GOSPEL, Proof texts used in support of gospel regeneration, W. H. Crouse
We now come to consider the scriptures relied upon to prove the means doctrine—that God regenerates through the ministry and the preached word. Let the reader give careful consideration. If the scriptures here quoted do not prove that doctrine, it cannot be proven.
1. 1 Cor. 4:15, For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
He called them his sons. “As my beloved sons I warn you,” verse 14. They had had many pedagogues, schoolmasters, or instructors. If it were possible that they should have ten thousand more, yet they had but one father, and that was Paul. The Apostle then shows them upon what foundation he claimed that relationship, viz., for in Christ Jesus he had begotten them through the gospel. verse 15. Whatever is embraced in the word begotten it contains the sole ground for the relationship which Paul claimed they sustained to each other, viz., father and sons.
Jesus said to his disciples, “And call no man your father upon the earth,” Matt. 23:9 And in his instruction to them in regard to prayer, he said, “Pray ye, our Father which art in heaven,” Matt. 6:9 Jesus plainly taught here that saints have but one father, and that Father is in heaven; and yet Paul would have these brethren at Corinth to recognize him as their father, and that they were his children.
This shows conclusively that Paul was not properly their father, nor were they properly his sons. The text cannot be taken in its literal meaning. All must readily admit that God is properly the father of all his children. We are not said to be born of Paul, nor of Apollos, but “born of God.” And John, speaking of this spiritual relationship, says, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God,” 1 John 3:2 Not sons of some gospel minister, but sons of God. The sense in which Paul was their father was infinitely below the sense in which God was their Father.
And inasmuch as God alone is our Father in regeneration, and as the sole ground upon which Paul claimed to be their father is embraced in the word begotten, we argue that it cannot here mean regeneration.
Many words, in the scriptures are used in a metaphorical sense. In Rom. 4:16 Abraham is said to be “the father of us all.” But none would be so foolish as to claim that it was through Abraham we were regenerated. It is also said of Abraham, “That he might be the father of them that believe.” Now in some sense Abraham is to be considered as our father, but not in the sense of regeneration.
In Judges 18:19 we find this language: “And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father.” The word father here must be understood in some explained sense.
Paul calls Timothy his son 1 Tim. 1:18 and 2 Tim. 1:2, and yet there is no natural relationship, and no room is left for us to believe that Paul had anything to do with his regeneration, for Timothy was a beloved disciple when Paul first met him. Acts 16:1-3
Job said he was “a father to the poor,” Job 29:16; and Joseph said God made him “a father to Pharaoh,” Gen. 41:8; but neither of these scriptures can refer in any sense to the work of regeneration.
Paul was their father, not in the sense of regeneration, but in that they were made disciples by his ministry. He had established the church among them and brought them into the church. He was the minister by whom they believed. By him they had been brought from forms of idolatry to the faith of the gospel and the true service of the living God. He had laid the foundation among them and others could only build upon the foundation he had laid. As a fisherman divinely sent, he had fished them out from among the world and brought them into the service of the Master. In the sense of faith and service he was their father, and they were his sons.
We next observe that whatever work is meant by the word begotten, Paul did it. It was his work. Note his language: “I have begotten you.” He did not say God had begotten them, but he positively declared, “I have.”
If regeneration is here under consideration, then the proposition is established beyond dispute that one man can regenerate another man. Not that he does it by his own strength and power, we admit; but by the power and strength given of God, or God’s power working through him, or however it may be explained, He does the work, nonetheless.
This language will not admit of the elimination of Paul in this work. It would be just as reasonable to conclude that when the Bible says Philip baptized the eunuch that it means God baptized him, or when it says David killed Goliath that it means God killed him, or that when we are told that Sampson arose at midnight, and took the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and went out with them, bar and all, that it was not Sampson, but God who did it, as to say that it was not Paul, but God, who begot these Corinthians.
There are many instances in the Bible where men were used as instruments to do great works, and in every case they were made able to do the work, and they did it in a proper sense. Sampson had to be given supernatural strength to do the things he did, and they are recorded as his acts, although performed by strength given by the Lord. Certainly David could not of himself have done what he did. He did it through and by the help and strength of the Lord. But nevertheless, David killed Goliath; it was his act, and is so recorded.
