Chapter Eight The Spirit Alone Theory of Regeneration

Hardshells on the New Birth

The Hardshells cannot find their "Spirit Alone," "Anti-Means" doctrine in the Bible. They have no passage that says that "sinners are saved apart from the application of the Word of God." Though the Hardshells claim otherwise, the Bible clearly teaches that regeneration or the new birth is the work of the Holy Spirit operating through the Word of God, and that this work is the same as conversion.

Because the Hardshells believe that many are regenerated and do not even know it, they think that the gospel is simply designed to identify and inform the saved that they are already saved.

R. V. Sarrels, recent Hardshell "theologian," wrote the following in his book, “SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY”:

“Regeneration is a work of God in the human soul that is below consciousness. There is no internal sensation caused by it . . . God as Savior, though dimly perceived by the regenerated Pygmy, is as objectively real to him as this same God as Savior is to the most enlightened Christian. Whatever may be the Pygmy's degree of perceiving this matter, what all of this means to him as he thinks of the here and of the hereafter is of more value to him than ten thousand worlds. From the standpoint of a living, imperishable hope which bridges the grave and anchors the soul to the 'beyond,' what more could be said of the most enlightened Christian? If this matter is faced squarely and consistently, the conclusion (from Hardshell “logic” – SG) is forced upon us that regeneration, and therefore union with Christ, is not limited to gospel lands (page 349)." (Emphasis mine – SG)

Every Bible student should be in shock at such words, coming as they do from a man who professes to believe and preach the Bible. What he says is against Christ and Christianity.

First, his "regeneration below consciousness" is a wild concoction. He has absolutely no Bible in support of it. In fact, every instance given of regeneration in the Bible shows it to be false. It certainly wasn't true of Paul's regeneration! Paul was so fully aware of it, that he recalled all of the details of it. His regeneration produced a knowledge and understanding of the gospel and love for Christ. He knew who it was that spoke to him! He knew where and when it happened. He knew what the Lord said to him. But, Hardshells know nothing of the above.

Dear reader, if you can have salvation and not know it, then you can certainly lose it and not miss it!

Hardshells, as I have stated earlier, feel forced to separate "conversion" from "regeneration." They recognize that Biblical "conversion" (repentance and faith) is not something that is "below consciousness." But they affirm that "conversion" to Christ and any knowledge of the Christian religion are not necessary to be saved to Heaven, but only for being "saved" from some troubles in this life only. The heathen are unconverted, but this does not mean that they will be eternally damned! This is the Hardshell position.

Therefore, what I will demonstrate is that the scriptures refute this idea by "joining them together" (conversion and regeneration) and what is scripturally "joined together," let no Hardshell "put asunder." Hardshells will not deny that this issue is integral to their system, that is, to have conversion and regeneration distinguished as they do. Therefore, to show them as inseparable refutes the Hardshell "anti-means" position.

They acknowledge that conversion is by the means of the gospel. But regeneration, they say, is NOT by the gospel. The former (conversion) in NOT necessary to be eternally saved. The latter (regeneration) is, however. Thus, as I said, to show that conversion is the same as regeneration is to affirm the truth of gospel means.

Certainly there can be no doubt but that the truly Old Baptists, such as Gill, Kiffin, Keach, and the writers of the Baptist Confessions, all believed that conversion was as essential to eternal salvation as was regeneration and calling. Many of the articles of faith of many Hardshell associations and churches positively state that they believe that "all the elect will be . . . converted . . ." They will often say, "regenerated and converted . . ." So, though they may have used the term "conversion" and "regeneration" separately, yet it was understood that both were equally necessary.

In the writings of these Old Baptists, it is obvious that their understanding of the nature and causes of both regeneration and conversion was different from Hardshellism. They certainly didn't believe that regeneration was something that an idol-worshipping heathen experienced! They also didn't divorce, as the Hardshells do, the "hope," "faith," and "love" which regenerated people possess, from Jesus Christ and the Gospel! Sarrels believes that Pgymy's sincerity in his heathen religion, with his heathen idea as to who "God" is, and with his heathen worship of an imagined deity, and with his heathen "hope" and "faith" in the "after-life," is all the same God and religion as enlightened Christians!

Hardshells look at that heathen worshiper's interest in religion as "evidence" of true Bible "regeneration!" In fact, with many Hardshells, only the truly "atheistic" person will be damned. These would constitute the "few" non-elect.

