Chapter 51 - Regenerated & Converted

The articles of faith of the oldest Hardshell churches say that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted." Did they use the terms "regenerated" and "converted" as referring to the exact same thing? If two different things, did they affirm that both were necessary? Something that all the elect would experience? Did they refer to a gospel and evangelic experience when they used the term "conversion"?

I dealt much with what the Hardshells believe about "conversion" in chapter 18 and this will be somewhat of an enlargement. I there showed that the Hardshells greatly erred in divorcing regeneration from conversion. What are some of the consequences of this divorcing of what God has joined together?

1. "Regeneration" has become an "unconscious experience," an event that merely "deposits," or "implants," some vaguely defined "principle of life," some metaphysical goo (what is often called simply an "inner ability)," and becomes an experience that is not well defined, but is rather known by what is absent in the experience, rather than by what is actually present or an immediate consequence of "regeneration."

2. "Regeneration" has progressively been narrowed down to mean simply the first initial move of the Spirit of God upon a man. In such a system "regeneration" becomes a bunch of nothing, meaningless; thus the Hardshell difficulty, historically, with the "Hollow Log Doctrine." "Regeneration" changes a man very little. A man can be "regenerated" and not know it.

3. "Regeneration," without "conversion," becomes a vain and empty thing. It creates the monster of unconvicted, unrepentant, and unbelieving "regenerate" people! There is no such creature in the word of God!

4. "Conversion" is not the work of God's efficacious grace, but the work of the "free will" of the "regenerated." Though all the elect will be "regenerated," only a very few will ever be "converted."

How contrary this is to the first Old Baptist confessions and "articles of faith" of the primitive churches and associations! Let us see the evidence for this startling fact.

For instance, we read the following from the 1806 Mississippi Baptist Association Articles of Faith, under article #6.

"We believe all those who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world are, in time, effectually called, regenerated, converted, and sanctified; and are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation."

(http://www.upbuild.org/article100.html)

Columbia Baptist Church, 1790 (Cincinnati - The First Church in Ohio)

"We Believe that the works of redemption, conversion, sanctification, and faith are not acts of man's free will and power, But of the mighty efficatious (sic) and erisistable (sic) grace of god."

(http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/columbia-hist.html)

Fisher's River Association 1832

VIII. "We believe that God's elect will be called, converted, regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

(http://www.newrivernotes.com/va/frpba1.htm)

Wilmington Primitive Baptist Church, 1805

"WE BELIEVE that works of regeneration, conversion, santification and faith is not an act of man's free will and power, but the mighty efficacious and irresistable grace of God." (http://www.wilmingtonpbc.org/)

Fellowship Primitive Baptist Church 1829

"We believe that God’s elect shall be regenerated, called, converted, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

(http://www.fellowshippbc.org/confessions.shtml)

Flint River Primitive Baptist Church

"We believe that God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost." (http://members.flintriverpbc.org/aof.htm)

Senter Primitive Baptist Church 1829

"5. We believe that sinners are called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy spirit and that all who are thus regenerated or born again by the Spirit of God shall never fall finally away." (Ashe County, North Carolina) (http://www.newrivernotes.com/nc/senter.htm)

And Finally

7. "We believe that God's elect shall be called, converted, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost."

(A Set of Old School Primitive Baptist Articles of Faith - The Primitive Baptist Unity Website)

Notice the general absence of the terms new birth, begetting, born again, etc., in the older articles. Why is this? Is it not because the four terms they did use were the integral elements of the new birth?

There are four terms that all these old articles use in reference to the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the benefits of the death of Christ to the elect. They are: effectually called, regenerated, converted, and sanctified. They affirmed that "all the elect" would experience what is denoted by those four terms. Hardshells have changed their modern confessions and have eliminated the word "conversion" from their historic articles. For proof of this, I cite these "articles of faith" of neo-Primitive Baptist Churches

Modern Articles of Faith (Neo Old School)

"We believe that the Holy Spirit effectually calls, regenerates and sanctifies all the elect of God. (John 6:37; 2 Timothy 1:9; Jude 1)" (Lexington Primitive Baptist Church - http://www.lexpbc.org/articles.html)

"We believe that all the chosen in Christ shall be called, regenerated, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit; and that they will be justified in the sight of God by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and will be preserved through grace and never fall finally away. John 6:37-40; John 17:2-4; Rom. 8:28-30; II Thes. 2:13; John 10:28-30; II Tim. 2:19."

"We believe that a knowledge of salvation is manifest to the heirs of promise by a direct operation of the Holy Ghost in their hearts. Eph. 2:8-10; Heb. 11:6; II Cor 4:16; I Cor 2:9." (Little Vine Primitive Baptist Church)

(www.littlevinepbc.org/articles_of_faith.htm)

"We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the direct Operation of the Holy Ghost in their hearts."

This is all that is said! Nothing, in this, or in the preceding articles, about the necessity of being "converted"! We do not see the same four ancient terms! In modern Hardshell confessions we do not see the old order repeated - "calling, regeneration, conversion, santification,"!

The Hardshell periodical that wrote the above article on effectual calling, said:

"A note to our readers: The Banner of Love is not a church body and, as such, does not have its own Articles of Faith. While these Articles of Faith are considered typical of those adopted by many Primitive Baptist Churches, they are presented here for informational purposes only. Articles of Faith vary from congregation to congregation."

(http://www.banneroflove.net/pages/articles_of_faith.htm)

Yes, they may be "typical" of modern "Primitive Baptists," but not of the first or original Old Baptists!

Another modern Hardshell article reads:

"We believe that those of mankind thus chosen and fore-ordained unto eternal life, were redeemed by Christ Jesus, and are effectually called by the direct work of the Holy Spirit, and that by irresistible grace. We, thus, reject the doctrines of water baptism regeneration and gospel regeneration by the preached word. (Ps. 65:4, John 1:10-13, John 3:5-8, John 6:63, John 10:27-30, Eph. 2:1, Gal. 4:6, Jude 1:1, I Pet. 1:18-19)" (Zion Primitive Baptist Church Brunswick, GA - http://www.zionpbc.org/index.html)

And from the late 19th century, from "REGENERATION" - Articles of Faith of a Primitive Baptist Church - by Elder Walter Cash:

"We believe that being born again is not the act of man, nor does it result from what he may believe or do; but it is the work of God, who gives eternal life, thus quickening the sinner, which causes him to confess his sin, and to feel the need of a Saviour."

(http://www.bibletruthforum.com/cords2/articles4.htm)

The theologians, not the bible writers, are the ones who give a definition of "regeneration" as equivalent to "initial move of God"; And, as I have said, if this is how one defines "regeneration," then of course, "regeneration" precedes faith, repentance, conversion, etc.

All of the modern "articles of faith" of the Hardshells have excluded the term "conversion" from that portion that deals with regeneration, effectual calling, and sanctification! Why did they cut this word out? How can they be "primitive" or "original" or "old school," and change their articles on such an important and fundamental doctrine of the Baptist faith?

Kehukee Articles of 1777

6. "We believe that it is utterly out of the power of men, as fallen creatures, to keep the law of God perfectly, repent of their sins truly, or believe in Jesus Christ, except they be drawn by the Holy Ghost."

7. "We believe in God's appointed time and way (by means which he has obtained) the elect shall be called, justified and sanctified, and that it is impossible they can utterly refuse the call, but shall be made willing by divine grace to recieve the offers of mercy."

(http://www.geocities.com/docsofgrace/)

It seems that the first Baptists in the Old Kehukee Association believed that repenting and believing in Jesus, gospel and conversion experiences, were part of the new birth experience. It seems obvious too that they believed that this "effectually calling" was connected with the "receiving of offers of mercy," offers that are connected with the preached word. It is also obvious that they believed the "drawing" of John 6:44 involved coming to repent and believe. They also believed that the "coming" to Christ was the same as "believing" on him.

