Jason Brown, the Hardshell apologist, rather than responding to my latest rebuttal, went back to a previous rebuttal of mine and made some additional comments. Jason gave this title to his post - "Garrett's Response 1.1." See here
Jason wrote:
"John Gill plainly entertains interpretations of James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:25, and 1 Cor. 4:15 in his Body of Divinity consistent with how PB's view those texts today."
"...the doctrine of immediate regeneration apart from the preached word...this is plainly entertained by Gill."
This is all utter falsehood and I have shown it to be so. I question the profitability of further debating with Jason if he is going to simply tell falsehoods that are clearly against the facts. Gill mentioned, in speculation, in one section of his Body of Divinity, the Hardshell teaching regarding regeneration apart from the gospel, yet he denied that the scriptures taught it! He said, in that same section, that the scriptures are "clear" in affirming that regeneration is affected by the Spirit's use of the word of the gospel. Jason wants to say that Gill gave countenance to Hardshell views when Gill "plainly" says the scriptures do not teach his speculation! Gill "plainly entertains" Hardshell teachings on those passages? Where is the proof? Jason is simply dishonest to go around saying that Gill endorsed hardshellism!
Further, Gill mentioned the possibility that "the word" of I Peter 1: 23, by which men are born again, could be interpreted to mean "Christ," but he rejected that view! He ever preached that men were born again by the preaching of the gospel.
Gill on James 1: 18
"with the word of truth; not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is sometimes ascribed to him; and this act of begetting is done by the Father, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead; but the Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again; see Eph 1:13 and hence ministers of it are accounted spiritual fathers. Faith, and every other grace in regeneration, and even the Spirit himself, the Regenerator, come this way."
Jason is a liar to affirm that Gill believed that the "word" of James 1: 18 was Christ!
Gill on I Peter 1: 23
"by the word of God" is either meant the essential Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; who is concerned in regeneration as well as the Father and the Spirit; by whose resurrection, and in consequence of it, the elect of God are begotten again; and who, as the Word, is able to build up all the sanctified ones, and give them the inheritance they are born heirs unto: or the Gospel, the word of truth, which is made use of as a means of begetting souls again; and the rather, since it seems to be so interpreted, 1Pe 1:25 the phrases, "which liveth and abideth forever", may be either read in connection only with "God", and as descriptive of him, who is the living God, is from everlasting to everlasting, in distinction from idols; and here added, to show that he can give power and efficacy to his word, to regenerate and quicken, and will continue to preserve and make it useful to all his saving purposes."
Gill says that it is in the realm of the possible that the word of this passage could be Christ, but dismisses that view as unlikely, based on the context and the rest of scripture. He "plainly" says that the "word" is "rather" to be interpreted as being "the gospel"! He says that it is the Spirit giving "power and efficacy" to the gospel word that produces regeneration or quickening. Where does Gill endorse Hardshell views?
This manner of twisting facts about the text of Gill's writings is revealing of the "spirit" of the Hardshell cult, which is not to be honest with their research, but to stubbornly refuse to accept plain facts. They are so wedded to their cultic view of themselves that they will not allow clear facts to change them. We are called upon by the apostle John to "try the spirits," to see whether they are of God or not. We have put the Hardshell cultic "spirit" to the test, weighed their teachings in the balance, and found them wanting.
John Gill on I Cor. 4: 15
"for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the Gospel; which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being quickened when dead in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the divine nature, and a new creature; which the apostle ascribes to himself, not as the efficient cause thereof, for regeneration is not of men but of God; not of the will of the flesh, of a man's own free will and power, nor of the will of any other man, or minister; but of the sovereign will, grace, and mercy of God, Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father of Christ beget us again according to his abundant mercy; and the Son quickens whom he will; and we are born again of water and of the Spirit, of the grace of the Spirit; hence the washing of regeneration, and renewing work are ascribed to him: but the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument or means, which God made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phrases show: for he is said to do it "in Christ"; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith in him; he directed them to him to believe in him, and was the means of bringing of them to the faith of Christ; and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion: and which were brought about "through the Gospel";"
Jason accused Dr. Gill of embracing Hardshell views on this passage! But, he has brought no evidence to prove it. He is a perverter of the words of the great Baptist, a teller of falsehoods. Does Jason believe that I Cor. 4: 15 is talking about regeneration, as did Dr. Gill? Does Jason believe that the verse teaches that preachers and gospel preaching are means in this divine work of regeneration? Gill did. Jason needs to be severely rebuked for telling falsehoods. But, it is good that the public see this kind of perverting of texts as evidence of the cultic nature of the "Primitive Baptist Church."
