document or historical record has been produced to show that any preacher, prior to Gilbert Beebe, taught “Pre-Faith Regeneration” or “Spirit Alone Regeneration.”

This book, along with Brother Ross’s book, will go forth and hopefully many Hardshells will read it. Will one of them produce the evidence that all Baptists prior to the 1800's believed that regeneration occurred without the gospel as a means, without a person being converted and coming to faith in Christ Jesus? They can no more do it than can the Campbellites find a “Church of Christ” prior to the rise of Alexander Campbell.

Brother Ross writes further:

“In the Potter-Throgmorton Debate, held at Fulton, Kentucky in 1887, Elder Lemuel Potter of the Primitive Baptists insisted upon the fact it was over the missionary methods, such as boards, and such things as Sunday Schools, that the "split" occurred in the year 1832 between the anti-missionaries and the missionaries. He says:

"I wish to notice some things in the speech we have just listened to. The first thing Mr. Throgmorton does is to say that he is not bound to show that the Baptists had Sunday Schools, missionary boards, etc., during all the ages. He is under no obligation to show that they always had them. He admits that. He is begging the question. I challenge him to tell what divided us except these very things. It was after the introduction of these things among us that we divided. If we never had them we would not have been divided yet." (Potter-Throgmorton Debate, page 86; published in 1888 in St. Louis by J. N. Hall and J. H. Milburn, representing Missionary Baptists, and by H. C. Roberts and S. F. Cayce, representing the Primitive Baptists).”

In addition to objecting to "mission methods," the anti-mission people focused their attacks upon the MOTIVES of those who favored missions. Greed, avarice, and other such carnal, worldly, and money-centered motives were the motivation of the "means Baptists," according to the anti-mission leaders and magazines.

However, this ad hominem charge evidently began to "wear thin;" in time, the common Baptist membership did not generally respond to character assassination and unsubstantiated broadside incriminations of Baptists who promoted missions. The Hardshells wanted people to believe the worst about the missionary leaders, even applying prophetic Scriptures on the "apostasy" and the "Man of Sin." There just were not enough gullible people among the Baptists for such extremism to continuously find much acceptance.

As time passed, and the Hardshells found it more difficult to defend anti missionism by harping against methodology and motives, they eventually developed their "Spirit alone" regeneration theory, a more doctrinal approach than the original pure negativism. This, too, was very similar to the type of evolutionary development of theology in their anti-missions "brother," the Campbellite movement.

Campbellism, at the first, ridiculed the "hireling clergy," "aspiring priesthood," "missionary schemes," and other victims of Alexander Campbell's choosing, which were featured in his magazines [The Christian Baptist in the 1820's and The Millennial Harbinger from 1830]. But Campbellism, also, had to have something other than pure negativism with which to beguile the naive and gullible, and they developed the baptismal remission of sins hobby-horse. Around this "Kaaba" they have marched ever since.”

(From HISTORY AND HERESIES OF HARDSHELLISM, #3 [04/27--2006])

Brother Ross certainly gave a truthful and well written analysis concerning the birth of the Hardshells, or Primitive Baptist Denomination. I consider Brother Ross’s remarks to be in the tradition of the remarks made by the late B.H. Carroll, Jr. who wrote about anti missionism among the Baptists and even had a chapter on “The Rise of the Hardshells.”

Chapter 2 - Personal Experiences

2008-10-21T11:47:00.001-07:00

Chapter Two - Personal Experiences

I was eight years old in 1963 and had been exposed to much Christian influence. From 1963-1972 I was primarily under the religious influence of my maternal grandfather (Clyde Rickles) and of my mother. They often witnessed to us children, read and talked the Bible, though they weren't regular church-goers. But during those years, and chiefly between 1970-1972, I began to seek the Lord. I was beginning to ponder my destiny and to see that I was a lost sinner. I attended several Missionary Baptist churches, including the old Lindenwald Baptist Church.

I even "went forward" there at around the age of 13. But the church was so far away, and not having transportation, I didn't get to return to be baptized.

At around the age of 16 I went forward again in a Missionary Baptist Church nearer our home, Mom and grandpa also attending. I received "assurance of salvation" about this time. It was also about this time that Dad started showing a greater interest in talking to me about God and the Bible.

I was awaiting baptism at the local Missionary Baptist Church, but through his influence I began to see the "doctrines of grace." This caused me to wait further before being baptized by the Missionaries.

I remember Dad taking me on a trip to Middlesboro, Kentucky to special services at the local Hardshell church in which they were "dedicating" a new building. During this four-day meeting I was also impressed in many ways with the Hardshells.

My "First Impressions" of "Hardshells"

I remember that the building to be dedicated was a small rectangular brick building with a basement. Hardshell meeting-houses are generally very small and simple. There are no special "choir sections," "Sunday School" rooms, or a "Pastor's study." Just one large room with a slightly elevated "stand" where the pulpit was located. In this building, like many Hardshell meeting-houses, there were two main rows of pews or benches, facing the stand and pulpit, with one main aisle in the middle.

There was the common "amen corner" pews at right angles to the "stand." In many cases, the preachers and deacons sat in one of those "amen corners" while the older females and widows sat in the other.

Though Dad spoke several times during the four-day meeting (protracted?), there were other preachers who also preached. I think the church met for three sessions per day on both Friday and Saturday, then once on Sunday morning. It was a common practice at such meetings to preach two or three preachers at each session. One certainly heard a variety of "preaching styles."

I remember also that the building was filled to overflowing (having about 150 people). This was not due to the fact that the church was large, but because it was in the heart of the "bounds of the Powell's Valley Association" of churches, and also a member of that Association. Many of the Hardshells from the other churches in the area were in attendance. A non-Hardshell visitor might have initially thought that this church had "busted the seams" in growth! But this is the case in many Hardshell churches at such meetings. Many of them have "traditionally" only met "once a month," and in areas where two-or-more Hardshell churches exist, members attend each other's churches. This often gives the impression of being a larger church than it really is. You often hear Hardshells talk of their "off-Sundays," meaning the Sundays that their own particular church doesn't meet. On these Sundays, Hardshells either don't go at all or attend another Hardshell church.

In many areas where there are, say, four churches, with each meeting on a different Sunday, generally the people go from church-to-church, sometimes to hear the same preacher or preachers. This troubled me when I was Hardshell, as I'm sure it did others. From all appearances, they seemed to be "one" church meeting in four buildings and wearing four names. I know that in one case, at least, it became an "entangled mess."

I pastored two churches at the same time in the early 80's near Wilmington, N.C. called "Grassy" and "Haws Run" Primitive Baptist churches, and I was a member and assistant pastor at Bethel Primitive Baptist Church near Shallote, N.C.

When I first started serving these churches, I would preach at one "church" on one Sunday a month and then at the other church and its building on a different Sunday. But it was basically the same body of people.

I, of course, began to ask each of the group of members "which church" they were members of, and many could not tell. They would try to recall which building they were in at the time they "joined the church," but could not. To them, they had simply joined that group of people. Seeing this, I tried to get the group to sell one building and choose a single name. I was making some progress before I left, but the "tradition" was too deeply imbedded.

But let's get back to my first meeting in a Hardshell church and of my "first impressions" in Middlesboro, Kentucky. Let me say one other thing about the "stand," or pulpit area, in this and most Hardshell churches. Most of the "stands" have chairs in them, behind the pulpit, for visiting preachers. It is the usual custom for pastors to "invite into the stand" the preaching brethren who are present for the given occasion. Those chairs are for them. There's generally a small table with two chairs on either side, just in front of the "stand" and pulpit. This is used for flowers, placing and collecting money, the Lord's Supper, and for the moderator and clerk to use at the monthly or quarterly "business meetings."

At this meeting in Middlesboro, I did enjoy most of the preaching. It was, as I remember, mostly on the glories of Christ and of the "old church." They also spoke much about the "doctrines of grace," with an occasional reference to the "Arminians".

This particular church was in the coal mining area of eastern Kentucky. They were emotional and almost "pentecostal" in their "shouting" and "liveliness."

About half of the preachers spoke very fast or else "sang" out their sermons in some rhythm. You often heard the usual "uh" or "ah" between phrases.

I was impressed, however, with how the people enjoyed the service. They sang loudly and with rather good harmony. The songs were simple, old-time Christian tunes.

I remember being a little disturbed when one "lay preacher" began to talk and cry wildly while walking around the building and shaking hands with everyone. He did this while the scheduled preacher was in the stand preaching. This walking lay-preacher was later "ordained" as an "Elder" and began "serving the churches." His outburst was believed to be an "evidence" of his "call to preach."

A few short months after this first visit to a Hardshell church, I went on another trip with Dad to visit other Hardshell churches. That was in August of 1972. Dad had a ten-day trip arranged. On the second week-end he was to be at the annual session of the Sequachie Valley - Blue Ridge Association, then meeting at Tickanetly Church in Elijay, Georgia.

On the Monday through Friday following this association, Dad was scheduled to have a "debate" with Thomas Thrasher, of the so-called "Church of Christ," with whom I have since also had two debates. The debate was held at the Campbellite meeting-house in Decatur, Alabama and the proposition was, "The scriptures teach that the church of which I am a member is scriptural in origin, doctrine and practice." Elder S.T. Tolley acted as Moderator for Dad. This was the first time I had met brother Tolley and we became close friends.

Joining the Hardshells

It was actually through this debate that I came to the decision to "join the church." I had already been saved. Now I was ready to be baptized and become a member of the church. It was through this debate that I came to believe the "doctrines of grace" and to repudiate Arminianism.

We left the debate that Thursday night in order to attend the annual session of the Powell's Valley Association, then being held in the Middlesboro, Kentucky area. Our church in Middletown, Ohio was a recent new addition to the Association; it had churches in four states. I united with the Hardshells at that Associational meeting, being voted upon by the few members of the Middletown Church who were present. I was baptized by my father the next day in a creek in the foothills of the Smokies, near the Cumberland Gap.

Licensed to Preach

During this trip I was introduced to "associations." Of these, I will have some more to say later in this book. Over the next two years I studied the Bible exhaustively, and I began to be schooled in the Hardshell faith under the direct tutorship of my father.

I also began to travel extensively among the Hardshells, visiting their associations, the leading churches, and becoming acquainted with their beliefs, customs and practices.

I had been "licensed to preach" by the Middletown Church just shortly after being baptized. This enabled me to preach anywhere among the "Primitive Baptists." During those first two years among the Hardshell, I preached and visited over a wide area of the country.

I also became well acquainted with Elder Lasserre Bradley of the "Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church." I preached at this church several times during my time with the Hardshells, and whatever comments I might make about that church and Elder Bradley come from this first-hand experience. In fact, it was at this church, shortly after my baptism into the "Old Church," that Dad bought me my copies of "Cayce's Editorials," from Elder Bradley and the Cincinnati Church.

Claud Cayce

Elder Claud Cayce was, during his time (1890 to around 1945), the leading spokesman for Hardshell doctrine and practice. He edited the famed Hardshell periodical, “THE PRIMITIVE BAPTIST,” started by his father, Elder S.F. Cayce.

He is reported to have had nearly three-hundred debates with Campbellites and others, and was considered the ablest defender of Hardshell doctrine in modern times. He has had a tremendous impact on Hardshell doctrine and practice. He probably was the primary cause of the Hardshell’s imbibing the doctrine known as "Time Salvation." But more on that later.

Cayce became a recognized "authority" on Hardshellism. Today, a quote from Cayce is of immense authoritative value. In fact, when I moved to North Carolina in 1976, and became a member of one of the churches in the Bear Creek Association, I met the association's "pope," the aged C.M. Mills.

He spoke very highly of "Brother Cayce" and advised me and all young preachers to study his "editorial writings" along side of the Bible. It is ironic that the oldest Baptist Association of America, the Philadelphia Baptist Association, recommended all their young preachers to study John Gill’s commentaries and Body of Divinity. Now, however, Gill has been replaced by Cayce.

Elder Mills himself obtained many of his "views" on Hardshell doctrine and practice from this veritable "patriarch." Elder Cayce was one of those who helped to "chop-up" the Old London Confession of Faith while at the Fulton Convention in 1900 (which brother Ross has discussed in his articles and I will deal with later in this book).

In studying Cayce's Editorials, I recall how troubled I was at some of the views which Cayce had advocated. I particularly remember how he "spiritualized" many plain passages of scripture. For instance, he believed that the story of "The rich man and Lazarus" (Luke 16) was not teaching what happens at death, i.e., about heaven and hell, but taught rather that the Jews were cut-off from the "church kingdom" and the Gentiles grafted in.

I also remember visiting the old home place, in Arkansas, of the Cayce family. Claud’s son, Hartsell, also a Hardshell preacher, still lived in the old home. Dad and I were there in the late 70's on a preaching trip. I remember going into the building where the Cayces published their famed periodical, “The Primitive Baptist,” and admiring the enormous library of books that this family had collected over the years. Truly impressive.

My Father and His Ministry

Dad, in my opinion, has been one of the top "Elders" within the Hardshell denomination for the past 25-30 years. He is one of their most theologically-trained. He attended a Baptist Bible college, prior to becoming a Hardshell, for about two years. He also has one of the largest personal libraries of all their preachers and has been one of the most laborious in his private studies (Cayce, an exception, of course). He has been about the only Hardshell of the last 50 years to engage others, chiefly among the Campbellites, in "debates" to defend Hardshell Doctrine. He certainly is well-read in Hardshell history (although, sadly, not as much as he should be).

For several years my father was the leading writer, among the "contributing editors," of one of the leading Hardshell periodicals of the past thirty years, namely “THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST,” edited by Dad's and my friend, Elder S. T. Tolley, of Atwood, Tennessee. I too wrote numerous articles for this paper when I was with the Hardshells.

I myself have been "ordained" twice by the Hardshells, once in August of 1974 in Middletown, Ohio and the other time in June of 1979 in Shalotte, North Carolina.

It was in the fall of 1972, within weeks of my baptism, that I began to be called upon, by my Dad, to "introduce the services," as the Hardshells are accustomed to say. This was at the Middletown church. It was a small church with about 30-40 regular attendants, but it was very warm and lively. Both the singing (which was "acapella" and "congregational") and the preaching were very "spirited." But more of that later.

Let me first get back to Dad and his influence on me and of his standing among the Hardshells. I also want to address the question of how both Dad and myself (and later three brothers and one sister) all became Hardshell Baptists. I will also relate some of my personal experiences while among the Hardshell brethren.

Dad and Mom had been married only a few years when Dad was "saved" at a service of the Lindenwald Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ohio. This church was a Missionary Baptist church, of which my maternal grandparents were members. Mom and Dad already had two children and I was on the way. They lived with my grandparents and it was through their encouragement that Dad and Mom attended the Lindenwald church. Grandmother (Eva Rickles) died that year (shortly after seeing Dad "saved") and six months before I was born.

Dad had just ended his "stint" in the Korean War and had been a typical teenage, depraved sinner, as he himself would testify. And indeed Dad had been "saved," or at least his entire life had been drastically changed. His commitment to Christ and the Christian faith was fervent and his zeal was very great.

So, when I was just an infant, Dad quit his job and he and Mom sold their house, packed everything and left with 3 kids to go to Springfield, Missouri so that Dad could attend the Baptist Bible College, which is under the Baptist Bible Fellowship.

After conversion, Dad had felt an almost immediate "call to preach," and so, with reluctance from Mom (God rest her soul), but with money and prayer support from the Lindenwald church, they took off. Mom and Dad both attended the college but Mom soon had to drop-out (because of the birth of my younger sister, Judy, in June of 1957), a decision she said that she later regretted. She immensely enjoyed the fellowship there.

Near the end of Dad's 2nd year at the college, he came to be a believer in the "doctrines of grace." The college was basically "Arminian," however. But through his own studies of the scriptures and sovereign grace literature, Dad came to be an adamant "Calvinist."

His outspokenness on these things in class soon caused problems. He felt that he could no longer stay in fellowship with them and so, he and Mom and the four kids all returned to Hamilton, Ohio.

Dad, as brother Bob Ross knows firsthand, came to Ashland, Kentucky around 1958 to search-out a fellowship of "Sovereign Grace" or "Calvinistic" Baptists. After visiting with the brethren of Calvary Baptist Church of Ashland, Dad and Mom were both "re-baptized" (they had been baptized previously into the Lindenwald church).

The Ashland church were "Landmarkers" and I assume that they had a strong influence on his embracing basic "Landmarkism."

I know that in these days, and for a few years following, Dad was an ardent believer in the leading tenets of Calvary Church's fellowship, namely, "Landmarkism," "Calvinist doctrine," "Premillennialism," "Absolute Predestination," "Means" and "Missions," etc.

From what I've read and seen of his writings and debates of that period, he was a very sound teacher (except for his Landmarkism). I remember, even at a tender age of 5 or 6, meeting brother Ross while Dad and the family were visiting him, brother John Gilpin and the Calvary Church.

During those early days of fellowship with Calvary Baptist and her circle of churches of like fellowship, Dad labored (under "authority" from the Calvary Church) in the Hamilton area to begin a domestic mission with the intention of forming a church. I remember those days.

We met first in our house and later in a small building on Walnut Street. The church was called "The New Testament Baptist Church." We had Sunday School at first, until Dad "came to see their evil" (his words). The church had a piano and even at that young age I can remember my Mom teaching in the Sunday School and the church, singing "At the cross, At the cross, where I first saw the light . . . It was there by faith I received my sight, and now I am happy all the way." Vividly, I can also hear the church singing, "Leaning on the everlasting arms," and "Alas, and did my Saviour bleed," etc.

Dad Joins the Hardshells

Actually, it was when Dad began to preach against Sunday Schools that he began to have trouble with Calvary Baptist's fellowship and lost a few members of his church. I personally think that Dad felt alone and isolated at this time. He began to look around and, as he says, to "study the scriptures more closely."

He told me that he first attended a Hardshell church in Carlisle, Ohio on a Sunday afternoon at a church called "Tapscott." They only met once a month, and in the afternoon. Dad said that there were only about 6-8 people there and that they were all old. Dad said he was somewhat scared to go because he had heard so many "bad things about them" by his former fellowship. But he was "impressed" with their "simplicity" of "worship" and of the "humility" and "mannerisms" of the preacher and people.

The preacher had no written "notes," was rather old, and not well-educated. But, as Dad would say, he "spoke from his heart" and "with tears."

He said he was also "impressed" with how they "ended their services"; the preacher gave no long, drawn-out "invitations," but simply stopped preaching and started singing. At this point, the congregation also started singing as they all left their seats to go in a line to "shake hands with," "kiss" and/or "embrace" the preacher. This is a common and much promoted "tradition" in the Hardshell churches.

Dad had become "attracted," but it was, in my opinion, a "fatal attraction" in many ways. Dad has said he felt, while at that service, that he had "gone back in time" and was "sitting in one of the original apostolic churches." He began to think that he had "found the Church" at last. This church became, in his view, "Canaan's land." The Hardshell church was the "True Church" and "Kingdom of God."

After experiencing this great attraction for the Hardshells, but still having some "serious doctrinal issues" separating him from them, he began to visit other Hardshell churches and preachers to discuss those "issues," chiefly with Elders Bradley and Tolley. He was already an "Anti-Sunday Schooler," and it seems to me that the Hardshells were able to use this as an advantage in getting him to "oppose" other such "inventions" for the same reasons that he opposed Sunday Schools, things such as "musical instruments," "choirs," "salaried ministry," "women teachers," "revival meetings," "seminaries," "missions," etc.

Dad had embraced the idea, like the Hardshells, that anything pertaining to the church's doctrine, work or practice must have been originated by the apostolic churches and that any "new" work, doctrine or practice of later origin was "evil," "man-made" and "modern."

With the Hardshells, anything in those areas which is post-apostolic is to be anathematized. Patternism, a deadly cancer, has been a major error in both the Hardshells and the Campbellites. Brother Ross has written against the dangers of Patternism and more will be said on that later in this book.

Dad later took the unusual view, even for the Hardshells, that the Apostle John's "sin unto death" was "marital adultery." The "death" was not physical death, but permanent loss of membership in the Hardshell Church and, of course, its "blessings and privileges," i.e. baptism, the Lord's Supper and feet-washing.

Not all Hardshells share this view, but it is the "mainstream" position and is, with most, a "test of fellowship." Many "splits" and "divisions" have occurred over this issue, particularly when one "sister church" takes in another church's "excluded" adulterers or retains one in their fellowship.

One of their leading preachers in Alabama, former Governor Guy Hunt, and one who has been in my home, reportedly believes that if you ever had "premarital sex," then you also could never become a member of the church or be baptized.

The issue of "perseverance" also became an issue for Dad to re-address and he also did some "reforming" on this issue. He continued to believe in "preservation" and "eternal security," but not "perseverance," at least not as held by the brethren of the Old Baptist Confessions. But more on that later.

After all this "changing," or as Dad would say, "coming to more light," he decided to "join the Primitive Baptists." He had already been teaching these "new things" to his small church. The church got smaller still. Finally, those few who were left, all voted to "join" the Hardshells. Being Landmarkers, the Hardshells "re-baptized" the whole church (Dad's third time).

(Mom did not join because she and Dad had divorced prior to his uniting with the Hardshells. I and the other kids lived with Mom and my step-father, with Dad visiting us regularly)

Really, Dad was not only isolated and alone religiously just prior to joining the Hardshells, but also socially and domestically. Mom continued, till she died, to be an "Absoluter" and a "Calvinistic Missionary Baptist," and was definitely not a "Landmarker."

I was not at that time under Dad's Hardshell influence; that was around 1963 and 1964. Dad became a Hardshell around 1966.

Let me now tell some of my experiences relative to my Bible and Hardshell history studies. I began to collect the current Hardshell literature, subscribing to most of their periodicals, and reading the "debates" of the Hardshell fathers, i.e., Cayce, Daily, Thompson, Dalton, Paine, Holder, etc.

I also received my copy of the famed “HASSELL'S HISTORY,” and I also read numerous other writings of men such as Newman, Redford, Hanks, Potter, Craig, Oliphant, etc. Particularly did I study the things that these Hardshells had to say about the "Great Division" between the so-called Old School (Hardshell) and the New School (Missionary, or as Hardshells would say, the "Softshells").

The question naturally arises as to how I could accept the view that the Hardshells were the "true," "Old," “Original,” or "Primitive" Baptists. Briefly stated, I was in error in accepting the statements of Hardshell "Historians" without diligently checking out their claims.

Today I realize that those Hardshell “histories” are fraught with serious "deceptions." Actually, these so-called histories are a very good example of what is called “revisionist histories.” Those Hardshell “revisions” are serious errors in "interpretation" of those events and times by Hardshells with "faulty vision" and an evil agenda. Much of what they write in regard to their history is bunk, perhaps wishful thinking. Very few of them have been honest historians. The few honest ones have sometimes left the Hardshells to associate with those truly Old Baptists who accept the Old Confessions (like the Kirklands, but more on that later).

I remember discussing with Dad, during those early years in the Hardshells, about the so-called "split" between the "Old" and "New Schoolers." I remember asking Dad about the so-called "Sovereign Grace Baptists." I affirmed that they were not "Arminian" or "Fullerite," but "Gillite" and believers in grace just as the Hardshells. In the "split," where did these folks go? Was there a "third party" to the famed old "split?"

Dad responded by saying that there was indeed some groups who were aligned with neither (such Baptists as J.R. Graves would later be identified with) the Hardshells nor the "modern mission movement" and that these were the grand-parents of the modern Sovereign Grace Baptists (or Independent Baptists).

I also asked him about the London and Philadelphia Confessions. I asked whether these "Sovereign Gracers" weren't more like the "Old Baptists" of the Confessions, rather than the Hardshells, especially since they believed in "gospel means" as did the signers of the old Confessions. His response was that “the Confessions were not totally sound” and did not express the position of all the Baptists of the time.

This, however, I have found to be false, for no "Old Baptist" prior to 1800 and the days of Gilbert Beebe held to Hardshell belief on the new birth. So, basically, I left this issue somewhat unsettled in my mind until I could research it more at a later time.

Hardshellism and the Bible

Now let me relate some of my other early experiences in reconciling Hardshell views with the Bible itself. I did not find it difficult to find what is called "Calvinism" in the scriptures. So, with this much, I was content with what the Hardshells preached.

The problems that arose in my mind, however, during those early stages of Bible study, concerned their views on "Spirit Alone" regeneration, without "gospel means.”

I also, as a young pastor and teacher in the church, and constant reader of God’s word, often felt guilty about not being able to call upon those who heard me to “repent” or to “believe,” to “receive” or “trust Christ,” to “be saved” or “born again.” In fact, fear kept me from doing what I felt burdened to do. I would be branded an “Arminian” and would be shunned and spoken against, have doors shut, etc.

Other issues also aroused suspicion in my mind at that time, such as "marriage and divorce," "Church Government," "Landmarkism," "Eschatology," "Sunday Schools," "Musical Instruments," etc.

I remember calling Dad on the telephone regularly with "questions about a certain verse" which, it seemed to me, taught contrary to Hardshellism's "anti-means" doctrine. For instance, I remember asking Dad about II Thess. 1:7-9 and the fact that Paul said that "those who do not know God and obey the gospel would be lost eternally." Dad's "explanation" and attempt to "harmonize" the verse with Hardshellism did not satisfy me. His idea was that the text did not affirm that all who disobeyed the gospel would be eternally lost (which in my mind it obviously did). His idea was that there were basically four groups in the scriptures relative to this verse. They are:

(1) Those who know not God and obey not.
(2) Those who know not God and obey.
(3) Those who know God and obey not.
(4) Those who know God and obey.

To Dad, Paul was affirming the eternal damnation of group #1 and not of group #3, as the Missionaries taught. But the question in my mind was, is there a group representing #3?

To Hardshells, there are folks who truly know God BUT do not know Christ or the gospel and do not obey the gospel. This, however, I later came to see was a great falsehood.

All the "sheep" (elect) "follow" Christ (obey him). Those who do not "obey" are ignorant of God and eternally lost.

Needless to say, there were many other phone calls to Dad in order to get the Hardshell "explanation" of those scripture passages that seemed to contradict Hardshellism. I will have more to say on these when I examine more closely Hardshell positions on regeneration and other pertinent doctrines.

"Popery"

In those early years in the Hardshell church, I soon had my first confrontation with Hardshell "popery," especially in their beloved "Associations."

In 1973 Dad, while a contributing editor of THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST periodical, wrote an article on "Satan" and it was published on the front page of the paper. In this article Dad took the Baptist and historic Christian position that Satan was once in heaven as an angel of God until he "sinned and was cast out." That position was rejected by most of the Hardshells and became a "test of fellowship" with many.

After the article was published, the "peace and fellowship" of the churches in the Powell's Valley Association were greatly "disturbed". Soon, one church after another in that Association took up measures to "withdraw fellowship" and "declare against" Dad and our church in Middletown.

Finally, amidst the turmoil, one of the churches, under the influence of "pope" John Robbins, "called for a council of sister churches" to settle the matter. A council was held with the Oak Ridge, Tennessee church. In this council I saw first-hand the ignorance, tradition and "kangaroo court" tactics of these Hardshells. It was typical of the "power struggles" that occur in cults and heretical sects.

