Chapter 94 - Hardshells & Perseverance III

Hardshell Objections to the doctrine of perseverance are these:

1. Perseverance depends upon the faithfulness of those saved, and such a system destroys preservation.
2. Perseverence requires the use of creatures as instruments and eternal salvation cannot be secure if creatures are used as means.
3. Perseverance requires perfect obedience, or sinlessness.
4. Scriptures emphasize preservation rather than perseverance.

The last objection was disproved in the preceding chapter. The first objection may have some validity if one assumes that the "faithfulness" of the saved depends upon their own will power, but, seeing that the scriptures demonstrate that perseverance is a gift, and what is certain for the truly regenerated, then this objection has no validity. The third objection is connected with defining what it means, practically speaking, for one to "persevere." Hardshells object to the doctrine of perseverance because, they say, it is never fully defined. I shall enlarge upon it in this series, and show how the scriptures and the old Baptists have defined perseverance, and how they address this objection to the doctrine of the saints certain perseverance. Those who believe in it cannot say exactly what they mean, it is alleged. But, this objection is given mostly in the context of godly living, law keeping, or holiness, which is actually only one aspect of the biblical doctrine of perseverance. How much sin can a child of God commit, after regeneration, and yet still be said to be persevering? If he commits one sin, did he persevere? If he commits a few sins, did he persevere? If he is in the habit of sinning, is he persevering?

In reply, let us recall the several verses cited in the previous chapter that spoke of perseverance and see what was foremost emphasized in connection with it. All the verses cited emphasized perseverance in belief and adherence to Christ and gospel truth. "If ye continue in the faith" and in the "hope of the gospel." "If we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope." "If we don't draw back." "If we abide in the doctrine of Christ." Thus, in these verses, which emphasize perseverance, the emphasis is on perseverance in one's faith in Christ and in the truth of the gospel. It is not perseverance in morality, or in law keeping, although these are sometimes discussed in the context of perseverance.

The old Baptist confessions speak of "persevering in grace" and "in holiness," which would include persevering in the graces of faith and repentance, and include conviction and confession of sin, and allegiance to Christ and his word. Temporary believers, in scripture and in the old Baptist writings, are never judged to have been genuine believers, or regenerated souls.

If we examine the parable of the sower and seed, the temporary believer had a heart that was compared to shallow ground, ground that is not good, while persevering believers had a heart that was compared to good ground. Historically, Hardshells have used this parable to teach that souls are regenerated before they hear and believe the gospel. They affirm that the ground was made good before the seed was sown in it, and that this making of the ground good was equivalent to being born again. I addressed this parable in chapter 35 of my book. But, by their own interpretation on the parable, the temporary believer did not have a regenerated or good heart! So, who is the temporary believer? It is the unregenerated believer. Further, what is said of the regenerated believers? "They brought forth fruit with patience." They believed and endured!

If good seed is sown into good ground, will it fail to produce fruit? If it does not produce good fruit, though both the seed and soil are good, then why did it not produce fruit? That is a hard question for Hardshells.

Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:

"And, if Heb vi. 4-6 and x. 26-31 are applicable to any since the apostolic age, they refer, as proved by Heb. vi. 9 and x. 39, not to heart disciples, true believers, the elect, redeemed, and regenerated people of God, but to head disciples, stony-ground, temporary believers, the merely nominal people of God (like the most of national Israel), never really cleansed by God’s grace any more than the nature of the sick dog and the washed sow is changed, who, after mental illumination and a brief profession of Christianity, renounce that profession, and walk no more with Christ even in name, but become his scoffing and implacable adversaries, who shall, at the judgment of the great day, he consigned to everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels (John vi. 66; Matt. xiii. 20-21; ii Pet. ii.1, 20-22; Matt. vii. 21-23; xxv. 41-46)." ("My Two Months' Tour In Georgia," The Gospel Messenger—July 1895) See here

Clearly Hassell believed that temporary believers were no believers at all, that those who apostasize were not really regenerate. Why do today's Hardshells deny what Hassell believed? Who taught the old Baptist position? Hassell or today's Hardshells?

Wrote Elder C. B. Hassell, the father of Sylvester, cited the following words of Faussett with approval:

“The patience and the final perseverance of the saints, notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions, which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history. God’s people serve Him for His own sake, not merely for the temporary reward which His service may bring; they serve Him even in overwhelming trial. Herein is Job an imperfect type of Christ. Job’s chief agony was, not so much his accumulated losses and sufferings, not even his being misunderstood by friends, but that God hid His face from him, as these calamities too truly seemed to prove (Job 23:3-9). Yet conscience told him he was no hypocrite, nay, though God was slaying him, he still trusted in God (Job 23:10-15; compare Abraham, 22:19).”—Fausset. (chapter II, page 63)

Hassell says that Job is an example of the perseverance of the saints, that what is true of Job is true of all the chosen and called. In this he states what was the original old Baptist position. Today's Hardshells who reject this doctrine are therefore not primitive or original.

The objection to perseverance because it requires the use of preachers and gospel teachers is no objection at all. I have already addressed this objection in earlier chapters of this book. I answered it by showing how the eternal salvation of sinners was conditioned upon Mary giving birth to Christ, and upon the wicked putting Christ to death. Yet, these human means did not in any way make the salvation of sinners uncertain.

W. T. Connor, cited by Davis W. Huckabee, said:

"This does not involve the antinomian position that, since one is in justification delivered from sin, he is, therefore, made eternally safe, no matter what he may become in character and life. This is a perversion of the truth that becomes about as great a heresy as the one which it denies. The New Testament teaching is not that a justified man is saved irrespective of what he may be in character; it is rather that the justifying and regenerating grace of God so revolutionizes his character that he can never be again what he was before. It is not that the Christian is saved whether he persists in faith or not; it is that he will persist in faith and will, therefore, attain to final salvation."

It is clear that the "antinomian position" is the position of today's Hardshells. It is also clear that the reason for not accepting the doctrine of perseverance is due to their not understanding the experience of regeneration.

Conner also said:

"The perseverance of the saints is based on the preservation of the saints. We persevere because he keeps. But it is not true to say that, because he keeps us, we do not need to persevere." (Christian Doctrine, pp. 238, 239. Broadman Press, Nashville, 1949)

It is today's Hardshells who think that God's preservation of his people makes perseverance unnecessary.

Huckabee cites J. L. Dagg, who said:

"Perseverance in holiness is the only infallible proof that the heart is right; and he who ceases to persevere, on the presumption that his heart is right, believes without proper evidence, and is woefully hazarding his eternal interests on his presumption. The doctrine is, that grace in the heart will produce perseverance to the end; and where the effect is not produced, the cause does not exist." (J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, pp. 298-299. Sprinkle Publications Gano Books, Harrisonburg, VA., 22801, 1982)

This has always been the position of all Calvinistic or Particular Baptists, and was the position of the founding fathers of Hardshellism, but today's Hardshells have left the faith of their fathers. Dagg affirms that where perseverance is absent so is regeneration absent. Perseverance is the proof of preservation. This is what was shown to be the teaching of scripture in the previous chapter. Those verses said - "we are saved now if in the future we persevere." Or, conversely, "we are not saved now if we do not persevere in the future." In Hebrews 3 the apostle says two times - "we are saved now if in the future we hold fast." He did not say - "we will be saved in the future if in the future we hold fast." Present salvation is demonstrated only by what follows it. Failure to persevere is proof that there was no genuine salvation in the past.

The apostle John wrote the same, saying:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (I John 2: 19)

John says that these apostates demonstrated that they were never truly saved. Their apostasy showed that they were hypocrites, not genuine believers. He also affirms that true believers "continue" in the fellowship of the gospel.

Davis W. Huckabee wrote:

"The Lord’s preservation of the saints and the saints’ perseverance in holiness are twin sister doctrines, neither of which can be ignored without upsetting the balance of truth. The preservation of the saints in grace is bound up with God’s eternal purpose, and part of the purpose of God is to give enabling grace to the saint so that he will persevere in holiness.