Jason wrote:
"Consistency with what Primitive Baptists teach today is not clearly and consistently seen in the London Confession or in the writings of Gill..."
You see how Jason talks out of both sides of his mouth! First, he says that Gill "plainly entertained" the Hardshell view and then says these words! If he cannot see how this is a contradiction, then I have little hope of showing him his numerous other contradictions.
Jason wrote:
"When Primitive Baptists state that it is foolish to preach to dead people they are saying that unless individuals are quickened by God, words alone will be ineffectual. This still proves true of the valley of dry bones."
Jason admits that Hardshells "state that it is foolish to preach to dead people"! But, he then attempts to give us his "apology" for that by saying "here is what we mean when we say it"! God and Ezekiel are "fools" according to the Hardshells! By Jason's own admission! God told Ezekiel to preach to the dead bones! He knows that this fact destroy's Hardshellism and demonstrates Hardshell stubbornness and rebellion. Jason mentions "words alone," as though I believe that! I have condemned both Campbellism ("word alone") and Hardshellism ("Spirit alone")! Yes, Jason, the story of Ezekiel and the dry bones destroys the "word alone" idea, but it also destroys the "Spirit alone" view! This story destroys Hardshellism and some of them know it but won't admit it, but go to work on twisting the text to say something other than it says! Will Jason agree with Elder R. W. Thompson, a Hardshell apologist of yesteryear, who said that the "dry dead bones represent living children of God"? Also, I thought that the traditional Hardshell apology is that "we preach the gospel to every creature"? Did Jesus not preach to and talk to the dead?
Jason wrote:
"If the Old Baptists at Olchon were "one" with the London Baptists, why did Olchon send no representatives to subsequent meetings of the London Confession Conferences, held regularly for several years after the 1644 Confession was signed, and none to the 1689 Conference?"
Well, first of all, you have not presented any factual evidence to prove that none did attend! Also, the facts show that there was cordial fellowship between the Welsh Baptists and the Midlands Association and the London churches, facts which Jason has failed to take note of. But, even if we grant that some in Wales did not attend for a while, after the signing of the 1644 confession, how can you assume that it was because they disagreed over the means question? You cannot just assert such without some evidence! Why not answer the evidence I presented to show the close connection between the Welsh and London brethren? I will say this: the first London confession said that any disciple may baptize, but the later confession seemed to be made up of those of Landmarker views, and held that only ordained elders could baptize. Maybe the disagreement, if there was any, was over this issue. Also, the early churches of the Particular Baptists of England were divided over whether to sing in church! How do we not know that that was an issue? They were divided on the issue of "laying on of hands" also. Jason puts forth wild speculation and expects us to accept it as fact!
Jason wrote:
"The Midland Baptists have been variously characterized by Underhill, Tull, Gwynn Owen and perhaps other Baptist historians as hyper-Calvinists. This term implies they went farther with the doctrine of regeneration than did Calvin. Specifically, the distinction between Calvinism and High-Calvinism relates to the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration. It is a name that is routinely applied to modern Primitive Baptists."
False! Writers of the past used the term "hyper-Calvinism" as dealing with the well meant offer of the gospel, not with whether the gospel was a means! Jason needs to cite these authors to show that they were using the term "hyper-Calvinism" in an unusual way, to denote the "Spirit alone," or Hardshell, view. Also, Jason needs to know that the terms "hyper-Calvinism" and "High-Calvinism" are not terms meaning the same thing. He should look at the first two chapters of my book on the Hardshells where I give the proper definitions of these two terms. Jason needs to give us the evidence to prove that "High-Calvinism" was used by historians to include the idea that the gospel was not a means in regeneration. But, Jason cannot do this, as will be apparent. "High-Calvinism" denoted those who believed in the absolute predestination of all things and in the supralapsarian scheme.
It is true that since the rise of the Hardshell Hyper-Calvinists, in the 19th century, that the no means view should be included as one element of modern Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism, after all, has several elements.
