Chpt. 80 - Hardshell Proof Texts II

In this chapter I will look at what brother Bob Ross has well called the "'SUGAR-STICK' OF HYBRIDS," at I John 5: 1, and the assertion of the Hardshells and other Hyper Calvinists (such as those who call themselves "Reformed") that John is giving us a rigid divine "ordo salutis" in the verse, one that supposedly teaches that one is "begotten," or "born" of God, "prior to" coming to faith, "prior to" being saved, and "prior to" being adopted and justified.

First, let me cite these good words of brother Ross and then add some additional thoughts of my own. (Emphasis are mine)

Bob wrote:

"I noticed earlier today, Charles (of the calvinistflyswatter blog), while surfing some of the Hybrid Calvinist websites, that 1 John 5:1 has evidently become the "sugar-stick" for the Hybrid Calvinist heresy that one is "born again before faith."

I saw this being advocated on the Internet by The Calvinist Gadfly, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Dever, Gene Bridges, and of course I had noticed it awhile back by James White.

The rather peculiar thing about the Hybrid argument is that they allege that the only "alternative" to their view is to believe that "faith precedes regeneration." They do not recognize the fact that according to another view of the Scriptures and Creedal Calvinism, faith is a constituent element of the new birth itself and they therefore are SIMULTANEOUS and CO-EXISTENT. One does not exist at any point in time without the other.

The obvious error of the Hybrid Calvinists on 1 John 5:1 is their contention that the new birth can be an accomplished fact before, without, and apart from the new birth's most essential constituent element, faith. If the primary work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth is the very creation of faith by the Word of God, how can one be described as "born again" before there is faith?

1 John 5:1, in fact, cites faith as the great evidence that one is born of God -- not that one is born of God before, without, and apart from faith. Here are some excerpts from my article on this passage which I wrote awhile back:

DOES FIRST JOHN 5:1 TEACH AN "ORDER"
TO THE NEW BIRTH, OR REGENERATION? [04/14/04]

It is argued by James White in his writings that I John 5:1 teaches that there is "pre-faith" New Birth, or Regeneration, to the effect that the new birth precedes believing. On the other side, which he opposes, he alleges there is the view that faith precedes the new birth.

Both these views, we believe, are in conflict with our orthodox Confessions of Faith and of course with what we understand is taught in Scripture.

The idea which James White tries to prove is that in the New Birth there is an order whereby one who HAS NOT YET BELIEVED "has been born of God," and then after supposedly being born of God he is thereby given "ability" to perform the act of faith in Christ.

James claims that "spiritual birth precedes . . . faith" (The Potter's Freedom, pages 286, 288, 84).

What kind of "new birth" is it that in its very constituency lacks love for Christ and faith in Christ?

First John 5:1 reads:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

The most evident truth of this verse is that faith and the New Birth are COEXISTENT, where there is one there is the other. They are somewhat like life itself: were there is life, there is breath; and where there is breath, there is life.

Since the person who believes in Christ is born of God, or has been born of God, then conversely the person who does not believe is not and has not been born of God.

The believer is born of God.
The unbeliever is not born of God.

There is no "middle ground," no "in-between" state, no "half-dead, half-alive" condition, so far as this passage is concerned. Believing is simply presented here as the "living proof" or evidence that one is, or has been, born of God. Conversely, no faith in Christ equals no new birth.

The verse does not deal at all with an alleged "sequence" or "order" of actions, as is advocated by James White and some others. That is not even the obvious intention of the writer, John, for he is not trying to convince his readers about what Hybrid Calvinists call the "ordo salutis." John, of all the New Testament writers, emphasizes the important necessity of faith in regard to salvation (John 20:31), that one who believes has life and the one who does not believe does not have life.

James White tries to justify his faulty "exegesis" by comparing 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 where John says that "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." James argues that doing righteousness is "after" one has been born again.

But what James fails to note the fact that the very FIRST act of righteousness that a person does is to believe in Christ. "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:22). Believing is "obeying the Gospel" (Romans 10:16, 17; 1:16). The unsaved sinner is commanded to believe as a necessary act in being saved.

Jesus explained to Nicodemus that "eternal life" is by believing (John 3:14-18). This is same message Paul gave to the jailer in Acts 16:31. This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent (John 6:29). John wrote his Gospel for the purpose of bringing men to believe (John 20:31).

The very first commandment is summed up as love for God, and faith incorporates that love, for "faith worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6). Love is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), and love has as its object the Lord Jesus, and the one who loves is born of God (1 John 4:7).

How could one be "born again" before he has love for and faith in Christ created in him by the power of the Word of God and Holy Spirit?

We are nowhere taught in Scripture that such a birth devoid of love and faith precedes faith. As Spurgeon put it, "Life COMES WITH believing" (MTP, Volume 27, year 1881, page 662).

It is the work of the Holy Spirit, thru the means of the Gospel or Word of God (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:23), to create faith in the sinner, and this constitutes the new birth."

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23354593&postID=115173577614521347


The answer to the seeming incongruity of John putting faith in a present tense participle while putting "is born" in a perfect (past) tense indicative, is the same I gave in the preceding chapter about John 1: 12, 13. John again could have written the verse as follows:

"Whoever has believed (past tense) has been (past tense) born." But, John's habit is to describe "believing" as an ongoing action, rather than a one time completed action in the past, as he does with being "born," which he always puts in the past tense, as a one time completed action. Thus, all John is saying is that the one who is believing, who is living the life of faith, is one who has previously been born of God, who has previously "received" him, one who has previously and initially believed to salvation.

John is thus saying - "whoever is living the life of faith is one who has been born of God," and he is not denying that it is equally true to say - "he who has believed and received Christ has been born of God."

