Chpt. 119 - Conditional or Unconditional?

Having shown in the previous two series how regeneration was the result of both the mediate and immediate work of the Spirit, and has both active and passive aspects, we will in this series prove that both the scriptures and the old Baptist writings prove that salvation is both unconditional and conditional.  First, let us notice how the old Baptists were strong advocates of unconditional salvation.  In Spencer's History of the Kentucky Baptists, we read:

"Thus was Elkhorn Association constituted, on Saturday, October 1, 1785. William Cave was chosen Moderator. The Association decided that all matters of business should be determined by a majority. At the request of Gilberts Creek, the oldest church in the Association, a committee was sent to inquire into its standing. In answer to a query from Tates Creek,the churches were advised to use all tenderness to reclaim persons holding the error of conditional salvation, but if they could not be reclaimed, to exclude them." (Spencer's History of Kentucky Baptists Volume II, 1886 - See here)

Clearly the old Baptists of the 18th century condemned "conditional salvation."  But, lest one read too much into this, one should discern what they were condemning and what they were not condemning.  They certainly were not condemning the teaching that men must believe and repent in order to be saved.  This is clear from the fact that the Elkhorn Association at its inauguration adopted the Philadelphia Confession of faith which clearly taught that gospel faith and repentance were necessary for eternal salvation.

Elder Michael Gowens, present day Hardshell writer, wrote:

"Further, the Bible employs both unconditional and conditional language. In one text we are told that salvation is “ordered in all things and sure”; in another that a person is saved “if [he] keeps in memory what was preached” (2 Sam. 23:5; 1 Cor. 15:2). How can the same object be both unconditional and conditional simultaneously? How can it both depend on man and not depend on man at the same time? Obviously, the only legitimate way of interpreting these kinds of apparently contrary ideas is to understand that not every “salvation” verse is talking about salvation in the ultimate sense." ("Temporal Salvation" - See here)

In these words there is revelation of the problem that modern Hardshells have as regards the historic teaching of the old Baptists regarding unconditional salvation.  Gowens admits that salvation in the Bible "employs both unconditional and conditional language" and sees this as contradictory and then queries - "How can the same object be both unconditional and conditional simultaneously?"  He then answers his own query by saying "the only legitimate way of interpreting" such incongruity is "to understand that not every 'salvation' verse is talking about salvation in the ultimate sense."  But, this is not the "only" way to deal with the incongruity, and is certainly not the "way" the old Baptists who wrote the old London Confession of 1689 resolved the seeming difficulty, as we shall see.   

Claude Cayce, Hardshell debater, wrote:

"A saving knowledge and faith in Christ does not come through the gospel; but one must have that before he can be reached through the gospel. God does not reach them in the work of regeneration though preaching. If He does, then that involves the idea that their eternal salvation is conditional."   (Cayce's Editoria Writings, Volume 6, page 176)

This statement shows again how the Hardshells carried the old Baptist doctrine of unconditional salvation to an extreme and how they did not properly understand it.  The old Baptists of the 17th century taught unconditional salvation but they did not see a need to invent the novel doctrine of "time salvation," or of "two salvations," as today's Hardshells maintain, nor did they believe, as did Cayce, that unconditional salvation excluded the idea that "saving knowledge and faith in Christ" were  necessary for being eternally saved. 

Elder John R. Daily, another leading Hardshell apologist and debater, wrote:

"To suppose that eternal life as experienced in the soul by regeneration comes through the instrumentality of the Scriptures is no less an error than the conditional theory. In fact this is but another form of conditionalism..." (August 1899, Vol. 38, No. 8)

Daily condemns the biblical teaching that God regenerates through the gospel because, in his mind, it is contrary to the old Baptist doctrine of unconditional salvation.  The odd thing about Daily's view is that he has no qualms about accepting "conditionalism" as it respects "time salvation."  He thinks that the idea that eternal salvation is conditional is "an error" but the idea that "time salvation" is conditional is no error.  Daily thinks that affirming that conversion is necessary for being eternally saved is to be rejected because it is a "form of conditionalism."  To Daily, the only way to uphold unconditional salvation is to affirm that faith and repentance are not requirements for being eternally saved.  But, this is not what the scriptures nor the oldest Particular Baptists taught, as we shall see.

Sylvester Hassell, another great leader of the Hardshells, wrote:

"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation (Gen. iii. 15; xii. 3; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Psalm cx. 3; Isa. xxvii. 13; xxxv. 10; xlii. 16; xlv. 17; liii.-lv.; Jer. xxxi. 33-37; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; xxxvii. 1-14; Zech. xii. 10-14; xiii. 1, 7-9; Matt. i. 21; xxv. 34; John vi. 37-40; x. 15, 27-30; xvii. 2, 3, 24; Acts xiii. 48; Rom. v. 19-21; viii. 28-39; Eph. i.-iii.; 2 Thess. 13, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10; 1 Pet. i., ii.; 1 John v. 11, 12; Rev. i. 5, 6; xxi. 27)."  ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Conditionalism" by Sylvester Hassell, The Gospel Messenger—September, 1894 - See here)

Hassell here states the answer to the problem that evaded Gowens, Cayce, and Daily.  The view that Hassell states is the same that was expressed by the old Baptists of the 17th century, as we shall see.  Hassell is affirming that salvation is both conditional and unconditional and does not see the solution in creating various kinds of salvation, in creating a paradigm of time and eternal salvation.  Hassell says that the "conditional promises" do not contradict the unconditional nature of salvation, for the conditional promises are secured by God's unconditional decision to ensure that the conditions are met by the elect. 

John Bunyan (1628-1688) wrote:

"The difference, therefore, betwixt the absolute and conditional promise is this: (1.) They differ in their terms. The absolute promises say, I will, and you shall: the other, I will, if you will; or, Do this, and thou shalt live (Jer 4:1; 31:31-33; Eze 18:30-32; 36:24-34; Heb 8:7-13; Matt 19:21).(2.) They differ in their way of communicating of good things to men; the absolute ones communicate things freely, only of grace; the other, if there be that qualification in us, that the promise calls for, not else. (3.) The absolute promises therefore engage God, the other engage us: I mean, God only, us only. (4.) Absolute promises must be fulfilled; conditional may, or may not be fulfilled. The absolute ones must be fulfilled, because of the faithfulness of God; the other may not, because of the unfaithfulness of men.(5.) Absolute promises have therefore a sufficiency in themselves to bring about their own fulfilling; the conditional have not so. The absolute promise is therefore a big-bellied promise, because it hath in itself a fullness of all desired things for us; and will, when the time of that promise is come, yield to us mortals that which will verily save us; yea, and make us capable of answering of the demands of the promise that is conditional. 4. Wherefore, though there be a real, yea, an eternal difference, in these things, with others, betwixt the conditional and absolute promise; yet again, in other respects, there is a blessed harmony betwixt them; as may be seen in these particulars. The conditional promise calls for repentance, the absolute promise gives it (Acts 5:31). The conditional promise calls for faith, the absolute promise gives it (Zeph 3:12; Rom 15:12). The conditional promise calls for a new heart, the absolute promise gives it (Eze 36:25,26). The conditional promise calleth for holy obedience, the absolute promise giveth it, or causeth it (Eze 36:27)."

Clearly Hassell, unlike Gowens, Cayce, and Daily, reflected the views of Bunyan and the 17th century Baptists, who saw a harmony between the conditionality and unconditionality of salvation, and did not see a need to create a false paradigm where all the conditional promises related to temporal salvation and all the unconditional promises related to eternal salvation.  Bunyan believed that salvation was both conditional and unconditional.

Bunyan continued:

"And as they harmoniously agree in this, so again the conditional promise blesseth the man, who by the absolute promise is endued with its fruit. As, for instance, the absolute promise maketh men upright; and then the conditional follows, saying, "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord" (Psa 119:1). The absolute promise giveth to this man the fear of the Lord; and then the conditional followeth, saying, "Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord" (Psa 128:1). The absolute promise giveth faith, and then this conditional follows, saying, "Blessed is she that believed" (Zeph 3:12; Luke 1:45). The absolute promise brings free forgiveness of sins; and then says the condition, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Rom 4:7). The absolute promise says, that God's elect shall hold out to the end; then the conditional follows with his blessings, "He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (1 Peter 1:4-6; Matt 24:13)."

Today's Hardshells should retrace their steps and go back to the views of their forefathers who did not think that the conditional promises of salvation conflicted with the unconditional.  Bunyan and the old Baptists did not see the necessity of making all the conditional promises of salvation to deal with a temporal salvation.  Gowens may see the concoction of his modern Hardshell paradigm of "two salvations" as the only way to harmonize the conditional promises with the unconditional, but Bunyan and the old Baptists saw the harmony in a different manner.

Bunyan wrote:

"Thus do the promises gloriously serve one another and us, in this their harmonious agreement. Now, the promise under consideration is an absolute promise. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." This promise therefore is, as is said, a big-bellied promise, and hath in itself all those things to bestow upon us that the conditional calleth for at our hands. They shall come! Shall they come? Yes, they shall come. But how, if they want those things, those graces, power, and heart, without which they cannot come? Why, Shall-come answereth all this, and all things else that may in this manner be objected. And here I will take the liberty to amplify things."

Rather than seeing how the conditional promises (conditional salvation) oppose the unconditional promises (unconditional salvation), as do modern Hardshells, Bunyan saw how they "gloriously serve one another."  He saw no need to create a paradigm of temporal versus eternal salvation.  He says that the unconditional promises "bestow upon us that the conditional calleth for at our hands."  He did not believe that the salvation that the "conditional calleth for" was different from what the unconditional supplies.

Bunyan continued:

"I told you before, that an absolute promise hath all conditional ones in the belly of it, and also provision to answer all those qualifications, that they propound to him that seeketh for their benefit. And it must be so; for if Shall-come be an absolute promise, as indeed it is, then it must be fulfilled upon every of those concerned therein. I say, it must be fulfilled, if God can by grace, and his absolute will, fulfil it. Besides, since coming and believing is all one, according to John 6:35, "He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," then, when he saith they shall come, it is as much as to say, they shall believe, and consequently repent, to the saving of the soul."

Again, Bunyan says that the unconditional promises of salvation supply the "provision to answer" "all conditional ones."  He did not deny that faith and repentance were conditions of salvation, but believed that God's unconditional choice of individuals to salvation guaranteed the performance of the conditions.  It is therefore false for Gowens and the Hardshells to think that the only way to harmonize the unconditional promises with the conditional promises was to apply all the former to eternal salvation and all the latter to a "time salvation."

