Elder Lemuel Potter represented the "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists in a Public Debate with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence , at Luray, Virginia, in 1890. Elder Pence represented those in the anti-mission movement who believed that regeneration and gospel faith could not be divorced, that regeneration or being born again was a work of God done through the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, or through hearing and believing the gospel. Several debates had been occurring among those who called themselves "Anti Mission Baptists," or "Old School Baptists," "Reform Baptists," "Old" or "Original Baptists." Many of the Calvinistic Baptist churches who became part of the anti mission movement were called "Regular Baptists."
From my historical studies of the 1820-1860 period, those in the anti mission movement who denied the use of means in the new birth were a minority. Certainly the early great leaders in the movement, believed in means, men such as James Osbourne, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, John M. Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, and several others that could be named, believed in means, that the gospel or word of God was the instrument, in the hand of the Holy Spirit, whereby the elect are born again.
By 1860 the minority, or Hardshell faction, was fast becoming the majority view. Elder Watson's book, "The Old Baptist Test," published about 1866, shows that the two factions were warring with one another, Watson calling the "no-means" side "ultraists," "antinomians," "modern innovators." He testified of the tactics of the "ultraist" side, how they charged those who believed in means with being "Arminians." The "ultraist" or Hardshell side also was opposed to giving any kind of gospel invitations to those who were lost, or dead in sin. Yet, it is clear that the Baptist practice had always been to warn the wicked and offer to them the way of salvation, and calling upon them to publicly repent and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. These forefathers were in the habit of inviting those under conviction to come forward and be prayed for. Such practices were not "Arminian."
At the close of Elder Watson's book, he called upon both sides to publicly debate the matter through the newly formed periodical, "The Herald," which it must be supposed was supported by the "means" side.
The leading men for the "no-means" side, at the beginning, were Wilson Thompson and his son Grigg Thompson, together with several other Thompson relatives, all who became leading first generation Hardshells. Wilson Thompson, however, seemed to hold to the view of Beebe and Trott, that the new birth was distinct from regeneration, that regeneration was first, without means, but that the new birth was equated with conversion, and was accomplished by the means of the gospel. His son Grigg, however, seems to have gone farther than his father, for he equated regeneration with the new birth and denied means altogether in the glorious work.
In the debate between Elder Lemuel Potter (second generation Hardshell who held great influence in the 1870-1890 period) and Elder Pence, here were the propositions.
First Proposition
"Do the Scriptures teach God's use of the gospel as a means of the regeneration of sinners?"
Pence affirms, Potter denies
Second Proposition
"Do the Scriptures teach that in the regeneration of the sinner, in all cases, the Holy Spirit operates without the use of the gospel as a means?"
Potter affirms, Pence denies
Both sides claimed to represent the historic or old Baptist faith, as expressed in the confessions of faith. Who was right?
A comment on the debate by a Hardshell who attended the debate, reads like this:
"Though Elder Pence claims to be a Primitive, or Regular Old School Baptist, it was clearly demonstrated in this discussion that he did not stand on the Baptist platform, but that he was a full-fledged Arminian both in doctrine and practice, and utterly failed to meet Bro. Potter's arguments."
Elder Pence claimed to be the real Old Baptist, and that the means position was the ancient view of Calvinistic Baptists who endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. Elder Burnam, an associate editor with Elder John Clark, on Zion's Advocate, also believed in means, and claimed that this was the original position of Baptists, even of the majority of those who were part of the anti mission movement. In the debate, Elder Pence gave clear historical evidence that the original Baptists believed that regeneration was through the gospel, as did many of the first leaders of the anti mission movement. This comment by a follower of Potter was a biased comment and is against the facts. Elder Pence, like Elder Throgmorton, demonstrated that the confessions and the great Baptist leaders of the past, all believed in gospel means. The commenter uses the "ultraist" tactic of calling the gospel means position "Arminian," a falsehood. Gill believed in means and he could hardly be labeled an "Arminian."
And again the Hardshell "ultraist" said:
"He (Elder Pence) contended that the gospel is a means in regeneration, and hooted at the idea of the gospel being preached only for a witness, and for the edifying of the body and for the perfecting of the saints, &c., as the Scriptures declare, and which Bro. Potter proved. Such assertions as "a sinner saved without the gospel was saved without Christ," and that the "gospel was the means by which the Spirit was conveyed to the sinner's heart," were made by him, which Bro. Potter showed was a perversion of the Scriptures. Brother Potter challenged him to find a quotation or an intimation in the word of God where the gospel was the power of God to unbelievers, or the unregenerate, or where the righteousness of God was revealed from faith to unbelief, which of course he failed to produce."
