"History In Perspective"

In a blog posting titled "History In Perspective" Hardshell apologist Jason Brown responds to my posting on the Pence-Potter debate.

Jason wrote:

"Garrett is a bit confusing when he places some of the anti-missionary advocates in the camp of believing in gospel instrumentality in the new birth, as he admits later of Beebe and Trott."

Garrett, however, was not confusing at all, the confusion Jason is experiencing comes from his blindness, not from the lack of clarity in what I wrote. I gave proof that the first Hardshells of the anti mission movement did not believe as does Jason and today's Hardshells. They are not "original" because they do not express the faith of those Baptists who wrote and endorsed the old confessions, and they are not even what the "original" first Hardshells believed. Jason did not refute our evidence. In my writings on Hardshellism, and in the Gadfly blog, as well as here in the Old Baptist blog, I have given citations from the first leading Hardshells which show that they rejected Jason's views.

Gilbert Beebe believed that all the elect must be both regenerated and converted, conversion being the experience of being "born again." Jesus said "you must be born again" to be saved in heaven, and Beebe, and his cohort, Trott, believed that this being "born again" was being converted by faith in Christ and the gospel. I too believe that this new birth is the same as conversion. Does Jason agree with Beebe and Trott? Who is more "Old Baptist" on this point, using Beebe, a founding father of hardshellism, as a criterion, Jason or I? This was the standard view that was set forth in the first three Hardshell periodicals of the movement. Those three periodicals were: 1) "The Signs of the Times," edited by Elder Beebe, 2) "The Primitive Baptist," first published in North Carolina with the support of the Kehukee Hardshells, and edited by Burwell Temple, 3) The "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," published first in New York and then in Ohio, edited by Daniel Jewett. In reading the old issues of these first periodicals one can see that the "three stage model" (See chapter 39 in my book) of the new birth was the common standard view of the first Hardshells, the same view of many old Regular Baptists today, and some Presbyterians. These divided up the experience of salvation into three stages, the first was the divine begetting or sowing of the divine seed into the heart, followed by deep conviction of sin, revelation of one's lost state, similar to the state of a newly begotten fetus in the womb. This womb analogy defines the state of the quickened, regenerated, or awakened sinner, as one in which the person comes to realize his need of Christ and salvation, but who is as yet trying to save himself, like a Pharisee, and who needs deliverance from the bondage of the convicted and hopeless state, and that this deliverance (salvation) from this state is the new birth, what is required to be saved in heaven. There was no chance for the regenerated soul not to reach the state of conviction, and likewise, according to the first Hardshell leaders, no one in the convicted, or regenerated (begotten) state, would fail to reach the state of being delivered or born of the gospel. So, the question being debated today among the Hardshells - "will all the elect hear the gospel and be saved by it" - Beebe and the first Hardshells would say - "why yes, of course."

I have evidence in my writings, and in my research files, to prove that the following leading Hardshell founding fathers, accepted this "three stage" paradigm of the saving process.

Gilbert Beebe, Daniel Jewett, Richard Newport, Joel Hume, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, Wilson Thompson, Stephen Gard, James Osbourn, John M. Watson, R.W. Fain, Hosea Preslar, John Clark.

Though I reject this model, it is far closer to the truth and the Old Baptist faith than what Hardshells believe today! The first Hardshells did not say that only some of the elect would be converted by the gospel, but all of them! Does Jason? The first Hardshells wrote articles of faith that said - "we believe ALL the elect will be regenerated AND converted," all will be "begotten" (regenerated) first and then later they will all be "born" of the gospel. Does Jason and today's Hardshells accept this? Beebe did not "throw out the baby with the bath water" as regards means in regeneration. He did omit means in the first stage of regeneration, like some Presbyterian writers, but he did not omit them in the second and third stages! But Jason and today's Hardshells will not equate the new birth of John 3:1-8 with conversion! Yet this was the view of the founders of his own denomination and yet he claims to be "original" in his views!

Jason wrote:

"The "new birth" being re-defined as gospel conversion would seem to render the insistence that Beebe and Trott believed in means in the "new birth"/conversion of only rhetorical or semantical significance."

"Only rhetorical or semantical significance"? What is he saying? That what Beebe, Trott, and the first Hardshells wrote on this topic was only "meaningless rhetoric"? What kind of indictment of Hardshell's founding fathers is this?

"Redefined"? No, Hardshellism is the party who "redefined" things from what they had been.

Jason wrote:

"Modern Primitive Baptists still make this distinction, though they do not typically refer to conversion as the "new birth"; conversion to discipleship is, of course, mediated or brought about through the gospel."

