Chapter 13 - Hardshells On Faith (Conclusion)

The Hardshells do not believe that "faith" in Christ is a means in salvation. Hardshell "patriarch" and "debater," S. A. Paine of Texas, said, in opposing the Bible teaching on "faith":

"If it is by faith, it is also by works . . . If by faith, it must be by a perfect faith, or we have a perfect effect (salvation) suspended upon an imperfect cause or condition. If faith is made perfect by works, and a perfect faith is a condition of salvation, it follows that works is [sic] also. But the Bible declares it is not by nor of works, therefore the theory of faith as a condition cannot be true" (WRITINGS OF S. A. PAINE, page 20).

Oh! what glorious Hardshell "logic!" This all sounds familiar. I believe I've heard that "line of reasoning" before. Who was it? Yes, it was the Hardshell's "twin brother," the "Campbellite." They also argue that since salvation, justification, sanctification, preservation are "by faith," then it must be by a "perfect faith," one with "works." But here they are, using their brother's "logic" to prove that salvation, if it is "by faith," must then be a "faith mixed with works"!

Paul had a different idea, however. He said that a man is "justified by faith without the works of the law" (Rom. 3:28). He also affirmed that justification was to "him who works not, but believes" (Rom. 4:5), and that "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12).

From Paine's statements and argumentation on "faith," given above, it is obvious that HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT WE ARE SAVED "BY FAITH." Oh yes, I know, he will spout that his "time salvation" is what is under consideration in any passage that speaks of being "saved" by "faith," and they will teach exactly the same thing about their "time salvation" as the Campbellites teach about eternal salvation.

Eternal salvation, according to Paine, is not in any sense "by faith." Other Hardshells will not argue this way, however. As I said, Hardshells are not uniform in how they argue on this matter of the connection of "faith" to "eternal salvation."

The Hardshells contradict themselves much on the subject of "justification" and "salvation" being "by faith." Many divorce the experience of being justified "by faith" from having anything to do with being "regenerated" or "eternally saved." It is enough, they say, that you have been justified "by grace" or "by blood" to be "eternally saved." Justification "by faith" is only in the "conscience" of the believer, and not in any actual atoning sense or "before God."

"Justification by Faith" becomes equivalent, to the Hardshell, with his "Time Salvation" ideology and to his narrowly defined idea of "conversion."

The Hardshells contradict themselves in their interpretation and handling of Paul's Roman epistle. They sometimes have Paul talking about "eternal" salvation and then sometimes about "time" salvation. They twist and distort the words of Paul, who, throughout Romans, speaks of only one salvation and of its means and consequences.

The Hardshells not only reject the instrumentality of faith in regeneration, conversion, justification, and salvation, but also of evangelical and/or Biblical "repentance." That so-called "regenerated" Pygmy in the bondage of heathendom, who, according to Sarrels, has a "regenerated heart" and "renewed nature," and who has been "sanctified," either has undergone a hidden and unconscious "repentance" or else none at all! But, I will deal with their ideas on "repentance" in a separate chapter.

Michael Gowens wrote:

"So what is the method by which men are born again? It is nothing more or less than the sovereign and direct work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration is immediate. God does not use the works of the sinner, on the one end, neither the efforts of the gospel preacher, on the other end, as either the basis or the method for imparting life to the soul. Faith is the gift of God in regeneration (Eph. 2:8). What does that mean? It means that the sinner responds to the life giving voice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Jno. 5:25) like Lazarus responded to the command of Jesus in John 11. It is an involuntary response, below the level of consciousness, a perfect obedience to the Divine imperative of Jesus. The Lord God is the active cause; the sinner is the passive recipient. This is irresistible grace! The gift of faith enables the newborn soul to function in the spiritual realm, an ability he did not have prior to his quickening (Jno. 3:3b,5b; I Cor. 2:14). It also gives the individual the ability to believe, or, if you please, "ears to hear" (Rev. 2:7,11; Pro. 20:12; Mt. 11:15). The gospel is, subsequently, addressed to the regenerate (Acts 2:39; Acts 13:16, 26), for the unregenerate cannot believe (Jno. 8:43; Jno. 10:26; Rom. 3:10-18). Before an exploration of the purpose of the gospel in relationship to regeneration, let's further develop the concept of the immediacy of regeneration." (http://www.sovgrace.net/born.htm)

"Faith is the gift of God in regeneration (Eph. 2:8)." Yes, it is Michael, and I have shown that the context of the first two chapters of Ephesians identifies the "faith" and "belief" as that which God produces through the preaching of the gospel. Also, this expression about "implanted faith," the saying -- "God gives it "IN regeneration" ought to cause all sorts of problems for the Hardshells. How is that?

They argue that coming to "faith in Jesus" (gospel faith) must be an effect of "regeneration," and cannot occur simultaneously, for the effect must always follow the cause in respect to time. Well, why do they not argue this same way on this "implanted faith"? This "implanted faith" that God gives "in" regeneration, does it come at the same time as the "life"? Is this "implanted faith" not also an "effect" of regeneration How can that be? Does not all your argumentation in trying to prove that "faith" must follow regeneration not also apply to this "implanted faith"? Must it not, by your own "logic," also follow the giving of life? Should you Hardshells not rephrase your statements on this "implanted faith" in its connection to regeneration (as in Eph. 2:8), and quit saying that God gives this faith "in regeneration" and say rather, "God gives this faith after regeneration, just like gospel faith"?

The faith of Ephesians 2:8 is a means, for it is "through" faith, or "by means of" faith. Faith, in this passage, cannot be that which is an effect of salvation. The Hardshells can feel the weight of this on their mental shoulders. They think they successfully deal with it by saying that the "faith" of Eph. 2:8 is not a "faith" produced by the gospel but one that God "gives in regeneration." But, faith, in such a case, is still belief, still action on the part of the one being saved, so how has this solved anything for the Hardshell?

