Chpt. 79 - Hardshell Proof Texts I

In this series of chapters I will be looking at the leading "proof texts" and arguments offered by "Primitive Baptist" apologists in an attempt to uphold their Hardshell Hyperist soteriological views.

The chief error of the Hardshells is their belief in "regeneration" apart from the means of the gospel, and faith. Their error divorces faith and repentance, or conversion, from the experience of the new birth, even making these things unessential for eternal salvation. They thus share the same "ordo salutis" as those who profess to be upholding the "Reformed" view.

Many of the first Hardshells believed that all the elect, after being "regenerated," would come to faith and repentance. Some few still do today. The vast majority of modern Hardshells, or of the remnant that remains, however, believe that only few of the "regenerated" will come to believe in Christ.

In the first part of this series I will look at those passages which the Hardshells (and "Reformed") use to prove that "regeneration is prior to faith," and that faith is not integral to it.

John 1: 12, 13

"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 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." (John 1: 10-13 KJV)

Hardshells argue just like those of the "Reformed" view, from this passage, affirming that faith follows the divine begetting.

Wrote Elder J. W. Hardwick:

"The most learned men, and the greatest theologians that the world has produced, have left their testimony that the receiving of life, or being born again, is a passive work. Notice John i. 11-13. In this text the writer says, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. 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," etc. Here we have the term "believe" in the present tense, and the term "were born" in the past tense. Hence, the believer was born again. His being born again is what enables him to believe. Therefore, the text shows that those who believe were already born again, and that they are the ones who have power to become manifest sons of God." ("Regeneration" Written by J.W. Hardwick in 1940 - emphasis mine - SMG)

http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1201/36/

About the sinner being wholly "passive" in regeneration I will postpone addressing, as promised, until that upcoming series "Paradigm Problems," but will now simply point out that this is the standard Hardshell view. It is also the standard "Reformed" view. Each promote the same "ordo salutis." Before I address more particularly the remarks by Elder Hardwick, let us hear from a "Reformed Calvinist."

Hendryx on John 1: 12, 13

"Question: How can you say regeneration precedes faith? Doesn’t the Bible clearly teach that regeneration is the result of faith? What about: John 1:12b “...to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--”. Doesn’t this show that they become children of God after belief?

The above passage is one that I have seen many synergists use when debating against monergistic regeneration. However, John 1:12 is referring to our justification & adoption, not regeneration. Although the various doctrines of salvation are closely related, they are not the same thing. Historical Christianity has always taught that we become Christians, adopted into God’s family, only AFTER we believe, never before. But regeneration precedes and enables the faith which, in turn, justifies. Remember that the entire sequence of God's saving work takes place instantly.

Biblical historic Christianity teaches indeed that faith precedes justification but even prior to faith comes the regenerating grace of God, not the “will of man”.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/questions/critical_mono.html
Now let us hear from another "Reformed Calvinist" on this matter.

J. L. Packer wrote:

"John declares in the prologue that only the regenerate receive Christ and enter into the privileges of God's children (John 1:12-13).

The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it. Calvin used the term "regeneration" to cover man's whole subjective renewal, including conversion and sanctification. Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration (hence the systematic mistranslation of epistrepho, "turn," as a passive, "be converted," in the AV); later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the "seed" from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling."

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_regen.html


Thus, the view of those who promote the "Reformed" view, whether Reformed Baptist, as James White, or Hardshell Baptist, like Hardwick, or Presbyterian, as R. C. Sproul, and Hendryx, or as some other PedoBaptist. But, let me now look particularly at what Hardwick wrote.

Hardwick wrote:

"Here we have the term "believe" in the present tense, and the term "were born" in the past tense. Hence, the believer was born again. His being born again is what enables him to believe. Therefore, the text shows that those who believe were already born again, and that they are the ones who have power to become manifest sons of God."

Yes, it is true that "believe" is in the present tense and "were born" is in the past tense, but Hardwick and the Hardshells, like others who promote the "born again before faith" heresy, fail to observe that "received" is in the past tense! Thus, "were born" is equated with "received him"!