Ketocton Association Articles of Faith (1766)

"That those that are redeemed by Christ, are in due time called to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus - embracing Him as the only way to God and Savior of poor sinners. This effectual calling is accomplished by the agency of the Holy Ghost operating in a free, irresistable and unfrustrable manner, by which the understanding is enlightened and the will subjected to Christ. Hence the scriptures testify that they are made willing in the day of His power. This eternal change or new birth in the soul is wholly ascribed to the Power of God; for it is said of the regenerate, they are begotten of God, quickened of God, born of God - all expressive that it is the Lord's work, and He is entitled to the praise." (Article #8)

(http://www.upbuild.org/article18.html)

In upcoming chapters I will be dealing with the lies that the Hardshells have told relative to John Gill, especially about what they say in regard to supposed changes in doctrine that he made when he was old, whereby he writes differently on some things, in his "Body of Divinity," than he did in his commentaries. What will now be cited by Gill on "Conversion" is from his "Body of Divinity," and will disprove the idea that Gill "rejected gospel means" in the new birth experience in his "Body of Divinity." I have already cited Gill's "Body of Divinity" in previous chapters wherein he affirmed the exact same position on means as he did in his commentaries, notwithstanding the accusation of some leading Hardshells. But, I will greatly enlarge upon this point in those upcoming chapters on "Gill and the Hardshells."

John Gill on "Conversion"

"Conversion, though it may seem, in some respects, to fall in with regeneration and the effectual calling, yet may be distinguished from them both. Regeneration is the sole act of God; conversion consists both of God’s act upon men, in turning them, and of acts done by men under the influence of converting grace; they turn, being turned. Regeneration is the motion of God towards and upon the heart of a sinner; conversion is the motion of a sinner towards God, as one (Charnock) expresses it. In regeneration men are wholly passive, as they also are in the first moment of conversion; but by it become active: it is therefore sometimes expressed passively; "ye are returned", or converted (1 Pet. 2:25), and sometimes actively; "a great number believed and turned to the Lord" (Acts 11:21), and "when it", the body of the people of the Jews, "shall turn to the Lord", which has respect to their conversion in the latter day (2 Cor 3:16). The effectual calling is the call of men out of darkness to light; and conversion answers to that call, and is the actual "turning" of men from the one to the other; so that, with propriety, conversion may be considered as distinct from regeneration and the effectual calling."

"Conversion is a turn of the "mind" from carnal things to spiritual ones, and from earthly things to heavenly ones; yea it is a turn of the "will", which before conversion is in a very bad state, is stubborn and inflexible, biased to and bent upon that which is evil, and averse to all that is good; but in conversion God "works in" men "both to will and to do of his good pleasure"; he gives them another will, or however a turn to their will, so that of an unwilling people, they are made a willing people in the day of his power on them; whereas they were unwilling to come to Christ for salvation, and take him alone to be their Saviour; "ye will not come unto me that ye might have life", says Christ (John 5:40), that is, ye have no will to come to me at all for life and salvation; they chose rather to go anywhere than to him for it; but now they are willing to be saved by him, and resolve to have no other Saviour but him; yea though he slay them they will trust in him, and say he shall be our salvation; and though before they went about to establish their own righteousness, and did not and would not submit to the righteousness of Christ; now their stout hearts, which were far from righteousness, are brought down, and they become willing to be found in Christ, and in his righteousness only; and inasmuch as before they would not have Christ to reign over them, and chose not to be subject to his laws and ordinances, now they are ready to acknowledge him as their king and governor, and turn their feet to his testimonies, and esteem his precepts concerning all things to be right.

Conversion lies in a man’s being turned from darkness to light; the apostle says, he was sent by Christ to the Gentiles, as a minister of the gospel, "to turn them from darkness to light" (Acts 26:18), that is, to be the instrument or means of their conversion, by preaching the gospel to them. In this conversion may seem to coincide with the effectual calling; but it may be observed, that the effectual calling is a call to, but conversion is a turning of, men from darkness to light; God not only calls unto light, but turns them to light in every sense; to God who is light itself, and in whom is no darkness at all; to Christ, who is the light of the world; to the gospel, which is the great light that shines on men who sit in darkness; and to the light of grace, which is a shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day.

Conversion lies in the turning of men "from the power of Satan unto God", as in the above place (Acts 26:18). Satan has great power over men in an unconverted state, his seat is in their hearts, which are the palace in which he rules...but now in conversion they are turned from his power; he is dispossessed of them, and his armor taken from him in which he trusted; the prey is taken out of the hands of the mighty, and the lawful captive is delivered; men are translated from the power of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son; and though they are not freed from his temptations, yet they have grace sufficient given them to bear up under them till it is the pleasure of God to save them from them, who will shortly bruise him under them; and as they are in conversion turned from him, they are turned to God; who before were without him, and alienated from the life of him, and strangers to him; but now they are turned to the knowledge of him, to love to him, to faith in him, and to communion with him.

"...in conversion, he by his Spirit and grace turns them from their iniquities; he turns them from the love of them to an hatred of them, even of vain thoughts, as well as of sinful actions; from the service and drudgery of them to the service of righteousness; from the power and dominion of them and subjection to them, and from a course of living in them to a life of holiness; and from the paths of sin to the paths of truth and uprightness."

"Conversion lies in turning men from their own righteousness to the righteousness of Christ...and this requires more than human teachings: for though ministers are said to "turn many to righteousness", that is, to the righteousness of Christ, yet only instrumentally, and as the means of it, through preaching the gospel, in which there is a revelation of it; for God is the efficient cause of the turn of them to it; for though the gospel is the ministration of it, yet it is the Lord that must bring it near to stouthearted ones far from righteousness, and make them willing to submit unto it, and to be desirous of being found in it; for men naturally do not care to part with their own righteousness..."

"Conversion lies in a man’s turning to the Lord actively, under the influence of divine grace; and by this phrase it is often expressed in scripture, as in Isaiah 10:21; Acts 11:21; 2 Corinthians 3:16, men being thoroughly convinced that there is salvation in no other but in Christ, that it is in vain to expect it elsewhere; after they have made many inquiries and searches to no purpose, turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, and look to him alone for salvation; being apprized of their danger, they turn as they are directed, encouraged and enabled to Christ the stronghold, where they are safe from all danger, and from every enemy; being made sensible of the insufficiency of their own righteousness and of the suitableness of the righteousness of Christ for them, they turn to him as the Lord their righteousness, in whom all the seed of Israel are justified and shall glory; and being fully satisfied with the equity of the laws, rules, and ordinances of Christ, they turn to him as their Lord and Lawgiver, and submit to his commands, renouncing all other lords and their dominion over them; and though in their natural state they are like sheep going astray, in conversion they are returned to Christ, as the great Shepherd and bishop of souls: the parable of seeking and finding, and bringing home the lost sheep, is a fit representation of the conversion of a sinner: Christ’s people are his sheep before conversion, but they are lost sheep, straying in the wilderness; and as sheep never return to the fold, shepherd and pasture of themselves, unless looked up and are returned; so neither do they, till they are sought for and found, and brought home by Christ, the proprietor of them, with joy; and the parables following represent the same thing; as that of the lost piece of silver, for finding which the woman lights a candle and sweeps the house, and searches every corner till she finds it, which gives her joy; this sets forth the high esteem and value the elect are in with Christ, comparable to silver, yea to line gold and precious stones; and the passiveness of men in first conversion, who no more contribute to it than the piece of silver to its being found; and the means and methods made use of in conversion, the light of the gospel ministry, and the stir and bustle on that occasion: so the parable of the prodigal son, and his return to his father, is expressive of the same; his manner of living before his return is a lively picture of the state of unconverted men, living in their lusts, and pursuing the desires of the flesh and of the mind; in his return there are all the symptoms of a true and real conversion; as a sense of his starving, famishing, and perishing state by nature; his coming to his right mind, his sense of sin, confession of it, and repentance for it; his faith and hope of meeting with a favorable reception by his father, which encouraged him to return, and which he met with; (see Isa. 55:7)."

"Men are dead in a moral sense while unconverted, they are dead in trespasses and sins, which are the cause of their death...unless they are quickened they cannot be converted..."

