Chpt. 10 - Hardshellism on Infants & Idiots

Chapter Ten - Hardshellism & The Infant & Idiot

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

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

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

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

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


Michael Gowens wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

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

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

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

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

Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith

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

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

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

Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

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

(Titus 3:2-5 )

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

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

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

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

Rather, they said this:

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

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

"29. Do Primitive Baptists preach infants in Hell?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David's language is similar to Paul, who said, "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace..." (Gal. 1:15) David says, "I was cast upon you from the womb...you made me hope on my mother's breast."

Now, there is no example where an infant was regenerated without the means of the word of God. Does it happen? It may. David's son died, and believed that he would "go to him." (II Sam. 12:23)

As I said earlier, this area of study is very difficult. Why? Because the Bible does not say anything specifically about it. All we do, as Bible students, on this topic, is make inferences and deductions, upon certain passages. But, we have no clear cut scripture anywhere that specifically says, "ALL WHO DIE IN INFANCY WILL GO TO HEAVEN," Nor, do the scriptures even clearly define "infant" for us, which it would, it seems to me, if this was a clearly revealed and serious doctrinal point. Can I prove that some have been regenerated, miraculously, while still in the womb, or as a suckling, or as a very young tot? No, I do not have a single scripture that would clearly substantiate it. I can only infer or surmise that what John the Baptist experienced was his "regeneration." I can only speculate that what David meant by "hoping" upon his mother's breast was his "regeneration."

Hardshells, like Cayce, often argue from the words of Christ, that "except you be converted," and "become as little children," "you cannot enter the kingdom," or from the words, "except you receive the kingdom as a little child you cannot enter therein." (Matt. 18:2-5).

They argue that such verses support the "Spirit Alone" or "anti-means" position, because, they say, it affirms that infants do "enter the kingdom" and are "converted." And further, that "adults" are "converted" and "enter the kingdom" just as the infant.

All of this argument flies in their face, however, for the text is talking about "conversion," something that Cayce and the Hardshells affirm is NOT "regeneration!" But now, since it seems to suit their case, conversion becomes regeneration!

But since it is talking about "conversion," something that the Hardshells confess belongs to the Gospel only, then it certainly couldn't have been infants of days or weeks! The context of those passages make it clear that they were "toddlers" and not babes. For Christ spoke of the saints as encouraging such to "come to Christ" and of not "offending" them. This does not describe a newborn. All Christ was affirming, was that the disciples needed the grace of "humility" (repentance) to be saved. This humility is exemplified in "toddlers," though not in newborns.

Hardshells are "grasping for straws" in such argumentation. Hardshell argumentation along this line reflects again how deeply they appear to be in error on the doctrines of "Original Sin" and "Total Depravity." They not only think it unjust and unfair for God to damn the heathen who have never heard, but also of any infant or idiot. However, God is just to damn these classes of men who sinned in Adam.

The Hardshell I cited earlier from www.pb.org, said:

"The scriptures teach certain infants have experienced spiritual birth (Ps 8:2, Ps 22:9, Mt 11:25, Mt 21:16, Lk 1:15, Lk 1:41) even though infants are incapable of receiving the preached word.

I have shown his statement above to be absolutely false. He said, "infants are incapable of receiving the preached word. I have shown that this is not true, that "with men this is impossible but with God all things are possible." I contend that the statement made by Brother Gowens, that men are unaware of the time that they are born again, come to know the Lord, is not in accordance with the sacred record. King David certainly was aware of when it was that he came to have hope in God, for he recalls it, telling of both when and where it was. So too, John the Baptist was so aware of what was going on that he "leaped for joy" when "hearing (and understanding) the salutation of Mary." So, how can it be true then that the infant is "incapable of receiving the preached word." Is that true when the power of the Holy Ghost attends that word?

Hardshells, like Cayce, often argue from the words of Christ, that "we must be converted," and "enter the kingdom as a little child" (Matt. 18:2-5).

They argue that the statement, "as a little child," means, "in precisely the same way as the infant." Again, they are trying to use the exceptional cases of infant regeneration and make them the standard for everyone else. They think that if they can prove the regeneration of infants, then they have greatly given weight to their Hardshell system of salvation, to their "Spirit Alone" or "anti-means" position, their "Direct Speaking" views of the effectual call.


John Calvin writes:

"But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be regenerated by the Lord. ...Many He certainly has called and endued with true knowledge of Himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching." [John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Vol.11, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1962), p. 541,542]

Again, many theologians, including Baptists, believe as John Calvin and the Old Baptist believed and expressed in the Old Confession. Again, for whatever it is worth, many would agree with the Hardshells on the fact that infants are regenerated apart from the means of preaching.

Let me now cite from Taylor on this line of argument, on the infant, that is made by the Hardshells.

"The third heresy of Hardshellism and the one which is the tap root of nearly all other heresies, which they teach is their enmity to the gospel. They do not preach the gospel. They deny that the gospel is to be preached to the lost. They affirm in debate that adults are saved without the gospel as truly as infants.