God preserves His people in this world through their perseverance—their use of means and avoidance of what is destructive. We do not mean for a moment that the everlasting purpose of the Most High is made contingent on the actions of the creature. The saints’ perseverance is a Divine gift, as truly as is health and strength of body."

Huckabee cites A. W. Pink, who said:

"Now is the Father’s eternal purpose placed in jeopardy by the human will? Is its fulfillment contingent upon human conduct? Or having ordained the end will He not also make infallibly effectual all the means to that end?" (A. W. Pink, The Saints’ Perseverance, pp. 11-12)

("THE PRESERVATION AND PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS," by Davis W. Huckabee, chapter 13)

See here

In the next chapters I will cite more from leading Hardshells of the 19th century to show that they believed in the perseverance of the saints. I will also show from scriptures that perseverance is a gift that is given to all those who are called by his grace.

Chapter 95 - Hardshells & Perseverance IV

Augustine wrote:

"I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God." (The Works of Aurelius Augustine, vol 15, Anti-Pelagian Works (ed. M. Dods; T and T Clark, 1876)

Hardshells have historically affirmed that Calvinistic statement which says that faith and repentance are gifts of God, what are effectually given to all the heirs of promise. They are, of course, inconsistent in this, for most Hardshells affirm that faith and repentance are not present in all the elect, at least not what is called "evangelical" faith and repentance. I have shown, however, in previous chapters of this book, that the scriptures know of no faith and repentance which is not evangelical. "Faith," said Paul, "comes by hearing the word," and that it cannot exist apart from one hearing the preacher preach about Christ (Romans 10), but Hardshells come along and say- "that is not true with regard to faith in every respect, for there is one kind of faith that is produced by the gospel and one kind that is not produced by it." But, this is twisting the words of the apostle, putting words into his mouth. Paul did not say - "this kind of saving faith comes by the gospel."

Christ prays for the perseverance of his elect and the Father always hears him. (John 11: 42) He so prayed for Peter.

"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Luke 22: 32)

Is Peter an exception? Or, does Christ not petition the Father for the perseverance of all his chosen people? Hardshells agree that the Father always hears and grants the petitions of his Son Jesus. How then can they deny the doctrine of perseverance? If a professing Christian's faith does in fact "fail," then does it not show that he was not prayed for by Christ? That he was not one of the chosen and called? Further, Peter's perseverance did not entail that he never fall, or lapse in faith, but that he would recover.

One can see how the divorcing of "faith" from "regeneration" has led to errors in regards to preservation and perseverance among the Hardshells. Does God not preserve the faith he gives as he preserves the life he gives? And, does not both the faith and life persevere (continue) because of that preservation?

Wrote Dr. Gill:

"Christ is the advocate of his people; he prays that they might have faith, and then he prays, that it may not fail; and it shall not, notwithstanding all the opposition of hell, and earth, unto it." (Commentary)

I have already shown how perseverance is a requirement for being eternally saved and I have indicated how perseverance is a divine gift. This is what has been universally affirmed by our Baptist forefathers. They taught that perseverance, like faith and repentance, are both duties (responsibilities) as well as divine gifts. However, as Hardshells reject "duty faith," it is only natural that they would also reject "duty perseverance." Further, it is inconsistent for them to affirm that faith and repentance are divine gifts but deny that patience (perseverance) is also a divine gift.

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5: 4,5)

It is inconceivable that anyone, especially Hyper Calvinists, as are Hardshells, could fail to see the clear teachings and implications of these inspired words. In view of those words, let us ask some questions and see if the words answer them.

Is the reference to "whatsoever is born of God" a universal categorical proposition? Answer: it certainly is. If it were not a universal, then it would say "some of what is born of God." Thus, as a universal categorical proposition, it states what is true of all that is "born of God." What is it that is specifically said to be "born of God" in the passage? Answer: "faith" is "born of God." Faith that is born of God is triumphant. It overcomes, and is itself never overcome, at least not totally or finally. Those who have this God begotten faith are therefore overcomers. Further, who can deny that "overcoming" is but another word for "persevering" and "continuing"?

It is a bit ironic that I have had to prove perseverance from these apostolic words to Campbellites, in public debate, and now have to do so with Hardshells, who disclaim any affinity with Campbellism and Hardshellism.

Notice too how John defines those who have "faith." He refers to those who "believe that Jesus is the Son of God." Hardshells, however, will not consistently define those who have "faith" as being those who "believe" in Jesus. So wrote John Gill.

"but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? and this points out what that faith is which obtains the victory over the world." (Commentary)

The apostle John also wrote:

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (I John 3: 9)

Greek scholars show how the Greek word for "commit" (poieo) is linear present tense, not aorist punctiliar, and alludes to what is ongoing, or continuous, or what is practiced as a habit. Again, John gives us a universal categorical proposition, what is true of all the class denominated by the term "born of God." However, rather than using the term "whatsoever" he uses the personal pronoun "whosover," the latter referring to persons while the former referring to things as well as people. Thus, he affirms, that all who are "born of God" do not practice sin. Further, who can deny that "does not practice sin" is equivalent with "does not fail to persevere"?

"He cannot sin" thus means "he cannot practice sin," or "he cannot practice sin as a habit as he did before he was born again." Hardshells, in an attempt to get around the implications of the verse in favor of perseverance, will argue that "he" refers to that part of of men which is regenerated, to the "new man." But, again, such an interpretation twists the passage by adding to the words of the apostle. Paul clearly distinguishes the "seed," or what is essentially the "new man," from the "he" and the "him." The seed remains in "him," but if "him" is the "seed," then the apostle would be saying "the seed remains in the seed" or "him remains in him." John does not say that the "seed" does not practice sin, but that the person does not, and that this perseverance of the person is the result of the seed "remaining" in him and in his being "born of God."

If John gives being "born of God" as the reason for not practicing sin, then clearly he believes that being born of God insures that sin will not be practiced, or else his reasoning would not be sound. If only a few of those who are "born of God" are said to not "practice sin," then being born of God cannot be given as the reason for not practicing sin.

Commented Dr. Gill upon the passage:

"doth not commit sin; does not make it his trade and business; it is not the constant course of his life; he does not live and walk in sin, or give up himself to it; he is not without the being of it in him, or free from acts of sin in his life and conversation, but he does not so commit it as to be the servant of it, a slave unto it, or to continue in it."

The apostle also said:

"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (5: 18)

Here the apostle repeats himself, affirming again that all who are "born of God" are they who "sinneth not." "Sinneth" is again present tense linear, denoting not a one time act, but a continuous practice. But he adds to the thought, saying that "he who is begotten of God keeps himself." Clearly "keeps himself" is equivalent to "perseveres." It is a statement that joins together preservation and perseverance. No plainer words in support of the sure and final perseverance of all the chosen and called could not be written. Again, John gives us a universal categorical proposition, what is true of all who are denominated as the "begotten of God." He does not state what is true of only a few of those who are begotten. Notice also how John does not refer to God's "keeping" of the regenerated, but of the regenerated keeping themselves. John does not view any antagonism between God's keeping of the begotten and the begotten keeping themselves, but seems them as intimately connected. Those who God keeps keep themselves. And, certainly God's keeping is the preeminent cause, for in all things he must have the preeminence. Jude wrote:

"Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." (Jude 1: 21)

Thus, both John and Jude do not exclude the begotten ones, or the believers, keeping themselves in God's keeping of them. They taught that those who God keeps are they who keep themselves, the latter being proof of the former. Thus, preservation clearly involves perseverance, and are not mutually exclusive as today's Hardshells teach.

The apostle John also wrote:

"And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (I John 3: 3)

Dr. Gill wrote:

"and this hope every man has not, only he who is born again; for this grace is implanted in regeneration, when men are of abundant mercy begotten unto it, and have it bestowed upon them as a free grace gift."

Gill knew that the apostle gave a universal categorical proposition, affirming what is true, not of only some of the divinely begotten, but of all of them. Gill also knew that all of those who are begotten of God possess this hope, citing the words of Peter who said that souls are "begotten again unto a lively hope." (I Peter 1: 3)

John says that "everyone who has this hope," everyone who is "born of God," everyone who "believes that Jesus is the Son of God," do in fact "purifies himself." And, again, is not "purifying himself" the same thing as saying that he "perseveres"? Everyone who is born of God perseveres! John says it over and over again. It is hard to missunderstand his words. Hard to twist them!