The same is true with the words - "whoever is practicing righteousness has been begotten." John could have said - "whoever has acted righteously in believing on and in receiving Christ has been born of God." But, he does not want to view acting righteously, or doing righteousness, as a one time event as he does with the birth. One who is living the life of faith and the life of righteousness, is one who has been born of God. John is not divorcing, as brother Ross has shown, faith and being active, in being born of God. The only reason why "believing" and "practicing righteousness" is not in the past tense, like the begetting, is because John wants to focus on the life of the believer, not on the initial act of faith.

So, this is all poor exegesis. It creates the unbiblical character of a "regenerated unbeliever."

Probably a better verse to use, rather than John 1: 12, 13 and I John 2: 29, to prove that sometimes "begetting" is prior to faith, is this one.

"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 KJV)

Here Peter says that "hope" is the product of the divine begetting. Here "hope" is connected with "faith." But, this really agrees with John who says that "faith" is the product of the divine begetting. (I John 5: 4)

John and Peter are teaching that when the sinner is begotten, faith, hope, and love for Christ are begotten, they being "things that accompany salvation." (Hebrews 6: 9) Thus, when a person is begotten, not only is "life" begotten, but also an obedient and ardent faith, and love, and hope, etc.

Besides, the putting of birth before faith, eliminates the gospel as a means. Those, like James White, will try to deny that they have a regeneration apart from the means of the gospel, but they are inconsistent and contradictory. The reason for this is simple. If we are "begotten" through the gospel, that can only mean begotten through faith, or through believing the gospel.

Now let me review more precisely the remarks of White and judge his "exegesis."

White said:

"Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense participle, emphasizing both the on-going action as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a perfect passive verb, “has been born by the agency of God”)."

Who denies that the one who is a practicing and ongoing believer is one who has been previously born of God? James is not fighting a real opponent, but an imaginary one, a "straw man."

White ought to find a verse that says - "he who believed was previously born of God," for I John 5: 1 does not say it. White argues that the divine begetting precedes the initial act of faith and that John is affirming this. But, the initial act of faith is not even mentioned!

White is comparing apples to oranges. The cases are not alike. John says that the Christian life is preceded by a birth. Who denies that? John does not put the initial converting act of believing and turning to Christ, however, after the begetting! He only puts the ongoing faith as what surely follows a real spiritual birth.

When White argues against what he calls the "Arminian" "ordo salutis" he sets up a different structure. He does not use a present tense participle! John uses one! The "is believing" of John does not equal "believe" in the example given of White. What Arminian, except he be a Pelagian, denies that the begetting precedes and causes the "is believing," or the life of faith, the Christian life? Again, what White should have done was to show how John, or some other bible writer, wrote in this form - "whoever believes (one time act) has been (previously) born of God." He did not find that structure in I John 5: 1 or 4: 7!

White said:

"In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it is no accident the the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God."

"If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God."

But, again, no one denies this! Not even an "Arminian." Certainly the Christian life of faith (the "is believing") follows spiritual birth! But, show where the initial act of believing in and receiving Christ is put after the birth! That is what you cannot do!

White said:

"The verb “to be born” is passive: they were caused to be born by another, that being God. They did not cause their own spiritual birth. And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? belief that Jesus is the Christ."

No! John is not saying that! He is saying that the life of faith follows a new birth! Again, White admits that John is not focusing on "believing" as a one time act in the past, to the initial conversion experience, but to the one who is continually believing

Poor exegesis James!

In the next chapter I will look at some other verses in the gospel of John that are cited by Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists to try to uphold their "born again before faith" error.

Chpt. 81 - Hardshell Proof Texts III

Besides John 1: 12, 13, and I John 5: 1, John 3: 3,5 is also used by the Hardshells and other Hyperists in order to attempt to prove that one is born again prior to faith and repentance.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3: 3 KJV)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (vs. 5)

The argument of the Hardshells, and others who promote the view that puts the new birth prior to faith, from the above words of Christ, affirms that these words teach that the new birth must occur before one believes, or repents, or savingly hears, or receives Christ, or experiences conversion.

But, this verse does not teach such an unscriptural notion.

First, the context shows how Christ interpreted the birth of the Spirit to be synonymous with coming to trust in Christ and in his atoning death.

Secondly, the "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom is not to be equated with believing or receiving Christ, nor with repenting, but with coming to experience the life of a child of God, in his Christian life now, but superlatively so in the world to come.

"See" does not mean to "believe," but to "experience," probably, to fully experience. Certainly no one can experience the spiritual life, either here and now, or in the world to come, unless he is first born of the Spirit through the word. Besides, is there no "seeing" or "entering" experienced IN the very act of being born?

Let us substitute some other words for "see" and "enter" and discover if it be scriptural or not.

"Except a man be born again he cannot experience God in salvation."
"Except a man be born again he cannot go to heaven."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be spiritually alive."
"Except a man be born again he cannot have Ezekiel's new heart."
"Except a man be born again he cannot please God."
"Except a man be born again he cannot have fellowship with God."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be translated into the kingdom."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be transformed."

Now, for the term "born again," in all the above examples, substitute the words "have faith" and see if it as scriptural.

Certainly "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom is Jewish. From the Old Testament, the believing Jew looked forward to the coming of an eternal kingdom where he would enjoy, in a glorified human body and spirit, the fullness of "life." It is therefore chiefly "eschatological." Peter referred to this eschatological "seeing" (experiencing) and "entering" the "eternal kingdom" of Christ, when he wrote:

"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 11 KJV)

The context clearly shows that Peter is addressing those who have been born again and who, in some limited way, have experienced the kingdom of the Messiah. Yet, this present enjoyment of the kingdom is limited, being only a foretaste or earnest deposit, while the fullest enjoyment will not be till after the return of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom.

