Chpt. 86 - Hardshell Proof Texts VIII

In this chapter I will look at what might be called the "logical arguments" that are used by the Hardshells, and other Hyperists, based upon the assumption of "total depravity."

Those who promote the idea, as do the Hardshells, that one must first be born again prior to, and apart from, his coming to faith and repentance, or to evangelical conversion, will argue that this new birth (or regeneration) must occur before conversion because it is a law that "life must precede action." Since "believe" and "repent" are verbs that denote "action," then clearly they cannot occur until after one is "made alive."

In earlier chapters I dealt with some of the other types of "logical" arguments that the Hardshells use to "prove" their aberrant views. I looked at such Hardshell "logic" as they use, apologetically, to uphold such unscriptural propositions as these:

1) Since infants are regenerated, born again, saved, and justified apart from the gospel, and apart from faith and repentance, then so is everyone.

2) No part of salvation depends upon any human means whatsoever, for this would rob God of his sovereignty and the elect of their security.

3) If the preaching of the gospel is a means in salvation, then it would depend upon people giving money, which would be a scriptural absurdity.

4) If believing the gospel is necessary for going to heaven, then no mentally incapacitated person can be saved.

5) If believing the gospel is necessary for going to heaven, then...ad infinitum.

Recall how I showed that human beings were involved in eternal redemption, such as Mary, who gave birth to Christ, and without whom, there would have been no Christ, and how human beings put Christ to death, and without this death there would be no redemption.

This demonstrates the error of their man-made and unscriptural proposition that says "no human means or agencies are involved in salvation" or "salvation does not in any way depend upon human means or agencies."

Is it true that "life precedes action"? And, is it true that there can be "life" where there is no "action"?

Look at the story of the "coming to life" of the "dry dead bones" in Ezekiel's vision. Was there any "action" prior to the "breath entering" the bodily forms? Yes. So, this theory is not scriptural.

Certainly there is a moment of "coming to life," a moment when one who was dead is now no longer dead. Formerly he could be called "dead," but now he can be called "living."

Also, just because one acts passively does not mean he does not act, for it is still "act" even though done passively, or spontaneously, or without forethought and deliberation.

Also, how do we define "death" if it does not mean "without activity"? If this is so, then conversely, to be alive, by definition, includes being active.

Having shown how these are all fallacious arguments, because they are based upon one or more false premises, I will now examine their "logical arguments" drawn from the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity."

Passages on Total Depravity

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8: 5-8 KJV)

These words say nothing about being born again prior to faith and repentance, or prior to conversion, or savingly coming to Christ. That is an erroneous idea that some Calvinist "exegetes," like the Hardshells, and like neo-Reformed Calvinists, as James White and R. C. Sproul, attempt to "deduce" from the passage (erroneously, I might add), or read into (eisogete) the passage, rather than showing that it is expressly stated in the passage.

These words on the depravity of man, and on the unregenerate state, do not overthrow the truth of scripture regarding the use of means, and of the medium of faith and repentance, in bringing about a change from an unregenerate state to a regenerate one.

These verses in Romans 8 also do not make the state of regeneration to be:

1) An experience on the sub-conscious level
2) An experience different from conversion
3) An experience separate from faith and repentance
4) An experience apart from the application of truth to the mind.
5) An experience defined by "cause" alone apart from "effect."
6) An experience that excludes the activity of the converted.

How Paul Describes the Regenerate State

"You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (vs. 9-17, NIV)

Thus, the regenerated or renewed state, is described as being:

1. Spiritually minded (vs. carnally minded)
2. Spiritually alive (vs. spiritually dead)
3. Spiritually at peace with God and his rule (vs. at war with God)
4. Disciple of the Holy Spirit (vs. disciple of the carnal nature)
5. Positionally "in/dwelling in the Spirit" (vs. "in the flesh")
6. Psychologically and behaviorally "after the Spirit" (vs. "after the sinful flesh").
7. Are able to "please God" (vs. "not able to please God")
8. "Controlled by the Spirit" (vs. "controlled by the sinful nature")
9. "Spirit of God dwells in you" (vs. "sinful nature dwells in you")
10. "Belongs to Christ" (vs. does "not belong to Christ" or "belong to the sinful nature")
11. "Christ in you" (vs. "Christ not in you")
12. "Led by the Spirit" (vs. "led by the sinful nature")
13. "Sons of God" (vs. "sons of the devil," or "cursed children")
14. "Received the Spirit of God that enslaved you to Christ" (vs. "received a spirit of bondage to fear")
15. "Received the Spirit's inner witness" (vs. "not having the witness")
16. "Heirs of God" and of Christ (vs. "those who are not heirs")
17. "Sharers of the sufferings of Christ" (vs. "non-sharers")
18. Destined "sharers in the coming glory" (vs. "non-sharers")

The concepts of faith and repentance are not absent in all these stated descriptions of the regenerated condition. They are rather clearly implied and necessitated.

First, notice that Paul equates spiritual "life" with having a spiritual mind and understanding, or with enlightenment and with faith.

Spiritual mindedness (faith) = new regeneration life

Notice also how Paul conjoins two great blessings of the saved or regenerative state, namely, life and peace (or reconciliation or justification).

Cannot Please God

Compare these verses on the reason for possessing ability to please God.

1. "they who are in the flesh cannot please God" (or to rephrase - "without regeneration it is impossible to please God")

2. "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6 KJV)

Phil Johnson wrote:

"In Romans 8:6 Paul, says, "To be carnally minded is death." He is talking about the carnal-mindedness of unbelief, describing what it means to be totally depraved." ("In What Sense Is Depravity Total?")

See here

This is correct. The essence of being "carnally minded," or "governed by the sinful nature," etc., is to be an infidel in things pertaining to God and his communications. As the essence of the degenerative state is generally characterized by the singular word "unbelief," so is the regenerative state characterized by the word "belief" (or "faith").

So, let us read Paul's words and place equivocable words in their place.

1. "To be unbelieving in mind ('carnally minded') is death and degeneration of state."

2. "The unbelieving mind (carnal mind) is not submissive to the law (rule) of God, neither indeed can be."

3. "The unbelieving mind ('in the flesh') cannot please God."

4. "You are not in the flesh (degeneration and unbelief) if the Spirit dwell in you (if you are in a state of regeneration and faith)."

Obviously, the regenerated life is the life of faith (reliance and trust). The apostle equates "spiritual mindedness" with regeneration life and it is obvious too that he equates spiritual mindedness with faith. Thus, we can say, "to be unbelieving and impenitent (carnally minded) is spiritual death, degeneration, and complete depravity," and "to be believing and penitent (spiritual minded) is spiritual life, regeneration, and complete renewal."

So, the passage does not teach regeneration before faith, or apart from it, and apart from the means of the gospel, as the Hardshells and other Hyper Calvinists aver. It rather teaches that the essence of the Christian "life" is "faith" in God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Faith, or the divine "bestowal of faith," was for Luther the new birth.

Dr. Gill, in his commentary on Philippians 1: 6 said:

"The work of grace upon their hearts, sometimes called the work of faith, because that is a principal part of it..."

For John Calvin "regeneration life" was all but equated with repentance.

Calvin - Begotten By Faith

In his comment on 1 Corinthians 13:13, Calvin says, "In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us."

Presidents Edwards and A. Alexander equated regeneration with conversion and repentance. So too does the apostle Paul and the failure to see this in the passage in Romans 8: 6-8 is the great mistake of the Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists who place regeneration before and apart from faith and gospel means.

B. H. Carroll wrote:

"...regeneration cannot be complete without faith."

[An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 10, pages 293, 294].

See here

J. P. Boyce, in writing upon "Regeneration" and "Conversion," says:

"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."

Now let us look at I Corinthians 2: 14.

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (I Corinthians 2: 9-15 KJV)

There is an old scholastic axiom, Qui nimis probat, nihil probat - “He who proves too much, proves nothing."

The Hardshells, and others who cite this verse in an attempt to disconnect the experience of regeneration from the experience of faith, and apart from the means of the gospel and word of God, are guilty of violating this axiom. By their argumentation on this passage, as I will show, they "prove too much," and therefore "prove nothing at all." In other words, if their "logical reasonings" are correct, then it will prove not only that it is impossible with men for totally depraved sinners to be regenerated and come to faith, but it is even impossible with God.

Proving Too Much - Two Demonstrative Syllogisms

1. Unregenerate man is unable to please God
2. To become regenerate is pleasing to God
3. Unregenerate man is unable to become regenerate

1. The unregenerate man cannot receive the things of the Spirit
2. Regeneration is a thing of the Spirit
3. The unregenerate man cannot receive regeneration

Thus, it is obvious that the reasoning of the Hyperists that Paul is indirectly affirming that one must be regenerated before he can believe, is not true, for it would, if true, prove that not even God can regenerate a man!

