Two Seed Baptist Ideology (LI)

The Fulton Convention

of

Primitive Baptists

1900 A.D.

Authors of the Fulton Confession

In this chapter we will continue to look at what the Fulton Convention of "Primitive Baptists" said about the 1689 London Baptist confession. We will begin by again citing from Bob L. Ross, from chapter four of his book "History and Heresies of Hardshellism." Brother Ross was a close friend of mine and I loaned him my Hardshell books before he wrote the above booklet. He paid for me to fly to Pasadena, Texas in 1993 to do a series of Videos on the Hardshells, which were done through Larry Wessels and they are available on YouTube. Brother Ross wrote the following (you can read his work here)

"Elder S. T. Tolley, a Primitive Baptist leading minister of Atwood, Tennessee has long been the Editor and Publisher of The Christian Baptist magazine, a periodical which obviously speaks the views of many Primitive Baptist churches and preachers. A few years ago, I had a cordial visit with Bro. Tolley at his address and briefly toured the "Christian Baptist Library" which houses quite a collection of books, minutes, and other historical materials. I was a subscriber to this magazine, and have a collection of Elder Tolley's publication going back many years."

I was also a close friend of Elder Tolley as was my father (who was a "Primitive Baptist" minister for over fifty years). I spent time visiting in his home more than once, in Atwood, Tennessee. Elder Tolley was a good and honest man, unlike the fifty one elders who attempted to pervert the 1689 London Confession of Faith in Fulton, Kentucky. My father was one of the leading ministers on the editorial staff of the "Christian Baptist." I also wrote articles for it.

Ross wrote further (emphasis mine):

"In one of them -- the June 1971 issue -- Elder Tolley headlines a front-page article entitled A Re-Statement of Our Faith Needed. One of the primary targets of the article is the London Confession of 1689. Here are a few excerpts from Bro. Tolley's remarks:

Although the "London Confession" does set forth much of what we believe -- it does not clearly set forth our full and proper views on several points of doctrine.

Although we do accept most of the London Confession of Faith, we certainly do NOT agree with ALL of it! And we would not agree with the wording on some of the points even though we would agree with the sentiments.

To show that the "London Confession" does not set forth the beliefs of Primitive Baptists in full I will here give some excerpts from it: [then follows quotes from chapters 2, 10, 14, and 15].

This quote [from chapter seven of the Confession] has overtones of "Arminianism" in it . . . If a Primitive Baptist preacher should set forth such a statement from his pulpit you would clearly see the clamor that it would justly provoke.

They [signatories of the London Confession] believed that the "elect" are ordinarily called to regeneration and salvation by the medium of the preached word. Primitive Baptists do NOT believe this. This [chapter 10] is NOT the concept that Primitive Baptists hold relative to "Effectual Calling."

Does this [chapter 14] sound like Primitive Baptists sentiment? It is not. We believe that there will be millions of the "elect" saved in heaven who have never, nor will they ever, hear the gospel of the Son of God. [Tolley's comment on chapter 15, paragraph 5 of the Confession].

There are several similar expressions in the "London Confession" that we do not agree with, and some statements that need to be more fully explained in order to show just what is intended."

I find it quite interesting how Elder Tolley can call certain articles of the 1689 confession "Arminianism" and yet find other Hardshell elders, such as we cited in the previous chapter, who call the confession a "Calvinist" "Missionary Baptist" document. Yet, the introduction to the 1689 Confession finds the authors saying that in publishing their confession that they were "denying Arminianism." 

Ross wrote further:

"In Elder Tolley's "Library News," in this same issue, he says:

I have for several years talked with many ministers and other interested individuals about this ["a statement (confession) of faith of the Primitive Baptists of our times"] and there has been much interest in this long needed work.

If any of our readers will read the "London Confession of Faith" (this is the confession of faith that Primitive Baptists are said to believe) you will clearly see the need for re-stating our beliefs -- as we hold today."

In Elder Tolley's January 1983 issue of The Christian Baptist, he is still "grinding an ax" about the London Confession. He refers to chapters 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, and says:

It would be hard to understand how any man could fully endorse all that is stated therein and remain in good standing and full fellowship with Primitive Baptists. No one could be well informed on the doctrine and beliefs of the Strict Baptists of England and not understand that they were and are, today, different from Primitive Baptists of America on several important points.

