ANDREW FULLER­ A Baptist: 1782 "There is such a fulness in the satisfaction (Atonement) of Christ, as is sufficient for the whole world, were the whole world to believe in Him." “SAINT” THOMAS AQUINAS­ A Roman Catholic: 1277: "For the sake of brevity we have restricted ourselves to the statements of St. Thomas that reveal most pointedly his answers to the ultimate questions about predestination and reprobation. But we must recognize that he tried to lessen the apparent harshness of this doctrine in many ways. For example, he held that Christ’s “redemption was sufficient for all, though it was efficacious for the elect only." In fact, he so tried to modify some of the implications of his doctrine that, . . . he at times sacrificed consistency for this purpose." Quotation from: Predestination, Grace, And freewill, by Dan M. John Farrelly, O.S.B., St. Anselm's Abby, Washington, D.C.,USA, The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland (1964), page 121. "Mr. Fuller takes repentance and faith out of the covenant of grace, and puts them under the law, in the sense he makes them man's duty, and not gifts of grace." History Of The Church Of God, by Sylvester Hassell, page 310. "Baptists took faith and repentance from behind regeneration, and put them in front of it; thus making them sacraments.” Pastor James Manning, Southern Baptist Calvinist, October 1997. 



 Friends and critics alike have recommended that this work should not be as candid as the first editions. The writer has, to a great degree, softened his comments; nevertheless, it is necessary to make sure error is exposed and therefore some faint­hearted person will doubtless still take the work as being too harsh, particularly if they identify themselves with the Fullerite evangelicals. It is needful to point out, first, that the primary audience for this work is sovereign grace believers in the United States who believe in the sovereignty of the eternal Godhead ­ including the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration preparatory to any benefits of the Gospel of grace being applied to the quickened sinner’s case. It is not primarily suited for an international audience, where English religious terms may connote different definitions than those used in the USA; nor is it designed as a theological treatise to exhibit intellectual exegesis useful for academicians. Hopefully, it is more useful for the humble unassuming child of God who feels a need occasionally to defend the church's doctrine against those who use academic euphemisms against them. In the final analysis, the writer is attempting to defend our churches’ positions of long standing, false or misunderstood doctrinal sentiments ­ this should be kept in mind as one reads the contents of this book. There is a disclaimer we wish to make in this Introduction. We have earnestly tried to make the book as generic as we could without compromising the precious truth our heart has been given to rejoice in. We do not believe salvation is exclusively in the membership of Hyper­calvinistic churches; nor do we believe it is in the hands of men in any wise. We have been unable to prevent the book from sounding provential, primarily because these precious truths are hardly
embraced by any other fellowship of religions to our knowledge. It is impossible to defend these truths separate and apart from our own belief­system. So, as you read the book, please do not conclude that we exclude any believer in free and sovereign grace. We rejoice in the knowledge that God has a people scattered among every kindred, tongue, tribe and nation; and He alone knows the individuals, numbers and locations of them all. May it be His will to reveal to the reader even greater things that glorify Him than this poor writer has yet received. “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal: the Lord knoweth them that are His.”­ We don’t. The expected audience, as a people, has refused to utilize many modern terms which were once in vogue when their definitions were accepted as "good English." They reject the modern American term "Gospel offer", even though it was an acceptable term used by their forefathers prior to the revisions of Andrew Fuller and company after 1782. They understand the word "offer" to mean "held forth in the Gospel," as their forefathers, in 1795, explained it, and cannot now use such a misleading term. They believe the Gospel is inclusive of the full work of the eternal Godhead in the salvation of elect sinners; not segments of loose­jointed Scriptures used to produce religious activities in totally depraved and dead sinners. They seldom use the term “saving faith,” although they understand what their forefathers, such as John Gill, meant by it. Since the Fullerite revision of Biblical terms is now used, in that the ACT of faith is thought to be saving, they prefer to insist that Christ's faith born in the new creature within is a better term because Christ Himself is the Savior of sinners. Nor do they accept the modern definition of "evangelism," or "evangelical." They prefer the term "itinerate", or "itinerancy," for by that definition their ministers propagated the Gospel of redeeming grace everywhere, long, long before any mission movement or

missionary society was ever formed. They accept the recommendation of their forefathers, in 1792, to wit: "16. Queries from the church at Great Valley: Are the words bishop and elder of the same meaning in the writings of the apostles? Yes. This association, therefore, recommend that the terms pastors, bishop and elders, as used in our Confession of Faith, be adopted." (Philadelphia Baptist Association, 1792, page 283: Also: "Elders Patten, Clingan and Vaughan, agree to travel for three months in the ensuing year about Juniata and the West Branch of Susquehanna, to preach the Gospel to the destitute. (ibid.) The churches of the association financially helped, as did the hearers. (There are no longer in the Church the apostolic offices of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists.) The author does not confuse the word "responsibility" with the word "accountability." Two very capable men, David Engelsma (Protestant Reform Church) and George Ella (English/German author), used the terms interchangeably, ­ which is all right in the context of their dispute ­ but this people believe in the Sovereignty of God and the accountability of man. However, in no wise can they accept that man is able to act without guidance or superior authority; or being the source or cause of something; nor capable of making moral or rational decisions on one’s own, and therefore answerable only to himself ­ all of which are covered by the definition of the word "responsibility" in the United States. (See: Chapter on Sovereignty of God and Human Accountability.) In the past, John Gill and others used the term correctly in those pre­Fuller times. Today, writers in the United States set forth a contradiction between sovereignty and responsibility, and insist that all men must accept both views, or they become some kind of heretic. If Hyper­calvinists are some kind of "heretic," at least
believers. The first recorded false doctrine preached on earth was the doctrine of the free moral agency of man, and it was preached by the Serpent to our mother Eve. "Thou shalt not surely die," said he. "Thou will become as God, knowing good and evil." As God: A free moral Being! In other words, "You will no longer be in subjection to God and accountable to Him. You will become as He, knowing both good and evil and fully responsible for your own conduct! You will no longer be answerable to Him." She believed the lie, embraced it fully, and acted upon it. And to this day her offspring are deluded by that old Serpent into believing they are free and moral and agents, and boast in their responsibility. Worse, they ridicule those who know that their will is not free, and that they are not moral agents of anyone, but for themselves own that they are fully accountable to God for their own deportment. The second recorded false doctrine was preached the same day, on the same occasion, but by Adam instead of the Devil. His doctrine was that God is the Author of Sin. "The woman THOU GAVE TO BE WITH ME gave to me, and I did eat." No remorse, no repentance, and a most reluctant confession, if it can be called such. "It is your fault, God. You indirectly made me to do it. You are the author of my sin. Had you made for me a different wife than Eve, I would not have disobeyed you!" These two doctrines are imbedded within the fleshly nature of all their offspring to this day. If one says, "I believe in Predestination", almost every Pelagian or Neo­Calvinist will immediately and spontaneously respond: "Oh, you don't believe in the responsibility of man, do you?" Or, "Oh, you make God the Author of Sin!" The latter response may also be had from
many Hyper­calvinists as well. And today, some are likely to say: "If you believe that you are a Hyper­calvinist!” Or, “You are an antinomian!" or something worse. This whole subject will be covered in­depth in Chapter eleven. When modern definitions replace biblical ones, the Church must be exceedingly aware of the danger of adopting the innovations, for Satan's primary design is to thereby deceive the unwary. In time, the new definitions will lead to new innovations based upon them; and those who adhere to the biblical definition and consequent practices will be scorned and vilified as "old fogies," "antinomians," "hard­shells," and any other euphemism thought appropriate by the innovators. Everything in this book is proof of this assertion. One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those whom they deride as "Hyper­calvinists," is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound "Christians," and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper­calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a "Christian," or a "brother or sister." This is not to say that they consign them to hell ­ that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were "vessels of wrath even as others." Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need of the Gospel as any other “heathen” or pagan – all of whom are “freewillers.” Calvinists would do well to "evangelize" their Arminian or Pelagian "brothers and sisters." Another difference is that the Hyper­calvinists believe the salvation wrought out by Christ is an already accomplished and completed salvation; whereas the
Calvinists and Pelagians believe that the plan of salvation is already designed, the blank places for the elect’s name are to be filled in when they believe the plan applies to them. Finally, let it be noted that when God is pleased to use a scholar, He will raise one up and give him life and light, a gracious experience, and send him forth to defend the honor of His Word by preaching Christ's finished work. Such were men as Paul, Luther, Calvin, Owens, Goodwin, Gill, Huntington, Philpot, Beebe, Trott, Dudley, Johnson, Smoot and a host of others too numerous to list here. At present, there is a need evident in modern religions for such men, and God has and will raise men up to present the free grace of God according to their gifts and abilities so long as the Church’s need for these benefits are still on earth. The writer does not agree with all that any of these men taught ­ although he agrees more with Gill, Beebe, Johnson, Dudley, Trott and Smoot ­ but he does respect such men in their efforts as George Ella, Randalls, John Robbins (deceased) and others now defending the truth of free grace experimentally believed. The writer recommends that the reader use the Appendix and Glossary provided. They are historical documents or articles and definitions related to the historic Christian faith as held forth by Strict, Particular and Old School Baptists in England and early America. In our use of the word “Hyper­ calvinists,” standard we use for these people are particularly those in the United States among Baptists. In England, we think of many Strict and Particular Baptists and in the United States the Protestant Reformed Churches. However, we wish to be clear that we are not using the term derogatively, but as a synonym for historical Christianity; nor do we speak for these whose doctrine we agree is Biblical. They can speak much better for themselves. There are vast differences in beliefs    
among the various groups of Pelagians Evangelicals; so too, there are some differences among these people holding to the historical Christian faith called Hyper­calvinists. We must begin somewhere, so we begin with historical Christianity as the standard for “Hyper­calvinism".

                                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS


To go to a chapter simply click on it.  To change pages you can either use the scroll bar on the side, pulling it with your cursor, or, you can use the up and down arrows on your key board to scroll up and down.

Foreword .........................................................................................2

Introduction . . . . . ........................................................................................ 9

Definition of Terms used in this work . ............................................ 10

Chapter  One:         Introduction of Heresy &  Reaction ............... ....18

Chapter Two:          Two Religions:  Natural and Spiritual..................26

Chapter Three:        Calvinism, Neocalvinism, and Hypercalvinis  ......44

Chapter Four:          Hypercalvinism and Evangelism.........................70

Chapter Five:          A  Completed Finished Salvation.........................86

Chapter Six:            Duty Faith Unto Salvation. . ............................. 120

Chapter Seven:       Hyper­calvinism and Soul­Winning
................. .....171

Chapter Eight:        Hypercalvinism and Antinomianism............... .....180

Chapter Nine:         Hyper­calvinism /Fuller­Spurgeon.........................188

Chapter Ten:           To Whom is the Gospel Preached......................211

Chapter Eleven:      Sovereignty, & Accountability .............................241

Chapter Twelve:      
Unique Doctrines of Hyper­calvinism....................252

  Eternal Vital Union & Regeneration............. 253

                                 B:  Absoluteness of Predestination ...................267
                                 C:  Washing the Saints’ Feet       ......................268
                                 D:  No Hireling Ministry               ...................... 275

Chapter Thirteen:     Two Distinctive Doctrines....................................290

Appendix A:              “Antinomianism by Samuel Trott, .......................296

Appendix B:               Kehukee Baptist Declaration. ...........................303


There has been much written on Calvinism, Arminianism, and Pelagianism over the past century. Little or nothing, definitively, has been written on "Hyper­calvinism," yet the term is utilized repeatedly by each of the above groups as a euphemism against a large number of Calvinistic and consistent believers. This work is a definitive, as well as an offensive presentation of "Hyper­calvinism," by one who is not ashamed to be scorned as such. Up front, the writer will state that he, nor the people he defends, care to be called "Calvinists" or "Hyper­calvinists," and these terms are seldom used by them in reference to themselves or the faith in which they believe so ardently. What others deem to call “Hyper­calvinism” is called “Christianity” by those who are taught by the Spirit these precious truths; and those believing these truths consider any works, or partial works systems, as Antichristianity. Nevertheless, it is necessary to use such terms, since this work is written in the framework of a theological debate.
                                                   Definition of Terms

The most often expressed fallacious charges made against the doctrinal position called "Hyper­calvinism" are as follows:
1.   Hyper­calvinists are anti­evangelical
­ 2.   Hyper­calvinists do not believe in preaching the Gospel­
3.   Hyper­calvinists do not believe in preaching the Gospel to sinners
­ 4.   Hyper­calvinists do not believe in duty­faith
5.   Hyper­calvinists do not believe in soul­winnin
6.   Hyper­calvinists are antinomianians
­ 7.   Hyper­calvinists do not believe in human responsibility
­ 8.   Hyper­calvinists believe babies go to hell "not a span long."
­ 9.   Hyper­calvinists believe that "when God gets ready to save someone, He will do it without any help from you or me”
­ 10. Hyper­calvinist are “Hardshells.  Some Unique Beliefs of American Hyper­ calvinists­ The above are the points this work will defend or controvert. To the writer's knowledge, no one in this century has attempted to answer the Hyper­calvinists' adversaries specifically and consistently on all these euphemisms. If the reader completes this book and understands what Hyper­ calvinists believe, then its definitive purpose has been successful. If a reader is a Neo­Calvinist (Hypo­calvinist), Arminian, or a Pelagian, and completes the book without being challenged, the offensive design of this work failed miserably! While it is desired that the work be edifying and instructive to a quickened sinner whose trust is in God alone; nevertheless, it will not be gentle and apathetic relative to contemporary antichristian doctrines and

outlandish practices. Thus, the writer must forewarn the reader that at times the roughness of the offensive purpose may be offending to some sensitive readers; but the author feels it is necessary to contrast issues in dispute. Regrettably, such a definitive work cannot ignore opposing view­points. We request the reader to bear with the discomforts felt to be useful at times. Definition of terms as used by this writer in this work: Calvinism: ''The religious doctrine of the Christian faith, as articulated first, by Jesus, Paul, and other Apostles; by the Protestant Reformers of the Sixteenth Century, especially emphasized by John Calvin and the early Reformers, holding to salvation of the elect by God's grace through “faith alone;" Or, “The system of faith holding that salvation is all of God's free grace, and not of any of the works of man." More specifically, Calvinism has often been summarized in five major doctrinal theses. (1) The total depravity and inability of man to cooperate in his own salvation ­T; (2) Unconditional election and predestination of the elect unto salvation ­ U; (3) Limited Atonement or particular redemption of all the elect of God when Christ died ­L; Irresistible grace or effectual calling of all the redeemed elect ­I; Perseverance and preservation of all the elect through grace to eternal happiness ­ P; or, often referred to as “The TULIP DOCTRINE.” Hyper­calvinism: "A system of belief which embraces Calvinism, and extends the Reformation further toward New Testament Christianity than the Sixteenth Century reforms were able to achieve; especially in church governance and Gospel ordinances.

 The unique distinction between Hyper­11calvinism and Calvinism is that the Hyper­calvinists believe that Christ saved (past tense) all His elect by His sacrificial atonement; that the Holy Spirit gives spiritual life, by the implantation of the “incorruptible seed,” the living word of God, without human instrumentality; and that the Gospel is a publication of glad tidings, rather than an invitation to all men, both elect and reprobates, to "accept Christ as their Savior"; and that the application of this salvation is by the Holy Spirit exclusively, when He brings "life and immortality to light by the Gospel;" and that this Gospel is to be preached by God­called and qualified ministers to whomsoever God is pleased to send them." Hyper­calvinism is basically the "Calvinism" of the historic Particular Baptists' faith prior to the rise of Andrew Fuller’s "Neo­ Calvinism" (Hypo­calvinism) revision in 1782. In the southern States of the United States, Hyper­ calvinism is more frequently termed "Hardshellism. ” "Hardshellism" is a term derived from the Nineteenth Century Particular Baptists' debates with the followers of Andrew Fuller’s school of “new divinity”, when Hyper­­ calvinists insisted that "He shall save His people from their sins," ''They shall hear His voice," ''They shall follow Him," and ''They shall all be taught of the Lord," etc. The Fullerites called these "those hard shalls." Eventually, Noah Webster included the phrase "hard shall" in the dictionary as "Hardshell". If one looked this word up in the dictionary, he would be rather surprised! Among the rank and file of the citizenry, "Hyper­ calvinism" is seldom used. The term "Hardshell" embraces anyone holding to Holy Spirit begetting, or quickening to life without human instrumentality, rather than Gospel, decisional, or baptismal regeneration. It is applied to any of
the numerous Old School Baptists and Presbyterian groups which hold to the Sovereignty of God. In fact, some Missionary Baptists are classified as "Hardshells," for rejecting Gospel regeneration. Neo­Calvinism: "Another name for "Hypo­calvinism". “A religious system closely related to Calvinism, with strong tenets of Arminianism and Pelagianism intermixed.” They are revisionist Calvinists, following elements of the teachings of Andrew Fuller, a Particular Baptist minister in England, who in 1782 began to advocate that Christ's atonement, was general and redemption was particular. That is, that Christ's atonement was sufficient for the salvation of all mankind; but efficient for the elect only; that Christ's atonement did not save anyone, but merely put all mankind, both elect and reprobates, in a savable state where the influences of the Gospel could reach them. The introduction of Fullerism among Baptists produced a separation in that people between the Hyper­calvinists of the "Old School" of divinity, and the Neo­ Calvinists of the "New School" of divinity, between 1813 and 1845*. The "New School" called their "free offer system" "Missionary," or "Evangelical." The position of this work is that it is neither missionary, nor "evangelical." Arminianism: "An opposing system of religion to Calvinism, developed in 1608 by James Jacobus Arminus, a Dutch theologian in the Reform Church. Arminus modified the "Five Points of Calvinism" at Dort, in such a way as to deny them, and made the atonement of Christ in general for all mankind; taught that the elect could fall from grace and finally be lost."

Today, there are few, if any, Arminians left in the United States. The whole crew has down­graded into a paganistic form of Pelagianism or, Absolute Freewillism.3Freewillism: “Any number of religions that deify the will of man, advocating that the human will is freely motivating, and the determinate cause of salvation.” Pelagianism: "A system of religion promoted by the Third Century Catholic heretic, Pelagius, which denied original sin, the total depravity of man, unconditional election and predestination, and based salvation on the 'freewill' of man. (Does this ound familiar?) It is the commonly accepted religious faith of all Antichristian denominations in Western society. Basically, it is the corner­stone of the Antichrist. The Modern form of Pelagianism developed directly out of Andrew Fuller's Neo­calvinism. Pelagianism is another name for Freewillism; or 'natural religion' based upon a mental decision for salvation in the absence of an effectual call by the Spirit and the finished salvation of Christ by His shed­ blood of Calvary. It is best described as a "system of easy­ decisionism," or “decisional regeneration.” Without apology, this is a Hyper­calvinistic presentation. The author can find no just reason to be ashamed of the peculiar distinction of New Testament Christianity, merely because the carnal mind cannot receive it. It is the original faith of the Particular, or Old School Baptists in the United States. Being somewhat simplistic, the term "Hyper­calvinism," is given various definitions, but the prefix "hyper," means "going beyond," "extreme," or "above." This is exactly what those ridiculed as "Hyper­ calvinists" must do to be consistent with the New Testament faith. John Calvin was a highly useful and gifted servant of God, and it is noteworthy that he pressed the Reformation closer to New Testament Christianity than did Martin Luther. They, with other faithful men, were predestinarians
to the man, and their reformation almost destroyed the tyrannical power of superstitious Rome; and freed the minds and spirits of men in Western Europe, setting the stage for the liberating Renaissance Age. It is not to disparage the usefulness or truthfulness of John Calvin, nor of Calvinism that this work is offered to the public; but to inform interested people that there is a Biblical position which extends the Reformation “beyond," or "above," that of John Calvin in the Sixteenth Century. Calvin never set himself up to be the Vicar of Christ, or Protestant Pope; nor did his own followers esteem him as such. Most had enough of popery! He was a faithful minister of the Gospel of Christ according to the light given him, and his ministration helped to produce a reformation. Hyper­calvinists are those who have continued basically upon those cardinal Christian principles advocated by Christ, Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude, as well as John Calvin, yet, being smaller in number than Calvinists and Lutherans, were able to press the reforms much closer to the New Testament model than the larger bodies of "Christians." Hyper­calvinists, as a people, have willingly been outside the mainstream of Protestant Christianity since the rise of the Arminian "evangelical movement" of the Nineteenth Century. They have witnessed and recorded the rapid drift from Calvinism to Arminianism, to Pelagianism as it exist today. The evangelical movement’s emphasis on humanism, scholasticism, theological evolution, and the social Gospel, marked it as a philosophical Liberalism repugnant to Hyper­calvinists, who by divine quickening grace are rather reactionary, being bound by a "Thus saith the Lord" for all they believe and practice in religious devotion.

 Not only are the Hyper­calvinists' reforms ''beyond'' Calvinism in church governance and Gospel ordinances, but also in its historical development. The best known contribution of the Hyper­calvinists is the mode of baptism, by immersion, or dipping under water, of believers of sufficient age as to articulate their experience of grace to a church. For this specific cause, they were severely persecuted by other bodies of “Christians” in former ages; but in the end, won that theological debate. Also, among Baptists, the Fullerites' movement coincided with other massive world movements and trends; whereas the Hyper­calvinists institutions remain more static. To notice but few of these trends: During the Colonial Period, the various colonies were each independent of each other, each answering to the Crown; yet, they were interdependent in trade and commerce. So, too, during this period, the churches were independent of each other, yet interdependent with each other, and answerable to their King, the Lord Jesus. With the formation of a weak national Confederation government, where the States no longer answered to the Crown, but were loosely joined to each other; so, too, the churches began freeing themselves from the authority of Christ over them, modifying their doctrines and practices, and forming themselves into loose "corresponding orders" or "fellowships". With the formation of the strong "Federal" union, nationally, the Fullerite "Evangelicals" began to form State and National Conventions­ that is, Federal religious organizations. Following the War for Southern Independence, the National government moved into a period of Imperialism, and the Fullerites developed a World Baptists Alliance and foreign missionary societies to complement the imperial age.
Simultaneous with the rise of socialist societies, beginning just prior to 1800, and reaching their international union in 1918; the Fullerite "Evangelical" movement among Baptists (also formed on May 14, 1814) became "Ultra­Liberal" and also tyrannical. Just as the world follows trends, so too do the "evangelicals." They are, as a people, "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine" and novelty. The second article of their Articles of Faith is the same as that of the Hyper­calvinists groups of Baptists. "We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God and the “only rule of faith and practice.” Obviously, they no longer are bound by the Word of God for either their faith or their practice. On the other hand, Hyper­calvinists' church structure is still as simple as it was in the Colonial period. They have no modern extra­scriptural auxiliaries, programs, or financial institutions. Not being fininancial institutions, they seldom take up collections, and never hire personale. Their primary and exclusive emphasis is on the "foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." It is their experience that the "preaching of the Gospel" edifies the inner spiritual man, (new man, or new creature) and is instrumental in cleansing one's conscience from daily defilement in his walk and conversation. The central focus of their devotion is the sermon; through which the minister teaches, admonishes, and rebukes with all long­ suffering and gentleness when either of these are called for within congregations. In presenting this work, a comparison of the two major religions of mankind will be given first. Following, a presentation of Calvinism, Neo and Hyper­calvinism will compare and contrast their positions; to whom the Gospel is to be preached; duty­faith­unto­salvation; soul­winning; anti­ nomianism; Spurgeonism (a term coined by Ian Murray) ; and the full and complete redemption of God's people by the sacrifice of Christ.
The uniqueness of Hyper­calvinists will end the discussion in Chapter Twelve and the conclusion. May it please God that some quickened and sensible sinner finds joy and peace with the contemplation that salvation is finished, and by our glorious Savior, Jesus Christ.

                                                                CHAPTER ONE
                             INTRODUCTION OF HERESY AND ITS REACTION

The founder of the Modern Missionary Movement among Baptists, Mr. Andrew Fuller, wrote the following to a close friend boasting of the change among the Baptists that he had introduced: "When I first published my treatise on the nature of faith, and the duty of all men who hear the gospel to believe it, the Christian profession had sunk into contempt amongst us; inasmuch that had matters gone on but a few years longer, the Baptists would have become a perfect dunghill in society."­ Andrew Fuller. It is well to ask, after over two centuries of his new development, whether Andrew Fuller transformed, reformed, or deformed his people and hastened their apostasy? Surely, no Free Grace believer can believe that the large Evangelical denominations today are as morally upright and doctrinally sound as they were prior to dragging naturally depraved members into their congregations. The most practical outcome of Fuller/Spurgeon's "free offer

decisionism" system has been a moral catastrophe to religion, morals, and society! The time period in which Fuller wrote was that of the giants among Baptists and Independents. These were the days of such men as John Gill, John Brine, Abraham Booth, Tobias Crisp, and the unsurpassed Methodists, William Huntington and James Hervey! Dr. Booth ably answered Fuller's charge, and so did William Rushton. Mr. Rushton's reply was very appropriate: "Strong and pointed language indeed!" he said of the above quote. "Yet it must really be confessed that this was in a great measure the case. The truth is, that the principles maintained at that time by the Baptists, were such as to render them odious to the public. They never could maintain those principles inviolably, and at the same time be generally esteemed a respectable body by professing Christians. They were distinctly forewarned by the Lord Himself, that they should be hated of all men for His sake; that if they kept His words the world would hate them, even as it hated Him. If the doctrine He taught caused the Master of the house to be despised and rejected of men: if, for the same cause, the apostles were esteemed as the filth of the world, "the off scouring of all things," what right had these Baptists to complain, if, while holding in their measure the same truth, their professions become contemptible, and their churches considered a perfect dunghill in society? Complain! No, it was the highest honor they were capable of in this life. If to them it was given on the behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, they ought to have rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. And I doubt not many of them did.”

 Dr. John Gill, when declaring his determination to go on preaching a free and finished salvation in the face of all opposition, adds, "I am not afraid of the reproaches of men; I have been inured [to make used to something undesirable, esp. by prolonged subjection.] to these things from my youth upward, but none of these things move me." As the above can be said of Hyper­calvinists in Gill's day, so it can yet be said of them in this day. The motives for the Fullerites' attack then, remain the same to this day. Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman persecuted Isaac, the son of the free woman. Natural religionists still despise the spiritual religion of Jesus. It was the Fullerite revisionists ­ the Neo­calvinists ­ who attempted to stigmatize those who then preached a full, free and accomplished salvation as "Hyper­calvinists," claiming that they (the Neo­calvinists) themselves were the "true Calvinists." Today, in the current ''battle for Gospel preaching," (Using Ian Murray’s language,) it is yet the Fullerite Neo­calvinists who hurl the euphemism "hyper­calvinism" at Christians! In fact, they charge everyone who disagrees with their own specific views as "Hyper­calvinists" – even those who are not! But Calvin, to this writer's research, never held that Christ died equally for the reprobates as for the elect! Nor that the eternal God "wanted to save all men"! He certainly did not hold to “the universal love of God for all mankind;” let alone that God merely put all mankind in a savable state where the Gospel influence could reach them all, but did not actually save any by Him self! Can anyone who has read any of Calvin's works conclude he had so lost his mind? Calvin was a great thinker, and knowledgeable of the Scriptures, and being thus, he would have been mystified by such a theory of mutual contradictions! His mind was too great to stoop to the simplistic irrational arguments of today’s Neo­calvinists – arguments so simplistic they appear downright silly, or imbecilic. The truth is, the
Particular Baptists prior to Andrew Fuller's novel evangelical (so­called) system were what Neo­calvinists now called "Hyper­ calvinists." And they have, without a break in continuity, remained so to this day! We said “so­caled,” because those they charge with Hyper­calvinism in a derogative manner were far more “evangelical” in the Biblical propagation of the Gospel than Andrew Fuller, William Carey, William Stroughton or Luther Rice. The proof “is in the pudding:” See the large number of Strict and Particular Baptists in England and the Predestinarian Old School Baptists in America, which remain the only bodies today still contending for the Gospel of Christ. [We exclude all Arminians simply because what they preach is in no wise the Gospel of salvation by the finished work of Christ.] Again, it was the Fullerite, or Neo­calvinist faction among Baptists, who changed their denominational name to "Missionary," and/or "Evangelical", and introduced the then unheard of innovations to make their new­found "free offer system" operative. Thus, by modifying their doctrine to accommodate the "world of the ungodly that perish,” they also had to modify their practices to fit the novel system. In short, they apostatized the "faith once delivered to the saints," necessitating the abandoning the New Testament order of the Gospel. They quickly inaugurated a steady stream of very creative gimmicks to "save souls" that Christ had not saved; build personality cults around persons with high­sounding titles; collect money, money, and more money, as one serious appeal: "Would you give a bowl of rice to save a soul?" Then, instead of asking you to send a package of rice, they asked that you send money for them to buy the package of rice! (The Baptists Board of Foreign and Domestic Missions had to quietly place Luther Rice in a position where he could not get his sticky fingers in the till! It was too embarrassing to their noble cause!

They built larger and larger organizations, and sub­divisions 1thereof, under their centralized control. Such were the first organizational principles of Rome. It worked for them! Why not for the "evangelicals", or Missionaries? These Nineteenth Century Neo­calvinists rapidly became Arminians; and just as quickly these Arminians became Freewillers, i.e., Pelagians. From about 1800 to 1850, they were Neo­Calvinist revisionists. Between 1850 and 1880, they were more Arminian than Neo­Calvinists. Between 1880's and 1900 they were full­fledged Pelagians (believers in salvation by the freewill of dead alien sinners). To be unkind, but truthful, they really ceased being "Christians" at all. They are a relatively modern religion today. As a leader of one of the largest bodies of Pelagians said of a Mormon running for president, “Morgomism is an American religion. It is not Christian.” The same can be said of his organization! It is as American­made as Apple­Pie, and in no wise Christian in doctrine or practice. Look at their brief development: The first Arminian sermon preached among the Baptists in the South was preached by Reuben Ross, in 1820, at Port Royal, Tennessee. A committee of ministers was sent to talk to him, and he converted them to freewillism! In his Biography, J. M. Pendleton wrote that Ross said he wanted to purchase John Gill's Body Of Divinity, but that it cost too much. So, instead, he purchased Andrew Fuller's “Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation.” He bought the book of lesser value and procured a religion of no value for quickened sinners! (See Chapter Ten). Reuben Ross had migrated west from the Kehukee Baptists Association in North Carolina. His uncle was a minister in that body. Reuben converted his uncle to Arminianism, and Martin Ross introduced Arminianism into that body just at the time the Fullerites were attempting to introduced their mission auxiliaries in that body. The two
thereof, under their centralized control. Such were the first organizational principles of Rome. It worked for them! Why not for the "evangelicals", or Missionaries? These Nineteenth Century Neo­calvinists rapidly became Arminians; and just as quickly these Arminians became Freewillers, i.e., Pelagians. From about 1800 to 1850, they were Neo­Calvinist revisionists. Between 1850 and 1880, they were more Arminian than Neo­Calvinists. Between 1880's and 1900 they were full­fledged Pelagians (believers in salvation by the freewill of dead alien sinners). To be unkind, but truthful, they really ceased being "Christians" at all. They are a relatively modern religion today. As a leader of one of the largest bodies of Pelagians said of a Mormon running for president, “Morgomism is an American religion. It is not Christian.” The same can be said of his organization! It is as American­made as Apple­Pie, and in no wise Christian in doctrine or practice. Look at their brief development: The first Arminian sermon preached among the Baptists in the South was preached by Reuben Ross, in 1820, at Port Royal, Tennessee. A committee of ministers was sent to talk to him, and he converted them to freewillism! In his Biography, J. M. Pendleton wrote that Ross said he wanted to purchase John Gill's Body Of Divinity, but that it cost too much. So, instead, he purchased Andrew Fuller's “Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation.” He bought the book of lesser value and procured a religion of no value for quickened sinners! (See Chapter Ten). Reuben Ross had migrated west from the Kehukee Baptists Association in North Carolina. His uncle was a minister in that body. Reuben converted his uncle to Arminianism, and Martin Ross introduced Arminianism into that body just at the time the Fullerites were attempting to introduced their mission auxiliaries in that body.

 The two novelties, introduced together, alerted those faithful brethren that Arminianism was at the root of Fuller's Neo­Calvinism. In 1825, the two movements were introduced, and in 1826­1827, the Kehukee Baptist Association withdrew all fellowship and communion from the Neo­Calvinists, following the example set by Baptists in Illinois and other places. This action alerted American Baptists everywhere that a flood of heresies was sweeping the continent, producing a frenzy of excitement all over the frontier. [There were frequent schemes of men, women, children, foaming at the mouth, barking up trees as dogs, rolling on the ground in fits, and every known heresy of religion being articulated.] Between 1832 and 1845, the Great Baptists' Separation took place. The Hyper­calvinists rid themselves of the leaven; and the Neo­calvinists were cut loose to drift into the dismal abyss of Pelagianism.

Today, Freewillism, or salvation by magical incantations of half­quoted passages of Scriptures, is the basis of their "easy­decisionism" and “decisional regeneration.” [We have recently received a copy of a newspaper report on that session of the Kehukee. We are not able to adequately describe the conflict that issued forth from the introduction of Fullerism among Baptists of that time period. One’s imagination should indicate what a terrible conflict of conscience must have been initiated when an Arminian works­system is being forced upon New Testament free grace system believers. However, this document gives a good sense of their struggle and happiness when that issue was finally resolved among them. We include this account in APPENDIX B, page 290.] Now the Battle for Gospel preaching (as Ian Murray called it) was begun in earnest. The Neo­calvinists quickly learned that the ignorant masses did not take well to sound doctrine, so they toned the doctrines down to make them acceptable enough to the carnal, or natural mind. “Means and measures” became the conditions of acceptance with God, and all were exhorted to go to work for the Lord, using these “means and measures” to save lost and dying souls. But it was never enough! The process continued downward into the abyss of infidelity to this day, and
lead the blind they both shall fall into the ditch." And so they did. The former Neo­calvinists, now Pelagian freewillers, "preached another Gospel," or one Paul called a "perverted gospel” – (Galatians 1:7 and 11 Cor. 11:4). Among them the truth of free grace was now altogether gone: no longer to be heard in the vast number of so­called "Evangelical" societies. Here and there a few Calvinists would rise up and preach the Gospel, but it was never popular, and they were ridiculed. Often, they were driven out of their denominations and entered the ranks of the Hyper­calvinist churches. This was particularly true during the period ending the "Down­Grade" issue in the 1880's. Many Hyper­calvinists' churches date from 1885 to ­ 1905, as large numbers of Free Grace believers left the Evangelical groups, and opened fellowship with the Old School groups. The largest number of "free grace" churches among Baptists has always been the Hyper­calvinist churches. Not only so, but they have never drifted into Arminianism or Pelagianism, and then back to Calvinism. Most present­day “Calvinist” churches can date their constitution after 1950. They sometimes follow a preacher out of a denomination into an independent and Calvinistic position, and then rapidly loose their former vigor and go back into Freewillism, or a modified “four­point” Calvinism holding to the universal love of God for all mankind. Once back home, they remained steadfastly what they were! They come and go, as waves dashing upon the shores of time. Today they are here, and tomorrow they are gone.

                                                                                    CHAPTER TWO
                                  TWO RELIGIONS: NATURAL AND SPIRITUAL

 The above historical sketch reveals two very distinct religions. In fact, they represent the only two types of religions known to the race of Man.
The rest of this chapter is devoted to an examination of natural religion, which saves none of its devotees; and revealed religion, which concerns all the saved children of God. To the reader, this presentation should be carefully reflected on and examined. First, before the creation of the earth, or the formation of the first man, the Eternal Godhead, in counsel with itself, scanned their own eternal Mind, or Decree, and selected one Person from the whole race of man to be formed, and joined that single Man, the seed of Abraham, of the family of David, and the son of Mary, and united him in a interstitial union with the Eternal Godhead ­ the God­Man, the Person of the Christ in the Godhead, and simultaneously elected all His seed, in seed­ substance to be His body and bride, that He might be the Head of His body, the Church. By this eternal and vital union, the Father in the Godhead became the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," and the Son in the Godhead became the "only begotten of God," while at the same time, they are Co­Eternal and Co­­ Equal; that is: One in an Interstial Union. The Father "chose His people in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). Christ is very God, and very Man: the Mediator between God and elect men; the God­Man that He might lay down His life for His seed, and raise it up again. "Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine Elect, in whom My soul delighteth; I have put My Spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles ... 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." (Isaiah 42:1,6). And, "My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see My substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all My members were written,
which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them" (Psalm 139:15,16). And, again, "According as He hath chosen us IN HIM before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love" (Ephesians 1:4). Once and again, these elect, or chosen ones, are referred to as "His seed," for they were chosen IN HIM, and the Life they receive later in regeneration is "eternal Life,” for it was in Him before their creation in Adam's seed. “When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand." (Isaiah 53:10,11. See also Isaiah 1:4;14:20; Isaiah 6:13; 45:25; 54:3; 61:9; Romans 4:16; 9:8; Galatians 3:16; I Peter 1:23; and I John 3:9) Those that were not chosen in Christ in the morn of eternity are also referred to a seed. They are the "seed of evil doers" (Isaiah1:4; 14:20)." Jesus said of them: "Ye are of your father the devil and the deeds of your father ye will do." This is not to say that they are non­religious. Man by nature is religious through and through. He was formed that way. But religion and salvation are entirely two different things. There is vastly more religion than there is salvation on the earth! The two religions can be characterized in this way by contrast: One is natural and the other spiritual. One is of free grace, while the other is free will. One is simple, and the other very elaborate and ritualistic. One is true, and the other a delusion. One is by education and imagination by nature, and the other is by revelation and is spiritual. One is the "doctrines of devils" and the other is of God.

 One is of the earth and earthy, and the other is of heaven and spiritual. One embraces the reprobate seed of the devil, or wicked one; the other is an elect and chosen people redeemed by the blood of Christ. One is by works of various kinds of the flesh, and the other is of free and sovereign unmerited grace. One is by works and/or a mixture of works and so­called grace, which is ineffectual relative to the new birth and salvation, and the other is effectual in regeneration and salvation. These two religions showed up in the very first family on earth. One was Abel's religion and the other was Cain's religion. Both these religions have simultaneous origins in Adam's first offspring; and they will each culminate, eventually, into the "Perfect Man," Jesus Christ in glory; and the "Man of Sin" in damnation. So let us examine these ancient religions. Adam's first son tilled the earth. He was a farmer, or husbandman, making his living by the sweat of his brow. His name was Cain. (In Hebrew, his name means "to procure," to be "fixed in place," ­ or not a pilgrim ­ "to own," and "to strike," as with a lance violently). Cain's name is fully consistent with the nature of modern Pelagian or freewill religion today. His second son was Abel. He was a gentle shepherd, and even this early he typified Christ, the Lamb of God, for He was an innocent substitute for guilty sinners. (His name in the Hebrew means "emptiness.") His name is characteristic of the humility and spiritual poverty found in all God's regenerate children when they are made to seek for righteousness in themselves; or in their efforts, to justify themselves before a just and holy God. They are completely empty of any righteousness of their own making. "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." Here is Cain's religion: (1) He thought it would please the Lord God for him to present the works of his own

hands as an offering for his sins. That was perfectly logical to him. What could be wrong with that? That is salvation by works. Work is what a man does. Repentance is a creature work; or what the man does. Belief is an act of the creature. It is what a man does. Joining a church is what a man does. It is a work of the creature. All three of these a man can do without the new birth. In fact, all three of them can be done by men in nature without Christ, or His dying for them. Making a decision for, or about Christ is what a man can do without any work of Christ in his soul. It, too, is a work of the creature. That, too, is the doctrine of our modern­day Pelagian freewill religion. "There can't possibly be anything wrong with that. You are supposed to!" It was the underlying principle of Cain's devotion. (2) On a somewhat more positive side, Cain had a higher principled religion than is often found today. That is, he at least recognized that he must make an offering to the Lord. Today, many believe that God must offer Jesus to the sinner to accept or reject. The Scripture teaches that the "lesser is blest of the better." (Hebrews 7:7). Modern freewillers also teach that the dead, lifeless sinner (the lesser) must give his corrupt heart to Jesus, (the better). Invariably they teach that one "must accept Christ as his Savior;" when in reality, the sinner needs to be accepted in the Beloved! (Ephesians 1:6.) As it is written, "To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved." Man, in himself, is totally unacceptable in his own corrupt and condemned nature. (3) Cain's offering was of the earth. Man's religion, antecedently, to regeneration, based on his own works is as himself: "Of the earth, earthy." (I Corinthians 15:48.) Notice the results of Cain's work­based religion: (a) Cain believed in making an offering of his own devising.

 Modern religions freely "invent" anything they please with which to worship God. If it sounds like a “good idea,” that is the only justification needed to introduce it. It is immaterial to them whether God has commanded it, forbidden it, or said nothing at all about it! (b) Cain showed some natural remorse over his sin (Gen.4:13­14.), which indicates an understanding of its sinfulness. Modern natural religion accepts remorse, or a pretended remorse, as being the same as repentance. (c) God “had no respect unto Cain nor his offering.” One can almost hear: ''That ain't fair!" "God is not a respecter of persons!” (d) He was given over to judgment, which judgment resulted in the murder of his brother. He hated his brother only because his brother's religion was accepted and his was not. By instinctive nature false religionists always despise free grace believers. It is as Paul stated: "But as then he that was born of the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." (Galatians 4:29.) Cain's co­religionists of today arrogantly charge God with unfairness if He has respect for Abel and Abel's offering, and those of that ancient faith. But let such reply against God and His clear declaration in His revealed Word. (Galatians 4:4.) Their enmity does not in the least change God nor His inspired Word. Needless to say, Cain's religion, which is embraced perhaps by as high as 99.9% of all present­day religious societies, is in a thriving condition. And well it should be. For the time has already come when "men will not endure sound doctrine;” when "knowledge shall increase, and the love of many wax cold,” for the inspired Word is now fulfilled in that regard. The doctrine of Cain's freewill, work­mongering religion, will invariably appeal to men who are by nature born "freewillers" and it can be accepted by them naturally without a conversion experience. They just "make a decision" and remain what they were before: freewillers!

The other religion­ that of Abel is a "free grace" religion; as opposed to the "freewill" religion of Cain. Abel, the gentle shepherd, also "brought of the firstling of his f1ock and the fat thereof” (If Cain, the oldest son, did not know to do this, then how did Abel acquire such an understanding? Surely it had to have been revealed to him!) "And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering." (Genesis 4:4) In examining the religion of Abel, one discovers: (a) He believed it was necessary for him to make a blood­offering; ­ a sinless substitute for his own guilty and sin­laden soul. Right here, Hyper­calvinists are made to understand that Christ was a true substitute, bearing the sins of His people in Himself, and thus putting them away then ­ not when one is given to believe it! They understand that in every respect what is due to the guilty sinner is afflicted upon the innocent Substitute fully, and that the justice of God is completely satisfied, and the guilty sinner fully atoned for and thereby already legally saved. In other words, the imputation of Abel’s sins upon the head of the innocent Sacrificial Victim put the Victim to death, even though it was Abel who had sinned. His offering prefigured the most vital aspect of the Gospel of Christ. Take away all external aspects of the Christian's hope, but let this stand, and salvation is secured to such guilty sinners as are covered by that blood­offering. Hence, Christ, not the messengers, is the sin­bearer for the sins of all His elect seed. Their sins were imputed to Him, and He died really for them; in return, His own righteousness is imputed to these redeemed sinners, and they are actually made righteous and eternally saved thereby. This transaction was accomplished and completed about two­ thousand years ago ... not when they hear about it, and believe that it is so. (b) Abel's religion was not of the earth as Cain's;

 nor was it of works, as was Cain's. Only by revelation could he have so accurately prefigured the glorious redemption by the shed­ blood of Christ for His elect people. Abel trusted for his salvation in a blood­offering which testified to the truth that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." (Hebrews 9:22) And, "Now where remission of these (sins) is, there is no more an offering for sin." (Hebrews 10:18). At this point, notice a basic difference between Neo­calvinists and Hyper­calvinists among Baptists: The Neo­calvinists ignore the remission of sins by Christ's shed blood. They wrongly attribute remission to natural faith and repentance, i.e., "If you will repent and believe, God will put away your sins." Hyper­calvinists recognize that all the sins of God's redeemed people were remitted by, and at the time of, the "shedding of blood." It was at His ascension to His Father's right hand that He sprinkled the heavenly altar with His blood and secured the elects' full and eternal redemption. These sins now atoned for will not be remitted when one is regenerated, or when they are given faith, or when repentance is granted to them; and certainly will not be by a mental decision to join a religious society! Their sins were remitted when Christ died for them.
 That is what the Gospel message is all about! Not in order to make it so; but because it is so! It was then that God's people were actually, legally, sanctified. "Then said He, Lo, I come to do Thy will, 0 God. He taketh away the first (legal sacrifices), that He may establish the second by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once." And by this sacrifice, or this offering, Paul clearly says: "He hath (already now) perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14.) How needful it is that a poor, quickened, sinner, grasp this truth of a finished salvation. It is by faith in this gracious work of the blessed Savior that one finds rest

from all his legal labors under the curse of a broken law. “By faith (not by “belief,” or moral suasion) Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was (not woukd become) righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” (Hebrews 11: 4.) Notice that it was not by faith that he obtained “righteousness,” which view is held by many Neo­ calvinists.Rather, by faith he obtained a witness that he was righteous. This latter view is held by the Hyper­calvinists. Their salvation and their righteousness is not conditioned on the works or beliefs of the creature, as was Cain’s. Salvation is of God exclusively, based solely on His everlasting and immutable loving kindness toward His Son and those in Him. Abel's religion is the historical Christian faith, in that it is founded on the same principle as Calvinism. It is the truth of God's revealed Word. Whereas before, it was noted that Cain's freewillism thrives today, it must be admitted that Abel's religion is not popular, and never has been. Perhaps world­ wide, less than .01% of so­called "Christians" believe Abel's free grace religion. But this is no hindrance to one called by grace, and "made willing in the day" of Christ's power. (Psa. 110:5.) Salvation is not voluntary; it was done! Christ atoned for the sins of His people before any of them, since that generation in the first century, were ever born. Such as are redeemed, are made to suffer all things for Christ's name and cause. And, it should be this way. If Calvinists and Hyper­calvinists, along with the apostles of the Lamb, are correct relative to the doctrine of election ­ which election was before the world began ­ then the number of those chosen and redeemed is definitely set. (Eph. 1:1­6). The Southern Baptists' first Articles of Faith said: "neither can that number be increased or diminished." {Georgia Baptists Association, 1792, adopted by the SBC in
1845). Thus for every one which goes on to be with the Lord, there is one less left here on earth. This process has been going on since the days of "righteous Abel." Cain's crew must continue to increase until the "man of sin be revealed;" and Abel's must decrease until the "fullness of Christ" be gathered in. It cannot be otherwise, for God is not now still electing people to salvation; nor is Christ yet to die again for more. At some point in time the Lord's question will be answered: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?' (Luke 18:8.) In Abraham's day, there were but few, and he seemed not to complain: "The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people; but because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage” (Deut. 7:5.) This was equally true in Noah's day when only eight souls were saved from the flood. Again, in the dark days of Israel's apostasy, and again in the end of their dispensation, Paul records: “God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew, Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? “1 have reserved unto Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (Rom. 11:2) A "remnant" is a "handful" which is left. Of the seven thousand throughout Israel, that number was but "a few." Christianity, that is, Hyper­calvinism, is the true religion of our Creator God. . . the ancient religion of Abel.

 The freewill religion of Cain's is only a natural religion, and as an instrument of acceptable worship, a false religion. Pelagianism "is the theological doctrine propounded by Pelagius, a British or Irish Monk, and condemned as heresy in a.d. 416; included in its tenets a denial of original sin and an affirmation of man's ability to be righteous by the exercise of free will." (The American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Miffin, Boston, 1976). In time, the Roman Antichrist issued an "anathema" against anyone denying freewill. In 1711, Rome began to grant indulgences to priests who would enter Protestant churches to turn them to freewill. As one can see by comparing Andrew Fuller's statement with that of the Catholic theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas's (inside front cover), the founder of the mission movement had adopted the doctrine of Rome. There can be no doubt by any free grace believer that freewillism is a cardinal principle of Antichrist, or "mystery Babylon." That is not so clear to freewill believers. While most religions are clearly on one side or the other ­ free grace or freewill; most "evangelicals" have attempted to create a hybrid religion by mixing grace and works together. For instance, there are five cardinal principles of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election and predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance and preservation (TULIP). Evangelicals reject all the first four, yet illogically hold to preservation! This, in the absence of the other four, and perseverance, developed into a very libertarian form of antinomianism ... the very thing they falsely charge against the Hyper­calvinists! Their religious societies are filled and running over with all kinds of immoral abominations, but they all "know they are saved and heaven bound!" What is Biblically taught as being "of grace," they make even that a part of their works system. According to them, a gift is something you have to "accept"! Of course, if you did not receive it, it cannot be a "gift."

The Lord Jesus Christ is called "the gift of God," but these "Evangelicals", and even many Neo­calvinists, never talk of "receiving Christ," but only "accepting" Him, thereby making the experience of grace a creature­merited work. Let us contrast works and grace sharply: ­ Belief is something you do. ­ ­ Repentance is something you do. ­ ­ Joining a church is something you do. ­ ­ Making a decision is something you do. ­ ­ Working for the Lord is something you do. – Now, if the above acts are done in order to become "Christians," or children of God, then such a system is most clearly an attempt to be saved by works ... or Cain's natural system. It is designed to manufacture children of God by some form of human instrumentality in the hands of professional hirelings. However, it cannot produce quickened and regenerate children of God. For one to be a member of John Doe’s family, he has to be begotten by John Doe and born into John Doe’s family. God has to do His own begetting if any are to be His children. Almost no present­day “Christian” believes experimental salvation commences with a birth! Nevertheless, God needs no midwives or pediatriciansto convey spiritual life to one of His! In opposition to all the above acts of men in a works system, there is a system of salvation by free grace. Please now consider the following: ­ If regeneration is an exclusive act of the Holy Spirit; it is by grace­ ­ If faith is a "gift" of God and the "fruit of the Spirit," it is by grace ­ ­ If repentance is worked by "godly sorrow," and by the convicting of the Holy Spirit; it is by grace ­­ ­ If "The Lord adds to the church daily such as should be

saved;" it is by grace ­ ­ If "It is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure;" it is by grace – All the above things the Scripture teaches, and they are all by grace. This is salvation by grace, and grace alone, or Hyper­ calvinism. It is Abel's free grace religion. God does the work; God does the saving. It is the application of an accomplished and completed salvation. God has the glory! Where above it is stated that Pelagians "have attempted to create a hybrid religion" by mixing works and grace, it is only a feeble attempt, doomed to failure. Works and grace are mutually exclusive principles. They can no more be mixed than fire and ice. When Paul pointed out that "at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace," quoted above, he continued his argument, saying: "And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the. Election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. . ." One cannot help but wonder what a Freewiller thinks as he reads such Scriptures. It surely says the election obtained it, and it says the rest did not! Since the Freewill Pelagian does not believe in election, then he has to be the one that is blinded. There is no escaping the Scriptural conclusion. "According as it is written, GOD hath given them the spirit of slumber" ­ The same apathy found in religion today ­ The text says that God did this to them. "Eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day." (Romans 11:6­8.) Again, one must wonder how the Freewillers deals with God doing this to them. Where is that "For God so love every one of Adams race" in this text?

So then, this hybrid system, in the final Biblical analysis is still "salvation by works," or Cain's religion. The sad part of this is that millions who "know absolutely that they are saved" are dreadfully deceived by that wicked system; and are actually as lost in sin as they ever were before making their mental decisions. If they have no spiritual desire or love for the Truth of free grace; then this void identifies them in such a dreadful situation. To wit, "God shall send them strong delusion" ­ that is exactly what it says, too! And nothing is a stronger delusion than naturally blind freewill; "that they should believe a lie” Oh, My! Does the Bible say that God would do this that they should actually believe a lie? Oh, No! Oh, Yes. That is exactly what it says, but does anyone really care? They don't seem to be much concerned about it, because they can’t believe it! “If it is true,” they think, “it doesn’t apply to me.” They are not so concerned as to get a concordance down and look up the words "elect", "election," "the called," "predestinated," "ordained," "foreordained," etc. But why does God do this ­ it seems so strange? Paul answers: "That they all might be DAMNED who believe not the TRUTH but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (II Thess 2: 10­14.) So much for God "wanting everyone to get saved"! No wonder the Lord said: ''Take care how you hear!" The Israelites did not obtain salvation by the mixture of creature­works and grace; nor shall Evangelicals. As then, so now, "the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Many who read this have never paid any attention to this passage, and most ministers are totally unable to fit it into their humanistic theology. But, dear reader, if this verse is true ­ and we contend that the Bible is­ this is as serious as death itself! It is important that men make the effort to understand it even in nature, to know the Truth. Even if only a head­knowledge, it is far more God­honoring than presenting a little frustrated God who can't do His own will unless the ungodly reprobate "lets Him." Cain's religion is
dangerous! It has brought severe judgment against nations that fear not the Lord. But the Freewiller will respond with: "But the Bible says, 'choose you this day whom you will serve." This is a perfect illustration of the ministers twisting the truth by half­ Scriptures, and taking them out of context, and then misapplying them falsely. Let's look at this method, with this Scripture. The closest the Bible comes to such a statement is in Joshua 24:15, but it teaches the very opposite to what they intend to convey. Notice it. "Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord." Now notice this very carefully: "And if it seems evil for you to serve THE LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve." So the choice is only given to such as believe that it is evil to serve the Lord. But look even more closely at the choice given to such: "whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell.” There is the strong evidence of the spiritual blindness of the Evangelicals! They pick a phrase completely out of its context, and build a theory around the phrase. In doing so, they force their misunderstanding of the Scriptures to make them contradict our blessed Lord, merely to sustain their "free offer" system. Clearly the choice here is between two sets of pagan gods; one is as good as another! "A Hyper­calvinist will never convince me that sinners can't "accept Jesus"! says one. Probably not! One would be surprised if he did. But it is still the truth of the Scriptures. The only text in the Bible where a derivative of "accept" is used relative to salvation is in Ephesians 1:6 and it is a text Freewillers must absolutely stay away from!

"Having predestinated US”­ Oh, No! "Predestination is not in the Bible. I believe the Bible, but I sure don't believe that!" The rest of that verse is: "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself; according to the good pleasure of His own will to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath mad us accepted in the Beloved." One might be surprised that, as Joshua 24:15 above, this too teaches exactly the opposite of what Freewill Pelagians think! Not only has "blindness in part is happened to Israel," the same darkness spread over the Neo­ calvinists and swept them into spiritual blindness. The text continues: "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." (Romans 11:25.) The spiritual blindness which overwhelms modern religion possibly indicates this "fullness" is near at hand or past already. Paul's most endearing letters were addressed to the Ephesians and the Thessalonians. In both epistles, he very clearly taught the system of Abel's religion, or Calvinism ­ true Christianity, if you please. In Ephesians, he wrote: "according as He hath chosen US in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love," and proceeds into predestination and then particular redemption. In Thessalonians, he wrote: "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.” Now, how did he know that God had chosen them? His answer: "For our Gospel came not unto you in word only but also in power and in the Holy Ghost and in much assurance. "'(1 Thessalonians 1:4­5.) When he warned them of the coming of the Man of Sin, he comforted them with: "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 the belief of the truth; whereunto He called you by our Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ " (II Thessalonians 2:13­14) Again, one must wonder what a Freewiller thinks when (or, if) he reads such passages

. Divine election and particular redemption are the principles underlying Abel's religion of free grace. Shortly before Andrew Fuller introduced this first step in modern Baptists' apostasy, Dr. John Gill observed the climate of religion among this people, and forewarned of their dreadful departure; which departure was very immanent. Writing in the “Watchman's Answer: What of The Night?” he wrote: "Of late years there has been a very visible decline and the night is coming on; which we are entering into; the shadows of the evening are stretching out apace upon us, and the signs of the eventide are very manifest and will shortly appear yet more and more: coldness and indifference in spiritual things, a want of affection to God, Christ, His People, truth and ordinances, may easily be observed; the first love is left, iniquity abounds, and the love of many waxes cold; and it will wax yet colder, and will issue in a general forsaking of assembling together; and in an entire neglect of ministers of the Gospel; when such who have been professors themselves will be shy of them, and carefully shun them." The conditions were ripe for the Great Apostasy foretold by all the apostles. Here enters Andrew Fuller with Cain's religion, under the cloak of "Particular" Baptists, to inaugurate a totally new religion on earth, one which had never before appeared among men . . . "evangelism," or "missionism," (humanism) to meet the need of prophesy. Hear him: "There is such a fullness in the satisfaction of Christ,” Fuller wrote, “as is sufficient for the whole world, were the whole world to believe in Him." What a strange doctrine is this! There is a sufficiency in the satisfaction, which has
already saved all for whom He died! The atonement, he said, is sufficient for the whole world but is insufficient to save anyone at all without their consent! Little did this blind guide know that it was quite too late to add the "world that lieth in wickedness" to that number of redeemed people! He was not a sound Baptist to begin with! He and his followers ridiculed "Hypers" for “limiting the atonement.” And then he does the same, by adding: "at least where the Gospel is preached.” According to this theory, the atonement has not yet been made; or if it has, it did not atone! Yet, the Scriptures everywhere declare it has been. Fuller's “atonement" cannot atone unless you believe that it can! The whole world of evangelical Pelagians fall for such! According to this doctrine, Christ is not a Redeemer, quite yet – but He will be if sinners will cooperate! Otherwise He failed! And according to the present­day Fullerites, He is still trying, but the world population is growing faster than He can get them saved! He gave His life a ransom, yet ransomed no one at all! He "reconciled us unto God," but we are not yet reconciled! He justified us by His blood, but we are not justified until we accept Him! Evangelicals, Neo­calvinists, and Pelagians are apparently ignorant of the work of Christ. To make matters worse, Mr. Fuller, attempting to deceive his Hyper­calvinist brethren, adds that the atonement was efficient for the elect only, "at least to where the Gospel is preached." Interestingly, today, Evangelicals and do not even believe in election and predestination! Yet nowhere in the New Testament does the Scripture present the atonement, or satisfaction for sin, for all mankind. The very thought is preposterous, seeing that millions of souls from the days of Adam to the cross were already in hell when He died!

 As Calvinists and Neo­calvinists within many of the2"Evangelical" societies come to the knowledge of free grace, it would be advisable for them to look carefully at the origins of their denominations' apostasy. Beyond successful contradiction, the very first step in their "Down­Grade" (as Spurgeon called it) was a denial of Christ's finished and completed salvation of His elect people. Once this was denied, the logical step to follow was to save those Christ had failed to redeem. To do this, Calvinism became a mere "plan of salvation” competing with other humanly devised plans; and seeing that Calvinism is hated by the natural man, the other "plans" quickly won out. At this point, Christianity ceased to be "Christian" and became Antichristian. The preached word cannot regenerate. Life must come from life of like kind. Louis Pasteur (1822­1895) put the death­knell to the medieval doctrine of spontaneous generation in the field of biology. In reality, the apostles of the Lamb put the death­knell to that same doctrine in the spiritual realm in the first century. Let the history of the Modern Evangelical Movement, or "benevolent (so­called) movement" be a warning to Neo­calvinists not to reinvent it in their reforms today. One must not ignore the truth that all “births” are the introduction of a pre­existing life form in the conception of a like kind of life form. It is NOT a “decision” based production! Truly, "Salvation is of the Lord" and always has been! ­ Jonah 3.9

                                                                                  CHAPTER THREE
                                         CALVINISM, NEOCALVINISM AND                                                                                                    HYPERCALVINISM

M It is not intended that this chapter cover the above groups in­depth. Anyone interested in a serious study of Calvinism can find very good materials on the subject by the Reformers, Puritans, and present­day Calvinists. One of the best sources is The Sovereignty of God, by A.W. Pink. (There are two publishers, one extracted as much sovereignty from it as possible, creating a worthless deception on the subject, and one is unedited. The unedited edition can be had from Baker Book House, P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516­6287, 1997 edition. For a reader desiring God­ honoring books on Free and Sovereign Grace doctrine, Gospel Missions, P. O. Box 318, Choteau, MT 59422 offers the best source of Calvinistic literature in America. No one can endorse all materials in every book, but across the board, Gospel Missions has the best stock of sound literature available from England and America. One may write them for their book list. Another very good source of Calvinism from the Reformed viewpoint can be had from the Protestant Reformed Church, 4949 Ivanrest, Granville, MI 49418. Neo­Calvinistic literature can be found under the title of "Calvinism," by any Evangelical Publisher. Strictly speaking, Evangelical Calvinism is not Calvinism, but a watered down derivative of it, usually mixed with a strong dose of Arminianism or Pelagianism. Those who hold to the pre­ Andrew Fuller (1782) Christian doctrines are termed Hyper­ Calvinists. Because they do not utilize organized Evangelical business enterprises to publish the Gospel, they are falsely accused of being non­evangelical: hence, hypers, or hardshells,  

etc. The best sources of literature by these faithful writers are: The Remnant Publications, P.O. Box 1004 Hawkins, TX 75765­ 1004; who have published seven volumes of the Editorials of Gilbert Beebe. These volumes are from 480 pages to 768 pages each, and were listed for $20.00 or $30.00 a volume. Those who love good sound books owe a debt to Elder James Poole and his late wife, and Dr. Tom Jackson of Welsh Tract Old School Baptist Church and Rome, Georgia, respectively for their tiresome efforts to print the Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, fifty years the editor of the SIGNS of the Times periodical (1832 – 1882.) These releases are limited editions of sovereign grace titles that should be in all ministers’ libraries; and Elder Leroy Rhode’s Website, http://mountzionpbc.org/ is a good on­line source of very good literature that is very hard to find elsewhere – mostly antique free grace books. As you read this book, it will become obvious that the author does not recommend, or endorse, all the views covered in these publications above. But they are informative for any interested enquirer after the Truth of the historic Christian faith. It is also pointed out, that the above do not necessarily endorse the views set forth in this book; and indeed, most would not. Each of these speaks for themselves and a disclaimer by them is understandable. One of the five points of Calvinism, or as those called Hyper­Calvinists would say, Six Principles of Grace, stands on a pragmatic and Biblical view of human nature as formed by God and as fallen in Adam. That is, the eternal vital union of Christ with His body, the church [The emphasis in this doctrine is the eternality of Eternal Unconditional Election]; the total depravity and inability of man by nature to save, or help to save himself.