However much God and the Holy Spirit may have dwelt in, and wrought through Paul, yet it remains that Paul begat these brethren; and if begotten means regeneration, as our means brethren insist, then Paul regenerated them. Strive as they may, they cannot escape this conclusion. And inasmuch as our means brethren deny that one man can regenerate another, we insist they have no right to use this text to try to prove the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration.
The Bible often speaks of men saving others; but in no case does it have reference to the work of regeneration. This work is ascribed alone unto God, and God never moved and inspired any poor mortal to say to another, “I have regenerated you.” Never!
The word begotten does not necessarily refer to regeneration. Note the language of the Apostle Peter: “Who hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,” 1 Pet. 1:3 We are very sure this does not mean regeneration. By the resurrection of Jesus their hope had been restored, and they had been inspired with new confidence.
Men are not regenerated but once; but Peter says, “Who hath begotten us again.” When Paul says he had begotten the Corinthians, he has no reference to regeneration. God never taught Paul that regeneration was any part of the work he was to accomplish through the ministry of the word. But Paul had accomplished through the gospel the work for which God had taught him the gospel was designed. He had preached to these people, and the good ground had brought
forth fruit. He had begotten them to gospel faith, and hope, and service.
2. James 1:18 “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.”
3. 2 Pet. 1:23 “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.”
The means brethren always assume that word in these texts means the written word. Word is one of the names of Christ Jesus the Lord. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “All things were made by him.” “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,” John 1:1, 3, 14. “And he was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is called the Word of God,” Rev. 19:13.
Word in James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23; John 1:1, 3, 14, and Rev. 19:13, is translated from the Greek word logos. This being true, and in view of the general teaching of the scriptures, before our brethren can use James 1:18 and 1 Pet. 1:23 to prove that sinners are born again by the written word they must prove that word in those passages means the written word.Until they do, we will continue to believe that the word by which the dead are made alive is Christ the living Word of God. Eternal life is not in the written word, but in Christ. We are taught that Christ as the Word made all things in creation; and it is just as clearly taught the new creation is through Christ and not the written word. This is the incorruptible seed. John says, “This is the record that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.”
4. Acts 26:15-18 “For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose to make thee a minister and a witness * * * 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.”
This is one of the scriptures to which Elder Screws cited us to prove that is it a Bible doctrine that God uses the preached word as an instrumentality in the work of regeneration. That a Primitive Baptist minister should so interpret this scripture will seem strange indeed to our brethren. If his interpretation of this one text is true, it means the complete overthrow of every fundamental of our faith.
If the work which God here assigned Paul was the regeneration of the Gentiles, Brother Screws need not seek another text in his effort to put to confusion, and the destruction of the faith of those whom he styles modern Baptists. With shamed faces for their ignorance, and almost unpardonable sin through all these years, they should fold up their tents and silently steal away into the land of oblivion. If God sent Paul out to open the blind eyes of the dead in sin, to turn alien sinners from the power of the devil unto God, to bring the spiritually unborn from the darkness of death into the light of life, to cause the lost to receive the forgiveness of sins to bring those who were by nature the children of wrath into sonship with God and the inheritance of the saints.
I say, if this is the work which God assigned this minister of the gospel, then, indeed, have Primitive Baptists violated their commission and well deserve the condemnation of men and the fierce judgments of Almighty God. For certain it is that we have never conceived this as any part of our mission. Our denomination has not only neglected this commission, but they have determinedly opposed it.
Surely our brethren have not realized the awful and fatal consequences that must result by fastening this interpretation of scripture upon our people, or they would not have been so quiet, and for so long, and heedless of the pleadings of some of us, who for all our protests have received but one answer, viz., the charge of being possessed of an evil spirit.
We have been condemned by some for insisting that this teaching is heresy; but in the name of our blessed Lord, and in his Spirit, we ask in all candor; if this is not heresy among Primitive Baptists, then what is heresy?