The men who drew up the London Confession of Faith held what we call "absolute" tendencies, and, although they believed in predestination and election, they also believed that the gospel was ordinarily God's ordained means to call the elect to regeneration . . . We have published several articles in THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST pointing out these discrepancies."

Tolley, like others, was being honest in his interpretation of the 1689 confession. However, in being honest he indicts the fifty one ministers who dishonestly attempted to distort the confession by their footnotes. 

Ross wrote further:

"In the August 31, 1957 issue of The Baptist Examiner, I wrote a short editorial comment concerning the purpose of the Gospel as viewed by Arminians, Calvinists, and Hardshells. W. J. Berry, then Editor of the Old Faith Contender magazine in Elon College, North Carolina, quoted from the editorial and proposed the question to his readers, "Is this the 'Hardshell' Position?" He gave several issues of his magazine to letters from readers who wished to comment on the question, then he followed-up with his own commentary on the matter. Here is what he wrote:

Now we knew that except for minor variations this editor [Bob L. Ross] has described too accurately the position of present-day Primitive Baptists. We also knew that what he gave as the Arminian position was that generally held by Baptists just prior to 1633 (Hassell's History, p. 335, 336), and that what he gave as the Calvinistic doctrine was held by Presbyterians before Baptists espoused it, and was the position formerly held by all doctrinally sound Baptists in America prior to 1800. [As quoted in the Oct. 4, 1958 BAPTIST EXAMINER, p. 2].

In the same article, Elder Berry alleged that Primitive Baptists of this day have "almost completely abandoned" the position of early American Baptists "in actual practice."

So here is a second well-known minister who, in effect, alleged that modern Primitive Baptists are not really "Primitive," so far as having a doctrinal identity with early American Baptists, or the 17th century English Particular Baptists. The Confessions of Faith are the most conclusive "standards" whereby to determine such an issue, and by their own ADMISSION the modern Primitives do not consider the Confessions to be representative of Primitive Baptist doctrine."

It is true that Hardshell historian Sylvester Hassell acknowledges that the forefathers of the Kehukee Association of Primitive Baptist churches were Arminian. The Kehukee churches became Calvinists, and perhaps truly saved, when the Philadelphia Baptist Association sent a missionary to eastern North Carolina, a preacher named John Gano. After his visit in 1754 he reported the "melancholy condition" of North Carolina churches. In 1755, the Philadelphia Association sent ministers, specifically including Benjamin Miller and Peter P. Vanhorn, to North Carolina to reform "General Baptist" churches into "Regular Baptist" (Calvinist) churches. These efforts influenced the establishment of the Kehukee Association (organized 1765/1769), which adopted the strict Calvinist Philadelphia Confession.

I have numerous articles in the "Old Baptist Test" blog under the heading "What The First Hardshells Believed" which show that the general view of the first Anti-Mission Baptists believed in means just as the 1689 confession says, and I have other articles that show that the "no means" view was what Elder Watson called an "innovation." I have given evidence that shows that the "no means" view, and the view that evangelical faith and repentance were not essentials for eternal salvation, originated with the Two Seeders who came after Daniel Parker. This post (here) will give the reader links to those posts. On the question of means both Arminian and Calvinists nigh unanimously agree that God uses the preaching of the Gospel in the salvation of sinners. The Two Seed view is truly aberrant. 

Ross wrote the following under the sub-heading "Hatchet-Job" Done to the London Confession by Hardshell Book":

"Several years ago, a well-known Hardshell preacher, Elder Lee Hanks, compiled a number of historical items and published them under the title, The Church of God. I have the reprinted edition of 1982, published by Elder S. T. Tolley's Christian Baptist Publishing Company, and I have also examined an original edition. The book mutilates the London Confession, not only omitting significant words (indicated by a series of dots), but it even cuts-out entire chapters! It omits chapters 5, 14, 15, and 17 thru 25. It is significant that the material which is omitted includes the same points of doctrine which Hardshells such as Tolley admittedly do not believe, particularly those that express the Baptist position on the use of the Word, or Gospel, in regeneration. At this writing, I have twice written to Elder Tolley and asked him who was responsible for this "hatchet-job" on the London Confession of Faith, but he has not responded. I assume Hanks is responsible until other evidence is presented."