 Man is mortal; therefore he is not spiritual by his first birth, in spite of people foolishly referring to art as spiritual! To be spiritual one must be begotten by one who is a Spirit, [of “like kind”,] and be born from above spiritually. When God made Adam, He made him a creature adapted to the natural habitat created for him. He gave to man nostrils to breathe the air created for him. Man was given a digestive system to eat the meats and herbs created for him. He was made upright and given an anatomy capable of supporting him in an upright position. In short, Man was not made an angel or a "spiritual" being! He was made of the earth: earthy.” He was never an immortal being. This alone is sufficient to establish the fact that God's eternal purpose was that mortal man should die! He did just that! I’ll leave it to you to determine how sin entered into the world and death by sin; seeing that it is written that “By man sin entered into the world.” If I told you, the reaction would be prejudicial to the further examination of this book’s contents!  The point we wish to make here is that man, as he was created, was created a natural being as all other animals, other than that he was a rational creature with higher mental and physical attributes. But there is no Scripture, to our knowledge, which suggest that man is a spiritual, or an angelic creature by nature. Thus, man is not a spiritual being in fellowship with his Maker. He was created in God’s image, as a figure of Him that was to come. From his loins, he would seminally produce his generations, and of many in those generations, some will be born “vessels of mercy, afore prepared unto glory,” (Romans 9:23) as “earthen vessels” in which the elect seed of Christ [“this treasure”] will be given habitation in divine quickening (II Cor. 4:7).

Such of Adam’s offspring thus blessed to be recipients of the children of God, will all be given the Spirit of adoption, (Romans 8:23) whereby they cry Abba Father, and these will at the resurrection, receive the adoption of sons, (Romans 8:23) and together with their new creature, or spiritual man, be raised unto glory. Others not selected to be vessels for this heavenly treasure, are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction;” (Romans 9:22) and will perish because of sins they have done in the body. God gave man a help­meet, woman, and commanded them to "replenish the earth," which also forecast their future fall; for without the lust of the flesh Adam could not, and did not, procreate until after his disobedience. God said to Adam, of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "Thou shalt not eat thereof;” and, "In the day thou eatest thereof; thou shalt surely die:” Notice that the Lord God did not say, “If thou eatest,” but “in the day thou eatest.” Again, Adam was created, made, and formed to die! If one still doubts this thesis, then consider that Christ is called “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8.) Christ being provided as the first Elect (Isa. 42:1) and the sacrificial Lamb for His seed chosen in Him this early (Isa. 53:10), clearly declares that the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23) was for Him to die for His people, who would be, in time, "dead in trespasses and sins." Paul says that for Him to die, "then were we all dead!" Again, this is proven by the fact that Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were "gathered together for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done" (Acts 4:28.) It is contrary to intelligent reasoning to deny that it was God's will and purpose that the mortal creature, Adam, was made to die! Calvinists understand that natural mortal man is not a spiritual creature; that he is

totally depraved in all his faculties (including his "will") from his fall in Adam; that man is physically born "dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1.) The fall of Adam and all those seminally in Him changed his, and their, relationship with their Maker. However, he remained under the "primal law" of his Creator. This did not change. This "First and greatest commandment" ­ not Moses' Law – the race has ever been in subjection. (See Chapter Five, "Duty­ Faith­ Unto­ Salvation," and "Appendix A:" on Antinomianism, page 283.) It is well, then, to ask: "What effect did Adam's disobedience have on all his offspring, or the specie of Man?" Of his sons and daughters throughout all ages of time, from that fall, it is written: " There is none righteous, no, NOT ONE." (Rom. 3:10) In his carnal nature, "There is none that understandeth," spiritual things, in spite of their natural reasoning ability in natural things. This, the first catastrophic disease to invade man's body, sapped all the created fellowship with God and righteousness out of him, leaving him void of any righteousness and ability in spiritual things. Strangely, with self­righteous religion abounding, the inspired record still remains that: "there is none that seeketh after God.” Other motives, deep within the fallen creature, are at play in all that proselytizing activity in which he is engaged. It feeds something natural within the fallen nature of man. With all kinds of social works, in and out of religious establishments ­ from "Christian Life Centers," (gymnasiums), "Promise­Keepers," programs, sectarian hospitals, martial arts for Jesus, bumper stickers, entertainments, et.al., "there is none that doeth good, no not one." The only truly "good work" is one commanded of God and worked out by the Holy Spirit within the believer.

 Most things "Christians” do as "good things" are unauthorized by God in His Word, and as such, are "without faith;" and “whatsoever is without faith is sin.” Without divine authorization and faith, it can only be sin. And the rank dullness and careless apathy relative to true righteousness and truth is crowned by: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10­18.) This feverish listlessness, ­ blind lethargic state regarding the truth of God’s Word ­ is an effect of the violent degeneration resulting from Adam’s fall. It remains innate within his offspring. Adam’s fall devastated the race of Man in all his faculties! So badly, few can focus their attention retrospectively in self­examination long enough to see if "they are in the faith" or not. If a doubt eases into consciousness, which might threaten the comfort of the delusional state, the carnal mind quickly compartmentalizes it. It’s gone, almost as swiftly as it arose. Only God, by the Holy Spirit, can sustain that doubt long enough sufficiently to free the man from his bondage; for he cannot of himself be aware of the dire extent of his malady. Doctors of Divinity are of no use to treat this ailment. The man is, unless brought sovereignly to the truth by God's omnipotent power, in bondage to natural religion­ a religion which is of his own imagination. Man's terminal illness is evident the very day a child is born. He is born naturally a freewiller in stark rebellion against God and parents. Listen to his screeming tempor and red­faced wrath. Even if natural religion is pressed upon him, he will remain as he was ­ an ardent freewiller all his life long. And unless freed by the regenerating life­giving conversion by the Holy Spirit, He will die as he was born: an unchanged freewiller. This is sad, but alas! It is the condition of natural fallen Man. That is the reason that the loving­kindness of God provided a Savior. Those precious souls who have been made to acknowledge their devastated nature and to flee to the crucified Savior as a refuge have always found Him ready to forgive and pardon their sins, based upon the finished work of Christ in their behalf, and His righteousness imputed to them by the love and grace of God.

 They know what they are in nature, and this is their hearts' sincere confession: that they are the chief of sinners! As David complained to God when brave old Nathan the prophet confronted him in regard to Bathsheba: "Behold! I was shapened in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. "(Psalm 51:4.) He recognized what he was by nature. He agreed with the observation God made of man prior to, and after the flood. Before the flood, the Lord God "saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil and that continually." (Genesis 5:5.) And God destroyed “the world of the ungodly” by water. (Note that this "world" cannot be the "world" of John 3:16.) Did the near extermination of fallen man modify his nature? No, it did not effect any change at all in the terminal illness of man's depraved will. Nothing will ever change the nature of natural man except the resurrection of the body! Immediately after the flood, God again said of Man: "for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth (infancy). (Genesis 8:21) The illness is unabated. The flood was not intended as a remedy; it was a judgment! David again noted: "The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3.) The very highest faculty of fallen man is his conscience, and the Scripture says of such who believe not the truth speak "lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared as with a hot iron;" (I Timothy 4:2.) "even their conscience is defiled." This is God's pronouncement of the best that is in fallen man. If this is said of this faculty, what might be said of the rest: the "heart", which is the seat of affection and the "will" that natural men worships? How often the Evangelicals, or Missionaries, call upon dead alien sinners to "give" their "heart"
to God"? They never warn the sinner that the "heart" they are called upon to donate is dreadfully wicked! Who would knowingly offer such filth to His Maker? "The heart is deceitful ABOVE ALL THINGS, and desperately WICKED: who can know it?' (Jeremiah 17:9.) That, dear reader, is what ministers now want sinners to "offer" to their god. Pretty bad stuff, isn't it? Man's "will" is an interstitial part of his depraved and rebellious being. It is not separate, apart, nor above his wicked heart. It is lower than his conscience. It is unfit to offer to Jesus. Man by nature is utterly helpless to bring about a change within his own constitution from being what the Bible describes, to a righteous being. He cannot change himself from a dead, wicked, sinner to a living, righteous, saint. A cow may as well fly through the air, or a tree run about the forest freely, as for this natural fallen being to change his own inborn nature. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spot? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do EVIL." (Jeremiah 13:26.) It is clear that if the first two propositions are impossible ­ and they are; then the last one is too. All of the natural, mental, decisionism possible, (for whatever base and unknown reasons lurking within natural man,) will not change his true condition. He needs an applied salvation! It is a fact, "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not." (Eccleiastes 7:20.) Dear reader, believe it! Natural man is in a terrible condition, and his fallen disease is such, he is unable to even suspect it. He rests under a “strong delusion.” He can believe a lie told to him easier than a truth. He merrily goes to destruction, finding ways to justify himself; "but not before God." Just think, man's "will": it is within his corrupt being; and a dominate part of it. By it he freely sins. By it he denies God without even considering that he is doing so. By it he disobeys God. By it he hates God's ways, His Truth and secretly, God's people. There is nothing so noble about that thing! It is like his heart, "desperately wicked."

 Even the apostle said: "The will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find not." (Romans 8:18.) And preachers call upon that same confused, helpless and deceived "will" in sinners for their decision to "get saved." Surely, if a man ever had a toothache he ought to know his "will" isn't free! But, that is a part of the symptoms of Adam's deluded and terminal illness: a confused and befuddled state of mind; an inability to think clearly; a delusion; a reluctance to examine himself for fear of what he might find. But he will, as all others, die. To a quickened child of God, after striving furiously against his willful sinfulness, it is truly glad tidings in the Gospel that "Thy people shall he willing in the day of Thy power," as promised in the Covenant of Grace made with Christ as recorded in Psalm 110:5. It is God that makes him willing, or else he never would be. If the above discussion is still insufficient to demonstrate the truth of the Christian, or Calvinists' understanding of the total depravity of fallen man; and man's need for God Himself to save him; then we add this. "Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham; for he was yet in the loins of his father (great grandfather) "when Melchisedec met him" (Hebrews 7:910.) This is known legally as a "principle of vicarious representation," or a principle of "federalism." Abraham, in God's view, is the federal head of all the Hebrew tribes, because genetically, they were all seminally in him when he paid the tithe; so too, Adam is the federal head of the whole race of man, for genetically, they were all in him when he (and they in him) disobeyed. "Wherefore, as by one man (i.e., Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned,” in Adam (Romans 5:12.) "For by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One (Christ) many be made righteous" (Romans 5:19.) Again, "As in Adam all die” ... (1 Corinthians 15:22).

We finalize the point: Adam was created to die; and die he did; and all his offspring are dead to all things spiritual the very day they are born in his generations. It is here, in a state of death and alienation that God's free grace finds the blessed objects of His mercy. They are more than merely "sick," as presented by Pelagian freewillers; but they are dead! In their corrupt flesh they can only "mind the things of the flesh." Their only functioning mind is their fallen natural degenerated carnal mind; as contrasted with a spiritual mind in one who has been born spiritually from above. "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritual minded is life and peace" (Romans 8:5, 6.) When the Holy Spirit revealed the stupor, or deadness, of the carnal mind of man, He showed its true condition: "Because the carnal mind is enmity (the source or root for becoming an enemy) against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7­8.) So, to make a point here: Can any natural man "please God"? That is a legitimate question. This text denies it. If he, before divine quickening, "gave his heart to Jesus," would this please God? The text denies it. In fact, if he could repent or believe, before experiencing the new birth, would even this please God? "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God". The answer is "No!" Here, then, is the death­knell of all "free offers" to natural sinful men! They cannot do spiritually, what preachers tell them to do naturally and benefit spiritually therefrom. All such carnal acts are counterfeits of the real gifts the children of God receive in divine quickening, and every child of God is grateful that it was God "Who hath begun a good work in you" and ''shall perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippines 1:6.) This is ascribing praise to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.
So it becomes clear that the first thing in order to the experience of salvation is "ye must be born again," spiritually. Christ did not say “born all over again.” God is a Spirit, and all life is derived from a pre­existing life form of “like kind,” or parentage. Therefore being “born again,” in a spiritual state of existence, one must be “born of God,” or “from above,” from a spiritual life source. This is necessary in order to have a "spiritual mind" ready and able to "discern spiritual things" (I Corinthians 2: 14­15). The new birth is in fact a "birth" ­ not a decision. It is not a mental act. It is a being begotten "from above." No man can beget himself! To be a child of God, it is obvious one must be born of God! Being born of a preacher's words will not do it. If it did, the convert would only be the son of the preacher! The man must be born of God by the Spirit of God before he can discern spiritual things (I Corinthians 2:10­ 14.) It is this baneful condition that prevents natural man ­ the freewill man ­ from ever entering into the clear instructions of the Scriptures in the doctrine of sovereign grace. At this revealed truth all Arminians stumbled; and present­day Pelagians follow suit. In reality, they are by Adam's disease blinded to this, even, their own sad condition. Jesus said: "Ye must be born again," but never told Nicodemus how. The reason seems clear to a Hyper­calvinist. He said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3.) He was not giving Nicodemus instruction as to how to "be saved," but what spiritual condition was necessary for one to "see" or "enter" the kingdom of God. If one is "born again" he will both see and enter the kingdom of God in the last day. If he is not, he can neither see it, nor enter into it. That spiritual state comes about because "it is the Spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profitest nothing. The words that I speak (Jesus – not the preacher) unto you, they are spirit and they are Life.” No mortal man's words are life or spirit.

 We must point out here, that Jesus did not intend to say “ye must be born all over again.” The natural man is not born twice; he is born of the flesh but once. The new birth is of the Spirit and produces a spiritual birth within the natural man. The confusion resulting from a lack of understanding on this very point has produced many a false entrapment – doctrinal apostasy. Where, then, might Hyper­calvinism fit in this most fundamental Christian issue? Clearly the above is called "Calvinism.” The Hyper­calvinists question just how dead is "dead." Some Calvinists and most all Neo­calvinists give lip­ service to the total depravity and inability of man. But their proselytizing zeal over­runs their consistency, and their "free offer" conditionalism makes them belie their confession. They see nothing inconsistent with begging unquickened, or “dead,” sinners to come to Christ as their "duty." Dead men cannot function in the realm in which they are dead. Hyper­ calvinists consider the unquickened individual too dead to cooperate and help the Spirit to regenerate himself. They are certain that the Holy Spirit will "quicken whom He will," (John 6:63) and this will be all for whom Christ died. He will give the elect, redeemed and saved children of God life, spiritual ears, eyes, and hearts to perceive the Gospel of Christ and rejoice therein. Pelagians and Neo­calvinists seem to hold that the dead sinners must take the first step in "their salvation." It is clear that they do not know that Christ has already redeemed His elect and saved them with an everlasting salvation. They often exhort their listeners to take the first step and promise them that God will meet you half­way! Hyper­­ calvinists believe that legally, before the justice of God, all the elect have already been "saved" judicially (“no charge can be made against one of God's elect” ­ Romans 8:33.), but not experimentally. In the experimental application of salvation, the Holy Spirit works first in bringing those redeemed to spiritual life and immortality; and then, and only then, can the Gospel, be of benefit to them.

 Again, "When I was saved," is not an expression one ever hears among Hyper­calvinists in the United States. They might say "When I came to the knowledge of grace," or, "When I was given to believe," or "When I received a hope in Jesus," etc. but they cannot Scripturally equate "being saved" with regeneration or conversion. These are different terms and different experiences. To illustrate: No doubt Peter was a child of God. Yet, to him the Lord said: "When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren." "Salvation" is an all inclusive concept of the whole work of salvation from eternal union with and in Christ, through election before time, to eternal glory. It is not the point of a person's so­called "decision" or commitment to a religious cause; nor is it when one is given faith to believe that it is so. When a Neo­calvinist leaves his profession on the total depravity and inability of man, and shifts to an anthropocentric application of his doctrine, he suggests that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with regeneration. He basically denies the cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith and of Calvinism. To such, man isn't "dead in trespasses and sins." (Ephesians 2:1.) A little sick, maybe, but certainly not totally incapacitated. At least they can waddle down an aisle and "give their (corrupted) heart to Jesus!" In fact, some actually teach that natural man still has a "spark of divinity in him;” while others teach that natural man has a residual "faith" which he can activate to "accept Christ and be saved." In order to give a "free offer," Neo­calvinists as well as Pelagians must do so on the assumption that natural, unregenerate man can do something spiritual. The truth of the matter is that he can't. He is dead in that
sphere of existence! They sometimes reply, "But his inability does not negate his 'duty' to do so." We will write more about this supposed "duty" in Chapter Five on the Duty­ Faith­Unto­Salvation issue. The traditional, or classical, Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit uses the preached or written Word as instruments in the quickening process. Some believe the Gospel regenerates. A very small group believes that baptism regenerates. Arminians believe a man’s mental decision regenerates. Neo­calvinists seem to believe that any small portion of Bible passages will, with the Spirit's application, regenerate. Others explain that the internal call to salvation is by the Gospel to regenerates. This writer cannot comprehend that position and will not elaborate on it. (It is expressed in the publications of the Protestant Reform Church.) The position of the Hyper­calvinists, is that a child is conceived in this world totally dead to spiritual things; unable to want, or will, his own salvation because his "carnal mind is enmity towards God;" that he "loves darkness rather than light, because his deeds are evil." (John 3:19.); "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they (spiritual things) are foolishness unto him: (such as eternal vital union, election, predestination and a finished salvation) neither can he know them, because they (the spiritual things) are spiritually discerned." (I Corinthians 2:14) Hyper­calvinists believe the unregenerate sinner to be so dead that he cannot will to come to Christ savingly. ("Ye cannot come unto Me that ye may have life"); so dead that they cannot come; ("No man can come unto Me"­ John 6:44, 65); so dead that they "cannot see the kingdom of God;” (John 3:3;) and being unable to see it, they "cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5)

 Hyper­calvinists are faulted by some Neo­calvinists and Pelagians for denying tha57the Gospel brings life and immortality to dead sinners; yet the Scripture is plain: That God saved and called His people according to His own purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world; "but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ who hath (already) abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel." (2 Timothy 1:9­10.) That is what the Scripture teaches the purpose of the Gospel is. It makes this life and immortality, and this purpose and grace manifest. It brings it "to light" to a quickened sinner. For this reason, the Gospel is glad tidings, or "good news;" a message of the accomplishment of Christ and His finished work for poor and afflicted sinners mourning over their corrupt condition. The very definition of the word "Gospel" shows what it is, as well as what it is not. If salvation is not an accomplished fact for all that Christ suffered and died, it cannot be good news to one disabled and ruined by sin and death. It is not a magical incantation to be used by priests and preachers to do what only God can do, i.e., beget to spiritual life. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." The principles of Freewillers and Neo­calvinists relative to the Gospel are very much as Simon Magnus, who requested of Peter, "Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:19). It certainly sounds the same! They say, in effect, "Give us the power, that unto whomsoever we quote John 3:16, he may receive the Holy Ghost." That their appeals produce church members no one can deny; but that it produces spiritual life in those members the Scripture denies. "How then,” says a Pelagian or a Neo­calvinist, “can Hyper­calvinists get around James 1:18, "Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth,” or I Peter 1:23, where it says: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God.”?

 Hyper­calvinists accept both texts exactly as written for what they actually say. The Neo­calvinists and Pelagians are the ones who fail to pay close attention to these texts, and fail to "rightly divide the word of truth." For instance, in James, the Hyper­calvinists read it as written" Of HIS own will," (not the preacher's) or God's sovereign immutable will, “He begat US with the Word of truth” (not man's words; certainly not misquoted half Scriptures). That “Word” by which He becomes our Father when He speaks to sinners, saying “LIVE! and they live!” All clear thinking men will acknowledge that whoever begets a child is that child's father. Paul referred to the moment of his own calling, saying: “When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb." 'When" indicates an appointed or certain day for a sinner's reception of salvation, or the time he is to be quickened. As written: “None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion on thee; but thou was cast out in the open field, to the loathing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee LIVE; yea, I said unto you, when thou wast in thy blood, LIVE! I have caused thee to multiply," etc., "Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, it was the time of LOVE; and I spread My skirt (imputed righteousness) over thee, and covered thy nakedness, yea I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and THOU BECAME MINE! then washed I thee with water, yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee. . ." (Ezekiel 15:5­10.) Can there be any question that no high­powered "evangelist" could do any of the above for a poor and needy sinner? That Word "LIVE" spoken by the eternal Son of God, ­ the Word that was in the beginning with God, and was God­ did the begetting, or quickening to spiritual life, and that without human instrumentality! No man's feeble mutterings of
John 3:16 will do it. God alone is the saints' Heavenly Father: not a priest, or preacher, or soul­winner. They may be able to beg them with the Gospel, but they cannot beget them with the Gospel or with any other gimmick. Begetting, not begging is what a sinner needs for salvation! The text in I Peter is equally clear: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed" (such as men’s!) "But of incorruptible by the WORD of God (not of men "about" the “word of God”) which liveth and abideth for ever." Now, any reasonable man should know that the sermon preached by a preacher never "lives and abides for ever." They are most often forgotten as soon as spoken! Really, they are seldom heard through their entirety when preached. Spiritual life and salvation had best be on a better foundation than that! And it is. God's living, begetting Word, is Christ, the "eternal Logos." "But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you.” It is perfectly clear that the "word" in this verse must be different from the "Gospel" in the same verse! Otherwise it is meaningless. The Gospel of grace is the good news, or glad tidings, or the message about the "incorruptible" begetting Word "which lives and abides for ever." A Calvinist stands rather dumb­ founded when he hears a simple­minded freewiller deny the most plain texts on election and predestination, or limited atonement. "How can an otherwise intelligent creature be so blind," he wonders as he shakes his head in amazement. The Hyper­calvinists stand equally amazed, that a Neo­calvinist can be so close, and in a blink, miss this most important truth! The Hyper­calvinists strongly believe in the absolute sovereignty of the Eternal Godhead. All three subsistences in the Eternal Godhead are co­equal and One. Th137e Father is sovereign in all His work.

 He purposed, proposed in council together to unite Jesus, the son of Mary to the Eternal Godhead in a manner whereby they two became One Person, the God­Man; and simultaneously chose a body and bride for the Chosen Head, and gave these elect members to Him as His seed, which in time would be counted to Him for His generation (Psalm 22:30) and would serve Him, and for which He would suffer, bleed and die (Isaiah 53:10). The Father asked not for, nor needed any help from His creatures. The Son is equally sovereign over all His work, and that work was the full and complete salvation of His body and bride given to Him by the Father from eternity. He asked not for, nor needed any help from His creatures; and now that He has already saved them by His suffering and death, it is too late to help Him save them! Not only so, no one knows which ones are His, but the "foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knowth them that are His.” (2 Timothy 2:19.) The Holy Spirit is equally sovereign over all His work; and His work is to "quicken whom He will," and bring them all into spiritual life and experiences. These are the same as the Father elected and the Son redeemed; and the Spirit will guide them into all truth. It is in His department that ministers are called, qualified, and directed "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and the "other sheep that are not of this fold." He is to open the hearts, eyes, and ears, of the elect to be attendant upon the hearing of the Word; and to the great surprise of every reader that has followed this discussion, He is the One who selects the instruments He will use in the chosen, redeemed and now quickened sinner's, conversion! Only there will Hyper­calvinists place human instrumentality, and even that subservient to the Holy Spirit. Man is never in the driver's seat! He asked not for, nor needs any help from His creatures in bringing the elect and redeemed their covenant blessings. For the Godhead to be a simple Being, as He is, all137 three Subsistences must be equal in all their attributes.

 He is not dependent at all on His Gospel ministers; they are dependent upon Him. They are but creatures, and have no power to beget children in someone else's name and family. It is this "evil;" this persuasion of the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit; which Neo­calvinists charge against the Hyper­ calvinists! But it is the Scriptural and logical position. Christ is the Savior of sinners; not the preachers! On the doctrine of unconditional election and predestination, the Hyper­ calvinists agree with the Supralapsarian Calvinists. They both believe that the elect were chosen IN Christ before the world began as Paul repeatedly taught: "According as He hath chosen us IN HIM." (Ephesians 1:4). The emphasis is the "in Him". This distinguishes their position from those who believe that God chose His people IN Adam before the foundation of the world, or the "Sublapsarian" position. To clarify: The supralapsarian (supra ­ "above"; lapse ­ "the fall") is that without considering the elect as being in Adam, God made choice of some of them "in Christ" His First Elect. This was in eternal vital union of Christ with them. The sublapsarian (sub­ "below"; lapse ­ "the fall") position is that God foresaw Adam's fall, and then quickly elected some of his fallen race to salvation. There is, of course, a third position­ that both are true. But the Scripture favors the first view. They are repeatedly said to be viewed "IN Him: IN Christ: and "with Christ." The view that God chose Christ as Head and the elect as His body antecedent to the decree of Adam's fall is expressed by Paul in Romans 9:10­20. Without considering the works, or behavior of unborn twins, and to make it clear that God did not condition His election on any foreseen merit or goodness, God said to Rebecca that: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written,
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." This is very clear. This choice was such that all the elect stood actually in Christ in seed substance, and were represented in their federal Head, Christ, from all eternity; while all the rest stood condemned in their fallen natural head, Adam, from all eternity in God's eternal and immutable, or unchangeable decree. The statement: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," is a perfect axiom. Thoughtless Pelagians deny the force of the axiom by saying that God did not really hate Esau. He just did not love him as much as He did Jacob! This being an axiom, it would then also be true that God did not hate Jacob as much as He hated Esau! But Paul is making a point, drawing upon Biblical ground to apply the Scripture he did. To change the axiom is to defeat his argument. He quoted the prophet Malachi, who wrote: "Thus saith the Lord, I have loved you. Yet ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Malachi 1:2­3.) God's judgment on Edom was proof of His hatred of Esau. In fact, not only did God hate Esau, but the Scripture says: "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity." (Psalm 5:5.) How often one hears "evangelists" say: "God doesn't hate the sinner. He just hates his sins." That is not so at all. One cannot separate the sins from the sinner. Sinners sin because they are sinners. This text says He hates the workers of iniquity. That is as clear as it needs to be. In addition to this, God hates even the worship of apostates! He said: "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer to Me burnt offerings? and your meat offerings? I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts." (Amos 5:21­22.) For such who depart the faith, even their "praise bands," or songs, God hates!

 It is certain that it is as wrong to sing a lie as to preach or tell a lie; and even worse, to go before God with falsehoods on your tongue. "Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.” (Amos 5:23.) So much, then, of God loving Esau and everyone else in the "whole wide world." As Christ prayed, hear Him: "I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me, for they are Thine." (John 17:9.) Surely, if Christ loved everyone and "wanted" to save everyone, He would have made intercession for all mankind, for He said again, "My Father heareth Me always.” But He did not pray for them; yet He did pray for those His Father gave Him in the covenant of grace. The Hyper­calvinists are not severely censured by true supralapsarian Calvinists; but the followers of Andrew Fuller's so­called "evangelical Calvinists" (whom we refer to as "Neo­ calvinists: they are not Biblically "evangelicals.") are extremely severe. Having an inferior complex for being "apostates", their writings against the historical Hyper­calvinistic Baptists have a bitterness­ a vindictiveness ­ that borders on hatred. It is for that reason this book title is “Hyper­calvinism: . . Is It the Truth?” Consider it. Is it the truth? The early issue was relative to the purpose of Gospel preaching; but in time, the Fullerites ceased to preach the Gospel at all as they turned to “another Gospel” (2 Corinthians 11:4.) They ceased to preach what God, Father, Son and Spirit did in the work of salvation and merely exhorted their hearers to believe in Jesus ­ without presenting anything of substance for them to believe relative to Jesus. In the “battle for Gospel preaching,” (as Mr. Murray called it) the Fullerites, or the proselytizing groups lost, and have fled the field in disarray! They left their swords, (the King James Bible, or Received Text) in their haste! They are now defenseless as they labor and dispute and argue which version of the Bible is true. The world has full control of their religious societies now.

 The world pays their salaries, and they dare not preach the Gospel of the grace of God! If they did, they would quickly be unemployed! They very well know this to be true! The severity of the attacks on Hyper­calvinism dates back to the historical rise of "benevolent societies (so­called)." [In all the early Old School Baptists associational minutes, they always stated it this way: "benevolent societies (so­called)" indicating that they did not agree that these societies were really "benevolent'] Most denominations in England and the United States splintered; and all kinds of isms and schisms arose. When Fuller first set forth his heresy, there were Congregationalists (Puritans), Particular Baptists, General Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Dutch Reform, German Baptists, the newly arrived Methodists and Quakers in America, plus a few others. Within three decades of that movement, all kinds of "evangelical" religious societies came in as a flood; and all the above splintered. The two great world movement oozed up out of the Bottomless Pit simultaneously: Socialist societies, labor unions, utopians and Fullerite societies. Little by little the socialist societies kept combining until they formed the International; and finally, World Communism (Comintern). The same development was taking place in Fullerite societies. The same pattern was used by both. Splinter, multiply, unite, divide, multiply, and unite ­ ever enlarging itself; always infiltrating others, dividing, and uniting. The current attempt to unite Evangelical Calvinists with Papal Rome because the Neo­calvinists think they both now agree on the doctrine of justification is an indication of the direction of these movement yet today. The Modem Missionary Movement led to a world antichristian movement. Evangelism is the greatest
adversary of Christian doctrine; whether in the hands of Arab Moslems; Catholic Crusaders, the Inquisition or Evangelical Calvinists. None of them can stand the purity of the doctrine of Christ. It took eighteen hundred years for Christian morality to reach its zenith, and Fullerism destroyed it in less than thirty years! When the Neo­­ calvinists had achieved their end, they turned to Arminianism, and quickly to Pelagianism. They self­ destructed. The proselytizing movement was found throughout most major denominations, but the people called Baptists embraced it most greedily. John Gill, accused by many of "originating" Hyper­­ calvinism (overlooking Tobias Crisp and others), had written in his Body Of Divinity, of a spiritual reign of Christ which would commence when Rome lost its political power. The treaty ending the War of 1812 also ended Rome's political power over the nations of Europe. In 1812, a small group of Fullerites, led by Dr. Rogers and Dr. Wm. Stroughton, gained control of the Philadelphia Baptist Association. They picked it, they confessed, because it was the “oldest and best known in America.” In 1813, minutes of Baptists' associations throughout the States were collected. And the 1814 minutes of each report letters from the Baptist Board of Foreign and Domestic Missions asking for help to "evangelize the world." The Philadelphia Association had begun to support the English missionaries from the beginning, but opposed the "free offer system". Separate Baptists, Regular Baptists, United Baptists, Particular Baptists, General Baptists, Six Principle Baptists, German Baptists, and Seventh­Day Baptists were all invited to join in the effort. Many of them did; and even more did not! The Triennial Convention was formed in May, 1814, and met every three years, which gave its managers control during the off years.

 It was, in other words, a "catholic" or "umbrella" organization, made up of many different "orders" of Baptists. In 1845, this National organization split over slavery. The Southern body of Fullerite Neo­calvinists or "Missionaries" formed a National Convention in the Confederate States known as the Southern Baptist Convention. It adopted the strong Calvinistic creed of the Georgia Baptists' Association of 1792 affirming they believed in election and predestination and limited atonement. [This Abstract of Principles is the best stated and soundest of all Baptists’ Articles of Faith in America.] Outside of the national Conventions of Fullerite Baptists, many "evangelical Calvinists" organized other fellowships: American Baptist Association (ABA) , Missionary Baptist Association (MBA) , Baptist Missionary Association (BMA) , General Association of Regular Baptists (GARB), Eastern District Primitive Baptists, to mention but a few. In their origins, they had been Particular Baptists. They still cling to their Articles of Faith which are Calvinist, but today they oppose their own doctrinal statements. For some strange reason, they will not modify them; but they still print them with their annual Associational Minutes. They came, in time, to fully accept Fuller's view that "Christ’ atonement was sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe." But they left forever his other view: "That the atonement was efficient for the elect only.” With that departure, they left Neo­calvinism; briefly stopped and visited Arminianism; and soon took their leave of them and have homesteaded in the absolute freewillism of Pelagianism. For all practical purposes, Calvinism and Neo­ calvinism were now dead and abandoned among all the large bodies of proselytizing denominations. Also, today, one can no longer find anyone embracing the doctrines of Arminianism.

Pelagianism reigns supreme among the will­worshipers. But there never was a time when God has cut them all off. Every decade or so, there are a few ministers, and sometimes churches, which are brought to the truth of Free Grace. Repeatedly, a pattern can be seen. Such ministers follow one of three "outs" set before them. Some "come out from among them and be ye separate" (2 Corinthians 6:17.) Others stay in the Pelagian system as long as they can “stomach it”, only to get "thrown out." Still others, hireling ministers, merely "sell out" for their salaries and retirement funds. These tone the truth down to soup by removing the “meat” of the Gospel and sacrifice the free grace believers among them, who must go elsewhere to be fed wholesome Gospel food. The strangest thing about these Calvinists or Neo­calvinists is: instead of fighting the Pelagians, they build straw men of Hyper­calvinists to throw their darts at! As the Calminian, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, they love Arminians, but hate “Hypers.” Large numbers of the original Baptists in the United States were, and some yet are, Hyper­calvinists. They followed, and still follow, the New Testament pattern in true evangelism. (Proselytizing and evangelizing are not the same thing! Modern "evangelism" is a misnomer ­ it is blatant "proselytizing.”) The Hyper­calvinists never utilized man­made institutions to improve on God's Word. They never turned to the world of the ungodly for financial support or for church members. Finding no "free offer" ­ not even once ­ in the Scripture, they give none. To them, the true Gospel is a proclamation, or publication of ''glad­tidings” to quickened, or regenerated sinners. It is a message of what great things Christ accomplished in their behalf by His sufferings for their sins. They know that God never "tries" to save anyone, let alone every one! They worship a
God that "wants" nothing, for He has all things. Man "wants," God "will." Hyper­calvinists do not "offer" “the children's bread to dogs” or to strangers to the covenant; nor do they promise the children’s inheritance to those outside the family of God. They are careful to obey the Lord to ''not cast their pearls before swine." They do not "compass sea and land to make one137 proselyte" for the Lord told His disciples that when this was done, the convert was "twofold more the child of hell." (Matthew 23:15). This is far more serious than Neo­calvinists consider! Such practices fill religious societies with dead hypocrites; it gives the “church”(if it was such) to the world of the ungodly. Hyper­calvinists welcome all that God in His sovereign Providence delivers to their assemblies, and preach indiscriminately to all. Only the Lord can know "them that are His." They understand that the "Gospel is the savor of life unto life to them that believe; and a savor of death unto death to them that perish;" and for this cause ministers are to preach the same message to all their hearers alike; and leave the results where they are: in the hand of Almighty God! God is certainly capable of applying knowledge of salvation to those that Christ saved. The most fundamental difference between Hyper­­ calvinists and the Neo­calvinists is the Hyper­calvinists believe that when Christ came under the law, He did in fact and in deed redeem all that the Father gave Him. He fulfilled the demands of the law and imputed that righteousness to those for whom He died. When He died, He did in fact legally save all His people. When He had completed His Father's will for the elects' salvation, He ascended to His Father's throne. There He now is their very High Priest, making intercession for them day and night.

From there on the throne of His glory, He sends the blessed Spirit to quicken those He redeemed and saved; and the Holy Spirit directs all affairs to that great end, and to the glory of God. This includes calling, qualifying, and directing His ministers to those He quickens, for their comfort, edification, conversion, and instruction. He guides them into all truth experimentally. If one wishes to know what Hyper­ calvinists believe, it is best to ask a Hyper­calvinist, rather than their enemies. In closing this chapter, we raise the question included in the title of this book: "Hyper­calvinism: Is it the truth?" It is of little or no consequence if the above is called "Calvinism," "Hyper­calvinism," "Hard­shellism," "Christianity," or just "Rubbish." The real question is "What say the Scriptures?" What is not true in the above chapter? What is true in the above? If it is true, that, and only that, is important. Does it ascribe all of the glory of salvation to God alone, and none to man? If it can pass this test, then call it whatever one likes, but rejoice in it. For it is a sweet and precious truth to all such who have known the power and dominion of sin, and the sovereign love and deliverance of Christ by free grace only. May God's grace be magnified!

                                                                         CHAPTER FOUR
                                                 HYPER­CALVINISM AND EVANGELISM

 Many individuals, when they are confronted with an “anti­ missionary” treatise, assume that Hyper­calvinists are averse to the preaching of the Gospel, and they often say so. One should consider, that prior to 1782, among the people called “Baptists,” there were no mission societies of any kind. “Missionism” was totally unknown among Baptists and most Protestants.

Catholics, Moravians, and here and there some Congregationalists were beginning to dabble in that form of propagating the Gospel. But in general, the preaching of the Gospel was directed solely by the Holy Spirit directing His called­ministers to go wheresoever He was pleased to send them. And He sent them frequently far away from home, civil society, and seemingly in an unorganized haphazard manner. But the Gospel was preached, it spread, was believed on in the world, and churches spread throughout the earth, and in America, all along the colonial States and the opening frontiers to the West. Aspundh’s Register for the Baptists, of 1792, reported over 12,000 converts in a very brief period of time, and this was twenty years before a mission society was formed in America. Among the Congregationists, David Branard’s work among the Native Americans (Indians) is today called “mission work,” but in his day, he was merely doing what all ministers were also doing: Preaching the Gospel where God led him to! No big deal then! How insidious that humanist principle has become! Pelagian freewillers often claim that "Hyper­calvinists" or "Hardshells" do not "believe in preaching of the Gospel." Can one believe that our moderns make claim that Gilbert Beebe did not, when in fact he devoted his entire life preaching it in its clarity and purity? We find him in New York, in Ontario, Canada, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Kentucky frequently on the frontier, all over Virginia and North Carolina, in Georgia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and yet his enemies are so rash as to claim he not only was not preaching the Gospel, but did not believe in doing it! So too, did men as John P. Johnson, Thomas P. Dudley, Samuel Trott, R. C. Leachman, William Smoot, Gabriel Conkling, Philander Hartman, and a host of others too numerous to cite. How bold are the enemies of Truth! If judged on the Biblical definition of the "Gospel," as a
of Truth! If judged on the Biblical definition of the "Gospel," as a "message of glad tidings," the Hyper­calvinists come closer to the mark than any other group. Those who view the Gospel as a "free offer," usually spend all their time "freely offerings," and seldom bother to spend the time necessary to preach "the Gospel." Neo­calvinists often write that "Hyper­calvinists do not believe in preaching the Gospel to sinners." If the Gospel is "glad tidings" of what Christ has done for sinners by His sacrificial life and death, then they stand almost alone to­day in preaching it to anyone! Both the Pelagians and Neo­calvinists present their so­called Gospel as nothing more than a glorified plan of salvation! And, it is often presented as a very ineffectual plan, which achieves nothing without the consent of the dead and lifeless sinner. Far too often, the Neo­calvinists present a watered­down version of "Calvinism" coupled with the "free offer system to reprobates" which Andrew Fuller borrowed from Rome. The definition of "evangelism" as used by Neo­calvinists and Pelagians, and illustrated by their modern practices, is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. The sad thing is, they really do not care that it is unscriptural. This type of so­ called "evangelism" is nothing less than Judaic proselytizing, except on a more exaggerated scale. It is "the acts of making converts, usually from one religion to another". The false premise for these proselytizing activities of the "Evangelicals" will be examined more carefully and contrasted with the New Testament methods as used by the disciples and present­day Hyper­calvinists in later chapters. Of all the false charges and misrepresentations cast against Hyper­calvinists, the most common charge is that "Hyper­calvinists are “anti­evangelical." There is not a single article available in print on the subject of Hyper­calvinism that honestly and correctly presents their views.

In fact, their views2are most often presented by individuals who have never attended a Hyper­calvinist meeting; never explored the subject with them; nor ever even attempted to be unbiased in their presentation. One can never find a Neo­calvinist who makes any attempt to explain why Hyper­calvinists object to the modern method of proselytizing. They assume that only modern "Evangelicals" can be correct in the novel methods and principles of proselytizing as it has evolved from Andrew Fuller's somewhat primitive introduction in 1780's.
 Neo­ Calvinists are vain deceivers, simply put! The reader should not consider this next statement to be the central thrust of this chapter, but we will insert it here. The very fact that the words "missions" and "missionary," are terms derived from the Latin, rather than the Greek text, is sufficient for a Protestant or a Baptist to reject it. Rome developed missionism, often at the point of the sword! The Greek word "apostolos," is a delegate, an ambassador, a commissioner, a messenger, or one sent forth. "Apostello" is to set apart, send out, set (at liberty). In none of these meanings can one find a principle for proselytizing. The missionism or "evangelism" of Rome was very Machiavellian. ''The end justified the means." By bribery, deceit, the sword, the rack, crusades, rewards, infant sprinkling, indulgences, interdicts, and superstitious sacraments, they made (literally) converts. So­called "Evangelicals" today are just as Machiavellian, with violence excepted, perhaps. Embarrassment, ice cream for child "decisionism", youth crusades, scare tactics, secular type entertainment, emotional appeals to the flesh, and gimmicks galore are used. Why object to these? They are directed to the carnal nature of people; or the "outer man," ­ the flesh. They cannot affect salvation! Simply put, modern "evangelism" is not Biblical! It is not evangelism, whatever else it might be called.

It is based entirely on a very false and deceitful premise: that decisionism produces conversion, and that conversion produces regeneration. In short, decisionism produces salvation! It considers these unwarranted methods useful, or even necessary, for one "to get saved" who otherwise would go to hell, in spite of Christ's precious atonement and eternal redemption of His people! So, in every way it is norally and Biblically wrong! Its purpose is wrong, for it is used "to save souls," when all things are to be done "to the praise of the glory of His grace." (Eph. 1:6) The methods developed and refined are wrong. "Who hast required this of thy hand?" can be asked of them in the Judgment. The methods are carnal and unscriptural. The effects are wrong: they are intended to "convert" a decider­for­Christ and thus regenerate him. It only deceives him into believing he is saved and safe because he did something, rather than giving the glory to Christ. It is a system of delusion called “salvation” by works, which is fully condemned by Christianity. It is new and in a system of religion based upon the immutable counsel of God two thousand years old, anything new has to be wrong! That is, it is unauthorized by the canon of Scripture. It is not sufficient to merely be against an error. It is best to present a better view and one fully sustained by the New Testament model. It is the view Hyper­calvinists believe to be warranted by the Word of God, and which was the method used prior to Andrew Fuller and that novel system. Since both Pelagians and Neo­calvinists have considered themselves well informed on Hyper­calvinists' views; and since they have convinced the public that Hyper­calvinists do not believe in preaching the Gospel "to sinners," it is better that a Hyper­ calvinist speak to the point; and prove that the older and better way is yet true evangelism ­ not proselytizing
There were no mission institutions among Baptists prior to the Haystack Kid's Prayer­meeting in Kittering, England in 1792! These over­zealous disciples of Andrew Fuller's novelty pressed so hard for sending the Arminian "Gospel" to the East, that Andrew Fuller, William Carey, and others formed the first mission society among Baptists on October 2, 1792. Any clear­ thinking reader should realize that some other method of Gospel publication must have been in place prior to Oct. 2, 1792! William Carey and his fellows are said to have "prayed down a spirit of missionism from heaven." Where was that "spirit" before the Haystack meetings? We are exhorted to "try the spirits," and we are taught that "by their fruits ye shall know them.” This modern religion's principles cannot stand that examination. This is eighteen hundred years too late to be considered Scriptural! When these "Missionaries" arrived in India, guess what? There were Christians there to meet them! One seldom hears of that! They had the Gospel of Thomas long before the Missionaries arrived! Two years earlier, John Aspund had printed his Register ministers of Christ, or may we say, If they are ministers of Christ, their calling is to preach the Gospel ... not other worthless things! Too few are now preaching the Gospel, so there is plenty of elbow room for one who is burdened to preach it! It may sound terrible, but getting someone to "make a decision" has nothing to do with preaching the Gospel; or for acquiring salvation. I coach my pet cat into making decisions every day: I am not stupid enough to think I saved a cat’s soul! The time would be better used preaching the Gospel. There is not one single example in the New Testament of one making a decision; nor one giving a "free offer". If such had anything to do with salvation, Christ, the apostles and others would have been doing it! So the title of this chapter: "Hyper­calvinists and Evangelism" is an appropriate one. If it had been titled "Pelagian and Evangelism" it would not; for those ministers harping on "evangelism" are not practicing it themselves!
They have a proselytizing system which they wish to pawn off as "evangelism." If a Neo­calvinist is not preaching the good news that Christ has saved His people, that minister is not preaching the Gospel. Hyper­calvinists are preaching it; and they are preaching it "to sinners." They are most likely the only group that is! The so­called "Evangelicals" have one primary goal: make a name for themselves by their "soul­winning" skills. If a minister cannot get new members during a so­called "revival," the religious society which employed him has wasted theirOf The Baptist Denomination In North America, which listed all Baptist churches in the new Republic; the dates of their constitution, number and names of their ministers, number of members, the State, territory, and county of their location, and, most significantly, what doctrinal persuasion they each held. In 1790, all States in the Union had numerous churches; and doctrinally, ninety­three percent stated that they were of the Calvinists' persuasion! Only seven percent were Arminians, and NONE WERE PELAGIAN! Not one of thee churches were established by a "missionary"; none had ever been a "mission station," and ALL had been planted by individuals gathering together to worship or by itinerate or established ministers! In 1790, ALL ministers of the Gospel felt bound by their calling to preach the Gospel freely to others than their own churches. Baptists' churches expected this of their ministers.

This is evident by their ordination charge "to preach wheresoever God in His providence cast your lot." As it is written in the Book of Acts, "They went everywhere preaching the Word." The very fact that the overwhelming number of ministers and churches were Calvinists, clearly demonstrates that the Gospel was being preached to sinners by these Hyper­calvinist ministers. [Hyper­calvinists, in the sense that (1) they were "Baptists," going beyond John Calvin; and (2) they did not utilize what is today termed "missionism." And (3) they believed in Holy Spirit regeneration of all the elect for whom Christ died! They certainly were not preaching freewillism as a “Gospel”!] The only form of the word for "evangelist" used in the Scripture is "euaggelistes," which means "a preacher of the Gospel." It is derived from the Greek word "euaggelizo," which means "to announce good news." Itinerate preaching by Hyper­ calvinists is exactly this, and this only! It is the announcement, or publication of salvation by Christ's atoning death. That, dear Reader, is the Gospel­ not "a free offer." It is a finished salvation for the chief of sinners. And it is preached by Hyper­ calvinists to sinners. Notice here what is not "evangelism": proselytizing, pressing for decisions, indoctrinating, giving "free offers," "bribing deciders­for­Christ", "raising your hands if you are a Christian," and gimmicks, more gimmicks, and gimmicks galore! None of these things can be "announcing good news;" none are "preaching the Gospel." We will illustrate this from a personal point. When this writer was seeking those who believed the truth of free grace, he visited a great number of churches that claimed to believe in election and a limited predestination.

Most often, knowing the visitor was a Pelagian Southern Baptist, they preached what the Gospel was not, and what it could not do. The writer discovered early that one could spend a life­time preaching what the Gospel is not; and never get around to preaching what it is! He wanted to hear the Gospel preached! As
money. They want more members, not necessarily more ''believers.'' It would be alright if they were their kind of "believers," but if they were free grace believers, they would be trouble­makers. Members are more likely to pay "tithes" and/or give "offerings." These revenues are necessary for the religious­ business enterprise. It cannot continue without these. The most popular "evangelists", or proselyters, are those with the most successful skills in decision­making; and they are in high demand. Some do not even bother to serve churches, but make their living hawking Jesus. Basically, then, modern so­called "evangelism" is an economic device, rather than a spiritual one. Spirituality has nothing to do with its motivation. The ministers and "evangelists" are hirelings; and as Jesus declared, they “care not for the sheep.” They weep and mourn publicly over the "lost world," but never much over the “sheep.” Whatever this religion is, it is a far cry from Biblical Christianity. It is alien to "the faith of God's elect," (Titus 1:1.), and obnoxious to any called saint. The Pagans of old at least feared their gods and demons, believing that they were all powerful. But these so­ called "evangelists" today, following their missionary craft, have sunk to the lowest levels of deceit. "God," they say, "can't save you unless you let Him." How can this benefit, or be of any comfort, to a sensible sinner? If Christ failed on the staros (tree); if He can't now save you without you "letting Him;" if He can't work repentance in one; nor give him faith; if He is now powerless to save him; how, pray tell, can one believe He can come through on the resurrection day? Perhaps the trumpet shall sound, and no one arises! What kind of comfort can one have in a helpless god? The one only true and living God is worthy to be praised. But this god, the "another Jesus" of whom Paul wrote, (II Corinthians 11:4) is depicted with such inherent weakness and flawed attributes that he is unworthy to be praised. Rather, he is to be pitied.

Perhaps that is why those who decide for him do not give him much credit or praise. The best he gets out of them is the interrupting phrase: "Praise the Lord!" during a sermon, which of course, is not praising anyone. To truly praise the Lord, one must set forth the gracious attributes and works of one who is God. Not merely saying the phrase, "Praise God!" but actually doing it. Only Calvinists and Hyper­calvinists can truly praise God, and this they do faithfully by "telling of His wondrous works," and not by trying to add someone's name to the Lamb's Book of Life. Our God does not, as theirs, have to wait to see who are His! Their names are already written in the Book of Life and have been from eternity! This eternality of Eternal Election is the doctrine of eternal vital union of the elect IN Christ their Head and they as His body – the Church. Jesus told His disciples not to rejoice because the devils were subject to them, but because “their names are written in heaven." How long had they been recorded there? "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the dragon), whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 12:8). If one replies that the text merely says that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, let it be noted that "the beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the137 earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world ." (Revelation17:8). It is as a man on television said recently: "Preachers are the laziest bunch of people around." This is their supposed profession, and their ignorance is appalling. One thing is certain from the Scriptures: If one's name is not already written in the Book of Life, that person is left out of the covenant of grace. Going down an aisle will not now put it there. It is far too late for that now! In a small twon 79in this country all social functions in schools, hospitals, sports, etc., are dominated by one collection of Evangelical religious institutions. Many hold doctoral degrees and can be assumed intelligent. When one enters the hospitsal there, they will shortly be given a small pamphlet in which is a paragraph refered to as a “Prayer.”

The paragraph is drawn from no Biblical passage: it is merely a paragraph written by some member of this Evangelical enterprise. The pamphlet tells the poor sick and perhaps scared and worried patient that if he will merely read that paragraph or prayer, he will be saved and go to heaven, for once he is saved he can never be lost again. We find that pamphlet by the bedsides and in the bathrooms and in the entrance of the United States Post Office. This form of “Evangelism” is no kin to Christianity at all: It is purely superstition. Practices such as mentioned above are considered by modern Pelagians and Neo­calvinists as "evangelism." They purport to be instrumental in saving souls. The Hyper­ calvinists challenge this assumption on two levels: First, who can say these souls are the ones numbered with those that Christ redeemed? They may only have been "converted" and became "two­fold more a child of hell than they were," as Jesus said. Many of them may well be deluded into "believing a lie that they all might be damned," as Paul wrote (II Thessalonians 2:11). Second, where is there any Biblical justification for such carnal entertainment for "evangelism"? Is this activity what Paul meant when he told Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist"? Hardly! It is rooted and grounded in the natural depravity of man, and nowhere sanctioned in the Word of God. But, the Neo­calvinists warn: "Watch out for those Hyper­calvinists! They will destroy this 'evangelical zeal'. It may not be Scriptural, but who cares? “If only one soul is saved thereby, it is worth it." Of course, not "one soul" can be proved to have
been saved by it! It is much easier to prove thaty multitudes are deluded by it, “that they all might be damned who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” And if this can be said by Paul, what must we say for those that do not “hold the Truth” at all? Prior to the organization of the first mission society by Particular Baptists, itinerate ministers covered the colonial and early frontiers in America preaching the Gospel of the free grace of God, and depending upon the Holy Spirit's preparatory work going before them. It is a pity so few today are familiar with the historical period called the Great Awakening (1720 – 1760) No one can read Isaac Backus' history of New England Baptists, covering especially the period of the Great Awakening, and not fully grasp the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit without the instrumentality of preachers in communities all over the frontier where the Gospel was NOT preached. Testimony after testimony are given by both individuals in isolated areas, and whole communities being regenerated and converted; and calls went out all over the frontier for the help of ministers to organize them into churches. That dear reader is our greatest heritage outside of the work of Christ. It should not be faulted, or denied, merely to prove later innovations in doctrine and practice. After the Peace of 1760, the Western Frontiers were opened to settlement. By 1800 there was more Hyper­calvinistic Gospel ministers in Kentucky than in the older states of Virginia, Pennsylvanis, Delaware and North Caroline combined! Yet the Fullerite Evangelicals were hiring preachers to infiltrate these churches and lead them into the “benevolent societies” and “mission systems.” Today, the only Gospel preachers in Kentucky are Hyper­calvinists ministers!

 To look at only a few documentary proofs: "4. The letters and minutes of the Association at Warren, Charleston, Ketockton, and Georgia, containing agreeable accounts, were read. Their numbers are, Warren, 3,451 (members), Charleston, 966, Ketockton, 935, Georgia, 223." (Philadelphia Baptist Association Minutes, 1786, Page 217.) Now watch the following, keeping that date in mind: "In a postscript, Brother (John) Leland informs us, that about twelve hundred persons have been baptized, and added to their churches, within about two years." and, "5. A letter from the Warren Association was read, and their messenger, Brother (James) Manning, entered into a particular detail of the progress of the Gospel in various parts of New England. Brother William Wood, of Kentucky, did the same with respect to the interest of religion in that place: and some of the brethren present gave us the like intelligence from Redstone Association and Georgia Association. By all which, we were made to rejoice in the prosperity of Zion throughout this continent: and encouraged to believe that the purity of the doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel of Christ, are prevailing more and more." (Philadelphia Baptist Association Minute, 1787, page 227, 228.) May the writer ask, What is going on here that so thrilled the hearts of these pre­Fuller Particular Baptists? Is this the work of missionaries, evangelists, or that of the Holy Spirit? The reader knows the answer. Let us look at the results of His work: Above, the Georgia Association in 1786 had only 223 members, but in 1790­ only four years later, it had 2700! The Philadelphia had 2755, and grew to 4100, in the same period of time. That is in four years! The Philadelphia Association published a chart of all her corresponding associations in North America in 1790, and gave the total membership at 60,970! (Ibid. page 269.) And still, no missionaries and evangelists on the scene! Only "Hyper­calvinistic" method of itinerate propagating the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God!

We find, the following in the 1800 Minute: "18. Whereas, the church of Philadelphia have presented a query, on the propriety of forming a plan for establishing a missionary society. This Association, taking the matter into consideration, think it would be most advisable to invite the General Committee of Virginia and different Associations on the continent, to unite with us in laying a plan for forming a missionary society, and establishing a fund for its support, and for employing missionaries among the natives of our continent." (Philadelphia Association, Minutes, 1800, page 350.) The following year, the former custom of writing a circular letter on the Confession Of Faith was set aside, and the first missionary circular letter in America was written. (ibid.1801.) In 1803, their own minutes print the total number of Baptists in Kentucky to be 12,072. (Ibid. page 372.) Again, in the absence of these "evangelists" and "missionaries," how did they grow so rapidly? Hyper­ calvinists do not believe in evangelism! How in the name of common sense can any Fullerite explain such success? To better this, at the Great Baptists' Separation, the Old School Hyper­calvinistic Baptists numbered 65,000! This figure only includes those who reported their numbers. Many Old School Baptists do not believe in "numbering Israel" as David did, for His people belong to Him, and He was the one who paid the ransom for them. Yet they out numbered the Missionaries. It is the author's candid observation that with such a great and heavenly sent Holy Spirit revival, which laid the very foundation of true Christianity in this new "Nation under God," the Fullerites committed a great offense against the blessed Lord of Glory. They designed, and attempted to carry out a plan to subvert His glorious work to their own control and direction, and then they took the credit for all the souls He saved and called to themselves. And they do it to this very day. They boast in their numbers, as if that is important. They cannot
admit that Hyper­calvinists merely proclaiming the Gospel of Christ is sufficient, or that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in His own work of calling the elect to a knowledge of Christ; nor able or willing to send His own called and qualified ministers to preach His Word to the lost. In return for this offense, it seems to this writer that God "gave them over" to their own will. He withdrew the very Gospel they thought could be used to manufacture members for themselves from among His people and raise money, wealth and power to themselves, and He quickly gave them up to spiritual blindness. That Pelagians are in thick darkness all Christians realize, and Calvinists know this took place; but the Fullerites that were swept into Pelagianism have no understanding of their departure. In providence, the historical documents which demonstrate this "down grade" are too often buried in the Library basements of Fullerite Institutions, and hid from the public’s view. Too few are interested in extended historical research using primary resource materials to verify their opinions or understanding, but rely exclusively on biased Fullerite Baptists' historians. (Incidentally, while Baptists' universities often restrict their archives, the State Archives are always very cooperative and helpful. This is particularly true of the Indiana Historical Archives in Indianapolis. To them, and those Southern Baptists’ and Primitive Baptists’ libraries willing to allow the perusal of their documents, we are grateful for many helpful hours in those old documents.) It is unreasonable to charge "Hyper­calvinists" with being "non­evangelical," if by the term "non­evangelical" one means they refuse to preach the Gospel of free and sovereign grace wherever the Lord cast their lot. They are a tireless and faithful People in giving themselves up to the Lord and one another in the propagation of the Gospel of free grace.

Their ministers travel hundreds of miles to serve churches and preach the Gospel with financial reward. None have a salary from religious institutions. Their supposed "wickedness" is that they refuse to join extra­church organizations and submitting their gifts to the control and direction of puny men. These puny men show no evidence of any experimental knowledge of grace within their souls; but wish to direct preachers to their worldly constitutes. Our forefathers, prior to Andrew Fuller and his efficiency/sufficiency oxymoron, all evangelized exactly as one finds in the New Testament. Pastors serving churches, would leave the church in the care of an associate or a deacon, and travel throughout other regions preaching the Gospel of a finished salvation in Christ Jesus. They, as a rule, felt it a part of their calling to do so; and their church members expected them so to do. Their love for the souls of God's elect motivated their itinerate journeys, and God attended them with great success ... far more so than by these modern methods. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, Amen." We note, that the Great Commission above, does NOT say, “Send ye therefore . . . . .” Matthews 28:19­20.