Again, the error of the Hyperist is to divorce the state of faith, or spiritual understanding and mindedness, from the definition of being a "spiritual man."

If "natural (sensual or carnal, or one who does not have the Spirit indwelling) man" is equated with "unbelieving man," then their logical reasonings on "total depravity" are invalid. Certainly the natural, unbelieving man, does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. Certainly it is not unbelievers who receive the "life" of Christ, the life of the Spirit. The "deadness" and "naturalness" of the depraved state is equated with the "unbelieving" and "impenitent" state.

Who is a "spiritual man"? He is one who receives the things of the Spirit of God. A man cannot be called a "spiritual man" who has not received the things of the Spirit of God. This is where Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism go awry. In their Hyperism they have souls "regenerated" who have not received the things of the Spirit of God! They have heathen idol worshippers and pagans "regenerated"! They have infants in the womb "regenerated." Yet, this "hollow log" (empty and meaningless) description of biblical regeneration is against the very description which Paul gives us of the regeneration state and experience, the condition of having spiritual "life," which he equates with "understanding," and with "spiritual mindedness" and "submissiveness to" the "law (rule) of God," and with faith and conversion.

Clearly Paul, in this chapter, identifies and characterizes both the "carnal" or "natural man," the man without God and his word and Spirit, with a "spiritual man," and the distinguishing thing between them is precisely this, one has faith and life, one "receives (embraces) the gospel," and the other does not.

Paul is not saying that one must be regenerated before one can believe, for this would make faith a non-ingredient of the life of regeneration, rather than the chief essential ingredient of it.

Does, then, a belief in "total depravity" necessitate a belief in the "Reformed" 'ordo salutis,' in 'regeneration before faith'?

Were the great Calvinist leaders already cited in this chapter, together with the great Baptist theologians, like Abraham Booth and Charles Spurgeon, not believers in "total depravity" and yet were all men who rejected the "born again before faith" error?

A prominent Calvinist on the internet today, and an associate of leading Calvinst John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, also said:

"First Corinthians 2:14 says, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." Unbelievers are therefore incapable of faith." (Ibid)

"The key word in all of that is inability. Sinners are totally unable to respond to God, apart from His enabling grace." (Ibid)

Notice how Johnson, a promoter of the "born again before faith" error (yet not a Hardshell), and an often cited authority on the definition of "Hyper Calvinism," gives us the conclusion of his syllogism (or enthymene) when he concludes with these words - "Unbelievers are therefore incapable of faith." Now, that could be taken in one of two ways. It could represent that "proving too much" type of conclusion I addressed earlier. If one takes his statement literally and absolutely, as being true in every respect, then salvation is impossible! Not even God can make the unbeliever capable of faith! He as much said that "salvation is incapable or impossible"!

What Paul means is that it is impossible with men themselves. It is not something that they have any natural powers or inclinations to do. Paul is certainly not saying that a man must be made a "spiritual man" by an immediate direct operation of the Spirit upon a man's soul, apart from divine truth, and without faith and repentance, for this would make him to define "spiritual man" in a weak "hollow log" fashion, to use Hardshell jargon, and would make "spiritual" men out of idol worshipping, Jesus and Jehovah rejecting men! How unbiblical to think of an infant in the womb being "regenerated" on a subconscious level! Without "spiritual understanding" and without "spiritual mindedness" and without faith and repentance!

Regeneration is by faith

To affirm this does not take away one whit from the biblical and Calvinistic doctrine of man's complete and total depravity, or his absolute helplessness of native condition. To affirm that faith precipitates regeneration as a medium in regeneration, conversion, and salvation, does not deny that God must first act before the sinner can act in regeneration. What is denied, as the great head of Princeton seminary stated, is that the bible definition of the state of regeneration and spiritual life is given in terms of "cause" alone, without any view to the "effect," and that it is defined in terms of what God alone does, to the exclusion of any act of the sinner, resulting from God's act.

The act of making a man "spiritual," or "regenerate" is not different from the act that acquits him, or enlightens, or converts him into a Christian. God does not "beget" a sinner to "life" and then later "beget" him to "faith" and to the other Christian graces, for they are all "spiritual things" both "begotten" and "received" by the alien sinner when he is initiated "into Christ."

"While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light." (John 12: 36 KJV)

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Corinthians 4: 4 KJV)

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3: 26 KJV)

If men are "begotten by the gospel," as Paul affirmed in I Corinthians 4: 15, then it can only mean "begotten by believing" it. If not, the statement is meaningless and nonsensical. To say that one must be "begotten" before he can believe is to take the means out of the begetting. The statement "begotten by the gospel" is the same as "begotten by faith in the gospel" and is really what the latter verse expressly says - "we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (or in the gospel)," thus begotten by the gospel. This is what Abraham Booth observed when he wrote these words:

"It is objected, 'Though it be not necessary for a sinner to know that he is born again, before he believe in Jesus Christ, yet regeneration must precede faith. For the heart of a sinner being naturally in a state of enmity to the Divine Character, he will never turn to God, while in that situation, for pardon and acceptance.' In answer to which, the following particulars are proposed for consideration.

Before this objection can be justly considered as valid, it must be evinced, not only, that regeneration precedes faith; but also, that it is necessary to authorise a sinner's reliance on Jesus Christ: than which, few sentiments are more foreign from the genuine gospel.

[Theory:] Regeneration must precede faith. This, though assumed as a certain fact, may be justly doubted: for the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing, that any one is born of God, before he believe in Jesus Christ..."

This is clear in scripture and Booth recognized it just like other leading spokesmen for Calvinistic Baptists.

Booth continues on page 122:

"But it is impossible for us to conceive of the mind being enlightened, of the conscience being relieved, of the will being regulated, and of the affections being purified by the word of truth, ANY FURTHER THAN IT IS BELIEVED. It may therefore be concluded, that regeneration is not, in order of time, prior to faith in Christ, and justification by him...there is no such thing as priority, or posteriority, respecting them, either as to the order of time, or the order of nature. They are inseparable, nor can one exist without the other."

"Spurgeon said of Abraham Booth and of the book from which these citations are taken:

"I have read with some degree of attention a book to which I owe much for this present discourse—a book, by Abraham Booth, called "Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners." I have never heard any one cast a suspicion upon Abraham Booth's soundness; on the contrary, he has been generally considered as one of the most orthodox of the divines of the last generation. If you want my views in full, read his book." ("The Warrant of Faith")

See here

Seehere

Andhere

Syllogism

Regeneration = Coming to Christ
Coming to Christ = Believing on or Receiving Christ
Regeneration = Believing on or Receiving Christ

Pertinent Questions

1. Can a man be spiritually minded without faith and knowledge of the gospel?

2. Can a man have life without being spiritually minded?

Spurgeon said:

"Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."

(Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).

When And How Freed?

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Romans 6: 16-18 KJV)

Where is regeneration before faith in these words? Where is faith after regeneration? Is it not put before it here? Were they first freed from sin and then yielded themselves to a new master? Were they freed from sin BEFORE they "obeyed" the gospel? Or were they freed from sin after faith? Were they "righteous" or "justified" before or after this "yielding"?

What does it mean to "yield" and to "obey" if it does not mean to believe and turn (repent)?

What kind of "regeneration" is it that does not "free" a man from sin?

Sinful Regeneration?

"Everything that does not come from faith is sin." (Romans 14: 24b NIV)

If "regeneration" and "salvation" and "new birth" all come before faith, then is it not a sinful "regeneration," "salvation," or "new birth"? Based upon this verse? This false view of regeneration before faith, certainly does not have a "salvation" that comes "from" faith, correct? Yet, Paul makes a universal statement, does he not?

Does he not say that "everything" ('whatsoever') that is not "from faith" is sinful? Would this not make the "regeneration" that supposedly comes before faith, to be a sinful "regeneration"?

According to the "reformed" and "Hardshell" view of "regeneration," the purpose of "regeneration" is to give the sinner an "ability" to do good, repent, believe, etc. But, yet, in this "regeneration," there is no faith a part of it, for this comes later as fruit or an after-effect. This is inconsistent and unbiblical. Here is why.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11: 6). But, the "reformed" and "Hardshell" view is that men get this "ability," not from faith, but from "regeneration," a "regeneration" that does not include faith.

If "ability" is given in "regeneration," then so is faith, for without faith it is impossible to please God.

Reformed or Hardshell apologists correctly affirm - "without regeneration it is impossible to please God."

But, the Bible also says - "without faith it is impossible to please God."

Conclusion? Faith is a part of regeneration, being the very "ability" that the Hardshells and Hypers talk about. By their view, a man in "regeneration" has "ability" to please God but he has of yet no faith!