Bunyan continued:

""AND HIM THAT COMETH TO ME I will in no wise cast out. "By these words our Lord Jesus doth set forth yet more amply the great goodness of his nature towards the coming sinner. Before, he said, They shall come; and here he declareth, That with heart and affections he will receive them. But, by the way, let me speak one word or two to the seeming conditionality of this promise with which now I have to do. "And him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Where it is evident, may some say, that Christ's receiving us to mercy depends upon our coming, and so our salvation by Christ is conditional. If we come, we shall be received; if not, we shall not; for that is fully intimated by the words. The promise of reception is only to him that cometh. "And him that cometh." I answer, that the coming in these words mentioned, as a condition of being received to life, is that which is promised, yea, concluded to be effected in us by the promise going before. In those latter words, coming to Christ is implicitly required of us; and in the words before, that grace that can make us come is positively promised to us. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" thence. We come to Christ, because it is said, We shall come; because it is given to us to come. So that the condition which is expressed by Christ in these latter words is absolutely promised in the words before. And, indeed, the coming here intended is nothing else but the effect of "shall come to me. They shall come, and I will not cast them out.""  (Come and Welcome TO JESUS CHRIST; OR, A Plain and Profitable Discourse on John 6:37. Showing the cause, truth,and manner of the coming of a sinner to Jesus Christ; with his happy reception and blessed entertainment. L O N D O N, 1681)

In a word, Bunyan, like all the old Baptists, in affirming unconditional salvation did not deny that faith and repentance (conversion) was a necessary condition for salvation.

Benjamen Keach (1640-1704), a signer of the second London Confession, wrote:

"Therefore, Brethren, pray observe; we affirm, that whatsoever Conditions were agreed upon in the Covenant of Peace, our Lord Jesus Christ undertook to do and perform them all, both for us, and also in us; I will give them a new Heart, I will take away the Stony Heart, and I will give them a Heart of Flesh, I will put my Fear into their Hearts, and they shall not depart from me. I will Circumcise their (Page 163) Hearts to love the Lord their God—He that hath begun a good Work in you, will perform it to the Day of Christ, who were born not of Flesh, nor of Blood, nor of the Will of Man, but of God. To believe is our Duty, but 'tis Christ that gives us Grace and Power so to do; and this Grace was also purchased for us by his Blood; He is exalted at God's Right Hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give Repentance, &c. And Faith also is the Gift of God, Eph. 2.8."

Keach did not have the problem reconciling the conditional promises of salvation with the unconditional as do our modern Hardshells.  He saw faith and repentance as duties and conditions, but also saw that the meeting of these conditions was a result of God's unconditional promise, or to his election and predestination.

Keach continued:

5. Moreover, Who can believe that Christ would shed his Blood for such whom he knew would never answer those Conditions that these Men speak of? besides, they being Conditions out of their power to perform.

6. Moreover I might argue thus, i. e. If Christ died for all, he intended to save all, but he never intended to save all, therefore he died not for all: Who shall frustrate his Purpose, or Intention?
From hence we may infer, That in the Covenant of Peace, the Promises of God are Absolute; and that this Absoluteness implies, that all the Conditions that are required on the Creature's part, Grace is promised to them to perform them on God's part, Who works in us to will and to do of his own good Pleasure."

Keach argues the same way as did Bunyan.  They argued that salvation was both conditional and unconditional and they explain how this is so.

Keach continued:

"The Gospel doth not proclaim a Conditional Peace, or Reconciliation, or that God is only reconcilable; so that if the Sinner performs his part, God will be fully reconciled; that is, if the Sinner repents, believes is Regenerated, or answers the Rule of the Promise, as some speak. I know no such Conditional Gospel, or Proclamation; but those Conditions which Jesus Christ was to perform, which was not only to reconcile God to us, but us also to God: Can that be the Condition of Life on our part which Christ hath engaged in the Covenant to do? viz. to bring us into a State of Peace; Them I must bring—Nay, God hath promised to give us a new Heart, and put a new Spirit into us. Moreover, Christ is exalted to be a Prince, and a Savior, to give Repentance to Israel, and Remission of Sins."
When Keach states that the Gospel does not proclaim a conditional salvation, he does not mean that the Gospel does not promise salvation only to those who believe and repent, but he means that the conditions are not to be viewed as works done apart from God's eternal purpose and grace, or as meritorious works.  This is clear from what he has already stated and from what he says further in the balance of his writing on this subject.

Keach continued:
"Moreover, whatsoever Duties God requires of us as to our actual Justification, in our own Consciences, and as to our Sanctification-also, he hath promised to give us his Spirit to perform and work in us."

Notice that Keach does not deny that there are duties and conditions for justification and sanctification but denies that these are "conditions" in the general Arminian or Pelagian sense, for he believes that these conditions are guaranteed by God's eternal purpose in election.  This is the same thing that Elder Hassell stated in the previous citation from him.

Keach continued: 

"1. He commands us to Believe——and he hath promised to give us Faith so to do; For Faith is not of our selves, it is the Gift of God, to you it is given not only to believe, &c.

2. He hath commanded us to make us a new Heart, and he hath promised to give us a new Heart, and to put a new Spirit into us.

3. He commands us to love him, &c. and he hath promised to Circumcise our Hearts so to do, &c."

These are the same things that Bunyan pointed out.  Salvation is conditioned upon one being converted, but conversion occurs because of God's unconditional promise to effect it in his chosen.

Keach continued:

"All the Promises of the Covenant in the Promulgation of it, in its Original Nature, and as respecting us, expresses the Tenor of it as most Free and Absolute: Thus it was to Adam, to Abraham, to David; and to us; I will be your God, and you shall be my People: It is not you shall have Peace upon the Condition that you do this or that, ye shall be Pardon’s, or then be Justified; No, but quite otherwise; But he that worketh not, but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly: 'Tis not by our Obedience, or Duties, but by the Promises that we partake (Page 184) of the Divine Nature. 2 Pet. 1.4. &c. All is given absolutely of Free Grace. True, there are in the Covenant, Conditions of Connection; if a Man believes, he shall be saved; But who gives that Faith? Is it not God? Pray observe that Jesus Christ hath made our Peace, and Faith to receive the Atonement is given as an absolute Promise: Is not the Spirit so given? And pray, doth not God give the Spirit, before Faith can be exerted by us? Is not Faith the Fruit of the Spirit? And doth not the Fruit proceed from the Seed, and the Act flow from the Habit?"

In this place Keach explains more fully how salvation is "conditional" within the context of it being unconditional.  He refers to "conditions of connection."  In other words, God, in determining to save a man determines that this salvation result from faith and repentance which he determines to give.  Keach is arguing for the nature of the conditions of salvation.  For instance, we could say that domino B's falling down is conditioned upon domino A's falling down, but this type of condition is only a condition of connection and does not argue for an uncertain condition.

Keach continued:  

"Brethren, beware of them that Preach Peace to you, upon a Conditional Covenant; the Condition they speak of, is your Repentance, Faith, Regeneration, and Obedience.

And alas, who is able to perform these hard Conditions? Besides, this is to turn the Covenant of Grace, into a Covenant of Works; you must work for Justification and Peace, if you will have it; nay, and you shall be no further Justified, nor have Peace, than you are Sanctified, if you believe these Men’s Gospel."

When Keach argues against a "conditional covenant" he is denying that these conditions are left up to the free will of sinners and that they are meritorious.  He is denying that these conditions are in the power of fallen men to do apart from divine grace and compulsion.  He is not denying that conversion is a necessary condition of connection for being eternally saved.

Keach continued:  

"But we say that Peace is made, and God hath promised that he will give the Spirit, even pour it out upon Sinners; he first pours out the Spirit of Grace, and then the Sinners believe or look to him whom they pierced, and receive the Blessing of Peace, or have the Manifestation of it to their Consciences. There is no Condition (saith Reverend Cotton) before (Page 185) Faith, but a Condition of Misery, a lost Condition: These Men render God like Pharaoh's Taskmasters, who would have their Tale of Brick, but find the Israelites no straw.

The Absoluteness of the Covenant (saith this Author) appears as to us, in that all the Federal, Entitling Conditions contained in it, are found in another, i. e. in Christ, and not in us, neither wrought in us, nor by us; for,* whatsoever is wrought in us, is of Free Grace."

Again, Keach is not arguing against the idea that faith and repentance are conditions, but only against the idea that they are conditions such as men may do apart from effectual calling.

Keach continued:

"My Brethren, Doth a Child contribute any thing to its own Formation in the Womb? Alas, What is in us before we are Born again? And of his own Will begat he us, &c.

Object. But doth not the Gospel require Faith and Repentance, as the Condition of Justification, and Eternal Life?

1 Answ. I told you but even now, there are Conditions of Connection by way of order and dependence of things one upon another (Page 186):

As in Logic (saith the same Reverend Divine) if a Creature be a Man, he is a Rational Creature; or if God be the first Cause, he is the Creator of all things: And in this sense (saith he) Creation is a Condition of Salvation; if a Man be Saved, he must be Created: So if a Man believe he shall be Saved, believing is a Condition of Connection, a State of Grace is thus a Condition to a State of Glory, by way of Connection in the Promise; but one is not the Federal Condition of another, but both come in as the Gift of Grace; in this sense the Covenant contains all the Conditions of Order and Dependence in the Exhibition and Performance; the hearing the Word is the Condition of Faith, but hearing is not a Federal Condition; so the giving the Spirit is the Condition of Union to Christ and Faith, and Faith the Condition of receiving of Pardon, and living in Holiness and the giving of Pardon the Condition of receiving it, and Holiness the Condition of seeing God, and of having Eternal Happiness; but these kind of Conditions are not Federal Entitling Conditions to the Promise, but are contained in the Promise, and denote the Connection and Dependence of one promised Benefit upon another."

Keach's explanation of how salvation is both conditional and unconditional is that which the Hardshells should have accepted rather than trying to affirm that faith and repentance were no conditions, in any sense, for being eternally saved.  Hassell was in league with the old Baptists in his remarks on the subject and today's Hardshells, like Gowens, should accept his explanation rather than rejecting it and creating a paradigm that says that the unconditional promises pertain to eternal salvation but the conditional promises pertain to a temporal salvation.  Today's Hardshells have departed from the old Baptist faith on this issue.

Keach continued: 

"2. God requires Faith and Repentance of them that shall be saved; but (1.) Not that the Creature can do either of these of himself, but to show he will work Faith and Repentance in all whom he will save, or as he hath ordained the End, so he hath also ordained the Means. (Page 187)

(2.) But not that either of these are procuring, or Federal Conditions of the Covenant blessings, or of Salvation, because all the Graces of the Spirit are contained in the Covenant as part of it; therefore, neither Faith, Repentance, Regeneration, as the Creatures Part or Work, can be Conditions of it."

Keach does not deny that faith and repentance are necessary for eternal salvation but argues that these conditions are guaranteed to be met with by the elect in their being effectually called.  He is denying that salvation is conditional in the Pelagian sense.

Keach continued:

"These Men call Faith, &c. such a Condition, that the Mercies granted are suspended till we perform the Condition. It is therefore, saith he, no more than an Act of ours. True, we have a good Bargain, as a Man that gives but Twenty Guineas of his own, Purchases an Hundred Pounds per Annum.

