Jason's First Rebuttal

Jason responded to my first rebuttal of his first posting by saying:

See here

"Brother Garrett has observed that I have failed to address him as 'Brother', and I offer sincere apology for not doing so from the beginning, as I bear him no ill will. My failure to recognize his belief in our Lord and Saviour was caused by an intention to avoid presumption, not because I thought he was not a disciple of Christ."

This is good and Christian of brother Jason, but the incongruity still remains, for it is clear that he makes many heathen to be "regenerated" children of God and yet would not address me as such. He believed that I was a child of God but wanted to avoid presumption? He can presume heathens are regenerated but not me?

Jason wrote:

"Brother Garrett belongs with the Sophists of Ancient Greece it seems, especially as he seems to enjoy making sweeping generalizations and pass them off as the completely accurate truth. Maybe if he was less inclined to rhetoric, PB Elders would engage him publically (sic) . By creating an inflammatory context of discussion, it undoubtedly justifies in the eyes of many Elders not, "answering a fool unto his folly, lest you be like unto him."

It is ironic that Jason accuses me of making "sweeping generalizations" when this is the Hardshell trademark! They create a set of non-biblical premises and take them to the word of God and make it conform to their premises! Jason, of course, did not offer any proof for his charges that I am a Sophist, only interested in rhetoric, and not in truth, and about making "sweeping generalizations," about "creating an inflammatory context of discussion," and about being a "fool," but only asserts it and shows how lacking he is to meet my proofs to resort to such ad hominem attacks.

Jason wrote:

"Though the Primitive Baptist Church may represent the truest Church in existence, this does not imply Brother Garrett's pejorative implication that other churches are not worshipping Jesus Christ with some measure of the gospel, and that the members of other orders are not disciples of Jesus Christ, having some measure of gospel conversion according to the measure of the gospel embraced."

Jason is very careful in his language here,for he does not want to show his cultic colors. He tip toes through the Hardshell minefield. He knows that his brethren claim to be "the one true church of Jesus Christ," and that they consider all other churches, not in their fellowship, to not be such. That is why they will not recognize the baptisms of any other group. They also teach that the one true church is the only place where the gospel is preached, yet he does not want to be blatant in saying so, in this writing, for he would give credence to the charge that the Hardshells are a cult. So, what does he do? He says the Hardshells are "the truest church in existence," meaning other churches are true, but not as true as they are. He allows that other churches worship Jesus Christ, but it is with only "some measure of the gospel," not with the full gospel one will hear in the Hardshell church. They have "some (limited) measure of conversion," but it is not the full conversion that Hardshells enjoy.

Jason wrote:

"Brother Garrett's criticism of the uses of "Primitive" or "Original" as they relate to Primitive Baptists is in regard to means in regeneration. He says that PB's (Primitive Baptists) are neither "Primitive" or "Original" in "leading points of doctrine". I am sure that he is aware that these designations came about because the PB's refused to change what they took to be the simple New Testament pattern of worship of the early church in the context of the Missionary division. To this end, the designations under consideration would be entirely appropriate."

The denial of means in regeneration and salvation is not the only reason why today's Hardshells cannot claim to be primitive or original, but it does represent their chief error. Their description of what constitutes the experience of regeneration is an essential element of their heresy. Their denial of perseverance is also a grave error that they entertain. I could also mention their Landmarker heresies, and their denial that the Great Commission was given to the church, and to every Christian.

The Hardshells "refused to change"? Isn't it rather the case that they changed? They, at one time, did not oppose the old confessions on the means of regeneration, nor did they disagree with Gill, nor did they oppose churches sending out missionary preachers, and the education of ministers, but they changed and created themselves a denomination, just like Campbell. If they have not changed, then show us the pre 19th century evidence that many Baptists believed in Hardshell views on regeneration and perseverance.

Jason wrote:

"Though PB's have clarified their doctrine of regeneration away from gospel instrumentality, as I have stated previously, the London Confession and early Baptist theologians did not have the debate of the Missionary controversy to prompt precise theological distinctions."