Those who teach that "regeneration" is nothing more than the giving of spiritual "ability" say that God MUST first give this "ability," must first "regenerate," BEFORE one can have faith or repent, have a serious "paradigm problem."

By this definition of things a person is "enabled" to do spiritual things before he has faith. Thus, faith is no part of this "enabling" or this "ability." Thus, a "regenerated" man has only the potential for faith, or what some call "the faculty of faith," though not faith itself. By this definition of things a man CAN "please God" by "regeneration" alone and need not have faith. Yet, the scriptures are clear that "whatever is not of faith is sin."

Is regeneneration that which is "of faith"?

When men talk of God "giving the ability to believe," be they Wesleyans who promote their version of what is called "prevenient grace," or "Hyper Reformed Calvinists" who promote a hybrid view on "regeneration," they are failing to see faith as that very ability. To say "God gives ability in order to have faith" is like saying "God gives ability in order to have ability" or "God gives faith in order to have faith."

The bible teaches that God gives power and ability WHEN he gives faith. That Faith = spiritual ability.

Regeneration Without Faith?

"Faith without works is dead, being alone."

"Life without faith is dead."

"Regeneration without faith is dead."


If biblical regeneration is defined by the cause only, and not with the effect included in the definition, then we must say:

1) A man is "regenerated" (drawn) before he "comes."

2) A man is "regenerated" (given ears or ability to hear) before he "hears."

3) A man is "regenerated" (given eyes or ability to see) before he "sees."

4) A man is "regenerated" (moved upon by God) before he "comes" to God.

5) A man is "regenerated" (moved upon by God) before he is "born."

6) A man is "regenerated" (moved upon by God) before he is "saved."

7) A man is "regenerated" (moved upon by God) before he is "justified."

8) A man is "regenerated" (moved upon by God) before he is "alive."

9) A man is "regenerated" (moved upon by God) before he is "converted."

10) A man is "regenerated"(moved upon by God) before he is "called."

11) A man is "regenerated" (moved upon by God) before he has made a single spiritual movement.

I could not doubt add to this list, but this is sufficient enough to show how ridiculous is this "watered down" view of "regeneration."

Another argument made by the Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists under the umbrella of "total depravity," is the argument from the words of Christ about a tree bearing fruit after its kind, a corrupt tree yielding only corrupt fruit and a good tree yielding only good.

These argue that "making the tree good" refers to the experience and work of "regeneration," and the "making the fruit good" is a post regeneration experience of coming to faith and repentance. This reasoning is fallacious because it divorces being made spiritually "good" from being made a believing penitent. Rather than making "faith," like "life," part of what it means to be made "good," the Hyperist insists that "faith" and "repentance," and "love" for Christ, are "fruits," and "products" and "after-effects" of being "regenerated." We could just as well say, by Hardshell definitions, that "life" is an "effect," or "product," or "fruit" of "regeneration," but we would be using "fruit" in the sense of "essential element of."

The Hardshells will also reason that since believing on Christ and repenting of sin and turning to God are "righteous acts," then one must be first made inwardly righteous by regeneration before he can do righteous acts. But, again, their logic will "prove too much" and therefore "prove nothing at all."

Is coming to life, or being spiritually resurrected and regenerated, not a "righteous act"? Who comes to life and is regenerated, God or the sinner? Regeneration is a process of coming to life and it involves, both passively and actively, the act of God to initiate and the actual act of the sinner in coming to life, faith, repentance, and to a union with Christ.

The Hardshells will argue that the heart must be made righteous before it can believe, for believing is a righteous act. But, such a view of what it means to make the heart righteous is evident. A heart cannot be considered as having been made "righteous" till it has been made believing and penitent. Besides, in Romans 10, Paul says that sinners "believe UNTO righteousness."

Chapter 87 - Hardshell Proof Texts IX

"But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." (II Tim. 1: 10)

This verse is cited by Hardshells in order to affirm that the gospel does not give life, but only that it manifests those who already have life. That is, the gospel is not God's instrument to give life to the spiritually dead, but is only the instrument for revealing who is already, apart from the gospel, spiritually alive. Thus, they say, those who have spiritual life are "brought to light" by the gospel, or simply manifested, or made known. This is, however, not what Paul is saying.

First of all, "immortality" is not possessed now, and therefore cannot be revealed in the sense of manifesting those who are in possession of it. Paul's mention of "immortality" is a reference to the coming resurrection of the body.

Second, the passage does not say that the gospel reveals the nature and character of people, but reveals "life" and "immortality," which are doctrinal subjects. If Paul were teaching hardshellism, and giving the Hardshell interpretation of his words, he would have rephrased his words to say "and has brought to light those who have eternal life and immortality." But, it does not say that, does not use the personal pronoun, but says that life and immortality, topics of the Christian religion, are what is revealed in the gospel.

By "immortality," in this passage, Dr. Gill, in his commentary, says that it refers to "the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead," not to people. In fact, I know of no commentary that interprets the passage as do the Hardshells. It is a twist on the passage, done in order for it to affirm their idea on the nature and utility of the preached gospel.

Obviously the way the gospel reveals who are saved and who are lost is in the reactions it draws from those who hear it. The gospel is "light," and it therefore "brings to light," that is, it reveals or discovers what was previously hidden and unknown. The gospel does reveal who is elect by its being believed. It also reveals who has been born again, for believing and being born again are intimately connected. But, saying this does not negate believing also in the fact that God uses the gospel to communicate his life and salvation to sinners.

It is interesting how Hardshells affirm that reception of the gospel manifests who is born again but deny that rejection of the gospel does not manifest who is not born again. They believe that millions of unbelievers in Jesus are nevertheless "born again." So, by that idea, rejection of the gospel does not reveal that they are not born again. But, clearly, if gospel reception manifests salvation, then gospel rejection manifests damnation.

The question to be asked, at this point, is this - "is one saved who is fundamentally ignorant of life and immortality, as it is revealed in the gospel?"

Jesus said - "I am the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14: 6) If a man has been "taught of God" (John 6: 45), he will "come to" Jesus (6: 37) for "life." (5: 40) To know Jesus, by that "revelation" that "accompanies salvation," is to have have "life" (Jesus) "brought to light" (revealed) to the heart and mind. When Jesus (life) is "revealed" ('brought to light') to a heart, mind, and conscience, life is not only discovered but received. The great error of hardshellism is its refusal to say with scripture - "and he who believes not will be condemned." (Mark 16: 16)

But, the gospel not only reveals truth relative to spiritual and eternal life, and immortality, but it is a means of giving life.

Paul said that the gospel is an "aroma." And of this "aroma," he said:

"To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life." (II Cor. 2: 14-16)

Paul also said that the "spirit" of the gospel produces spiritual life.

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (II Cor. 3: 6)

"This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me." (Psalm 119: 50) God's word gave life to the Pslamist.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31)

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

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to (eis) life everlasting." (I Tim. 1: 16)

These verses show that there is no "life" apart from "believing" (trusting) in Christ and the gospel.

Chapter 88 - Hardshell Proof Texts X

"A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." (Acts 10: 2)

This was said of the Gentile centurion, Cornelius, before he became a Christian through the preaching of Peter. Cornelius was a devout religionist, dedicated to religious life. Nevertheless he was a lost sinner. The angel that appeared to Cornelius told him to send to Joppa for Peter to come to him so that Cornelius would "hear words whereby you and your house may be saved." (Acts 11: 14) Obviously, Cornelius was not "saved" before he heard the gospel from the mouth of Peter. He was not a believer before he heard the gospel preached.

But, such a plain declaration of the condition of Cornelius before he became a convert to Christ is dismissed by the Hardshell apologists. They nevertheless affirm that he was "saved" before he heard the preaching of Jesus, before he was a "believer," or had "faith," before he repented of his sins and turned to the Lord Jesus Christ. They deny what Peter said about the matter!

They then twist the text by giving a strange and novel definition to the word "saved" as used by Peter. Peter, the Hardshell apologist affirms, already knew that Cornelius and his house were "saved," and so was simply saying that he would preach to them in order to "save" them from their religious ignorance.

It is true that Peter desired the salvation of Cornelius, a salvation that involved his being brought out of religious ignorance, but Peter did not believe that this salvation was different from the one that is connected with regeneration, or with eternal salvation.

So, what reasons do the Hardshells offer, apologetically, for affirming that Cornelius was already "saved" (in spite of what the text says), before he heard the gospel from the mouth of Peter?

First, they say that the description of Cornelius' religious state, as given in Acts 10, shows that Cornelius was already "saved" or "regenerated." For instance, he is said to be one who "fears God." But, if one studies the scriptures, he will see that simple "fearing God" is not only said of saved people.

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2: 19)

The "trembling" arises from the fear that the "demons" have of the "one God" they know and recognize. If having a fear of God is a proof of "regeneration," or "salvation," then "the devils" are "regenerated"!