Brethren, (as our Author observes) We must distinguish of the Ministry of Reconciliation, in respect of the Letter of it, and the Spirit of it, 1 Cor. 3.6. in the Letter of it, or mere external Dispensation it kills, because the Sinner looks upon all these Conditions of dependence, Federal Conditions, but the Spirit in its Ministry is absolute, according to the Original Contract, and the fullest Discovery in its highest freedom; therefore the Apostle says, The Spirit gives Life. The believing Corinthians, are said to be the Epistle of Christ, written and transcribed from the Original-Covenant Contract; Not with Ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God. Therefore:

From hence we must distinguish between the Covenant in its Absolute Tenure, and the Ministry thereof, which is Conditionally dispensed, according to the Connection, Order, and Dependence of good Things contained (Page 188) in the Promise to a mixed People: The Effects of the Ministry will either soften or harden, it will either work effectually by the Ministry of the Spirit, according to the Nature of an Absolute Promise, and unto such it becomes a Savoir of Life, unto Life, or else it works only in the Letter, and unto such it Kills, or is a Savoir of Death unto Death, or an Aggravation of Death and Condemnation: But all its Divine Efficacy is according to the Purpose, Will, and Good Pleasure of God. But having occasionally spoken much before of the Absoluteness of the Covenant, I shall say no more, but Conclude at this Time. (SERMON VIII - Showing when the Covenant did Commence; also the Nature of the Covenant opened - See here)

Thus, from the writings of the old Baptists we see how they believed that the same salvation was both conditional and unconditional and this is the view that today's so-called Primitive Baptists need to return unto.

Chpt. 120 - Conditional or Unconditional?

As was seen in the previous chapter, the old Baptists have always had a bias against affirming that salvation was conditional.  Such a bias has often put them on the defensive with the Arminians and led them to clarify what they meant and what they did not mean.  In defending what they intended by their denial of conditional salvation, they showed that they did not go to extremes, as have today's Hardshells.  They did not go to an extreme and affirm that salvation was unconditional in every sense of the term, but maintained that faith and repentance, or conversion and perseverance, were necessary for being eternally saved, that they were conditions of connection. 

It seems that it was a common trait of many old Baptists to often speak in favor of "unconditional salvation" and to denounce "conditional salvation."  In further proof of this, notice these remarks of Dr. John Gill, a man who had leanings toward Hyper Calvinism.

Gill wrote:

"...salvation is through faith, not as a cause or condition of salvation, or as what adds anything to the blessing itself; but it is the way, or means, or instrument, which God has appointed, for the receiving and enjoying it, that so it might appear to be all of grace..."  (Commentary on Eph. 2: 8)

"Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace...Meaning either the promise of being heir of the world, or the inheritance itself, or adoption which gives heirship, or remission of Sin, or the blessing of justification, either and all of these are of faith; not as the cause or condition of them, but as the means of God's fixing and appointing to be the recipient of all and each of them..."  (Commentary on Rom. 4: 16)

“...faith is not the cause, or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follows upon it.” (Commentary on Acts 13: 48) 

One can easily see the bias of Gill towards affirming that salvation was unconditional.  Yet, one can also see his need to further explain what he means.  Gill realized that denying conditions in salvation often gave a wrong impression to many, who would ask - "are not faith and repentance conditions for salvation?"  To this Gill and the old Baptists would promptly clarify themselves and their clarification was always for the purposing of affirming that faith and repentance were necessary requirements for salvation.  Thus, Keach and Bunyan were careful to distinguish between absolute promises and conditions and those that are conditional, and that the performance of the latter were dependent upon the former.  Leading Hardshell of the late 19th century, Sylvester Hassell, related the view of Keach and Bunyan and showed that all the conditions of salvation were guaranteed fulfillment by the terms of the absolute and unconditional promises of salvation.  They did not take the view of Gowens, and modern Hardshells, which says that the salvation that is conditional, in scripture, is a different salvation from the one that is unconditional, one being temporal and the other being eternal.  It was their inability to understand how the same salvation was both conditional and unconditional, as the old Baptists explained, that led them into their error. 

Andrew Fuller wrote:

"I have no partiality for calling faith, or any thing done by us, the condition of salvation; and if by the term were meant a deed to be performed of which the promised good is the reward, it would be inadmissible. If I had used the term, it would have been merely to express the necessary connection of things, or that faith is that without which there is no salvation; and, in this sense, it is no less a condition in Mr. A.'s scheme than in that which he opposes. He thinks, however, that the promises of God are, by his statement of things, disencumbered of conditions; yet how he can prove that God has absolutely given Christ and spiritual blessings to multitudes who will never possess them, I am at a loss to conceive. I should have supposed that whatever God has absolutely promised would take effect."   (pgs. 24, 25, The works of Andrew Fuller, Vol. I, "The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation,"  - See here)

Fuller shows the same reluctance to affirm that salvation was conditional as Bunyan, Keach, and Gill, and also manifested the same need to guard against the connotations that are often associated with denying salvation to be conditional.  Fuller says that he does not mean "condition" in the Pelagian or Arminian sense, that it implies that salvation is by deeds and meritorious.  When Fuller refers to "any thing done by us," he means to oppose the idea that faith and repentance of "done by us," i.e., done by our own free will and power.  He certainly is not denying that they are actual believers and penitents who do the believing and repenting.  What Fuller and the old Baptists were affirming was that they believed that faith and repentance were more properly the work of Christ in us, were gifts of grace, resulting from divine choice, being the "fruit (or effects) of election."  They resisted any attempts to make faith and repentance to be primary causes, but rather affirmed them to be secondary causes and conditions.  Fuller says he accepts the fact that salvation is conditional in order to show "the necessary connection of things," and to affirm "that faith is that without which there is no salvation."

Dr. Kenneth Keathley, present day author, wrote:

"Faith is not the means to deserve salvation, but it is the means to obtain it (John 3:36; Acts 16:31). Faith is not the condition for God to give salvation, but it is the condition to receive it. Therefore exercising faith is not meriting salvation. When a free gift is given, the merit belongs to the giver of the gift, not the recipient (Rom.4:16; Eph. 2:8-9)." (See here)

This is exactly what Bunyan, Keach, Gill, and Hassell affirmed.  Gill, though reluctant to use the word "conditional" as an adjective with "salvation," nevertheless was not reluctant to use the word "means," to affirm that faith and were repentance were "means."  And, what is a "means" but a "condition"?  They also were not reluctant to say that faith is the means for "receiving" salvation. 

T. P. Simmons, in his Systematic Theology, wrote:

"Arminians charge that unconditional election means unconditional salvation, and that we teach that men were actually saved in eternity. Both charges are groundless, for election is not salvation. We were unconditionally elected in eternity to a conditional salvation in time. And when we speak of salvation as being conditional we do not mean that the salvation of the elect is in any way fortuitous or uncertain, but only that certain conditions (repentance and faith) must be fulfilled before they come to possess salvation."

One should recall the citation of Gowens, in the previous chapter, where Gowens was unable to see how the scriptures could be talking about the same salvation when it spoke of salvation in both conditional and unconditional terminology, and how he thought that making all the verses speaking of conditions to deal with a strictly temporal salvation, and that making all the verses speaking of what is unconditional to be dealing with eternal salvation, answered the difficulty.  I responded by affirming that this new paradigm ought not to have been forced on scripture, and that the Hardshells should go back to the faith of their forefathers, like Bunyan, Keach, Gill, Fuller, and Hassell, and see that the same salvation is both conditional and unconditional, in the sense that they explained.

Simmons, like Keathley, accurately affirms the old Baptist position about how salvation is both conditional and unconditional and that there was no contradiction in saying so.  Simmons spoke of being "unconditionally elected in eternity to a conditional salvation in time."

Simmons continued:

"A condition is "something that necessarily precedes a result, but does not produce it." In eternity the salvation of the elect was purposed, and the elect are spoken of in the purpose of God as called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8: 29, 30), but this is simply the language of Him, who in His purpose, "calleth the things that are not, as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). Many passages clearly teach that actual salvation takes place in time. For this we strongly contend. We have no patience whatsoever with the theory that the salvation which takes place in time is only temporal salvation, or salvation as it respects this life."  (VI. ELECTION IS UNTO SALVATION)

Simmons explains that salvation is conditional in the sense that faith and repentance "necessarily precedes a result."  He then condemns the Hardshell explanation of "temporal salvation" in their attempts to make salvation unconditional in every respect. 

Simmons continued:

"At the same time God chose His people He ordained all the means necessary to accomplish their full and final salvation. See Rom. 8:29, 30. These means were inseparably joined to election in the decree of God. We have no sympathy with Hardshellism, hypercalvinism. To say that the elect will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not is to misunderstand completely the connection between election and the means God has ordained for the accomplishment of the end of election."

Simmons was correct in his denunciation of Hardshellism in its rejection of the means and conditions of salvation. 

Simmons continued:

"Salvation—spiritual, temporal, and eternal—is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 8:26). All the heathen that die without hearing the gospel will be lost (Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:12). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17)."

Wherever God has an elect soul, in the fullness of His own time, He will in some way send the gospel to call that one from darkness to light. See 2 Thess. 2:14. Thus Philip was sent to the elect eunuch, and thus it was given to Paul to endure that the elect might obtain eternal salvation (11 Tim. 2:10). Thus we have the divine tie between election and missions."

Simmons affirms the scriptural and primitive Baptist belief and shows how the Hardshells are not "Primitive" as they claim.

Simmons continued:

"Some charge that unconditional election makes all means useless. They say if the case is so with man that he cannot by nature receive spiritual things and must be quickened by the Spirit before he can turn from sin, being sure to turn when he is quickened, then why preach to him? We preach to him, first of all, because God has commanded it. We accept God’s Word whether we can reason out why He speaks thus and so or not. We do not make our reason the standard of obedience or truth, as is the case with Arminians. But, on the other hand, we find God’s Word to teach that God calls His elect by the Word, since the Word is the instrument of the Spirit in regeneration (John 3:5; Eph. 5:25, 26; Titus 3:5; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). There is no more incongruity in preaching the gospel to the spiritually dead than there was in Christ’s standing before the tomb of Lazarus, dead four days, and saying, "Lazarus, come forth." As long as he remained dead Lazarus could not hear, much less obey, the command. But the life-giving power of God accompanied the Word of God, and Lazarus both heard and came forth. It is ours to preach the gospel to every creature, for so has Christ commanded. It is God’s part to bring the dead to life. See also the parable of the dry bones in the valley, where we have a picture of conversion through preaching (Ezek. 37). The dry bones represent the state of sinners by nature. The bones were lifeless; yet preaching to them was not in vain."