This "implanted faith," that God creates in the soul when he creates "life" in it, did he create them at the same time? Was one the cause of the other? Did God's regenerating them cause them to have this "implanted faith"? I am sure every Hardshell would have to admit this, reluctantly, for this has been his "logic" that he has used against the idea that "gospel faith" can be a cause of, or occur simultaneously with regeneration. By their own "logic" even their "implanted faith" cannot occur before or simultaneously with regeneration. They cannot accept what Paul says in Eph. 2:8 that our salvation is through faith. The view of the Hardshell would have Paul rewrite Eph. 2:8 to read as follows:

"For by grace are you save in order to faith." So, their statements on Eph. 2:8 are a "dodge", for they do not believe that faith, any kind, precedes or comes simultaneous with regeneration.

How does Michael interpret the "faith" of the passage? He said:

"What does that mean? It means that the sinner responds to the life giving voice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Jno. 5:25) like Lazarus responded to the command of Jesus in John 11. It is an involuntary response, below the level of consciousness, a perfect obedience to the Divine imperative of Jesus."

I would like to ask Michael, -- "Which came first? Hearing the voice or responding to it?" Also, was he "alive" when he "heard" but before he "responded"? Also, how can a man "respond" on an "unconscious level"?

Let me cite Sarrels on this line of argument:

"If, therefore, as Dr. Shedd avers and as we believe, man is not conscious of the act of the Holy Spirit by which he is made a new creature in Christ Jesus, then conversion, of which man is certainly conscious, must come either before or after this act of the Holy Spirit. Hence conversion, which involves both consciousness and voluntariness, must be distinguished from regeneration with respect to fact, and separated from it with respect to time. This factual distinction and chronological separating compel us to grant anteriority to the one or the other, to regeneration or to conversion. The very nature of the case makes it impossible for them to be reduced to absolute simultaneity. If conversion results from regeneration, then regeneration precedes it both logically and chronologically...Clearly the Bible puts regeneration ahead of both conviction and conversion." (Page 311, 312, emphasis mine)

"If conversion results from regeneration, then..."

The faulty logic of Sarrels, relative to whether regeneration is the cause of conversion, and MUST therefore precede it, lies in the fact that he does not see how BOTH regeneration and conversion are equally effects of the same cause, the "act of the Holy Spirit."

The Hardshells err in saying that "regeneration is the cause of conversion," or in saying, "conversion is an effect of regeneration." No, regeneration is not the cause of conversion, but both regeneration and conversion are equally effects of the work of the Spirit through the word. Therefore, they can both occur simultaneously, because they are both equally the effects of the same cause, and not that one is the cause of the other.

This "chronological separating" and "granting anteriority," this metaphysical "splitting hairs", might seem like insurmountable "logical arguments" to the Hardshells, but it actually turns against them. You can take all the arguments they make to prove that "gospel faith" must always follow regeneration and apply it to what they say about God "implanted faith" and use it to show that they really do not believe that any kind of "faith" is a means in the new birth, so that all their attempts to try to "explain" passages that put "faith" as a "means" are futile and "dodges."

Besides, the Hardshells have another serious difficulty with this idea of "implanted faith" being given by God to everyone who is born of the Spirit, including the infant still in the womb. Most Hardshells, as I said, believe that this "faith" is defined as a "belief in some deity," one against whom they have "sinned," and have some kind of "hope," etc., (even though they contradict all this by saying all this is on the "sub-conscious level"). But, does the "regenerated infant" "believe in God?" How have they helped themselves with their novel invention regarding the "faith" that is necessary for "eternal salvation?" So, as I said, it is simply a "dodge" for the Hardshells to say that the "faith" that is necessary for "regeneration" is some kind of "belief in a god," or "deliverance from atheism." Again, how have they explained how an infant can have "faith" and "know" God?

I have heard them argue from the words of Christ, "you believe in God (the Father), believe also in me," (John 14:1) that a belief in God comes in "regeneration" but a "faith in Jesus" comes in "conversion." "Faith in God" is given and taught by God in "regeneration" but Jesus is only taught by the gospel. Based on this text they affirm that one can have "faith in God," thus giving "evidence of regeneration," even though they as yet do not have faith in Jesus. This is all absurd however and against the Scriptures. Before responding to this in more depth let me still press this question to the Hardshell who argues this stuff, "DOES THAT REGENERATED INFANT IN THE WOMB BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER?" How have you helped yourself with all this argumentation? Don't you see how it comes back to haunt you?

Also notice what Jesus said the reception of "eternal life" entailed.

"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:2,3)

Having "eternal life" is expressly defined as not simply knowing the Father, or some pretended deity, but in knowing the "true God" of Israel and in knowing Jesus Christ. There is no way that Hardshells can do away with this verse that defines what it means to "have eternal life."

Another serious error in this line of argumentation on "faith" concerns how they exalt knowledge of the Father (or "god" simply) over knowledge of the Son. The knowledge of the Son they admit is dependent upon the preaching of the word and gospel, but the knowledge of the Father is not.

"Regeneration" reveals God (the "Father" and "Creator"), but not Jesus, but "Conversion" they say is the only medium of revealing Jesus. So, my brother Hardshell, God has valued the knowledge of himself so important as to teach this directly, without means, or his preached word, but the knowledge of his Son is so dependent? Friends, Hardshell "logic" is not worth its weight in salt.