So, the fact that Cornelius "feared God" does not mean he was "saved." First of all, it was not necessarily the one true God of Israel alone that he feared, though he was a friend and supporter of Judaism, nor of the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." We will look at this further shortly.

Next, Cornelius was a "devout man," and Hardshells argue that this also identifies him as already "saved," for only regenerated people are "devout." The Greek word used here is similar to that used in other places. The Greek word "eulabēs" means "taking hold well," or "carefully and surely, or cautiously," or "reverencing God, pious, religious." A "devout" person is a pious or dutiful person. In verse ten there is mention of a "devout soldier," which may mean a "religious soldier" or simply a "dutiful soldier." In Acts 22: 12 we read of Annanias being "a devout man according to the law."

Next, Cornelius was one that "prayed to God always," which must be a description of someone already saved, affirm the Hardshells. But, many lost Jews pray. This is clear throughout the gospels, where Jesus condemned the praying of the religious hypocrites among the Jews. Unsaved people pray, and the bible is filled with examples of it. In fact, salvation is the result of calling upon the name of the Lord in prayer, a fact clearly taught in scripture.

Next, Cornelius was one whose "prayer was heard" by the one true God. Does God not hear the prayers of only the righteous, of those who are already saved and regenerated? The Hardshells ask. Some will try to prove this by citing the words of the self-righteous Jews who said to Jesus - "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth." (John 9: 31) On this Dr. Gill wrote:

"All mankind are sinners, even God's elect; yea, such who are truly gracious and righteous persons; for there is no man without sin; and God hears such who cry unto him day and night; such Christ came to save; for such he died; and these he calls to repentance; and every penitent sinner God hears: but by "sinners" are meant notorious sinners, such in whom sin reigns, who live in sin, and particularly impostors. The man takes up the word the Jews had made use of, and applied to Christ, John 9:24, and suggests, that had Jesus been a sinner, that is, an impostor, God would not have heard him, or have assisted him in doing a miracle, to support an imposture, or cover and encourage a fraud..." (Commentary)

Gill says God hears the prayers of unsaved sinners when they pray for saving mercy and that the argument of the man was that Jesus could not be the notorious sinner that the Jewish religious leaders were affirming of him.

"And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." (Luke 18: 9-11)

Notice how this "Pharisee" was "devout," dedicated to his religious exercises, and how he "prayed" regularly as part of his obedience to the external law, and was a "God-fearer," at least by profession. Yet, Jesus says that he was a man "who trusted in himself that he was righteous," but who was not, but was deceived and self-righteous, and who felt like he "had no need of a physician" (no need for Christ as Savior). The Pharisee did not leave the temple "justified" as did the "publican" (sinner).

The case story of Cornelius only shows what preparatory work God does in the life of those sinners whom he intends to call and save. What is said of him may be said of many sinners just prior to their salvation.

Next, Cornelius did "good works," or "worked righteousness" that was acceptable and pleasing to God, by his giving alms to the poor and to the local Jewish synagogue, and it is argued, by the Hardshells, that this is further proof that he was already a born again child of God. But, were they "good works"? Yes, they were good in a sense, being good in themselves, but not good because not done with the proper motive and understanding, not done with "faith," and "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6), and "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) Thus, since Cornelius was not yet a "believer" in Jesus and the gospel before he heard the words of Peter, he could not please God. The Hardshell notion that he pleased God before he became a believer is contrary to scripture.

"But as for thee (Pharoah) and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God." (Exo. 9: 30)

By the end of the plagues Pharoah had come to fear the Lord and to tremble, like demons, at the destructive power of Lord God. When Pharoah was brought to a state of fear and dread of God, was he then "regenerated"?

"And the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of those countries, when they had heard that the LORD fought against the enemies of Israel." (II Chron. 20: 29)

This is said of people who were not saved, who were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel," and "without God" and "without hope." (Eph. 2: 12) When the Lord "roars" in destructive power, "who cannot but fear?" (See Prov. 20: 2 & Amos 3: 8)

Duty Of All Men To Fear God

"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." (Eccl. 3: 14)

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (Eccl. 12: 13)

"And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul." (Deut. 10: 12)

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." (I Peter 2: 17)

"For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods." (I Chron. 16: 25)

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6, 7)

All these verses show clearly that all men are required, by duty, to "fear" the Lord. But, if the fear of God is what only characterizes saved people, then the duty to fear God is a duty to save themselves. Hardshells, however, reject what is called "duty faith," not believing that all men are required to believe the gospel. So, as they have rejected faith as a duty and requirement, so too do they reject godly fear as a duty and requirement.

Some Have No Fear Of God

"The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes." (Psa. 36: 1)

"There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Rom. 3: 18)

It is true that some of the lost have "no fear of God," but some of the lost do fear God, just as demons also do.

Learning To Fear The Lord

"Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children." (Deut. 4: 10)

"And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them." (Deut. 17: 19)

"And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day." (Deut. 6: 24)

"Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it." (Deut. 31: 12, 13)

These verses show that the "fear of the Lord" results from being taught the word of God, which is contrary to the Hardshell "no means" and "Spirit alone" view of "regeneration."

"Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience...Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent." (Acts 13: 16, 26)

These words are often cited by Hardshells to prove that the gospel is to be "addressed" only to those who have been saved in regeneration, that it is only of use to those who are already saved, and has no power to save the unregenerate. First, the Hardshells argue that "whosoever among you fears God" means "whosoever among you is already born again." Thus, they equate "God fearer" with "regenerated person." But, we have already seen how unsaved men and devils have a "fear of God," and so their argument is invalid.

Scholarly opinion states that the term "God-fearer" was used by Luke to designate those Gentiles who were sympathetic to the Jewish faith, possibly "proselytes," or those who were partial converts to Judaism.

Having said all this, it is not denied that all who have been saved (or regenerated) do have a fear of God. It is simply denied that only the saved have any fear of God. The "fear of God" that saved people have is no doubt qualitatively and quantitatively superior to the fear of God that unregenerate men and devils have. The fear of God possessed by born again people is a fear that imparts wisdom that brings salvation, a fear that involves a holy reverence and adoration, and faith and delight in the God who is feared.

"Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him. But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God." (Eccl. 8: 12, 13)

Certainly it will be well with those who fear God, both now and forever. It is like "godly living," which is both profitable for "the life that now is," and "for that life which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8) It is "well" for the devils to fear God, for Pharoah to fear God, but it is superlatively well for men to fear God enough to serve and acknowledge him to salvation.

Also, since the Hardshells believe that a "fear of God" is equivalent to being "regenerated," then how can they say that the "regeneration" experience is "non-cognitive" and "on the sub-conscious level"? How can one fear one that he has no cognition of? Besides, we have already seen how the "fear of the Lord" is taught and begotten through the instrumentality of the word of God. So, we may ask - "how shall they fear him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

On Acts 11: 17 Dr. Gill wrote:

"whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved; that is, which would be a means of instructing him and his family in the right and true way of salvation; for the Gospel only points out the way of salvation, and is only effectual to it, when it is accompanied with, the power of God: multitudes hear it, and yet are not saved by and those to whom it comes not in word only, but in power, are saved only by Christ, who is revealed in it, as God's way of salvation; it is not bare hearing the word and attending on ordinances that will save any, only such who believe in Christ with the heart, who is the sum and substance of the Gospel, are saved; and still less are any saved by the faith of others; the house or family of Cornelius were not saved by his believing in Christ; but the words of faith and sound doctrine being preached to them, as to him, and faith coming thereby to one as to another, they were saved in one and the same way, namely, through faith in Christ Jesus."

Gill utters the real old Baptist position on the case of Cornelius.

Besides, even if we affirm, for the sake of argument, that Cornelius was saved before he heard Peter preach, this still would not prove that he had never heard of Jesus or the good news. When Peter was talking to Cornelius about the "word" or message of the gospel, he said - "that word, I say, you know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached." (Acts 10: 37)

Was Cornelius a "believer" before he heard the gospel from the mouth of Peter? Here is what Peter said about the question:

"Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15: 7)

Peter is referring to his preaching to Cornelius and his household and says that they came to "believe" when they came to "hear the word of the gospel" by his mouth. That ought to settle the matter about whether Cornelius was a believer in Christ before he heard and believed the words of Peter.

What is the state or condition of an unbeliever? "The wrath of God abides upon him." (John 3: 36) He is also "dead" in tresspasses and in sins. (Acts 1: 19-2: 1) He is "condemned." (John 3: 18)

Chapter 89 - Hardshell Proof Texts XI

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Gal. 5: 22, 23)

Scriptures speak of being "born again" of the Spirit (John 3: 3-8), or of being "begotten of God." (I John 5: 18) In this "birth" or "conception" something is begotten or produced. All recognize that "life" is the chief product. Also, that a "person" is created or brought into existence. When a person is "born of God," he becomes a child of God, a "new creature," a spiritual being. But, is "life" and "existence" the only things begotten? Or, are there other things that are "begotten" when life is begotten? What saith the scriptures?

