Two Seed Baptist Ideology (L)

The Fulton Convention

of

Primitive Baptists

1900 A.D.

Authors of the Fulton Confession

The above picture is of the many "Primitive Baptist" elders in attendance in Fulton, Kentucky, the purpose of which was to unite around a common creed. I used to have this picture in my study when I was a young Hardshell Baptist minister. Elder Potter had passed away several years before this convention. In this convocation the assembly unanimously endorsed the 1689 London Confession of Faith, but put footnotes at the bottom of several sections of that confession for the purpose of giving their interpretation of those sections, which interpretations were diametrically opposite of what the confession said. You can see from those footnotes remnants of Two Seedism in their denial of Gospel means in the eternal salvation of sinners and of what they say about the nature of regeneration and conversion. Under section II of the 1689 Confession the Fulton brethren said:

"(2) We understand the words of “one substance” contradict the idea that God’s people existed eternally in seed or substance in Christ, for this would establish a distinction in substance between the Father and the Son."

By this they show that they were at this time determined to distance themselves from at least one of the tenets of Two Seedism. In chapter XLVII I cited the words of Elder Watson regarding the way Two Seeders handle the word of God in their twisting of scripture. Watson said: "Their doctrine is serpentine, and it has serpentine ways and outlets, and is hard to hold even when caught." The fifty one elders who are pictured above showed this trait in how slippery they handled the 1689 confession.

In this chapter we will focus our attention on what Elder Potter wrote in his book titled "A Treatise On Regeneration And Christian Warfare" (Read it here), written in 1895. We will also have a good bit to say about the Fulton Assembly and the 1689 London Confession, especially since Potter mentions it in the above treatise, as we will see. In chapter one, under "Introductory Remarks," Potter wrote:

"In the publication of this little work I have only one object in view, and that is the defense of gospel truth, and the peace of the Baptists. I have been associated with brethren who differed with me on the new birth, for more than twenty years, and as they were good and precious brethren, I thought that if we could all let that subject alone, and not agitate it, we might get along peaceably together, and yet not see exactly alike on that subject. They knew, however, what I believed on the question, for they had often heard me express myself. I was requested by some of my readers of the ADVOCATE, in Arkansas, to write some on the new birth, through the paper, for their sakes, as they had a minister among them that was leading off on that subject; this was in the fall of 1892."

I find Potter's statement that he thought that brethren who disagreed on the subject of the new birth should "leave that subject alone," especially in view of the fact that he says this in the context of Two Seed views on that subject, which are indeed heretical and heterodox. Why did Potter and his cohorts not feel the same way about their primitive missionary Baptist brethren who supported missionaries and biblical education? I am also bewildered how he could advise a "leave it alone" procedure and then write this book on it. Why did he not have this same attitude towards those "Primitive Baptists" who believed in means? Potter would not leave that issue alone but became the flag bearer for those who opposed means and began to debate "Primitive Baptists" who believed in means, which was the original position of his forefathers. He has even said that he began his paper "The Church Advocate" to combat the means view. 

Potter wrote further:

"I thought the Baptists in our part of the country might get along without agitating that subject, and that we would live in peace and union, as we had always done. But those brethren who differed, finally became intolerant, some of them, and could not bear to hear a brother say "soul and body" or that "it is the spirit that is born again," or speak of the separation of soul and body at death, or "inner man," or that "the soul of man is born of God in time," or any of those intimations of a distinction of soul and body, without making war on the party that made use of the expression."

Potter says - "I thought the Baptists in our part of the country might get along without agitating that subject, and that we would live in peace and union, as we had always done." Why did he not think this way towards those Baptists who supported means, Sunday Schools, theological education, etc.? How could he tolerate the gross absurdities of Two Seedism but not Baptists who believed in supporting missionaries? Of course, as we have seen, Potter himself still held Two Seed ideas, such as saying  that people did not have to hear the Gospel to be saved, and saying that nothing a person did in life determined whether he went to heaven. Further, though he claimed to deny the Two Seed "no change" view of regeneration, yet he and his brethren came to entertain such a view when they began to say that a person could be regenerated while remaining believers in false gods and Messiahs. The Hardshell view evolved, or diverted back to the Two Seed view, so that it became similar to the Two Seed no change view.

Potter wrote further:

"I believe, and the Old School Baptist church believes, the doctrine of the following pages, and in order to set forth the Baptist doctrine, and defend it against the assaults of those who do not believe it, and to teach our people what the doctrine of the church is on this subject, this little book is offered to the public. I have blamed those brethren who differed, for trying to hide from the people, what they really do believe, and for trying to make it appear that the whole fight is on the question of the sinner being born again. But, in order that the reader may know just what they contend for, I will give a statement of what they say they believe, as given by one of the ablest men on that side of the issue. He says:..."

It is ironic that Potter said that he thought brethren should not talk about the things they disagreed about respecting some Two Seed tenets, such as what they believe about regeneration or rebirth, and yet in the above citation he is going against his own counsel and writing upon it and stating that his views are the historic view. Further, it is a characteristic trait of the Hardshells to find ways to hide their views from others to some extent. 

Potter wrote further:

"I would much prefer to quit publishing the ADVOCATE, than to not be allowed to publish what Old Baptists have always believed."

"What Old Baptists have always believed"? I find that statement astounding because though it is true that Two Seedism was a new doctrinal system, what Elder John M. Watson called "modern innovations" and "ultraisms," yet Potter's own view on regeneration and salvation are not the orthodox and historical views of Baptists. The Baptists prior to what B.H. Carroll called "the rise of the Hardshells," in chapter three of his famous treatise titled "The Genesis of American Anti-Missionism" (1902), did not deny that God used the gospel or word of God, and the preachers of it, as instruments in the eternal salvation of sinners, nor that evangelical faith and repentance, or conversion, was essential for being eternally saved. You can read Dr. Carroll's work (here).

In 1900 Potter's ministerial brothers met in Fulton, Kentucky to state their adherence to the 1689 London Baptist Confession which clearly taught differently than Potter and those ministers who assembled in Fulton and is why that convention of ministers felt the need to put footnotes on those sections they disagreed with in order to distort what that old Confession taught. 

In chapter two under "Reasons for Writing on This Subject" Potter wrote:

"In the ADVOCATE, of February 15, 1894, there appeared an article from one of our correspondents, on the subject of man, not on the new birth, but in the article, the writer spoke of the soul as being born again, in time, and the body in the resurrection. The expression so aroused some of our dear brethren that two of them wrote a reply at once."

Potter wrote further:

"THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689."