Sarrels wrote:

"What sort of logic must a theology create for itself which would make God limit this divine teaching to gospel areas when he does this teaching without the use of the gospel, or of any other means outside of Himself? Why should it seem a thing incredible that God should, by this teaching which he does without any agency outside of Himself, infix in the newly quickened soul the inclination toward the right, however faintly it may be understood by his child who does not have the gospel to bring his life and his blessed immortality to light?" (386)

These Hardshells cannot get away from their perverted use of "logic," the applying of human standards to the workings of God. I might ask Sarrels, were he here today, "What sort of logic says that God limits the knowledge of Jesus to places where only the gospel is preached?" Why does God value the knowledge of himself as Creator, Ruler, Savior, Helper, etc., so much that he communicates this knowledge without human means but the knowledge of Christ is restricted by him to human means?

The truth is that God has chosen to use his word and gospel to teach men about himself. The" word of truth" is used by him to teach men that "knowledge" which is necessary to salvation. In fact, it is an interesting question to pose to the Hardshells on this point. IS THERE ANY KNOWLEDGE AT ALL THAT COMES TO A SOUL AT THE MOMENT IT IS REGENERATED? If you want to see people squirm, become agitated, and unable to come to a clear and unified answer to a simple question, just ask the above question to a group of Hardshells. Of course, some will speak of certain "beliefs" and "convictions" that come by the "new birth," and others will speak of "sub-conscious knowledge, innate knowledge," etc., but they will all have difficulty with this question. I do plan to show in a chapter how the Hardshells interpret what it means to come to "know God." Also, on what it means to "come to Christ," to "hear Christ," and his "voice," etc.

Some Hardshells will try to take the road of men like Sarrels and say the faith they have involves no kind of belief at all, but simply refers to some kind of spiritual substance deposited in the soul and of which a man is not aware. Of course, this definition of "faith" has absolutely no support in the Bible but is a "doctrine of demons."

Some Hardshells try to use Paul's mention of the "spirit of faith" in II Cor. 4:13 where Paul wrote:

"We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak."

Some want to say the "spirit" of faith" is this "embryonic faith," this "dormant seed," and so make a distinction between faith and the "spirit" of faith, the one necessary to the other. This too, however, is a wild concoction. One of the founding fathers of Hardshellism took a different view on this passage.

Elder Samuel Trott wrote:

"A word on faith; faith is a fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22, and so the spirit is called the spirit of faith, because we have no true faith, without it; see II Cor. 4:13, “We having the same spirit of faith," &c. This faith is peculiar to God’’s elect, Tit. 1:1, because the gospel by which faith cometh and which is the word of faith, and which reveals the righteousness of God to faith, comes with power and the spirit, only to the elect, although the word be preached to all. See I Thes. 1:4,5, “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God; for our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance.” Christ taught the same where he said, “Ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, as I said unto you, my sheep hear my voice,” &c. The faith of God’’s elect has Christ and his righteousness for its object, and so its object is our justifying righteousness, and so faith as to its object, is our justification; for in this sense Christ is called faith, see Gal. 3:23,25, and so faith is declared to be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11:1, the substance, as to its object, and an evidence to the soul of its interest in that object" (Select Works of Elder Samuel Trott
pgs. 316 –– 323)

Here Trott, being a first generation Hardshell, would not see his descendents (2nd, 3th, & 4th generation Hardshells), develope their later stranger and more developed views on "faith." It is an interesting area of study to see the progression of thought on "faith" and "regeneration" from the first Hardshells to those of the present day. The many years of debating and defending Hardshellism have forced later generations of Hardshells to revise and hone their views on these doctrines and on pertinant passages of Scripture dealing with them.

This verse in II Cor. 4:13 is a verse that later generations of Hardshells found to be of use to them in supporting their novel ideas on how there can be a "faith" that is "implanted in regeneration" and yet really not have "faith" in the normal sense of the word. They invented terms like "embryonic faith," "seed faith," "implanted faith," etc.

No, the "spirit" of faith" is as Trott said, a reference to the one who creates gospel faith, the Holy Spirit. It does not refer to some "metaphysical spiritual goo" that later produces what the Bible calls faith.

Sarrels wrote:

"We raise these final and disturbing questions: Although God must open the sinner's heart to make it receptive of the truth (Acts 16:14), and although God must, as a matter of necessity, do this without the use of the truth, why does God not open sinner's hearts where the truth is not preached? Why does God limit his work of opening hearts and changing natures to areas where the truth is preached, when he does not use the truth to open hearts?" (Page 336)

And again he writes:

"No sound theology denies the universality of the innate knowledge of God's existence. However vague, or even distorted, this innate conviction may be, all sound theology must maintain that it is there. Tuition cannot put this conviction in the constitution of the human soul. It may, indeed it can, bring this conviction out into bolder relief so its possessor may better understand it, but tuition cannot infix this conviction in the rational nature of man. Only the Creator could have done this. If theology can and must hold the innate knowledge of God's existence is creatively inwrought in the spirit essence of even the most backward races, though imperfectly perceived by them, why can theology not consistently hold that people among these same backward races may have the stamp of eternal life inwrought in their spirit essence, and may feel that in some way they are in vital relation with a protecting Reality whom they love and reverence, and whom they hope finally to see? That all of this may be poorly understood by these backward, undeveloped races argues not against their having it any more than their vaguely understanding their innate knowledge of God's existence argues against their having this knowledge. The theology we hold, and which has shaped the thought structure of this work, teaches that regeneration, and therefore union with Christ, is solely the work of God, and that it is performed in the hearts of his purchased possession all over the world." (Page 348, 349)

And again:

"Hence, we hold that as every natural unsaved person has an innate knowledge of the existence of God as Creator and Ruler, every spiritual or saved person, however low he may be in the scale of civilization, has an innate knowledge of the existence of God as Savior and Helper. Creation produces an intuitive conviction of the existence of God as Creator in the soul essence of the natural man, and re-creation produces an intuitive conviction of the existence of God as Savior in the soul essence of the spiritual man." (Page 349)

Well, as I said earlier in this work, the Hardshells do not have uniform views on "faith." This proves it. Here Sarrels says that a "belief in God" (though barely understood or accepted by the one possessing it) does not come from regeneration (or the new birth) but from man's first or natural birth. I am not disagreeing with that, but only showing some of the contradictions in the views of Sarrels and those like him, who confuse the matter even more for those trying to find out what is the Hardshell beliefs on "faith."