Gowens and the Hardshells, unlike Simmons and the Old Baptists, make human logic and "reason" into the "standard of truth," but the Old Baptists relied solely upon express scriptural statements.  The Old Baptists did not deny means and divorce faith from its necessary connection with salvation.  They rejected both the "word alone" and "Spirit alone" extreme views.

Simmons continued: 

"And Arminians ask, "Why pray for the lost, since all God’s elect will be saved and none others can be saved?" We pray for the lost for the same reason that Paul prayed for men, even though he taught unconditional election. We pray for the lost for the same reason that Christ prayed for the security of believers, even though that security was already certain. See John 17:11. Christ also prayed for a restoration of His former glory with the Father. See John 17:5. Was that in any sense uncertain? Prayer, as well as preaching, is a means of God in carrying out His will. His purposes are sovereignly fixed and eternally immutable, but He did not fix them independent of means."

The Hardshells departed from scripture and the Old Baptist faith when they denied preaching, faith, repentance, and perseverance, to be means and conditions for salvation and that God's eternal decree of salvation involved their conversion to Christ by the gospel, that the absolute and unconditional promises of God secured the fulfillment of all the conditions done by his chosen people in effectual calling.

In section IV, titled "Election is not Hardshellism," Simmons wrote:

"It is customary for Arminians to reproach the Bible doctrine of election by referring to it as "Hardshellism." May God forgive them, for they know not what they do. That election is not Hardshellism is proved by the following facts:

1. ELECTION IS INDISSOLUBLY JOINED TO THE GOSPEL AS GOD’S MEANS OF CALLING HIS ELECT TO SALVATION.

This is proved by the Scriptures given above that show that regeneration is through the Word. And it is also proved by 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. The elect have been chosen to "salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." To this, Paul says, they are "called by our gospel." Typical Hardshells deny the indispensable necessity of the knowledge of the gospel in regeneration. For that reason they show little concern in the carrying out of the great commission.

2. THE HARDSHELLS AND MISSIONARIES DID NOT SPLIT OVER ELECTION.

(1) They split over "mission, education, support of pastors, and other religious enterprises" (Jarrell, p. 431).

(2) In the split both parties held to unconditional election.

It will not be challenged that the Hardshells held to this doctrine. That the Missionaries did too is proved by the testimony of Spencer, who says that the Missionaries, "which embraced the main body of the denomination, held the doctrinal sentiments of Andrew Fuller," who believed in unconditional election, even though he taught an atonement of universal sufficiency. See History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 1, p. 645.

3. THERE IS YET NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MISSIONARIES AND HARDSHELLS ON THE MATTER OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.

This is proved by—

(1) The fact that both accept the statement on election in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.

Hardshells still accept this. And among the Missionaries this confession "is stiff widely used, and in the South it is probably the most influential of all confessions" (McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 298).

(2) The fact that unconditional election is taught in the other great American Baptist confession—the New Hampshire.

(3) The fact that all our standard theological text books and all doctrinal books written by representative and recognized Baptists teach this doctrine.

4. BAPTIST BELIEVERS IN UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, COUPLED WITH THE GOSPEL AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS IN REGENERATION, HAVE EVER BEEN MOST AGGRESSIVE IN THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL.

Modem missionary vision and effort originated, not among the General (Arminian) Baptists, nor yet among any other Arminian denomination, but among the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists of England. See the record in most any Baptist history. Robert Hall, Sr., Andrew Fuller, and William Carey were the leading lights.

American world-wide missionary effort originated in the Philadelphia Association, which adopted the hated Philadelphia Confession of Faith. See "The Story of Baptists," Cook, p. 327. "The Philadelphia Association speedily became the leading body of American Baptists—a position that it has not wholly lost to this day (1897). Pretty much everything good in our history, from 1700 to 1850, may be traced to its initiative or active cooperation" (Vedder, Short History of Baptists, p. 204)."   (Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, Chapter 20)

These words of Simmons show a great understanding of the errors of Hardshellism and give a complete refutation of their false claims about being scriptural and primitive Baptists. 

H. Boyce Taylor, who I cited in chapter ten, wrote:

"The second heresy of Hardshellism is like the first, a half-truth. They teach the doctrine of personal, unconditional, eternal election. That is the truth, but not all the truth on that subject. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). But they warp and wrest and twist that truth and make it teach a lie, namely, that if God elected a man unto salvation, he will be saved, whether he ever hears the gospel or not. The God, who elected the men unto salvation, also elected the means for their salvation. To preach the personal election of men, as Hardshells do, and leave out or deny the divinely chosen means, is not only not the truth, but is a wicked perversion of the truth...God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel. These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel. Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth. Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation. Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means. But once more Paul said: "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10). The elect will obtain eternal glory; but how? By the missionaries enduring all things that they may preach the gospel by which the elect are called unto salvation. Since Hardshell election leaves out missions it is not God's kind, not Paul's kind and not the truth."

These words of Boyce, like those of Simmons, need little comment.  Boyce shows how the leading error of Hardshellism is no minor departure from the truth, and how it is really anti gospel, anti salvation, anti biblical.

Chpt. 121 - Conditional or Unconditional?

In this chapter it will be good to review what the London Confession of 1689 says about both the conditional and unconditional nature of salvation.  For instance, in Chapter 7, "OF GOD’S COVENANT," in paragraph 2, it reads:

"Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe."

Though the old Baptists who wrote this confession would acknowledge that salvation was unconditional they nevertheless taught that "life and salvation" are what the Lord "freely offers unto sinners" in the gospel and that he "requires" that they have "faith in Him, that they may be saved." 

Elder (Dr.) R. W. Fain, first generation Hardshell leader, who wrote the introduction to Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test," wrote these excerpts:

“Upon this principle, the Gospel is preached to all, repentance and an interest in a Savior’s blood is offered to all. The charitable invitation “whosoever will” goes out to all inviting them to “take the water of life freely."

"While all Gospel Ministers feel the weight of duty in extending this invitation, yet they know at the same time, that a depraved will is under a wicked influence, and that such a will never leads a soul to Christ. But that God is able to subdue the stubborn will, to change the evil disposition, and to prepare the sinner for salvation, in opposition to the devil and all his unholy influences."

"Then, Brethren in the ministry, we should take courage. Let us go forth “with the whole armor of God” and do battle for his cause. Let us preach Jesus Christ our Saviour “the way, the truth, and the life.” Let us preach Him a choosing, Electing, and loving Saviour. Let us rear the blood stained BANNER OF THE CROSS, with the blessed and heavenly watchword “whosoever will,” inscribed in living letters over its ample folds.” (pages 9-16 of "The Old Baptist Test")

Fain and the first Hardshells were in agreement with the London Confession, but today's Hardshells have removed from the Old Baptist faith.

In chapter 10, "OF EFFECTUAL CALLING," the confession states:

"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead."

Again, though affirming unconditional salvation, the Confession also affirms conditional salvation, making faith, answering the call, and embracing the salvation offered, to be means or conditions.

In chapter 20; "OF THE GOSPEL AND OF THE EXTENT OF THE GRACE THEREOF," in paragraph 1, the confession says:

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

The promise, or the word of the promise, says the Confession, is "the means of calling the elect," the means for "begetting in them faith and repentance," and "for the conversion and salvation of sinners." 

Elder J. H. Oliphant, a well known leader and spokesman for the Hardshell denomination, at the turn of the twentieth century, and moderator of the infamous "Fulton Convention" (1900), wrote:

"Conditionality is a necessary element of moral government. I do not regard the resurrection of the dead, or regeneration, as acts of obedience, as a vice or virtue on our part, because they are not our acts at all. They are the simple acts of God. They do not properly belong to moral government, but to another system of things. Some of our brethren object to the word, "conditional," but I think it represents the truth on the subject as well as any word we could use. "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love." The word "IF" in this text denotes conditionality. Webster in defining the word says, "It introduces a conditional sentence." This is not the only use of the word, "if," but Webster mentions it first. There are hundreds of places in the Bible where the word is used as in the above text. I have conferred with some of the educators of this city relative to the meaning of the word, and I doubt whether there is a single college or institution of learning among English speaking people that would deny Webster’s definition. "If ye do these things ye shall never fall." If we tell our people this is not conditional, they would not know the meaning of any text."  (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 2)

There is nothing to seriously disagree with what Oliphant says about "conditionality" and the use of the word "if" in scripture.  He could have added, however, the fact that conditional statements, with a protasis and apodosis (if, then), are in either one of four categories.  From the web page ntgreek.org, these are delineated as follows (See here):

First Class Condition - Is considered the 'Simple Condition' and assumes that the premise (protasis) is true for the sake of argument. The protasis is formed with the helping word ei ('if') with the main verb in the indicative mood, in any tense; with any mood and tense in the apodosis.


Second Class Condition - Is known as the 'Contrary-to-Fact Condition' and assumes the premise as false for the sake of argument. The protasis is again formed with the helping word ei ('if') and the main verb in the indicative mood. The tense of the verb (in the protasis) must also be in a past-time tense (aorist or imperfect). The apodosis will usually have the particle an as a marking word, showing some contingency.


Third Class Condition - Traditionally known as the 'More Probable Future Condition', the third class condition should actually be split into two different categories, the 'Future More Probable Condition' (indicating either a probable future action or a hypothetical situation) and the 'Present General Condition' (indicating a generic situation or universal truth at the present time). It is formed in the protasis using the word ean (ei plus an = 'if') and a verb in the subjunctive mood. The main verb of the protasis can be in any tense, but if the condition is a 'Present General', the verb must be in the present tense.


Fourth Class Condition - Is usually called the 'Less Probable Future Condition' and does not have a complete example in the New Testament. The fulfillment of this condition was considered even more remote than the Third Class Condition. It was formed with the helping word ei and the optative mood in the protasis. The apodosis had the helping word an and its verb was also in the optative mood.

Ignorance of these facts has probably helped to cause today's Hardshells not to understand what Bunyan, Keach, and Hassell understood about the various connotations and denotations attached to the word "conditional."  A condition, most often in scripture, simply denotes a connection between one thing and another, and says nothing about the nature and causes of the condition.  Thus, to say that faith is a condition for salvation simply says that faith precedes salvation by way of connection.  In itself it does not affirm that the condition existed because of the free will and effort of those who have faith.  The conditon for salvation is faith, but faith itself is conditioned upon the sovereign and efficacious work of God.  So, though salvation depends upon faith, faith depends upon the will and working of God. 

Oliphant continues:

"It is urged that we are "justified by faith" in the sense that faith is a TERM or CONDITION on which our salvation depends. "A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." ---Rom. iii. 28. Also Rom. v. 1, "Being justified by faith." I want first to assign some reasons why faith can not be the ground, or condition, on which justification is based; and then I will try to point out what is intended by those texts in which we are said to be "justified by faith."" (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8)

Oliphant, like his Hardshell brethren, appeared confused when he said such things.  He denies that faith is a "condition" of either justification or salvation, but he limits the definition of the word "condition" to that which is "the ground" for justification and salvation.  But, the word "condition" does not always denote "grounds" or "basis," but is often used simply to denote that one thing precedes another thing, what is a means of reception.  It is on the basis and grounds of what Christ did in his life and death that anyone is saved and justified.  But, this justification is not received or made applicable to any but believers. 