In my historical studies of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists I have learned a good bit about Elder Lee Hanks. I am the one who loaned Brother Ross my copy of the "history" book authored by Hanks wherein he, on one hand, seems to claim affinity with the 1689 confession, but then on the other hand, eliminated large sections of it that he didn't agree with, by the use of the ellipsis (using the "..."). In my writings I have shown where this has been a common practice by the Hardshells. They will often cite from the works of others and use the ellipsis to excise those parts that they don't like, and by cutting out those sections they often totally pervert what the writers they are citing really meant. I wrote about this practice in these posts (here and here). In the latter post I cite where Brother Ross said the same thing, writing:

"...we have learned to watch the Hybrids* carefully when they start "quoting" someone whom they would like to array in their camp on "born again before faith." For some reason, they might fail to give the complete picture." 

*By "Hybrids" he includes the "Primitive Baptists." 

It is interesting that Hanks was one of the ministers who was at the Fulton convention and endorsed the 1689 confession and admitted that this was the confession that his forefathers accepted as a statement of their beliefs.

Ross wrote further:

"This is simply further evidence that the Hardshells of today are not the "original" Baptists, but in reality they have departed from the Baptist faith and constitute a cult formed around their opposition to the preaching of the Gospel to the unregenerate as a "means" used by the Holy Spirit in bringing about to the New Birth. Some may question my use of the term "cult," but when one becomes acquainted with the exclusivism of the Hardshells and their claims, it is obvious that "cult" is the most appropriate term."

This is also what I have shown in my own historical work "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" (you can read all the chapters in that massive work in its own blog here). 

Now let us notice some citations from the "Fulton Confession" and show the articles of the 1689 confession that they felt the need to rewrite in their footnotes.

CHAPTER I. OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

1. "The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain and infallible (a) rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience; although the (b) 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 unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation."

7. All things in Scripture are not alike (l) plain in themselves, not alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so (m) clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. (2)

Now, here is the footnote the Fulton Sanhedrin attached to this 1689 article:

"(1) We do not understand this section to teach that eternal life is obtained by the understanding of or obedience to the scriptures."

They are being deceitful in this statement for the articles above show that the 1689 confession taught that the scriptures were a means in saving sinners and giving eternal life. Many "Primitive Baptists" as we have seen agree that these fifty one elders were purposely denying what the confession says. The 1689 articles say that there is a certain "knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation" and that this knowledge can only be obtained through the scriptures.

CHAPTER II. OF GOD AND THE HOLY TRINITY

Of God and the Holy Trinity Chapter 2

Paragraph 3

"In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit,27 of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided:28 the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;29 the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son;30 all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him."

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(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."

This is not the only footnote that mentions a Two Seed tenet. So, in the year 1900 the "Primitive Baptists" of the faction represented in Fulton felt a need to distance themselves from Two Seedism. By this footnote we surmise that there must have been some Two Seed Primitive Baptists who tried to argue that the words "one substance" in the old confession included the Lord's seed or children. 

CHAPTER III. OF GOD’S DECREE

"6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath by the eternal and most free purpose of His will foreordained (m) all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, (n) are redeemed by Christ, are effectually (o) called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith (p) unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect (q) only. (3)

Now here is the footnote of the Fulton ministers:

"(3) We do not understand the words “all the means thereunto” include other means than those especially set out in this section: “Redeemed in Christ”, “effectually called”, “by His Spirit”, etc."

Of course, when they say "we do not understand" they simply mean "we do not believe," and involve these ministers saying that this is what the writers of the 1689 confession meant. One of the scriptures given by the 1689 confession to support what they mean by "all the means" is this text:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13-14 kjv)

So, the authors of the 1689 confession clearly believed that the effectual call was "by our gospel" and the salvation to which the elect were chosen was effected by a "sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth." The means are not limited to the things the Fulton footnotes mention. The article clearly says that "faith" is a means, and they agree with the apostle Paul that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17)

CHAPTER VII. OF GOD’S COVENANT

"2. Moreover, man having brought (b) himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace, wherein He freely offereth unto sinners (c) life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and (d) promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. (1)"