The "resolution" that was drawn-up and agreed upon demanded that Dad and the Middletown Church vow to "never preach in any way, publicly or privately, the view that Satan was once in heaven and fell from it." If he and the church did not agree to this, then they would be "dis-fellowshipped" by the other churches in the Association.

Of course, Dad and the church could not in good conscience do this and subsequently were "excluded" by other churches. This caused confusion and division in other areas as well as in the Powell's Valley Association.

Most of the churches among the Hardshells, for one reason or another, refused to side with Dad on the issue. Most agreed that his views were "heretical." Others did not side with Dad, such as Elder Tolley, not so much because of his views, for he shared them, as did some other Hardshells, but because the Middletown Church had "taken in excluded members" of the other churches of the Powell's Valley Association who sided with him.

In any case, Dad and the Middletown Church found themselves somewhat isolated from the Hardshells at large. If Dad preached at a certain church after that, the Powell's Valley Association would threaten that church, "call them on the carpet," etc.

In most Hardshell associations, there is either a direct or indirect correspondence with other associations in America, so the "controversy", proverbially speaking, "spread like wild fire."

My "Ordination"

During those days of endless controversy, I also experienced many "closed doors" to go and preach. It was during this time of a "break in fellowship" that I was first called to be "ordained" to the "full work of the gospel ministry" by the Middletown Church. Letters were sent out to the sister churches in the area to come to the Middletown church and assist in forming a "presbytery" to "ordain" me. Several local "Elders" attended in spite of the "threat of retaliation" by the Powell's Valley Association and her "correspondents".

The Elders at this my first ordination were Dad, Boggs, Trautner, Bolender, Jones, together with various deacons from the churches in the area. Later the Minutes of this "ordination service" were published in “THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST.” All these Elders were recognized as leaders in the Hardshell denomination.

This ordination took place in August of 1974. Over the next eighteen months or so I continued to travel and preach where I could. Many churches and preacher brethren did not agree with the act of the Powell's Valley Association in making this issue a "test of fellowship" and so tried to "side-step" the issue. But the Powell's Valley brethren, under the leadership of "pope" Robbins, continued to put the "pressure" on those who were using and "recognizing" Dad, the Middletown Church, and me.

Dad continued to affirm that the "real issue" was not the "origin of Satan," but rather the "ignorance" of the Hardshells in general and the "ambitions" of "pope" Robbins in particular, who, Dad thought (and I agree), felt "threatened" by Dad's position in the Association.

From my study of Hardshell history within the associational framework, and from personal experience, this "butting of heads" among preachers, seeking the "moderatorship" of the association, is a common occurrence. It is a fact that most associations have one great leader who "rules the roost." There are "pecking orders" in nearly all groups, and the Hardshells are no different. In the larger and leading associations, this one "great leader" controls several associations far and near, due to the "direct correspondence" with other associations. It is my honest observation that there is much "jockeying for position" in most Hardshell associations. While these associations often give lip-service to the idea that associations have “no authority over the churches," they nevertheless exercise practical authority and sway over them.

No wonder that Hardshell and "Absoluter", Elder W. J. Berry, could write (in 1958) and say that "there are now not more than nine men whose dictates control all the principle groups of Primitive Baptists throughout the United States." (From the "Old Faith Contender")

When I moved to North Carolina in 1976 (to be married to a girl who was the daughter of Elder Newell Helms, who then and now, in 2008, continues to be a leader among the Hardshells in this area of North Carolina, namely, in the "Bear Creek Association") I found that Elder C. M. Mills (referred to earlier) was probably one of those "nine men" that brother Berry spoke about. The Bear Creek Association was in "direct correspondence" with Powell's Valley and so my move to North Carolina "ran me smack into" the controversy over the "devil doctrine" and the "orderly standing" of the Middletown Church.

My Second "Ordination"

Shortly after my move to North Carolian, in the spring of 1976, I met with Elder C. M. Mills at his home in Charlotte. Elder Newell Helms was also there, as was "pope" John Robbins and his cohort, Ray Wells, the "official" Powell's Valley Association "clerk;" the latter two had driven 300 miles from Tennessee to "help out" with "my situation."

Elders Mills and Robbins believed that my "ordination" was "invalid," and "illegal" and not "recognizable" because it was done by the Middletown Church while in "disorder," having been officially "declared against" by the Powell's Valley Association.

My argument, with some assistance from Mill's protege and my father-in-law, Newell Helms, was that it was conducted by sound brethren, i.e. Trautner, Jones, Bolender, etc.

I also argued that the reason for non-fellowship was invalid. Never had a Baptist church made the "origin of Satan" an issue effecting fellowship, excepting that our forefathers rejected Daniel Parker's "Two-Seedism" with its "eternal and uncreated Devil" belief. However, seeing that Robbins was himself a smaller "pope" under the greater "pope" Mills, and yet "close friends," Mills was insistent on seeing me "re-ordained" so that, as he said, this "cloud" would not "hang over me" and my ministry for the rest of my life.

Needless to say, I was in a "tight spot". I agreed with the Middletown Church on this issue. But I had recently married and "settled down" in North Carolina and had to find a way to "get along" with the brethren among whom I hoped to labor. I began to pray over the matter and to ask "counsel and advice" from many "elders" far and near.

The "elders" I spoke with were primarily the following: Trautner, Bolender, Jones, Bradley, Tolley, Watts, and some few others. All of the "elders" in my former "presbytery" were all sympathetic and gave consent for "re-ordination" if it would help me and "keep the peace," except for Dad and Boggs, who were both of the Middletown Church.

I remember talking in particular with Elder Bradley. Why, I don't know, for he was one of the "cowardly" preachers who, when invited to be in the first ordination, failed to come. I suppose that it was because he was a recognized "leader" among the Hardshells and did not want to risk his "standing." In any case, he advised a "re-ordination."

Brother Bradley had himself been conversant with "pope" Mills when he first came to "spy-out" the "Old Church." Bradley certainly didn't want to "butt heads" with Mills. The Cincinnati Church was an "independent" church, i.e. not in an association. Though not in an association, they were still somewhat amenable to associational "politics."

So I agreed to be "re-ordained." This meant my "exclusion" from the Middletown Church and caused "hurt feelings" with Dad. I united with Bethel Primitive Baptist Church in the Bear Creek Association of North Carolina and later was "re-ordained" by them. The "cloud" did somewhat disappear, but only to be followed by other ones. I filled regular "appointments" at this church for some time and also preached regularly by invitation in several of the churches of that Association.

Over the next few years (1976-1982), the churches in the Bear Creek, Powell's Valley, and a few others, began to magnify the issue of the "origin of Satan." In nearly every "ordination service," whether of preachers or deacons, "presbyters" would ask the candidate his views on the subject. Several "elders," like Tolley, took issue with this practice. They were opposed to making this issue a "test of fellowship." I stood up in one "ordination service" and objected to this type of query. But I was ignored and viewed as a "trouble-maker."

In fact, I myself had been asked at Bethel Church, during my ordination service, whether Satan "fell from Heaven." My answer was Luke 10:18 - "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

I was ordained with this answer, to my surprise. I was also asked whether the "story of the rich man and Lazarus" taught that the rich man went to a "literal hell." I said that he went to "Hades." Again, this satisfied the brethren.

One visiting "elder" from West Virginia, Norvel Mann, later confessed to me his shock and disgust at the line of questioning. It was obvious to him that the so-called presbytery was doing everything they could to find a reason not to ordain me. Due to the influence of Cayce and Mills, the belief that Luke 16 taught what happens at death to the saved and lost was regarded as "heresy."

Looking back on these times makes me thankful to be out of such a tyrannical cult. It wasn't until I began to pastor two non-associational churches in eastern North Carolina in the early 80's that I received some relief from this "tyranny." I pastored there until leaving with a letter of dismissal in good standing around 1983.

In the few years following this, I came to see the errors of the Hardshells as to their "Articles of Faith." When I saw the truth of "means," I immediately contacted the Sovereign Grace Baptists here and there, including brother Ross, and thus began a new search for fellowship.

Today, I feel liberated from the "shackles" of Hardshell heresy and popery. My experiences among them and my acquaintance with their teachings make me desirous of "exposing" their unscriptural ways and beliefs for the benefit of others whom they might lead astray.

Chpt. 3 - The Hardshell Cult

2008-10-21T11:47:00.000-07:00

It is my firm conviction that those groups of churches that call themselves Primitive Baptists, or Hardshells, are by definition a cult. They teach “heresy” and are an “apostate” group of “Baptists.” This does not mean, however, that I believe they never preach the gospel or that all Hardshells are unregenerate. I do not doubt that many of them are sadly deceived and that others genuinely love the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hardshells are Christians by profession. They believe most fundamentals of the faith, being trinitarian, Baptistic (generally), Calvinistic (generally), and conservative. They are not a cult if we define cult as a group of those who deny the Deity of Jesus. But, I think the word cult also can be applied to groups who have proper views on the doctrine of Christ’s person, but nevertheless have certain other beliefs and practices that are fundamentally “heretical.” This is the case with the Hardshells.

Brother Ross said:

“A group becomes such a cult when it becomes so distinct from other sects within the Christianity cult that it has reason to reject all of the other sects as not being basically Christian. In other words, the group declares "exclusivity" for itself, and theoretically and practically separates as "an island unto itself."

“In declaring its own uniqueness from all other Christian sects, and from all other religions as such, it has "culticized" itself.” When does this happen? It happens when (1) no other sect is regarded as having any "true Christians" in that sect, and (2) no other sect is regarded as preaching the true Gospel which is capable of producing a "true Christian."

Thus, as Baptists and other Christians of the same basic Gospel faith and brotherhood, we do not unilaterally declare "who" is a cult by our own determinations; rather, the cult creates and declares its very own "culticization." The cult REJECTS US. It declares itself to be exclusive from others, and considers itself to be a distinct and unique entity from all other sects, a group wherein, they say, alone, may the truth of God be found, along with the legitimate adherents of that truth."

(From his article entitled "Cult" - emphasis mine)

In further clarifying what it means to be a Christian cult, I cite these helpful remarks.

“The ambiguity of the term ‘cult’ makes it necessary to determine in what sense the word is used. For instance, a sociological definition will differ from a religious one, and a Christian definition will differ from, say, the Mormon or Islamic view. Therefore, if and when you use the word ‘cult,’ you should qualify it.

Given the fact that there’s currently no universal definition of a cult, it seems best to ask simple questions whenever someone talks about cults: “Just what do you mean by the term ‘cult’?” You may not agree with the way the person uses the term, but at least you’ll know where he or she is coming from.

You may also want to ask yourself the same question before referring to any group as a cult. It may not be such a bad idea to begin by explaining what you mean by the term “cult” in order to avoid any potential misunderstanding.”

(A Cult Recipe?, in “Prophets of the Apocalypse,” by Kenneth Samples, Erwin de Castro, Richard Abanes, and Robert Lyle)

Another source adds this information and criteria.

“As if defining the term ‘cult’ weren’t already difficult enough, there is another distinction to be aware of: the term can be defined either sociologically or theologically.”

“Sociological definitions of the term ‘cult’...include consideration of such factors as authoritarian leadership patterns, loyalty and commitment mechanisms, lifestyle characteristics, and conformity patterns (including the use of various sanctions in connection with those members who deviate).”

(Ronald Enroth, “What Is A Cult?” in A Guide to Cults and New Religions, e.d. Ronald Enroth (Downers Grove, Ill., Intervarsity 1983), p. 14)

“Theological definitions of the term ‘cult’ make note of the reasons why a particular group’s beliefs and/or practices are considered unorthodox – that is, in conflict with the body of essential teachings of the movement the group compares itself to.”

“A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: “cultic” (may be used with reference to tendencies as well as full cult status).”

(Robert Bowman, A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy)

“A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrine system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian Faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.”

(Alan Gomes, Unmasking The Cults, Zondervan, 1995)

Let it be clearly understood then that the word cult is not entirely evil or negative, but that the word itself can be used to describe the true "body of Christ". All believers are a cult. But, as in most debates, one must be careful to define terms. This is what I will do in charging the Hardshells with being a cult, with being heretics and apostates from "the Faith."

There are certain words that are called by speech and communications experts “motive” or “emotive.” These are words that speakers know will evoke certain feelings, thoughts, and emotions from a particular audience. For instance, a grand dragon leader of the KKK can stand before his hooded knights and say “Jew” or “Nigger”, knowing that it will evoke ill and angry feelings. Needless to say, words stand for concepts. What thoughts and emotions certain words stir in a person will be based upon that person’s definition and understanding of the concept behind the word.

Cult is such a motive word. It evokes certain thoughts and emotions, though not always the same ones, in various people, phenomenologically speaking. So, let me further define the word as I have used it of the Hardshells.

I believe cult has come to be recognized by the following characteristics.

1) A denial of some fundamental teaching of the Bible. Such a denial being unique to that group (i.e. their “hobby horse” or “unifying principle”).

2) Exclusiveness – the belief that this group consists of the “one and only ones,” the purest religion and the only true representatives of “the faith.” Involved here are bigotry, pride, and egotism.

3) Psychological Entrapment – wherein the individual members are “brainwashed” and “mesmerized.” The leaders manipulate and control the minds of the members. Escape from the group becomes rare. These folks are ruled by intimidation and the fear of man.

4) False Claims – wherein the cult expresses its extravagant view of itself. Many cults believe that they are “special,” yea, in the highest and most restrictive sense, the “chosen” or “favorites” of the Lord. For instance, a cult might claim that their members are the 144,000 of the Apocalypse. They also may claim to have “special revelation” that other groups do not have.

In each of these areas, the Hardshells “fit the bill.” They are by scriptural definition a “heresy”; that is, they are a “schism,” “sect,” “faction,” “party,” “division,” “split,” etc. They are “apostate” because they have “removed,” “departed,” “left,” and “changed positions” from the faith of the apostles, early church, and of the historic Baptists. They are anything but “primitive,” “original,” or “Old” Baptists.

Like brother Ross has so clearly shown, this is a “farcical” and “spurious” claim, to say the least. They have “apostasized” from the faith of the “Old Baptists” (as expressed in the London and Philadelphia Confessions) and yet continue to boldly claim to be the “Old” or “Original” Baptists!

That is like the fellow who claimed to have his great grandfather’s “old” and “original” pocket knife EVEN THOUGH HE HAD REPLACED NEARLY EVERY PART OF IT WITH NEW PARTS! It is almost laughable.

The question, “Who are the Primitive Baptists?” has been debated a few times by the Hardshells. The ones I have read (Potter-Throgmorton and Daily-Throgmorton) had this as a major issue, the proposition debated. Though Throgmorton could have done a better job, nonetheless, he demonstrated how the Hardshell "claim was a gross falsehood.

Today no Hardshell “elder” will come forward to publicly defend their many "claims." This is often another characteristic of a cult. Some tend to “go underground” and become secluded, especially when their false claims are being exposed.

Hardshells preach many sermons in which they extol their own peculiar virtues and characteristics while condemning the supposed evils of other churches and denominations. They are often making erroneous charges against the “Arminians,” “New School Baptists,” “Missionary Baptists,” “Means Baptists,” etc.

When asked to defend those charges and claims in public debate with those prepared for a rebuttal of their claims, today’s Hardshells have “tucked in the tail and run.”

However, brother Ross documented the history of the movement, which is itself a part of the history of the Baptists in general. He certainly shows that “Old Baptists” are men like Gill, Spurgeon, Kiffin, Keach, and the brethren of the old confessions.

Bob Ross has also shown that the “chief error” of the Hardshell cult is “regeneration” by the “Spirit Alone” without the Gospel or word of God as a “means.” He shows this to be a novel idea and recent invention among Baptists. He has also demonstrated in many ways how their errors are against the scriptures and the gospel and the true facts of history. I hope I can enlarge upon that in this work.

To some, the question as to who are today the true “Primitive” or “Original” Baptists is an all important one. The question is most important to “Landmarkers,” those who believe that the Baptist Church is the church that Jesus established and promised “perpetuity” (Matt. 16:18) These define “church” as being any group that adopts and follows their “credo” or “articles of faith.” Any group not accepting those tenets are not "recognized" as a “true church.”

These Hardshell Landmarkers believe that the “authority” to baptize, evangelize, eat the Lord’s Supper, etc., resides strictly with the “church” so defined. Therefore, only the work done by the “true church” is "valid."

This belief necessitates that a group have a proper “genealogy.” A church is “authorized” by another church. This led the Landmarkers into controversy on criteria for deciding if a “church” is really a “church.” The relative nature of the question as to who are in fact the true “Old Baptists” should be apparent.

All Landmarkers agree that the “true” church that Jesus set up has existed in visible form since the apostles. Having agreed that the “Baptists” of the Reformation and Dark Ages were the rightful descendants of the apostles, the question then is, who today, among the Baptist sects, are the present rightful heirs and descendants of those “Old” Baptists?

Having said all this, Let me say that the Hardshells boldly and constantly affirm that they only are the “true,” “old,” or “primitive” Baptists and that all other Baptist groups are “heretics” and “apostates.”

The Hardshells, being a cult, do not have an environment that fosters free thinking and exchange of views. “Tradition” reigns almost supreme in the Hardshell churches. Whatever has been the historic Hardshell theory or practice (in a given area) becomes the “Old Baptist position.” A quote from a Hardshell forefather and patriarch, like Daily, Cayce, or Hassell, is oftentimes more authoritative than the scriptures themselves. The foremost reason for their nick-name, Hardshell, is due to their stubbornness in refusing to listen carefully to the arguments contrary to their traditions. They are truly “set in their ways.”

The cultic nature of the Hardshell denomination is further seen in the fact that they like to place their meeting houses way out “in the sticks” and away from populated areas. Elder Mills expressed the prevailing attitude of them when he said, “give us our Bible and leave us alone.” This too was expressed by Hardshell fathers, C.B. and his son Sylvester Hassell, Hardshell authorities on their “history,” to say:

“Genuine Baptist churches are seldom found in cities, and when found in such localities, are apt to be in a sickly condition.” (History of the Church of God, pg. 836)

Well, this certainly would cast suspicion of many modern day Primitive Baptist Churches! Certainly of one of their leading churches, the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church! If you are a Hardshell church with your meeting house in any place other than the “back-woods,” then you are probably of “inferior grade,” “sickly,” or to be “declared in disorder” by the country or frontier churches.

Hassell also, on the same page, says that such "city-churches" follow the lead of the Missionaries (and Arminians) and meet more than once per month or week! Laughable.

Probably the largest congregation and meeting house that the Hardshells have is the one in Nashville, Tennessee, called Bethel Primitive Baptist Church.” This church is envied by some Hardshells who wish they were as prosperous. Others think that the “grandeur” of the meeting house, with its “cathedral” style and “pastor’s study,” is too much like the “Missionaries,” “Arminians,” and/or “denominational churches.” This would be the view of Hassell and Mills and many others who think Nashville, being a city, would not likely have a sound church.

Most Hardshells pride themselves on being “quaint” and “simple,” “small” and “few,” and believe that the more Hardshell a church is the smaller it will be. The most “prosperous” churches are those belonging to that faction called “Progressives.” These are Hardshells who are viewed as “heretical” because they have “Bible classes,” “Sunday Schools,” “Missions,” “Musical Instruments” and “Choirs,” etc.

To many Hardshells, a large membership, over 150, is a sign that something is amiss and that there are too many Missionary or Arminian "tendencies" and characteristics present, and probably they are too “loose” in discipline, doctrine, and practice.

Actually, the Hardshells, do just about everything they can to be unlike the Missionary Baptists. They work hard to oppose whatever the Missionaries and Arminians believe and do. It has gotten to be absurd and the source of much difficulty.

Chpt. 4 - Hardshell HIstory Primer

2008-10-21T11:46:00.000-07:00

Hardshell History

Hardshells make many false and erroneous "claims." Nowhere is this more evident than in the so-called "histories" that they have produced. They "claim" to be the "true," "Old," and "Original" Baptists. They "claim" that they only have stood "unchanged" from what their "forefathers" were, prior to the "Great Division" in 1832. They try to "prove" this from scripture and from history; however, both are against them, as I will continue to show.

The Hardshell denomination was born and developed between 1820-1840 in America. Many Hardshells refer to the year 1832 as the precise or official time when the Hardshells severed all ties with "Mission Baptists." This was the year of the famed "Black Rock Address," wherein the Hardshells, under the leadership of Gilbert Beebe, and assembled at the Black Rock meeting-house in Maryland, declared "non-fellowship" for all Baptists who supported the "mission movement."

It took time for the controversy to reach the various parts of the country, but as it did, association after association took up the issue. Associations, churches and even families, soon divided and thus began what Hassell called a "war of words" that continued to this day; And, it will become obvious to the reader that the Hardshells have been the primary "combatants" in this "Cold War," in "throwing stones" and "taking pot-shots."

Elder Claud Cayce himself put out a booklet entitled "HOT SHOTS" in which he "lambasted" the "Arminian" or "Missionary Baptists," and as you will see from the quotes to follow from Hassell, the Hardshells have been the most "violent" in their "attacks" upon non-Hardshell groups of Baptists, almost to the point of using "terrorist tactics."

You will also see that, to the Hardshells, the number one "enemy" is the "Mission Baptists." This will justify my "claim" that the Hardshells are, in many ways, a "hate group." They have very little good to say of the "New School" Baptists. This practice of "preaching against" the Missionaries has had its "adverse effects."

After you have been shown some of this "garbage" that the Hardshells spew forth against the Missionaries, you will then be amazed, like brother Ross and I have been, that some Hardshells ask us, saying, "What has gotten your ire up? What have we done to upset you? Why don't you leave us alone?"

Actually, these are questions that the Missionaries should have been asking the Hardshells, because it is they who will not leave the Missionaries alone, and it is they who have become "upset!" This is evident when we read the writings of Hassell and others.

The Hardshell "Name"

Hassell's view of the "Old School" or Hardshell faction of Baptists was that they were the "true," "orderly" and "original" Baptists and the "only ones" entitled to the name "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists. He recognizes, however, that the so-called New Schoolers repudiate the claim, especially those who still hold to the Calvinism of the old Confessions and yet are missionary, such as brother Ross and myself.

Hassell says:

“This claim on the part of the New School has been set up by some of them, perhaps, since the year 1870. Lectures have been given, sermons delivered, newspapers have teemed, magazines have been filled, and books have abounded with argument, declamation and sophistry, to prove that the New School are the Old School-that the Old School are the New School-that white is black, and black is white-that the pharisaical, money-loving, money-hunting, money-begging, mesmerizing, passion-exciting, 'do and live' Baptists of the present day are the Simon-pure, old fashioned, Primitive Baptists of a hundred years ago; and that Kehukeeites and Blackrockers need not lay claim to any such title at all! Thus it is seen after all what advantage there is thought to be in a good name" (page 749).

Talk about a "war of words!" Talk about "ad hominem" attacks! There is surely plenty of "venom" here! These words of Hassell reveal how much in love the Hardshells are with a "name!" They are like their "twin" brother, the "Campbellites," in their love of a name and title. The so-called New Schoolers did not fall in love with a name, as their churches generally just kept the name of "Baptist." The fact that Missionary Baptists, who remained Calvinistic, contend that they are the really "Old" Baptists, does not mean that they, like the Hardshells, covet the "name."

On page 759 of this venerated Hardshell "history," Hassell says further:

“How much does this advance the claim of these men [Missionary Baptists], who made or cling to this society [missions] to the title of 'Primitive Baptists?' Primitive Baptists! How Primitive? Why Primitive as far back as 1814. Born then . . . renounced the Church of Christ in 1814, and denounced her as an old-fashioned, worn out concern . . .”

Oh! how these Hardshells love their name! But the name does not fit them. Their rejection of the Old Confessions denies them to be "entitled" to the name of "Primitive" or "Old" Baptists! Hassell believed that the Missionary Baptists were the "new party, just sprung into existence during the present century" [19th] (page 755).

But the opposite is true, as brother Ross has shown already in his writings. The Hardshells are the ones newly "sprung!" No Baptist, prior to the 19th century, held that the Lord saved men apart from the preached gospel. Gilbert Beebe was the "innovator" of this "new" idea.

Dr. and Elder John Watson, whom the Hardshells claim as one of their own, but who is not one with them, affirms in his book, “THE OLD BAPTIST TEST”, published in the middle of the 19th century, that these Hardshells who reject "gospel means" are the "innovators!" He was opposed to much of the "methodology" of the mission movement, but he believed, like the old Confessions, that the gospel is "God's ordinary means" of saving sinners.

What about Change?

Jesus condemned some who erroneously contended, when they should not have, that “the old is better.” (Luke 5:39) Hardshells claim that they are the "original" Baptists because the Missionaries were the party who "changed" and brought in "new things," which they say was "the cause" of the "division."

The argument that they make runs like this; Missions are new among the Baptists. We don't have them. We are therefore the "old" Baptists. Sunday Schools, musical instruments, seminaries, Bible and Tract Societies, etc. are all "new" among the Baptists. We don't have them. We are therefore the "Old" Baptists.

But all this is "farcical." According to Hardshell, Elder W. J. Berry, who knows the true facts of history in the case, testifies that the Hardshells of his day (1960) had "changed" in many ways from the Hardshells of the 1820-1840 era. He points out that many of those Hardshells were against divorce, even for adultery, and were also opposed to Baptists having life insurance! (See his pamphlet entitled, WHAT WERE THE OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS IN 1840?-IN 1960?)

According to the statements that brother Ross has quoted from Dad and Elder Tolley, the Hardshells repudiate much of the old Confessions, especially as it concerns "gospel means," "predestination" and "perseverance." I ask the Hardshells: Who are the "old" Baptists? The Baptists who believe these things in the Confessions or those who do not? Who has "changed?"

Deception & Contradiction

One of the things that I have noticed in Hardshell "histories" is the deceptive way that they account history. They will often omit pertinent information about those ancient Baptists in order to give the "appearance" of being the truly old Baptists. These are nothing but the same kind of “revisionist histories” that dictators, like Stalin, have done. They are false histories. Brother Ross certainly has shown that with Hassell's reference to the Ketocton Association and its first moderator, Elder Fristoe. Hassell speaks of Fristoe and Ketocton as being "like one of them." However, Fristoe believed the confessions and in "gospel means." Did Hassell know that? Yes, he did. Then why not tell the reader? Because it served his purpose better not to mention it. He shows that he is not a true “historian.”

Actually, while I was with the Hardshells, I often heard them "claiming" certain 18th century Baptists as being "on their side," when in fact they were not. They claim Elder John Leland, but Elder Leland believed in gospel means, and accepted the Philadelphia and London Confessions of the Baptist Faith, and though he opposed many of the mission methods and of the “board system,” yet he is still not a 32nd cousin to the Hardshells. They claim, as I said, Elder Watson. But, he is against them too in their "anti-means" doctrine. The list could go on and on.

Some Hardshell "historians," unlike Hassell and others, make an attempt to appear or be somewhat "honest" in presenting the "facts of history." Elder Benjamin Griffin wrote a "History of the Primitive Baptists of the state of Mississippi," published first in 1853. He was honest enough to record how active the Mississippi Baptists were in the beginning in supporting and promoting "missions" of all kinds, both foreign and domestic. He also gives lengthy quotes from the histories of Mississippi's first Associations which show that they accepted the London and Philadelphia Confessions together with their belief in "gospel means." They were "Gillites" but, like Gill himself, believed that the elect were called, converted and regenerated by the word of God. More on that later.