D.A. Carson wrote (emphasis mine):

“To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, “to see the kingdom of God” was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life. The same equivalence is found in the Synoptics (cf. Mk. 9:43, 45 ‘to enter life’, parallel to 9:47 ‘to enter the kingdom of God/); it is particularly strong in the Fourth Gospel, where ‘kingdom’ language crops up only here (3:3, 5) and at Jesus’ trial (18:36) while ‘life’ language predominates. One of the most startling features of the kingdom announced in the Synoptics is that it is not exclusively future. The kingdom, God’s saving and transforming reign, has in certain respects already been inaugurated in the person works and message of Jesus.” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According To John, P. 188)

So, it is a very weak argument, or none at all, to say that the words of Christ teach that one must be born again in order that he may later believe, repent, or be converted. Such a view, as I have said, eliminates faith, repentance, and a change of heart and mind from the very experience of the new birth.

Why can't the Hyperist see that part of the "deadness" of the alien depraved sinner is his "unbelief" and his "impenitence"? If they saw correctly that "spiritual death" involves unbelief and impenitence of heart, then they could see how coming to spiritual "life" involves coming out of dead faith, and dead thinking, and dead repentance, and dead works.

These same folks will affirm that the "new heart" must be first given before that heart can exercise faith and repentance. But, such a view divorces faith and repentance from being essential elements of the "new heart." If the "new heart" and "new life" do not include faith and repentance, then the "heart" is still unbelieving and impenitent, and so, how could it be said to be a "new" heart?

Jesus shows that he has primary allusion to an "eschatological" realization of "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom (to that which will not be experienced till the kingdom of Christ is established upon earth), when he says "whoever believes on him will have eternal life." (vs. 15, 16)

Surely this latter statement of Christ is eschatological, for the most part, is it not? Do those who argue erroneously on the words "seeing" and "entering," as the Hardshells and "Reformed" crowd, also see these words ('believe to eternal life') as not referring to "regeneration"? If they did, would they not have faith before regeneration?

So, the context shows that the "seeing" and "entering" into "eternal life," and into the "kingdom of God," are what is to be realized at the return of Christ. But, even if we allow it to refer to what takes place at the moment one is born again, or comes to faith, it still does not uphold the view that says the birth is completed without the creation of faith.

Besides, if the new life that is created by the new birth does not include faith, then how was the word a means in the birth? And, in our earlier chapters in this book, we looked at those passages that teach regeneration by the means of the word of God and faith in it, and overthrew the Hardshell objections to them. But, if faith is after the new birth, then the word of God cannot be a means in the giving of the life itself.

In the next chapter I will be continue looking at verses in the gospel of John that supposedly teach that one is born again before and apart from faith, as the Hardshells teach.

Chpt. 82 - Hardshell Proof Texts IV

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." (John 5: 24, 25 KJV)

These verses are also used by the Hardshells in order to prove that a person is first saved, born again, or regenerated, before he comes to faith. They also affirm that faith in Christ is not essential for eternal salvation.

But, these words do not teach that one is first born again, and then later comes to faith. The Lord is simply defining and characterizing those who will be blessed to enter the kingdom of God.

His purpose, in these words, is not to establish an ordo salutis, as respects any imagined temporal or causal relationship existing between faith and life. His intention is to characterize those who receive him as the Messiah, who believe in him and his words; And, how does he do this? Is it not by equating believers with those who have been spiritually resurrected, or begotten from the grave of sin?

In earlier chapters (See # 14 & 48) in this book I looked at the whole 5th chapter of John's gospel in view of Hardshellism. I showed how there is so much in this chapter that destroys Hardshell "logic," and presuppositions, and outright falsehoods.

First, let us notice how these words actually teach against Hardshellism.

The Lord teaches that it is the "believer" who has been resurrected from inward spiritual death. He is the one who is alive to God and godly things. Will the Hardshells accept the reverse of this? That the unbeliever is dead, not alive, not born again, not resurrected?

Do they not teach that both believers and unbelievers are "born again" or "spiritually alive"? Clearly Jesus is affirming that all those who do not listen to his words, who do not believe, are they who remain dead in sins. Those who have listened to his words and believed on him are they who are spiritually alive.

The Hardshells divorce the spiritual "life" from "faith." One receives spiritual "life" first, apart from faith, in the Hardshell view. By this understanding of the matter, the "life" is without faith; But, what kind of "life" is it that does not have faith as part of it?

How does Jesus define the spiritually "dead"? They are the same as they who are unbelievers. Who are they who are spiritually alive? They are they who have believed. Who is a believer? He is one who is spiritually alive. Who is the unbeliever? He is the one who is spiritually dead.

Jesus clearly is equating, experientially, the two things. It is similar to how John equated (connected together) two things when he said - "whoever has the Son has life." Here Jesus is saying - "whoever has faith has life," or conversely, "whoever has life has faith."

The Hardshell puts the "hearing" and "believing" after the "coming to life." Thus it is the "living" who "hear" and "believe," and not the "dead." Yet, the latter part of the above citation puts the "coming to life" after the "hearing." Further, it is one who is "dead" who "hears" the "voice" of Christ, and this "hearing" precedes the "coming to life." They hear in order to live, rather than live in order to hear, fundamentally speaking.

Why would Jesus be instructing these unbelievers in an order salutis? Christ's intent is not to indoctrinate them in an order salutis. His intent is not to get them to accept the proposition that says that they must be made alive by him in order for them to believe his words. Is Jesus not saying to these dead unbelieving sinners - "you are dead if you do not believe"?