The Hardshells adore this belief and call it "attractive." And, in a carnal sense, it is "attractive." You preach that "most people are going to heaven, and that few are going to hell," and that "there are saved people in all religions of the world," and I assure you that some will find that very appealing. It is all just a little short of "universalism," however. The world loves such doctrine.

Often the Hardshells speak of how "beautiful" this teaching of wholesale heathen salvation, without a conversion to Christianity, is to them. The only thing, according to Hardshell "theologians," that those non-Christian, yet "born again" people, get for their heathenish ways, is the loss of some joy in this life!

Also, Hardshells think that all this glorifies God, who they say, saves them "without any help from man." Or, "God has given the heathen to Christ," they say, and he did it "without Bibles, the Gospel, or a preacher."

How contrary all this is to what the really Old Baptists believed about the matter. For Griffin, in his "History," says that the first Baptists of Mississippi stated in a resolution that they should stir up themselves to "send the gospel to every human being, for it is God's method by which he will give to His Son the heathen for his inheritance, and the remotest parts of the earth for his possession" (page 100).

Also, the Hardshells never consider that the “arguments” they make on the heathen and about regeneration fall back into their faces when it comes to conversion. If it "takes away" from God's sovereignty and sole glory for Him to use "human means" and "human agents" in "regeneration," then why does it not do the same when He "converts" by means?

Hardshells contend that when God regenerates apart from means, it is by "grace" and glorifies God; but when God saves through means, then it is by "works" and degrading to God! That's Hardshell "logic!"

Hardshells erroneously believe that if "man" is a "means" in a "work of God," then man is the one who should get credit for the work! They often argue that God "would not suspend the eternal salvation of sinners upon any "act of man!" The very idea to them is preposterous. If salvation is contingent upon any "act of man," then it would not be all of God, and God could not therefore claim all the glory. This is Hardshell "logic!"

But they say this without much thought as to how this contradicts the fact that the eternal salvation of sinners was contingent upon using the means of a woman named Mary to bring Christ into the world, i.e. human means. They also forget that the nation of Israel was a "human means" for bringing Christ into the world. They also forget that it was the hands of wicked men (human agents) that God used to accomplish the death of His Son, and thus our redemption!

Thus, according to Hardshellism, because "human means" were involved in Jesus' birth and death, then it was not all of God that those events occurred, and brought our salvation! Our Baptist forefathers believed that, not only did God predestinate the salvation of the elect, but also all the "means" involved in it. Thus all the "human agents" become instruments or agents in the hand of the Lord. All this was clearly understood by Gill and the English Baptists in their talk of God being the "first cause" (or "efficient cause") and the human agent, or means, being "secondary" or "instrumental causes.

God is in all control of the means that he has ordained. Just as God used the "Assyrian" (Isaiah 10:5-15)) as a "tool in his hand" to accomplish his purpose, so God uses "Preachers" and "Evangelists" as "tools" in His own work of regenerating and converting sinners.

"How shall they preach except they be sent [of God]?"

God sends preachers of the word to where He wants them to go. He uses them in much the same way that He used the prophet Ezekiel to preach His Word to the "dry, dead bones" (Ezekiel 37). God raised those dead people by His power alone, as the efficient cause, but it was still through Ezekiel's preaching of the Word. God was the efficient cause and Ezekiel was the instrumental cause.

Because the Hardshells have an erroneous understanding of the Bible doctrine of "total depravity," they often reason that "means" are "useless." To preach the gospel to the "dead," is to them ridiculous. God must first give "life" to the dead, alone and without the gospel, before it is of any use to preach.

They pick up on verses that say that a lost man "cannot" seek, obey, believe, repent, hear, etc., and reason that it is silly to command them to do what they have no power to do! But this again is an example of faulty Hardshell "logic!" Apply that logic to the case of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones! Was it "useless" and "silly" for Ezekiel to preach to those bones? From man's perspective, yes! From the Christian's perspective? No! Did Ezekiel's preaching to the dead "imply" that those dead bones had any ability in themselves to "hear" and "obey?" But I'm sure that, in any case, those resurrected in the valley by God and Ezekiel were nevertheless consciously aware that they had been quickened!