Elder Griffin says, reluctantly, on page 124 of his history, that "were we not bound by the truth of history to speak of these things [the missionary zeal of those early Baptists-S.G.] we would gladly hide them in oblivion."

Hassell, Hanks, and other Hardshells have not been so honest and candid. You might wonder, at this point, how Griffin and other Hardshells can continue to claim to be "Old" or "Original," at least in Mississippi, in light of these revelations of true history. Basically, Griffin argued that those "Old Baptists" in Mississippi were "duped" by the wily Missionaries! This is interesting because he calls these Mission Baptists the "Old Baptists!" How could he not? They had been missionary ever since their beginning. And if these are they whom he "claims" as his "forefathers," i.e. the "Old" Baptists, what does that say of them today? If they are "Old" Baptists, then they are also "duped!" Or else they are not "old" Baptists!

Griffin shows that the missionary spirit continued until the late 1840's in Mississippi and that not a word was uttered against missions until the Hardshells came along. How does he handle that? He says on page 124:

“The reader, however, if he has paid strict attention to the history of this Association [the oldest in that state-S.G.], is now prepared to understand, that it is composed of two people, struggling against each other, sometimes one having the ascendancy, and sometimes the other.”

But the strange fact is, Elder Griffin never produced a single historical record until the late 1840's to indicate that anyone ever opposed the missionary work of the Baptists in that state! He wants his Hardshell readers to believe that they were there all along, but with their "mouths shut in silence!" But if this is the case, then how can they claim to be descended from that "silent minority?" Hardshells today don't "keep silent" in the presence of missionaries. Those "Old" Baptists in Mississippi did! It seems to me that Griffin would be more "Old Baptist" if he also kept his mouth shut and supported missions, both foreign and domestic.!

Actually, Griffin is not unlike Hassell in his "violent attacks" upon the Old Missionary Baptists! But I will not detail such. Suffice it to say that they consider the mission movement among Baptists as the "Man of Sin," "Anti-Christ," "Babylon," and as "abominable," "priestcraft," "worldly," "evil," etc. He also considers the "Anti-Mission" or Hardshell Baptists as being the descendants of Isaac and Sarah and the "Mission Baptists" as the offspring of Hagar and Ishmael! If this doesn't constitute them as a "hate group" and a "cult," then I don't know what you would call them!

There are so many contradictions in Griffin's and in Hassell's "histories" that it would take a lengthy book to expose them all. Let me give some further examples.

First, Griffin says, on page 143, that the Hardshells "never have crept into Armenian (sic) churches and attempted to draw away members from them."

But then on page 162, he says to those Arminian churches:

We believe that you have among you some of the Primitive Baptists; to them we say "Come out of her my people..."

He also says that those coming out of Missionary churches are like Lot coming out of Sodom"!

Another example of the contradictions and hypocrisy in Hardshell “history” is found on pages 133 and 186. On page 133, he says:

“It is the right of every sect, society, Denomination or Fraternity to fix the rules of their own government . . . and for this privilege the Primitive Baptists will ever pray.”

But the on page 186, he says:

“Hence, we believe Jesus Christ is King in Zion, and has the sole right to give laws for the government of His Church . . .”

Well, which way is it?

Let me also show you an inconsistency in Hassell's so-called history. He states on page 742 that the Kehukee Association passed a resolution that said:

“We will not countenance any preacher who travels within the bounds of this association, establishing societies for the collection of money, or who may be himself collecting money to support any institution whatever.” (Emphasis mine)

But later, after this was passed, we find that at the 1843 session of the Association, that "the churches were recommended to increase their future contributions specifying how much is intended for the association fund, and how much towards defraying the expenses of their messengers . . ."

Is the church not an "institution?" Are not their associations such? Hardshells must be blind not to see their hypocrisy. Perhaps it is the old "Do as I say and not as I do!"

Division

The Hardshells, as I have said, constantly charge those Old Missionary Baptists of early American history with being the sole cause and "guilty party" of the "Great Division" among the Baptists. Their only reason for this charge is given as being the introduction of something "new." It has been argued by them in court cases over church property and in public debate, that “when a political body has a division over a new innovation among them, then the side bringing in that "new" thing is the cause of the division.” They are the ones responsible for the division.

The problems with “arguments” like that are easily discerned. First of all, missions existed among Baptists for many years before anyone "got up in the air over it.” In the case of the Mississippi Baptists, missions were a big part of the collective work of the Baptists for over fifty years before a "protest" was ever uttered by a Baptist!

In most cases, the years of mission work continued among Baptists for over a hundred years in America before a Hardshell sprang up to "object," "dissent" and to "separate."

Now let us return to the Hardshell "argument" on who are, in fact, the "innovators" and "guilty party." If a body brings in a new thing and continues in possession of it for a hundred years without one protest, then who can say that it caused division?

Actually, it is the Hardshells who caused the division. In the above scenario, the Baptists were at peace for many years with their "missionary zeal," a fact of history that Hardshell "historians" reluctantly acknowledge, and didn't have any division until the Hardshells sprang on the scene!

Hassell unknowingly confirms this when he testifies, saying:

“The example of the Kehukee Association [in declaring non-fellowship for Mission Baptists in 1827-S.G.] . . .was encouraging to other similar bodies; and from 1827 to 1840 there was a stir among churches and associations all over the land, and many followed the example of old mother Kehukee-p. 738]."

What does Hassell say caused the "stir among the churches and associations?" The act of "old mother Kehukee!" Would there have been a "stir" had the Hardshells not acted as they did? (And, if they were all Hardshells?) What was it that "encouraged" those Baptist churches to separate and rail on their brethren? It was the few Hardshells in "old mother Kehukee!" Hassell also testifies that the act of the "old mother" was by no means unanimous. Several churches and associations remained missionary within the Kehukee and her circle of correspondents.

Is the "Old" Better?

The Hardshells have slanderously accused the Mission Baptists of being "idolaters" (Hassell, Griffin, Beebe, etc.) and worshiping their "golden calf" of missions, seminaries, Sunday Schools, etc. But if anyone has become an "idolater," it is the Hardshell. What is it that they "idolize?" Why, "antiquity!" To them, the "old is better." They are therefore not unlike the Pharisees in this regard.

This is why they continuously talk of being "old." They even strive to look "old” with their old buildings and customs. This is their means of brainwashing and deceiving themselves and others. They have told themselves for so long that they are "old," they have "hypnotically" believed it and become entranced with things old.

What can we say of the premise that "old is better?" Is it valid? Well, for one thing, the Hardshells themselves, as Elder Berry and others have testified, and which history proves have "changed" so many times! They have not lived-up to their boast! If the old is indeed better and they themselves have changed, then they must admit that they have degenerated and gone backward!

Actually, error is nigh as old as truth. Falsehood has an ancient history (Gen. 3). Many examples could be given to show that many changes have occurred in Baptist history and that many of them have been improvements.

I've heard Hardshells argue that the Lord established the Church as a perfect institution. As such, they argue, it didn't need any "change." But again we insist that the Hardshells of today have "changed" in many ways from their forefathers and from the first churches of the apostles. So, they themselves being judges, they have become imperfect!

The question that I have for my Hardshell brethren is, doesn't "growth" involve "change?" The Baptist church of the early part of American history was "growing" by “leaps-and-bounds.” This necessitated some change and improvement. Doesn't the word "repent" involve the idea of change? Were those Baptists prior to the rise and growth of Missions not in need of repentance on some things?

Speaking of change and innovation, who departed from the old Confessions on "means," "predestination" and "perseverance?" If the old is indeed better, then return to it, Hardshell! For the old is what is expressed in those confessions.

Hardshells admit that the basis of "modern missions" is the belief that the "gospel is a means" in the "salvation of sinners." This being so, what does that say for all that "missionary zeal" that the Hardshells admit characterized the early American Baptists? It says clearly that those Baptists believed in "gospel means!"

Another question for Hardshells to consider is how the overwhelming majority of the Baptists of the early 1800's could endorse, with little or no opposition from within, the "Missionary cause" at all if they were of the Hardshell character. If the pre-1800 Baptists were primarily Hardshell, how did they allow missions to enter among them in the first place? Would Hardshells today allow the same to occur? Hardshells argue that those "Old" Baptists were "duped" and "asleep on the job." But such debate tactics and attempts at “Sophistry” will not work except with the spiritually gullible. Well, in this case at least, the Hardshells would have to say that the old is not better. It also shows that today's Hardshells are unlike the pre-1800 Baptists.

Also, what does this Hardshell "line of argument" say for their coveted "associations?" These are also a "new invention!" Have these "existed from the days of the Apostles"? Hassell quotes Baptist historian, David Benedict, saying that the pre-1800 Baptists "were noted for their familiarity with the Scriptures" just like his Hardshell cohorts of his (Hassell’s) day (page 755). But how can this be so if the Hardshells are correct in reasoning that those old Baptists were "duped" and "asleep on the job?" "The legs of the lame are not equal" here!

But I suppose that this is enough argument from history to show that the Hardshells are the ones who have "departed from the faith" and caused division within the body of Christ. I would welcome the opportunity to expound on this further, even in "debate" with an acknowledged Hardshell "historian." But no Hardshell today wants to come up to the task. They show in this how much unlike they are from their Hardshell parents. Cayce, Daily, the Thompsons, Dalton, Potter, Webb, Holder, Oliphant, Durand, and several other Hardshell “patriarchs” of bygone days were all "ready to answer" the call to defend their "claims!" Is the old better in this regard, Hardshell?

Elder Tolley made these remarks in his paper:

"They [Hardshells] have debated with every denomination that issued a sincere challenge." He also said that the "Primitive Baptists have the soundest and most tenable position of all who avow such [Calvinistic-S.G.] teachings."

Well, their forefathers may have been of that character, but not the "modern" Hardshells. Is the old better in this case, Hardshell?

Hardshell "Splinters"

Before we leave the subject of Hardshell history, I want to say something concerning the "major divisions" that have occurred among the Hardshells since their separation from the old-line Calvinistic Missionary Baptists.

Those "divisions" concern Predestination and the two factions involved, i.e. the "Absoluters" and the "Conditionalists," and the division over changes in practice with the so-called Progressives. There is also that "split" with Daniel Parker's group over his "Two-Seedism." Needless to say, there have been many minor "splits," mainly over "personalities," but also over such issues as the "origin of Satan," of which we have had firsthand experience and have already related.

There is no doubt that the "Absoluter" faction of Hardshells is more in line with the old Confessions of the Baptists than the so-called Conditionalist faction, which is of recent production. Elder S. T. Tolley knows this to be so. My Dad knows it. The Conditionalists cannot endorse those statements in the Confessions relative to the "predestination of all things." The Conditionalists believe in "free will." Some will try to deny it, but the attempt is in vain; for to the extent that one does not accept predestination, he must accept "free will" in its place.

The Hardshells split over predestination around the turn of the 20th century. Elder Gilbert Beebe was a devout believer in the "absolute Predestination of all things" and would not compromise on it. In this regard, he preached the faith of the Baptists.

It was also in the early part of this century that the Hardshells, especially in the state of Georgia, divided over the introduction of "Bible classes" and "musical instruments" and other such "innovations." Those who believed that these things were not "evil" were soon cut-off from the Hardshells. Some of these so-called Progressives also began to promote missions and ministerial education.

The particular Progressive churches that I have seen are much more "prosperous" in growth than the stubborn, "set in their ways," old Hardshells. Some of them have also come to see the truth of "gospel means" and, though they still retain the name of "Primitive," are more like the Sovereign Grace Baptists of the present.

Some Hardshell churches, like the Whitehaven Church in Memphis, Tennessee, have their own school for their children. They also have seen the need of more "systematic teaching" of the Bible and therefore have additional meetings through the week to present those lessons.

Actually, many Hardshells over the past several years have seen the "extremism" that has come to characterize their people. They, like Elder E. D. McCutcheon of Mississippi, believe that the Hardshells have gone overboard in their attempt to be contrary to everything the Missionaries practice. He is to be praised for this, but he is finding the road tough. "Tradition" is so embedded within the Hardshell denomination! Change does not come easily.

More examples such as this could be cited. Today's Hardshells have their "singing schools," "camp meetings," "conventions" and such like. And I am sure that those old Hardshells of years gone by would "turn over in their graves" if they could behold those things today.

Lastly, but not least, a word about Daniel Parker and his "Two-Seedism." Daniel Parker was an adamant opponent of the "mission movement" of the early 1800's. He may have even imbibed the "Spirit Alone" theory. In this regard, he must be regarded as one of the Hardshell "founding fathers." However, he began to teach that the devil was an "eternal and uncreated being" and that he had his "offspring" just as God had his. These two groups of children had eternally existed with each of their "fathers." Those who are "children of the devil" were the physical offspring of the devil.

There came to be two lines of thinking on this point among his followers. There were those who are called "Two-seed in the flesh Predestinarian Baptists" and "Two-seed in the spirit Predestinarian Baptists."

The Hardshells of Parker's day, for the most part, rejected all this. But many were nevertheless "led off" with this heresy. Again, however, what does this say of those Hardshells familiarity with the scriptures? It seems to me that, with so many "divisions" among the Hardshells, they have surely been duped and "asleep on the job" rather frequently!

Some Hardshells are very much prone to split even over the pettiest of issues. Time would fail to tell all about those "minor divisions." But they do show how cantankerous and stubborn they really are as a people. Hence, the name "Hardshell." They are truly "hard-headed!"

I will be writing further upon Hardshell "history" in later chapters. Consider this chapter a "primer."

Chpt. 5 - Hardshell Extremism

2008-10-21T11:45:00.001-07:00

Hardshell "historians," C. B. and Sylvester Hassell, frankly and candidly make the following admission concerning those first Hardshells:

“It seemed lamentable that the old soldiers of the cross, instead of preaching Jesus and the resurrection all the time, did take up a good portion of their time in defending the faith and denouncing those who had brought in these heresies” (page 748).

"Instead of preaching Jesus!" Well, that is a significant admission! He implies that their negative preaching "against" those old Mission and progressive-minded Baptists was NOT "preaching Jesus!" This is a true statement. And from experience I can testify that their "children" are no better than their parents. Today's Hardshells spend, in my opinion, at least half of their teaching time being "negative" and this accounts for the stigmatism that they have of being strictly "anti."

They quit being positive in their preaching and became opposers of almost everything imaginable. They unfairly accused many of ill motives, when in fact, only the Lord can judge the motives of the heart. "To his own master" every servant "stands or falls."

All of this negative ("anti") preaching has clearly had its adverse effects, as Hassell testifies and many present-day Hardshells themselves confess.

There is no doubt that many of the Mission Baptists went to extremes themselves. But that doesn't concern me in this writing; the extremism of the Hardshell party does, however.

The areas where the Hardshells are willing to admit of becoming extremists, and are experiencing those “adverse consequences,” are "Christian giving," "ministerial support," "evangelism," "meeting times," "special meetings," "systematic Bible teaching," "Bible classes," "ministerial education" and a host of other areas.

Many Hardshell elders have admitted to me that they agree that the Hardshells have developed a "complex" of mind that says that "we will do and be whatever the Missionaries are not." I have heard Dad and other Hardshell preachers say publicly that the attitude has become such that many Hardshells would “refuse to wear shoes simply because the Missionaries wear them”! This desire to be any thing that the "Arminians" are not has been a "shackle" around the necks of the Hardshells.

If you check old Hardshell association records, you will see that those Hardshells were often found combating the very "extremism" that they created! This child has surely turned on its parents and has just about rent the denomination asunder.

The Hardshells, in opposing "salaried ministers," dote over the fact that their ministers, like the seventy whom the Lord sent out "two-by-two," also go "without script or purse" and "work with their own hands." But now they have found it like "pulling eye-teeth" to ever get them to give much of anything!

Countless sermons have been preached by present-day Hardshells in an attempt to stimulate the giving of the people to the care of their ministers and of other such needs. They have preached for so long against "begging for money" and for the idea that the "church can get along without money" that today's Hardshells give very little in proportion to their abilities.

You know by now how strenuously the Hardshells have preached against "money based institutions." Recall the "resolution" of "old mother Kehukee" in denying a place among them for anyone to come and solicit money for “any institution whatsoever.” And yet, we find them later continuing to solicit money from the churches for their beloved associations. Is this not an "institution?" Is the "Church" not an "institution?"

You also recall how the old Hardshells have falsely accused the Missionaries of "covetousness," "greed," "avarice" and of being followers of the god "mammon." But it is the Hardshells who have "fallen in love" with their money. For I have seen in many of the Hardshell churches a large number of "well-to-do" parishioners who, as some Hardshells admit, "squeeze the dollar so hard that the eagle screams!" These folks, who would rather hold on to their wealth than to give it for the help of the kingdom of God, are the ones, in my opinion, who are guilty of covetousness.

They have so long preached that money has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the kingdom and church of God, that they are now "eating those words" and "suffering the consequences!"

Things have changed a good bit, however, thanks to a return to preaching the truth on these things. Today we find Elders like Lassere Bradley, an import from the Missionaries, who frequently "solicit contributions" for a host of things, such as "radio ministries," "book publishing," "video and TV production," "singing schools," etc. Elder Tolley himself is frequently asking (begging?) for money. I don't say, like their Hardshell forefathers, that such earnest solicitation is evil. I know that Elder Tolley and others have legitimate requests and they are "worthy of their hire." I just say these things to remind them that they created this mess themselves.

According to the "resolution" of the old Kehukee, Bradley and Tolley would not be welcome in their midst! Oh! how things have changed!

The next area where there has been grave "extremism" is in ministerial education. Looking negatively upon the efforts at education among the early Baptists, and in opposing "theological schools," "Church Schools," "classroom training," "Bible classes," and such like, the Hardshells glorified "ignorance."

They are constantly feeling the necessity of cautioning people "not to think that they are opposed to education." Why the need of saying this? Why the caution? Is it a "false alarm?" Is there real danger?

The same holds true in other areas as well. After they preach so long against missionaries, they feel obligated to say, "But this does not mean that we oppose preaching the gospel." Why say this? Why the "word of warning?" Isn't it due to the fact that they know that the "average person" would think that they were so opposed?

The truth is, Hardshells are indeed against preaching the gospel and offering Christ and the gospel to the world at large. They ridicule that! They denounce it as "evil" and "sinful" - the very "mystery of iniquity!" Now honestly, who is "Anti-Christ?"

Many Hardshells "cloak" their sins. They oppose every effort (except their own) to "spread the gospel." They simply have to "cloak" this sometimes by giving some kind of "lip service" to "spreading the gospel."

It is also true concerning their "preaching against" such decent things as "Sunday Schools," "Seminaries," "Tract Societies," "Protracted" or "Revival Meetings," "Bible Societies," "Temperance Societies," "Mite Societies," "Benevolent Societies," "Special Programs for the Youth," "Salaried Ministry," "Tithing," "Musical Instruments," "Choirs," "Special Singing," "Orphan homes," etc.

In "preaching against" all this, they must always be careful to say, "But this does not mean that we oppose education, preaching the gospel, the young, drunkenness, helping the poor and homeless or the orphans and widows, or music. No, we are all for these things," the Hardshell cautions!

It is no wonder that Hardshells have historically been known as "do-nothings," "anti-effort" Baptists, "antinomians," and such like.

They call this "persecution," and this is another evidence of them being a "cult." They develop the "cult mentality" of viewing themselves as the "hated" and "persecuted ones," and all this "for righteousness sake!"

But those accusations are anything but "persecution." They are just what "the average unbiased person" would imagine was the case upon listening to Hardshells "preach against" those things. The need for "appearing to be otherwise" is quite evident. It speaks also of "hidden motives" and of a "secret agenda."

Such is also a sign of a "cult." Actually, there is some good degree of secrecy among the Hardshells. But more of that later also.

Back to our subject at hand. To give you some idea of the Hardshell teachings on ministerial education, let me quote from Elder Griffin again. First, he says on page 160 of his history:

“We cannot fellowship your theological schools . . . We want God to send them and not man.”

Well, who said that those churches that have schools are opposed to God's sending preachers? Hardshells "misrepresent" those who promote theological training, create “straw men” and “red herrings”!

This is one of the Hardshell "tactics." Charge more on your "opponent" than that of which he is actually teaching. Paint him and his beliefs in a bad light. Build a "Straw Man" and fight with it while at the same time leaving me doubt as to who is the proverbial "Straw Man!" Attack the "motives" of those who promote "theological schools" and "missions."

This is what Griffin has done. Just because Baptists promote "preacher-training and education" does not mean that they don't covet God-sent men! Hardshell Griffin knows that! How can he "sit in judgment" on his brethren? Did not James say, "He that speaks evil of his brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge . . ." (James 4:11).

This "impugning the motives" of those Christian Baptists who promote "ministerial education," is evidence that you are "not doers."

But how did those first Old Baptists of Griffin's own state of Mississippi feel about the matter? Let us see.

In the 1817 "session" of the "Mississippi Association," a "resolution" was unanimously adopted, which read as follows:

“That this Association recommend and support a plan for raising a fund, for the special purpose of promoting the proper education of pious men called to the great and important work of the gospel ministry” (pg. 85, Griffin's History).

Notice that this was a "unanimous" vote. Where were the Hardshells? Asleep? Were the "Old Baptists" there?

Did those 1817 Baptists believe that they were "robbing God" of the right and privilege of sending preachers simply because they sought means to improve the education of those that they perceived had been "called" to preach? Were they usurping the authority of God? You Hardshells cruelly and unjustly accuse those Old Baptists!

Hardshells often argue that all theological education should come "before" a person's "call to preach," but never "after" it! Here's what Griffin says:

“If HE (God) wants a learned Moses, or a Saul of Tarsus, HE will have him qualified BEFORE HE calls them to HIS work” (page 160).

We find the same line of argument in Hassell's "history." But what does this "argument" say? Well, it indicates that the Hardshells have very few, if any, learned Pauls or skilled leaders like Moses!

Can you imagine such a crazy idea? What ignorance! Religious and ministerial training must always come "before" a man's call or else such education is "evil?" It seems to me that those who argue this "baloney" need some of that "ministerial education!"

Personally, I believe that, were Paul or Moses here today, they would more than likely be very unpopular among the Hardshells.

I also can testify of personal witness of the prevalence of ignorance among the Hardshell clergy. I'll try to give some evidence of that, which I, of course, attribute to their "going to extremes" in the area of "preacher education."

I have noticed that several of their more learned and eloquent of preachers (i.e. Bradley, Pyles, Darity, Bryant, etc.), in introducing the Hardshell denomination to would-be members, will invariably tell them that their old preachers may "butcher the king's English," but that they nevertheless preach ably, soundly, and with great success and popularity. Why the need for such an apology? To save some embarrassment? I think so. Do I believe that incorrect English keeps one from preaching Jesus? Of course not. But to "grow" and "improve" in the ministerial "calling," an improvement in grammar is essential.

The other evidence of widespread ignorance in the Hardshell ministry is seen in their wild and fanciful "interpretation" of various scripture passages. Already you see that ignorance in the "origin of Satan" issue that I wrote about earlier. Let me enlarge a little upon that as an evidence of that "lack of knowledge."

Hardshell Elder, S. N. Redford, said:

“A brother asked me to write and tell where the devil originated. Well, of all questions! I answer, I don't know. In fact, I have never been interested in the subject. If I have ever been called to preach, it was to preach Jesus, and not the devil. I don't think he is ever more happy than when God's people are talking about his origin or his personality. I could tell you what I have heard some Old Baptists preachers say about the matter [of course he could tell someone that! S.G.] Some say he was a fallen angel; others say God made him good and he turned to a devil. But all this is speculation, and is not worth the paper it is written on. The Bible is silent on the subject and so I expect to be, too. This I do know, that the Bible teaches God is the only self-existent being. Let us be silent where the Bible is silent.”

Reader, can you not see the ignorance, willful and otherwise, in this? This type of ignorance is common among the Hardshell ministry and denomination.

Elder Ralph Harris, present-day Hardshell editor of the “ADVOCATE & MESSENGER” periodical, says this of the question as to Satan's origin:

“He says that it is a "foolish and unlearned question" that "genders strife" and that he never intends to deal with it” (April 1990 issue).

What ignorance! Does he mean to tell me that it is "foolishness" to honestly inquire into a scriptural answer to the origin and being of the Church's chief enemy? If I had a pastor who said that to me, I would feel hurt, degraded and offended. I certainly would feel reluctance to ask any more questions! I also might shy from any serious investigation of many important things to know. I know that many Hardshells feel embarrassed by such things and would like to, as Elder Griffin stated, "hide" such things in "oblivion!"

Recall also, as an example of ministerial ignorance among the Hardshells, the case with their "interpretation" of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" and of their considering it to be so vital as to make it a "test of fellowship."

Needless to say, I could give many more such examples of ministerial ignorance, but this is enough. Remember that the Lord said that "his people were destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos. 4:6).

Not only have the Hardshells gone overboard in ministerial support and education, but also in "times of meeting" and in the instruction of the people in general.

Some early American Baptists, because of a lack of preachers and because of the harshness of travel, mostly met only once each month. A preacher would often have a "circuit" and therefore preached at a different church each week along his "circuit." But when it happened that these hindrances were no longer present, many Hardshells, rather than meeting more often, continued to meet only once each month, holding their "tradition."

They also didn't favor meeting much more than that. They opposed "protracted" and "revival" meetings. Like Hassell said, those churches that meet "twice on Sunday" and have a "mid-week" service, are those "loose city churches!" Many of these one Sunday-a-month Hardshells think that meeting more often is just following the "Arminians" and "Missionaries!"

Opposing Sunday Schools has also had a devastating effect on the Hardshells. They not only have prevalent ignorance among the ministry, but also among the young and old within the general membership. Listen to present day Hardshell Elder, E. D. McCutcheon, and his comments about this ignorance and its effects:

“It becomes more apparent every day that a better system of teaching young children in the Primitive Baptist Church must be put into practice if we expect to keep a reasonable number in the church after they are grown . . . Sunday Schools are definitely not the answer, although such training could be helpful if we had enough Biblically qualified instructors to do the teaching. However, the stigma that has been placed on Sunday Schools because of the misuse by others precludes such use by Primitive Baptists. There has to be another way, a proper scriptural way to overcome the neglect of many years” (Glad Tidings Publication).

This is a Hardshell witness. It demonstrates again the damage done by the "extremism" that has historically characterized the Hardshells. Examples could be multiplied! Needless to say, it is self-evident that the Hardshells are "cultists" and "extremists" and "reaping what they have sown."

If you would like to have further information on the merits of Sunday Schools in defence against the "anti-Sunday Schoolers," write brother Ross for a copy of his editorial on the subject from years ago.

Chpt. 6 - Hardshell Hypocrisy & Peculiarities

2008-10-21T11:43:00.000-07:00

This section of my analysis of Hardshell history, doctrine, and practice will reveal in more detail Hardshell “hypocrisy” and "peculiarities" in those areas. I have already exposed it somewhat in their “version” of Baptist “history,” and in their novel interpretations, and I will also expose it further, giving extended historical records that contradict those “revisionist histories,” further examples of novel interpretations, and of their gross violations of sound Biblical hermeneutics, (of which I have already given some examples and that the Hardshells are infamous for putting forth) and I will also certainly expose their hypocrisies and contradictions in Christian doctrine.