A "believer" is one who "has passed from" unbelief to belief, and who "has passed from" darkness and ignorance to light and knowledge, and who "has passed from" hardness and impenitence of heart to tenderness and penitence of heart, one who "has passed from death unto life."

To teach that it is not only possible, but actually the case, that most of the elect "pass from death unto life" but that only few "pass from unbelief and impenitence to faith and repentance," is giving a definition to "life" that is nonsensical, besides being unscriptural. The Hardshell description of this experience of "passing" eliminates vital elements of the "life."

Notice also how Christ speaks of justification as well as spiritual regeneration/resurrection when he says that the believer "shall not come into condemnation." I will not address the Hardshell view on "justification," and on "justification by faith," at this time. I will save that for a future separate posting. I have, however, already dealt with the Hardshell view on "faith" in earlier chapters.

But, again, we may ask the same rhetorical questions to every Hardshell, or every Hyperist who insists that Christ here intends, and actually does teach, that life comes before faith.

1. Who does Christ declare justified and safe from future condemnation? Is it not the believer?

2. Does Christ not affirm that every unbeliever is condemned and will come into judgment?

3. Is it not the view of the Hardshells that many unbelievers are spiritually "regenerated" and "alive"? And who is it that "shall not come into condemnation"? Is it not the Hardshell view that many unbelievers are justified?

4. Does Jesus connect together regeneration (spiritual resurrection), not only with coming to him in faith, but also with justification? Is there any clue in these words of Christ that necessitates that one believe, like many of the "Reformed" hyperists, that "regeneration comes before faith but that justification comes after it"?

The Hardshells also argue on this passage in a similar manner as to how they argue on John 1: 12,13 and I John 5:1. They say here, as there, that "hearing" and "believing" are in the present tense, and so means one "who is (continually) hearing and is (continually) believing," but "is passed" is past tense, indicating again (supposedly) that the life preceded and caused the faith.

But again, Jesus, like John, is not denying that it is equally true to say - "he who has believed has passed from death unto life." But, to express it this way would imply that faith, like the birth and the resurrection, is also a one time event. If Jesus wanted to be precise, as the hair-splitting theologians are anxious to be, he perhaps would have said - "He who has believed (and who continues to believe), has passed from death unto life."

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

As I said in previous chapters, these words overthrow the Hardshell and neo "Reformed" view or "ordo salutis." If their view were correct, Jesus would have expressed it this way - "and ye will not have life that ye might come unto me." Rather, it has the "coming" before the "life," just as the "hearing" was before the "coming to life." Actually, it is very simple. When one comes to Christ, he comes to life, comes to truth, and comes to the way. To say that one comes to life but does not come to faith is a twist of scripture, nothing but eisogeses.

Notice also how Christ equated his "word" with his "voice." This is important in view of the novel view of the Hardshells on what is meant by hearing the "voice" of Christ as opposed to hearing the word of Christ. That was dealt with in earlier chapters. To hear the gospel, by whomever it is preached, is hearing the voice of Christ, is hearing his word. It is not something "heard" on the subconscious level.

In the next chapter we will look at some verses in John 6 that Hardshells use to defend their hybrid and aberrant soteriological views.

Chpt. 83 - Hardshell Proof Texts V

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out...No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life...And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. " (John 6: 37, 44-47, 65 KJV)

There are really two versions of Hyperism that need to be corrected, as pertaining to the above verses, and whether or not they teach the "born again before faith" or "regenerated without faith" view.

The general Hardshell version correctly identifies the "coming to Christ" as = regeneration, salvation, or the new birth. They do not generally view the "drawing" as itself "regeneration."

It is the modern "Reformed" version that makes the "drawing" = "regeneration," thus disallowing that "coming" to Christ = regeneration.

The "Reformed" version says the "drawing" = "regeneration" or the "new birth," while the "coming" = "conversion" (and thus make it something separate and distinct from "regeneration").

The Hardshell view, though correctly making the "coming" = "regeneration," nevertheless errs in making this "coming to Christ" something apart from the gospel, and apart from cognitive faith, and apart from a conscious experience, or from conversion.

The questions to be addressed in this chapter, therefore, will be the following.

1. Is a man "regenerated" who has not "come to Christ"?

2. What does it mean to "come to Christ"?

3. Is the reception of "life" before or after the "coming"?

4. Can a man be said to have been effectually "drawn" who has not "come"?

5. How does God "draw" the sinner to Christ?

6. What is meant by "unless it be given to him of my Father" (vs. 65)?

Archibald Alexander wrote:

"Sometimes regeneration is considered distinctly from the acts and exercises of the mind which proceed from it, but in the Holy Scriptures the cause and effect are included; and we shall therefore treat the subject in this practical and popular form."

http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/view1.html

The "Reformed" view does not define "regeneration" as do the scriptures, if Alexander is correct, for the neo "Reformed" view says that "regeneration" is defined by cause alone; That is, "regeneration" is strictly an act of God. It is not, strictly speaking, and according to the neo "Reformed" view, defined by the effect, by what the sinner actually experiences or does as a result of the divine causation. By this definition, "regeneration" or the "new birth" is not something one experiences, but simply the cause of that experience.

The Arminian, of course, believes the "drawing" to be a pre regeneration work, and so does the Hardshell, the difference being that the Arminian does not believe the "drawing" is, in any sense, irresistable, nor what occurs apart from gospel means, whereas the Hardshells believe both.

The teaching of Christ in John 5 & 6 clearly shows this order: Drawing (or calling) by the Spirit and word of God, coming to Christ (or faith), reception of spiritual life.