Why does Potter question whether it was his people, the Hardshells, "who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith"? Potter died a decade or so before the meeting in Fulton. Had he lived till then, what would he think of those ministers who claimed that the authors of the 1689 confession taught Hardshellism? I have written many articles through the years on what took place in Fulton. I showed where many "Primitive Baptists" were honest enough to admit that the ministers of the Fulton convention were purposefully distorting the true meanings of the 1689 confession. For instance I give these citations from Hardshell Baptists:

Elder Bill Allen in an Internet article titled "Article 10 of the London Confession of 1689 Examined," (pastors the Stephenville, Texas "Primitive Baptist Church") writes (emphasis mine - SG):

"Below is just one of the problematic articles, no. 10, of the 1689 with the 3 related Fulton foootnotes.  My problem with the Fulton footnotes is not that they were themselves unsound.  They were quite sound, but the Fulton brethren were deceiving themselves in thinking that the 1689 was basically sound but just not properly understood....If we take the wording of the 1689, particularly in this article, for what it clearly says in plain English it can be easily seen that it is a hopeless wreck of a document that no amount of footnotes, explanations, or wishful thinking can fix...My point is that we should NOT make any endeavors to lay claim to the 1689 Confession but instead should do what the Fulton brethren did not and that is let those who believe such things have it as the Calvinists confession that it clearly is." 

Allen also says:

"...this says the effectual calling is by the Word and Spirit.  It is vital to the understanding of this article to discern exactly what they mean by the use of "Word".  The Fulton brethren correctly insist that on the Living Word, i.e. Christ, is the source of the Effectual Call.  Unfortunately, they would like us to believe that is what this article says.  I contend that this is wishful thinking. They are imposing what we know to be the truth on what other men have said in an effort to white wash something that would have to otherwise rejected if taken for what it says.  I contend the authors of this confession were consistent in their use "Word"." (See here)

Elder David Bartley, a minister of the Absoluter faction, writing about the Fulton Confession in 1901 had these remarks to offer (emphasis mine - SG).

"So now, let us kindly consider this question of disturbance and compare the points at issue with the London Confession, which all claim to accept upon those points of difference. But why, then, the need or utility of the Fulton Convention? Why the address, the foot-notes and the appendix added to the good old Confession, which had been good enough for the Old Baptist people through the centuries, until this late upheaval? The plea for all this additional supplementary work of the recent convention has been stated in print frequently, and is thus given in the general address: “Language through the lapse of many years undergoes variations in applications and meanings, whereby certain clauses become more or less obscure in meaning. Wherever, in the opinion of this assembly, the meaning of a section was not apparent, foot-notes were added to bring out the meaning.” But if such a change of meaning and obscurity of language is true of one section of the old Confession, it is also true of every section, and just as true of the whole Bible, which is older than the London Confession. In all candor, then, why were the foot-notes confined to a few sections, and these the very places which treat of the doctrines involved in this new issue! This is very strange indeed, if the old Confession has really become doubtful and dark in meaning because of its age! If this is a valid cause for calling a convention of Baptists, why not bring out in easy and plain words the meaning of the entire Confession, so that all the Baptists may now understand and unite upon its meaning? Then, if the plea is a real and valid one, why not also get up a Baptist Convention to “bring out the more or less obscure meaning “of the ancient Bible!"

These are excellent observations. If these brethren are right, what does it say about the many leading elders who assembled in Fulton and perverted the 1689 confession? If those brethren could twist and distort what the confession said in order to make it agree with their new ideas, why would we not think that they would do so with the scriptures too?

In "An Examination of How the Hardshells Diluted the London Baptist Confession" Bob L. Ross wrote (emphasis mine):

"One of the most reprehensible acts by a group of Primitive Baptist ministers was perpetrated in November 1900.

From the 14th day to the 18th day -- five days of infamy -- "fifty-one ministers, representing three-hundred and thirty-five churches, aggregating fourteen-thousand five-hundred members in direct correspondence with over one-hundred-thousand Baptists," set themselves -- after adorning their nefarious scheme with all the proper and pious camouflage of the most sanctimonious session of the Scribes and Pharisees -- to the work of "clarifying" and "adding some explanations to" the most highly respected confessional document in the history of English-speaking Baptists, The Baptist Confession, set forth in London, England in 1689.

This 20th century "Sanhedrin" was shepherded in part by a couple of well-known elders of Old School craft, James H. Oliphant and John M. Thompson, who proved to be two veritable Jehudi's (Jeremiah 36:23). Not content with their rejection of the London Confession, they found it more to their liking to distort it and perpetrate the distortion under the "unanimous vote" of their ministerial accessories among which "tears filled eyes," contemplating their deed as "doing God service" (John 16:2). This meeting had all the "holy smoke" of a Papal election. And no one can puff more "sweet" and "comforting" holy smoke than the "little lambs" of Hardshellism.

The hallowed ground on which this holy convocation of Hardshell "rabbis" took place was the meeting-house located in Fulton, Kentucky, and the grand product of this enclave in Zion was published under title of A Comprehensive Confession of Faith. I am the proud possessor of a maroon hardback edition of this blessed creation, published by those professing to be "servants" -- E. D. Speir, R. E. Cagle, and E. D. Speir, Jr. -- in this current form in 1981.

These brethren of the Old School, in a humility worthy of the likes of Madam Guyon and St. Thomas of Assisi, announced that they felt themselves "under profound obligations to thank God and labor faithfully for the prosperity of his holy cause," and with "humble gratitude" to the "gracious and divine providence of God," recognizing that "language naturally undergoes some change," they "deemed prudent" the adding of "some explanations to those sections that seemed ambiguous" in the Baptist Confession of 1689.

The sanctified purpose of the "explanations" and "clarifications" was -- of course -- "increased gladness and the sweetest union," "general prosperity," "establishing union and fellowship," and similar attendant blessings within the sweet Old Baptist "home." Who could possibly have ever entertained the doubt that such "obedient servants" as Thompson, Oliphant and their fellow butchers would prove to be triumphant in behalf of their beloved Zion?

But despite their holy fervor, sweet prayers, tears, explanatory abilities, and unanimous vote, it seems that the old Baptist Confession has proved to be too much of a piece of granite, and their efforts at patching up Zion, where she was "torn into factions in so many places," failed; -- tears, rents, and factions are at this late date greater than at the turn of the century. "For many years, I have seen the spiritual decline approaching . . .The problems have obviously become worse," bemoans Elder S. T. Tolley (The Christian Baptist, 4/92, p.5).

Viewed from our own perspective, it would have been far more the act of honesty and candor had this solemn assembly of Scribes and Pharisees simply acknowledged the fact that their own theology was so far removed from that of the 1689 Baptist Confession they must cease the hypocrisy of claiming the Confession, then they should have composed their own confession. This would have at least relieved them of the necessity of the contemptible spectacle of "clarifying" what they and everyone else understood perfectly to be the doctrinal sentiments of the Baptists who set their names to the 1689 Confession.

THE FACT IS, IT WAS "UNDERSTANDING" THE BAPTIST CONFESSION WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THIS GATHERING OF HARDSHELLS TO HACK AND HEW ON THE CONFESSION IN THE EFFORT TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE. All of their pious reasons notwithstanding, the truth is, these Old School Primitive Baptists DID NOT BELIEVE the doctrines of the London Confession and would have set up "bars of fellowship" against every last one of those who originally signed the 1689 Confession had the signatories arisen from the dead and asked for a "home" among these Hardshell brethren.