Now, here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) By the words “offereth unto sinners life and salvation”, etc., we do not understand that the gift of eternal life is offered to alien sinners, but should be understood as meaning the assurance or enjoyment of spiritual or divine life, as is taught in John 20:30-31; Galatians 6:7-8. The following places in the Confession describe the alien sinners as being unable to accept an offer of life: Chapter XX., Section 4; Chapter IX., Section 3; Chapter III., Section 6; and for further explanation of the doctrine herein set forth and from which said doctrine is deducible, see Chapter XVII., Section 3; Chapter XVIII., Sections 3 and 4; Chapter X., Section 4; Chapter XX., Sections 1 and 4; and 2 Peter 1:10-11."

Again, we have the words "by the words...we understand or do not understand." But, all see, if they are honest, that the words of the confession do mean that God offers eternal life to alien sinners and does not mean offering "the assurance or enjoyment of spiritual or divine life." Further, it is true that the confession does say that alien sinners are unable to accept the offer, but this does not negate the fact that it is offered, for the authors of this confession believed that the power to believe and receive was of God and not of the sinner. When Jesus said to the man with the paralyzed hand "stretch forth your hand" it did imply that the man had in himself the power to obey, the power to obey came from the Lord. 

Elder John Clark, a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" sect, and editor of Zion's Advocate (1854), believed in means as did many other first generation leaders in the anti-mission movement, and I have many citations from him that show this to be true. In one of my posts I give the following citation which answers the objections raised by the above Fulton footnote:

"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"

The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.

To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.

The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."

("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)

You can read other citations from Clark (here, here, here, here, here)

Keep in mind that the Hardshell convention of ministers was attempting to uphold the Two Seed ideas that said "nothing a person does in his life determines whether he will be saved" and said "the gospel or written word of God is only for the temporal benefit of those already saved." We cited elders John M. Watson and Hosea Preslar in earlier chapters who stated this very thing. We also cited from the 1879 minutes of the Powell Valley Association which affirmed this fact.

CHAPTER IX. OF FREE WILL

"4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, (g) He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him (h) freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his (i) remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. (2)"

Now, here is one of the footnotes to this article:

"(2) We understand the expression “when God converts” to mean when God regenerates."

Yes, the Hardshells may "understand" that conversion is not regeneration, but this is not what the authors of the old confession believed. In fact, I have cited many of the old articles of faith of many "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist churches that say "we believe all the elect will be regenerated AND converted," which shows that they believed that all the elect would be converted to faith in Christ and not regenerated only. In fact, nearly all the old Puritans, and the old Baptists who authored the 1689 confession, saw evangelical conversion as being regeneration. I have numerous proofs of this in my Old Baptist Test blog. I have numerous articles in the Old Baptist Test blog which shows this is the case. For instance, I cite these words from the learned W.G.T. Shedd  (as cited by me here):

W. G. T. Shedd, in his "Dogmatic Theology," Volume 2, pages 492-494, confessed much the same, saying:

"The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually: On the Spirit, III. v. And Charnock likewise: Attributes, Practical Atheism. The Westminster [Confession] does not use the term regeneration. In stead of it, it employs the term vocation, or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption."

CHAPTER X. OF EFFECTUAL CALLING

"1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time (a) effectually to call by His Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation (b) by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to (c) understand the things of God; taking away their (d) heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them (e) to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come (f) most freely, being made most willing by His grace. (1)"

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) We do not understand that sinners are effectually called by the written word in any sense out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation but by Christ, the Word of God. The quickening and renewing of the Holy Spirit prepares the sinner to answer the gospel call, as seen in Section 2; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 John 4:6."

What these Fulton brothers refused to understand about this article of the old confession is what is clearly affirmed by it. By "word" in the above article is not Jesus, and many later "Primitive Baptists" have agreed that this is not what the authors of the confession meant. Not only this, but the Hardshells often do the same with scripture. When they find texts which say that God uses means in the eternal salvation of sinners, they will say "we do not understand this to mean" what it plainly says and so will distort it or explain it away by any means.

"2. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, (g) not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature co-working with His special grace; (h) the creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less (i) power than that which raised up Christ from the dead. 