Oliphant, because he cannot see how justification and salvation are conditioned upon faith, judges that faith cannot therefore be a condition for justification and salvation.  Thus, he says that faith has nothing to do with a sinner being justified or made righteous, that one may lack faith in Christ and still be saved and justified.  It is in this extreme view that alienates Hardshells from historic Reformed thinking and from the teaching of the Old Baptists and constitutes them enemies to the gospel of Christ.  To tell sinners that they are justified and saved whether they believe or not, is to hinder the gospel and the salvation of souls, and constitutes them a "damnable heresy."  (II Peter 2: 1) 

Oliphant continued:

"Faith is a gift from God; it is not a mere voluntary act of man, as produced by him, but it is to be understood as one of the blessings provided for us by God, and hence it would be incorrect to call it a CONDITION of salvation."  (chapter 8)

Notice how Oliphant restricts the meaning of the word "condition" to conditions that result from a "voluntary act of man," to something that is "produced by him."  So, in summation, Oliphant says that there can be no "conditions" for salvation, for anything that is a condition of salvation implies that the "conditions" result from human free will and effort, and are what becomes the "grounds" or basis for salvation.  He affirms that anything which is a means unto salvation must be a "condition" as he defines the word.  But, let us test his proposition.  First, let us ask the Hardshells whether they believe that the act of Mary giving birth to Jesus was a necessary "means" or "condition" for the saving of sinners.  Surely they will have to confess that it was so.  But, how can they apply Oliphant's definition of the word "condition" (or its equivalents, such as use of the word "if")  to the case of Mary's conception of Christ?  Did Mary, in and of herself, "produce" Christ?    Second, let us ask them about those "wicked men" whose "hands" were instruments in the Crucifixion of Christ?  What if we apply Oliphant's strict and limited definition of a "condition" to this instance?  Were not the wicked acts of the murderers of Christ means and conditions of his death?  And, was his death not the means or conditions for salvation?

Basically Oliphant is claiming that faith is, and is not, a "condition."  He is basically affirming that salvation is both conditional and unconditional.

Oliphant continued:

"Paul says, "Therefore it is of faith, that is might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." Rom. iv. 16. "It is of faith that is might be by grace." If we are to regard faith as a condition of our salvation, it would not be sure, for whatever is conditional is uncertain and not sure, and Paul here shows plainly that faith is not a condition to be performed on our part in order to salvation, for in such a case our salvation would be as uncertain as if it depended on any other thing to be done by us. Besides, it would not be of grace, if we are to hold faith as the price of justification. "It is of faith" denotes that what faith apprehends is the atonement of Christ, which is certain in its results, and a sure ground of our acceptance and final salvation." (Justification and Kindred Subjects: Chapter 8 - see here)

"Whatever is conditional is uncertain and not sure"?  The birth and death of Christ were not sure and certain?  Obviously Mary's act and the act of the wicked who crucified Christ were means and conditions for the birth and death of Christ.  So, by Oliphant's logic, both the birth and death of Christ were "uncertain and not sure"! 

Oliphant affirms that faith is not a condition of salvation!  And, why?  Because he has express scriptural statements that say such a thing?  Or, because he falsely "deduces" this by his false premises and invalid deductions?  Doubtless, because of the latter. 

He also tries to "have it both ways" in his apology.  He first tries to say that "faith" is the "gift of God," meaning what is effectually and certainly given, and then he tries to say that "faith" being a condition makes salvation ineffectual and uncertain. 

Where is Oliphant's problem?  If he truly believes that the faith that is the condition for salvation is the sure and certain result of God's will and work, what is always successful, or the gift of God, then why does he think that saying faith is a condition of salvation makes salvation uncertain?  It seems best to see that a predestined giving of faith insures certain salvation.  He does admit, however, that faith "apprehends," but this contradicts his affirmation that men who have not faith "apprehend" Christ.  Or, does he affirm that men are saved even if they do not "apprehend" (get a hold of) Christ?

Oliphant wrote:

"Many texts relied on by Arminians, to prove conditional salvation, only prove us as his children to be under his parental government, and should be so applied."  (chapter 1)

Notice how Oliphant affirms that it is Arminianism to teach that salvation is, in any sense, "conditional."  But, this is a falsehood.  Oliphant does not deny that there are means and conditions operative in God's "parental government" of his regenerated people.  Does he deny that this parental government involves God's keeping his people saved?  He also shows a severe prejudice against any kind of "conditional salvation" as it respects eternal salvation.  But, in doing so, he has denied that conversion through faith and repentance are necessary for being eternally saved.

Oliphant wrote:

"The doctrine of total depravity is wholly unreconcilable with a conditional plan of salvation. Hence, if this be true, then salvation is wholly of grace."  (chpt. 7)

Oliphant argues that the "doctrine of total depravity" proves that salvation is in no way based upon conditions, but this is not proven, only stated.  I dealt with this argumentation in my series on "Hardshell Proof Texts" in chapter 86. He also argues that if salvation were conditioned upon faith and repentance, or if conversion were necessary for eternal salvation, then salvation would not be by "grace."  It is interesting how all the great old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries believed in total depravity and salvation by grace but who affirmed that faith and repentance were necessary conditions for salvation.

Oliphant wrote:

"Believing cannot be the CONDITION of justification, because it is not a matter in which we can act voluntarily. That is, men cannot believe as they choose about things. It is absurd to talk of men believing or not believing as they choose, but if we hold faith to be a condition of salvation, then we must needs hold that men can do as they like about believing, which is absurd. Besides, the believing of any truth is in no sense the cause of that truth. To believe in God, or to have faith in him, is to trust in him. This I suppose none will deny. When we trust in anything, even of a temporal nature, we do not suppose our trusting to give any strength or additional value to that in which we trust. Our trusting is produced by a discovery of something to trust in. We trust in Jesus when we have evidence that he is our Saviour. There is no proposition in the natural or spiritual world, which is in any sense made true by believing it."  (chpt. 8)

Oliphant plainly denies that believing in Jesus via the gospel is not necessary for being justified and freed from condemnation.  This is a gross departure from the Baptist and Reformed faith.  Oliphant says that those who teach the necessity of faith for justification and salvation are Arminians, making the conditions to depend upon the free will and effort of sinners.  But, again, our Baptist forefathers were not Arminians and yet they taught that faith and repentance were conditions of salvation.  Oliphant should have heeded the words of Hassell about how the unconditional promises of God guarantee that the chosen and called will meet the conditions. 

Oliphant then makes the argument that belief of a truth does not make it to be truth.  It is true whether one believes it or not.  This is a common Hardshell argument.  But, it is really no argument at all.  What is the particular truth that Oliphant refers to?  The particular truth that is to be believed for salvation?  He says that it is believing that one is chosen and called.  But, this is not what the scriptures affirm to be the thing that sinners are called upon to believe!  They are called upon to believe the gospel concerning the work of Christ, and to believe that they will be saved if they call upon the name of the Lord. 

Oliphant shows that he does not believe that all men are commanded to "believe" and to "repent," for he believes that only those who are saved are called upon to believe and repent.  But, the scriptures affirm that all men are called upon to believe and repent!  This truth forces Hardshells into affirming universal salvation. 

Oliphant contends for one of the tenets of Hyper Calvinism, the view that only those are called upon to believe who are already saved, and that they only have a "warrant" to believe.  But, this view was rejected by the old Baptists.  Fuller and Spurgeon were great opponents of this view.

Oliphant wrote:

"Paul, in Rom. iv. 4., says, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." He opposed the doctrine that works secure salvation on the ground that is would be a matter of debt, and not of grace. Now I argue, that if our salvation be procured by obeying the commands in the gospel, it would be as truly of debt, and not of grace, as if it were procured by obeying the commands in the gospel, it would be as truly of debt, and not of grace, as if it were procured by observing the ceremonies of the Jews, and Paul here sets aside works in general in the matter of our salvation."   (chpt. 9) 

One cannot help but notice how Oliphant continues to find support for his false premises by appeal to logical deductions from scripture, rather than from clear statements of scripture.  Why cannot he simply cite passages which affirm the salvation of unbelievers?  He argues that faith cannot be a condition for salvation because it would involve deducing that salvation is based upon works, would be a reward, and not be a result of grace.  It is an indictment of the old Baptists, who wrote the oldest confessions, and of the views of Dr. Gill, however, for Oliphant to argue such.  They did not "deduce" Hardshellism from the passages of scripture that teach the necessity of faith for salvation. 

Oliphant also contradicts himself again, for he has previously argued that "faith is the gift of God," what God works effectually, and without fail, what he imparts to his elect when they are called.  How can he, in one breath, make faith to be the work of God, and then in another breath, make faith to be a work of the creature?  In the passage cited by Oliphant, in Romans, Paul does not put faith into the category of works!

Oliphant wrote:

"Paul argues the matter (Rom. xi. 6), "If by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then is it no more of grace," etc. The doctrine that our salvation is secured by obeying the gospel would be as destructive to grace as to say it is secured by the ceremonies of the law. In either case it would make the obedience of men as essential to justification as the blood and righteousness of Christ, and the grace of God would be dependent on an unholy and imperfect thing, as the works of men, all of which Paul here sets aside by the words, "If by grace, then it is no more of works." (chpt. 9)

Oliphant again argues that salvation cannot be by the gospel because this would destroy the idea that salvation is "by grace."  But, how can he argue this when he has already affirmed that faith is the gift of God?  Further, Oliphant does not deny that a temporal salvation (conversion) is conditioned upon faith.  Does he not then confess that conversion is not by grace?  Oliphant denies that faith is essential to justification and salvation, just as do the Universalists. 

Oliphant argues that if salvation is conditioned upon faith, then salvation would be "dependent on an unholy and imperfect thing."  But, has he not already said that faith is the gift of God?  If faith be God's work in the heart of sinners, does the Bible not say of God's work, that it is "perfect"?  (Deut. 32: 4) 

The scriptures teach that God gives faith unconditionally and this faith is the condition of salvation.

Chpt. 122 - Conditional or Unconditional?

Elder Oliphant, who was critiqued in the last chapter, wrote:

"A system of salvation that provides for the absolute justification of those stained and blackened by sin, could originate with God only. It may be difficult to see how we may be pardoned and justified both, but the gospel reveals both to be true. If I should forever be unable to explain how God both pardons and justifies sinners, or how these apparent opposites unite in the salvation of man, I say, if I never can explain how they both can exist in the sinners’ case, yet they are both taught in the Bible beyond dispute.