Wrote the apostle Paul:

"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8: 32)

The apostle's reasoning was this - if the Father has given you his Son, then he will certainly give you "all things," and this must include perseverance. Why would anyone want to exclude patience from this "all things"? Paul affirms that in giving Christ for the elect, proof is given that all things needed for salvation will also be given. Why exclude faith, repentance, and perseverance from these "all things"? Are these things not good things? And, what saith the scriptures about such good things?

"John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." (John 3: 27)

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1: 17)

Surely "faith and patience" are included in the category of "every good and perfect gift," of what is "received" from heaven.

According to God's new covenant promise, God has promised to cause his people to persevere.

"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36: 27)

Here we have cause and effect. God promises to "put" his "spirit within" his chosen people. This is regeneration or what it means to be "born of God." This is the cause. The effect is that those who are given God's Spirit will "walk in my statutes," and "keep my judgments, and do them." Simply put, I will cause them to persevere in holiness. I will cause them to turn from sin being master over them, to my Spirit being master over them.

Paul understood this and wrote rhetorically:

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6: 1,2)

Paul saw it as inconsistent and an impossible contradiction to affirm that one who is "dead to sin" should "live any longer in sin." Those who are truly born of God are they who do not have sin as a master, and who are not slaves to sin, who do not practice sin, or make it their trade. "How shall we who are dead to sin fail to persevere in holiness?"

Jesus taught the same truth about perseverance in holiness and righteousness, saying "If a man love me, he will keep my words." (John 14: 23) If a man loves Christ, if a man is born of God, he will, without exception, "keep my words," or "will persevere" in allegiance to Christ and to his word.

Paul plainly taught that those who are God's servants, by their being born of God, will be efficaciously "made to stand."

"Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." (Romans 14: 4 NKJV)

Is not "made to stand" the same as "made to persevere"? All God's servants, saith Paul, will be "made to stand," and this is because God is both willing and able to make them to stand.

It is for this reason that saints cannot credit themselves, but God alone, for their persevering, for all their good works. Wrote Isaiah:

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

Needless to say, there are many verses in addition to the above, that could be cited to demonstrate the sure and certain perseverance of all the chosen and called, but these ought to be sufficient. The Hardshell denial of the perseverance of saints is both against scripture and the old Baptist faith.

Chapter 96 - Hardshells & Perseverance V

In the previous chapters in this series it has been shown how the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the teaching of the old Baptist confessions and articles of faith, and has been the accepted faith of the Hardshells till recent years. It has been shown that this modern rejection of perseverance is a further departure from the true primitive Baptist faith and therefore today's Hardshells have no grounds for claiming to be "Primitive Baptists." In this posting further testimony from leading Hardshells of the 19th century will be cited which show that the doctrine of perseverance was their accepted belief. First, let us look at what Elder Grigg Thompson taught on the subject.

Thompson wrote:

"God, by his almighty power, created the world, and it is the same almighty power that supports it, and continues its being; the world owes its preservation, as well as its existence to the power of God. So in the new creation, the same power that creates the sinner anew must preserve and keep him in his new life. "Preserved in Jesus Christ;" Jude i; "Who are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation;" I Pet., i, 5. It is in God we live, move, and have our being; Acts, xvii, 28; and it is equally so in a spiritual sense, for it is by the quickening, renewing, and reviving, influence of his Spirit that we continue to believe and delight in God and his service, and without this continued influence upon our souls, we would perish; John, xv, 5." (From "The Primitive Preacher" by Elder Grigg Thompson, section on the "A New Creature in Christ")

Thompson clearly upholds both preservation and perseverance in these words. He says that God's preservation is what causes one to "continue to believe and delight in God and his service." He said further:

"As God lives to himself, so this regenerated soul lives to God; II Cor., v, 15. As God loves holiness, and is of too pure eyes to look upon sin, so does the new creature, and desires it above all earthly honors or riches." (Ibid)

Here is another clear statement on perseverance. "As God loves holiness...so does the new creature." God does not ever fail to continue in loving holiness, and so it is with the called.

Thompson said:

"But in the new creature you find the cause of this great change, the electing love of God; I Pet., i, 2; Eph., i, 4-6; and in the new creature you find all the effects of an interest in Christ, and the indwelling of his Spirit. These are all the fruits of the Spirit, the works of obedience; Eph., ii, 10; Rom., vii, 4." (Ibid)

I do not believe that today's Hardshells will willingly accept these words of Thompson. Do they believe that "all the effects of an interest in Christ" in the new creature? Do they not rather believe that only a few of the effects are present in the life of the new creature? Thompson calls these "effects" are the same as the "fruits of the Spirit" and the "works of obedience." Is not faith in Christ and love to God not "fruits of the Spirit" per Galatians 5: 22, 23?

Thompson continues:

"There is hatred and opposition to sin,; "He that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not;" I John, v, 18."

Thompson says that these things are true of all who are "new creatures." He says that they hate and oppose sin, which is but another way of saying that they overcome sin, and persevere in holiness. He even cites I John 5: 18 that I cited in the previous chapter. Every new creature is not only kept by God, but he "keeps himself," or perseveres.

Thompson continued:

"There is love to the people of God. Every one that loveth is born of God; I John, iv,' 7. There is a conscious respect for the duties and ordinances of the house of God; Eph., iv, 24. There is faith in Christ. "Whosever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;" I John, v, 1."

Remember that Thompson is talking about what characterizes the "new creature," the one who is "born of God." He is talking about what is essential to the "new creature," what is characteristic of all who are "born of the Spirit." Notice how Thompson says that "there is faith in Christ" in the heart of every new creature! Will today's Hardshells accept that view? Will they deny that Thompson was a leader of 19th century Hardshells and expressed what they generally believed? Also, from the way Thompson cites I John 5: 1, he believes that all who are born of God are believers in Christ. He cites it in order to prove his statement which avers that "there is faith in Christ" in all who are "new creatures." Further, Thompson is not talking about some non-cognitive "faith," or simple theism, or some king of "dormant seed faith," but "faith in Christ." An evangelical faith!

Thompson may have rejected the view that the gospel was a means in "regeneration," but such comments of his leads one to believe that he nevertheless, like the first Hardshells, believed that all the elect would also be "converted" by the gospel.

Thompson wrote:

"He delights not in the way of the sinner, "but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day and night;" Ps., i, 2. There is perseverance in the service of God, and victory over all temptations, "For whatsoever is born of. God, overcometh the world;" I John, v, 4. All these fruits of the Spirit are not means or conditions performed by us to get to be new creatures in Christ, but are evidences of our new state and condition, and settle the matter beyond any reasonable doubt, for the Master himself has said, "The tree is known by his fruit;" Matt., xii, 33." (Ibid)

No words could be clearer and contrary to the views of today's Hardshells who deny the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. How they can legitimately claim to be "primitive" and yet deny what Thompson here affirms is fantastic. Thompson says that the new creature is the one who "overcomes," or who perseveres. This overcoming involved "victory over all temptations." With all those who are "begotten" there is "perseverance in the service of God." But, this is denied by today's Hardshells! Shame on them!

Thompson wrote:

"The man that is in Christ is renewed in his practice. The regenerated not being what they were, can not act and live as they once did; Rom., vi, 2; for they have been quickened into a new life. "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in times past ye walked according to the course of this world;" Eph. ii, 1, 2. They were carried away in the stream of sin and iniquity by the strength of their corrupt natures and the customs of this world; but their case is now altered; they are lead (sic) by a new spirit, and walk in the paths of righteousness; Ps., xxiii, 3. When the apostle calls the mind of the saint back to his old companions in sin, and describes their corrupt practices, he says, "And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God;" I Cor., vi, 11. This indeed is a wonderful change in practice, and in the state and condition of the soul; this change is so wonderful and remarkable that it sets all the world wondering at them, for they know not the power by which it is effected..." ("The New Birth")

Again, this is very clear. Grigg Thompson believed in the perseverance of all the chosen and called, and he defined what he meant by "perseverance," which is contrary to neo-hardshellism. Thompson says that the one "born of God," the one who has faith in Jesus, "can not act and live as they once did." Thompson believed that those who were regenerated are they who have experienced a "wonderful change in practice."

Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:

"...by which change (regeneration) the understanding is illuminated, the affections consecrated, and the will rectified, so that the regenerated sinner habitually, though not always, hates and puts away sin, and loves and practices righteousness, and at the same time, the more grace he has in his heart, the more he feels and mourns over the remains of indwelling sin."

"...while the principles which we derive from our heavenly Father, in our birth again or from above, and which habitually control these faculties after we are born of God, are called, in the Scriptures, the seed of God, the new man, the law of our mind, the Israelite, the spiritual, the heavenly..." ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Denial of a Change of the Soul in Regeneration" - The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894)

http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/836/36/

These words need little comment for they are very clear and express. Sylvestor Hassell is universally recognized, like Grigg Thompson, as one of the greatest leaders of the Hardshell cult. Hassell says that those who are born again do not practice sin as a lifestyle, or habit, for their prior regeneration insures

Chapter 97 - Hardshells & Perseverance VI

In the preceding chapters it has been shown that the doctrine of the final perseverance of the elect and called is both a bible doctrine and the primitive belief of the Particular Baptists and that the denial of it, by many neo-Hardshells, is more proof that they are not in fact "Primitive Baptists." It was shown that preservation and perseverance, rather than being mutually exclusive, are inseparable, the former guaranteeing the latter.

Perseverance was also defined, a thing many neo-Hardshells assert is not done by those who believe in it. Perseverance was shown to involve remaining a believer in Jesus, and habitually following him. It was shown that perseverance did not deny that born again people fall, sin, and sometimes go astray, but that they nevertheless overcome, that sin does not become the master of their lives. It was also shown that departures from a belief in means, and faith for salvation, brought about serious departures in what is definitive of the experience of regeneration, and this then led to other departures in the doctrine of the perseverance of saints.

It was also shown that the first Hardshells did not deny this doctrine, that it was not till late in the 19th century that Hardshells began to deny the doctrine of perseverance and to strip the word perseverance from their old articles of faith.

It has also been shown how those Hardshells today who still profess a belief in perseverance are nevertheless inconsistent in it, for they believe that conversion to Christ, by the gospel, is no part of regeneration, and that evangelical faith in Christ is no part of or immediate effect of regeneration. But, how can the elect and called persevere apart from faith?

In this posting I will review a writing by present day Hardshell, Elder Zack Guess, one of the minority of neo-Hardshells who still profess adherence to the old doctrine. In his Internet article titled "The Preservation and Perseverance of the Saints" Guess wrote:

"Why do we refer to this truth as both Preservation and Perseverance? We do so because from God's perspective it is Preservation. God's people persevere in grace only because they have been preserved in Christ Jesus. From man's perspective it is Perseverance. If a person is truly saved he will give evidence of his salvation. He will not completely lose his faith and die in a finally impenitent state. Only the wicked will die in his sins (John 8:21). The combined truth of Preservation and Perseverance is clearly seen in Phil. 2:12, 13: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.""

Some Hardshells today are beginning to retrace their steps and are affirming that all the elect will not only be regenerated, but converted, at least those who hear the gospel. From the above words of Elder Guess, one would think he believes it, for he says that a truly saved person "will give evidence of his salvation." He says the regenerated "will not completely lose his faith and die in a finally impenitent state." Those Hardshells today who deny perseverance will not accept this statement of Guess. Guess no doubt knows this and is probably why he has written on it, hoping to convert his brethren from their error.

I have written a review of a sermon by Guess where he denies means in regeneration, affirming that faith is not essential to being regenerated. But, here, he defines perseverance as not losing faith. But, how can one lose a faith that he did not have via regeneration?

Guess wrote:

"It is important to remember that the child of God will overcome the world by his God-given Faith: "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). This does not mean that the saint will never commit sin. It means that the Spirit of God in him will not suffer him to always live in sin but will work Godly sorrow in him and will bring him to repentance. I John 3:9 means that the born-again person will not continually and habitually live in sin as a way of life. The child of God may backslide temporarily and fall into much sin, but he will not live in it permanently in an unrepentant state. See also Matt. 7:21-23; James 2:20; I John 2:4; I John 2:15; I John 3:3; I John 4:15."

This is well stated and represents the view of those old Baptists who wrote the oldest confessions, and represents the view of leading Hardshells of the 19th century, as has been shown. One can only hope that Guess will be able to reform his brethren and bring them back to the primitive faith of Baptists.

Guess wrote:

"One of the ways that God causes His people to turn from their sins and to persevere in holy living is chastisement. See I Cor. 11:32; Heb. 12:6."

Again, this is what is taught in scripture and in the old Baptist confessions. But, one must ask Guess how he can say this of those "born again" heathen worshippers of false gods, who have no faith in God and Christ? How can one please God apart from faith? (Heb. 11: 6) Do those "born again heathen" people "persevere in holy living" apart from faith in Christ?

Guess wrote:

"There are many Scriptures that people who believe that a child of God can fall from grace use to support their arguments. Most of the arguments can be refuted by the principle taught in I John 2:19, "They went out from us but were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." There are those who make a profession of faith, who seem to show some fruits of the Spirit temporarily, but who are not truly regenerated. In time they show their true colors and manifest their true nature. There is a possibility that some of these hypocrites never openly reveal their true nature in this life. See Matt. 13:30."

Again, this is the historic view of the old Baptists and what is abundantly taught in scripture. But, sad to say, this is not the view of the majority of today's Hardshells.

Guess wrote:

"To restate the doctrine of Perseverance, we say that this means that all of the saints shall persevere in faith and holiness. They will never permanently and fundamentally repudiate their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. While troubled by their sinful natures, they will nevertheless show evidences of their being alive in Christ. Grace in one's heart does not lead to a life of careless, licentious living. We believers in grace have been accused of believing it is okay to "continue in sin, that grace may abound." But we say, along with the Apostle Paul, "God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom. 6:2)"

Guess here says that "all of the saints shall persevere in faith and holiness." Again, it is the truth, and is what is being denied by many of today's Hardshells, but it is inconsistent for Guess to say this seeing he denies that all the regenerated possess faith in the one true and living God, and in his Son Jesus Christ, but remain polytheists.

Guess wrote:

"Preservation and Perseverance really represent two sides of the same coin. They inseparably go together."

Again, this is the teaching of scripture and of the old Baptist confessions. It is sad, however, that Guess does not also believe that regeneration and conversion "go inseparably together." Were he to come to believe this, then he would be even closer to true primitive Baptist doctrine. The old Baptist writers who penned the old confessions spoke of regeneration and conversion being "two sides of the same coin," a phrase Guess applies to preservation and perseverance. But, Guess denies that regeneration and conversion are "two sides of the same coin."

Guess wrote:

"Many, many Scriptures teach the doctrine of Perseverance and show the relationship between Preservation and Perseverance. One of these is I Cor. 15:10. There Paul says, "But by the grace of God I am what I am." (Preservation). "And his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all." (Perseverance). "Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (Preservation). Notice that Perseverance is dependent on Preservation. Notice also that God gets full credit for it all. God's children are responsible for doing good works, but when they are blessed to perform them, they must give all the glory to God for His enabling grace." See here for the article by Guess.

Again, Guess is to be applauded for his adherence to the old Baptist doctrine of the perseverance of the chosen and called, and it is hoped that he will be able to bring some of his brethren back to the old Baptist faith.

Guess closes his article by saying that "Elder Bradley preached the same views in a sermon on youtube."

It is no doubt the view of those who are connected with the "liberal movement" among the Hardshells, which is basically a reform movement, to get the Hardshells back to the beliefs of the old Baptists as stated in the London Confession, on both the use of means in regeneration and on perseverance. Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr. has been one of the leading preachers in the Hardshell cult for the past 45 years or so.