But, I have already rebutted this line of reasoning and have not had Jason to rebut what I said in rebuttal to it. Notice that he is affirming that the Old Baptists did not believe in Hardshellism, because he says they lacked clarity on the point.

Jason wrote:

"Furthermore, Elder Mike Ivey's Book, "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice", which is on the web, details how the old Midland Association, descending from Olchon, the oldest church in Wales, advocated views that were accused of hyper or high Calvinism."

Elder Ivey did not state things correctly in his history, and the comments he made in interpreting the history of the Baptists in Wales and in London, in the 1600s, is false, as other more learned historians have demonstrated, as I shall show.

Jason then cites these words from Ivey's work:

"In A Memorial of the 250th Anniversary of the Midland, now the West Midland Association 1655 to 1905, J. Gwynn Owen notes opposition in the 1770s and 80s by certain older ministers of the association to the promotion of manmade institutions such as Sunday Schools and Missionary Societies. These innovations were introduced to the Midlands by Elders Fuller and Carey who were members of the Association. In explaining their opposition to Fuller and Carey's ideas, Owen wrote of the older ministers, "These revered seniors were more or less bound by the doctrines of a higher Calvinism than now influences theology."

So a few ministers opposed the methods of Fuller and Carey and therefore they denied means in regeneration? That is a leap frog jump in logic from one who values logic so highly!

Still citing Ivey, Jason wrote:

"An example of the intensity of disturbance the proposed schemes caused is found in an exchange between William Carey and the senior Elder John Ryland (who ordained Carey) during a ministerial conference held at Northhampton. Carey suggested, as a topic for discussion, the need for missionary efforts to deliver the gospel to save heathens in foreign countries. To this Elder Ryland, who was chairing the conference, responded, "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine." Elder Ryland's statement indicates his position concerning gospel instrumentality. Though he only included himself and Carey, his dismissal of Carey's topic for discussion may be interpreted as theological disagreement over the issue of Calvin's doctrine of gospel instrumentality in the regeneration of sinners. He evidently did not believe that hearing the gospel was a requirement for regeneration, or a stipulation of election."

Jason cannot furnish any clear and express confessional statements by Ryland to prove he denied means, but only infers it from what Ryland said, but this inference is not warranted. Besides, it is not proven that Ryland ever said those words. John Ryland, Jr., however, and a close friend of Carey, denied or doubted that his father ever said those words. He said, "I never heard of it till I saw it in print, and cannot give credit to it at all." (Life of Andrew Fuller, 1816 edition, p. 175; cited in I. Murray, The Puritan Hope, chapter 7, fn. 14, p. 280).

Also, notice how Ryland, if he said those words, used the word "convert," a word denoting gospel conversion. Also, where do his words imply that God would convert the heathen apart from the gospel? Perhaps Ryland was only saying that God would do it in a different manner than being proposed by Carey. It is interesting how Jason and the Harshells have to resort to finding adherents of their doctrine, prior to the 19th century, by not citing express declarations, but by saying their words imply Hardshellism.

Jason wrote, still citing Ivey:

"Indicating enthusiastic support for gospel instrumentality together with its trappings of Sunday schools and Missionary societies, Owen is generally unsympathetic toward the doctrines held by Elder Ryland and the other "revered seniors" among the ministry of the Midland Association. By the time Owen wrote his memorial work the Midland Association had progressed from primitive to Calvinist to Arminian in theology. Therefore, Owen deserves commendation for resisting temptations to write a revisionist history which would not accurately present the original doctrine of the Midland Association and the strain which introduction of gospel agency caused."

"Revisionist history"? Is it not men like Ivey and Hassel, Hardshell "historians," who have written "revisionist histories"? Ivey offers no proof that the ancient Baptists of Wales denied means in regeneration or disagreed with their London brethren, as other historians have shown.

Jason wrote, still citing Ivey:

"Owen erroneously labels the beliefs of the original Elders of the Midland as High Calvinism. However, he accurately presents their doctrinal position concerning the relationship of gospel agency and new birth with the following statement. "For the logical High-Calvinist could find no scope in his rigorous creed for the operation of any human agency in winning the unconverted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God saves all who are predestinated, and no man can help or hinder His sovereign and effectual grace."