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

It is clear. Life is the result of having come to Christ, of having "received him" and "believed on his name." (John 1: 12 KJV)

So the equation is simple - Drawing, coming, life. Or, drawing + coming = life. Cause + effect = regeneration. The Hardshell and neo Reformed "ordo salutis" both have a different equation, one that reads like this - Drawing, Life, Coming. Thus, Jesus' words should have been stated differently, as - "you will not have life that you might come unto me," rather than as it is.

Notice how the "drawing" of the Father, that which effects the sinner's coming to Christ for life and salvation, involves the Father "teaching" and the sinner "hearing" (paying attention to, or heeding) it. It also includes "learning" truth from the Father.

No man can come to Christ who has not been first taught who is Christ. This is in keeping with what Paul wrote, when he said:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10: 14, 17 KJV)

To come to Christ, one must be "drawn" by the teaching of the Father, that teaching done through his Spirit and word.

One should not define "regeneration" or the "new birth" as being restricted to the cause alone, but should include the instantaneous effect; likewise, one should also define the experience not only in terms of "passivity," but also in terms of "activity." The dead coming to life is that which the dead does or experiences, although it be of God's causation. God does not come to life. The child being born is not inactive.

What do we mean when we affirm that the sinner is "passive" in regeneration? Likewise, what do we mean when we affirm, or deny, that the sinner is "active" in new birth?

What it means to "come to Christ" has already been dealt with in a previous separate chapter (19), wherein it was shown how "coming to Christ" meant "believing on Christ." Thus, it cannot be something done apart from knowledge or cognition, or without the means of truth knowledge.

I will discuss some of these inconsistencies in greater depth in that upcoming series titled "Paradigm Problems." I will also address the historic debate among Baptists as respects whether salvation is "unconditional" or "conditional," and what is denoted by those words.

The verse about the Father drawing is simply intended to show that this work must be initiated by God himself. God must take the proverbial first step in the matter. Jesus' intention in saying that one must be "drawn" before he can "come" is simply to connect cause with effect, as if he said - "no man can be resurrected unless the Father call him forth from death."

But, the calling forth in itself is not resurrection, for the calling is what God experiences, while the effect of the calling is what the sinner experiences. The "Reformed" view, then, that makes the "drawing" to equal "regeneration," makes "regeneration" to be what God experiences, not what the sinner experiences.

The "Reformed" view, which is probably shared by some Hardshells, which equates "drawing" with the new birth, also interprets the "giving" of verse 65 as being "regenerated." But, this is nonsense. Of course, all Calvinists agree, that no sinner can come to Christ unless the Father first draw and give power and grace. But, this act of God, which brings about the resulting experience in the sinner, is not, in itself, nor by itself alone, what is "regeneration."

The "coming" to Christ, and to "life," is what is regeneration or the new birth. The acts of the Father in drawing and giving are the causes of the experience, not the experience itself.

The "giving" of verse 65 is the giving of power to come, while the "giving" of verse 37 is of the elect themselves, in their persons. The elect are they who were "given" by the Father to Christ, and this prior to their being saved. The elect, in their being saved, begotten, or regenerated, are "given" power and grace that effects it all.

Thus, I see nothing in these verses to uphold Hardshellism, the idea that men are born again before and without believing in Christ, or coming to him in evangelic faith, nor do I see any validity to the neo "Reformed" claim that these verses teach that one must be born again before they can come to Christ. Such a view, as I have stated, errs in not making the coming itself to be the new birth. And, as I said, at least the Hardshells make the "coming," rather than the "drawing," to be "regeneration." Their error is to make the "coming to Christ" something other than what it clearly is, a conscious coming to Christ with the heart and mind, an embracing of him by faith.

Chpt. 84 - Hardshell Proof Texts VI

John 8: 47 is another passage of scripture that Hardshells genereally use in an attempt to prove that one is born again before and apart from faith. A modern "Reformed" writer, Vincent Cheung, upholds the same interpretation of the passage as do the Hardshells. Therefore, I thought best to cite his words on the passage and rebut them. Certainly his arguments for the born again before faith error are exactly what the Hardshells themselves put forth, and Cheung's writing would receive a hearty "amen" from them. Cheung wrote (emphasis mine):

"Now here comes something very interesting, something very straightforward, and ties back to our exposition on John 3:4 about spiritual dullness. Jesus says in verse 43, "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say." Why are they unable to hear? He says, "You belong to your father, the devil." Then, he continues, "If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

"Can anything be plainer? Jesus tells them the truth, the truth about spiritual things, using simple and direct language. Why do they not understand? Why do they not believe? " The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." Here is the answer. The devil is their father, but the devil is a liar, and this is why they cannot understand or believe the truth. They cannot process something that is not in their spiritual nature to grasp."

"For a person to understand and believe the truth, he must first "belong to God," that is, to be the child of God rather than the child of the devil. Just because they are the natural descendents of Abraham does not make them the spiritual descendents of Abraham, nor does it make them the spiritual children of God. So to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, God must give birth to them – they must be "born again.""

"One must first "belong to God" in order to believe the truth, so that regeneration, the new birth, must come before faith. This demolishes the teaching, so common nowadays, that we are born again by faith, that we are born again because we believe. If the condition of your soul is such that you can have faith, why would you need to be born again? Jesus says that these people have the devil as their father, and they do not "belong" to God, so that they cannot have faith. We are born again by a sovereign act of God, completely apart from human decision or human effort, and it is after we are born again that we are able to believe the gospel. This means that we are entirely at God's mercy when it comes to salvation."

"The biblical teaching is, "You must be born again, so that you may both believe and understand." Faith and understanding promote and depend on one another, and both are impossible unless one is first born again. This in turn makes faith and understanding dependent on divine sovereignty and not human decision, as Jesus, John, and Paul repeatedly declare to us."