In closing this series of chapters on perseverance, let me mention how some Hardshells are trying to sound orthodox by saying they believe that "God perseveres in his preservation." This is similar to their attempts to ascribe faith to God in those passages where faith is put for a condition for salvation, where they say it is God's faith, God's believing and trusting in the work of his Son. But, the emphasis on perseverance in scripture is not on God persevering, but of the saints persevering. It is the saints who "continue in the faith," and who "do not practice sin," not God.

Chapter 98 - Hardshells and Predestination I

It seems best to begin this series on Hardshells and Predestination with the words of the London Confession of 1689 relative to God's decrees.

Chapter 3: Of God's Decree

1._____ God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )

2._____ Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.

( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

4.______These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

( 2 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18 )

5._____ Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.

( Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 9:13, 16; Ephesians 2:5, 12 )

6._____ As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

( 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 10; Romans 8:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:5; John 10:26; John 17:9; John 6:64 )

7._____ The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

( 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 5; 2 Peter 1:10; Ephesians 1:6; Romans 11:33; Romans 11:5, 6, 20; Luke 10:20 )

All "Primitive Baptists," of whatever faction, will accept articles 3-5 of the above confession, but will argue over the meaning of articles 1, 2, and 6. Some are guilty of violating the 7th article, for it is clear, from a study of the various conflicting views among Hardshells regarding predestination and the divine decrees, that have occurred throughout their beginning as a denomination, that they have not generally handled this topic with the "special prudence and care" as advised in article seven by the old London Baptists.

As was mentioned in the beginning of this book, the "Primitive Baptists" have several factions. One of those factions is called "Absoluter," because they profess to believe in the "absolute predestination of all things," and the other is generally known as the "Conditionalist" faction because they reject the idea that "all things" have been predestined by God. The "Absoluter Division," as it is called, was years in the making, but culminated in division of churches and associations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Each faction argued with each other both from scripture, and from Baptist tradition, as to who were "old line" Hardshells.

The "Absoluter" side clearly had both scripture and history on their side in their acceptance of the "absolute predestination of all things." This is what is clearly taught in the first two articles of the London Confession. The "Absoluter" side, however, did not handle the subject with prudence and care due to their adding of speculations and erroneous inferences, drawn from the confession and from the what is implied in the term "absolute predestination of all things." It seems clear to me that the "Absoluter" side went to one extreme on the doctrine of predestination and the divine decrees and the "Conditionalist" side went to another extreme.

The "Absoluter" faction was slower to deny means in regeneration and rejected the "Conditionalist" view that "conversion" was altogether unlike "regeneration," affirming rather that both were the work of God and effectually wrought by God, whereas the "Conditionalist" faction believed that "conversion" was not an irresistible experience as was regeneration. The "Conditionalist" faction took an Arminian approach to the experience of "conversion" and called it by a new name, by the term "time salvation," or "conditional time salvation."

The "Absoluter" faction were far more "antinomian" than the "Conditionalist" faction. They became extreme "Determinists," fatalistic. They believed that they would do as much good or wickedness as had been predestined, and they therefore felt no responsibility, thinking all was God's responsibility. One of the outcomes of this kind of thinking and preaching was that God, though getting "all the glory" for the "good works" done, also got all the blame for the lack of good works, and for sin and evil works.

The "Absoluter" faction denounced the "Conditionalist" side as being "Arminian," a charge that was true as regards their views on "conversion." They also denounced the new doctrine known as "conditional time salvation," one of the key doctrines of the "Conditionalist" side.

The "Conditionalist" side denounced the "Absoluter" side for believing that God was the "author of sin," that God is as much the same cause of evil works as good works.

Historically speaking, nearly all of the "Absoluter" side were supralapsarians and nearly all of the "Conditionalist" side were infralapsarians, which often was a point of argument among them.

Present day "Absoluter," James Poole, wrote:

"When the Black Rock Convention convened in 1832, among the committee to draft a resolution for consideration was Elder Gilbert Beebe, then only 31 years of age. During the proceedings his Prospectus for a paper to be devoted to the Old School was introduced and accepted by the entire assembly. Item two of his Prospectus read as follows: "The Absolute Predestination of all things.""

"The paper, to be called the "Signs of the Times," was launched shortly thereafter, and for a number of years was the only paper circulating among the Old School Baptists. For 49 years after, until his death in 1881, Beebe annually incorporated the original Prospectus in the pages of the "Signs" as it had become known. Make no mistake; the Baptists knew what Beebe was publishing, and moreover, it was generously and enthusiastically received and supported."

This evidence is strong and convincing and from my historical studies I can confirm the truthfulness of what Poole writes. The general view of the first Hardshells for the first forty years of so of their historical development embraced the doctrine of the "absolute predestination of all things," and what is clearly stated in the London Confession. It is the burden of the "Conditionalist" side to present the evidence to show that their views on predestination were the generally accepted views of the denomination during the period mentioned. It is their duty to explain the facts as given by Poole.

Poole cites Beebe as follows:

"No one who justly appreciates the intelligence of the Old School Baptists, can believe that they could read our paper for twenty-six years, and not know what are our religious sentiments. It is presumed there is not a person in the ranks of the Old School, or Primitive Baptist communion, whose doctrinal views are better understood by the Old School Baptists generally throughout the United States, than are those of the editor and publisher of this paper; and it is arrogant and presuming in persons of but ordinary intelligence, to assume that they know more than all the church of God, are better able to judge and detect heresy, and that they are competent to search the hearts and try the reins of men, and to affirm that men do hold doctrines which they constantly disavow. "But we leave all this to be considered by our brethren, and disposed of as our God may see fit, and our assailants to enjoy all that distinction and notoriety which their efforts to injure us may entitle them to, or earn for them. "Our circulation is now between six and seven thousand, and constantly increasing; and we have the assurance of many thousands of the scattered flock that they are edified and comforted by the perusal of the communications which have appeared in the Signs." (Elder Gilbert Beebe, Signs of the Times; December 15, 1858)

Again, this is simply more proof demonstrating the general belief in the "absolute predestination of all things" by the first Hardshells.

Poole said:

"All this makes it very plain, Conditional Time Salvation was not the doctrine of the Old Order of Baptists, and Absolute Predestination of all Things was the doctrine of the Old Order of Baptists." See here for Poole's article.

Poole ties together the denial of "Absolute Predestination of all things" with a belief in "Conditional Time Salvation." It is appropriate for him to do this, as history shows. There is a connection between these two areas of doctrine. Did one cause the other? Did a denial of the absolute predestination of all things produce the doctrine of "conditional time salvation"? Did the invention of the doctrine of "conditional time salvation" produce a denial in absolute predestination of all things?

Hardshell "Conditionalist" David Montgomery, wrote:

"The doctrine of Absolute Predestination was hotly debated throughout the 1800's and on into the 1900's." ("Church Divisions")

This is not all true. It was not the case that Absolutism was hotly debated "throughout the 1800's." As was said by Poole, this was not "hotly debated" for the first forty years or so of the Hardshell formative years. Rather, it was not till the late 1800s that it began to be "hotly debated." If Elder Montgomery has any information to show that the first Hardshells vehemently disagreed with Beebe and the "Signs of the Times," regarding predestination, then let him produce the evidence to prove it.

Montgomery wrote:

"In the Bonham Council of June 1902, Texas made it a test of fellowship. To contradict the Bonham Council, the Fort Worth Council of October 1902 adopted Absoluter language into their articles of faith which as accepted by several churches. Twenty years later, most of these elders were dead and their churches had disbanded. Only one elder, namely J. H. Fisher, came back to the mainline churches."

This statement shows how the separation between "Absoluters" and "Conditionalists" did not begin till the early 20th century, at least in Texas. It will be seen in this series how divisions in churches and associations continued throughout the early part of the 20th century.

It is interesting how Montgomery uses the decline of the "Absoluters" as proof that the "Absoluters" were the ones in error and not blessed of God. Why does Montgomery not use the same criterion for judging who was right in the division with the Mission Baptists? Is it not clear that the Mission Baptists grew by leaps in bounds throughout the 19th century while the Hardshells dwindled in numbers?