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5: 4)

"Faith" is here identified as being that which is "begotten." Faith overcomes because it is born of God. When a person is spiritually begotten life is begotten, but so also is faith "begotten."

Some will argue that this proves that one is born again "before" faith, but this would be an error. It would be wrong because the birth experience does not comprehend merely the cause, but also the effect. If we say that one is "begotten before life" we do not mean that one can be "begotten" who does not live and exist. We cannot say that "begotten" refers to the cause separate from the effect. A person cannot be said to be born until he is actually born.

This is why I have opposed the idea of placing a strict chronology on the relationship between faith and birth. They are concurrent, or simultaneous, and so intimately connected together that one cannot experience one without the other. When a man is born again, he is born "unto" something. Effects are immediate and automatic. Those effects include life, faith, hope, knowledge, and love for God and his Son Jesus Christ.

Men are begotten to life, but there is no gap in time between being begotten and being alive. Likewise, when men are begotten to life, they are at the same time begotten to faith, and there is no gap in time between the two, for there is only one "begetting" and not two separate ones.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (I Peter 1: 3)

Peter says men are "begotten unto a living hope," which is similar to John saying men are begotten to faith. Hope implies faith. They are joined together by an unbreakable bond.

If a person does not have Christian faith and hope, then he has not been "begotten" of God.

Hope and faith also implies knowledge and understanding, and if men are begotten to hope and faith, then they are likewise begotten to saving knowledge. Those who are begotten, in scriptures, instinctly and naturally recognize their Father in Heaven, and their Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, for this too is a part of what it means to have Christian faith and hope begotten in a person.

"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. 4: 6)

The immediate result of the Spirit entering a soul, in this divine begetting, is the soul crying out, in recognition, of their Heavenly Father.

Though there is no verse that says that people are "begotten" unto "love," as it is said of faith and hope, yet the same idea is expressed in other passages that describe this multifaceted miracle of spiritual birth. In our opening passage, love is identified as being a "fruit" of the Spirit.

"Fruit" here is from the Greek word "karpos" and may denote, besides the fruit of trees, the fruit of one's loins, of what is begotten or produced. The context will determine the precise usage. It often signifies "that which originates or comes from something, an effect, result." Thus, love for God and Jesus is begotten.

The Hardshells cite this verse and use it to uphold their view that regeneration precedes conversion, and that the former can exist without the latter. To the Hardshells, "faith" being a "fruit of the Spirit" means "faith is an after-effect of being begotten of God." Then, having proven this, they then take giant leaps in logic and argue that since fruit is what comes after the tree is first in existence, and oftentimes many years later, so also is it with one "begotten" of God. A spiritually born soul may be fruitless (without any effects of being begotten) for many years before he possesses faith, hope, love, peace, etc.

Faith, hope, love, and peace, etc., are "begotten" (produced, as immediate effects) when a person is "begotten." Thus, we have shown what we are begotten "unto." These things define the kind of "life" begotten. To affirm that any unbeliever in Jesus, that any who have not repented and converted to Christ, are "begotten of God," is a severe error, a "heresy."

John Gill wrote:

"Love. This the apostle begins with, it being the fulfilling of the law, the bond of perfectness, and without which a profession of religion is insignificant; it may be understood of love to God, of which every man's heart is destitute, being enmity against God, until regenerated by the Spirit of God; when he sheds abroad the love of God in the heart, and which is the ground and reason of any man's truly loving God: and also of love to Christ, which the natural man feels nothing of till the spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of Christ, opens his eyes to see the loveliness of his person, the suitableness of his grace, righteousness, and fulness, and the necessity of looking to him for life and salvation; and likewise of love to the saints, which a carnal man is a stranger to, until he is renewed by the Holy Ghost, who in regenerating him teaches him to love the brethren; and which is the evidence of his having passed from death to life, through the mighty power of his grace. Moreover, love to the house and worship of God, to the truths and ordinances of the Gospel, all which men have naturally an aversion to, may be included in this first fruit of the Spirit..."

Imagine a person who is, supposedly, in possession of the Spirit of God, but who has no fruit of love for God! Yet, this absurd idea, is exactly what the Hardshells attempt to affirm in their interpretation of this passage. If "fruit" is that which comes later, often much later, after one is regenerated, then we are affirming that there are those who have no love for God or Christ who are yet regenerated! But, the scriptures teach that the experience of regeneration is one in which one is brought to love God.

Besides, the "fruit" of faith, hope, and love, are themselves means for obtaining eternal life, just as the "fruit" of sin is a means for obtaining eternal death.

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." (Rom. 6: 21, 22)

"For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." (7: 5)

Notice how the "fruit" of sin is "unto death." Notice that the "fruit" of righteousness is "unto holiness" and "everlasting life."

So, we may say that the fruit of faith, hope, and love, are "of the Spirit," but that they are also "unto everlasting life."

"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth." (Col. 1: 5, 6)

This verse tells us that Christian "fruit" is not only "of the Spirit" but also "of the truth of the gospel." The gospel "brings forth," or "begets," the blessed fruits of the regenerated state, just as does the Spirit. Like the old confessions, regeneration is by both God's word and Spirit, not his "word alone" nor his "Spirit alone."

"These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots." (Jude 1: 12)

What is the condition of those who do not have the "fruit" of love, faith, and hope? Does not Jude say that such are "dead"? This in itself is enough to destroy the Hardshell notion that people who are without love for God, and faith in Christ, are nevertheless spiritually alive.

Chpt. 90 - Hardshell Proof Texts XII

Teach Them To Know The Lord?

"And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." (Hebrews 8:11)

On this passage Elder Potter, late 19th century Hardshell debater and apologist, stated:

"Another thought: How did his missionary brother understand it when he said, “Thou shall teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, until all shall know the Lord?” Did he understand that the thing spoken of in the quotation in Hebrews was not to take place until after the gospel had conquered the world? No, sir; he does not believe that was true at all. That was the way he understood it, and I am afraid that is the way brother Yates understood it, from his conduct. Let me tell him there is not a single syllable of authority in the gospel to any minister, from Jesus Christ, to tell him to teach men to know the Lord. If any man claims to be teaching men to know the Lord, I want him to show me his authority for it. The commission does not say any thing about teaching men to know the Lord. Aquila and Priscilla taught the way of the Lord more perfectly to Apollos, but they did not teach him to know the Lord. The New Testament says, “Thou shalt not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, to know the Lord for all shall know him, from the least unto the greatest,” and it has never contradicted it, and as it says that, and not one syllable of authority to any man to go about teaching sinners to know the Lord, I want to know why that does not look like it belongs to the new dispensation—the new covenant. I would as soon a brother would say he could impart eternal life as to say he could teach men to know the Lord." (Debate on Foreign Missions-Chapter 14 - MR. POTTER’S SEVENTH SPEECH) Potter - Yates Debate

Potter, in these words, gives the Hardshell reasoning on the Hebrew passage. He believed that the passage upheld his Hardshell notions about being saved, born again, or regenerated. In looking at this argumentation, let us first begin by noticing the language of Jeremiah, who's words are being cited by Paul.

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jer. 31: 24)

The "no more" is destructive to the Hardshell interpretation of the prophecy. "No more" shows that what had been the practice would no more be the practice when the new covenant is realized. Thus, if we grant the reasoning of Potter and the Hardshells about teaching men to know the Lord, we would have to affirm that this practice was done prior to the new covenant. But, this Hardshells will not want to affirm, for they believe that there never has been a time when the Lord used means to bring people into a knowledge of the Lord. This alone ought to be enough to demonstrate, even to the Hardshells themselves, that their interpretation and inferences on the passage, are not correct.

Secondly, the Hardshell interpretation affirms that coming to "know" the Lord is the same as being "regenerated." But, this is not what is taught by the Hardshells, who affirm that being "regenerated" imparts no knowledge, and involves no teaching, but is rather what is "non-cognitive" and "on the sub-conscious level." Hardshells generally connect coming to divine knowledge is involved in "conversion," not in "regeneration." However, they believe that God uses means in conversion, in teaching the regenerated about who is the Lord. This is an example of how they speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. They will cite the Hebrews passage in such a way as to indicate that "knowing the Lord" is integral to the experience of "regeneration," but will at other times affirm that nothing is taught and learned in it. If sinners are "taught" to "know the Lord," in regeneration, then how can they affirm that regeneration is non-cognitive? Also, is not the "Lord" the God of the Bible? The Lord Jesus Christ? But, how can one "know" the Lord apart from being "taught" something about him? How can Hardshells affirm that myriads of pagans, who "know" other gods and lords other than the Christian God and Lord, "know" the "Lord" of the Hebrew passage? It is not a knowledge that there is a lord or god, but a knowledge of a specific God and Lord, even the God and Lord of the Bible.