There are many things, both in nature and in grace, that we know to be true, which we cannot explain."  (Chpt. 4 Justification and Kindred Subjects - see here)

It is odd that Oliphant would appeal so much to logical deduction to support Hardshellism and then confess that there are "many things" in scripture that seem contradictory, things "which we cannot explain," or harmonize, and yet say that those things "we know to be true."  Throughout my writings against Hardshellism I have often charged the Hardshells with relying too much upon their human reasoning rather than upon plain declarations of scripture.  In spite of Oliphant's failure to see how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, logically speaking, he should have acknowledged nevertheless that it is so in scripture.  He could not "explain" how salvation could be sure and certain for all the elect if faith and repentance were conditions for salvation, and yet these truths are clear in scripture.  Why could he not say that he knew it was true that salvation was conditioned upon faith, what he knew to be true from scripture, though he could not "explain" how it could be so and yet salvation be unconditional?  Though he could not "explain" how salvation was the result of the mediate as well as immediate work of God, why could he not say "yet we know it is so from scripture"?  Though he could not "explain" how the salvation experience includes both passive and active elements, why could he not say "yet we know it is so from scripture"? 

Oliphant wrote:

"As to what is meant by those texts that speak of our being "justified by faith," we have seen that faith is to be regarded as a gift, and hence it is something to be thankful for, "for which our praise is due." Paul says many times over, "The just shall live by faith," Gal. iii. 11, Rom. i. 17, Heb. x. 38, and also Heb. ii. 4. I should think that in these places faith, as an instrument in the way of prevention, appropriates the blessings in God’s word and promises to our growth and strength. It receives and applies the finished righteousness of Christ, in a way to quiet our fears and to silence the accusations of conscience. The inner man receives his food by faith. The food is not produced by faith, but he receives it by faith. Paul speaks of some whom the word did not profit, "not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." The truth that we are the redeemed of God, and heirs of God, is not produced or made by faith, but these things are understood and enjoyed by faith, and in some sense we are justified in the court of conscience by faith, for conscience will accuse and condemn us until faith applies the atonement of Christ, which brings peace with God, that is, we realize in our hearts a peace. Nothing satisfies our conscience but that which satisfies law and justice, and the atonement and finished righteousness of Christ satisfies law and removes every claim against us, and when faith understands and applies this truth; peace and contentment ensue in the conscience. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God."  (chpt. 8)

Oliphant affirms that "faith is the gift of God," what is given efficaciously to all the elect, and yet he will not allow that this faith is what brings actual salvation, but only what brings recognition and peace about salvation.  In the next short series, I will deal with the Hardshell teaching about justification in more detail. 

Elder S. F. Cayce, father of C. H. Cayce, argued for "Unconditional Salvation" and did not allow that it was conditional in any sense.  According to a Hardshell Internet web page:

"Elder S. F. Cayce met Elder Lee Jackson (a Campbellite) in a public debate at Lafayette Springs, Mississippi, in November 1895. The first proposition was: The eternal salvation of sinners, as set forth in the Scriptures, is the work of God, independent of any conditions to be performed by man.

In support of this proposition Elder S. F. Cayce made the following thirty-six affirmative arguments."

Elder S. F. Cayce was the originator of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical, the one that his son, C. H. Cayce, expanded and turned into a leading voice for the Hardshell denomination in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries.  This was not the first periodical called "The Primitive Baptist," however, as one was begun in the 1830s in North Carolina and sponsored by the Kehukee Hardshells.  Cayce, as we shll see, went to extremes in his affirmation of "unconditional salvation."  When he speaks of salvation being "unconditional" he means that men are saved whether they believe or not, whether they repent or not.  This, however, is not true Old Baptist doctrine.

Cayce begins his defense of unconditional salvation with these arguments:

1. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none in nature do good. Proof: Ps. xiv. 1-3; Jer. 13:23; Romans 3:12.

2. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none seek God. Proof: Rom. 3:11; Psalms 10:4.

These arguments by Oliphant show that he, like Gowens and today's Hardshells, do not understand how salvation is both unconditional and conditional.  They failed to see that unconditional salvation guarantees that the conditions of salvation will be performed by the elect in their effectual calling.  That is, God's unconditional decree to save a person causes him to call them by the gospel, and causes them to believe and obey it.  Thus, doing good and seeking God are conditions produced in the hearts and lives of the elect by the Lord.  The verses cited by Oliphant state what men cannot do in themselves, apart from divine grace.  For a fuller treatment of Hardshell false reasoning on the doctrine of total depravity, see chapter 85.

"For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live: But seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beersheba: for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nought. Seek the LORD, and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, and there be none to quench it in Bethel."  (Amos 5: 4-6)

Here the Lord advises sinners to "seek" him so that "you shall live."  In order that they might escape the avenging unquenchable fire of the Lord.

"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."  (Isa. 55: 6, 7)

In this passage seeking the Lord is a condition for finding the Lord, for obtaining mercy and being pardoned by him.  How could anyone divorce these blessings from salvation?  But, the Hardshell has no difficulty asserting that men will find the Lord without seeking him, will be saved whether they "return" to him or not, will find saving mercy of the Lord whether they find him or not, will be pardoned whether they seek him or not. 

"Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD's anger."  (Zeph. 2: 3)
 
Here the Lord commands men to seek him and his righteousness so that they may be "hid in the day of the Lord's anger."  Surely this is dealing with salvation.

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us."  (Acts 17: 26, 27)

Notice that it is "all nations of men" that God commands to "seek" and "find" him.  Obviously the statement of Paul that "none seeks after God" cannot be interpreted to mean that seeking is not a condition of salvation.  Again, Paul was simply affirming that men do not seek God apart from God's word and Spirit, apart from God's initiative.

Throughout scripture the Lord's people are specifically styled as they who seek the Lord while the wicked are styled as they who seek him not.  But, this must be denied by the Hardshells.

Cayce continues with his list of arguments in favor of a strict unconditional salvation:

3. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that man, being corrupt, has to be made good before he can bear good fruit. Proof: Matthew 7:17,18; Luke 6:43,44; Heb. 9:14.

The fallaciousness of this argument is evident when one considers the fact that Oliphant affirms that a man's heart may be made good without being made a believing heart.  Oliphant affirms that an "unbelieving heart" is a good heart, yet the apostle calls such an "evil heart."  (Heb. 3: 12)  If God make the heart good in salvation, then he of necessity makes it a believing heart. 

Cayce then gives his next argument:

4. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that none can come to Christ until DRAWN to him by the father. Proof: John 6:44, 45; Psalms 65:4.

The error of Oliphant is in equating being "drawn" with actual salvation, rather than what is the cause of salvation.  If the drawing is the actual saving, then what is meant by "coming to Christ"?  Oliphant's interpretation would affirm that a man is saved before he comes to Christ.  How can he be saved if he is apart from Christ?  Further, what does it mean to "come to Christ"?  Surely it means all the same as "believing in Christ."  But, this affirmation of Christ condemns Hardshell views, for they do not teach that all who are drawn come to, or believe in, Christ!  Oliphant and the Hardshells would have done well to have read the writings of Bunyan on this passage.

Oliphant continues with his list of arguments:

5. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those in the flesh (those in an unregenerate state, not born of God) cannot please God. Proof: Rom. 8:7-9; Heb. 11:6.

But, what Oliphant fails to understand is this:  the scriptures also say that "without faith it is impossible to please God."  (Heb. 11: 6)  Oliphant creates a fictional character when he creates a creature who is "in the Spirit" (and "not in the flesh") but who does not have faith.  Can such a man "please God"?  At the very moment a man believes he is no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit.  At the same time a man becomes a man "in the Spirit" he becomes a believer.  In the same passage Paul says:  "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."  (vs. 6) 

How can one be "spiritually minded" who has an unbelieving and impenitent heart?  Is not the unbelieving and impenitent heart equated with being "carnaly minded"?  Paul says that they are "dead" who are "carnally minded," who have a mind devoid of faith, saving knowledge, and repentance.  But, he affirms that they have spiritual "life" who are "spiritually minded," who have the mind of Christ, a mind that embraces Christ. 

Oliphant gives his next argument:

6. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the natural (unregenerate) man is not suspectible of being taught spiritual things. Proof: 1st Cor. 2:14; I. Cor. 1:23; John 8:43-47; I. John 4:6.

God is not able to teach the unregenerate?  Does Oliphant not deny the ominipotence of God?  In the same chapter where Jesus talked about the "drawing" of the Father, and of men "coming to Christ" for life, Christ said:

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."  (John 6: 45)

Notice how God teaches sinners before they come to Jesus.  And, what do sinners come to Jesus for?  Jesus said to alien sinners - "you will not come to me that you might have life."  (John 5: 40)  Taught by the Father in order to come to Jesus for life!  Hardshellism uprooted!  "Learning" is integral to the "drawing" of the Father.  The Father draws when he teaches.

"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David."  (Isa. 55: 3)

These words affirm the same thing taught by Jesus in John 6.  Sinners are taught, or incline the ear, and they come to Jesus and they live. 

Oliphant gives his next argument in support of unconditional salvation:

7. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the sinner is in a state of death, hence, not able to act in order to life. Proof: Gen. 2:17; Gen. 3:22-24; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1.

Not able to act before living?  Was this true in the case of the bringing to life of the dry dead bones in Ezekiel's vision?  Did the bones not act and move prior to the breath of life entering into the re-formed body?  Also, did Jesus not say that "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and live"?  (John 5: 25)  The dead "hear" before they are alive!  Further, what is impossible with the dead is possible with God.

8. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the sinner is quickened (or made alive) by the same power and means that it takes to resurrect those who are naturally (or corporally) dead. Proof: John 5:21; Eph. 2:1-7; John 5:24, 25.

Yes, but God has used prophets and apostles to resurrect the dead!  Cayce even refers to John 5: 25, already referred to, where the dead hear and live.

Cayce gives his next argument:

9. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the sinner undergoes (in being prepared for heaven) is represented, in the Bible, as a resurrection or passing from death unto life, hence, he is passive in that work. Proof: Col. 3:1-4; I. John 3:14; Eph. 2:1-7.

He is passive in the action of coming to life, yes.  But, the whole work of quickening includes believing in Jesus (Eph. 1: 19) and sinners are active in "receiving" Christ and "believing" in him.

10. Salvation is unconditional because this change is represented in the Bible as a birth, therefore a work in which the sinner must be passive. Proof: John 3:1-7; John 1:11-13.

Again, no one denies that some aspects of spiritual birth and resurrection are passive, but to limit it all to only what is passive is an error, as I have shown in previous chapters.  When Jacob and Esau were in the womb it is said that they "struggled" and that Jacob actively took hold of the heel of Esau in the act of birth.  Thus, there is action on the part of infants when they are in the womb and in the process of birth. 