Montgomery wrote:

"It is my personal belief that the Bonham Council prevented Absolutism from taking a foot-hold in Texas and thus saved many of our churches. The eastern half of North Carolina is wasteland today because Absolutism ran amok. It also killed most of the churches that were planted in Washington and Oregon in the late 1800's. This is why I get real nervous when I hear Absoluter language in sermons today and get put out with folks who do not think it is such a big deal." See here for Montgomery's article.

Having established some of the history of the division among Hardshells over the doctrine of predestination, and introduced the London confession's statement on it, and given some general observations on the subject, I will in the next several chapters look more closely at the issues involved and discuss what Old Baptists taught on the subject as well as what the scriptures teach on it.

Chapter 99 - Hardshells and Predestination II

As was shown in the previous chapter, the London confession said:

"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass..." (Article 1 of Chapter 3 on "God's Decrees")

This is clearly an affirmation of the absolute predestination of all things. Thus, those Hardshells who affirm belief in it are therefore "primitive" on this doctrine, using the old confession as a standard. Though the word "predestinate" is not used, the confession nevertheless uses equivalent words which denote substantially the same thing. It uses the word "decreed." In systematic theologies the word "decree" is often used when discussing predestination.

Predestination involves what God has eternally decreed, what he has predetermined shall, or shall not, exist and "come to pass." Another word and idea connected with predestination is "will."  God's eternal decrees have to do with God "willing beforehand."  The divine decrees involve the "will of God." Thus, in discussing predestination one is essentially talking about what God has from eternity decreed or willed. There are of course other words used in scripture, in the confession, and in theological writings on the topic, such as predetermined, pre-ordained, purposed, and pre-appointed, etc.

The authors of the London Confession also believed that God's predestination (decrees) was "absolute," that is, "unchangeable," or "immutable." Further, God's decrees involve not just a few things, but "all things," or "whatsoever comes to pass." Therfore, it is clear that the "Conditionalist" faction does not believe what this article affirms. They rather limit predestination to only a few things that come to pass in time, often limiting it only to what pertains to the eternal salvation of the elect.

In chapter 5 on "Divine Providence" the confession says:

"Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or without his providence..." (chapter 5, article 2)

Notice again how the confession is clear that "all things that come to pass" are exactly what God has eternally decreed. Also, notice again how the confession affirmed that this decree is "immutable" and "infallible," that is "absolute." It denies belief in accident and "chance." God is the "first cause" of everything that exists or happens, of all "second causes."  They affirm that "not anything" (nothing) "befalls" (happens to) "anyone,"  any creature, "without his providence."  That is, all that occurs is by, with, or through his providence.  Will today's Conditionalist Hardshells endorse this primitive Baptist article?

The confession also states, in Chapter five, article four:

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends..."

In this section the confession uses the term "determinate counsel" instead of the word "decreed," and yet it is clearly talking about the same thing. The authors of the confession understood that God's "determinate counsel" (Acts 2: 23) was, in Greek, substantially the same word translated "predestination" in Romans eight and Ephesians one.  Also, I Corinthians 2: 7, Ephesians 2: 10, and Jude 1; 4 we have "before ordained," or "pre-ordained."  Many of the Conditionalist faction, however, will often say that the concept of "predestination" is only taught in those places where the verb or noun form of the English word is used in the King James Version.  This is an unlearned position, for the same, or similar Greek words, are used in several passages, in the KJV, though translated as "determined before" or "before ordained," or "determinate counsel," etc., to express the Greek idea.  Jesus said "the Son of man goeth, as it was determined."  (Luke 22: 22), or as it was predestined.

The confession says that God's decree, purpose, will, determinate counsel, foreknowledge, and predestination, "extends itself even to the first fall, and to all other sinful actions."  Today's Conditionalist Hardshells will not endorse this statement and have in fact repudiated it.  How then can they claim to be "primitive" Baptists?  The confession has already rejected the idea of "chance," and it did not view the fall of man as the result of chance, but as a result of what God had willed to occur. 

The confession does not deny the "permissive will" of God, but it does not accept it as a mere "bare permission."  They did not believe that God permitted apart from will and choice.  They no doubt endorsed the exposition given by Jermome Zanchius (1516-1590) in his work "Absolute Predestination."

Wrote Zanchius:

"From what has been laid down, it follows that Augustine, Luther, Bucer, the scholastic divines, and other learned writers are not to be blamed for asserting that 'God may in some sense be said to will the being and commission of sin.' For, was this contrary to His determining will of permission, either He would not be omnipotent, or sin could have no place in the world; but He is omnipotent, and sin has a place in the world, which it could not have if God will otherwise; for who hath resisted His will? (Rom. 9). Not one can deny that God permits sin, but He neither permits it ignorantly nor unwillingly, therefore knowingly and willingly."

The authors of the confession affirmed, like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and Zanchius, that nothing occurs apart from God's permission, and that this divine permission (acquiescence) was what was done willingly and knowingly, as Zanchius and others have said.  They recognized that the "permissive will" of God was still simply "the will of God." 

In Chapter three, article one, the confession states:

"...yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree." 

The confession is clear to state that its affirmation of the absolute predestination of all things does not, though it might seem to do so, imply that God is the immediate producer of evil acts, or is the direct and responsible cause for such acts, nor does it imply that men are not accountable or responsible.  The confession allows the "will of the creature" to be the immediate and direct cause, and that the will of the creature is one of those "second causes."  But, at the same time, the confession acknowledges that God is the "first cause," and this is a first principle that cannot be easily confronted or denied.

The confession states:

"...yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently." (chapter 5, article 2)

This is a repeat of what was said in the chapter on the divine decrees, where the will of the creature and second causes were acknowledged.  The confession believes that human choice is somehow compatible with divine sovereignty and predestination, though the confession makes little effort to demonstrate how they are compatible.  The deniers of the absolute predestination of all things often argue that it is not compatible with human responsibility and therefore reject the former as being truth.  Wrote Spurgeon:

"That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring."
("Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility," 1858)

The confession also stated:

"...yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin." (chapter 5, article 4)

The confession denies that God's predestination of all things destroys the accountability of the creatures, and affirms that the sinful acts of creatures are wilful acts, and that God's decree lay no compulsion upon the creature, but nevertheless included those acts.  The confession denies that the absolute predestination of all things makes God to be the "author of sin." 

In chapter five of the confession, on "Divine Providence," the confession states:

5.___The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations and the corruptions of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself; and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for other just and holy ends. So that whatsoever befalls any of his elect is by his appointment, for his glory, and their good.

Again, the confession is clear in affirming that "whatsoever befalls any of his elect is by his appointment."  Today's Hardshell Conditionalists will not affirm this article, and therefore, they cannot claim to be primitive or original in their beliefs on predestination.

The confession also states, in the same section:

6.___As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as the righteous judge, for former sin doth blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understanding, and wrought upon their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, under those means which God useth for the softening of others.

Here the confession affirms how sin results from the will of God.  God's withholding of his grace results in sin.  Just as withdrawing one's grasp of a stone, by letting it go, causes it to fall, so does God's withdrawing of his grace cause moral falling.  Of course, gravity was the primary cause of the stone's falling, and the sinful nature and will of creatures are the primary cause of their moral falling.

The confession continues:

7.__As the providence of God doth in general reach to all creatures, so after a more special manner it taketh care of his church, and disposeth of all things to the good thereof.

Again, just as Paul, who said that "all things work together for good to those who love God" (Rom. 8: 28), so does the confession affirm the same in the above words.

In chapter 6, "Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof," the confession states:

1.__Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

Notice again how the confession affirms that the fall of Adam had been "purposed" by God, it being what was part of his permissive will.  Yet, at the same time, the confession affirms that God's willing and purposing the fall did not force Adam to transgress. 

In concluding this chapter, it becomes clear that the old London confession affirmed the predestination of all things and that such predestination was combatible with responsibility and human choice.  In the rest of the chapters in this series, these points will be enlarged upon.