Sarrels says that "regeneration" only increases the natural born "faith," leading it not only to have the natural view that "God" is a Creator, Ruler and Reality, but now have a "spiritual" knowledge of God in the roles of Savior and Helper.

Interestingly this view has the "regenerated infant" coming to knowledge of God as Creator and Ruler by his natural birth and God as Savior and Helper by the "new birth." Yet, they still cannot say all this out of one side of their mouths while saying out of the other, "regeneration and the knowledge of God is below consciousness," without evidencing the worst of contradictions and hypocrisy. Nor should they continue to rhetorically ask in bold interogatives, of those who believe in means, to "explain how an infant is able to believe and repent?" Why? BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY THINK THEY DENY! They argue that it is impossible that "regeneration" and "salvation" be based upon faith, repentance, and gospel conversion because the infant is not able to believe and know things. But yet, here we find them arguing that they can have inner beliefs about God from both the natural birth and instantaneously from the new birth. So, their own "regenerated infant" who cannot believe or repent nevertheless is found believing many things! I will turn the question on them and ask them to "explain" how one can believe in God on the sub-conscious level and how they can believe anything as infants?

Regenerated Heathen's Faith

Sarrels wrote:

"...and all that we have said concerning the state of unregenerate man, must be placed the known fact that all over the world there are worthy, moral men who have never, with their lips, made known that God has touched their hearts. We must remember that actions speak louder than words. Perhaps many of these men have not consciously understood the meaning of the work of God which, almost certainly, has been performed in their hearts. The Gentiles of Rom. 2:14,15, were doing "by nature"--echonta phusei--the things contained in the law; that is, they were acting out the good which had been infused in their hearts by the working of God...This was not something natural to them as the result of the natural creation, it was according to an infused nature or disposition that they fulfilled the demands of God's righteous law. Paul did not declare "another God" to the Athenians of Mars' Hill. He declared unto them the very God whom they were worshipping--ignorantly. Since regeneration is a work performed in the soul below consciousness, why is it not possible, yea even certain, that God has worked in the lives of morally refined men who may never have given evidence, by word of mouth, that God has done this? God saves infants (Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:41), and from the very nature of things, they cannot understand at the time what has taken place in their lives. When viewed in the perspective we here propose, the fact that there are good men everywhere who have not publicly professed Christ does not conflict with the Scriptural emphasis on the dreadful reality of sin." (pages 330,331)

This is unbelievable from someone who claims the name "Baptist." The idea that mere natural goodness and morality are evidences of regeneration is so against everything that Baptists have always believed about the true "evidences of regeneration," which are evangelical faith in Christ and repentance of sin. Sarrels wants us to believe that men who have some natural goodness, some conformity to God's moral law, who are "refined,"are thereby known to be the children of God, born of the Spirit, and washed in the blood of Jesus! I say it is preposterous and is so against what the Scriptures define as being "regenerated" and "born again."

The citation above by Sarrels shows how the Hardshells use Scriptures in any way that suits them, at a given moment, in an argument. This passage in Romans 2:14,15, which speaks of the Gentiles "doing by nature the things contained in the law," Sarrels would use elsewhere to prove that men are "naturally born with the intuitive knowledge" that God is "Creator" and "Ruler," but now, such a passage will be used to prove that this "by nature" is referring to a "work of grace," to "regeneration."

Others have used this passage from Romans 2:14,15 to try and affirm that Paul is teaching that the Gentiles were showing evidence of having been "regenerated" even though they did know the truth, the word of God, nor the gospel. That is absolutely not what Paul is referring to, but rather to that truth regarding epistemology that all knowledge, especially of the moral law of God, is written in the nature of man. Notice that it is not the "work of grace written in their hearts" that is manifested in the heathen "who know not God," but "the work of the law."

Also, this "law" that is "written in the heart and nature" of man, involves a man's thinking and understanding. But, Hardshells do not believe that "regeneration" does anything to a man's "thinking" or "understanding" in "regeneration," for it is all on the "sub-conscious level."

It is also nothing short of blasphemy for any Hardshell to affirm that "Paul preached the exact same God to the Athenians that they already believed in"! They were "worshipping the true God, just ignorantly"! They were worshipping the "true God" although his name was wrong, and nearly every description of him was different from the God of the Old Testament!

And again Sarrels writes:

"None of the systems of conditionalism can consistently accept our view that clean, honest, upright men who may never have publicly professed Christ are almost certainly children of God...It seems to be a case of pure unreason to suppose that these men who love the good and the pure and who perform worthy deeds are in the same category with those men who "love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil" (John 3:19). These good men, though they may never have made a public profession of faith in the Lord, are certainly not to be classed with the haters of God. We simply cannot place such men among the enemies of righteousness and the deliberate rejecters of God. "The fruit of the Spirit...is goodness." (Gal. 5:22)

Again, it really takes a heretic of the worst sort to be able to argue in such a fashion as to make those in heathen lands, who do not know anything about the God of the Bible nor the Lord Jesus Christ, "good" and "regenerate," the "friends of God," just as much as the believer in Jesus.

But, the Bible teaches that no prayer will be heard and answered that is not prayed in the name of Christ and faith in him. It also teaches that there is no "faith" except that which lays hold upon Christ. Even Hardshell "founding father," Wilson Thompson, said that the "faith of God's elect "had Christ and his righteousness for its object." Then, how can the heathen have the "faith of God's elect"?