In the area of practice, I will take up the subjects of “Musical Instruments,” “Associations” and “societies,” “Weekly” or “Protracted Meetings,” “Sunday Schools,” “Bible classes,” “Church Discipline” (involving peculiar views on Divorce, Baptism, Church Exclusions, Closed Communion, terms of fellowship, etc.),

Musical Instruments

First, then, consider the Hardshell hypocrisy in the belief and practice concerning the subject of “musical instruments in the public worship of the church.”

The Hardshell doctrinal position on this matter is like the Campbellites, the Hardshell’s “twin brother,” namely, that it is “unlawful” for the New Testament Church to use instruments “in the worship service.” They argue that there is no “direct command” authorizing them. Like the “Non-instrumental” Campbellites, they argue that whatever is not positively enjoined by a “divine command” or “scriptural example” is “forbidden” and “taboo”, to be "anathematized," for and by the church. This reflects one of their many likenesses, as "twins." Both cults have accepted a false doctrine called “Patternism.”

But, let me ask the Hardshell (who might be reading this) for his “direct command” or “scriptural example” for his beloved “associations,” “tuning forks,” “hymnals,” “Union Meetings,” “Singing Schools,” “preachers meetings,” “council of churches,” “moderators,” “clerks” (both for individual churches and for associations of churches), “Primitive Baptist Libraries” and book “Publishers” and “periodicals,” etc.

I will not take time to present the Hardshell “arguments” against the use of music in the church or of choirs. They use the same worn out, hashed and rehashed, Campbellite “arguments” of the past and which Brother Ross has done a fine job thoroughly refuting in his book on “Campbellites, Cowbells, Rosary Beads, and Snake-Handling." He also refutes in an extensive way the errors of “Patternism.”

For myself I never was satisfied with the Hardshell position on that and just went along with the denomination. I saw all their arguments against it as being of little weight.

Hardshells say that instruments of music are “forbidden” for use in the New Testament Church, or for the public worship service. They affirm that such a use “stirs up animal emotions and appetites” in people, even citing Alexander Campbell in defense of their position (who said the same thing). They say, as did Campbell, that it is “worldly” and “carnal” in such a time and place.

However, they nearly all extol the level of joy received by those same musical instruments in private home worship. I have witnessed “singings” with a group of Hardshells in a private home where a piano, guitar, violin, banjo, etc., accompanied the singing of praise. God was praised and pleased in a private home, but such would suddenly become evil if they moved into the official church meeting house and did the same? That is laughable and only reveals their hypocrisy and prejudice and other social idiosyncrasies. People were edified in the one setting but not in the other? Can anyone give a sane reason for this kind of thinking, this kind of “logic”?

Many Hardshells also use instruments in “Church Weddings,” but not always without a “fuss.” But those that do, manifest again their “inconsistency.” In those wedding ceremonies, the church gathers in the meeting house for a "service" that is clearly religious in nature. At such services, the name of God is invoked, prayers offered, and homilies are given on the Christian view of marriage, and yet this is okay but in a little different setting it is all wrong? “Consistency thou art a jewel”!

They also sometimes have musical instruments in church “funeral services.” A sermon is preached, prayers are heard, and saints are present. It is also a public gathering. But, music is all right in this case. Ironic.

It is also noteworthy that though Hardshells oppose choirs, quartets, and special group-singing in the regular worship service, they nevertheless have those special groups to sing in homes, to the edification of the saints, and on records and tapes, but they become evil and unedifying when it becomes part of the official worship service? That is just "plain nonsense" and is the kind of “logic” and behavior one would expect from a cult.

They can find “authority” for their “pitch pipes,” “tuning forks,” but not for a “piano.” David could praise God with his strings and his harp but we cannot today? Where, in the New Testament was it ever voided? Forbidden?

Associations

Let me now show their “hypocrisy” in the area of “associations.” They claim to support only those things pertaining to the church that began with the Apostles. They are against seminaries and Sunday Schools because they are of “human origin” and arose “after the Apostles.” Well, this criteria also certainly condemns “associations”! But, doesn’t it all show how they “pick and choose” which “institutions of men” that they condone?

They also have been guilty of hypocrisy in violating the very principles upon which those very associations were established. One of those principles, a Hardshell one, ironically, outlaws their own associations! Another principle, often violated throughout Hardshell history, involved the "setting aside" of the rule and prohibition for associations not to “interfere in the internal affairs of the local churches,” or to “lord it over God’s heritage,” or to be a “Supreme Court” for the churches to bring their “disputes.”

But the fact of the matter is, in far too many cases, with Hardshells themselves testifying, the associations have become all of the above forbidden things. They have often served as a “catalyst” for trouble, strife, and division. They have often been the scene of endless controversy and of preacher and party competition.

Some Hardshells, like Elder Ralph Harris of Florida, have written against the “legality,” “authority,” and “profitability” of associations. He has, like others, warned of their danger and exposed their evil consequences. This has led many of brother Harris’s cohorts in Florida to change their name from “associational meetings” to “fellowship meetings.” However, they are still basically the same thing though called by a different name.

Concerning Hardshell “hypocrisy” regarding “weekly meetings,” just recall those statements by the first Hardshells that I cited earlier and who denounced as “iniquitous” those “protracted” and “revival” meetings.

They now do those things that they once condemned, only they call those same things by different names. They have had “conventions,” “councils,” “peace meetings,”“preachers meetings,” and other such things.

Here is what Gilbert Beebe wrote on the subject of Associations.

It is to us, at all times, a matter of no small joy, to witness a disposition on the part of our brethren, to examine the divine rule, and to inquire at the sacred oracle for the validity of every institution of our religious practice. The attention of several of our dear brethren, in these parts and elsewhere, has lately led to the subject of Associations, and it will be seen that the result of their investigation, thus far, has not produced a unanimity of sentiment on the subject. Some are of the opinion that the New Testament provides neither precept or example for them, and other some conceive that the assembly which convened at Jerusalem, on the question from the Antioch church, amounts at least to an example. We have listened with a good degree of interest to the arguments thus far brought forward, pro and con; and without designing to check the discussion of so important a point, we esteem it our privilege to offer our brethren a few remarks which have occurred to us, on the subject, in doing which we shall probably accord, in part, and in some things differ from all who have furnished us with their views.

In the first place we admit that what we call “Associations,” are, or are not divine institutions; they are, or are not directly and positively warranted in the New Testament. If from the Scriptures we can show them to be divinely instituted, and precept and example given for their observance by the church, then we must consider no church complete and independent, or walking in all the ordinances blameless, which do not stand in such connection associated with other churches; and if on a careful examination we find that what we denominate “associations” are not divinely authorized, we must admit (painful as it may be) that we have and do observe a religious practice, for which there is no “Thus saith the Lord;” and we may be subjected to the fearful interrogative, “Who hath required this at our hand?”

But to the merits of the question. Are they from heaven, or of men? We have failed to see with some of our brethren whom we love, that the assembly referred to at Jerusalem, furnishes the least testimony in support of what we denominate “Associations;” and if we can produce no other, or more tenable ground for them, we shall be disposed to give them up, notwithstanding our feelings are strongly, very strongly, enlisted in favor of them. Without going minutely into the comparison of modem associations, with the meeting at Jerusalem, we will observe a few particulars which to us present serious discrepancies. First, those who form our modern associations are Elders and brethren, sent by their respective churches, as messengers, or what is by far more exceptionable, delegates. [That churches have the right to send their messengers on lawful messages, is fully warranted by the practice of the primitive churches, but that she has the right to delegate her authority to messengers, committees, or to councils, is to us as absurd as that a married wife should have the right to transfer her relationship or privileges to another woman.]

The meeting at Jerusalem, was not composed of messengers, or delegates from the churches, but the apostles and Elders came together for to consider this matter. (Acts 15:6) And the whole church, not delegates from the church (see verse 22,) and the Holy Ghost, (verse 28). But our modern Associations are not composed of apostles, the Holy Ghost, and the whole church. The regulations of many associations of our acquaintance, restricts the churches in regard to the number of messengers to be sent. We have said this council at Jerusalem was not composed of messengers from churches represented in that meeting. True there were messengers (not delegates) present from the church at Antioch, but let it be observed these formed no part of the council, but were merely messengers of Antioch church, to the council and other messengers of their own company (verse 22) bore the message of the Holy Ghost, the apostles and elders and the whole church, to Antioch. How our brethren can make this meeting an example for modern associations, without involving the right of associations to rule in judgment, if not in legislation over the churches, we are unable to perceive; yet all our brethren agree that the churches are the highest religious body on earth, and contend earnestly for the independence of the churches.

Another discrepancy which we would notice as we pass; as being, in our judgment, no less formidable than the foregoing, is that the council at Jerusalem was not, nor did it pretend to be, a constituted body, independent of, or separate from the church, having a written constitution and by-laws for their special regulation; and a body to be continued, and to hold annual sessions for business, to impose yokes and grant exemption from burdens, from time to time, as might seem good to them and their successors in all subsequent ages. The apostles, seated on the twelve thrones, for the express purpose of judging the spiritual tribes, the Holy Ghost, whose office it is to write the law of the new covenant in the hearts of the spiritual family, and the church, which is divinely empowered and qualified to judge angels, assembled as they were, certainly were in possession of power which would not become us, in what we call “associations.”

The wretched work of New School Baptist associations in arrogating such powers as were exercised by the council at Jerusalem, has very justly excited great alarm among our old fashioned brethren.

After what we have written our readers may suppose that we renounce associations in to to, but such is not the fact; for while we wash our hands from all such associations as we have described above, we hold most sacred and dear the association of the children of God, upon Gospel ground; and while we deny the divine authority of any constituted religious body, except the church of God, as such, we are prepared to show from the practice of the primitive saints, that it is proper, lawful and expedient that the saints should associate together, for social worship, for correspondence, for mutual edification and instruction in righteousness, and for the promotion of that christian fellowship and Gospel union which is like the oil which was poured on Aaron’s head, and like the dew of Hermon which descended upon the mountains of Zion, &c.

If any, or all of our associations have been led off from the simplicity of the Gospel track, let them correct the wrong, renounce it and flee from it. But to cease from “christian correspondence” among the churches which are in fellowship, would be to run into as great an error as that from which they attempt to fly. We should not contend for constitutions, or anything which would have a tendency to characterize associations as an organized, or standing body, apart from the church; yet we conceive that a full understanding of the terms of correspondence, or association, is essential, and should be agreed to, reduced to writing and published in order to prevent, as far as possible, the amalgamation of heterogeneous materials in such religious assembles.

There can be no lack of Scriptural testimony that the primitive churches of Christ kept up a correspondence, and that the disciples were in a habit of mingling together for religious worship, and mutual edification, wherever, and whenever opportunity served; and such meetings we would call “associations.” They, however, being not so parliamentary in their forms of communicating with each other as modern professors are, could generally proceed to worship, or to edify, without waiting to elect by ballot a Chairman, or President (Moderator) and being minute men, could even preach an introductory sermon without being appointed for that purpose twelves months in advance!

The primitive churches on various occasions, sent messengers to deliver messages, contributions, &c.,, for them. It is therefore lawful for Old School churches to send their messengers to report their welfare, for the comfort of sister churches, and to bring back word of the prosperity of the cause, among such sister churches. Such messengers, when assembled with a sister church, may unite in worship, in preaching, and in the general improvement of all the gifts among them. Such a meeting we would call an “association,” and against such associations we conclude there is no law.

In the foregoing we have given some of our views on the subject. Our columns are open for the views of our brethren, judiciously written, on the same subject; we recommend moderation and free discussion. Let us prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.

Here is what a modern Hardshell had to say about Beebe's article on "Associations": (By Elder Gilbert Beebe, 1838)

"The above position advanced by Beebe, is, in general, the position that we hold to in our churches relative to the subject. Perhaps Beebe was too much alone to stand against the major trend in the development of the Baptists. The associations, and their chains of correspondence, continued to development in spite of his opposition, and that of others. James Osborn, very nearly as close to the Strict Baptist brethren as any minister in America during this same period, held basically to this same position. In most matters, Beebe influenced a great many of the Old School Baptist churches; but on the subject of associations, apparently he had his least success. Baptists had not had time to see the attendent evil associated with organized papacy among themselves.

Is it now possible many of us have learned by past experience that fellowship must be had on a better principle? We invite the readers to join our columns in discussing this subject in love and respect. If you wish to comment, please do."
(From www.geocities.com/elder_beebe)

All this confirms what I have been saying about Hardshell hypocrisy relative to their "Associations" and the violating of their principles of not having any institution that they cannot find a specific "thus saith the Lord" Beebe was in a "tight spot" on the subject of "Associations". "Associations" had been around in the Baptist family for hundreds of years. No one complained about them. But, when the Hardshells began to argue against mission organizations and seminaries, their leading argument was that they were "unscriptural," having no direct warrant, therefore wrong to participate in. But, this argument would come back to bite them when it came to their coveted "Associations". Would they be forced to "throw out the baby with the bath water?"

The Divorce Issue

On the subject of “divorce” and church “exclusions,” Hardshells have almost outdone themselves in being “hypocritical.”

Hardshells believe that to “commit adultery,” as a married person, is to commit, in some respect, the “unpardonable sin” or “sin unto death.” This is the “red letter” sin, worse than anything else, so far as church membership is concerned. A murderer can be forgiven and restored to church membership but not one who is guilty of what the Hardshells call “marital adultery.”

When I was ordained, I was asked, like many others, whether I believed that “regeneration takes one out of adultery.” If you say “yes,” then you are set aside as a “heretic.” If you say “no,” then you are ordained. It is that important.

Their “reasoning” is that only death and/or fornication constitutes grounds for divorce. If you divorce and remarry on some other grounds, then you are an adulterer and will continue as such until you either leave your present spouse and go back to your former, or else wait till the former dies!

When a Hardshell experiences a “non-scriptural” divorce, they generally will remain single and dateless, waiting until the divorced spouse commits adultery or begins to date first! This will allow them to get a church sanctioned divorce.

Generally, when a person joins a Hardshell church, the person is asked if he or she has been divorced. If yes, the person is further questioned as to whether it was for adultery or not. If the reason was not for adultery, then the person is denied baptism, church membership, and the Lord’s Supper.

Sometimes these petitioning members can’t locate their first spouse to ascertain “who committed adultery first”! In such cases, the church will generally, but not always, vote not to “take in” that person.

They do however encourage such rejected applicants to “support the old church” with their presence and money! Many times have I seen their churches occupied by such persons who do support the church and weep and cry. It makes me angry and sad at such evil practices. Denying church membership, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper to these is a great evil.

This practice is evil to the core, full of hypocrisy and deceit! It is stated by the Hardshell “historians” that the first Hardshell churches were determined to counteract the perceived “looseness” in “church discipline” among the “Arminian” or “Missionary” churches by “keeping up a strong discipline” and “preserving decency and order.” In order to execute this, they became super strict in their rules for retaining church membership. Some of these legalists have excluded people for the minutest of reasons, such as missing one church service “without a valid reason”!

So-called church discipline and the threat of exclusion have been used to keep folks in line and bring them into submission. It has led to “mental entrapment” and “phobias” of an evil kind. It is more evidence of their being a “cult.” “He shall have judgment without mercy on those who showed no mercy.” (James 2:13)

You can see from what has been said thus far, that the Hardshell “terms of fellowship” and “communion” are strict and severe, to say the least. “Harsh” would be a good word for it too. These Hardshells have drawn such a very tight circle around themselves and said, as it were, “come not near to me, for I am holier than thou.”

I know that when my wife and I separated, not one Hardshell came to counsel, comfort or help me in that time of loneliness and depression. The good old “Arminians” and “Missionaries” did however show me much more Christian love and concern. This revealed much to me.

My brother, Eddie K. Garrett, Jr., who too was a Hardshell preacher at one time, suffered the same kind of shunning when he and his first wife separated and divorced (though he had good reason). It is sad that in leaving the Hardshells he went to the Campbellites, then left them, to go to another cult, and now is almost an infidel. Sigh.

My sister Judy, also a former Hardshell, also experienced this same treatment when she and her husband separated and divorced (he is an ex Hardshell also).

The Lord’s Supper

As for myself, I am in some ways a “closed” and in other ways an “open” communionist. It is, in my opinion, open to some and closed to others. I believe the Hardshells have restricted it beyond measure and acted as though they were the Lord of the Communion table.

And you talk about “priestcraft” (as the Hardshells have done against the Missionaries and Arminians)! The Missionaries are “guilty” of this simply because they support Sunday Schools! That is the Hardshell accusation. But no, it is the Hardshells who are guilty of it. For it is they who claim “sole authority” to “administer” the Supper. Most Hardshells believe that only an ordained minister can baptize or serve the Lord’s Supper and that they authoritatively decide who can eat and who cannot. A church without a minister can’t even partake of the service? Friends, that is “priestcraft”!

Thank God that though the Hardshells may close their “communion” to some, God nevertheless “communes” and “sups” with them! (Rev. 3:20)

Beebe, in answer to the a query about John Bunyan, that great Old Baptist, as to whether he was a Hardshell, says "no." He gave as the reason Bunyan's views on "open communion." I am sure that Bunyan would be rejected too for his belief that God regenerates his elect by means of the gospel. I am happy to be alligned with the truly Old Baptists like Bunyan.

Peculiarism

Concerning Hardshell “peculiarities,” let me say that Hardshells claim that they are especially and particularly that “peculiar people” mentioned by Paul in Titus 2:11.

Any time some one outside of the Hardshell ranks makes a reference to some strange and unusual Hardshell custom, the Hardshells will say that they are, as Paul said, a “peculiar people.” To them, “peculiar” means weird, strange, odd, different, unique, and special. They try their best to live up to this definition!

However, “peculiar” does not carry that denotation nor connotation at all! That is Hardshell ignorance for you. Paul defines “peculiar” by adding “zealous of good works,” but the Hardshells oppose those! Spreading the gospel, benevolent work, tract publishing, preacher education, Sunday Schools, Bible classes, etc.; all these are “good works” which they all oppose! But of course, those are “evil works” to the Hardshells! “Good works,” to them, are such things as “excluding adulterers,” “preaching against” the above things, etc.

You judge for yourself, dear reader; are they “peculiar” as Paul defines it?

Chpt. 7 - Time Salvation - A Novel Idea

2008-10-21T11:42:00.000-07:00

"Secrecy" of some sort is a characteristic of a cult. Christians have their "secrets" (Psa. 25:14; Prov. 3:32), but the distinctive secrets of the Hardshell cult are not the secrets of God or of His kingdom.

Basically, religious secrets involve "special revelation" that the cult, and it alone, possesses. Christians have "special revelation"; for instance, the knowledge of Christ as being the Son of God (Matt. 16:16, 17). But the claimed "special revelation" of the Hardshell is nothing but the blindness of a heresy.

"Time Salvation"

Their primary "secret" revelation concerns the doctrine they call "Time Salvation." You have to be trained in Hardshell "dogma" to know all that the words convey. What the Hardshells believe the terminology, "Time Salvation," represents would never cross the average Bible reader's mind. You have to hear it from a Hardshell to be introduced to and informed in the meaning of its theological “jargon.”

Please understand that though all factions believe in "Time Salvation", yet not all believe in Conditional Time Salvation. This latter is peculiar to that largest faction of Hardshells, called the "Conditionalist" faction. It is not characteristic of the "Absoluter" side. These latter people condemn this doctrine. And in this, as anyone who knows Hardshell history will acknowledge, they are like the true Old Baptists.

It is interesting that many Hardshells adopt the Campbellite credal statement that says, "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where it is silent," and yet they speak of their "Time Salvation." Hanks, in his Hardshell "history," says that the use of such "unscriptural terms" are not edifying, but rather divisive. He says:

"Scriptural expressions should be used on controverted points. Absolute predestination, eternal vital union, saved before the foundation of the world, conditional time salvation, eternal church, etc., are controverted and objectionable expressions which confuse brethren, and hence should not be used. Let all use scriptural expressions and labor to unify our people" (page 235).

I agree with Hanks that "conditional time salvation" is not a "scriptural expression." I also agree that such terminology is not only anti-scriptural but also "controverted and objectionable expressions which confuse brethren!"

It is an integral part of the Hardshell DEFENSE and APOLOGETIC, for their "Spirit Alone" and "No-Means Regeneration" theories, to get their opponents or would be "converts" to inbibe all the teachings involved in this doctrine of"Time Salvation."

Having been a Hardshell defender of such theories, I can see why this new doctrine had to be invented. But, the question every Hardshell ought to ask himself is this -- "Why is it that no New Testament writer addresses such a doctrine?" Also, "Why did none of the church fathers write about Time Salvation?" And, answer this question -- "Why did no Old Baptist, prior to Beebe and the rise of the Hardshells, use the Time Salvation argumentation against those who believed that the Bible taught means in regeneration?" You never read of anyone, prior to Beebe and the Hardshells, use any such kind of argumentation against the Arminians saying to them, "Oh, that passage is a time salvation, not eternal"?

What is the teaching of "Time Salvation?" Let me quote a few verses of scripture:

"He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved" (Mark 16:16).
"I declare unto the gospel and by which you are saved" (I Cor. 15:1).
"I have begotten you through the gospel" (I Cor. 4:15).
". . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation . . ." (Rom. 1:16).
". . . it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21).
"What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved . . ." (Acts 16:31).

All of these verses speak of "salvation." The normal, unbiased reader would have no reason to believe otherwise than that they were talking about being saved from sin, judgment, death and damnation. This is what constitutes the theme of the Bible. Man needs “salvation”; sin is what he is saved "from." He is saved "to" holiness, liberty, life and glory.

It is because of the general and overall Biblical use and emphasis of these terms (save, salvation, deliver, death, sins, judgment, damnation, etc.) that they are often used by speakers and writers without clarification. It is assumed that when a writer, in the Scriptures, announces his intention to discourse upon "salvation," he is talking about being saved from sin and condemnation. He does not need to say that he excludes other "kinds" of salvation, like from temporary evils such as starvation, drowning, sickness, etc.

When the jailer asked Paul what he must do to be "saved," Paul understood that he didn't mean saved from drowning or temporary problems, but from the awful judgment of God.

However, this is where the Hardshell objects. He says that the "salvation" being talked about by Paul and the jailer was NOT concerning "eternal" salvation from sin and death, but of some kind of "timely" deliverance.

So they allege that all of those verses just quoted are NOT talking about being saved, i.e. "born again," "regeneration," "created in Christ," "justified," "forgiven," etc. So, their position is, that the gospel "saves," but not "eternally," and not in the sense of "regeneration." It "saves" from a few tears and sorrows "in this life only," as they would say.

To them, many, if not all, of the Scripture passages that talk about "salvation" or being "saved" are NOT talking about "eternal" salvation or the rescuing of a man from "Hell." Rather, they believe that mostpassages speak of "time" salvation from many temporary dangers and problems.

The Hardshells manifest great purpose of heart and ingenuity in "interpreting" many "salvation passages," clearly dealing with eternal salvation and redemption, in a limited way and as dealing strictly with timely or earthly concerns. Why the necessity to do this? Because to interpret those salvation passages as dealing with eternal salvation would destroy their "anti-means," "Spirit Alone" teaching!

Reader, look at those passages that we quoted earlier. Don't they all speak of the "gospel" as being that "means" or "instrument" in salvation and spiritual birth? In all of them it is the same. We are saved "by" or "through" the gospel.

Hardshells must do one of two things in the face of such passages: they must either abandon Hardshellism and their anti-means position, or else find some way of "harmonizing" the anti-means position with those passages! What a situation! What a test! What a crossroads!

This is where a cunning and devilish mind "invented" a "new" doctrine, for the purpose of defending "anti-means" in the face of passages that clearly teach the use of them. It was "sophistry" at its best. It was invented to simply win an argument and not from an honest genuine conviction that Hardshellism is taught in the Scriptures.

What the Hardshells have done, with their emphasis on the presumed many occurrences of timely deliverances in the Bible, is to take the occasional use of a word and make it the general meaning of the word, turning things about, upside down, topsy turvy. They do this in many areas of Bible interpretation. I will give some further examples, but first I will deal a little more with how they take the occasional use of the word "save" and make it predominate.

Saved

The common meaning of this word, in scriptural usage, connects with what relates to eternal deliverance from sin and death. This is its predominant meaning, especially in the New Testament doctrinal epistles. In the Psalms, probably more than any other inspired book, do the Psalmists speak of various timely deliverancies (but, really, even these are connected and based upon eternal salvation), but still, even in these, it is eternal salvation that is predominant. Sometimes the words save and deliver do respect a deliverance from a timely affliction. No one will deny this, and the Hardshells recognize this, seeking to build upon it in trying to win other Christians over to Hardshellism.

If we grant that these words may sometimes NOT refer to eternal deliverance, then it might be also true that other passages, that were thought to be talking about eternal salvation, are actually talking about various time salvations from afflictions and sundry things.

It will become obvious to most who read this essay on Hardshellism, that these Hardshells, who have historically opposed any thing "new," i.e. "inventions," have themselves, ironically and hypocritically, introduced many new things under the Baptist and Christian name, at least in doctrine.

If one takes the word saved in mostly a timely sense, then one will, of course, do the same with those words that express the opposite idea of salvation, words like Perish Destruction, Damnation, etc. These words too must denote, not eternal punishment, something after this life, but only some temporal punishment. It is no wonder that the Hardshells have been plagued with the heresies of "No-Hellism" and "Universalism.", violating such a simple rule of Bible interpretation. Rare and occasional usages of words cannot be made to be the regular use of them.

The Hardshells do the same with the words Angel, Heaven, Hell. The word angel does sometimes, occcasionally, refer to human messengers, but the predominant meaning refers to that order of beings that are spirits, without bodies, of whom man is said to be "made a little lower." But, you listen to Hardshell sermons and the way they "spiritualize" and abuse all "hermeneutic rules" of sound Biblical interpretation, and you will see that they make angel to nearly always mean human messengers. They have a reason for doing this. As I have already alluded, the Hardshells have had much trouble in modern times with the idea that Satan was ever in Heaven and is a fallen angel therefrom. I will be saying more about this later in this book, but this adversity to teaching about the origin of Satan and the fall of the angels has caused those Hardshells, so opposed, to go to extremes and make every reference to angels as referring to human beings. Here again they have taken the erroneous step of taking the occasional usage of a word, in Holy Scripture, and given it the predominant place, all to suit their own ends. I will also later show how they are guilty of what is called "eisegesis." They read their interpretations into passages and words instead of getting them out of the passages and words themselves.

The words Heaven and Hell too are now mostly used to refer to other places other than the final abode of the saints and of unredeemed men.

The causes at work, historically, and which later provided this veritable "new revelation," "Time Salvation," will now draw our attention.

Gilbert Beebe probably was the first to come up with the novel idea of this "Time Salvation" way of arguing and interpreting scripture. He was the father of the view that Christ speaks directly to each heart, apart from the gospel, in what the Hardshells call that "still, small voice," a voice that those who hear it are not even aware. Bob Ross showed this in his writings, of which I will be citing in the next chapter, and enlarging upon. Beebe invented that idea to get around those passages of scripture that speak of the necessity of hearing and obeying the word of Christ for salvation. But, as I said, more on that later. Let me now introduce what the founding fathers of Hardshellism said about "Time Salvation."