11. Salvation is unconditional because those who do righteousness are (already) born of God. Proof: I. John 2:29; I. John 3:7; I. Peter 1:22,23.

Certainly men must be born of God before they can "do" good works, as Ephesians 2: 10 affirms.  But, the scriptures teach that men believe in order to be "saved."  Paul said to the trembling jailer - "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your house."  (Acts 16: 31)

Cayce's next argument is this:

12. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the child of God has undergone is represented, in the Bible, as a death, hence a work in which he was passive. Proof: Rom. 6:2-8; Col. 2:20; I. Peter 2:24; II. Tim. 2:11.

Just because an action of a sinner in being saved is passive does not mean that the action is not a means or condition for being saved.  Cayce speaks of "the change which the child of God" experiences as being passive, but it is still a change or action that the child of God experiences and does.  Further, this "change" does not exclude a change of heart, does not exclude the changing of the heart from one of unbelief to belief.

Cayce continued:

13. Salvation is unconditional because the change which the sinner undergoes is represented, in the Bible, as a deliverance; hence, a work performed by a higher power. Proof: Col. 1:13; II. Cor. 1:9,19; I. Thess. 1:10; Psalms 56:13.

In answer to this argument all we have to do is to remind the Hardshells that they believe that conversion is also called salvation, what they call "time salvation."  But, they do not deny that faith and repentance are necessary for being saved through conversion.  By such argumentation of Cayce, however, Hardshells do not believe that being saved by faith is a "deliverance," a "work performed by a higher power"!  If God give faith and repentance, the conditions of salvation, then this argument has no validity.

Cayce continued:

14. Salvation is unconditional because the work which puts the sinner in Christ or makes him (manifestly) a child of God, is represented as the work of God. Proof: I. Cor. 1:30; Eph. 2:10; I. Cor. 6:11; I. Cor. 12:13.

But, is not conversion also the work of God?  Is not coming to Jesus the work of God?  Are not faith and repentance the work of God?  Was the healing of the man with the withered hand not the work of God?  Yet, Jesus told him to "stretch forth thine hand."  The healing of the paralytic man by Peter and John in the Temple was the work of God, yet it was done through the apostles.  Notice how Cayce inserts the word "manifestly."  This is a common tactic of the Hardshells in dealing with those passages that speak of the instrumentality of faith and repentance for salvation and for being made a child of God.  When Paul says - "you are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 26), the Hardshells will add the word "manifestly" and read it as saying - "you are all the sons of God manifestly by faith."  They do the same with Acts 26: 18 and other passages.  But, Cayce says that being manifested as a child of God, in conversion, is "the work of God," and "unconditional."  Has he not contradicted himself?

Cayce continued:

15. Salvation is unconditional because the work done in making us children of God is represented as a creative work, and because we are then NEW creatures (not merely reformed creatures) and because, also, this work is UNTO, hence, prior to the performing of good works. Proof: II. Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10.

But, God creates faith and repentance when he makes new creatures.  If these "new creatures" are still unbelievers and impenitent, how can we say that their heart is "new"?  Yes, it is true that one is created unto good works, but faith and works are set opposite to each other in scripture, as I have shown.  In the passage in Ephesians 2: 8-10 salvation is "through faith" but "unto good works." 

Cayce continued:

16. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that eternal life and all things pertaining thereto, is a gift, not something merited or purchased. Proof: Romans 6:23; John 17:2; John 10:27,28; Romans 8:32.

This argument has no weight for Hardshells confess that faith and repentance, like salvation itself, are gifts of God.  The fact that salvation is a gift does not exclude faith and repentance from being conditions of salvation.

Cayce continued:

17. Salvation is unconditional because faith is represented as being a fruit of the Spirit, therefore, not possessed by any until they have the Spirit, or have been born again. Proof: Hebrews 12:2; Gal. 5:22; I. Cor. 12: 6-9; Romans 12:3; I. Peter 1:21-23; John 6:47; I. John 5:1.

The word "fruit" in Gal. 5: 22 means what is "begotten," and is in agreement with the words of the apostle John who also said that faith is "begotten."  (I John 5: 4)  Faith is begotten at the same time that life is begotten.  Scriptures also represent life as being a fruit of the Spirit, but man is not alive till he possesses the fruit of the divine begetting. 

Cayce continued:

18. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that obedience to the commands of God (properly or acceptably rendered) is an evidence of an internal work having been done by the Lord. Proof: Phil. 2:12,13; Heb. 11:6; Matt. 7:18.

Regeneration or spiritual resurrection is an act of obedience, however.  Jesus speaks to the dead, commands them to come forth, and they obey.  Obedience is not an after effect of regeneration, but integral to it.

Cayce continued:

19. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that it is not of works, neither a debt, but all of grace. Proof: Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 11:6; II. Tim. 1:9; Rom. 3:23,24; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 4:4,5.

But, faith is not a work of the law, but the gift of God, even as Hardshells admit.  Faith thus given is not meritorious, though it be a condition.  This line of argument forces the Hardshells to confess that their conversion to Christ is a matter of debt and given on the basis of merit, and is not "all of grace."

Cayce continued:

20. Salvation is unconditional because it is the work of God and according to His purposes. Proof: Matt. 19:16-26; Jonah 2:9; Isa. 53:1-5; Isa. 52:16; II. Tim. 1:9.

But, Paul affirms that faith and repentance are the work of God.  The healing of the man with the withered hand was the "work of God" and yet he was commanded to stretch forth his hand.

Cayce continued:

21. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the mission of Christ was to SAVE, not to offer, nor to try, but to SAVE SINNERS; not those who have ceased to be sinners by complying with terms, etc. Proof: Matt. 1:21; Matt. 16:11; Luke 19:10; I. Tim. 1:15.

But, conversion is also salvation, and is the result of faith and repentance, as Hardshells admit.  It is the work of God to cause all that he draws and teaches to come to Christ in conversion.  The offer of salvation is guaranteed success in the case of the elect.

Cayce continued:

22. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God has, and ever has had, but one way of saving people; whether they be infants, adults, idiots, heathens, learned or unlearned, in whatever age of the world. All therefore, who are saved at all, are saved in precisely the same way. Proof: John 6:44,45; John 14:6; Luke 18:16,17; Acts 15:11; Rev. 5:9.

This argumentation has already been answered in our book on Hardshellism.  It is true that God has only one way of saving people, and it is "through faith."  All are "begotten by the gospel."  Further, conversion is the work of God, a salvation that is the same for all who are converted.

Cayce continued:

23. Salvation is unconditional because the church is (figuratively) represented, in the Bible, as a building, hence the material of which the church is composed must be passive in its preparation. Proof: Proverbs 9:1; Matthew 16:18; I. Peter 2:4,5; Eph. 2:19-22; Psalms 127:1.

But, the error of Cayce and the Hardshells, as I have shown, is to view the whole of the salvation experience as being passive, and to exclude all active verbs and participles from the experience.  All the oldest Hardshells affirmed that God's people are "made willing" in the work of regeneration.

Cayce continued:

24. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God is a Sovereign, that He does His will, and that He, therefore, saves all whom He purposes, or desire, to save. Proof: Genesis 1 (entire chapter); Isaiah 46:9-11; Isaiah 14:26,27; Romans 8:28-39; Isaiah 55:8-11.

But, is it not God's will that all the elect come to Christ, and be converted?  Do not all the oldest Hardshell churches have articles of faith that say - "we believe that all the elect will be regenerated and converted"?  Further, God's willing to save sinners also includes his willing of the means and conditions.

Cayce continued:

25. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God's love, like Himself, is eternal and immutable, and that those saved are embraced in His love. Proof: Jeremiah 31:3; Malachi 3:6; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:25-27; John 17:22-24; I. John 3:1; Romans 9:11-16; Romans 5:7-9.

How does such an argument exclude faith and repentace as conditions?  It is out of unconditional love that God gives faith and repentance unto salvation. 

Cayce continued:

26. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that God's love for His people, when manifested to them, produces in them love for God, and that His love for us, is, therefore, the cause of why we love Him. Proof: I. John 4:19.

All of the old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries also taught that God's love for his people is effectual, but this fact did not lead them to affirm that faith and repentance were not necessary for being saved.  Further, Cayce says that God's unconditional love for his chosen people produces "in them love for God," and if he can produce love for God in regeneration, then surely he can, and does, create faith in him also.  How can one love God if he does not know him?  Or believe in him?  Or turn to him?

Cayce continued:

27. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the heirs of salvation were elected thereunto before the world began. Proof: Psalms 65:4; Romans 8:28-33; Romans 9:8-16; Ephesians 1:3-5; II. Timothy 1:9.

But, Cayce has already admitted that God's unconditional choice of sinners before the world began does not exclude God's bringing them to love him when he calls them.  Has he not affirmed that love for God is a necessary element of being saved and regenerated?  If he can say that love exists in all the called, why not faith and repentance also? 

Cayce continued:

28. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ suffered (to render satisfaction) for the sins of those for whom he died, and bring them to God. Proof: Isaiah 42:4; I. Peter 3:18.

But, how can they be brought to God apart from faith and repentance?  How can they be brought to God without coming to Christ in faith?  Does he bring them to himself apart from faith? 

Cayce continued:

29. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those for whom Christ died are justified by his blood, and made righteous. Proof: Romans 5:6-9; Romans 3:24; Romans 4:25; 5:15-19; Matthew 5:18; Isaiah 53:11.

This argument, like most of those already noticed, are not logical.  It is true that election is unconditional, but salvation itself is not conditional.  God gives faith to a man because he has previously chosen to justify him.  It is all the work of God.  He secures the condition in bringing about the end (salvation). 

Cayce continued:

30. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those for whom Christ died are reconciled to God, by his death, and that being reconciled they SHALL BE SAVED by his life. Proof: Romans 5:8-10; II. Cor. 6:18-21.

But the scriptures also affirm that men are justified by faith, that they are reconciled to God when they "receive the atonement (reconciliation)" by faith.  (Rom. 5: 11) 

Cayce continued:

31. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that the people for whom Christ died are designated in the Bible as his seed, his generation, his people, his portion, his sheep, etc., and that to these eternal life is GIVEN. Proof: Isaiah 53 (entire chapter); John 10:11-16, 27, 28; John 5:37-39; John 17:1-5.

The fact that the Bible teaches that the elect are designated has his offspring and that he gives to them eternal life does not exclude his giving them love for him, faith in him, and repentance towards him, when they are in fact saved.  One cannot divorce knowing God and Christ from having eternal life.  (John 17: 3)

Cayce continued:

32. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ gave his life a ransom for those for whom he died, and that he purchased them with his blood. Proof: Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; I. Corinthians 6:20; I. Peter 1:18,19.

But, again, this argumentation is illogical.  Those who have been redeemed and purchased by Christ are guaranteed to receive the fruit of his mediatorial work, which include love for God and faith in Christ.