Chapter 100 - Hardshells and Predestination III

In the year 1900, fifty one "Primitive Baptist" elders assembled in Fulton, Kentucky to affirm their historical adherence to the London Confession of Faith (1689) but to add their interpretation of certain sections of it in the form of "Footnotes." The footnotes mainly dealt with those sections dealing with means in salvation and with predestination, two areas which were sources of controversy for the newly formed denomination. In regard to chapter three of the London Confession, the Fulton Convention wrote:

"This clearly distinguishes between God’s attitude to sin and His attitude and relation to holiness. A failure to make this distinction has been a fruitful source of division and distress of our holy cause, and a failure to so distinguish between God’s permissive and overruling decree of sin and His causative decree of holiness will ever cause distress and confusion among our people. This distinction is expressed in the last clause of Section 4 of Chapter V.: “Which also He most wisely and powerfully boundeth and otherwise ordereth and governeth in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures and not from God.”, etc. Chapter VI., last part of Section 1: “Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to seduce Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who without any compulsion did willfully transgress the law of their creation and the command given unto them in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.” We believe that God is perfect in wisdom and knowledge, knowing all things both good and evil from the beginning that would take place in time. That He is a Perfect Sovereign over all things, and that He absolutely and causatively predestinated all His works of creation and eternal salvation of His elect."

Obviously the debate over the extent of predestination is evident from these words from the Fulton Convention. It is also quite obvious that the Convention was made up solely of those who took the "Conditionalist" side. This is obvious from the consequences that the authors of the above footnote addressed to those who believed in the predestination of all things. It is implied that those "Primitive Baptists" who believed in the predestination of all things did not make a distinction between God's attitude and relation toward holiness and his attitude and relation toward sin.  But, this perceived consequence of the "Absoluter" side was not generally acknowledged by them, as anyone who has read Absoluter writings must know.  Nearly all of them stated, like the confession, that God is the determiner of all things and yet he is not the author of moral evil, nor delights in sin.  However, like Sylvester Hassell stated, some of the Aboluter Hardshell founding fathers who held to the absolute predestination of all things sometimes used "unguarded expressions." 

The problem that the Fulton Convention wrestled with deals with the relationship between predestination and divine causality.  The Conditionalist thinks that God's predestinating all things means that he is, in every way, the cause of all things.  But, though God is the "first cause" of all things, he is not the "cause" in every respect, for there are "second causes."  Are the Fulton elders denying that God is the "first cause" as the London Confession affirms?  Is not the "first cause" the cause of all subsequent causes, of all "second causes"?  Aristotle referred to four different kinds of causes, such as the "material cause," the "formal cause," the "efficient cause," and the "final cause."  Other philosophers on causality also speak of an effect being the result of "multi-causes," of "instrumental causes," necessary causes, and "sufficient causes," and "contributory causes," etc.  In science and philosophy "etiology" is the study of causation.

The subject of "Divine Causality" is at the heart of any discussion on predestination (divine decrees) and providence.  It also deals with theodicy, with dealing with the "problem of evil," especially within the Christian tradition.  The problem of evil was first discussed by the Greek philosopher Epicurus (371- 270 BC).  The  logical "Problem of Evil" may be seen in four core propositions:

1. An all-powerful (omnipotent) God could prevent evil from existing in the world.
2.  An all-knowing (omniscient) God would know that there was evil in the world.
3.  An all-good (omnibenevolent) God would wish to prevent evil from existing in the world.
4.  There is evil in the world.

Justifying the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and immutable God, and his purpose in creation, and his government of his creation, is what theists and Christians attempt to do when dealing with the problem of evil.  It is an attempt to "justify the ways of God to men." 

Philosophical discussions of the problem of evil come under the term "determinism."  Theological discussions of the problem of evil come under the terms "predestination" and "divine decrees."  How the Hardshells deal with the problem of evil reflects their views on predestination and divine sovereignty. 

The Fulton brethren spoke of "...God’s permissive and overruling decree of sin and His causative decree..." These brethren erred in not seeing how God's permissive will and decree was in some sense "causative."

It is common for theologians and philosophers to divide the will of God into at least two kinds and use various adjectives to differentiate them.  On one side is God's permissive will, this being what God allows, lets, suffers, or permits to occur without directly or efficiently causing it.  This will of sufferance is set in contrast to that will which is often called decretive, sovereign, efficacious, irresistible, causative, what he himself determines to directly bring into being.  Some of these adjectives are not proper, however, being what may be said of both kinds of the divine will.  The Fulton brethren chose to call God's permissive will an "overruling decree," what is not a "causative decree."   The best adjective, however, for distinguishing these two kinds of divine willing are the words resistible and irresistible. 

We know that there is a will of God that is causative and irresistible.  Paul agrees with the idea that none can resist the will of God.  (Rom. 9: 19)  Here the "will of God" refers to his sovereign irresistible will, what he decrees shall occur and what necessarily occurs as a result of such a willing, decreeing, and purposing.  But, the moral law of God is also the "will of God."  But, this is not his willing irresistibly, but a decree of what he wills that men do of their own will.  Thus, the divine oracle that says - "you shall not murder" - if it were a sovereign irresistible decree would prevent murder from occurring.  But, as a moral decree it does not irresistibly bring about the end decreed.  It is a rule to be voluntarily obeyed.

The main question to be addressed is whether God's permission and sufferance of events is in any sense causative?  Is it in any way part of God's eternal decrees and purposes.  In other words, can anything come to pass apart from God permissively willing it?  Is divine permission necessary for the occurrence of all events that he does not directly cause?

Many affirm that God's permissive will is not in any sense a cause of what is permitted, and that his permissive will is different from his will of purpose in this regard, as if God had no purpose in what he suffers and permits.     

The most popular "defense" for "solving" the difficulties involved in accepting the above propositions is the "free will defense." 

From the philosoplyofreligion.info web page, the writers say:

"In order to refute the argument from moral evil, then, the theist must show that it is not necessarily the case that if God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil. Under what circumstances, though, for what reason, might such a God allow such evil?

Theists almost invariably meet this question with the free-will defence. Moral evil is caused by the free choices of moral agents, they argue. Free agency, though, is a good thing; a world containing free agents is far better than either a world containing only automata or a world containing no conscious beings at all. An omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God would therefore create a world containing free agents, and in doing so would run the risk of allowing moral evil to enter into the world.

The first way in which the free-will defence works, then, is by distancing God from the moral evil in the world. Moral evil is not brought about by God, the free-will defence argues, but by free agents. God is therefore not the author of moral evil, and so is not responsible for it."

"This conclusion might be criticised, however, in the following way: Even if it is the free agents that perpetrate moral evils that are directly responsible for them, God does seem to bear at least some indirect responsibility for them. After all, God created the free agents, knowing full well the risk that he was running in doing so, and is therefore at least partly to blame for their abuses of their freedom. God it can be argued, is guilty of negligence in creating free agents, even if not of actually perpetrating any moral crimes himself."

"The second way in which the free-will defence works is in justifying the existence of moral evil by justifying God’s creation of free agents. The existence of moral evil, the free-will defence argues, is a consequence of the existence of a greater good: free will. Without free will there could be no moral goodness; a world without free agents would be morally void. The good that is the existence of free moral agents, it is suggested, therefore outweighs the bad that is the existence of moral evil, and God therefore did well in creating free agents even though he knew that some of them would commit moral evils."

"Others have thought that the free-will defence fails because God could have created free agents without risking bringing moral evil into the world. There is nothing logically inconsistent about a free agent that always chooses the good. There are, then, among all of the possible free agents that God might have created, some free agents that would always have chosen the good. Why, it is sometimes asked, did God not create those free agents, leaving the others uncreated?"

"A further criticism of the free-will defence imagines a human being using it to justify his failure to intervene to prevent a crime from being committed. If one of us were able to prevent a brutal murder, but instead allowed it to take place, then we could not justify our inaction using the free-will defence. If we were to say that although we could have prevented the murder, we thought it best to protect the free-will of the murderer by allowing him to carry out his plan, then we would be judged to have made a moral error. Why, if this argument would be unacceptable coming from a human being, should we think it any more acceptable coming from God?"