                                                                              CHAPTER FIVE
                                       A FINISHED, COMPLETED SALVATION

Many references have been made in the previous chapters to a full, completed, and finished (or accomplished) salvation. The oldest group of Hyper­calvinists in North America ­ the Predestinarian Old School Baptists ­ has stood unwavering on this premise from the beginning of Baptists arrival on these shores during the early colonial period. This premise has been the fundamental basis of their constant opposition to all the innovations in religious doctrines and practices introduced by the followers of Andrew Fuller, first, and other Means Baptists since. To them, the "Gospel" includes the full doctrinal and experimental aspects of Christianity ­ not merely a sinner's accountability to God. But the freewill heresies which flowed swiftly from Fuller's "sufficiency of Christ's death for all mankind," and all the innovations which accompanied that false premise is fundamental to the unscriptural foundation of modern "evangelical's" gutting the Gospel of its power. If Christ achieved all that the New Testament declares that He did, there remains nothing more to be done than the calling of the chosen elect to life and immortality; and this is done by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. (This work includes the calling, qualifying, and directing of the Gospel ministry, as well as His direct work in regeneration, conversion, and the elects' travel.) It is the message of the full Gospel, and the work of God­called and directed ministers to proclaim this completed salvation to those (1) that He has preserved in Christ’s seed substance, eternally elected, particularly redeemed, ransomed, atoned, reconciled, and saved, and (2) to declare this to all men “wheresoever God sends them” for the pronouncement of the just condemnation of the wicked. “Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil; neither will they come to the light lest their deeds be made manifest.” This chapter is devoted to this most fundamental foundation of the historic Christian faith. It is now almost uniquely the doctrine of Hyper
calvinism. When Charles Spurgeon wrote that "Salvation is all of grace, which means, free, gratis, for nothing," he still had reservations that something else was necessary for the sinner to do to help God finish what Christ had begun, but had failed to accomplish. Or, as he wrote: "It is not my intent to make any requirement at your hands; but I come in God's name,137 to bring you a free gift, which it shall be to your present and eternal joy to receive." (At least he did not say "accept"!) Little did he know, it seems, that Christ had already brought that free gift" ­ Himself. But Mr. Spurgeon was not really quite honest with his reader. He did set a requirement on his reader "to receive it," by which he and his present­day Neo­calvinists mean, to "accept it." To make a contrast between what the Neo­calvinists and the Hyper­calvinists believe respecting salvation by "free grace," the writer will draw upon a personal experience from his long­passed youth: Two young ministers in 1954, left the Bowen Baptist Association in southwest Georgia, and entered Mercer University at Macon, Georgia, a sectarian Baptist school. At the time, Mercer was an ultra­liberal Missionary Baptist university (SBC). It tolerated the teaching that Jesus was the bastard son of a German soldier stationed near Nazareth; that the New Testament, as Dr. McMannus said, was composed of forged documents; and that the early Christians copied the Egyptians in teaching a resurrection of the dead. Under pressure from the Registrar and Dean of Men, the Calvinist student was forced to drop out, thereafter entering a secular educational program. The other student graduated from Mercer and entered Crosier Theological Seminary (Rochester) in New York. Years later the two met again in Tallahassee, Florida. In the doctrinal discussion

 that followed, in many things they seemed in close proximity. They both believed in an election of grace. Both believed in predestination, but one was "absolute" and the other "limited" – according to the seminar graduate, just some major events were predetermined. They believed that Christ ransomed the elect; that He died for the "sheep," and the sheep would all ultimately be saved and enter heaven and immortal glory. But, said the Crosier graduate, they have to "let" God save them. "You just said that He had redeemed them all," said the Calvinist. "He did," the Crosier graduate said, "but they will not be saved unless they believe, and they can't believe unless they hear, and they can't hear unless someone preaches the Gospel to them." This writer could never grasp what kind of logic this was, until years later when he read Andrew Fuller. According to that position, all that Christ actually did was to put all mankind into a "savable state;" but He actually saved no one at all! He just delegated that work to preachers to do for Him since He was to be crucified and could not complete His mission! The Bible nowhere sustains such a view. According to the doctor, all this work of Christ was merely a glorious "plan of salvation." To him, it was an impeccable plan, and no one should neglect such a glorious "offer" of salvation. But it was left completely up to preachers and sinners to make it effectual. He could not grasp the reality that Christ is the Savior of sinners! It is strange that those who first began to teach that the blood of Christ "was sufficient for the whole world, but efficient for the elect only" have now arrived at the logical position that the best possible "plan of salvation" devised by infinite Wisdom, Almighty power, immutable counsel, and eternal love is insufficient to save anyone! "A little leaven leaventh the whole lump"! No wonder one sometimes can see bumper stickers on cars that read: "Pity God!" or "Give God a chance."
When our blessed Lord was on the holy mount with three of His disciples, they saw Him transfigured, and found Him talking to Moses, representing the law, and Elias, representing the prophets, and overheard them speaking "Of His decease which He should ACCOMPLISH at Jerusalem" ­ thus, an accomplished work, finished and completed was there discussed. Specifically, what was it that our Lord was to accomplish at Jerusalem by His decease? One thing is certain, whatever it was, it was done then and at JERUSALEM and By Him ­ nowhere else nor at any other place, or by any one else is meant. This is confirmed by the Scripture, for it is recorded of Him, "all things now being accomplished that the Scripture might be FULFILLED, He saith, ''I thirst." That was spoken on the Cross. Reflect, dear reader, upon this passage. Is this really true? How can these Scriptures and these events fit a salvation not yet accomplished at some future day some two thousand years later IF one walked down an aisle and took a preacher by his hand? It is certain that one of three positions is true: either the Hyper­calvinists are correct receiving these Scriptures "as written," or they are wrong, and all other religions correct in denying them; or both could be wrong. But they cannot both be right! So which is it? Did He succeed or did He fail? Our Lord specifically stated what His work was, and what the successful accomplishment would be. "ALL that the Father GIVETH ME shall come to Me and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but THE WILL of HIM THAT SENT ME." Is that not clear enough? What, then, was this “will of His Father”? “And this is the Father's WILL which hath sent Me, that of ALL which He hath GIVEN ME I should lose NOTHING" (John 6: 37,38.) Before completing that verse, look at this portion. He came to

do the will of His Father. The question here is: Did He do it, or did He fail? Isn't that a fair question to be drawn from this text so for? And, what is your answer? "Yes," or "No," or "but ... " Andrew Fuller and company does not know what the Father's will was for His Son's suffering and death. But what was His will? "That I should lose nothing, but raise it up the last day." (John 6:36­40.) What is this we hear from all quarters today? "The world is perishing! Help us save them! God loves them all, Christ died for them all, but you must do your part or they will all go to hell, and their blood will be upon your hands!” What is it that you can do to help? Why of course – give them money. But they will not be that honest. Instead, you can give to us the money to give to the Lord. You best beware of scams. Everyone and his brother these days are after your pocket book, and so­ called preachers are not behind the lot! If they are after your money, it is certain they are a Balaamite – a preacher for heir. Is that consistent with the above Scripture? Is there anything in that passage that couples the success of our Lord’s propitiation to the collection of tithes and offerings? Isn’t two thousand years too late to collect money to “help the Lord” save His people? Does the text plead for finanicial help or evangelistic fervor to save His people from their sins? Hardly! Hyper­calvinists believe exactly what these Scriptures teach. He "should raise it up again at the last day.” (John 6:37­39.) The preceding verse reads: ''Ye also have seen Me, and believed not" So our Lord came into this world for a purpose. He went to Calvary to accomplish that purpose and when that purpose was accomplished, He said, "I thirst ," and after the Scripture was fulfilled, He said: "It IS FINISHED ." Again, dear reader, is this true? If it is "finished," can anyone tell us what is left to be done?

After He declared that will of His Father was accomplished, He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit" following which "He gave up the Ghost." That is a finished, accomplished and completed salvation. That is what the Scriptures teach. All that Christ came to do, He did!. ''He shall save His people from their sins;" (Matthew 1:23.) And He did! Not one single jot or tittle necessary for the elect's salvation was left incomplete, or unaccomplished. Salvation is fully and completely “of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9.) If it were not so, of what comfort could it be for a totally depraved and spiritually helpless, yet quickened sinner? It is this: a perfect and completed salvation, which IS the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One believing it, or not believing it, cannot change the fact. It is a fact of history. It is an historical event which will never be repeated. All for whom Christ died shall ''be raised up in the last day" to everlasting happiness; all others will not, cannot, and desire not to be saved "from sin.” The writer is aware of the thoughts of those who believe they should proselyte all man­ kind: "Are you saying that the elect will be saved even if they never hear the gospel?" That is a legitimate question. We answer: "All the elect are already legally or judicially saved, and how they are saved is the Gospel." Will they all then hear the Gospel? All that God is pleased to save will at some point "hear the Gospel" as taught above – not necessarily that so­ called “gospel” of decisional salvation. Decisional salvation is all in man’s hands, and man has a good reputation of failures! It may be the elect will hear the Gospel as did Abraham, or the thief on the cross, or infants in Bethlehem. But we highly question whether very much "Gospel” is being preached today by modern­day professional evangelicals. If such are preaching the Gospel, they need to return home and start here all over again. The likelihood that they are preaching it overseas is questionable, seeing what they are exposed to at home! Precious little is being preached in the United States. None of us have any objection to ministers going forth and preaching the Gospel anywhere in the world. We reject the anti-­Christia
finished, accomplished and completed salvation. That is what the Scriptures teach. All that Christ came to do, He did!. ''He shall save His people from their sins;" (Matthew 1:23.) And He did! Not one single jot or tittle necessary for the elect's salvation was left incomplete, or unaccomplished. Salvation is fully and completely “of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9.) If it were not so, of what comfort could it be for a totally depraved and spiritually helpless, yet quickened sinner? It is this: a perfect and completed salvation, which IS the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One believing it, or not believing it, cannot change the fact. It is a fact of history. It is an historical event which will never be repeated. All for whom Christ died shall ''be raised up in the last day" to everlasting happiness; all others will not, cannot, and desire not to be saved "from sin.” The writer is aware of the thoughts of those who believe they should proselyte all man­ kind: "Are you saying that the elect will be saved even if they never hear the gospel?" That is a legitimate question. We answer: "All the elect are already legally or judicially saved, and how they are saved is the Gospel." Will they all then hear the Gospel? All that God is pleased to save will at some point "hear the Gospel" as taught above – not necessarily that so­ called “gospel” of decisional salvation. Decisional salvation is all in man’s hands, and man has a good reputation of failures! It may be the elect will hear the Gospel as did Abraham, or the thief on the cross, or infants in Bethlehem. But we highly question whether very much "Gospel” is being preached today by modern­day professional evangelicals. If such are preaching the Gospel, they need to return home and start here all over again. The likelihood that they are preaching it overseas is questionable, seeing what they are exposed to at home! Precious little is being preached in the United States. None of us have any objection to ministers going forth and preaching the Gospel anywhere in the world.

We reject the anti­Christian1organizations directing ministries “to save” those Christ has already saved. (See Appendix B: ~ Black Rock Address, l832..) As we enter into those various things that Christ did for His people, the reader will often think: "But what about faith? Are we justified by grace through faith”? In brief, the answer is "Yes." But the understanding of what that "faith" is may be very different from what other religions present. Just to illustrate in passing: One may walk down an aisle, give his hand to a preacher, be baptized, and often thereafter declare that he "knows he is saved and heaven­bound!" He will call that "faith." A Hyper­calvinist will express his religious experience: "I have a hope in Christ." When asked, "Are you saved?" Almost to the man or woman, they will reply: "I have a hope that I am." The Scripture says: "We are saved by hope: but hope that is SEEN is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." (Rom. 8:25­25.) Such a man or woman is by necessity made to walk by faith; whereas the one who "knows he is saved and heaven­bound" based upon his decisionism is not walking by faith, but by a "know­so­salvation" which might very well be based upon what he did for himself. If such is the case, then his "faith" is nothing more than a "false hope." Seldom, if ever, do modern preachers even mention this "fruit of the Spirit." They will talk endlessly about "faith," and "love", but "being without hope" they can't very well preach upon it, now, can they? What most refer to as "faith" is at best called "moral suasion." It is walking by sight; not by faith. Here is Charles H. Spurgeon on the subject of "faith." Watch it closely. "Faith is chosen again, because it touches the springs of action." (This isn't true.) "I wonder whether I shall be wrong if I say that we never do anything except through faith of some sort.

 If I walk across my study it is because I believe my legs will carry me." (We doubt he gave it a thought!) "A man eats because he believes in the necessity of food;" (Again, I doubt many give it such a thought,) he goes to business because he believes in the value of money; he accepts a check because he believes that the bank will honor it. Columbus discovered America because he believed that there was another continent (sic) beyond the ocean; and the Pilgrim fathers colonized it because they believed that God would be with them on those rocky shores. Most grand deeds have been born of faith." (Ibid. page 61.) We underlined the word “believe(s)” in each of the above. Mr. Spurgeon made the same mistake all modern Evangelicals yet make: he equated “believing something” with “saving faith.” He may not have had in mind the Scripture that says “the devils believe and tremble.” Even Mr. Spurgeon would deny that devils are saved! Now this type of “faith”, i.e., believing about things, suits well salvation by duty­faith. However, the discussion on this subject will be about a different kind of "faith." Not just a natural or intellectual believing about things. But one which is a "fruit of the Spirit," which must of necessity follow a birth by the Spirit; and this faith is a gift of God. The faith of which we speak is not, as Spurgeon believed, what "unites us with the life of God.” Hyper­calvinists understand that it is eternal life given to one by the Holy Spirit in regeneration which had experimentally "united the child of God to the life of God.” Indeed, it is the "life of God" in a regenerate soul. It is somewhat surprising that Mr. Spurgeon should be so shallow on what he called "saving faith." This was his specialty! But he knew too little about it ­ much like a cabbage farmer piloting an airliner!
Paul, in writing of faith in that great chapter on the topic (Hebrews 11) said: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for? the evidence of things not seen, " He again describes it : "For by grace are ye saved through (not "by") faith, and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8.) Again, he clarifies it more when he wrote: "But the FRUIT of the SPIRIT is love, Joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, FAITH, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:22­23.) That true evangelical faith is the fruit of the Holy Spirit and a free gift of God's grace is undeniable by a Christian. Hyper­calvinists deny that faith is merely "believing” about something, or anything. In fact, they will deny that believing that Christ has already saved His people from their sins; that He has made the atonement, etc., is faith. Unregenerate people can believe just about anything anyone forceful enough can convince them of, including the bare historical truth. Brutus assassinated Caesar; Judas betrayed Christ ­ both are true and both are believed by natural men. That faith, which is a fruit of the indwelling Spirit, is a gift of God given to the believer for his edification and peace, and it is given. Notice: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God UNTO SALVATION to everyone that BELIEVETH; (not unregenerate unbelievers, for such have not the Spirit, and cannot have His fruit); to the Jew first, and also the Greek. For therein (the Gospel is the antecedent here) is the righteousness of God REVEALED from faith to faith: as it is written; the just shall live by faith,” (Romans 1:16­17.) It would be very difficult to believe any reprobate; (or even an elect without the indwelling Spirit,) could profit by this kind of "faith," for it is revealed from faith, the indwelling faith of Christ, to the gift of faith given to the believer.

But this faith is an operative gift. It is the grace which God increases or decreases for the spiritual exercise of His believing children. Being a fruit of the Spirit, it must follow quickening by the Spirit, and all God's quickened elect will be given this, and all other fruits of the Spirit.

 We can rightfully say that this faith is that which is evidenced by the act of faith. But it flows forth from the faith of Christ within the regenerate soul which is part and partial with the new creature created in Christ Jesus in regeneration. Abraham, who never heard an ordained Gospel minister believed the Gospel. So how did he hear it? He heard "good news," or had "glad tidings", of things pertaining to his salvation by the imputed righteousness of Christ, and was given faith to believe it. "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him (not "on" Him) of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? (That is, sent of God) ... so then faith (not “life”) cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” (Romans 10:16,­17.) Again, faith is born within the new creature within a regenerate child of God, as John wrote: "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even your faith.” (John 5:4.) Unless this faith is in a man, it cannot "come forth by hearing," and this hearing is not just an external hearing, but one which is by Christ, the Living Word. But laying aside the subject of "faith" for the next several pages, we will publish what Christ has done in the salvation of His chosen people. We will return to the subject of faith later in this chapter. May the reader keep in mind that it is not designing a "plan of salvation" of which we write; but a 95presentation of salvation itself. In the worship services of Hyper­calvinists churches in the United States, one of the most frequently called for hymns, throughout this nation, is entitled: "Jesus Is Our Great Salvation." It is hymn number 205 in the English' Gadsby's Collection used by the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists churches, and hymn number 172 in the Lloyd Collection in the United States. The words express the faith of Hyper­calvinists relative to the finished work of Christ: “Jesus is our great salvation Worthy of our best esteem He hath saved His favorite nation Join to sing aloud to Him; He hath saved us, He hath saved us, Christ alone could us redeem. last verse: Free election, known by calling, Is a privilege divine Saints are kept from final falling; All the glory Lord be Thine; All the glory, Lord, is Thine! This is the point of doctrine the Neo­calvinists have not
grasped. As stated in another popular song among the household of faith, "It Is Finished." “Salvation through our dying Lamb Is finished and complete He paid what'er His people owed, And canceled all their debt. He sends His Spirit from above Our nature to renew; Displays His power, reveals His love, Gives life and comfort too.” The Lloyd Hymnal was first printed in 1832, and the Gadsby Collection shortly thereafter. These hymns are not new. They express what our ancient forefathers believed. They, as Hyper­calvinists today, believed that it was as wrong to sing a lie as to preach or tell one. So what they sung is a good measure of what they believed and loved. Many years ago, Arthur W. Pinks wrote a small booklet entitled: Four­Fold Salvation. He presented salvation, not as when one has a quickening experience, or as Pelagians, "got saved," but as a total salvation involving all that is done and experienced in that one great salvation. In his presentation, he included that aspect of salvation which is past: election, redemption, etc.; that which is present: regeneration and conversion; and that which is future: the salvation from the presence of sin, etc. His lesson was that salvation is one

integral whole. God purposed salvation; the Son purchased salvation; and the Holy Spirit applies that salvation. The elect were saved in that sanctification whereby they were set aside in eternity as vessels of honor, and preserved in Christ Jesus in seed substance; they were saved in that work whereby they were redeemed unto God, and thus from the dominion of sin; they are now saved from the pleasure of sin by the indwelling Spirit of God; and they shall finally be saved from the very presence of sin when they are forever removed from its present temptations and warfare in the saints' glorification. He helped clarify in the minds of multitudes the many ways "salvation" is expressed in the Scriptures. Alas, too few, are aware of this unity in the work of the Eternal Godhead within the elect family of God. An understanding of "salvation" will forever destroy the effect of the "free offer system." The work of Christ on the cross is the "means" of salvation. Another aspect of the one completed salvation is its application by the Holy Spirit. That aspect of salvation is the giving of eternal life to an elect and redeemed soul. It is expressed as a "quickening," a "being born again," (not in the sense of Pelagians, which is something contingent on the one "getting saved," nor as some Calvinists, the one born the first time of the flesh is born all over again a second time by the Spirit;) but a "being born from above." It is referred to as a "new creature," "life and immortality," or just "eternal life." It is a work of the Spirit of God without human assistance. Those who experience it, are “begotten of God,” are “born of God.” God is the progenitor – not the preacher! Such are said by Peter not to be “born of corruptible seed,” which is the case if begotten by any man. John made this clear in John 1:12, “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.” One cannot be more clear and specific than this! But Peter continued, saying, “Being born again, not of corruptible

seed, but of incorruptible (seed), by the word of God. . .” And just in case some Pelagian thinks this is the preached or written word, the Holy Ghost clarifies what He means, saying, “which liveth and abideth forever.” Paul makes it clear that this incorruptible seed is “Christ”­ (Galatians 3:16.) Most importantly, this new birth is based upon the finished work of Christ and applied only to those the Father gave Him: for whom He redeemed, reconciled, justified, and saved by His blood. In other words, the Holy Spirit applies this salvation after the fact of their being saved by the Son. Nor is there any obstacle in the way of His applying it to the ones already saved by Christ's atoning death. He will never make a mistake and apply it to one not elected nor redeemed. And equally so, He will not fail to apply it to all those Christ saved by His blessed work. The application of this salvation is necessary. It is an integral part of the full salvation of all the elect. First, The Father gave the elect to Christ as Mediator for Him to redeem and save. Second, the Son did just that; and what a great and glorious work that was, too! Third, the Holy Spirit begins that experimental application of salvation with a spiritual preparation within the child of God. Nothing spiritual can be understood in the absence of a spiritual being. The natural man cannot “receive the things of the Spirit of God,” so the elect, while dead in trespasses and sin, are as much in darkness as the reprobates. In that state, there is no difference. 108 They, too, are referred to as "vessels of wrath even as others." But praises to God, they will not continue in that state and condition! Just as the sacrifice of Christ in taking away the sins of God’s elect was preparatory externally to making them holy; so too, in that preparatory internal work, the Holy Spirit brings to life and salvation in a quickening, or begetting work. This life and immortality begins the warfare within the child of God, even though at
first he is still in darkness as to what Christ has done for his poor soul. This quickening work will culminate eventually in the new birth. Unlike Neo­calvinists and Pelagians, the Hyper­calvinists do not make the new birth, faith, and repentance simultaneous to, or conditions for, life and salvation. Life must precede all these gracious works within the soul, and it is through this Life that the Holy Spirit directs those experiences. These are separate works of the Spirit. John the Baptist "shall be great in the sight of the Lord and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, from his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15.) " ... when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost." She said: ". . . the babe leaped in my womb with joy.” (Luke 1:41, 44.) This begetting unto spiritual life is a sovereign, unassisted, work of the Holy Spirit without human instrumentally. God needs no midwifes or obstetricians; He does that alone, just as one’s father did when he beget his child by its mother! It is a necessary experience within one in order to faith and repentance, which will certainly follow it as the experience of grace proceeds. How much later? Hyper­calvinists believe it to be variable or unique to each child of grace. It is at "the appointed time." That work of the Spirit creates a spiritual man within the natural man. This enables the one born of God to now discern spiritual things, where before he could not understand them. With this sight, a warfare between the flesh and the spirit begins; and the gift of faith born in the new man, and the work of Godly sorrow, come into evidence. Both are of the Holy Spirit. These are some of the many things that "accompany salvation." It is here that the Gospel shines the brightest. It is the Gospel, as we will show, that brings this "life and immortality" to light within the believer's understanding. To such a person prepared of God, the Gospel is certainly "glad

tidings"! It is here at this point of experience, that the Pelagians and Fullerite Neo­calvinists talk about "being saved," or, "I got saved," or "We saved hundreds," etc. They counterfeit these blessings of the Spirit with the natural works of the creature. But that is not where salvation commenced. As J. M. Pendleton remarked, "Can there be a regenerate unbeliever?" Surely there can be, and it is often the case: "Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief." Can there be an unregenerate believer?" He asked. We answer, Surely there are: "The devils believe, and tremble," and such were Simon Magnus, Judas Iscariot, and multitude of thousands dragged, scared, begged, and bribed to join religious institutions today. Salvation is "from sin'" from the "penalty of sin;” from the "power and dominion of sin;” from the “pleasure of sin;" and eventually from the very “presence of sin." It is at death and in the bodily resurrection of the saints the elect are actually fully saved from the presence of sin. Until then, they do not “know they are saved and heaven bound.” They will know that when they are actually heaven bound! All of this together ­ and much more, is salvation. At no point is it man's work! The order of this is, in part, expressed by Paul: "For He is our peace, who hath made both one," (the circumcision, or Jews, and the uncircumcision, the Gentiles) "and hath broken down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body on the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were far off, and to them that are nigh." (Ephesians 2:14­17.) This reconciliation, in the sense in

which the apostle used it, is already accomplished, and according to him, it was accomplished "on the cross." Is this true? It certainly appears so, for again he wrote: "And you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet NOW HATH HE RECONCILED." (Colossians l:21.) And again, while in His flesh: "Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." (Hebrews 2:17.) So, in a legal sense, reconciliation between God and the elect sinner has already been made. It is only upon this finished reconciliation that Gospel ministers, as ambassadors of Christ, can "beseech" sinners to be reconciled to God. It is certain, that if Christ has not reconciled them, they could not themselves do anything that would make satisfaction for their offenses! Christ has already established peace through the blood of the cross two thousand years ago. He is not going to do this again, for the next time He appears, it will "be without sin unto salvation." In all three texts above it is most clearly stated that Christ has already reconciled His people; and one of them named the place and the time He did so: "on the cross." Here, then, is a finished, completed, and accomplished reconciliation! A most God­ honoring doctrine! What a terrible price was paid to reconcile sinners! No preacher, evangelist, or soul­winner could have accomplished such a gracious work! The preparatory work was by the Spirit within the child of God, and the reconciliation by Christ on the cross, are "means" of salvation of which our forefathers often wrote. A notable part of reconciliation is the propitiation of our sins. Can anyone insist that propitiation is incomplete until one believes? Not likely. The word means "to appease divine wrath; and expiate sin; to render
satisfaction." Interestingly, the text most often used to overthrow the doctrine of propitiation, is the very one which establishes it. Those who look at the text and see the "sins of the whole world’" overlook the meaning of the word "propitiation" altogether. They would not themselves apply "propitiation" to every son of Adam's fallen race! That would be universalism, which they reject ­ rightly so. Let us examine it, and establish this doctrine. "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not only ours, but also the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2.) Recall our previous discussion of "the whole world." Which "whole world" does John intend here; The world of the righteous or the "world of the ungodly"? But for now, let us examine "propitiation." If Christ "appeased divine wrath," "made satisfaction," and "expiated the sins" of all mankind, then they are all saved. If this is so, the "evangelists" and "soul winners" are out of work! (Oh yes, If He has propitiated the sins of the elect, they are also out of business!) The question to raise here is: Did Christ, in fact, propitiate the sins of everyone? Obviously, He did not. It is hardly imaginable that the rankest freewiller would be foolish enough to argue that point. Some were already in hell when He did that work; and many more arrive there daily. But, the writer does not wish to dodge the phrase: "for the sins of the whole world," lest some reader make a point of it. Christ asked of a man "Should he gain the whole world and lose his own soul." (Matthew 16:26.) Is this the "whole world" whose sins have been expiated, put away, and for which the wrath of God has been appeased? Hardly! He spoke of the Gospel which would be preached "in the whole world." John used this statement here, and in 1 John 5:19, when he wrote of “the whole world lieth in wickedness." Has He put their sins away, and appeased the wrath of God against them?

 John used the same expression again in Revelations 12:9 and none dare claim these were the objects of His redeeming love! "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." When John says, “We are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness," it is conclusively true that there are two different people under consideration: The "We who are of God,” and the "whole world" that lieth in wickedness. In our text here, John speaks of Christ being the propitiation for the sins of believers then presents, as well as those for whom Christ died everywhere, in all nations, in every place, and in every age. No! He cannot be the propitiation for the sins of any who will eventually "be turned into hell." The text says that He is (not­ will become) the "propitiation for our sins." (I John 4:10.) ­ not "for their sins.” So, Christ has already "reconciled" His people and that was "on the cross." Here we find that He is the "propitiation" for our sins too. Let us next look at "redemption." Is this something done, or left to be done? Is it something that is of God, or is it left up to ministers, "evangelists," and "soul­ winners" to do? What saith the scripture? The words "redemption" and "ransom" are similar in effects. Both are words associated with setting someone free from bondage. They differ in a very important way. Redemption has to do with slaves, or "bond servants." Ransom has to do with captivity, as in a kidnapping, or seizure. No one can "redeem" anyone, or anything, that is not legally his. If you have a savings bond, and wish to redeem it, the banker will first check and see if it is truly yours. If one stole it, and tried to redeem it, they would fail to be able to do so. If the reader had been in my American History class in high school, and on a twenty question true or false test, had answered "true" to a question: "Did Abraham Lincoln free the slaves by his emancipation proclamation?" The reader would have been penalized five points!

They did not belong to Abraham Lincoln! They were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The emancipation proclamation applied only to the States "still in rebellion" where he had no power; and was not applied to Union States where he might have had some influence. Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with the freeing of the Confederate slaves: he was assassinated before the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, which did legally set the slaves free. Now, American history lesson over! It is reasonable to consider that there probably were slaves that did not get their freedom immediately after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, due to wickedness of former slave­holders, or lack of communication. Nevertheless, they were as legally free as they would have been if they had heard about it, and sent away from the plantation! Hearing about it, or not hearing about it, had nothing to do with the legal fact: They were no longer slaves! It is just as reasonable to imagine that a freedman having no experience with being free, could not have grasped the concept of "freedom" when he first heard of it. He might have heard it used many times, in many different ways, before the concept developed in his mind. It is also reasonable, that when a freedman grasped the concept that he was no longer a slave that it was (unless he was a Hyper­calvinist) the greatest and most joyful news he ever heard! He may well have wept and shouted for joy! Finally, while Mr. Lincoln could not free any slaves (He
had none), they were born in the United States, and according to the ancient and historical principle of jus soli, they were citizens of these United States, and thus the United States could legally, and did, free them all! Maybe the above gets the main features of "redemption" across. Christ redeemed His people two thousand years ago, and they are free, and He could legally do so, because the Creator God had “given” them to Him. “Thine they were, and Thou hast given them Me.” (John 17:6). Some of them may have never heard about it yet, some haven't been able to believe it yet, even when told; and some have wept and shouted upon the belief of it tendered to their once benighted soul! And, no preacher, no messenger, no soul­winner, freed a one of them! They belong to the Lord. He has ever called them "My people." It was Christ, "Who gave “Himself for us that He might redeem US from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a peculiar people , zealous of good works ." (Titus 2:14.) Peter, to insist upon a holy walk and conversation, reminded the saints, saying: "forasmuch as ye know that ye were not (past tense) redeem ed with corruptible things, as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish and without spot," (1Pet. 1:18, 19.) Again, as you can see they are already redeemed and that by the blood of Christ which was shed two thousand years ago. If you believe the above, you are very near, if not altogether, a Hyper­calvinist! It should be apparent to spiritually enlightened souls that to give a "free offer of salvation" to all, when the redemption is already made, and that "for us” is to demonstrate a degree of spiritual blindness, as well as an irrational mind.

 This redemption is called an "eternal redemption," and it is already accomplished "on the cross." To give a free offer to anyone who was not included in that finished redemption, is to “cast pearls before swine,” or to “give the children’s bread to dogs,” as our Lord said. So we see that God's people are already "reconciled" by the death of His Son; that He is the "propitiation" for their sins already; and that He has already redeemed them to God "out of every nation, tongue, tribe and people." (Revelation 4:11). Can any reader declare that Christ has not done this work His Father sent Him to do? He said that He did, and that He finished it! Who will dispute the suffering Savior? Are these things necessary for the salvation of His people? Who did these things? Christ or preachers? We hope we made the point clear enough. Together, these, and more, are "means" of salvation. A "ransom" is designed to set a lawfully free man free of illegal captivity. An example of this is when England, under King John, taxed the population to raise a ransom to free Richard “the Lion­hearted” from the dungeon in Italy where he had been incarcerated for this ransom. Another is when Charles Lindberg's child was kidnapped and held for ransom. Both a "ransom" and "redemption" is a price paid to free the captive. Now, may we ask: Did Christ pay a price to ransom "all mankind", or to "ransom His people who were held in bondage by sin and Satan"? Which are actually "ransomed"? The answer to that last question should establish the doctrine we discuss next. When one considers what the Scriptures teach about a ransom, one can also see that it is already done. A ransom releases the captive legally.

Those elect who "are led captive by sin and Satan" and in their earlier experience of grace while under the law, are freed from sin's enslaving power. They are translated from Satan's kingdom of darkness into the glorious kingdom of God by Christ setting up that kingdom within them. It is on the basis of this ransom that this translation occurs and He, in their experience becomes their "Lord and King." The children of the kingdom full well know who is their Lord and King. They recognize that God is sovereign ­ an absolute Monarch. They are brought into subjection to Him by free and sovereign grace. Since the subject relative to "ransom for many," and "ransom for all," has already been discussed, we leave this precious work of Christ with this emphasis here: "If Christ has ransomed anyone, that one is already ransomed; and that one is freed from the condemnation of sin. And since Christ "gave His blood for the ransom," it, too, is already an accomplished aspect of their salvation. They have already been judicially saved; they have been reconciled; they have the blood of Christ for the propitiation of their sins; they are already redeemed; and they have already been ransomed. Well might we, as Paul, conclude the subject of "ransom" and "redemption" with a word of finality: "Neither by the blood of goats and calves , but by His own blood He entered in ONCE into the holy place , having OBTAINED eternal redemption for us.” (Heb. 9:12.) Is this true? Did He do what Paul here credits Him having done? Is it something left to be done when one believes it? "And for this cause He IS the mediator of the New Testament that by mean of His death , for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." And, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; (not for everybody) and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Heb. 9:15,28.) Can language be any more
specific? This is a finished salvation. It is the salvation that the Holy Spirit gives to the elect sinner at divine quickening. One of the great offices the dear Savior holds is that of a Mediator, and there is but "one Mediator between God and man." A mediator is a "go­between;" an internunciator; a reconciler. He is the one who must be able to put hands upon both parties in an offense. As the Son of God in the Godhead, His Father "heareth Him always" and as the Son of Man in His humanity, "He is the perfect captain of our salvation, able to be touched by our infirmities." Christ is the Mediator of a "better testament." (Heb. 8:6) As a Mediator, His office is to stand between the offended Justice of God, on the one hand, and the vile offender on the other, and to make intercession for the elect sinner, and reconcile him to God, thus making peace. That work, and that peace, was accomplished on the cross in His suffering as the substitute for the elect sinners, and by that gracious work, in that office, He opened the way for the internal work of the Holy Spirit at the time of their quickening and new birth. This work is already done. It too, is finished on earth, and He sits at the right hand of God now making intercession for the saints according to the will of God. Christ's work as a Mediator is another "means" of salvation. Another great office of Christ which was necessary for the accomplishment of salvation was that of a Surety. Sin incurs a debt, for "the wages of sin is death." We agree with Jonathan Edward's point that one sin against an infinite God is an infinite transgression, and deserves an infinite penalty. This is one reason it took an infinite Being to pay the debt for infinite transgressions. What, pray tell, can a sinner do to put away his sin? How can he pay an infinite debt? He cannot do it, for he has nothing with which to pay it but more sins, iniquities, and transgressions!

 Here, then, is the beauty of this doctrine: Whereas the sinner cannot, in Christ he has a Surety who can! And did! (Past tense.) "By so much more was Jesus made a Surety of a better testament" (Heb. 7:22.) It is understood that students today are seldom taught legal expressions, but one that is an adult should know what a "surety" is. A man stands in need of money. To go into debt without anything with which to pay, the creditor accepts assurance for the payment from another person. This other person is the surety for that man's obligation. In case the debtor fails to pay, the creditor demands of the surety the payment for the debt. The debtor is free from the obligation to the creditor, and cannot now pay the debt. If he wishes to make payment later, he must make it to the surety. Here is the blessed point we make: God will not twice demand the payment due the elect sinner's debt, first at the hand of the dear Surety, and then again at the hand of the debtor to grace! The very fact that Christ has paid the debt forever releases the redeemed children of God from the penalty of their sins! As a bankrupt debtor, the poor sinner cannot pay, and his Surety forfeits, and paid the debt for him. Now that the debt is paid by Christ, it is canceled: "Paid in Full." Christ stood, in the eternal covenant as the "surety for the debts owed due to the sins of the elect," and when Justice called in the debt, Christ paid it in full. Justice will not require its payment again at the judgment. This too, is a finished work! There is no way that when one believes, or when they "let go and let god have his way," or read the "Roman­road Plan of Salvation," etc., can pay a single debt sin has made to the justice of God. It is already paid! It is one vital aspect of that finished and accomplished salvation worked by Christ in His substitutionary death. This, too, is a "means of salvation". When the Lord was about to finish His course here below, He instituted the "communion" with His close ones and washed their feet.

 At that occasion, He took the cup of wine and said: "Drink ye all of it: For this is My blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the REMISSION of their sins.” (Matt. 26:28.) The word "testament" here means "a disposition," as in the sense of a ''bequest.'' It is how one disposes of his earthly possessions at death. This refers to Christ's "last will and testament" to His children. This concept centers upon the "inheritance." An inheritance is a family bequest. It is not made for strangers, or other people's families. This is for God's elect family and none others. They are "predestinated to an inheritance." Hence, this blood of the new testament ­ an allusion to a legal signature to a will ­ is in the context of this family's affairs. His children inherit, each their own portion according to His will. This blood of the will was shed for many; for His heirs are "many." Certainly it could not be for all mankind! In the text, the word "for" is in the Greek, "eis," which can mean "because of” the remission of their sins." This surely proves several important facts. (1) Their sins are already remitted by the shedding of His blood about two thousand years ago. (2) Those whose sins were then remitted are numbered in His family, as heirs, and are "no longer strangers and aliens to the commonwealth of Israel." (Ephesians 2:12.) (3) They only, by the ties of this family kinship, all being begotten and born of one Father, receive the predestinated inheritance because they have been "predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His WILL." (Ephesians 1:5.) This being so, it is a finished and accomplished action, because the testament is in force upon the "death of the testator," ­ Christ. "For where a testament is, there must be also of necessity the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Hebrews 9:16­17.) Paul makes the same
connection as Christ did between the testament and the remission of sins. It should be noted that "remission of sins" is not upon the act of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. It is by the shed blood of Christ alone. Let us go to the testimony of the Word and prove this important point. "Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover He sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Hebrews 9:22.) Again, the point is emphasized: This is a finished, accomplished, and successful work of Christ while He was here in His flesh. Believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized are not the procuring causes for the remission of sins. The shedding of His blood two thousand years ago purged the sins of all for whom He died, and at the same time it remitted those sins. Peter's encouragement for baptism was upon the consideration of their sins having been remitted. Paul was baptized, figuratively "washing away his sins." It was only a figure, for "baptism even now doth save us, not with the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but an answer of a good conscience before God." What God's People do by faith, repentance, and baptism, is in this figure. They react outwardly to an inward testimony of the Spirit, who testifies of the finished work of Christ and the remission of their sins thereby. His People, being already saved by His death, judicially, (where the penalties of the broken law cannot touch them) embrace this work by faith, believing the promises of God. Both the purpose, and the scope, and the effects of Christ's death are in harmony. For those the Father gave to Him in election, and these same ones for whom He died and remitted their sins by His blood, are the very ones the Spirit quickens.

 The work of Christ in the remitting of their sins is another "means" of salvation. Christ is the Savior of Sinners. All the "free offers" of the so­called "Evangelicals" while proselytizing the world cannot in anywise add a single stranger to God's elect family. He cannot regenerate, or "beget" a one of them to spiritual life.
 As Daniel prophesied, so shall it be: "But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever and ever." (Daniel 7:18.) Jesus admonished His true evangelists not to rejoice because devils were subject to them, but to rejoice that their names were written in heaven; and to those on His right hand in the judgment, He shall say: "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU from the foundation of the world." (Matthew 25:34.) As one should know, "from the foundation of the world" was a very long time ago­ even eternally! And that is how long that the kingdom has been prepared for God's elect people to possess. It never was for the "world of the ungodly." The preparation of this kingdom to house the heirs of God and joint­heirs of Christ was also a "means" of salvation. The work of Christ in the justification of sinners is a vital aspect of salvation, and it too, is a completed work. Let us consider it as we also cover the promised discussion of faith. Christ is said to be "the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:26.) When one considers that the Scripture says "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," these are the same ones that are given faith to believe, (Acts 13:48), then it is clear that Christ has already successfully finished the work of justifying them "by His Blood," (Romans 5:9 and Romans 3:24,) through His redemption. It is to such as are "justified by His blood" and "redemption", and only to such is justifying faith given. And, remember, this faith is a gift of God 113which is not given to all men alike. Those that are justified by His blood are those who are ''justified by the faith of Christ." Please do not read over that without reflection.

This text says they are justified by the "faith of Christ;" not the faith of the believer. "It is GOD that justifieth." (Romans 8:33.) The reader will need to clear his mind of commonly accepted "evangelical" jargon to follow this concept. The term "justified by faith," as a procuring of salvation for a "decider­for­Christ" has been greatly over worked. This is not to say that we are not, in one sense, "justified by faith." But care must be taken to stay with the Scriptures. The "justification by faith" in the elect's experience can only be possible as a result of Christ having already fulfilled the obligations of the law for them and having remitted their sins. He put those sins "as far as the east is from the west." He did not put them as far as the "north is from the south"! That distance is much less than the "east is from the west." And He promised, "their sins and iniquity will I remember no more." Can you not see why those called "Hyper­ calvinists" insist that salvation by our precious Lord is fully accomplished, completed, and finished? It is upon this successful and sufficient atonement that the believer is led into the "rest that remaineth for the people of God." That salvation was, as our Lord discussed with Moses and Elias on the mount, "accomplished by His death AT Jerusalem." (Luke 9:31.) This would be accomplished by His death at Jerusalem, not when they believed it AT a "revival meeting." As the apostle taught, "Much more then, being NOW JUSTIFIED by His blood, we shall he. saved from wrath through Him." (Romans 5:9.) "Oh, that men would praise the Lord" and "tell of His wondrous works." It is easy to understand that after years and years of hearing nothing else but "plans of salvation," ­ this one, or that one, maybe this one, etc., how one would have difficulty in grasping a salvation fully predicated
on the glorious accomplishment of our Redeemer God. But to merely substitute "Calvinism", "Fullerism," "Spurgeonism," or "Campbellism," or other "sacraments" is to miss the whole focus of what Christ came to do, and in fact did do, by free and sovereign grace! Justification by the blood of Christ is a "means" of salvation. It, too, is finished and complete. "Faith" as we will present it next, is also a "means" of salvation. Obviously, after presenting all the above, the reader should guess that we will not be predicating salvation on that "faith" of which Charles Spurgeon, or Pelagians, speak about. "By grace are you saved through faith, and that (faith­the antecedent) is not of yourselves; it is the GIFT of God." (Ephesians 2:5) Faith in what? That "Jesus will save you if you will let Him?" Whatever that "letting" is, it certainly is not faith! ­ Faith in believing that "joining a religious society, in some way or other will save you?" That is not "the faith of God's elect." (Titus 1:1.) As seen previously in Spurgeon's definition of "faith," there is something the religious world calls "faith" which is only "moral suasion." It is a counterfeit which many suppose is true "faith," which deceives them and lures them into complacency and apathy relative to their standing before God. That kind of "faith" is thought to be believing about something. One walking across the room is not "faith," nor is "faith" necessary to do it. "All men hath not faith," but many of them walk across rooms every day! Not only so, but one can have an explicit trust in what they believe, even when what they believe is manifestly false. In a recent year, (1998) a goodly number of "believers" in something, killed themselves to catch a ride on an alien space ship they thought was hiding behind a comet! Was that the "saving faith" of the Scripture? No! It was a kind of "suasion" found in natural man, and possessed in common with all mankind. It is the kind that "evangelists" use to get followers. It works, too, in doing that!

But it is not that faith "of the operation of God," nor does it have any effect on salvation. The devils believe, having that kind of faith, and they tremble before it. Both fallen man and fallen angels possess this kind of "faith," or "moral suasion." The Hyper­calvinists understand that there are various degrees of faith; and that there is more than one kind of faith taught in the Scripture. First, there is a variable faith, sometimes "great faith," and at other times a "little faith," which is the fruit of the Spirit and is "dealt to every man the measure of faith." (Romans 12:3.) God is the author, originator, sustainer, and disposer of this faith. "By grace are ye saved through faith, . . . and that is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8), and being "not of yourselves," it is not that faith in moral suasion of which the unregenerate speak. They fully claim that everyone has that "faith," and can exercise it at will. So it can't be this faith. By a "measure", this faith of which we hold is given as it is needed according to God's sovereign judgment and disposition. He can increase it, or decrease it as He pleases, and every child of God has experienced both of these variations. "Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief." This variable, measured gift of faith is a "fruit of the Spirit." (Galatians 5:22.) It is not found in natural man. For there to be "fruits of the Spirit," there must of necessity be the presence of the indwelling Spirit. Therefore, this faith of which we write cannot precede the work of the Spirit in quickening to life, but it is in consequence of it within the believers. And more importantly, it is an evidence of such a work. "Without faith it is impossible to please God'. For a poor doubting soul, mourning over a lack of evidence of his sonship, this faith is of utmost comfort: "Verily; verily; I say unto you, He that believeth on Me HATH everlasting life." (John 6:47.) It is that kind of faith of which the New Testament abundantly speaks

Some Calvinists might object to the following discussion, but it is of sufficient importance to present here. That is, there is a justifying faith, which is expressed in Scripture different from the previous one. It is not variable. It is never increased or decreased. It never changes and it never fails. It is a constant. And for it to be justifying, all should wish it to be. The faith that justifies a sinner by the imputed righteousness of Christ is referred to in Scripture as the "faith of Christ," or, the "Faith of God." This is not our faith, but His. Nor is it the variable faith which is given as a "fruit of the Spirit." It is this "faith" which is a "means" of salvation. It is that faith which is born of God and which overcometh the world. It is that faith that hears and embraces the Word of God, and finds peace and comfort in believing. Let us see it in another light: The righteousness of God without the law is found in Christ. As the apostle stated it: "Even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe." (Romans 3:22.) Now this "faith of Jesus Christ" is clearly a "justifying faith" for all who believe in Him. This faith of Jesus Christ is interstitially connected to that "faith of the operation of God," so that a believer having the one also has the other. The blessed aspect of it is that it does not waver, nor cannot fail. It does not vary from experience to experience. It is connected to the eternal vital union of Christ with His body, the church. And it is a vital part of that full and completely finished salvation that Christ accomplished at Jerusalem for His people. That "faith of God" justifies because it is in Christ, who "is our life." Again, it is His faith within His people in whom He dwells. It is imparted in the new birth, when the seed of Christ is begotten in one, bringing him life and immortality. It is this life and immortality that is brought to light by the Gospel. Since
only Christ “hath immortality,” for them to possess it can only be if Christ be in them. The following falls short of what the writer would wish to use to better the reader's understanding of this subject, but it may be useful. A doctor tells a patient that he needs more protein in his system, and advises him of what foods are rich in that substance. The protein is in the food and upon the consumption of that food, the protein is in the patient. The protein is not derived from the man, but from the food within the man. So, too, the indwelling of "Christ in you the hope of glory" in eternal vital (living) union with a believer, gives to that believer all things that are IN Christ. This includes "the faith of Christ." The subject of eternal vital union is seldom mentioned today, but in the past it was often the subject of ministerial discourses. Today, Hyper­calvinists still believe and preach the doctrine of eternal vital union, of which "justifying faith of Christ" is central. The believer is justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, and the "faith of Jesus Christ" in that believer is "accounted unto him for righteousness." If salvation were withheld until one believed, divine quickening would follow faith; but the Scripture clearly places life before faith. This faith, implanted in the new creature in the begetting to spiritual life is the grace given whereby there is produced in a quickened sinner a "coming to Christ." One can not "come to Christ" unless he first believes that He is, and this faith is a revelation to the soul, of Christ, and upon the hearing of the Gospel, this faith embraces Christ. It is operative in leading one to sanctification of the truth. Mr. Murray, in his Spurgeon vs. Hyper­calvinism, makes a negative remark about a Strict Baptist in England to the effect that "at least he did not talk of imputed sanctification." He said no more on the subject, but his attitude was apparent.

 Mr. Murray is ignorant of the Scripture about "sanctification"! Christ called Paul and commissioned him to preach the Gospel, in the which he was commanded " ... 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 an inheritance among them which are SANCTIFIED by faith that is in ME." (Acts 26:18.) If that is not imputed sanctification by the faith of Christ, then righteousness, which is by the faith of Christ is not imputed either! Both are of the same source! Not only is justification by the faith of Christ, and is imputed; so too, in one sense is sanctification. "Sanctification" is the setting aside of something, or someone, exclusively for a holy use. The eternal vital union of Christ with His seed in Him is truly “sanctification,” because all God's people are already so set apart for His glory. Upon the foundation of Christ's finished work, the Holy Spirit sanctifies the elect by that divine call to life and immortality. As Paul wrote: "But of Him are ye IN Christ Jesus, (vital union) who of God is made unto US wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (I Corinthians 1:30.) To be able to render praise to God, it is helpful to understand those things that are "of God." When Paul counted all things as dung, that he might win Christ, he wrote: "And be found IN Him (vital union), not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Philippians 3:9.) The beauty of this doctrine lies in the security of the believer that it affords. So often a child of God may, through manifold temptations, spiritual darkness, or an increased feeling of sinfulness have doubts of his "calling and election;" which presents to him a sore trial of his faith.

Sometimes faith is strong and at other times it is evidenced only by the grace of hope. And sometimes it appears to be missing altogether. But blessed be the God of all grace, that faith by which the dear Savior laid His head in the grave, full well knowing His body would not see corruption, or his soul remain in hell, is in the believer where Christ dwells by faith, and he is justified by faith on the promise of God. That justifying faith of Christ is as surely a free gift as anything else can be. Paul spoke of it in this manner: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law" (nor by a plan of salvation either!) "but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ , and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law , shall no flesh be justified. " (Galatians 2:16.) This justifying faith is an interstitial aspect of the believer's vital union with Christ. This justifying faith, being in Christ, is a "means" of salvation. Now, since eternal vital union is almost never heard of in modern Christianity, it is appropriate to briefly touch on it here, since the "faith of Christ" and some other aspects of it are important to the view of a completed salvation. We will merely summarize it by pointing out what it is that a believer has in Christ. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son , that whosoever believeth in (not: about ) Him should not perish , but have everlasting life." (John 3:16.) Notice carefully the next verse: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36) Here we have an expression of "everlasting" life. But in John 3:15, notice this difference: "That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” What, then, is the difference between "everlasting" and "eternal" life? Eternal has no beginning and it has no end. Everlasting commences with the
implanting of eternal life, in Holy Spirit quickening, and last forever after. That eternal life that each child of God receives has always existed in God for the believer; and by the eternal counsel of God was always his. In a point in time, his eternal life in Christ is communicated to him in nature by the quickening to life and immortality, and this immortality in him is united in the oneness with Christ in a vital, or living, union. For only Christ "hath immortality dwelling in the light, which no man can approach". In that living union, the eternal life is everlasting, and shall never end; nor can the believer ever be severed from this union with Christ. Christ "is in him the hope of glory," and he is a "partaker of the divine nature" in his spiritual inner man. He is in Christ even as Christ is in him. Christ is the object of this gift of faith, and thus the "substance of things hoped for." And Christ in him is the evidence of things not seen. It is the faith of Christ in him that justifies a redeemed sinner. Christ is the federal Head, as well as the actual Head, of all His elect people, who, in union with Him by that eternal life, make up the fullness of His body, the Church. Now consider the unity of all that Christ has done, and by His uniting them in union with Himself, all that He has done is accounted to them as what they, too, have done. First, consider His birth: “Shall a nation be born in a day?” Yet, the entire family of God, the Zion of God, was IN Christ Jesus the day He was born, and they in Him are accounted as also having been born that day. Again, on the eighth day after Jesus was born, according to the law, He was circumcised. (Matthew 2:21.) Also, of those in Him, it is recorded: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands? in putting off the body of sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." (Colossians 2:11) That word, "with," above carries a specific meaning.

 In the Greek, it is "soon": meaning, in union, together, in complement". This word "with" carries that binding union everywhere it is used in the New Testament, which is very profound! The principle of this union is taught throughout the New Testament in much that Christ did. The Lord was immersed by John in Jordan. (Matthew 3:15.) And, we are "Buried with Him in baptism? wherein also ye are risen WITH Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:12.) Christ died, was buried and quickened again from the dead. Note: "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together WITH Him having (past tense) forgiven you all trespasses.” (Colossians 2:13.) Even His obedience is accounted to His people as their obedience as well: "For by one man’s disobedience (Adam's) many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Christ's) shall many be made righteous." (Romans 5:19.) This too, is a "means" of grace, and a finished work. When our forefathers wrote of the "means of grace," or the "means of salvation," the above are the means that they had reference to. Then Andrew Fuller and his followers came along, they began to talk about the "means of salvation" also. But their "means" were not what Christ had done. To them, the "Gospel" was a means; “free offers” were means; “tracts” were means; “protracted meetings” (“revivals”) were means; “theological schools” were means; “tithing” was means; and the "means" have never ceased to multiply to this day! Praise bands, praise stomping, karate­for­Jesus, Crusades for Christ, Youth evangelism, Singles fellowship, Gay harvests, busing ministry, youth ministry, music ministry, televangelism, ­ just make up the rest of the list yourself. If they don’t now exist, they will as soon as someone thinks of it! But: the full, finished, complete and accomplished salvation of all God's elect is a present­tense salvation

. It is not conditional on the creatures' puny efforts. The faith of Christ, the eternal vital union, and the personal union of the whole household of faith, testify to the full salvation of the "general assembly, the Church of the Firstborn, whose names are written in heaven." There is a tendency within all men by their nature to view things in a timely, segmented, and chronological order. Our brain functions best that way in natural things. But in dealing with spiritual and eternal matters, God is of one mind, immutable, and unchangeable. He does not ponder and plan things out as man. With God, all of salvation stands firm. On the timely hills, plains, and valleys, however, we as creatures experience salvation in a chronological order, and view it as such. Christ has already saved all He will ever save, and they are even now as safe as if they were all already glorified. But let us stress, that the work of the Holy Spirit in effectual calling to life and immortality; the calling and directing of the Gospel ministry; the preaching, hearing, and believing of the Gospel: the conversion of the elect in repentance and faith, and the continuous working in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure will invariably follow Christ's redemptive work until the fullness of Christ and the ultimate and certain glorification of the General Assembly the Church of the Firstborn whose names are written in heaven is fully manifest. None of this is left precariously in the hands of man ... not even the preaching of the Gospel, for it is by His sovereign providence the elect are given the ministry of the sovereign grace of God. Ministers are God's gift to His people for their edification and peace through the knowledge of their glorious Savior Jesus Christ. And these ministers, willingly or not; knowingly or not; will preach the Gospel exactly when and where and to whom God pleases. "Who hath delivered us from the power
                                                                                                         CHAPTER SIX  
                                           DUTYFAITH ­UNTO ­SALVATION

Sometimes one finds a definition of Hyper­calvinism which includes: "Those who do not believe in duty­faith." As it is thus stated, it is not true. One must give more serious thought to the issue in this controversy. The Hyper­calvinists have both a Biblical and logical foundation for their viewpoint, and merely to brush the issue away in this manner is to cut short the intellectual honesty the issue deserves. Before proceeding, it should be pointed out that both "faith" and "repentance" are the fruit of the spiritual life within a believer, rather than a conditional cause of that new birth.

 Both are "gifts" which follow spiritual quickening (begetting) and issue forth from that experience. They are "New Covenant" blessings, and are in no way associated with Adam's covenant. The Hyper­calvinists remain consistent with that Biblical truth relative to one's "duty." Faith, repentance, nor duty will produce spiritual life in a dead sinner. For this discussion, that is a "given." Far too often, when this issue is discussed, those who believe that spiritual life must come before any of its effects, are charged with "hyper­calvinism," "hardshellism," "bench sitters," or "do­ nothingers." These terms are euphemisms: that is, derogatory terms designed to discredit the person holding this precious truth, and thereby prevent anyone from having an open mind in regard to their views. In this way, they do not have to defend their own weak and illogical views. A stereotypical appellation ­ one of the twelve techniques of propaganda, ­ prevents the mind from rational reflection. In reality, whatever the discussion, it is a cheap shot by unprincipled men. Assuming the reader is still with us, the above euphemism has not completely prevented the mind from following the issues we are defending. One would hope these subjects will be thoughtfully studied, and then approved or disapproved upon their own Scriptural merit. Before going into this discussion, it will be helpful to put aside the basic misinformation often used on this topic. That is, that the Hyper­calvinists do not believe that reprobates are under law to God. They, as well as the elect, are under law to the Creator. It is a legal duty for all mankind to keep the first and great commandment to "Love the Lord thy God and thy neighbor as thyself." The reprobate must, imperatively, be in subjection to God, for if not he would be a free moral agent and as such could not be accountable to God. If this was so, there would be no basis for the judgment of God against them. So this is NOT the issue here.

The issue is whether the reprobate can be saved by their sporadic obedience on the one hand, and duty bound to embrace the covenant blessings given to the elect on the other, such as faith and evangelical repentance. Stop and reflect on that a moment before proceeding with this presentation. What, then, is the controversy relative to duty faith? Andrew Fuller and his proponents believed that "It is the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe the Gospel and if they believed it, it would save their souls.” That is the source of the controversy! The Hyper­calvinists might word it differently in order to drive the point home in this way: "Duty­Faith men believe the non­elect should believe that God loved them, and died for their sins also.” That will usually make one focus on the issue better than the first. Another way the controversy is sometimes framed is: "Evangelicals believe that Christ's atoning sacrifice was so great, and the personage of Christ so superlative, that His blood was sufficient to answer the justice of God for the sins of all mankind." That one sounds more lofty but the issue remains untouched. Keep in mind that Andrew Fuller was writing his “The Gospel Worthy Of All Acceptation” in 1782. As pointed out in another place, only eight years later, Asplund's “Baptist Register In North America” showed that 93% of all Baptists in North America were CALVINISTS! Most were, in fact, what is now called "Hyper­calvinists." In 1782, there was no "Evangelical Movement"! New Testament methods for the proclamation of the Gospel prevailed everywhere the sovereignty of God was proclaimed ­ by all denominations in North America. This was when Truth reigned supreme. Only a meager 7 % of Baptists in North America were Arminians and none were as yet Pelagians. Until 1820, no church of any denomination in America had a Sunday School; none had any
men's groups or "Dorcas Societies;" none had youth groups; none had "vacation Bible schools;" and among all Baptists groups, none had any instrumental music. What a change Andrew Fuller made to "get the world of the ungodly saved." This "world" needed carnal entertainment, for they had no interest in the Gospel. Today, almost no Arminians remain, and the overwhelming number of Baptists is Pelagian in doctrine, faith, and practice and their practices are all unscriptural. [By “Pelagian” we mean people holding to the absolute freewill of all mankind.] In 1782, other than a small group of "General Baptists" [Today known mostly as the Freewill Baptist denomination], Baptists held to particular redemption, and were called Particular Baptists. Andrew Fuller was numbered among the Particular Baptists. He was a traitor to the cause they loved! This writer believes he has fairly stated this issue, and the historical setting in which it was first initiated. But the issue has come to life again. Some writers have attacked the Church' position by print, while others have accessed the Internet. The charges are stale and moldy, and no Biblical evidence is presented to defend the position that Christ died for the whole human race; or that God has enjoined the reprobates to believe to the saving of their souls. So, for this cause, this writer has set about to enliven the discussion by presenting the Biblical position relative to duty faith. A primary consideration should be that duties and obligations under the law covenant pertain only to the parties of that covenant; and the blessings and privileges of the New Covenant, or "Covenant of Grace," (such as faith and repentance) pertain only to the parties of that covenant. This is Scriptural as well as reasonable. Before divine quickening, the elect are by nature under the same law covenant as all Adam's race.

With spiritual quickening, a new creature is formed within the elect “vessel afore prepared unto glory,” and they partake of the blessings of the grace covenant. But without that spiritual begetting, (which is produced by the Holy Spirit based upon Christ's work of redemption,) there could be no grace covenant blessings. You may sign a conditional sales contract with Ford Motor Company that stipulates that upon the payment of a set amount of money, the automobile becomes yours. Both parties agree. Under no circumstances is a total stranger to that contract, whose signature is not affixed to it, required by any law to make the payment to Ford. Likewise, a law entered into by God through Moses with the nation­state of Israel, cannot be binding upon those not under that law; nor are those under that law bound to perform the duties and obligations of the Covenant of Grace. Only the people of that covenant are recipients of the blessings and privileges of the grace covenant. Again, here is the basic issue of the controversy: The followers of Andrew Fuller's doctrine make it an obligation to Adam's non­elect offspring, to come under the blessings and privileges of Christ's covenant with His blessed Father. (Even the elect cannot do that! The covenant of grace is not made with them. It was made with their covenant Head! He alone is required to keep the conditions of that covenant ... AND HE DID!) So, the Neo­calvinists ­ the followers of Andrew Fuller's doctrines ­ ignore the Biblical doctrine of both reprobation and election. They will not face this honest question: "Does God demand that the reprobates for whom Christ did not die, and who are those "fitted to destruction" (Romans 9:22), who are not redeemed, and hence are not saved by the active and passive obedience of Christ; ­ does He require them to believe that Christ died for them anyway?

 And if they do not believe it, will He for this unbelief send them to hell? Watch it! We are not saying He will not "turn the wicked into hell". He will. But will it be because they did not believe a lie a false prophet tried to convince them was true? Simply stated: Does God require the non­elect to believe that Christ died for their sins, when He did not? And will God send such to hell for this unbelief in a lie? Again, must the non­elect refuse to believe a lie to be true in order to be damned? If they did believe this lie, could they now join that number saved by Christ in His suffering and death two thousand years ago? If so, are such then non­elect? It will be difficult for some, but we hope the reader can think this one through. We understand that Pelagians cannot comprehend the issue of this controversy, for they haven't found election in their modern Bibles. But one should reasonably expect a Calvinist to grasp the issue set forth herein, for he does know that election is amply taught throughout the Old and the New Testaments; and He knows that Christ died for His elect people. His mind is not challenged on this point. He is challenged relative to the "sufficiency of the death of Christ for all mankind;" including the non­elect. The view that the “Gospel" is "an invitation ” is grounded upon this false premise: that Christ's death was sufficient for the salvation of reprobates. Is it true? And, if so, is the Gospel then an "invitation?” Now that is clearly a just and honest challenge. Merely casting it off by saying "Hyper­calvinists do not believe in duty­faith," answers nothing at all! The issue will not go away that easily. Let's face it ­ it has been over two hundred and thirty years now since that issue first arose. It has been answered over and over again. It still has not "gone away"! We press it again: Can the reprobates believe that Christ died for them, and in this manner squeeze into God's elect family through the back window? Come, now: "Let us reason together."
If you feel you must answer "No, they cannot," then you just joined the hated Hyper­calvinists! If you said, "Yes, if they would only believe," you just denied the effectual work of Christ; God’s sovereignty; His wisdom; His foreknowledge; His immutability ­ just to mention a few of His attributes and works! You can't have it both ways as Fuller, Spurgeon, Pendleton, Packer, and Murray all thought they could. It is either one way or the other: there is not a third position possible. Consider: The Calvinists, Neo­calvinists, and the Hyper­calvinists all believe in unconditional election of a definite number of people; which election was in Christ before the world began (Ephesians 1:4­6.) They all say that Christ came to "save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21.) One should be able to see why a follower of Fuller's doctrine would not want to discuss, or even think about, this issue for it is THE ACHILLES HEEL of their type of "evangelism," or proselytizing. And they instinctively know this. This is one divinely revealed truth they are scared of. It will destroy all their carnal works; burn down their play castles; and have them walk through the ashes of their own carnal religious works. They dare not bring the subject up and dwell on it. It is much easier to exclaim: "That is Hyper­ calvinism!" They do know, and readily affirm, that the Scripture teaches that Christ did not die for the goats! It is in all their publications. They will not ask, nor entertain the question: "Are these goats to believe that they are sheep?" Will believing that they are sheep change their status from that of a goat to a sheep? Can the reprobate believe that he is an elect and make it so? And, will God send Christ back to die for those converted­goats that are persuaded that they are really sheep? Will He send the ungodly to hell because they do not believe that He died for them­ which is the truth.