No Hardshell could have argued the "case" better than has Vincent Cheung, in his attempt to prove the "born again before faith" error from John 8: 43-47. I perhaps could not have written it better, were I still a Hardshell apologist. In fact, when I was a Hardshell, this was one of my favorite passages to cite in order to prove the "born again before faith" error. I would argue just as "eloquently" and "logically" as did Cheung.

It is the view of Cheung and the Hardshells that it was the intention of Jesus to instruct these Christ rejecting Jews in the divine "ordo salutis." This is not the case however. Why would Jesus be instructing, according to Hyperism, unregenerate children of the devil in the "ordo salutis" in the first place? According to Hyperism, what could have been Jesus' purpose in teaching them about such a matter?

Is it the Hyperist idea that Christ spoke to them with no intent to incite them to repentance? To want to truly "belong to" God? If the Hyperist admits that Christ spoke to these children of the devil, what was his intent? Was there no intent at all for them to disinherit their (evil) spiritual parentage and be adopted into God's family?

Cheung and the Hardshells admit that Christ is speaking to children of the devil, to those who are "dead" and "unregenerate." They admit that he tells them that they do not "belong to" God. But, will they admit that he was telling them they were responsible for their "belonging to" either God or the devil? How could Christ condemn them for "belonging to" the devil? And, for not "belonging to" God?

The "reasoning" of the Hyperist here is circular and leaves a person going round and round with no end.

A man cannot "hear" nor "understand" unless he is first born of God (belong to him, become his child, etc.), but, according to scripture, he must "understand" and "hear" in order to belong to God!

If it is argued that Christ puts the "hearing" and "understanding" after the birth, then he must, to be consistent, aver that "hearing" and "understanding" never "precede" the birth. So, what does the Hyperist do with those passages that put "hearing" as a means to birth and life? If he avows that "hearing" does precede the birth and life, and yet avows that it follows, then he has put the sinner in an inescapable strait. He must hear to live, but he must also live to hear!

At this point, the typical Hardshell, will use his infamous "hermeneutical principle" of the "double sense" or "double meaning" of words and ideas, and say - "well, there are really two kinds of 'hearing,' one kind going before the life (birth) and one going after."

Jesus said in John 5: 25-28 that the "dead will hear his voice and live." The hearing of his voice, even though effectual and irresistable, in the case of the elect, precedes the coming to life, whether it be the resurrection experience of conversion, the coming to life of the inner soul, heart, and mind, or the future resurrection of the physical bodies.

Does not Jesus affirm both these ways of stating the matter?

1. You do not belong to God (not regenerated, born, alive spiritually, etc.) because you do not hear, understand, and believe.

2. You do not hear, understand, and believe because you do not belong to God?

Yes! He states it both ways! So then, does this mean Jesus put the matter in a circular manner, making salvation impossible by making one thing to depend upon another? How are we to solve this seeming difficulty? After the manner of Cheung and the Hardshells? No. Here's how.

Jesus is not saying that one thing causes another! If he did affirm that A caused B, and then turned around and also said, B causes A, we would call him illogical and a stater of an impossibility, of a falsehood.

Rather than giving an order salutis and giving a oracle on what causes what, he is rather showing how one thing is vitally connected with another, yet not in the way of cause and effect. He is affirming that two things are the effects of the same cause, and that where one effect is present, so is the other. Thus, he is giving us a description of the essential characteristics of the new birth, of what it means to "belong to God," and what it means to "hear" and "understand" God and truth.

Classes of people

1. Those who belong to God but who do not hear
2. Those who hear but do not belong to God
3. Those who hear and belong to God
4. Those who neither hear nor belong to God

Jesus, by his words, is denying that there is any such character as #1 and #2. The only sinners that exist anywhere are those described under #3, and #4.

Now, suppose a person wanted to counter the person who says that there are people as #1 and #2, would he not speak as did Jesus?

The use of the word "because" in the words of Jesus are not to be taken in a metaphysical sense, of what produces something else, but for a legal, forensic, or logical use of "because." We make use of this kind of "because" (or 'cause') all the time in regular speech. For instance, one says - "his heart is dead because his brain is dead," but then says, "his brain is dead because his heart is dead."

When two things are vitally connected, and only exist together, and never apart, then one would also speak as did Christ. In such language Christ is not saying that one thing absolutely "precedes" another thing, but that one thing cannot exist alone, without another thing.

Thus, I see absolutely no evidence that this passage teaches that one can belong to God without hearing and understanding. The born again before faith view creates a non-scriptural creature, a born again unbeliever. Likewise, using the terms in our text, the Hyperist creates a born again child of God, one who belongs to God, but who has not heard, believed, nor understood. Such a view dilutes what it means to "belong to God." To exclude "hearing," and "believing," and "understanding," from what it means to "belong to" God (or the devil, for that matter) is to make it mean nothing concrete or substantial.

Ironically, I think the words of Christ actually destroy Hyperism and what Cheung affirms. His analysis makes it possible to have a person who belongs to God (a completed fact or action) and who has not yet heard, learned, believed, nor understood! Christ affirmed, in this passage, that such a case is an impossibility.

Chpt. 85 - Hardshell Proof Texts VII

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10: 16 KJV)

Some Hardshell debaters and apologists, like Elder Lemuel Potter, have used this verse to uphold their "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration," their aberrant "born again before and apart from faith" view.

Elder Potter argued, in his debate with Elder W. P. Throgmorton, that this verse proved that sinners are "regenerated" apart from the gospel and faith, that heathen who had not yet heard the word and truth of God, and who were worshipping false deities, were nevertheless "born again."

He cited the words of Christ in John 10 to show that people who had not yet been "brought" were "sheep," and that the fact that they were "sheep" before they were "brought" proves that they were "regenerated" before they were "brought," before they heard the truth of the gospel and were brought to faith and converted.