Hassell on Time Salvation

"Q. Does the Bible teach that there is a conditional time salvation?

A. The Bible does not use this phrase, and, as its truth is controverted by some of our brethren, it would probably be best to avoid it. But it is certain that the Bible does teach that there is a salvation or deliverance here in time, which we ourselves are to work out (Philip 2:12; Acts 2:40; I Tim. 4:16); yet we can only do this as God works in us by His grace (Philip 2:12,13; 4:13; John 15:4,5; I Cor. 15:10). The cause of the most controversies is the affirmative of one part and the denial of another part of the truth.

Q. Do the Scriptures set forth both a time and eternal salvation?

A. No one except those who are willfully or unintentionally ignorant of the Scriptures deny this fact. Salvation is deliverance, and human beings are delivered from distress both in time and in eternity. Our eternal salvation is alone by the free grace of God through His atoning Son and renewing Spirit; and if we are here in time delivered from trouble in our obedience unto God, that very obedience comes from the grace of God (Isa. 26:12; Philip 2:12,13; Heb. 13:20,21).

These are the answers given by Hassell. They are taken from the writings of Elder R. H. Pittman and Copied from the "Gospel Messenger" and from the "Advocate and Messenger".

"Conditional Time Salvation"

"Is it a Bible doctrine? or Is it a recent heresy?"

By Elder James F. Poole

"The subject with which we differ here is not Time Salvation; it is Conditional Time Salvation."

"The advocates of Conditional Time Salvation habitually interchange the expressions, Conditional Time Salvation and Time Salvation, as if they were the same. We expect to show the differences."

"It was hatred of absolute predestination that gave rise to the putrid system of Conditional Time Salvation."

"Conditional time salvation is a very new doctrine, and can be traced back only to the latter part of the last century, and only in the United States. It has no identity in early history anywhere, and the New Testament is totally silent in its support."

"Conditional Time Salvation did not exist. As with practically all errors that invade the church, Conditional Time Salvation crept in slowly, insidiously, a seed here, a denial there, a question or suggestion about predestination..."

(www.the-remnant.com/conditional2.htm)

Elder Poole is correct on the history of this innovation in doctrine among the Hardshells. Elder Poole is on the "Absoluter" side.

Remember that the Hardshell denomination first began with a very loud and vocal minority within the Baptist denomination. It began with some "rumblings" here-and-there. Their first unifying principle – the "mission system," "method," or "plan," then being practiced by the Baptist denomination, was "evil" and "carnal" and contrary to the "divine plan" or sacred "method," i.e. the "scriptural" or "orderly" plan. This first unifying principle was similar to the Campbellite's first unifying principle, Thomas Campbell's "Declaration and Address." The Hardshells issued their "Black Rock Address" during this same period.

As brother Ross has also shown, the first Hardshells were not at first characteristically deniers of means in regeneration. In fact, they strenuously cleaved to a professed belief in the London and Philadelphia Confessions, which of course, teach gospel means. They were originally in opposition to mission "methodology." This is evident in men like Elder and Doctor, John Watson of Middle Tennessee. He, like others of the time, opposed much of the mission methodology of his day, but he nonetheless believed in gospel means and decried those anti-mission Baptists who were then beginning to embrace the radical view of "Spirit Alone" regeneration.

Those first "Anti-Mission Baptists, however, were finding it very difficult to win many to their cause and belief, because a belief in gospel means does in fact encourage and necessitate the spreading of the gospel in some way or another. There was also the popular belief in the duty of obeying the Great Commission with its command to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." It is difficult to preach too much against "missions" with those beliefs ingrained in the people.

Some of the first "Anti-Mission Baptists preached that there were "better plans." But these people still believed in means in regeneration and church missions. They weren't Hardshell in the sense of denying means in salvation. It was simply a question with them as to what method was the best.
But some opposers of the "mission system" saw that, to be successful in the "war" with the Mission Baptists, they must attack the tree at its roots, i.e. the belief that the new birth involves the gospel and the preachers of it.

Thus you have Gilbert Beebe's statement or question, "Why talk about means to produce it?"

Doubtless, in this early period of the anti-mission effort, he was the first Hardshell to arise in attack of that sacred root. He can therefore lay claim to being the public "father" of Hardshellism.

In the creation and invention of this "new" doctrine of "Spirit without the word" regeneration, several classes of scripture passages that teach regeneration through the word, had to be interpreted in a non-traditional way.

That first class of passages speak of being saved, born again and converted by the "word," "voice" or "gospel" of Christ. Beebe first suggested a new way of dealing with that class of "means" passages: deny that they are talking about the "preached" or "written word," and contend that they are talking about some "mystical," "hidden," "subconscious" "voice" or "word" of God, and that it is totally unconnected with the actual recorded revelation. That was the ticket!

The next class of passages to deal with were those which speak of salvation coming through the "preaching" of the "word." Here came, as we said earlier, the invention of the "Time Salvation" and "Conditional Time Salvation" doctrines. In this, there would be, of course, the denial that any of that class of scripture was talking about "eternal" salvation or regeneration.

Connected with these denials came a "new" definition of what constitutes one as being Biblically "saved," "regenerated" and "born again." To Baptists, prior to the birth of Hardshellism, being "saved" (or "born again") was synonymous with "conversion" (the creation of faith and repentance). These were "evangelical graces" signaling the new birth and produced by the gospel. All of a sudden, these Hardshells had adopted a theory of "subconscious level" regeneration. A person could be saved and not even know it! In fact, he might never come to know it in this life! He may be unconverted, i.e. not a Christian, but yet still be "regenerated!" Thus the Hardshell premise became this: anything that the gospel produces in the elect cannot be necessary for their "eternal" salvation. When this is narrowed down, the only thing necessary for their "eternal" salvation or regeneration, was a belief in and love for a supreme being!

Hardshells today strongly assert the presence of "regenerated elect" among all religions of the world, from the idol worshiping Pygmy to the savage Indian. Hardshells see "evidence" of regeneration in the heathen's desire to worship anything! Therefore, Hardshells were forced into illogical, contradictory and unscriptural positions on the nature and necessity of "faith" for salvation.

Biblical faith, as the Confessions stated, and as the Bible clearly shows, is an "evangelical grace" which had the gospel and Christ as its object, and was therefore itself produced through the means of the gospel.

So Paul taught in Romans 10:14-17:

"But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? . . . So faith comes from hearing what is heard, and what is heard is by the preaching of Christ."

In dealing with those passages which lay down the necessity of faith for salvation, the Hardshells were in another predicament. First, they resorted to their "Time Salvation" doctrine with some of those passages. In some instances, however, it was clear that faith was necessary for eternal salvation. Those passages were just too plain to subvert with the "Time Salvation" “formula” and hermeneutic principle.

The answer to that came when the Hardshells divined that there were, not only "two kinds" of "salvation" (one "temporal" and one "eternal"), but also "two kinds" of "faith," one which is necessary to salvation but not produced by means, and one kind that is not necessary but is produced by the gospel.

Whatever qualities the "faith" produced by the gospel had, the other kind of faith could not have. That became another premise to defend.

When it was narrowed down, the "faith" not produced by the gospel rejected Christ and His death, burial and resurrection. A person could have a "faith" without these qualities and still be saved!

Also, the "life" that a sinner receives in the new birth must be void of those things that the gospel produces. And again, narrowed down, this becomes a bare mystical principle of life, or some strange spiritual deposited "substance" that Hardshells generally call an "inner ability."

These are heretical views. In the new Hardshell vocabulary, "faith," "salvation," "regeneration," "new birth," "repentance," etc., all receive new and heretical definitions!

It soon became the leading job of the Hardshell Bible student to know when a passage was talking about "time" or "eternal" salvation, or when it was talking about necessary "faith" or unnecessary "faith," etc. To be able to do this, was to them, to be able to "rightly divide the word!"

There have been adverse consequences to all this departing from the faith. First, in the area of "conversion." In the Bible, this is the outward expression of the inward work of the new birth. They were inseparable to the early Baptists. Conversion was the production of faith, confession and repentance in sinners under the gospel.

The adverse effects on separating salvation in time from the eternal program are, "No-Hellism," "Anti-Premillennialism," "Non-Resurrectionism" and "Universalism."

The Hardshells have often had to battle the presence of "No-Hellism," or the denial of eternal punishment, because of their substituting "time" for "eternal" salvation in so many scripture passages. If the salvation in those passages is only temporal, then the judgment, death and damnation must also be temporal. This has led some from "No-Hellism" and "Universalism."

The preaching of "time salvation" for the obedient minority of the elect, in contrast to those "elect who are unbelievers," help to make a cult out of those who thought that they were of that holy minority. Thus they began to preach that they were the "elect within the elect!" They only, of the whole regenerated class, had been truly "converted" or "saved in time" by the gospel, and therefore entered "Canann's Land!"

They avow that they only preach the gospel and only Hardshells are saved by the gospel, converted. All other Christians may be regenerated and eternally saved, but none of them have been "saved" in time and therefore none had entered the visible kingdom of Christ, the "Old Hardshell Church."

In the area of "Time Salvation," the already regenerated person had to "get this salvation by himself," i.e. by his own faith and works. "Eternal" salvation was all God's work, strictly by grace and without means. However, "Time" salvation, on the other hand, was by your "free-will" and works, i.e. your obedience to the gospel. In the area of "Time" salvation, Hardshells are virtually Pelagian, Arminian, and Campbellite! This the "Absoluter faction" constantly points out to the "Conditionalist" faction.

This "new" doctrine, as I said, made a cult out of the denomination. It led them to glorify themselves as the "only ones" who were "saved," in the sense of "time" salvation. All other Christians were "lost" in this "timely sense!"

All this fits really well with the root of Landmarkism and Amillennialism. Combined with Landmarkism, it created the "Simon-Pure" mentality, i.e. the "we be Abraham's seed" or "we be the only ones" mentality. We only, they say, have "authority" and gospel "order."

It also fit well with Amillennialism's glorifying of the church of the present age. To the Hardshell, they, and they alone, are seated upon their thrones and ruling with Christ in "Mount Zion," "New Jerusalem," which is, to them, the "Old Church." I have heard many sermons that proclaimed the Landmark Hardshell cult as being "Canaan's Land" in terms descriptive of heaven and of the earthly millennial reign of Christ.

All this has also caused problems with the presence of the non-resurrection doctrine. To place all the emphasis on this life and state of things leads away from the literal interpretation of the word of God. In order to apply all the millennial passages to the Hardshell church necessitated gross "spiritualizing" and "allegorizing" of the sacred text.

For all these reasons, the "ecclesiology of the cult" is subtle, devilish, earthly and carnal. And on this we will have more to say shortly.

Let me first return to the more particular subject of the cult's "secret" revelation, i.e. "Time Salvation."

This "new revelation" of a "Time Salvation," with its attendant evils and adverse consequences, has helped to make the Hardshell denomination into a cult. For this teaching is peculiar revelation to the Hardshell few. This they admit; they even boast of it. They claim it as their peculiar revelation; no one else sees this!

It is ridiculous for them to claim the Old Baptists of John Gill's day as believers in all this. For the salvation, life, faith, regeneration and repentance of those Old Baptists was "evangelical" and well defined, and not like the Hardshell definition, which is vague, mysterious and unrecognizable! I will later show how ridiculous all this is in the light of the Holy Scriptures.

I've already shown how this "heresy" was born out of necessity from those "Anti-Mission Baptists who were later driven into extreme Hyper-Calvinism, i.e. into the position of the Hardshell "anti-means," "Spirit Alone" theory.

It is clear that the Hardshells took this position to the Bible and made it conform to their new man-made theory. This they did through violating all normal rules of interpretation. This has given wing to all sorts of fanciful interpretation and encouraged the practice of "corrupting" and "handling" the word of God "deceitfully." The art and ingenuity of the Hardshells were called upon to come up with "alternative interpretations" to those many passages which clearly teach, directly or indirectly, the necessity of means.

What this industrious and united effort produced were the innovations in theology of "Time Salvation" and "Spirit Alone" regeneration. These were ways of "getting around" the plain and obvious teachings of the word of God.

In teaching the doctrine of "Time" salvation, the Hardshells use many man-made illustrations. These Hardshell "parables," with their subsequent "interpretations," help form a part of the "logic" used by them to win proselytes to their cause. Let me quote from a Hardshell "elder" on the point. He says:

"Suppose I owe an hundred dollar debt down at the grocery store. I have no money to pay. I am burdened down with the thoughts of the debt. I have no peace because of my obligation to this debt that I rightfully owe.

Then one day, a man whom I regard as an enemy, goes down to the store and pays my debt for me. Now there are two things that it will take to cancel my debt.

First, the man who is to pay the debt must have one hundred dollars. Ninety-nine dollars will not pay the debt. Also, the grocery store owner must accept the payment.

Now, this all being done, the debt is cancelled. Also, this is all done without me, the debtor, knowing anything about it. Several days later I happen to be down at the store and the store-owner says to me: 'Mr. Garrett, your debt has been paid.' Now this would be equivalent to the preaching of the gospel. The man is telling me some 'good news.'

At this point, I will do one of two things. I will either accept or reject the message as being the truth. If I feel that the man is simply jesting with me and not telling me the truth, then I will continue to carry the burden of that debt. But, if I believe the message to be the truth, then I will be delivered (saved) from the burden of the debt . . . My coming to hear about the transaction and believing it did not have anything to do with the debt being legally removed. So it is with eternal salvation." (Eddie Garrett in his written debate with Thomas Thrasher, pages 2, 3).

Here the author seeks to "illustrate" the Hardshell belief in what they call the "Two Salvations" of the Bible. In the story, the author wants to show how it is possible to be "saved" from a debt, without the knowledge or acceptance of the debtor. If that's possible, then so is it possible for one to be forgiven of his sin debt, even though he never believes it and even denies it! This then becomes the "proof" of the Bible teaching of "Two Salvations!"

But that "parable" has no divine authority. And the question must be asked of the Hardshells who adopt such an "illustration" -Where is "regeneration" in the "parable?" If the actual payment of the debt represents Christ's death and actual redemption, and if the debtor's believing the "good news" of its payment is "conversion" or "Time Salvation," then where is "regeneration?" Is it not, to the real Old Baptists at least, the same as "conversion," i.e. his coming to faith? If his coming to faith is not his inner regeneration, then where is it illustrated in the parable? When did the man's "attitude" change toward the payer of the debt? Was it not when he heard and believed the "good news?"

Chpt. 8 - Spirit Alone Regeneration

2008-10-21T11:41:00.000-07:00

Chapter Eight The Spirit Alone Theory of Regeneration

Hardshells on the New Birth

The Hardshells cannot find their "Spirit Alone," "Anti-Means" doctrine in the Bible. They have no passage that says that "sinners are saved apart from the application of the Word of God." Though the Hardshells claim otherwise, the Bible clearly teaches that regeneration or the new birth is the work of the Holy Spirit operating through the Word of God, and that this work is the same as conversion.

Because the Hardshells believe that many are regenerated and do not even know it, they think that the gospel is simply designed to identify and inform the saved that they are already saved.

R. V. Sarrels, recent Hardshell "theologian," wrote the following in his book, “SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY”:

“Regeneration is a work of God in the human soul that is below consciousness. There is no internal sensation caused by it . . . God as Savior, though dimly perceived by the regenerated Pygmy, is as objectively real to him as this same God as Savior is to the most enlightened Christian. Whatever may be the Pygmy's degree of perceiving this matter, what all of this means to him as he thinks of the here and of the hereafter is of more value to him than ten thousand worlds. From the standpoint of a living, imperishable hope which bridges the grave and anchors the soul to the 'beyond,' what more could be said of the most enlightened Christian? If this matter is faced squarely and consistently, the conclusion (from Hardshell “logic” – SG) is forced upon us that regeneration, and therefore union with Christ, is not limited to gospel lands (page 349)." (Emphasis mine – SG)

Every Bible student should be in shock at such words, coming as they do from a man who professes to believe and preach the Bible. What he says is against Christ and Christianity.

First, his "regeneration below consciousness" is a wild concoction. He has absolutely no Bible in support of it. In fact, every instance given of regeneration in the Bible shows it to be false. It certainly wasn't true of Paul's regeneration! Paul was so fully aware of it, that he recalled all of the details of it. His regeneration produced a knowledge and understanding of the gospel and love for Christ. He knew who it was that spoke to him! He knew where and when it happened. He knew what the Lord said to him. But, Hardshells know nothing of the above.

Dear reader, if you can have salvation and not know it, then you can certainly lose it and not miss it!

Hardshells, as I have stated earlier, feel forced to separate "conversion" from "regeneration." They recognize that Biblical "conversion" (repentance and faith) is not something that is "below consciousness." But they affirm that "conversion" to Christ and any knowledge of the Christian religion are not necessary to be saved to Heaven, but only for being "saved" from some troubles in this life only. The heathen are unconverted, but this does not mean that they will be eternally damned! This is the Hardshell position.

Therefore, what I will demonstrate is that the scriptures refute this idea by "joining them together" (conversion and regeneration) and what is scripturally "joined together," let no Hardshell "put asunder." Hardshells will not deny that this issue is integral to their system, that is, to have conversion and regeneration distinguished as they do. Therefore, to show them as inseparable refutes the Hardshell "anti-means" position.

They acknowledge that conversion is by the means of the gospel. But regeneration, they say, is NOT by the gospel. The former (conversion) in NOT necessary to be eternally saved. The latter (regeneration) is, however. Thus, as I said, to show that conversion is the same as regeneration is to affirm the truth of gospel means.

Certainly there can be no doubt but that the truly Old Baptists, such as Gill, Kiffin, Keach, and the writers of the Baptist Confessions, all believed that conversion was as essential to eternal salvation as was regeneration and calling. Many of the articles of faith of many Hardshell associations and churches positively state that they believe that "all the elect will be . . . converted . . ." They will often say, "regenerated and converted . . ." So, though they may have used the term "conversion" and "regeneration" separately, yet it was understood that both were equally necessary.

In the writings of these Old Baptists, it is obvious that their understanding of the nature and causes of both regeneration and conversion was different from Hardshellism. They certainly didn't believe that regeneration was something that an idol-worshipping heathen experienced! They also didn't divorce, as the Hardshells do, the "hope," "faith," and "love" which regenerated people possess, from Jesus Christ and the Gospel! Sarrels believes that Pgymy's sincerity in his heathen religion, with his heathen idea as to who "God" is, and with his heathen worship of an imagined deity, and with his heathen "hope" and "faith" in the "after-life," is all the same God and religion as enlightened Christians!

Hardshells look at that heathen worshiper's interest in religion as "evidence" of true Bible "regeneration!" In fact, with many Hardshells, only the truly "atheistic" person will be damned. These would constitute the "few" non-elect.

The Hardshells adore this belief and call it "attractive." And, in a carnal sense, it is "attractive." You preach that "most people are going to heaven, and that few are going to hell," and that "there are saved people in all religions of the world," and I assure you that some will find that very appealing. It is all just a little short of "universalism," however. The world loves such doctrine.

Often the Hardshells speak of how "beautiful" this teaching of wholesale heathen salvation, without a conversion to Christianity, is to them. The only thing, according to Hardshell "theologians," that those non-Christian, yet "born again" people, get for their heathenish ways, is the loss of some joy in this life!

Also, Hardshells think that all this glorifies God, who they say, saves them "without any help from man." Or, "God has given the heathen to Christ," they say, and he did it "without Bibles, the Gospel, or a preacher."

How contrary all this is to what the really Old Baptists believed about the matter. For Griffin, in his "History," says that the first Baptists of Mississippi stated in a resolution that they should stir up themselves to "send the gospel to every human being, for it is God's method by which he will give to His Son the heathen for his inheritance, and the remotest parts of the earth for his possession" (page 100).

Also, the Hardshells never consider that the “arguments” they make on the heathen and about regeneration fall back into their faces when it comes to conversion. If it "takes away" from God's sovereignty and sole glory for Him to use "human means" and "human agents" in "regeneration," then why does it not do the same when He "converts" by means?

Hardshells contend that when God regenerates apart from means, it is by "grace" and glorifies God; but when God saves through means, then it is by "works" and degrading to God! That's Hardshell "logic!"

Hardshells erroneously believe that if "man" is a "means" in a "work of God," then man is the one who should get credit for the work! They often argue that God "would not suspend the eternal salvation of sinners upon any "act of man!" The very idea to them is preposterous. If salvation is contingent upon any "act of man," then it would not be all of God, and God could not therefore claim all the glory. This is Hardshell "logic!"

But they say this without much thought as to how this contradicts the fact that the eternal salvation of sinners was contingent upon using the means of a woman named Mary to bring Christ into the world, i.e. human means. They also forget that the nation of Israel was a "human means" for bringing Christ into the world. They also forget that it was the hands of wicked men (human agents) that God used to accomplish the death of His Son, and thus our redemption!

Thus, according to Hardshellism, because "human means" were involved in Jesus' birth and death, then it was not all of God that those events occurred, and brought our salvation! Our Baptist forefathers believed that, not only did God predestinate the salvation of the elect, but also all the "means" involved in it. Thus all the "human agents" become instruments or agents in the hand of the Lord. All this was clearly understood by Gill and the English Baptists in their talk of God being the "first cause" (or "efficient cause") and the human agent, or means, being "secondary" or "instrumental causes.

God is in all control of the means that he has ordained. Just as God used the "Assyrian" (Isaiah 10:5-15)) as a "tool in his hand" to accomplish his purpose, so God uses "Preachers" and "Evangelists" as "tools" in His own work of regenerating and converting sinners.

"How shall they preach except they be sent [of God]?"

God sends preachers of the word to where He wants them to go. He uses them in much the same way that He used the prophet Ezekiel to preach His Word to the "dry, dead bones" (Ezekiel 37). God raised those dead people by His power alone, as the efficient cause, but it was still through Ezekiel's preaching of the Word. God was the efficient cause and Ezekiel was the instrumental cause.

Because the Hardshells have an erroneous understanding of the Bible doctrine of "total depravity," they often reason that "means" are "useless." To preach the gospel to the "dead," is to them ridiculous. God must first give "life" to the dead, alone and without the gospel, before it is of any use to preach.

They pick up on verses that say that a lost man "cannot" seek, obey, believe, repent, hear, etc., and reason that it is silly to command them to do what they have no power to do! But this again is an example of faulty Hardshell "logic!" Apply that logic to the case of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones! Was it "useless" and "silly" for Ezekiel to preach to those bones? From man's perspective, yes! From the Christian's perspective? No! Did Ezekiel's preaching to the dead "imply" that those dead bones had any ability in themselves to "hear" and "obey?" But I'm sure that, in any case, those resurrected in the valley by God and Ezekiel were nevertheless consciously aware that they had been quickened!

Brother Ross has dealt with the Pelagian argumentation, on the argument that a "command implies ability," as it relates to Hardshell apologetics, and I will be citing his remarks thereon in the next chapter where I will deal with Hardshell Logic on the new birth.

So it is clear that two of their main "arguments" in support of anti-means, have been completely overthrown. Their "logic" has been shown to be against the Divine Revelation. "Human agents" and "means" have been used by the Lord in the eternal scheme of redemption and the foolishness of preaching to the "dead" has been shown to be not so silly, but rather the actual fact of the case, as with Ezekiel and the valley of dead bones.

Hardshell "patriarch," Elder R. W. Thompson, says this about the Hardshell "interpretation" of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones.

"These bones . . . were an evidence of a former life, and are far from representing unregenerate sinners, who are dead in trespasses and sins . . . If these dry bones represent any who have not been quickened by the Spirit, then there might be a reason for calling upon dead sinners to hear, believe and obey. As they do not, but do represent . . . Christians . . . If it should be claimed that Ezekiel was an instrument in the hand of God, to the accomplishing of this change, then I would say, He would only be such to those who were dead to their privileges and enjoyments; but were not dead to the fact, that they were God's chosen people highly favored . . ." (pages 1, 4 of THE HARDSHELL BAPTIST, 3/85).

If this statement from Thompson doesn't demonstrate the determination of the Hardshells to believe their theory no matter what the scriptures show to the contrary, then it cannot be so demonstrated.

The Hardshells know that the vision of the dry bones destroys their arguments against human means! So, what do they do? They affirm that those dry and dead bones represent living, regenerated children of God! If you can make "dead" to mean "alive," then you can make the Bible mean anything! Thompson also confesses that if the death of the bones is emblematic of the death of the sinner, then there "might be a reason for calling upon dead sinners to hear, believe, and obey!" He is going to hold on to his theory no matter what!

Dad printed this article in his paper and called Thompson's interpretation "the correct interpretation!"

HARDSHELL ERROR ON DEPRAVITY AS RELATED TO "MEANS"

As far as the heathen having anything akin to what the Bible calls "regeneration," I have shown that is a wild and devilish concoction.

Some Hardshells like the famed debater, C. H. Cayce, even affirmed that there was "no principle of justice" in God eternally damning a man for not believing the Gospel when he never had the opportunity to hear it." (See his debate with Campbellite F. B. Shrygley).

From a statement like that, it is evident that Cayce and the Hardshells are the ones that don't understand the Bible doctrine of "Depravity" and "Original Sin!"

Hardshells are often "challenging" those who believe in and support "means" to "explain" what happens to the "heathen" who "never hear the gospel." They do this in order to put the person in a position to either affirm universal heathen damnation or to affirm that some heathen, though gospel unbelievers, are nevertheless "saved."

The Hardshells recognize that many professing Christians are reluctant to affirm the damnation of all who have never heard the preaching of the gospel, so this is where the Hardshell prefers to start. But Paul, whom the Hardshells claim as one of them, boldly affirms that those who are without the Gospel, are "without God" and "without hope in the world" (Eph. 2:12). But Elder Sarrels says that those without the Gospel, like the Pygmy, "have as good a hope and knowledge of God as any "enlightened Christian!"

Paul affirmed that his being made a minister was all for the purpose that the "elect" among the Gentiles might have their "eyes opened" and be "turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan into God" and "receive the forgiveness of sins" and a "place" among the "sanctified by faith" (Act 26:18).

He also said that he "endured all things for the elect's sake, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10).

This is not a "time" salvation, but one with "eternal glory." Paul recognized that he was a "means" in the hand of God in bringing salvation to the elect. He did not boast of it. He realized that he was being "used" by the Lord as a tool, and that he could no more boast than could a saw or hammer against him that uses them! (See Isaiah 10).

The "argument" and "logic" that the Hardshell applies to the Biblical doctrine of human depravity to "deduce" or "induce" his "Spirit Alone" theory, I will now further show to be faulty and against the plain revelation.

Hardshells argue that, since the "natural man" receives not and cannot know the things of the Spirit of God (I Cor. 2:14), it necessitates that he first be made a "spiritual man" (i.e. regenerated) before receiving the Gospel. This "logic" sounds good to the untrained ear.

First of all, even the Hardshells must realize that, in any case, the "dead" do at some point "hear" before they are made to live. Does the "natural man" not at some point "receive" something "spiritual" to make him spiritual? The way the Hardshells argue on the doctrine of "Total Depravity," you would think it impossible for even God to save them or to make them "hear!"