"Conversion is such an alteration in a man as is not in his power to effect: it is like that of an Ethiopian changing his skin, and a leopard his spots; such things are never heard of, as a blackamoor becoming white, and a leopard becoming clear of his spots; and as unlikely is it that a man should convert himself (Jer. 13:23), a tree must first be made good, so as to bring forth good fruit; "Make the tree good", says our Lord; but the tree cannot make itself good; another hand must be employed about it, to engraft it, cultivate and improve it: a thorn bush cannot turn itself into a vine tree, and so bring forth grapes; nor a thistle into a fig tree, to bring forth figs; but as soon may these things be done as a man to convert himself and bring forth the good fruits of righteousness (Matthew 12:33; 7:16-18). Conversion is the motion of the soul towards God; but as this cannot be in a dead man, and unless he is quickened, so not unless he is drawn by efficacious grace; wherefore God, in conversion, draws men with lovingkindness to himself; and, with the cords of love, to his Son; for "no man", says Christ, "can come unto me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him" (John 6:44)..."

"God only is the author and efficient cause of conversion. He that made man’s heart, and formed the spirit of man within him, he only can turn their hearts, and frame and mould their spirits, as he pleases; the heart of a king, and so of every other man, is in the hand of the Lord, and he can turn them as the rivers of water are turned; he, and he only, can give a check unto, and turn the thoughts, desires, and affections of the heart into another channel, and the mind and will to other objects; he can remove the stubbornness of the will, and bend it at his pleasure, and make it pliable and conformable to his own will; he can take away the hardness of the heart, though it is like an adamant stone, he can make it soft, and susceptible of the best impressions; he can break the rocky heart in pieces; yea, take away the stony heart, and give an heart of flesh; as he can take what he pleases out of it, so he can put into it what he will, as he does in conversion, his laws, the fear of him, and his Spirit; he can and does draw them, by the powerful influence of his grace upon them, to himself and to his Son; and this he does without forcing their wills; he sweetly allures, by his grace, to come to Christ and his ordinances..."

"The power of divine grace, put forth in conversion, is irresistible; that is, so irresistible, as that a stop cannot be put to the work, and that become of no effect, through opposition made unto it from within and from without. Conversion is according to the will of God, his will of purpose, which can never be frustrated; "Who hath resisted his will?" his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure; it is wrought by his almighty power; the work of faith, which is a principal part of the work of conversion, is begun, carried on, and performed with power; nor can a sinner any more resist, so as to make of none effect, the power of God in conversion, than Lazarus could resist the power of Christ in calling him out of his grave. If it was in the power of the will of men to hinder the work of conversion, so as that it should not take place, when it is the design of God it should; then God might be disappointed of his end, which must not be said; for there is no counsel nor might against him; whatever devices may be in a man’s heart, the counsels of God can never be disappointed; when God has purposed to convert a sinner, who can disannul it? and when his mighty hand of grace is stretched out, to put that purpose into execution, who can turn it back? when he works in any way, and so in this, there is none can let. Besides, if conversion was to stand or fall according to the will of men; or if that had the turning point in man’s conversion, it would rather he ascribed to the will of men than to the will of God; and it would not be true what is said, "It is not of him that willeth": yea, as the will of men then would have the greatest stroke in conversion, in answer to that question, "Who maketh thee to differ from another?" it might be said, as it has been said by a proud and haughty free willer Grevinchovius, I have made myself to differ."

"Thirdly, The instrumental cause, or means of conversion, is usually the ministry of the word; sometimes, indeed, it is wrought without the word, by some remarkable awakening providence or another, and sometimes by reading the scriptures; but, for the most part, it is through the preaching of the word; hence ministers are said to "turn many to righteousness"; and the apostle Paul says, he was sent by Christ into the Gentile world, to "turn men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God"; and this is done both by the preaching of the law and of the gospel; "the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" (Ps. 19:7), though perhaps not the law, strictly taken, but the whole doctrine of the word is there meant; however, the preaching of the law is made use of by the Spirit of God to convince of sin; for "by the law is the knowledge of sin"; and by means of it, when it enters into the heart and conscience, under his influence, sin is made to appear exceeding sinful, and the soul is filled with great distress on account of it; for the "law worketh wrath"; though some take this to be rather preparatory to conversion than conversion itself, which may be better ascribed to the gospel; and, indeed, the receiving of the Spirit, and his graces, and particularly faith, are attributed to the preaching of the gospel, and not to the law, as the means thereof; "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law?" that is, by preaching the doctrine of obedience to it; "or by the hearing of faith?" that is, by the doctrine of the gospel, preaching faith in Christ; which is therefore called "the word of faith", and by which it comes; for "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Gal. 3:2; Rom. 10:8, 17), but then the preaching of the word of the gospel is not sufficient of itself to produce the work of conversion in the heart; men may hear it, and not be converted by it; nor receive any benefit, profit, and advantage through it; if it comes in word only, and not with the demonstration of the Spirit, and of power; and when it is accompanied with the power of God; or is made the power of God unto salvation, even then it is only an instrument, and not an efficient; for "who is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers, or instruments, by whom ye believed?" (1 Cor. 3:5).

"Thirdly, The subjects of conversion; these are not all men, for all, in fact, are not converted; nor does it appear to be the design and purpose of God to convert all men; nor does he give sufficient grace to all men to convert themselves if they will; for he does not so much as give to all men the means of grace, the outward ministry of the word: this was not vouchsafed to the Gentiles for hundreds of years before the coming of Christ; and since, millions have never been favored with it; nor are multitudes at this day..."

(Body of Divinity - Book 6—Chapter 13 Of Conversion)

Now, will the Hardshells continue to tell us that Gill did not preach means in his "Body of Divinity"? Will they continue to say that Gill did not preach the necessity of conversion for salvation and the new birth? An unconverted man, said Gill, is a man "dead in tresspasses and sins." But, there is much more from Gill's "Body of Divinity" on this topic, but more on that in upcoming chapters on Gill.

In summary, let us look at how the term "regeneration" is used and understood by writers on this topic.

Regeneration = New Birth (synonymns)
Regeneration + Conversion = New Birth
Regeneration = Initial Move Of God

I think the first of these definitions is scriptural. The second definition is allowable and has been held by many who write didactically and theologically on the subject. I think the latter definition, created by the "hair splitting theologians," has created all the difficulties. No where in the scriptures is regeneration, and its equivalent terms, as renewing, re-genesis, re-birth, ever equated with an initial move of the Holy Spirit upon the heart or mind of a sinner. But, more on this too in the next chapters on "evidences of regeneration" and on "conviction of sin."

Consider this question that I recently asked my father - "Is the 'drawing' or the 'coming,' of John 6: 44, regeneration"? Notice that the "drawing" precedes and causes the "coming." If we equate the 'drawing' with "regeneration," then we have a man "regenerated" before he "comes"! But, Hardshells will generally allow that regeneration involves the actual "coming" of the sinner to Christ and to life. But, if we equate "regeneration" with "initial move of the Holy Spirit," then we must make the "drawing" (or act of God) "regeneration" and then say that "coming" is after "regeneration" and not integral to it.

Will Bradley Respond?

Just a few weeks ago a 300 year celebration was put together at the Charleston First Baptist Church (S.C.). Various Baptists, from the different sects within the general Baptist family, spoke on the history of the Baptists since the formation of the Philadelphia Baptist Association. One of the speakers was Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. of the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church, who spoke on the history of the Primitive Baptist Church. He appears also to have been part of the planning of this conference and "celebration" during the past five years. I am currently waiting to get transcripts of his presentation and to see what he had to say about their history.

He did write an account of the event and posted it on his blog (http://cincinnatipbc.blogspot.com/) I left him a comment but it has not been allowed as yet by him. I really don't expect him to answer, however. The question posed is one I think he and the Hardshells will want to avoid answering. So, here are a couple excerpts from his blog and my comment that I left him. You may see the agenda and list of speakers by visiting this web site: http://www.baptisthistorycelebration.org/

Elder Bradley wrote:

"The Baptist History Celebration was held at the First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina, August 1-3. The meeting was planned to coincide with the 300th anniversary of the Philadelphia Association, the oldest Baptist Association in America. I had the privilege of serving on the Steering Committee which planned this meeting. We met annually for the past five years and it really was a great experience to see people from various groups of Baptists working together on this project. The places we visited, the speakers we heard and the fellowship enjoyed were a blessing. I want to express special appreciation for Gary Long for his untiring efforts to make the meeting a success."