3. Elect infants dying in infancy are (j) regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and (k) how He pleaseth; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word. (2) 

4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, (l) and may have some common operations of the Spirit; yet, not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly (m) come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved; much less can men that receive not the Christian religion (n) be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess. (3)"

Now here are the Fulton footnotes:

"(2) We understand this section to teach that all persons dying in infancy are of the elect, and will therefore be saved. We do not understand from this that infants and insane persons are saved in a manner different from the manner in which all other elect persons are saved. The word “others” in Section 4 has no reference to infants, but adults who are subjects of the ministry of the Word. 

(3) We understand for man to spiritually profited by the gospel he must have been born of God and made partaker of His divine nature, and by the words “common operations of the Spirit” is understood as teaching that the gospel has an enlightening and moral influence upon all rational men."

Again, what a dishonest and gross misinterpretation of what these articles say! The articles clearly say that anyone who does not receive the Christian religion is not saved. However, that is not what today's "Primitive Baptists" generally believe.

CHAPTER XI. OF JUSTIFICATION

"1. Those whom God effectually calleth He also freely (a) justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by (b) pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as (c) righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other (d) evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death, for their whole and sole righteousness; they (e) receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God. (1) 

2. Faith, thus receiving and resting of Christ and His righteousness, is the (f) alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, (g) but worketh by love."

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) We understand this section to teach that the elect are justified in the sight of the law by the actual work of Christ when He satisfied the law for them, and we believe this is applied to the elect in the work of regeneration, bringing personal righteousness or making their persons righteous in heart. (2) These sections have relation to God’s spiritual and parental government over His children in this world."

Notice how the Fulton Two Seeders omitted any reference to "faith" and its being "the alone instrument of justification" and the way sinners receive Christ and his righteousness. Why is this? Is it not because they believe that faith in Christ is not essential for being saved? How anyone can read the old confession and conclude that they taught that unbelievers may be saved and regenerated is bewildering. 

CHAPTER XIV. OF SAVING FAITH

"1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, the work of the Spirit of CHRIST (a) in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the (b) word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased (c) and strengthened. (1)"

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) By the words “faith as ordinarily wrought by the Word” we are taught to distinguish between life and the motions or fruits of life, because faith as one of the acts of life may be instrumentally produced by the Word. (Romans 10:17.) While life itself is the immediate gift of the Almighty, (Romans 6:23), and is antecedent to and the foundation of faith."

This footnote is diametrically opposed to what the article clearly says and it shows just how dishonest and deceitful were these stalwarts of Hardshellism and Two Seedism.

CHAPTER XX. OF THE GOSPEL, AND OF THE EXTENT OF THE GRACE THEREOF

"1. The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, (a) the Seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the (b) gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and was therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.

2. This promise of Christ, and salvation by Him, is revealed only by (c) the word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, (d) make discovery of Christ, or of the grace by Him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, (e) should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance. (1)

4. Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual, insuperable (h) work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life, without which no other means will effect (i) their conversion unto God."

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) We are taught by this section that nature does not reveal the scheme of human redemption to man. Nevertheless this fact does not render the work of Christ and the Spirit impossible in the regeneration and eternal salvation of sinners, even in the absence of the preached Word."

Here the Fulton footnote says that the articles of the old confession teach that people who have not the word of God or know not Christ nor the Gospel may be saved and yet this is clearly not what the articles teach. Who were these fifty one elders think they were fooling by these footnotes? The only ones would be the Hardshell lay members who would simply take what these elders said without checking them out.

CHAPTER XXXI. OF THE STATE OF MAN AFTER DEATH, AND OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

"1. The bodies of men after death return to the dust (a) and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately (b) return to God who gave them; the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and (c) glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to (d) the judgment of the great day; besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies the Scripture acknowledgeth none. (1)"

Now here is the Fulton footnote:

"(1) By the words “immortal subsistence” is not meant that the souls of men are eternal as God is eternal, but that they are eternal in the sense that they possess endless being or shall never cease to exist or die."

Here again we see an allusion to the Two Seed view that the souls of the elect are without beginning, being "eternal children," having been begotten in the Son of God from eternity. What is ironic is that though the Fulton brethren tried to distance themselves from some of the tenets of Two Seedism, yet they still retained some of those tenets.

In the next chapter we will continue this line of thought.

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.