We have already called attention to Elder S. T. Tolley's repudiation of the London Confession (chapter four) on those chapters of the Confession which he specified, as he called for the composing of a new confession which would accurately represent Primitive Baptists. Another Hardshell, Elder R. V. Sarrels, who wrote a book presenting Hardshell doctrine, ostensibly called a "Systematic Theology," very candidly confesses that Primitive Baptists "do not believe" chapter three of the London Confession, and he charges that the Fulton Convention of 1900 wrote a footnote "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY" (Systematic Theology, pages 109, 110).

Sarrels indicates that the sweet brethren who gathered at Fulton, Ky. in 1900 were engaged in a "literary effort of TORTURING of language" when they tried to "clarify" and "explain" the London Confession. He says, "Moderate or Non-fatalist Calvinists must either repudiate this statement [in the London Confession] or resign themselves to the endless task of trying to make it mean what it does not say" (page 111).

Why didn't the 1900 Fulton Convention do the honest thing and simply repudiate the London Confession and write their own separate confession? Because they are of the "We-be-Abraham's Seed" progeny, claiming they are the "true," "only," "legitimate" church and ministry in succession back to the 17th century Baptists. To come out and honestly state the truth of the matter, they would thereby be giving up their farcical and spurious claim. To avoid this humiliation, they took the route of adding "clarifications" and "explanations" in footnotes, presuming that naive Baptists didn't have enough sense to read and understand what the 17th century Baptists plainly stated.

Throughout the Confession, significant places were selected by the Hardshell scribes for "footnoting," wherein they have placed their leaven of Hardshell aberrations. The two primary doctrines which merit the most attention are (1) predestination, and (2) "means" in the new birth. On these, the reader is treated to the views of the Hardshells which are clearly in opposition to the views of the 17th century Baptists. The modern Hardshells deny these doctrines as they were believed by the Baptists of the London Assembly of 1689." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 5) (See this post where I wrote about the Fulton Confession and cited Brother Ross here)

I also cited from Elder Harold Hunt, who I know personally and who began a web page to give people access to writings of "Primitive Baptists" of the past, called "An Anthology of Primitive Baptist Literature," and who said this (See my post here):

"They reaffirmed what they could accept;  they explained away what they could not accept; and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away." (This sentence was in bold in Hunt's book - SG)

We could multiply such statements by those Hardshells who were honest enough to admit what Brother Ross has said. Further, I am sure that many of the fifty one elders who assembled in Fulton were familiar with the writings of the Baptists who signed the 1689 confession and knew that those brethren did not believe Hardshell views on means and on salvation.

Potter wrote further:

"In our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists, against the claims of the missionaries, we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine. THE ADVOCATE does now stand, and always has stood there, especially on the new birth. We hope that none of our brethren will differ from them, and at the same time claim identity with them."

The Fulton brethren knew that they had to align with the 1689 confession (which is almost identical to the Philadelphia Confession) in order to give credence to their claim to be the "primitive" or "original" Baptists who preceded the rise of the Hardshells. Yet, the confession clearly taught against the newly accepted dogmas of the new sect. So, they either had to claim another line of succession, and admit that the Missionary Baptists were the true successors of that old confession, or twist the confession to make it conform to their views. Sadly those fifty one ministers chose the dishonest route.

Earlier Potter calls into question whether it was "our people" who drew up the 1689 confession and then in the above citation speaks of "our efforts to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists" who wrote that old confession. He also says that his Hardshell brethren, after their secession from the Baptist family, claimed to be in league with the 1689 confession "against the claims of the missionaries." He says "we claim to be identical with these old English brethren in doctrine." But, as we have seen, and will see further in the next chapter, this is an unfounded and farcical claim. He then makes a remarkable statement, saying "we hope none of our brethren will differ from them and at the same time claim identity with them." But, this is exactly what the "Primitive Baptists" have done. 

The elders gathered together in Fulton should have simply been honest enough to have stated that they were not the descendants of those English Baptists. Instead they endorsed that confession and in a highly dishonest and deceitful way totally changed what the confession said via their inglorious footnotes.

In the next chapter we will continue to review what the Fulton assembly said about the 1689 confession.

The Divine Library (6)

In this chapter we will look at what God writes upon the heart. We will see how he does this in human generation and in spiritual regeneration. The apostle Paul refers to the former when he wrote:

"who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them" (Rom. 2: 15 nkjv).

Though the Hardshell Baptists attempt to apply this text to God's work of regeneration, it is not the historic Christian or Baptist interpretation, which rather says that this writing of the law of God upon the heart is what God does in the hearts of all men, being inscribed into their nature and conscience. So, why do they do this? It is because they believe that the heathen who "know not God nor obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (II Thess. 1: 8) may still be saved and regenerated while in that state and go to scripture to find a text that says such or find a text that they can distort so as to uphold their proposition. 

I have written on this text many times over the past twenty years. For instance, in this post (here) I cited Dr. John Gill's commentary on the passage and then wrote my own comments on what he said.

Ver. 15. Which show the work of the law written in their hearts,.... Though the Gentiles had not the law in form, written on tables, or in a book, yet they had "the work", the matter, the sum and substance of it in their minds; as appears by the practices of many of them, in their external conversation. The moral law, in its purity and perfection, was written on the heart of Adam in his first creation; was sadly obliterated by his sin and fall; upon several accounts, and to answer various purposes, a system of laws was written on tables of stone for the use of the Israelites; and in regeneration the law is reinscribed on the hearts of God's people; and even among the Gentiles, and in their hearts, there are some remains of the old law and light of nature, which as by their outward conduct appears, so by the inward motions of their minds."

To interpret Paul's words as a reference to regeneration is to completely ignore the context, for Paul is demonstrating the condemnation of the heathen Gentiles, not their salvation. Paul is not attempting to prove that some of the heathen, though ignorant of the one true and living God, and of the gospel, are nevertheless "regenerated," and the children of God, but just the opposite. He is contrasting the special revelation of the gospel with the general revelation found in nature. That general revelation is present in creation and in nature generally and includes the nature and conscience of men. This general revelation is God's witness and voice to all men in the "conscience."

All men still have this writing of God's moral law in their hearts even though it has been over-written by sin and by the Devil. So, when a person does what is immoral, he feels guilt as a result of this law written in his heart by God. Of course, it is possible that the conscience, wherein this moral law operates, may become calloused by repeated immorality so that there are no longer pricks of conscience. (I Tim. 4: 2) The persecuting Saul of Tarsus, while raging against the Lord's people, was "kicking against the goads" of God's word or moral code that was written in his nature. (Acts 9: 5; 26: 14) It is this moral law written in the hearts of men that is part of what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God and is the thing behind the conscience "accusing" or "excusing" one's actions. Further, as stated, continuous sinning overwrites, or writes on top of God's writing, and blurs it. Long ago the Lord declared:

“The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond it is engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars." (Jer. 17: 1 nkjv)

So, men ought to read this divine writing on their hearts and in their nature and conscience and not ignore it nor act contrary to it. This divine library of God's writings on the hearts of all men is as immense as the population of the race. Further, as we will see, this divine writing of his laws upon the heart of believers is not done and completed all at once but is continuous throughout the life of believers as a part of their progressive sanctification. It will not be fully written until they enter glory when their spirits enter paradise upon the death of the body.

