Jul 15, 2006

A Hardshell Salvation

A Hardshell Salvation (Part One)

I have often heard Elder Lasserre Bradley relate his experience in coming to believe the Hardshell doctrine of anti-means. He tells of the days prior to his joining the Hardshells (when he believed that the preaching of the gospel was the God ordained means of calling, birthing, and regenerating the elect) and of his embracing the idea that regeneration occurs apart from the means of gospel preaching. He speaks of those days as being a time when he was constantly distressed about the souls of men, daily fearing that some soul would be lost if he did not preach and witness. He said that he found it an unbearable burden and responsibility to believe that the eternal salvation of others depended upon what he, or any man, did or would do. He came to believe that only Hardshellism represented the real antidote against Arminianism. He, like many Hardshells, think that the belief that souls are saved (born again, regenerated) by the word of God, and faith in it, and by human means, is Arminianism; but this is a serious misunderstanding.

He testifies that it was not till he came to believe Hardshell doctrine, on the new birth, that he was relieved ("saved") of this awful burden. He was "saved" from the responsibility and burden of winning souls to Christ. He began to believe that all Christians should become Hardshells too, that they should quit believing that the salvation of souls was in any sense dependent upon them.

This is often an attractive belief for many hard working soul winners (as Bradley seemed to be at one time, when a Missionary Baptist) who likewise have become overly burdened with the thought that a misspent minute may have been the reason others would not be saved. It is a form of spiritual burnout. Many other Hardshells have also testified that this was a great reason why they became anti-means, believing in the "Spirit alone" view of regeneration. They felt relieved of the duty and responsibility of being a means in saving lost sinners.

I do not agree that the burden lifting, for soul winning, that Bradley and the Hardshells speak about is a good thing, but an evil one. Upon this I hope to enlarge.

This rejoicing on the part of the Hardshells, of being glad that they have no burden to be a means in regeneration and conversion of sinners, is of the same kind that Paul condemned in I Cor. 15:31. Truth does NOT “rejoice in iniquity.” (I Cor. 13:6) Wrote James:

“But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.” (James 4:16)

This is what the Hardshells do, they boast in being free from the Arminian burden of winning souls. But, as Boyce Taylor has pointed out, the Hardshells have simply taken the attitude of the servant who buried his talent in the earth. That servant argued that since his Master was powerful, able to reap without his labors, that he therefore needed not to labor. (See Luke 19:21,22) This is Hardshell "logic" for their lack of preaching the gospel to the lost.

Brother Bradley should not have allowed his concern for lost souls to make him seek to be rid of the burden. It is a mark of true discipleship that one has a burden for winning the lost to Christ and bringing about their conversion, their coming to faith and repentance. He should have labored hard to witness to souls, not waste time in vain and worldly pursuits. But, he should not have allowed this burden to become odious to him. Had he appreciated the sovereignty of God, which he now professes to exult in, as did the truly Old Baptists, he would have labored knowing that the "word of the Lord would not return void, but would accomplish the will of the Lord." (Isaiah 55:11) He should have not thrown away his burden but asked the Lord for comfort and assurance as well as success. Had Bradley appreciated the sovereignty of God, he would have realized that God always makes us to triumph in Christ, in all our witnessing. (II Cor. 2:14) He would have recalled the words of Psalm 127:1.

“Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

Here was the attitude of the apostle Paul.

“Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (II Tim. 2:10)

This verse was a bother to me (like many others) when I was a Hardshell and did not believe in preaching the gospel to all men or calling upon them all to repent and believe the gospel. Hardshells like to talk about how the gospel "saves", only in a "timely sense", not in an eternal, those who are already saved (regenerated or born again). They have much zeal in witnessing to those who show evidence of already having spiritual desires (life) but have none in witnessing to those who do not. They have no problem being the means in the hands of God in saving from temporal things, but not in eternal things.