And can it be supposed that we can accept this interpretation or tolerate this teaching and retain the love and fellowship, or respect, of our brethren at home and abroad? Is it not high time that we were laying aside all prejudice and personalities and coming to the rescue of that banner which has been so gloriously and bravely flung to the breeze and defended by our fathers, and now already in many places has been trailed in the dust?
This commission was given to Paul by Jesus Christ himself. Notice the last expression: “By faith in me.” Read Romans 10 again, and once more note that if regeneration was the work assigned to Paul, then regeneration is again confined to the scope of the preached word. Is it not strange that one will give all these scriptures this interpretation and then play so much upon the term, “in some cases?”
Be not deceived. If it is in some cases through the gospel, it is in all cases. And the position of those who teach this strange doctrine among us is that only in exceptional cases does God vary from the rule of regeneration through the preached word. Dorcas is the rule; Lazarus is the exception And we are now told that even the revelation which Christ told Peter God had made unto him (Peter) was made through Andrew his brother!
Elder Screws makes this commission of Paul’s identical with that given to Christ as recorded in Isa. 42:6,7 “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.”
This interpretation has too much use for man, and too little use for God; “too much humanity, and not enough divinity.” Paul was a sinner to be saved, but not a savior of sinners. Are Primitive Baptists now to take a position that must lead them at last to conclude that there are as many saviors as there are ministers of the gospel?
Paul was not commissioned to open blind eyes. He could not do that. That was the commission of Christ. It requires a greater force to open blind eyes than is found in the gospel. Men’s eyes may be opened by moral force, but it will never cause a blind eye to see. Never!
Ministers, by gospel preaching, through the grace and blessing of God, are able to open eyes, in a sense; but they cannot cause the blind to see. And the work Christ gave Paul to do in his commission was to be his (Paul’s) work—it was to be done by Paul. The light of the sun will enable us to see objects about us, but it never has caused the blind eyes to see, and was never intended to do so. Christ was among the Gentiles opening blind eyes. Paul was to open eyes closed by falsehood and error by the proclamation of truth. He was to sow the seed, but only the good ground would bring forth fruit. He was to be a minister and a witness. Sinners are not regenerated by the ministry and witness of men. Teaching will not bring about this change. Paul was never commissioned to regenerate anyone, or to give to any dead sinner eternal life. Eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, Rom. 6:23 but never through Paul nor any other preacher.
5. 2 Cor. 3:3 “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.”
This is another of the texts Brother Screws says he relies upon to prove the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration. It seems to us that it will be rather difficult to hold that position concerning this text and still say that the gospel is not a means. Paul illustrates the regeneration by the writing of a letter.
It is an impossibility to use this illustration and put the preacher in it without leaving one of the persons of the Trinity out.
This text is always used against us in public discussion with the Arminians. They make Christ the penman, the preacher the pen, and the Holy Spirit the ink. This leaves the Father our of regeneration entirely. If you make God the penman, you must leave Christ out. And they always prefer to leave out the Father, or the Son rather than leave out the preacher!
Now, let us notice this illustration. If Christ is the penman, the preacher the pen, and the Holy Spirit the ink, and the hearts of men the paper, then please tell us how the Holy Spirit could reach the paper or heart without the pen or preacher. Here we have the penman and plenty of ink; but how can he write on the paper without something to serve as a pen?
There we are again. No preacher and no gospel, no regeneration. The reader cannot but see how that all roads traveled by the means brethren center in this one proposition. They can’t escape it, though they strive ever so hard to do so.
But again, if the pen represents the minister, how can we say the minister is not a help and a means? Was the pen no help or means to the person in writing the letter with ink?
Elder Penick (Missionary) used this scripture as proof in his debate with Elder Cayce. Here is what Penick said: “I might use a simple illustration. Suppose I take a fountain pen. Here is ink in it. Here is Christ, the writer; here is Paul, the pen; here is the heart, the paper; and the Spirit is the ink. Now, the means is brought in contact. The means don’t save by itself. The Spirit is brought in contact; there is contact of both. There is God’s Word; there is God’s minister, and there is God’s Spirit. I use that to illustrate this point in getting the matter before your minds. When a man denies that the means is used, or when he denies the Spirit is used, we are there to say that both the Spirit and the Word comes into contact with the heart.” (Page 289)
Thus you see that our means brethren offer nothing new. All their proof texts are the proof texts Arminians have used against us time and again in public discussions. The only possible difference between Penick and Screws on this text is Brother Screws’ play on the word means. And Penick will understand that well enough that it will not affect his fellowship for Brother Screws in the least.