One wonders - if the fellowship was so wonderful and beneficial, why have the Hardshells, historically, done everything they could to avoid fellowship with other Baptists? Now, Elder Bradley already is not recognized by a large segment of today's Hardshells due to his support of Hardshell missions, preacher education, and other such "New School Baptist" practices, and I am sure his participation here will not increase his standing with the "conservative" brethren (who label Bradley a "liberal"). Primitive Baptist history is anything but "cooperation" with other Baptists! They cooperate with no one! The whole mission movement, and the movement to improve ministerial education, was all due to "cooperation"! Yet, history shows, that the Hardshells did not "lift a finger" (over the past two hundred years) in cooperation to help take bibles to those who did not have them, or preach to sinners who had never heard the gospel, etc. All they have done, since their genesis in the early 1800's, is to oppose all cooperation with other Baptists! Perhaps Bradley and the Hardshells ought to celebrate the fact that there is still a few of them around! He says it was a "great experience" to be in such a meeting! Well, the Hardshells have missed out on many "great experiences" by their history of non-cooperation and "do-nothingism"!

Bradley writes further:

"Speakers included Bill Brackney, Edwin Gaustad, and Tom Nettles. There were Breakout sessions covering such subjects as: Baptists and The Civil Rights Movement, Baptist Theological Controversies, Spurgeon and American Baptist Spirituality, History of The Primitive Baptists, and Baptist Preachers and Their Sermons. A wide variety of views were presented which made it an interesting look at Baptist history and provided some insight as to where they are today.As the 300th Anniversary of the Philadelphia Association is recognized, it should not be forgotten that this Association adopted the London Confession which then became known as the Philadelphia Confession. Over the past 300 years many Baptists have moved far away from the doctrines contained in the Old Confession but it is encouraging to know there are those today who still respect it and love the truth of the sovereignty of God expressed in it and are continuing to preach the message of His sovereign grace." (http://cincinnatipbc.blogspot.com/)

Here is my comment I left on his blog. If it shows up, I will be surprised.

Dear Elder Bradley:

Do the "Primitive Baptists" of today still believe the Old London Confession on means in regeneration? Why do most PB's today reject the Confession? Were the Fulton Convention brethren right in their "interpretation" or did they twist and distort it?

Your views on this would be very interesting to know.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Stephen M. Garrett

Chapter 50 - Law to Grace?

In the book, a "Biographical Sketch of Old School or Primitive Baptist Ministers," as I said in the last chapter, the Hardshells have a picture of Elder Leland, with a write up, wherein they claim him as with them in their views of things. Is this true? It is stated there that Elder Leland "opposed Sunday schools, theological seminaries, a salaried ministry and moneyed religious institutions..." (Page 163)

Yes, all this is true. But, why did the writer (S. Hassell?) not tell us that Leland, in addition to the things mentioned above, also was against means in regeneration? Why did he not also say that Leland believed in the kind of new birth experience that the Hardshells advocate? Is it because he could cite no statements from Leland to prove he did not believe in means? In the last chapter I showed that he did believe in means. I am sure if I could locate more of the writings of Leland that I could produce even more proofs to substantiate this fact. Hardshells do this a lot. If they can find a Baptist preacher, in the early 1800's, who opposed Sunday Schools, then well, that would make him "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Hardshell"! If we can find a Baptist preacher at that time decrying some new mission methods, then that, according to the habit of the Hardshells, makes that preacher agree with them on everything else! That "dog just won't hunt."

The writer says further about Elder Leland:

"I cannot in my brief space, mention but a few incidents in this great man's life, and call attention to but a little of his writing, but hope enough is given for the reader to clearly see where he stood in the division in 1832. The New School Baptists claim him, but their claims are entirely without foundation. The reader is referred to Hassell's History pages 622-628, and to the history of his life by Miss L. P. Green, if he should wish to further pursue the study of Elder Leland's history." (ibid)

Which is the most important issue? Is it Sunday Schools, mission methods, ministerial support and education, or the question of means in regeneration? All candid Hardshells will admit that the question of means is paramount. Why did the writer, seeing he had limited space, and could only cite but a few remarks from Leland, not give us the "jugular"? Why could he not cite one statement from Leland where Leland says he does not believe that the preaching of the gospel is a means in the new birth? If it was available, would he not quote it? Surely he would! But, he did not, demonstrating that he did not believe Hardshellism on the new birth.

Referring back now to what Elder C. C. Morris said about the slave who was converted under Elder Leland's preaching, Elder Morris said that the slave was regenerated before he came to America and heard the gospel for the first time. Elder Morris said that he and the Hardshells believe that the slave was "regenerated" while an idolator, while bowing down to the stump, and praying to the "god who sends the lightning." Elder Morris believes that the slave was "born again" at that time. Why? Because the slave was under conviction while in Africa! He was "regenerated" because he realized he was an evil and corrupt creature who loved sin and wrongdoing! He is welcome to that view, unscriptural as it is, but he is committing a slander when he affirms that this was the view of Elder Leland! He did not cite Elder Leland to that affect, but only insinuates that Leland agreed with him! Dishonest writing it is!

From Law to Grace

"For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched (Mt. Sinai-where the law was given to Israel by Moses), and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." (Hebrews 12: 18-24)

These verses speak of the salvation experience as one in which the sinner goes from Mt. Sinai to Mt. Zion, goes "from law to grace." In the many experiences of salvation that I have read through the years, of Hardshells and other Baptists, in this day and in days of yore, I have noticed how, in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, those who told their experiences of regeneration spoke of them in terms of gospel conversion, of how they went "from law to grace," or from the guilt and burden of sin through the law to freedom therefrom through the gospel. So, in these next chapters I will be citing from the Hardshells and other Baptist forefathers in which their experiences of grace are told. I will begin with Elder Wilson Thompson, probably the leading Hardshell "founding father."

Elder Wilson Thompson

"I BELIEVE my mind was more or less impressed with the importance of religion from my first recollection. I had a dread of death and fears of future misery, that betimes would harrass me very much; but, I am now convinced that these early exercises were the effect of education. My father’s house was a home for the preachers, and was called a “Baptist Tavern”. Meeting was often held there, and then the Baptists from a large boundary would come, Father being a deacon and regarded as having a special gift in discipline, prayer, and exhortation, and, withal, one of the best of singers and what was called a fireside preacher. He was able in the Scriptures, sound in faith, social in his manners, and interesting but not assuming in conversation. He attended all the associations and other large meetings and visited many of the churches. Consequently, his acquaintance became general, and his doors were always open to receive all that came. So I heard much about religious subjects, and, perhaps, this will account for the early impressions of my mind. I am very sure, from a retrospect of those early impressions, that they were just of that character which a carnal heart and a defiled conscience might be expected to have, under such circumstances as I have related."

Notice how the word of God was not absent as a "means" in Thompson's initial religious experiences. He heard lots of the word! He also says that these conversations about scripture "account for the early impressions" he had in his mind in regard to God and divine things. He also says that he was not saved or converted then! He testifies that he had, at that time, a "carnal heart" and a "defiled conscience"!

Notice also that he does not say "the effect of regeneration" but "the effect of education." He does not see his conviction of sin as being an evidence of his "new birth."

He says further:

"The abundance of religious conversation which I heard early impressed my young mind with the awful realities of a future state, the miseries of the wicked, and kindred subjects..."

Elder Thompson then believed that "means" were used in his "conviction." It was directly due to the "abundance of religious conversation" that "impressed" his mind with the awful realities of hell, and of being the means of bringing him under conviction and condemnation. He also considers this work of convicting him was a preparatory work in his heart for regeneration, not regeneration itself. He seems not to have any difficulty admitting that the work of conviction was the work of the Lord through the use of means. But, as we will see, he later began to have difficulty with believing the Lord used those same means to bring him to Christ, to faith and repentance! Why does he have no problem with the use of means in conviction but not in regeneration and conversion?