Elder Pence, of course, was on solid scriptural grounds in asserting that men are born again by the word of God. (James 1: 18, I Peter 1: 23-25) The idea that the gospel is preached only as a "witness" and not as a medium of salvation, is a dodge. But, what does the gospel bear witness to? Does it not bear witness to the fact that believers will be saved and that unbelievers will be lost?
The commenter refers to the fact that the passages which state that the gospel saves the believer is interpreted to mean saves those who are already saved (or born again), and that they are believers before they hear the gospel! But believers in what? Certainly not in the gospel, or in Jesus Christ! Certainly the gospel saves those who hear and believe the gospel, but no where, in scripture, is a person called a "believer" before he is informed of the gospel. He is called a "believer" because he believes the divine record concerning Jesus Christ. Romans 10 says that "faith comes by hearing," that one is not a believer before he hears and believes the gospel, contrary to Hardshell teaching. Paul asks - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" But, Hardshells believe that one is a believer before he hears! By their interpretations of Romans 1: 16 and I Cor. 1: 21 the believer is not a believer in the gospel, and is a believer before he hears the gospel!
And again the commenter wrote:
"Brother Potter quoted John 3:8, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit," and argued that, if every one was thus born of the Spirit, then all who are born of the Spirit must be born in like manner, and consequently could not tell from whence it cometh or whither it goeth, and if it came in the preached gospel, they could tell from whence it came. Numerous passages of Scriptures were quoted by Bro. Potter to prove that the sinner was regenerated by the direct contact or influence of the Spirit, independent of means and instrumentalities, which Elder Pence failed to disprove."
John 3: 8 does not affirm that all are born again apart from the application of gospel truth. Such an interpretation would contradict James 1: 18 and I Peter 1: 23-25, and numerous other passages. John 3: 8 does not say that all the elect are born again in precisely the same way. All are not born again by the personal appearance of Christ, as it was in the case of Saul (Paul). Many Hardshells affirm that John the Baptist was born again while in his mother's womb. But if so, and all are born again the same way, then are all not born again while in the womb? Besides, the scriptures do declare that all are born again by the word of truth! Consider also how Paul was converted at the same time he was born again, yet Hardshells affirm that many are born again who are never converted, and affirm that all are born again the same way.
And again, the commenter said:
"Elder Pence tried to make it appear that the anti-means, as he termed them, had departed from the old landmarks, and still they claim that they are trying to get us out of the old ruts, and that our churches are all dying out because we do not believe in means in regeneration, and do not have Sunday-schools, mission boards, female missionaries, etc., to build up our churches. What inconsistency! Do they not know that anyone can see the absurdity and falsity of such a position?"
But, Elder Pence was right and was stating what Elder Watson stated in his book "The Old Baptist Test"! Elder Burnam testified in the Mt. Carmel church trial that the anti-means, regeneration apart from faith, was a new invention, born in the latter half of the 19th century, and in this he was correct by a fair analysis of the historical records.
The commenter's name was J. G. Wiltshire and can be found
See here
A "Primitive Baptist" web page gives Elder Potter's written account of the debate, titled "An Account of Elder Pence's Affirmative Arguments and Elder Potter's Reply." Here is what Elder Potter wrote:
"Elder Pence claimed that we could not find a single author or commentator, prior to fifty years ago, that took the Anti-means position. He referred to Dr. Watson, and the London Confession of Faith, and to Dr. Gill, and other authors, in order to prove that the Baptists had heretofore believed in the doctrine of means, and that our position among the Old School Baptists was entirely new."
Elder Pence no doubt gave, as did Elder Throgmorton, plenty of historical evidence to prove his contentions. All Elder Potter could do is to deny the clear evidence and attempt to twist the writings of the Baptist forefathers. Elder Pence cited Baptist records to show that the Baptist did not hold to Hardshell views on the gospel and on the nature and causes of regeneration and challenged Elder Potter to cite one historical Baptist record, prior to the 19th century, that supported Hardshellism. Potter never refuted the records presented by Pence and never gave evidence to show that the first particular Baptists, who wrote the London confession, held to Hardshell views on the new birth.
Potter continued:
"He (Pence) referred to Acts 26: 16, where Paul went to the Gentiles to open their eyes, and argued that those people were unregenerate, and that in the process of regeneration through the ministry of the apostle, as a means, their eyes would be opened, and they would be turned from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God, etc. He referred also to Romans 1:16, "The gospel is the power of God to every one that believeth," and emphasized the fact that it was the power of God unto salvation, so that if it was the power of God unto salvation, it must be used in the salvation of the believer. I took the position that none of the Baptists, Gill, the London Confession of Faith, Dr. Watson, or any of the Old School Baptists took the position that he did; that the anti-means position was not a new thing among the Old School Baptists."