Jason wrote, citing Hardshell Ivey:
"Owen erroneously labels the beliefs of the original Elders of the Midland as High Calvinism. However, he accurately presents their doctrinal position concerning the relationship of gospel agency and new birth..."
This statement is revealing! Ivey rejects Owen's use of the term "High Calvinism" but accepts his use of the term "Hyper Calvinism"! Yet, Jason wants us to accept the view that Owens was using the term "Hyper Calvinism" as though it included, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the belief that the gospel was not a means in regeneration! Why doesn't Jason simply cite a work from Particular Baptists where they expressly, clearly, and plainly affirmed that regeneration is accomplished apart from means? That they believed that conversion to Christ was not necessary for eternal salvation? Can he find something clear and express? Obviously he cannot or he would cite it.
Jason wrote:
"To admit that ministers of the 18th century opposed human agency in the preaching of the gospel to effect regeneration indicates that these ministers denied that the gospel as preached by man was necessarily God's means of effecting regeneration."
I admit no such thing! I deny it! Further, Jason has given us no clear-cut evidence to prove his assertion! What I said was that sometimes writers stated opposition to certain human means, not to the use of humans in the work of salvation. For instance, some in the 19th century objected to "mission boards," as they were "human means," but who did not object to the gospel being a means.
Jason wrote:
"Old Baptists before the Missionary controversy did not make precise theological distinctions in regard to a debate that was not yet in context."
Jason continues to assert that the question of the relationship of faith to regeneration, and of the nature of the regeneration and conversion experience, had not been clearly debated. Yet, this is far from the case. Those writers put these issues and topics under a theological microscope and wrote volumns on their findings.
Jason wrote:
"The subject of their disagreement (Ryland and Carey) was the instrumentality of the gospel in eternal salvation, not a particular method of evangelizing."
Jason wrote that the "eternal salvation of the heathen hinges on the gospel...was the very subject proposed by Carey for debate!"
But, this is another falsehood and Jason gave no evidence to prove it. Again, he asserts something and expects us to receive it as fact. The truth is, the disagreement between Ryland and Carey was NOT about the nature of regeneration, or the necessity of conversion by the gospel, but to the eschatological timing of mass heathen conversion.
John Ryland Jr. wrote:
“I well remember the discussion of this question, which fully occupied the evening. Another had been discussed, after dinner, respecting village-preaching–What was a sufficient call, to attempt introducing it into places where it had not been usual before?–which, therefore, seems to leave no room for that ill-natured anecdote, respecting my father and young Carey, to have taken place this year, which is said to have been before the end of 1786; whereas my father had left Northampton before the Minister’ Meeting in 1786. And I must consider it as very unlikely to have occurred in 1785, for several strong reasons. I never heard of it, till I saw it in print, and cannot credit it. No man prayed and preached about the latter-day glory, more than my father; nor did I ever hear such sentiments proceed from his lips, as tre there ascribed to him.”
The author who gave this citation wrote:
"Let us not just quote John Marshman’s statement about what happened without stating that there is a debate about this event in the life of William Carey."
See here
Again, all historians, at least the honest ones, acknowledge that there is no clear undeniable evidence that Ryland actually said the words credited to him.
Another writer on this topic wrote:
"According to another pastor who was actually present at this meeting of the Northamptonshire Association ministers, John Webster Morris (1763–1836), then pastor of Clipston Baptist Church in Northamptonshire, Ryland responded with some vehemence to Carey’s suggestion and bluntly told the young pastor:
You are a miserable enthusiast for asking such a question. Certainly nothing can be done before another Pentecost, when an effusion of miraculous gifts, including the gift of tongues, will give effect to the commission of Christ as at first. What, Sir! Can you preach in Arabic, in Persic, in Hindustani, in Bengali, that you think it your duty to send the gospel to the heathens?
When Carey came to draw up a written defence of cross-cultural missions, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians, to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (1792), he noted that some of his contemporaries had argued that the command to make disciples from all the nations was no longer incumbent upon the church. The Ancient Church, they maintained, had actually fulfilled that command. Moreover, according to Carey, they argued thus: ―we have enough to do to attend to the salvation of our own countrymen; and that, if God intends the salvation of the heathen, he will some way or other bring them to the gospel, or the gospel to them."
See here
This is evidence that overthrows Jason's baseless assertion. They believed they were involved in the work of saving their own countrymen! And, they affirmed the use of the gospel in that saving!