Pelagians have no problem here. Their problem is with how God can justly punish Christ for the sins of all mankind and still send most of them to hell for whom Christ died. But the Neo­calvinists have a serious problem here with their doctrine and subsequent practice. Their doctrine and practice are mutually exclusively inconsistent. The above is the basic underlying issue of the debate on duty­faith. At the beginning of this chapter we said: "as stated," the duty­faith charge against Hyper­calvinists is "false." Please do not take that to mean that they agree with the Fullerite Neo­calvinists. If the statement was re­stated, that "Hyper­calvinists do not believe in duty­faith­unto­ salvation," the statement would be correct, and the controversy set in its true light. The truth is, Hyper­calvinists have no objection to one believing that all of Adam's offspring owe to God all obligations and duties that Adam owed to his Creator God and that their inability to believe or perform acceptable meritorious works, does not in any way negate their obligations to do so. Adam, and his offspring yet in his loins, changed ­ God did not! Their inability only aggravates their condemnation yet the more, for they are willing and active transgressors. They love sin, and would not under any circumstances give it up. This is demonstrated daily by the walk and conversation of millions of "Evangelical church members," equally with the unbelievers. They made their decision to accept Christ but made no decision to walk by His commandments, believe and defend His doctrine and follow the acceptable pattern of His worship and order! Andrew Fuller qualified his statement on duty­faith, saying that it was the duty of all men "where the Gospel is preached" to believe and repent. Paul certainly did not qualify it this way.

He wrote: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made? even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination? and their foolish heart was darkened." (Romans 1:20.) That text still describes present­day "Evangelicals" adequately, as well as all the world's religions. The whole first chapter of Romans is to this purpose: that the heathen, the ungodly, and the Sodomites are without excuse! And surely any who have a Bible and deny the doctrine of grace are without excuse as well. It is a terribly thick darkness of the mind of modern man that prevents them from seeing God's sovereignty. And the darkness grows thicker daily. Even the ancient Pagans believed their gods were sovereign! And they feared them in awe. It is the "unto­salvation" where Hyper­calvinists disagree with the Neo­calvinists on duty­faith. It is unreasonable and unbiblical to believe that the non­elect could be eternally saved if they did believe. Scripturally, it is proven by the facts that "the devils also believe, and tremble,” (James 2:19) but surely not “unto salvation. ” The devil that possessed the young damsel that irritated Paul, following him and crying loudly, "These men are the servants of the most High God, which show unto us the way of salvation,” (A pretty good testimony, isn't it?) to whom "Paul being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And "he came out the same hour". (Acts 16:16), No doubt, this devil certainly believed! There might be someone who would argue that this devil was a child of God; but most readers would know better. Are we to believe this spirit was saved by believing the truth he spoke? The devils Christ cast out of the man which then ran a herd of swine down into the
sea and drowned, said: "Art Thou come to torment us before the time.” They believed who He was. Was their belief "unto salvation"? If the devils, for whom Christ did not die are not saved by believing on Him, upon what ground can it be maintained that reprobates for whom Christ did not die are duty bound "to believe unto salvation"? It cannot, to them, be a moral duty of a son of Adam to claim the gifts and privileges of a son of God. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” primarily because that which is born of the flesh is not an heir of immortal glory. Mr. Fuller's rationale for his "free offer" novelty was to be able "to give an honest invitation to sinners." Instead of abandoning the so­called "free offer" to those already redeemed, ransomed, and reconciled elect, he extended it to "all men." Then he claimed that these "all men" were duty­bound to believe "unto salvation." But, can this be an "honest invitation"? Here is John Doe, for whom Christ died and saved. Here is Don Juan, for whom Christ did not die, nor save. What honest invitation can one give simultaneously to both? The answer is obvious. Here is the Neo­calvinists' dilemma. They can't be honest and tell Don Juan that Christ loved him and gave His life for him, and "wants" him to believe it! Because it just is not so, and his own Calvinistic doctrine teaches that it is not true, and in secret, his conscience tells him it is not! Yet, he will be the loudest heard screeming: “That’s Hyper­calvinism!” Again, it cannot be a moral duty for Don Juan to believe a lie! The implication of this turns "evangelism" as practiced today on its head! And God forbid that ruination! Call it "Hyper­calvinism," but the issue is real. It cannot just "go away." All the Neo­calvinists’ sand­castles of duty­faith and glorying in the flesh must crumble to dust before this issue.

With modern type proselytizing, Pelagians are safe. Their own stated goal is “win the world for Christ." This, proselytizing can do that fairly successfully. It cannot put anyone into the covenant of grace, but it can build up a religious society's membership roll; and who can not be totally mystified at how willing they are to part with so great amount of their hard earned dollars! But the Neo­calvinist has knowledge of divine election, and according to his own profession, this election is not conditioned on foreseen faith or good works. Being yet unable to escape the clutches of Fullerism, he draws along his ignorance of New Testament practice of publishing the Gospel, believing wrongly that the Gospel is "an invitation for one to get saved." He is truly afraid that if he is reformed, he will "fall into the pitfalls of Hyper­ calvinism, or Hardshellism." And he would! Not being compelled by the Spirit to preach the Gospel for its rightful purpose, he fears he will stay at home and make shipwreck his faith and noble "duty.” “What,” he may think, “a horrible end must surely await a Hyper­calvinist!” Really, what do Neo­calvinists think motivates the Hyper­ calvinists to travel hundreds of miles each week preaching a message, without any stipulated salary or monetary reward, and without any design at all to make children of God out of goats? They can't admit that it might be that "they are called of God to preach the Gospel," or that a "dispensation of the Gospel is committed" to them. (Corinthians 9:17.) As one Neo­calvinist minister said to this writer once, "If I believed what you believe I would never preach a lick again in my life!" Well, if one is called of God he will preach wherever God opens a "door of utterance" for him. (Acts 2:4; Col. 4:3.) Relative to duty­faith, Hyper­calvinists believe it is the duty of all of Adam’s offspring to believe the record of the Word of God, because that was required of Adam when they had their subsistence in him. Their fall in Adam did not relieve them of any creature obligation they owed to Him.

Receiving daily benefits from Him for their creature supply and comfort only condemn them the more. But, Hyper­calvinists do not believe the non­elect are in any wise duty­bound to believe that Christ loved them, died for them, and desired their salvation. They understand from the Scripture that this is not so. There can be no moral obligation put upon them to believe anything that is not true. This is one reason the Fullerite school of Neo­calvinists are so quick to scream "Hyper­calvinism!" at those who steadfastly practice Gospel preaching according to the New Testament model. If one would search the writings of historical Particular Baptists, as well as other sound Calvinists ­ such as John Gill, John Brine, Alexander Booth, J.C. Philpot ­ among Baptists, and William Huntington, John Knox, John Calvin, and Gordon Clark, among Calvinists, they would find that nowhere did these men believe it was the duty of reprobates to believe that Christ died for them. It appears evident that one of two explanations can account for the popularity of Fuller's duty­faith novelty. (1) Most Neo­calvinists have never read anything he wrote, or, (2) having attempted to, could not understand what he was trying to say. The latter is understandable. He was a horribly complicated writer to read behind. He changed the common meanings of almost every important word he used! An intelligent person cannot read Fuller without realizing the man was dancing around the truth in illogical, dualistic jargon. From the first extremely difficult paragraph, one realizes this man is full of deceit. People can
communicate better than this when they are not trying to hide what they believe. One view is all that is needed to show his deceit. He believed in a ''general'' atonement and a "particular" redemption, which two views are mutually incongruent. Now, tell me dear reader, did this man know what an "atonement," or "redemption," is? Of course not! The man was ignorant of Bible doctrines or, highly deceitful, or both. His followers were, and are, deceived by this vain deceiver. The above is illogical! Any intelligent person can recognize those terms, as used, are an oxymoron ­ mutually exclusive. When put into the spiritual realm, it is mere deception. Calvinism clearly teaches, and always has, that Christ died only for the elect. And that is the only Biblical position. This immediately raises the most serious question relative to all the unscriptural innovations and institutions based upon that fanciful deception. The bare naked truth is: just as the doctrine is unscriptural and carnal; so too, are all those practices founded on that delusive doctrine. Both the doctrine and the practices are designed to appeal to the Adamic flesh! To be consistent, those so­called "evangelical" gimmicks, tricks, appeals, and organizations born of that doctrine must be rejected with that doctrine. "Evangelicals" understand this, and this is one reason they cling tenaciously to that illogical belief in duty­faith­unto­salvation of reprobates. They don't want to give up their favorite gimmicks. They have become excessively addicted to them; both for getting deciders and financing their auxiliaries. No doubt, the duty­faith principle led the New School, or "missionary" Baptists to drag, scare, beg, plead, pull, threaten, bribe, and trick emotionally aroused hearers ­ adults and children ­ into "doing their duty." And they explained this duty to be that God demands that they "give their heart to Jesus” (which is nowhere taught in the Bible), to "accept Christ as their Savior," (again, not one verse in the Bible teaches such), to "get saved or go to hell," ­ as if Christ has not yet saved His people from their sins, etc.

The real thing the "evangelists" or "mission pastor" wants is for them to "join the church." Whether said or not, they leave it to be understood that "joining the church" is synonymous with "salvation." Many so­called "Christians" actually believe that if a person is not a member of a religious society ­ usually their own­ that they are lost and doomed to hell. This too, is not taught in the Bible! But it helps to get deciders­for­ Christ. "Doing their duty" has been translated into joining "evangelical churches" which helped to develop a massive super­church; which in turn clearly became very anti­ Christian. This "duty" to "accept Christ" is today so commonly accepted that few will even give a second thought to a reexamination of it in the light of the New Testament witness. Pressing the false concept of duty­faith, they have filled America's religious institutions with individuals having never had an experience of grace. Indeed, today, few even know what an experience of grace consist of, and therefore see no vital need for it. A "simple decision" is all they need. As they say, “A simply act of faith,”[Baxterianism] is all that is required. The so­called "evangelicals" ­ the proselyters ­ wanted to "win the world to Christ," and not knowing which "world" Christ died for, they went after the wrong one ­ "the world of the ungodly." This world did not want to go to hell, nor did they want to forsake sin. They would take advantage of this so gracious an offer: "have their cake and eat it too". So, they did the most sensible thing. They did what the preachers said was their "duty," and both this world and the proselyters felt pretty good about the deal! But the "unto salvation" became a mockery. At first they appealed to sinners to "receive" Christ as their Savior; which if He was not "given," they could not do.

Then they were exhorted to "accept" Christ as their Savior. Of course, if He was not "offered to them" they could not accept or reject Him either. Finally, decisionism pure and simple took over, which is not even in the ball­park with salvation by the life and death of Christ. Christ’s salvation is a finished redemption, or a completed salvation. What Fuller and his followers failed to understand was that Christ has already successfully saved all He will ever save. It is quite too late to get others into that redeemed number! If he had understood what the Gospel is there would have been no need for his duty­faith­unto salvation scheme to begin with. And so too, if Neo­calvinists today know what the Gospel is, there would be no controversy now. If Fuller and his modern followers knew what the Gospel is, they would not have thought it was needful to "give an honest [rather, a very dishonest] invitation to all men alike." God is not embarrassed by ministers not inviting the damned to salvation. His Justice is as impeccable as Himself, and is as immutable as Himself. Fuller's small initial "step for man has become a giant leap for mankind," – (borrowing an appropriate slogan from Neal Armstrong on the lunar landing). But in what direction, and at what cost! The "world of the ungodly" has the so­called "Church" under their control now; and decent Christians must either stay at home and read their Bibles or seek what few places remain – usually at great distances ­ where the Gospel of the free grace of God is preached in power and demonstration of the Spirit. For these few souls, their issue is not duty­faith. It is "how can two walk together except they be agreed?'” "What fellowship has Christ with Beliel?" Since the "world of the ungodly" is the most numerous in the so­called "Church," how is it possible for the modern "church" to get rid of these pests? They can't . . . and morally should not try to. They got exactly what they wanted! And the "world of the ungodly" pays dearly out of their own funds for the power they have usurped. It
would not be right to deprive them of what they have paid so dearly for. The Calvinists and the Neo­calvinists in these so­called "churches" today have but three "outs" available to them. They can, as the poor and afflicted children of God throughout the ages have done, "come out of her, O My people" and this is a terrible cost to the outward, or fleshly man. Or, (2) they can get thrown out, which in the end, if they are true believers, will be done whether they want to leave or not. Afterwards, they will rejoice in their persecutions for their Master’s cause. Or, (3) they can "sell out" as many, many have done throughout the Christian era. It is certain that a true Calvinist cannot commune with Pelagians very long before his quickened conscience will stop him dead in his track. In America, Neo­ calvinists leaders within the large bodies of Baptists prefer the latter view: "sell out." The motive for fighting the Hyper­ calvinists is the desire to keep the Calvinists within these bodies from bolting out for conscience sake. They have the deceptive dream that if Calvinists remain within the false "church", they can retake it from the "world of the ungodly." That is only a delusion. It can never be done! Luther never reformed the Catholic Church! He came out! And so did the Reformers that stood with him. A major result of the “Down­ grade” among evangelicals in the 1880’s was the establishment of a goodly number of Predestinarian Old School Baptist churches. The strong believers could not stay with the “down­ graders” and flooded the ranks of sound, consistent churches. Duty­faith is very much with Hyper­calvinists as "freewill" was for Martin Luther.

  At the time Luther nailed his thesis on the Wittenberg chapel door, and for the next four years, there was very little difference between him and the Pope. But in his fifth year, Luther understood that the sinister force of evil under­girding the power of Rome was their doctrine of "Freewill". He attacked the power of Rome at its most fundamental core: "freewill". With the publication of Luther's “Bondage of the Will,” Rome's death­grip over the conscience of believers staggered; and after wars, murders, crusades, etc., it never had a full recovery. When these Calvinists and Neo­calvinists realize that the subtle power of Pelagianism is their duty­faith error; they will have arrived at the point Luther had attained which brought reformation to Europe. Duty­ faith and the whole support system must fall before Christianity. Then the churches may be free to become a moral, spiritual, and righteous force in this nation. And at this present time, the only national trend which gives any hope of reformation is found with the revival of Hyper­calvinism and Calvinism. We do not include Neo­calvinism, because its inconsistency is such it will either move to Calvinism or Hyper­calvinism, or slide back into the Pelagian darkness where their hearts are inclined. Neo­calvinists, or Fullerism, cannot perpetuate itself. It never has! Duty­faith and Calvinism has never co­exited long together. If one believes he can be a Calvinist, and hold to Pelagian's duty­faith, he deceives himself. His doctrine is not sound enough; or clear enough, for him to be called a "Calvinist." No church has yet held to duty­faith­unto­ salvation and remained Calvinistic. That kind of marriage alliance of convenience is doomed to failure. Neo­calvinists understand that duty­faith­unto­salvation is their great motivator. Without a love for the truth, only duty remains to put vigor into their type of proselytizing. It is too scary to them to fully return to the New Testament pattern.

 To do so would remove "the arm of flesh" upon which they trust, and they would be forced to "walk by faith." Duty­faith keeps the decision­making machine running smoothly. Take that away, and their "churches" will decline. They know this. No, rather, the Church, as “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world," (Ephesians 1:4), will remain the same; but the "world of the ungodly" in the so­called "churches" will decrease. When, or if, this occurs, the "church" (if any are yet found there,) among them will be strengthened and bring back the honor and respect it had before the world became its spokes­ persons, leaders, and innovators, albeit, much, much smaller! "But, even if they are not spiritual children of God, they do finance the church, support it, and are real active in it. We could not do without them." Perhaps: they are only doing what is due them. Having been coerced into joining it, and having paid for the privilege of running the "church," they should be able to promote their fleshly and social entertainment, build as large a gym as they need to attract carnal “Christians” from other so­called churches, to their own. They perhaps have more right to it now than the children of God! But if that is the case, the children of God must come out of it, and meet elsewhere and let the "world of the ungodly" have its own! It has its own worldly ministers already. But if one loves the truth known as Calvinism, Hyper­calvinism, or Christianity, duty­faith­unto­salvation must be abandoned. And all built upon it must be discarded as well; and all defense of this antichristian system must be put to rest in silence. Duty­ faith­unto­salvation is the bane of Calvinism, for it is founded on the carnality of the flesh ­ pure freewillism. The General Baptists [now known in most places as the Freewill Baptists denomination in the United States], believing in a general atonement, and very much ignorant of Scriptures, was founded in 1608 in England. Of the two groups of Baptists,
the General Baptists is the oldest. Yet, in 1790, as pointed out, 93% of all Baptists in America were Calvinists. The General Baptists, advocating freewillism, had a good head­start! If duty­ faith­unto­salvation is so needful today, why was it so unsuccessful among Baptists before the beginning of the Great Apostasy following the Great Awakening and the Frontier Revivals? Why did particular redemption have such a strong footing before Andrew Fuller's revision and duty­faith mission? There may be many reasons, but one could be that the overwhelming number first pulled, dragged, begged, and scared into joining "churches" during the Great Awakening (1720's to 1760's) by the emotionalism then, were not God's children in the main. It might be possible. We are sure that by the time of the Frontier Revivals of the early 1800's, the doctrinal foundation of most Baptists' churches were relatively weak; and from this weakness sprang the "Holy­Roller" schism; Campbellian Restoration movement; Mormonism; Pelagian Methodism; and many other "isms". All one has to do to confirm this observation is to look at the great number of "denominations" in America and the dates of their establishments. It was a period of enormous emotionalism. Methodism, Fullerism, Mormonism, Adventism, Campbellianism, Socinianism, etc., to name but a few, were formed in the early Frontier period. It was the duty­faith­unto­ salvation movement which drove the separating wedge between Hyper­calvinists' churches and the duty­faith religious societies. If a congregation does not LOVE the Truth of free grace, then that congregation is filled with unregenerate nominal believers ­ or, “deciders­for­Christ.” They can be "socially good" people – and most are ­ but lack the experience needful to understand and rejoice in God's salvation of poor and afflicted sinners. Fuller's proselytizing movement was introduced in the 1790's and it produced the whole so­called2collection of "evangelical Calvinistic" denominations which split off from the Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalian societies.

As is evident, they did not long remain "evangelical Calvinists" ­ just "Evangelicals"! Their doctrine is Antichristian. On the basis of their belief in duty­faith­unto­salvation and their unwarranted gimmicks of "offering" the "children's bread to dogs," both the Neo­calvinist and Pelagian writers often charge that Hyper­calvinists do not believe in "preaching the Gospel" to anyone but the elect. This charge is made generally by all parties today. It presupposes an extra­ordinary spiritual gift given to Hyper­calvinists, similar to that in the Apostolic age: to be able to clearly discern the elect from the non­elect! However, Hyper­calvinists do not possess such a gift. They cannot tell one person from another as to whether their names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, or not. [True, there are a number of self­ righteous souls under that banner busy condemning others to hell as though they have a copy of that blessed Book.] So the charge has to be rather ridiculous! It is true that Hyper­ calvinists do not press duty­faith­unto­salvation on their hearers ­ because they do not accept that premise to begin with. Rather, out of thousands of good and gracious reasons for a child of redeeming grace to render praise to, adore, obey, and follow Jesus, duty­faith is a very bad motive! "Lord, I really don't have time to serve you right now, but the preacher is right ­ it is my duty ­ so I will as I am able!" "Pastor, I have all kinds of bills, and my wages are not much. I can't contribute to the support of the Gospel; but it is my duty, so here are a couple of two­bits!" "Preacher, you said if I gave to the Lord, He would bless me a hundred fold. It is my duty to give, and I surely need to be blessed with more, so I'm going to start tithing." (That seems as a discount bargain­basement religion 3somewhat as investing in the stock market!)

 For some ministers, as long as it brings in members and money, it is worth it. But duty is a very cheap and degrading motive for worshipping God. The critic will say: "None of the above has anything to do with the real issue of duty­faith. The real issue is: Do the non­ elect have a duty to serve God?" The Hyper­calvinists quickly answer emphatically: "Yes." But that is not the issue! The real issue is whether the non­elect must believe and repent as a duty­unto­salvation! And the Hyper­calvinists answer just as emphatically: "No! In no wise!" Salvation is not conditional. It is a gift of free grace. The non­elect cannot savingly believe for true faith is a "fruit of the Spirit" (Galatians 5:22) and a "gift." ­ Did you read that? – It is "a gift of God." (Ephesians 2:8). This "fruit" or "gift" accompanies conversion and cannot be the conditional cause of salvation nor of the spiritual birth. Salvation was finished by Christ in His atonement. Conversely, to suppose the elect will be lost unless they respond out of "duty" is equally contrary to sound doctrine. Those who are secured by the atonement of Christ will be called, quickened, and converted; and as Missionary Baptists' Articles of Faith state: "good works are the fruit of faith and follow after justification." Too sadly, most no longer even know what their forefathers wrote as to what their "church" was founded upon. In fact, most don't care! We will deal, in the remaining section of this chapter, with the subject in three aspects. (1) That Hyper­calvinists do not believe it is their "duty" to invite all men to accept Christ; (2) They do not believe it is the "duty" of all men to "accept Christ." And, (3) the reason Hyper­calvinists reject duty­faith­UNTO SALVATION. In this way we will have covered the full issue of
his controversy as we comprehend it. The charge that Hyper­calvinists do not believe it is their duty to preach the Gospel can be a short rebuttal. They preach it. They preach it everywhere they are sent. They preach it without charge. They come nearer preaching the Gospel than any other group in America! Then the critic says, "Maybe, but they do not believe in preaching it “to sinners.” This is a very strange charge indeed, coming from either Calvinists or Neo­ calvinists! Both of these two groups claim to believe in the "total depravity and total inability of natural man in spiritual things." They both teach that "God chose the elect in Christ before the foundation of the world;” (Ephesians 1:4) that Christ came in "the stead of His elect people to suffer and die for their sins;" that "He came under the law to redeem them that were under the law from the curse due them as transgressors;” that He “took their sins by imputation upon Himself, nailing them to the tree;" and "imputed His own righteousness to them as their own;" and that He "saved them with an everlasting and secure salvation;" and that in time, He sends His Holy Spirit to quicken them to life and immortality. And some of them believe that God "calls, qualifies, and directs His messengers of grace to each with the Gospel of free grace," and "attends their ministry by the Holy Spirit to effect the elects' conversion to faith and repentance." Some even understand that good works are the fruit of faith, and these are worked by the Spirit "who works in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure," and has "wrought all their works in them." They believe that this salvation is so secure, that none for whom Christ redeemed andt saved will fall away and finally be lost; that there will be a resurrection of the dead which will radically change and transport all the elect family to heaven and immortal glory.

Now, that is a sketch of what all three groups believe and preach. Hyper­calvinists, Calvinists, and Neo­calvinists claim that this is, in substance, the Gospel. Yet the Neo­calvinists will charge that the Hyper­calvinists do "not preach the Gospel," merely because they do not freely offer it to the reprobates whether they can believe it or not! If Hyper­ calvinists are not preaching the Gospel, then neither is the Neo­calvinists and Calvinists! Has the reader ever heard, just once, that "Pelagians, or Freewillers, do not believe in preaching the Gospel to sinners"? Or, "Southern Baptists do not believe in preaching the Gospel to sinners"? Neither group does, but Calvinists, Neo­calvinists, and Hyper­calvinists do! They certainly are not preaching the same “Gospel,” or the same Jesus. (2 Corinthians11:4.) The Pelagian freewiller could more consistently lay the charge, because they do not believe any of the above is the Gospel. This writer cannot say what they believe "the Gospel" is, for they never describe it other than John 3:16, taken out of context. That seems to be it. But coming from Calvinists and Neo­calvinists, it is very strange. Incidentally, Neo­calvinists are the ones who most often make these wild, absurd and foolish charges. And the truth is Neo­ calvinists do not know anything that the Hyper­calvinists believe! But they do know what Pelagians believe; what their Southern Baptists co­workers believe! Do they attack "Freewillism"? Never! They just copy one another from Fullerite literature; and are too lazy to search out what Hyper­calvinists do, in fact, believe. They really use it to deflect the charge from themselves to a "straw­man," in order to throw their hearers off guard. "What I'm preaching is not hyper­calvinism.

 Hyper­ calvinists believe thus and so, but I believe etc." On the charge that Hyper­calvinists do not believe it is the6duty for all mankind to believe that Christ died for many of them, the statement itself is most reasonable! "But," they often add, "the Hyper­calvinists do not believe in preaching the gospel to the non­elect, or to sinners." Pray tell! Who else is out there to preach it to but sinners? The Hyper­calvinists are very quick to let one know that they believe that it is specifically designed only for sinners! Jesus said: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Every convert to Hyper­ calvinism confesses that he is yet a sinner; yes, even the "chief of sinners". They frequently express agony that they are in a warfare between the flesh and the spirit within. The difference, in this issue, is, that Hyper­calvinists have a definition of what constitutes a “sinner” which is unlike that of the rest of the religious world. And this difference relates directly to the duty­­ faith­unto­salvation issue. The greater part of the religious world places themselves in a class which they describe as "Christians". By "Christians," they seem to be agreed among themselves that it includes everyone who makes a "decision­for­Christ" and joins a religious society. All others are, they believe, "sinners.” So they have two classifications: The "saved" and the "lost", or sinners. Hyper­calvinists describe a "sinner" as one who feelingly knows that he is a sinner; an elect of God who has been taught by the Spirit what he is in Adam's nature; and can discern between that which is his outward man of the flesh and the inner man, or the new creature born within; and groans over the consequent conflict. To them, all of God’s quickened elect are, and will remain (until changed in the resurrection), sinners as long as they are in this corporeal body, in the which, they "groan to be delivered" in the resurrection at the last day.

All of the non­elect are Scripturally referred to as "the wicked which shall be turned into hell,” and this is called "the world of the ungodly which perish," and hence, are reprobates. And these reprobates have not had their sins atoned for, and shall die in them, and perish because of their love, and commission of, sins; and this justly so. The above two paragraphs draw the lines upon which both groups base their beliefs in duty­faith­unto­salvation. The reader now may be better prepared to comprehend why Hyper­calvinists reject duty­faith­unto­salvation. The duty­faith­unto­salvation men hold that all mankind are qualified as "sinners for whom Christ died;" the elect as well as those already in hell when Christ died, and the "wicked" that will be turned into hell. The Hyper­calvinists understand that there are living evidences present in such souls as are quickened to divine life by the Holy Spirit (but not yet brought to a feeling of peace, pardon, and reconciliation by Christ through the gift of faith.) Without those marks, there can be no reason to conclude that they are born again. Nor do they believe that "making a decision" and "joining a religious society", "giving their corrupt heart to Jesus" being “baptized,” etc. will beget a spiritual life in them. Believing that a true Church is composed only of spiritually born members, the Hyper­calvinists do not encourage men wholesale to "join the church and 'get saved'," believing that it is "the Lord that adds to the church daily such as should be saved." But, in the proclamation of the Gospel, they make no effort to single one person out from the others. "Men have entertained angels unawares," and they are to treat all as if they are God's people ­ and they are: either as elected in Christ, or as created by God ­ they and their disposition is His business.

They all hear the same message, and its central theme is that "Christ died effectually for sinners," and brought in an "everlasting righteousness" which is imputed to believers as their own. That "Christ loved His people with an everlasting love, and it is with lovingkindness that He draws them to Himself." (Jeremiah 30:3); That "He delights in mercy" and is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto Him by faith. In short, they preach grace, amazing grace, free grace, and sovereign grace! No sermon is preached in such a way that one can conclude that salvation ­ any aspect of it ­ is by creature effort or merit! Every thought is brought into subjection before the sovereign will and free grace of God in Christ Jesus. This is the central theme one finds in all Hyper­ calvinists' meetings in the United States. The minister preaches the Gospel of free grace alike to all present; but Christ calls those that are "laboring" and "heavy­ laden" under a load of felt sins; or is cast down in their souls, longing "for a hope of eternal life," (Titus 1:2) with the "pangs of hell" felt within them, to come unto Him for rest. For all such as these, He is "willing and able to save to the uttermost them that come unto Him by faith." That is not a universal call! He is the One who give that faith as a fruit of the Spirit, thus enabling them to believe. There is no sane person that can say that He does this to and for all men alike. It is not an observable fact! There is no way for a Gospel minister to create a clean heart in anyone, or a convicted mind, or give one a new heart. Nor can an individual do these things for himself. All a Gospel minister can do is to preach the Gospel of the free grace of God. That is all he is called to do, and to baptize and teach all such as are given faith to believe. It is God exclusively who makes that Gospel "glad tidings" within the heart of a hearer.

 It is hard to conceive how a Neo­calvinist can truly believe in free grace, and not know the joy a believer receives each and every time God applies it to his soul; or not to know that a true believer can go many days, weeks, or months, and not have one glad tiding to stir within his bosom a joy in the Gospel! If one believes in a duty­faith­unto­salvation, it is hard to conceive such a one has any knowledge of a work of grace within the soul of a man. If they did, they could not fault the Hyper­calvinist for "waiting on the Lord" to apply His Gospel to the hearts and minds of His people. In this manner, the Hyper­calvinists need not "offer salvation" to anyone ­ let alone to "all mankind!" If the preacher cannot give salvation to someone, he has no business offering it to anyone! Let alone, to everyone. That is dishonest. The Gospel of the grace of God is designed to reach the situation of each quickened, burdened soul, who feels a need for that salvation which Christ provided by His atoning and redemptive work. Merely because Hyper­calvinists limit exhortations to those bearing the evidences of spiritual life, and exhorts such to believe in the faithful promises of God in the Gospel, is no good reason for Neo­calvinists (or anyone else) to deride them falsely in euphemisms. It is the "duty­faith­unto­salvation" men who are ignorant of the scope of the atoning work of Christ! (See Chapter eight.) The rest of this chapter is devoted specifically to a defense of the Hyper­calvinists' objections to Mr. Fuller's false doctrine. Historically, duty­faith­unto­salvation had its rise among Particular Baptists in Andrew Fuller's humanistic (or effeminate) form of Calvinism, which attempted to "make God's universal invitation to sinners" an "honest invitation." Keep in mind that there is no evidence in the Scripture of any "invitations", let alone universal invitations. Thus, in its first introduction, it was applied towards making New Covenant, or Gospel precepts to be the duty of all men under the Adamic covenant "to believe,
repent, and embrace the New Covenant blessings" as obligations laid upon those outside of the Gospel kingdom. And, it supposed that the failure of the Adamic offspring to comply with the blessings, as conditional terms, to be the cause of their just condemnation. One can read a great deal about "Christ dying for all the sins of all mankind, except the sin of unbelief.” The Bible makes no such limitation. It teaches that He “died for all our sins.” The duty­faith men add the exception, “the sin of unbelief,” because they have a witness in their own natural minds that sins unatoned for is the only thing that can bring a man into condemnation, judgment and hell. They know if they stay with the Scripture ­ all sin ­ then no man could go to hell for who Christ died. And they believe that He died for all men! The very fact that they feel constrained to add "except the sin of unbelief,” is a testimony that they full well know they have a contradiction in their own doctrine! There is no Biblical support for such a premise, since nowhere can a text be cited that Christ died only for some of the sins of all men, leaving all men with some sins for which they must die! If such were the case, we would all have an insurmountable problem to find an answer for these unatoned sins. Christ will not die again for such sins. Either He finished His work of redemption, atonement, and reconciliation on the cross, or He did not. If not, we are certainly all doomed to perish for these unatoned sins: none could be saved! Today, duty­faith­unto­salvation has evolved into absolute freewillism, and this established on a system of works as devious as Rome ever invented. It denies the effectual working of the indwelling Spirit within the saint. It leads to a self­ righteous "knowing I'm saved and bound for glory" arrogance. Every decider­for­Christ knows that he walked down the aisle and "gave his heart to Jesus."

So long as his natural memory of that decision remains, there is no reason left to "give all diligence to make their calling and election sure." (II Peter 1:10.) And if by some means he is cast into doubt, the Fullerite ministers will tell him that he is lost and doomed for hell, unless he try the same unsuccessful decision again. For fear of being castigated by his brethren, he pushes the doubts out of his mind, and continues to boast in his "know­so­salvation." He did his duty! The ministers would rather see duty working in them than to see the effects of grace working effectually in them. Duty, at least would appear, to supply that unity of purpose in the world within the "church" which is lacking vital godliness from a higher motive of love and adoration. But whatever the motive, duty­faith­unto­salvation is a carnal substitute for the gracious and humbling worship of God with a heart full of adoration and love. Those who oppose this view of duty­faith­unto­salvation do so on the basis of the revelation of God respecting salvation by grace alone, and the just condemnation of the wicked. Those who believe in eternal vital union and unconditional election are aware that if some of Adam's offspring were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, then some others were not. They believe that Christ died for all the sins of these elect, and thus judicially saved (past tense) them from condemnation. Unlike the Neo­calvinists, who believe Calvinism to be a superlative plan of salvation to be accepted or rejected, as other humanly devised plans, the Hyper­calvinists believe that it is an actual completed salvation in and by the sacrifice of Christ.

They do not believe that He shed His precious blood for the sins of those He eternally decreed and foreordained to condemnation (Jude 4.) Having given the non­ elect "over to a reprobate mind," (Romans 1:28,) having "given them up," (Romans 1:26) having made them "fitted to destruction;" (Romans 9:22) and "sent them strong delusions that they should believe a lie that they all might be damned," (2 Thessalonians 2:12­13), and "appointed them to destruction," (2 Thessalonians 5:9 and Jude 4), then why should any sensible person believe that Christ should suffer even more, so preachers could "offer" these reprobates "an honest invitation?" When one considers how much larger the number of these "children of disobedience", or "children of the bondwoman" is than those of the "little flock," the "children of the free woman," – [which is said to be the “fewest of all people" – “not numbered among the nations”] ­ then the additional and useless sufferings of Christ would truly be great. Such a view can only "count His blood an unholy thing." (Hebrews 10:29.) Again, duty­ faith­unto­salvation for this vast number of complacent, wicked reprobates is a totally foolish heresy. . . and useless altogether, seeing none of them was saved by Christ’s atoning sacrifice and yet have a deep and abiding love for their sins, nor do they desire to be saved from sin; maybe saved in their sins; but certainly not from them. When Neo­calvinists and Freewillers are made to face the above objections, they immediately charge Hyper­­ calvinists with being "anti­evangelical," "anti­mission," "antinomian," "hard­shells," "bench sitters," "anti­means," or "Hyper­calvinists." In that way they do not have to defend their own ridiculous, unbiblical and illogical theory. They think that a Bible believer ought to be ashamed of being a Hyper­calvinist! One is not! But one would be ashamed of being an ignoramus! By what authority should one allow an Andrew Fuller, or a Charles Haddon Spurgeon, to define an “antinomian," seeing that their present­day off­shoots are the worst brand of loose­livers the world of religion has ever seen? A righteous person does not want to be classified with these so­called "Christians.

3Hyper­calvinists are often asked by duty­faith men: “Do you believe in preaching the Gospel to sinners?” So general is this false charge! Hyper­calvinists, or "Hardshell" ministers fully believe in preaching the Gospel of what Christ HAS DONE and this indiscriminately to all manner of men wherever, and to whomever God directs them. In fact, if their churches found them preaching "another Gospel," which Paul said was "perverted" their churches would censure them promptly! But they can find no divine authority to "offer" grace to graceless characters or professors, or to promise grace covenant blessing indiscriminately to all men, for God has not given, nor applied these blessings promiscuously. And they certainly can’t give what they offer! The application of the Gospel promise is strictly God's own exclusive work. And He never makes a mistake! It must be this way, Biblically, for He has never given anyone insight into the Lamb's Book of Life. Since He wrote their names therein "before the foundation of the world," He surely "knows them that are His." But no proselyter does. In the parable of the hundred sheep, our Lord went into the wilderness “to seek and to save that sheep that was lost," and finding it, He laid it on His shoulder and took it home. But He left the greater portion, the "ninety and nine just persons," which felt no need for repentance in the wilderness." (Luke 15:3­7) By His own testimony, He "came not to call the righteous; But sinners to repentance." (Matthew 9:13) Are ministers of the Gospel required to call those whom their Master refused to call? Can one make a case for that? Are Christ's servants greater than their Lord? Are they required to "offer" salvation to those of whom Christ said: "I pray NOT FOR THE WORLD"? (John 17: 9)

 If Christ knew the goats "could not believe," why in heaven's name can Neo­calvinist ministers 4think they can? And importantly, how can they think they ought to "invite" them to? Of equal importance, are self­righteous souls who "need no repentance," (which is a "gift", Acts 11:18) obligated to repent and believe "unto salvation" in the absence of a felt­need to do so? One can find no such Scriptural injunction. If God has not enjoined this “duty” on the non­elect, then by what authority are they "duty­bound to repent and believe unto salvation?" That they are bound to repent and turn from idols and false religions and false gods, and cease their blasphemous freewill deification of themselves, Hyper­calvinists will not dispute. That it is required of them; yea, commanded of them, is clearly set forth in the Scripture. But that this repentance is "unto salvation," they deny. For if it is, salvation is by works and not by grace, which the Bible clearly denies. Our Lord said: "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." (Matthew 10:15) And "whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42.) If it is more tolerable for one than another; or better for one than another; surely it can be agreed that it is better and will be more tolerable for one reprobate that lives a moral life than for one who does not. It is to men's benefit for them to behave themselves; but this behavior cannot be a meritorious condition unto salvation. It isn't for the elect, so it cannot be for the reprobates. Salvation remains as it is: "By GRACE are you saved through faith, and that (faith) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2:7). To promise, or "offer" life and immortality as a consequence of repenting and believing is unscriptural; for both are "gifts" given to the quickened, or living child of God.

The called and qualified ministers of God are to preach the exceeding sinfulness of sin; the severity of God's judgments; the terrors of His impeccable law; the justice of God equally with the mercies of God; describe the blessings of grace; and to call upon men everywhere to repent and believe in Christ. But they must not, yea, they dare not attempt to extend the law, or the Gospel beyond the limits set by God Himself. Read after "Hyper­ calvinists" (so­called) as William Huntington, John Gill, John Brine, and William Gadsby, John Gadsby, et. al., and one will find the greatest examples of faithful preaching; yet unimportant Neo­calvinists, as Spurgeon and lan Murray, find fault with such merely because these men knew not to "offer" a finished and completed salvation to reprobates! See how itchy the ministers of this "world" are to get their fellow "worldlings" into the so­called "church"? The world has its ministers. They are in it together! It is well to keep in mind that ". . . we are unto God (not man) a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved and to them that perish: to the one we are the savor of death unto death; and to the other the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many which corrupt the Word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 2:15­17) The condemnation of the wicked rests upon a deeper foundation than unbelief. A man cannot help not believing in something he despises and can't comprehend. To the world "it is not given to believe on Christ.” Paul went to great extent to prove that the condemnation of the wicked rested upon the first Adam's disobedience and the imputation of his transgression upon those in his loins. For he wrote: "Wherefore? As by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world and death by sin: and so death passed upon ALL MEN, for all have sinned.

 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law.) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses (prior to the law), even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression? who is the figure of Him that was to come." (Romans 5:12­14.) What then, were those multitudes of individuals required to believe? They were neither under the law nor the Gospel! Or, what commandments were they enjoined to perform, from Adam to Moses? That period embraced many millions without the Gospel. Yet, sin was in the world and the consequence of sin ­ death reigned even then. Were they required to repent and believe unto salvation? If so, by what law are they so required? Was it by the Gospel? You know the answer to that. It has been said it was by "the moral law," or a "higher law," and for years this writer as a Pelagian believed it too. But the Bible is silent here. It speaks of no other law before the Torah. There is no record of another law being given from Adam to Abraham, or of one from Abraham to Moses' receiving the law. Granted that Abraham kept the principles of the Torah before it was delivered on Mt. Sinai; we do find a covenant made with Abraham; in the which circumcision was commanded him and his seed as a token of that covenant; but we read of no other such covenant being given to other nations. What of the law given through Moses, to Israel? There is no record that shows it was equally given by God to any other nation. Hence, one may rightly inquire: “What legal duties and obligations were required of other people where that law or covenant was not given? In so far as God ruled over all, and death reigned over all, they had to have been in subjection to the law in Adam, and hence, under the Adamic covenant, and obligated to Him as their Creator God. Otherwise death would have no claim upon them.

 One of their greatest offenses was idolatry, for they rebelled against their Creator, "neither were they thankful" (Romans 1.) If one should reply, "But today, the law and the Gospel has been given." This is true ­ but still the question stands: "To whom are they given?" The law was given to Israel. Was the Gospel kingdom also given to them as in the flesh? Jesus' answer is "No." He said relative to Israel in His first advent when the disciples inquired why He spoke in parables to the Jews, " ... Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given , and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. " (Matthew 13:11) One understands that the disciples were the ones "who hath" and would be given more; and the non­elect Jews were the ones who "hath not" and the blessings of the law, which they did have, would be “taken from them." And they were in 69­70 A.D. with the fall of Jerusalem to General Titus' Roman legions. What then does natural man in his natural state have enjoined upon him to perform? The Hyper­calvinists' answer is: ''Whatever God enjoins upon him in providence, in the light of nature, or reason, or directly by the word of commandment." And this is done individually, not collectively, seeing that as a people the world of the ungodly has no family covenant as Abraham had; nor Gospel promises as God's elect people have. The Biblical record abounds with instances to prove that God commands individuals, in various ways, to do things. We will select an instance familiar with Bible students to illustrate and clarify the position we are defending.

The Zidonians were not Jews, nor under the law of Moses. They were Phoenicians. God spoke to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, "Arise, get thee to Zarephath which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have COMMANDED a widow woman there to sustain thee.” (I Kings 17:9.) Now, the Lord commanded this Gentile woman to do something, which according to nature she could not do! That is, she could not feed the prophet, for she had but enough meal for one more loaf of bread to feed herself and son. She could not fulfill her obligation! Does this inability negate her accountability to obey God and feed the prophet? Of course not! The performance of this command was totally out of her creature power. Her "accountability” unto God (not "responsibility" ­ she had someone superior to her. She was not "free.") could only be accomplished by free unmerited grace! What duties and obligations did she now have? Did she have any by Israel's law? No! Did she have any by the Gospel of Christ? No! What then? To feed the prophet as God commanded her. That, and only that, was her duty to perform. It is an observation that according to human nature, with only one loaf of bread and a child to feed, that common reasoning would allow her to disobey God. But she obeyed without protest! Was she, a Gentile, an elect child of God? Probably; Jesus used her as an illustration of His sovereign election (Luke 4:26.) And, in this case, God Himself directly provided the meal ­ and thus her ability. She was enabled by a miracle of God’s Providence, to feed the prophet, her son, and herself. Even with God's elect today, He must "make them willing in the day of His power," (Psalm 110:2) and "work in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure," or they will never be able to obey Him! Can Hyper­calvinists, as the Neo­calvinists and Pelagians freewillers extrapolate from this command that "the whole world is duty­ bound to feed Israel's prophets, and if they would, they would also be fed"? In no wise.

Do we need to speak at length of Abram whom God called, saying, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee"? (Gen. 12:1) What divine law in Ur of the Chaldees was he under? What covenant obligations and duties did he rest under at the time of this call? Paul answers saying: "for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." (Romans 4:9­13). "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Galatians 3:17). And so then, Abraham who was justified before Christ came was justified by faith in a covenant that was confirmed before God in Christ BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD! If you haven't noticed, that is free grace! What then were Abraham's covenant duties and obligations? Only to believe God relative to His promises! But, were "the whole world of all mankind" duty­bound to believe God would call them out of Ur and bless their seed in whom all nations of the earth would be blessed? Not likely! Were any others required to receive the sign of a covenant by being circumcised and have their male offspring circumcised on the eighth day? Of course not! Then why should Neo­calvinists insist that the world of the ungodly is duty­bound to repent and believe unto salvation, when only God's elect people are recipients of the blessings of the everlasting covenant? It sounds rather ridiculous in this light, doesn't it? The Neo­calvinists most often used Paul's sermon at Mar's Hill as their proof­text for duty­faith­unto­salvation. But is this so? This text is the best to clarify most precisely what Hyper
calvinists believe on this issue. Let us look at it closely: Athens was a Gentile city­state. Paul visited it and saw their idolatries, and even an altar with the inscription: "To the Unknown God." This text is supposed by the Fullerite "Evangelicals" to be the bastion of the duty­faith­unto­salvation texts. But let us look first at Acts 17:22­31, paying attention both to what it says and what it does not say. In the text, one finds both a very broad application and a specifically limited one "unto salvation." We read of God who hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth? and hath determined the times before APPOINTED? and the bounds of their habitation." (verse 26.) We see a limited application in the next verse, which says, "that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and seek Him? though He be not far from every one of us.” (verse 27.) See the limitation? “while” He is near "every one of us," only those that feel after Him might seek and find Him. But it includes no others. Now notice the broad application: "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God (in Adam's covenant) we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance (seen in idolatries) God winked at: but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the WORLD in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raise Him from the dead." (verses 29­31.) Of what repentance is the apostle speaking? Is it repentance unto salvation, which is a gift and fruit of the Holy Spirit not given to "all men everywhere;” or that kind of repentance Nineveh demonstrated under the preaching of Jonah?

What is Paul's subject? Idolatry! What stirred Paul's spirit to speak of repentance? Idolatry. "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." (verse 16). What was the "ignorance that God once winked" at? Certainly it was not covenant transgressions, for the Athenians were under no covenant! It was idolatries. Finally, did Paul command that they believe in Christ unto salvation? Not a word! Yet, what was the effect of the message? "And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, we will hear thee again of this matter ... however certain men clave unto him and believed. And so it is to this very day. Why did these "certain men" believe? It "is a gift of God!" One can often find all three sorts of people mentioned here today under a Gospel message. Those who believe are those "who haply feel after Him, and find Him." But notice that the apostle pressed no duty­faith on any present to believe that Christ died for them all; nor did he give a "free offer invitation," to a single one of them! A modern proselyter surely would not have missed this golden opportunity to get a few more deciders­for­Christ! Paul preached and behaved consistently with what he knew by experience, i.e., that salvation is exclusively of the Lord, and not of the preacher or the hearer! Since Paul was called, qualified, and sent of God and was moved "in his spirit" by their idolatries, those who believed not were duty­bound by the Adamic covenant obligations, to repent of their idolatries, and for this stubborn support of their false gods will be condemned in that judgment of which Paul had preached to them. But for them to believe that Christ died for them, (which if never called and born of the Spirit, He did not) was not an obligation pressed upon them by Paul.

 They were obligated to believe the record that God "hath appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ORDAINED." And this, Pelagians today do not believe! They were to believe the record that "He hath raised Him from the dead." But one searches in vain for any new covenant promise given to those "that believed not." There were no new covenant promises held out to such that would "hear him another day," and hence no new covenant obligations were laid on them. Somewhat off the present subject, we will make this note: One of the greatest universally witnessed miracles on earth, was when both the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine Emperor, and the Western, or Roman Emperor, having combined the full forces of both governments to exterminate the Christians, resigned on the same day; and quickly the whole world represented by them destroyed their idols en masse. That was this kind of repentance! In spite of the fact that Paul gave no "free offer appeals," no "invitations," or "opportunities for making a decision," did he not preach the Gospel to sinners? That he was Hyper­calvinistic on this occasion, none can successfully deny. He did preach the Gospel to sinners, and some believed, "among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite (a member of the city­council, or "church") and a woman named Damaris? and others with them." (verse 34.) Did Paul preach the Gospel indiscriminately to all manner of men present? Yes, the same message fell upon all ears alike, even "to some who mocked," to others who procrastinated, and to certain men and women who believed. Dear Reader, this is precisely what Hyper­calvinists believe and practice! There has been raised above the question of what law natural men are under, and what covenant obligations were duty­bound upon them to perform

? Let us consider that question in another light. Having pointed out that individually they are under whatever commandment God gives to them, directly, or in conscience, or by the light of nature, they are accountable (we did not say "responsible") to God as their Creator God because of their being His creation. The apostle says that "for as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (for not the hearers of the law are just before God but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles , which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law these , having not the law are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts ; their conscience also bearing witness ; and their thoughts the mean while accusing or excusing one another); in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men’s hearts by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel." (Romans 2:12­ 16.) That appears to be an adequate explanation of God's dealings with "the world of the ungodly." This is Paul's own discussion about the obligations of the world that the Neo­ ca1vinists are trying to "win to Christ" with their "universal free offer" of salvation. Notice that Paul did not even hint of any universal "free offers." If such a theory was true, this is the most appropriate place in the New Testament to find it! So there is a work of the law found among the Gentiles who "have not the law." It is this "work of the law," rather than the supposed duty­faith­unto­salvation, which the spiritual Israelites delight in by effectual grace. Paul labored with the Jewish believers in Rome over circumcision and again reaches for proof among the Gentile believers among them, saying, "And shall not circumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision doest transgress the law?

 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:27­29.) There are, therefore, Jews resting legally under a covenant law to whom the law is dead. There are Gentiles who have no law­covenant. There are both Jews and Gentiles who have the "work of the law" written in their hearts. It is in this that one finds the mark, or sign, or evidence, of a spiritual circumcision, which is their comfort and joy; for it is the work that the letter of the law could never perform. Duty­faith has nothing to do with salvation. Now, wherever this "work of the law" is found, there is of necessity a law giver. Where God gives a law, there is a covenant. Where there is a covenant, there are covenant obligations. Where there are covenant obligations, there are parties to that covenant, and these obligations extend only to the parties of that covenant. Is the following example a covenant for those who by grace believe? Let the reader judge: "For finding fault with them, He saith , Behold the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with that of Judah: not according to the covenant (a covenant of works) that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ... “(Hebrew 8:8­10.) Paul applies this covenant promise to the "spiritual Israel", i.e., the believers. Please note the stipulations of this new covenant with Christians.

 Consider here, first, an objection: It is argued by duty­faith men that this new covenant is to be made with the modern Israeli in some millennium yet to come (hyper­dispensationalism). Why, then, does Paul, writing to a Gentile church apply it to them? "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law" (what "law"? It must have been a law the elect were under, both Jews and Gentiles alike), "being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree: that the blessings of Abraham might come unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: that He might receive (not, "accept") the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man’s covenant" (and this covenant was not), "yet if it be confirmed no man disannulled, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He saith not; And to seeds, as of many; but as of one? And to thy Seed which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before IN CHRIST, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect. (Galatians 3:13­ 17). This covenant has two parties: the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Such as are IN Christ [in seed substance] are recipients of the blessings of this covenant. They are a party in this covenant only by virtue of being in eternal vital union "in Him." Now this covenant, the New Covenant, embraces Gentile elect; and Israel in this text is "spiritual Israel," rather than national Israel. As a covenant, it has covenant obligations only on the parties in this covenant. Are they duty­faith­obligations? Absolutely not! Rather to the very contrary. Whatever obligations, or duties, as are found in this covenant are enjoined upon the parties thereof, throughout the whole world, and to every "creature" concerned in this covenant, and none others.

So let us search out these covenant obligations and see if "all mankind" is duty­bound to their articles. There are two parties in this covenant. "I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND (I WILL) WRITE THEM IN THEIR HEARTS: AND I WILL BE to them a God ... " There is the first party. Here is the second: "and THEY SHALL BE TO ME A PEOPLE.” Notice, the party of the second part is not required to DO ANY THING! They are "recipients" of the blessing of this covenant only. Now watch what they are "to do": "And they shall NOT TEACH every man his neighbor and every man his brother Saying, Know the Lord." Duty­faith men are totally in rebellion to this covenant provision. Are we correct? Don't they do exactly what the recipients of this covenant are commanded not to do? Why not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother to "know the Lord"? "For they shall ALL KNOW ME, from the least to the greatest." Now this is a blessing rather than a "duty" to be performed. And this covenant adds the most superlative of all blessings, saying, “for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness , and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 8:10­12.) Where, then, does one find any duty­faith obligations to believe and repent in order to receive these blessings? And by what stretch of the imagination can one apply this to all mankind, or the "world of the ungodly"? Look again at the provisions of this covenant. On God's part, He will be responsible (not "accountable!) for putting His laws in their minds; writing His laws in their hearts; being a great God to them; having mercy on their unrighteousness; and not remembering their sins and iniquity any more. Isn't that a precious promise to sensible sinners?

 So great a love is this to such unlovable creatures! Now look at their accountability in this covenant: They are to refrain from teaching every man, his neighbor and every man his brother "to know the Lord." As one can see, this is not a "works covenant." Proselyters violate it daily, and actually think that they are supposed to! This covenant is purely "free grace." Now talk about the duties and obligations of reprobates in regard to this covenant: Our Lord said: "So likewise ye , when ye shall have done all things which are commanded you , say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." Where is that perfect man that has done "all things" commanded of him? Until one does all the commandments and then goes beyond them to do more, such have not done their duty! If one were to achieve such perfection in the flesh and then went beyond the commandments of God, it can then be asked of him, "Who hath required this of thy hand?" It would be sin. So, what duties do the "world of the ungodly" have in this covenant? None! By now one should be able to see the folly of the theory of “duty­faith­unto­salvation.” In the provisions of this covenant, God is the principle actor. He is to give His people, as recipients of this covenant, life and salvation; He will work a change of condition in them in the second birth and conversion; and He will be their God; a sovereign, independent ruler over them. This is not a “plan of salvation;" it is a divine unalterable promise. If He has mercy on one, and never again remembers his sins and iniquities any more; then that person IS SAVED, AND HE IS Safe. It is a finished salvation rather than a "proposed salvation." In that covenant, there is not one word about duty­ faith for anyone; let alone for "all mankind."

 In fact, it is excluded altogether! The advocates of duty­faith connect this supposed duty8with their unbiblical "free offer of salvation" decision­making scheme. Granted, there is an ineffectual general call in the Gospel, wherever the Gospel goes. To those "condemned already," it is a "savor of death unto death." To those that are given faith to believe, it is a "savor of life unto life." And duty has nothing to do with either! "Duty" is a low and base reason to worship our God. He deserves our highest praise, most ardent love, and deepest and purest devotion, and that from the highest and purest of motives ­ asking nothing in return! As stated earlier, surely there are thousands of higher motives to serve our adorable God than selfish "duty." Nor has God ever encouraged such a mean and detestable motive for one to call upon His Name. In summation, Hyper­calvinists recognize that it is the duty of all men to keep the moral obligations placed upon Adam, and all his offspring in him in his seed. We cite but one in this summary. In the garden of God, Adam was given a help­meet, and commanded to "cleave unto his wife." And the "twain was one flesh." This yet is the duty of Adam's race. But one should compare apples with apples. These obligations are not of saving benefit. Only the "blood of Christ cleanest us from all sins." Salvation is by free grace alone. The Hyper­calvinists deny the theory of Andrew Fuller, that the ungodly reprobates have a duty to believe that God loves them, and that Christ died in vain for them. They are amazed at such a contradiction that "the blood of Christ is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, if the whole world would believe," and then that His blood is insufficient for anyone's salvation unless they decide to allow it to be! What foolishness! That argument is not true. Christ died specifically for each and every sin of each and every elect soul given to Him by His Father.

He did NOT SUFFER for a single sin of a single one of the reprobates; and no matter how precious His blood ­ which is precious beyond calculation ­ nevertheless, His suffering and death does not extend to a single soul who will spend eternity in hell! ­ DEI GRATIA! What Scriptural problems exist with the views presented in this chapter? Are duty­faith­unto­salvation men correct in their theory that reprobates should believe that Christ loved them and died equally for their sins as for the sins of His people? In short: Do the Hyper­Calvinists have a biblical foundation for their viewpoint? What are the points with which you agree? With what points do you disagree? All in all, on a scale of 1 to 10, at what percentage do you agree with the Hyper­Calvinistic viewpoint? If you agreed more with the Hyper­Calvinist’s views above, should you be ashamed to be labeled a “Hyper­Calvinist ?
                                                                                  CHAPTER SEVEN  
                                    HYPERCALVINISN AND SOUL WINNING

Those that follow the duty­faith­unto­salvation scheme, and believe that God "earnestly wants" all men to believe, both elect and reprobates alike, also believe that every "Christian" is required to be a "personal soul­ winner." Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are good examples of this position, but Evangelicals attempt to motivate their followers to button­hole everyobe they meet demanding an answer to “Are you a Christian?” What Scripture they base this view on is not apparent. With them, of course, they probably don't feel any need for a Scriptural authority for much of what they do. However, these same individuals are quick to charge those they like to term as "Hyper­calvinists," or "Hardshells," of not believing in soul­winning, and warn their listeners and readers to beware of them. In fact, one­ hundred and fifty years after a Hyper­calvinist writers dies, these Neo­­ calvinists proselyters still bedevil them. Can any living, breathing soul imagine anyone attacking William Huntington as one who did not believe in "preaching the Gospel to sinners”! He was far more successful than any Evangelical today! Yet, Ian Murray pounced upon that precious minister! Ian! 'Tis a pity he is less than half the Gospel minister the "Coal­heaver" was! When the Pharisees said that Jesus cast out devils by the prince of devils, Christ taught His disciples that such prejudicing people against the Spirit's gracious work in an attempt to discredit His work was the "unpardonable sin." One can see no reason for one attacking these sound and faithful free grace ministers except to prejudice their readers against the truth they taught. Today, following the re­publication of Huntington's, John Gill's, and Tobias Crisp's works, Mr. Murray ­ that great champion of Spurgeon's Neo­calvinism ­ can find no good in these works to print in the “Banner of Truth.” Rather he attacks these blessed saints' belief that God's sovereign grace and tender mercy, His infinite wisdom and power, was sufficient to redeem His people from their sins.

 Such attacks are wholly uncalled for, and only a hatred for the truth of free grace can be the answer for the motive why it is done. Worse, Mr. Murray likes to claim he is a "Calvinist!" Certain it is that Hyper­calvinists do not believe in proselytizing in the way these Neo­calvinists called "soul­winning." It too, is a modern invention to support the Fullerite scheme of "winning the world of the ungodly to Christ." But, the Hyper­calvinists still go by their forefathers' belief that "The Scripture of the Old and New Testament is the word of God and the “only rule of faith and practice." Finding no such practice in the Scripture and knowing that it is contrary to the "faith once delivered to the saints," they call the whole scheme into question. All they find in the Holy Scripture relative to personal witnessing is a simple: "Go home to thy house and tell them what God has done for you." They have not found the common practice of "soul­winning", where total strangers, button­hole other total strangers, asking them "Are you a Christian?" and then pressing upon them a "decision for Christ." The Neo­Calvinists believe that experimental salvation is a direct result of “decisionism;” whereas the Hyper­Calvinists believe it is the result of a spiritual “birth.” Hyper­ calvinists have no confidence at all on "Christianity" based upon a mental decision. They do not believe the new birth is a “mindset.” They believe that one must be quickened (made alive) by the Spirit, and this work is not dependent upon, nor aided by, a "decision" of the carnal mind. The only result of this type of proselytizing seem to be the enlisting of more hypocrites into modern religionous institutions. The sad carnal state of all these religions is a stark witness against mental, or decision­made, commitment to "Christianity." Hyper­calvinists know from the Scriptures that the human "heart is deceitful above al1 things and desperately wicked," (Jeremiah 17:9) and they find it repulsive for one to suggest to anyone that they should offer that filthy thing to the Lord. It is much better to believe that God has "given them a heart to believe" for they, not God, are in need of a new heart to serve Him.

To offer to God one's corrupt heart would be as the Jews offering the blood of swine to God. (Isaiah 66:3). Perhaps the point is made, that this method of "soul­winning" is unwarranted by the Scriptures. The saints should "let their speech be always with grace , seasoned with salt that they may know how ye ought to answer every man," (Colosians 4:6,) or as Peter wrote, "For so is the will of God that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men,” and, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you for a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear," (I Peter 3:15). Is it contrary to sound judgment to assume that before an "answer” is given, there must be first a “question" asked? Do Calvinists believe that "The preparation of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:1.) We realize that hardly anyone believes the above text, and if one does, he is a Calvinist; but do Neo­calvinists "soul­winners" believe this? Hardly! The providential path for the application of the finished work of Christ to each of His blood­bought redeemed children is in His hands. He certainly will reach them all. Our God is not a distraught failure! This being so, God's quickened elect will inquire diligently of the way of salvation through discussions and observations with any of whom they have confidence, and the saints are to always be ready to relate their own experience in grace to such that ask of them. In this manner, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith," as it is written, the "just shall live by faith." That is as personal as witnessing can be. It is an interchange of the common salvation; edifying to both the seeker and the one providing comfort. It is not so personal, when a total stranger suddenly shocks a stranger whose mind or heart is interested in salvation. These zealots frequently confront Hyper­calvinists with that "Are you a Christian" assault; who thinks, and sometimes says, ''Whose business is it any way? If I'm not, what do you think you or I can do about it? Can either of us quicken anyone?

" Now Pelagians believe they can, because they have no idea what the new birth is. But a Calvinist is supposed to know that "it is of God, that you believe in Me." Such "soul­winners" as these fall into the category with those of whom Paul charged with "having a zeal without knowledge." It is to be feared that the overwhelming number of these not­so­personal “soul­ winners" today are in just such a condition. One cannot find a single one of them that even suspects how Christ saved His people; nor what He accomplished on the cross. They are all, to the man or woman, ignorant of the way of eternal salvation. For a person who themselves merely made a natural decision about an historical Christ without an experience of grace, to "witness for Christ," is a ''false witness.” His own experience is void of the knowledge of Christ's finished salvation and how He “saved them that believe.” If such had an experience of grace themselves they would know full well that it was not by a natural decision of their carnal mind, nor by the efforts of another. They would know that those "which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," are God's people, and those that are "Christians" by decisionism are man­made. "Let God be true, and every man a liar". The way that Hyper­calvinists discuss their own experiences of grace together, while others keenly listen and raise questions of them, provide a true witness of the vital work of grace within the soul. Even before conversion, in this way of New Testament witnessing, the one seeking knowledge of salvation is being firmly established in many aspects of the revealed faith. He finds that others have a warfare within their being as they relate the power of indwelling sin and the power of delivering grace. They learn that others have a witness within of the same conflicts they are bearing. They will learn of the eternal union of Christ as the Head of His church, with those chosen in Him from eternity, election, predestination, the sovereignty of God over all tings, the love of God, vital union by the new birth and eternal redemption. They will hear of imputed righteousness by others who trust only in this for their standing before God.