They teach the unheard of, unnatural and unscriptural notion that a child can be born of a father without a mother. They say that infants and adults alike are born of the Holy Spirit and without the Word of God. The Missionary Baptist, who says the heathen can be saved without the gospel, is a hardshell heretic and ought to be disciplined by his church for the worst of heresies. Heresy as to how men are saved is the worst of heresies and the man who says the heathen can be saved without the gospel is a heretic as to how men are saved.

The Lord Jesus told Nicodemus: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). The new birth is one birth of two elements. The water is a type or symbol of the Word. Eph. 5:26: " That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Campbellites say men are born of the Word without the Spirit; Hardshells say they are born of the Spirit without the Word.

Both are alike heretical as to the new birth. If any difference, Campbellites are less dangerous than Hardshells, for they do believe in preaching the Word to sinners. And if Christ is preached by them to sinners the Holy Spirit may occasionally enable a sinner to see Christ and lay hold on him. That is never true of Hardshellism, for they never preach Christ to sinners. Both Campbellites and Hardshells are heretical on the new birth; and since men cannot be saved without the new birth neither Campbellism nor Hardshellism, in their unadultered form, ever saved any sinner. Men are not saved by the Spirit without the Word nor by the Word without the Spirit. They must be born of the Word and the Spirit, if they would enter the kingdom of God. Hardshellism has no place for any such Scriptures because it denies that the Word has anything to do in the salvation of the lost.

We have called attention to the heresies of Hardshellism on the doctrine of God's sovereignty, election and the plan of salvation. They are as fatally heretical as to man's free agency as they are on God's sovereignty. In their teaching that men and women are saved in this land and in heathen lands just like infants are, they deny human responsibility and accountability. An intelligent man is no more responsible for his own acts, according to Hardshellism, than an idiot or an infant. "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matt 12:36,37). If, as Hardshellism teaches, infants and adults are saved exactly alike, then no man is responsible for his own sins or his disrespect or disobedience to God's law or his rejection of Christ or his damnation in hell. The logic of Hardshellism is can't-help-it-ism. If, as Hardshellism teaches, adults and infants are saved exactly alike, the judgment is a farce; for adults are no more accountable for their deeds than infants are. But if, as the Bible teaches, both in heathen lands and in lands where the Bible is preached, God "who will render to every man according to his deeds" (Rom 2:6) then Hardshellism is a lie and men will be damned for their own sins and not for Adam's sin, nor because they can't help it. They will be punished every man for his own deeds. And as God "now commandeth all men everywhere to repent, because he hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:30-31) by the Lord Jesus; therefore adults and infants are not judged, condemned or saved on the same basis and Hardshellism is a lie. Infants who die in infancy are all saved because Christ bore the Adamic sin for all Adam's race. "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" ( Jn. 1:29). Adults will be judged and condemned for their own sins. Those who are saved will be saved because they heard, repented and trusted in the Son of God, "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (I Peter 2:24). That is why the Master commanded us to preach the gospel to every creature. Adults cannot be saved without hearing the gospel and believing in Christ. God said so in Rom.10:11-14: "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Growing out of the Hardshell notion that infants and adults are saved in exactly the same way are a whole brood of deadly, soul destroyed heresies. If infants and adults are saved alike, then God can as justly send infants to hell as adults, and that is why the two seed Hardshells as well as John Calvin said there would be infants in hell a span long. If infants and adults are saved alike, then if all infants will go to heaven, all adults will go to heaven, too; and Hardshells who teach Universalism are logically in line with this theory. Some infants in hell or all adults in heaven is the logic of Hardshellism. The only way around that logic is two seedism, which teaches that some men are children of God and some are the children of the devil from all eternity. Of course if that is true there is no necessity for preaching the gospel to anybody; for the saved are already saved and the lost are already damned. But that hell born lie denies these fundamental Bible doctrines: universal, hereditary depravity; the necessity of Christ's atonement; the necessity of the new birth; the work of the Holy Spirit; the need of preaching the gospel; evangelical repentance and saving faith; a just judgment seat of Christ, etc., etc. But that isn't all. If adults and infants are saved exactly alike, then men are not accountable to the government for their violations of law any more than infants are. The logic of Hardshellism would do away with law and courts and prisons and make every man, like a baby, a law unto himself; and this whole world would be a Russia ruled by a lawless mob. Hardshellism is the enemy of both law and gospel. It would logically destroy both. And the so called Missionary Baptist who does nothing for missions is as truly an enemy of Christ and the gospel as Hardshellism." (Bible Briefs Against Hurtful Heresies By H. BOYCE TAYLOR, Sr.)

Brother Taylor makes several good points here on the Hardshell argumentation on the infant. One of the best points concerns the fact that Hardshell views have a person being born without a "mother!" Since they are so keen, in their "logic," to make everything in the figure of birth to match perfectly with the work of regeneration, where God is clearly the one who begets, or fathers, the elect in their new birth, where is the mother, Hardshell? Is it not as Elder Pyles said, that "sheep make sheep?" The "mother" is none other than the Church, other Christians, who have been used by God, as a means, in bringing to life dead sinners.