Book Written On The Heart

Several prophetic texts in the scriptures promise that God will write his laws, statutes, and words in the hearts of sinners when they are saved. Here are those texts:

"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (Jer. 31: 33 nkjv)

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” (Heb. 8: 10-12 nkjv)

This divine writing is begun by God when a sinner believes, repents, and turns to God. Yet, it is not all finished at that time, for it continues throughout the life of the believer and will be fully written when the believer enters into his state of perfection at death. We know this for several reasons. First, this writing, like the giving of a new heart and spirit, is for the purpose of assuring that believers are kept from sinning, which will not be fully the case until they are glorified. So the Lord promised:

"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Eze. 36: 27 nkjv)

Though this is true to some degree now in the life of the believer, yet it will not fully be realized until God has completed his work of writing on the heart and until the heart, soul, mind, and spirit are fully renewed and made completely in the image of God.

Second, the passage above in Hebrews where the writer cites the promise of God's writing on the new heart shows that the promise will not be fully realized until the day comes when everyone on earth "knows the Lord" and redemption is finished. This divine writing on the heart is another example of what theologians call the new testament's "already, but not yet" paradigm. 

The apostle Paul wrote about this divine writing when he wrote:

"You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart." (II Cor. 3: 2-3 nkjv)

It is evangelical conversion that Paul alludes to, and of which he was an instrument of God in producing. And conversion to Christ is when regeneration occurs along with being born of God. In the divine writing above the heart is the tablet, the ink is the Spirit, what is written is the word or law of the Lord, and the quill or pen is the apostle Paul, and by extension everyone who is an instrument in the hand of God in bringing sinners the good news of salvation and thereby wins souls to Christ. 

"Ministered by us - The idea here is, that Christ had employed their ministry in accomplishing this. They were Christ's letter, but it had been prepared by the instrumentality of the apostles. It had not been prepared by him independently of their labors, but in connection with, and as the result of those labors. Christ, in writing this epistle, so to speak, has used our aid; or employed us as amanuenses (copyists)." (Barnes commentary)

Our Hardshell brethren and those who teach that sinners are regenerated or born again before faith or conversion will not allow that God uses human instruments in this work of writing his word on the hearts of sinners when he saves them. However, John Gill whom the Hardshells think believed as they do, held the same view as stated by Barnes, and which is the obvious meaning. This is why Paul could call this heart writing both his epistle and Christ's epistle. "You are our epistle" and "you are the epistle of Christ." Wrote Gill in his commentary:

"to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us; so that the apostles and ministers of the word were only amanuenses, Christ was the author and dictator; yea, he himself is the very matter, sum, substance, and subject of the epistle; he is formed in the hearts of his people in conversion, his image is stamped, his grace is implanted, his word, his Gospel dwells richly, his laws and ordinances are written here; he also is the exemplar, believers are but copies of him, in grace and duty, in sufferings, in the likeness of his death and resurrection: and they are "manifestly declared" to be so, by the impresses of Christ's grace upon them; by the fairness of the copy; by the style and language of the epistle; by their likeness to Christ; by their having not the form only, but the power of godliness; and by their lives and conversations: now in writing these epistles, the ministers of the Gospel are only instruments, "ministered by us". They are made use of to show the sinner the black characters which are written upon him, and that what is written in him, and to be read by him, by the light of nature is not sufficient for salvation; they are employed as instruments in drawing the rough draught of grace in conversion, and in writing the copy over again, fairer and fairer; being the happy means blessed by God, for the building up of souls in faith and holiness, in spiritual knowledge and comfort." (Gill's commentary)

Paul also says that this epistle of Christ written in the hearts of believers may be "read" by others. Every believer has this letter, this little book, written by God upon his or her heart. Millions of letters!

Another proof that this divine writing is not all done at once when a sinner is born again is seen in the fact that believers are commanded to continuously write God's laws, statutes, and words in their hearts.

Duty of All to Write

"My son, keep my words, And treasure my commands within you. Keep my commands and live, And my law as the apple of your eye. Bind them on your fingers; Write them on the tablet of your heart." (Prov. 7: 1-3 nkjv)

"Let not mercy and truth forsake you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart, And so find favor and high esteem In the sight of God and man." (Prov. 3: 3-4 nkjv)

In the old testament LORD God exhorted his people to write his words. Said the oracle of the Lord:

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." (Deut. 6: 6-9 nkjv)

The people of God were to do these things to help them remember the word of the Lord, to aid in engraving it upon their hearts. I have been in houses and studies of ministers where there were numerous Bible verses on the walls. That is a good practice and a good way to remember and burn his word into the tablets of our hearts.

The above texts show that this writing of the word of the Lord upon the heart is both what God does and what the believer in the word does. You might say God and the believer are co-authors, although, of course, God is the chief author and gets all the credit because he is the one that leads the believer to do as he has been exhorted by the Lord.

Further, this writing is continuous. I have far more of the word of God written on my heart today than I had when I was first saved 55 years ago. This is why believers sing that famous song of Fanny Crosby that says: "Tell me the story of Jesus, write on my heart ev'ry word; tell me the story most precious, sweetest that ever was heard."

When the sweet Psalmist of Israel, the man after God's own heart, King David, the prophet David, said to the Lord -- "your word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against you" (Psa. 119: 11), the words "hid in my heart" have the same effect of writing God's word on the heart.

When you write upon paper or a tablet of paper, or when you engrave in wood with a hot iron, you make an impression upon the thing being written upon. The scriptures speak of this too as a work of God. He makes impressions upon the soul, mind, heart, and spirit. This work of divine engraving is called being "sealed" with the Holy Spirit. Oftentimes this seal was a signature or a symbol for the signature. Said the apostle Paul: "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Cor. 1: 22) In the Ephesian epistle, Paul mentioned the same "sealing," saying: "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (4: 30) In being sealed with the Spirit God stamps his name upon their hearts, and mystically in their foreheads, and places his signature upon his work and writing. So we read:

"And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads." (Rev. 22: 3-4 nkjv)

This name is written by God just as the two stone tablets had ten commandments engraved on them by "the finger of God." So we read in the Apocalypse:

"And I saw another angel ascending from the east, with the seal of the living God. And he called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: “Do not harm the land or sea or trees until we have sealed the foreheads of the servants of our God.” (Rev. 7: 2-3 kjv)

"And out of the smoke, locusts descended on the earth, and they were given power like that of the scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads." (Rev. 9: 3-4) 

"Then I looked and saw the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him 144,000 who had His name and His Father’s name written on their foreheads." (Rev. 14: 1)

God has placed his written seal upon the believer and signed his name to what he has written upon the tablet of their hearts.

Brothers and sisters, is God's word written in your hearts so that others can read it? 

"More Would Have Been Saved If..."