Because today's Hardshells do not equate conversion with being "born again" (John 3), though their forefathers did so, are they therefore primitive or original? The fact that the first Hardshells equated being born again with being converted, or delivered, shows further that they did not believe that the experience was optional, or what only characterized a few of God's people. They believed all the elect would be regenerated and born (converted) and that irresistibly. They did not say that conversion was time salvation, or by works, in an Arminian fashion, as do today's Hardshells, but that conversion was as much the work of God as was regeneration. Conversion was "effectual" as regeneration.

Jason wrote:

"Garrett confuses the historical issue, therefore, by including Beebe and Trott among those that believed in gospel instrumentality in the "new birth", as they did not define the "new birth" in the typical manner."

Jason is "blowing smoke" in this reply! Creating a veritable "smoke screen." He avoids the main issue!

First of all, I have proven that "the typical manner" of the first Hardshells was to equate conversion with being born again, and to believe in a three stage model of birth (a view believed by A. W. Pink), and so did not think that "conversion," or being born again, by the gospel, was optional, as does Jason and his fellow neo-Hardshells. Does Jason think that today's Hardshell view, one that does not equate "conversion" with being being "born again" (John 3), is the "typical manner"? It may be the typical neo-Hardshell view to not see conversion as the necessary birth of John 3, but his forefathers did, and so, Jason and today's Hardshells are not primitive at all.

Jason wrote:

"Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Debate has always had this effect on doctrine in the history of Christianity. Admitting this lack of consistency and clarity in John Gill, for example, in reference to gospel instrumentality only indicates that it was not a subject of debate - that it was presumed by most early Baptists, particularly from England, that the gospel was God's instrument to bring about regeneration and conversion. Careful distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion were not made because debate had not yet created the need."

Jason offers the view that the Hardshells of the anti mission movement, by their debate and contention, helped the Baptists to "clarify" their views, to improve and correct them! This is what all "reformers" cry! Alexander Campbell used the same tactics. Jason argues that the Baptist were in error on the subject of regeneration and the new birth and it was the Hardshell controversy that brought doctrinal "clarity" and greater accuracy to Baptist understanding of regeneration! What arrogance! What a cultic view of things! It is saying - "we are the ones who are now refined in doctrine," and "we are the only ones who have clarity on the subject of regeneration."

Jason wrote:

"Therefore, appeal to early Baptist doctrine as evidenced by the London Confession has little cogency for the later anti-missionary debate because this confession was not framed with this debate in mind. Lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions or in the writings of early Baptist theologians offer little proof that such distinctions are not proper."

First of all, it is a falsehood to say that the writers of the London confession did not know that they were condemning the Hardshell "no means" theory when they wrote the confession. I have already alluded to the debate that John Spilsbury had with Bakewell on this very point!

Jason wants us to not mention the London Confession, wants us to disregard its testimony on the subject of means in regeneration! I wonder why? The confession has "little cogency" as to who are the real Old Baptists? Is he implying that the writers of the confession would have changed their minds had they been privileged to be around when the Hardshells arose to clarify things? He admits that there was a "lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions" and tries to dismiss this fact as though it were insignificant. He says that these authors of the confession just were not "clear" on the subject, but later debate would clear matters up!

Jason wrote:

"Now, I can openly state that the anti-missionary debate created extremes as debate is wont to do. Though I think it Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion, this does not mean that every passage in the Bible evidences a clear distinction. In this gospel era, in which the gospel has been preached to the Gentile world in large part, the Scripture often melds the two as would have been often the case in the early Church, as in Acts 13:48."

Jason speaks of "extremes" arising out of the anti mission movement. This is true. And, just who were representive of those "extremes"? Is it not Hardshellism and Campbellism?

Jason says that it is "Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion." But, I have already addressed this mere assertion by Jason. Jason gave us no scripture that defined regeneration as being, for instance, experienced apart from gospel knowledge and faith, or on the subconscious level, but I have given biblical definitions of the experience of regeneration. But, it is remarkable that Jason would so markedly contradict himself in the above few words. First, he says that he can distinguish regeneration from conversion and then says that the scriptures meld them together, i.e., does not distinguish between them! These are examples of Hardshell hermeneutics. I plan to write a couple chapters yet in my book on the Hardshells about their hermeneutical methods, something that Elder Watson also felt that his Hardshell brethren needing teaching about.

Jason wrote:

"James 1:18 shows the pervading presence of the gospel under which the early Jewish disciples were both born again and converted in a seemingly seamless fashion. The will of God effected regeneration and the gospel was present to ensure conversion that those early Jewish disciples would be a firstfruit of the entire elect family of God. Notice, however, that Peter's experience requires a clearer distinction."