Wrote Sarrels:

"The more advanced intellectual Christian concepts about all of these progresive steps which unfold in the believer's experience do not prove that these do not exist embryonically in the obscure, yet spiritual, exercise of the quickened soul in heathen lands." (Page 386)

Where is this definition of "faith" in the Bible? Where is there any hint that "faith" that is created by God in regeneration is some unformed "embryonic" spiritual substance? Why don't these Hardshells simply cite a passage of Scripture that says, plainly, that people are "born again apart from any knowledge of the word of God," or of the true God, or of Christ? Why don't they just cite some verses that say clearly that gospel faith and repentance are NOT necessary for salvation instead of using their so-call logic to prove it?

Brother, a man who has this kind of "faith" that the Hardshells talk about has no "faith" at all! All the attempts by the Hardshells to give a definition to "faith" that will allow that heathen idolators are regenerated and know God (or Christ) is all "vanity and vexation of spirit." To say that people can have "faith" and not know it, that they can have "faith" below the level of consciousness," is not a 32nd cousin to what the Bible talks about when it talks about saving faith.

I have shown in previous chapters that the views of the Hardshells on "regeneration" and "faith" shows that, by their definitions, these are a bunch of nothing. Notice these words of Sarrels:

"The regeneration of man changes his soul essence. Faculties, affections, and dispositions are not personla entities, and are therefore not subjects of regeneration. God regenerates man, not his attributes or properties." (Page 342)

And further:

"God regenerates the man, not his faculties, affections, or disposition. Man, not his attributes, is the subject of regeneration." (Page 358)

Recall also from my previous citations from Sarrels that he believes that "regeneration produces no internal sensations," or "no activity" in the soul!

How can he say this in one breath and then in another argue so vehemently that the whole of the words "regeneration" and "faith" denote nothing more than God giving the soul an "inner ability"? Does "ability" not reside in the "attributes" of a man's "soul?"

If you take away from the soul "faculties, affections, dispositions," and "attributes," etc., what do you have left? Nothing! They strip, in their deformed theology, every Biblical characteristic of "regeneration" and "faith," and they do it too on the word "soul."

Brother, I would not give you a "red cent" for such views of things. To tell me I have a "faith" that does not believe in the true God, one --that I can have and not even know it, that I can have the "faith of God's elect," and yet not know Christ or the true God of Israel, is absolutely heresy of the worst sort.

Sarrels also wrote the following:

"If it be maintained that though man participates in the work of regeneration, he contributes nothing to it, we reply by asking: If man contributes nothing to the work of regeneration, why is it necessary for him to participate? Participation without contribution is unthinkable."

"Participation without contribution is unthinkable." It may be "unthinkable" to those who are bound by Hardshell "logic," but it is not to those who have no bias in thought. Certainly a man can "participate" in that which he does not "contribute." A man can participate in the benefits of a will, as a beneficiary. Certainly every Hardshell must be forced to confess that the word "participate" is used in the New Testament, sometimes translated by the word "communion" or "fellowship." We are saved by our "participation in the body and blood of Jesus," as Paul taught in I Corinthians 10:16,17. How can a man be saved who does not "take part" in Christ? Jesus said to Peter, "If I wash you not, you have no part with me," that is, "no participation in me." (See John 13: 8) The word "communion" denotes the "union" of two things, and so our "communion" with Christ respects our vital union with him and of the fact that we "participate" in and share his life and righteousness.

He then writes further:

"But it must be noted that God does not, from a purely arbitrary standpoint, refuse to let man share as an agent or as an instrumentality in his regeneration. "With man this is impossible" (Matt. 19:26) Regeneration is a creative (re-creative) work (Eph. 2:1); and no creature, whether it be man or angel, can regenerate, assist in regenerating. So, unless the Creator God regenerates man without any human participation, no man will ever be regenerated." (pg. 329)

I have already absolutely overthrown this reasoning in my earlier chapters. The raising of the dead bones in Ezekiel 37 destroys all this "vain reasoning" by Sarrells and the Hardshells.

I will also show in a future chapter what the Bible says about the relation of man's "will" is to "regeneration." The Hardshells totally divorce the will of man from the work of regeneration. They will do this, generally, from one side of their mouths, while from the other side saying that "regeneration" is what is being spoken about when the Psalmist says, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." (Psalm 110:3) But how can this refer to "regeneration," my brother Hardshell, if the "will" does not participate or is not in any way involved it it?

The Hardshell "hermeneutic rule" regarding any passage that connects faith with salvation, as I have shown, is to put those verses into one of two categories. If the passage clearly speaks of eternal salvation or of regeneration, then they will ascribe the "faith", of the passage to a "faith" that is unconnected with the gospel. If, on the other hand, the passage does not clearly use terms that would clearly identify the salvation as being "eternal," then they will say it is some "time salvation" from a temporal evil.

The only way to really fully overthrow this argumentation is to go into each passage and show how 1) The "faith" in the passage is "faith in Christ, one that must come through the preaching of the gospel and 2) The salvation in the particular passage is one that is clearly dealing with "regeneration" and "eternal salvation."

In answer to a written question sent in to Hassell, that asked What is the difference between faith and grace?, he wrote:

"Faith is belief, and grace is favor or gift; it is of God's free favor or gracious gift that we, in our hearts, believe in His Son as our Saviour (Rom. 4:16; I Cor. 12:3; II Cor. 4:6; Gal.5: 22; Eph. 1:19,20; 2:8,9; Philip 1:29; Heb. 12:2). (Elder Sylvester Hassell, Copied from the "Gospel Messenger" and from the "Advocate and Messenger" Compiled by R.H. Pittman)

This is really quite interesting. I owe this inconsistent statement, by this Hardshell "founding father," to the newness of the Hardshell "movement." Today's Hardshells will not affirm what Hassel here said about "faith." He did not believe that the "faith" that saved, that God created in regeneration, was divorced from the knowledge of Christ. He would argue that the heathen have Christ revealed to them on some mystical level, by Christ "directly speaking" to them.