Now some Hardshells will want to argue that the Baptists, in Thompson's day, believed that regeneration and conversion were distinct and separate, so that when he speaks of "conversion," he is not speaking of "regeneration." This however is not the case and I will demonstrate this in these series of chapters on the "evidences of regeneration."

He says further:

"Although all the religious conversation I had ever had (and that was not a little) was on salvation by grace alone, yet I had no just conceptions of that plan. While I felt very partial to the Baptists, I had never learned one idea of their system of grace, but was building all my hope upon the good works which I intended to perform."

His "hope" was not in Jesus at this time! His "hope" is in his own efforts and yet, according to Hardshell soteriology, he is "born again"!

He writes further about his experience:

"I was now, as already stated, about eleven years old. The thoughts of death, of judgment, and future punishment, with an increased force and terror, oppressed my mind; and now my resolve to do better after awhile gave me no relief. I therefore solemnly resolved within myself to set about the work in good earnest and never give it up until I knew I had obtained the pardon of all my sins, and then live clear of sin the remainder of my days and be a good, exemplary, straight-walking Christian."
Elder Thompson did not believe he was born again at this time. This is very important to note. Thompson recognizes that he has not yet received pardon for his sins. He realizes that he is "going about to establish his own righteousness," not yet having "submitted to the righteousness of God" in Christ. He had "no relief" because he has not yet come to Christ, not yet forsaken his own efforts to save himself. Will today's Hardshells come forward and say that Elder Thompson was wrong in seeing that his conviction of sin was not an evidence of regeneration? He says at this time, when under deep conviction, that "...the fears of death and hell would come on me with such terrific shocks..."

He said further:

"About this time, when I was in full sail, and with high anticipations, I learned that on the next Saturday, being, as I think, the first Saturday in May, 1801 or 1802, some young people about my own age were expected to come before church, as candidates for admission and baptism. I felt a strong wish to be at that meeting, to see if they were true Christians; for I fully believed I could tell, seeing I fancied I knew all about it. I went, and heard them relate what was called their “experience”. I sat near and listened closely. At first they spoke of seeing themselves great sinners, and of feeling great alarm, and great sorrow and trouble, and of trying to pray. All this I believed to be right, but then they spoke of feeling worse and worse; their sins grew greater, and still greater, until I thought they seemed at a loss for words to express how bad they were. Their hope of pardon died away, and despair of success by all they could do, cut off every prospect. Their prayers became impure and vile in their eyes. Their very hearts were deceitful and wicked. Their thoughts were presumptuous—in a word, they spoke of themselves as being so desperately sinful in every way, that they could not ‘do anything but what was sinful, and God would be just in His judgment if He should them cut off, even for the sin that spoiled their best performances. In short, I fully understood them to convey the idea, that they got worse and worse, until every hope of ever becoming any better by any effort of their own was entirely gone, and that they lay guilty, helpless, forlorn, and justly condemned, and were exposed to death and hell, and to an eternal banishment from all holy beings, all happiness, and even earth itself. This they were looking for as their justly-merited doom from a just, righteous, and holy God. But here a joy, a hope, a comfort, suddenly sprang up! They were filled with love, joy, and praise, and they felt happy. Their trouble was gone; the world and all around them seemed changed and new, and everything around was showing forth the wisdom, power, and glory of God. The cause of this great change I understood not, for they talked of no progress, except from bad to worse, up to the moment of their “rejoicing in hope”. I remember of but one question being asked, and that was this: “You speak of being very great sinners; have you now become good, or are you the same great sinners still?” The answer was prompt: “We are still great sinners, and in ourselves we are no better.” This answer decided their case with me, and I had no thought that even one member of the church would lift a hand to receive such sinners into their church. I really pitied the great ignorance of these young people; they would, of course, be rejected, and they ought to have never so exposed themselves as to come publicly before the church to tell how bad they were, and that they were still getting worse instead of better. The moderator, Elder James Lee, put the vote, and, my dear reader, you can scarcely imagine my surprise, sorrow, astonishment, and abhorrence, when I saw every hand up at once to receive them. I knew that the whole order of Baptists held themselves to be a Christian church, that is, a church of Christians, and, to keep so, they would receive no member into their body but such as give evidence of being a Christian, and as such gain their fellowship. Yet, here, they all voted, with an uplifted hand, to receive members that had made no such pretensions, but, to the contrary, had positively told them that they were not only not good, but still continued to be very great sinners!"

When were these sinners born again? When they were under condemnation? When they were burdened down with guilt? No! Was it not till they believed in Christ and received joy, hope, comfort, etc.? Note too that the "great change" included coming to find hope and "joy in believing." Does regeneration make one sad or glad? (More on this in upcoming chapters)

Thompson writes further:

"I began to desire greatly to know what was meant by law and gospel, and what it was, in Christian experience, that was called passing from law to gospel. All these things oppressed me sorely. My mind was in a tumult, like a troubled sea, tossed with contending emotions, doubts, fears, hope, assurance, and despair."

Notice how Elder Thompson and the Baptists of his time believed that regeneration (or the Christian experience) was not an unconscious experience, but a going from "law to gospel."

He continues:

"But still I could not understand their system. This something they called law and gospel was with them the great matter. The beautiful and satisfying evidence of Christian experience consisted, as they said, in a thorough and correct passing from law to gospel. This was all new matter to me. I could not understand what they meant by the phrase, “passing from law to gospel”." (Chapter Two - "Early Religious Impressions")

How can an infant "go from law to gospel"? How can an infant be convicted at all? I have asked dad about this. I asked - "Do Hardshells see conviction as a universal and immediate result of regeneration?" If so, how do "regenerated infants" experience this? Of what sins are they being convicted?

Thompson continues describing his "experience," saying:

"When meeting closed, a company started with Father, some on horseback and others on foot. As they walked, I was all attention and felt impatient to hear them speak of the reception of these wicked children. They had not walked far until an old man from north of the Ohio River, by the name of Davies, introduced the subject by saying: “How beautifully them young people passed from law to gospel.” The general response from all was, “Yes.” Some said: “God has surely ordained and brought praise out of the mouths of babes and sucklings”; others said: “It looks like the latter days of time, to hear children of eleven or twelve years of age give such deep and clear relations of experience as to almost surpass, and certainly to astonish the old members.” The talk ran on in this way, and so I found, to my utter astonishment, they were all fully satisfied. Indeed there seemed to be no doubts in the mind of any one of them, for all spoke of these experiences in the highest terms of approbation, as being extraordinarily clear; and yet these converts were mere children. I was soon convinced that the church had not acted hypocritically in receiving them, but, on the contrary, they had received them in good faith, according to what they believed to be the best evidence of what they called the new birth."

What is this "best evidence"? Is it conviction only? If one does NOT "go" from the law to the gospel, are they not then still under the law and its guilt?

Thompson says:

"There was a prayer meeting that evening in the vicinity, and it being time to go, my father and I walked directly on. Soon after we started, the inquiry rushed upon me: “What has gone with all your trouble?” My burden was gone; the stream of justice that had been pursuing my life was withdrawn, and yet I was the same sinner as before! But was all my burden of sin and guilt now removed? or, was it not rather that I was now given up to such insensibility, such heaviness of heart, that I could no longer be grieved on account of my situation? And here I began to retrospect the past three days. I soon found my burden had last oppressed me in the hackberry top aforementioned, where, on my knees, I had confessed God’s justice in my condemnation. At once I inferred that God had shown me my guilty and condemned condition, and had brought me solemnly on my knees, to confess that His judgment was just in my banishment, and that I had no just cause of complaint, nor any ground to reflect upon His righteous decision; hence the honor of His Throne was fully vindicated. This being done, and the glory of God’s attributes all shown to me in the works of His hands, I concluded that I was now left in a hardened, insensible condition, and that my state was now worse than ever before, but that I was too much hardened to feel it. I labored to feel as I had felt, and to see myself again under the load which had heretofore oppressed me; but I could not. Yet I never once thought of this being conversion, but my trouble now was that my former trouble was gone!