Hardshells say that the "dead" alien sinner cannot "hear," "receive," "act," etc. But is that true when God's own power goes forth to cause the "dead" to "hear," "live," and "move?" Though with man it is "impossible," yet with God it is "possible." The truth of the matter is, that among the numbers who hear the Gospel in Word, some hear it in "word only," while others hear it in under the Holy Spirit's power to regenerate and transform. The "Word Alone" regenerates no one; the Spirit applying the Word produces a new birth.

I Peter 1:23, 25 says: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God that lives and abides forever . . . and this is the Word which by the Gospel is announced unto you."

This is the Divine method. Our spiritual birth (regeneration) is "of" God and "by" His Word (i.e. the Gospel). Sometimes it is said to be both of God and of the word preached. It is only of the means in an instrumental sense. It is of God and of the gospel and of faith in it. Hardshellism is refuted by Peter. Just like those "dead bones" were raised by Ezekiel's preaching the Word, so sinners, Peter says, are "born again" by means of the "Word of God."

Hardshells argue uselessly that the "word of God," which Peter says is the means in the new birth, is Jesus, the "Living Word" (John 1:1, 14), and not the "written" or "preached" "word."

This is to be rejected because the scriptures are very careful to speak of regeneration and the new birth as being "of" (ek) God or Spirit, but "through" or "by" (dia or en) faith, the Gospel, the word, etc. The Hardshells would thus have Peter saying, "Being born again (of God) by Christ." But the Scriptures never speak of it in this manner.

The context also makes it clear just what Peter meant by the "word of God." Just prior, he said:

"Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit."

Soul cleansing (regeneration) is through means of faith in the Word announced in the Gospel! Also, just a few verses later, Peter says to "desire the sincere milk of the word" (2:3). This is the Bible, Gospel, and word of God and not Jesus.

John, it is evident, is the only New Testament writer to formally speak of Jesus as the "Word of God."

Hardshells refuse to see that Peter is against their "anti-means" position; they are going to believe in their theory, no matter what Peter says about it.

James is also against them, for he testifies as Peter, saying, "Of His own will beget He us with the word of truth" (James 1:18).

How do the Hardshells "get around" that verse? Some argue that the "word of truth" is a reference to Jesus; this is the same tactic that they used on I Peter 1:23. The difference here is that it is the "word of truth" rather than "word of God." The context of James chapter one makes it crystal clear that the "word of truth" is not Jesus, but the "written" or "engrafted word," which he says, is "able to save your souls" (1:21). Hardshells deny that this word of God is able to save a soul.

All this is far too much for a Hardshell to handle. It never left me alone, but was always staring me in the face during all my time in the Hardshell cult. Many other such passages also troubled me. But today I am happy to be freed from that spirit and effort that is determined to twist, distort, and pervert the plain meaning of Peter, James and Paul.

All these men proclaimed the Gospel as the method by which men come to Christ and are born again. Paul told the Corinthians that he had "begotten" them "through the Gospel" (I Cor. 4:15). He also said that he had "begotten Onesimus in his bonds" (Philemon 10).

All these verses speak of being born, born again, born of God, etc. It is all the same birth in Christ. Paul had begotten them and was their "father" only as a "secondary" or "instrumental cause," but not as the "first" or "efficient cause." Gill and the Old Baptists taught this position.

In like manner, Christians are said to "save themselves"-not as the "efficient cause," but as a "second cause," i.e. through believing and obeying the gospel. God's elect are moved by the Holy Ghost to obey in repentance and faith.

Hardshells have departed from what the early Baptists believed on means. The first Baptists believed that God had predestined all the "means" of salvation. A "means" is a "second cause," totally under the control of the great "first cause." The gospel and faith in it are "means" or "secondary causes."

Because there are "means," "conditions" and "second causes," does not make salvation weak or uncertain, as the Hardshells wrongly imagine. Rather, they are the fixed, determined, and therefore necessary "instrumental causes" of redemption.

Hardshells think that they stand upon the Old Baptist faith when they talk of believing in a Calvinistic tenet called "unconditional election" (or "salvation"). To them, "unconditional election" means "without means" or humans acting as "second causes." "Unconditional" to the Hardshell means without faith, repentance, and every other "evangelical grace!" But it is certain that no Old Baptist understood the term to mean what the Hardshells affirm.

All that they meant was that the faith, repentance, etc., were not the "moving causes" of God's choosing or saving, but the necessary means of executing this purpose and work of God. They certainly recognized that salvation was conditioned upon certain predestined acts and circumstances of the creatures involved.

The reader, in seeing what a base view that the Hardshells have on what constitutes Biblical regeneration and rebirth, can also see what a narrow view this leads them to take on the subjects of calling, perseverance, preservation, justification, and sanctification.

In the Hardshell definition of regeneration, what is it that is preserved and perseveres? What can that Pygmy, while worshipping and adoring his heathen god, know of sanctification and perseverance in Christ and the faith? What did that so-called regenerated Pygmy get in his regeneration that God would keep? Are their idolatries "evidence" of their union and holiness in Christ?

Actually, a Hardshell's idea of "preservation" is for God to keep that hidden, secret, unrecognizable "life" remaining in the person. Hardshells are serving "Anti-Christ" when they call heathen idolaters "saints!" They know nothing of what the Bible means by perseverance, calling, sanctification, etc. When they separate these things from the Gospel and conversion, they then take on strange or empty meanings.

Hardshells often promote their "Spirit Alone" theory by an appeal to "logic" or what is called the "Law of Bio-Genesis." This "law," to them, signifies that there is a universal principle at work, in all realms, that "Life must precede action." If there is any "action," then there is "life." The action is the result or effect of life. Thus they "reason" that since faith and repentance are "actions," they cannot but follow the giving of life and never be in any sense its cause. However "logical" this may sound, it is nevertheless a falsehood and against Divine Revelation.

The true law of "Bio-Genesis" is that "life comes from life." There is always action before birth, however the Hardshell may affirm otherwise. In the sowing of seed, which is necessary to birth and generation, action precedes birth! In Ezekiel's raising of the dead bones, the action of bones coming together preceded the receiving of life and breath. Also, in regeneration, the action of the Spirit on the human heart precedes the birth. Also, the action of conviction precedes the soul's reception of Christ (i.e. life).

But Hardshell "regeneration" and "life" produces no spiritual action! Sarrels said that it produced "no internal sensation!" No effects are necessarily produced under the Hardshell idea of the new birth.

Another favorite argument is made by the Hardshells who "reason" that since "faith" is a "fruit" of the "Spirit," it cannot therefore be in any way prior to, or a "cause" of, the new birth. Anything that follows regeneration, they wrongfully infer, cannot be necessary to salvation! This is absurd!

Even if the scriptures universally placed regeneration "before" faith, that would not preclude its necessity. Is it not at least a necessary and immediate "effect?"

Hardshells often reason that since the Bible is "food" (i.e. "milk," "bread," "meat," "water," etc.), it cannot be a "means" for giving "life!" This however is untrue. Christ made "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood" essential for eternal salvation (see John 6:52-58).

Hardshell "logic" says that "food" is only for those who already have life. Granting this as true, solely for the sake of argument, does it disprove the "necessity" of such food for the "preservation" of that life? So, this argument falls back in the face of the Hardshell. For, though it would be granted that "food" may not be a "means" in giving life, yet it most certainly is a "means" in sustaining that life! So, though not a means in regeneration, it would be seen as a means in preservation and sanctification, and thus in eternal salvation.

Also, why do the Hardshells not get the gospel food out to those "regenerated heathen" so they can stay saved and not spiritually starve to death?

Hardshells suppose that a regeneration or rebirth that is subject to a lost sinner's eating and drinking, would be to make it all of free-will and works. This is evidently false, because God predestines the "means" of our salvation, just as he does the salvation itself. Also, the "earth drinks in the rain," but this is a necessity and not an act of choice (Heb. 6:7).

The scriptures sometimes speak of faith as following and sometimes as preceding regeneration. It is much the same way with the terms "faith" and "repentance:" sometimes one term is used first before the other in a sentence, while at other times the order is reversed. So with faith and regeneration, especially if we recognize that true Biblical regeneration includes conversion.

The reason why these terms are used interchangeably is because they are inseparable and integral to each other. Regeneration, in a Biblical sense, produces a conversion, necessarily and immediately. As much so as the giving of eyes instantly produces vision.

Chpt. 9 - Hardshell Logic on Regeneration

2008-10-21T11:40:00.000-07:00

Chapter Nine - Hardshell Logic on Regeneration

Brother Bob Ross and I, in our discussions on Hardshellism in the early 1990's, often noticed the weird "logic" that the Hardshells often used to prove their heresies. We both felt like something ought to be written about what we both called "Hardshell Logic". Already, in the preceding chapters of this book, I have often referred to the "logic" of the Hardshells. In this chapter I want to repeat and enlarge upon those areas dealing with what is appropriately called "Hardshell Logic".

No Human Means

The Hardshells lay it down as a Biblical maxim of truth, an inspired proposition, about regeneration and salvation, that "God has not conditioned, or suspended, the eternal salvation of sinners upon any human means whatsoever."

Obviously, the Hardshells would love to find a verse of scripture that clearly says this; since they do not, they have created this proposition themselves from their perverted use of "logic."

Somehow, the Hardshells, in their "vain reasonings" (II Cor. 10:5), think that salvation would not be sure and certain, not effectual, if God used any kind of human means in any part of saving sinners.

We have already overthrown the validity of this proposition. First, I showed that the incarnation of Christ, a thing necessary for our eternal salvation, was dependent upon human means, including Mary, the nation of Israel, yea, even all the ancestors of Christ. Second, I referred to those who were guilty in putting to death our Lord and Savior, Judas, the wicked Jews and Gentiles, as being necessary means in bringing about the death of Christ. The death of Christ, like his incarnation, are both necessary means in our salvation. In both instances human agents were means in bringing about those means of salvation.

This does not mean, as the Hardshells falsely reason, that the scheme of salvation was now uncertain of fulfillment.

Brother Ross has also made this rebuttal to this Hardshell proposition:

"For example, the Bible was inspired by the efficient power of the Holy Spirit of God, yet every word of it was instrumentally penned by men. The Spirit used "means," therefore, to give us the inspired Word of God. The use of men as the instrumental "means" does not mean that the efficient power was of men. This might appear to be a contradiction according to the logic of men such as Daily who see contradictions in Dr. Gill, but in such minds the contradiction was born and died." (HISTORY AND HERESIES OF HARDSHELLISM, #2 [04/24--2006])

According to Hardshell "logic" God's giving us the Bible was something that may or may not have occurred. Since God used means in giving the divine breath of Scripture, therefore, it is of man! Because God used human means in giving us the divine revelation, therefore, according to Hardshell "logic," the divine revelation is an accident, yea, not even a revelation of God, but rather, a revelation of men.

So too, the incarnation and the death of Christ, seeing these events were carried out by human agents, were likewise not of God, but of the human agents themselves, and who, as such are to be thanked and praised, rather than God, all according to Hardshell "logic".

Recall too the case of Ezekiel and the "Valley of Dry Bones." (Ezekiel 37). Here was a resurrection, a creation of life, a birth of a living, breathing nation from "dry, dead, bones."

By Hardshell "reasoning" it was not God who raised up the dead in Ezekiel 37! The Hardshells "reason" that if man is involved, as a means or instrument, in creation, birth, and raising the dead, then it cannot be solely by the power of God!

When Elijah, Peter, Paul, and others raised the dead, was it God or the servants of God? Hardshell "logic" says that it cannot be of God, by his power alone, that creates, resurrects, births, etc., if he uses human means!

Of course too, the Holy Scriptures clearly teach that God uses human means in preaching and communicating his word to sinners, that word "which is able to save your souls" (James 1:21). The Hardshells cannot refute these verses, only use the above faulty "logic" to try and overthrow what the Scriptures plainly teach us.

Think of all the times the words create, creation, make, etc. are used in the Bible. Are all human agents eliminated in God's work of creation, as the Hardshells reason? Let us look at some passages of Scripture.

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17)

Is there anything that God creates that he did so by human means? The Hardshells vehemently say no, but let us ask these questions in light of the foregoing words of inspiration dealing explicitly, as they do, with the subject of "creation."

Are there any thrones or dominions that God created through means? Who will affirm that God created every government without human means? Who created the nation of America? The founding fathers? Yes, in a sense (as second causes). But, did not God ultimately create America (as the first cause moving and controlling the second causes to his predetermined ends)? Did he do it through human means or not? What Hardshell will stand up and deny that God has created many nations, powers and authorities, many governments and ruling agencies, through human agents? But, that is what he must affirm as a "logical deduction" of his premise that "God does not use human means in creation."

Notice too that all "powers," whether they be authorities or forces, are the creation of God, even the power of evil.

God said he had used the prophets, the communicators of the words of God, the means of regeneration, to make and shape Israel into a nation. So the passage says:

"Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth." (Hosea 6:5)

It is by the prophets proclaiming the words of God that God used to make Israel. Here the human agent is nothing but a "hewing instrument" in God's hand. If we ask ouselves, "Who hewed the nation? God, the prophets, or both?" Hardshell "logic" would say that since God used human agents, therefore, the product cannot be the product of God, or by his power alone! So, they would have to say the prophets themselves hewed and created the nation, not God. Yet, the truth is, both hewed the nation. One was the efficient cause and the other was the instrumental or second cause, and only the First Cause is to be praised.

You simply cannot exclude anything from Colossians 1:15-17. Creation is not something that is limited to the six days when God created the material world. God has been creating ever since. He must have for the above passage to make sense. All thrones, dominions, principalities, etc., were not created during those six days. God is creating every day. Every time a person is born, he is a creation of God. Will the Hardshells deny this? I suppose they will because God creating me, Stephen Garrett, was by means of my mom and dad, human means. This makes me remember Hardshell preacher "extra ordinaire," Elder Sonny Pyles, who once said, in preaching on Hardshell "evangelism," "sheep make sheep." Does he not then go against his own Hardshell proposition that God never creates through human means and agents? But, back to my point.

God said, by Isaiah, "I create the fruit of the lips. (57:19) Here it is affirmed that praise to God, or what a man confesses truthfully, in regard to God, is the "creation of God." Does God use human agents, my Hardshell brethren, to create the praises of his people and their confessions of truth? Does he not use means to do so? Does he not use good preaching and singing to create those praises?

So, creation goes on, as the Bible teaches. As I said, every instance a child is born God has created a soul. Did he use human means? Of course. So too, every time a person is born again, he becomes a "new creation." (See II Cor. 5:17 & Eph. 2:10) Therefore, God's work of creation is an ongoing affair. So too we are aware of this by such plain statements as Revelation 4:11.

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

"...are and were" speaks of creation presently ongoing as well as a past event.

One must be more than a little surprised that the Hardshells can't see the faultiness and unscripturalness of their "logic" and man-made propositions of "truth." For instance, the Hardshells acknowledge that their "conversion" to Christ, their "gospel faith," is not God's creation! Since man was used in their conversions and in the creation of their so-called gospel faith, therefore, by their own "logic," their conversions and their faith is NOT of God! Anything that has a creature as a means cannot be of God! If man is a means, then it is of the man, and not of God.

Now that I have given, in my own words, the Hardshell "logic" on the proposition that God does not use means in creation, resurrection, and birth, let me cite from Elder Michael Gowens, a leading minister in the Hardshell church. I met brother Gowens in 1976 when I was preaching in some Hardshell churches in Texas. I visited his home. His father was a Hardshell minister. Michael was a young boy but had a deep interest in theology even at that age. It would be great if the Lord could deliver him, together with other Hardshells, from their heresy. Today Michael has a web page, www.sovgrace.net. These citations are taken from his web page on his essay on "Regeneration." He pastors Lexington Primitive Baptist Church, founded by Elder Bradley with other Elders such as Paul Trautner, a long time pastor at this church. I visited this church many times, while I was a Hardshell, preaching for them several times.

Here is what Michael wrote on "BORN AGAIN - The Doctrine of Effectual Calling"

"In this essay, I will attempt to explain and defend the following principle of the doctrine of grace: Regeneration is immediate, i. e. without the use of means or media; consequently, regeneration precedes faith and conversion. Birth is the necessary prerequisite of belief, in the same sense that life must come before activity."

"Regeneration, new birth, quickening, effectual calling, and irresistible grace are synonymous theological terms referring to the work of the Holy Spirit in the radical transformation of the soul. When one of God's elect is "born of the Spirit' (Jno. 3:8), he is, at that moment, saved, personally and vitally."

"Regeneration is the personal application of the blood of Christ to the "inner man" so that the soul is cleansed, really and individually, from sin."

The Method of the New Birth

"So what is the method by which men are born again? It is nothing more or less than the sovereign and direct work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration is immediate. God does not use the works of the sinner, on the one end, neither the efforts of the gospel preacher, on the other end, as either the basis or the method for imparting life to the soul."

"The New Testament writers develop three metaphors to describe the mysterious work of God, which is regeneration. First, as we have already noted, it is a birth (Jno. 3:3-8; Jno. 1:l 3; I Pet. 1:23-25; I Jno. 3:9; I Jno. 5:1). Secondly, it is a creation (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:24), the Divine act of speaking into existence that which previously did not exist. Thirdly, it is a resurrection (Eph. 2:1; I Jno. 3:14; Jno. 5:24), the Divine act of giving life to one who is dead in trespasses and in sins. All three images demonstrate the immediacy of God's work of grace in the soul. Does the baby play an active role in his own birth, or is he a passive party in the work of external factors? What about creation? Did man help God in the creation of the universe or was creation the work of God alone? What about resurrection? Can man raise the dead to life? Does the corpse play an active role in his own resurrection? No, God and God alone is active. He is the only Creator. Just as the universe is the product of special creation, not evolution, so the work of God in the soul is a work of Divine creation, not spiritual evolution. Further, only God can give life to the dead. He and He alone has resurrection power."

I have heard hundreds, perhaps thousands, of sermons where this Hardshell apologetic was put forth in an effort to win people over to the Hardshell heresy called the "Pre-Faith Regeneration" theory. They will boldly assert that no means are used by God in creation, resurrection, and in birth, and therefore he does not use the gospel as a means in regeneration and in the new birth; and yet, both the Bible and science prove them wrong,

It is interesting that Brother Gowens says the same thing as Elder R. V. Sarrels, whom I have already cited (and will be citing further on in this book), in confirmation that "regeneration is below consciousness." Of course, Michael does not see that he says things about regeneration that contradict that premise. But, more on that too in later chapters. I will be citing Brother Gowens again in my continuing examination of Hardshell "logic" on the new birth.

Notice what Hassell said in answer to the question, "Does God use any means in regeneration?"

"None whatever, any more than He does in creation or in resurrection, for regeneration is a creation in Christ (which is all of God, Eph. 2:10; II Cor. 5:17,18), and it is a resurrection from the death in trespasses and sins, which God alone effects by His immediate and irresistible power (Eph. 2:1-10; John 5:25; Ezek. 16:6; Mark 5:41,42; Luke 7:14,15; John 11:43,44). It is being begotten or born of God, with which neither the person born nor any other creature has anything to do (John 1:12,13; 3:3, 5-8; I John 2:29; 5:1). It is a direct quickening by the Three-One God, the Father, Son, and Spirit (Jer. 31:33,34; John 5:21; 6:63). It is the giving of spiritual, eternal, and divine life by God to the sinner who was previously destitute of that life (Rom. 6:23; John 10:28; 17:1-3; I John 5:11,12)." (Elder Sylvester Hassell Copied from the "Gospel Messenger" and from the "Advocate and Messenger" Compiled by R.H. Pittman)

I have already overthrown this Hardshell "logic" regarding God not using means in creation, resurrection, and birth. I want next to address the argument that they make in regard to what they call "The Law of Bio-Genesis," or the principle that Life must precede action."

Life precedes action

Here is what Brother Gowens wrote:

"Birth is the necessary prerequisite of belief, in the same sense that life must come before activity."

Here Brother Gowens is upholding the "Bio-Genesis" argument. Sinners must be regenerated first, apart from means, before they can believe, repent, turn to Christ, etc. Why? Because there are Bible verses that say that? No, but because Hardshells are using human "logic" and applying it to the mysteries of God.

But, Hardshell views on regeneration say that life exists where there is absolutely no activity at all! That just won't wash either. Just as "faith without works (actions) is dead," so too "life without activity is dead." Remember that Sarrels said that regeneration "produces no internal sensations", or no activity! We cannot say, dogmatically, which came first, faith or life, faith or repentance, for the scriptures put them in reverse order. This, combined with the overall commentary of the apostles and New Testament writers, tell us that they occur simultaneously, or as I said earlier, you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have life without faith, nor can you have faith without life. So too we say that one cannot have faith without repentance nor repentance without faith.

Notice these words of Jesus to some who were clearly "dead in tresspassess and sins," and needed life.

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:40)

If the Hardshell theory were true, Christ could not speak thusly but would have to say, "And you will not have life that you may come unto me." Coming to Christ precedes the obtaining of life. "Coming" is a verb, and denotes action. So too do we read in Isaiah 45:22: "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." It is similar to Numbers 21:8.

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live."

Notice that salvation, the "shall live," is the result of the action of "looking." In the teaching of Christ, this "looking" corresponds to our believing in Christ and seeing him upon the cross, the anti-type of the pole set up by Moses in the wilderness. In the preaching of the gospel people see Christ "set forth" and "crucified." (Gal. 3:1) They see him, his sufferings and death, and they look in faith to that atonement, trusting in it, and are thereby changed and born of the Spirit. The Spirit works through the word in bringing men to Christ. I will have more to say later, in a separate chapter, on "Coming To Christ," wherein I examine Hardshell teaching about what it means to "come to Christ."

Command implies ability

Brother Ross wrote:

"Pelagianism held that God bestowed on man the "capacity for his will and work" and that man's capacity, or ability, "come from God alone." This "capacity" was "implanted in us by God," according to Pelagius, a fifth century British monk after whom this school of thought is named.

While Hardshellism is certainly not Pelagian on the matter of man's nature in relation to the effect of the Fall of Man, it has adorned the old Pelagian concept of "command implies ability" in a new garb, format, or "package." What Pelagianism says of man in his natural state, Hardshellism merely shifts to man in a supposed "regenerated" state, before faith.

Basically, this is the same view being advocated by some today who called themselves "Reformed." They have the sinner "capacitated" with an "ability" prior to faith so as to be "enabled" to become a believer. They therefore say "regeneration precedes faith," for it is allegedly necessary for the sinner to be "alive" in order to have the "ability" to believe.

In effect, this logically denies that the power of the Word of God is suficient, in the hands of the Spirit, to resurrect the "dead" sinner, as illustrated by Ezekiel's dry bones (Ez. 37). It makes faith the act by the "regenerated" sinner's "ability" rather than the creative gift of the Holy Spirit.

CAMPBELLISM, the "twin" of the Hardshells, in essence also holds to Pelagianism and is more in line with pure Pelagianism on the natural state of man, as Campbellism denies inherited depravity. But Campbellism holds, in common with Hardshellism, the basic, practical theory of Pelagianism that "command implies ability."

In both Pelagianism and Campbellism, man naturally has the capacity and ability from the Creator to do whatever is commanded, the fall of Adam notwithstanding. In Hardshellism and in the "Reformed" camp, man is similarly endowed by God, but not naturally; according to the Hardshells and the Reformed, this ability is imparted in what they regard as "regeneration" which allegedly capacitates the person with the "ability" to believe. Faith is consequently the act of the "regenerated" person's "ability," and is not the creative work of the Spirit in using the Word of God to raise the "dead."

The practical application made by Hardshells of various commands, such as repentance and faith, is consistent with the Pelagian theory that the command implies the ability to fulfill the command.

Logically, then, according to Hardshellism, the "dead alien sinner" is so disabled that he must have "life" implanted in him so as to capacitate the sinner with the ability to obey the commands. This is their rationale for denying that the Gospel is to be addressed to "dead alien sinners."

Then again, he continues:

"The case of Ezekiel's "dry bones" in chapter 37 does not imply the ability of the dead, dry bones to hear and respond to the preaching Ezekiel. Rather, the design of this scene is to focus on God's power resting upon or accompanying His preached Word.

The case of Lazarus' being commanded to "Come forth" from the dead did not imply ability in dead Lazarus (John 11). This case demonstrates that God's Word, accompanied by His efficient power, can raise the dead thru His command.

The case of the man with the withered hand being told to "stretch forth thine hand" did not imply ability on his part (Matt. 12:13). This again shows that God's power rests upon His Word and has creative results.

The case of the Law as defining man's moral responsibility does not imply man's moral and spiritual ability to comply. Though man is fallen and is under the influence of his depravity, he is nonetheless responsbible to be righteous."

I don't see how I can add anything to this rebuttal of Brother Ross. It is so cogent and completely overthrows the Hardshell "logic" on this idea that God would not command men to repent if they did not have the ability to repent. Does God not still command all to keep all his commandments? Does this imply that they are able?

The truth is not best expressed by saying that "God must first give the ability to believe before we can believe," but by saying, "God must make us penitent, make us believers, make us obey his commands, must cause us to obey the words "come to me," "receive Christ," "be converted," "give me your heart," "believe the gospel," etc.

The Hardshells are forced to affirm that God does not command any dead sinner to life, through the gospel, that he does not command them to "hear Christ," or "believe in Christ," "repent of your sins," "give your heart and life to God," etc., because he is depraved and cannot do that. But, again, as Brother Ross has shown, they are wrong in inferring that a command implies ability to comply. Did Ezekiel speaking to the dead bones imply that they had ability to obey?

The Hardshell can preach the law to the dead sinner. He can tell him, "Do not lie," and "love the Lord your God with all your heart," but he cannot tell the sinner to believe, repent, confess, and obey Christ?

No justice in damning heathen

Recall that it was Elder Cayce, in debate with the Campbellite Shrygley, affirmed that there was "no principle of justice" in God eternally damning a man for not believing the Gospel when he never had the opportunity to hear it."

Of course, I have heard all kinds of arguments like this regarding the heathen and those who die not having heard the gospel. It is ironic too that Cayce claimed to believe the Old London Confession of faith to be representative of Old Baptist doctrine, saying that those who had left belief in that confession could not be properly called Primitive Baptists.

Here is what the Baptists who wrote the confession believed about the case of the heathen who die without hearing the blessed gospel.

Chapter 20: "Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof"

"1._____ The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.

2._____ This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.

3._____ The revelation of the gospel unto sinners, made in divers times and by sundry parts, with the addition of promises and precepts for the obedience required therein, as to the nations and persons to whom it is granted, is merely of the sovereign will and good pleasure of God; not being annexed by virtue of any promise to the due improvement of men's natural abilities, by virtue of common light received without it, which none ever did make, or can do so; and therefore in all ages, the preaching of the gospel has been granted unto persons and nations, as to the extent or straitening of it, in great variety, according to the counsel of the will of God.

4._____ Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life; without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God.

Here Cayce is in disagreement with the Old Baptists of 1689. Those Old Baptists believed that salvation was not possible for those who died without the "outward means" of grace, the gospel and words of promise concerning Christ, the means of "begetting in them faith and repentance.