Now, the real import of this scripture is this: God is the penman; Jesus is the pen; the Holy Spirit is the ink; the hearts of men the paper.
And as God wrote with his own finger upon the tables of stone (read the entire chapter), asking nothing of Moses, so God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, writes upon the fleshly tables of men’s hearts. This is that circumcision not made with hands Col. 2:11. It is done by the finger of God. Exo. 1:18; Deut. 9:10.
Gospel ministers—not even Primitive nor original Baptists, are to be considered fingers of God. All thus circumcised in heart—written upon by the finger of God—are said to be “the epistles of Christ.” To them Paul ministered, “ministered by us.” Our brethren can readily see that Paul had no reference to regeneration in verse 2.
6. Acts 2:37 “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
We are next cited to this text as proof of the gospel as an instrumentality in regeneration. We are told that these were not regenerated when they entered the house at nine o’clock that day. “Pricked in their heart,” we are told was regeneration. This was done by and through Peter’s preaching. Therefore, it is argued, they were regenerated by or through the instrumentality of the gospel.
There is but one question for us to decide: Will the preached gospel prick the heart of an unregenerate sinner? Will it have that effect upon the dead? Will it thus affect a heart of stone? We can readily understand how the preached word would have that effect upon living subjects, with hearts of flesh; but we cannot understand how it could thus affect those who had not been made alive by the quickening power of God.
If it be said that the Holy Spirit pricked them, and not the preached word, the point is yielded, for it is thus admitted that the gospel cannot reach the dead, alien, unregenerated sinner.
But we would have the reader note that this text does not say, “While they heard this, they were pricked in heart,” but “When they heard.” It was what they heard that pricked them; and dead men, unregenerate men, do not hear.
They were listening to the word (gospel) of God. “He that is not of God heareth not us,” 1 John 4:6. To be of God is to be born of God. These, who were pricked in heart by Peter’s preaching, were of God, or they would not have understandingly heard Peter’s words. They were therefore born of God. And being born of God before they heard, it was not through Peter’s preaching they were regenerated.
7. John 17:20 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.”
Let the reader remember that we were referred to this text as proof of the instrumentality of the preached word in regeneration. It is evident; therefore, that Brother Screws understands that regeneration is connected with gospel belief; that making believers through the preached word is the same as regenerating sinners. If he does not so believe, we cannot understand why he cites us to this text to prove his position. The only work referred to in this text is the making of believers through their word—the gospel. It was through their word that certain ones were to believe. If that teaches instrumentality of the preached word in regeneration, then belief and regeneration must be inseparably connected. And if to be made a believer is to be regenerated, and they were to be made believers through the preached word, we would have to conclude that none are regenerated where the word is not preached. See? And we remember that Brother Screws said this text includes all the elect who should be given to Christ.
If this means regeneration, we should be compelled to say that through the preached word unregenerate men are made believers. For if they must be regenerated before they can believe (as we insist) the believing through the preached word is too late for this text to prove the instrumentality of the preached word in regeneration or eternal salvation.
Gospel faith is produced in the hearts of the regenerate through the preached word. This is a part of the work of the gospel ministry. It is necessary to gospel service. But we are not to conclude that no one except gospel believers are regenerated and reach heaven. If so, then all infants, idiots and heathen are forever lost!
8. Eph. 5:25,26 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.
We have already given notice to Elder Screws’ position on this text. We suppose the church here means all the church. It was the church for which Christ died. It is to be sanctified, cleansed and washed. Elder Screws says this includes regeneration and that this is to be done BY the word—the preached word. We make the following observations:
(1.) The church is to be sanctified and cleansed.