What was Potter's evidence to prove Pence wrong? None! How could he deny plain citations from the confessions, from Gill, Fain, and Watson? This is what many Hardshells do when you present them with clear evidence! They simply deny plain truth!
Potter continued:
"I took the position that in Acts 26:16, to deliver from the power of darkness, and to open their eyes, and turn them from the power of satan unto God, etc., had no allusion to the work of regeneration, whatever, but that regenerated people in the state of idolatry, or under the influences of false religions, were in darkness; and they were blinded, and that the gospel was to be preached to them, in order to open their eyes, and to get them out of that darkness, and bring them to understand the truth, that Jesus is the only Savior of sinners; and realize that their sins were forgiven when the blood of Jesus Christ was shed on the cross, that they now are capable of enjoying an inheritance among them that are sanctified, which means an inheritance among other saints."
The Hardshell interpretation of Acts 26: 16 has gross consequences. According to Potter and the Hardshells, being turned from the power of Satan unto God is not regeneration! Hardshell "regeneration" therefore, by their own admission, does not deliver one "from" the "power of Satan"! Nor save them "to" the "power of God"! Interesting, however, is the fact that all Hardshells that I know of interpret Colossians 1: 13 as descriptive of regeneration! It reads: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." Why is this passage regeneration but Acts 26: 16 is not? Both speak of being delivered from an evil power, one mentioning the "power of Satan" and the other the "power of darkness." Acts 26: 16 speaks of "opening the eyes" or of enlightenment, but Hardshells, because the preaching of Paul is a means make this enlightenment a post regeneration experience, of conversion, which they affirm is distinct from regeneration. All the elect will be regenerated but not all will be converted, according to their paradigm. Yet, the old articles of faith of most Hardshell churches state that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted"! Interesting too is the fact that Hardshells will often interpret some passages dealing with enlightenment as being regeneration! It seems that when means are involved, then the enlightenment is not regeneration, but when means are not mentioned, then regeneration is under consideration.
I have stated, in my ongoing work on Hardshellism, how the Hardshells make conversion a greater work than regeneration, and yet make the former to be effected in the manner of Arminianism, by free will and works, and yet make the latter to be in the manner of Calvinism, by sovereign grace! Conversion delivers one from the power of Satan and to the power of God, but regeneration does not!
This is one of the passages which helped to deliver me from Hardshellism. There is no way that an honest bible interpreter can read the description of salvation in Acts 26: 16 and not make it deal with regeneration or eternal salvation.
Potter said:
"My expression of the matter is, that they may enjoy the privileges of members of the Gospel church. In Romans 1:16, I took the position that the gospel was the power of God unto salvation to the believer, and not to the unbeliever. I challenged Elder Pence to show that the gospel was ever the power of God to an unsaved person, and I referred to I Cor. 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God."
Elder Pence never affirmed that the gospel is actually the power of God to any unbeliever, but that is potentially the power of God to every lost soul. Potter's interpretation forces him to define "believer" as something other than a believer in the one true God and a believer in Jesus! And, I ask, what does the "believer" of Romans 1: 16 believe before he hears and believes the gospel? What Potter and the Hardshells are attempting to do is reinterpret Romans 1: 16 to make it say that the gospel is the power of God to save (temporally) those who are already born again or eternally saved. But, they have to give a corrupt definition of who is designed by Paul when he says "believer."
The same with I Cor. 1: 18, where Potter and the Hardshells attempt to twist Paul's language to make him say that the gospel is not the power of God to save or regenerate, but is the power of God only to those who have already been regenerated apart from the gospel, but such interpretation is dishonest.
Potter continued:
"In his second speech he wished to know if there were any unregenerate people among the Gentiles. He claimed that if a man was under the power of satan, he certainly must be in a state of unregeneracy. He argued again, the difference between human and divine instrumentalities, contending that agencies and instruments in the hands of men were human, but in the hands of God they were divine."
I have already dealt with this Hardshell absurdity in looking at their handling of Acts 26: 16. But, notice again, how the Hardshells affirm that regeneration does not deliver a man from the power of Satan! Conversion does that! And remember, regeneration is all the work of God, according to Hardshellism, but conversion is part the work of God and part the work of the sinner. And, which, according to Hardshellism, does the greater saving?