Cayce continued:

33. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that those who have redemption in Christ (those redeemed by him) have, also, forgiveness of sins. Proof: Colossians 1:13; Ephesians 1:7; Matthew 26:28.

Yes, but "forgiveness of sins" is conditioned upon faith.  "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."  (Acts 3: 19)  God, in ordaining the end (forgiveness of sins) also ordained the means and conditions, as the old Baptists have ever taught.

Cayce continued:

34. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ gave himself to redeem the people for whom he died FROM ALL INIQUITY. Proof: Psalms 130:8; Titus 2:14; Isaiah 53:6.

But, unbelief is sin (iniquity).  Thus, if Christ gave himself to redeem from "all" iniquity, then he died to redeem them from unbelief and impenitence. 

Cayce continued:

35. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION for those for whom he died. Proof: Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 10:13,14; I. Peter 1:18,19.

Christ indeed died to obtain eternal life and redemption for the elect, but he died in order that they obtain faith and repentance too.  He died to redeem them from death, from unbelief, from an impenitent heart. 

Cayce continued:

36. Salvation is unconditional because the Scriptures teach that Christ redeemed the people for whom he died (all the way) to God. Proof: Isaiah 35:8,9; Revelation 5:9.  (see here)

But, this is a repetition of previous arguments.  Christ redeemed his people from unbelief and impenitence. 

In conclusion we emphasize the fact that the Hardshells went to an extreme in their defense of unconditional salvation and failed to see, as did Bunyan, Keach, Gill, and Hassell, how salvation was also conditional, that faith and repentance were conditions and means of God's salvation.

Chpt. 123 - Hardshells & Justification I

In a word, Hardshells reject the belief that justification which is "by faith" has anything to do with a man's actual justification before God or the condemning law. To the Hardshells, justification which is "by faith," is as unnecessary for being eternally saved as is being converted to Christ.  The typical manner in which Hardshells attempt to defend this strange and novel idea is to affirm that there are three different kinds of justification in scripture, each pertaining to a different court of justice.  Only one of these three kinds of justification, however, is necessary to salvation. 

Elder R. V. Sarrels, Hardshell apologist who wrote what is called a "Systematic Theology," wrote the following on "Justification By Faith" in chapter 16:

"The principles set forth in this chapter regarding the Doctrine of Justification by Faith differs fundamentally from the generally accepted view concerning this important doctrine.  The opinion of Christian scholarship predominantly favors the idea that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ." 

Sarrels basically proves what I have affirmed, that the Hardshell interpretation and understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith is not orthodox, nor the traditional view of Christians in general or Baptists in particular.  Sarrels admits that Hardshell teaching on this Bible doctrine is an extreme minority view, and lends credence to the fact that they hold a cultic and novel view.  Sarrels admits that the teaching that interprets "by faith," in the context of justification, teaches "that faith is the medium or instrument by which the unregenerate person is united to Christ."  From this citation it is clear that Sarrels shifts from the idea of justification to that of regeneration and union with Christ.  Sarrels implies that those theologians who affirm that faith logically precedes justification also affirm, or must logically affirm, that faith precedes regeneration.  But, this is not true.  Most of today's "Reformed" Baptists, such as James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, believe that faith follows regeneration but precedes justification.  The position of the first Particular Baptists, in England and America, taught that faith logically precedes all.  It is the means of joining one to Christ.  Being justified, regenerated (reborn), and being sanctified are the results of this union.  They taught that these things were concomitants, "things that accompany salvation."  (Heb. 6: 9)  One does not exist without the other.  There is no such character who is regenerated but not justified, and vice versa.  There is no such character who is justified and regenerated but not joined to Christ.  There is no such character, as the Hardshells invent, who is justified, regenerated, sanctified, and joined to Christ, but who "has not faith."   I will expand upon this point shortly.

Sarrels also wrote:

"By the phrase "united to Christ" this prevailing view means the work which makes one a new creature in Christ...In contrast to this common idea concerning the place of Justification by Faith in the Christian system, is the view that this justification follows regeneration and that it plays no part in either leading up to or in bringing about the birth from above." 

Sarrels in not correct when he says that the "common idea" about "the place of Justification by Faith" among Christian scholars affirms that justification follows regeneration.  The "common idea" is rather that justification logically precedes regeneration.  This is certainly the teaching of classical Arminians, of men such as Arminius and Wesley.  The view of "Reformed" and "Hyper" Calvinists teach that the ordo salutis is:  first regeneration, then faith (conversion), and then justification and sanctification.  But, many of them argue that regeneration only logically precedes faith and justification, not chronologically.  These Calvinists are not consistent nor reflective of the Puritans and old Baptists who wrote the first English confessions of faith. 

It has always been the peculiar difference between Protestants and Catholics, relative to the ordo salutis, that justification logically precedes regeneration.  Protestants have emphasized, among other things, that Paul says that God "justifies the ungodly," which would not be the case if men were regenerated (made godly) before being justified.  To say that men are regenerated before they are justified is to say that men who are yet condemned are "regenerated."  Nearly all scholars, both Arminian and Calvinist, affirm that union with Christ logically precedes all, precedes justification, precedes regeneration, precedes sanctification.  They also teach that actual union with Christ is "by faith."  Those who affirm that union with Christ is primordial, and that union with Christ is "by faith," and who affirm that regeneration precedes faith, are inconsistent.  It is good thing, that despite this inconsistency and opposition to Protestant views, these Reformed Calvinist theologians nevertheless teach that there is no chronological order, that justification, regeneration, faith, and sanctification, are all concomitants.

Sarrels identifies the chief error of Hardshellism on the Christian doctrine of justification by faith, saying that justification "plays no part in" being born again.  Though he mentioned that being justified does not "lead up to" or "bring about" the new birth, he really believes that being justified does not occur at the same time one is born again.  Thus, they have a man born again who is still condemned!  If a man is not justified, then he is still condemned.   He denies the historic Protestant doctrine that says that justification logically precedes regeneration, and he does not believe that justification is always linked with regeneration.  He certainly does not believe that being justified by faith is necessary for escaping Hell and going to Heaven.

Sarrels wrote:

"It is the purpose of the author in this chapter to show that this, exactly this, is what the Bible teaches concerning this doctrine.  But it must not be inferred from what is here stated that a new concept in theology has been born.  From the days of the apostles till now there has been a succession of Christian thinkers, in the main unaccredited by the world, who have, with varying degrees of clearness, stood forthrightly and unafraid in defense of the view we hold."  (pg. 373)

Sarrels claims that there has always been Christians who believed as he does, "from the days of the apostles till now," he says, "there has been a succession" of Christians who believed as Hardshells do on the doctrine of salvation, on justification and regeneration.  But, he states a falsehood, for Hardshellism was born in the early to mid 19th century in America.  I have repeatedly challenged the Hardshells to prove this "succession."  They cannot find anyone, prior to the 19th century, who held to their peculiar views and so it is the height of deception for them to state that their views have a "succession" of adherents since the days of the apostles.  The typical Hardshell will read such claims as Sarrels gives and, being a good cult member, simply accept what Sarrels avers, and will not study the matter for himself. 

The Hardshells say that the only justification that is necessary for being eternally saved is that justification which is "by grace" (Rom. 3: 24; Titus 3: 7) or "by his blood" (Rom. 5: 9).  Being justified "by faith" (Rom. 3: 28; 5: 1), however, is a "different kind of justification" than that which is by grace and the blood of Christ.  Thus, they teach that many are justified by grace and blood who are not justified by faith. 

The Hardshells argue that justification by grace and blood is "before God," or "in his sight," or before the court of Heaven, or before the law.  On the other hand, justification by faith is not "before God," or "in his sight," but simply and solely in the "court of conscience," before the eyes of believers themselves.  Being "justified by faith," to the Hardshell, is receiving assurance that one is already elected and regenerated, equivalent to conversion or to their "time salvation."  And, "justification by works" is also not "before God," but "before men," in the "court of public opinion." 

In Hardshellism, justification occurs by faith when the previously "regenerated" soul trusts in the atoning death and righteousness of Christ and receives a sense of acquittal in his conscience, when he comes to realize that he is "freed from condemnation."  Hardshells argue that this is not when God actually justifies the sinner before the law, and removes actual guilt before the eyes and judgment of God, but when guilt is removed from the burdened and convicted conscience. 

One of the problems with this view is the fact that it makes the Holy Spirit to bear witness to a falsehood.  In the Hardshell paradigm, the Holy Spirit convicts the regenerated soul of his guilt.  But, the soul is not really guilty of sin, for he has already been justified prior to his conviction of sin and faith in Christ.  Thus, when the Spirit convinces a soul that it is guilty, he is convincing him of what is not true, for the soul the Spirit convicts has already been justified by blood and grace. 

But, the scriptures are clear about all who do not believe in the one true God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the only Savior and Lord.  Jesus said:

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."  (John 3: 18)

The soul that does not believe in Jesus "is condemned."  The soul that believes in Jesus, however, is one who is "not condemned," that is, is "justified."   This simple teaching overthrows Hardshellism and its unscriptural teaching that many unbelievers are "not condemned." 

Jesus also said:

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."  (John 3: 36)

To be justified is to be delivered from the judicial "wrath of God."  All sinners are condemned, and are therefore "under sin" and "under wrath."  Unbelievers are condemned and under wrath.  But, Hardshells will not accept this to be true.  That makes them enemies of the gospel of Christ.

Another problem with this paradigm is the fact that Paul, in Romans and Galatians, where he discusses justification in detail, does not distinguish between that justification which is by grace and blood from that which is by faith.  In Romans 3: 20-31 Paul speaks of the same justification, not of different kinds of justification.  The Hardshells do the same thing with the word "salvation" as they do with the word "justification."  Just as they make all passages that make salvation to be conditioned upon faith and repentance to be a temporal or time salvation, so they make all passages that make justification to be conditioned upon faith to be a temporal justification.  In verse 20 of Romans chapter three Paul speaks of being "justified in his sight."  The context clearly shows that the justification that Paul is discussing is that which justifies a sinner in God's sight, before his law.  Paul then continues with these words:

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."  (vs. 24-28)

It requires great dishonesty to make the justification which is "by faith" (vs. 28) to be different from that justification which is "by his grace" (vs. 24).  When Paul says "therefore we conclude," he shows that he is not making that justification which is "by faith" to be different from that which is "by grace."

Further, Paul says that "faith" in Christ "excludes" any possibility of "boasting," and shows that he does not consider faith to be "works," for works promote boasting.  The Hardshells often argue that salvation cannot be "by faith" because faith is a "work" and Paul says we are not saved or justified "by works,"  that is, "not by faith."  But, such hermeneutics has Paul contradicting himself, saying on one hand that salvation and justification are "by faith" and then turning around and saying that they are not "by faith (work of faith)."  Salvation and justification are "by faith" but "not by works," which clearly shows that Paul did not, like the Hardshells, see faith as a work.