The Seceder Hardshells

Last November, when I had a debate with John Gentry, Campbellite, we held the debate on the campus of SBTS in Louisville. During this two day stay in Louisville, I was able to visit the campus library and look up some old books and records relative to the early 19th century "split" between the "anti mission" or Hardshell Baptists and those who supported missions. I found an old book on the history of the Liberty Baptist Association and on the "split" between the Hardshells and the general body of Baptists. I copied some pages at that time but did not get to copy as much as I had liked. Recently, I was able to find this history on the internet! I was so glad to have found it as it is an able defense against the Hardshell claims and pretenstions. Below are some notes taken from this work with some comments of mine. When I get back to writing and editing my on-going book on the Hardshells, I hope to make use of these notes. All highlighting and emphasis is mine - SG.

The front page of this work reads as follows: "OF THE LIBERTY BAPTIST ASSOCIATION FROM ITS ORGANIZATION IN 1832 TO 1906 Containing Much History Incidentally Connected with this Body ALSO There is presented quite an extended account of the "Split" in Baptist ranks, showing who are the "Primitive Baptists," together with Side-Lights on the "Split."

It was written by Elder Henry Sheets on behalf of the Liberty Association.

Sheets wrote:

"In this place we will offer a few thoughts on the use of means. Regeneration is frequently represented in Scripture as being effected by means: men are said to be born again by the word of God. 1st Peter, 1st, 23d, to be begotten by the word of truth, James 1:18; and Paul says to the Corinthians, in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the gospel. Some may ask, how is this to be reconciled with making the quickening of sinners properly a supernatural work?" (pg. 20-24)

Bob Ross, who has also written in our time on the "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," has stated that the division between the anti-missionaries and the missionaries did not concern any serious doctrinal difference, but focused on "methods" of evangelism. I have also stated the same. The first Hardshells, represented by men such as Gilbert Beebe and John Watson, believed that means were involved in the new birth. It was not till later in the anti mission movement, however, that many of the Hardshells began to take the extreme position that affirmed that the gospel was no means at all in the new birth. In the above citation, however, Elder Sheets mentions the early discussions regarding means in "regeneration."

The first Hardshells, as I have shown, believed in distinguishing between "regeneration" and new "birth." They believed that no means were used in "regeneration," the first stage in the process, but means were used in the second stage, or in the "birth" of the Spirit. It is easy to see how this view would later cause most of the anti mission brethren to change into full blown "anti meanism." The second generation Hardshells soon discarded the view that regeneration and new birth were distinct but held on to the view that no means were involved in "regeneration," or in new "birth."

The Hardshells have no historical records to show that any Particular Baptist believed that the elect could be saved or born again apart from the means of the gospel prior to their departure from the Baptist family.

Elder Sheets wrote:

"From this it will be seen that the first missionary society that was organized in this State was in the bounds of the Kehukee Association, and its members were mainly instrumental in its organization.

It was not until 1827 that this body took a decided Anti-missionary position."

"We have now clearly shown that the Kehukee Association, which, since 1827, has manifested such hostility to missionary institutions, was for a number of years previous to that date a missionary body; consequently they are not "the Primitive" but the New Baptists. The Regular or Missionary Baptists are now occupying the position that the Kehukee brethren did previous to 1826 and '27."

This is the crucial question in debating the question "who are the primitive Baptists?" I invite any of my Hardshell brethren to come forward, as did Elders Lemuel Potter (late 1880's) and John R. Daily (early 1900's), to debate the question - "who are the real primitive Baptists?" What are they afraid of? Is it not that they shall be exposed? Elder Sheets gives evidence to show how the Kehukee Association, prior to the rise of the anti mission movement, was not Hardshell.

Elder Sheets wrote:

"In 1832, Elder James Osborne, of Baltimore, was present. Through his influence a large majority of this Association declared non-fellowship with all the benevolent societies of the day, and have since assumed the name of "The Old School" or "Primitive Baptists." It is, however, a misnomer, for they were formerly the "Primitive Baptists," but by changing their position, and instead of remaining Missionary Baptists as they previously had been, they became the New Baptists."

Again, this is the crucial point to be decided. Were the Baptists, prior to the "split" with the Hardshells, more like the Mission Baptists or the Anti-Mission Baptists? Did the Baptists prior to the 19th century, support means in new birth, or not? Did they support theological and Sunday schools, or not? Did they support revival and protracted meetings, or not? Did they support missionaries, or not? Elder Sheets is correct, and all the historical evidence proves it - there was no Hardshellism among the Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells in the 1830's.

Elder Sheets mentions Elder Osbourne and his role in the "split." I plan to write some things about the bio of Elder Osbourne. Elder Osbourne played a key role in the "split" and in the creation of the Hardshell denomination. He has not been given, however, much attention by those who have written on the history of the Hardshells. But, Elder Sheets did not ignore him, as the above, and the following, citations show. Hopefully, in the near future, I can put together some pertinent information about Osbourne.

Elder Sheets wrote:

"...antimission brethren are evidently the seceding or New Baptists."

This is a truth. The Hardshells will not admit this, however. They will hold on to their own interpretation of history no matter what facts are presented to them. They did not "exclude" the pro mission Baptists, but rather "seceded" from the Baptist family. They became a "sect," a "heresy," and sectarian and anti in spirit, and certainly a "cult."

Sheets said:

"While Elder Stadler and others were changing and getting up divisions about missions, the Regular or Missionary Baptists went regularly on in support of missions, consequently they are the true "Primitive Baptists."

It is a falsification of history, and injustice to the Regular or Missionary Baptists, whenever the Anti-mission Baptists are called the "Old Side" or the "Primitive Baptists."

Sheets states the matter correctly. All the historical evidence is on his side and supports his charge.

Sheets said:

"The Baltimore Baptist Association, so famous for its antimissionary character since 1836, was, previous to that date, a missionary Association."

Sheets gives historical records from two leading Hardshell Assocations, from the Kehukee and the Baltimore, demonstrating that they were both just like the Missionary Baptists, prior to their "secession" in the 1830's. Will today's Hardshells come forth and explain the historical records of these two associations, prior to the "split," showing us how they were "primitive" or "hardshell"? Will they deny that the "Old Kehukee" and the Baltimore were missionary before the rise of the Hardshells? Will they deny that they supported theological and Sunday schools, protracted meetings, etc., prior to the rise of Hardshells?

Sheets wrote:

"Elder James Osborne, who afterward became a disturber of the churches and a leader in the anti-mission ranks, was present and "cordially received" Brother Rice, and was afterward appointed a Home Missionary!"

What Sheets says about Osbourne, one of the leading founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination, is also true of other founding fathers. Many of them were in favor of missions before they were against them. Daniel Parker applied for a missionary position and financial support for it. But, being denied, he became one of their leading enemies. Wilson Thompson also had a similar experience.

Sheets said:

"In their minutes for 1818, they call themselves, as the Missionary Baptists now do, "the Regular Baptists;" the name "Old School," or "Primitive Baptists," had not then been invented."

"...but after this they, by changing their principles, became New Baptists. They had once practiced the things they now condemn. The great body of the Baptists of the United States went on as they had done before. The anti-mission party, calling themselves the "Primitive Baptists," are but a small portion of the denomination, and yet it has been said that the Regular or Missionary Baptists have seceded from the Primitive Baptists! Who ever heard before of a body of at least four-fifths seceding from one-fifth?"

"There never was an organized body of Baptists in existence that opposed missions until since the beginning of the present century (1800); perhaps not further back than 1820 or '25, and very few until about 1830."

Will the Hardshells come forth now, after so long a time, and give us their historical proof that the Baptists, prior to the 1800's, were just like them in sentiment and practice? Will they produce the evidence to show how the above statement, by Sheets, is false? Will they not see, if they check the records, that he was entirely correct? Will they not see that they are not "Primitive" or "Original" Baptists?

Sheets wrote:

"The English Baptists, the Philadelphia Association, the Sandy Creek Baptist Association, the Charleston, and many others, have never been connected, either in principle or practice, with the Anti-mission movement."

"We have now fully shown that the Regular or Missionary Baptists have not seceded from the Anti-mission Baptists."

Again, Sheets is historically accurate. Can the Hardshells show that they existed in the 16th, 17th, or 18th century? Can the Missionary Baptists not show how all the Baptists, prior to the 19th century, were supporters of missions, salaried ministers, church and theological schools, revival meetings, etc.?

Notes from CHAPTER XXII of Sheet's Work

An Extended Account Of The "split" And Examination As To "who Are The Primitive Baptists."

This is the title of this chapter, and gets right to the heart of the debate.

Sheets wrote:

"It is proposed to throw some light on the question propounded. This would be unnecessary but for the fact that our anti-mission or Hardshell brethren did, after the split, appropriate to themselves the title of "Primitive" Baptists and honored us with that of "Missionery" Baptists. And they have persisted in this course so long that all, or nearly all, of their own people really believe this to be true. Not only so, but many in our own ranks believe it, too.

They have endeavored long to make believe that the people commonly called Missionary Baptists are of very recent origin and that they are the genuine article, descended from Christ and the Apostles. This we deny. So far as age is concerned, one side is just as old as the other, for we all had the same origin, the same Articles of Faith, up till the split. The difference is as to what is believed and practiced now as compared with what was held and practiced then.

In treating this subject the author wishes to be perfectly candid, for he well knows that nothing but the truth can stand the test of history bearing on this subject. A faithful and honest study of the question will aid in the establishment of the truth.