Does that not settle it? He does not see himself as yet "converted"! Oh yes, I know how the modern PB apologetic is to say he meant a conversion experience that is entirely subsequent to regeneration. Did Thompson and the Old Baptists believe regeneration and conversion to be distinct and separate? No! (But, more on this later also)

He does say that it was at this time that God "showed him his guilty and condemned condition." Again, this is crucial. I mentioned, in an earlier chapter, how the Hardshells are in a "tight spot" relative to this matter of "conviction." If a convicted soul is already saved and justified, and then the Holy Spirit comes along and convicts him, telling him he is unsaved and unjustified, then the Holy Spirit is telling the convicted sinner a lie! I cited Elder Sarrels on this point. He realized the difficulty. How did he deal with it? He said that the Lord does not reveal to the sinner his actual state, but a hypothetical case, showing the sinner, not what he is, but what he would be without the grace of God! Said he: "The quickened person in conviction sees himself not as he actually is, but as he would be without the grace of God." ("Systematic Theology," page 364) Bunk!

Thompson continues:

"For several days I continued in this way; sometimes all my mind seemed shrouded in impenetrable darkness, but frequently an inward dart of light in the mind would reveal the way in which God could be just as a Saviour, through the mediation of His Son."

What is this "inward light" that only "darted" in his mind? Is it not the gospel? Is the gospel not a means in enlightening the mind savingly to embrace Christ?

Thompson says:

"Although I could not understand how, yet I became convinced that there was a way in which God could save a great sinner by His grace, and still remain a just God, “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” My view was so indistinct and so imperfect that I could neither explain it satisfactorily, nor appropriate it to myself. Here I received the first hope that I could claim as a hope. I know of no better way to express or define my hope than this—I hoped I should yet receive a hope. I was assured that there was a way, and a glorious way, too, in which God could be just and save a poor guilty sinner; and I hoped I should yet clearly see it."

Is he yet regenerated and converted? Has he repented of his sins? Has he turned away from sin and self and fully trusted Christ?

Thompson continues:

"I continued in about this way until the meeting at Four Mile Church, where I was to go and visit my cousins, in accordance with the promise of my father, as mentioned above. On my way to that meeting, as we walked alone, my father introduced the subject of my exercises and insisted that I should tell him of all my feelings. I was greatly embarrassed, but finally I began, and the more I talked the more free I felt to talk, and so in substance I related all my exercises. I remember well how the big, glistening tears coursed down my father’s cheeks, as he silently listened to my relation. After I had done, and had answered many questions he propounded, he gave me important advice. Indeed, I shall never forget his impressive exhortations and admonitions, and the warnings which he gave me. He set before me my youth, the many snares and temptations I should have to encounter, set to lure me off into the world, and so bring reproach upon myself and the church, and, above all, on the cause of God and His truth. And I was very young, he said, and had never mingled with the world, to learn its ten thousand snares, baits, and devices, and although he hoped I had been the subject of a gracious work, yet he would rather that I should not join the church at present, but wait until I became older and had time to test my faith, hope, and zeal. In conclusion, he said he would not forbid me, but urged me to examine well the solemn responsibility of making a public profession. This advice, coming from a father in whom I had the most implicit confidence, both as to his knowledge in all these things and his desires for my good, made deep impressions on my young mind. I had always considered the advice of my father as the safest rule of my life; so I pondered this with deep concern and self-examination."

This is important testimony to remember. First, it shows his father was not yet certain of his regeneration. Were his father a modern Hardshell, he would have had no doubt at all about his son!

Thompson says further:

"I had very little to say to any one, for my mind was laboring under many conflicting emotions, and yet it was on a strain to see the glorious plan of salvation, which at times still shot with such glory and beauty before my mental vision, but which I could not retain for a moment, for a darkness black as night would rapidly approach and conceal it all from my view."

"On Sunday the meeting was held in a grove, until we were warned by the lightning and thunder from an approaching dark cloud, of the necessity of seeking shelter from the approaching storm. There was a new two-story house near by, to which the congregation hastened; and there Elder Riggs resumed his sermon. He was a powerful man in exhortation, and at times he was a strong man in doctrine. While he was speaking, the cloud began pouring down torrents of rain; the wind blew furiously, dashing the water through the open cracks of the log house; the lightning in forked flame seemed to almost part the firmament while the roaring thunder, like heaven’s awful artillery, belched forth at rapid intervals with deafening roar. The power of the God of the whole earth seemed fully demonstrated. In the midst of this confusion and strife of the elements, the preacher, at the top of his voice, made this appeal: “We are told,” said he, “that Christ will come to judge the world in flaming fire, and with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God. Now, if He should appear in this cloud, amid the streaming lightning and bellowing thunder, who is ready to meet Him?”"

This shows that the Old Baptist fathers in the days of Thompson's youth were not of the "hyperist" and "ultraist" variety; it shows they were evangelistic and had no qualms about calling upon sinners to consider their eternal situation and do something about it. You will never hear a Hardshell today ask a congregation such a question! All honest Hardshells know this to be the case. What will they do with this historical record? What does this say about the type of preaching that was being done in the days when Thompson was a youth? Does it not show that those Old Baptists, in Thompson's day, believed that the gospel was a means in conviction, regeneration and conversion?

Thompson continues:

"At that instant the light that had so often flashed and darted before my inward eyes, now suddenly shone in me, and continued to shine in its splendor, revealing the fullness of the glory of the Person of Christ, and the mediatorial work He had performed for His people, through the redemption that was in Him, and obtained by Him for His people. God was revealed glorious in all His perfections, His law honored, and His truth and justice fully vindicated, while His grace was richly exercised in the free and full justification of poor, ungodly sinners who believed in His Son. This, to me, was the most transporting joy I had ever beheld. I knew it was the same blessed plan that, during several of the preceding days had been flashing across my mind. Christ was now All! He was truly the way, the truth, and the life, the end of the law, the fullness of the gospel. All I needed, or ever could enjoy, was to be found in Him. All that prevented me from the full enjoyment of His glory, was my being present in the body and absent from the Lord. I was caged in a poor corrupt body, away down here on the earth, while He was above, seated at God’s right hand. But I thought, surely He will come again, and then I shall meet Him in the air, having been changed from natural to spiritual, from mortal to immortal. Then I shall be with Him, be like Him, and see Him as He is. This all appeared plain to me, in half the time it takes to write it. I felt fully prepared to respond to the preacher’s appeal, and say, “I am ready to meet Him.” The awful solemnities of the judgment day had been the most terrifying thoughts that haunted my guilty conscience; and often, at night would I awake from my sleep trembling with alarm and terror, from a dream of the judgment day and of my final separation from God and all holy beings. But now the entire scene was changed. I now felt that in “that day” I should be inducted into the presence of God and all holy beings, to dwell forever in that place where sin, sorrow, pain, and death shall never come. The second coming of Christ seemed to be fraught with the greatest interest to me of anything I could think of in the future. During the remainder of the afternoon and evening my mind was calm, tranquil, and happy; and with an ecstatic feeling of delight, I contemplated the glories of Christ as a mediator, and of the redemption through His blood, of the fullness and freeness of His grace, and of pardon, justification, and eternal life in Him. The glories of the whole plan of salvation through Him occupied my enraptured thoughts, for let me strike whatever cord I may, it led to Jesus. “He was all and in all.”"

Notice that Thompson speaks of salvation as belonging only to those "who believe in His Son." Again, that reflects what Thomspson was taught, although it does not reflect what he later would believe when he became a "hyperist." He speaks of being "ready to respond to the minister's appeal." An appeal? Yes, the Old Baptists in Thompson's day were not reluctant to appeal to sinners to consider their lost condition and to come to Christ for remedy. He says that the "plan of salvation" was what "led him to Jesus"! That is upholding means in regeneration and conversion! He also speaks of his regeneration and conversion as making him have hope, relieving him of his guilt, and as being the means of giving him pardon.

He writes further:

"Some of the young converts were there, and we gathered together, and I talked and sang. I gave them my views of the fullness of Christ and His mediation, and of the relation in which He stood to His people. I told them that I believed, when He should “come again without sin unto salvation”, the sight of Him would verily lift them up “to meet Him in the air”, and being like Him, they should see Him as He is and dwell with Him forever. Thus we enjoyed a pleasant season.