They objected to "human agency" and methods, not to the gospel as an agency! Much the same way the signers of the Black Rock Address objected to humanly devised means and methods for spreading the gospel, but not to the spread of the gospel itself, or to its being a means in the divine begetting of children. Ivey misreads both Owen and the Midland confession. Notice also the use of the term "unconverted" for those lost in sin.

Jason wrote, still citing Ivey:

"Owen's assessment of the original beliefs of the founders of the Midland Association suggests they were primitives, not high Calvinists. Further, his statement concerning the younger generation of preachers implies that gospel instrumentality in regeneration was newly introduced and represented a doctrinal departure from the original beliefs of the Midland brethren. "The younger generation of ministers, like Fuller of Kettering; Carey of Moulton; Sutcliffe of Olney and the younger Ryland, being more open to conviction, and less wedded to the old, rigid creed, began to advocate a modification of the old views, and to adopt as the basis of their ministry a moderate Calvinism which permitted them to appeal to the unconverted."

Ivey is so desirous of finding adherents to Hardshellism, in the 17th century, that the words of Owen "implies" or "suggests" that they were Hardshells, but this is all in the head of Ivey who could find no express statement where the Welsh Baptists denied means.

Jason wrote, still citing Ivey:

"Thus, with the passing of such stalwarts as Elder John Ryland the next generation of ministers pursued new theologies, leading their brethren away from true and historic doctrines of grace which had been held by the Baptists of Wales and the Midlands for almost 1700 years." (A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice, Chapter 6)"

That is not true, as respects a belief in means.

Jason wrote:

"It seems there is sufficient evidence to reasonably suppose that Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration pre-dated the London Confession. This alone rebuts most of Brother Garrett's rejoinder to my first blog post."

"Sufficient evidence"? By whose judgment? Evidence that is based upon suggestion and inference? It might be sufficient for Hardshells who are so anxious to find old Baptists who believed like they do, and who find the search a difficult matter, and so have to rely upon inference, but it is not sufficient evidence for a bonafide historian. "Sufficient evidence" from Ivey, who does not give all the facts and adds commentary to the facts, commentary which does not properly interpret matters?

The facts are, as I shall shortly show, prove that the Welsh Baptists were in agreement and full fellowship with those churches who endorse the first and second London confessions, which evidence destroys the thesis of Ivey and nullifies his witness as a valid historian.

Jason wrote:

"I want to rebut certain other portions of Brother Garrett's blog post because they are representative of a flawed process and method of debate. He has accused me in several places of exalting intellect above the revelation of God. He states:

"But, do we get our doctrine by human logic and reasoning or by the express and plain declarations of scripture? This is typical of Hardshells, who make their arguments based upon "logic" rather than on "thus saith the Lord." I have written several chapters in my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult dealing with this kind of hermeneutic."
Brother Garrett represents a false dichotomy here. Scripture requires reasoning to be understood. There is no Scripture that man does not reason to its truth, as language requires a mental process. We pray that the Spirit of God guides our interaction, but the process of interpretation involves both the guiding hand of God and man's will."

Yes, we can reason about the relationship of words in a biblical sentence, but we cannot rely upon reason as do the Hardshells. For instance, Hardshell human reasoning says it is foolish to preach to dead people, and yet this is exactly what God told the prophet to do in the story of Ezekiel and valley of bones. What did Solomon mean when he warned us not to "lean upon" our "own understanding"?

Jason wrote:

"Brother Garrett is simply begging the question. What he takes to be the "plain declarations of Scripture" is exactly what is disputed. Two informal fallacies in the same paragraph. Perhaps I should begin to address Brother Garrett as Brother Garrett, the Sophist."

Yes, I do believe that James 1: 18, I Peter 1: 23, and I Cor. 4: 15 state very clearly that men are begotten by the gospel or word of truth. It takes all kinds of logical attacks from Jason and the Hardshells to make one think it does not mean what it clearly says.