There was a time when the Baptists were one in sentiment and purpose as to the spread of the Gospel and the upbuilding of Christ's kingdom on earth. They were enjoying the blessings of union and harmony on all questions pertaining to the organization of effort for the spread of the truth. They were growing rapidly in numerical strength and the consequent multiplication of churches and arms of churches. Not only so, but they were organizing Missionary Societies, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, etc., and giving encouragement to all these institutions without one word of protest; but, on the other hand, our churches and brethren all seemed as one; not one single note of discord to mar the beautiful, Christ-like harmony.

It will ever be a source of regret that a division along the lines indicated was ever forced upon the denomination by a few designing men. While this division was being worked up, there were many instances of the most intense bitterness on the part of those who were leading, as well as many of the new converts to this new and unheard of doctrine, which was just beginning to be propagated, which was arraying the people and churches against each other."

Some of the old church records show that this bitterness had in some instances developed to such an extent that they positively refused to heed the beseechings and loving entreaties of the brethren and sisters, who pleaded with them to cherish a spirit of love and forbearance toward them, to the end that they all might live on as in former years. But so far as known, they never yielded in a single instance. They did then, and do now, regard all who are not in their fold as out of the true church, and consequently they call no one "brother" unless in their church, in which case many of them regard him then as one of the "elect." Very few of them would lead in public prayer among other people, seemingly thinking it sacrilege to engage with others in worship. And the Baptists which they left, they often call "Arminians," or "Mystery Babylon."

All this is true to fact. Elder Sheets proves his statements, unlike the Hardshells.

CHAPTER XXIII - Time Of The Division—Changes After The Split— Difficulty In Finding A Name.

In this chapter, Sheets says:

"The unfortunate division did not take place all at once, nor in any one year. The first Association to divide was the Kehukee, in 1827. The Abbott's Creek Union, in 1832. And others at various dates, till 1836. Elder Coffey (antimission), in his History of the "Regular Baptists," says: "The strifes and contentions that caused the division were in progress from 1832 to 1840, before the final separation was complete."

So the time in which the split was being consummated, from first to last, was about thirteen years. At the time of which we write, there were many changes. In some instances they were in the majority and held the property, in others our people held it, and people went from one church to another, some coming from them to us, while some went from our churches to them.

Since writing the foregoing, "Outlines of Illinois Baptist History" has come to hand, and as a matter of history, the following is copied:

ANTI-MISSIONISM

"December 1, 1817, John M. Peck, a strong missionary, arrived at St. Louis from Connecticut, and the same month Daniel Parker came from Tennessee to Crawford county, Illinois. In 1822, April 30, Mr. Peck removed to Illinois, settling at Rock Spring, sixteen miles out from St. Louis, on the Vincennes road. Mr. Parker became pastor of two Illinois churches belonging to the Wabash (Ind.) Association, and through one of them secured, the passage of an anti-mission resolution by the Association in 1819, which he used as a means of influencing the Illinois churches on the other side of the State. In 1822 it divided the Wabash Association.

In 1824 the Illinois Association became anti-mission. Of the nine Illinois Baptist Associations organized before 1830 all except the Friends to Humanity were anti-mission. But of the nineteen Associations organized in the 30's only six were anti-mission. In 1826 Daniel Parker published his "Two Seed" doctrine, which made a division in the anti-mission ranks and caused him in 1836 to emigrate to Texas. From that time the anti-mission influence began to subside."

For some time after the split, we know not how long, they did not baptize one coming from a Missionary church, because it might have been the same preacher baptized many of those composing both churches. Possibly the pastor of the Missionary church might have baptized the

But after they had succeeded in inducing some of our churches and associations to divide, they found an unthought of difficulty. Before the split we were all one body and known simply as Baptists. Now there are two bodies of Baptists, and one of these is a new body. Never had there been anything known like it.

It is said that Elder Mark Bennett went with them at the time of the split and remained several years; then his mind underwent a change, and he came back to his old love. In 1854 he published a "Review of the History of the Kehukee Association," in which he tells us about the name which they finally adopted. We quote from the Review, pp. 7 and 8:

"About that time (1826) two or three of her (Kehukee) preachers drafted some 'Resolutions,' in which was bespoken for their denomination the name of 'Reformed Baptists in North Carolina.' In the course of two years they became dissatisfied with this name and abandoned it. For some time they called themselves alternately, 'The Old Baptists,' 'The Old Sort of Baptists,' 'Baptists of the Old Stamp,' 'The Old Side Baptists,' etc. * * * If we recollect the time well, during the period of 1832 to 1835 a meeting of a few Antimission Baptists was held in Maryland, some distance from the city of Baltimore, at a place called Black Rock; at which meeting they resolved to be known among themselves by the name of 'Old School Baptists.' With this name the Kehukee people at first were not well satisfied. But contemporaneously, or nearly so, with the Black Rock movement, a monthly, with the caption of 'Signs of the Times' was issued from New Vernon, in New York, Orange County; which paper unceremoniously dubbed the Anti-mission Baptists with the name of 'Old School Baptists.'"

"After some murmuring and delay, the Kehukeeans adopted it, and became well pleased with it. More recently, say within twelve or eighteen months, we apprehend they are about to throw off 'Old School' and take the name of 'Primitive Baptists.'"

Thus we see that they were something like twenty-five years before they were enabled to adopt a name.

In November, 1871, the Biblical Recorder, in reply to an article quoted from the Primitive Baptist, an anti-mission paper, said editorially: "It is true that this sect is called by many names. Its own ministers have not been able to agree on their name. They call themselves 'Ironsides, Hardshells, Square-toed Baptists, Broad-brimmed Baptists, Old-Sort-ofBaptists, Old School Baptists, Hard-Bined Baptists, Predestinarian Baptists, Kehukees, Primitive Baptists, and some, not ashamed of their true paternity, call themselves Osbournites. Is it any marvel that outsiders find difficulty in naming those who have never been able to name themselves?"

This is quite interesting as regards Osbourne. Sheets, who was well versed in the history of the "split," considers Osbourne the true parent of the denomination. It is true that Elders Parker, Watson, Beebe, Trott, Thompson, and others, represented the "paternity" of the Hardshell denomination, being founding fathers of the sect, but Sheets attributes much to Osbourne. Again, as I said, I hope to write more about the role of Osbourne in upcoming posts and in my book on the Hardshells.

Wrote Sheets:

"If they are the "Old Baptists," indeed, why all this ado about a name ? They called us "missioners" or "missionaries," which has somewhat been accepted as a distinction. But all old Baptist histories published long before the split bears the plain, simple "Baptist," just what we call ourselves now and have ever since long before the split.

They had to do something to deceive the people into believing that they were and are still the Old Baptists. We venture the assertion that they can not produce any Baptist history or other Baptist document printed before 1825, that has any of the above names. The fact is, that their old minutes did not for many, many years print "Primitive" in the title as they do now. The Brier Creek and Mayo Associations did not. The Abbott's Creek Union Association did not till 1879."

"At the session held that year the following item was adopted: "The Association agrees that the words Primitive Baptist be added to the third article of the act of Convention of 1825." This was an afterthought. But it seems strange that they waited fifty-four years to make the change. But why add "primitive" at all if they continued the same as before the split?

Every one at all acquainted with Baptist history knows that in all our denominational literature that nothing but the plain, simple "Baptist" was used before the split, just as we use it now. They were accommodating, indeed, to give us a distinctive name (Missionary), and then adopt the one (Primitive) they liked best. But we shall see further on who are following what was practiced before the split, as well as the teaching of the Bible."

CHAPTER XXIV - The Number That Went Out From Us—The Men Who Led In The Split—Resolutions Of Kehukee AssociaTion '—- Covetousness, The Probable Cause Of The Division.

Sheets wrote:

"This result was secured, it is said, through the influence of a few men. The spirit of opposition was never spontaneous; it was wrought up by a few shrewd leaders. Elders James Osbourn of the Baltimore Association and John Stadler of the Country Line and Joshua Lawrence in the East, contributed more to the result in North Carolina than any dozen others. And it is quite likely true that Elder Osbourn's influence carried Stadler and Lawrence."

This is also interesting relative to Elder Osbourne. Osbourne was well known among the first generation Hardshells. He was more Englishman than American, and spent much time in England in the 1830's and 40's with the Strict Baptists. He was a man who travelled extensively among the anti mission churches, inciting insurrection and promoting division. He wrote many books, which he peddled among the Hardshells on his numerous trips. I feel certain that he had much influence among the anti mission leaders. He was friends with Trott, Thompson, Watson, and Beebe. Why have his books not survived? Why are they not promoted by today's Hardshells, especially seeing how influential he was in creating their denomination? Is it not for the same reason that writings by Watson are largely ignored? Would the writings of Osbourne, like those of Watson, prove detrimental to them in their claims to originality? Osbourne was an intellectual. Lawrence was not. Osbourne led the ministry, while men like Lawrence mostly led the ignorant lay membership.

Wrote Sheets:

"Again we quote from the Biblical Recorder—an editorial— November, 1871: "The Rev. James Osbourn began to preach in the South and to feed the fires of covetousness by declaiming against 'money hunters.' He denounced all publications except his own, and all collections except for himself, and obtained subscriptions for his books before they were written. Elder Joshua Lawrence and many others were led astray."

"The Kehukee Association was induced, after "much speaking," to "discard all Missionary Societies, Bible Societies, and Theological Seminaries, and the practices heretofore resorted to for their support, in begging money from the public; and if any persons should be among us as agents of any such societies, we hereafter discountenance them in those practices, and if under the character of a minister of the Gospel, we will not invite them into our pulpits."