Potter continued:
"While I admitted that the commission authorized the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, both saint and sinner, he wanted to know what God's object was in having the gospel preached to the unregenerate, if it was not for the purpose of regenerating them. My answer was, "This gospel shall be preached for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come."
This is a revealing admission by Elder Potter. He denies that the gospel is to be preached to all men with the purpose of saving them! Yet, what saith the scriptures?
"Whom (Christ) we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; THAT (for the purpose) we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Colossians 1: 28, 29)
"But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved." (John 5: 34)
"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thess. 2: 16)
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1: 6, 7)
These verses are clear! They say the gospel is to be preached to all men in order that all men might have opportunity to be saved! No amount of Hardshell twisting of these verses can overthrow their condemnation of Hardshellism. Notice also the last verse cited, how it mentions how John and his gospel preaching was for a "witness" but this did not exclude it being for the purpose of bringing all to faith in Christ.
Potter continued:
"He claimed that he believed in the doctrine of election, and that the gospel must be preached to every creature, both saint and sinner, so I wanted to know of him what God's object was in having the gospel preached to the non-elect, according to his view of the matter. It certainly could not be that he intended to regenerate them by having the gospel preached to them, then what was his object? He answered, that they might be judged according to men of the flesh. I claimed that that was a good answer, and that it was virtually the same that I had given him."
Perhaps Elder Pence could have done a better job of answering this query from Potter. He could have shown how there are two wills in God, one general, and one specific, one which is revealed and one which is hidden, one which is to all men, and one which is to the elect.
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4)
God does not want any to be lost and so offers salvation to all. Yet, he knows that the offer of saving mercy will be rejected by all, and so wills to so work on some men, the elect, so as to secure their voluntary reception of the offer of grace.
Potter continued:
"He undertook to show that Elder Clark was agreed with him on the subject of means. In this he gloriously failed, for I showed him from Zion's Advocate, that on the occasion of Elder Booten's ordination, Elder Clark was the moderator of the Presbytery, and that Elder Booten was interrogated on this very point, as to whether he believed in the Spirit's work in the regeneration of sinners, without, and independent of, all means and instrumentalities whatever. A correspondence between Elder J. B. Stephens, of Nashville, Tenn., and Elder Clark, concerning this matter, which was published in Zion's Advocate, shows that Elder Clark emphatically denied the use of any means or agencies outside of the divine Spirit in the regeneration of sinners. I am not prepared to give the date of the Advocate in which this correspondence occurred. In reply to my idea that the gospel was the power of God to the saved, Elder Pence rather made light, saying: "The power of God unto salvation to the man already saved?"
It was convenient of Potter not to give the citation from Elder Clark. In this blog I have cited statements from Elder Clark which showed clearly that he believed that sinners were born again by the preaching of the gospel. Now, it very well could be that Elder Clark agreed with Beebe, Osbourne, Trott, and others, that regeneration was distinct from the birth, and allowed no means in the former but did allowed them in the latter. In this case, Clark must be read carefully to see if he is talking about means in regeneration or in birth.
Elder Pence was right to make light of the Hardshell interpretation of Romans 1: 16. If the gospel is the power of God "UNTO" salvation, then obviously the people are not saved before they hear and believe the gospel.
Potter continued:
"He then referred to John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." He claimed that the preaching of the gospel was necessary to this belief, and that this belief was necessary to salvation, and challenged me, all through the discussion to prove one single case of regeneration in the absence of the gospel. He wanted me to prove that the people to whom God sent Paul were regenerated. I told him it was his place to prove that they were not regenerated, as that was his proof-text, and he was in the affirmative."
Elder Potter dodged the questions of Elder Pence. He refused to give one example of an elect and saved individual who did not profess faith in Christ. Hardshells have a hard time with all those passages that affirm that Christ and gospel rejecters will all be lost. In John 3: 36 it says that those who do not believe in Jesus, like the Athenian idolaters in Acts 17, are under the wrath of God, and do not get out from under that wrath until they believe in Jesus and the gospel. Notice this passage, another one that help to deliver me from Hardshellism.
"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power..." (II Thess. 1: 7-9)
What does Paul affirm will be the final destiny of all those who obey not the gospel? "Eternal destruction"! Is that not clear? Does it not destroy Hardshellism and their affirmation that not all those who reject the gospel will be lost?
Potter continued:
"He then referred to John 5:25, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God," etc., and he referred to Dr. Gill to show that Gill claimed that the voice of the Son of God there, is the ministry of the gospel. In reply to which, I claimed that the voice of the Son of God in John 5:25, and the voice of the Son of God in the 27th verse of the same chapter, means the same voice. No person can afford to claim that it is not the same voice. In John 5:25, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live," and in the 27th verse, "Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth," etc. Now if the voice in the 25th verse means the preaching of the gospel, and is a means in quickening the dead sinner, then it follows that the voice in the 27th verse also means the preaching of the gospel, and is a means in raising the dead. Dr. Gill or no other man believes any such doctrine."