(2.) Paul says this is to be done “with the washing of water, BY the word.” He makes no exception whatever.
(3.) If he has regeneration under consideration, and if he means by the word the written or preached word, then, since none can get to heaven without regeneration, it must follow that none will ever get to heaven who have not come under the influence of the gospel.
Whatever washing and cleansing of the church is to be done BY the preached word is NOT a washing and cleansing from original sin and guilt, for that is done by the blood of Christ through the Holy Spirit; but it is a practical cleansing and washing. And this the gospel will do. God does not wash and cleanse alien sinners in regeneration by the gospel; to say that he does, is to deny the whole tenor of the Bible and place the ministry and the gospel in a field of labor where God expressly, time and again, says they cannot go.
9. 2 Thess. 2:13,14 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth; Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This has been frequently quoted and stressed as a proof text by Brother Screws in contending for gospel instrumentality in regeneration. We have noticed it somewhat in a former article. In the first place, let us observe that if regeneration is here in this text connected with the belief of the truth and the call of the gospel, then there was not a single one of these Thessalonians, who had been regenerated WITHOUT the gospel. Not one. There was no exception to the “established rule” in this church. We do not know how many members there were in this church at that time, but it seems a little strange that not a single one was to be found here who had been regenerated without a preacher. Every member was a Dorcas; there was not a single Lazarus among them. It does seem that there would have been at least one “exception,” if God only regenerates “in some cases” through the preached word.
Now, what proves too much for a proposition proves nothing. And their interpretation of this scripture makes it prove too much for their position—at least at the present time. In fact the reader will note that if Elder Screws is right in his interpretation of ALL these scriptures, his great difficulty is not to find one who was regenerated through the instrumentality of the preached word, but to find ONE who was NOT. So far, Brother Screws has only referred us to one—Paul; and Brother Sikes tells us that even Paul was regenerated through means and instrumentalities.
If “belief of the truth” is connected with regeneration, HOW MUCH of the truth does one have to believe to be regenerated? Elder says all “thus chosen are caused to believe the truth.” (Vol. 3, No. 7, page 1) He admits that but few of our people throughout the United States for many years have preached that God regenerates through the preached word; Dr. Watson, in his attack upon our people, charged us with having woefully ignored the teaching of the Bible on this line. Now if Elder Screws and Dr. Watson have the truth, the rest of us have not—the denomination has not believed the truth on this point. If Elder Screws is correct in his interpretation of the book of revelation, a very large percent of our people have not and do not believe the truth on that line.
If Elder Sikes was correct in his explanation of election and atonement, as given us in his pamphlet, the great body of our people have not and do not believe the truth concerning these doctrines. This being truth, I ask, in all seriousness, have the great body of our people been regenerated? Were we chosen in Christ? And how about the other religious bodies who deny very much which we contend to be the truth—even salvation by grace? If so, just how much truth does one have to believe to be regenerated? These are fair and serious questions, and we feel that we have a right to a clear and honest answer, if indeed one must believe the truth or be classed as unregenerate, and not of those chosen in Christ from the beginning.
God teaches the doctrine of eternal, particular and unconditional election. His choice was “from the beginning.” He chose these very Thessalonians—that was personal. He chose them unto salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. He chose ALL his people at the same time. “Belief of the truth” comes through the gospel. It is something they DO. If this means regeneration, does this not smack of conditionalism? If not, why not? Are men active or passive in believing the truth? Does God compel his children to believe the truth? If so, how does it come that so many of them do not believe the truth? If the gospel compels saints to believe the truth, why don’t ALL saints who hear the gospel believe the truth? Are any of the elect in lands where the truth has never been proclaimed? If so, how did God choose THEM unto regeneration?
Salvation and regeneration are not synonymous terms. Salvation is a much more comprehensive term than regeneration. Salvation includes regeneration; but regeneration does not include all of salvation by any means. There is a sense in which we were saved when Christ died on the cross; there is a sense in which we were NOT. There is a sense in which we were saved in regeneration; there is a sense in which our salvation was far from complete even then. Salvation began in eternity, in the mind and purpose of God; it began IN us in regeneration, and it will not be complete until every heir of promise, in soul and body, shall be safely housed in heaven.