"We do not have to go far to discover that the foregoing was prompted by a spirit of covetousness, for the same association, in 1834, two years after the split, said: "If any minister, although he may be a missionary without the bounds of our association, comes among us to preach the Gospel and not to make collections, we do not reject him."

And this teaching has, all through these years, been so congenial to the flesh that it has been accepted by the children in such homes, thus growing up and developing a bitter spirit toward all our work."

CHAPTER XXV - Strong Opposition- To Mission Work—The Apostles Sent Out As Missionaries By The Church At Antiooh —God's Purpose—His Guiding Hand—Elder Watson's View.

Wrote Sheets:

"Our anti-mission brethren claim that mission work as was at first developed one hundred years ago and as now being carried on, is not of God, but "man's work."

Elder Coffey, an authority among them in the West, taking a very decided stand against us, said: "I wish to be understood to mean the modern system of missions, or men-made institutions, and not Bible missionaries." Just as though we were not Bible missionaries because they reject our methods of work!

Our Baptist people from the days of Christ to the present time have always been missionary in spirit and practice; though at times held back by a spirit of lethargy. The Antimission Baptists claim that the system of modern missions is too modern, and ought therefore to be rejected. But the missionary spirit is no new thing; it is old as the church. We learn that the early Christians "went everywhere preaching the word."

"Neither can they claim the old records as sustaining them. From the organization of this work in England, in 1792, up to about 1826, there was no division of sentiment on the subject of missions (except the Kehukee Association, which divided in 1827), till 1832."

"Elder James Osbourn was perhaps the leading spirit in bringing about the split. Yet this item from the record tells us where he once was: "In 1817 'a committee was appointed for Domestic Missionary Affairs,' and Brethren O. B. Brown, James Osbourn and Spencer H. Cone were appointed as Home Missionaries." James Osbourn appointed a Missionary! He was Then a Primitive Baptist."

"We quote from an able work by Elder John M. Watson, entitled "Old Baptist Test," pages 181-182, one of their best and most conservative men. Writing of "Errors found existing among the Old Order of Baptists," he says: "I was much surprised as well as mortified that they evinced so little concern about the unbrought 'other sheep' which the Saviour said He must bring. They lay great stress on these words of the Saviour, but do not read other things which He connected with the bringing them in as they ought to do. I heard but few prayers for the sending forth of laborers into His field; nor did I see much concern in any way about them. The Lord's foreknowledge, predestination, calling, etc., have the same relation to them, in principle at least, that they had at the beginning—the same to the last one which He will bring that they had to the first. * * * They preach well about the "effectual call" as they term it, but not so well about the outward one. * * * I felt inclined to ask these orthodox Christians if they believed that any of the "other sheep" are now among the heathen nations, and if they were watching the providence of God in regard to them. Moreover, if they felt under any obligations to search them out; to pray unto the Lord to bring them in; and to encourage, aid and send out any who may feel called of the Lord to preach to them. * * * I really fear should any one profess a call of this kind, he would not receive the fellowship and assistance which he would have been entitled to. Thus I fear they do not act as did those who heeded all the commandments of the Lord."

"This position taken by Elder Watson is impregnable, it is unanswerable, because it is the truth. He is with us on this. It is just what we believe and constitutes one of the great barriers between us and them. We believe it to be a duty imposed by the great Head of the church to give the Gospel to the whole world—they believe that we have nothing to do with it, that God will raise up men to preach to the heathen when He wants them."

CHAPTER XXVI - Anti-mission Baptists Are Now Opposed To Revival Meetings—Nothing Said About Opposing Such MeetIngs When They Went Out Prom Us—Baptists Had Great Revivals Before The Split—In The Kehukee Association They Invited People To Be Prayed For— George Pope Baptized Large Numbers.

In this chapter, Sheets writes:

"Our Anti-mission brethren are very unlike the Primitive Baptists in their decided opposition to revival meetings. We never hear them pray for a revival of religion or know of them making a protracted effort. Who ever hears one of their preachers exhorting the unconverted to repent?

Before the split our Baptist brethren did this, and they had glorious revivals and large ingatherings into their churches. Even the historic old Kehukee, now so decidedly opposed to revival measures, was at one time much in favor with them; they prayed for them and otherwise greatly encouraged them.

We quote from Burkitt and Read's History, pages 145-46, "The ministers used frequently, at the close of worships, to sing a spiritual song suited to the occasion, and go through the congregation, and shake hands with people while singing. * * * The ministers usually, at the close of preaching, would tell the congregation, that if there were any persons who felt themselves lost and condemned, under the guilt and burden of their sins, that if they would come near the stage, and kneel down, they would pray for them. Shame at first kept many back, but as the work increased, numbers apparently under strong conviction would come and fall down before the Lord at the feet of the ministers, and crave an interest in their prayers. Sometimes twenty or thirty at a time. And at some Union Meetings, two or three hundred would come, and try to come as near as they could. This very much engaged the ministers, and many confessed that the Lord heard the prayers of His ministers, and had reason to hope their souls were relieved from the burden of their sins, through the blood of Christ. It had a powerful effect on the spectators to see their wives, their husbands, children, neighbors, etc, so solicitous for the salvation of their souls; and was sometimes a means of their conviction. Many ladies of quality, at times were so powerfully wrought on as to come and kneel down in the dust in their silks to be prayed for. The same history, page 153, says: "At an Union Meeting at Parker's Meeting-house, August, 1803, it was supposed there were 4,000 people. The weather proved very rainy on Sunday. There was a stage erected in the meeting-house yard; and at about half-past 11 o'clock Elder Burkitt ascended the stage to preach, and it was expected, from the appearance of the clouds, it would rain every moment, and before he was done preaching it did so. Yet, notwithstanding, the numerous congregation still kept together; and although every effort was used to shun the rain, by umbrellas, carriages, blankets, etc., yet we believe one thousand people were exposed to the rain without any shelter; and some crying, some convulsed to the ground, some begging the ministers to pray for them; and composedly stood and received the falling shower without ever being dispersed. And it is not only at particular times, but blessed be God, these meetings are generally blessed."

Burkitt and Read's History from which this quotation is taken is the History of Kehukee Association, now anti-mission, and was printed in 1803, twenty-four years before she turned against missions, Sunday Schools, Protracted Meetings, etc."

It is interesting to note Sheet's reference to Burkitt and Read's History of the Old Kehukee Association. This book, like the writings of Watson and Osbourne, got ignored and buried by the Hardshell leaders. Today's Hardshells accept only one book on their history, the one written by C. B. Hassell and his son Sylvestor, entitled "History of the Church of God." This work was paid for by the Kehukee Association after the split with the Hardshells. The Kehukee Association had been supporting the work of historians to record their history even prior to the split. The first history concerned the time long prior to the split. This history shows that the old Kehukee was not "Primitive" or Hardshell, prior to the 1830's. It is no wonder then that it has been thrown aside and Hassell's post division history accepted in its place.

Wrote Sheets:

"Strange as it may seem to people living now, there is not one word anywhere, in all the old church records or Baptist histories examined, where they opposed revival measures at first. In fact, such a thing seems never to have been thought of. But, on the other hand, they carried them on for some time.

That they ever should have taken such a stand in regard to revival measures is beyond comprehension, unless, in their opposition to us in almost everything else, they thought that they ought to oppose this measure also.

Such a thing as taking a stand against revivals or protracted meetings was never, never heard of amongst Baptists until our Anti-mission brethren separated from us in 1827—1840. Before the split in Baptist ranks they had such revivals and ingatherings as few, if any now living, ever witnessed. And, we might add, that they did not take the stand against protracted meetings till some time after they went out from us, as has been given us by old people who lived at the time, and after the division in Baptist ranks."

CHAPTER XXVII - A Departuee From Baptist Usage—They Oppose MinisTerial Education—Young Ministers Educated In England—The Philadelphia Association EncourAged It.

In this chapter, Sheets wrote:

"In preceding chapters we have shown that our anti-mission brethren have departed from Baptist usage before the split in some very important particulars. They are very decidedly opposed to the education of young ministers, called of God, as a part of our work. But long before there were any Antimission Baptists, the Baptists favored ministerial education. They claim, that while ministerial students are receiving an education that souls are dying and, therefore, they ought to go at once.

But our Saviour did not take that view, when he kept His disciples with Him for three years. Neither did our brethren in the years gone by.

As early as the year 1250, our Baptist brethren had schools where their young men called of God were educated, being supported by contributions from the churches.

Dr. John Rippon, of England, in a "Brief essay towards an History of the Baptist Academy," throws much light upon this important subject. Hear him: "We had at that time literary men, whose abilities reflected honor on themselves, and on the cause they espoused; and of these, some who ranked high among the learned were disposed to teach. Such, however, was the unsettled state of affairs in the protectorate, and so great the persecutions of our brethren and other non-conformists afterwards, from the Restoration, in 1660, till the glorious Revolution, in 1688, that we must not be surprised if we find no splendid seminaries of learning among the Baptists, or any other Protestant Dissenters in those early days.

Indeed several of the ejected or silenced ministers, in different counties took under their care a few young men of promising abilities for the ministry, and, without regard to our distinguishing sentiments, assisted them in their preparatory studies for sacred service. * * * It is not easy for me to say with precision how early in the last century our learned brethren in this country began, among themselves, to educate their juniors for the work of the ministry."

Again Dr. Rippon says: "That the ministers and messengers of more than one hundred baptized congregations in England and Wales met, in a General Assembly at London, in September, 1689, to consult the good of the whole denomination.