Jason then cites my remarks and then responds:

"It is interesting how Jason gave us no scripture that says that regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit alone apart from means. In fact, numerous passages say we are begotten by the gospel. (James 1: 18; I Peter 1: 23-25; I Cor. 4: 15)"

"Brother Garrett makes this statement in the context of my blog post in which I argue from John 3:8 the exact principle that he accuses me of not arguing. I wonder if it would be possible, or if its too much to ask that Brother Garrett respond to my individual blog posts as a whole rather than individual paragraphs in my blog posts that may not contain arguments that are contained in a later paragraph of the same blog post. To respond to the principle being advocated rather then every word would also cut down on length and repetition."

But John 3: 8 does not say that all are born again apart from the gospel and word of truth! Where is that in the passage? For a passage to be express, it would have to say "men are born again by the Spirit alone, without the means of truth."

Ivey wrote:

"One significant trait of the Midland churches, as with their nearby Welsh sisters, was their independence from the London churches during the seventeenth century.

However, the most significant indicator of the Midland Association's independence and theological distinction from the London Particular Baptists is their Confession of Faith. While the 1644 London Confession is termed mildly Calvinistic by Lumpkin, the Midland brethren penned a confession which closely resembles eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century Primitive Baptist Confessions."

A real historian who has written extensively about the ancient Welsh Baptists, wrote these words against the claims of Ivey.

See here

"The American Primitive Baptist writer, Michael N. Ivey, in his wish-history, called Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice, 1994; would have us to believe that this old Church at Olchon was not one with the London Particular Baptists, and that it reached out and constituted churches in Wales and also in the Midlands. The implication is that the Midland’s Confession is totally against the First London Confession of Faith. This connection I am making is very important and will show the false and misleading conclusions of Ivey, a time conditionalist Primitive Baptist. These old Baptists in Wales were one with the London Brethren. Their union with the five churches gathered by Myles and Proud prove this."

Our historian, in refuting Ivey's claim, made these statements:

"Please note the following statement about Miles and the old church at Olchon. This is very important, it will come up later. The Glass House Particular Baptist Church in London, sometimes called Glazier’s Hall church, sent John Miles and Thomas Proud into Wales to do gospel outreach work. When they got there, they constituted several churches and these churches joined with the old Church at Olchon to form the Welsh Baptist Association in 1650."

"The early growth of the Welsh Particular Baptist cause is largely to be accounted for by the zeal and administrative ability of John Myles, who is chiefly responsible for An Antidote. An Oxford graduate, Myles had begun to preach in Wales by 1644 or 1645, probably as an Independent."

"The originality of the Confession must be traced to the genius of Myles, and both the symmetry of thought and the force of expression of the document do credit to the abilities of the author. The Confession is divided into three sections. The first, “Considerations presented to Sinners,” is the doctrinal section; the second, “Admonitions to Saints,” concerns the five “reigning corruptions” of the day; and the third, “Invitations to the Backsliders,” contained practical considerations for erring Christians."

Our author cites these word from Davis' history (page 38):

"John Myles began to preach about the year 1645. He was the founder of the Baptist church at Swansea, Galmorganshire, South Wales. He was one of the greatest advocates for close communion in the Principality, in his time, and the leading minister of the Baptist denomination in Wales."

"In 1651, he was sent as the representative of all the Baptist churches in Wales, to the Baptist minsiters’ meeting at Glazier’s Hall, London, with a letter giving an account of the peace, union, and increase of the Baptist churches; and returned with a written letter from the London ministers to their brethren in Wales..."

"At this time, please note the close connection with the old church at Olchon, or the Hay, with the newly formed churches under the ministry and care of John Myles. They were not separated from the London Particular Baptist churches, but in very close connection with them. They even represented at the London Particular Baptist meetings when they could do so."