We are personally brought into the enjoyment of this salvation, first, “through the sanctification of the Spirit, that is regeneration; second, “through belief of the truth,” that pertains to this life and that phase of salvation sometimes called “time” or “common” salvation. Christ said, “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;” but nowhere did he say, Except a man believeth the truth he cannot enter heaven.
Unto salvation we ARE called by the gospel (but not unto regeneration)—unto that salvation which God has designed for us in gospel faith and hope and service.
10. Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith.
Elder Screws insists that this is regeneration, or eternal salvation, and that the faith here mentioned is that faith of which Paul speaks in Romans 10, which he (Paul) says one CANNOT have without hearing of Jesus through the preacher. And we have seen that he (Elder Screws) very emphatically declares that sinners are thus saved THROUGH this faith and “not to the exclusion of it,” that Paul here lays down the irrevocable plan, and only way, whereby sinners dead in sin are brought to LIFE in Jesus Christ.
We are not going to discount the intelligence and ability of Elders Screws and Sikes by saying they can not and do NOT see that if this interpretation be true there can be no such thing as regeneration without the gospel and the preacher. Our readers see it, I am sure.
If regeneration is brought about through faith, and that faith is produced (or given) through the preached word, then strive as we may to prove otherwise, it is forever established that where the word is not preached there is no regeneration.
We do not want to be unfair. Elder Screws and Sikes say they do NOT believe that regeneration is confined to the scope of the gospel. Very many of the ablest ministers in the Missionary Baptist denomination say the same thing. But having taken this position on this text, and interpreted other scriptures to support it, the great body of that denomination NOW believe and insist that there is no regeneration where the gospel is not preached. Elders Screws and Sikes may never go that far; but having taken the Missionary Baptist position on this text and others, and teaching it among us, it is only a question of time until it produces the same effect among us that it has among the Missionaries.
Gill’s position on these texts helped to open the door for Fuller’s teaching; and it was doubtless the observation of the fruits of this teaching that led Gill, in his maturer years, to repudiate his former teaching.
According to this interpretation we must find ANOTHER plan of salvation taught somewhere in the Bible, or even those who die in infancy are lost, since they cannot have THIS faith which comes by hearing the preacher.
Where do we find TWO plans of eternal salvation taught in the Bible? Where?
“By grace are ye saved.” Will anyone, infant or adult, be saved any other way? ALL of us, whether Primitive, “Original” or “Modern” must answer emphatically, NO. Well, then if this eternal salvation comes to dead sinners by grace THROUGH FAITH, and thus faith comes through the preached word, how will infants, idiots or heathen be saved?
The position of these brethren on this text must revolutionize the thought, the preaching, and all the activities of our denomination. It identifies us with the Means Baptists, and makes the fence so low between us and the Missionary Baptists that we may soon expect our flocks to be ring-streaked and spotted.
And it matters not how sound these brethren may preach on other lines; they may become quiet on this particular issue; but everywhere this seed has been sown it is taking root, and must bring forth its harvest unless speedily rooted up. If we are right in our contention—if our people agree with us in our defense of our recognized faith—then do we not have the right to expect that they condemn this heretical teaching, that it be stopped, and that our ministers and periodical labor to reclaim those who already have been led astray and to fortify our people against its destructive influence?
We seek the destruction of no minister. We welcome into our ministry any worthy man called of God. But let it be known by all who would enter our ministry that we have a recognized faith, and to that faith they are expected to be true. If they are coming among us to REVOLUTIONIZE us and to introduce destructive innovations—if they feel to be a MOSES specially called and divinely sent to lead us poor, ignorant and deluded Primitives out of the darkness and the mire into which they feel our fathers led us—then let the signboards upon every road which leads into Zion bear the inscription, written in letters which he who runs may read, “Not wanted.”
We have many doctors among who would prescribe for the peace, health and growth of our people. If I may pose as a doctor, I would prescribe the OLD TIME FAITH, THE OLD TIME RELIGION, ONLY SOUND AND SPIRITUAL HYMNS in harmony with the faith we believe, and humble, simple, quiet devotion in such faith in our father as will not shrink though pressed by every foe.