At this Convention they resolved to raise a fund or stock for the advantage of churches who were not able to maintain their own pastors or teachers, etc., and for assisting members of churches who had promising gifts, were sound in fundamentals, and inclined to study, in attaining to the knowledge of the Latin, Greek and Hebrew." From the above it will be perceived that our brethren engaged in ministerial education at as early a date as was possible for them to do so.

They were not allowed by their enemies to engage in such work; and so desirous were they to do something along this line that before they could project colleges and seminaries, they taught young men for the ministry in a private way.

Let us now follow our brethren across the Atlantic and see them in the new world. The Philadelphia Association, the oldest on the continent, was constituted in the year 1707. For the year 1722, one hundred and ten years before the split, it was proposed that the churches make inquiry among themselves, if they have any young persons hopeful for the ministry, and inclinable for learning; and if they have, to give notice of it to Mr. Abel Morgan before the first of November, that he might recommend such to the Academy on Mr. Hollis' account. (Minutes of Philadelphia Association, page 27.) Even at that age, Mr. Hollis was so much interested that he was to pay the bills.

At the sessions for 1756-57 we find this same Association encouraging education. At the session for 1764 it was agreed to inform the churches to which we respectively belong that, inasmuch as a charter is obtained in Rhode Island government, toward erecting a Baptist College, the churches should be liberal in contributing towards carrying the same into execution. In October, 1766, we find this: "Agreed to recommend warmly to our churches the interest of the college, for which a subscription is opened all over the continent. This college has been set on foot upwards of a year, and has now in it three promising youths under the tuition of President Manning." Two thoughts here are noticeable, viz: "Agreed"; and "warmly agreed to recommend."

A subscription is opened all over the continent. They were heart and soul in favor of ministerial education and had never been disturbed with a thought of anti-ism.

But why multiply authorities? These are only a few of what might be produced."

CHAPTER XXVIII - Anti-mission Baptists Oppose Stated Salary For PasTor—Scripture Teaching On The Subject—Eldee John M. Watson's View.

In this chapter, Sheets wrote:

"Our anti-mission brethren are very much opposed to an understanding between church and pastor, relative to a salary. They speak of such as a "hireling" ministry. With them there must be no agreement as to what the pastor must have for his support. It is strange that this should be so in regard to pastoral support and not practiced in any other calling in life.

There is just as much reason for a carpenter amongst the anti-mission brethren being asked to build a new meetinghouse and let the brethren pay him as they say preachers ought to be paid—just what the brethren think he ought to have. How many of them would take a contract on such condition? Not one. They ought not be asked to do it. It is not good business. And yet if ministers insist on knowing what they are to receive for their work, they are at once branded as "money hunters" or preaching for "filthy lucre." O for shame!

We all know that the New Testament Scriptures don't say in so many words that a stipulated amount may be mentioned, but we contend that it is not contrary to Scripture teaching on this subject.

Paul says, "Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I preached unto you the Gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." "The laborer is worthy of his reward."

"The workman is worthy of his meat." "The laborer is worthy of his hire." It seems that "wages," "reward," and "hire" are not contrary to the genius of New Testament teaching on this subject, but fully in accord with it . The trouble with our Anti brethren is that they have made a hobby of this, while they are receiving money in handshaking and on the sly generally. If a church or churches ought to support a pastor, there can be nothing wrong in understanding what would be sufficient to support him. In that case, the church just knows what is expected and therefore has something to work to.

Elder John M. Watson, one of their preachers in "Old Baptist Test," has an article under the caption of "Ministerial Deviations," from which I wish to quote. He says: "The Scriptural relations between pastor and church is not regarded by us as it should be. Our ministers do not teach the churches their duties towards themselves. Human pride constrains them to shun to declare the counsel of God on the subject; because so many are preaching at fixed rates per sermon, per month, or per year, they forego their just rights, as ordained of God, rather than seem like such are. These have not only caused the way of truth to be evil spoken of, but our ministers to deviate from the line of duty. The plain commandments and exhortations of the Lord have been left unpreached, until some of our churches—judging from their conduct—have forgotten that these duties are enjoined in their Bibles. This deviation is mutual; it is difficult to say which party is most blameable; one fails to teach and exhort, and the other to perform."

"No one would suspect him being an Anti-mission Baptist preacher from reading the above deliverances. But he was.

According to his position on the support of the ministry we are carrying out the instructions of the New Testament more nearly than they. Therefore we must be Primitive or real Bible Baptists, instead of them."

CHAPTER XXIX - Opposition To Sunday Schools—Baptists Had Them Before The Split—County Line Association EncourAged Them—Afterwards They Oppose Them And BeCome New Baptists.

In this chapter, Sheets writes:

"How there ever could have been open opposition to teaching the people the word of God is more than can be known now. Can it be a sin for one to stand before a class and teach God's precious truth? Is the Lord displeased with those who teach or those taught? We think not, when perhaps seventy-five to ninety per cent of those coming into our churches are from the Sunday school. Moses evidently believed in teaching the children. (Deut. 6:5-9.) After exhorting them to love the Lord God with all the heart, and with the soul, he added: "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children," etc.

There have been many foolish and unwise things said about this great work by our Anti-mission brethren. They have treated the Sunday school and its work as though it were an engine of the devil. But such a thing as abuse of this institution was unknown till our brethren split off and set up opposition to this work.

Of course they changed from what they were and became a new kind of Baptists, for there never had been seen such Baptists before the split.

CHAPTER XXX - They Are Declining In Numbers And Moral Powee— Cathcart's Encyclopedia Gives Statistics—The BapTist Year. Book, 1880—Elder John Culpeper's StaTistics, 1834—Comparative Statistics Kehukee And Chowan Associations—Miami Association In Ohio— Red River Association, Kentucky—Abbott's Creek Union Association, North Carolina.

In this chapter, Sheets wrote:

"Because of such decided, emphatic opposition to, and willful neglect of the means, which have been so signally blessed of God for the spread of the truth and consequent upbuilding of the Redeemer's kingdom, our Anti-mission brethren have been on the decline numerically almost ever since they went out from us.

"In 1844 the Baptist Almanac attempted to distinguish between the Regular or Mission Baptists and those who opposed missionary work in formal organizations for that purpose. The record of 1844 reported 184 Old-School Associations, 1,622 churches, 900 ordained ministers, 2,374 baptized in the year preceding, and 61,162 members.

"The Year Book for 1880 returns 900 Old-School churches, 400 ordained ministers, and 40,000 members,—a loss of onethird in thirty-six years. The Old-School brethren have declined in numbers almost every year since they made the division."

CHAPTER XXXI - SIDE-LIGHTS ON THE SPLIT.

In this chapter, Sheets wrote:

"The reader will readily see that every author quoted bears testimony to certain truths:

1. That our anti-mission brethren went out from the great body of their Baptist brethren.

2. That almost everywhere they manifested the same spirit of—shall I say it?—of bitterness toward those who stood for the development of the Lord's work as it was being carried on before 1820 or 1825.

3. That they can not give us credit for being sincere in our views, but always regard us as of the world.


See a here here for the book by Elder Sheets.

Hardshell David Pyles

Two leading elders in the "Primitive Baptist" church are Sonny Pyles and his son David Pyles. I know the father better than the son. When I was with the Hardshells, I spent lots of time with Sonny. He stayed in my home for a night and I visited his home in Texas for several nights back in the late 70's. Sonny Pyles and Lasserre Bradley, Jr., have been the two most popular preachers for the Primitives over the last forty years. Lasserre and Sonny have been in close fellowship nearly all those years, but the "liberal movement" has driven a wedge between them.

The "liberal movement" that I recently wrote about has been the topic of much discussion and pulpit discourse over the past several years. In this posting I will be examining what the son has said about issues in the movement.

Elder David Pyles wrote the following in "Extent of the Gospel." (emphasis mine - SG)

"This post concerns the question of whether all of the elect will hear the gospel. I contend they will not, yet at the same time, I contend that we have no authority to offer the hope of eternal life to anyone who has not heard the gospel and believed it."

The fact that David wrote at all on the topic "extent of the gospel," and on the question of whether all the elect will hear the gospel, and posted it on the Internet, demonstrates how this topic is being hotly debated among today's Hardshells.

David's response to "the question" is interesting. It seems to represent a moderated position between the "liberals" and the "hardliners" or "conservatives." His response represents a view intended to hold the Hardshells together and to avoid further division. It seems David wants to find common or middle ground. Yet, I am told by some of my Hardshell friends, that David fellowships with the brethren in the "liberal movement," preaching in their churches, and that the hardliners are not happy with him over it. Yet, because of his name of "Plyles," and the reputation of his father, the hardliners probably are reluctant to "come down hard" on him as they have others. David has supported the "liberal" movement's efforts in the Philippines, the modern Hardshell "mission" and "benevolent" work, supported mostly by the "liberal" brethren, such as Gus Harter, one of Bradley's close friends of long standing, a leading man in the movement, and a chief proponent of "missions," religious schools and bible classes, etc. He seems to be able to fellowship, to some extent, those in the liberal movement who believe in means and the necessity of faith and perseverance to be eternally saved.

When he denies that the elect will all hear and believe the gospel, he gets the applause of the "ultraists," or typical Hardshell, who argue that hearing, believing, and obeying the gospel has nothing to do with eternal salvation. When David contends that he has no scriptural "authority to offer the hope of eternal life to anyone who has not heard the gospel and believed it," he gets the applause of the "liberal movement" brothers.