Beebe also believed as did Hassel. Of course, Beebe believed in "Absolute Predestination of all things," and so believed that all our "good deeds," every kind of "faith," be it "implanted" or given "through the gospel," yet it was just as certain that the elect who heard the gospel would be made to embrace it.

In fact, this is discernable from the fact that Beebe breaks down the "new birth" into "stages" "steps," or "phases."

Beebe wrote:

"Regeneration, as we understand it, like generation, involves the begetting, conception and birth, of that which is generated, In the order of regeneration, or the development of the children of God, no intermediate agencies are employed, no system of means can bring forth the promised seed...When a sinner is thus quickened, the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, is implanted in his heart, and the evidence of this implantation is first given by a sense of the purity and holiness of God, and the spirituality of his law, contrasted with a sense of guilt, pollution and just condemnation of the person to whom this communication is made, and consequently a struggle for deliverance."

And then continuing, he wrote:

"Now all this conviction, contrition, lamentation and distress, is the legitimate consequence resulting from life implanted, and indicates to all who know experimentally the way of life, that the poor sin-burdened soul is drawing near to the time of his birth, or deliverance. He who has thus arrested him, and brought him to a sense of his lost and helpless estate, will perform the work in his own time, but the burdened soul must wait until ““God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, shines in [not into] his heart, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”” ——2 Cor. iv. 6.

Or, as Paul relates his own experience, ““When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me.””——Gal. i. 15. Then by the revelation of Christ in us the hope of glory, the way of salvation through him is brought to view, the burden of guilt is removed, the blood of Christ is applied, the demands of the law are canceled, the curse is removed, the prison doors are opened, the captive is delivered, the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, old things are passed away; behold all things have become new; a new song is put in his mouth, even praise unto God, the gospel pours its joyful sound into his quickened ears, his goings are established and he is a new creature, the old man of his corrupt nature is subdued, not dead, that which is born of the flesh continues to be flesh, and only that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John iii. 6.)

"What we have written are our views, and what we have understood to be the views of the Old order of Baptists, from the days of John; but if we are mistaken in our views, (and we are liable to be) or in any part of them, we hope that our brethren will in all christian kindness point out to us the more excellent way."
(Middletown, N. Y., September 1, 1857. Editorials of Gilbert Beebe Vol. 4 Pgs)
(http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/beebe/regen.html)

Clearly Beebe did believe that the "birth" of the child of God was not completed till one was brought to believe in Jesus and have "gospel faith." It is when "the way of salvation is brought to view" that the "quickened" sinner is brought to full faith and has his "guilt removed" and the "blood of Jesus applied."

Again, Elder Gilbert Beebe wrote in 1838:

"And we are not only assured that faith is not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God, but we are also told that Jesus Christ is both the author and the finisher of faith which is unto life.

Another inspired apostle, treating on the origin and power of the gospel faith, informs us that it is born of God, and that it overcomes the world. ““For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.””——1 John v.4 (NEW VERNON, N. Y., July 22, 1838)

Beebe, as Brother Ross has shown was one of the first, if not the first, to put forth the novel idea that the "word" that "regenerates" the dead sinner is that which Christ himself speaks to the soul rather than that word that is being communicated by his messengers. But, I will deal with that yet in another chapter in greater depth.

Still, no Hardshell today will accept Beebe's view that "gospel faith" completes the birth of the Spirit and is created by the irresistable power of God. No, today's Hardshells, except some of the "Absoluters," will say that their "gospel faith," is not as the "Conditionalists avow, a creation of their own, a product of their own free will and work, but is the sole creation of God. According to Beebe it is "gospel faith" that insures our overcoming the world, hence our eternal salvation. Yes, Beebe may have said other things at other times that contradict this, but he does allow that the first stage of birthing is the "begetting," done without means, but he does say that "gospel faith" is God's creation and that which insures our perseverance.

Wrote Wilson Thompson:

"...and so faith, though one of the first fruits which the Spirit produces in the soul, can afford no comfort to the soul until its eye is directed to Christ, and his blood and righteousness, which the gospel reveals to it, nor even then will it afford comfort to the soul..." (Wilson Thompson, Unknown date -
http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/thom/free.html)

This is interesting in view of the Hardshell position that many "heathen", who know not God or Christ, and yet who, according to Hardshellism, have been given some kind of "faith." It goes back to the question I asked earlier about "why God did not teach the "regenerated heathen" more than he does?" Thompson admits that this "implanted faith" "can afford no comfort to the soul." The only "faith" that brings comfort to the soul is the gospel that points the eye to Christ and his righteosness by the gospel! According to Hardshellism the "faith" God gives in "regeneration" only brings sorrow and grief and God leaves him there in that condition! And, no Hardshell seems all that concerned with taking the gospel to these supposedly regenerated heathen who have a faith that is causing grief and despair but who need a gospel that begets the faith of hope and joy.

Brothers, the only "faith" the Bible knows anything about is the kind that "fills you with all joy and peace in believing," (Rom. 15:13) rather than terror and guilt.

The Bible teaches that we "believe unto life" (See John 20:30; I Tim. 1:16; etc.) We also "repent unto life" (Acts 11:18). Faith and repentance are predestined "second causes" to our receiving life and salvation.

C. D. Cole wrote:

"As to regeneration and faith, a plausible argument may be made in favor of the priority of either. For example, if we turn to "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (#Joh 1:12,13), it seems natural to suppose that those who believed in Christ were those who had been born of God. So also according to the correct rendering of #1Jo 5:1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is (has been) born of God." Some use this passage as it reads in the Common Version, "is born of God, "to prove that faith is prior to regeneration, because the means of it; but the argument fails in view of the fact that not the present, but the perfect tense is used in the original- -"has been born of God." But if we turn to #Ga 3:26, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, "the obvious view is that we become God's children by faith, or, in other words, that faith is instrumental in effecting regeneration. We see, therefore, that there may be a plausible argument on either side of the question."