On the same web site, a writer said:
"What then of his rebuke of the young Carey? The heart of that rebuke had to do with eschatological timing: Ryland had adopted the end-times thinking of John Gill (1697-1771), where the gospel could not be taken unhindered to the nations till the two witnesses of Revelation 11 were slain, which would not happen till well into the nineteenth century! Wrong thinking, yes. But not the Hyper-Calvinist bogeyman of far too many treatments of Baptist history."
See here
Thus, as these writers state, the elder Ryland was not rejecting the view that sinners are saved by the gospel, but rejecting the presumption of Carey as to the time when missionary efforts to the heathen should be made. Hardshells are reading too much into the supposed objections of Ryland senior. Dr. Michael Haykin has a section in his recent book where he gives evidence to support the view that Ryland was against Carey for eschatological reasons, not because he rejected offers of grace or the means of the gospel in salvation. A friend of mine, Ian Elsasser, wrote Dr. Haykin and here is what Ian said:
Stephen:
"I wrote to Michael Haykin, who is a friend, and ask him about sources for his assessment that Ryland's comment to Carey was driven from an eschatological outlook. He says the documentation is found on pages 193-196 and respective footnotes in his book, One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his friends and his times. I have seen the book but do not have a copy. It is published and sold by Evangelical Press and is also available through Christian Book Distributors.
I appreciate the discussion since Ryland's comment is oft quoted. It is important to ascertain context in order to understand what he was saying and why he was saying it."
See here
Why don't the Hardshells simply give a citation from Ryland where he overtly taught the no means view?
One historian on the 17th century Welsh Baptists wrote:
In the year of our Lord 1620, Erbury and Wroth, ministers of the gospel of the church of England, established by law in Wales, dissented from that establishment. In what particular steeple-house Mr. Erbury officiated, what were the means of his conversion, and what were his reasons and motives for dissenting, we have not been able to ascertain from any written or printed document; but from what we have read of him, since he became a Baptist minister, we evidently see that he was a good man, and a very eminent minister of the gospel of Christ, who had his share of persecution as well as Mr. Wroth.
This circumstance was the means of his conversion to God. He then began to study the word of God, and preached with power and energy, as one having authority. Now he most earnestly endeavored to glorify God, to exalt the Savior of sinners, and to save precious and immortal souls. This new way and new manner of preaching, made a most wonderful excitement in the country; so that many cried out, “what shall we do to be saved,” and others persecuted them. But they travelled and preached together, through the whole region, showing the nature and the requirements of the religion of Christ, in such a manner that the vicars and the great men were most dreadfully offended at them. But these two missionaries of the cross were not discouraged by the rage of carnal and wordly-minded men. The cause in which their hearts were engaged was the cause of God. Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth and good-will to men, was their motto. They considered the man who becomes instrumental in saving one soul from eternal ruin, as doing more good for his fellow creature, than if he were to give him all the riches of the universe."
"Our Welsh brethren were great advocates for the ancient order of things. They adopted the old plan of supporting missionaries."
"Is it absolutely necessary that sinners who live in darkness, without hope, and without God in the world, should hear the gospel? that they should repent and believe the gospel? that they should be partakers of that faith that purifieth the heart? that repentance that needeth not to be repented of? that Christian watchfulness against sin? that vehement desire for a holy life? and that zeal which is according to knowledge? If it is, will not that love which is stronger than death, constrain them to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow the Lord through evil and good report? And how are they to be made partakers of these precious graces? Faith comes by hearing the gospel, and the gospel comes by the means of missionaries. But how can missionaries preach except they be sent? And who is going to send them empty-handed? The age of miracles is gone; and God has ordained that those who devote themselves entirely to the preaching of the gospel should live of the gospel."
It is interesting how Jason and Ivey can claim that the old Welsh Baptists were Hardshells when we look at Roger Williams and at the old Welsh Tract church, the oldest that formed the Philadelphia Association.
Was Roger Williams a Hardshell?
“Roger Williams was born in Wales, in the year 1598. He was brought up a lawyer, under the patronage of Sir Edward Coke; but finding that employment not agreeable to his taste, he turned his attention to divinity. His preaching was highly esteemed, and his private character very much revered; but as he embraced the sentiments of the Puritans, he was so much exposed to suffering, that he was compelled to leave his native country. He embarked for America, on the 5th day of February, 1631. He preached first at Salem, and afterwards at Plymouth, New England; but on account of his Baptist sentiments, and the doctrine of liberty of conscience, of which he was a great advocate, he was banished from New England in the year 1636."