I must confess that I never heard this argument made by any Hardshell preacher when I was affiliated with them. This appears to have been an argument unique to Potter (much like the argument of Elder Grigg Thompson was unique on Romans 10 - see earlier chapters on that passage) and perhaps the time period in which he lived (2nd half of the 19th century). Nevertheless, I have included Potter's argument from John 10 in this series because it is worth addressing.

The question we must ask is simply this - is the term "sheep," in John 10 and elsewhere, used as a synonym for "regenerated person"? If it is, then Potter's argument is a valid one.

Obviously, however, the term "sheep" is synonymous with "elect," and not with "regenerated person." Certainly a person is "elect," or a "sheep," BEFORE one is saved, born again, or regenerated. Certainly he is "elect" BEFORE he is "brought to Christ" by the gospel.

If we make "sheep" to be synonymous with "regenerated person," then we must not only avow that they are "regenerated" before they are "brought," but also before Christ calls them, before they hear his voice, obey, and follow him. Such a view makes these things not a part of regeneration, what is not essential to it, but something apart from it, something ad hoc.

Such absurd consequences can never be made to harmonize with the bible teaching. The idea that a sinner can be said to be "regenerated" or "born again" who has no idea who is Jesus, or who is the one true God, and who has no faith, is absolutely rediculous and against the plain and express teachings of the scriptures.

Such an argument, though not made by today's Hardshell apologists and debaters, nevertheless was made by one of the leading apologists and debaters of the denomination. Elder Potter is an undisputed "authority" among the Hardshells. Such argumentation as Potter made on John 10, however, betrays his reputation.

In future chapters I will be having much more to say about this veritable second generation Hardshell patriarch.

The argumentation that Potter put forth in debate regarding the passage in John 10, is similar to arguments Hardshells make on a few other passages. Since the argumentation is similar, I will deal with them now also.

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city." (Acts 18: 8-10 KJV)

"And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but to the house of Israel; Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee." (Ezekiel 3: 4-6 KJV)

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." (Revelation 5: 9 KJV)

The case of Cornelius also is connected with this idea of "sheep," or "regenerated persons" existing among the heathen, among those who did not have faith in Christ, for the Hardshells use his case in an attempt to prove that sinners are first regenerated, apart from the gospel, and that the experience of "regeneration" is enjoyed by those without faith in Christ. But, I will not deal with the case of Cornelius here in this chapter but will saved it for when I get to the book of Acts and look into the examples the Hardshells bring from that book in an attempt to prove that people are "regenerated" apart from the gospel and faith in it.

Hardshells also attempt to use Romans 2: 12-14 to prove that "heathen" people, who do not know nor believe in the one true and living God, and who do not have faith in Christ, nevertheless are "regenerated" and "born again" souls. Such an attempt, however, as I have already shown, and will yet show further, is vain. The scriptures everywhere refute such an idea.

I have already shown how John Gill held no such view, nor the writers of the old London Confession of Faith. Both he and they affirmed that salvation, including "regeneration," was impossible apart from the gospel, and from faith in Christ. They affirmed that faith in Christ was not possible apart from a knowledge of the gospel, per such passages as Romans chapter 10.

I have also clearly shown their affirmation to be contrary to a host of scriptures (see earlier chapters on key verses in defense of 'gospel means' and in the 'hot shot' series).

Now let me look at the above verses that also supposedly teach Hardshellism, that there are heathen peoples who are "regenerated."

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city." (Acts 18: 8-10 KJV)

When the Lord informs Paul that he already "has" or "possesses" a "people" in Corinth, even before Paul's preaching to them, the Hardshells argue that this proves that they were already "regenerated," even though "heathens," and that they were now prepared or "enabled" to be "converted," to come to saving faith and repentance.

But, does the fact that the Lord identifies these yet untaught, and as yet unbelieving sinners, as his "people" prove that they were already "regenerated" apart from the gospel and faith? No! The passage only proves that there were "elect" people in Corinth, people who as yet needed to be "called" and "regenerated" by the gospel (I Cor. 4: 15; James 1: 18; I Peter 1: 23-25, etc.), not people who are were already "regenerated." Compare this passage with Matthew 1: 21, a passage that gets much "play" among the Hardshell preachers.

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Does this mean save the already "regenerated," the already "saved"? No, clearly not.

Here the term "his people" means "his elect," those who have been "chosen TO salvation, and TO regeneration and TO faith."

Hardshells will no doubt admit this when pressed on the matter. Yet, in spite of acknowledging, on the one hand, that "his people" does not mean "his already regenerated people," but only "his elect," they will nonetheless argue elsewhere, on other passages of scripture, as did Potter, and affirm that such expressions that speak of sinners being God's "people" or his "child" before their regeneration, mean and prove that they were "regenerated" or "born again." They are inconsistent in their argumentation. For instance, on the following passage they will argue in the following manner.

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

Here the Hardshells correctly argue that "because you are sons" means "because you are sons (by election or decree of God), God has sent forth is Spirit into your hearts (regenerated you)..."

So, the inconsistency is quite apparent. When the Hardshell wants to do so, upon his whim, he makes "his people" to simply mean those "chosen TO salvation," though not yet actually saved, but then also makes it, at other times, to mean "already regenerated."

So, the passage in Acts 18 does not prove that there were souls in Corinth who were already regenerated apart from the gospel and faith, but only that there were "elect" souls there who needed to be called and converted, regenerated and saved by, the gospel. There were people there just like the woman in John 4 whom Christ converted at Jacob's well. She too was a "child of God" by divine election, though not yet "begotten" or "born of God" by the gospel. Thus, Christ's expressed need to "go through Samaria," so that he might thereby encounter her, preach the word to her, beget faith and life in her, and she be not only a "child" of God by election alone, by also by divine regeneration.