(http://www.homestead.com/sglblibrary/files/Defdoc2/DEFDOC2.P2.12.htm)

T. P. Simmons wrote:

"Christ, objectively revealed to the mind and heart is the ground of faith. This is implied throughout the Bible, and it is unmistakably taught in Rom. 10:11-17. We read there that "faith cometh by hearing," and we find also there the question (implying an impossibility): "How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard." The Bible knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about a so-called secret faith that can exist apart from knowledge of Christ, such as some Hardshells teach." (http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Simmons/chapter25.htm)

Now let me look at some verses in the Bible dealing with the relationship of faith to salvation and apply Hardshell "logic" and hermeneutics to them.

"Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." (Habakkuk 2:4 & Romans 1:17)

How does this "embryonic faith" that a man does even know he has, and which produces no certain change in his thinking and behavior, become the means of such a man "living" by it? Not only is faith instrumental in our receiving life but also in its preservation. But, Hardshells deny that faith, as the Bible defines it, plays any part in either regeneration or preservation in Christ.

"And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9)

The Hardshells do not believe that the cleansing of the soul from the pollution of sin, by the blood of Christ, the "washing of regeneration," (Titus 3:5), is done with faith as a medium, and yet the Apostles had a different idea. All the Hardshells can do, with such passages, is to try and make the purification a "timely" washing totally unconnected with anything having to do with regeneration or eternal salvation. Yet, the context of this passage absolutely deals with eternal salvation. The reasons for this are these:

1. The whole "council" concerned what pertained to eternal salvation. In Acts 15 we are told that "there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." These are they, wrote Luke, “came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."

Were they discussing "time salvation"? No, I do not know a single Hardshell who would say that this was the matter of the first council.

2. The answer that was given to this mighty question was, "But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." And then again they said, "put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." What kind of "purification" was this? Does the context not connect it with eternal salvation? Yes, and so it refers to the cleansing of the soul in regeneration. But, this salvation and purification were brought about "by faith." It is clear too that the "faith" they are discussing concerns the faith of the Gentile Christians, which had as its object the Father and Son and that was produced in them by means of the gospel.

Jesus said, "Now you are clean through the word I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3) David asked, "How shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed to your word." (Psalm 119:9) The Church of Jesus Christ, the body of his elect, are said, by Paul, to be "sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26)

"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21)

Here "faith" is directed to Jesus Christ in conjunction with "repentance toward God." Hardshells do not believe it is their duty and privilege to exhort men to repent and have faith in Jesus. Their preaching is unlike that of the apostles in the Book of Acts.

Beebe wrote about this gospel faith in Christ.

"The Scriptures instead of representing faith as a creature of ours, expressly define it to be the gift of God. Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, that we should believe on him. "We are bound to give thanks unto God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." And we are not only assured that faith is not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God, but we are also told that Jesus Christ is both the author and the finisher of faith which is unto life." (Middletown, N.Y., February 15, 1858.
Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, Vol. 4 Pgs 60 –– 65)

Notice that Beebe cites Philippians 1:29 where Paul says:

" For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake."

Notice that it is not a belief in any kind of deity or god, but a belief in "Christ," the Messiah and Savior. Hardshells are forced to admit that faith in Christ and his work as Messiah comes only from hearing the gospel. (How can they not? Paul says, in Romans 10, "HOW SHALL THEY BELIEVE IN HIM OF WHOM THEY HAVE NOT HEARD? AND HOW SHALL THEY BELIEVE WITHOUT A PREACHER?") But, the "faith" that comes "by the gospel," they will nearly all say, is not something God "creates," for he does this through human means, and "creation" cannot take place through human means, and so they acknowledge that their "gospel faith" in Jesus is not the creation or gift of God, as, they say, is their invented idea about "implanted" or "embryonic faith."

But the "faith," according to Paul, that is God's creation, is a faith in Christ, a faith in his person and work, and that such faith and knowledge comes by the Spirit through the gospel.

In commenting upon John 5:4 Beebe wrote further:

"Another inspired apostle, treating on the origin and power of the gospel faith, informs us that it is born of God, and that it overcomes the world. ““For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.””——1 John v.4."

Gospel faith? How then can the Hardshells argue that this gospel faith is not necessary for eternal salvation? If the world overcomes believers, which it would do did they not have this faith, would they not be lost? How can we win the victory and obtain salvation except that we have this gospel faith?

Beebe said further:

"This faith, being born of God, must be animated by the life and immortality and power of God. It is vital, but its vitality is of God, and not of the creature, hence it can and does overcome the world...the faith of God’s elect, being born of God, and his special gift, has a divine power over his children in whom its divine power is developed; they cannot exercise it, but they are exercised by it. On the other hand the faith of the gospel brings those who are born of God unto the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God."

Well amen brother! This term, "faith of God's elect," is difficult for the Hardshells, and they will not generally make "gospel faith" to be that "faith" which all the "elect" possess (how could they and still be Hardshells?), as do some of the older Hardshells, but will rather follow the modern apologists, like Sarrels, and say that the kind of "faith" that all the "elect" have, in "regeneration," is that "metaphysical goo" I mentioned earlier.

Acts 26:18

"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."

This verse was one that helped pulled me out of Hardshellism. It is as clear as the noonday sun that Jesus was, in making Paul a preacher of his gospel, also constituting him as a means in bringing about the calling and justification of believers. How do they handle this verse? How can they not see that being "turned from darkness to light," and "from the power of Satan unto God," and "receiving the forgiveness of sins," and "inheritance among the holy," all connects with "eternal salvation?" Also, the verse clearly says that we are "sanctified by faith that is in me." Men are not made holy nor saints until they have come to possess that faith that Jesus says is "in me." Jesus said, "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth" (Jno. 17:17). The Hardshells may do all they can to keep this soul cleansing word from the world, but others will take it. There is no cleansing apart from the word of Christ, from his truth.