Notice how Jason handles this Hardshell-killing verse! Does he approach the verse honestly? Without pretext? Does he tremble before it and wonder if he might not be twisting it "to his own destruction"? What if Jason is wrong? What if James 1: 18 does teach what it prima facie seems to teach, i.e., that God's elect are regenerated or born again by the gospel? Jason resorts to the same argument he made in a previous blog posting, and one which I have already rebutted. The gospel was the "presence" or "environment" in which many regeneration experiences were taking place, but this does not mean that the gospel was a cause of the regeneration experiences, like a room not being the cause of what happens within it. Is that all he really believes James is saying? That the gospel was the mere environment in which regeneration was taking place? This view is a carnal invention, intended to rebut the force of the apostle's words relative to the word of truth being the instrumental cause of the new birth.

Concerning "Peter's experience," and about his need for "conversion," after regeneration, I have already addressed that and showed that the term "conversion" does not always denote regeneration, but that it usually does. I would ask Jason - "when Jesus said that we must be CONVERTED, as little children," was he talking about regeneration? When Peter addressed a crowd, composed of both elect and non-elect (it can be safely assumed), and said "repent ye and be converted, that your sins might be blotted out" (Acts 3: 19), was he not talking about eternal salvation? Is "blotting out sins" not the meat of the experience of salvation?

Jason wrote:

"Surely James included Peter as a firstfruit, but it is clear according to Luke 22:31-32 that Peter possessed faith before he was fully converted. It would seem, then, that James 1:18 should be viewed as a summary of the complete translation from the darkness of the unregenerate to the gospel inheritance of the saints, which encompasses both regeneration and conversion. The seamlessness of the text in reference to a distinction between sonship and discipleship is a proof of the consistency of discipleship with sonship (that the truly regenerate embrace the revelation available to them), not that there is no distinction."

"Fully converted," correct! Conversion, like sanctification, has both an initial application, and an ongoing application in the life of the believer. We are not converted from all our false ideas when we are initially converted. But, initial salvation and regeneration is a conversion! Does Jason deny that there is a "change" in regeneration? Do not the words "repent" and "conversion" denote change? Jason admits that there are degrees and stages of the conversion process, but why does he deny that conversion is an integral part of regeneration?

Jason then argues that James 1: 18 is talking about conversion, a gospel experience. Wonderful! Now, let us ask him to apply all his arguments, against the Arminians, about the fact that being born of God is unconditional, how being born "of God" denotes that this is all the work of God, and does not depend upon the will and actions of those born, to his admission that the gospel conversion experience (i.e. his "time salvation") is a being "born of God." Why does he argue that "born of God" denotes sovereign grace, and effectual calling, in regeneration being a birth of God, but not in conversion's being a birth of God?

Jason wrote:

"It is also unnecessary for the sake of opposing missionary societies or boards to claim that the gospel has no relevance for the unregenerate. According to 1 Peter 4:6, the gospel is to be preached to spiritually dead men for the purpose of judgment that they might be judged according to men in the flesh. So, in reference to Garrett's attack on C. H. Cayce's exposition of Acts 17:28-30, I must in large part agree that Cayce's exposition of this passage is not his finest moment."

Jason admits that the gospel is to be preached to unregenerate men, but not to offer them any hope, or to compel them to believe and repent, to acknowledge Christ as Savior and Lord?

All Jason can say of Cayce's view on Acts 17 is that it was "not his finest moment"? He can treat the matter in such a frivolous manner? When a preacher tells pagans that they can be elect, be saved, be God's children, even though they worship other gods and lords, he is guilty of no trifle. That is what Cayce taught! Cayce's view is anti gospel and you can cast it aside as a slight thing?

Jason wrote:

"It seems to me that many Primitive Baptists have, even as some do now, gone to unnecessary doctrinal extremes to oppose missionary societies. Though I believe that the Scripture upholds the principle of a distinction between sonship and discipleship, this Biblical distinction does not carry with it the idea that the gospel is not to be preached to all men, as the elect are scattered abroad among them and the rejection of the gospel by the damned treasures up wrath against that day of wrath and righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds."

I am again pleased with the confession of Jason about his Hardshell brethren. They have "gone to doctrinal extremes"! It is good that Jason fights against those Hardshells who say that the gospel is only to be preached to the elect. The question is, is the gospel preached so as to offer salvation to all? About his distinction between being born again and being a disciple I have already discussed in previous postings. But, I will add this. Jason's view is that being born again does not make one a believer in, or follower of Jesus! A man can be "born again" who is not a follower of Jesus?! Absurd consequences! That is what Cayce was saying and Jason agrees with it and yet says Cayce's article was not his finest!

Jason wrote:

"In conclusion, it is necessary to recognize the deleterious and the profitable effect of controversy. The missionary controversy afforded doctrinal clarity in regard to gospel instrumentality, but also incited expositional misapplications. Just because a principle is taught in the Bible does not mean that it is the key to understanding every passage of the Bible."

Jason again spouts his apologetic for novel Hardshell views on the new birth, saying that the rise of the Hardshells brought doctrinal clarity to the Baptist church! But, we have shown how farcical is that apology.