In "The Primitive Baptist" periodical for April 26, 1845 (See here) we find one of the writings in a series by Elder C.B. Hassell under the title "CHARGES, Exhibited against the Chowan Association in the Kehukee Letter of October, 1843; and which were considered as among the reasons why the latter could not fellowship the former" (pg. 116). In it Hassell wrote (emphasis mine):

"Mr. Judson, the leading Baptist missionary to Burmah, wrote back to his friends in America, to this effect, viz. that thousands of heathen were sinking down into hell, because the ladies of the United States wore so many jewels. For, argued he, if the ladies would throw their jewels and finery into the missionary fund, thousands of poor pagans might be saved from the flames of endless torment, who would otherwise go there and be lost to all eternity! It is fair to presume this man sent back to America the best gospel he was master of; and if the preaching above described was his best, what think you of his worst, which of course was to be made to the poor heathens? Does any man in his senses believe an individual, entertaining such a sentiment as this above mentioned, is an ambassador of Christ; or has any of his gospel to preach to any body, either heathen or civilized? I certainly do not; but naturally conclude, if this is his preaching to professors of Christianity — civilized and enlightened people; that held out to the ignorant barbarians, is a great deal worse; provided any thing can be worse, than to predicate the salvation of the human soul on ear-bobs, rings, or money. And still, we have reason to believe ninetenths of the so-called gospel sent to the heathen in the 19th century, by missionary boards to be no better than this; but precisely of the same character." (pgs. 122-123)

I can see why Calvinists or Predestinarians, especially Hyper Calvinists, would have problems accepting the words of Adoniram Judson that said that "many more sinners would have been saved had the people given more support to missionaries," as did Hassell. Yet, Hassell certainly believed that a person must believe the Gospel and in Christ to be saved. In a recent post I gave several citations from Hassell where he clearly believed that evangelical faith was essential for salvation (See here). In that post I cited these words of C.B. Hassell, from his book "History of the Church of God":

"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)

I also cited the following words of Hassell, which were taken from the same periodical for the same year, in the previous month (March 1845):

"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." 

"Charge 3. The Report indirectly charges Kehukee Baptists with believing or teaching, that those who finally die in a state of impenitence, are taken to heaven by an absolute decree of God. The Report need lay claim to no originality here, for this same charge was full grown in the apostolic age and must be quite grey headed by this time...Paul denied the charge, treated it as a slander and so does the Kehukee Association."

In the same periodical for the same year, we find these words for January 25th, 1845: 

"Well, says one, how are we to come in possession of that of which you have been speakiing? (belief of the truth - SG) I know of no other way but the way prescribed in the written word of God. You must receive it by the hearing of the word of truth, when spoken unto you in the demonstration of the spirit and power of God, who is the author of it. For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"

This was the position of those who supported this old periodical. In another post on the beliefs of Elder C.B. Hassell I cited from his personal creed. (See here) Item number four of that creed says:

"The absolute that the Holy Ghost will find all the chosen in Christ, regenerate their soul, lead them unto Christ, and show them the way of salvation and the riches of their inheritance, pure and undefiled in heaven above."

So, Hassell does not deny that faith in Christ is produced by the Spirit and the word of God (like the 1689 London confession says and which he accepted) and that it is a necessary condition for salvation. That being so, why does he object to the words of Judson? With this introduction, let me answer the objection or difficulty that Hassell mentions against what Judson had said. 

First, it must be said that what Judson said is true when looked at from one perspective. Secondly, it must also be said that what Judson said is false when viewed from another perspective. Let me illustrate this point. If I am in outer space looking down on the north pole I say that the earth is spinning counter clockwise. However, if I am in outer space looking up on the south pole I say that the earth is spinning clockwise. In looking at the salvation from the standpoint of the means God uses, i.e. the Gospel or word of God, we must say that people who have those means have an opportunity to be saved whereas those who have not those means have no opportunity. It is also reasonable to assume that more people would be saved if the means were available than if they were not. I believe that this is the way God wants us to look at the matter. However, that does not mean that more will be saved than God determined. 

No one who God predetermined to be saved will be lost, nor die without hearing the Gospel and coming to saving faith and repentance. On the other hand, it is perfectly appropriate for us to say that those who have the means of salvation have a greater chance of being saved than those who have not those means. The Bible does not warrant us to say that because God has determined to save x number of people that therefore there are no means of salvation, nor that the Bible and Gospel preachers are unnecessary. To prove that Judson's statement is not unbiblical, and is not contradictory to what Hassell and other Calvinists believe, I will give some examples from the word of God.

Case Number One

"Then He said to me: “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. For you are not sent to a people of unfamiliar speech and of hard language, but to the house of Israel, not to many people of unfamiliar speech and of hard language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely, had I sent you to them, they would have listened to you." (Eze. 3: 4-6 nkjv)

This text upholds the proposition of Judson. The foreigners mentioned (those of a foreign language) would have heard God's words had the Lord sent Ezekiel to preach to them. But, he did not. Therefore, they did not get the benefit of hearing God's word, which would include salvation. Judson could truly say that more people would have heard the word of God and "listened" to it had the American people given more money to the support of foreign missionaries. On the other hand, if God had predetermined that the foreign nations hear the word from the mouth of Ezekiel and be saved thereby, then he would have sent Ezekiel to them and moved the hearts of his people to contribute money to Ezekiel for that end.

Case Number Two

"20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who[e] are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.” (Matt. 11: 20-24 nkjv)

What is said about "mighty works" being a means in bringing people to salvation applies to the gospel as a means. Jesus said that the doomed sinners named "would have" repented had they had the mighty works done in their day and seen by those sinners. So, we can say that "more would have been saved via repentance had God sent workers of miracles to those doomed sinners." Further, saying this does not mean that more will be saved than God had predetermined or foreknew. A text that aligns with the above text is this:

"And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)" (Acts 5: 12-14 nkjv)

"More" people believed and were "added to the Lord" because of the miracles, signs and wonders, done by the hands of the apostles, and because the apostles were enabled to give their full time to the work of the ministry by the monetary support of Christians.

Case Number Three

"1 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 "Son of man, speak to the children of your people, and say to them: 'When I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, 3 when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.' 7 "So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. 8 When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you shall surely die!' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 9 Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul." (Eze. 33: 1-9 nkjv)

Here again we see that the reasoning of Hassell and the Hyper Calvinists is not cogent nor overthrows true biblical predestination. Without a watchman to warn the wicked there is no opportunity to heed the warning of coming divine judgment and repent and seek God's forgiveness and deliverance. However, the more people who hear the warning the more opportunity there will be for people to do as did the Ninevites when they heard such a warning, that is, repent of their sins and get reprieve from the announced judgment.

Case Number Four

"I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’" (Acts 26: 17-18 nkjv)

Would the Gentiles under consideration have been saved had Paul not gone to them to preach the gospel and thus to effect the things enumerated? Did the monetary contributions of the first Christians aid in Paul being able to go to the Gentiles all over the Roman world?

Would Hassell agree with this statement: "more would have been saved had God sent his word to more people?" Then why disagree with the statement that says: "more would have been saved had the church sent the word to more people?"

