Responding to Hardshell Comments

The following are some recent comments to some of the chapters I have published. I wish now to write a response. I do intend to have a final chapter in this book wherein I post some of the correspondence I have had with Hardshells during its composition. First, I will take up these comments from Brother Joe Nettles.

Joe Nettles said:

”I don't know what flavor of Primitive Baptists you grew up around, but I have been rocked in a cradle of grace and am now trying to preach for them and have never heard an established, sound "hardshell" ever mention praying for the new birth of his seed! I've always prayed (as have all my brethren in like manner to my knowledge) that "if they be thine (already regenerated) then work in them in a special (as opposed to ordinary) and strong way to conviction, fruit, and repentance. But, Lord, as in all things, thy will be done." Just because an old, deceased preacher (bless their hearts!) at one time proclaimed it, doesn't make it automatically scripturally sound. You may continue to degrade and belittle us, but you can't stop us from loving you for Christ's sake and praying for your deliverance from your bitter little agendas!”
Elder Joe Nettles, Vidalia, GA

There are “flavors” now of the “Primitive Baptists”? What “flavor” is Brother Nettles? He is not of the “flavor” of leading Hardshell apologist Elder Grigg Thompson who regularly called upon dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel! I will of course be adding to this topic under chapters dealing with both Elder Grigg Thompson and under chapters titled ”Addresses to the Lost.” He is also not of the "flavor" of Elder John Watson, author of the "Old Baptist Test," and who believed in praying for the lost, believing that the godly prayers of his mother were "means" in his salvation. I think that “flavor” of ”Primitive Baptists,” which refuses to pray for the salvation of their lost children, is a very bitter “flavor” indeed! Elder Grigg Thompson and Elder John Watson were not just common preachers, but leading founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination. Neo-Hardshells may not pray for the elect to be regenerated, sinners saved, but the farther they get back to the year 1832 the more they will see prayers more frequently offered for the lost from the first "Anti-Means" Baptists. Does my friend not also realize that even Grigg's father, Elder Wilson Thompson, also prayed for sinners to be saved from their sins?

Let us ask ourselves this question: Can we find anyone in the Bible praying for the eternal salvation of others? Do the Hardshells really believe such praying is absent from the Bible? Are we reading the same textbook?

”My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved.” (Romans 10:1)

“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)

Paul endured, prayed, and did everything in his power towards the salvation of the elect. It is sad that Brother Nettles misses this important truth. It is a great sin not to pray, especially for the salvation of our neighbors. We are to “edify our neighbors,” and certainly to win them to Christ is the optimal way to do that, as Paul taught. Said the Prophet Samuel:

”Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you...” (I Samuel 12:23)

Did he not pray for their eternal welfare? It is absolutely absurd to say otherwise.

Brother Nettles then says:

”You may continue to degrade and belittle us, but you can't stop us from loving you for Christ's sake and praying for your deliverance from your bitter little agendas!”

It is more than a little ironic (more like hypocrisy) that the Hardshells, who have historically been the most bitter gainsayers of the historic Baptist faith, as expressed in her beloved confessions of faith, and who have regularly and vehemently denounced the ”Mission Baptists,” would now turn around and charge such things on me who simply am trying to answer all the false accusations made, historically, by the Hardshells! Brother, I could cite volumes of bitter language from your Hardshell forefathers that would make my language look lamb like! You all can ”dish it out but can’t take it”? ”If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Again, this is more substantiation of what I have said repeatedly about modern Hardshell attack methods. They ”hit and run”! Anyone who attempts to answer all their charges and accusations is branded as Brother Nettles and others have done. Are the Hardshells not ”sweet” and kind?!

My "little agenda"? And just what has been that agenda? Is it not simply to make a reply to all this baloney the Hardshells have been spouting forth now for almost two hundred years without a let up? And, what can we say about the Hardshell “agenda”? Yes, they have one, and if I had a mind now, I would write further about it. At least my agenda has me praying like the Apostle Paul!

Brother Nettles then says:

"you can't stop us from loving you for Christ's sake and praying for your deliverance..."

Is that what Elder Jeff Patterson felt and communicated in his recent correspondence with me? No, he wished my absence from the church, my eternal damnation! Oh what love that is, hey? Elder Jeff Patterson did not want to win me back to Hardshellism. Is Brother Nettles in disagreement with Elder Patterson?