"And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but to the house of Israel; Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee." (Ezekiel 3: 4-6 KJV)

Elder Sonny Pyles, one of the greatest Hardshell preachers of the last part of the last century, and who is still, to my knowledge, alive and preaching, used this passage in a sermon, preached in the last few years, in order to fight a view gaining prominence among some of today's Hardshells (mainly those identified with Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr., and of those called "liberal" by the "conservative" wing, by those who oppose any modern efforts of Hardshells to finally begin preaching the gospel to the heathen, to support missions and theological schools, and bible classes or Sunday schools, and perhaps musical instruments in worship, and who favor having open fellowship with the Progressives and with those "Reformed" Missionary Baptists who accept the Hardshell "ordo salutis"), that avows that all the elect will hear the gospel.

I will be reviewing that sermon, together with the writing of his son, Elder David Pyles (who has many writings on Hardshell doctrine on the internet), wherein the son seems to be trying to "tip toe through the TULIP" by trying to occupy a "middle ground" between those who affirm and those who deny the proposition, the proposition that says that "all the elect will hear the gospel," after they are regenerated, but before they die) but for now will simply address the argument that the father made, wherein he argued that the above passage in Ezekiel proved that God had "born again" and "regenerated" people among the heathen who had no true knowledge or faith in Jehovah. It was, needless to say, a "vain attempt" on his part. So, does the passage in Ezekiel prove that the heathen, alluded to by the Lord, were already saved, born again, and regenerated, though they were ignorant of the truth, and therefore lacked biblical faith? No!

Pyles might as well have tried to prove that the "Sodomites" and "wicked inhabitants" of the "plain" were "saved," and "born again," as to attempt to prove that the "heathen" referred to by the Lord, in the above passage in Ezekiel, for in both passages, Christ only speaks "hypothetically," of what could have been, not what is the actual case.

"Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11: 20-23 KJV)

A number of points need to be affirmed from this passage, and then some questions need to be asked and answered, in view of the argumentation of Pyles.

First, both passages deal with "hypothetical" cases, not with actual ones.

Second, both passages affirm that certain groups of heathen peoples "could have" been saved had a certain event or sufficient condition taken place.

Third, both passages indicate that the necessary event or condition did not take place, and thus the heathen under consideration did not "hear" and "learn" of Jehovah, nor come to know him as the one true God, nor that they escaped being eternally judged and condemned, nor from being "cast down to Hell."

Thus, they could not have been "elect," nor already "regenerated," for their fate is described. It is a vain attempt then for Pyles to try to use such verse to prove that there are actually elect sinners who die without coming to saving faith, or without being converted to Christ by the gospel.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." (Revelation 5: 9 KJV)

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12: 3 KJV)

This is a favorite verse of today's Hardshells to cite in an attempt to prove that there are multitudes of "heathen" who are saved, even though they die without knowledge and faith in the true God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ. The verse does not actually state their proposition, but they attempt to apply their infamous Hardshell "logic" to the verse in another vain effort to prove that heathen are saved apart from faith in Christ.

What is the "logical" deductive argument that the Hardshells make from this verse?

First, they argue that people are saved from every "family," and from every small segment of the human race. Then, having proven this premise, they add the second, the one that affirms that "every family, kindred, tongue, and tribe, has not heard the gospel." Then, they add their conclusion to the syllogism, one that says - "therefore the hearing and believing of the gospel are not absolutely necessary for being eternally saved."

But, this is not "proof," and this the Hardshells themselves must be "logically" forced to admit, if they are honest. This is clear when one remembers that it is the Hardshells who constantly remind us of the billions of "infants" who die in infancy, and who have, by their contention, been "regenerated" apart from faith and apart from the means of the gospel. Why can't these infants be part of the various groups enumerated? Did I not show, in earlier chapters, how the common Baptistic apologetic on this matter has been to affirm their regeneration in an "extraordinary" manner, unlike adults?

Did I not cite Spilsbury too on the matter of "infant regeneration" to show what was the first Baptist view and apologetic on the matter? Did he not affirm, like other Particular Baptists of the period, that one could not use the hypothetical case of "infant regeneration" to prove anything relative to the matter of regeneration and means?

Besides the possibility of the case of infants satisfying the Hardshell incongruity of seeing how all families and tribes could have saved people, but yet not all these groups having had the gospel preached to them, I mention also the fact that it cannot be successfully proven that these groups did not have the gospel preached to them.

As I have shown in other writings of mine, the gospel was "written" in the stars, or the ancient Zodiac or Mazzaroth, as others have demonstrated, and also in the meanings and significations in the names of the first ten descendents of Adam, and in the names (with their significations) of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the names of the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel, and perhaps even in other ways, such as in the Pyramids of Giza, and in the Sphynx. Certainly the magi who "came from the east" were men who, following the gospel written in the stars, and in these other ways, understood the gospel and believed it.

Also, it is amazing that the Hardshells argue as they do from Revelation 5:9, seeing they argue at other times, when trying to affirm that the "Great Commission" has been fulfilled, that "every nation has already heard the gospel," citing such passages as Colossians 1: 23!

I have also heard other Hardshells cite the various nationalities mentioned in Acts 2, who were assembled in Jerusalem on Pentecost and who heard the gospel preached by Peter, as also evidence that all the nations heard the gospel that day! So, they can say, on one hand, that all have heard the gospel, but then argue, on the other hand, that all have not heard it.

So, I see no proof in any of the passages, analyzed in this chapter, that uphold Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism, nor the born again before faith, or salvation apart from Christian faith, errors.