Notice how Potter does not deny that Gill taught that the "voice" of Jesus, in the work of regeneration, was the gospel, and yet, he claimed that Gill did not believe the gospel was a means in regeneration! Consistency thou art a jewel!
Copied from "Zion's Advocate," 1890, pages 243-250.
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Potter-Pence1st.html
An Account of Elder Potter's Affirmative Arguments and Elder Pence's Reply
"...claiming all the time that the anti-means was an innovation of the Baptist not exceeding fifty years."
This was the claim of Elder Pence and Elder Potter could not refute the evidence submitted to prove it. The Hardshells may claim to be "primitive" but they are not.
Potter wrote:
"He says our position on means and instrumentalities is new among Old School Baptists; in answer to which I claimed that his position was not only new, but there was not an Old School Baptist in America that believes as he does. There may be some among us that bear the name, but they are not Old School Baptists. I challenge him for an author, even of a little book that you could slip in your vest pocket, or less than that; (he spoke of some men writing a little book that you could stick in your vest pocket) a letter in any of our periodicals from any of our brethren who have said that if sinners are saved without the gospel, they were saved without Christ. I challenge him to produce an author or writer among us who, twenty years ago, would challenge for a regenerated sinner where the gospel was not. I further challenged him for an expression of his own in any article that he had written as far back as fifteen or twenty years ago, himself taking the position that people who are saved without the gospel are saved without Christ. In all this he ingloriously failed."
What Elder Pence argued was that no Baptist, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, in the early 19th century, believed that men were saved apart from faith in Christ. Elder Potter, nor any other Hardshell, living or dead, can cite a leading Baptist confession that states that men who believe not in Jesus will nevertheless be saved. The Hardshells are not "old" or "original" Baptists.
Potter wrote:
"Again I said, but if all he claims is true, that anti-means is a thing of recent date among us, he gives us credit for being the most successful set of ministers that ever trod the soil of America. With all our anti-missionism, he gives us the credit of having converted almost our entire denomination to the anti-means doctrine. We have converted, according to what he says, a great many of our preachers, as Elders Hess, Purifoy, Dalton, and a great many others, together with all our religious periodicals, except the Regular Baptist Magazine, who all now stand up in favor of the anti-means side of the question. Elder Pence and a few others stand alone, with a pitiful few here in Virginia, a small remnant in Ohio, and a few in Missouri, and none in Illinois that I know of, a mere few in Kentucky and Tennessee. With all their effort and their use of means, and their zeal and energy for the cause, while the whole church was once, according to what he says, where he now stands; and we with our anti-effort system, and anti-nomian principles have converted the whole denomination over. Of course that looks very reasonable."
How successful the anti means faction was is irrelevent. It is true that the Hardshell "ultraist" side took control of the anti mission movement toward the latter end of the 19th century, but this does not mean that they were expressing the original faith of the great leaders in the movement. Pence showed how the first great leaders in the movement did not deny means in regeneration, men like Watson, Fain, and Clark, and others, like Beebe, Trott, and Osbourne, though denying means in regeneration, did not deny them in the birth, a birth that they affirmed was as necessary to salvation as was regeneration.
Potter wrote:
"I have now given a brief outline of the arguments and positions occupied by us both during the discussion. It is not so much my intention in this article to show that I gained a victory over Elder Pence, as to show the position occupied by him. I hope that every reader may thoroughly understand the position taken by Elder Pence and those who agree with him. During the discussion, Elder T. N. Alderton of West Virginia approached Elder C. L. Yates, and asked him if he endorsed the positions advocated by Elder Pence, to which he replied that he did with all his heart. Let me say to all concerned, they are nothing more nor less than a set of Arminians, and the longer they stay in our ranks the greater the rupture will be when it does come. Let all the churches rid themselves of such things, and be careful to draw the line of demarcation at all times, and on all occasions between these innovations and the true doctrine of God, so that the saints may be comforted, edified, and built up in the most holy faith, and that God himself may be glorified."
The accusation that all who teach means in regeneration are "Arminian" is false. Was Watson and Gill Arminians? Were the writers of the London and Philadelphia confessions Arminian? No. Yet, they believed in means. Was it not Elder Watson who spoke of the followers of Daniel Parker who erroneously called those who believed in means "Arminian"?
See here
No comments:
Post a Comment