After all, one can be sent by the church and by the Lord at the same time, just as both the Spirit and the bride (church) say "come." (Rev. 22: 17)

"As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John as their assistant." (Acts 13: 2-5 nkjv)

Who sent Paul and Barnabas? God the Spirit, the church at Antioch, or both? Answer; Both. The work they were sent to do was described in the text above in Acts 26: 17-18. They were also helped to do this by the financial support of the churches. In these two great missionaries going out to preach the gospel they were doing what Christ commanded. Notice this text:

"Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14: 23 nkjv)

Would it not be proper to say that more people would accept the invitation to the wedding (context) because more servants went out into the highways to compel people to come in? Is not the result of such going out a greater filling of the house with guests? Now notice these words of the great missionary:

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more." (I Cor. 9: 19 nkjv)

If Paul said he did things in order that "more" might be won to the Lord, what is wrong with Judson saying that if people did more in support of missionaries that more would be saved? Notice this text:

"Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles." (Rom. 1: 13 kjv)

So, I ask: was there more "fruit" produced by Paul going to the Gentiles in Rome than would have otherwise been produced had he not gone? In the same Roman epistle Paul wrote:

"Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient—in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation." (Rom. 15: 17-20 nkjv)

I could have added this text to Case # 2 above, for it does speak of how the miracles done by Paul, and by the power of the Spirit of God, were a means "to make the Gentiles obedient" and to inform them of Christ and so be saved. With this in mind I ask: would more be saved by Paul's going to preach in places where Christ was not known? And, was he not able to go to more such places because the people supported him monetarily?

God Promises Success

God has promised to give success to the preaching of his word. Thus, when there are more missionaries going to more places in the world, there will be more people saved. These texts teach this truth:

"So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." (Isa. 55: 11 nkjv)

"He who continually goes forth weeping, Bearing seed for sowing, Shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, Bringing his sheaves with him." (Psa. 126: 6 nkjv)

In broadcasting seed God promises success. Therefore more sowing of Gospel seed will issue in more people likely being saved. Paul testified: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." (I Cor. 3: 6 nkjv) Will there be an increase where there has been no planting?

Hyper Calvinism is behind the thinking of C.B. Hassell. He was leaning upon his own understanding in trying to reconcile predestination with contingencies, or first causes with second causes. What Judson said was true, and yet it is also true that all who God predestined to be saved will be saved. Both things are true even if you cannot comprehend how.

Two Seed Baptist Ideology (XLIX)

The above is a typical marker found in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and states that came out of the northwest territory. I saw several of them in Butler County, Ohio, the place of my birth and raising. American Universalism spread to the Northwest Territory (primarily Ohio) in the early 1800s, establishing over 50 churches by 1850. Following 1770s New England roots, Universalists moved westward, with Ohio serving as a major hub where churches were established by the mid-19th century. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many of these individual congregations became foundational in what would later merge into the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). 

So, why do I mention these things in a series on Two Seedism? Well, because "Primitive Baptists" are 1) quasi Universalists, believing that only a few (minority) of the race will go to Hell and that a majority will go to Heaven, and 2) some "Primitive Baptists" did become Universalists, and so we have a sect called "Primitive Baptist Universalist," and 3) some Two Seed "Primitive Baptists" did believe that all of Adam's race would be saved, but did not believe that the Devil's seed were human beings made in God's image, nor Adam's descendants, and 4) because the Universalists described above gave a weird view concerning "regeneration" or being "born again," which is very similar to that of the Two Seeders "no change" view of it, and 5) because many "Primitive Baptists" felt a need to debate the Universalists, and 6) because many of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" were anti-Trinitarians or Unitarians. Potter debated them, as did Elders John R. Daily at least twice (against Ballard and Hughs), George Stipp (several debates with them), Samuel Williams (2 debates with them), Benjamin Lampton, Newton Peters, S.F. Cayce, etc. 

With this introduction we will now return to citing from Elder Lemuel Potter's writings against Primitive Baptist Two Seedism. In chapter twenty one of "Life and Travels of Lemuel Potter" Potter wrote:

"In the month of February, 1881, I held a three days' discussion with a gentleman by the name of Williams, in Franklin County, Illinois, on the following proposition: —The scriptures teach that there will be a general resurrection of the bodies of all the sons and daughters of the first man Adam, or natural man, some of them to endless life, and some to endless punishment." Mr. Williams was a Universalist and while he professed to believe in the salvation of "all men," as he said, he did not believe that Adam's posterity would be saved."

The words highlighted in red sounds so much like the belief of many Two Seed Primitive Baptists. They too would endorse the idea that all of Adam's race would be saved, but would exclude the idea that the Devil's seed was of Adam's race. 

In chapter 27 Potter wrote:

"Elder Shields and Elder Dalby were two leading men of their respective Associations. Shields was a member of the Wabash district, and Dalby a member of the Okaw Association. They differed very materially on the subject of the new birth. Elder Dalby was said to be the originator of the no-soul doctrine, which I have already mentioned in connection with Elder Paine. Elder Shields fought that doctrine, and at the time of this meeting the two men were on very unpleasant terms."

Potter more than once referred to what he called "the Dalby doctrine." I have searched the Internet on this preacher (George W. Dalby) and have found little information. He obviously represented one of the sub-groups of Two Seeders, the group who denied the existence of a soul. However, I have lately found the following information from this Web Page (here) which gives information on the Martin family of Illinois yet has information about George W. Dalby. There we read (emphasis mine):

"Rezin Charles Martin was a Baptist preacher, and though he died when but slightly past middle age, he had won distinction both as a thinker and a public speaker. George W. Dalby, who was a competent judge in such a case, said that his name, Rezin, was well given and that it should have been spelled "Reason." I will add here a note on George Wade Dalby, who was the most noted preacher in his church for thirty or forty years after about 1850. About the year 1869, he and several other preachers got into a controversy with an eloquent and forceful preacher, John Shields, who lived near Paris and was pastor of the largest Baptist church known at that time (about 300 members). Dalby's associates in the controversy were several eloquent preachers in Indiana -- Joseph Skeeters, two brothers named Darnell and George W. Paine, and James S. Whitlock. Most of the preachers sided with Dalby and Skeeters, but did not get deeply into the controversy. Skeeters was the leader in the attack. He had said, "why Shields is preaching a typical Methodist heaven, the kind that produces the camp meeting shouting orgies. I am going to hit that the first chance I get." And he did, at an association meeting held at a church in Shelby County. Both he and Shields delivered sermons on Sunday, and Shields, who was first, repeated his description of the heavenly life, a spiritual existence which followed immediately after death; he argued that it was only the sinful flesh that died, but the soul, which he said was the real man or woman, went directly to an eternal bliss." (pgs. 120-121)

I will not have much commentary to offer on these citations but simply include them here and in this series for the benefit of others who do historical research into the "Primitive Baptists" or the Two Seeders. 

We read further:

"Skeeters in his sermon did not mention Shields or what he had said, but declared his own belief that the Christian faith was grounded on the promise of the resurrection, and if that failed, "all our hopes are vain." He said this was what Paul had in mind when he declared, "If there be no resurrection from the dead, then we of all men are the most miserable." This is briefly and in substance what both men said. I know because while I was not present at this particular meeting, I have heard both of them discuss the matter several times. It might have passed away as only a difference of opinion, but soon after, it may have been before they left the meeting, Shields, who was very indignant, met Skeeters and a wordy dispute followed in which Shields told him he was a "soul sleeper." At that time, preachers did not often go by train, but would go across country usually holding meetings wherever they stopped at night. Monday evening after the association meeting closed, Shields had an appointment at the Lynn Creek Church. Skeeters, Dalby, W.H. Darnell, and G.W. Paine came along, but took seats in the audience, and Shields had the pulpit all to himself. I heard that sermon, and in some way I had heard of the controversy on the day before. The Church was crowded, many people expecting a renewal of the controversy, but Shields did not mention the disputed doctrine."