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." (Ephesians 2:12)

What "time"? The time when they were "dead in tresspasses and sins." (2:1) It was also a time when they were unbelievers.

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power..." (1:19)

The context makes it clear that the demarcation line where a person becomes alive spiritually, who was previously dead, is the same time one becomes a believer, who previously was an unbeliever. I do not know a single Hardshell who would say that the faith of Ephesians 1:19 is not necessary to salvation. They would allow that this verse is speaking about regeneration, using this verse to prove the doctrine of "irresistable grace" or "effectual calling."

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints..." (1:13-15)

This faith or belief in Jesus came through the preaching of the gospel. It was this means by which God "quickened" them. Prior to hearing and believing the gospel, according to Paul, the heathen are "without God and without hope." They are "dead in sins," while in unbelief. Paul clearly puts coming to believe in Jesus, by the gospel, as all the same as being resurrected from the dead, receiving hope in God.

According to the "logic" of Cayce,, all the heathen will be saved! If it is not "just," he affirmed, "for God to damn any heathen who died without hearing the gospel," then all such heathen will be saved, born again, or else God is not "just"! Not only have Hardshells preached that some of God's elect are among the heathen, and who nevertheless are "born again" sometime before they die, and go to Heaven, but now their "logic" is forcing them to say all the heathen are saved!

The Hardshells now are no longer opposed simply to mission methods, or any lawful preaching of the gospel to any who have not previously heard it, but they are now advocating not preaching the gospel to anyone! By their "logic" they could insure the salvation of all by keeping the gospel from being preached!

Cayce is against the Old Confession that he says is the criteria for judging whether one is truly Old Baptist!

Cayce, the greatest defender of Hardshell "logic" and "heresies," believes that all the heathen who die without the gospel must be saved or else God is not "just!"

The Hardshells have many errors in their understanding of the first point in Calvinism and in the Doctrines of Grace, that of Total Depravity. Brother Ross has shown their error on the Pelagian idea that a "command implies ability." I have tried to add to his well written rebuttal. I too have shown how the Hardshells, like Cayce, have erred on the doctrine of "Total Depravity" They demonstrate that error when they say that "God would not be just to damn any heathen who died without hearing the gospel!"

Here is what Brother Gowens said about the relationship between Hardshell views on "Regeneration" and "Total Depravity."

"The Gospel-means position does not adequately satisfy the tension between Total Depravity and the act of believing. Because man is totally depraved, he does not have the ability to believe. I Corinthians 2:14 says, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." The context of I Corinthians 2 describes two different types of people, "the natural man" (v. 14) and "he that is spiritual" (v. 15). Because the natural man has no spiritual capacity ("neither can he know them"), he cannot grasp the spiritual message of the gospel. The spiritual man, on the contrary, has the ability to discern spiritual things (v. 15). Paul clearly establishes the principle in this passage that a change of nature must precede the ability to receive the gospel. Spiritual life must be given before one can understand the "spiritual thing" which is the gospel."

Brother Ross and I have already overthrown this "carnal reasoning" and faulty "logic." But, I want to repeat, with greater emphasis, a rebuttal argument I presented in an earlier chapter, on this Hardshell "argument."

But, even in the Hardshell scheme of regeneration, dead people do hear the words of Christ before they are made alive!

The Hardshell says that the dead cannot hear. Yet, they also teach that the dead must hear to be regenerated. They have no problem putting "hearing" before life when it comes to the words Christ himself speaks to the dead, but not those same words he speaks through the preacher of the gospel! I will deal with this other novel idea of the Hardshells, the "Direct Speaking" theory of regeneration, under a separate chapter. Brother Ross has dealt with this novel theory extensively and I hope to cite his remarks and extend upon them.

Did the dead bones in Ezekiel 37 not hear the words of God, through Ezekiel, BEFORE they came to life?

Have I also not shown that coming to Christ PRECEDES regeneration? Do not the Hardshells themselves acknowledge that is what the Scriptures say? "Hearing" and "Coming" both precede the receiving of "LIFE"! They say this order is okay, does not violate their "Law of Bio-Genesis." Why not? What makes the difference? In the one case, they say, Christ is doing the speaking, directly, not through a medium or spokeman, and so in such a case "hearing and "coming" can precede the reception of life! Notice that the Hardshells affirm that the sinner has ability to hear the words that Christ speaks directly to the sinner, but not words he speaks indirectly through the preacher, like Ezekiel?

Food Not A Means In Giving Life

The Hardshells argue that it is impossible for food and water to be means of giving or imparting life. It is another example of their use of "logic" to support their theories on regeneration. Let me address that "argument" next.

"The gospel is food for the hungry soul, the bread of life, the means by which believers "taste the good word of God" (Heb. 6:3)." (Gowens)

Though Michael did not argue much from that, in his essay on the "New Birth," yet he would subscribe, as all Hardshells do, as I have stated the argument.

Now, who can deny, in the natural and physical realm, that a man must be alive before he can drink? But, is that true in the realm of omnipotence, in the realm of the supernatural? Let us apply that "carnal logic" to some passages of Scripture dealing with the metaphor of eating and drinking, and other such figurative language, to see if it is always the case that one cannot eat or drink in order to live.

First of all, let us notice that the Scriptures associate the hearing and receiving of God's words of revelation and promise, with eating and drinking.

"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts." (Jeremiah 15:16)

Brother Gowens cited Hebrews 6. There those who are saved, born again, wrote Paul, are said to have "tasted (eaten or drunk) the good word of God and the powers of the age to come." Eating those words, which are often compared to "bread, water," and "food," in the Scriptures, does give "life."

The Scriptures often speak of people, in dying, "tasting death." It also speaks of "tasting the grace of God." (II Peter 2:3) The latter could easily be called "tasting life," for the words of Christ are life. (John 6:63)

Those "dead in sins" are able to "drink in iniquity," they are able to receive the words of falsehood and unbelief, but can they not, by the power of the Holy Spirit, drink in righteousness, eat the word of God, and live thereby?

Now notice the entirety of the passage in Hebrews.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned." (6:4-8)

The earth is made to "drink water" and this is equivalent to the earth's "receiving blessing from God." All this is said by Paul in the context of being born again and regenerated. It is in drinking in the "water of life," and eating the "bread of life,"
that men "receive" life, a superlative "blessing from God."

The earth passively receives the rain, drinks, and life is produced in the earth by means of drinking that life giving water. That metaphor destroys the above Hardshell "logic" that says a man must be alive first in order to drink.

Notice Revelation 22:16, 17.

"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

"Water of life" can mean nothing else but "life giving water." The Hardshells do not believe in such a thing. Yes, they will argue, on the above passage, that those being invited to drink the water of life are people who are already alive, their "thirsting" being "evidence" of "life."

Could it not be that people are "thirsty", in the sense of this text, because of sin? Is not our "barrenness," in our relationship to God, one of dire thirst? Did not the "Prodigal Son" exclaim, while in the hog pens, "I perish from hunger"? Are not all sinners dying of thirst and spiritual starvation? Do they not all need to eat and live?

Notice these words of Jesus:

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." (John 6:27)

"Labour not for the food which perishes" is all the same as saying, "labor not TO EAT the food which perishes BUT DO LABOR TO EAT that food (gospel) whose nourishment and benefit is UNTO life everlasting."

This just goes against Hardshell "logic" that says one cannot eat in order to life.

Also, I recall the scene at "Jacob's well," in John 4:10,11.

"Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?"

And further:

"Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw." (vs. 13-15)

Drinking here comes before the receiving of life. So much for Hardshell "logic."

Notice further these words from John 6.

"Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not (have not eaten the bread). All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (eat this bread, believe on me, drink in my words); and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth (receives me, takes me in, like one who drinks in water and takes in food) on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (vs. 31-40)

These verses equate eating Christ with receiving Christ, coming to him, and with obtaining life thereby. Again, all this flies in the face of Hardshell "logic"; in this matter of affirming that food and drink, the words of the gospel, cannot be a means of imparting life, they are just thinking carnally.

Notice these words of Paul.

"Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.." (II Cor. 2: 14-17, New KJV)

Notice how the gospel has two different effects upon people, depending upon whether they are elect and effectually called by the Spirit using the gospel, called in this passage the "fragrance (aroma) of Christ." This gospel or aroma of Christ, has life in it, for it is the "aroma of life." But, it not only has life but it does in fact actually give life. The Hardshells wrongly imagine that the gospel can neither have life nor give life, they are therefore opposed to what Paul teaches us in this passage. I will say it again, not only is the gospel possessed of life giving power, but it actually gives life, "life UNTO life," (KJV) as the text clearly says.

Now, on the other hand, the same gospel, to those whom God has not chosen to salvation, when hearing the gospel, without the attending power of the Holy Spirit, becomes "toxic." They esteem the gospel as being what it is not, an "aroma of death." What they imagine is detrimental to them is really the only remedy for their sinful malady. It becomes to them, an "aroma of death unto death."

Is it in accord with "human logic" to believe that the dead can be brought to life by "smelling salts"? We use strong aromas to arouse those who are unconscious, and the word of God, wrote Paul, is able to give life by its supernatural aroma, to those who receive the gospel, not in word only, but in the Holy Spirit.

I have also pointed out how this "argument" on the word of God being food and water, and cannot therefore be a means of giving life to the dead, that this really solves very little for the Hardshells. They still have this imagined heathen unbeliever, to whom God has supposedly given spiritual "life," without the gospel food, in need of that same "gospel food" in order to preserve his "life" and salvation! So, why are the Old Hardshells not more missionary in taking "gospel food" to those spiritually starving souls around the world, who need the "nourishment" of the Hardshell gospel? You got to give credit where credit is due, "honor to whom honor," and so those Hardshells who are supporting "mission work" (sponsored by the churches, and not "boards")in sending money and other kinds of support to "mission work in the Philippines and in Africa, Hardshells like Elder Bradley and Gus Harter, are to be encouraged. I only wish they would go a little further, or in Bradley's case at least, come back to what you use to believe and preach. The same with dad. You missionaries who left the Old Baptist Confession and the historic position of the Particular Baptists, ought to renounce Hardshellism and come back with fresh zeal to preach the gospel to all men, calling upon them to repent and believe the gospel or be eternally lost. But, I will speak more on this "mission work" in the later sections of this book.

The Scriptures use many metaphors and words to describe the work of saving sinners. Hardshells focus in on a few that they think, by the use of their human "logic", proves their "anti means" position. We have pointed these out, those figures and words being, birth, resurrection, creation," etc. But, the Hardshells err in refusing to see that salvation is also a "conversion," a being "made a disciple," being "taught of God," a "making covenant" with God, being "justified," "turning to God," "set free," "enlightened," etc., all which would show the involvement of the will of man in salvation, his coming to Christ involving his understanding, will, and the very seat of his affections and cognitive abilities. These figures of regeneration and salvation do not suit the purpose of the Hardshells, which is to convince all that regeneration is on the "sub conscious level."

In the next two chapters I will also continue my look at Hardshell "logic", dealing with these "arguments" that are all based upon human "logic."

1. Infants are regenerated and therefore regeneration occurs apart from means.

2. Idiots are regenerated but not converted, so also everyone else.

3. Regeneration through means would make saviors of men who preach.

4. Salvation would be based upon money if regeneration is by means.

5. Most professing Christians would be lost if salvation is by knowing truth.

Brother Ross was in agreement with these remarks on Hardshell "logic."

“Hardshellism defends its theory on the grounds of carnal "logic" (see Sarrels' Systematic Theology, page 328). And on the grounds of purely physical logic, without a consideration for Divine Revelation, who can deny their "logic" that the "dead" must be made alive BEFORE they can give any evidence of life? Who denies that you won't get a "dead fish" to bite the bait?” (HISTORY AND HERESIES OF HARDSHELLISM, #6 [05/11--2006)

Chpt. 10 - Hardshellism on Infants & Idiots

2008-10-21T11:39:00.000-07:00

Chapter Ten - Hardshellism & The Infant & Idiot

This chapter really is but a continuation of Hardshell "logic" though I have titled it as concerns their "argumentation" on these two exceptional cases of sinners who need to be saved. In the next chapter I will continue to address reasoning on regeneration as it relates to these three remaining "arguments" from the Hardshell "arsenal."

1. Regeneration through means would make saviors of men who preach.

2. Salvation would be based upon money if regeneration is by means.

3. Most professing Christians would be lost if salvation is by knowing truth.

But, before that let us look at their armumentation and "logic" as it relates to sinful infants who die in infancy and concerning "idiots," those without "cognitive ability."

Michael Gowens wrote:

"It seems to be the rule that most people are unaware of the moment when the new birth occurred. Although many trace their new birth back to a certain date or time, such dates generally mark the moment when the person first understood the gospel or first committed himself to the Savior in gospel obedience. If so, the date to which the individual has attached significance as the date of regeneration is in fact the date of gospel conversion, a separate event entirely. To say that regeneration is a Divine mystery is to say that there is more to it than we can understand (Yes, Michael, and so you should quit applying "human logic" to understand it). Such mystery should prompt a spirit of reverential awe and worship from our hearts. Thirdly, the text teaches that everyone who is born again is born again in precisely the same way ("...so is every one that is born of the Spirit..."). Arminianism requires a separate method of saving sinners in different circumstances. For example, it requires one method to save the unevangelized heathen, another to save the infant that dies in infancy, another to save the mentally retarded..." (From his essay on "Born Again" at http://www.sovgrace.net/born.htm)

I used to argue this stuff myself when I was a Hardshell. Here are the type statements that Hardshells make on the infant and the "logical deductions" that they make and attempt to get others to accept.

"If the infant is regenerated directly by the Spirit, working alone, and not through the means of the word or gospel, then so is everyone else, for everyone is born again is precisely the same manner."

"If the infant is not born again by a decision to follow Christ, by believing and repenting, then so is everyone else."

"If one must believe and repent to be saved, then the infant cannot be saved."

Before I address this argumentation more particularly, let me cite from the London Confession on Faith of the subject of the salvation of infants who die in infancy.

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith

1._____ The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.

( 2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.

Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

1._____ Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life.

(Titus 3:2-5 )

All this clearly shows that the Old Baptists, who wrote the first confessions, believed that God did regenerate and save infants who died in "infancy." Most Baptists have held to this view. This does not mean, however, that the Baptists believed that infants were saved in precisely the same way as adults. This is an error of the Hardshells. These Old Baptists were very clear to state that the salvation and regeneration of infants was NOT precisely as adults. The "ordinary" way of regenerating sinners, those who are not infants, is "by his word and Spirit." In the case of infants, they allowed that "conversion" was unnecessary, that in such cases God regenerated without means, without the preaching of the gospel; And, in that sense, for whatever it is worth to the Hardshells, God does regenerate without means. This, said the Old Confession, was God's "extraordinary" way, not the only way.

The Hardshells err in making God's "extraordinary" way the "ordinary" way. They are not in agreement with the Old Baptists for they do not believe that God saves and regenerates the adult by the means of the gospel. The infant may be regenerated without a conversion, without an enlightenment, without faith in Christ, without conviction and repentance of sin, but not the adult.

I endorse the sentiment of the Old Baptists that God does work "through means," "ordinarily," but he is "free to work without them."

Does this mean that the Old Baptists believed that heathen peoples who had not heard of Christ, could be, like the infant, regenerated without conversion, without faith and repentance, without the gospel? Absolutely not.

Rather, they said this:

"...much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess."

The truth is, the modern PB's do not believe what the Baptists of this confession believed about regeneration. We can agree with the Hardshells on the regeneration of some infants, but we cannot agree that the adult is regenerated in the same manner. Shortly I will quote at length from the great H. Boyce Taylor, a leading opponent of Hardshellism, on this point of "infant salvation" and will also give various views of leading Baptists on this area of discussion. But, before I get into all that, let me cite another PB on the matter of infant salvation as it relates to the salvation of adults.

"29. Do Primitive Baptists preach infants in Hell?

Answer: No, the doctrine preached by Primitive Baptists is the only message which leaves any hope for infants, the feeble-minded, and the heathen, most religious groups preach that one must hear and understand the gospel, actively obey the gospel, and manifestly believe on Christ, in order to become a child of God. But the great message of grace which is so firmly believed and preached by Old Baptists, declares that one may be a recipient of the mercy of God without hearing the report of it through the gospel and even without fully understanding what has taken place in his heart. If infants, the feeble minded, and the heathen must hear the gospel preached by man and actively repent and believe the truth, then there is no hope for them. But since salvation is by the sovereign grace of God through the work of His Son, we know that He will save His own regardless of their circumstances in life (Rom. 8 :34-39; Rom. 11 :28; II Tim. 2 :13, 16-19)."

"The scriptures teach certain infants have experienced spiritual birth (Ps 8:2, Ps 22:9, Mt 11:25, Mt 21:16, Lk 1:15, Lk 1:41) even though infants are incapable of receiving the preached word. However, the scriptures offer no support to the theory that infants are spiritually quickened by means other than adults. Indeed, the opposite is suggested (Mk 10:15). Nor do the scriptures teach a different scheme of spiritual quickening for those in Old Testament times. There is but one method of spiritual quickening that can be common to all; namely, by direct operation of the Holy Spirit."

"Jesus taught that those dead in trespasses and sins would be quickened by the power of his voice (Jn 5:25-29). In this same context it is taught this voice will also raise the bodily dead at the end of time. A man can give the words of Christ but not His voice, and as Christ will not use man to raise the bodily dead, neither does He use man to raise the spiritually dead.

If it were the purpose of the gospel to accomplish spiritual birth in natural men, then the gospel should be most urgently directed toward the nonspiritual. In fact, this is not its principal direction in the scriptures (2Thes 3:1-3, Rom 15:31, Acts 18:9-10).

Though certain of the elect may be deprived of the natural faculties or circumstances necessary to receive the preached word (2Sam 12:18-23, Mt 9:37-38, Rom 15:30-31, 2Thes 3:1), such considerations do not limit the power of God to directly reveal His Son in the hearts of all the elect (Mt 11:25, Mt 16:17, Mt 21:16, Lk 1:15, Lk 23:39-43, Jn 5:25, Jn 5:38, Jn 6:37, Jn 6:44-45, Gal 3:8, Heb 8:10-12).

VII) Revealing Gospel - The purpose of the gospel is to bring those quickened by the Spirit to the intelligible discovery of the Lord Jesus, and transform them to the example of His life, in both truth and works, that God may be glorified thereby.

Though the Spirit produces life without the means of the preached word, it is the gospel which brings this life and immortality to light (Rom 1:16-17, 2Tim 1:9-10).

The gospel establishes believers in truth, convicts them of their sins, and leads them to repentance (Ps 119:9-11, Acts 17:30-31, Col 1:3-6, 2Tim 3:16-17) that God may be glorified, both by their profession and works (Mt 5:16, Acts 13:48, Rom 15:8-9, 1Cor 6:20, Philip 2:9-11, 2Thes 1:12, 2Thes 3:1).

(Abstract to the Doctrine of Salvation as Advocated by The Primitive Baptists, http://www.pb.org)

The ablest Baptist theologians have insisted that the case of the dying infant is shrouded in mystery. It is not something that is clearly revealed in Holy Scripture, as is the way of salvation. Most of these Baptist spokesmen have all insisted that one cannot build their whole scheme of salvation, as the Hardshells do, based upon the exceptional cases of infants who die in infancy, or idiots. The reason for this is quite obvious. There are too many difficulties with the whole question. For instance, how do we define "infant"? Is a child an infant till what age? 12 years? The passages that Hardshells use to try to prove that infants and adults are regenerated the precise same way do not prove this, and in fact, as I will show, these passages prove TOO MUCH for the Hardshells.

It is interesting, seeing the case of infant regeneration is so fundamental to the Hardshell argumentation and apologetic, on the new birth, to prove that sinners are regenerated prior to and without the prior conditions of faith and repentance, that none of the apostles and New Testament writers argue such a highly esteemed "argument." Would their "logic" not have greater weight if they could find their premises and propositions in the Bible? Where do the New Testament writers argue for "unconditional salvation" by this manner? Where do they reason, saying, "since infants are saved without means, so is everyone"? If it is such a great "argument," one to help prove Hardshellism, which, they say, was taught by the New Testament writers, why do we not see it argued by the apostles?

John 3:8 does not say that infants and adults are saved "precisely" the "same way." But, I will address that later. Yes, all are saved alike, infant and adult, by the power of God. When God saves through means, it is still by the "power of God." In both cases it was "by the Spirit of God." The only difference, besides the "metaphysical" aspects, is that God used means in the one case but not in the other, besides that, it is the same. The only other difference concerns whether the infant, dying in infancy, has only "original sin," or is old enough to have committed personal sin.

Many Baptists believe that those infants that die with only Adam's sin, and no personal transgressions, like a new born, go to Heaven because they believe "original sin" was atoned for on behalf of every single man. No man goes to Hell because of "original sin." So, though they need regeneration, they don't need conversion, nor repentance and faith in precisely the same way that adults.

These Baptists will argue that certain Scripture passages, dealing with the coming Day of Judgement, all indicate that those who will be judged and condemned are people who have committed personal transgressions, and therefore, such infants are absent before that awful "Judgement Bar."

In arguing against the belief that faith and Gospel repentance are essentials to regeneration, justification, sanctification, preservation, salvation, etc. the Hardshell will argue that such a teaching not only "damns the poor helpless heathen" for "no fault of his own," but also "damns all infants who die in their infancy, and all idiots and imbeciles," who likewise are incapable of being "outwardly called by ministry of the Word." These supposed consequences of the "means position," say the Hardshells, make the means position "absurd" and "untenable." No system of salvation, they affirm, can be true if it excludes the salvation of infants and idiots. That is one of their major premises.

It is safe to say, most Hardshells believe that the "majority" of the elect are regenerated in infancy. This is why, in explaining their own "religious experiences," they will speak of "always" loving God, yea "from their earliest remembrance." They say this because they believe that they were regenerated in infancy, in the deep and dark recesses of the soul.

Doubtless this belief in infant regeneration originated among the Paedo-Baptists, particularly those who believed baptism was a necessary means to remove "original sin" and to "regenerate." But the Hardshell argues on something that the Bible never clearly affirms, i.e. the wholesale "regeneration of all infants." But, it is clear, that the Old Baptists of the confessions believed such "elect infants" were "exceptional" cases at best, and though not through the "ordinary means," yet mysteriously regenerated in an "extraordinary way." The "exception" does not, however, nullify the "rule." Nor does an "extraordinary" means nullify the "ordinary" means.

Hardshells bring up the supposed regeneration of John the Baptist, while yet in his mother Elizabeth's womb. He is said to have "leaped for joy" at the "salutation of Mary" and was "filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb." Hardshells affirm that all this was John's "regeneration." They next insist that it was by the "Spirit Alone" and without the means of the Gospel, faith or repentance. Finally, they affirm that all are born again like John the Baptist, because, "God only does it "one way."

But the Old Baptists of the Confessions did not agree with this Hardshell "logic." They did assert both ways!

God works through means, ordinarily, was the faith of those first Old Baptists. But, they also affirmed that God was "free to work without them whenever He so chose."

But returning to the case of John the Baptist. Did he not respond to and hear the "salutation" of Mary, which was, in essence, the "good news?" Did Mary not announce the Gospel in her salutation? Again, it is of the Spirit, yet it is still by or through the Word proclaimed!

But, this supposed "regeneration" of the Baptist was nothing like the "regeneration" of which the Hardshells speak. Was this experience of John the Baptist "without any internal sensation"? Was it "below the level of consciousness"? No, no, no! John, "leaped for joy." That supposes conscious awareness! The miracle here was not that God worked apart from means but that he REGENERATED AN INFANT THROUGH MEANS, a thing the Hardshells say is not possible!

If the Hardshells are going to pick an example of infant salvation apart from the preaching of the good news, they better find another one! But, they do try to come up with another example. It is the case of David being "made to hope while he was upon his mother's breast."

"But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly. " (Psalm 22:9,10)

The Hardshells cite this verse to try and prove that King David, like John the Baptist, was also born again while an infant. But, here again, this case, like that of the Baptist, PROVES TOO MUCH FOR THE HARDSHELLS. Was this regeneration "below the conscious level?" How can one have an unconscious hope? John could not "leap for joy," unconsciously; so neither can David "hope" without consciousness of what it is that is hoped for.

David was no doubt taught the Holy Scriptures by his godly mother and father from the moment of birth (like Paul said to Timothy, "and from a child you have known the Holy Scriptures..."). He no doubt spent 2-5 years "upon his mother's breast," if that is a reference to his time spent as a "suckling." It may refer to even more years if it simply means "enjoying mother's lap and bosom." I sat in my mother's lap for a long time, not as a suckling, but to enjoy her fellowship and embrace, the warmth of her love. I am sure that David's mother taught him the word of God just like we begin to teach babies rhymes, ABC's, and how to say words and form thoughts.

David's language is similar to Paul, who said, "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace..." (Gal. 1:15) David says, "I was cast upon you from the womb...you made me hope on my mother's breast."

Now, there is no example where an infant was regenerated without the means of the word of God. Does it happen? It may. David's son died, and believed that he would "go to him." (II Sam. 12:23)

As I said earlier, this area of study is very difficult. Why? Because the Bible does not say anything specifically about it. All we do, as Bible students, on this topic, is make inferences and deductions, upon certain passages. But, we have no clear cut scripture anywhere that specifically says, "ALL WHO DIE IN INFANCY WILL GO TO HEAVEN," Nor, do the scriptures even clearly define "infant" for us, which it would, it seems to me, if this was a clearly revealed and serious doctrinal point. Can I prove that some have been regenerated, miraculously, while still in the womb, or as a suckling, or as a very young tot? No, I do not have a single scripture that would clearly substantiate it. I can only infer or surmise that what John the Baptist experienced was his "regeneration." I can only speculate that what David meant by "hoping" upon his mother's breast was his "regeneration."

Hardshells, like Cayce, often argue from the words of Christ, that "except you be converted," and "become as little children," "you cannot enter the kingdom," or from the words, "except you receive the kingdom as a little child you cannot enter therein." (Matt. 18:2-5).

They argue that such verses support the "Spirit Alone" or "anti-means" position, because, they say, it affirms that infants do "enter the kingdom" and are "converted." And further, that "adults" are "converted" and "enter the kingdom" just as the infant.

All of this argument flies in their face, however, for the text is talking about "conversion," something that Cayce and the Hardshells affirm is NOT "regeneration!" But now, since it seems to suit their case, conversion becomes regeneration!

But since it is talking about "conversion," something that the Hardshells confess belongs to the Gospel only, then it certainly couldn't have been infants of days or weeks! The context of those passages make it clear that they were "toddlers" and not babes. For Christ spoke of the saints as encouraging such to "come to Christ" and of not "offending" them. This does not describe a newborn. All Christ was affirming, was that the disciples needed the grace of "humility" (repentance) to be saved. This humility is exemplified in "toddlers," though not in newborns.

Hardshells are "grasping for straws" in such argumentation. Hardshell argumentation along this line reflects again how deeply they appear to be in error on the doctrines of "Original Sin" and "Total Depravity." They not only think it unjust and unfair for God to damn the heathen who have never heard, but also of any infant or idiot. However, God is just to damn these classes of men who sinned in Adam.