Here is another comment I got from a Brother and which I will take time to respond.


John Crowley said:

”Like yourself, I am unaware of any author who states a purely anti-instrumental view of regeneration prior to the 19th century. However, it does appear that Dr. Gill in his Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book VI, Chapter XI, under the fourth head, the instrumental cause of regeneration, does seem to anticipate the anti-instrumentalist view, while not denying the "... ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men...." You seem to hold Dr. Gill in respect, but I think that if your thinking follows its natural tendency you will have to discard him as you have Beebe and Trott. He may not have been what you are pleased to call a "hardshell," but he is the ground from which they grew.

I have followed your writing here with great interest. I have the pleasure to be a hearer among several small Primtive Baptist Churches in Southeastern Georgia which happily lost fellowship with the mainline PBs during the period 1860-1927, and thus enjoyed a degree of preservation from some of the principal errors of which you complain. The majority of our ministers believe in gospel instrumentality and that it is the duty of gospel ministers to "Warn poor careless sinners" of their awful state by nature. They have also of late resolved that candidates for membership who have been previously baptized in other professions will be received on a case by case basis, chiefly determined by the prospective members own conviction of whether he or she was truly converted at the time of their original baptism. Where there are enough interested parties, we also have Bible studies. In all other regards we are traditional "hardshells", our preachers suck wind, our meetinghouses would make good barns, and we sing slowly from the "Primitive Hymns" to fine, dolorous doric melodies.”

"I am unaware of any author who states a purely anti-instrumental view of regeneration prior to the 19th century."

Now, that is a wonderful admission, isn't it? Maybe there is hope for some honest Hardshells, hey? Why do not other honest Hardshells come up and "shell down the corn" and admit that they are not "Primitive" nor "Original" Baptists after all!

Yet, one can sense that Brother Crowley makes this admission reluctantly and sadly. So, what does he do? He clings to the belief that men like John Gill, later in life became more of an "anti-means" Hardshell. Now, I have addressed this already somewhat, showing, as has Brother Ross, that John Gill did not believe the "anti-means" position, not in his Commentaries nor in his Body of Divinity. I will have a later chapter on Gill and seek to enlarge upon what both Brother Ross and I have already written upon this subject. Yes, I admit that Gill had Hyper-Calvinistic tendencies, but they were kept in check and he never embraced what he merely speculated upon.

He does admit, however, that Gill was "not denying the '... ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men....'" Wonderful admission!

He says next:

"You seem to hold Dr. Gill in respect." Yes, and so did the first Baptists in America! The Philadelphia Baptist Association, the oldest and mother of all the others, recommended, early in its history, that all Baptist ministers read and study Gill's Commentaries and it became a test of orthodoxy in that association as to whether one was in agreement with him on essential doctrine. As far as the teachings of Gill having tendencies towards Hardshellism, I will have more to say in later chapters, as I said.

He next says:

Gill "is the ground from which they grew." Well, yes, but the Hardshells took Gill's speculations and "went to seed" with it, taking his speculations much farther than he himself wanted to go. Hardshells have gone way beyond Gill!

He then says:

"I have followed your writing here with great interest."

I hope my brother will continue to follow them and also the writings of Brother Ross. He then speaks of a group of "Primitive Baptists" that he is associated with (and I assume, from his other remarks, that he is with that "flavor" of PB's known as "Progressives" ) where the majority believe in gospel means, have Bible studies, etc. That is good news. It is to be hoped that they will all agree and not be split on this issue. It is also good news to know that some of his "flavor" of PB's are rejecting the tenets of Landmarkism and not rejecting all alien baptisms. It is also good news to hear that some Hardshells are addressing sinners about their depravity and need of salvation.

It is good to know that a large segment of this brother's group of Hardshells agree with much of what I have written here! Can we get Elder Bradley and the liberal brothers to "come around" on these things? They seem to be getting closer.