Brother Ross has dealt with the Pelagian argumentation, on the argument that a "command implies ability," as it relates to Hardshell apologetics, and I will be citing his remarks thereon in the next chapter where I will deal with Hardshell Logic on the new birth.

So it is clear that two of their main "arguments" in support of anti-means, have been completely overthrown. Their "logic" has been shown to be against the Divine Revelation. "Human agents" and "means" have been used by the Lord in the eternal scheme of redemption and the foolishness of preaching to the "dead" has been shown to be not so silly, but rather the actual fact of the case, as with Ezekiel and the valley of dead bones.

Hardshell "patriarch," Elder R. W. Thompson, says this about the Hardshell "interpretation" of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones.

"These bones . . . were an evidence of a former life, and are far from representing unregenerate sinners, who are dead in trespasses and sins . . . If these dry bones represent any who have not been quickened by the Spirit, then there might be a reason for calling upon dead sinners to hear, believe and obey. As they do not, but do represent . . . Christians . . . If it should be claimed that Ezekiel was an instrument in the hand of God, to the accomplishing of this change, then I would say, He would only be such to those who were dead to their privileges and enjoyments; but were not dead to the fact, that they were God's chosen people highly favored . . ." (pages 1, 4 of THE HARDSHELL BAPTIST, 3/85).

If this statement from Thompson doesn't demonstrate the determination of the Hardshells to believe their theory no matter what the scriptures show to the contrary, then it cannot be so demonstrated.

The Hardshells know that the vision of the dry bones destroys their arguments against human means! So, what do they do? They affirm that those dry and dead bones represent living, regenerated children of God! If you can make "dead" to mean "alive," then you can make the Bible mean anything! Thompson also confesses that if the death of the bones is emblematic of the death of the sinner, then there "might be a reason for calling upon dead sinners to hear, believe, and obey!" He is going to hold on to his theory no matter what!

Dad printed this article in his paper and called Thompson's interpretation "the correct interpretation!"

HARDSHELL ERROR ON DEPRAVITY AS RELATED TO "MEANS"

As far as the heathen having anything akin to what the Bible calls "regeneration," I have shown that is a wild and devilish concoction.

Some Hardshells like the famed debater, C. H. Cayce, even affirmed that there was "no principle of justice" in God eternally damning a man for not believing the Gospel when he never had the opportunity to hear it." (See his debate with Campbellite F. B. Shrygley).

From a statement like that, it is evident that Cayce and the Hardshells are the ones that don't understand the Bible doctrine of "Depravity" and "Original Sin!"

Hardshells are often "challenging" those who believe in and support "means" to "explain" what happens to the "heathen" who "never hear the gospel." They do this in order to put the person in a position to either affirm universal heathen damnation or to affirm that some heathen, though gospel unbelievers, are nevertheless "saved."

The Hardshells recognize that many professing Christians are reluctant to affirm the damnation of all who have never heard the preaching of the gospel, so this is where the Hardshell prefers to start. But Paul, whom the Hardshells claim as one of them, boldly affirms that those who are without the Gospel, are "without God" and "without hope in the world" (Eph. 2:12). But Elder Sarrels says that those without the Gospel, like the Pygmy, "have as good a hope and knowledge of God as any "enlightened Christian!"

Paul affirmed that his being made a minister was all for the purpose that the "elect" among the Gentiles might have their "eyes opened" and be "turned from darkness to light and from the power of Satan into God" and "receive the forgiveness of sins" and a "place" among the "sanctified by faith" (Act 26:18).

He also said that he "endured all things for the elect's sake, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10).

This is not a "time" salvation, but one with "eternal glory." Paul recognized that he was a "means" in the hand of God in bringing salvation to the elect. He did not boast of it. He realized that he was being "used" by the Lord as a tool, and that he could no more boast than could a saw or hammer against him that uses them! (See Isaiah 10).

The "argument" and "logic" that the Hardshell applies to the Biblical doctrine of human depravity to "deduce" or "induce" his "Spirit Alone" theory, I will now further show to be faulty and against the plain revelation.

Hardshells argue that, since the "natural man" receives not and cannot know the things of the Spirit of God (I Cor. 2:14), it necessitates that he first be made a "spiritual man" (i.e. regenerated) before receiving the Gospel. This "logic" sounds good to the untrained ear.