The next morning my views seemed dim. I began to call to mind the question: “Am I really interested in Christ as my Savior?” and then many doubts began to annoy me, and with darkness, as it were, to compass me about. I never have doubted since but that the views I then had of the plan of salvation were correct, and that this was the only way any sinner was or can be saved. But my doubts began then, and have often harassed me since, as to whether I was savingly interested in that plan. In this way I lived, sometimes so obscured in darkness that I could hardly dare to hope, and at other times my views were so bright that I could not doubt."

"When I was raised from the water the first thought that I recollect was, “O! that sinners could but see and feel the beauties of a Savior’s love!” Such a weighty and painful sense of their blind and dead condition came over me that I felt a strong desire to speak of the glorious plan of salvation."

It is a shame (as we shall see further in later chapters on Thompson) that Thompson did not keep this same earnest desire for the salvation of sinners as he expressed here! His desire to see sinners saved and to experience what he had experienced would leave him. He had, at the beginning, a similar desire to that of Elder Leland. He is not merely praying for and desiring the salvation of those who are already saved, but for those sinners who are "blind" and in a "dead condition"! Oh what a tragedy that he would lose this condition of heart!

(Autobiography of Wilson Thompson, Chapter three "From Law to Grace--and Baptism")

Other Hardshell Experiences Examined

Now I would like to look at some other recorded "experiences" of some early Hardshell fathers. The purpose of this will be to see how they viewed the regeneration experience and see how that fits with modern day Hardshell soteriology on the question.

Elder J. E. Adam's Experience

Elder J. E. Adams was born, according to the "Biographical Sketch of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers," in Cumberland County, N.C., in 1834. His experience of salvation is told in these words:

"At an early age he had serious thoughts of life and death, hell and heaven, and began a system of reformation in which he was, at the age of twenty-five, trusting for Salvation, when he was deeply convicted of his lost condition by the application on his mind of the words of Jesus, "Ye must be born again". After this he entered the army, went through three years of service and returned home full of thanksgiving for God’s protecting care, though still burdened with the laws condemning sentence. He was in much soul sorrow until June 11, 1871, when God at the midnight hour spoke peace to his soul." (Page 17)

Today's Hardshells will affirm that this man was "born again" and "regenerated" when he was under conviction, while he was under guilt, while he was, as he said, "under the laws condemning sentence." Yet, it seems clear that this man did not come to the Lord and trust his gospel until God "spake peace to his soul"! His sorrow was then removed and he was freed and purged in his conscience. This is regeneration my Hardshell friends.

Elder David Bartley's Experience

"For an long period of his eventful life Elder Bartley was a citizen of Crawfordsville, Ind. He was the ninth child and sixth son of Elder John P. and Charity Bartley and was born in Ohio April 26, 1827. In his seventeenth year of age, he was deeply convicted of sin, but was not able to claim a personal hope in the Saviour until about ten years later. During this period of time many were his trials, temptations and deliverances; much his sorrow, sadness and darkness, but out of it all the Lord delivered him, gave him a sweet hope in Jesus and made him willing to be anything in the house of God; and in June, 1854, he united with Conn’s Creek Church and in January, 1857, was ordained to the gospel ministry." (Page 26)

This is a common experience among Hardshells. The first PB's viewed this as one experience. The Christian experience of grace not culminating till he had come to Christ and received hope and pardon in the conscience.

Elder Thomas Barton's Experience

Was of New Jersey and "was born September 10, 1787, near Washington city. His conviction as a sinner in the sight of God was sudden almost as lightning, and also as effectual. He was in the ball-room, engaged in the festivities of the dance, when he was shocked and astounded by a sense of the divine presence and his own guilty condition, and all further interest in the amusements of the hour was at once ended. This was in early youth. And to a man of his uncommonly lively social disposition and flow of animal spirits, the change must have been indeed wonderful. But the current of his whole after life was changed. His own experience afforded him an answer always to arguments as to preaching being the means of the conviction and conversion of sinners. It was not the means in his case; he had not been hearing any preaching. He said he never had become acquainted with an instance of such pungent exercises and deep distress as his own."

Was this proof? Was his conviction of sin without the application of truth to his mind? As far as his having not heard any preaching, I kind of doubt that. It is not the position of those who believe in means that regeneration must occur during the preaching of the word. It may occur later, but it will be made by the application of the words previously heard. Besides, it has never been the view of those who believed in gospel means to affirm that the work of conviction is strictly a "work of the gospel," or a "work of grace," but rather a "work of the law," and the law, as we will see in upcoming chapters, is written on the nature of all men and so there is enough law written in the nature of man to convince men that they are sinful. Even Hardshells admit this, so there is really no argument here. Hardshells could be cited at length to prove this point. And, it will be seen, in upcoming chapters, that the Hardshells confuse the "work of the law" and the "work of grace," something that the first Hardshells did not seem to have such a difficulty. The work of the law was to convict, while the work of grace and of the gospel was to give pardon.

The writer says further about Elder Barton's experience in finding the Lord:

"Elder Barton does not appear to have ever been allured by the flattering pretensions of the various societies and institutions that were gotten up as auxiliaries to the church. He lived before them, saw their rise and progress, and was present at the Black-Rock convention in 1832 when they finally were scourged out of the temple."

Yes, but the Black Rock Convention only condemned "methodology" in regard to missions, ministerial education and support, and of teaching the bible, and said not one word about protesting against the doctrine of means in regeneration. But, more on this later also. Also, why does the writer not cite a quotation from Barton where he repudiates this doctrine? Why would he, seeing he endorsed the Old Confessions?

The writer continues:

"The New School division seemed disposed to claim in part, at least, to persuade themselves, that he was not as hard as the rest, and that they would be very willing to have him with them. On one occasion one of their young divinity students sent him a challenge to hold a public debate with him. He sent him answer to "Tarry at Jericho until his beard was grown." At another time they appointed him a Director in one of their pet institutions, and sent him a commission. He returned answer that if he had any directions to give it would be in the words of Jehu, 2 Kings ix. 34: "Go see now this cursed woman and bury her, for she is a king’s daughter." The apostolic practice was his model, and he was always consistent." (Pages 27, 28)

But why would the "New School Baptists," who believed in means, claim him if there was no ground to do so? He probably believed in gospel means, and the presumption is to that end, unless evidence can be presented to the contrary. Although he might decry certain "humanly devised means" of preaching Christ and winning the lost, this does not mean that he rejected the "divinely devised means"!

If Elder Barton followed "the apostolic model," as did Leland and Watson, and other of the first Hardshells, then he would preach as Christ, as John the Baptist, and as the apostles! And, I have shown that their style of preaching was not like today's Hardshell "hyperists."

Elder Gilbert Beebe's Experience

"At a very early age he was seriouly impressed with a solemn conviction of his sinful and lost condition as a sinner and the necessity of being born again to qualify him to see the Kingdom of God. When he was about seven years old he was made to hope and rejoice in God as his Saviour. At this tender age he was taught that salvation was of the Lord, and never afterwards had the least confidence in the power of men to effect or help in the salvation of sinners. He united with the Baptist Church in Norwich, Conn." (Page 30)

How could the Holy Spirit convict him of a need to be born again if he was already born again by his conviction experience by the law? Actually, as I have shown before, Beebe split up the Christian experience of the new birth into two separate stages, as in physical birth. The quickening was compared to the moment of conception, when the seed produced a living being in the womb, while the completed "delivery," or "birth" was later, when the soul emerged from the darkness of conviction. This too was the view of Elder Samuel Trott. But, more on this later also. Based upon these views, Beebe would say he had been spiritually "conceived" but not yet "born." He would say that the initial conception or quickening was without means, but he seems to allow means in the "birth."