They will find interest in the eternal justification of believers in His body, the church; and the dual natures the regenerate believer has; of Gospel Truth and Gospel order. Christ is honored by such intimate sharing of His dealings within His people. Nor is this type of witnessing based upon that shameful belief that our Sovereign God "wants" everyone to witness; nor everyone to "get saved." This latter view, so much a part of the not­so­personal “soul­winning" technique, degrades the most Sovereign God. Again, our God does not "want," ­ men "want;" but God's "will" is done. No one "tries" to do things that they can do. They just do it. They "try" to do the things that they can't do. They "tried to." God never "tries," nor has He ever "tried" to do anything! He “does His own will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?" (Daniel 4:11). Witnessing for Christ is never an effort on God's part to get something done, which otherwise would never be done! God is GOD! When the Pelagians or Neo­calvinists "offer salvation" to all their hearers equally, they represent God as a total failure for most of the world. This ignores the actual fact of Christ's completed work in salvation. The "soul­winners'" whole motivation is based upon this ignorance. Paul wrote of an indisputable and faithful saying, that Christ's purpose in coming was "to save sinners." The angelic message confirms the same: "for she shall bring forth a son," and she did! "and thou shalt call His name Jesus," and they did, just as the angel predicted; "for He shall save His people from their sins." (Matt.1:21.) Now either He did, or both the angel and the apostle were wrong! Hyper­calvinists say that He did! Pelagians, Neo­ calvinists, and maybe a few Calvinists, and all "soul­winners" dispute Paul and the angel. They say that He didn't! One must be true: either He did, or He didn't. If He did, then He is not now trying to get it done. If He couldn't, or didn't, who in this world could possibly do it? If He didn't, then in what sense can it be truthfully said that He is the Redeemer? Did He, or did He not ransom anyone? If He failed to "do His Father's will," then He did not reconcile His people by His blood. If He didn't, then He did not justify any "by His blood,” or any of the other blessings the Scriptures teach that He did for His people to "sanctify them FOREVER."

 All these things He did judicially, in actually saving them legally by His own work. In true witnessing for Christ, such things are ascribed to Christ in behalf of all such who feel a need for forgiveness. This gives Him all the glory; whereas the "soul­winners" who predicate one's salvation on decisionism they initiated rob God of His glory and ascribe it to the creature. The quickened child of God has a felt­need, due to the burden of sin pressed upon him by the indwelling life and immortality placed in him, in his quickening experience. The Spirit has designed this to bring him to peace, comfort, evangelical reconciliation, and conversion. There can be no true peace or comfort in believing that one's own decision, or a man's witness did this work. The peace and comfort comes from realizing that it cannot be of the flesh, but in the power of God. Again, by this God­honoring witnessing, man is abased and God is glorified. If a Calvinist preaches the finished work of Christ for the elect only, he is a "Hyper­calvinist" by definition. It is the position of this writer that only such preaches that Christ is THE Savior of sinners. All others actually preach that man is the savior of sinners. The Hyper­calvinists understand that the redeemed elect are the ones, and the only ones, that the Holy Spirit quickens to life and immortality in divine quickening; and they are the very same ones who are the objects of the effectual call by the Spirit under the Gospel to conversion. The "soul­winners" work at cross­purposes with the Spirit's divine calling when they press decisionism on the "world of the ungodly." They ignorantly produce hell­bound Christians; the goats amog the sheep, the tares among the wheat; the foolish virgins among the wise; the dead fish in the Gospel net; those that the King will place on His left hand and say unto them, “Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”­ (Matthew 25: 41.) These are the decision­made “Christians.

” Paul explained the application of salvation in this wise: "Who HATH saved" us (past tense, and prior to effectual calling) and called us with a holy calling, not according to OUR WORKS (and certainly not the "soul­­ winner's" works), but according to HIS OWN purpose and grace which was GIVEN US (not "offered" to us) in Christ Jesus before the world began." Now, in this text the apostle has placed salvation before calling with a holy calling. This "holy calling" is not the Gospel call, as some might believe. It is the effectual call of the Holy Spirit who speaks life into the soul. Now notice what follows: "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ Who hath abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to LIGHT through the Gospel: whereunto I am appointed a preacher and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." (II Timothy 1:9­11). We will have occasion under other headings to use this text. For now, notice it carefully. Many young Calvinists coming out of Pelagianism are predisposed to miss­read it. They have a mind­set from years in freewillism that the Gospel brings life. Hyper­ calvinists believe, preach, and apply the message of salvation in the specific order given in this text. Others do not. Instead, they make all that Christ achieved by His active and passive obedience contingent on the work of the ministry; and this, two­thousand years after Christ did that glorious and gracious work. In their scheme, Christ's work is not finished until freewillers, ministers, proselyters, and "soul­winners" put the finishing touch to it! Even with such sound and consistent groups as traditional Calvinists, too often one find this anthropocentricity necessary to crown the Lord's work with success. If the Gospel is glad tidings about something, then the Hyper­calvinists are the ones actually preaching the Gospel consistently. It certainly is not "glad tidings" to preach that Christ only put man into a “savable state” as Andrew Fuller and J. M. Pendleton wrote. It is certainly more God­­ honoring to teach that He actually saved them while He was about doing His Father's will! Is He going to use the preachers to awake the dead in the resurrection? Are these "soul­winners" going to be around to knock on the tombs "inviting" the dead to arise?

 That makes as much sense as to believe they are now doing it! What work is the most crucial: the new birth or the resurrection? Surely the new birth! All mankind will be resurrected, but only the elect are born again. The Hyper­ calvinists believe that He actually did what the Scriptures teach that He did. They see no good reason to believe otherwise. They do not believe that He will come back and try again to see if He can be more successful and get some of the "world of the ungodly" into His heavenly kingdom. The truth is the ungodly really do not want to go there anyway. They just don't want to go to that other place! One can only spiritually believe something that is true; otherwise one must believe it when it is false in order to make it true! Pelagians and Neo­calvinists "soul­winning" practices are unsound. In conclusion, it may be useful to critique the most common expressions one hears from "soul­winners" and point out why they are so God­dishonoring. Some are very insulting to the Majesty of His Person and demeaning to any concept of "God" as God. First, "God wants you to do thus and so." A sister in a Hyper­calvinist church always read Billy Graham's short advice column. One day she commented, "Billy Graham has the most "wanting" god there is! His god is alway "wanting" something he can't get, or can't do." That is a good summary of the use of this word when applied to the Almighty God. Let Pelagians have their "wanting" god; but Calvinists should use sound and consistent words. "For every beast of the forest are Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are Mine. If I were hungry I would not tell thee: for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.” (Psalm 50: 10­12). That is what is wrong with that word “want.” God is Sovereign, Almighty and Independent. The God of the Calvinists stands in need of nothing! He does not “want.” This is a deficiency found in man – not in God. Another expression we hear is, "Have you given your heart to Jesus?" How is this possible? Worse, why in the world would anyone want to offer that rotten thing to the thrice Holy God! ''The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it"? The "soul­winner" needs to be begging God to give him a clean heart instead.

 "Are you a Christian?" We heard recently, and frequently, that a certain national president of the United States was "a born again evangelical" Christian. [That gives religion a bad name!] Interestingly, we know of no Hyper­calvinist that will ever say "Yes, I'm a 'Christian.’" This may be shocking to the readers, but they have a good reason for their answer. The above is one. To say that you are a "Christian" is to say that you are "Christ­like." Hyper­calvinists have such an exalted view of Christ, and such an intimate knowledge of themselves, that they dare not compare themselves with Him. Again, their exalted view of His Personage is so great they cannot bring themselves to compare Him to themselves either! Another reason pertains to their view of salvation. They believe the term "salvation" is all inclusive of the full and complete redemption of both soul and body in the resurrection, and the final stage of this salvation is not until their future glorification. Therefore, they do not say "I am saved." There are three great gifts of God that every believer possesses: "Faith, Hope, and Charity." They are "begotten again unto a LIVELY HOPE by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;" and believe that Christ dwells in His people: “Christ in you the Hope of Glory." Thus their answer is "I believe I have a hope in Christ." Or as Paul wrote, "We are saved by HOPE, but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why does he yet hope for.” (Romans 8:24.) It is sad that too few people know that verse is in the Bible! The child of God is called to "walk by faith,” and hope is faith in its most basic exercise. A "know­ so­salvation" is not walking by "faith." It is walking by sight. Worse, it is based upon carnal deception in almost all cases. There is no humility in boasting that one is a "Christian," and the deception is so great in the Pelagian "world of the ungodly," that no one should want to be associated with those too ready to call themselves "Christians." "Christians" of this sort, give Christ a very bad image in the eyes of those not Christians. As one can see, there is a vast difference between those who believe that salvation is incomplete, and those who believe it is finished; between those who believe it is of works, or a mixture of works and grace; and those who believe it is all of grace; and between those who are "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine," and those who are enabled to believe in the finished work of Christ.

 But let every reader understand that the Hypercalvinists do believe in witnessing to those that ask of their experience in grace. It is true that they do not consider themselves as "soul­winners," believing that Christ is the Wisdom of God, and “He that winneth souls is wise." (Proverbs 11:30.) Only Christ can, and did, do that for "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of righteousness and He that winneth souls is wise." Fullerites used that text to promote their insufficiency of Christ's atonement to save His people. Hyper­calvinists do not believe that God "needs" them. They see no justification in believing that the Great Creator God of the whole universe would merely put man in a savable state for other men to take credit for their salvation; when it is just as easy for Him to save them Himself. Hyper­calvinists believe that Jesus Christ is the SAVIOR OF Sinners! Hyper­calvinism ­ Is it the Truth? What say you? ********** WHY MIGHT JOHN GILL WRITE: "To win them is to teach them, for the word has signification of teaching doctrine (See chapter 4:2)"?

                                                                               CHAPTER EIGHT
                                                  HYPER­CALVINISM AND ANTINOMIANISM

 Andrew Fuller, Charles Spurgeon, J.M. Pendleton, and Ian Murray, to name but a few Neo­calvinists, threw the term "antinomian" at every sound Calvinist they knew; primarily to discredit the effects of the Gospel of Christ as preached by true Christians. It was such enemies of the truth of free

grace that effectively nailed the terms "Hyper­calvinists," "Hardshells," "Anti­ means" and "Anti­evangelicals", on the faithful defenders of the historic Christian faith. In time, it became apparent by the excessive carnality of their own followers that they, rather than the free grace ministers, were the real "antinomians:” Recall the definition of "antinomianism"? To refresh the readers’ memory: The Greek word for “law” is "nomos.” The prefix “anti” means “against." Thus, the simple definition is that an antinomian is someone who is against the law. In theology, then, it is anyone against the law of God; any who live "lawlessly." [Some more sophisticated individuals may object to the simplicity of this definition. However, it is as accurate as theirs might be, and far less complicated as some.] Hyper­calvinists reading this would certainly be surprised, for they know that "the law is just, holy, and good." They know how often it is that they "meditate on the law both day and night." But let us face it: anyone who will preach lies will tell them as well. These so­called "Evangelicals" are saying that the Hyper­calvinists, or Hardshells, who do not believe that Christ died for everyone to give them an equal "chance" to "get saved" by keeping the law, or making decisions, are therefore “against the law of God." A dictionary definition is: "Antinomian: n. Theo. A member of a Christian sect holding that faith alone is necessary to salvation." (The. American Heritage' Dictionary, 1976; Houghton Miffin Company, Boston.) How about that! Isn't that about the same as the definition of "Calvinism," in chapter One? Didn't Fuller, Spurgeon, Pendleton, and Murray claim that they were "Calvinists”? And did they not also believe that faith is necessary unto salvation? Anyone who has read our defense in the former chapters should know that Hyper­calvinists do not make faith, repentance, or dead works conditions to salvation!

 Rather, these things are the fruits of salvation, and "gifts" of God. Hence, Hyper­calvinists are further from Antinomianism than their accusers! They believe salvation is by the sacrifice of Christ, and experimentally a birth; not a decision! Considering these definitions as stated, it were such men as Fuller, Spurgeon, and Murray who are the true antinomians; for they did not believe in, nor respect, the law of God. Their insistence that faith and repentance, which are grace covenant blessings, were duty­bound under the Law of Moses, was, and is, a terrible abuse of both the law and the Gospel. If “the letter of the law killeth, but the Spirit giveth life," then offering "faith and repentance" as conditions nullify the killing effects of the law. And it is very evident that this has happened throughout the religious world. Such misapplication of the law coupled with the "easy­decisionism" of Fullerism, has created religious societies "filled with all manner of abominations." (Revelation 17:4­5.) Some others define an Antinomian as "one who is opposed to keeping the law on the basis that salvation is by grace only." Whichever of these definitions are used, those who charge Hyper­calvinists with believing such are greatly ignorant of what the Hyper­calvinists really believe. Worse, they concoct these false allegations without any basis in fact, and then make no effort to double­ check to see if they came close to their target. Of all groups of religions in America, those called "Hyper­calvinists" live the most God­honoring lives and are the most rigid in moral and church discipline; while those who charge them with being against the law seem too often not concerned about behaving consistently with it themselves. So let us examine this issue more closely. Look at the first definition: "An Antinomian is one that believes that faith alone is necessary to salvation." That sounds to a Hyper­calvinists that "faith" is a "condition" to salvation. It also is the great contribution of Martin Luther to the Reformation! If salvation precedes "faith," then it cannot be necessary “unto salvation." Unless this writer is uninformed, that definition is closer to the Protestantism of Martin Luther than anyone else. It seems to him that it is exactly what Murray, Spurgeon, and Evangelicals believe!

Consider this: Hyper­calvinists believe that salvation2was procured by the active life and passive work of Christ during His first advent. If this is so, then nothing done by, or experienced by the sinner can be a condition to attain this salvation. It is just not true that Hyper­calvinists are Antinomians by this definition! On this count, the charge is false. They hold that the active and passive obedience of Christ is their salvation, and faith is given to the saved, and this faith looks to the faith of Christ and His blessed work for its imputed righteousness. Without imputed righteousness, one is not saved! Since these Neo­calvinists also sometimes charge Hyper­ calvinists with believing that "babies go to hell, not a span long" (Bailey, American Heritage History), it should be pointed out that the Neo­Calvinists are the ones in danger of teaching such! For it is clear, that if "faith alone" is necessary to salvation” then infants certainly cannot "believe unto salvation!" Their doctrine ­ not Hyper­calvinists', would place "infants in hell, not a span long!" Hyper­calvinists believe Christ has already saved His people with an everlasting salvation; and who is to say whether it embraces "all" infants, "some" infants, or "no" infants? It is the persuasion of this writer that since one­hundred percent of the children "two years old and under" that Herod had murdered in Bethlehem were saved ("and will come again from the land of the enemy," (Jeremiah 31:15­17), then there is hope that all elect infants dying in infancy are saved, and that by the same work which saved adult elect! But the Scriptures are not addressed to infants, but to believing adults! The second definition above reads: "One who believes the law is abolished and all are now under grace." Again, that is totally contrary to both the Scriptures and the belief of Hyper­calvinists. Jesus said: "I came not to destroy the law, but that the law be fulfilled." It certainly is not abolished. Every quickened child of God has an internal witness that the law of God is "holy, just, and good." They understand by personal experience that they "would not have known sin except by the law." As Paul wrote, so they experience: "I would not have known lust had the law not said Thou shalt not covet." It is "by the law" that there is “knowledge of sin."

It is the law which is the ''schoolmaster unto Christ," and of all people, Hyper­calvinists grasp the real utility of the law's perfect work. It, under the application of the Spirit, brought to them the knowledge of their awful sinfulness and ruin. They are taught its value by a gracious experience deep within their souls. By these definitions, they are not in any wise Antinomians. But guess who are! The "Evangelicals," whose lives are not directed by the strict standard of primitive Christianity! Since Ian Murray is still alive, he knows how loose and ungodly so­called "Christians" are. He may be ashamed of them ... he ought to be, since he loves judging Hyper­calvinists as Antinomians! In that same definition, the phrase "and all are under grace," the Hyper­calvinists do not believe a word of it! How can a graceless sinner be under grace? They hear it said over and over in Pelagian churches. They hear graceless individuals proclaim "but we are not under the law today, we are under grace." Nothing can be further from the truth! All lifeless sinners are, as in Adam, under the law of the Creator God, and will remain under that law until called by grace or death to judgment. And if and when called by grace, they are under law to Christ. In reality, the Spirit establishes the law within their hearts upon the new birth experience. Simply put: If one is not under any law, that one is independent, sovereign, and cannot possibly sin, "for sin is the transgression of the law." It is the transgressions of the law by which they shall be judged. Those Pelagians and Neo­calvinists numbered with the "foolish virgins;" the "tares sown among the wheat;" the ''bad fish" in the Gospel net; the "goats" set on the left, etc., are all still under the law. They are obligated to keep it in its original purity as given to them in Adam's loins; and because of his and their violations of it, are yet under its curse. If that view is antinomianism, then, and only then, are Hyper­calvinists such! The third part of the definition says that Hyper­calvinists "oppose the law on the basis that salvation is by grace." There certainly is no "opposition to the law" by Hyper­calvinists. It was the law that Christ came under in order to "redeem us" from the "curse of the law." Grace does not free us from the law of Christ; rather it establishes His law over and in us.

 It is by free grace that the "law is written in their hearts," by the Spirit of God. In that manner He establishes His kingdom, and they become the subjects of His kingdom; and Christ "is King in Zion." Hyper­calvinists understand the purpose of the law in its killing power, and the need for its fulfillment by Christ as their righteousness. It is this righteousness which is imputed to them. But they differ with the Fullerites of the past; and present­day Neo­ calvinists on what that law is for. Hyper­calvinists do not believe that the Law of Moses is a rule of life for believers. They believe the rule of life for the believer is the Holy Spirit and the spiritual law that He established in their hearts, minds, and souls. That is a new covenant promise and blessed provision. Above we used this qualification: "They differ with the Fullerites of the past." Why? The Fullerites of Andrew Fullers' days were "legalists," and insisted upon the law as a rule of life. Fullerite Neo­calvinists today, make no pretense at all in keeping the law for any reason! They think it is abolished altogether. Decisionism and freewill "choice" has taken the place of the law as a rule of life of “deciders­for Christ.” Of all the Baptist family, it is the Hyper­calvinists, or Old School Baptists, who alone have remained Nomians. All other factions of Fullerites are now very antinomian. None of them consistently and continually proclaim the law, or Torah, as a rule of conduct. And this is one of the main sources of the problems facing them and this society. In spite of the majority of Americans claiming to be "Christians;” (decision­made, of course) in the impeachment process of the President of the United States, a Fullerite "Evangelical" Baptist, as high as 76% of people polled agreed that he sinned, yet approved of him "because it was only adultery!" Throughout his presidency, he attended "church," and made sure the cameras pictured him holding his Bible with extra­large book­markers visible. We do not accuse all Fullerites of approving of his conduct; but the legacy of Fullerism and their neglect of preaching the commandments, and lack of discipline over their members has corrupted the morals of the nation.

The membership of the President’s church is obligated by the Gospel order to censure him; but they 1do not believe they should "judge another." Paul said, "Is the law sin? God forbid! Nay, I had not have known sin, but by the law.” (Romans 7:7) Again he wrote: "for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." (II Corinthians 6:6.) If Paul, who was schooled in the law, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews," as "touching the law blameless," can say this, then it is according to sound doctrine to declare that: "Without the law, ministers cannot know sin." And many don't. "Without the law, their congregation cannot know sin." And this is one problem of nominal “Christians.” "Without the law, our children cannot know sin" etc. the neglect by Pelagian and Neo­calvinist antinomians is a serious problem for the modern “Church”! By the preaching of the law, (not as a rule of life, but as a rule of conduct when sanctified by the Spirit,) is "the knowledge of sin." And without a very sharp, quickened, felt, and terrified view of one's condition, a soul can never appreciate the degree of the sufferings of our Blessed Redeemer! Hyper­calvinists insist that there is no law, or plan of salvation, nor "Roman­road" series of Bible verses, that can give life or justify a sinner. That all Adam's offspring shall be judged by that one standard of equity given to all mankind in Adam; and that standard, in a weakened form, is evident in every man's conscience to this day. They do, by nature, know what is right and wrong, and accuse and excuse one another accordingly. Those that teach that all mankind is now under grace, when most are graceless, are the true Antinomians, and they are not the Hyper­ calvinists! If one examines closely the fruits of the Fullerites' views, whereby they base salvation on a mere mental decision, and once this decision is made, the decider is "once saved, and always saved" thereafter; and that they are not under a law to anyone; they should see antinomianism clearly demonstrated. It then becomes apparent why so­ called "Christians'" lives are so shameful. The present­day superstition relative to how a sinner can be just 6before God is as great as it was when Martin Luther nailed his Thesis on the chapel door.

These proselytizing antinomian "Evangelicals" actually believe that quoting John 3:16 or some other combination of half texts, can, under certain conditions of the human will, produce divine life in a dead sinner. A professor at Mercer University at Macon, Georgia said: "The Holy Spirit finished His work with the canonization of the New Testament, and is no longer in the world." When a shocked, theological student asked: "How then is one born again?" his reply was: "By the Word of God." This same professor, Dr. McMannus, informed the students that the Scriptures were "forged documents," and Christians borrowed their doctrine of the resurrection and life after death from the Egyptians. A student concluded that this Professor advocated that regeneration was by preaching forged Egyptian documents! In any wise, the “professor” did not know that regeneration essential to experimental salvation was by a spiritual birth! Nor did he know that salvation, all of it, was secured by Christ two thousand years ago! Mercer is a Fullerite "Evangelical" university! The great "scheduled revivals" (so­called) are Fullerite enlistment drives designed to "regenerate" sinners, and do anything else necessary to build up the membership of religious institutions. If only Fuller could have had foreknowledge! (See APPENDIX: A : Antinomianism , by Samual Trott, 1839, page 282) Question: After reading Trott’s article on “Antinomianism,” and the above chapter, would you conclude that Hyper­Calvinists are Antinomians? Who might be really true Antinomians today?

                                                                                CHAPTER NINE
                               HYPER­CALVINISM VS. FULLER/SPURGEONISM

 One of the greatest and most precious works of Christ was His suffering and death to satisfy the justice of God on behalf of those He loved that they might not suffer the penalties due their sins, iniquities, and transgressions. This "satisfaction" for the broken law of God is called "the atonement.” The Particular Baptists of England and the Particular and Old School Baptists of the United States have always believed in "limited atonement," or "Particular Redemption." Plainly written, they have always believed that the Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died for the sins of a particular people, the elect, which stood “hid in Christ in God,” eternally in seed­substance, and that His atonement was limited to them only. This is exactly what the Scriptures teach. It is rather fool­hearted to say that Christ died for the goats, when He made it clear that He "laid down His life for His sheep;” or, that He died for those for whom He prayed to His Father, "I pray NOT for the WORLD, but for those Thou hast given Me out of the world" (John 17:9.) The apostle, in the only place in the New Testament where the word "atonement" is used, said: "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have NOW received (not, "accepted,” and it is in the past tense.) the atonement." (Romans 5:11). Before proceeding, note the word "now". The Hyper­calvinists, as one might have realized, believe this as it is stated. The atonement is not something preachers will help Him do in this time period. Note also, the word "received." In the English of 1611, the words "receive" and "accept" have distinctive meanings. A "gift" is given and received. If it is never "received," then it was not given. It was only "offered". If something is "offered:” it may be accepted or rejected. To illustrate: "To as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God." (John 1:12.) In this case, He was the "gift of God" and they had "received" Him internally. They did not "accept" Him because He was not "offered" to them. Christ is God's "gift" to His people. He is never "offered" to any man. But He was offered to His Father as a sacrifice for the sins of His people, and the Father was well pleased. Look at the text more closely. "We," the believers "joy in God."

They must have heard "glad tidings"! Why? It is through our Lord Jesus Christ, whom "we have received" something given. And that something was the atonement. They have now received this free gift of God. They already, now, have received it. They are not going to receive it when they hear about it; or when they believe it; yet let alone when they mentally decide to "accept" it. Is this the truth? Test it. Has everyone of Adam's race received this gift? Unless you are a Universalist, you cannot answer ''Yes.'' The apparent truth is that most have not! “We received the atonement." The "we" clearly shows it to be a limited atonement, for “we” is a personal pronoun. It is limited to the people represented by this personal pronoun “we” in this text. It is a particular redemption, because of the "we" in particular, who are redeemed thereby does not include “all”. One may do what one will; he cannot give this atonement to the "world of the ungodly." That world may, and some do, join religious societies believing that Christ's death was "for everybody;" but they cannot receive something that is not given to them. The "evangelist" or "soul­winner" may offer the "children's bread to dogs,"(Matthew 7:6) and the "dogs that are without" (Revelation 22:15) may attempt to accept his most generous offer, but since it is not his to offer, it avails nothing as far as salvation is concerned until God gives it and the sinner receives it. And this is evident in the lives of those who nominally "accept Christ as their personal Helper" and "got saved." It is evident, abundantly evident, that it does not work. If it did, their lives and conversations would be much different. All this seems simple enough, but highly intelligent minds have stumbled on it. Truly, it "is hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes." This writer recently listened to a Mormon theologian (Philosopher) on Joe Smith and the Atonement. He was not surprised to hear that Peep­ Stone Joe believed the atonement was for all mankind. He had heard this all his life. But he was surprised to hear the atonement was for all animal life on earth as well. Keenely listening now, he was even greater surprised that the atonement reached to the angelic creatures around the throne of God. But this was nothing compared to his shock is hearing that the atonement covered the devils in hell! Boy, you talk about universal atonement !

It became obvious that Peep­Stone Joe had no idea what the word “atonement” meant. But neither did the Arminians, nor do the present­day Pelagians and “four­point” Calvinists! Jesus said, “I lay down my life for My sheep.” He also said of others, “Ye are not My sheep.” Hence, the atonement is limited and it is particular. Before going into this subject further, it would be well to show how very gifted believers can err, and still be led into the sweetness of the truth over time. Perhaps the greatest and best known twentieth century Calvinist writer was Arthur W. Pink. None in this century can come close to him on his presentation of the “Sovereignty of God,” and his “Satisfaction of Christ.” Both books show his leanings toward Fullerism, yet at the same time show his magnificent growth in grace and knowledge as his studies in the Scriptures progressed. In “Letters From Spartenburg:1917­1920; [published by Richard P. Belcher, 215 Spartan Drive, Columbia, SC 29212­ Richbarry Press, P.O. Box 302, Columbia, SC 29202.] written when Mr. Pink was thirty­three to thirty­six years old, we read this: "It is necessary to use the second term, sufficient in order to fully enforce the sinner's accountability. On the cross Christ did a work which has made it, abstractly or hypothetically possible for God to redeem whosoever He pleases. There a sacrifice was offered which was infinite in value, hence, "sufficient" to redeem the entire world had God so pleased." –That is St. Thomas Aquinas (Catholic) and Andrew Fuller’s (1782) heresy. Yet watch Mr. Pink: In this, and following letters, He is clearly a Fullerite of the original cloth, holding to particular redemption and general atonement. But even this early, he was constantly in prayer, and having others in prayer for him, that he would be able to present the truth of God's grace. And God apparently heard his humble plea. The above quotation was written even as he was led into the sweetness of the truth as he was finishing his
masterpiece: “The Sovereignty of God,” and as he was working on his Studies in Scriptures in the “Gleanings In Genesis” series. This latter is riddled with hyper­dispensationalism, which was also greatly modified over time. In later years and with greater advantage of Scriptural knowledge and revelation, he wrote the following, which is close to the position of this writer: "The design of Christ's satisfaction as made known in Scripture reveals its scope .... It is because a right view of this point is absolutely essential, if God is to be honored and Christ is to be glorified by us therein. The enmity of the Serpent against the Seed of the woman has been inveterate throughout the ages, and perhaps at no other point has he so persistently attacked the glory of Christ. While it is impossible for Satan to either undo the finished work of the Savior, or to destroy any of its fruits, yet he is permitted to misrepresent it, and nowhere has his subtlety been more exercised and manifested than in the means employed here. His very attempts to discredit the satisfaction of Christ has been made under the guise of magnifying it, and that is why he has succeeded in getting many men reputed as "orthodox" to do some of his foul work for him.” . . . “Which seems to have the greater tendency to exalt Christ: to say that He died because He desired and sought to make possible the salvation of all mankind or to say that He died only for God's elect, the "little flock"? Which seems to display the more His compassion for sinners? Which seems to bring out the more the value of His blood: to say that it avails only for a "few"? Or, to say that its merits are so infinite that every member of Adam's race would be redeemed did he or she but put their trust in it? The very fact that every one of us would answer the question in the wrong way until we are taught aright from Scripture, not only evidences the worthlessness of carnal reasoning upon spiritual things, but also shows to what a terrible extent our minds have been poisoned by the venom of the Serpent. If it can be clearly shown that, in reality, the wider view dishonors Christ, then the consummate guile and malice of the Devil therein should be plainly apparent.”

 "The fact is that those who advocate the scheme of general redemption are so far from magnifying the grace of God, that they, really, degrade both Divine grace and Christ's sacrifice." (“Satisfaction of Christ,” Bible Truth Depot, Swengel, Pa., pages 241 & 243.) What a transition of doctrine! Would to God all readers could be so blessed. Here Mr. Pink is solidly on Biblical ground. This is not Fullerism! In fact, it is what Neo­calvinists charge as being "Hyper­calvinism." Granted, Mr. Pink will not go as far as Hyper­calvinists, but on this point they are agreed. In his “Satisfaction of Christ,” he still maintained that the atonement did not mean "at­one­ment," which it certainly does, for by that satisfaction sin was removed and the elect sinners reconciled to God by Christ IN WHOM they have their subsistence as the "Body of Christ." It is possible he changed in latter years, for one blessed characteristic of Mr. Pink was that he was never satisfied to become "settled on the lees," as Moab! (Jeremiah 48:11.). This book will be rather sharp with Mr. Spurgeon because of a dishonoring duality in his preaching. Unlike Pink, he never became clearer in his views. "Calvinism" to him was only another view­point of Christianity, maybe more conservative than Arminianism, but to him, both seem to have been viewed as the "truth." It appeared to him just another equally contending “plan of salvation.” He most frequently advocated a general atonement when attempting to get "decisions." Then he sometimes denied it outright! It is not evident that he was ever really settled on one point or the other, but at least once he stumbled on the subject and got it right: He wrote, "Many divines say that Christ did something when He died that enabled God to be just and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for everybody; but then, their atonement is just this: that Judas was atoned for as much as Peter, that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ's satisfaction as the saved in heaven.

Though they do not say it in proper words they must mean that, in the case of multitudes Christ died in vain, for they say He died for all and yet so ineffectual was His dying for them, that many were damned afterwards. Now, such an atonement I despise ­ I reject it. I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not sufficient for anybody except the will of man be joined with it. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that anyone of us might afterwards save himself, Christ's atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us able to save himself­ no, not under the Gospel.” (C.H.Spurgeon on Isaiah 53:10.) That quotation is true; it is Hyper­calvinism at its best! As Mr. Pink said: " ... it is the office of the Holy Spirit to GIVE saving faith to everyone of those for whose sins Christ atoned.” (ibid. page 245.) All the above truth, those people charged with "Hyper­calvinism" believe, except the one point: that the Hyper­calvinists believe all the elect are already "judicially" saved. For Mr. Spurgeon, this was one of his better days. The quotations above illustrate the fact that one can be long in error, yet be brought to a more clear view of salvation by grace. A child of God does "grow in grace and knowledge of the truth." For our Neo­calvinist readers, it is one design of this work to present the most consistent doctrine of the Christian faith, and to point out the glaring inconsistencies of Fullerism. If one is called of God, he will grow in grace. However, our next example is one where an "orthodox" Baptist lost his sight, and followed Fuller into doctrinal ruin. This, too, is possible, as we shall show. Invariably this happens when ministers become impatient with the Lord's work of "adding to the Church daily such as should be saved." By nature, man just cannot leave matters in God's hand and time! This impatience is the source of most departures from the Christian faith. J. M. Pendleton, the well known American Baptist leader, published his “Christian Doctrines,” in 1878, during the “down­grade period” in America

 He first stated the doctrine so well that no Calvinist or Hypercalvinist would have taken issue with him. Notice this first part of his statement on the atonement: “What is it? It is the expiation of sin by the satisfaction rendered to the law and justice of God, through the obedience and death of Christ. I know of no better definition that this.” (ibid., page 223.) That is very good, Mr. Pendleton! That is Christian and Baptists' doctrine! But watch how he improves on this definition, of which he says: "I know of no better definition than this": "As to the sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of the world, there can be no doubt, and there need be no controversy. If as has been shown, the value of the atonement arises chiefly from the dignity of Christ's person [which it does not­SCP]. . . it is a grand impertinence to attempt to limit its sufficiency. . . It places the world in a savable state. It makes salvation an attainable object. That is, all men in consequence of the atonement occupy a position where saving influences will reach them." (ibid. page 242.) Unfortunately, the man was not a rational thinker. Every thought in the second part of his statement contradicts everything in his first part! If he put the two thoughts together in his reasoning, he cannot but proclaim the universal salvation and the extinguishing of the fires of hell! Gilbert Beebe once wrote: "It must be good to be a doctor!" Look at the word he used in his first part: "expiation." That word means "to make atonement; the act of expiating". The word "atonement" means "to exchange;” i.e., “restoration to favor; to change mutually, to compound a difference; to reconcile." To "expiate" sin is to put sin away and to reconcile the sinner to the offended party­ in this place, to God. So, according to Mr. Pendleton's definition, which cannot be "stated better," the atonement was made to render satisfaction to the law and justice of God by our Lord; and this atonement "exchanged something mutually," "reconciling" someone back to God.

In other words, Christ is our Substitute, and He exchanged His righteousness for our sins. This part is Biblically correct. But, given over to spiritual blindness, the doctor sees no contradiction in the two parts of his statement. As Fuller before him, and his contemporary fellow proselyter, Mr. Spurgeon, Pendleton considered himself to be a "Calvinist," when in reality, he and they were much more Arminians. The above quotes prove that point. In this century, that position of Arminianism rapidly slid into freewill Pelagianism. Few, if any, Arminians now remain. Following Fuller, Pendleton says that Christ expiated our sins; but they are not yet expiated! He satisfied the law for all mankind; but He is still very unsatisfied because most will perish! Christ's atonement, did not atone for anything or anyone! It merely put men in a "savable state" whereby saving influences can reach them. He did not say what these "saving influences” were; but whatever they are, they are more effectual than anything Christ has done for them! According to this doctrine, Christ did not save us by His blood; we have not now received the atonement, Christ is not now the Savior, and others must find some "saving influences" to reach our case! They have invented a truck load of these saving influences this past century! Baptism for the dead by their loved ones, indulgences by the Catholic society, limbo, purgatory, intercession for the living by the departed spirits of the dead, and such things as Christian swimming pools, tennis courts, little league base ball for Christ, "Tee" ball, parties, singles clubs, revivals, choirs, brass bands, youth­for­Christ, vacation Bible schools, praise bands, praise stomping for Jesus, etc. But one has reason to question whether these "influences" are really "saving" or not. All these are predicated upon the belief that Christ miserably failed to accomplish His purpose for coming into the world. As pointed out earlier, this strange illogical and unscriptural theory is not Calvinism and never has been! Yet the followers of Fuller call themselves "Calvinists" and call Calvinists "Hyper­calvinists"! We hope that anyone reading this that follows the "evangelical and benevolent movement" and has come to an understanding of Calvinism will earnestly question the thesis upon which that Pelagian error was founded. Faithful Calvinists see no need whatsoever for a non­savable (so­called) atonement.

 The very great High Priest of the "Evangelical Calvinists" is Charles H. Spurgeon. [Applaud, kneel, and weep for joy!] To them, he is the only divine authority for what is "supposed" to be Calvinism and what constitutes "Hyper­calvinism," and what unscriptural methods should be employed in "winning souls" to Christ for Calvinists! Arminians love him as much as Calvinists and even Pelagians bow before his grace! It is interesting that every "Calvinistic" sounding sermon he has preached has been gleamed from that enormous library of his freewill sermons, and selectively republished. No one has needed to selectively republish his freewill sermons. All one has to do is buy his “Pulpit Sermons” and that is what he will get! Spurgeon served the church that John Gill had served. It seems to this writer that Spurgeon felt that occasionally he had to throw a Calvinist bone to the few "Gillites" which still remained in that apostate congregation. When one reads the sermons of Spurgeon, he can easily find the Arminian element underlying his basic concepts. Just to select one book at random as an illustration, we picked up one which should be Calvinistic: “All of Grace,” (Moody Press.) Since Freewillers do not believe in free grace, this book must be Calvinistic. The title indicates that it is. That is the reason this writer bought it, and wasted his money! He thought it was a “sovereign grace book.” Here is the very first sentence in the little book: "The object of this book is the salvation of the reader." Wow! There it is! Spurgeon wasted no time getting to the core of his doctrine! That is his opening statement! Talk about ignorance of the way of salvation by Christ, this is a glaring instance! This book must be one of those "saving influences” Neo­calvinists talk about. Its implication is that Christ has not saved His people from their sins, but this little book can! According to this, He has failed!

 "And thou shalt call Him All­of­Grace, for it shall save the world of the ungodly from their sins." (Jude 15:110). Since apparently Christ was unable to "save to the uttermost them that cometh to Him by faith," this little book may do it. We must conclude that Spurgeon believed the readers of his little book were in Pendleton's "savable state." It seems clear, in that first statement, that salvation is not of the Lord, but is of proselyters. What Christ did was not effectual; but what this little book can do is! Maybe the little book will get better. Second sentence: "He who spoke and wrote it will be greatly disappointed if it does not lead many to the Lord Jesus Christ." No. It did not get better! This little book may lead many to the Lord Jesus Christ that Christ was unable to call to repentance! Surely one would rather believe that their salvation, from start to finish, was of the Lord, than of a little lifeless book. To a Hyper­calvinist, this man, howsoever great and popular he was, did not know how or when God saved His elect people. In fact, it seems as if he did not believe that He had; or that He had an elect people either. Mr. Spurgeon begged thousands down the aisles. He claimed to be a Calvinist. But today's Neo­calvinists have never learned the lesson that Spurgeon finally discovered. He had added thousands of "freewillers," dead sinners, to the Baptist Union in England. He saw many sliding into Socinianism (universalism) and became alarmed. He realized, too late, that Calvinism among the proselytizing Baptists was almost dead. He attempted to get the Baptist Union to write Calvinism into their constitution of union. When it finally came down to a vote, approximately five to six thousands of delegates and visitors voted it down with cheers, whistles, and a deafening roar of joyous applause. One informed Mr. Spurgeon that only seven delegates stood with him! It appeared a sad day he left the Baptist Union, and a very short time later, his health failed, and the great Compromiser, Charles Haddon Spurgeon died. His lasting legacy goes mostly unheeded today by Neo­7calvinists.

 He warned Baptists of where they were drifting in his last series of articles on, what he titled, "The Down Grade." Interestingly, the Southern Baptists' State Baptist Convention of Kentucky wrote a letter to Spurgeon supporting him and his call to Calvinism. They did not know that in 1892, it was too late for them too. They also slipped onto the "Down Grade" into the abyss of freewill Pelagianism very shortly thereafter. The Down Grade swept throughout the Fullerite factions, and by 1900, the once Particular Baptists, had become Freewill Baptists. The first president of the Southern Baptist Convention preached his last sermon on Election and Predestination just before he died in 1886. The revival of the Old School Baptists between 1886 and 1910 was due, in part, to the exodus of thousands of free grace believers out of the Fullerite churches; and these believers wanted no part of "conditionalism" any more. Fuller and Spurgeon's "evangelical motive" was based upon what they thought about the atonement of Christ. The message was, and still is, that Christ wanted to save everybody; and made the dreadful mistake of leaving it up to carnal minded preachers to do the most necessary part. It is noteworthy, that the three disciples that waited upon Him in the garden, while He prayed, "fell asleep." "Can you not watch and pray an hour?" And finally He said, "Sleep on." In the Fuller/Spurgeon view that Christ' death was sufficient "for all men," the main blind spot in their understanding was what the Godhead had accomplished. They failed to believe that what the Godhead engaged in was according "to His eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Ephesians 3:11) The obtaining of an inheritance among the saints is "predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." (Ephesians 1:11); and "this is the will of God, even your sanctification." All those who are called by the Holy Spirit to life and salvation are "called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28.)

The election of one person and not another, as in "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" is "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works (as the Neo­calvinists press upon their hearers), but of Him that calleth." (Romans 9:11.) We stated that this was their "blind spot," for they surely could not help but know what these verses said, they being educated, and considered "Calvinists." But God gave them over "to blindness in part,” that they “could not see with their eyes, or hear with their ears, or perceive in their hearts, and be converted and healed.” To any sound man, it should be as evident as the noon­day sun on a cloudless day, that GOD never purposed to save all men; or all men would be saved; or else God is not GOD! It was not the eternal purpose of God to give all men "a chance to be saved," for salvation has never been "by chance," but "by grace." God does not play the casino! Surely the great Creator of the universe did not create man before He knew whether He could control him or not! He did not loose control of His work. It still, daily, operates by Him by "which all things consist” (Colossians 1:17,) and is still “upheld by the Word of His power." (Hebrews 1:3.) At the time that Christ died for His people, those who had "perished in the gainsaying of Korah;" those who perished in the flood during the deluge of Noah's day; such as the rich man who did not give any help to poor Lazarus, Esau, and Balaam, to name but a few, were already in Hell. They certainly were not in a savable state? Nor could saving influences reach them there. Some very articulate men are not necessarily bright in spiritual things, for the “natural man receiveth not of the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to them, neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned. ” When given over by God to judicial blindness, it is impossible for them to comprehend the plainest declaration of truth thereafter. Jude put it this way: “For there are certain men crept in unawares who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 4) The Greek word for “Lord” in this text is “Kurios,” which means "supreme in authority, i.e., controller. (Strong's Concordance.)

 It is this characteristic of God that Fuller and his followers to this day deny to our God. They present Him as an ignorant, helpless, and defeated god out of one side of their mouth, and say they believe He is sovereign out of the other. Thus they proclaim "free grace or “freewill,” as it best suits their particular needs at the time. If one wonders how they could arrive at such a contradiction in doctrine, it should be noted that they based their views on a false premise. Their prima facie is that the Gospel is an invitation. This throws them completely off of the truth. They assume this without any Scriptural warrant, and even contrary to the very definition of the word Gospel. As highly educated as these men were, the only explanation which seems possible for their lack of understanding of the plain meanings of words is that "God gave them up" to this "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they might be damned, who hold not the truth" (2 Thessalonians 2:12.) They introduced among the Baptists, and the "evangelical groups" which thereafter splintered from them, the very sword Satan needed to destroy the purity and power of Christianity. The moral decay in Western society can be traced philosophically directly to this pernicious freewill theory that God loves everyone. Watch J.M.Pendleton's conceptual development: "It is a fact;” says he, (without any citation of scriptural support,) "that the Scriptures rest the general invitation of the Gospel upon the atonement of Christ." Is this the truth? Of course not! The scriptures nowhere speak of a "general invitation of the Gospel." "But," says he, "if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them (i.e., all men without exception) to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of His having now made sin for us, ("us" who? all mankind? Then the pronoun should be “them,”) "who knew no sin, that we (what “we”? ­ all mankind? If so the pronoun should be "they.") "might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (Pendleton's quote from Fuller). How is it possible for all mankind to be made the "righteousness of God," unless their sins were imputed to Christ?
And if they were, then in return, the righteousness of Christ would be imputed to the whole world. That is universal salvation as surely as Christ died! Now, Paul assures us in that very same text that “Christ was made sin for us." When was He made sin for us? While He was here under the law fulfilling it in behalf of His people by imputation! Not when they were given faith to believe that it was true. He Himself knew no sin. Why did He do it at all? They answer, “For the whole world to have a chance!” Paul said why: “That we might be made the righteousness of God IN HIM." Who then, in the final analysis, are actually made "righteous ” by Christ's keeping the law and dying for them, not imputing their sins to them; but imputing to them His righteousness? Was it the world of the ungodly? Impossible! The Scriptures teach it was done for those included in the "US," the "WE," ­ or the elect only. Whatever Christ did, He did it while here in the flesh. He does not do it when or after one hears the Gospel about it. The Gospel is not an invitation to anyone, the elect or the reprobates to accept or reject. It is the publication of glad tidings to those for whom He made righteous. J. M. Pendleton particularly liked Mr. Fuller's analogy between fallen angels and fallen men: "What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to be reconciled to God from the consideration of an atonement having been made to fallen men? You would say, 'It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence? the obtaining of which, therefore is naturally impossible.” (That is the best consideration one can have for repudiating his doctrine. It seems he is opposing himself. But watch this twist:) "Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved, the non­elect, however, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible ..." (Perfectly stated, isn't it? That much is consistent and true.

Now, here is the rest.) Watch this: "But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in Him, there is no other impossibility in the way of any man's salvation, to whom the Gospel comes at least, than arise from the state of his own mind." (Christian Doctrines, J.M. Pendleton, page 243.) He did not see that his own twist would also include the fallen angels, devils, that surely believe. According to Mr. Pendleton, they can't, but they can! The writer does not recall a mission board being established to evangelize the devils but if there can be any money to be made by it, don't be surprised if someone starts one! Analyze his departure point above. "If there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners." See how he departed from "particular" redemption. He made the atonement a generalized, nebulous, something. His "if” is too large. There isn't! Christ "laid down His life for His sheep." He died specifically for the elect; if not, there was no need for election to begin with! Of course, his followers today deny that there was an eternal election. But, for Calvinists and Neo­calvinists readers, why should He elect any and then die for everybody? If He died for “every body,” divine election is of no benefit whatsoever to anyone. Now Fuller and Pendleton both said that it was to give "an honest invitation." But it seems ridiculous for Christ to knowingly suffer for so many who would go to hell, merely to give hireling preachers grounds to give what they think is "an honest invitation" to the world of the ungodly. And just how honest is a general invitation to all? This twisting is found on almost every page of Fuller's works. He takes words with standard meanings, and gives them new definitions, and then makes the Scriptures say exactly the opposite of what it says. Reading behind him one thinks, "How could this man deceive anyone?" Anyone he deceived wanted to be deceived! The sectarian schools that sprouted as mushrooms everywhere Fullerism went turned out such irrational men in great abundance.

 It is a remarkable testimony to the total depravity of the carnal mind! As stated in the question above, Andrew Fuller, J.M. Pendleton, Charles H. Spurgeon, and company believed salvation to be “a mental” act, ­ "of his own mind." Here, was a cardinal departure from the Christian experience! Salvation is applied by a birth, not by a mental act! If one takes the false assumption that the Gospel is an invitation, and believes that Christ saved us from our sins, then Fuller's own argument is a perfect argument to use against his own teaching! It is as foolish as it is unscriptural, to "offer" salvation to dead men, and especially to reprobates. One could just as easily conclude that Christ died for fallen angels as well, for they too, are "sinners." No Calvinist and certainly no Hyper­calvinist can hold to Fuller's universalistic position consistently. It was this very position which was used by Satan to strengthen the Anti­christ by the invention of a "modern missionary movement," simultaneously with the international socialist movement. One, the political arm, was a "beast," while the other, the religious arm, was a "false prophet." (Think that one on out in light of Revelation!) Those two movements have brought the world to where it is today! The large Calvinistic denomination known as the Reformed Church, embraced the same spirit of duplicity in claiming there was a "common grace," which did not regenerate, but was given to all men alike, both elect and reprobates. Without pursuing this, it is sufficient here to note that it resulted in a similar division among the Reformed bodies, and the one known as the Christian Reformed Church rapidly went into Mystery Babylon's heresy of Pelagianism; while, as the Old School Baptists in America and Gospel Standard churches in England, the smaller and sounder body, the Protestant Reformed Church remained supralapsarian Calvinists as were their forefathers. Among the Baptists, the ones holding to the "Old School" were termed "Hardshell" and "Hyper­calvinists." The Fullerites were often called "Freewillers," "Soft Shells," "Conditionalists" and "Limited" (at first, meaning "limited predestinarians"­ they are no longer predestinarian at all).

Among the Reformed bodies, the Neo­calvinists are often referred to as "Arminians" or "Hypo­calvinists." In both camps, the ones modifying Calvinism to accommodate the world of the ungodly, plunged into the hell of heresy. Notice Fuller's language in the next quotation. It rings familiar with all those present­day Neo­calvinist writers who try so hard to reconcile God's sovereignty with man's supposed "freewill;" or, God's sovereignty and the theory of "human responsibility." The Bible says nothing about "human responsibility," and the very word is contrary to Calvinism, Hyper­Calvinism and Baptists' doctrine. The doctrine teaches that in the spiritual realm, man is totally depraved and unable to save himself by his own will and effort. It, as "general atonement," and "invitations," is a false assumption. Fuller wrote: "I do not deny that there is difficulty in these statements, but it belongs to the general subject of reconciling the purposes of God with the agency of man." Fuller has a problem separating the things of God from the theories of men. Here he speaks of the purposes of God, as if He were a mere man. God "is of one mind who can turn Him?" He has but one eternal purpose. He has no “purposes"­plural. In all five places where the word purposes (plural) are used in the Bible, they refer to the "purposes" of men. Secondly, he speaks of man as an "agent." An agent as an "agent" is not free. He is bound by the will, policies, and dictates of the one responsible for him, under whom he serves as an "agent." A "free agent" is an oxymoron ­ mutually exclusive words; "free" and "agency" are mutually exclusive concepts. [Only in sports are there “free agents;” and who would expect this profession to be very well educated?] The Scriptures do not speak of agents. Rather, it speaks of "servants." And it speaks of two kinds: "servants of sin," and "servants of God," or "righteousness." "He that committeth sin is a servant of sin." Thus, he cannot be a "free agent." No slave is a free agent! He is bound. The whole force of Fullerite doctrine is based upon this false conception, that God made man a "free moral agent." The truth of scripture is that man is not free, but "sold under sin." He is not moral, and this is obvious all around us. Every fiber of his being is immoral, i.e., "totally depraved."

 In no sense is man a "free agent;" or does he possess a "freedom" will. A will? Yes! Free? No! The will is an interstitial faculty of the corrupt natural man, and in itself, it too, is corrupt. "Ye WILL NOT come to Me, that ye might have life." (John 6:40.) The greatest defender of Baptists doctrine in America against the rise of Fullerism was the Old School, or Particular Baptist minister, Elder Gilbert Beebe. [Much of his works are now available, and may be had from The Remnant Publications, P.O. 1004, Hawkins, Texas 75765] The following is quoted from him on this subject from an 1844 Editorial., Volume 1: “Mr. Sands, of the Religious Herald, of Richmond, Virginia, has served up to his readers part of a sermon said to have been delivered in South Carolina by Wm. B. Johnson, D.D., in which the doctor professes to have proved clearly that man is a free agent, and at the same time that God is sovereign! The logic by which the doctor has attempted to prove both sides of this palpable paradox is this: "In considering them separately, each may approve itself to every mind; but in attempting to reconcile them, serious difficulties may arise. From our inability to reconcile these two points, we may be tempted to reject the one at the expense of the other, or reject both." Thus, although the learned doctor virtually admits that the two points are at antipodes with each other, yet he contends that they must be received and believed by those free agents who cannot reconcile them, and the way to do this thing is to believe them one at a time, as it is beyond our capacity to believe both at the same time.

The mode of proving that man is a free agent is as queer as that of disposing of the glaring inconsistency of his theory: "Not free, what proof could they have given sincere, Of true allegiance, constant faith and love, Where only what they needs must do appeared Not what they would; what praise could they receive? What pleasure I from such obedience paid,  When will and reason, (reason also is choice), Useless and vain, of freedom both despoiled, Made passive both, had served necessity, Not me." Ergo, the doctor draws the conclusion that the world must be peopled with free agents, or absolute slaves; bound fast in the chain of Fate, of absolute incompetency to deliver himself from its iron mandate. What a fine thing it is to be a doctor! Truly these things are hidden from babes and sucklings, and revealed to doctors!” Hereafter we will attempt to prove that such a thing as a free agent cannot possibly exit in heaven, earth, or hell. Angels, men, or devils, to be free, could not be accountable to God, nor to any other power, for their conduct; and if free, they are not amenable. Agents, when the term is applied to any created being or thing, signifies an actor for, or in reference to, another; he cannot be free and at the same time an agent." (Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, Jan. 1, 1844, Page 382). ''That man was created under law to his Creator is self­evident, and requires no argument to establish the fact; for if there were no law, there could be no transgression; and if no transgression, no guilt or penalty; but both are manifestly attached to all the human family in their relation to Adam. “By the offense of one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death has passed on all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). That all men are subject to and under the sentence of death is declared in the Scriptures. 'The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law” 1 Cor. 15:56). Therefore, as man could not be a sinner, nor a sufferer of legal penalty, if he were under no law, it follows as a certainty, that man was created under law to God. Whether that law was expressed or only implied, is not the question; but the certainty of its existence, and of its dominion over man. “Until the law,” (or Mosaic dispensation,) “sin was in the world, and death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is a figure of Him that was to come.”

From the above consideration it is certain that man was not, in his first estate, a "free agent;" but that he stood as a creature of God, subject to His will, pleasure and decree; amenable to God, and bound to abide His sovereign pleasure and order in all things. It is ridiculous to argue that man is free, if he is absolutely bound; and that man was bound by the law, and by the absolute and sovereign decrees of God his Maker, few, if any, will dare to deny. An agent is an actor; and none can doubt that man is an actor: but if he is or was a free actor, or agent, he could not sin; or if free, he was under no restraint or obligation to God or man. The absurdity of those who contend that moral obligation and free agency are inseparable is abundantly manifest, for both cannot exit together, it is impossible. That man acted according to his own inclination in the original transgression, and that all men voluntarily sin against God, we do not dispute; but this admitted cannot change the position that a man that is bound is not free, and a man that is free is not bound. As to the allegory of our correspondent, we are led to conclude that all allegories fail to fully elucidate the subject of the mystery of iniquity or the mystery of godliness. The claims of divine government were not annulled by man's apostasy from original innocence, or man would have become a free agent; but his circumstances are materially changed, and in his sins he is fallen under the condemnation and wrath of that law under which he was created, and that law, which before only required him to continue in perfect and perpetual obedience, now pours out its curses upon his guilty head. But the restoration of "the hoe," [referred to in the analogy mentioned] , or implements to work with, cannot qualify the transgressor for obedience to the law; for the soul that sins must die; the law holds the transgressor where he cannot put forth his hand and eat of the tree of life and live forever. But if man had retained his active purity and innocence, that could only have perpetuated his paradise, but it could not make him spiritual, nor fit him for heaven.

 The work of redemption does something more than to restore lost implements; it redeems from the law as well as from guilt, and redeems unto God; brings the redeemed under law to his Redeemer, and secures to him all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus his Lord." (Editorials, Volume 2, 1845, pages 587­588.) Thus, bound under law originally, man was not then a free agent, and for the elect, bound to the law of Christ, he is still not a free agent. In both cases, he is a bond servant. He is either a "servant of sin" or a "servant of righteousness." Following Fuller's position, Pendleton says, (without scriptural warrant,): "Such is the extent of the atonement, that salvation is offered to all men; nor dare we question God's sincerity in making the offer." One would be better persuaded if consistent Biblical support could be given for his philosophical opinion. But watch this next sentence: "While the atoning merit of the blood of Christ is infinite, its saving efficacy is restricted to its application." (Ibid. page 245) Or, "We may therefore say of the atonement that it is so general (better: nebulous!) that all are saved who "come to God" by Christ, (notice that he limited it here, too!) and so limited that none are saved who do not "come to God" through the Mediator, the "man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all." Interesting twisting! Christ did atone, but didn't; He gave Himself for a ransom for all, yet ransomed less than "all." To wit: He was a miserable failure, according to this scheme. It is interesting, considering the time­period of these discussions on the extent of the atonement, how little Christians of that period understood the subject. Joseph Smith, the guru of Mormonism during that period, advocated a “universal atonement.” However, his atonement went far further than Fuller’s, Pendleton’s or Spurgeons. When he said “universal,” he meant universal! He taught that the atonement of Christ covered all man­kind, all angelic and demonic creatures, and even all animal creation.

! It is sel 8evident, that these views of the atonement were insufficient for the salvation of those its advocates applied it to! This kind of double­talk is necessary for those who do not know for whom Christ died, or what He did for them when He died. They create a contradiction between the extent and scope of Christ’s death. In other words, where Christ said: "I lay down My life for the sheep," they must add without authority: "and for the goats, too!" Where He says, "I pray not for the world," they must dispute Him, and say He intercedes for everyone. To them, God "wants" each and every man to be saved (scope), but that He will not apply it to anyone except those that "let Him" (extent). Again, whatever this strange paradoxical doctrine is, it is not Calvinism, nor even Christianity. It stands totally opposing Christianity; hence it can be nothing less than Antichristian. Charles Spurgeon is the high priest of the present­day Neo­calvinist proselyters. But was he a "Calvinist"? Is his so­called "evangelism" true New Testament publication of the true Gospel of redeeming grace? As with all Pelagians, the true test of their orthodoxy is what they do at the conclusion of their sermons. Do they wish to "sit in the temple of God professing themselves to be God," or leave the Gospel where it is: in God's hands. So, let us see how Mr. Spurgeon closes his little book. Turning to the last pages of All of Grace, we read: "But, why should you refuse? If you do not desire the choice blessing, which I have brought to you, at least do me the justice to admit that the blame of your final doom will not lie at my door." Here he shows clearly that he does not believe that Christ has redeemed, reconciled, ransomed, and saved His people – any of them! He continues "When we two meet before the great white throne you will not be able to charge me with having idly used the attention which you were pleased to give me while you were reading my little book." This is an outright denial of electing grace, eternal redemption by Christ, and salvation by grace. It is predicated upon what the readers do with his "little book."

He continues: "Do not refuse Jesus, His love, His blood, His salvation." So, in spite of the Calvinistic title of his little book, it isn't "all of grace" at all! In fact, it is not “Grace at all!” If you can refuse it, it is not salvation. So what of His love? What kind of love would create a hell, and then damn to hell those He loves? If a man set his house on fire with his teenage son asleep in bed, who would think he loved his son, if he refused to awake him, or drag him forcefully out of the burning building, because he did not want to violate his son's "freedom of choice"? Let the reader be the judge. After Christ’s suffering, bleeding, and dying, the Fullerites insist that all that He did was insufficient to save His people, and then write about the “sufficiency of Christ’s atonement!” Continuing with Spurgeon’s “little book”: "I beseech you, Do not turn away from your Redeemer!" Now that is nothing short of ignorance! Yea, blasphemy! How can one refuse one's Redeemer? If a man went to hell, he certainly was not redeemed! One of the five points of Calvinism is “irresistible grace." No, Charles Haddon Spurgeon was not a Calvinist! He adds: "0 Soul, it may be now or never with you." This is not even Christianity! Did Christ not do something? Those people who are charged with Hyper­calvinism are indeed thankful that "Salvation is of the Lord," (Jonah 3:9) and that God is Sovereign. ALLELUIA: FOR THE LORD GOD OMNIPOTENT REIGNETH. ­ Revelation 19:6
                                                                                      Chapter 10
                                     TO WHOM IS THE GOSPEL PREACHED

“To whom is the Gospel Preached” is another topic we have been asked to examine in the light of true Hyper­Calvinism. On this subject, the views of the Neo­ca1vinists of the Fullerite school and the Pelagians are in agreement. On this subject, the views of both of them are fully contrasted with those of the Hyper­calvinists. An oil driller surveys a geological formation in Indonesia. He sinks a well and brings in a "gusher." As one observed him in his work, he never saw the driller pump the oil into the well first, and then pump it back out! It was obvious that the oil was there long, long before he drilled the well. When Paul, an itinerate minister, as well as an apostle, went to Corinth, God told him in a dream to fear not, "for I have much people in this city." They were His people, and in that particular place, before Paul arrived. How long had they been God's people? "from before the foundation of the world," or "before the world began'.” Perhaps the missionaries are not as observant. They actually believe that if they establish a mission in Indonesia, that they will save souls, who otherwise would perish ... in spite of the atonement and redemption of Christ! In other words, there is no oil until the driller finds it! Pelagians can't comprehend what Christ did on the cross! Hypercalvinists understand that Christ has already legally redeemed, ransomed, sanctified, and
saved ALL His elect people; and are scattered throughout the world, having been "redeemed to God by His blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." (Rev. 5:9). One design of their itinerancy is to preach the Gospel to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel;" the "other sheep" that Christ has, which are scattered abroad. If a soul in Indonesia is brought to a knowledge of the Lord's gracious work, that soul was there and redeemed, before the Gospel produced the effect of conversion. Paul, on his itinerary at Philippi found a widow there who worshipped God. Paul preached the Gospel indiscriminately to all gathered there, and it is reported of this particular woman: "whose heart the Lord opened," that she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14). Notice the following points:

The widow was already a worshipper of God prior to her conversion. Paul had "assayed to go into Asia, but the Spirit forbid him." Instead, a vision directed him to where this particular redeemed child of God was, and God "opened her heart" to hear the Gospel of a finished salvation which embraced her own poor soul. She gladly received the Word, rejoicing, and was immersed, and her household was blessed to also be converted and brought to the knowledge of the truth. (We will say more about Lydia again later). Paul did not beget her. Christ, not Paul, saved her, and the Spirit called her, because she was saved. For, as it is written: "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48.) Paul had a promise: "Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace. For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: (as had so often happened in other cities) "for I have much people in this city" (Acts 18:910.) They were His people before Paul preached to them! To use the analogy, the "oil was in this geological formation" in Macedonia, if you will! That is the reason for itinerate preaching. God, who knows the hearts of all people, and "knows them that are His," directs the Word where He pleases, and to those to whom He pleases. His Word is not as man's words. "So shall (a "hard shall") My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper whereto I send it” (Isaiah 55:11.) As to itinerancy versus proselytizing, the Scriptures teach the former, not the latter. The writer is almost certain, as to those actually preaching the Gospel, that there are far more that publish salvation, numerically, in the United States, than those who proselytize ("evangelize"). Again, as it is written: "The Lord gave the Word: great was the company of those that published it." (Psalm 68:11.) Using the definition for "evangelism" the so­ called "Evangelicals" (proselyters) use, it is true that the "Hyper­calvinists do not believe in evangelism," or, i.e., proselytizing. But they most surely believe in preaching THE Gospel; publishing it everywhere God in His sovereign Providence cast their lots. Seeing that He is sovereign, that is all anyone can do! Where is the man who can go beyond the boundaries set by God's eternal decree?