Our historian then writes about "The Particular Baptist Outreach into the Midlands" and says:

"We are not able to tell exactly when the London Particular Baptists reached out into the Midlands, but we are able to show there were efforts there in the early 1640s. How long before then we do not know. That would take us into the terrible times of Laud and his hellhounds. Benjamin Cox and Daniel King were the main movers in the gathering of those old Midland churches. In fact, at least four men who signed the First London Confession of Faith played import roles in establishing the Midlands churches."

"The Midlands Baptist Association owed its origin to:

First, the ministry of Benjamin Cox from London, one of the ministering brethren from the Seven Churches in London; Second, from Daniel King, one of the ministering brethren from the Seven Churches in London, and; Third, from the older Abington Association that came from the Particular Baptists in London. Why, then, is the Midland’s Baptist Confession so different from the First London Confession? For several reasons:

First, it was never designed to be printed in a book form as was the First London Confession. It was copied and placed in a church record book.

Second, it was an abridged form of the First London Confession. Daniel King, doubtless, wrote the Midland’s Confession.

Third, it is no more different from the First London than the Somerset Baptist Confession is. Yet, in their introduction, those who published the Somerset Confession affirmed their oneness with that older Confession and the churches and minsiters in London who issued it. See my remarks on The Somerset Baptist Association and its Confession of Faith.

I have showed that the foundation arguments from Ivey’s work are misleading, deceptive and false. The old Midlands Baptist Association came into being from the London Particular Baptists and may be considered one of their outreaches from London."

Ivey cites these articles from the old Midland confession and then attempts to show how they support Hardshellism.

8. That all men until they are quickened by Christ are dead in trespasses; and therefore have no power of themselves to believe savingly. But faith is a free gift of God, and the mighty work of God in the soul, even like the rising of Christ from the dead. Therefore (we) consent not with those who hold that God hath given power to all men to believe to salvation.

Concerning this article, Ivey wrote:

"By stating that man is dead and has no power to believe savingly of himself, they removed precursor faith as an instrument of justification prior to actual regeneration. Their order is new birth, belief. They indicated that men who are dead in trespasses and sin cannot believe until they are quickened. This principle eliminates requisite gospel agency in regeneration. Calvinism teaches belief is in reaction to a concerted medium of the Holy Ghost and the gospel; whereby one believes and is justified, and after being justified is born again. This distinction separates primitive faith from Calvinism."

Clearly Ivey is reading Hardshellism into the above words of the confession! First of all, the London confession has similar words about the depravity of man and yet they uphold, nonetheless, the means of the gospel in the work of regeneration. Ivey argues that they insisted upon the ordo salutis that put regeneration before faith and therefore this proves that they were Hardshells, but this reasoning is faulty. Consider the fact that men like James White and R. C. Sproul teach that regeneration precedes faith, but they do not go as far as do the Hardshells, for they affirm that regeneration is only "logically before" faith, not "chronologically before." They did not separate faith from the experience of regeneration! So, Ivey's argument is not valid.

Nothing in the above words of the confession deny that one is made a believer in Jesus when he is regenerated.

Ivey wrote:

"With inclusion of article eight in their Confession of faith, the Midland brethren denied the Arminian tenet of free-willism. However, it is both ironic and significant; it also distinguished the theology of the Midland Churches from all who subscribed to a theology of saving faith through the concerted agency of the Holy Ghost and the gospel. They rejected the theory of saving faith in response to Arminian teachings; but, in so doing, they also rejected the Calvinistic notions of gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Their statement regarding the relationship of regeneration and faith is an acceptable representation of what orthodox twentieth century Primitive Baptists believe."

Ivey is reading all this into the words of the confession. The confession does not deny means in regeneration!

Ivey wrote:

"The Midland Baptists have been variously characterized by Underhill, Tull, Gwynn Owen and perhaps other Baptist historians as hyper-Calvinists. This term implies they went farther with the doctrine of regeneration than did Calvin. Specifically, the distinction between Calvinism and High-Calvinism relates to the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration. It is a name that is routinely applied to modern Primitive Baptists."
The propositions highlighted are not valid. When the named historians call the Midland Baptists "hyper-Calvinists," they were not referring to the means question.