God's working of miracles, in the old testament, was often said to be for the purpose of bringing people to "know the Lord."

"Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire." (Deut. 4: 34-36)

Also, David said - "Know ye that the LORD he is God." (Psa. 100: 3) That is an exhortation, not a question. It is a command, an imperative. And, it is a command that is either obeyed or disobeyed.

"Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD." (Jer. 9: 6)

So may it be said of all the lost. They have "refused to know" the Lord.

Those who have come to know the Lord continue to increase in their knowledge of the Lord. It involves a choice and willingness.

"Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD..." (Hosea 6: 3)

Further, those who know the Lord are they who behave in a certain way.

"He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD." (Jer. 22: 16)

"Is this not what it means to know me?" - and the same may be said of other qualities, such as believing in the Lord. Concerning faith and repentance also the Lord may well say - "Is this not what it means to know me?"

On this passage Dr. Gill wrote:

"...this is not to be understood, so as to set aside the external and public ministry of the word, which is a standing ordinance of God under the Gospel dispensation; or even the, private instructions of saints one to another, in Christian conversation, whereby they may build up one another in their most holy faith..."

On the passage in Jeremiah, Gill wrote:

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,.... Which is not to be understood of the outward ministry of the word; in heaven indeed there will be no need of it, nor in the New Jerusalem state; but in every period of time before it. In the first times of the Gospel, persons were appointed and qualified by Christ to be pastors and teachers; and in the latter day men shall run to and fro, and increase knowledge; besides, the saints in the present state stand in need of teaching; since they know but in part, and there is room for a growth in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ: nor does this contradict brotherly teaching, or the private instructions of saints in religious conversation and Christian conference, which are very useful; but is rather opposed to pretended revelations of private men; or to the magisterial dictates of persons in public office; the word of God being the only rule of instruction in righteousness: or this may be not absolutely, but comparatively said; setting forth the abundance of knowledge under the Gospel dispensation, that, in comparison of former times, there would be no need of the means of further knowledge..."

Thus, it is clear that Gill did not entertain the Hardshell idea that the prophecy taught against the use of means, that sinners are saved by the preaching of the gospel.

Gill offers two possible senses in which the prophecy may be interpreted, both which are true to scripture in general. The first sense deals with the fact that the gospel, under the new covenant, was not to be limited to the Israelites, but would now include the Gentiles, the whole world, or all men. We know that the word of the Lord was confined to Israel under the old covenant.

"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." (Psa. 147: 19, 20)

Even Jesus, during his earthly ministry, confined the preaching of the gospel to the nation of Israel, saying to his disciples - "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 10: 5, 6)

But, after the death of Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant, Jesus said:

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16: 15)

So, when the prophet said that "no more" would Israelites say "know the Lord" to their fellow Israelites, he indicates that it would now be said to the whole world. The passage does not say "they shall not say to anyone 'know the Lord,'" but would not say this only to their brethren or fellow citizens. Thus the passage may be read in this manner - "And they shall not teach any more every man his neighbour (only), and every man his brother (only), saying, Know the Lord: for all (not only Israelites) shall know me (through the exhortation - 'know the Lord'), from the least to the greatest."

The other sense in which the prophecy may relate is to the completion of the new covenant, when all have come to know the Lord, a time known in scripture as the time when Christ reigns on the earth, and when "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (Isa. 11: 9; Hab. 2: 14) This was the sense in which it was interpreted by Yates in his debate with Potter. This seems to be included in the interpretation by the apostle who gives as the reason for now not teaching men to "know the Lord," for he says "FOR all shall know me." If Paul were a Hardshell and was giving the Hardshell reason for not saying to men "know the Lord," then he would have said - "for men are not means in bringing others to a knowledge of the Lord," or some other similar words, but this he does not do. Paul's intention is not to deny means, but to show that means will one day be unnecessary when the whole world has come to know the Lord.

There is, therefore, nothing in this passage to support hardshellism. The very idea that Paul is denying that the preaching of the gospel is for the purpose of bringing men to a knowledge of the Lord, is ludicrous.

Paul said that he was a "teacher of the Gentiles." (I Tim. 2: 7) But, teach them what? Who were the Gentiles? Were they not pagan polytheists? People who did not know the Lord? Wrote Paul:

"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (I Cor. 8: 4-6)

Saved people are here contrasted with unsaved people. Saved people know the Lord. Unsaved people do not know the Lord. Unsaved people believe in "gods many" and "lords many." How did these saved people come to know the Lord? To know that there was only one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ? Surely it was by the preaching of the gospel.

Wrote Paul:

"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place." (II Cor. 2: 14)

Here Paul plainly states that one's knowledge of God is made known by the preaching of the apostle, contrary to hardshellism.

He also wrote:

"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Gal. 4: 9)

Surely the context of the epistle shows that the Galatians coming to know God was through the gospel.

Chpt. 91 - Hardshell Proof Texts XIII

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans 2: 14-16)

Hardshells, in their attempts to find verses which affirm that there are numerous "heathen" people who are "regenerated," will cite this verse. Clearly the passage is talking about the "heathen," about those who do not know the one true and living God, but who worship "gods many" and "lords many." Do the verses say that such people are nevertheless regenerated, though still pagan idolaters? If the reference to the law being written on the heart is a reference to regeneration, then the Hardshells have some weight to their position.

But, it is clear that the "work of the law" is not the "work of grace," or the work of regeneration. The law being written upon the heart is not regeneration, in this passage, although other passages speak of regeneration as involving such a writing. Paul does not say that the "Gentiles do by grace and regeneration the things contained in the law," but "do by nature," referring not to the divine nature, but to human nature.

Further, Paul does not say this is true of only some heathen Gentiles, which he would say if he had reference to regeneration and to the divine nature. Rather, he says this is true of the Gentiles, as a whole. Thus, if this is a reference to regeneration, then Paul is affirming that all Gentiles, all heathen, are "regenerated." Also, Paul does not say - "the regenerated children of God do by nature..." Rather, he says "the Gentiles do by nature."

All commentators, other than Hardshells, affirm that Paul is referring to man's moral nature, to his God-given conscience, and to the fact that human nature has God's moral laws written in it.

Wrote the old Baptist, John Gill:

"Ver. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the law,.... The objection of the Gentiles against their condemnation, taken from their being without the law, is here obviated. The apostle owns that they had not the law, that is, the written law of Moses, and yet intimates that they had, and must have a law, against which they sinned, and so deserved punishment, and which they in part obeyed; for these men

do by nature the things contained in the law. The matter and substance of the moral law of Moses agrees with the law and light of nature; and the Gentiles in some measure, and in some sort, did these things by nature; not that men by the mere strength of nature without the grace of God, can fulfil the law, or do anything that is acceptable to God; and indeed, what these men did was merely natural and carnal, and so unacceptable to God. Some understand this of nature assisted by grace, in converted Gentiles, whether before or after the coming of Christ; others expound the phrase, by nature, freely, willingly, in opposition to the servile spirit of the Jews, in their obedience to the law; though it rather seems to design the dictates of natural reason, by which they acted: and so

these having not the law, the written law,

are a law to themselves; which they have by nature and use, and which natural reason dictates to them."

Ver. 15. Which show the work of the law written in their hearts,.... Though the Gentiles had not the law in form, written on tables, or in a book, yet they had "the work", the matter, the sum and substance of it in their minds; as appears by the practices of many of them, in their external conversation. The moral law, in its purity and perfection, was written on the heart of Adam in his first creation; was sadly obliterated by his sin and fall; upon several accounts, and to answer various purposes, a system of laws was written on tables of stone for the use of the Israelites; and in regeneration the law is reinscribed on the hearts of God's people; and even among the Gentiles, and in their hearts, there are some remains of the old law and light of nature, which as by their outward conduct appears, so by the inward motions of their minds."

To interpret Paul's words as a reference to regeneration is to completely ignore the context, for Paul is demonstrating the condemnation of the heathen Gentiles, not their salvation. Paul is not attempting to prove that some of the heathen, though ignorant of the one true and living God, and of the gospel, are nevertheless "regenerated," and the children of God, but just the opposite. He is contrasting the special revelation of the gospel with the general revelation found in nature. That general revelation is present in creation and in nature generally and includes the nature and conscience of men. This general revelation is God's witness and voice to all men in the "conscience."