Most who say they believe in evangelism only give a little money, stay at home and watch T.V., and hire someone else to go! So much for "evangelism." Itinerate publication of the Word is strictly in God's hand, rather than hired administrators, department chairmen of mission boards or committees. These administrators are called "directors," but in God's kingdom there can be found no such ministerial office. It is Christ who administers His kingdom, and it is well that it is so, for: "The Lord of host hath sworn? Saying, Surely as I thought so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand" (Isaiah 14:24.) Neo­calvinists claim to believe this. It would only be head­knowledge if one acted contrary to it, as to deny it. Again, Hyper­calvinists believe the Gospel is a proclamation to be published; whereas others believe that it is an invitation or "free offer" to be accepted or rejected at the whim of ungodly sinners. Hyper­calvinists follow the itinerancy of the New Testament model as closely as possible in those area which are truly apostolic. That is, the "apostles, prophets, and evangelists" had extra­ ordinary gifts­ the "gift of the Holy Ghost". These three gifts of the Holy Ghost carried specific signs, such as handling poisonous serpents and drinking toxin without harm, and lasted only during the initial inauguration of Christ's earthly kingdom. Pastor­teachers today do not possess these extra­ordinary gifts. Therefore, the New Testament model demonstrates both the practices of the apostolic offices as well as the offices of elders and deacons. An elder, or bishop, today, cannot see in the dark a jailer about to take his own life, as Paul did. He will not find his chains unloosed, gates opened, and angels freeing him from jail, as Peter did. He will not raise the dead, as the apostles did; nor accurately predict his future as the prophets did. But he can "go everywhere" that God in His providence sends him, "preaching the Word of God." Today, there are no Gospel "evangelists" in His Church. That office ceased with both the Apostolic and Prophetic offices. All the major Confessions of Faith of Baptists, Congregational and Presbyterian churches state that there are only two such offices in the church, and these are elders and deacons. Paul and Barnabas, in their report to the church at Antioch in Cilicia, who sent them out, declared:

 "For so hath the Lord commanded us, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this (a proclamation of good news ­ not a "free offer"!) they were glad and glorified the Word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the Word of the Lord was PUBLISHED throughout all the region" (Acts 13:47­ 48.) When the Lord discussed the signs of His coming, one of them was: "And the Gospel (not a freewill wish list) must be published among all nations" (Mark 13:10.) The Fullerites, both Neo­calvinists and Pelagian freewillers, believe the Gospel is a set of "free offers," made up of half verses, put together into certain formulas to be pressed upon all men to believe that Christ loved them, died for them, and want them to "get saved." This is wholly contrary to the doctrine of God's Almighty power, His eternality, the immutability (unchangeableness) of the eternal God; the decree of election and predestination; the eternal redemption of all for whom Christ died; and justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, just to list but a few. In other words, it is an outright denial of Christianity itself. If one is not "loved with an everlasting love" (and those God hates are not); redeemed by Christ's blood but not His sheep; nor justified by His imputed righteousness, tell us what kind of "free offer" can one extend to such? Shall a proselyter tell such that Christ died for him, if in fact He did not? Must he believe a lie in order to be "saved"? Again, what "free offer" can one make to such? What bargain can the proselyter strike with such a man? If he is persuaded to believe historically, or nominally, what is offered him in return? Salvation? Then there is no meaningful "election," nor atonement! There is no real value in "redemption"! And justification is meaningless! And to this point: Where is there a "free offer" anywhere in the New Testament record? Let us look at the one you probably thought of: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off.” That is as wide a door as it can be, isn't it? It must mean "every body." You may think, "How can an Hyper­calvinist deny that this is a universal offer to all men

?" If you4thought this, it is because you are not looking at the whole verse! The rest of the quotation is: "even as many as the Lord our God SHALL CALL." Bang! The wide­opened door just slammed quite shut! For the Neo­calvinists who believe in "Gospel regeneration" as a basis for their "free offer" system, this limitation in this verse, precedes their having "gladly receiving his word and were baptized." It is the irresistible, or "effectual" call of the Holy Spirit to "life and immortality" which is referred to here. Otherwise, they could not have "gladly received" it, because of the natural enmity of the carnal mind. The carnal mind "is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, so then they that are in the flesh CANNOT please God" (Romans 8:7­8). But the people of God, once taught their awful condition in nature, and then hearing the joyful sound of an unconditional and complete salvation finished by Christ on the cross, do receive such a proclamation joyfully. There is no sweeter message on mortal tongue than salvation by the sovereign free grace of God! It is not the carnal, or natural, mind of man which is affected by the true Gospel of the grace of God. It is the spiritual mind, as Paul said, "I have the mind of Christ." The "Gospel," as such, can only be "glad tidings" to such as quickened to life by the Spirit of God. If the word preached falls upon the deaf ears of the natural man, it is anything else but "glad tidings," for it is then the savor of "death unto death to them that perish." For this sort of people, such a condemnation can not be a "free offer," but rather the contrary. Why else is it that men by nature hate the doctrine of the total depravity and inability of natural men in spiritual things? Why do they instantly reject the denial of a "freedom of will"? Again, they could not have "gladly received" the word, because of the natural bias and enmity of their own corrupt and fallen will. It is this, that raises the enmity of their natural, or carnal mind. One may have thought of Acts 3:19: "Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the time of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." This, too, sounds universal enough. But, as the above text, if it is interpreted as being universal, it is taken out of its context.

 Here is its context: "Ye are the children of the prophets, and the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in Thy seed shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed. Unto you, first God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Verses 25,26.) Again, the proclamation extends only to those embraced in the covenant of grace, i.e., the elect. Only the elect will be given "ears to hear," "eyes to see," and a "heart to perceive" and "be converted." The application of the Gospel tidings must be, and is, identical to the persons redeemed by the blood of Christ. He certainly did not redeem, or die, for all mankind; or else all mankind are saved and safe. Throughout the Scriptures, the redemptive work of Christ is set forth for a particular people; that is, it is always limited. And this is to "My people," "Brethren beloved of the Lord," "My sheep," "a remnant according to the election of grace," etc.; always to His sheep as distinguished from those He referred to as goats. They are the "wise virgins?" rather than the "foolish virgins." They are the "wheat" rather than the "tares;” the "good fish;” rather than the "bad;" the "circumcision;" rather than the "concision," or the ''dogs that are without." We are not here discussing the lofty doctrine of election and predestination. We assume the Neo­calvinists have, to some degree, a working knowledge of that great blessed and sublime truth; which truth is hid from the lost. ("If our Gospel be hid, it is hid from the lost" II Cor. 4:3.) Their inconsistency is with the extent and timing of Christ's redemptive work and its efficacy. It is here that they argue with the Hyper­calvinists relative to the preaching of the Gospel. The question to be considered in this issue is: "To whom is the Gospel to be preached?" Who is it that can benefit by knowledge of it? For whom is it intended? To whom is it sent? Pelagians [Absolute Freewillers] and Neo­calvinists alike, claim it is intended as a "free offer of salvation" for each and every offspring of Adam. That is, it is for all the reprobates as well as all the elect; with the exception by Pelagians­ they know nothing of election.

 They are so blinded they do not suspect that there is an elect people – unless it is the “Jews.” So, restated for them: they believe the Gospel is a free offer to everyone. Hyper­calvinists believe that God cannot make a mistake; nor fail in His eternal purpose; which specific purpose for the death of Christ was the salvation of His elect people, preserved in Christ in seed substance from eternity; and that the Gospel is directed specifically to those IN Christ whom He redeemed. Look at these positions: 1) The death of Christ was for everyone; so the Gospel is intended for everyone. That is the Pelagian position. 2) The death of Christ was for the elect specifically, but the Gospel is for everyone as an "honest invitation" to the reprobates. That is the Neo­calvinists' position. 3) The death of Christ was for the elect, and the Gospel is extended to all. That is the Calvinists' position. 4) The death of Christ was for the elect; it was successful in their salvation when He made the atonement, and they are already ransomed, redeemed, reconciled, and legally saved. The Gospel is a publication, or proclamation, of this finished salvation to those that are saved. Those Christ redeemed are scattered among all nations, hence the message is to be preached wherever God in His providence sends His ministers. This is the Hyper­calvinists' position. Which, then, does the reader believe to be the Scriptural teaching? Is the reader a Pelagian? a Neo­calvinist? a Calvinist? or a Hyper­ calvinist? The above four positions delineates the major differences between the four groups. Most important, however, is: Which position is the truth of the Christian Scriptures? Very few Christians will deny that the fifty­third chapter of Isaiah is a prophecy of Christ's first advent. In that book, Christ is introduced as God's first Elect in whom His soul delighted. He is revealed as His suffering servant, but particularly notice for whom He is suffering: "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted." (Isaiah 53:4.)

 Pay close attention to the personal pronouns. They speak for whom Christ died; and to whom the Gospel is to be preached. The pronouns "their," "them," and "those" are never used. In other words, His work was not for all mankind. The "we,” "us," and "our," refer to the remnant according to the election of grace, or those Paul referred to when he said Israel was blinded, but "the election hath obtained it." "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.” None of these can be applied to all mankind, or the non­elect. This is the reason our Hyper­calvinistic churches were once called Particular Baptists, because they believed in "particular redemption." "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own ways; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." "... for the transgression of My people was He stricken." "He shall see the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied: by His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities," It was because “He hath poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the transgressors; and He bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors” that He died. Now, how can any educated man, let alone a man possessing the blessed Spirit, apply this to all mankind? "If their light be darkness, how great is their darkness?" Christ asked. Before Christ saved any, it was declared that "He shall (one of those "hard shalls") save His People from their sins." (Matthew 1:21.) That is "particular redemption." By particular redemption, we mean that Christ's death was specifically designed to redeem each of the elect; or, those "chosen in Him from the foundation of the world" in particular. (Ephesians 1:4.) What we are saying expressed differently: Christ did not die "in general” with no particular persons in mind. This was the view of Andrew Fuller, J.M. Pendleton, and the early "Evangelicals." But it is not true. Scripture clearly teaches a particular, specific, and purposeful redemption.

 And it is called in Scripture "ETERNAL REDEMPTION” (Hebrews 9:12) and shows that it was actually accomplished when Christ died. It is not now left to be done for believers or deciders­for­Christ. "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered ONCE into the holy place, HAVING (already now!) OBTAINED (past tense) ETERNAL REDEMPTION for us." (Hebrews 9:11­12.) Isn't that clearly the Hyper­calvinists' position stated? How can it be possible now, two thousand years after the fact, for anyone else to be covered by the blood of the atonement? No, He did not die "in general". That "obtaining eternal redemption" was "for us." He died specifically for the sins of His people. It was the sins of these people, which were laid upon Him by imputation. It is too late to add more. And it is these particular people who have benefited from His death. This is because Christ, as a Substitute bore their sins for them, and hene they are free from the condemnation due to them for these sins. He really meant it when He said "I lay down My life r. MY SHEEP ." ( John 10:15.) Again, "I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep." (John 10:14.) It is hard to conceive how a supposed "Bible believer" can deny Christ's own teachings on the purpose of His death. He surely ought to know for whom He died! As already pointed out, when Christ sent out the first (true) evangelists, He did not command them to "win the world" for Him. Quite to the contrary indeed! He told them, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5). Between that commandment, and the last commandment to go into all the world, one wonders how many thousands, or maybe even millions of Gentiles died without the gospel! Is it not reasonable to believe that multitudes were dying between these two commandments? If one is going to claim "it ain't fair" not to give every body a "chance," then here is a good place to start! If He "wanted" (We speak foolishly in the language of Pelagians, Neocalvinists and Asdods here ­ God doesn't "want!" Man wants, God wills!) to save everyone, He should not have procrastinated so long! His command to preach the gospel must extend to the same ones redeemed by His atonement.

The benefits of the atonement cannot reach beyond the extent of His redemptive work. There is no "good news," or "gospel" to the wicked rebels against God's dominion and power. Salvation is never "offered" to such. He did not love those who are fallen in Adam and unredeemed by Christ; for they were not given to Him by the Father. He did not suffer the penalty for the sins of those who are heirs of hell, or else they would not be the future inhabitants of that place! He justly left them in the delightful pleasures of sin; and they would not have it otherwise! If such were to go to heaven, that holy place would bore them eternally and still be a hell for them. He did not ransom them; did not redeem them; did not sanctify them; and consequently He did not save them. Being not saved judicially, the Holy Spirit will not quicken them; will not give them ears to hear, or eyes to see, nor hearts to perceive. He will not "make them willing in the day of His power," as He does His elect and redeemed people.” (Psalm 110:5.) Therefore, there can be no "honest invitation" to such; nor is there any promise of life or blessings extended to such in the gospel. As Jesus said: "They are condemned already." (John 3: 18.) And their condemnation, or judgment, is "that they believe not." The closing chapter of the Holy Bible says: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous? Let him be righteous still." Of course, many never read that far back into the Book, but if one finds the "whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" in Revelation 22:17b, then they are without excuse. They should have found the text above in verse 11! Both groups, the unjust and the righteous; or the filthy and the holy, are eternally fixed in their states: One is to show God's eternal justice in His hatred of sin and unrighteousness, and the other to show the riches of His grace and mercy. Both testify to the glorious attributes of God. The gospel is to the one "a savor of death unto death;" and to the other "a savor of life unto life." "Behold the goodness and severity of God!" He is not one for the wicked to play games with, and then demand equality with the saints! Interestingly, the Word of God forbids the saints themselves to even pray for them. While there is a command to "pray for all men," yet we read: "There is a sin unto

death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." (I John 5:16.) Again, "Therefore pray not thou for this people , neither lift up cry nor prayer for them , neither make intercession to Me: for I will not hear thee." (Jeremiah 7:16.) These are the nonelect, since the "all men" which the saints can, and ought to pray for are those for whom Christ makes intercession –i.e., His people – not the “all men”. Invariably, Christ's command to sinners is also within the scope of His atonement. As His death is limited to His sheep, so His commandment "to come" is limited to the same. Notice how Christ worded His command: "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give thee rest." (Matthew 11:28.) Only such who are laboring under the Spirit's powerful convicting work are intended here. To "labor" is "to work." And only quickened sinners flee directly to the law, and begin to "work" for relief. This law is not a hiding­place. One cannot meet its just demands. Try as hard as he may to keep the law and find salvation, and what he finds is that it is a terrible task­master! He will, by experience, find that the law cannot deliver him nor make him “holy.” Substituting man­ made "plans of salvation," which are as truly legalism as the Mosaic Law (except without divine authority,) he may find temporary relief; but this too, will evaporate, and he is still left in a terrible need of peace, pardon and reconciliation. The harder he tries to be "holy", the worse he finds himself to be. As this law­work continues, the "exceeding sinfulness of sin" burdens him down under a heavy load of guilt and condemnation. Such an individual is truly "heavy laden", and in desperate need for the gospel rest. Such a person is spiritually alive, yet unconverted. As long as he is working for relief, he is not converted. Such an experience is a mark of God’s quickened children. Just as in a natural birth, there is a struggle in the darkness of the womb to be delivered to the light; so too, in God's work within a sinner's soul, the living soul will struggle to be delivered. There is a reason for Jesus revealing this experience by referring it to as being born again,” or "born from above." Before conversion, the regenerate child is alive, but in darkness and ignorance as to the way of his deliverance.

 In conversion, he has revealed in him the Lord Jesus Christ, and given a hope in Him for his salvation. It is the true gospel that brings this life and immortality within the soul to light, or makes it manifest. But this work of grace is not produced in all men alike. This is indisputable! Only the elect, who are saved by Christ's atoning sacrifice are blessed with this unspeakable gift of free and sovereign grace. The gospel has powerful influences on such a heavy­laden and laboring soul. It brings him to "rest" in Christ's finished salvation as the only source for his righteousness. It is his rest: "There is a rest that remains for the people of God." (Hebrews 4:9.) Of the wicked, it is written: "Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest. (Psalm 125:11.) As you may see, there is no universal invitation, or "free offer" in this passage. Consider two more passages which are often misquoted by the so­ called "Evangelicals." In Matthew 20:28, "Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministere
d unto but to minister and give (not, "offer") His life a ransom for many; (not, "everyone") and, "Who gave (again, not "offered") Himself a ransom for many to be testified in due time." ( I Timothy 2:6.) Now, which is it? Did He ransom some; or did He ransom all? The Pelagians say "all!" If so, are "all" actually ransomed and thus freed from the captivity to sin and death? One would likely conclude that they are not ­ unless, of course, they are Socinian "universalists." But, that is exactly what a ransom is! Obviously, a "ransom" which does not ransom is not a ransom! See how blind a Pelagian can be! As one passage limits the ransom, and as misunderstood by Pelagians, the other is universal, the Freewillers have the Bible contradicting itself in one of the most important areas of its doctrine! We know these passages are in harmony, and seeing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, there can be no contradiction in it. There has to be, and is, a consistent way of viewing them in harmony with each other. In fact, there are two consistent ways of looking at these two texts together. First, consider the "ransom.” That is the subject. We know what the word means. Even a Freewill preacher, reading about a "ransom paid for a kidnapped child, know what it is. He just goes blind in the pulpit! Simply put, a ransom is a sum paid for the release of a captive; and the captive goes free.

 It differs somewhat from redemption. Redemption is the release of a bond slave upon the payment by one who has the right of redemption. But they are also similar: If the captive does not go free, he was not "ransomed:” If the slave does not go free, he was not "redeemed. ” This is extremely important in understanding the sacrificial work of Christ. Alas! how careless are far too many ministers when they use the king's language! If Christ gave His life as a ransom for many, then "many" are ransomed and set free from the law of sin and death. And this is indisputably true. Some are! Hence, Calvinists and Hyper­calvinists alike conclude the atonement is limited, or, i.e., "particular redemption:” Secondly, "all" is an indefinite pronoun, and therefore is limited to those intended by its usage. So when we read that "Christ gave His life a ransom for many," it is in the context of saving men. Hence, He ransomed many out of all mankind. Or, He gave His life for all of the many who are the objects of His mediation. When viewed in this way, the texts are perfectly consistent, and actually true. They conform to all the other aspects of Christ's redemptive work. The integrity of the inspired Word is honored. His death was for the elect only, as every where taught in the Scripture. He has already ransomed all of them! Isn't that a precious truth indeed? This is the subject of the gospel, and the joy of every delivered believer when this truth is sweetly tendered to his soul by faith. It is too precious to be neglected by Christian ministers. To neglect it, is to rob the Father’s children of their bread. It is to cast the Children’s bread to dogs! Christ died for those whom He characterized as "sheep.” But He also classified some as ''goats.'' Sheep and goats are not the same specie; nor are the elect and the reprobates. They have very different characteristics. A goat is a curious creature. It will follow a stranger out of curiosity. A sheep isn't. A sheep knows and responds to the voice familiar to it. It is to a purpose that Christ makes this difference when speaking of "men." "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him? then He shall sit upon the throne of His glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations; and He shall separate them one from another as a shepherd divides his sheep from goats: and He shall set the sheep on His right hand but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand (the "sheep") Come ye blessed of My Father ... " (the fact that they are sheep, and have always been sheep, proves that they are already blessed of His Father ­ not that they "will" or "might be" blessed if, but, maybe) "inherit the kingdom prepared far you." When was this kingdom prepared for them? He told them: "from the foundation of the world." It is strange that so many cannot see election in this text. One can talk about spiritual darkness; for this is it! We must conclude that the sheep have always been sheep, and were the objects of God's lovingkindness if the kingdom was prepared specifically for them before He created the world. This established the election of grace to glory, even if the word "elect" was never used. Look at the goats. They have no such standing in Christ. The eternality of divine election secured the sheep, for they were in actual seed substance IN Christ “from the beginning.” The goats have always been goats. They had their standing in Adam’s corrupt fleshly seed from the beginning of his fall. Just as long as the sheep have been sheep from Christ’s Mediatorial beginning, so too, the goats have been goats from Adam’s fallen beginning. The fact that the goats are separated from the sheep establishes the point that they have always been outside the eternal covenant, "ordered in all things and sure." A covenant of sovereign grace it is. No "free offers" of salvation can change the goats into sheep; nor prevent their separation at the last day. Is, then, the gospel preached to the elect sheep, or to the reprobate goats? To which can gospel promises pertain? Which can savingly benefit from the proclamation of the gospel? One might as well give a "free offer" to the fallen angels (devils) as to reprobate men! The results would be the same. Did Christ die for the devils too? But in the actual preaching of the gospel, it is to be preached positively, as if all God directs to hear it were, in fact, His sheep. No one knows the end of any soul; not even his own at times.

 It is not the ministers' business to make outlandish promises as if God was a frustrated defeated little Being. He is not! He is the sovereign absolute ruler of the universe, and nothing is too difficult for Him to do. Every person who attends a gospel service is there by His Providence, for whatever end He has decreed. In Christ's parables, the sheep and the goats are together until He separates them. The wheat and the tares are sown in the same field, and will remain together until the harvest at the end of the world. The good fish and the bad fish are in the gospel net together, and will be separated when the ship is docked. The five wise virgins and the five foolish are waiting together until the cry that the Bridegroom comes. The first judgment seems most clearly to involve these sheep and goats in their separation. Both had knowledge of Christ. It seems not to involve those who never heard or responded to the gospel. Rather, another judgment seems set for "the rest of the dead." So in actual preaching, care must be taken not to go out on a limb and preach a lie to reprobates to get them into a religious society; nor discriminate among hearers. Just preach the gospel to all that God sovereignly directs to hear it. The results are His business. And as limited in knowledge as His creatures are, it is well that it is this way. There is no need to split theological hairs about why – just do it! The Hyper­calvinists do! When Christ stated the purpose of His death, He said: "For this is My blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sin.” (Matthew 26:28.) That verse alone establishes the doctrine of limited atonement; for it is certain that all the sins of all men are not remitted. In John 10, Christ was very specific in stating for whom He would die: "I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep." (verse 11). "I am the good Shepherd, and I know My sheep, and am known of Mine. As the Father knoweth Me, even so I the Father and I lay down My life for the sheep.” (verse14.) Language cannot be more clearly stated than this. That He does not consider all men as His sheep is equally clear: “But ye believe not.”

 Why do they believe not? "because ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you, My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give unto them (the "sheep") eternal life and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them (the "sheep") out of My hands." (verses 26­28). Again, can language be so clear? If one asked why men do not savingly believe, even though they may "make a decision for Christ," the Scriptural answer is here: "They are not My sheep.” A “decision” is insufficient to begat the Father’s child! “Ye must be born again.” An enlightened child of God reading this must wonder: "How clear must the Scripture be for natural men to see this? Surely this is ‘spelling it out' as to a little child!" Others are as blind as Bartimaeus, and find an inbred repulsion within their very being against the sovereignty of God. As the Pharisees of old, said: "We will not have this Man to reign over us." Our Lord raised a question here, and answered it for all ages to come: "Why do you not understand My speech? Even because ye cannot hear My Word." (John 8:43) And here is the difference between the sheep and the goats; the elect and the reprobate: "He that is of God HEARTH God's words. Ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God.” (John 8:43­ 47.) Again, surely this can be no more plainly stated! Those who have been called to a knowledge of His Son by free grace, and who love and discuss these precious truths with each other, and with those "that are without," full well know that there are two different "worlds" or "peoples" in Christendom. It is as evident as night and day. They have no problem understanding that the "world" in John 3:16 are the world of believers for whom Christ died, and the others are found in that "world of the ungodly that shall perish” unless called out of it as they were. It is clear that the gospel is to be preached to God's people; to the foolish virgins, bad fish, and tares as well. But the people of God, the elect, are the exclusive objects of the gospel, because they are the exclusive objects of Christ's atonement. They alone had an eternal living union with and in Christ from the beginning of His mediation. The very reason the atonement is called the ''satisfaction" of Christ Jesus is because "He saw the travail of His soul and was satisfied ."

 He could never be satisfied if He loved all men, desired the salvation of all men, and was too weak or ignorant to deliver all men. In fact, it is rather common to hear Pelagian ministers describe Him as "bawling His eyeballs out" because He wants to save souls that will not "let" Him! A sign on a Brethren Church on Brookside Avenue in Indianapolis for years simply read: "Give God A Chance." Such a god should be pitied. While Calvinists agree with Hyper­calvinists on the doctrine of unconditional election, [with Hyper­Calvinists embracing the eternality of that election] there are far more Pelagian Freewillers ­ the so­called “Evangelicals”­ who have no understanding on the most fundamental rudiments of the English language and Biblical revelation when used in a religious context. They read John 3:16, and see nothing else in it but universal altruism: love, love, love. They never give the word "world" a second glance! It appears they could not preach (if such is preaching) if John 3:16 was not in the Bible. Yet, as often as they use it, they still cannot see it. For a moment, look at just the one word "world" in the text. In the Greek, it is "Kosmos," or cosmos. It means an “orderly arrangement.” Its second meaning is "decoration.” It is from this word beauticians are schooled in "cosmetology.” So, any "orderly arrangement" is a "world," and there are many different worlds in the Scripture. In Noah's day, "The world of the ungodly perished." Was this the "world" of John 3:16? Since they "perished," it must not be. Or, "He was in the world ... "What "world" was Christ in before He was born of Mary? Is this the same world as in John 3:16? Probably not! "And the world was made by Him. . ." Since all things were made by Him, this probably was not the "world" of John 3:16. "And the world knew Him not.” Perhaps this world was the world of the Jews, since it adds that "He came unto His own, and own received Him not." So, likely, only some of this "world" is included in the "world" of John 3:16.

There is a world of believers, opposed to a "world that lieth in wickedness." Is this world the same as the world in this text: "First I thank God through Jesus Christ for you all for your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world"? These are probably two different "worlds too." One can also wonder if the "whole world" included the Native Americans, and if so, who preached the gospel to them during Paul's day? The writer is inclined to believe that this "whole world" is included in John 3:16, but that there are elect persons not included in this "whole world" who are included in John 3:16 also! Again, "And.. . .we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." (1 John 5:19). This is enough to drive a Pelagian Freewiller out of his wits! Here is a "whole world" which lieth in wickedness; and above another "whole world" where the faith of the Colossians was spoken of! Wonder which "whole world" is the "world" in John 3:16? Both can't be! Now Hyper­calvinists, and most Calvinists, agree that Christ actually took all the sins of all the elect away, bearing them in His own body on the tree; that He actually suffered the real and legal penalties due these sins, so that God will not charge the elect with them in the judgment. "Who shall lay a charge against one of God's elect?" (Romans 8:33). That is limited atonement ! This chapter deals with the question: "To whom is the gospel preached?" Enough has been said for a Biblical foundation to support the answer to this question. We address the question because Neo­calvinists falsely charge (parrot the charge) that Hyper­calvinists do not believe in preaching the gospel to sinners. They formed this charge merely because Hyper­calvinists refused to give those "free offers" to the reprobates, telling them that God loved them, and "wanted" them to "be saved", or perhaps, "join a church and pay their tithes." It is possible! There is, obviously, another side to this subject of gospel preaching. Hyper­calvinists have a better reason than the above for their position. They are certain that their position is consistent with the gospel and the finished work of Christ. They are equally certain that the position of the Neo­calvinists and Pelagians is inconsistent and unscriptural because they are ignoring the finished work of Christ. So for once in the reader's life­time, here is a Hyper­ calvinist defense of their actual position. Are you ready? Here it is: The primary reason that the Hyper­calvinists do not give "free offers" o 8salvation to all men is because such “free offers” are contrary to both the Scripture and sound judgment.

 A secondary reason is because they do not want to encourage reprobates to join their churches. They understand that men by nature are religious. They agree that it is better that the reprobates give as much honor to God as they can, considering their totally depraved nature. They understand, that reprobates have a "need" for religion; nor would they wish to deprive the reprobates of this comfort. They would rather, that the reprobates, however, join other religious institutions; and in general, they have ­ by the millions! That is no problem with Hyper­ calvinists. They support the ideal of freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. They do not disturb others in their devotions. In the pulpit, they leave them alone. They do not button­hole any and try to mentally persuade them that they should come and join with them. In fact, they are glad that there are plenty of convenient places for Freewill believers to find satisfaction for their religious appetites. They are keenely aware of the terrible confusion when reprobates are deceived into believing that “God loves everyone, wants to save every one, except the Hyper­calvinists among them!” Such a mixed multitude is absolute confusion! The basis for the "free offer" system is Andrew Fuller's supposed sufficiency of the death of Christ for all men "were all men to believe." This unbridled view gave rise to the new so­called "evangelism," (proselytizing) which appealed to the unregenerate sinners to enter the "church." However, if there are some chosen to salvation, and some others "fitted” to destruction," (Romans 9:22), and there are, then they are not merely "left" in their sins; but as Paul said, "made fit" for destruction. If there are some ‘redeemed out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and tribe;" then many more are left unredeemed in them. Language dictates that this must be. And Scripture concurs. If Christ died for the sheep, He did not die for more than they. There is, in other words, an opposing doctrinal truth to divine election.

 It is divine reprobation, and is equally true. These reprobates include the "wicked that are turned into hell," (Psalm 9:17), Judas "who went to his own place," (Psalm 109: 6­19), Esau, the "profane fornicator," who sought repentance "and was not heard" although he sought it with tears, (Hebrews12:16), the foolish virgins, (Matthew 25:11), the "bad fish" caught by "evangelists" in their net (Matthew 23:15), the tares that will be burned in the harvest, and "all nations that forget God." etc., Just as surely as God loves, He also hates. He is just as well as merciful, and is the "justifier of him that believeth." He is "angry with the wicked every day," and He justly assigns men to destruction, for no one deserves salvation. None of these did He uselessly shed His precious blood for, merely to give them a "chance," or give preachers a basis for an "honest invitation" to them. There can be no "honest invitation" to such to believe that Christ died for them if in fact and deed He did not! When Christ called Simon and his brother, Andrew, He said to them: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." (Mark 1:17) That was the very beginning of gospel preaching. One finds no tricks, gimmicks, sob­stories, or "raise your hand if you are not a Christian," and other pressure tactics. All one can find is a true, honest, and humble proclamation of the gospel. In no case can one find a "free offer to all men," but on the very contrary, their ministry was limited to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." So, just how "universal" should the gospel message be? Has one ever gone fishing for dead fish, other than proselyters? Of what value is a dead fish in the gospel kingdom; other than to swell numbers and create carnal pride? All the bad fish that are persuaded to make their mental "decision for Christ," will, in the end, be cast out with the goats, tares, and foolish virgins. True Hyper­calvinistic preaching is designed to catch live fish; and as few dead ones as possible. To the writer's knowledge, these churches are the only religious societies where a believer in the doctrine of free and sovereign grace can attend and not find Freewillers ­ unless they are visitors. Of equal interest, they have no Sunday Schools, Bible Schools, nor Seminaries to indoctrinate their hearers! If anyone has been taught of God that he is nothing and less than nothing; made to cry, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!" and made to wait for deliverance at the door of mercy, then to such the gospel is a great benefit. "For when we were without strength Christ died for the ungodly."
benefit. "For when we were without strength Christ died for the ungodly." (Romans 5:6.) Paul did not say, "When we were persuaded to come, but barely able to waddle down the aisle, Christ died for the decider." According to their confessions, and that of the Hyper­calvinists (The Baptists, Congregationalist Savoy, and Presbyterian Westminster Confessions of 1689), Christ has established two offices (not three or more) in a gospel church. In chapter 26, "Of The Church," paragraph 8: "A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consist of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which He entrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world? are bishops or elders with deacons ." (1689 edition). Nothing is said about the "apostles or evangelists" as church officers. Paragraph 9 gives the way these officers are to be installed in their office. It appears, that these ancient brethren understood that the offices of "apostles," "prophets," and "evangelists" were extraordinary offices, which carried with them extra­ordinary gifts, and which were removed with the establishment of the church in the first century. It is certain that proselyters do not have these extra­ordinary gifts today. It is true that later the Philadelphia Association, as they moved into the broad way, appointed an "evangelist," Morgan Edwards, in 1771. But no gifts were given to him. They change it in 1773, to "a traveling minister," and elder John Gano agreed to serve. A traveling minister is an itinerate minister! It is also true that the Virginia Corresponding Committee appointed an "apostle," but that too, failed to yield satisfactory results, and it was abandoned. Neither of them was endued "with power from on high," or extra­ordinary gifts above that which was common among ministers. But throughout early history, itinerate preaching was the norm. In 1792, after Andrew Fuller, one finds recorded the following: "Elders Patten, Clingan, and Vaughan agree to travel for three months in the ensuing year, about Juniata and West Branch of Susquehanna, to preach the gospel to the destitute."

 Nothing is said about "evangelism"! The association helped with their expenses. The "mission movement" did not begin until 1813 in the United States. All the associations were often petitioned by destitute churches and groups, to allow their ministers to visit them, "at least once a year." [We wish to make a note here, that associations are not scriptural, nor were they used by churches throughout the long histoty until 1700. They quickly gained a monopoly on ministers; and used them unlawfully to extend their own power over the churches. This is one reason for such appeals as cited above]. When one examines the purpose for the gospel ministry, it excludes the modern methods of proselytizing. The Word of God is not silent as to its purpose. "And He gave some, apostles, and some, prophets, and some evangelists, and some, pastors­teachers" and here is its purpose: "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Ephesians 4:11,12) There are many present­day offices not mentioned here, such as: Director of Missions, Tele­evangelists, Chairpersons, reverends, most reverends, most holy reverends, the reverend Mr., missionaries, fathers, rabbis, secretaries, treasurers, ministers of music, youth directors, Christian counselors, et. al. They are purely unwarranted carnal institutions in origin and alien in purpose to true Christianity. The purpose as stated above, has no function attempting "to win the world for Christ," nor even a "Christian crusade." No revival meetings, vacation Bible schools, Sunday Schools ... none of these are found in the Holy Bible, which is the ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE." It is interesting that a Neo­calvinist writer complained that college professors, fellow pastors, and denominational workers label Calvinists as "hyper­calvinists." In the same paragraph, and three sentences below, the same writer (a Mr. Scruggs) says, "Hyper­calvinism is rigid and unevangelistic. It teaches that when God gets ready to save one of His elect He will do it without your help or mine. It is fatalism." Can you believe that? What kind of language is that! If the writer does not like college professors, fellow pastors, and denominational workers branding him a "Hyper­calvinist," then he should be more considerate than this! At least he should find out what Hyper­calvinists believe before publishing such junk. Hyper­Calvinists believe all God’s elect are saved by the sacrifice of Christ, as of two thousand years ago

! First, Hyper­calvinists do not think that "God gets ready" to do anything! That is not their concept of an immutable God. Second, that writer might be horrified to find that Hyper­calvinists do not believe that God is going to get ready to save anyone! He already has saved all He is going to save! Third, the ancients who believed in Fate, believed that there was a force that even the gods could not overcome or resist. They called that force of chance "Fate". Hyper­calvinists are further from fatalism than any freewiller on earth! Their God is absolutely sovereign, immutable, and all­powerful. He cannot be subject to Fate or chance! Now, on one point, the writer hit the ball correctly at a random. He did not know it, of course. Hyper­calvinists do believe that God saved His people without "any help from you or me." The Bible teaches that in clear unmistakable language. Here it is: "I have trodden the winepress ALONE; and of the people there WAS NONE WITH ME: for I will tread them in Mine anger; and trample them in My fury and their blood shall be sprinkled upon My garments; and I will stain My raiment. For the day of vengeance is in Mine heart, the year of My redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to HELP” (yours or mine, as the writer said) "and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore MINE OWN ARM BROUGHT SALVATION UNTO Me; and My fury it upheld Me. "(Isaiah 63:3­5) That, is one major difference between Hyper­calvinists and Neo­calvinists. They have a concept of a God that needs a great deal of help. The Hyper­ calvinists' God did His work before they even knew it, and needed no help. One is a sovereign Almighty God, the other is not quite so. If that writer is using the popular definition of "evangelistic," that is, "proselytizing," again he is correct: Hyper­calvinists love sinners too much to make them two­fold more a child of hell than they were, as Christ taught

. They do not believe in proselytizing, but they surely do believe in the New Testament model for preaching the true Gospel to whomsoever God directs them. None of them stay at home and send others! The pattern of New Testament preaching is the method used by Hyper­ calvinists. Follow that pattern for a moment, keeping in mind that these are apostolic offices, not common to ministers today. Nevertheless, in so far as it is that used throughout the ages before Andrew Fuller, we will stress it here. The church at Antioch laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, whom God had called and sent them forth "for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts 13:4) There was no mission society, nor association of churches that sent them out or directed them, or hired them. In fact, there is no report that the church at Antioch gave them funds; although others churches later on did, as when Paul was a prisoner and unable to make tents. This, dear reader, is exactly the way Hyper­calvinists in the past, and to this day, go forth preaching the gospel. No difference at all! Paul and Barnabas went out exactly as the seventy had done, "without scrip or purse." They went strictly by faith. Follow them, and observe them without preconceived missionary or proselytizing bias. Only Hyper­calvinists continue this model to this day. Their ministers are ordained by a presbytery and sent out "whithersoever God in His Providence cast your lot." At no point did Paul and Barnabas, nor Hyper­calvinists today, submit themselves to man; or to mission boards; to directors of missions, etc. They were servants of the Most High God, and to Him they answered. As one reads the Book of Acts, one will be reading precisely the habits of the Hyper­calvinists in the United States today. Their itinerate preaching is in an unbroken practice from the time of their first arrival on these shores in 1643. That “laying on of hands ” was the only official act of the church at Antioch. They then "preached the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews" (Acts 13:5), at the Areopagus (city council meeting ­ Acts 17:19), and at Ephesus, they "disputed daily in the school of one Tyrannus." (Acts 19:9) The point is made, they preached wherever God opened a door of utterance. They answered to no committee; received no directions from a board, or even from the church at Antioch.

 This was the time of the apostles, who remained at Jerusalem, and they did not take their directions from the apostles! They had no knowledge of associations, state conventions, national churches, or "lords over God's heritage" or “chains of correspondences.” They answered to God only; received their commission from Him; and went where and to whom the Spirit directed them. Now, may we raise a question here? Were they “unevangelical Hypercalvinists"? The Holy Spirit forbade them to go into Asia. So they didn't go! “Hyper­calvinists!” Was that fair to the people of Central Asia, or to Asia Minor? Lost souls were perishing there, too. Should not a mission board, or at least the First Baptist Church at Ephesus, divided them up, and sent Barnabas to Asia, and let Paul go on to Macedonia? According to those so­called "Evangelicals," these men were Hyper­calvinists, Anti­missionary, Anti­evangelical, Fatalists! It is certain, that not a one of the apostles "went into all the world," and neither has a single one of the Neo­calvinist Fullerites today! There is no missionary or "evangelist" that has ever "preached the gospel to every creature."! What did these men do? They went where the Spirit sent them, and when the Spirit sent them; and to those to whom the Spirit directed them to preach. No one interfered in this work. Really, can any present ­day proselyter improve on the method these men used? When individuals expressed a desire to hear the gospel, it was preached to them; no one saying, "Nay." (Acts 13:7). They did not barge in uninvited, peddling a cheap religion door­to­door as a salesman marketing a product. They were not out hawking Jesus as a commercial venture. They were not making merchandise of their religion. Electing grace was preached boldly without any hesitation or embarrassment (Acts 13:17). The law was rightly applied (Acts 13:17­21). The promises of God related (Acts 13:22). [Note: any "promise" implies a covenant agreement.] And the resurrection of Christ preached (Acts 13:23); baptism by immersion administered to believers only (Acts 13:24); the impaling of Christ exalted (Acts 13:28,37); the forgiveness of sins declared (Acts 13:38); justification by Christ’s faith was insisted upon (Acts 13:39); and "as many as were ordained to eternal believed. (Acts 13:48) ... and none other; only live fish! That is a perfect description of Hyper­calvinists’ ministries

. Proselytizing cannot hold a light to God’s way! Again, there was not even a hint of mission boards, agents, committees, missionaries, or "free offers"! They did not live in this age of coupons and "freebies," or other sales gimmicks. So surely Paul and Barnabas were unevangelica1! They were merely despised itinerate preachers, "doing the work of an evangelist" by the New Testament method. Most Articles of Faith as recorded in church books along with their constitution and rules of decorum, say: “We believe the scripture of the Old and New Testament is the written Word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice." The so­called "evangelical," or proselytizing element cannot say that truthfully. Most all of what they practice is found in Jude, chapter 89, verse 91! The novelties invented in the name of "evangelism" were all unheard of among faithful churches for the first eighteen­hundred years; but the true church of God has always had an itinerate ministry. The constitution of gospel churches followed the ministry of the Word everywhere, so that long before Andrew Fuller and his "Modern Missionary Movement," churches were found throughout the world ... yes, even in India, China, Central Asia and Africa! When Paul "assayed to go into Bithynia, the Spirit suffered him not." Instead, he was by the same Spirit, directed to Macedonia, where a widow woman heard him preach, and "the Lord opened her heart." The text says "the Lord" did this work. So she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul and she was converted (Acts 16:14.) And believe it or not, but Paul actually baptized her without taking her all the way back to Antioch and asking the church's permission! Why? Because permission had already been granted by the laying on of hands when The Lord had separated them to this work! (Acts 16:15). She brought forth "fruit unto God meet for repentance," (Acts 16:15) and Paul judged her faithful to the Lord and abode in her house ­ though she was a widow. That, dear reader, without any theological hair­splitting, is how those ancient Hyper­ calvinists "evangelized” then, and that is how Hypercalvinists publish the Word today. When it is done that way, it isn't "missionism," ­ it is New Testament Christianity in practice.

A pastor in Pennsylvania, and another in Podunk, Mississippi, serve their own churches. At times, they venture out to hold a revival meeting to pick up some extra cash, and give their "free offers" to get some decisions for Christ from the world. They are, according to their own definition, being "evangelical." They have exactly fifty­two Sundays and fifty­two Wednesday nights, and a couple of weeks thrown in for "revivals." A Hyper­calvinist in Delaware, and another in North Carolina also have fifty­two Sundays, fifty­two Saturdays, and both of their congregations expect them to preach away to destitute churches and requested appointments three­fourths of the time; traveling from Delaware to Texas; or North Carolina to Texas, or Canada, or anywhere gospel meetings are "wont to be had." The pastors in Pennsylvania, and Podunk, consider the Hyper­calvinists unevangelical, notwithstanding they travel further, and spend more time preaching the gospel to "regions beyond," than do themselves! So why do they called them "unevangelical?" Simply put, they are ignorant of Hyper­calvinists and prejudiced against them. They know the Hyper­calvinists are preaching to call out the redeemed elect to a knowledge of their salvation by Jesus Christ; while their own "mission" is to "win the world to Christ:” One is called to serve God and His people; the other has volunteered to serve the world. A more likely reason may be the pastors know they are the ones that have departed the faith once delivered to the saints, and if "Calvinistic," have found themselves trapped by that carnal system. In this case, they envy the Hyper­calvinists' freedom in Christ Jesus. If, on the other hand they are Pelagians, they resent them for believing in the sovereignty of God; which doctrine they hate. Whatever their reason, they find comfort in building a strawman called "Hyper­calvinism," and then attempting to discredit it. If Hyper­calvinists are so anti­evangelical (in the New Testament manner), why do they still exist after two thousand years? Why are they the largest group preaching the five cardinal principles of grace, called "Calvinism"? They must still be doing something right!

At least they are more successful in holding to the faith of God's elect than the dry doctrinal Neo­calvinists ministers. They and their churches come and go; revive in one place, and as soon as the minister leaves, drop back into freewillism from whence they sprang. Yet, the Hyper­calvinist churches remain on the doctrinal foundation of the Particular Baptists, and preach the same gospel that can be read in books, circular letters, and magazines two hundred to three hundred years ago! So, in spite of the animosity Neo­calvinists and Pelagian freewillers have towards them, they are far more stable in doctrine and New Testament practice than the so­called "evangelicals." Hyper­calvinists' churches grow very slowly, if at all; for both ministers and members are content to "wait on the Lord," to "add to the church daily such as should be saved" experimentally. Neo­calvinists' churches grow a little faster, because they are content with a net full of both good and bad fish. Some bad fish may help out financially, and the numbers posted on the board beside the pulpit looks better. Pelagian freewill churches grow as rag weeds. There is alsolutely nothing in them on a sound Biblical foundation, and this is exactly as the world would have it to be. To them, "the more, the better!" Since both Neo­calvinists and Pelagians are "free offer" men, and both are trying to save souls Christ has not already saved, the Neo­calvinists would do well to take lessons from them. They have refined fatuity to a fine art! There are but two "gospel" recorded in the New Testament. One is truly "glad tidings" to sensible sinners; and the other is a "perverted gospel which is not the gospel," according to Paul. (Gal. 1:7). The former is the "glad tidings of salvation," a message of what Christ has accomplished by His active and passive obedience for elect sinners. There are but two systems of religion: "Freewill" and "Free Grace." There are only two types of sacrifices: a "sacrifice to God," and a "sacrifice to devils." There are two kingdoms in this world: the "kingdom of light," and the "kingdom of darkness." The kingdom of God is a kingdom of light and revelation, publishing the gospel of free and sovereign grace through the merits and "sacrifice of Jesus Christ.”

The kingdom of darkness is that of natural freewillism, for its subjects "love darkness rather than light, neither will they come to the light, lest their deeds be reproved." God's kingdom is made up of such that have been called in vital union in Christ from eternity, born directly of God, called out, and translated, from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. Hence, those that are called out of freewillism into free grace, have quite an understanding of the kingdom from whence they came; but the children of the kingdom of darkness cannot "discern the things of the children of God, " nor of that kingdom. Everything about free grace is a mystery to them. It is incomprehensible to them, for they lack the experience necessary to understand the spiritual things of God. That separating call "Come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord,” is that His people should "not be partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4) Tell me, dear reader, Can this, too, be an aspect of true New Testament preaching of the Word? Could it not be also right to call Neo­calvinists and Pelagians out of Mystery Babylon? Is it not according to gospel order to, in so far as one is able, to turn a Freewiller away from his abominable self­will worship to the gospel of redeeming grace? Hyper­calvinists are heralds of the gospel, where ever God "opens a door of utterance," and they are truly God's free men. If one were to visit a Hyper­calvinist Church in America, and met a Pelagian freewiller there, that person would also be a visitor! For unless divine life is stirring in that poor soul, there is absolutely nothing in a Hyper­calvinist church to entertain his flesh! If he is born of God, among Baptists­at least, there is nowhere else to go. He will either be converted or he will leave! But for some strange reason, one can visit a Neo­calvinist church and find a goodly mixture of free grace and free will believers, with the free grace believers in the minority. To whom, then, is the gospel to be preached? According to Hyper­calvinists, the gospel is to be preached to ALL to whom God in His providence and grace directs it! It is to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all present. It is not one message for the elect, and another message for the reprobates.

It is not one on “godly living” on Sunday morning, and a “five pointer” on Sunday night when only a few hard­core members are present. It is to be preached equally to all alike as if they were all God's elect. It is not designed to assure the wicked who know not God, and care less, that God loves them and that Christ died for them ... for such is not true. It­ the gospel, is to be preached, rather than all that sociology, psychology, emotional counseling, parenting, politics, duty, duty, and more duty. It is to be preached in obedience to an internal divine call, and the one thus called has a dispensation of this gospel (not other things) committed to him. He is to preach in such a way as to give all the glory to God and none to man. He is to "edify the saints," and build them up in the most holy faith; rather than pander to the ungodly. He is to preach to call out a "people prepare of the Lord," and to call His people out of every false religion; every unscriptural practice; and every evil way. He is to build up the church in the unity of the faith, in the bonds of peace; to comfort experimentally poor and redeemed people; and to encourage internal discipline in those called to salvation to the rule of the gospel. It is not his task to make sheep out of goats; believers out of unregenerate natural religionists; build up a reputation as a great decider­maker; or introduce anything for divine worship not found in the Word of God. In short, his commission is not to build up Mystery Babylon in the guise of "Calvinism." And finally, it is not to find a way to vindicate God by attempting to give "an honest invitation" to reprobates to make God look good, kind, gentle, effeminate, and soft­ a wimp! He is to be exalted on High, as the great and sovereign God of the whole earth. He needs no vindication! HE IS! "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for yoir sake.”

                                                                                  CHAPTER ELEVEN
                 THE DOCTRINAL "DOWNGRADE" PERIOD: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD                                                   AND HUMAN ACCOUNTABILITY

Another topic this writer was requested to address was the charge that Hyper­Calvinists do not believe in the responsibility of man. In order to adequately reply to this charge, we must first point out that “responsibility” and “accountability” are not synonyns. Hyper­Calvinists certainly, of all religions, believe in the accountability of all mankind to their Maker­God. Otherwise there would be no foundation for the judgments of God against sinners! The problem with this topic is that Neo­Calvinists attempt to harmonize God’s absolute Sovereignty over all things with their theory of freewillism. Truly such is an obvious contradiction! So we will attempt in this chapter to present the views of Hyper­Calvinists on this issue. While the writer was mid­way in writing chapter nine of this book, he received a book­list from a dealer in Calvinistic materials. Glancing through it, he was surprised at a title, Spurgeonism vs. Hyper­calvinism. He immediately ordered it. Before it arrived, another book dealer sent a booklist, and it offered a title, Calvinism vs. Hyper­Spurgeonism. He immediately ordered it too. These two books, and Spurgeon's small booklet The Down­grade are highly recommended to anyone interested in this controversy and the various issues involved. In the Appendices, we give addresses and Websites from which one may obtain this information. Ian Murray's Spurgeon vs. Hyper­calvinism arrived first, and this writer found it an interesting, well­written Fullerite assault on the truth of free and sovereign grace. Mr. Murray seemed ready to sit at the foot­stool under the great Lord Charles H. Spurgeon's gilded throne, and his fawning adoration of this famous nineteenth century Master is glorious! Mr. Murray is a far better writer than this writer. However, Mr. Murray portrayed Mr. Spurgeon as a man who did not like controversy, and yet reports that he frequently spoke against "Hyper­calvinism"!

 What did Spurgeon and Mr. Murray expect? Did they expect the Hyper­calvinists to just roll over and play dead! And why would Mr. Spurgeon, as well as Mr. Murray, spend time and effort attacking "Hyper­calvinism" rather than "Arminianism"? Both claimed to be “Calvinists!” Mr. Spurgeon could not very well make a good assault against Pelagianism, since it has developed among Evangelicals since his departure. But Mr. Murray could have made an excellent attack against this modern antichristian system and better served the cause of God and truth! Towards the end of his assault, he admits that Hyper­calvinism still exist today, and adds that a "renewed controversy on the subject" was not what was needed. What, in the name of common sense, does he expect? He attacks the very foundation of the historical Christian faith and does not want a renewed controversy! He is really begging those he attacks not to counter­attack, and if they do, they are the "troublers in Israel"! He is sweet, kind, and gentle ­ a "wise and prudent man." The Hyper­calvinists are the mean, cruel, heartless, and quarrelsome band! Nevertheless, his un­called for attack on William Huntington, Tobias Crisp, the Romaine brothers, John Gill and other great and sound writers was surely meant to raise controversy. He admits that Hyper­calvinism is not dead, so he must have known that someone among them would rise up to defend the cause of sovereign grace. He may not wish that there be any controversy while he assaults the Truth, but it is evident that better men than he will arise to defend the honor of God's Word! Mr. Murray found able opponents immediately! With the sword of truth unsheathed, Mr. George Ella has answered him roundly in a most thorough analysis of Andrew Fuller's doctrines, titled: LAW AND GOSPEL: THEOLOGY of ANDREW FULLER, (GO Publications ­ See address of GO in Appendix, page 506.) Again, in his masterful biography on JOHN GlLL, Mr. Ella defends him from Murray's attacks, and again in another title: JAMES HERVEY: PREACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, he is at his best! Mr. Ella has a keen understanding of the issues involved in the rise of Fuller's Neo­ calvinism, and enhanced by his excellent research skills he has prove2himself a capable defender of both the historical and doctrinal position of the so­called "Hyper­calvinists" of England

 Mr. Ella is not a Strict Baptist, and therefore cannot be charged with denominational bias when defending the truth of free grace as held closely by the Gospel Standard in England and Old School Baptists of America. We highly recommend his works. In time, His works will be "Classics" among Calvinists. Another able defender quickly responded to Mr. Murray's attack also against the truth. Mr. A.G. Randalls (199 Seafield Rd., Bournemouth BH6 SLL England) has published a series of booklets in defense of William Huntington (The "Coalheaver") and "shaves" Mr. Murray and the magazine he established as “The Banner of Truth.” (Sadly, it is not that anymore, if it ever was.) Others with him, as "Friends of William Huntington" are now publishing books and articles of Mr. Huntington and also of other Strict Gospel Standard Baptist churches of that Period. Mr. Murray quotes a Fullerite who says that whenever there is a revival of Calvinism, the Hyper­calvinists rise up to oppose it. In reality, the exact opposite is the case. When John Gill's works were republished, Mr. Murray rose up to attack Mr. Gill! Now, Tobias Crisp's works are reprinted. You guessed it! Mr. Murray, a Neo­calvinist, went on the attack! Mr. Murray has too much to say and too little to do with Mr. Crisp! The works of William Huntington are republished. There in the forefront of the opposition is Mr. Murray! Satan is diligent in attacking any position that is God­honoring, and we fear Mr. Murray is his “free moral agent”! The truth of why these Neo­calvinists attack the so­called Hyper­ calvinists rather than the Pelagians is obvious: A child of God regenerated among the Pelagians must answer the call: "come out of her, 0 My people.” Understandably, they bring some freewill baggage with them for awhile, usually the paradoxical view of human "responsibility" (rather than human accountability). With those Fullerite principles still intact, they can, for a time, find a "rest area" among the Neo­calvinists. Eventually, as they grow in grace and knowledge of the truth, the husk of Fullerism becomes of little nourishment to their famished souls, and they go where they can be fed.

There they will quickly be branded "Hyper­calvinists," "Hardshells," "Mossybacks," and "Anti­s" etc. The Neo­calvinists will not attack Pelagians, because this is where they proselytized to get their own followers! They know they cannot get proselytes from Hyper­calvinists, because most often the Hyper­calvinist was once starving under the Neo­calvinists' ministry! According to Mr. Murray, rather than controversy, he thought what was needed was "evidences that the doctrines of grace are harmonious with true evangelistic (sic) preaching." We must assume by his glowing report on Spurgeon, that Spurgeon's type of proselytizing is what Mr. Murray means by true evangelism. If so, how much evidence do the so­called "Evangelicals" need? Spurgeon died over a hundred years ago. But where are the Calvinistic fruit of his labors? In the Pelagians' camp, no less! They have all gone freewill in the United States! But Mr. Murray did not put much emphasis on Mr. Spurgeon's final grasp of his own type of proselytizing. One should read Spurgeon’s "Down ­Grade". We assume Mr. Murray had read it. Surely he knew that out of approximately six thousand delegates to the Baptists Union ­ many whom Spurgeon had persuaded to "close with Christ," only seven men [you read that right: seven!] stood with him for the restoration of Calvinism in the Baptists Union! While Spurgeon was busy proselytizing, the Freewillers stole, like termites, the whole foundation from under his own feet. He was too busy warning people of the "extremes" of Socinianism on the one hand and Hyper­calvinism on the other! In the meantime, Arminians flooded the churches without his notice. Mr. Spurgeon eventually came to see where the humanistic sensitivities were leading the "wise and prudent" ministers among the Baptist Union in the 1880's: straight into Socinianism. But who were the "Socinians"? They were those who denied the divinity of Christ, and believed all mankind would be ultimately saved! By Spurgeon's time, many of the General Baptists (Freewill in the U.S.) had become Socinian Universalists. Now, Spurgeon held to the divinity of the Son of God, but he also taught that Christ's death was for all mankind.

In other words, he was half­4Socinian himself! Those Baptists he opposed in the Down­Grade articles were being consistent with the most fundamental principles of Fuller/Spurgeonism. These principles led them into Universalism. We would note here, that the same Down­Grade or ecumenical progressivism in the United States was hard at work among Calvinistic groups here, including both Old School and Primitive, or Means Baptists. Their “Contest” was between 1886 and thereafter. [1886 to 1922 is a note­worthy period in the history of religion in the United States. The Down­Grade Contest among the Means and Predestinarian groups of Baptists led to a division and apostasy; the Reform Churches divided over the “common grace” heresy; and the Southern Baptists’ Down­Grade took place upon the death of their first President, whose last sermon was on Predestination. The year: 1886.] Spurgeon fought the two suspected enemies of his so­called "evangelism" ardently. Universalism certainly would destroy proselytizing, for it held that no one would be lost and go to hell. Without this fear of hell, it would be difficult to get decisions for Christ from natural religionists: decisional regeneration would totally fail! On the other hand, he fought Hyper­calvinism, too. If one believed that Christ had already actually saved His people from their sins, then there was no motivation for "decisionism." Mr. Spurgeon surely saw these opposite positions a threat to his type of ministry. He could never trust salvation in the hands of God, who adds "to the church daily such as should be saved." Since he did not believe God could, or would, do this, he felt that "Evangelicals" had to do it. He had nothing but praise for these "evangelicals" whether Calvinists or Arminians and the latter were the greater in number and multiplying as roaches! By begging, dragging, and rational arguments, these Neo­calvinists made "Christian converts," filling the religious societies with lifeless professors. The answer to Mr. Murray's question, then, is this: "No! Spurgeon­type proselytizing and true Calvinism cannot co­exist! The doctrine of grace is not harmonious or consistent with natural religion! It is as diametrically opposed to true Calvinism as the doctrine of the "responsibility of man" is with the "sovereignty of God."

One or the other may be right, but both cannot be true! With Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic theologian, Andrew Fuller, Charles H. Spurgeon, I.J. Packer, and lan Murray all insist that one must believe in the contradictory theory of the "Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of man." Just reading that should alert one that something is wrong here! Either God has freewill, or man has a freewill. Whichever has freewill is God! The other is not free! Can you imagine one God giving seven billion people a "freedom of will"? Mercy! That does not appear to be wise, let alone Infinite Wisdom! It is needful, in discussing the issues between the so­called "Hyper­ calvinism" and “Neo­calvinism,” to cover this subject thoroughly. We will dogmatically assert that there can be no such thing as God being Sovereign and His creatures having freedom of will; or being "free moral agents." Mr. Fuller was good at inventing words and terms and redefining them at will. To create a fertile field in which to promote his new theory, he had to destroy the belief in the Sovereignty of God while pretending to believe in it. And this is a stroke of genius! They are, he claimed, an "antinomy." Notice how close that word comes to the word "antinomian:" which all the above men charge against Hyper­calvinists. (See Appendix A, "Antinomianism") What is the meaning of this word “Antinomy”? It is "An apparent contradiction between valid principles or conclusions that seem equally necessary and reasonable." (The American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Miffin Co., Boston, 1976.) Is then the above an "Antinomy"? The belief in the Sovereignty of God is a "valid principle" and is both "necessary and reasonable." But is the belief in the "responsibility of man" a "valid principle"? Not if the Sovereignty of God is! Is it "necessary"? It must not be, for thousands have not believed in it to any dire dysfunctional consequences. Is it "reasonable"? Quite the contrary! Why should one believe that a Sovereign God would so free a creature that it would be without any restraints and answerable to no higher authority than its own will? No, it is not reasonable!