The Hardshell I cited earlier from www.pb.org, said:

"The scriptures teach certain infants have experienced spiritual birth (Ps 8:2, Ps 22:9, Mt 11:25, Mt 21:16, Lk 1:15, Lk 1:41) even though infants are incapable of receiving the preached word.

I have shown his statement above to be absolutely false. He said, "infants are incapable of receiving the preached word. I have shown that this is not true, that "with men this is impossible but with God all things are possible." I contend that the statement made by Brother Gowens, that men are unaware of the time that they are born again, come to know the Lord, is not in accordance with the sacred record. King David certainly was aware of when it was that he came to have hope in God, for he recalls it, telling of both when and where it was. So too, John the Baptist was so aware of what was going on that he "leaped for joy" when "hearing (and understanding) the salutation of Mary." So, how can it be true then that the infant is "incapable of receiving the preached word." Is that true when the power of the Holy Ghost attends that word?

Hardshells, like Cayce, often argue from the words of Christ, that "we must be converted," and "enter the kingdom as a little child" (Matt. 18:2-5).

They argue that the statement, "as a little child," means, "in precisely the same way as the infant." Again, they are trying to use the exceptional cases of infant regeneration and make them the standard for everyone else. They think that if they can prove the regeneration of infants, then they have greatly given weight to their Hardshell system of salvation, to their "Spirit Alone" or "anti-means" position, their "Direct Speaking" views of the effectual call.

John Calvin writes:

"But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be regenerated by the Lord. ...Many He certainly has called and endued with true knowledge of Himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching." [John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Vol.11, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1962), p. 541,542]

Again, many theologians, including Baptists, believe as John Calvin and the Old Baptist believed and expressed in the Old Confession. Again, for whatever it is worth, many would agree with the Hardshells on the fact that infants are regenerated apart from the means of preaching.

Let me now cite from Taylor on this line of argument, on the infant, that is made by the Hardshells.

"The third heresy of Hardshellism and the one which is the tap root of nearly all other heresies, which they teach is their enmity to the gospel. They do not preach the gospel. They deny that the gospel is to be preached to the lost. They affirm in debate that adults are saved without the gospel as truly as infants.

They teach the unheard of, unnatural and unscriptural notion that a child can be born of a father without a mother. They say that infants and adults alike are born of the Holy Spirit and without the Word of God. The Missionary Baptist, who says the heathen can be saved without the gospel, is a hardshell heretic and ought to be disciplined by his church for the worst of heresies. Heresy as to how men are saved is the worst of heresies and the man who says the heathen can be saved without the gospel is a heretic as to how men are saved.

The Lord Jesus told Nicodemus: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). The new birth is one birth of two elements. The water is a type or symbol of the Word. Eph. 5:26: " That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Campbellites say men are born of the Word without the Spirit; Hardshells say they are born of the Spirit without the Word.

Both are alike heretical as to the new birth. If any difference, Campbellites are less dangerous than Hardshells, for they do believe in preaching the Word to sinners. And if Christ is preached by them to sinners the Holy Spirit may occasionally enable a sinner to see Christ and lay hold on him. That is never true of Hardshellism, for they never preach Christ to sinners. Both Campbellites and Hardshells are heretical on the new birth; and since men cannot be saved without the new birth neither Campbellism nor Hardshellism, in their unadultered form, ever saved any sinner. Men are not saved by the Spirit without the Word nor by the Word without the Spirit. They must be born of the Word and the Spirit, if they would enter the kingdom of God. Hardshellism has no place for any such Scriptures because it denies that the Word has anything to do in the salvation of the lost.

We have called attention to the heresies of Hardshellism on the doctrine of God's sovereignty, election and the plan of salvation. They are as fatally heretical as to man's free agency as they are on God's sovereignty. In their teaching that men and women are saved in this land and in heathen lands just like infants are, they deny human responsibility and accountability. An intelligent man is no more responsible for his own acts, according to Hardshellism, than an idiot or an infant. "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matt 12:36,37). If, as Hardshellism teaches, infants and adults are saved exactly alike, then no man is responsible for his own sins or his disrespect or disobedience to God's law or his rejection of Christ or his damnation in hell. The logic of Hardshellism is can't-help-it-ism. If, as Hardshellism teaches, adults and infants are saved exactly alike, the judgment is a farce; for adults are no more accountable for their deeds than infants are. But if, as the Bible teaches, both in heathen lands and in lands where the Bible is preached, God "who will render to every man according to his deeds" (Rom 2:6) then Hardshellism is a lie and men will be damned for their own sins and not for Adam's sin, nor because they can't help it. They will be punished every man for his own deeds. And as God "now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, because he hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:30-31) by the Lord Jesus; therefore adults and infants are not judged, condemned or saved on the same basis and Hardshellism is a lie. Infants who die in infancy are all saved because Christ bore the Adamic sin for all Adam's race. "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" ( Jn. 1:29). Adults will be judged and condemned for their own sins. Those who are saved will be saved because they heard, repented and trusted in the Son of God, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (I Peter 2:24). That is why the Master commanded us to preach the gospel to every creature. Adults cannot be saved without hearing the gospel and believing in Christ. God said so in Rom.10:11-14: "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Growing out of the Hardshell notion that infants and adults are saved in exactly the same way are a whole brood of deadly, soul destroyed heresies. If infants and adults are saved alike, then God can as justly send infants to hell as adults, and that is why the two seed Hardshells as well as John Calvin said there would be infants in hell a span long. If infants and adults are saved alike, then if all infants will go to heaven, all adults will go to heaven, too; and Hardshells who teach Universalism are logically in line with this theory. Some infants in hell or all adults in heaven is the logic of Hardshellism. The only way around that logic is two seedism, which teaches that some men are children of God and some are the children of the devil from all eternity. Of course if that is true there is no necessity for preaching the gospel to anybody; for the saved are already saved and the lost are already damned. But that hell born lie denies these fundamental Bible doctrines: universal, hereditary depravity; the necessity of Christ's atonement; the necessity of the new birth; the work of the Holy Spirit; the need of preaching the gospel; evangelical repentance and saving faith; a just judgment seat of Christ, etc., etc. But that isn't all. If adults and infants are saved exactly alike, then men are not accountable to the government for their violations of law any more than infants are. The logic of Hardshellism would do away with law and courts and prisons and make every man, like a baby, a law unto himself; and this whole world would be a Russia ruled by a lawless mob. Hardshellism is the enemy of both law and gospel. It would logically destroy both. And the so called Missionary Baptist who does nothing for missions is as truly an enemy of Christ and the gospel as Hardshellism." (Bible Briefs Against Hurtful Heresies By H. BOYCE TAYLOR, Sr.)

Brother Taylor makes several good points here on the Hardshell argumentation on the infant. One of the best points concerns the fact that Hardshell views have a person being born without a "mother!" Since they are so keen, in their "logic," to make everything in the figure of birth to match perfectly with the work of regeneration, where God is clearly the one who begets, or fathers, the elect in their new birth, where is the mother, Hardshell? Is it not as Elder Pyles said, that "sheep make sheep?" The "mother" is none other than the Church, other Christians, who have been used by God, as a means, in bringing to life dead sinners.

Chpt. 11 - Saved by Money?

2008-10-21T11:38:00.000-07:00

A leading Hardshell "argument" says this:

If sinners are saved eternally by the preaching of the gospel, then that would base salvation not only upon humans, but upon money!

That too is a rediculous idea, an absurdity to the Hardshells, and they do all they can, apologetically, to convince others that the basing of salvation upon preaching makes it based upon money and cannot therefore be correct.

This scheme, they argue, makes it possible to "calculate" the "cost per soul," in dollar amounts. For instance, they will often cite figures from a mission organization that says, "Our missionaries required $100,000 dollars last year and we have 100 souls won to Christ"; then they will say, that calculates out to $1000 per soul! But the Bible says, "Forasmuch as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ..." (I Peter 1:18)

The Hardshell argumentation continues, with loudness, forcefulness, with zeal and an air of superiority (like they are smarter than the Mission Baptists, who are not able to see, as they do, the seeming contradiction in missions for salvation and the above words of Peter), arguing vehemently that the above text says our salvation is not accomplished "with" silver and gold, that is, "not by means of money." Since men require money to go, their going to preach the gospel cannot be a means in salvation (redemption) or the above words of Peter are false, and salvation would become "dependent" on things other than God. Again, we are given another good dose of Hardshell "logic."

How how shall I begin to deal with this type of "logic"? Well, let us see if their premise is corrrect, the one that says basically this:

"Our eternal salvation cannot have any means that involve money in any sense." Why not? They will say that God's doing so puts the heathen in a helpless condition, dependent upon missionaries and preachers, and make saviors of men, and takes glory away from God. But, it is a false conclusion to say that because God has made certain acts of men, both saved and unsaved, to be a means in the plan of salvation, then salvation is uncertain, haphazard, and outside the sovereign control of God, and takes away from the glory due only to God.

This is similar to the other false premise I dealt with in the preceding chapter on Hardshell "logic", the premise that affirmed -- "No aspect of eternal salvation can be certain if based upon any kind of human means."

Let me cite an example from Hardshell "historian" Sylvestor Hassell, and from his "Bible Commentary" that he has included in his book, "History of the Church of God." Keep in mind that this citation is over a hundred years old.

"It is estimated that, of the two hundred and fifty million people in India, one million are Christians; and that, of the one thousand million called heathen in the world, two millions only are Christians. Mr. Bainbridge reckons the actual pecuniary cost of each home convert at $550, and of each foreign convert at $320 or less. Others calculate that each foreign conversion costs $1,000, but that each home conversion costs more.

A recent number of the New York “Examiner” (a publication which claims to be the leading “Missionary” Baptist paper of the world) says that, during the year 1884, it cost $592.03 to make a Pagan an Episcopalian; $248.14, a Congregationalist; $234.91, a Presbyterian; $117.91, a Methodist; $72.88, a Campbellite; and only $37.05, a Baptist; so that the average cost of Protestant conversions being $203.91, the conversions of Pagans into Baptists cost but one-sixth of the average.

In connection with such calculations, how deeply impressive the language of the Apostle Peter in the eighteenth and nineteenth verses of the first chapter of his first epistle!" (Chapter 10, emphasis mine)

And now hear another echo of this famed (or perhaps, infamous) Hardshell "argument" and "apologetic." It is from none other than the famed debater and Hardshell "advocate", Elder John R. Daily. The citation is quite lengthy but well said by this Hardshell "defender of the faith." I will then show the flaws in the argumentation of Hassell, Daily, and Potter.

"They (Mission or Gospel Means Baptists) are induced to believe that the money they send actually results in the salvation of heathens. The whole scheme stands upon a financial and human basis. Unsupported by the Bible and unknown to the church for more than seventeen hundred years, this Missionary Idol has been reared and stands today as the golden calf to which the people are bowing, and to which they are giving the praise of the salvation of sinners. As proof of this read what was declared in Elder Potter's debate with Throgmorton:

"The heathens are dying at the rate of a hundred thousand a day, and sinking down to hell, because of the neglect of the church in her duty." At this rate in one month of thirty days 3,000,000 heathens go down to an endless hell because the people who could send the gospel to them do not do it. In one year, at the same rate, the enormous number of 36,000,000 heathen are eternally lost for want of the gospel. They are lost because the gospel does not reach them, because the preachers do not take it to them. Preachers do not take it to them because the people do not give them their money. The money causes the preachers to go, their going is the cause of the gospel reaching the heathen, the gospel is the cause of their salvation. The great cause in this series of causes is money, and the causes that follow are the works of men. Mr. J. R. Graves, a New School editor of the "Tennessee Baptist," said in 1860, "any organization which has for its foundation a money basis is unscriptural."

What has the death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ to do in the matter of salvation according to this theory? Simply nothing. Christ may have died for a sinner, may have been exalted as his advocate, and yet that sinner will sink down to endless torment if money and men be not employed, for upon these hinges his eternal salvation! The theory we are now considering supposes it impossible for the Spirit to regenerate a sinner where the gospel is not preached. In a conversation with a New School Baptist minister we asked him if all who never hear the gospel preached will be lost. To this question he gave what was intended as an evasive answer, saying, "I am not going to say they will all be lost, but I have no authority to say any will be saved who never hear the gospel preached." While he thought to escape the conclusion he knew I would force upon him if he took the stand that they would all be lost, he unwittingly admitted that to be his position. For if he had no authority for saying that any will be saved who never hear the gospel preached, he believed they would all be lost though he seemed afraid to say so. Now if they are lost it is without any chance of being saved, which all Arminians declare to be unjust. Also they are lost because of the disobedience of those who are "enlightened," who could have taken or sent the gospel to them if they would have done so, which is adding injustice to injustice. This is the heresy which was introduced into the Baptist church by the leaders in this new movement, causing those who were in favor of standing by the old landmarks to declare non-fellowship for them, which resulted in a division into what became known as Old School and New School Baptists. Which of these two is the primitive denomination? Is it those who have introduced and adopted the new order of things, or those who are contending for the old doctrine and practice? Our brethren in fellowship know which is, and our New School brethren know also."

(From an article titled "Missionary or New School Baptists". Zion's Advocate, Vol. 40, No. 8, August 1901. www.carthage.lib.il.us -- Emphasis mine)

Now, who cannot but admit that this "line of reasoning," upon first hearing, might "sound good"? It certainly relies less on "logic", however, than it does on an appeal to human rationality and sentimentality (pathos), to depraved man's intuitive sense of what is "just" or "unjust" for God to do or not do. People do feel "pity" for the lost, for those who have not heard the "glorious gospel of Christ," who "had no chance to be saved."

It is more than a little ironic that Daily, within the same citation, given above, speaks of the Hardshells as being the truly "Old" or "Primitive" Baptists, and then speaks as he does for the heathen peoples, as an advocate for the salvation of those who do not know our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I cited earlier what the truly Old Baptists believed about the state of the heathen who die without the means of faith. They are all lost and "without hope." That is their stated position from the confession, as I cited earlier. Daily is deceitful, like his brethren were who did the "hatchet job" on the Old "London Confession of Faith," in his day (1900), in Fulton, Kentucky, when they came together to discuss and "reaffirm their belief in the London Confession of Faith," BUT with their explanations attached, which is, as I shall show in later chapters, and as Brother Ross has shown, and even some Hardshells candidly confess, is nothing but a "torturing of the English language," trying to make that Old Confession say what it absolutely does not say. They handle this Old Confession of the Baptist faith like they do the Holy Scriptures, twisting and distorting plain and unequivocal statements in the Bible.

For the length of the writing above, from Hassell, Daily, and Potter,to formally state the "argument" proper, did you see any Scripture citations to prove the point they wanted to make? Seeing this is such an important point, a veritable piller in the Hardshell"doctrinal foundation," and supposedly of the Bible, why is there only one passage of scripture cited? (the one in I Peter 1:18, and which I will address shortly)

Here are the falsehoods that are stated in the above citations, and which I will rebut.

1. "The theory we are now considering supposes it impossible for the Spirit to regenerate a sinner where the gospel is not preached."

2. "The whole scheme stands upon a financial and human basis."

3. "Unsupported by the Bible and unknown to the church for more than seventeen hundred years."

4. "Now if they are lost it is without any chance of being saved, which all Arminians declare to be unjust."

5. "This is the heresy which was introduced into the Baptist church by the leaders in this new movement..."

6. "...this Missionary Idol has been reared and stands today as the golden calf to which the people are bowing, and to which they are giving the praise of the salvation of sinners."

7. "What has the death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ to do in the matter of salvation according to this theory? Simply nothing."

What I am going to show is that it is false to say that our eternal salvation does not in any sense depend upon men and money.

Money (or its equivalent) was involved in getting Christ from the cradle to the cross. Money was involved in getting Christ crucified. All the money and goods that Joseph and Mary spent to raise Christ, to send him to school, to buy him food and clothes, was that not all made necessary by the will of God? Did not the money that Christ himself gave to the temple, his own tithes and offerings, as a law abiding Jew, part of the law he had to keep in order to become perfect and be "without sin"?

Notice these words from Luke.

"And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance." (8:1-3)

Many of the followers of Jesus supported the ministry of Jesus. His traveling about "throughout" Palestine required financial resources. Yes, he could have gotten by without any financial support, for he could "turn stones into bread," and get money from the mouth of a fish, BUT he chose to be supported by money from his followers. Can we not say that this money was used by Christ to fulfill his mission? If Christ went to a village and regenerated a sinner, even by speaking directly, without preachers, was it not still the case that this financial support by "many others," besides the three named female supporters mentioned by Luke, was still a means in bringing Christ to sinners so he could speak directly to them? Christ could have gotten around miraculously, as did the prophet Elijah, who was often instantly transported by the Spirit of God, and so too, as it seems was Philip the Evangelist (See Acts 8:39), but Christ chose to get around like other people, by human means and money.

Even the Hardshells must admit that their conversions to Christ are based upon money. They will have to admit that their churches are "money based" too. Why? Because it requires money to have a building in which to worship, to print song books, to support the preacher and the poor saints, etc. So, though they will say it is absurd to think that our eternal salvation can include "men and money" as a means yet they will have to admit that the same arguments they use here can apply to their own "making disciples." If we add up the cost of a particular Hardshell church for a year, then divide that number by the number of converts, then we too can "calculate" the "cost per soul," and so they have the same supposed difficulty in regard to their coming to be converted, to know Christ, to come to have their "gospel faith."

"Based upon men and money" is in essence, "based upon men." What does "based upon" mean? If God uses a means to accomplish an end, is that end then "based upon" that "means"?

These Hardshell advocates say that a belief in means for regeneration "...supposes it impossible for the Spirit to regenerate a sinner where the gospel is not preached." But, do not the Hardshells have the same "problem" here? Cannot I not say of the Hardshells, relative to their beliefs concerning conversions, that their view thereon likewise "supposes it impossible for the Spirit to CONVERT a sinner where the gospel is not preached?"

It is also not true that we, who believe the Scriptures clearly teach regeneration and faith by the means of the preached word, affirm the "impossibility" of God regenerating men without means, as the Hardshells teach. No, as John the Baptist said, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matthew 3:9) Is God making children out of stones? No, but he is able! He too is able to regenerate without human means, of course, but the question is, "what saith the scriptures?"

One can see how not only do the Hardshells err on such doctrines as "Election," "Regeneration," "Perseverance," "Faith," etc., but also on
"Predestination" and the "Sovereignty of God." They seem to think that God does not control men and their means, including their money. They have departed from the faith of the Old Baptists, for they wrote, in the Old Confessions, that "NOT ONLY had God PREDESTINED the salvation of the elect, but also had PREDESTINED ALL THE MEANS THEREUNTO." Those "means" were the the gospel and word of God, and the lessor or intermediate means, such things as are naturally required to keep men alive and in order to provide them with the material means they needed to travel and preach.

Why do these same Hardshells, who argue this point, not have a problem with realizing the fact that all the missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul required money and means, and must therefore confess that every convert of Paul to Christ, by the gospel, was in some sense, "money based?" Why is that not a problem? Why do they make regeneration so important, so important that even God dare not risk using "human means?" Why do they argue that "in basing regeneration on means, God is thus giving the whole redemption scheme over to chance and indeterminate means? Why do they argue, on one hand, that "God would not base the "regeneration" of his elect, its success, on human means and agencies to carry out his will in "regeneration," but "conversion", coming to "know Jesus," on the other hand, they must admit, has nevertheless based the "conversions" of the elect upon them? Does God value so little the "converting" of his people then, Brother Hardshell, that he would suspend conversion upon "means and money?"

Hardshell soteriology places little importance on "conversion," making "regeneration" to be the all important matter. But, why is their idea of "regeneration" more important than their idea of "conversion"? It seems to me, if you understand how they define these terms, it ought to be the other way around. Let me enlarge upon that.

According to Hardshell descriptions of what happens when a soul is regenerated versus when he is converted, one cannot imagine putting more importance upon the former than on the latter, as the Hardshells do.

Let us give the attributes and characteristics of these two experiences.

Hardshell Regeneration

Hardshell Regeneration has a so-called life, but it is unrecognizable. It has "no internal sensations" connected with it, "no conscious awareness," nor any change of mind, nor any new truths apprehended (enlightenment), no conviction of sin nor penitance of heart, no knowledge of the true God nor of Jesus and his atonement for sin, no freedom from sin, nor willing obedience to the Lord; In fact, it lacks every evangelical grace! A "regenerated man," according to Hardshell soteriology, has no spiritual activity! He has no evangelical hope, no love for or knowledge of Christ, no fellowship with the Apostles and their doctrine, no prayers offered in Christ's name, thus still an idolator, etc.

Conversion, on the other hand, by any honest admission, does far more for a person than their so-call regeneration.

Notice these words of Paul:

"Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." (Philippians 1:15-18)

To "preach Christ," especially to those who have never heard of him, even for the first time, ought to be the foremost aim of every preacher and Christian. Yes, some do it for evil reasons, impure motives, but who can deny that God does, in spite of this, make that gospel effective? Is it not also true that though an unregenerate man may contribute money to a preacher, we ought to rejoice that the money was used for good, for spreading the message of Christ, the means of begetting faith and life, rather than on something base?

Again, notice these words of the Apostle.

"And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." (II Cor. 12:15)

Paul "spent" his own money and labors to bring the gospel to the elect. The early Christians at Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, and other Gentile cities all owed their conversions and salvation to the labors spent by the Apostle Paul. Was Paul simply sent to convert people but not to regenerate them? Was he sent simply to "save" a few elect ones from some "timely burdens and trials"? Listen to these verses.

"But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, THAT they may receive forgiveness of sins, and (that they may receive) inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith (thus through preaching and preachers -- Romans 10:13-17) that is in me." (Acts 26:16-18)

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (II Tim. 2:10)

So Paul "labored," and was "spent," in order that the glorious gospel of Christ be preached and sinners called to Christ and salvation. So too did other Christians also "spend" time and money so that the message could go into all the world. What was the end of all this? To be saved simply from timely ills? No, absolutely not. Look at the passages I cited. Any honest Hardshell must admit that the terms used in these passages to describe the salvation experience that resulted from Paul's preaching the gospel cannot possibly refer to anything but eternal salvation.

"And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace (the grace of giving, the evidence of which consisted in monetary contributions from the church at Corinth), which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind: Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men." (II Cor. 8: 18-21)

Second Corinthians chapters eight and nine ought to be looked at as a whole and compared with Hardshell teaching regarding giving money for the support of missionaries, poor saints, and other honest and good things. I have selected the above portion only, but the entirety of both chapters will answer many of the things Hardshells say about the evil of money being used in the service of God.

Paul's use and administration of the funds given to him was used "for honest things." Certainly the "preaching of the gospel to every creature" is such an honest and good thing, is it not? Was the use of money an evil thing, something that degraded his glorious salvation? No, no, no! Paul said his administration of the money given to him was "administered by us to the glory of the same Lord." What greater "glory" is there than the "glory" the Godhead receives from "redemption"? So, if Paul says that the money used by him was used to the glory of God, it is so because it was a lessor means in bringing the benefits of redemption to the elect.

Paul pointedly asked this question to the Church at Corinth, one that ought to be asked just as pointedly to the Hardshells who are against preaching the gospel to all men.

"What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (I Cor. 14:36)

Missionary Baptists, like Spurgeon, took the gospel and word of God to others, as far as they could, always saying, like Isaiah, "here I am, Lord, send me" (Isa. 6:8), not like the Hardshells, to whom the word has only come to them, but has not gone out from them.

Now, let me enumerate those errors I mentioned earlier, from the writings of Hassell, Daily, and Potter and recap my rebuttal.

Impossible?

The first falsehood I rebutted was -- "The theory we are now considering supposes it impossible for the Spirit to regenerate a sinner where the gospel is not preached." I showed this to be totally unfounded and a brash judgment.

The next falsehood I overthrew was -- "The whole scheme stands upon a financial and human basis." I showed that, although money is involved as a "lessor means," in some aspect of salvation, but I showed that this does not interpret out to mean that salvation stands on anything other than omnipotence, or make the means ineffective, or uncertain. If the Hardshells could come back to the Old Baptist position on predestination and divine sovereignty then they too would not see their argumentation here to be of any great weight or moment.

The next falsehood denied is the statement -- "Unsupported by the Bible and unknown to the church for more than seventeen hundred years."

I have already overthrown this in my earlier chapter on "Hardshell History," but I hope to do some again in later chapters on the general history of missions in church history. Needless to say, this is a totally unfounded statement, having no factual proof. Missions and mission organizations have been present during those "seventeen hundred years."

The next falsehood I addressed was -- "Now if they are lost it is without any chance of being saved, which all Arminians declare to be unjust."

I addressed this in my former chapter on Hardshell "logic", citing Elder Cayce's statement to Shryggley. No, it is not the "Arminians" who say that God is unjust to damn those who died without having a chance to be saved, but IT IS THE HARDSHELLS WHO AFFIRM THIS! Ironic, is it not? Why would the "Arminians" be so laborious in mission work if they believed that the heathen were all already saved?

The next falsehood said -- "This is the heresy which was introduced into the Baptist church by the leaders in this new movement..."

Yes, and I have shown how baseless is this statement. I have repeatedly said to the Hardshells -- "Produce any document, prior to 1800, from a church or association, that expounds Hardshell views on regeneration." There have been no takers, nor do I expect any. Yet, they will continue to spout the lie that what they preach on regeneration is what all Baptists believed prior to 1814!

The next falsehood that came from the above named famous Hardshells was -- "...this Missionary Idol has been reared and stands today as the golden calf to which the people are bowing, and to which they are giving the praise of the salvation of sinners."

I too have shown how false is all this, showing how it is the height of folly for the Hardshells to say 1) Mission Baptists, because they use their money to support those who take the glorious gospel to every creature, are therefore idol worshipers and 2) Mission Baptists, because they use their money to support those who take the glorious gospel to every creature, are therefore giving praise to creatures rather than God. No, Hardshell, giving money for such "honest things," is not idolatry, but "covetousness is idolatry." (Col. 3:5)

The last falsehood was contained in these words -- "What has the death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ to do in the matter of salvation according to this theory? Simply nothing."

Again, I showed this was another baseless charge.

Now, what can I say about the passage in I Peter 1:18?

Certainly the price of redemption was none other than the "blood of Jesus Christ." "Silver and gold" were involved in various "redemptions" in the Old Testament. Men could be redeemed and ransomed from slavery by the payment of money. That money typified the price Christ would pay to liberate sinners from the bondage of sin, in order to "ransom" his elect "from the power of the grave." (Hosea 13:14) This passage is not saying that money is not involved, in any sense, but only that the payment of the sin debt was made by the death of Christ.

Finally, in this chapter, I want to look at Romans 10:13,14, and ask every Hardshell to acknowledge the strength of Paul's question, "How can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?"

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

It was the Apostle Paul who affirmed that hearing the gospel was necessary for coming to faith in Christ. He is the one who expressed the view that men could not be saved unless they hear the gospel. He is the one who expressed the view that men could not hear the gospel unless they hear it from a preacher. So, my brother Hardshells, you need to take your "logic" to these verses and see how they answer all your objections.

This chapter will end my look at Hardshell "logic". I think I have shown how they err in their application of such to the word of God. They ought to simply accept what the Scriptures plainly teach and quit trying to figure it all out by the use of human logic.

In my next chapter I will be dealing with what the Hardshells believe about Faith.