Gentiles have "sinned," apart from knowledge of the written Mosaic law, and apart from God's revelation and light in scripture, but "sin is not imputed where there is no law" (5: 13), but men "sinned" before there was a written legal moral code, and so, since sin was in fact "imputed" (men died), therefore there was in existence a moral code before the giving of the "law of Moses." The only "law" that all men were under, prior to the written code of Moses, was that law which resides in the "conscience." That law is part of the nature of man. God, when he made the first man, wrote upon his nature and conscience his precepts of right and wrong. Man, though fallen, still has this written upon his nature and conscience, but, his nature and conscience have been over-written by another "law," or "code of conduct," the "law of sin." (Rom. 7: 23)

God's Witness to the Conscience

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." (John 8:9)

Wrote Dr. Henry Morris:

"A conscience can be a reliable guide, however, only if it is a good conscience. The Scriptures on the other hand, speak of some who have a "weak conscience" (I Corinthians 8:7,10,12) which may become a "defiled conscience" (Titus 1:15) and eventually a "seared conscience" (I Timothy 4:2) or even an "evil conscience" (Hebrews 10:22)."

"If used properly, however, the conscience is a blessing. God has given us a conscience to help guide us. The question is, what makes a conscience "good"? There are two references in Scripture to a "pure conscience" (I Timothy 3:9; II Timothy 1:3) and six to a "good conscience" (Acts 23:1; I Timothy 1:5, 19; Hebrews 13:18; I Peter 3:16, 21), but none of these tell how such a conscience is acquired.

The answer to this vital question appears to be found in the apostle Paul's testimony before Felix: "And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men" (Acts 24:16). The "exercise" (literally "training") which had produced such a conscience in Paul, he said, was this: "So worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14). A lifelong study of the Scriptures, accompanied by absolute faith in their veracity and authority, had produced in Paul a strong, pure, good, reliable conscience, and it will do the same for us." ("The Witness Of Conscience" by Henry Morris, Ph.D.)

http://www.icr.org/article/witness-conscience/

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." (Gen. 6: 3)

How does God's Spirit "strive with man," with all men? Is it not by the convictions and admonitions of conscience? When a man commits an immoral act, and feels guilty for it, is that not a witness of conscience and the way in which God convicts all men of sin? Will the Hardshells deny that the witness of conscience regarding immoral acts is the "work of the law," the Spirit's "striving" with men? Will they affirm that all who experience conviction for an immoral act are "regenerated"? And, they wonder why they have had serious difficulties with the heresy of "universal salvation."

Chapter 92 - Hardshells & Perseverence I

Hardshell J. H. Purifoy (1837-1908), in "God's Saving Power Made Manifest In The Everlasting Preservation of the Saints," wrote the following in his sub-section "The Power of God Unto Eternal Salvation."

"To my mind, everlasting preservation is a more thoroughly Scriptural expression than the 'final perseverance' of the saints. If our eternal salvation at last depends on our 'final perseverance,' what are we to persevere in? Are we to persevere in grace, or faithfulness to God, His cause and each other, or persevere in obedience to God?

I have failed in it so often myself, and have seen so much of it on every hand that I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints, for our eternal salvation does depend on that, if we are what we profess to be."

See here

Elder Purefoy (M.D.) lived during the division of 1889-1892 over the "means question," when the Hardshells divided over the question of whether the gospel was a means in regeneration, or eternal salvation, and over whether faith in Christ was necessary to be eternally saved. Elders Pence and Burnam were leaders for the "means" side and Elder Purefoy, with others, were leaders on the "anti-means" side. The famous Mt. Carmel Church trial grew out of this division. Both sides testified in this trial, which is available now on the internet. Another issue that naturally arose from the debate about means was the question of "perseverance." The means side defended the old Baptist traditional belief regarding "perseverance," while the anti-means side rejected it, and confessed to believe only in "preservation."

In the book, "Biographical Sketches of Primitive or Old School Baptists Ministers," the following words are written about Elder Purefoy and his role in the division.

"When Elder E. H. Burnam began to advocate publicly the doctrine of regeneration through the written and preached word, followed by his pleas for toleration while at the same time pressing his Armenian (sic) practices, Elder Purefoy was one of the first to warn the Baptists of the Ketocton and Ebenezer Associations against these things and to publicly condemn this heresy." (pg. 221)

Purefoy said - "I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith." And, in this he got what he wished. Hardshells today mostly reject a belief in "perseverance," and claim to believe only in "preservation."

Purefoy admits that the doctrine of the saints final perseverance is taught in the old articles of faith of the Hardshell churches. He cannot therefore legitimately claim to be "primitive" or "original" in denying the faith of his forefathers! Not only do the articles of faith of the oldest Hardshell churches aver belief in the "final perseverance of the saints," but so does the Philadelphia/London Confession aver it, and which is the confession historically accepted by Hardshells as an expression of their faith. Here is what the London Confession says in Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints:

1. Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.

(John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6)

2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

(Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40)

3. And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.

(Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62)

These words will be referred to several times in this series as the present denial of this article, by the Hardshells, is examined. Clearly, however, the old Baptists who wrote the confession believed in both preservation and perseverance. By this standard, therefore, Hardshells are not the real primitive or old Baptists.

In the Mt. Carmel church trial, Elder Burnam was questioned as follows:

Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?

A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.

Q. By whom has that departure been made?

A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891, by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.

Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”

A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.

Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?

A. I have.

Q. Please tell the commissioner whether or not it is your belief that God has predestined one to be saved, whether that one can by means of his own fall from grace?

A. He cannot.

Q. He cannot be lost?

A. He cannot be lost, because the means as well as the end has been provided for.

Q. Then he will be finally preserved?

A. He will finally be kept by the power of God through faith up to salvation.

Q. Won’t preserve be as good a word as perseverance?

A. It will not.

Q. He will be finally saved, will he not?

A. He will not be finally saved simply by preservation. He will be finally saved by perseverance through faith.

Q. What has his perseverance to do with it?

A. God imparts, Mr. Leedy, grace of faith to work out his course, to work out his salvation according as God has worked in him with his regenerating grace.

Q. After all, God does it all, doesn’t he?

A. Certainly, it is God working in us to will and to do according to his will and pleasure.

See here

From the foregoing testimony we can conclude that the change from believing in perseverance to denying it, is affirmed by both sides, to have occurred with the Hardshell anti-means side. Today's Hardshells represent the descendents of those anti-means Baptists who wanted to throw out what the old confessions taught about perseverance. Who then is "primitive" on this issue? Today's Hardshells, like Purefoy, deny the traditional confessional view of the old Baptists, and cannot legitimately claim therefore to be "primitive" on this point. Their claim to being "primitive" is farcical and a veritable falsehood. There is really no debate on this point. While the first Hardshells all professed allegiance to the London Confession and its statements on perseverance, their 20th century descendents do not.

The Fulton Convention of 1900 was an assembly of fifty-one leading Hardshell elders who representated the Hardshell position regarding their historic and traditional acceptance of the London Confession.

Wrote Hardshell elder, Mark Green, under the title "The Fulton Confession of Faith" :

"In the year 1900, with many trials afflicting Zion, as has always been the case, two meetings of Primitive Baptist ministers took place. The first was at Oakland City, Indiana, on September 27, involving fifteen ministers, including Elders James H. and John T. Oliphant. At this meeting a general address to Primitive Baptists was written, in which various subjects were discussed, and in which the London Confession was recommended to the denomination. Then in November, fifty-one ministers met at Fulton, Kentucky. They republished the Confession, adding some explanatory footnotes and a general address, and appended the Oakland City address." Green said that "the London Confession of Faith was approved by a unanimous vote of the meeting."

See here

The Fulton address said this about the London Confession:

"We recommend the London Confession of Faith as an expression of Bible truth. The articles of faith of our churches are substantially in harmony with the doctrine and practice set forth in that instrument, and we do heartily recommend the London Confession to the household of faith everywhere."

Today's Hardshells, however, have departed even from this view, affirming that they do not recognize the London Confession as stating their faith, and that they do not recognize those churches who have endorsed it as being in the true "succession" of the "churches of Christ."

Hardshells are forced to take one of two positions relative to the Fulton Convention of 1900. They can agree with the Convention's affirmation of the London Confession, and agree that it has been historically the criterion for deciding who was orthodox and original, or they can reject the position of the Fulton Convention. Either choice, however, involves the Hardshells in "hot water."

If they agree with the Fulton brethren and accept the London Confession as an expression of the doctrinal views of the ancient Baptists of England, Wales, and America, then they will either have to 1) admit that, in many ways, they are not primitive or original, or 2) accept the twisted interpretation of the Fulton Convention as given in their infamous "footnotes." Most Hardshells today acknowledge that the "footnotes" distorted the actual words of the confession, and twisted those sections dealing with means and faith by rewriting them. In this they show themselves more honest than their Fulton forefathers.

It is very interesting, however, to observe how the Fulton Confession, though inserting "footnotes" in those sections dealing with predestination and effectual calling, left out adding any footnotes to the section of the confession dealing with "perseverance"!