Let us take a look at a chain of causes.  I am a sinner.  But, why?  Is this not the effect of some cause(s)?  Scripturally speaking, the cause of my being a sinner is because I sin.  Being a sinner is the effect of having sinned.  But, what was the cause of my sinning?  My choice or will to sin.  But, what caused my will to choose sin?  A depraved nature.  But, why do I have a depraved nature?  The sin of Adam, the first man, was the cause of my having a depraved nature.  But, why did Adam sin?  What was the cause of his choice to transgress?  His mutability and freedom of choice.  Why is Adam mutable and free to choose?  Because God gave Adam those qualities?  Why did God give Adam those qualities?

Thus, we have traced the cause of sin back to God, the first cause in the chain of causes.  Therefore, it is false to say that God is, in no sense, is the cause of moral evil.  In law and etiology there is the "but for" standard used in determining cause.  "But for" this, then this (effect) would not have occurred.  Of course, this is used to prove that a thing was, in some way, a cause, without determining the nature or kind of cause.  Is it a minor or major cause?  Only a contributing cause of several causes or a singular cause?  Is it a cause that merits culpability and moral and legal "responsibility"?  Though it is undeniable that God is, as the Bible and the old Baptist confessions affirm, the "first cause" of all things, including moral evil, yet it does not teach that he is therefore to "blame" for it.  Atheists contend that God, the first cause, if he existed, must be to "blame" for all of man's sins and failures.  They believe that a First Cause that foreknows all things cannot help escaping "blame."  Therefore, they reject the idea of God, or of a God who has foreknowledge of all things. 

Some theists and Christians, not giving up faith in God's existence, and not being able to deny the reality of moral evil, have sought to "defend" God by denying his omniscience and his forekowledge of all things.  These are called "Open Theism" and their theodicy deals with what is called "Process Theology."  Process theology says that God is not simple "being" but "becoming" (Process).  God is not stable, nor immutable, in process theology.  God cannot totally control any series of events nor of any individual, but can only "influence" creature free will. In other words, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will.  Some aregue that God, in giving creatures free will, limited his foreknowledge and so does not see or know what will be the choices of his creatures. 

Hardshells, however, do not deny God's omniscience (including his foreknowledge), omnipotence, and immutability.  They believe, as scriptures and the old confesions teach, that God knows all things.  And, if he knows all things, this would include all future things.  They know that God is not ignorant of anything, does not increase in knowledge, nor learn anything.

So, they have to acknowledge that God foreknew what would be the result of creating Adam mutable and with free will.  And, they cannot deny that God made Adam anyway, knowing what would result from his making Adam as he did.  So, why do they deny that God is in some sense the cause of Adam's sin?  In human legal philosophy no one would deny that God was a cause of Adam's sin.  Suppose I created a product that I know in advance will bring a great evil.  Suppose further that I go ahead and create that product anyway.  Who would say that I was not, in some way, responsible, as a cause, for the evil caused by the product?

No one can deny that God is the "first cause," and that he is, in some sense, responsible for the sin of Adam.  No Conditionalist Hardshell can deny it.  If we cannot reconcile our belief that God is not "culpable" and to "blame" for the existence of moral evil with the foregoing facts, we ought not, on this basis to throw away belief in God's omniscience and omnipotence, his universal providence, nor his being the good, holy, and righteous, and not morally to be blamed for the existence of moral evil.  We cannot allow our inability to comprehend these great mysteries, these seeming contradictions and paradoxes, to decide whether to accept any biblical premise or proposition.  We are to accept by faith all biblical propositions even though some of them seem to us to be incapatible. 

What I am condemning is the idea that rejects the idea that absolute predestination of all things is to be rejected because it seems to make God the author or cause of sin.  Will our devotion to the latter proposition lead us to reject that God is omniscient and omnipotent to save his holiness and justness?  Will Hardshells become "open theists"?  Will they deny that God is the "first cause"?  Will they deny that God made Adam foreknowing that he would sin?  Will they quit saying that God is, in no sense, the cause of sin and evil?  That is a foolish view!  The only ones who may properly say such a thing are the open theists who deny that God has foreknowledge of all things.   

Commenting on chapter five, the Fulton document says:

"Should not be construed to mean that God directs and governs all creatures and things in all they do, so that He brings to pass all their acts, both good and evil."

But, that is exactly what the London Confession said!  The Fulton brethren are distorting the clear meaning of the words and intentions of the words of the confession.  Hardshell apologist, Elder R. V. Sarrels, who wrote a twentieth century "Systematic Theology" for the Hardshell cause, said this about the Fulton brethren's "footnote" regarding the confession's affirmation that God has decreed the existence of evil and the occurrence of sin.  Sarrels said that Hardshells "do not believe" chapter three of the London Confession, dealing with predestination, and says that the Fulton Convention's footnote was an attempt "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY." (Systematic Theology, pages 109, 110)

The footnote wants to adhere to the proposition that affirms that "God directs and governs all creatures and things in all they do," but want to also affirm the proposition that says "so that He brings to pass all their acts."  Had the footnote said "so that He is not the culpable cause of all their acts," there would be no problem.   But, in order to avoid a contradiction in their minds, they remove God from having any causal responsibility at all for the acts of men, and this is blind denial of the obvious.  How can they deny that God made Adam, and "but for" God not making Adam, there would be no moral evil in the world.  How can they deny that God foreknew that Adam would sin and yet made him any way? 

It is often the case that a person will himself go to an extreme when fighting an extreme.  The Conditionalist went to the extreme in denying that God is, in some sense, the cause of sin, and in denying that he his the foreknowing first cause of all things? 

The Fulton brethren, in one of their footnotes on the confession, wrote:

"We understand this section to teach that while God does not cause men to sin, nor is His predestination in its attitude to sin causative, yet that He exercises such a control over all His creatures as that all chance and uncertainty is excluded from the universe."

http://www.paradisepbc.org/Articles/Historical%20Confessions/Fulton%20Confession%201900.pdf

Here the Conditionalist Hardshells deny that God is not, in any sense, the "cause" of sin!  This is their grave mistake.  It is ironic to see them involve themselves into a contradiction, by such a denial, knowing that their historical quest has been to be "consistent," to be able to reconcile all things, to escape believing in seemingly incompatible propositions.  This attempt at consistency has caused them to deny that God is in some sense a cause of moral evil.  If God is not a cause, in some sense, then how can you consistently affirm that God made Adam?  And, that he made him knowing what the effect would be?  Was God, in any sense, a cause of the crucifixion of Christ?  Was God, in any sense, a cause of Joseph's being sold into Egypt? 

Here is what the Bible affirms about God's predestination, creation, providence, and government of "all things."

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who^[i] have been called according to his purpose."  (Rom. 8: 28)

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."  (Rom. 11: 36)

^"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."  (Eph. 1: 11)

"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: 6)

"For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."  (I Cor. 11: 12)

"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."  (II Cor. 5: 18)

The Hardshell Conditionalist will not accept the idea that "all things," in these passages, literally mean all things and will therefore always make the "all things" of these verses to mean only "some things."  But, they do this a lot, taking universal propositions and making them into limited ones, and vice versa.

Consider all such verses as these, stating the same idea.

"Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?"  (Lam. 3: 37)

On this verse, Dr. Gill wrote:

"[when] the Lord commandeth [it] not? has not willed and decreed it, but determined the contrary; for nothing escapes his knowledge and foreknowledge; or can resist his will; or control his power; or frustrate his councils, and counterwork his designs; whatever schemes men form to get riches, obtain honour, do mischief to others, prolong life to themselves, and perpetuate their names to posterity, being contrary to the purpose of God, never succeed; whenever they do succeed in any of the above instances, it is because God has commanded, or he has determined, it should be so; as in the instances of Joseph's brethren, in their usage of him; and of the Jews, in the crucifixion of Christ, Pr 16:9."

The Fulton brethren seemed to want to agree with such statements, for they denied that anything happens by chance or uncertainly. But, by their denial that God is, in some sense, a cause of moral evil, they are affirming chance and uncertainty!

The Absoluter side also had their extremes.  Those will be discussed in this series.