Ivey wrote:

"An example of the intensity of disturbance the proposed schemes caused is found in an exchange between William Carey and the senior Elder John Ryland (who ordained Carey) during a ministerial conference held at Northhampton. Carey suggested, as a topic for discussion, the need for missionary efforts to deliver the gospel to save heathens in foreign countries. To this Elder Ryland, who was chairing the conference, responded, "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine." Elder Ryland's statement indicates his position concerning gospel instrumentality. Though he only included himself and Carey, his dismissal of Carey's topic for discussion may be interpreted as theological disagreement over the issue of Calvin's doctrine of gospel instrumentality in the regeneration of sinners. He evidently did not believe that hearing the gospel was a requirement for regeneration, or a stipulation of election."

I have already addressed this supposed statement of Ryland. First, it cannot be proved that he actually said it, and secondly, it cannot be inferred that this means that he denied that one must be "converted" by the gospel to be saved.

Ivey wrote:

"Owen erroneously labels the beliefs of the original Elders of the Midland as High Calvinism. However, he accurately presents their doctrinal position concerning the relationship of gospel agency and new birth with the following statement. "For the logical High-Calvinist could find no scope in his rigorous creed for the operation of any human agency in winning the unconverted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God saves all who are predestinated, and no man can help or hinder His sovereign and effectual grace."
Owen is referring to the fact that some, like Hussey, had begun to deny the well meant offer of the gospel, but this is a separate issue from whether the gospel is a means in regeneration. For instance, Gill probably denied that Christ is to be "offered" to sinners, by the gospel, but he did not deny that the gospel was a means in regeneration.

Ivey wrote:

"Tull presents a moderately detailed, though prejudicial, description of the theology of the Midland Baptists. His description of circa 1770 Midland Association doctrine resembles present day Primitive Baptist doctrine. He begins, "The enervating effect of hyper-Calvinism stemmed from a rigid view of the doctrine of election. This view held that God had decreed before the world began who would be saved and who would be lost. Therefore, it was conceived to be both useless and highly presumptuous to invite men to repent and believe."

But again, the fact that some in the Midland Association questioned the manner in which sinners were to be addressed does not mean that they denied means in regeneration. Ivey is arguing a non sequiter.

Ivey wrote:

"Speaking of the duty of reprobates according hyper-Calvinist theology, so called, Tull continued: "It was not, therefore, their duty to repent, to have faith, to pray.....It was not their duty, because these were gifts of divine grace, not human attainments. Closely related to the belief that faith was not a duty was the belief that a warrant was necessary to believe. A warrant was an evidence or a sign of a work of divine favor in the soul. Conviction of sin, with its accompanying mental distress, was such a sign or warrant. Such a warrant and the faith which followed were implanted in the heart at the initiative of divine grace, and they could not be initiated by the sinner."
So, what has Ivey proven? That the seeds of Hyper Calvinism were already present in the 18th century? Who denies that? But, by Jason's own admission, "clarity" did not come till the Hardshell controversy of the early 19th century. Nothing that Ivey presented as documental evidence proves that the Midland Baptists denied means. Rather, the fact that their leading preachers were from the London churches, and fellowshipped the London churches, shows that they did not object to the London confession's statement about means!

Now, let me cite from "The Last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes," one of those old Baptists of the Midland Association and see if it agrees with Hardshellism.

23. I believe that although God can bring men to Christ and cause them to believe in Him for life, yet He has appointed an ordinary way to effect that great work of faith which is by means of sending a ministry into the world to publish repentance to the sinner and salvation, and that by Jesus Christ. They that are faithful shall save their own souls and some that hear them.

29. I believe that as God prepared a begetting ministry, even so does He also prepare a feeding ministry in the church, who are a people called out of the world by the word and Spirit of the Lord, assembling themselves together in a holy brotherhood, continuing in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, breaking bread and prayer. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Baptist Piety, the last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes, ChristianUniversity Press; Grand Rapids: 1978, pages 89-91.)

Doesn't sound like Hardshellism to me!