In an article titled "Two Old and Honored Friends," see here, Elder Mark Green writes (emphasis mine):

"It is an easily documented fact that among uninspired writings, the London Confession of Faith and the works of John Gill have been held by Primitive Baptists in high regard and with great respect. We have claimed them as our own..." (foreword)

He also wrote:

"Probably no other works have been so frequently alluded to by our ministers in their writings concerning the agreement of Primitive Baptist faith and that of our forefathers...Included in the contents of this article are numerous quotes from a number of leading Primitive Baptist ministers over the years concerning their affection for the London Confession and the writings of that fierce opponent of Arminianism, Dr. Gill." (ibid)

He also wrote:

"It should be noted that Elders C. B. Hassell, Sylvester Hassell, J. S. Newman, and W. S. Craig in particular were well-known as experts in the history of our denomination. Others, including Elders J. Harvey Daily, S. N. Redford, R. H. Pittman, Jesse Cox, and Lee Hanks, published works in this field, and were serious students of the subject. Elder Lemuel Potter’s references to church history in his debates and lectures were so extensive that his knowledge in that field is unquestionable. When these men recommended these “two old friends” to their people, they knew whereof they spoke."

Elder Potter is cited as saying, in his debate with Elder Throgmorton, that "...the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a 'Hardshell' Baptist document..." He is further cited, from his work - "Treatise on Regeneration," as saying - "In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine."

Green cites from the "History of the Primitive Baptist Church" by Elder J. Harvey Daily [1909], where Daily wrote:

"In 1643 the English Baptists drew up a “confession of faith,” which was afterwards revised and published in 1689, known as the “London Confession of Faith,” which contains all the doctrinal and practical features of all the former 'confessions of faith' but forth by the Baptists. It has ever been recognized as the nearest correct expression of faith of true Baptists every where, until the present time, that has ever been published in a like form."

Green also cites from "The Autobiography of Elder J. H. Oliphant" where Oliphant wrote:

"I served as moderator of the meeting (Fulton)...The meeting was made up, for the most part, of true Primitive Baptists."

Thus, we prove the following:

Today's so-called "Primitive Baptists" are not really primitive at all respecting their denial of the doctrine of the "perseverance" of the elect and called.

In the next chapter we will discuss how the novel change in doctrine concerning the nature of regeneration (new birth), by the Hardshells, forced them into a change regarding perseverance. Elder Burnam expressed that fact when he showed that the belief that "regeneration" excluded faith and repentance, evangelical graces, is what led to a denial of "perseverance," because perseverance requires such faith and repentance.

Chapter 93 - Hardshells & Perseverance II

In the previous chapter it was shown how the doctrine of the saints sure and certain perseverance was the original old Baptist position, the position set forth in the oldest confessions and articles of faith. It was also shown how the present generation of Hardshells, who claim to be "primitive" or "original" in their Baptist beliefs, are not so as regards their rejection of the doctrine of perseverance. This ought to make them rather uncomfortable regarding their claims to being "primitive" or "old school."

In the previous chapter the reason for this change in doctrine was also introduced. The "no means" position brought about a change in the description of the nature of the change effected in "regeneration" (or in being 'born again'), and that change in doctrine brought about a change in the kind of "preservation" that the scriptures and the old Baptist confessions describe, a preservation that included perseverance.

The denial of perseverance represents an evolution in traditional hardshellism. As the history of the anti-mission movement demonstrates, there has been a varied evolution in doctrine by the members of the movement. Neo-Hardshells may deceive themselves into thinking that they have had no changes in fundamental doctrine over the past two hundred years, but the facts show otherwise. Today's Hardshells are not like the old Baptists of the pre-19th century. They are not even like their founding fathers of the early 19th century, and not like their forefathers who attended the Fulton Convention. Novelty in doctrine is characteristic of the growth and development of the "Primitive Baptist Church."

The original error that spawned all the others was the belief that faith in Christ, by the preaching of the gospel, was unnecessary for being regenerated or eternally saved. Such a view forced the Hardshells to "water down" what it meant to be "born again." In this altogether new paradigm of regeneration, conversion was totally eliminated. Regeneration took on a strictly physical or metaphysical definition. Regeneration became a change of the substance of the heart, mind, or soul. It was no longer viewed as a strictly moral change. Regeneration now became vaguely defined as simply giving ability or powers to the soul, a kind of empowerment. There was no change in beliefs, for regeneration became "non-cognitive" and a "sub-conscious" experience. No longer was regeneration equated with conversion. People could be regenerated who remained impenitent and unbelievers, who remained worshippers of idol gods. Regeneration no longer saved a man from unbelief, or from worship of false gods, nor bring one into a knowledge of truth about God and the way of salvation. Regeneration involved no revelation or enlightenment. One did not come to "know" the Lord in being born again.

Naturally then, such a doctrinal alteration in the nature of the change wrought in regeneration also brought about an alteration in what it means for the regenerated to "persevere." Persevere in what? It could not be a perseverance in grace, holiness, or salvation, for these things, in scriptures and the old confessions, are tied to continuance in faith and repentance. What is it that God keeps and preserves from what was given in the experience of regeneration? Not faith, for there is no faith given in regeneration, according to neo-hardshellism. Not in allegiance to Christ, for there is no allegiance to Christ established in regeneration, according to neo-hardshellism. The only thing that Hardshells can say is "preserved" and maintained is the "life" or "seed" given in regeneration. But, what kind of "life"? It is a "watered down" definition of spiritual "life," a "life" that excludes love for God, faith in Christ, and knowledge of the gospel.

The Hardshell description of one who is spiritually alive is similar to a person who is comatose, or in a vegetative state. However, in scripture, spiritual "life" involves being "spiritually minded" (Rom. 8: 6), and in knowing God and Christ (John 17: 3), a coming to Christ in faith (John 5: 40; 20: 31), a "repentance unto life" (Acts 11: 18), and "justification of life" (Rom. 5: 18), because "the Spirit is life because of righteousness" (Rom. 8: 10). Further, spiritual "death," in scripture, involves inner "blindness" and "ignorance," and so spiritual "life" involves enlightenment. (Eph. 4: 18) Further, the "life" given in regeneration is that which is "lived," as Paul said - "the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God..." (Gal. 2: 20) This "life" is connected with "faith." The apostle John said:

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (I John 5: 12)

The word "hath" (echō) means to have or to hold, to have (hold) in the hand, for instance. To have or hold in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind, to hold fast, keep, to have or comprise or involve. Thus, to "have" Christ is to lay hold of Christ with the heart, mind, and understanding. It is a cognitive "having." It is simply preposterous to affirm that heathens "have" Christ even though they have no knowledge or faith in him.

A couple typical neo-Hardshells wrote:

"Calvinism asserts that all the elect will persevere in faith and holiness. If an individual does not persevere, then he proves by his apostasy that he was merely a professor, not a possessor, of eternal life. Primitive Baptists insist that Divine Preservation, rather than human perseverance, is the Biblical emphasis, preservation being the term employed in Scripture to describe the eternal security of God’s people." ("Ten Reasons Primitive Baptists Are Not Calvinists" By Elders Michael Gowens and Lonnie Mozingo, Jr.)

See here

The above comments set up a false dichotomy between preservation and perseverance. The scriptures, rather than emphasizing only the former, emphasize both. The above statement affirms that perseverance is not emphasized in scripture, and yet nothing is more false. The scriptures abound with emphasis on perseverance. Let us notice some of the verses that emphasize perseverance in the context of salvation.

"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matt. 24: 13; see also Matt. 10: 22)

"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel..." (Col. 1: 21-23)

"But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (Heb. 3: 6)

"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (Heb. 3: 14)

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (Heb. 10: 38, 39)

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (II John 1: 9)

"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (Rev. 2: 7)

"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Rev. 2: 11)

"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." (Rev. 3: 5)

Obviously there are many more scriptures that might be cited to demonstrate how perseverance is greatly emphasized, which overthrows the assertion of Mozingo and Gowens. Clearly the above verses deal with eternal salvation and affirm that perseverance is required. The scriptures put both faith and perseverance together as conditions for being finally and eternally saved.

"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 12)

"Patience" here is from the Greek word "hupomeno" and may be translated as "perseverance." This fact disproves another false assertion of today's Hardshells which asserts that the word "perseverance" is only used once or twice in scripture. Yes, it is true that the word "persevere" is only used once or twice in scripture, but synonymous words are used, such as the words endure, continue, patience, overcome, etc.

Clearly two things are essential for "obtaining the promises." They are faith and patience (perseverance). However, Hardshells deny that faith and perseverance are necessary conditions for being eternally saved. They believe that most people who go to Heaven did not have faith and perseverance.

Clearly today's Hardshells are against both the scriptures and their own oldest confessions of faith.