First of all, even the Hardshells must realize that, in any case, the "dead" do at some point "hear" before they are made to live. Does the "natural man" not at some point "receive" something "spiritual" to make him spiritual? The way the Hardshells argue on the doctrine of "Total Depravity," you would think it impossible for even God to save them or to make them "hear!"

Hardshells say that the "dead" alien sinner cannot "hear," "receive," "act," etc. But is that true when God's own power goes forth to cause the "dead" to "hear," "live," and "move?" Though with man it is "impossible," yet with God it is "possible." The truth of the matter is, that among the numbers who hear the Gospel in Word, some hear it in "word only," while others hear it in under the Holy Spirit's power to regenerate and transform. The "Word Alone" regenerates no one; the Spirit applying the Word produces a new birth.

I Peter 1:23, 25 says: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God that lives and abides forever . . . and this is the Word which by the Gospel is announced unto you."

This is the Divine method. Our spiritual birth (regeneration) is "of" God and "by" His Word (i.e. the Gospel). Sometimes it is said to be both of God and of the word preached. It is only of the means in an instrumental sense. It is of God and of the gospel and of faith in it. Hardshellism is refuted by Peter. Just like those "dead bones" were raised by Ezekiel's preaching the Word, so sinners, Peter says, are "born again" by means of the "Word of God."

Hardshells argue uselessly that the "word of God," which Peter says is the means in the new birth, is Jesus, the "Living Word" (John 1:1, 14), and not the "written" or "preached" "word."

This is to be rejected because the scriptures are very careful to speak of regeneration and the new birth as being "of" (ek) God or Spirit, but "through" or "by" (dia or en) faith, the Gospel, the word, etc. The Hardshells would thus have Peter saying, "Being born again (of God) by Christ." But the Scriptures never speak of it in this manner.

The context also makes it clear just what Peter meant by the "word of God." Just prior, he said:

"Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit."

Soul cleansing (regeneration) is through means of faith in the Word announced in the Gospel! Also, just a few verses later, Peter says to "desire the sincere milk of the word" (2:3). This is the Bible, Gospel, and word of God and not Jesus.

John, it is evident, is the only New Testament writer to formally speak of Jesus as the "Word of God."

Hardshells refuse to see that Peter is against their "anti-means" position; they are going to believe in their theory, no matter what Peter says about it.

James is also against them, for he testifies as Peter, saying, "Of His own will beget He us with the word of truth" (James 1:18).

How do the Hardshells "get around" that verse? Some argue that the "word of truth" is a reference to Jesus; this is the same tactic that they used on I Peter 1:23. The difference here is that it is the "word of truth" rather than "word of God." The context of James chapter one makes it crystal clear that the "word of truth" is not Jesus, but the "written" or "engrafted word," which he says, is "able to save your souls" (1:21). Hardshells deny that this word of God is able to save a soul.

All this is far too much for a Hardshell to handle. It never left me alone, but was always staring me in the face during all my time in the Hardshell cult. Many other such passages also troubled me. But today I am happy to be freed from that spirit and effort that is determined to twist, distort, and pervert the plain meaning of Peter, James and Paul.

All these men proclaimed the Gospel as the method by which men come to Christ and are born again. Paul told the Corinthians that he had "begotten" them "through the Gospel" (I Cor. 4:15). He also said that he had "begotten Onesimus in his bonds" (Philemon 10).

All these verses speak of being born, born again, born of God, etc. It is all the same birth in Christ. Paul had begotten them and was their "father" only as a "secondary" or "instrumental cause," but not as the "first" or "efficient cause." Gill and the Old Baptists taught this position.

In like manner, Christians are said to "save themselves"-not as the "efficient cause," but as a "second cause," i.e. through believing and obeying the gospel. God's elect are moved by the Holy Ghost to obey in repentance and faith.

Hardshells have departed from what the early Baptists believed on means. The first Baptists believed that God had predestined all the "means" of salvation. A "means" is a "second cause," totally under the control of the great "first cause." The gospel and faith in it are "means" or "secondary causes."

Because there are "means," "conditions" and "second causes," does not make salvation weak or uncertain, as the Hardshells wrongly imagine. Rather, they are the fixed, determined, and therefore necessary "instrumental causes" of redemption.

Hardshells think that they stand upon the Old Baptist faith when they talk of believing in a Calvinistic tenet called "unconditional election" (or "salvation"). To them, "unconditional election" means "without means" or humans acting as "second causes." "Unconditional" to the Hardshell means without faith, repentance, and every other "evangelical grace!" But it is certain that no Old Baptist understood the term to mean what the Hardshells affirm.