John put "receiving" Christ BEFORE "believing," even though he equated the two! But, why did he do this, if they mean the same thing? "Received" is past tense (aorist), but "believing" is a present tense participle. Why did John not phrase it like this:

"...but to as many as received (past tense) him...even to them which believed (past tense) on his name"? Why did he not make both verbs agree? Is this a Johannine singular occurrence? But, more on this shortly.

The Hardshells and the "Reformed" both share the same view on this passage relative to the relationship of the divine "begetting" to the sinner's "receiving" of Christ. Where they differ is in regard to how they interpret the phrase "to them gave he power to become the sons of God."

Hardwick, and many other Hardshells, add the word "manifest" to the passage, thus altering the entire meaning of the passage. So they read the passage as if it actually said - "to them gave he power to manifestly become the sons of God."

They also do this with other passages. If you ask them about Galatians 3: 26, about being "children of God by faith," they will do the same thing, adding the word "manifest," and reading it as - "we are all the children of God (manifestly) in Christ Jesus," not actually.

In the famous trial, the "Mt. Carmal Church Trial," alreadly cited from in earlier chapters, one of the witnesses for the "anti-means" party, when questioned about Acts 26: 18, kept adding the word "manifest" to the passage. By Paul's preaching the gospel the elect, and those already "regenerated," would "manifestly" receive remission of sins, and divine inheritance, and sanctification, etc.

On the other hand, Hardshells do not share the view of Hendryx and Packer in affirming that "power to become the children of God" is becoming actual children of God, as I have observed.

Hardshells, appropriately, put adoption at the time of the begetting. Where they err, however, is in affirming that both the begetting and the adopting precede reception of and faith in Christ.

Hendryx, Packer, and the "Reformed," believe that "adoption" is actual adoption, and believe that it follows faith. But, they also teach that "regeneration" must precede faith. One is first begotten or regenerated, apart from means and faith, and then he comes to faith, through means, and then by faith is adopted and justified.

The "Reformed" view has a man "regenerated" who is not a believer nor an adoptee into the family of God!

Hendryx said:

"Historical Christianity has always taught that we become Christians, adopted into God’s family, only AFTER we believe, never before. But regeneration precedes and enables the faith which, in turn, justifies. Remember that the entire sequence of God's saving work takes place instantly."

Hendryx states both a truth and an error here. He is correct when he affirms that "historical Christianity" has always taught the necessity of faith in Christ for eternal salvation. Thus, the Hardshell view is not "historic Christianity" but a hybrid and novel view. Hendryx is in error, however, when he says "but regeneration precedes and enables the faith which justifies." Notice that Hendryx does not say that the latter view was "historic Christianity," nor historic "Calvinism."

"Historic Christianity" not only teaches that adoption, salvation, justification, and sanctification, follows faith, but also regeneration or the new birth.

Hendryx said:

"Biblical historic Christianity teaches indeed that faith precedes justification but even prior to faith comes the regenerating grace of God, not the “will of man”."

Again, notice how Hendryx does not say that the placing of regeneration before faith is "historic Christianity," for he knows that such would be false. He is really admitting that the placing of faith after the new birth is not the "historic" teaching of the Christian community.

Packer wrote:

"Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated conversion with regeneration" and that "later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly..."

This admission is quite interesting. Packer is an apologist who represents the Hyperist view, the supposedly "Reformed" view of the relation of faith to regeneration, and yet, ironically, or hypocritically, certainly contradictorily, the leading "Reformers," even Calvin himself, did not hold to this view, as we shall see. This is almost universally admitted by the neo "Reformed"! How can they claim to hold the "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" view, however, when men like Calvin did not teach it?

Another ironical thing from the above citation of Packer are these words:

"The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it."

Does modern "reformed theology" uphold the Augustinian or Reformed view on "prevenient grace"? No. It denies the concept, affirming that it is what properly belongs to Arminianism, not to Calvinism. In fact, as I have pointed out in other writings, neo Calvinism, or neo "Reformed" soteriology, has simply called the Arminian giving of "prevenient grace" by a different name, calling it "regeneration," or at least as regeneration's "first stage."