Therefore, it is not an ''antinomy' by definition. The Hyper­calvinists in the United States can see no reason why theyshould accept both legs of this contradiction. They have existed from colonial times without believing it, and have continued relatively sane for the past twohundred years. In fact, a Hyper­calvinist marvels at what kind of mentality it takes to accept both! They suspect that one claiming to do so does not really believe in the Sovereignty of God at all, but cannot find logic sufficient to deny it. As it is written: "We will not have this Man to reign over us!" (Luke 19:14.) Rather, for this Man to reign over His subjects, they must be "accountable" to Him, and walk in obedience to His Gospel commandments. (Notice, we said “accountable;”not “responsible!”) Neo­calvinists will accuse the writer of merely playing with words in our discussion here; but words are necessary to accurately communicate. The so­called "evangelical Calvinists" use the word "responsibility" in a position the Hyper­calvinists use the word "accountability." These are not synonymous words. "Responsibility is the ability to act without guidance or superior authority; being the source or cause of something; capable of making moral or rational decisions on one's own"(Ibid.) and therefore answerable to no one for his own behavior. By this definition man is not “responsible.” "Accountability" means: "to hold answerable; to reckon, to give an account to a superior." Man is "accountable." But keep in mind that we are not merely replacing definitions here. Which does the Scripture teach? That man is "accountable," or that "man is responsible,” i.e, “to act without guidance, or superior authority"? So the conclusion is rather shocking for a Calvinist coming out of Pelagianism with their baggage of freewill concepts to read THAT "MAN IS NOT A RESPONSIBLE CREATURE! NOR CAN HE EVER BE! He has Someone superior to himself to whom he must, and will, "give an account! He is not a free moral agent. Out of sixty­six Books in the Holy Bible, with over forty writers over a span of four thousand years, why would not such an important issue as "man's responsibility" have been, at least, mentioned? Maybe once? It is not addressed in the holy volume at all!

Nor should it be surprising that it isn't. One would really find a contradiction in the Bible if it were anywhere between its covers. Man has accountability; but he cannot be responsible! But even accountability is not given any priority in the Bible either! Look in your concordance and see what all you can find about the two words! You'll be utterally surprised at the deafening silence! A servant, or an employee, is accountable to his master, or employer, in any assigned task agreeable to the laws, policies, or procedures which legally prevail. The master, or employer, is responsible for the accomplishment of his purpose. In natural things, an owner of a business may delegate "responsibility", but in the U.S., he will usually pay a higher salary, or other benefits, for that ''responsibility factor." Nevertheless, it is only a delegated responsibity and can be revoked at the will of the owner. But, according to law, the owner is always responsible. That principle is behind the phrase: "The buck stops here!" (As President Truman once said.) The closest thing to this subject found in the Bible is in Acts 19:40, when the town clerk of Ephesus said: "For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give account of this concourse." But that isn't very much, is it? Again, Paul said: "So then every one of us shall give account for himself to God." (Rom. 14:12.) Again, ministers are to give account, as it is written: "Obey them that have the rule over you~ and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls~ as they that must give account that they may do it with joy and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17.) Peter concludes this subject saying: "Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead" (I Peter 4:5.) Now, these four texts exhaust the Scripture on this subject of "giving account." But not one single word in the Old or New Testament is found about "responsibility."

For those believers whose faith is bound by the Scriptural revelation, this omission is important. It delineates the Truth of man's relationship with God from the error of man's rebellion and usurpation of authority from God (we speak as a man). Man wants to be the Sovereign and make God accountable. That has ever been the nature of Adam's corrupt offspring. In light of this omission, the only definition of "responsibility of man" seems to be: "It is man's response to God's ability." For Calvinists, it should be evident according to their own doctrine that man is totally depraved and has no spiritual ability within himself. Certainly he is not independent without a superior guidance or authority. So the above definition is as close as we can come to the reality of man's condition and his relationship to the Sovereign God. In each of the texts we cited above, the Greek word for "account" is ''logos.'' Are you surprised? That is the same word used for Christ as the "Word"; it is the same used for "report", or to "tell," or to "speak", etc. This, then, does not nearly approximate "responsibility"! For fallen man to be "responsible," he must be a free, independent, simple being. And this he is not! He cannot independently breathe, speak, or even think! So that leaves the subject as it should be: consistent with God's SOVEREIGNTY! It is consistent, because the sovereign Creator remains sovereign, and all of His creatures are fully accountable to Him. They will all, without exception, give an account for every idle word they speak, and if such a small thing, then all greater things as well. Hyper­calvinists have always been the most strict, in their walk and conversation, for the Spirit has taught them that they are "accountable" unto God. J. Packer, (who is reported now to favor the union between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals because, he thinks, they both agree on justification), wrote a small booklet titled: Evangelism And The Sovereignty Of God, in the which the first sentence reads: "Always and everywhere the servants of Christ are under orders to evangelize, and I hope that what I shall say now will act as an incentive to this task." He cited no Scripture for this "order to evangelize" to such a broad extent; nor could he.

But this is the focus of modern proselytizing. Fuller, Spurgeon, Sunday, Moody, Murray, Spurgeon, Graham, Robertson, etc., push this "always and everywhere," whomever these "servants of God" are, have orders from someone to do it. There is surely a sense in which every regenerate child of God is a servant of God, but nowhere are all God's people "ordered to evangelize." The doctrine that all of God's people are prophets is first found in the 16th chapter of Numbers. Korah reared up a rebellion against Moses, saying: "Ye take too much upon you; seeing all the congregation are, holy, EVERY ONE OF THEM, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" The result of this doctrine for Korah and his evangelists was: "And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up; and their houses; and all the men that appertained unto Korah; and their goods. They, and all that appertained to them; went down alive into the pit and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation "(verse 32,33.) The apostle Jude referred to this as "the gainsaying of Core." (verse, 11.) In the affairs of the ministration of God's service, "No man taketh this honor unto himself; but he that is called of God. .. " and God does not call women to preach the gospel (I Timothy 2:11,12). Nor does He call children to preach the gospel. (I Timothy 3:6.) And, the greater part of the male adults are never called, qualified, and commissioned to preach the gospel. The view we present is not a novelty in Christianity: there never was such a condition where the servants of Christ "always and everywhere" were preaching the gospel of Christ! When Paul "assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not." (Acts 16:7.) He was directed into Macedonia! Men that are called of God do not go "everywhere." They go wherever God in His sovereign Providence cast their lot. They have no further accountability than to preach as they are directed of God. Furthermore, they are accountable to preach the Gospel [not humanism or decisionism] wherever God directs them, and "Woe is me if I preach not the gospel of God"! Invariably, as one studies the early history of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles, it was most usually persecution that instrumentally drove them abroad, where they went "preaching the Word." Traveling merchants, and itinerate ministers covered Europe long before
1792. In all the Book of Acts, there is no mention of any current methods: mission societies, evangelistic committees, members telling their ministers where they can, or cannot, go; to whom they are to preach, or not to preach; or what they are to preach. In other words, God's ministers are HIS! And they are answerable in all the above matters only to HIM. The contrary is the route by which the Antichristian Body had her origin: men directing supposed ministers of God! Let it be clearly stressed, that so­called "Hyper­ calvinists" in this country have nothing harsh to say against any God­called ministers going to "regions beyond" preaching the full gospel of Christ without human direction or control. Nor do they oppose anyone financially supporting them as the churches did Paul and others in the Book of Acts. It is something else altogether they oppose: the development of the antichristian system, which in time, is to draw the Evangelicals into the folds of Rome. It is by Biblical methods sound Gospel churches were planted in the Philippines, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Not by organized institutions designed to "win the world that perishes" to the church. But all this proselytizing is a mute issue if all they have to proselytize with is deistic freewillism and human responsibility. There is no gospel in that! It is only an anthropocentric religion. It is not "Calvinism," nor is it "Christianity." What is most often palmed off as "the Gospel," is heresy and antichristian. Only a precious little that is preached by "Evangelicals" today comes close to being the gospel of Christ. And any Calvinist ought to know this is true. It is indisputable to one who understands “the Gospel”! In a book such as this, the main objections to what is written herein will come from Neo­calvinists, in spite of the fact that the so­called "Hypers" are preaching what is called, theologically, "Calvinism." But hardly a word is spoken against the millions of Arminian and Pelagian Freewill books that disgrace the book stores all over the world.


                                                                            CHAPTER TWELVE
                                   SOME UNIQUE DOCTRINES OF HYPER­CALVINISTS

 The following topics are not of necessity identified uniquely with "Hyper­calvinists,” nor do all Hyper­calvinists hold to these following views. If one refers to "Predestinarian Old School Baptist" (POSB) there are three major identifying views very uniquely held to by these people. Few, other than some in England, held to these particular three doctrines: (1) The eternal living union of' all the elect with and in Christ in seed­ substance ­ with stress on the eternal pre­existence of that eternal life undeveloped in Christ before the world began. This view stresses the Eternality of eternal election; (2) the origin, spiritual birth, and development of these elect in their ordained time and place, as their eternal life is added to their Adamic, natural, or earthen vessel, or tabernacle, when they are quickened into life. In this new birth experience, the man born again is not changed biologically, physiologically, or into spirit. In other words, he is not “born all over again,” and changed from flesh to spirit. He is still a natural man. Rather, the eternal life preserved in Christ Jesus for him is added to him in the new birth, making him a dual person.

His original nature is born of the corruptible seed of Adam and remains so until death; his new birth is of the incorruptible seed of Christ, the “word of God that liveth and abideth forever.” This doctrine is sometimes referred to as “the two man doctrine of the new birth.” We will expand on that subject below; (3) the absoluteness of predestination over all things without exception, to bring into existence these elect in their ordained time and boundaries, totally spiritual, and BEGOTTEN IN the "vessel of mercy afore prepared unto glory," or the "earthen vessel" ­ We first present a summary article embracing eternal vital union and the two man doctrine of the new birth, which necessitates the absoluteness of predestination in order to save these redeemed elect in the resurrection of the last day.

                                                                          ETERNAL VITAL UNION

 1). Eternal Vital Union and (2) the New Birth Experience Christian writers throughout the ages have made reference to the doctrine of “Eternal Election and Predestination.” In general, they have emphasized divine election and predestination primarily because these points are most often contested by nominal “Christians.” In these articles, however, we are placing emphasis upon the eternality of that eternal unconditional election. Others before us have discovered a "principle of first mentioning" in the Bible. To wit, wherever a subject is first broached by the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, the way it is introduced is often applicable in other places
where the same is used. So it is with reference to a theme introduced in the first chapter of Genesis. More than any other principle emphasized therein, the notation that all species were created "after its own kind," and have "seed within itself” is outstanding (Genesis 1: 11, 21, 24, 25, 29).

The same is true of man, who was made in the likeness and image of God, and was, as Paul taught, a "figure of Him that was to come" (Romans 5: 14.) Not only so, then, is the modern theory of the evolution of the species proved heretical, but the relation of the first creature to all its offspring is faithfully demonstrated to be absolutely true of the record God has revealed in Genesis one. There never were any "missing links" between species and kinds; nor have believers ever supposed that there were. It is very noteworthy that consistent to this principle are the following revelations. First, God reveals the "generations of Adam," (plural­ Genesis 5: 1), and the "generation of Jesus Christ," (singular­ Matthew 1: 1). Second, the Holy Scriptures reveal both a "first Adam," (1 Corinthians 15:45,) and a second or "last Adam," (1 Corinthians 15:45). It is written that the first man Adam was "made a living soul," while the last Adam was "made a quickening spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45). The first man "is of the earth, earthy: the "second man is Lord from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:47). We would alert the reader to the fact that as the first man Adam was made of the earth, the record is given that "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy," that is, of like kind with their father Adam, and as he, has his seed of reproduction within himself. (1 Corinthians 15: 48). And of special note, such as are of the last Adam, who is Lord from heaven (Christ), "such are they also that are heavenly." (1 Corinthians 15:48). Third, the revelation includes a "natural man," born of the first Adam (1 Corinthians 15:44,) and a full discussion of him is found throughout the Sacred text; and a "spiritual man," born of God, (1 Corinthians 15: 44) whose characteristics are also fully presented in the holy pages. The inspired record speaks plainly of one that is born of the first Adam as being "born of the flesh, " (John 3: 6), and of those born of the Spirit of God, it is recorded that "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6).

So we see the first principle being maintained even in one's spiritual birth: i.e., reproduced in "like kind, from a seed within Himself” (speaking of Christ.) Fourth, We read of the natural man, his body and all of its component parts and passions, referred to as "our outward man,” and we read together with that phrase, of an "inward man,” "but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” (II Corinthians 4: 16). In fact, the apostle clearly contrast these two men by saying, "That ye put off the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Ephesians 4:22­ 24). Again, as "like begets like kind," hence the flesh can only produce flesh; and the spirit can only produce spirit; the animal can only produce another animal of the same kind; and a plant of its own kind. This totally destroys Charles Darwin's fatal theory, and a Christian should expect it to overthrow atheism. But we are not discussing that false and non­scientific theory. Our subject is much more sublime. In order for the reproduction of the species, including man, the "seed is in itself." The seed carries the living germ of life necessary to reproduction and identity with the specie in view. The entire specie throughout all time was in the seed of the first of its kind created. It is too well established among us for any to deny that in the sin of Adam's fall, the entire race of his progeny was in seed substance in him at the time of his transgression, and so "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Death reigns over them all. "As in Adam all die; so IN Christ all shall be made alive."­ meaning, in "seed substance" in Him. The result is that "there is none righteous, no not one," of all that were seminally in Adam's loins that fatal day. (Romans 3: 10, 23). So too, the inspired record amply speaks of a "seed" of the last Adam. Here, brethren and sisters, we beg of you to give careful attention.

Notice the scriptures supporting this statement: "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 22:8). It appears in this text to refer to Abraham's offspring, yet the Apostle says, "and to Thy seed, which is Christ" (Galatians 3: 16), when he refers to this O.T. verse. "A seed shall serve Him, and it shall be counted to Him a generation." (Psalm 22:30). "He shall see His seed, and He shall prolong His days," (Isaiah 53: 10). "Thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles," (Isaiah 54:3). It is the life that is in the seed that produces an offspring to perpetuate the specie. As surely as this is so of man in nature, so it must be of the spiritual seed that produces the children of God. A corrupt seed must produce a corrupt offspring; and an incorrupt seed must produce of like kind: an incorrupt offspring. And so we read of God's children, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed," of which we certainly are in our first birth from the first man, Adam; "but of incorruptible by the Word of God that liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23). We do not expect any to deny that whomever begat us into this world can only have been our father. If our father begat us by the implantation of his corrupt seed from Adam, then we surely must be "his children," and also corrupt by birth. Will any dispute this conclusion? Then we insist that the same is true of the incorruptible seed as well. For any of us to be children of God, we imperatively must be "begotten of God." This truth leaves out the Arminian theory of "gospel regeneration," “decisional regeneration, or of "preacher made Christians." We have repeatedly pointed out that experimental salvation is a birth; not a decision!

John clearly taught: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His Seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” (I John 3:9). And "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of Him” (I John 5: 1.) The implanted seed must be alive in order to produce an offspring. When God fashioned man, He then "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.” Ever afterwards, man has transmitted that same natural life from one generation to the next, wave after wave down to this present day. So too, the incorruptible seed is also a living seed, and conveys eternal Life to all God's offspring. "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in the Son." (I John 5: 11). Notice where the actual life is found: Therefore the apostle can justly claim, as he did, "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son, hath not life." (I John 5: 12). In the fleshly birth the living sperm must impregnate a living ovary, or the attempted procreation will fail. [Note: Life does NOT begin at conception! Life began at Creation!] When that eternal life is transmitted by the incorruptible seed, the Word of God that liveth and abideth forever, the object that is born is a child of God; just as surely as a man is an offspring born of Adam and possessing natural life from him. A point ought to be made here. Whoever, or whatever, is born of God cannot commit sin. Hence, we cannot say that a man's soul is born again, because the soul of a man can contract blame, as Paul prayed, that God would keep them, "both body, soul and spirit, blameless unto the day of Jesus Christ." We read again, "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5: 18).

 Jesus did not say, "Except a man's soul be born again," or "Except a man's spirit be born again," or yet, "Except a man's body be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." So not a "part" of that which is born of the corruptible seed from Adam's life is the object of a renovation. The natural man is not born over again into a spiritual man, otherwise such a man would be sinless, and this is contrary to the witness and confession of every child of God! "Being born again," does not mean "being born all over again." It simply means the man must experience a second birth, and this second birth is altogether different from his natural birth. His natural birth put him into the human family with all its cursed woes! And, he will ever be in that family, unchanged, biologically and physiologically the very same until the last heart­beat of that Adamic frame. But the second birth, produced by the “incorruptible seed, the word of God that liveth and abideth forever,” gave that natural man eternal life, and that life is in God's Eternal Son, and that experience puts him into God's family. That family ­ every member of it ­ is counted for a generation (singular), and is the completed body and bride of Christ of whom Christ is the Head and Husband, and they are "members in particular" set in that body in their rightful and ordained place. If it is claimed, as it has been by some, that such a view as this means that God has not done anything for the body, we reply, "Are you completely unskilled in the Word! Every sin committed was done in the body! Every pain and groan of the suffering Savior was done because of the sins done in the body! The whole scheme of salvation is to deliver those children of God who reside in the corrupt natural and earthy bodies of Adam's race.”

In fact, our Lord, seeing that His children are partakers of this flesh and blood, “He likewise partook of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them," (Hebrews 2: 14) ­ His children, His offspring, His seed, His generation, from that corrupt family, and translate them from that kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Dear reader, the entire church and family of God were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. (Ephesians 1: 1­6) The life they must have to reside in His glorious presence was "hid in Christ in God" (Colossians 3: 3,) in seed substance, waiting until the time of their procreation or development, first into the family of man, and then in His spiritual family by the second birth. All of the sufferings of Christ, and all His obedience was for His children's fleshly tabernacle, in the putting away of the results of their sinful fall in Adam and consequent works of wickedness in that evil family. In that gracious work, He put away sin, and its natural penalty, and only because they made up His bride, did He have relationship to them to legally incur their debt, and pay the full obligation of the transgressed law for each of them. We see this emphasized in Jude 1, ". . . to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called." Again, "Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (Psalm 90: 1,2).

They were all chosen in Him, preserved in Him, and had their dwelling place in seed substance in Him, and so intimate was this relationship, that the Psalmists could say, "In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them: in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; because He bare [Hebrew “natal”] them, and carried them all the days of old." (Isaiah 63:9). And yet again, David speaking in personification of Christ, (David's son, or "Son of David") says, "My substance was not hid from Thee," ("preserved in Christ Jesus") "when I was made in secret," ("before the world began"), "and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth" (in Adam's earthy corrupted frame). "Thine eyes did see My substance, yet being unperfect;" (before actual development) "and in Thy book all My members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are Thy thoughts unto Me, 0 God! How great is the sum of them!" (Psalm 139: 15­17). It too, is assumed by some that those who believe there are two separate and distinct men in this tabernacle of flesh, that they see no need for a bodily resurrection of the dead. [This has been referred to as a "hollow man doctrine"]. However, the record is too clear to deny, that the man of the earth, earthy, the sinner man, is the object of redemption, and also the object of divine adoption. The spiritual man, who is born of incorruptible seed, cannot sin, and hence needs no adoption or redemption! It is the fleshly man, consisting of body, soul and spirit, the sinner, who must be adopted and redeemed. The Bride will be whole and complete in the day of her wedding. She will possess her real identity, and be herself, and not another, or a bodiless phantom ­ a puff of vapor. What she has waited in hope for will sweetly be her bliss in ages untold. The Church in the aggregate is the Bride of Christ. While here below, she is waiting for the Bridegroom and must keep herself chaste. Church discipline helps, fellowship with one another strengthens the ties of matrimony, and finding one's place and work within the visible church helps to develop and maintain that heavenly and spiritual bond. It is needful for every member and believer to assemble together to worship God and to encourage one another in the most holy faith. When our Little Zion meets, it is all of our privilege to take such a rare opportunity, and make the most we can out of it. We can hunt, fish, work, play, watch ball games, or whatever else Adam's
offspring find more entertaining just about any time we please; but the appetite of the spiritual family of the last Adam is in the spiritual realm, and here it should not be neglected, and if so, it is to our own disadvantage. With all the above scriptural topics presented together, what reason or comprehensive view can we derive from this collection? That they are meaningful, none should deny; that they are given by inspiration for some ordained consequence should be admitted by all. Where, then, should we begin to draw our picture of the Bride, the "Lamb's wife"? Considering that Paul teaches that Adam was a figure of Christ, and that Genesis presents the Adamic creation, we suppose that is where we should begin. But why not pass over Adam and his posterity until last, and go directly to his Creator's Bride and her origin? Is it not written that "the last shall be first and the first last"? "Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. All Thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made Thee glad. The King's daughters were among Thy honorable women: upon Thy right hand did stand the Queen in gold of Ophir. . . so shall the King greatly desire thy beauty: for He is thy Lord; and worship thou Him" (Psalm 45:6­11). The text shows that the beauty of the Bride is seen in her purity, honor, and position at His right hand; as well as her devotion to Him as she worships her Beloved. Her being positioned at His right hand gives her preeminence over all others of His creation. His scepter ­ a figure of His sovereignty ­ is ever near her, and she is enabled in that near position to forever bask in this most adorable attribute of Her Husband and Lord.

The most superlative attribute the members of the body of Christ enjoy is His Sovereignty. As Jonathan Edwards once wrote: "Sovereignty I love to ascribe to my God, but formerly it was not so." Every quickened and experienced child of God meditates daily upon his great King and His sovereign rule over all things. To him, God is GOD! For His subjects, His word is to them the finality of their rule of behavior. What He says is true, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3: 4). She is referred to as the "King's daughter," because all her members are born of Him. "The King's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. She shall be brought unto the King in raiments of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto Thee” (verses 13­14.) The Bride is all glorious within due to the sanctification of the Spirit as well as the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost," and her clothing is of wrought gold. Gold symbolizes "glory," and she possesses the same glory as Her Lord, and it is "wrought," by Him in His suffering to purify her by putting away her sins, and purging her from all unrighteousness. But when she is brought before her Husband, she is adorned "in raiment of needlework," as seen in her being "His workmanship" and being ordained unto good works. She is not seen in her old nature, but in her new redeemed nature, having been now conformed into the image of her Lord. But with whom does He liken her? “Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army of banners? . . . Return, return, 0 Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were the company of two armies" (Song of Solomon 6: 10, 13.) We see her as victorious in her warfare, flesh against spirit, and spirit against the flesh, mortifying the deeds of her body; we see her as a company of two armies, one of the earth, earthy; and the other of the Spirit, and spiritual. And through all her travel in grace, she was ever in war, the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.

But as the Bride, the Lamb's wife, we see her that has overcome, and by His power and grace triumphed gloriously over the dominion of sin and the law and self. Her rest has now begun. It is her joy now to be married to her Redeemer God and King of glory: "Set me as a seal upon Thine heart, as a seal upon Thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave:" "I am my Beloved's, and His desire is toward me" she can readily say. (Song 7: 10.) Some interesting notes from the pages of Holy Writ. We find Christ reporting, that "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old" . . . "When He prepared the heavens, I was there: when He set a compass upon the face of the depth .... then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him; rejoicing in the habitable part of His earth; and My delights were with the sons of men" (Proverb 8: 22, 27, 30­31). In this passage, reference seems to be in a sense that is timeless. Before creation, He rejoiced before the Father, and had His delights with the sons of men." How may we understand such a concept? We may compare it with mothers and fathers anticipating their yet unborn children, making plans for them, knitting clothing, collecting provisions, setting aside educational funds, etc. In other words, in "seed substance," before they are brought forth. Surely God could do this much better, seeing His foreknowledge is infinite and His determinate counsel perfect, and His predestination infinite. Why would anyone think He could not "see all His seed, prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord prosper in His hand"? (Isaiah 53: 11). Look at her again in His eternal view: "My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Thine eyes did see My substance, yet being unperfect: and in Thy book all My members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are Thy thoughts unto Me, o God! How great is the sum of them!" (Psalm 139: 15­1 7). Many of us see this as a personification of Christ and His body, the church and Bride, before any of them were formed, even "from the foundation of the world." The Son's Bride and offspring were chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world. The beauty of the Bride, the Lamb's wife, is her eternal oneness with Him. Strangely, then, can we not discover an eternal union of Christ with His Bride from before the foundation of the world, or ever time existed? Is not the life of Christ that eternal life that He gives to each of His children? Is that life not hid in Christ in God even this early? We believe so. Look at the "figure of Him that was to come," i.e., the first Adam. Upon his creation, his bride and all his seed of the race of man were seminally in his loins, yet undeveloped. The first brought forth from him was his wife, Eve. She was not a "seed" in him, but was "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone." The twain were "one flesh." Upon her formation, the "seed substance" of the whole race of man was genetically, or seminally, in him; and in this regard when he transgressed and death was passed upon him, it naturally passed upon all that he was. This included all his posterity yet to be developed. Sin was imputed to all his offspring. They were there in him, yet undeveloped, and hence they did not sin after the similitude of his transgression. Yet they all suffer the same penalty in nature: they all die! Now, you and I were not sitting there in the fruit grove when Eve knocked the fruit out of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But we were "in seed substance" there that fatal day! "Come hither, and I will show you the Bride, the Lamb's wife."

 And where shall we turn to show you her "in seed substance" in Christ? Why, in our favorite New Testament passage! "According as He hath chosen us IN HIM before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." (Ephesians 1: 4). Did you read the preceding verses? "Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). Now just how could He do that? He couldn’t unless they were "in Him" "in heavenly places" when they were so blessed. Where did you get the color of your eyes, your complexion, your temperament, etc.? You received them from your father's "seed" which had been transmitted through the generations from Adam. Much of your natural composition and disposition are genetically determined, and your DNA passes from one generation to the next with but slight changes over generations. That day that your mother Eve sunk her teeth into that luscious fruit, all of your inherited characteristics and traits were stored in Adam's seed within his loins. So what of the "Bride, the Lamb's wife"? Was she not also blessed with all spiritual blessings that she would ever have "in Christ" "before the foundation of the world"? We suggest that the text says as much. Another text comes to mind: "For we are His workmanship, created IN Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2: 10). What does that text imply? First, that the saints were "created in Christ Jesus" with a specific design in purpose: "unto good works." May we assume that since these works were "before ordained," then they must fall out in time at both the right moments, and by the specified individuals. If it can be taught that Cyrus the Great would destroy Babylon over a hundred and fifty years before he was born, and the Lord both named him, and revealed much of his life and success, when he was yet in the loins of his great­grand­father; why may we not understand the sense in which this text describes the members of the body of Christ, His Bride, the Lamb's wife, before they were actually developed? It certainly does not confound this writer! The Bride, the Lamb's wife, is the "body of Christ."

That body, as the body of Adam's offspring, is made up of millions of cells, joined together providing the various functions of the body for its consistency and usefulness for whatever purpose God has for it. Each member, or cell, has its specific purpose, "but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ." (I Corinthians 12:12). "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him" (verse 18.) "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" (verse 27.) It seems, therefore, that Adam is a true "figure of Him that was to come," in more than one way. Adam's wife was a part of him and composed of all the same elements of which he was composed. So, too, Christ's Bride, the Lamb's wife," existed "in Him" from eternity in seed substance even as Adam's fleshly offspring were in him in seed substance; and as all God's creation "whose seed is in itself," (Genesis 1: 11.) "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (I Corinthians 15:45.) Follow that figure a ways: When God breathed into Adam's nostril the breath of life, Adam became a "living" soul. Natural life resided in him and in his seed. In the procreation of each of Adam's generations (Genesis 5: 1,) that "life" is conveyed by means of that seed; even so, the figure is upheld in the spiritual realm as well. Christ is life, and that eternal life is in God's Son.

 Everyone that has the Son has eternal life, and anyone without the Son has not (spiritual) life. As the life of our natural flesh was in Adam from the beginning; so too, that eternal life that the elect are given in divine quickening was in Christ from everlasting. Therefore we cannot dismiss the obvious conclusion, that the Church and each member of His spiritual body have life which “was hid in Christ in God” from before the foundation of the world. The life the saints possess is in perpetual union with Christ from eternity; and that life will, somewhere in time, be communicated to them by the Spirit of God by way of an "incorruptible seed.” This event is known in the Scriptures as "being born again," or, "born from above." The eternal life they receive in the new birth has been “preserved in Christ's” "incorruptible seed" until the appointed time for their second birth. [Jude 1; 1 Peter 1:21.] Here is a good place to make a very important observation. In the beginning, when Eva was extracted from Adam, in the presence of Christ the Word of God, Adam said to Christ, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." According to Christ in Matthew 19, Christ said to Man, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:23). In Matthew 19, the Lord adds, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19: 6). Remember, we are presenting Adam as a “figure of Him who was to come.”

                                                     ABSOLUTENESS OF PREDESTINATION

 (3). The absoluteness, or comprehensiveness of predestination is necessary for God to bring all the necessary elements together to fulfill His eternal purpose in the salvation of His elect.

“All things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28.) We will ignore those blind religionists that do not believe so. But it is absolutely certain that your mother and father could not have existed unless their father and mother met each other and procreated them. And, if that was not ordered in all things and sure, suppose your parents never met either? To deny that predestination is not all encompassing is foolishness. Why should any of His creatures even wish to dethrone Him from His universe? He is their glory, too! His predestination directs the course of all events to bring His children into existence and to salvation; or else the whole system of the universe would never have worked at all.

                                                                    WASHING THE S

 In The Southern States Of The United States there are ways in which Hyper­calvinists in the southern United States differ with their northern and Europeans brethren. When the Scots left Ireland and came to the southern mountains, some of them practiced feetwashing and held to the "feast of charity." Unlike the Welsh and English Baptists, they did not migrate over as church groups. They came individually, although in large numbers. Most were Reformed, or Presbyterians. But the Baptists desired to practice as they had before being driven out of Scotland into Ireland. They were few in number, but prevailed on many churches to allow them to practice these things. Obviously, these practices are not used as a test of fellowship with those churches which do not practice them; nor are they uniquely Hyper­ calvinistic, since many that split off from them still practice them also. But since feet­washing is so common in the southern United States among Old School Baptists, we present a discussion on it under this topic of miscellany. The historical development of feet­washing has its origins in antiquity, but in the United States, it developed during the reforming period of early Baptists and some Puritans.

 The first association of churches which in time became known as "Baptists," was the hyper­calvinistic Philadelphia8Association formed in 1707 in the Middle Colonies. As early as 1768, their annual minute recorded the following query: "A letter from the church at Stratfield, in Connecticut, was received intimating a separation, on account of washing feet, and the Lord's Supper administered eveLY week." A committee was sent to mediate between the parties in dispute. Again, in 1771, the subject was renewed. The record states: "To a query from Dividing Creek, relative to washing the. saints feet, the following reply was made: This query being founded on John xiii. 1­17, can no otherwise be determined than by fixing the genuine sense of that Scripture, which to do is earnestly recommended." (Page 119.) [It may be of interest here, that in this same session, the association appointed their first "evangelist,” Morgan Edwards was elected. In 1773, this "evangelist" is called a "traveling minister," and he declined that office. John Gano was then appointed a "messenger to the churches" instead.] While the Minutes do not reveal any official study of the subject of feet washing as recommended, they must have done so, for in 1792, it records: "Query from the church at West Creek: Is the washing of feet a gospel ordinance? Answer: This association consider the washing of feet, as mentioned in the New Testament, only as a pattern of humility; nevertheless have no objection to those practising it who think it a duty." How old the practice is has been lost in antiquity. One learns from history that when the Catholic priest, Menno Simon (1496­1561) joined the fellowship of the Anciens after witnessing a Waldensian Anabaptist beheaded, found some congregations washing feet and some did not. (As one would guess, some of these churches are today called Mennonites after this convert.

 And in those churches, still, some do and some do not practice feet washing.) Those who practice "washing the saints' feet" most often observe it according to the pattern in John 13, immediately after the Lord's Supper; and both the Lord's Supper, or Communion, and feet washing follow the first meal, called the "feast of charity." The order is not set in stone, but most follow this pattern: The congregation meets and sing “cupella” and following the song service, the church services open with prayer, followed by the sermon. Conference may be held, and then the congregation has the first meal. After the which, the Communion with unleavened bread and pure grape wine is administered by the deacon(s) with appropriate charge by the minister; following which the deacons give pans of water to brothers and sisters, who in turn wash, either each other's feet, or "one another's feet" depending on the numerical situation. The feet washing is concluded usually without a prayer. Instead, they follow the pattern in John 13, where they sing a hymn and go out. Often, they salute one another and all in the congregation with an embrace, and go out. It is often a moving event when tears of joy and humility flow freely. At times, it is a dry formality. None desire it to be the latter, but it is not in their hands to bless or withhold the blessing. Those that do not practice it in their own churches, can, if they so please, when visiting a church that does. It is not imposed on anyone, nor should it be. It is too precious to be used wrongfully. For those who do believe in practicing it, it is far more than "an example of humility." Many, in fact, will correct that statement, for nowhere in the scripture does the Lord say that is what it is. Most do not consider it "an ordinance," but "an example," but some do. Both agree that without doing it, it is an example of nothing. Their best stated reason is that the Lord said: "If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet ye ought also to wash one another's feet." If the Son of God Himself directly said "Ye ought to," who is that man that would say, "No, you ought not to? Who should one obey, God or man? And in those instances when the service is attended by the felt­presence of the Holy Spirit, they are effectually reminded of the Lord's words: "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." Certainly, they agree, that a servant is not greater than his Master; and his Lord shed His blood
to wash them from their filthiness. The then leads to a deeper discussion. Some can see feet washing as connected with the finished atonement on the one hand, and the need for daily washing of the defilement of the way on the other. They allude back to the type in Exodus where the sacrifices were made, following this the priests washed in the Laver of Washing. When one observes the major instruments of the tabernacle and their use, a greater understanding may be achieved on gospel topics. So it is on this subject also. In Exodus 30, there is presented the brazen altar." Brass often speaks of "judgment". On that brazen altar, the bloody sacrifices were offered; which the Apostle in Hebrews makes clear that it speaks of the sacrifice of Christ. His sufferings, the flaying of His body, the sanctifying both inwardly and outwardly of His body for daily cleansing, and His death for His People are all pictured here. The brazen altar of judgment was outside the tabernacle in the court. Inside of the Holy of Holies, there was a golden altar, where the high priest went once a year, and on that altar he burned incense with coals of fire taken from the brazen altar without. Gold speaks of glory, and this burning of incense speaks of the intercession of Christ, who sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for His people. The atonement ­ so precious to Particular and Old School Baptists ­ was made outside on the brazen altar. The two altars are connected, in that the coals from the altar of judgment are used for the burning of incense on the altar of intercession. In the gospel fulfillment, Christ finished the atonement in His sacrificial death; He now makes intercession "both day and night" before His Father's throne. Now, to the point: Notice where the brazen laver (for washing) is located: right between the two altars! The washing followed the sacrifice, and the intercession followed the washing. God taught the Hebrews that death and blood were unclean. Many ceremonial washings were provided for the ceremonial cleansing of those who touched the dead, the bed­linen of the dead, running sores, or bloody issues.

 These things were defiling in spite of the sin­offerings made! Yet every priest ministering at the brazen altar constantly touched the dead and the blood. The laver, or fount of washing, was for this ceremonial cleansing of the defilement, even though the defilement took place in the service of God. And this washing was after the atonement was made, and before the burning of incense of intercession. In John 13, the Lord indicated that at that time, the disciples did not know what they did in that feet washing event, but promised that "hereafter ye shall know." It is reasonable to conclude that they did, in fact, know they just had their feet washed! That cannot be the meaning here. They did not then understand fully His coming suffering and death as the sacrificial "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." He told them that they were "clean ever wit, save their feet," and they would eventually understand that as surely as there was a need for the atonement, there was likewise a need for daily washing of the defilement of the way, symbolized by the "feet" or walk and conversation. Standing between the two altars was the laver. It was put there so that "Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat." And this was after the bloody sacrifice representing the "Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world." Why must they be washed? In the same sense as they must often be forgiven! On the tree, Christ prayed for their forgiveness, and the apostle says: "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness.of sins .. " (Colossians 1:14.) Yet, where is that child of God that does not, even yet, feel a keen need for forgiveness, and finds himself begging God to forgive him of his sins, iniquities, and trespasses? Even so, He has "washed us in His blood," and the child of God is "clean ever wit, save his feet." So in spite of the fact that their sins are forgiven them, and they are washed as "white as snow," still there is a daily defilement in their pilgrim journey, by the filthy conversation of the wicked, their own carnality, the temptations of Satan and of the unbelievers, etc.

 As Christ told Peter at that occasion, "He that is washed needed not save to wash his feet" (John 13:10.) Dear reader, the blessed Lord has already suffered, bled and died; already redeemed all His elect people with an "eternal redemption;" and they are both saved and safe. Yet, they do "touch dead bodies," daily while in social intercourse in their homes, businesses, and communities. They experimentally feel unclean so often due to the prevailing corruption of the flesh found in their mortal bodies. Often their conversation with the unbelievers makes them feel defiled through and through. A death in the family can impose upon them a degrading blasphemous religious setting, which makes them virtually sick within, and they come away feeling polluted. The fount of washing followed the sacrifice for sin which brought them full and complete remission of sins, and freed them from the dire effects of them. Christ is now exalted higher than the kings of the earth, sitting on His Father's throne of glory, now making intercessions both day and night according to the will of God. Can't one rejoice in this! Yet, alas, what poor sinful mortals we remain while housed in the tabernacle of clay! In the precious work, He is our Great High Priest. The Lord's Supper is an ordinance which speaks of Christ's suffering see His flayed flesh in the broken bread! ­ see His bleeding, represented in the wine, and His last will and testament to His family; see Him dying for our sins. But, Oh, my soul! See how undeserving we are of the least of His tender mercies! In the order of events as recorded in John 13, we see, first, a general supper (known as the feast of charity) at which the unclean Judas was present. He dipped his sop in the bowl and did as Jesus told him; he went out and betrayed his "friend." When the Lord spoke ''Ye are not all clean," He referred to Judas who had now left the little band to betray Him. Next, after this first meal, the Lord broke the bread ­ a token of His suffering, broken body and the emblem of His oneness with them; and the cup of the New Testament, or "family bequest," by the shedding of His precious blood for them.

Then, this second supper being ended, He laid aside his garment and washed their feet, as Aaron (His antitype) did before making intercession at the golden altar of incense. All these are figures. But instead of all the elaborate ceremonies attached to the Old Covenant of the law; or the lengthy liturgies derived from pagan worship in so­called "Christianity," the Lord left a simple uncomplicated ordinance. It is given that the child of God remembers the source of all his blessings and salvation: the suffering Savior making the atonement for his sins. The ordinance is sacred. It does not belong to the world; nor do believers fault any for not observing it. It is for God's blood­bought people. It is fitting that the world of the ungodly and carnal professors ignore it. It is about the only thing in the Christian religion they have not desecrated. But for the children of hope, "If ye know these things, which words imply that they do, and others do not ­ He adds, “Happy are ye if ye do them." And that promise is often verified to them that do it. Almost all Hyper­calvinists' churches in the deep south of the United States wash feet as commanded by the Lord, saying that they "ought to." They feel a need for that daily washing of the defilement of their walk and conversation which it figures, and have found it as the Lord promised, a "happy" occasion to walk in obedience to their exalted Lord. No Hired Ministry When Roger Williams established the colony of Rhode Island, he became its first governor, and he also helped to establish one of the two first Baptist churches in North America. He refused to accept a salary, both for the gubernatorial office he held as well as in the ministerial office. One of the earliest articles written in America on religion was in opposition to a Hired Ministry and it is available in many libraries today in Volume 1, Annuals of American History.The reader may wish to study it.] Salaries and a hired Ministry. An Internal Revenue Service agent once exclaimed to this writer: "Do you expect the IRS to believe your churches take up no collections, hire ministers, or raise funds!" The answer given was: "No. We don't expect you too, but it is the truth!" He snapped: "You need to be audited!" And he was audited, all right! As we cover this topic, we need to point out that we have no objections to ways churches wish to show their love and affection to faithful ministers.
                                                                       NO HIRELING MINISTRY

 It is not unscriptural for a church to have a settled ministry if they can afford one. While covering this part of the subject, keep in mind that by a "hired ministry," we are speaking of professional career ministers ­ not those that are called and qualified by our Lord. It is universally received by all these churches, and has been throughout their history that the office of an elder or bishop was not a salaried career. Roger Williams not only refused a salary from the first Baptist church in the colonies; but also refused a salary or any money for serving as the first governor of Rhode Island! The reader should more carefully study this issue, for there is of necessity a balance between extremes relative to ministerial support. It is often abused on both ends of the spectrum; so care is called for in covering this topic. First, presenting exaggerated extremes: Many ministers, having no divine call, nor employable skills, or too lazy to seek honorable labor enter into the ministry as a parasitic professional hireling. His gift of gab would make him a successful used car salesman; his humor, a stand­up comedian; his avarice, a professional con artist; and his love of sports, a good administrator. This is all that is needed to be a successful "evangelical" preacher! The nation is full of them! Of course, these are also the brunt of laymen's jokes. The hireling minister receives a delegation from a church searching for a pastor. They offer him a higher salary than he is presently receiving. He tells his wife about the offer, saying, "I will be in my study praying about the matter. Why don't you be packing in the meantime!" This type of situation is so common that almost every denomination tell this joke about their ministers. Hireling ministers take an offer of a higher salary, higher status, or better perks to be an omen from the gods that they should relocate. Oh, yes, they will insist to the man that money had nothing to do with it. "God spoke to me in a dream and said, Go." etc. That is one exaggerated extreme. The other? A Hyper­calvinist minister travels one hundred miles or more to preach the gospel of redeeming grace.

For his "expenses," he ask for nothing, but he may receive five or ten dollars, or a slab of bacon. And the church which he services is well pleased that they do not have a hired minister! That is known in the New Testament as “covetousness,” a unfaithful stewardship. That is the other exaggerated extreme. The truth must be found somewhere other than in either of these positions. The word of God is much clearer on this subject than many suppose. The hireling minister is to be deplored; while the self­sacrificing minister is to be honored. But "honor" will not pay for the gasoline, oil, tires, insurance, and wear and tare of an automobile! In colonial and frontier times it would not feed his horse, or pay for a saddle. But the other side of this issue is: the faithful church is to be respected, while the covetous congregation should be ashamed! So let us take each side of this issue in­ depth. First, dealing with the hireling ministers, the Word of God says nothing commendable about them. "They serve their own bellies." Paul observed in Romans 16:18. The beloved apostle, John, was severe on them: "Woe unto them! They have gone the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward and perished in the gainsayings of Korah (Revelation 1:11.) And then follows a terrible indictment of them as “spots in your feasts of charity," etc. Peter also spoke of hired preachers in this tone: "Which have forsaken the right way and gone astray following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." (II Peter 2:15.) The sin of Balaam was two­fold: On the first, he was willing to curse God's elect people for the riches offered him by Balak the king; the other was, seeing that God would not let him curse them, he advised Balak to have the daughters of his tribe to seduce the men of Israel into committing fornication, knowing that God would not bless fornicators. It is still that way today: hireling ministers say very little in condemnation of fornication and adultery or other transgressions.

The "gainsayings of Core" is also found connected with hireling ministers. If you are going to make your living on the fleece of the woolly goats, then you need people to fleece! Hence, proselytizing! Core's sin was to teach that "all God's people are prophets,", or "Always and everywhere the servants of Christ are under orders to evangelize,” as Mr. Murray put it, ­ and tithe, too! The doctrine of Korah! So hireling ministers are basically Balaamites. Keep in mind, we speak of the extremes. Paul, whom God appointed a preacher of the Gentiles, set the example among the Gentiles, and his example was contrary to a hired ministry, even though he had the power of an apostle. "Behold the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you; for I seek not yours, but you: for the children (his converts) ought not to lay up for the parents, (ministers), but the parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you the less I am loved." (A dramatic truism!) (II Corinthians 12:14,15.) Please don't jump ahead of us here. We will come back to the other texts after covering this extreme. "Have I", said he, "committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exaltedt because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely." (Greek: 'dorean,' "gratuitously: for nought", II Corinthians 11:7.) "I robbed other churches , taking wages of them , to do you service. And when I was present with you , and wanted, I was chargeable to no man." (II Corinthians 11:9a ­ we will deal with part b of the verse in its proper place.) He spoke of his "labors, working with our own hands." (I Corinthians 4:4.) And again, he wrote: “For ye remember, brethren 7 our labor and travail: for laboring night and day because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God." (I Thessalonians 2:9.) When he gave charge to Timothy relative to the qualifications of the bishop, the bishop ''must not be given to wine , no strike; not greedy of filthy lucre." (I Tim. 3:3.) His condemnation of workmongers of his day is as appropriate now as then: "Whose mouths must be stopped who subvert whole houses , teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.” (Titus 1:11.) His instruction to Titus relative to the ministers was: "And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful" (Titus 3:14.)

 When one considers the snare that money binds upon men, it has no place in the spiritual realm. When a hired minister is brought to an experience of grace and knowledge of the truth of free grace, his salary becomes a stumbling stone. He is not free. A man that is hired is under moral and ethical obligations to his employer. If his employer wants him to preach a pro­tithing sermon, even though he knows that the "tithe belongs to Levi" and knows his church will not forwarded the tithe to the local Jewish rabbi, he is still obligated to fulfill his contractual agreement. If he is expected to hold a so­called "revival" and knows it is unwarranted by the Word of God, he must do it. If his employer wants a Santa Claus on the pagan holiday, guess who will be "Ho, Ho, Ho'ing" that night! If they want a gymnasium to exercise their spiritual muscles; you guessed it. He will be raising the money to build it. If the Director of Missions receives a quota from Nashville as to how many souls are to be saved in the boundaries of his association, and assigns a reasonable number to him to save ... what shall he do? Where will he and his family go? How will they survive? He is hired, and he is trapped! This writer has been right here! There is nothing he can do but follow the scripture: "Come out of her, 0 My people." And right here he will truly discover what it means to "walk by faith," for everything else is out of sight. Sadly, many Neo­calvinists are trapped in the Pelagian antichritian system, and one finds it strange that enslaved men will condemn the free. They will refer to God's free men as "Misers," "Mossybacks," "Hardshells," and "Hyper­calvinists." As one said recently: "I am fully persuaded that only God can make a Hyper­calvinist. Once you see what Christ has done, all the rest appears blindness." But this revealing grace of God which opens the elects' eyes and frees them from pitch darkness of freewillism is what snatches a hireling minister out of his sectarian employment to labor freely in the kingdom of God. That is one extreme. Now, lest our reader concludes that our bias prevents us from observing the other side, we will next cover the opposite extreme, and conclude this section in the scriptural "middle." The law says: "Thou shalt not covet." Coveteousness is a transgression of this law.

 It includes both desiring something which rightly belongs to another, as well as a stinginess which prevents one from rightly carrying his own share of an obligation. It is a felt lusting after mammon, which the Lord repeatedly said one could not worship God and mammon simultaneously. The children of God have a law written within their minds and hearts, which move them to liberality in the giving and distribution of goods over which God has made them "stewards." All their material goods, primarily belong to God, and are put in trust in their hands. The Holy Spirit constantly exhorts them to this liberality under the Gospel, for this liberality is the best remedy for covetousness ... it will break its power over the child of God. The result is a joy and satisfaction in one's stewardship. Paul set the standard of this stewardship saying, "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart (the seat of affection) so let him give; not grudgingly (which is covetousness), or of necessity (i.e., out of duty or compulsion) for God loveth a cheerful giver ." That, not a system of tithing, is the Scriptural principle for Gospel support (II Corinthians 9:7). There was a fundamental principle given under the law, that is cited by two different passages in the New Testament for supporting the gospel ministry. In Deuteronomy 25:4, the law says: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Paul asked if God wrote this just for oxen! He wrote: "Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doeth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sake?" Now was it written for our sake, or the sake of the oxen.

 His answer: "For our sake, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap of your carnal things?" (I Corinthians 9:9­12.) Can one imagine repeatedly "sowing9the Word of God" in dry ground and it never producing any harvest in carnal things? No farmer would do so repeatedly. It would be extremely discouraging! That principle is plain enough: the minister of God, while not hired, is Scripturally supported by the benefits given and received under his ministry. But watch this delicate balance: "If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffered all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ." It was principally for this very cause that the first deacons were ordained in Acts 6. The distribution of goods to the poor became a hindrance to the preaching of the gospel and contention arose over the fair distribution of these goods. This put the ministry of the apostles in a bad light. Paul, basically, is saying much the same. Ministers cannot lust after the carnal goods of their hearers. It is best to suffer without than to say a word about it. Yet, the apostle places it in the volume of the New Testament for all true and conscientious believers to know. He argues his point from the Hebraic priesthood, saying, "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers of the altar? Even so hath the Lord ORDAINED that they which preach the gospel should live of the Gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:9­ 14.) Paul was an itinerate minister, and so are most Hyper­calvinist ministers. As he was supported, so are they. When he said he "robbed other churches" and "took wages of them," he referred to those faithful churches that time after time sent financial relief to him. It was never a constant supply, for often he hungered, but he had expenses to bear for the gospel's sake which either were supplied by those who loved the truth, or by the calluses on his own hands ­ for he was a tent­maker by trade. His travel was mostly by boats that ploughed the coastal regions of the Mediterranean Sea, for which transportation he must pay. After his imprisonment and until his death, he had to pay a private guard and rent a private house, both of which incurred expenses at a time when he could not be employed. But we should consider this: All of his extra expenses were for the propagation of the gospel of the free grace of God. It was not for Paul's sake, or self
interest. He did not volunteer to be an apostle. "I will show him” the Lord told Ananias, “what he must suffer for My name's sake". His labor was only for the cause of God and the truth, and benefited the whole community of the saints everywhere. Before he was arrested and sent to Rome, he wrote to the Church at Rome, hoping to visit them, saying: " Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and “be brought on my way thitherward if first I be somewhat filled with your company " (Romans 15:25.) Again, to the Church of God at Corinth, he wrote: "And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go” (I Corinthians 16:6.) The same is recorded again later, "And to pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again out of Macedonia unto you, and of you be brought on my way towards Judea." (II Corinthians 1:16.) One should be able with the above Scriptures to see how the propagation of the gospel was financed. This is precisely the way Hyper­calvinists in the United States do it to this day. In fact, it is seldom that a church collects money except for the above purpose, or for the needy among them. Most, in supporting the gospel propagation do it privately, or individually. There is bashfulness about it, in that no one wants to appear to be "putting on," or supporting the cause as "men­pleasers" or to "be seen of men." They have a desire to follow the Lord who said they should not let their left hand know what their right hand does. There were several churches in Macedonia, and they contributed to Paul's expenses often. "Moreove~ brethren, we do you to wit of the grace (Greek: "charis: gift") of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; how that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. For to their power I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves; praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints." (II Corinthians 8:2­4.)

 At one time, only one church was helping him, and that was the church at Philippi, for he wrote: "Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the GospeL when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me concerning giving and receiving but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto me of my necessity. Not that I desired a gift, but I desire for you that ye may abound to your account" (Philippians 4:1517.) As one reads the above record, he is reading of the method the Hyper­ calvinists follow in supporting the propagation of the gospel. The members and believers give to help defray the additional cost on the ministers in the publication of the gospel of the free grace of God; they help to off­set the cost of the ministers' social entertainment of guests. They understand that the Church, by calling and/or ordaining a minister has charged that minister to be "given to hospitality," (I Timothy 3:2) and be "a lover of hospitality," (Titus 1:8) and he is expected by them to do so. But they cannot expect him to do it all at his own expense, and that they be freed from the additional expense. Throughout the kingdom of God, lovers of the truth willingly and gladly "take upon themselves the fellowship of the ministry." Yet, they do not "hire" their preachers! Their ministers are members of their churches ­ not uninvolved "stay­short" preachers (as David Benedict called them) running from one church to another seeking higher salaries and benefits. Since Hyper­calvinists do not drag, scare, coach, plead, and beg people to "join the church," the actual membership within a congregation is relatively small. Both the church and the congregation are the Lord's. However, the minister nor the church expect those in the congregation who have not been committed to the cause to support it out of any necessity. If they wish to, it is greatly appreciated, and many do. But no minister would expect a small membership to financially support him. In fact, much of his financial remuneration comes from those in the congregation who love the truth of sovereign grace. Those who love the truth will, themselves, drive hundreds of miles to hear it; and these understand the financial aspects of traveling and entertaining guests. The writer serves churches five hundred miles apart, and in thirty years can recall only twice when he went at his own expense. What one small church cannot supply is cared for by others better blessed.

 Even the publication of books and literature and the distribution of good books to young believers are done with the help of others. The charge against Hyper­calvinists that they are "misers" is false. Merely because they reject the Mosaic law of tithing and the priesthood, does not mean they reject the New Testament method of propagating the gospel! This has been their position since the settlement of Rhode Island by three of their ministers: John Clarke, Roger Williams and Obadiah Holmes (1635). The following discussion on this subject dates from 1833, by Gilbert Beebe, and is selected from the Signs of The Time, May 8, Volume 1. "We are fully aware that Christ has, through His apostles, enjoined the duty and privilege on His people, of communicating of their worldly substance as God has blessed them, to the support of those whom He has called into the ministry. The ministers of Christ are steward of the Word, as the saints who are benefited by their labors are stewards of their carnal things. It is the work of the minister to preach the Word faithfully, and it is the work and duty of his brethren to see that he is made comfortable in regard to temporal things. We see nothing improper in the ancient practice of our Baptist churches, when having chosen a pastor, without consulting the world, herself judging of his gifts and qualifications, and having settled him, to make the necessary arrangement for his support. If the church thinks proper to open a subscription book in which every one who feels willing may annex to his name the amount he intends to give, by doing which the burden becomes more equal among the members and non­professing friends as feel so disposed may throw in their aid and thus reduce the burden of the church, we see no wrong in it." [However, in general, this method has been discontinued by almost all Old School Baptist churches in America. The author serves one church whose members agreed together to pay his expenses, each a set and equal amount. When one died, his daughter who was not a member continued the support. When she died, her daughter has continued the support although she, too, is not a member.

 That agreement has held for twenty years, and although the distance from his residence to that church and home is 480 miles, he has never had to go at his own expense!] He continues: "A minister of Jesus should never be above laboring with his own hands, and we are persuaded that Christ's ministers are not; still when it is in the power of a church to relieve their minister from the cares of the world, that he may devote his time principally or wholly to the work, it is right they should do so. We know that the liberality of the churches in the support of the ministers of the gospel of Christ has not been extravagantly large." As the greedy zeal of the Fullerites increased to the scandalous, the Old School party shied away of anything which might identify them with such excesses. Elder Beebe addressed this issue also: "It has been supposed by some of our readers that we are opposed to a minister receiving financial remuneration from the people of his charge, for his time and service in the gospel ministry; this error has probably grown out of their known aversion to the missionary system. We wish to correct the wrong impression by giving a statement of our views on the subject. "We wish in this, as in every other respect, the churches and preachers to be conformed to the Word of God and we believe the Word is as clear and pointed on this point as on any other involved in the relation existing between churches and preachers. The obligations devolving on preachers and churches towards each other are reciprocal, and both parties are viewed in the New Testament as stewards. "For a bishop must be blameless as the stewards of God." ­Titus 1:7. "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” I Corinthians 4:1. And Peter writes to the elect to " Use hospitality one to another, without grudging, as every man hath received the gift even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" ­ I Peter 4:9,10.

Here we see that both the ministers and brethren are stewards and as stewards are servants who are entrusted with their Master's property, to deal it out according to His direction, so the minister of Jesus receives in trust the mysteries of God; these mysteries then they are bound to deal out or explain to the people of God, and this according to the gift which they have received of the Lord. Now this is the preacher's business: he must preach the Word, be instant in season, out of season, &c., and feed the flock of God which He hath purchased with His own blood; nor is he permitted to take thought for the morrow, what he shall eat, what he shall drink, or wherewithal he shall be clothed. This is not his concern; and if he should take thought, what can he do? He cannot add to his stature one cubit, or make one hair black or white; hence it is unnecessary for God's stewards or ministers to bargain with the mission boards or with the churches, by the day, month or year, to preach for a stipulated sum, and hold them bound to raise for him just that amount. [In other words, no salaried or set amount.] "As it has pleased the Lord to enjoin upon His ministers that they should "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness," and has given them assurance that all these things shall be added unto them, (Matthew 6:33) so He has also enjoined upon His Church to provide for those who labor in Word and doctrine. As stewards, they are entrusted with temporal things, and as they receive from the stewards of the Word of their spiritual things, they are required to administer to them of their temporal things. This requires no bargaining between the churches and preachers, for a stipulated sum of money or a given term of service; the church has a right to expect the labors of the minister of Christ, and the minister has a right to expect from his flock a competent support; neither are they to look for these things on the ground of legal obligations or contract, but from the nature of the relation which they stand in, one to another.

 No minister of Christ will refuse to do his best, and all that he can, to feed the flock of God, so we think no church or individual, in gospel order, will refuse to make their minister as comfortable as they themselves are ... " "There was a time in the primitive church when the ministers of Christ could and did attend to the widows, but there also came another time when it was not meet that they should leave the preaching of the Word and serve tables, (Acts 6:1­4) and so it appears at the present moment, that the few who remain firm in the old track should be encouraged to go among the scattered sheep and lambs, and confirm them in the truth by preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ. Our object in writing on this subject is not to complain of any deficiency in the support of the Old School preachers ­ we hear none of them complain ... But we wish to correct the wrong impression that we are opposed to the idea of ministers receiving from the churches a competent support, when such a support is afforded them in a Scriptural manner. We do not oppose it, but believe on the other hand that the obligation on the church to impart to the comfortable support of those whom God has thrust into His vineyard to labor, is His imperative as is that on the minister of Christ to preach the preaching which God bids him." (pages, 261­265.) Paul gave two specific reasons for believers to support the gospel publication. He wrote: "Not because I desired a gift; but I desire fruit that may abound to your account" (Philippians 4:15­17) and, that the ministers "receive the gift", which by so doing, they take upon themselves "the fellowship of the ministering to the saints" (II Corinthians 8:2­4.) This writer heard an elderly sister in a distant State say: "My father was an Old Baptist preacher. He preached for fifty years and never received a cent." She, and we, admired such dedication. But what a serious indictment against those believers among whom he labored! Such a situation is as unwarranted by the Word of God as any Sunday School, mission board, or a rock band for entertainment in churches! Covetousness is yet wrong. Where was the fruit of his labor after treading out the corn? If he was wealthy, they still had not taken on themselves the fellowship of the ministering to the saints, nor showed their love to him or gratitude to God for the gospel ministry He had provided them. Such ought not to be accepted as good "gospel order."

 It is unscriptural. Is it therefore wrong for a church to financially support their pastor, so that he might give himself fully to the preaching of the gospel? Scripturally, the answer is "No, it is not wrong." Elder Beebe's discussion approves of it in so far as there is no stipulated amount and legal obligations or bargaining involved. In Paul's discussion relative to the subject with the Corinthians, he implied that others did. "Have we not power to lead about a sister; a wife , as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charge?" The implication is strong, if not certain, that these "other apostles" may have had wives (Peter did, for he had a mother­in­law.) and did "forbear working", or secular employment. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, while others labored among the Jews who had customarily, by the law of tithing (which belonged to Levi) supported the Levitical priesthood. They that served in the tabernacle ate of the things offered on the altar. So where should a balance be drawn relative to ministerial support? That is the issue we now address. If a congregation is large enough to maintain their pastor, and wish to do so, surely they have that right if a minister can be called. It is not disorderly to do so according to the Scripture. Experience amply demonstrates that utmost care and judgment must constantly be exercised in such cases. Such a church must have a faithful deacon, or deacons, grounded in the Word of God with a love of the truth and a love of the ministry; for they must be exceedingly careful not to impose any unwarranted duties, restrictions, nor liberties upon the minister. The minister is the "overseer" of the church and a "servant of God" to the church and kingdom of God; the deacon is the "servant of the church" of which he is a member. The minister must not take on the role behaviors of a hireling; nor must the church treat him in the reciprocal roles of a hireling. He and they must understand that he is a servant of the most High God and answerable to Him as his Lord and Master. At the same time, the minister must keep constantly in mind, too, that he is not to employ the roles attached to the status of hirelings.

 He is to feed the flock of God wherever God opens a door of utterance, and this not for filthy lucre's sake. When, or if, the congregation becomes less able to support him, he should have the fortitude to seek secular employment; and resist the natural and carnal temptation to "shake the trees" to get more members! He must never forsake the truth that it is the "Lord that adds daily to the church such as should be saved." Too often when a church dwindles in membership, efforts are made to increase its membership. This is the beginning of the end of a sound gospel church! The church must keep ever in mind that the kingdom of God is not so provincial: God has a people to be fed that may not be near it. Her minister is free, when led of the Lord, to feed the flock wherever they graze. The likelihood that Calvinists will need to be concerned about the above is almost nil. The time is past, when large gatherings of the elect are common. This is a day when there "are few that believe; and these sheep are scattered far apart. As the number of God's elect continue to pass on to be with the Lord, fewer and fewer of that number [which is definite and certain] remains here below. Hence both logic and Scripture teach that as "knowledge increase [world­wide web!], the love of many will wax cold," and the number of the elect on earth will ever be diminishing. If a minister wants a crowd, he best not preach the truth of free grace ­ it will not draw a crowd of unregenerate goats! He should not fall into the same error as Charles H. Spurgeon. The huge crowds that pressed into the Tabernacle auditorium should have alerted him to the fact that something he was doing was dreadfully wrong. The truth has never been popular with the world! And so the Lord foretold: "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." (Luke 6:6.) Such a pastor must be extremely careful not to become so dependent upon the church for financial support that he cannot (1) preach the truth, and (2) care for himself and family if necessary. He must ever be mindful that his circumstances can change in less than an hour! And that from the least expected quarters. Many false brethren, with feign love and fair speech, will destroy him and his effect in the gospel ministry as ardently as they formerly supported him. "Be sober be vigilant; because your adversary the devil as a roaring lion) walketh about seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5:8) And he works through men.