Let me give you one of the better "takes" on this verse from Brother Gowens. He writes:

" In what specific terms does the gospel deliver the believer? Acts 26:18 suggests at least five ways. First, it delivers them from ignorance to understanding - "To open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light" (v. 18a). Secondly, it delivers them from Satan's power, that is, from his strangle-hold upon their lives - "and from the power of Satan unto God" (v. 18b). The individual who comes to gospel understanding has a resource in the truth that equips him to "stand against the wiles of the devil" (Eph. 6:10), to "resist the devil" (Jas. 4:7; l Pet. 5:9), and to "overcome the devil" (Rev. 12:10). Thirdly, it delivers them from the pressing bondage of guilt - "that they may receive forgiveness of sins" (v. 18c). It brings a peace to the heart and the conscience that nothing else can provide. This peace of conscience, this justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), such as the Publican received in Luke 18, may very well be the dominant utility of the gospel. Fourthly, it delivers them from a life of lonely selfishness into the warmth of Christian fellowship with other believers - "that they may receive an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith" (v. 18d). Fifthly, it delivers them from spiritual immaturity to a life of growth and progressive conformity to the image of Christ -"sanctified by faith that is in me" (v. 18c). The gospel is spiritual food for the believer's growth (I Pet. 2:2). God, through the gospel, can transform attitudes, mend broken relationships, encourage the downcast, comfort the bereaved, strengthen the weak, and change the lives of those who hear. The gospel is heaven's powerful resource for living the Christian life." (From his essay on "Born Again," and from PART III, "The Purpose of the Gospel" - http://www.sovgrace.net/born.htm)

That was a fairly good job about telling us about how the gospel and faith in it does about everything you can imagine except regenerate a man. According to the view of Gowens a man can be without all this, without forgiveness of sins, without sanctification, without any inheritance among the saints, without pardon from his guilt, etc., and yet he is "regenerated"! As I have repeatedly said, the Hardshells have conversion and gospel salvation and faith doing so much more for a man than "regeneration," so that he is a better man if he gets "converted." Without this "conversion" by the gospel, of which the verse in Acts is describing, he is still "under the power of Satan" and not yet "under the power of God," he is still in sin and under guilt, having not yet received pardon and forgiveness, but it really doesn't matter in the end if he is "regenerated."

Here is what the famed Elder Lemuel Potter said about this verse in his debate about means in regeneration (a debate I will be citing from extensively in a later chapter).

"Acts 26:16, to deliver from the power of darkness, and to open their eyes, and turn them from the power of satan unto God, etc., had no allusion to the work of regeneration, whatever, but that regenerated people in the state of idolatry, or under the influences of false religions, were in darkness; and they were blinded, and that the gospel was to be preached to them, in order to open their eyes, and to get them out of that darkness, and bring them to understand the truth, that Jesus is the only Savior of sinners; and realize that their sins were forgiven when the blood of Jesus Christ was shed on the cross, that they now are capable of enjoying an inheritance among them that are sanctified, which means an inheritance among other saints. My expression of the matter is, that they may enjoy the privileges of members of the Gospel church."

(http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Potter-Pence1st.html)

Again, it is absolutely stubborness to not see that the descriptions given in the passage in Acts is unrelated to eternal salvation. A man is just trying to uphold a position that is clearly against the passage in Acts because he is wedded to his man made doctrine.

And then Gowens writes again:

"The effectual call is a call to eternal salvation; the gospel call is a call to repentance and faith (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 17:30; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:20). The effectual call is a call to sonship; the gospel call is a call to discipleship. God speaks directly in the effectual call; God speaks through men in the gospel call. The effectual call is always obeyed; the gospel call is frequently disobeyed, shunned, and resisted. The effectual call is a creation; the gospel call is a communication. The effectual call is directed to the dead; the gospel call is directed to the living. The effectual call is an internal call; the gospel call is an external appeal. The effectual call produces life (2 Tim. 1:9); the gospel call produces light (2 Tim. 1:10). The sinner responds involuntarily in the effectual call (like Lazarus). The gospel call, however, calls for a voluntary, decisive response ("...harden not your hearts" - Heb. 3:15). The conclusive testimony of Scripture is that the effectual call precedes the gospel call and that the effectual call gives a man spiritual life, while the gospel call gives a man knowledge and understanding. This distinction between regeneration and gospel conversion is essential." (Ibid)

In seems odd that in the commentary on the verse in Acts that the "gospel" has so much power to do all the things enumerated in the verse and acknowledged by Gowens should be followed by such commentary as is exhibited in the above quotation. In one side of his mouth this "gospel" has such transforming power and then in the other side it has no power at all. Why can't these brethren simply acknowledge the truth expressed by the Old Baptists in the London Confession of Faith? The "Gospel Call" is what is made effectual when it is attended simultaneously with the "internal call" of the Spirit, who takes the words of Christ and applies them savingly to the regenerating and transforming of the soul.

Look at the picture these apologists have painted of the difference between regeneration and conversion and see which one really "transforms" the soul, which delivers him from sin. Michael Gowens even said that the gospel had the power to "Deliver the Believer from the Practice of Sin." Yet, we are told in I John 3 that whoever "practices sin is of the devil." Those who are "born of God" do "not practice sin." So, how can one get the power not to sin, according to Michael? By the gospel!

Well, here are two chapters on the Hardshell views on "faith" and I am not finished. This is such an important chapter. What is left to look at on this topic I will try to sum up in a later chapter, with extensions, or incorporate the rest into another chapter on another related topic.