Recall that Potter spoke about Elder Paine and I gave what he said about him in the preceding chapters.

We read further:

"Four years later the disputed doctrine was discussed again at a meeting of the association held at Lynn Creek. In this meeting, W.H. Darnell followed Shields and made a very strong presentation of their position. Dalby, who was moderator (Chairman) of the meeting and who sat at the front of the platform by the side of the speaker, fervently shook the hands of Darnell at the conclusion."

"The next morning I saw Shields and Darnell meet near the speakers stand and saw men hurrying toward them, evidently expecting something like what occurred four years before. But the conversation, though serious and dignified, was quite friendly. Skeeters had preceded Shields (they always had three sermons at these Sundays and all of them too long). I heard Skeeters talking to a group of men and saying: "He did not make an attack. He gave his own views and said nothing he did not have a right to say. 

 

But the feud gathered strength largely on account of Shields' aggressiveness. I remember hearing him say, "I would not talk to any of those men (meaning perhaps Dalby, Skeeters, the Darnells and Paine) without witnesses, because," he said, "I know they will lie." He was an older man than the others, and was nearly blind. (Skeeters became blind too in his old age.) The lay leaders of the Shields party were all old men with their families and others under their influence." (pg. 121) 

 

"The controversy did not much disturb the churches in Indiana, where Skeeters and the Darnells and their friends had full sway. But in the Illinois associations, it was different. Wherever Shields had personal influence, there was trouble except in his own association, where he appeared to have a united following."

(pg. 122)

We read further:

"The preachers of the Skeeters and Dalby school, while they did not hesitate to declare their position on the disputed question, seldom elaborated or explained it. They did not like the taunt of "soul-sleeper." Some of the small preachers of the Shields faction went to a spiritualistic extreme. Dalby in private and friendly conversation went much further than he ever did in the pulpit. My father never joined in argument over the disputed doctrine, but I think he favored the Skeeters and Dalby position. Anyway, he remained in that church party. Dalby once said in private talk "When a man sleeps he is unconscious of his surroundings. He may sleep so soundly that he does not dream or is at least unable to remember a dream. Now if a man were in a deep, dreamless sleep and if something should occur to end his life, do you think this man, who at the moment apparently knows nothing, will at the next moment, in death, know everything? It is nonsense I tell you; when a man is dead, he is dead." But he had faith in the Resurrection!" (pg. 122-123)

We read further:

"Dalby was at first a preacher in the "Separate" Baptist church, and it is said that he went to hear R.C. Martin preach to get his points on "Predestination," which is the principal difference between the two Baptist churches. He did this for the purpose of answering them as he was also an eager and talented controversialist. He was impressed in a way different from what he expected. He put off his answer and returned for another hearing and finally acknowledged conversion to the older doctrine, and was for many years a leading preacher among Baptists of the old school (the people of other churches call them "Hardshells"). John R. Eden, who knew Dalby well, said of him that he had the "keenest" mind he ever encountered. He had once been Dalby's attorney, and was surprised at his ability to understand a point of law on the instant it was presented. He said if Dalby had been a little better educated and had studied and practiced as a lawyer, he would have been brilliantly successful."

Keep in mind that these citations are on a web page that deals with the history of the Martin family of Illinois, and in the above citation there is mention of "R.C. Martin." Also, the one who is writing these things is of the Martin clan.

Also, what the lawyer John R. Eden said of George Dalby, about him having a "keen" mind, has also been said of other Two Seed preachers, such as Elder Daniel Parker and Elder Wilson Thompson. 

Now let us return to what Potter said further in his autobiography. Potter wrote further in the same chapter:

"These two brethren had been accused by each other of taking very extreme positions against each other. Elder Shields has been accused of denying that the body was any part of the child of God. Whether he was guilty or not, I do not remember his ever saying so, but I do know that he claimed to believe in the resurrection of the body. Elder Dalby had been accused of denying that there is anything about man except the physical part of him. He believed that it is the man that is born again in the work of regeneration. It seems that this controversy was so hot between the two that it was impossible for one of them to preach in the presence of the other without referring to it. Elder Shields preached first that night and in the course of his remarks he took hold of his coat and drew it around him, stating that he had said that John Shields did not believe The Bible. I was very much surprised at that statement, but I felt that he intended to be understood that John Shields was the outer man, or body, and that it had not yet been regenerated, but that the soul had and was a believer. I felt that it was an extreme position for a man to take and I still think it was."

Both sides, the one represented by Dalby and the one represented by Shields, were Two Seeders, but disagreed on certain tenets peculiar to that sect. Some Two Seeders denied a bodily resurrection, some did not. Some Two Seeders denied that man had a soul, some did not. Some Two Seeders believed in soul sleep, others did not. The charade by Shields reminds me of what history professor John Crowley wrote in his book "Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South" from which I cited in several postings. Crowley showed that the original "Primitive Baptist" position affirmed that God used means in the eternal salvation of sinners. Wrote Crowley:

"During this time, a major dispute erupted between the Alabaha and its parent organization, the Suwannee River Association. In 1860, Job E. W. Smith, moderator of the Suwannee River Association, preached at the Alabaha River Association’s annual meeting. During his sermon, Smith unequivocally advocated for the antimeans position when he held up the Bible and told the congregation, “You have been told that this is the word of God; do you believe it? I say it is not, it is ink and paper.” Smith also stated “the Gospel had no saving efficacy in it to the awakening of sinners; it was only for the feeding of the flock.” The Alabaha, who had long advocated the instrumentality of the Gospel, declared that Smith’s words were “a departure from the faith” and recommended “that this body withdraw her correspondence from the Suwannee Association until she becomes reclaimed.” (pg. 34)

You can read my postings on Crowley's book (here and here). Shields taking his coat and wrapping it around himself and saying that the one in the coat was not him is similar to the above named anti-means preacher who held up the Bible and said "this is not the word of God." 

In "History of the Baptists of Illinois" by Edward P. Brand, in CHAPTER XXXIV under the sub-title "New Associations," we find where he wrote the following (See here; emphasis mine)

"The Okaw is in Coles county and vicinity, on the same ground as the Mattoon Association. These two small bodies were the result of the cleavage in the Wabash Association on account of Parker's "Two Seed" doctrine, and they are the only representatives of that teaching left in Illinois. They are not in fellowship with the other Predestinarian Baptists in the state, and correspond only with each other and two small Associations of similar faith in Indiana. Their going out left the Wabash with but ten churches, part of them in Indiana. Their going out left no Two Seed churches in Crawford county, Eld. Parker's home, and this rejection of his teachings had such an effect upon him that in the summer of 1833 he gathered a dozen families into a colony and a church and emigrated to Anderson county, Texas. The result is that the antimission churches of Texas are divided over this thing about as they are in this state."