Some of the divisions among us were uncalled for and brought about by designing men. But much of the confusion among the Primitive Baptists was caused by restless and unstable leaders who sought to revolutionize the denomination, and who were unmindful of the feelings and hearts of their brethren and turned a deaf ear to all their entreaties. It is useless to plead and beg for peace, while the foundation stones upon which peace, love, fellowship and union rest are being removed.
We quote here another text, often used by Arminians to support the interpretation given of Eph. 2:8, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God,” Rom. 5:1,2. It is argued that we are saved by grace,
BUT that we have access INTO this grace through gospel faith. And since we cannot be saved only by grace, and we cannot get into this grace only by gospel faith, therefore the absolute necessity of the preacher and the gospel in order for sinners to be saved.
How could our means brethren answer their argument? Is there any way they could answer it without first giving up their position in reference to Eph. 2:8?
Primitive Baptists have given their interpretation of these texts. Let the reader study it and take it for what he considers it worth.
“By grace are ye saved” saved with an eternal salvation. Paul has special reference to regeneration as shown in verse 10. “Through faith”—the avenue through which we have personal knowledge of this salvation.
Faith is the eye by which we see and the hand by which we lay hold of the blessings laid up for us in this wonderful salvation in Jesus Christ. It is not the hand by which we lay hold of eternal life in regeneration. This would put faith BEFORE LIFE. It is that by which we consciously and experimentally have access into this grace “WHEREIN WE STAND” and thus rejoice in hope. This faith justifies us, not at the bar of God, but at the bar of our own conscience; there it declares to us that we are righteous. It is to us the evidence of the things God has done for us, and in us, and of the things yet held in store. This faith, as a seed or substance, is laid in the heart or soul in regeneration, is a work and fruit of the Holy Spirit, and is said to be the gift of God. Experience, environment, and teaching will develop it, and under the gospel it buds forth and blooms into belief in Jesus Christ, which is termed gospel faith.
It might very properly be said that no regenerate person, infant or adult, is without THIS faith mentioned in Eph. 2:8. But it may be there only in substance undeveloped. The same may be said of all the Christian graces. MANY saints die without ever having GOSPEL faith, having never come under the sound and influence of the gospel. In this life our knowledge of our salvation and justification and the inexpressible joy that comes as a result of this knowledge depends largely upon the gospel—the written or spoken word.
Instances of regenerated characters who had never heard the gospel are given us in the New Testament; but it would be impossible for us to imagine the exact feelings and experiences of a child of god, who has never known anything of the Bible. Just how much the light of eternal life within and nature without would manifest this faith we do not know.
Faith, whether “given” or “gospel,” is NOT the avenue through which LIFE flows into the soul dead in sin, but it IS the avenue through which knowledge comes to the NEWBORN soul.
Elder Sikes lays great stress upon certain scriptures which speak of righteousness being imputed by and through faith. If these texts mean to teach that the righteousness of Christ is imputed or made over to us in the court of heaven and at the bar of God WHEN we, as unsaved and unrighteous sinners, exercise faith, then EVERY fundamental of our doctrine fails.
So far as eternity and heaven are concerned, and as respects the covenant and the law of God, our faith has absolutely nothing to do with our justification. When Christ died, his death absolved from ALL guilt everyone embraced in the covenant of grace. He then and there extinguished their guilt. It was done by substitution. Our sins were imputed to him and his righteousness was imputed to us. And through that transaction, ALL the saints of all ages—millions of his people who were yet unborn—stood fully justified and righteous before God.
To undertake to so explain these scriptures as to bring atonement and justification by the blood of Christ down to the TIME when the sinner believes is a complete denial of the fundamentals of Primitive Baptist faith. It forces a new explanation of election and atonement.
We ARE justified by faith; and his righteousness is imputed to us by and through faith; not as respects the law of God and the court of heaven, but experimentally— in our own knowledge, to our great comfort and joy and peace.
“Study to show thyself approved unto God; a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,” Paul.