Roger Williams wrote:
"But so did never the Lord Jesus bring any unto his most pure worship, for he abhors an unwilling Spouse, and to enter into a forced bed: The will in worship, if true, is like a free Vote, nec cogit, nec cogitur: JESUS CHRIST compels by the mighty persuasions of his Messengers to come in, but otherwise with earthly weapons he never did compel nor can be compelled."
"In particular: First, it (being saved) must be by the free proclaiming or preaching of Repentance & forgiveness of sins. Luke 24 by such Messengers as can prove their lawful sending and Commission from the Lord Jesus, to make Diciples out of all nations: and so to baptize or wash them into the name or profession of the holy Trinity, Mat. 28: 19, Rom. 10: 14, 15."
"Thirdly, Visibly it is a turning from Idols not only of conversation but of worship to the Living and true God in the ways of his holy worship, appointed by his Son, I Thess. 1: 9.
"It is confessed by all, that the Christians are the followers of Jesus, are now the onely People of God, his holy nation, I Peter 2: 9." ("A Briefe Discourse concerning that name Heathen, commonly given to the Indians - As also concerning that great point of their conversion")
See here
"Where spiritual life is there is always a professed willingness to get more and more knowledge of this heavenly Father, of his name, of his works, of his word, of his Christ, of his Spirit, his Saints, and Ordinances.
Hence Believers in Jesus, both Men and Women, are called Disciples, or Scholars of Christ Jesus, professing continually to learn more and more of this heavenly teacher." ("The Letter which the Author sent with this Discourse to his Wife M.W. upon her recovery from a dangerous skickness")
"And who knows whether it will please God in infinite mercy and compassion to deliver them by vouchsaving repentance in Christ Jesus, as he hath done to us?"
"Beyoind all question therefore Christ Jesus foretels most sure and inconceivable plagures to all that know not God, and obey not his glorious gospel: And by this Worms that never dies, and this fire that never goes out, declares a torment to be inflicted upon both men and devils which shall be extreme like fire which shall be universal upon the whole sinful creature, no part exempted, which shall be also eternal, never dying, never ending, yet we may adore God's righteous judgements and make sure of a Jesus a Saviour to deliver us from the wrath that is to come."
See here
Was the old Welsh Tract Church Hardshell?
The following is taken from a Primitive Baptist web site. There it is said, concerning the old Welsh Baptists:
"In 1680 representatives of over one hundred congregations of Baptists from England and Wales, meeting in London, put forth what is generally known as "The London Confession of Faith.," There articles of faith were adopted by this church in February 1716. It is mentioned in the original church records that this confession of faith held the following principles of Faith; believers Baptism; election and final perseverance of the Saints.
This was one of the five original churches forming the Philadelphia Association in 1707, and according to history was for many years the most influential member of that body."
Instead of the Welsh Baptists disagreeing with their London brethren, they endorsed the second London confession! The old Welsh tract church, though claimed to have been a Hardshell church, in the beginning, nevertheless was not! They endorsed the London confession, which taught means, as Jason acknowledges.
Jason wrote:
"Many PB's today err in regard to the response of regenerated sons to the gospel when the regenerate are under the sound of it."
And what is that error? What is the difference between Jason's view and the view of the majority of today's Hardshells? Jason believes that many, or most, of the regenerated, will be converted by the gospel when they hear it, but the majority believes that only a few who are regenerated and hear the gospel, will be converted? That is laughable! Both are wrong! Both are against the articles of faith of their oldest churches! Those articles said - "we believe all the elect will be regenerated, converted, and sanctified"!
Jason wrote:
"The nature of this promise in Gen. 15:6 is hardly "gospel preaching" as we think of it today, unless we define "gospel" more minimally to be the good news that God is our general deliverer..."
So what? Who denies that the gospel message is much clearer since the coming of Christ? That is not the point! But, the question is, did the old testament saints believe the gospel as God had given it to them? Did they believe in the coming of a Messiah who would save them and who would be king and lord? Also, did Paul not say that God "preached the gospel" unto Abraham? Why does Jason come along and deny the fact?
No comments:
Post a Comment