David is in a "tight spot" on this issue, as are most Hardshells. He, and many of the "liberal" brethren, have seen and felt it, I am certain. They know, or should know, that the Bible holds out no hope of salvation to those who die in evangelic unbelief. They've read such verses as "except you believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins," and realized that salvation is only promised to the believer. The Bible gives David no authority to affirm the salvation of any unbeliever, as David is willing to admit. But, he refuses to see the consequences of his admission, for he continues to affirm that many of the elect will not hear and believe the gospel. He says he has no authority from the Bible to say any unbeliever is saved, and yet he will argue, as did his father, that the Bible does teach it. He can't have it both ways. But, more on this as we look at other things David has said.

David wrote:

"First let me say that while Primitive Baptists may have differing concepts as to how many of the elect will hear the gospel, practically none take the extreme view that all of the elect will hear the gospel. This is not a matter of interpretation. Right or wrong, scriptural or unscriptural, it is verifiable fact that practically all Primitive Baptists allow the possibility that some elect will never be brought to a complete belief of the true gospel in this life. I hope that my position and defense will be a fair and respectable representation of common Primitive Baptist views."

If one allows the regeneration of infants in the womb, or of those who die in infancy (some moment before they die), as did those who wrote and endorsed the London Confession of faith (1689), then all the elect may not hear the gospel. I say "may not" because it is certainly possible, even as many Hardshells themselves acknowledge, that "God is able" to teach them the gospel himself. So, it is really not a proof to affirm that regeneration must always be without truth taught, as a means, from the case of infants, or mentally incapacitated persons, for God is just as able to increase their mental powers, and teach them the gospel, as he is to "regenerate" them.

On the other hand, if we are talking about people who are old enough to sin, and about those who are mentally capacitated enough to sin, can we say that God "regenerates" them in the same manner as an infant or an idiot? Are they "regenerate" and yet still unbelieving and impenitent? Are they ignorant of Christ? Without love and commitment to him?

This question - "will all the elect hear and believe the gospel?" - Is similar to another question being debated, once again, by today's Hardshells - "Is there any truth knowledge given in the new birth?"

These questions are tough nuts for Hardshells. They do not believe that gospel truth, or knowledge about Christ, is part of that "revelation" given in the new birth. So, what knowledge is given when one is born again, according to Hardshellism? Most will affirm that it is a knowledge of sin and guilt before God. But, there is a problem here for them. Ask them "what God?" Sin against Allah? Against the Hindu elephant god? Against Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva? Also, if conviction knowledge is part of the new birth, does the infant in the womb become convicted of sin, and penitent, when it is supposedly regenerated? If "revelation" is part of the new birth, then does the infant possess this revelation?

Most Hardshells, when one cites passages of scripture that affirm that the gospel "saves" the "believer" (Rom. 1: 16), will affirm that the person is already a "believer" before he hears the gospel. But, "believer," in such passages, is not a believer in Jesus or the gospel, for they are "believers," we are told, BEFORE they ever hear the gospel. But, if not a "believer" in Jesus by new birth, a "believer" in what?

Sarrels, who wrote the only Hardshell "systematic theology," affirms that it is a belief in a Creator, thus affirming the salvation of all except atheists. But, here again, they still have problems. I simply ask them - "so, infants, who are regenerated in the womb, believe in God as Creator?" It seems to me, that their views on this topic are contradictory. They affirm the regeneration of infants and yet affirm that some knowledge of God is given in regeneration. It is argued by the Hardshells that regeneration is apart from knowledge of Christ because infants are regenerated without such knowledge. They thus imply that the infant can have no knowledge and yet insist that some knowledge is given in the new birth! There are very contradictory on this matter.

I ask them - "will all the elect hear and learn of the Father and come to Christ" according to John 6: 37? What do they "learn" in new birth?

David wrote:

"Next, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not making a statement as to how many of the elect will be deprived of the gospel. I really don't care if it is one or one billion, and I certainly don't claim to know. I am objecting to the extreme view that absolutely all will hear it. There is a fundamental difference between saying this and saying that most of the elect will hear the gospel, or saying that exceptions are very rare. Once we have committed ourselves to the absolute extreme, then we must necessarily assert that God has *predestined* all of the elect hear the gospel. How else could we be absolutely sure of it? In the opinion of nearly all Primitive Baptists, such an assertion is contradicted by scripture (what scripture? SMG), reason, and observation. As we shall shortly show, even if one were to take the erroneous position that God has predestined all events, there still would not be reasonable grounds to conclude that He has predestined this event."

David probably doesn't object to all the elect "hearing" and "learning" of the Father, but will have difficulty with this "learning" involving evangelical faith in Jesus.

Is it an "extreme" view to say they will all hear the gospel? David believes they will all hear the "voice" of Christ (John 5: 25, etc.), but not learn anything by it! They will not even know it is Christ who has spoken to them, for they, according to his admission, have no knowledge of Christ in the new birth.

David has no scripture that says that some of the elect will die without having come to trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He said earlier that he had no scripture that gave him authority to say any unbeliever was saved, and yet now he says that the scriptures, together with "reason," teach that the unbeliever is saved! Is this not talking out of both sides on one's mouth? Also, how is it proven by "observation"? How does he observe which unbelievers in Jesus are "regenerated"?

Why is it any more difficult to believe that God has "predestined" that all the elect hear the gospel and believe it than to believe he has "predestined" all to hear of the Father, learn of him, come to Jesus, hear his voice, and be called?

Besides, how does God "call" his elect? We know all the elect will be "called." (Rom. 8: 29) Paul said - "whereunto he called you by our gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 14) And is one a believer in Jesus before a "preacher" announces the good news? Or, does one become a believer in Jesus after hearing the gospel proclaimed by a "preacher," men with blessed feet? Wrote Paul:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. 10: 14, 16)

Obviously, these words of the apostle are opposed to Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism. Hardshellism says people are believers before they hear the gospel. Paul says people cannot believe in a person who has not been previously preached to them. The only legitimate thing for the Hardshells to do is to rebut the apostle by their saying - "no Paul, people don't need a preacher to become believers in Jesus for God is preaching it himself to most of them."

David wrote:

"We allow that God has every right and all ability to preach the gospel himself without the aid of man. According to Galations 3:8, God preached to gospel to Abraham long before there ever was an apostle, elder, or missionary. It is presumptuous for us to take any position asserting that only man can preach the gospel."

Who takes the position that God cannot preach the gospel himself to a sinner in heathendom? But, is this what God regularly does? And, if he did so preach to one in heathendom, would that sinner not be a believer in Jesus by the preaching of the gospel? If the American Indians had the gospel preached to them by God himself, would there not have been believers in Jesus among them, prior to Christians preaching it to them? Besides, Paul destroys their view in the passage cited above.

Is David saying that he believes that all the elect will hear the gospel, some by God preaching it himself to them, and some by evangelists sent by God? This is not the standard Hardshell view on this matter. Most will not allow that gospel knowledge is integral to the new birth experience. Hardshell history will demonstrate that some of their leading ministers, in the latter half of the 19th century, also often argued that God would personally preach the gospel to all his people.

I applaud some of today's PB's, to those in the "liberal movement," who are at least arguing 1) that all the elect will hear the gospel and believe it, though not affirming that it is always done by a human evangelist, and 2) that some knowledge of the one true God and his Son Jesus Christ is given in the new birth. It is the hardliners who argue that very few of the elect will hear and believe the gospel, nearly all of them remaining heathens. These hardliners, like my own father, will say, in response, that the view that God visits millions of sinners today in heathen lands and personally preaches the gospel to them (and they all believe it), is foolishness. I agree that it is foolishness, and to use the words of David, believe it is also proven by "observation." When missionaries first arrive in a heathen land, They do not find people who have already become believers in Jesus by the personal preaching of God.

Those who argue that many of the Lord's people have God personally preaching in heathen lands, "where Christ is not known," are at least closer to the truth of the Bible and of their forefathers because they are at least affirming that "faith comes by hearing," and that some gospel knowledge and faith in Jesus are required for one to be "regenerated." That is one step back towards the faith of their fathers. What they need to do is go further. They 1) need to throw out the view that God personally appears to many of his elect and personally preaches to them and 2) see that God's "normal" and "ordinary" manner of regenerating sinners and revealing Christ is by speaking through the preaching of his witnesses, through the gospel message as it is proclaimed. Further, they need to quit opposing "methods" and "means" of spreading the gospel, since this is God's ordained and ordinary way of saving his people.

David wrote:

"Now, there will be different opinions about how much information is conveyed by direct revelation from God, or as to how this revelation will manifest itself in the lives of those affected, and it is certain that God directly reveals more to some than to others; however, I believe I speak for all Primitive Baptists by saying that God will reveal Himself, in His own chosen way and degree, to all of His elect people here in time. In this sense it could be said that the gospel will reach all of the elect."

No wonder that hardliners, like my dad, say that David is "fence straddling," but clearly he is leaning more towards the "liberals" than to the hardliners by his acknowledging that, in some "sense," at least, "the gospel will reach all of the elect." He does, like nearly all PB's, affirm that a "revelation" is involved in the experience of regeneration. That is good. But, the next question is, revelation of what? What truth is learned by it? What knowledge is gained by it? What do they now know that they did not know before? Since PB's argue so much from the supposed cases of regenerated infants and idiots, they have created another tough spot for themselves, for they avow on one hand, that no knowledge of the gospel is necessary for the new birth experience, but on the other hand, that some "revelation" and knowledge is part and parcel of the new birth. David says that he believes God will reveal himself in "his own chosen way," but will not allow this "way" to be "through the gospel" preached by evangelists. Plus, David never told us what minimal knowledge one obtains in regeneration.