Another commenter, Mike McInnis said:

"Greetings Steve, you are indeed a slayer of "Hardshells" if nowhere else but in your own mind. I am not a fan of labels and especially when they are applied as epithets and not for the edification of the brethren. Your exposure to "hardshells" seems to be limited to those who are often called "conditionalists" by those who have a more "absolute" view of GOD's purpose. This conditional teaching has almost been the death knell of Primitive Baptists as to their historical theology and has probably done more to confuse the issues that you raise than any other error that ever crept in among them. Though Bradley and Gowens are indeed spokesmen for large numbers of those who call themselves Primitive Baptists (which you lovingly refer to as Hardshells) I can assure you that they do not speak for the historical position of the Primitive Baptists in general. Like all denominations, the PB's have strayed from their moorings but their errors are no greater than those of the great "missionary" endeavors. I am not formally associated with the PB's but have a great deal of respect for many who have walked in faith among them and have ably contended for truth when others have been swept away in the religious practices of the world. I would not at this time comment on your "theological" leanings but would point out that your arrogant attitude is exactly the spirit that brought about the division among the "hardshells" and the "missionarys" to start with. You boast of desiring to debate "a leading Hardshell" rather than some of the "ignorant and unlearned" ones. It is interesting that you use this choice of words since it was used to describe some of the apostles. It is a very common mistake that is often made by the "learned" that the things of GOD can be understood by such "learning". The Pharisees were quite convinced and satisfied in their "learning" but nonetheless were bankrupt of spiritual understanding. You boast that "they probably wouldn't want to touch us with a ten foot pole" and in this you are probably correct. To answer a fool in his folly is generally a waste of time. I hope that you will examine your attitude as closely as you do your great "theological learning." I remain one of the ignorant and unlearned, a sinner in search of that better country through the merits of CHRIST alone."

I think a better "label" than "Hardshell slayer" would be "Hardshell mouth stopper." I wrote a recent article upon this, citing the words of Paul, in regard to the false teachers, "whose mouths must be stopped." Apparently I am doing a fairly good job as I have not heard much from the mouths of the Hardshells.

Brother McInnis next says:

"Your exposure to "hardshells" seems to be limited to those who are often called "conditionalists" by those who have a more "absolute" view of GOD's purpose."

My membership was originally with those who are called Conditionalists" but I embraced the historic confessions relative to the "Absolute Predestination of all things" and so would probably be in league with Brother McInnis on that point. But, the "Absoluters" are in league with the Hardshells in their view that regeneration is without means of truth being conveyed to the mind, or by the gospel. Perhaps Brother McInnis will enjoy the later chapter on "The Hardshells and Predestination"!

He says further:

"...the PB's have strayed from their moorings..." Well, that is all I have been trying to show in this book! So, why take offence? He then says:

"I am not formally associated with the PB's"! Well, what does that say? I am not formally associated with them. Today I am with a group who are truly Primitive Baptists, not with a group who erroneously and arrogantly say that of themselves when they have no evidence to the contrary to prove they are "Original"!

He then says:

"You boast of desiring to debate "a leading Hardshell" rather than some of the "ignorant and unlearned" ones. It is interesting that you use this choice of words since it was used to describe some of the apostles."

Yes, I know that some viewed the apostles as "ignorant and unlearned men," but they were not what they were perceived to be! I will not debate a Hardshell who is not a leading apologist for their faith. I spent too many years with this group and they have a large number of ignorant and arrogant preachers, who cannot even speak correct English. The apostles spoke proper grammar. There are times when we are to "answer the fool" and there are times when he ought to be ignored. I think this brother is judging my heart without proper evidence or authority to do so. I think I have already alluded to much of the kind of ignorance I am talking about. My dad and others, for many years now, have publicly decried the kind of ignorance I am talking about.

He next says:

"I hope that you will examine your attitude as closely as you do your great "theological learning."

The more learned readers of this book will notice the various faulty arguments in my brother's comments. He puts forth a clear ad hominem argument in the above. What I teach is wrong because I have a "bad attitude." Also, where is the evidence, from my writings, that I am "arrogant"? Does my learned brother know what the word means? I certainly would not want to debate someone who accuses me of such things without giving evidence to the contrary.

My brother next says:

"I remain one of the ignorant and unlearned..."

Well, I don't see anything in the word of God to provoke us to be ignorant and unlearned. The Apostles, as I said, were not so, even though they were perceived as being so by the "worldly wiseman."

I guess Brother McInnis and I will not be debating Hardshellism, seeing he confesses he is "ignorant and unlearned." Perhaps if he keeps reading our writings he will become "wise unto salvation," for that is truly my prayer.