The Arminian says that all who are given "prevenient grace" are given "ability to obey the gospel," but the neo "Reformed Calvinist" says that "regeneration" = ability to obey. In the one case, giving ability is a preparatory step towards regeneration, but in the other, "giving ability" IS regeneration itself.

Calvin wrote the following in commentary on the verses in John 1: 12, 13:

"On the contrary, the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more fully, and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us WILLINGLY, (James 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.

It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.

Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed — that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and, indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed on them." (Calvin, Commentary, John 1:13)

"In his comment on 1 Corinthians 13:13, Calvin says, "In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us.""

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html

Thus, what Calvin taught is what I have repeatedly taught about the relationship of faith to the new birth. He believed, like J. M. Pendleton and others, that there was no strict "ordo salutis" as regards faith and the new birth, the scriptures seemingly equating them. If there is any predominant way, it seems clear that the scriptures put faith before the new birth, or simultaneous with it, more than it puts birth before faith.

To say that one is "begotten to faith" does not imply that one can be begotten apart from faith, nor that faith is, as Calvin said, a part of our regeneration.

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5: 4 KJV)

People are begotten. They are, in their persons, the beneficients or recipients of the begetting, but all this means is that a "seed" is planted which instantly begets faith, love, joy, peace, hope, confession, repentance, etc. That is, when we are begotten, faith is begotten, or vice versa, when faith is begotten, we are begotten.

The begetting in this verse is not to be divorced from faith in Christ, or from "receiving" or "welcoming" him with the heart, soul, and mind. Just as John further clarified or identified what he meant by those who "received/welcomed" him, that is, by those who owned, recognized, and acknowledged him as God's Son and Messiah, by saying "even to those who believed on his name," so he likewise further describes them as those who have been "born of God," and not "bloods," nor of the "will of the flesh," nor of the "will of man."

Thus, John equates three expressions.

1) Receiving Christ
2) Faith in Christ
3) Being begotten of God

Thus, John is not giving a chronological order, but is simply further describing the character of those who have received Christ.

I agree with this writer, who said:

"...it seems most natural to view the “coming into being as a child of God” as Biblically equivalent to the “being born out of God.” And it seems most unnatural to think that an individual can “be born out of God” but not yet “come into being as a child of God.” And since the teaching of verse 12 indicates that receiving Jesus Christ/believing on Jesus Christ’s name is prerequisite to being given the “authoritative power” to come into being as a child of God, then such would also be prerequisite to being born out of God. Even so, I would present the following:

1. Receiving Jesus Christ = Believing on Jesus Christ’s name.

2. Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Coming into being as a child of God.

3. Coming into being as a child of God = Being born out of God.

4. Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Being born out of God.

Whereas the Reformed Calvinistic system of belief would be required to separate the idea of “being born out of God” from the idea of “coming into being as a child of God.” For that system of belief would present the following:

Being born out of God --> Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Coming into being as a child of God."
(Pastor Scott Markle)

http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=4652

As I said earlier, there is a reason why "received" is in past tense and "believing" is in the present tense. John frequently puts believing in the present tense, for what is ongoing and active, for what is called the "life of faith." To John it is they who continue believing who are they who have received Christ in intial salvation. He could, as I said, have written both "receive" and "believe" in the same tense, but this would be out of character for John.

He puts "begetting" before "believing," but he does not put "begetting" before "receiving"! Those who are believing (living the life of faith) are they who have received Christ, and who have been begotten. Being "begotten" is not an ongoing action, and so is not put in the present active voice. John is not denying the proposition (sentence) that says - "he who has received Christ has been begotten." He does put the "begetting" before the life of faith, but he does not put the "begetting" before the initial "reception."

"...as many as received (aorist) him...were born (aorist), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12, 13)

I see no proof that says that John is establishing an ordo salutis that puts faith as something after and apart from the new birth.

In the next chapter I will look at I John 5:1 and other verses that the Hardshells use to attempt to prove regeneration and salvation apart from faith in Christ.