Hardshell "historian," Michael Ivey, is not only in error regarding the ancient Welsh Baptists of the Midlands Association, but he is also wrong about Elders (Dr.) John Clark and Elder Obadiah Holms of the Baptist church in Newport, Rhode Island, a church formed about the same time of the formation of the church pastored by Baptist Roger Williams. In the previous posting it was shown how Clark and Holmes were not Hardshells in spite of Hardshell claims to the contrary. In this posting I will give some more citations from Clark and Holmes which demonstrate their denial of hardshellism.
Clark wrote:
"Election is the decree of God, of his free love, grace, and mercy, choosing some men to faith, holiness and eternal life, for the praise of his glorious mercy; I Thes. i. 4, II Thes. ii. 13, Rom. viii. 29, 30. The cause which moved the Lord to elect them who are chosen, was none other but his mere good will and pleasure, Luke xii, 32."
See here
This is a clear denial of Hardshellism and no manner of Hardshell twisting can make it agree with them in their aberrant and novel views. It shows that the first Old Baptist church in America was not a Hardshell church. First, notice that Clark affirms that election chooses "some men to faith." But, Hardshells reject the idea that election is "unto faith." They rather believe that only few of the elect ever come to have faith in Christ and his gospel. Second, "faith" cannot be defined as some kind of "seed faith," or non-cognitive "faith," because there is no such thing in scripture and because the verses given by Clark in support of his belief show that it is a cognitive faith in Christ. It is not a faith that men have apart from the gospel. Paul said "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." He did not say "this kind of faith," as though there were more than one kind. There is not one kind of faith that comes by hearing the gospel and another kind that comes apart from hearing, as the Hardshells are often affirming.
The scriptures cited by Clark in support of his statement show that it is a faith in Christ that comes by the gospel. I challenge the Hardshells to demonstrate otherwise.
Obadiah Holmes, Clark's associate pastor, wrote:
"And so remission and a free pardon is granted forth, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life..." (pg. 76 of Holmes' last will and testament)
Does that sound like hardshellism? Does Holmes affirm that any but believers will be saved?
Holmes, in his private letters, wrote:
"Oh, therefore, I travel in heart day and night in my spirit until Christ be formed in man; I labor by prayers both day and night that the elect may be called and that God would send laborers into the harvest." (pg. 78)
What does Holmes allude to when he speaks of Christ being "formed in man"? Is it not salvation and regeneration? Further, for what does Holmes "labor in prayers"? Is it not so that the "elect may be called"? Again, that is a denial of hardshellism and so it is ludicrous for them to affirm that Holmes was Hardshell. Obviously Holmes believed that he, as a preacher of the gospel, was a means in the salvation of the elect, just as Paul said he was. (II Tim. 2: 10)
Holmes wrote:
"For I look at every ordinance of His to be but a means of His own appointment to convey and communicate Himself through those who are but mere men that cannot see the face of God and live."
"Means" that are ordained by God "to convey and communicate Himself"? "Men" as "means" for such a conveyance? How can the Hardshells honestly affirm that Holmes denied means in salvation?
Holmes wrote to his children, saying:
"Wherefore my dear children...such great love as cannot be expressed by men nor angels hath the Lord sent and held forth even his son his only son to save and deliver from wrath as not to perish but to have eternal life even to all and every one that believes in his only son for in him is life."
Again, Holmes says Christ is "held forth," in the gospel, for the purpose of "delivering from wrath" and giving "eternal life" to all who "believe in his only son." Again, Holmes was no Hardshell.
Holmes wrote:
"Now my dear children consider how great love the Lord hath held forth in his son and to him for life and for cleansing and pardoning that you may be delivered from that great bondage and slavery that by nature you are in. Know you it is the Lord only that must draw you by his own power unto his son and that the son came to seek and to save that was lost even to the sick the whole need him not and therefore be ye careful ye reject him not and defer not the present tender of grace but while it is called a day harden not your hearts but turn to the Lord by true repentance and give credit to the Lord and testimony concerning his son that is to believe on him and so shall ye be saved. My soul hath been in great trouble for you to see Christ formed in you by a thorough work of the Holy Spirit of the Lord that it may appear you are born again and engrafted to the true vine that so you being true branches may bring forth fruit unto God and serve him in your generations although my care and counsel hath been extend to you as you all know yet it is the Lord must...if you would be Christs disciples ye must know and consider ye must take up your cross and follow him through evil report and losses, but yet know he that will lose his life for him will save it, and if you put your hand to the plough you must not turn or look back, remember Lots wife but be constant to death and you shall receive the crown of life."
"Believe on him and you shall be saved"? Again, Holmes shows he was no Hardshell. He is talking about being eternally saved, about being "born again," about being "cleansed," and "pardoned." It involves conversion, or faith and repentance, or "turning" to the Lord. A "tender of grace"? It would be a sight to behold the Hardshells deal with this passage from Holmes in view of their claims that Holmes was a Hardshell. For these citations
See here
And here
Holmes also wrote:
"...a great difference between that faith that is feigned and according to man's wisdom, and that which comes by a man that is born thereto unto God." (Last Will and Testimony, On My Life, page 71)
Born to faith? Is that what Hardshells believe? Do they believe that the divine begetting produces faith just as it produces life?
Holmes wrote:
"I understood that there was no preparation necessary to obtain Christ..." (pg. 76)
See here also
This statement is opposed to Hardshell views which avow that one must be previously prepared by regeneration in order to obtain Christ in conversion.
In conclusion, it is clear, from these two postings on Clark and Holmes that the assertion of Hardshells that the Newport church was a Hardshell church is a great glaring falsehood. When Hardshells can avow such things, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, who can take them seriously in their other historical commentary?
No comments:
Post a Comment