The Hardshells often laid it down as a biblical maxim that the eternal salvation of the elect is not in any sense dependent upon human means. Since the preaching of the word and gospel of God is done by human means, eternal salvation cannot depend upon it. For in such a case, their logic dictates, the eternal salvation of no one can be certain. God, in order to make certain our salvation, they argue, would not make it contingent upon human agents.

As I heard this and other type arguments, from Hardshell logic, I often felt troubled, for I saw the flaws in these Hardshell maxims. How can they say this, I would think, when they admit that without Christ being born we could not be saved? Was Mary not human? Was she not a means in the coming of Christ and our salvation? Then what of the Hardshells maxim? Also, was not Judas and the wicked men who put Christ to death, also humans means?

The Hardshells, like Bradley, are without passion for lost souls. They have, therefore, "dried up from the roots". They are dead, and fit the description of Revelation 3:1.

“And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.”

More to Come, the Lord willing.


God bless you all for reading and visiting.

"Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."

4 comments:

LeRoy said...

Please answer all of Samuel Richardson's points on "No-Means" in his sermon of 1647 entitled "Justification by Christ Alone"

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/justification.html

LeRoy said...

I am not a preacher. I am just a disabled 67 year old retiree who loves the LORD! It is evident, from your answers to others, that you want to lump all "Hardshells" [which is a traditionally derogatory term] into a single unified class in every detail. There are as many different kinds of, as you say hardshells, as there are Funny-mentalists. History speaks to this issue amply. Your answers to some is based upon this warped lack of understanding! I am not even a denominational Primitive Baptist, but I am a predestinarian who believes in "no-means" other than Christ alone as having justified us from the "guilt of sin" via God's eternal love at the cross before we, as His elect, ever existed or had the capacity to believe. This applies to all of His elect from Adam until the end of time. I have never ascribed my understanding of these things to be of Dr Gill's position - so you are really beating a very large dead horse. Faith in Christ is a work of the will of man if it is not wholly the work of Christ first upon the cross. ["He trusted in God"] This work of His faith [Rom. 3:33; Gal. 2:16; Gal 3:22; Phil 3:9 - KJV, Douay-Rheims, Geneva, etal.] is a finished gift to us that can only attribute justification of His elect to Him alone. Please answer all of Samuel Richardson's arguments in support of "No-Means" in his sermon of 1647, "Justification by Christ Alone" keeping in mind that he was a signer of your beloved "London Confession". You can find this sermon here:
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/justification.html

LeRoy said...

I find that Compatibilism is a chicken's brew of fearful compromise. On the one hand the Determinists fear free will, and on the other the Free-willers fear Absolutism [Determinism]. When rightly viewed, man's will is no enigma. It was free when first created in Adam and the angels, then subject to it's fallen condition, and then freed again, to choose good or evil, in the elect alone, at the time of regeneration or quickening. If the freed will, of those covered by the blood of Christ [involuntarily], chooses evil, opposing even themselves, they are still justified by that baptismal covering of His blood at the cross. Eternal life [justification from God's reckoning of the guilt if sin] always precedes any ability to choose good or evil, through an expressed faith or unbelief. Hence I believe in "no-means" [anti-means] as opposed to the common contemporary but perpetual historical Judaized and papal expressions of "sacramental" religion, no matter how minute. Philosophers and sages can make it as complicated as they want, but it need not be any more than is stated here. But the Apostle Paul and the second century Paulist heretic, "Marcion of Sinope" laboriously understood at least this much of what the Christ was trying to get across, as the expressed and taught will of His Father, that He came to fulfill by eternal covenant, which was cast before the foundation of this world. The word Jesus, which we use [Middle English, from Late Latin Iesus, from Greek Iseous, from Hebrew Yeshua, from Yehosua, or Joshua] ... means Savior. He does not need our help and He does not want our help to complete His mission - Period!

www.HowSaved.com
www.SavedHow.com
www.Liver-n-Onions.com
www.Judaizers.com


Terry

Anonymous said...

www.JesusSavesAlone.com