David wrote:

"Consider:

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." - Mt 16:17
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." - John 6:44 45

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." - Hebrews 8:10,1 1

"And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not." - John 5:38 (Highlights mine - SMG)

"These texts also show that without the "gospel" preached by God, one will never receive the gospel as preached by man. Observe that in the last verse, it is asserted that the Jews would not receive the outward word because they did not possess the inward word. Only God can implant this inward word, and He will do it to all of His chosen in time."

Here is a good example of Hardshell "hermeneutics"! How one can honestly read the above verses and come away with the ideas of two separate and distinct kinds of "preaching the gospel," one by God himself and one by an evangelist, and that the first is required for the latter, is bewildering.

This argumentation takes us back to one of the founding fathers of the PB denomination, to Elder Gilbert Beebe. Wrote Bob Ross:

"Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), editor of the Signs of the Times magazine, the foremost Anti-mission periodical following the 1832 split, was perhaps the first one -- at least, one of the first -- to propagate this new theory of "direct speaking" regeneration. He says: "The word of the Lord, which is Spirit, and which is life, which liveth and abideth forever, is that by which regeneration is affected; not MERELY by the Scriptures in their LETTER, not reading or preaching them, but the words which Jesus himself SPEAKS to the individual persons who are made to hear and live." [Compilation of Editorial Articles, Vol. IV, pages 21, 22]. This theory gives precedence of power to the spoken words of Christ, which He supposedly speaks directly to the individual. Notice that the "speaking," according to Beebe, PRECEDES the "hearing" and the "life." This would mean that Christ speaks to the "dead alien sinner" BEFORE the sinner is "alive." Therefore, the Word of Christ is addressed to the "dead," yet the Hardshells object to the Baptist position that the Gospel, or Word, is to be preached to the "dead," and is accompanied by the Holy Spirit in pursuance of God's sovereign purpose in effectual calling." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 6)

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea.

Also, see these three chapters in my book where I address the "direct voice" idea of the Hardshells.

http://hardshellism.blogspot.com/2008/10/chpt-20-direct-voice-speaking-i.html

http://hardshellism.blogspot.com/2008/10/chpt-21-direct-voice-speaking-ii.html

http://hardshellism.blogspot.com/2008/10/capt-22-more-on-voice-of-christ.html

David speaks of "implanting" an "inward word" that is universal to all the elect and regenerate, but distinguishes this from the "outward word" of the gospel preached by God through men. Clearly he and the Hardshells are in error regarding calling, about the inward and outward callings. Surely the Lord speaks efficaciously when he speaks in power through the message of the gospel as it is preached by his servants. It is both inward and outward, as our forefathers taught, always in conjunction with each other.

Hardshells attempt to make the Calvinistic doctrine of effectual calling, wherein the call is divided into "inward" and "outward," into a Hardshell paradigm. The divines in effectual calling made such a distinction because they realized that the word alone regenerates no one. It takes the personal operation of the Holy Spirit, his superlative power, to make the external call of the gospel effectual. Sometimes they spoke of this as an immediate calling of the Spirit speaking to the heart and conscience. But, they never completely divorced the external and general calling of the Spirit, through the gospel's proclamation, but conjoined the two, as in the London Confession, "called by his Word and Spirit." One of the verses often cited to show all this is this:

"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; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost." (I Thess. 1: 4-6)

Here is another tough spot for today's Hardshells. This verse was one of many that were the focus of debate among the Hardshells when they were dividing over the issue of "time salvation" and "absolute predestination" in the late 1800's. The reasons are these:

1) The first Hardshells, the founding fathers of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, spoke of "conversion," under and by the gospel, as being "effectual," "irresistable," and "certain," just as much so as "regeneration."

2) Though believing that "regeneration" was immediate, by direct speaking of Christ, apart from the gospel, and that it was distinct and prior to "conversion," they nevertheless believed that all the elect would not only be "regenerated" but "converted." They did not allow means in the former, but they did in the latter. They divided up the whole process by analogy to human birth. Just as in human birth, there is first the planting of the seed (regeneration), then life begotten, but still in darkness, as in the womb (conviction of sin), and then "deliverance" from the womb (conversion, repentance and faith).

Thus, they saw the conversion experience, what today's Hardshells call "time salvation," as being the same as the new birth. A person may be "regenerated" apart from the gospel but he will not be "born" until he believes the gospel. That is why Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and other first generation Hardshells looked upon themselves as spiritual "midwives," assisting God, through their preaching ministry, to bring to "full birth" those whom God has spiritually impregnated. They separated conversion from "regeneration" but not from "birth." To them conversion was the new birth.

The first Hardshells would have answered "yes" to the question - "will all the elect hear and believe the gospel (be converted)?" They would be considered "Absoluters" by David and his neo Hardshell brethren. David would argue that this deliverance and conversion, this "salvation" resulting from it, is not a "birth" or an absolute necessary experience for being eternally saved.

That is why one does not see the term "time salvation" generally used among Hardshells in the first half of the 19th century. Not until the rise of the Cayces (S.F. and C.H.), the later Thompson preachers (J.M. and R.W.), J.R. Daily, Lemuel Potter, J.H. Oliphant, C.H. Waters, Walter Cash, etc., did this term gain usage and the doctrine intended by the term become the leading Hardshell position. The men named above are second generation Hardshells and are the founding fathers of Hardshellism as we generally know it today. The first generation Hardshells did not use the term "time salvation" because they did not see gospel salvation as that which is unnecessary for being finally saved, as do today's Hardshells.

The first Hardshells, correctly, and in agreement with Gill and the London Confession brethren, would have interpreted the words of Paul, cited above, as dealing with regeneration and conversion, they being the same experience.

How do we know that one is "elect"? It is by the gospel effecting a person in the manner described by the apostle. Did superlative power attend the preaching of the gospel to make it effectual? Yes. The Spirit's power + the word preached = salvation (regeneration or conversion). That is Paul's equation.

Today's Hardshells are in a tight spot with their making conversion non-effectual (something that occurs after an Arminian paradigm of free will and effort), because the same type of language used, in the Bible, to describe the effectualness of God's work in "regeneration" is also used to describe God's work in "conversion." The passage cited demonstrates this.

David wrote:

"The gospel minister can give one the *words* of Jesus, but only Jesus himself can give His *voice*. And we contend that all the elect will hear this voice in time. Again, we contend that this is the only sense in which all of the elect will hear the "gospel."

Here is another tough spot for the Hardshells. They will not allow that God can give his voice through the spoken word! They certainly cannot say this is so in the case of Ezekiel and the Valley of Dry Dead Bones. God spoke through the preaching of his servant and the dead came to life. When they heard the words of Ezekiel they were, at the same time, hearing the words and the voice of God.

But let us consider what this "hearing the VOICE of Jesus" effects, in the Hardshell understanding of "regeneration." Remember, the PB's are anxious to keep some "revelation" in the experience of the new birth, because there are many passages, that they have historically acknowledged as describing regeneration, even ones cited by David Pyles, that teach it. First, let us ask some important questions.

1) Do those who hear the voice of God (or Jesus) in "regeneration," remember it?

2) What knowledge about God, the speaker, is revealed by this direct speaking?

3) What knowledge about self is revealed by this direct speaking?

4) What knowledge about Jesus is revealed by this direct speaking?

The "voice" of a person, according to Hardshellism, cannot be heard through the words of that person rehearsed by another. It is one of those logical impossibilities, like making a square circle, impotence making a stone heavier than he can move, etc. To Hardshells, it is logically impossible to say that you are hearing a person's "voice" by hearing his words repeated by a messenger. But, to show this to be false reasoning, one need only cite one passage of scripture.

At least, in some sense, David will allow the expression as being true, "in some sense," that "all the elect will have the gospel preached to them in a revelatory manner." The hardliners will reject the fact that it can be said, "in any sense," that all the elect will hear and believe the gospel. I was greatly troubled years ago, after hearing this Hardshell "argument" and then reading the following inspired words.

"For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." (Acts 13: 27)

Notice that in the hearing of the words of the prophets, read from the scriptures in the synagogue, the people were hearing the "voice" of the prophets. However, according to Hardshell "logic" this cannot be! In hearing the "words" of the prophets from preachers the people were hearing the "voice" of the prophets! Notice what John Gill wrote on hearing the "voice" of Christ and see if the Hardshells still want to claim him as "one of us."

"...by "the voice" of Christ is intended his Gospel, which is a voice of love, grace, and mercy, of life and liberty, of peace, pardon, righteousness, and salvation by him; and which being attended with his power, is the means of quickening dead sinners; who may be said to hear it, when it comes not in word only, but in power, and works effectually in them; and is spirit and life, and the power of God unto salvation to them; when they receive it, understand, believe, and obey it: and such persons "shall live"; comfortably, pleasantly, and delightfully, a life of faith on Christ, a life of communion with him, and shall live eternally with him hereafter." (Commentary on John 5: 25)

John Gill was the real "Old" or "Primitive" Baptist. John Gill is "Old School." He spoke the language of Keach and the brethren who wrote the London Confession of 1689, his predesessors, and of Spurgeon, his successor, when he commented on what it means to hear the "voice" of Christ. It meant that one savingly hears the gospel.

Gill's interpretation goes against Beebe's and Trott's view, for they did not allow the means of the preached word in initial spiritual impregnation, or quickening, "regeneration," but did allow them in the "birthing" or "deliverance" of the already quickened soul.

David wrote:

"While we allow that God may, in His own sovereign pleasure, quicken whom He will, where He will, and when He will, and while we allow that God may do all of these even among those who are, and shall remain, deprived of the true gospel as preached by man, the scriptures deny that uninspired man can identify the presence of a regenerate heart in the absence of belief in the Lord Jesus. Accordingly, we have no authority to offer the promises of the gospel to anyone who has not accepted it."

