Chapter 27 - Hot Shots Returned (2nd Volley)

God's Gospel Power To Save

"I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:14-16)

How do the Hardshells deal with this verse? Does it not destroy their view that the preaching of the gospel is not God's means, yea, God's power UNTO salvation?

The almost universal Hardshell "interpretation" of this passage is to affirm that the phrase, "to everyone who believes," means, "to everyone who has God implanted "faith" in "regeneration"; in other words, "unto everyone who are already born again or saved." Thus, they would say -- the gospel is the power of God unto a time salvation to those who are already eternally saved." Or, they would interpret it to say, "the gospel is the power of God unto a gospel belief (faith) to everyone who has a seed belief (faith)."

Wrote Elder C. H. Cayce:

""For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."---Rom. i. 16. Please take notice of the fact that Paul did not say, "it is the power of God in order to salvation"--but unto salvation. How under heaven could the gospel of Christ be the power of God unto salvation if salvation did not already exist in the person before the gospel got there? How can one thing be unto another thing if the other thing is not already in existence? The gospel is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." It is not the power of God unto salvation to one who is not a believer. A believer is one who has already been born 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."---John i. 12,13. Those who now believe, in the present, were born of God, in the past. So the gospel coming to one in power proves that such a one was born of God before the gospel came to him; and one who has been born of God was chosen of God before he was born of God. Being born of God and the gospel coming to him with power is inspired proof of the fact that such a one was embraced in the election of God." (Vol.VII, pp. 376--379)


Two errors then are evident in this "interpretation." First, they err in making the "salvation" something in time and totally unconnected with the new birth or eternal salvation. Second, they err in affirming that the "believer" who is saved by the preaching of the gospel is not one who is a believer in the gospel, but a believer in the sense that he has a mystical seed or spirit of faith.

If "everyone who believes" refers to a "faith" that one has before they ever know the gospel, what is it that they believe? Apparently the Hardshells are using the phrase "everyone who believes" as equivalent with the phrase "everyone who is elect," or at least as equivalent to "everyone who is regenerated." So, let us read the verse as the Hardshells interpret it.

"...the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who is born again."

Has that really helped them? No, it has not. Rather, it has put them, logically, into the position of affirming that everyone who is born again will be saved by the gospel! Very few Hardshells believe that idea, although some have historically. Notice that Paul does not say that the "gospel" is potentially or hypothetically the "power of God" to those who believe, but that it is actually.

The average person reads the verse and naturally sees that Paul is saying that everyone who "believes the gospel" will be saved by believing it. The Hardshells will affirm that the "believing" of Romans 1:16 precedes any gospel knowledge, and thus cannot be a believing of the gospel. Well, again I ask, what do they "believe" by "regeneration," apart from the gospel? It cannot be a faith in Christ, "for how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Most will, when forced into an answer, say, "It is a belief in God, a supreme being." But, then, are they saying that all who confess a belief in this are born again, of God's elect? Do not the "devils" have this kind of faith?

Again, I press the point, that the Hardshells cannot escape the consequences of their interpretation that says "the gospel IS (in fact) the power of God unto salvation to EVERYONE who believes" (i.e., is "born again").

But, the Hardshells do not believe that "everyone" who is "born again," that has the "faith of God's elect," that "faith" which is "implanted" in "regeneration," and who is a "believer" in that sense, finds the gospel the power of God to their "time" or "gospel salvation"! Yet, by their "interpretation," they would have to say that the gospel is in fact the power of God to salvation to "everyone" who is born again. They do not believe this however, in spite of the fact that their "interpretation" necessitates it.

Elder John Watson

"So, those who are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ were called. This then brings me to the subject of their calling. This was of God, and gave efficacy and certainty to all other callings--by the preacher--by the written word, or by any means whatever...Paul in his letter to the Romans defines the Gospel to be the "Power of God unto salvation unto every one that believes." The power of God unto whom? In this instance they are termed the predestined of God--wherein we learn that the Gospel was ordained unto them as the Power of God: a very sure and effectual power, verily! sure unto them as some of the seed, called in his letter, the predestinated ones, a term synonimous in a Gospel sense with that of seed. Thus, the Gospel as the power of God could not fail to reach them with its blessings bad as their natural state was. Any inferior power would have failed. The Gospel as the Power of God must accord, in its practical course, with the foreknowledge and predestination of God. It is absurd to entertain a thought to the contrary." (Old Baptist Test, page 81)

Again he writes:

"We may therefore learn that the preaching of Paul, and of others was included in the calling of God. Hence, the Apostle asks the questions, how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach except they be sent? And may I not ask most significantly here by whom are they sent? Will our missionary Baptists allow Christ to answer? "Pray ye therefore the Lord of harvest, that He will send forth laborers into His harvest."" (page 82)

Elder Watson was a unique Hardshell founding father, and I will be having more to say about him in later chapters. He was not your typical Hardshell however, for he believed that the gospel was the means God used in calling the elect to life in Christ and he believed those fellow Hardshells who did not believe such were really NOT the Old Baptists, but "ULTRA Brethren," as he called them.

He certainly did see what I see in the passage. He sees that the verse absolutely affirms that everyone who is predestined to salvation will be brought to that salvation by the preaching of the gospel. That is truly the Old Baptist position. I challenge the Hardshells to cite one Baptist writer, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells," who interpreted Romans 1:16 as do you.

Dr. Gill On Romans 1:16

"it is the power of God organically or instrumentally; as it is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends; to which add, the manner in which all this is done, suddenly, secretly, effectually, and by love, and not force: the extent of this power is, "unto salvation"; the Gospel is a declaration and revelation of salvation by Christ, and is a means of directing and encouraging souls to lay hold upon it." (Commentary)

Gill was not here advocating a new doctrine among the Baptists nor a new interpretation of Romans 1:16. He expressed the standard and historical view of the Baptists. Had any Hardshells been around in Dr. Gill's day, they would have opposed his views and written against them. But, there are no writings opposing this traditional Baptist view until the "rise of the Hardshells."

One of the things that always bothered me about this novel "interpretation" of Romans 1:16, besides the strange twist on the import of the term "believer," was the making of this "salvation" a "time salvation." This view, however, is just simply "out of context" with the whole Roman epistle, which is to give us divine teaching on eternal justification and salvation. The way the Hardshells handle the Book of Romans has Paul, undetectable to any except the Hardshells, going back and forth, at one time talking about eternal deliverance from sin and then, at other times, talking strictly about being saved in time from temporal pains and harms.

Is not Romans one talking about eternal condemnation? I would ask the Hardshells to tell us what parts of Romans is dealing with eternal salvation and what part with time salvation. How do we know when to interpret one way versus the other? Does Paul indicate in the "context" which is which? Is it not true that the whole of the epistle is dealing with eternal salvation and that you Hardshells just do not want to believe it and had rather twist and distort it?