All that they meant was that the faith, repentance, etc., were not the "moving causes" of God's choosing or saving, but the necessary means of executing this purpose and work of God. They certainly recognized that salvation was conditioned upon certain predestined acts and circumstances of the creatures involved.

The reader, in seeing what a base view that the Hardshells have on what constitutes Biblical regeneration and rebirth, can also see what a narrow view this leads them to take on the subjects of calling, perseverance, preservation, justification, and sanctification.

In the Hardshell definition of regeneration, what is it that is preserved and perseveres? What can that Pygmy, while worshipping and adoring his heathen god, know of sanctification and perseverance in Christ and the faith? What did that so-called regenerated Pygmy get in his regeneration that God would keep? Are their idolatries "evidence" of their union and holiness in Christ?

Actually, a Hardshell's idea of "preservation" is for God to keep that hidden, secret, unrecognizable "life" remaining in the person. Hardshells are serving "Anti-Christ" when they call heathen idolaters "saints!" They know nothing of what the Bible means by perseverance, calling, sanctification, etc. When they separate these things from the Gospel and conversion, they then take on strange or empty meanings.

Hardshells often promote their "Spirit Alone" theory by an appeal to "logic" or what is called the "Law of Bio-Genesis." This "law," to them, signifies that there is a universal principle at work, in all realms, that "Life must precede action." If there is any "action," then there is "life." The action is the result or effect of life. Thus they "reason" that since faith and repentance are "actions," they cannot but follow the giving of life and never be in any sense its cause. However "logical" this may sound, it is nevertheless a falsehood and against Divine Revelation.

The true law of "Bio-Genesis" is that "life comes from life." There is always action before birth, however the Hardshell may affirm otherwise. In the sowing of seed, which is necessary to birth and generation, action precedes birth! In Ezekiel's raising of the dead bones, the action of bones coming together preceded the receiving of life and breath. Also, in regeneration, the action of the Spirit on the human heart precedes the birth. Also, the action of conviction precedes the soul's reception of Christ (i.e. life).

But Hardshell "regeneration" and "life" produces no spiritual action! Sarrels said that it produced "no internal sensation!" No effects are necessarily produced under the Hardshell idea of the new birth.

Another favorite argument is made by the Hardshells who "reason" that since "faith" is a "fruit" of the "Spirit," it cannot therefore be in any way prior to, or a "cause" of, the new birth. Anything that follows regeneration, they wrongfully infer, cannot be necessary to salvation! This is absurd!

Even if the scriptures universally placed regeneration "before" faith, that would not preclude its necessity. Is it not at least a necessary and immediate "effect?"

Hardshells often reason that since the Bible is "food" (i.e. "milk," "bread," "meat," "water," etc.), it cannot be a "means" for giving "life!" This however is untrue. Christ made "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood" essential for eternal salvation (see John 6:52-58).

Hardshell "logic" says that "food" is only for those who already have life. Granting this as true, solely for the sake of argument, does it disprove the "necessity" of such food for the "preservation" of that life? So, this argument falls back in the face of the Hardshell. For, though it would be granted that "food" may not be a "means" in giving life, yet it most certainly is a "means" in sustaining that life! So, though not a means in regeneration, it would be seen as a means in preservation and sanctification, and thus in eternal salvation.

Also, why do the Hardshells not get the gospel food out to those "regenerated heathen" so they can stay saved and not spiritually starve to death?

Hardshells suppose that a regeneration or rebirth that is subject to a lost sinner's eating and drinking, would be to make it all of free-will and works. This is evidently false, because God predestines the "means" of our salvation, just as he does the salvation itself. Also, the "earth drinks in the rain," but this is a necessity and not an act of choice (Heb. 6:7).

The scriptures sometimes speak of faith as following and sometimes as preceding regeneration. It is much the same way with the terms "faith" and "repentance:" sometimes one term is used first before the other in a sentence, while at other times the order is reversed. So with faith and regeneration, especially if we recognize that true Biblical regeneration includes conversion.

The reason why these terms are used interchangeably is because they are inseparable and integral to each other. Regeneration, in a Biblical sense, produces a conversion, necessarily and immediately. As much so as the giving of eyes instantly produces vision.