David is here stating speculation when he speaks of God regenerating heathen apart from the gospel. He says "God may" do it. Yes, and we might say that God "can" and "may" raise up children unto Abraham of stones, but we would not be thereby affirming that any child of Abraham or regenerate person was ever a stone or ever regenerated apart from the gospel in actuality.

David wants to say "yes, all the elect will hear and believe the gospel," in one sense, but not in another sense. He then repeats a proposition he is convinced is scriptural. He believes that the scriptures give no warrant for saying a man is born again who is not a believer in the gospel. He says this, as I have said, but he does not practice what he preaches. His brethren will argue that men like Cornelius (Acts 10) were born again before they believed the gospel, and in doing so they violate their own confession about saying one is born again who is not a believer. In other words, they contradict themselves or speak out of both sides of their mouths.

David wrote:

"It is true that certain texts in the Bible describe the redeemed family of God to be very large, but one cannot decisively infer from this that the present heathen world contains multitudes of elect."

Here David reveals himself as a "moderator" of the ongoing debate between the hardliners and the "liberals." He agrees that the Bible teaches that God's regenerated children represent a large number. He realizes that Hardshells have traditionally used this as an argument against means in regeneration, against the idea that all the elect will be converted, or come to faith and repentance. Their argument says that since most people are going to be saved (the "elect many" in contrast to the traditional "elect few"), this cannot be said of those who have heard the gospel. We cannot say that most of the human race have heard the gospel, but we can say that most of the human race are born again children of God. Ergo, the gospel cannot be a means. But, Moderator, David Pyles, cautions the hardliners and warns them about "inferring" too much from their reasoning on this point, even seeming to distance himself from their inferences and conclusions, for he says that one cannot use the numbers argument to disprove that any of today's heathen have multitudes of elect. He also shows a reluctance to take the popular neo Hardshell view that affirms that most people will be saved, even most of the heathen who worship false gods, and wants to distance himself from "No-Hellism" and "Universalism."

David wrote:

"Now allow me to present the case that God has not predestined all the elect to hear the gospel as preached by man.

Certainly if universality of the gospel is false, then gospel regeneration must also be false, but the converse does not necessarily hold.

The fact of regenerate infants and the possibility of such dying in infancy destroys the principle that all of the elect will hear the gospel."

David has a poor "case" to offer in attempting to prove that the Bible teaches that some of the elect will be saved apart from faith in Christ and in the gospel. Insurmountable!

David's first apologetic argument basically says that if one of the elect is regenerated apart from the gospel being preach and believed, then "gospel regeneration is false." But, that is invalid reasoning. If one elect person was regenerated apart from hearing and believing the gospel, that does not automatically mean that the other 99.9% were not regenerated by the gospel.

Also, the "converse" does "neccessarily hold." If all the elect do hear the voice of Christ, or the gospel, and live, then regeneration through the gospel is a valid conclusion or deduction.

David's next argument regards the "regeneration" of infants and idiots. His argument goes like this: Since infants in the womb and idiots are "regenerated," without any faith, understanding, or repentance, without hearing the gospel preached, then it must be so with all the elect. Yet, he can still maintain that there is "a sense" in which all the regenerated, infants and idiots included, will have Jesus give them that inward word, make them hear his voice, preach the gospel to them personally, and be given some knowledge of Christ. If he is affirming that hearing the "voice" of Christ involves having Jesus personally preach the gospel to a person, then he must be affirming that Jesus preaches the gospel to those who are born again while in mother's womb. How can he consistently argue, on one hand, that "regeneration" or hearing the voice of Christ, produces any knowledge or faith, seeing he argues, on the other hand, that they cannot have any knowledge or faith?

David is limiting the power of God. Is God not able to regenerate through the preached word? Is God not able to preach the gospel to the infant and impart knowledge of Christ? Actually, he has already affirmed that there is a "sense" in which all the elect will hear the voice of Christ, or have Christ preach to them personally, so he already believes what he is objecting to! Besides, David and his brethren often refer to the case of John the Baptist to prove infant regeneration, but it "proves too much" for them, for John was miraculously given greater mental powers of apprehension and understanding, far beyond his years, and so was made a believer in Jesus even in his womb, for he rejoiced at the good news, leaping for joy in his mother's womb. So, their argumentation on the infant being incapable of hearing and believing the gospel, does "not hold water."

David wrote:

"The common claim that these are exceptional cases is totally without scriptural foundation. The scriptures never indicate that God has made any exceptions in His providential dealings with infants. The fact that there are regenerate infants is clearly implied by Mt 1 1:25, Mt 21:16, and Lk 1:15. The fact that such can die in infancy is revealed in ll Sam 12:23."

David is wrong here. If he argues this way, then he clearly cannot be an "Old" or "Primitive" Baptist because his forefathers endorsed the London Confession of Faith and it clearly says infants and idiots are regenerated extraordinarily, while adults are regenerated "ordinarily" by the gospel. David argues that all the elect are born again the same way and have the same effects of it produced in them. But, he has no scripture to sustain his objection. It is a mere assertion. This is all invalid reasoning. Let us use it on him, turning it around by some searching questions. John the Baptist was regenerated, according to you, while in his mother's womb. This being so, and using your reasoning, then all the elect will be regenerated while in the womb. Paul was regenerated by Christ personally and corporeally appearing to him and speaking to him with human voice. This being so, and using your reasoning, then all the elect will be regenerated in such a manner.

David wrote:

"A similar problem exits in the case of Old Testament saints. Many heard truth, but few today would classify what they heard as "gospel." Certainly, few would say that one today had heard the gospel if the information at their disposal was limited to what Old Testament saints generally understood."

First of all, the Old Testament saints knew much more "gospel" than David wants to allow. Even David himself has referred us to God preaching the gospel to Abraham! Yet, he wants now to say that no OT saint knew and believed the gospel of Christ. "Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!"

What weak argumentation is all this! Where is his clear plain statements from scripture that says not all will be called by the gospel? Where is the plain statement that says we are born again apart from the word of truth? Where is his scripture that says many unbelievers in Jesus are of the elect?

David wrote:

"Scriptures indicate that if we do not care and if we do not pray, the gospel will not reach all those for whom it is intended.

Do these texts indicate that God has predestined the gospel to reach all the elect? They certainly do not suggest this at all. Some have said that the prayers commanded by these texts are God's instrumental means of ensuring that the gospel will reach the elect. This reasoning only compounds the error, because it logically reduces the implied human responsibility in these texts to nonsense."

David and his Hardshell brethren object to the practice of praying for the eternal salvation of sinners. Yet, the Bible and his Baptist forefathers upheld the practice. Paul prayed for the salvation of his fellow Israelites in Romans 10: 1. Of course, David will say that Paul was praying for the "time" salvation of the Israelites, not their eternal salvation. But, the context is very clear that it is eternal salvation that is under consideration. David speaks of "human responsibility," but it is he and his Hardshell brethren who do not properly understand it. They are the ones who think, like the Pelagians, that a "command implies ability," and that "where there is no ability there is no responsibility." He is the one who denies that all men are responsible to believe the gospel and repent of sins, because they are not able to do it.

David wrote:

"Besides this, compare this allegedly predestined event with events which are known to be predestined: Does the Bible command us to pray that none will fall from the eternal covenant, or that more will be added to it? Of course not, because the contents of this covenant are predestined. Does the Bible command us to make graves easy to unearth so as to facilitate the resurrection? Again, this is ridiculous. The resurrection is a predestined event, and all the powers of man and hell can neither aid it nor hinder it. Does the Bible call upon us to affect the date of Jesus' return. Of course not. We are to prepare for it, but the date itself is fixed by God."

David believes it is foolish and unscriptural to pray for what we know is certain and predestined. He thinks prayer only involves things God has not fixed or predestined. But this is clearly false. We find many prayers offered in scripture, both by Christ and his people, concerning things that are certain and predestined. In fact, when Paul prayed for the salvation of the Israelites (Rom. 10: 1), he later wrote - "and so all Israel shall be saved." (11: 26) Also, the church prays "even so come Lord Jesus." (Rev. 22: 20)

Besides, when we pray for a sinner to be saved, it is often the case that we do not know that they are of the elect.

Also, men like Elder (Dr.) John Watson and Elder Grigg Thompson, both first generation Hardshells, both affirmed how it is proper to pray for the eternal salvation of others. Of course, I have addressed these issues quite extensively in my book on the Hardshells.

David wrote:

"Our own consciences teach us that not all the elect will hear the true gospel, because we know within ourselves that our speech and actions can prove as stumbling blocks and deterrents to the truth. We are under constant convictions about our behavior before children and unconverted individuals because we know that they may be caused to reject the truth if we represent it with guile and hypocrisy."

David believes that the scriptures teach that one can hinder God from saving a man, in a timely sense, but not in an eternal sense. He thinks it destroys Calvinism and the sovereignty of God for one to affirm that others can be a means (stumblingblock) in keeping a sinner from being saved. He reasons that since all the elect are certain to be saved, then it is nonsense to speak of being a hindrance to the salvation of anyone. But, what David fails to understand is how the scriptures speak in the language of means, from a human perspective, and in the context of human responsibility when it says such and such a thing keeps souls from being saved. If one cites scripture to these brethren, to disprove their theory, they will attempt to make the scriptures to concern only temporal deliverances or losses. For instance, notice these passages.

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matt. 23: 13)

"And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (I Cor. 8: 11)

David and his Hardshell brethren cannot say that these verses are talking about eternal salvation and perishing, for if they did, it would destroy his supposition and false proposition. So, they make the verses, and the context, to deal with "time salvation" and "temporal perishing." Yet, clearly, the context of these passages concern what is eternal.