Elder R. A. Biggs' Experience

"Born in Rush County, Texas, June 2, 1849...At the age of eighteen he was convicted of sin, and realized his lost condition and for two years was under the burden of guilt and condemnation. During this time he tried in many ways to keep the law and get relief, but in vain. But God, never brings one in this condition without also taking him from it, and so his feet were taken from the mire of sin, his goings established, a new song put in his mouth even praises to God. Jesus was revealed to him as his sin bearer and he united with Orchard Gap Church in Collins County..." (Page 36)

I select this experience because of what is said about conviction, regeneration, and conversion. I do not think but few, if any, Neo-Hardshells will affirm this today. It was a more scriptural position and one probably that was common in the early history of the PB's. Notice how the complete regeneration experience includes a gospel conversion and ends in joy, peace, and assurance of salvation, and in a knowledge and faith in Jesus! He had no "relief" till he came to Christ in fulfillment of Matthew 11: 28-30. Most PB's say God brings his elect people into the awful state of conviction and then leaves him there!

I agree with the statment that "God never brings one in this condition without also taking him from it," bringing him into that gospel experience described as "taking his feet from the mire of sin, establishing his goings, and putting a new song into his mouth." Where there is genuine evangelical sorrow over sin, where there is that first preparatory work, God will bring that person from thence to a saving knowledge of Jesus. Will PB's today endorse this view? But, more on this in upcoming chapters.

Elder Frederick W. Keene's Experience

He was, according to the records, "born in London, England, March 28, 1856, moved with his parents to Montreal, Canada, in his fourteenth year, united with the New School Baptists in 1873 and began preaching for them in 1875. But becoming dissastified with their doctrine and practice he publicly withdrew in 1880 and in February, 1881, united with the Old School Baptists, was baptized by Elder Wm. L. Beebe...He was a gifted preacher , a fluent writer..."

"In regard to his Christian experience he writes as follows, "During my boyhood days I lived and walked in the lusts of the flesh and shrank from nothing to gratify my carnal appetite. But God arrested my wild career. On the first Sunday in April, 1871, I sat in a New School Baptist Church in the city of Montreal and the preacher gave out his text, "Boast not thyself of tomorrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth." Instantly my soul was stricken, and all my vile anticipations were blasted, and the terrors of the Almighty made me afraid. What the preacher said in his sermon I have not the slightest remembrance of. I was a vile condemned sinner before the Lord. My sins revived, they stared me in the face and I felt myself a fit subject for the danmation of hell. I feared that the awful curse of God would be poured forth upon me and perhaps before tomorrow. I shall die, and I shall go to hell. God will say to me "depart ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." My trouble over my sins continued and increased and I could see no ground for hope that there could be mercy for one so wicked as I. I began to loathe my sins, to sigh and mourn over my vileness, but no relief could I find. Again I attended preaching, and the minister announced his text. "God is love." I felt, "Can it be so?" A little ray of hope shone in, and I wished it might be so. But in a moment all was dashed away, for I felt, if it be true, it could not be God loved me, and I sank yet lower in despair. But the Holy Spirit's still small voice said to my sin stricken heart, 'God is love.' Then indeed my heart was broken, and melted in sorrow before the Lord, and with a contrite spirit, I prayed for mercy, prayed for salvation, but the way of salvation for a sinner like me I could not see. Indeed, I thought I was adding to my guilt to think there could be pardon for such a sinner. Night came and I retired to my room imploring mercy, every moment I felt the Lord must soon come, or I must perish. While thus crying to the Almighty God, there came before me a vision of Jesus on the cross, and a voice said in my soul, 'Salvation is in my dear Son.' This was a gracious revelation, and while I was wrapped up with this sight, my heart went forth with all desire to jesus that I might know He was mine, that He did for me. Then I thought He looked upon me, so pityingly and said, 'Look unto me.' O my heart with all entreaty looked to him, and he looked upon me, and said, 'I suffered for thee.' Immediately my burden was gone and sweet joy and peace flowed into my soul. I wept and cried aloud for joy. This was the beginning of my hope of salvation in Christ, the Lamb of God."

Elder Keene says that while he was under conviction that he was a "vile condemned sinner," not a clean and justified one! That is not modern Hardshell understanding! Notice too that he gets no relief, no justification or pardon until he hears preaching and embraces it! This man's experience is a clear proof of how God uses means in regeneration! He hears the "still small voice" AFTER conviction! And, in hearing it, he believes in Christ through the gospel.

Elder J. R. Daily's Experience (ZION'S ADVOCATE - August 1905)

"The following is chapter six of our new book, "The Pilgrimage of a stranger." This work is not a dry recital of the uninteresting incidents of our poor life. From many of the incidents and circumstances related moral and spiritual lessons are drawn.

My pharisaical religion became very troublesome to me. It was so hard to keep. Resolution after resolution was broken. I tried to think my good deeds would overbalance my bad ones in God’s account, but all the time had great fears that the bad ones would be far in excess. One day I saw clearly that my efforts to live right, up to that time, had been an utter failure, and I formed a renewed determination to turn from my sinful career and live a holy life. I was really happy with the thought that I could do so. But soon I found that "it was not in man that walketh to direct his steps." It began to dawn upon my benighted mind that I was a vile sinner. At times my guilt appeared as a thick cloud over my mind, and at other times I sought to banish such dreadful thoughts from me and to seek relief in the thought that I was not so bad as many others and that God would yet find me worthy of his favorable notice."

One wonders if the Holy Ghost was telling Elder Daily a lie when the Spirit told him he was a vile filthy sinner? If he had already come to Christ, why does he not have "relief," "pardon" and "justification"? If he had already come to Christ, why did he get "life" but not pardon and forgiveness? Why not cleansing in his conscience? How can one come to Christ for one thing and not another? This was not what Gill taught, as we shall see in chapters dealing with him. He taught that in regeneration all the graces and fruits of the Spirit are all given!

Daily continues:

"In the night of the 27th day of February, 1870, I dreamed the day of judgment had come. Dark clouds seemed to cover the skies and thunders appeared to roar as a threatening omen. I expected to see the Saviour appear, and my heart was filled with terror at the thought of being banished forever into endless despair. I thought I started to run from the wood lot in which we lived to a field on the east, in which I saw a company bowed in prayer led by a pious old neighbor by the name of George Evans, who was a leading member of the United Brethren church. I started to join them but something seemed to say, "You are not fit for such company," and I turned away. Just then I awoke. To be sure I was glad it was only a dream, and that I was allowed a short respite, but I fully believed this would be my inevitable fate.

The following day I went to a public sale at my cousin, Thomas B. Lucas, one mile north of where we lived, who was selling out to move to Colorado. It was a sad, sad day to me. Toward evening Father told me to hurry on home and build a fire. He and Mother had gone to the sale on horse-back and I had walked. I did as he told me, and as I sat by the stove that was fast heating, I mused over my sinful state and the dreadful dream of the preceding night. A picture of the resurrection of Jesus hung upon the wall. In it Jesus was represented as standing near his sepulchre facing the beholder, while the Roman guard were lying as dead men upon the ground and the angel was seated upon the stone that had closed the tomb. I looked up at that picture and saw the wounds in the hands and feet of Jesus,and his sweet face, which seemed to beam with the radiance of meekness and love. I thought of my life of sinfulness, and concluded that those wounds had not been made for me and felt that the look of love only spoke my condemnation, I left the house intending to try to banish those dreadful feelings by cutting some wood. I took up the ax but paused with a sad heart and downcast face. I stood in this attitude for a few moments, then sat down upon a log, covered my face with my hands and cried, "Lord, have mercy if thou canst!" My burden of guilt and condemnation all left me, and in my mind, by real faith I trust, I saw Jesus hanging upon the cross, and I fully believed he had died for me. I arose and began singing..."

He continues:

I know I was happy then. I am sure that I loved Jesus and his people, and John says, "He that loveth is born of God." What sweet comfort that text has afforded me along the strange pilgrimage, the pilgrimage of a stranger sure enough! Life here would be heaven were I always as happy as I was then."

(http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/92/36/)

All these experiences show that God not only convicted of sin but brought the awakened sinner to flee to Christ where peace and pardon was found. All through the scriptures, this is represented as what it means to be "born again," to be "converted" and is not divorced from faith and repentance, gospel graces. It is the complete "going from law to gospel," from Mt. Sinai to Mt. Zion.