The God­called and qualified minister is God's servant. He has no freewill; he is no "free agent;" he is an instrument, a tool, in God hand to be used in God's kingdom, for God's own purpose. The Hyper­calvinists ministers are charged to "Go forth and preach the gospel, administer the ordinances, and serve the churches wherever God in His Providence cast your lot." The members of the churches and believers in the congregations of the Lord ought ever be prayerful, that "God will open a door of utterance" for their ministers to preach the unsearchable riches of free and sovereign grace! "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus" ­Rev. 22:20.

                                                                          CHAPTER THIRTEEN
                                            TWO DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES IN RELIGION

There are two distinctive and opposing doctrinal systems of religion among the race of man. The natural religion of the carnal mind, which can be taught and learned: It is found in all religions and the most fundamental principle of it is the will­worship of natural men. This ancient natural religion is now the cardinal foundation of modern­day "Christianity." In nominal "Christianity," it is a decision­made works religion void of any spiritual light and revelation. It is the product of modern proselytizing using "easy­decisionism," hawked loudly by the self­styled "Evangelists". Its very popularity appeals to the flesh of natural men, and is in itself sufficient to warn a child of God to keep clear of it. It produces man­made “Christians.” The fact that it is ever evolving, decade after decade, changing in doctrine and multiplying practices, and conforming to the ever degenerating social conditions it spawned by its own natural religious lust; and by its approving of all things contrary to righteousness, proves beyond any doubt that it is not the historical Christian faith. As it slides into Sodomite practices ­ which are now everywhere evident ­ and continual moral decline, it demonstrates clearly that it issued forth from Satan. It is Mystery Babylon, and it was most advanced by Andrew Fuller with his Roman Catholic doctrine of "freewillism" borrowed from “St.” Thomas Aquinas. Clearly, the "Evangelicals," even if they call themselves "Calvinists," are no different from out­right Pelagian freewillers, if they emphasize man's abilities rather than God's effectual grace. Christ's imputed righteousness is the sinner's saving grace, and it is part and partial to the doctrine of free and sovereign grace. Men may believe many things, but if one does not have anything better to lean upon than his own ragged righteousness, that man has not yet been converted ­ Calvinist or no Calvinist; Baptist or no Baptist ­ the name has no saving merit. Under the cloak of respectable "Calvinism," it still denies that Christ is the Savior of sinners. At best, if this form of "Calvinism" insists that Christ's atonement was a failure, or contingent on the "evangelists" or the "sinner", then in reality they are no different than the Pelagians. It is as if seeing that He was not going to have time to finish what His Father sent Him to do, He quickly devised an ingenious plan whereby He would commission every man, woman, and child to "win the world" for Him after He was dead! This form of so­called "Calvinism" depends upon carnal men to actually do what the Son of God could not do! Such dishonors the Lamb of God, and makes mere men the "saviors" of the wicked. Classical Calvinists refer to the above form of so­called "Calvinism" as Hypo­calvinism. We refer to it as "Neo­ calvinism." But whichever term is used, it is not Calvinism! They can brand the "Old Schoolers" as Hyper­calvinists," but it still does not make themselves Calvinists.
The religion of Jesus is a revealed religion, not only in the origin of Christianity, but also to each person to whom the truth is revealed. It is not attained by education, theology, family inheritance, or study and research. It is received as an unction of the Holy One, and it needs not to be taught. It is highly consistent with logic if this logic is grounded on anyone of the Five Cardinal Principles of Grace. It teaches that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. If this is believed, then natural man can not “come to Me,” as Jesus taught, "except it be given to Him of My Father;" or "drawn" to Him by the Father. He cannot save himself, nor help someone else to save him. Being totally depraved and dead no "evangelist," pastor, soul­winner, "Christian" counselor, parent, or spouse can help his case. Christ alone must save him! The Scripture clearly teaches that the Eternal Godhead chose, selected, or elected Jesus the son of Mary, of the family of Abraham and David to be interstitually united to the Son in the Godhead to be the God­ Man, Savior, and Head of His church, and at the same instance chose, or elected all that shall ever be in heaven and immortal glory “in Him before the foundation of the world." (Eph. 1:5.) If one has this truth tenderly revealed to him, he cannot conclude otherwise than that Christ died only for those given to Him by His Father! or, unconditional election and predestination! The above being revealed to him, he must conclude that all the Father gave to His Son, and all His Son died for, will persevere in grace and ultimately be gloried with Christ in heaven and immortal glory without the loss of one. The blessed Lord thanked His Father that this was the case, saying to Him: "I thank Thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the 'wise and prudent,’ and hast revealed them unto babes.

 Even so Father: for so it seemed good in Thy sight,” (Matthew 11:25­26.) Within the boundaries of the "Five Points of Free Grace," there are many differing views of "Calvinism." The traditional Calvinists, which included the Reformed churches, Presbyterians, Particular Baptists (before Fuller), Puritan Congregationalists, and the English Calvinist Methodists, with a few others, held to the Five Points consistently. Some of the churches in the above group still hold to them today. But by far, the greater majority of these have plunged into the deepest abyss of will­ worship. It is interesting, that all the "evangelical" fervor which destroyed Christianity came from the Calvinists' origin rather than those who were General Redemptionists as the Freewill Baptists in the U.S., or General Baptists in England. Equally, the original Arminian opponents to the Calvinist Refonners were not so "evangelical!" From time to time a revival of Calvinism takes place, and individuals reared among Pelagians break away from them and form new religious societies established upon the wormwood foundation of Pelagian baptism and "church authority." [invariably most then begin to claim that they are the true original church!] Too often they break away before they are fully established in the faith, and some follow the heresy of Andrew Fuller. Their ultimate departure from Calvinism again follows the original path: Calvinism to Hypo or Neo­calvinism; a pause; Neo­calvinism to Arminianism; another pause; Arminianism to Pelagianism; a pause; Pelagianism to ecumenicalism; a pause; and into Rome. Finality! Large numbers of these Neo­calvinists are ensnared in a laborious system. They must, imperatively must, build up a congregation large enough to financially support themselves with a contemporary life style without working for a living. Hence, they are attracted to Fuller's so­called "Evangelism." They immediately start: (1) dragging unregenerates into the society's membership to indoctrinate them into Calvinism and tithing, and (2) calling all Calvinists holding to New Testament propagation of the gospel "Hyper­calvinists," "Hardshells," "Misers," "Bench­sitters," and/or "Mossy­ backs." These two points mark the Neo­Calvinists. Most of them will also hold to "gospel regeneration," believing their quotation of Bible passages or portions of them become incantations which can produce the magical power they call "getting saved." Neo­Calvinists do not know what Christ accomplished on the cross; Or when He saved His people from their sins.

They do not suspect that He has! The Neo­calvinists, and even occasionally a Calvinist, will refer to those holding to the Five Points of Free Grace and New Testament practices as "Hyper­calvinists" in a derogatory way. The Hyper­calvinists hold that all that the Scripture teaches that Christ accomplished in His purpose and grace in His life and death, He did in fact accomplish. They stand somewhat unique as the ones who actually believe that Christ is the Savior of sinners in an emphatic way. That He did in fact redeem His people; that He did in fact ransom them; that He did in fact save them from their sins. In addition, they believe and follow the belief that "The Scripture of the Old and New Testament is the written Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice.” That may be "old fashioned" and "out of date," but they are serious about their belief in the divine inspiration of the Scripture. This leaves them less "wiggle room" to bring in every hair­brained guru, doctrine, and "good idea" that others seem so able to do! They are compelled by their faith to refrain from unscriptural innovations, carnal entertainment ­ they don't joke in the pulpit! ­ and proselytizing practices the so­called "evangelicals" embrace. They do not copy the worldly religions around them, either in doctrine or in practices. They do not accept the proselytizing practices of the "evangelicals" because they cannot find them either in historical Christianity or the Bible. In fact, deep within their own experience, they are enabled to discern the difference between that which is of the flesh and that of the Spirit. They can detect the motives behind this proselytizing effort to be are borne of deceitfulness, fleshly lusts and ignorance. Deceitfulness because they are "sent strong delusions that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned." (II Thess. 2:11.) The delusion is: that the Lord did not save His people, and is helpless to save them without their cooperation. Or, that the Almighty God "needs help"! Fleshly lusts, because they feel in their carnal flesh a desire to triumph over another, or as Paul said of such, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away: For of this sort (these evangelical deceivers) are they which creep into houses; and lead captive silly women laden with sins; led away by divers lusts, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (II Timothy 3:6,7.)

To those who have that anointing of the Spirit of truth, it is obviously clear of whom the apostle here speaks. Ignorance, because they cannot accept what the Scripture actually and plainly teaches that the Lord of Glory did in His substitutionary life and death actually accomplish. The New Testament propagation of the gospel is the spreading of the good news of the accomplishments of the Lord Jesus Christ wherever God's people are "scattered" by persecution, mobility of jobs, and various migrations or emigrations. The simple walk and conversation of God's people, and their quiet invitations to friends and family to worship services are sufficient. They do not impose their religion on anyone; because they know how disgusting it is for a rabid Freewiller to attempt to cram it down their throats. They know full well that "salvation is of the Lord," (Jonah 3:9) and He has done His work and the Holy Spirit will invariably do His. By experience, they understand that anyone would really rather believe that the influence of the gospel upon their poor soul was of God, rather than of a fellow creature. Most of all, they understand that the gospel is good news to quickened sinners about what God has done for such; rather than what He will do if they "will let Him." They believe, as in their own case, that the application of the salvation worked out by Christ is the special office of the Holy Spirit. That faith is precious to them, so it is best left to be precious to others. They believe that the gospel is to be preached to everyone God would have it preached, and understand it has not been His good pleasure to have it preached to everyone on earth! It was not preached to millions who never knew of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets; or to millions who never heard of Christ; and knowing what the gospel is, it is not preached except in a very few places in Western society, including the United States! Almost no one today hears the gospel; few communities remain with a gospel ministry available to it; and that religion that is preached all over the land is most likely Antichristian to the core. They are predestinarians.

They believe that God "does His will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What doest Thou?" (Daniel 4:35.) If it was the sovereign will and eternal purpose of God for all mankind to "have a chance to be saved," He is certainly able to perform His will! He it is who "worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will." The fact of history proves conclusively that such was not, nor is, the sovereign will of God. But for all sovereign grace believers of whatever stamp, they are persuaded that "as many as was ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVE." (Acts 13:48.) So the commission of their ministers is as broad as, and as narrow as, the sovereign good will of God for them individually. They are to, and without fail, will preach the gospel to every single soul to whom they are sent. The "evangelicals" believe that faith and repentance are sacraments which precede regeneration, and are magical incantations to produce it. Thus, they believe it to be the duty of the reprobates to hear and believe that Christ died for them as well as the elect; when in fact of the inspired Word, He did not! Since they must hear the Word in order to believe it; and believing it will produce divine life in them, then it must be preached to everyone. Of course, it is rather too late now, but this is not important to them. These "evangelicals" are caught in the illogical position of holding that the reprobate is required to believe a lie in order to make it true, and then damn the poor honest soul to hell for the cause of not believing the lie! If one believes that faith and repentance will produce spiritual life in a soul, that person is ignorant of the way of salvation himself. How then can such preach the gospel to other? The Hyper­calvinists believe that Christ "Hath obtained eternal redemption for us." That "He laid down His life for the sheep." That "He hath saved us and called us ... according to His own purpose and grace." That He "hath sanctified us, " and "hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." The closing questions of this chapter then, are: Are these things TRUE? Did Christ do all that the Scripture declares that He did? Who believes that this is so? May the grace, mercy, and peace of God rest and abide upon

                                                                                        APPENDIX A:
                                                                                     By Samuel Trott

, July 5, 1839 Brother Beebe: I received a letter a short time since, from Brother P. Meredith, in which he requested me also to give my views on the text, Job 28: 7,8, in reference to the enquiry whether there is not a path which passes between the sand bars of Arminianism and the granite rocks of Antinomianism. Your answer to this enquiry as published under the Editorial Hed in No. 9 of present volume, he says is very explicit in reference to Arminianism, but not so full in reference to Antinominianism as he wished. He gives as a further reason for requesting my views, that he has lately heard, “that to be a thorough going Old School Baptist, one must believe that it is not the duty of the unregenerate, to believe, repent, or pray.” I will therefore add my testimony to yours on this point. The one may strengthen the other. I will first examine the subject of Antinomianism and see whether “the path which no fowl knoweth, and the vulture’s eye hath not seen” can be a middle track between that and Arminianism.

 The signification of the term Antinomianism is, according to its etymology, against law, as shown by Brother Beebe; and the charge evidently intended to be fixed upon those to whom this term is applied by the world is that they are opposed to the law of God, or do it away by their doctrine. This charge, if the enemies od the Truth were admitted to be judges, would have been fixed upon the Master of the House, and upon those of His household in every age, from Paul down to Brother Meredith and myself, who preach a “finished salvation” in Christ. But I appeal from those would be judges to the Scriptures of Truth. I would stand at the judgment seat of Christ. Those who anciently claimed to be disciples of Moses in distinction from Christ, evidently supposed that the letter of the Sinai laws, moral and ceremonial, together with the traditions of their fathers, constituted a code of law which supplanted the original law under which man was created; and that this was the standard by which man’s acceptance with God, or rejection, was to be decided. Because Christ and His apostles preached a doctrine adverse to this Pharisaical law, they were denounced as “opposers of the law of Moses.” The modern Nomians or legalists alson understand the original law of God to have given place to a milder law, compounded of the letter of the Ten Commandments only and what they conceive to be certain requisitions and conditions of the “Gospel,” and that this “gospel law” is the standard of righteousness, by which all men under the “gospel” are to be tried, and a want of conformity to it is the ground of condemnation; and according to some; a personal conformity to it, is the ground of justification. But no individual who has been brought truly to love the law of God, can admit of its being supplanted by such a medley of human contrivances, and when it is opposed, either as a standard of right or as a yoke of bondage attempted to be put uon the neck of disciples of Christ, its opposers are at once denounced as Antinomians! In making my appeal from these partial judges, I file the following answers to their fallacious charges: 1 st . That God in creating Adam a living soul, laid him, and his posterity in him under obligation to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his strength; and to love his neighbor as himself; that this constituted the law of His creation, and the eternal standard of right, which no apostasy of man could make void. 2 nd .

That the revelation which God has made of His mind and will in the Scriptures, the alone standard of Truth, no where teaches that God has ever abrogated this law of man’s creation, altered its requisitions, or abated its demands to suit the weakness of fallen man. This answer is sustained by Matthew 5: 17­20 and Romans 3:31. 3 rd . That the prohibition given to Adam in the garden not to eat of the forbidden tree, was designed as a test of his subjection to God and to the law of his creation; his transgressing this prohibition was therefore the just ground of his being condemned and his posterity in his loins to a state of total depravity or “death in sin.” And that the law of Ten Commands given from Sinai, in its general bearing upon all men, distict from its special reference to Israel nationally, was not designed as a covenant of works and to lead men to depend on their obedience to it for their final acceptance with God, either Jews or Gentiles; but it “was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made, &c.;” (Galatians 3:19) it “entered that the offence might abound.” (Romans 5:20.) In a word, it was given in its spiritual import, in the sense in which Paul says “the law is spiritual, as a school master” (Romans 7:14) to teach both Jews and Gentiles their entire depravity and guilt, and the impossibility of their being justified by the deeds of the law, and their need of just such a salvation as is revealed in Christ, a salvation from sin and sovereignly free. Hence it is written “We know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mounth may be stopped and all the world become guilty before God;” and again, “For by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3: 19,20.) Niether, I will add, was this law of Ten Commands given, in itself considered, to be a rule of life; it was designed to teach us what sin is, and its moral precepts are sanctioned by the New Testament as illustrating that which is a proper deportment toward God and toward man in a general and moral point of view. But a rule of life to be correct must be an exact measure of all that is required of us to perform. This law was not such to ancient Israel; other laws were given them, which they were required also to obey, and which were of course component parts of that rule by which their lives wre to be squared, such as certain positive Institutions of a ceremonial nature, &c.

Neither is it a perfect law to spiritual Israel; the life of a Christian as such, must be upon a broader scale than the letter of the Decalogue, in order to its being squared with the Gospel. Repentance toward God for his daily wandering of heart, and living daily by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and an establishment in the Truths of the Gospel must enter into the composition of a Christian’s lie or walk in order to his conformity to the Gospel standard; and these things are beyond the compass of the Ten Commands, “For the law is not of faith, but the man that doeth them shall live in them.” (Galatians 3:12.) There are also positive institutions belonging exclusively to the Gospel to be observed by the Christian if he would “walk uprightly according to the Truth of the Gospel.” Therefore the legalists call us Antinomians for denying that the law as given to Israel is a rule of life to the disciples of Christ, we may well call them “anti­gospelers, or “anti­new­testamenters” for their attempts to make it a full rule to the Christian’s life. Thus much for our views concerning the much insisted upon notion thsat the law is a rule of life to the Christian, and I will now return to the further consideration of the answers I have filed. [ It may be noted that those chargings Hyper­Calvinists as Antinomians, do not themselves even remotely keep the law for any reason today, let alone as a “rule of life!”­ SCP] 1 st . Whilst these answers stand, and they must stand according to the standard of eternal Truth, it is evident that we are justified in opposing this law­of­conditions of which faith and repentance and various religious ceremonies, are the principle terms, being foisted into the place of that unchanging standard of right, the law under which man was created, as that by which man is to be judged before God. Consequently their charge against us of being Antinomian on this account will not stand, and, so long as it is written “Whosoever offendeth in one point of the law is guilty of the whole,” it must be evident that whoever sets up anything other than the spiritual or original law of God in its exceeding broadness as the standard by which man is to be tried before God, by which he is to be justified or condemned, opposes or makes void the law and he is therefore an Antinomian in the strict import of the word.

The teaching that the law will accept of anything short of perfect obedience to the everlasting demands, or that it will of any substitution in the place of this perfect obedience, such as repenting and believing the Gospel and the like, is according to the above view of the subject Antinomianism. Having thus shown what Antinomianism is, and the characters on whom the charge properly rests, I will briefly show its position in relation to Arminianism by a few questions. 1 st . Who are they that are opposed to the enforcing the rigorous demands of the spiritual law of God? The unregenerate, whether professors or not; “For the carnal mind is enmity against God, not subject to the law of God,” &c. But unregenerate professors of Christianity more fully act out this opposition; they then are the practical Antinomians. 2 nd . Who are they that are fond of the Arminian? Or the “do and live” system? The unregenerate universally; but those of them who profess religion, more openly avow this system. Hence the Arminian in heart is an Antinomian in heart, and the professed Arminian stands in his doctrine opposed to the unchangeable demands and rectitudes of the original law of God, and is therefore in truth an avowed Antinomian. Or thus: Those who make void the law of God by their traditions or systems must be Antinomians. What is Arminianism, but a system that teaches that men’s acceptance ith God depends on certain conditions to be performed by then, short of a perfect obedience to the original law of God? Christ having according to some taken away the original law, and according to others, made an atonement for sin abstractly [general and universal atonement] considered, to make room for such conditions being accepted. Hence Arminianism and Antinomianism terminates at the same point, are two different names for the same system of opposition to the law of God. How then can the “path which the vulture’s eye hath not seen” pass between the two? There is no middle ground there. But Brother Meredith is ready to ask, is there no system which
opposes the obligations of the law of God, different from the systems of conditions? In answer I admit it has been said that there were those who held that the elect were never under the law, and that Christ never saw any sin in them &c. But such a sentiment would as completely do away redemption by Christ as it would the law. Besides this sentiment would be so irrational, so contrary to that sense of accountability which men have, that I cannot think such a sentiment ever existed in the breasts of any who believe there is a God and admitted the authenticity of the Scriptures. The sentiment also that the elect as the “children of Adam” were actually justified from all demands of the law before time began, and were then, absoloved from all charge of guilt, would, if carried out in its legitmate bearing, amount to an abrogation of the law in their behalf, and therefore be Antinomianism. But I know of none who contend for this sentiment that would admit of its being carried out to what I think its full implication; therefore, though they may be inconsistent, they are not Antinomians in the way they hold it. [Reference here is made to Daniel Parkers “two­seedism.”] Consequently, my brother, we in vain look for the granite rock of Antinomianism (where the charge of Antinomianism is just as implying opposition to the law of God) so severed from the sandbars of Armianism as to admit of the path or way of holiness passing between them. Indeed I may confidently ask, how would sandbars ever be found in the sea were there not granite rock or something like it to form an eddy or obstruct the passage of the drifting sand and cause it to become a deposit? And how could any conditional or Arminian system ever get foothold were there not enmity in the human breast to the government and law of God; an Antinomian principle latent there, that would overturn the sovereignty of God, and bring down His perfect law from its pure and holy demands, to a level with the capacity of depraved mortals to obey? I will notice that path which no fowl knoweth, that way of holiness in which the child of grace is led.

 And my brother, if you have eyes to see, as I think you have, and do not suffer men to put their fingers or systems into them, I shall show you that this path as Brother Beebe stated, leads directly off, alike from the ground of Antinomianism and of Arminian opposition to the Truth. The very first step in which a person is led in the Christian life takes him off from that firm standing he before had on Arminian grounds; regeneration being the implantation of the eternal life in the soul which is love to God and His law. Sin, instead of holiness and the divine law, now becomes the object of his hatred. Long and hard may he struggle to regain a standing on Arminian ground, or in other words, to feel a confidence in his own doings, but in vain, every struggle but removes him farther from this confidence; he is led to an enlarged view of the law in its spirituality, sees it to be just and good, and his love to it makes him loath every thing that comes short of its righteous demands, as all his acts and thoughts do; and his confidence in his doings and exercises is therefore more and more destroyed. He finds himself at last without any standing, lying upon the absolute mercy of God, having no good prayers, repentance or reformation to hold on to, and feeling that if mercy does not hold him up he must in justice sink eternally. Hence, love and reverence for the law of God instead of making a person pleased with his own righteousness, and giving him a desire to be accepted with God on the ground of his own doings, lead him to throw aside his own doings and make him willing to be saved experimentally as a poor sinner; just in proportion therefore an Antinomian opposition to the law is eradicated from his mind altogether. Arminian confidence in creaturely performance is destroyed. Here is the mystery of the Christian’s path that the vulture’s eye cannot see; no person, not taught of God, can comprehend how that love and subjection to the law of God should cause one to loathe his own righteousness, nor how a person who relies entirely on the sovereign mercies of God in Christ for salvation, can he zealous of good works, without any motivation for merited rewards. Yet such is the case. The same love to the law which leads a person to renounce all human works as the ground of his acceptance with God, makes him cling to and rely on the work of Christ for acceptance when that work in its completion is once revealed to him – a past tence salvation – as having been wrought for such poor sinners as he.

The reason is that the one would degrade the law whilst the other perfectly honors it. Hence he who rejoices in Christ Jesus, has no confidence in the flesh; (Philippians 3:3) and he who with Paul can say “I delight in the law of God after the inward man,” would also with him say, “not having mine owbn righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Romans 7:22 & Philippians 3:9.) I think from what has been shown that Brother Meredith will be satisfied that the Christian’s path which is “as a shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day,” cannot lead him in a middle way between Antinomian opposition to the law and Arminian love of human works, but that it leaves both in the background. SIGNS of the Times: Volume 7 (1839).

                                                                                   APPENDIX B:
                                            1827 KEHUKEE BAPTIST ASSOCIATION CIRCULAR LETTER

                                               (NOTE ADDED by Hoyt D. F. Sparks, September 20, 2011:

 As a note of background on the cause of the tone of this Circular Letter, one man is worth mentioning, not that he was alone in the pursuit of instigating worldly doctrines and practices into the Baptist congregations during the early 1800s. This man is representative of those who, during this period of time, taught the application of humanistic endeavors and tried to pass them off as the religion of Christ Jesus. This man was P. W. Dowd of Raleigh, NC. He was an enemy of the Truth and stood with Martin Ross in the early days of the 1800s to divide the Baptist people; and was one of the founders of the North Carolina State Baptist Convention in 1830.

 Dowd had name recognition in the eastern part of the U.S., even to be mentioned in some prominent newspapers of that time. One such mention appeared in the Tarborough Free Press, Tarborough, NC: SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1827 Preaching---Elder P. W. Dowd, has appointed to preach at Mearn’s Chapel, on Thursday, the 19th of April next---Friday 20th, at Rocky Swamp---Saturday 21st, at Quankey Chapel---Sunday 22nd, in Halifax town---Tuesday 24th, at Smith’s Church---and, on Thursday night, 26th, in Tarborough. As is seen from the above preaching appointments, his travels took him to numerous places, and his influence enabled him to persuade many to follow his misguided teachings; mainly purposed to put money in his own pocket. Please note these actions taken by the Kehukee Baptist Association took place during the latter part of the 1820s, which was a few years before the Black Rock Address which took place in 1832: wherein both the Kehukee Baptist Association and the Black Rock Address stood against man’s modern inventions introduced into the Baptist ranks.) ------------------------------------------------- KEHUKEE BAPTIST ASSOCIATION [The following article is from the Tarborough Free Press, NC] This Association convened at the Kehukee meeting-house in Halifax County, on Saturday, 6th October last, and continued in session three days. The Association embraces at present 38 churches and 1,951 members. It appears by the following resolution, passed at this meeting, and Circular annexed to their Minutes, that the division of sentiment on the subjects mentioned, which recently threatened them with disunion, has at length been amicably adjusted:

 “14. Resolved, that whereas a paper purporting to be a declaration of the Reformed Baptist Churches in North Carolina, dated 26th August, 1826, which was handed into our last Association, and read, (containing several articles), and the said Association, referred the same, to the churches composing this body, which were requested to give their sentiments severally on said articles to this Association; which being done by most of the churches, at this time---after an interchange of opinions by the members of this body, it was agreed that as to Missionary Societies, Tract Societies, Bible Societies, and Theological Seminaries, that we discountenance them, and the practices heretofore resorted to for their support, in begging money from the public to back them; and that if any person should come, or be amongst us, as agents of any of the above societies, we discountenance them in the practice above said; and further, should they be under the character of ministers of the Gospel, that we will not invite them into our pulpits, knowing them to be such; believing these societies, and institutions, to be the inventions of men, and are not warranted from the word of God. As to the article in said paper, relative to Masonry, we unanimously agree, that should any of the members of our churches, join said fraternity, or be members thereof, and continue to visit their lodges, and Masonic parades, that it shall be a bar, to prevent them from fellowship with us in our several churches; and should any Baptist minister, join said fraternity, or belong thereto, and continue to associate therewith, in the lodges, or Masonic parades, that in such case, we will not invite them to preach in our pulpits; believing them to be guilty of such practices; and we hereby declare a non-fellowship with such practices altogether.” ------------------------ CIRCULAR The Kehukee Association now sitting at Kehukee Meeting-house, Halifax County, the 6th, 7th, and 8th October (1827)---to the several Churches they represent---send greetings: Dearly beloved Brethren: Having under a kind and auspicious providence, been permitted to convene in our annual meeting, you will no doubt expect as heretofore, an epistle from us on some subject of importance, for your instruction and comfort while passing through this vale of tears here below; and we know of nothing that may give you the alike joy, as to hear from our meeting in terminating as it did; being so overruled by an almighty and merciful God, surpassing any thing we had conceived, or ever expected, from the general excitement and contention that had long raged producing discord and distress in our body of churches: we think it will be joy to you, as well as a duty we owe our God, of infinite goodness and love to record in memory; and shew to future generations, the great care of God over his people, in this hour of division, danger and distress:

 When ready to sink in the deep waters of disunion and strife, and be overwhelmed with party spirit, and bad feelings; that this almighty, kind, and merciful God, who has promised to be the guide of his people, even unto death, should have manifested, that his everlasting arms were underneath us, and shew to all around that the gates of hell should not prevail against his churches; which is to us a great astonishment, and as joyfully affording deliverance, as Israel experienced at the Red Sea, or as when the Jews brought back the fleeing, mourning king David to his house, and destroyed party spirit; that he should step in like the days of Esther, and save his falling, and ready to sink churches, when there was not scarce a hair’s breadth, between them and division; it is surprising grace, and it was the Lord’s doing, and is marvelous in our eyes. The tho’ts of which divine watch care, manifested in this hour of danger, produced feelings of joy and love, unspeakable and unutterable; every heart having at this time, more joy, union, love and peace, than it could express, for fullness, and wiping of tears; that we indeed from experiencing the quick and unexpected transition, from the feeling of party spirit, to a union of hearts, could exclaim with the Psalmist: “Behold how good, and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity,” in accents of joy to overflowing; and feeling unwilling that you should not rejoice with us, and be participants of that happiness, resulting from the gracious kindness of our God, manifested to this Association, when every heart trembled with fear and pain, for the state of the churches. We shall therefore give you, beloved brethren, a brief sketch of the circumstances, attending our meeting. On Saturday the 6th, we met; but O God, who can describe the feelings of God’s dear people? both ministers and private members; the coldness of affection, the shyness, the fear of division, the painful party spirit, that raged in every bosom more or less; the grief, the contentions in little groups of brethren, arguing to prove, and disprove, who was right; and the general excitement by saint and sinner, to see and hear, what the end would be; yet we had remaining love, and good will enough, to proceed to preach, and hear the introductory sermon, which was ably delivered; and then prepared for business as usual, when it was proposed, that on reading the letters, no notice should be taken of the answer of the churches, to the articles which was referred to them last year, (purporting to be a declaration of the Reformed Baptist Churches in North Carolina), or that it should be referred to the churches another year, which was objected to, and then put to vote; and decided by a large majority to receive the answer of the churches, in their letters as they were read; and the subject to lay over for debate, until Monday next, with these remarks: Who can tell what God may do for us? or, if we must part, we would part in peace, and without reproaching one another. It was found in the answers of the letters, that there were twenty churches unanimous, in favor of the declaration; some other churches in favor or all but the word reform; and some divided:

 But all the churches, but one, were opposed to a Baptist joining the Masonic Society, and visiting the lodges, and parades. From the brethren’s being together on Saturday, and Sunday, and conversing, and preaching, and hearing preaching, we hope God, so tempered their hearts, as to have a heart of prayer, and a sincere wish for his direction; and to be so disposed, as to bring about peace, union and love, once more among them. For on Monday, when we came together, it seemed to be the prayer of all hearts, to put an end to strife and contention, that had so long destroyed the harmony of Ministers and Christians on these subjects; and after going through the balance of the business of the Association, we then on Monday took up the declaration: at first view it seemed impossible that ministers, and brethren, so opposite in their opinions, could ever have come together in oneness, of acknowledged sentiment; and we are forced to say from our view of the case, that had we all strove to the utmost of our power, and have had to our assistance all the ministers in the state, it could not have been effected, by human agency. But O, wonderful to relate, and everlasting thanks to God, our Father, and Jesus Christ, the head of his church, and the Holy Spirit, by whose powerful influence, we hope our peace was restored. After some debate, and explanations of our prepossessions, and imbibed opinions, concerning the articles of the aforesaid declaration, and other things; God broke in upon our souls with light, and oneness of sentiment, which followed with honest, and humble confession, with tears, of all our hard censures, and reproachful speeches, of one another, each heart was broken to tenderness, and a full and free forgiveness followed, in the broken accents of general weeping; on all hands confession and forgiveness flowed, as free as water down a descent, from bosom to bosom; the holy flame of brotherly love enkindled all around, with more than speakable peace, joy and union, manifesting itself by flowing tears, eager shaking hands, holy kisses, and anxious embracing in each other’s arms, with loud praises and thanks to Almighty God, with humble acknowledgments: this is of God, this is of God; and indeed we felt, and enjoyed, that spirit of forgiveness, joy, peace, union, and love, with and toward one another; and in such a high degree, that every doubt was removed, and each had a witness in his own heart, from what he felt that it was of God, to the mutual good of all; then our heart overflowed, and the demons discord and party spirit, fled from every bosom; we can attest that we have never witnessed the like, in any Christian council heretofore; the Lord has done, brethren, great things for us, wherefore we are truly glad to our hearts; and wish you to join with us, to be ever thankful to his name; we think no man, saint nor sinner, could have witnessed all this scene, but must have acknowledged that, God was with us of a truth.

 And whatever may be said of these things; the division and strife that they have caused in our churches, and among ministers, is to us an evidence, they were never of God; and the re-union, love, joy, peace, and harmony, that abounded on all hands by ministers, saints, and sinners, at taking a decided stand against them, still shews God’s interposition to save his sinking and distracted churches, plainer than ever, that they were not of God; for he is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints; and surely, whatever breaks the union, peace and fellowship, of God’s people, should be abstained from, by any, or very Christian; because his, as well as his brother’s happiness, is at stake; as well as the general good of the society, of which he is a member. After coming to mutual fellowship, and brotherly love, every countenance seemed to wear a new aspect; every heart seemed to be tenderness, every voice seemed to be accents of love and acquiescence, to union, friendship and peace; while silence reigned for a few minutes, to wipe away the flowing tears, interrupted here and there with hearts bursting forth the joys it was no longer able to contain, seemed to say to all around, the Lord is with his people today, indeed and in truth: Let the heavens rejoice, and the Kehukee Association be glad, that the Lord has to her restored peace once more, and peace be to all the churches. The article reform was agreed to be left out, the five next was put to vote, and carried, by scarce a dissenting voice, in their substance; the seventh article on Masonry, was carried by the voice of the churches, in their letters; and so praised God, for his kindness towards us; and parted with more brotherly love, than we have since the days of modern missions; and so let brotherly love continue, is our prayer for Christ, and our peace sake. And now, dear brethren, we beseech you, by the mercies of God, the honor and progression of his cause, and the peace of all our churches, that with all meekness and lowliness of mind, you endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit, hereafter in the bonds of peace, by walking godly, and righteously in this present world, and forgiving and forgetting all the past, burying, (in the decision of the Association all former animosities), and take heed not to disturb the hatchet nor the helve; and at all times have single eye to the glory of God, and your brethren’s feelings; for the Saviour has said, take heed how you offend one of these little ones, for their angels do always behold the face of their father; and Paul saith, when you sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak consciences, you sin against Christ; then be at all times careful, not to hurt the feelings of the weakest saint, and rather than do it, even deny yourselves things, which otherwise might be lawful; for vengeance is mine saith God, and I will repay it; and let this be your motto, the glory of God, the good of your brother, and the peace of the society, of which you are a member; and dear brethren forgive, that you may be forgiven; cultivate love and friendship; be courteous, kind and hospitable; let your light shine in all good works, that you may glorify your Father, which is in heaven, and bring honor on that religion you profess, and be a bright shining example to your family and neighbors that sit in darkness, that they may take knowledge that you have been with Jesus; and enjoy peace in your own bosom, by walking uprightly before God.

Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and make you perfect in every good work; be thanks and praise given, through all our churches, and throughout the world, for the great favor bestowed on us. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, be with you, AMEN. John Taylor’s Personal Experience illustrative of the Early Baptist Ministers and problems [John Taylor was a minister in the Licking Association of Particular Baptist of Kentucky, and a close associate with Lewis and Elijah Craig of the “Traveling Church”, Ambrose Dudley, John Shackleford and those early settlers on the Western Frontier in 1785. The first Mission Society was later constituted in May, 1814, in Philadelphia by Dr. Stroughton of Andrew Fuller’s church in Kettering, England, and the wild frenzy that followed created a very disturbing atmosphere for all true believers holding to the New Testament doctrine of sovereign, free grace. Taylor’s recorded observations of the rise and spread of the mission frenzy is antecedent to any other objectors to the movement. A little later, Daniel Parker raised his pen against the movement, and since he is the better known, received credit from the new party’s historians as the founder of “Primitive Baptists.” [Parker was never a “Primitive Baptist” – he and his church, Lamont Regular Baptist was a member of the Wabash Regular Baptist Association on the border of Indiana and Illinois!] The Kehukee Declaration in Appendix B, above, came still later, followed by the Black Rock Address in 1832 and the Baltimore Addresses in 1835 & 37. Similar to the Kehukee report in the Tarborough, NC, newspaper, John Talyor’s observations also give a feeling of the distress felt by Christians at that time period. It has often been the distressful history of the Christian Church when Freewill error is mixed with the Sovereign Grace foundation of Christianity. Only apostasy and shame ever resulted from such attempts.

 This is a rare “find” for this writer, since it does not appear in any History of Baptists on any side of the issues. SCP.]  John Taylor wrote: I am fully persuaded of the great aptitude in us poor, imperfect mortals, to consider ourselves a standard of orthodoxy, and even in most of the transactions of life; all of which leads me to hesitate a little as to our Missionaries. I have expressed myself in the foregoing sheets, with all the plainness that I think one friend should speak to another. Perhaps some things may appear harsh; but I know, that for all the men that I have brought in review, I have a sympathizing friendship. It is probable they think they are doing right, though of their sincerity, I have strong doubt. Happy should I be hereafter to find myself mistaken and these men what I wish them to be, the faithful servants of Christ. But my great doubt concerning them arises, both from the Scriptures and all the examples therein and observation and experience I have had for near fifty years as a Baptist minister. That far back I remember what kind of men of the Baptist name in Virginia, were buffeted, imprisoned and counted the off­ scouring of all things. [Elder Taylor was a personal friend to Elders Elijah Craig and Lewis Craig and John Shackleford, the “prisoners of the Lord” in the Fredericksburg jail, whose preaching converted Ambrose Dudley, who followed Elder Lewis Craig’s “Traveling Church” to become the first pastor of Bryan’s Station Church, and first moderator of both the Elkhorn and Licking associations, of which Elder Taylor was a member.­SCP] I personally recall their looks, their labors, and their success. Though not willing to make myself a standard, I recollect that far back, the anxiety of my soul for the prosperity of Zion, and the good of my fellow man, so that I could not rest, day nor night, for years together; and of what little moment in that case money appeared to me; so that from my soul I could say, “I seek not yours, but you.” And in that case, I “I coveted no man’s silver, gold or apparel;” so that perhaps to a man, this temper attended all the Baptist preachers of that day. Myself began to preach at about twenty years of age, [about 1772] and about five months after I was baptized, by Elder James Ireland, a faithful servant of Jesus Christ. My previous opportunity and my capacities, in my own esteem, were very small, and they must have appeared small in the esteem of others; but the church to which I belonged, treated me with all the tenderness of a mother. Their preachers also treated me as a son; for the church had three other preachers, to wit: James Ireland, their pastor [James Ireland was one of the “Prisoners of the Lord,” arrested for preaching the Gospel and held in prison 1769­1770] , William Marshall, [William Marshall was pastor of Flat Lick Particular Baptist Church in the Licking Particular Baptist Association in 1814­ SCP] and the well known, laborious one of his day, Elder Joseph Redding. [Elder Redding
withdrew from the Elkhorn along with Elder Ambrose Dudley to form the Licking Association of Particular Baptists, in 1808. SCP] With the latter I travelled the most. He being an older man than myself, he was to me as a father, though he seemed to acknowledge me as his yoke­fellow. We labored together in the wilds of Virginia about ten years before Kentucky came in vogue, to which place we both came in early times; and here he died a few years past. Our range of labor was from the Blue Ridge and Shenandoah River to the back of Virginia, on the branches of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, a distance of about two hundred miles; and oft­times among the dangerous rage of savage fury; though this circumstance took us out of the way of Virginia persecution below the Blue Ridge [by Episcopal priests and Virginia Church/State officials ­SCP] Neither of us was ever put in prison, though at times, either beaten or driven from our meetings by wicked mobs. We oft­times travelled a whole day from one frontier settlement to another, through the rugged uncharted mountains without seeing a house, and our lives in danger every step we took, and when we could not reach a house, our lot was to camp in the woods. We went to many places where the Gospel had never sounded before, and so great was the effect, that oft­times, the cries of the people would drown our voices. We then hoped that many experienced conversion, and some churches were built up where the Lord’s name was not called on before, but to blaspheme it. Both of us having been raised to hardships, nothing appeared hard to surmount. We therefore performed a number of these tours on foot. I will describe one or two of them. In one instance Elder Redding had moved his family about forty miles from where I made my home. From his house about a week’s meeting were appointed, and the distance about a hundred and fifty miles. When I got to Redding’s my horse being young and he nothing to ride, but a mare with a young colt, we concluded to take the journey on foot. Our first meeting was twenty miles from his house. We started at sunrise, and met a large assembly in due time. As a rich reward of that day’s labor, a number of people obtained a hope of conversion from that day’s meeting. We had twenty miles to the next day’s meeting, and eighteen miles afterwards to get to quarters.

 A number came the last eighteen miles to meet us. It did seem as if the Lord blessed this foot tour more than usual. Another shorter tour we took on foot. I had staid all night at Redding’s and there being neither stable nor pasture, we turned our horses into the woods. On the next morning the rain was violent, and though we turned out in it and searched diligently till near none o’clock, we could not find our horses, though they were belled. Then the council was, “What shall be done?” There was but little time to council; for the meeting was fifteen miles distant, and a very mountainous way. It appeared to us awful to disappoint a meeting. The rain slackening a little, off we set. To make this fifteen miles in about three hours, something more than walking was needful. The rain set in afresh; we ran, we walked, we perspired and received the rain from above, till there was not a dry thread on us, and met about twenty people about half after twelve. I will leave the reader to judge whether this effort was not being “righteous over much;” for myself immediately took such a cough, with all the appearance of the whooping cough, that I did not get rid of it for a twelve month. Redding having a family did not always go with me on these dreary Alleghany tours, himself also having the care of a large church, lately built up about the head of the Potomac river; so that I often travelled these dreary, dangerous roads by myself; where frost­biting in winter, with snow knee deep, and often unbroken roads, with forty and fifty miles from one settlement to another, and danger of being scalped by the Indians in the summer, marked my way for a number of years. Though a great part of the people would have done anything for me, that they would have done for their own son or brother, their poverty forbade it. The poor things would now and then, make me some little presents of the best they had, that I thought in my conscience was more than my poor preaching deserved – which perhaps never amounted to fifty dollars per year, exclusive of the food myself and horse lived on, and my own food scarcely safe from putrefaction from want of salt; and from what habit, to this day salt food is disagreeable to me. I know that I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not, when I say that I do not recollect that it ever occurred to me that I suffered hardship, neither should I name what I now do, only these Missionaries, high flyers – make such a noise about their privations, when the world knows how ill­founded these complaints are

. What I have said of Elder Redding and myself, in some instances, is only a specimen of our general course, and was no singular thing among the Baptists’ preachers in those days. Were I asked whether such a school as Staughton’s when I began to preach would not have been of great service to me, and were I to judge from what I have seen, I should say, that the damage done, would very much overgo the profit! More On Missions When I closed my last sheet on Missions, I concluded to say no more on the subject, on paper; but having met with a worthy young Brother, who by the bye, was a great zealot for Missions and had in possession all the numbers of the “Latter Day Luminary,” as it is called, he prevailed on me to give them a reading, assuredly concluding that their great light, would give conviction on that subject. I confess they have given me some light, but in a very different way from the brother’s expectation; for poor as my opinion was before, of these high­minded self­flatterers, I never so fully took in their mighty presumption; and one thing among many others, is giving God Almighty an entirely new epithet, well adapted to their ambitious views! For our Maker long ago has given to Himself titles suited to His own divine character, as Jah, Jehovah, I am that I am, God Almighty, The God of the Whole Earth, the God of Heaven, The God of Jacob and of Israel, The God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of all His spiritual seed, &c., &c. The lately manufactured epithet is, “The God of Missions.” Vain men! Presumptuous mortals! So any appeal made to God in the future, must be under this new title given Him, “The God of Missions.” Their lofty minds lead them to class themselves with the greatest characters that have ever been on earth; such as John “the Baptist,” the immediate harbinger of Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, whom they style “a Missionary!” His Scriptural titles, however, don’t suit them so well.

In the different numbers of their mighty “Luminary,” they take up the several apostles with their travels, all of which they style “Missionary tours,” and the men themselves “Missionaries!” which favorite term of theirs, they seem to think an improvement on all the office titles given by Christ Himself to His own servants; which favorite term of theirs is borrowed from Old Mother Rome! And as they are beholden to the Mother of Harlots for this handsome phrase, it is to be hoped that our Missionaries will acknowledge their own old mother and the Jesuits of the same race as their brethren; and especially when from their own tales, they have done more in Paraguay and other countries, than our Missionaries can yet boast of. It may be remembered that these Paraguay men assumed great sanctity; therefore called themselves after the name of Jesus (Jesuits). What do our Missionaries say of themselves? It is a little amusing to read in the first section of the second number of the “Luminary,” the self encomiums there expressed on Missionaries. Scorn, or pity, or both, will soon be awakened in the reader except himself is run away with, by the delusion. Look at the comparisons made between themselves and ancient prophets: Though in some few things, ancient prophets overwent them, yet from the whole, Missionaries are much to be preferred; because, says page 66, prophecy was mingled with obscurity, but Missionary was clear and effulgent. The Lord pity the ignorance of foolish men! As to common Gospel ministers, the comparison can scarcely be made, page 60, for want of that heavenly fire hurled from the altar of heaven, such as occupies the bosom of a Missionary. The common minister is so phlegmatic, that he scarcely deserves the name of minister. A Missionary, says the same page, is an eminence of character, an apostolic inspiration, reserved for the days of Missions of the “latter days;” for if this heavenly fire, says the same page, was hurled into the hearts of common preachers, thousands would apply for license to go to foreign countries. But the heavenly fire boasted of, is suspected to be the love of money and fame.

 But the comparison is more fully exemplified in an apostle, says page 67; for an ancient apostle was a “Missionary,” and Missionaries are modern apostles! Some little difference is agreed to; but where the ancient apostles had the advantage in one thing, the modern apostle has it in another; so that the page leaves the reader at a loss to know which was the greatest, the ancient apostles, or our modern strutting upstarts. However much the thoughtful reader might be disposed to exercise patience and charity in the citation of the above pages of the second number of the “Luminary,” I think his fortitude will be brought to a great trial when he comes to page 73, beginning under the head of A Vision. Whether this mighty dreamer had a vision like Balaam of old, with his eyes open, or whether like him he fell into a trance, or whether it was a real dream that this Missionary bigot had, through the whole like Balaam, he seems to boast that his eyes were open, and that he had great light, or the vision of God was on him. Surely this tale is worthy of the “Luminary,” for it is all light as that book in its title page boasts to be; but let this dreamer remember, that with all the boast of his brother Balaam having his eyes open, the ass on which he rode while speechless, saw more than her master. Though the Lord in ancient times, made known His will in various ways, and often by dreams and visions while the canon of the Scripture was not yet completed, even then the dreamers were to be watched close; and though the sign of a dreaming prophet came to pass, yet if he gave any epithet, or idea of God that Himself had never revealed, that prophet was to be put to death; and though we have no desire for any man to suffer for differing from us in religious opinion, yet as this dreamer would turn us away to a new God, “The God of Missions,” such Missionaries as rank themselves above other preachers of the Gospel of grace and call themselves apostles, together with such a dreamer, we will hold in contempt, with all his vision, and esteem him as a son of the mother of harlots, and his dreams as some of those “lying wonders” spoken of by Paul, by which the Man of Sin would deceive. He may amuse the followers of Swedenburg with his dreams, and the Shakers with his visions; for very few of the Kentucky Baptists have any use for his merchandise; though by this happy knack of dreaming, he might hope the silver would jingle. Are these Missionaries blockheads, or knaves? Or do they think that the present generations of the earth are fools?

In some former sheet I have said something about the sale of pictures by the Missionaries. Since that, when travelling, I lodged at a private house, where the landlady give me a little history of Luther Rice, who called at her house, her husband being gone from home. His first sally was, “Madam I presume you do not know me.” She replied, “I do not, sir.” He than said, “I am Luther Rice, the Missionary preacher; I want my breakfast, and my horse fed with corn, oats and fodder.” Perhaps Luther was excusable in this freedom, for it was a Baptist house, and the people in good circumstances. Having heard of Luther’s great capacities in the coffee way, she hastened and made her pot full of between two or three quarts; she said it was always the greatest plenty for her large family; but it did suffice, by going to the bottom of the pot without cooking again. He then lamented her husband being from home; for he had expected to have borrowed a horse of him a month or so, and left his to be put in order; but had to bear the disappointment. After peeping a little about the house, and seeing nothing of that kind but a few pictures the young ladies had drawn, he remarked to the landlady, “Madam, your house will very well suit some handsome pictures I have with me.” She replied, she could not tell without seeing them, concluding he had in mind to compliment her children with some play thing. Luther unlades his stuffed saddlebags. Soon after he drew them out, he began to state the usual prices of his pictures from ten dollars and down. After hearing their prices, though he urged their beauty and elegance, she declined taking any of the; after which he showed her a number of religious tracts, with their several prices, but she bought none of his merchandise. Poor Luther had to bundle up and move off without getting any money there, and the lady now talks of his movements while there, with disgust and scorn; for she is a woman of good information, and conscientiously religious. What is to be thought of such Missionary Apostles, who affect more sanctity and dignity than other preachers, and yet remain an hour or two in a religious family without a word about religion, but shewing a manifest thirst to get a little money? But perhaps he thought it was religious enough, to offer to sell the lady some good pictures and good books.

I ask, do apostolic Missionaries appear to have more religion than other men? Or does their religion mainly lie in affecting to know more than other men? Then in place of being “modern apostles,” are they not modern Gnostics? And as they have almost by their superior knowledge found out the last ten tribes of Israel, is it not likely by their great knowledge, that they will soon find out where a number of apostles were martyred, that we know but little of their labors or death? And will not their relics be used as articles for merchandise among us? It is well known that those ancient heretics, called Gnostics, gave themselves that epithet, because they knew more than other Christians. It is also said that Simon Magus was at the head of them and the founder of the whole tribe, which was vastly numerous. As for Simon’s religion, we know how much it was connected with money – (Acts vii, 18­20) – and the severity of Peter’s reproof of him. Those who please may make the comparison between the ancient Gnostics and our present Missionaries. For my part, I think the likeness much greater than with the apostles, whose high rank they presume to claim to themselves. It may also be remembered, that this same old Simon, was a Baptist, or baptized by immersion on a profession of his faith; all of which did not secure him from the “gall of bitterness, and the bonds of iniquity.” Love of money, and love of power or fame, were the strong bonds by which his soul was held fast. Men bound by these strong cords, are perhaps more to be pitied than blamed. Good Lord, correct all our mistakes. When men assume to themselves higher ground than others, they are, as a thing of course, taken more notice of than others. I have in the foregoing sheets been taking a survey of those high­minded men, and have narrated a long train of facts, collected, either from their own writings, the use of my own senses, or the testimony of others in which I confide; all of which I am alone responsible for, if called on. And as it is the watchword of American Baptist Missionaries, to attempt great things, look for great things; and as all new officers, I mean great ones in their own conceit, aim at some new regulations, we look for an attempt at great things by these new apostles. Indeed, we already have it before us; for in the tenth number of their great “Luminary,” page 466, they are directing their young preachers how to preach in foreign countries, from Bishop Lowth’s translation. Why not from our own translation?

 But this comes from their own apostolic infallibility. Every new Pope must make some new law as a test of his own infallibility. As they begin with Lowth’s translation, is it not to be looked for, that they will soon give us a Bible of their own translation which will be equal to John Wesley’s, from which he makes his notes on the New Testament? [Or Mr. Graham’s, or the New International, or the next every five years revision or so? –SCP] Or at least equal in the Shaker’s Bible? For they already dictate what kind of churches we shall have to support even a moderate preacher, same copy, page 477. The lowest sum fixed upon is six hundred dollars. To raise said sum, we must have from their direction, one hundred male members, either of merchants, mechanics or able bodied men to labor; and then a tax on each man of six dollars per annum, to raise the money. If there are more male members, the preacher must have more. I ask you, reader, whether this is not attempting great things among the Baptists? Should those apostles ever own themselves inferior to Paul, they will at least assume a stand as high as the seven sons of Sceva, spoken of in Acts 19 th chapter, 14 th verse – and will attempt to cast out Devils in the name of Jesus whom Paul preached. And though I may be now called a Devil by these new apostles, for making as free with them as I have, I shall insist on it, that the Devil never did a better act in his life than to fall on, and drive these presumptuous men out of the house. My object is, if possible, to drive these presuming men out of Baptist associations; for there they crept in unawares, with no more right than the false brethren of whom Paul speaks; for they are a motley tribe at best, I wish it understood, once for all, that when I insinuate corruption among American Baptist Missionaries, I do but sparingly mean men of my own State; for I only think of three in all of Kentucky that I suspect, and I rather ascribe it to their weakness and vanity than to corruption – looking perhaps for a thank’e from these great men; or possibly they may look for some profits in future either in money or applause. A well wisher of poor deluded Missionaries, Elder John Taylor, Franklin County, Kentucky, ­ 1819

                                                          GLOSSARY OF TERMS ANTINOMIANISM:
 "n. Theo. A member of a Christian sect holding that belief alone is necessary to salvation." (The. American Heritaie Dictionary, Houghton Miffin Company, Boston, 1985.) The above definition is an American college dictionary view. Theologians will be rather amused at it! It is almost a perfect description of the views of the whole "evangelical world" today, based upon "easy­ decisionism." Just believe, and you are saved! In early Baptists' history, those holding to salvation based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ, received by the indwelling faith of Christ, were charged with "antinomianism." Those who charged the Church thus, reasoned that if one believed in justification only by the imputed righteousness of Christ, such a person would live a lawless life of disobedience. To them, (among whom was John Wesley who charged John Gill of antinomianism) if duty was not pressed upon one, such would not perform good works; and if one trusted only in Christ's righteousness, duty was not necessary. All of which is theoretical nonsense. A child of God in regeneration will be given faith (a gift of God and fruit of the indwelling Spirit) to trust only in Christ's righteousness, and deprecate any of his own making. The indwelling Spirit motivates, moves, and directs the regenerate elect to perform good work and walk worthy of the calling of God. "For it is God who worketh IN you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Of all present­day religious groups in America, the Old Schooler, or "Hypercalvinists," is the furthest from "antinomianism" of any group. CALVINISM: "One who follows the religious doctrines of John Calvin, emphasizing the omnipotence of God and the salvation of the elect by God's grace alone" (Ibid). A Calvinist is anyone who believes that all mankind are born dead in sin, being totally depraved in their Adamic nature, and totally unable in their flesh to save, or help to save themselves;

 That God chose a particular people to salvation before the foundation of the world, and predestinated them in Christ to salvation through the redemption which is by Christ Jesus; That Christ died particularly for these chosen people, and they only. That in time God by His Spirit regenerate and effectually call these elect and redeemed people to a knowledge of salvation; and That all those chosen, redeemed, and called people will ultimately be saved in immortal glory without the loss of one. While that statement will cover all Calvinists, there are many finer points upon which they will disagree; hence the various euphemisms used to discredit one another, or to distinguish one from another. DOWN­GRADE: A term coined by Charles Haddon Spurgeon in the 1880's which referred to the erosion of the doctrine of Christ from evangelism, and the slide from the free grace doctrine of Calvinism to the free will doctrines of Pelagianism and/or Universalism. It covers the period from approximately 1860 to 1890's when the "Evangelicals abandoned the doctrines of the Christian faith because they were a hindrance to getting decisions for Christ. EVANGELICAL: "Of, pertaining to, or being a Protestant group emphasizing the authority of the gospel and holding that salvation is from faith and grace rather than from good works and sacraments alone." (Ibid) Modern evangelicals hold that salvation is the direct result of human merit based upon one decision for a religious deity and religious institution. EVANGELISM: "The zealous preaching and dissemination of the new gospel, as through missionary work. 2. Militant zeal for a cause." (Ibid). Modern evangelism is the propagation of “another gospel” for easy­deciders, which the New Testament calls a “perverted gospel.” As used in this work, "evangelical" has reference to the over­zealous
pressing of mental decisions upon people to enlist them in a religious cause; in an earnest attempt to get all men "saved" and into a religious institution; an organizM system or philosophy of proselytizing, to ":. ',compass land and sea" to get converts. (Matthew 23: 15 See "Itinerate" below.) FULLERISM: "The doctrinal views, and consequent practices, of Andrew Fuller, a Particular Baptist minister who set forth a view that Christ died sufficiently for the sins of the whole world, but efficiently for the elect only." The first part of this view was quickly embraced by many Baptists and Protestants, to wit.: That Christ died for everyone, putting all men into a "savable" condition where the "effect of the gospel" could reach them. This immediately led to a humanistic zeal which fostered "missionism," on the one hand, and a total departure from the Christian faith (known as "Calvinism") of salvation by the redemptive work of Christ and justification by His imputed righteousness. In brief: Fullerism is "missionism," "easy­decisionism," "enlistment campaigns" or membership drives, in lieu of preaching the gospel of Christ to sensible sinners, and waiting on the Lord to add to the church daily such as should be saved. Its main error is its denied of the finished work of Christ in His sufferings and death for the elect chosen in Him from eternity. HARDSHELL (ISM): "A derogatory euphemism applied to anyone who stands firm on the doctrine of Holy Spirit regeneration." The term evolved from the early disputes between missionary/anti­missionary groups of the 1830's when the Fullerites often exclaimed "Here you go with those hard shalls!" when the Old Schooler quoted such positive scriptures as "He SHALL save His people from their sins," or, "They SHALL follow Me.” The word entered into the dictionary as: "Uncompromising confirmed, unyielding on convicted principles." (Ibid) HYPER­CALVINISM: "Over, above, beyond" (Ibid)

 Another euphemism employed mostly by "evangelicals" and "Neo­calvinists" against anyone with more light and understanding than themselves. There is no definition possible for the term, for it depends entirely upon the viewpoint of the user. The Pelagian (see below) will call a moderate Calvinist a "Hyper­calvinist." The moderate Calvinist (one that holds only to eternal security, but rejects the other four points of Calvinism) will call a Neo­calvinist a "Hyper­ calvinist." The Neo­calvinists will charge a Calvinist with "Hyper­calvinism." And the Calvinist will also charge other Calvinists with being a “Hyper." As used, therefore, in this work, "Hyper­calvinism" is that Calvinistic system of belief distinguished by (1) believing that God only can beget life in a dead sinner, (2) believing that Christ did in fact save all He will ever save when He died for His people; (3) believing that the term "gospel” is more than the mere quoting of selective half passages of scriptures, but is inclusive of the doctrine of grace and all that the Godhead has , is, and will do for the salvation of the elect. (4) believing that only God­called and qualified ministers are sent forth to preach the gospel; and "by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that BELIEVE." That in this work, is "Hyper­calvinism. " MISSIONISM: The principle of organized institutional method of proselytizing, by establishing a religious­financial enterprise to propagate the gospel, or semi­gospel, message for the enlistment of individuals in religious institutions; most often designe to “save souls" which otherwise would not be saved. It is designed to "win the world” of the elect and reprobates to Christ. The term as used in this work is synonymous with "Fullerism." NEO­CALVINISM: "New Calvinism." Neo­caIvinism is a term for what Presbyterians refer to as "Hypo­calvinism." Neo­calvinism is another. derivative of Fullerism. Fullerism may include both Anninianism and Pelagianism, but Neo­calvinism holds to a form of Calvinism which includes a delution of the "five points” of Calvinism, with a mixture of Pelagianism.

That is, the Neo­calvinist will say that he believes in the "total depravity and inability of man," yet insist that a totally depraved and disabled man can believe the gospel to be saved. He will state that he believes in irresistible grace, or effectual calling, but insist that man must cooperate with God in his salvation. He seems not to consider that good works are also the fruit of active and effectual grace, and thus will sometimes condition it on the will of the creature. The Neo­calvinist holds to the contradictory theories of Gods sovereignty and man's responsibility, which view necessitates a view that man is a free moral agent, rather than a totally depraved and corrupt being. The Neo­Calvinist does not consider regeneration to be a spiritual birth, but a mental or decisional product. NEW SCHOOL BAPTISTS AND/OR PRESBYTERIANS: The body of "evangelicals" which followed Andrew Fuller’s doctrine, and introduced a host of novel institutions to carry out the Fullerite program for "winning the world to Christ" These innovations was new in 1800, and those who embraced them were "of the new school of divinity." The New School of divinity led to an American religion unlike any form of Christianity. It evolved into a doctrinal Pelagianism with an evolutionize body of alien practices to designed to support its outreach programs to bring the world into its organizations. OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS AND/OR PRESBYTERIANS: "n. A group committed to traditional ideas or practices." (ibid.) Those bodies of believers who refused to modify their ancient form of worship to accommodate the new proselytizing zeal which followed Andrew Fullers revision of "Calvinism." They remain on the old school of divinity, with little change in practices of the ancient New Testament Church. Characteristic of the old school is their insistence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and the infallible rule of both faith and practice. To them, this is of utmost importance ­ to be subject to their King, and walk by His commandments.

PELAGIAN (ISM): "n. The theological doctrine propounded by Pelagius, a British or Irish monk, and condemned as heresy by the Catholic Church in A.D. 416. Included in its tenets were denial of original sin and the affirmation of man's ability to be righteous by the exercise of free will." (ibid.) Pelagianism is the most acceptable doctrine of almost all modem religious institutions. In the past century, it has replaced the former theological theory known as Armianism and has become the American religion. Its principles are the foundation of almost all "evangelical" efforts and “decisional regeneration”. It is anti­christian in all basic doctrines of the historic or Biblical Christian faith as originally embraced by Protestantism. SOCINIAN (ISM) "n. An adherent of a 16th­century Italian sect holding unitarian, or universalistic, views, including denial of the divinity of Christ and universal salvation of mankind" (ibid.) Socinianism grew rapidly in the major religious "divinity" schools in the mid­1800's, and universal salvationism infiltrated most major "Evangelical" groups. In the mountain areas of the southern United States, Socinianism is called “No­Hell Hardshellism." Another form of it is the view of "Hell­Redemptionism," that although the wicked will go to hell, they will only be punished enough, but will eventually be delivered out of hell; and thus all mankind will ultimately be saved. The underlying motivation for this view is basic to humanism.