David does not see his inconsistency in saying that a person can hinder God in saving temporally but not eternally. David's Hardshell forefathers, all the first generation ones, and many of the second generation ones, denied such reasoning, for they would not allow that God could be hindered in any way from saving, either temporally or eternally.

David then appeals to the witness of his "conscience" and to what he knows within himself, as proof of his supposition. His conscience tells him that he can be a hindrance to God temporally saving a man, but not to God eternally saving him. Oh glorious Hardshell logic!

David wrote:

"Yet we feel no such convictions about affecting the contents of the eternal covenant, affecting the resurrection, affecting the return of Jesus, or affecting any event which God is known to have predestined. A principle purpose of predestination is to eliminate all vulnerabilities and uncertainties that would otherwise be created by the vagaries of man."

David again argues from his personal experience, from his convictions of conscience. But, how is this a proof? It can easily be argued that something is wrong with his convictions and conscience. Also, I have already affirmed how he is in error about praying for things that are certain. I ask David and his brethren these simple questions: 1) When Paul said "and so all Israel shall be saved," was he not stating what was certain and predestined? 2) Was this not the salvation he prayed for in Romans 10: 1?

The Hardshells remind me, as it has others, of the slothful servant. Jesus said:

"Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents." (Matt. 25: 24-28)

This man was a "Do Nothing," and Hardshells have traditionally been called "Do Nothings" due to their lack of labor in spreading the gospel and lack of effort in evangelism. He thinks that he cannot be a means in either a man being saved or not being saved. The slothful man in these words of Jesus is a Hyper Calvinist or Hardshell in his thinking. What was the slothful man's reason for not using his talents? Was it not Hyper Calvinism? Did the man not believe that he had no reason to sow since God did not need him! Why is it difficult for David to see that God has predestined and made certain the fact that all his chosen will hear the gospel preached by man? Why does he falsely reason that since God has predestinated him to preach the gospel to a particular person, for instance, this means he is not "responsible" to do so?

David wrote:

"The world we observe is not consistent with the doctrine asserting that God has ordained all the elect to hear the gospel. Why are so many of God's people hearing a false gospel? If the providence of God brings the gospel to all the elect, then why is it a perverted gospel in more cases than not? Shall we say that it is the providence of God that has exposed modern multitudes to the corruptions of Arminianism?"

David believes that the proposition that affirms that all the elect will hear the gospel (preached by man) is logically "not consistent." But, this is laughable, coming from a Hardshell, for they are often found contradicting themselves and falsely deducing things from the Bible.

David argues by another "if, then" type of argument. If God has predestined that I hear the gospel, then it would have to be a pure gospel, not a false gospel. That is reasonable. But, what David is really arguing is that one is not preaching the gospel if one is preaching Arminianism, and arguing that only preaching Calvinism, or Hardshellism, is preaching the gospel. But, this is false, for when the simple basic gospel is preached, there is no direct proof of either system. Paul defines what it means to preach the gospel in I Cor. 15: 1-6 and there is nothing in the description to uphold either Calvinism nor Arminianism.

Why are there then false gospels? Why does God allow his elect to hear a false gospel as well as the true? The Bible answers these questions. He allows them to "prove" people (Deut. 13: 1-3) and to "manifest" who is genuine and who is false. (I Cor. 11: 19) And so, yes, God does "expose" people to false prophets and false gospels, in his "providence." Also, Paul states that God, as a judgment upon rebels, "send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie" and "that they might be damned." (II Thess. 2: 11, 12)

David wrote:

"The scriptures teach that God did, as a judgment against the nation Israel, blind the eyes of some of His own people so that they did not see the gospel. Consider:

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." Rom 11: 32

This case may be exceptional, but it single-handedly destroys the principle that God has predestined all the elect to hear and obey the gospel."

David's error here is simple and it is a wonder that he stumbles at it. It is a common error of both Campbellism and Hardshellism, the infamous "twins." Both of them have the idea that every Israelite was saved. They are styled as "God's people" in the Old Testament and therefore they must all have been saved. When David refers to "some of His own people," he is implying that this means every Israelite was elect and regenerate! He will argue this way, but will concede that not every Israelite was truly elect or saved, but only the "remnant" Paul referred to in Romans. The Campbellites will do the same, in their argumentation from the Old Testament, when they demonstrate that some Israelites were condemned, or not ultimately saved. They were all "God's people" but some went to Hell, so one can be saved and then lost, is their syllogism. But, Campbellites also, though making such arguments, nevertheless sometimes own that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel," thereby destroying their syllogism. "God's people" was often a term used of the entire nation, to the externally covenanted nation, and had no reference to the individual state of an Israelite. A person likewise might be a professing Christian, a member of a local church, and not be what he professes to be.

David wrote:

"The Primitive Baptist position is often accused of being extreme. However, upon close examination it will be seen that the Primitive Baptist position falls between the extremes. The extremes are Arminianism on the left and classic Calvinism on the right.

This is false. It is denial, psychological or otherwise. Hardshellism is an extreme and it is why it is called "Hyper Calvinism." Hardshellism a doctrine that "falls between the extremes"? Blind Hardshells! What is more "extreme" than their own novel doctrines? What David calls "classic Calvinism" is what is expressed in the old Baptist confessions! What his forefathers endorsed!

David wrote:

"Arminianism places more responsibility on the minister than he can possibly bear, because this doctrine necessarily implies that others will surely go to hell because of the minister's failures."

David is repeating his former argumentation. But, let me add to my rebuttal. First, a particular minister may indeed "fail," but this will not hinder God to get a replacement. Second, God's ministry will not fail. A particular minister may fail, but not the ministry itself. It is true "in some sense," to use the very words of David, that keeping the gospel from people will keep them from being saved. This is clear from scripture, which I shall show in my next posting, where I examine David's father "two cents worth" on "the extent" and "use of" the preaching of the gospel, even by the father's own admission.

David wrote:

"Calvinism maintains that the gospel is predestined to reach all the elect. There is a logical sense in which this doctrine has removed the responsibility of man. This is not to say that Calvinists fail to teach responsibility. They generally do. But they themselves concede an apparent contradiction between such teachings and their views of predestination. They generally dismiss this apparent contradiction to mystery."

What, according to David, is the great "contradiction" among most Calvinists and Predestinarians? David's false reasoning is seen by examining his false premise, the one that says - "if an action of man has been predestined, then that person is not responsible" for the action. This is a good example of Hardshell "logic." But, one scripture overthrows his reasoning and propositions.

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel (predestination) and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." (Acts 2: 23)

The murder of Christ was predestined by God and the murderers were "responsible." God predestined that Paul be a means in saving his people and Paul was responsible for doing it. True, he could claim no credit for it, for it was God working in him by his grace. Notice this testimony.

"But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 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." (Acts 26: 16-18)

This is a big red hot cannon ball at the heart of Hardshellism. Like the story of Ezekiel and the Valley of Dry Bones.

It is amazing to read and hear the Hardshells do a "hatchet job" on these verses in order to uphold their hybrid theology on the new birth. They feel the force of these words. They sense how they destroy his aberrant views on God's means and methods. And, when he senses how he is wrong, he must either acknowledge his errors, turn from Hardshellism, or decide to make the verses say what they don't say, that is to say, he must twist the meaning of the words in an attempt to make them mean something than the obvious. So, those who chose the latter course, were forced to develop an "interpretation" of them that would conform to Hardshell premises and propositions. So, what is their "apologetic" on these verses? How are they against Hardshellism?

Clearly, the apostle Paul is being ordained by Christ to preach the gospel and thereby save the elect. Who will being doing the saving? God, as the efficient cause, and Paul, as the instrumental cause. Is it a merely "time salvation," a temporal deliverance, and not regeneration, conversion, and what pertains to eternal salvation? Let us see.

Through Paul's preaching the gospel, sinners will "receive remission of sins." Is that not dealing with eternal pardon and justification? Not, according to staunch Hardshellism. It cannot mean that, because it would indicate that eternal salvation, is in some sense, was dependent upon "second causes," upon "human means" and "human action," and they cannot accept that idea at all. This is their reasoning. But, clearly, "remission of sins" cannot be talking about a "time salvation" that has no bearing on eternal salvation. "Turning from darkness to light," and "turning from Satan unto God," and "inheritance" among the "sanctified", that is a "time salvation," what is not neccessary for eternal salvation?

David wrote:

"It is certain that the providence of God is a strong and necessary force in the spread of the gospel. In the absence of God's providential intervention, the gates of hell would surely prevail against the church. But this force is not necessarily exerted to such degree that it completely corrects or offsets the failures of man to spread the truth in this world. There is no doubt that Almighty God has the ability to direct gospel preachers to all of his elect, but the evidence does not support the claim that He has purposed to do so in time."

See here for David's full writing.

Earlier, David criticized the view that the Providence of God was involved in seeing that all the elect hear the gospel, because he thought it took away from "responsibility," but now he confesses that "the providence of God is a strong and necessary force in the spread of the gospel." Let us ask David - "does this providential working of God take away the responsibility of man?" David also answers his own questions and conclusions by saying - "this force" (divine action or providence), however, is not sufficient to "completely correct or offset the failures of man to spread" the gospel.

Next, David admits that God has the ability to get gospel preachers to all his elect! Well, then why does he elsewhere argue that it is not possible, or likely, or reasonable, or observable?

The "evidence" does not show that all the elect hear the gospel? What Bible is he reading? He shgould read my book on the Hardshells where I thoroughly overthrow all this Hardshell "logic."