Elder Parker brought division among the Baptist churches wherever he went. So it was said of him:

"Doctor Carroll, of Texas, in a speech before the Southern Baptist Convention at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in 1900, compared Parker in his violence to a wild boar rooting up the tender plants in a garden." (William Dudley Nowlin The Anti-Missionary Controversy of Baptists in Kentucky from 1832 to 1842; See here) 

Brand wrote further:

"The Two Seed theory, that the elect and the lost are different races and eternally separate, is a fascinating one for many no-effort preachers. It makes so clear the conclusion that it is useless and wrong to labor for the Seed that are outside the gospel. It resembles the slaveholding theory that slaves are not of the human race. It is to Old School theology what rationalism is to the biblical critic, his constant dread and yet his constant tendency."

This is so true. I plan to enlarge upon this in my closing chapters of this series. In the next chapter we will continue to look at what Elder Potter wrote about Two Seedism.

The Divine Library (5)

In the previous chapter we focused on the outside book of nature or creation and of how great a book is this in the divine library. In this chapter we will focus on God's written special revelation that we call the Bible, which is rather a group of books. The word “Bible” comes from the Greek word biblia (books) via Latin.

Our focus in the previous chapter was on the book of nature and creation and on the general revelation which it communicates, and which is a kind of book. In it God and his attributes may be read, along with his works and ways. We stated that this general revelation is a fascinating read! But, his written word gives a greater revelation and it is that book that we will now focus upon.

Bible Book

The "Baptist Faith and Message" says the following under article one dealing with the Holy Scriptures (emphasis mine):

"The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation."

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith says the following about the Holy Scriptures:

"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare (that) his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

“The Bible is the greatest of all books; to study it is the noblest of all pursuits; to understand it, the highest of all goals,” said Charles C. Ryrie.

There are good solid reasons why the Bible ought to be read and studied and several evidences for its inspiration. Though some claim that there are contradictions in the Bible and therefore cannot be the words of God, this is not true, although there are seeming contradictions which exist because we are not correctly interpreting it. God the Holy Spirit must open a person's eyes to see and believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. When I first began to read the Bible I recall exclaiming to myself -- "this could not have been written by mere men but must be the word of God." I said that because I was enabled by the Spirit of God to see its divine beauty, wisdom, and authorship. Notice this text that speaks of this kind of epiphany:

"Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures." (Luke 24: 44-45 nkjv)

Paul referred to this experience, praying to God that others may have "the eyes of your understanding" opened and be "enlightened." (Eph. 1: 18 nkjv) The Psalmist David prayed: "Open my eyes, that I may see Wondrous things from Your law." (Psa. 119: 18 nkjv) In verses 34, 73, 125, 144, and 169 he asks God to "give me understanding" of his word.

It is therefore appropriate that Jews and Christians are called "people of the Book" in the Quran. All Protestants affirm that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice. It is the criterion to judge all theological controversies and all creeds and church councils. It is the highest authority for what the Christian is to believe and practice. 

Gideons International says this about the Bible:

“... supernatural in origin, eternal in duration, divine in authorship, infallible in authority, inexhaustible in meaning, universal in readership, unique in revelation, personal in application and powerful in effect.”

In an article titled "God’s Other Book" by Roger Patterson and Simon Turpin at "Answers in Genesis" web site (See here) we have these good words:

"God speaks through both nature and scripture, but they are not equal. From towering mountains and bustling anthills to the infinite expanse of galaxies and the infinitesimal world of bacteria, nature displays aspects of its Creator’s character. It’s exciting to see reminders of God everywhere we turn, but lately some Christian leaders have taken this a step further than God ever intended, even appealing to nature to “correct” our interpretation of the Bible."

"Throughout Christian history, some people have believed that God revealed himself to us through two books—nature and Scripture. This concept seems to be increasingly present in origins discussions among Christians who consider how science and faith intersect. Some have even referred to nature as the sixty-seventh book of the Bible. But what is behind this “two books” concept? If nature reveals God’s attributes to mankind, does that mean it is equal to God’s Word as an authoritative source of revelation? How should we read (interpret) these two books? Which “book” should take priority? It’s no small matter. If we misinterpret these two books, we run the risk of ultimately compromising the gospel—our need for the Savior because of our sinful nature."

They wrote further:

"This does not mean that we cannot learn anything from studying nature. It just means that our interpretation of what we observe must be consistent with the revelation of Scripture."

"It’s important to remember that God’s Word offers us direct statements of truth while nature does not speak. As an analogy, nature is like a picture book without words, requiring us to deduce the meaning. The Bible gives us the pictures with the words so we can directly understand the author’s intent and rightly interpret the pictures."

What David says about the scriptures in the 119th Psalm

"This is my comfort in my affliction, For Your word has given me life." (vs. 50)

"Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; For they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, Because I keep Your precepts." (97-100)

"The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple." (vs. 130)

The Bible is God's means to give men spiritual life and salvation, wisdom and knowledge, joy and peace, faith and correct theological beliefs, patience and perseverance, divine love, spiritual vision, comfort, strength, union and communion with God, assurance and confidence of salvation, hope, and the means to a happy and abundant life. It is by the Bible that we come to know God. These scriptures support these conclusions:

"For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." (Rom. 15: 4 nkjv)

"and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (II Tim. 3: 15-17 nkjv)

"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17 nkjv)

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Heb. 11: 6 nkjv)

"...whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23 kjv)

The Bible may be compared to many things. It is a survival kit, a lifeline, a road map, a textbook, a field manual, food and drink, milk, meat, bread, honey, a sword, fire, a hammer, a mirror, a rock or foundation, a lamp or light, rain or showers, water, seed, gold, treasure, etc.

God’s Supreme Revelation

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Heb. 1: 1-3 NKJV)

Just as God's written revelation is superior to his general revelation in nature and creation, so too is the new testament revelation superior to the old testament revelation. The same God is the author of the books of the old testament as well as the books of the new testament. The above text affirms this statement. In the old testament God spoke to people "by the prophets," but in the new testament he has "spoken to us by his Son." Because of this we have an enlarged revelation and the old testament revelation, though all true and full of wonderful bits of knowledge about God and the world, is but shadows as compared to the substance or body of truth that came through Christ and his apostles of the new testament. 

The apostle Peter intimates the same thing when he wrote:

"For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (II Peter 1: 16-21 nkjv)

In these words Peter says that he received direct revelation when he was on the holy mount of transfiguration with James and John and saw Christ in his magnificent glory, the way Christ will appear when he comes the second time. He heard the Father speak out of Heaven, from "the excellent glory," and saw Christ radiate the Shekinah glory, and saw Moses and Elijah appearing with Christ. Based on this eye and ear witnessing Peter says that he has a confirmed prophecy of the second coming of Christ, or as the KJV says, "a more sure word of prophecy." He further says that all previous prophecies and holy writings are the results of holy men being moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So, in conclusion we say that the Bible, that collection of inspired books, is one of the greatest in the divine library. People neglect reading and studying it to their own detriment.