John Clark & Obadiah Holmes Hardshells?

It is the contention of the Hardshells that John Clark and Obadiah Holmes of the Old Baptist Church of Newport, Rhode Island, one of the two oldest Baptist churches in the United States, were Hardshells, and that both Clark and Holmes rejected the view that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation, and that the gospel was the means of begetting faith. But, nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a common practice for the Hardshells, who cannot find any historical evidence for any who believed their errors prior to the early to mid 19th century, to nevertheless go searching for that "link" to the true primitive Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries. Some, like Michael Ivey, have attempted to find Hardshell churches among the Welsh Baptists of the 17th century, especially within the Midlands Association, but their efforts are a dismal failure. All they can do is to twist certain statements of those old Baptists in a futile attempt to make them conform to their novel and heretical views. Ivey, for instance, argues that the Welsh Baptists of the Midland Association were at odds with their London brethren who wrote the old confessions of 1644 and 1689 over the issue of "gospel means" and the necessity of faith for salvation, but again, nothing could be further from the truth. I have shown recently in my debate with Hardshell apologist, Jason Brown, that the Welsh brethren were in full fellowship with their London brethren, and that the London brethren who penned those old confessions were laborers in the area of the Midland Association and cordially received by them. (See here) I plan to add to this evidence against Ivey's claims in the near future. Already I have shown how the first Baptists in America, men like John Clark, Obadiah Holmes, and Roger Williams, were not hardshell on the new birth or on the means of salvation.

Hardshells affirm that the church at Newport, pastored by Clark and Holmes, was a Hardshell church and denied means in salvation and the necessity of faith for salvation. But, that is not the case, as the evidence presented in this posting will clearly demonstrate.

First, let me cite from "The Last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes" to show what was the belief of Clark and Holmes.

In article twenty-three of the confession of the church in Newport, Clark and Holmes affirmed:

"I believe that although God can bring men to Christ and cause them to believe in Him for life, yet He has appointed an ordinary way to effect that great work of faith which is by means of sending a ministry into the world to publish repentance to the sinner and salvation, and that by Jesus Christ. They that are faithful shall save their own souls and some that hear them."

First, it is clear that Clark and Holmes believed that bringing men to Christ was equated with causing them to believe. So, when they read of Christ stating that all the elect would "come to me," they interpreted that to mean, as the context of John six shows, that all the elect would believe in Christ. But, "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" So they affirm that this coming to Christ and faith "is by means of sending a ministry into the world to publish repentance." How is that hardshellism?

Second, they mention that this bringing of men to Christ and causing them to believe, was "for (in order to) life." This too is in accordance with scriptures where Jesus spoke of coming to him "for life." (John 5: 40) Thus, Holmes and Clark were not Hardshells.

Third, Holmes says - "They that are faithful shall save their own souls and some that hear them." This plainly is opposed to Hardshellism and it is amazing how Ivey can deny it. The Hardshells do not believe that the faithful, those who hear, believe, and obey the gospel, "save their own souls," nor do they believe that they "save" others by preaching the gospel and by bringing them to faith in Christ.

The best that Ivey and the Hardshells can do with such clear statements from Holmes is to say that the salvation alluded to by Holmes is not eternal salvation, but a "time salvation." But, this is an example of reading into the words of Holmes a false interpretation, for the Hardshell doctrine of "time salvation" was a late 19th century invention. Let Ivey and the Hardshells produce evidence that this novel Hardshell doctrine of "time salvation" was believed and taught by earlier Baptists, and by Elders Clark and Holmes.

Consider also the context of Holmes' words about being "saved" by hearing the word. Clearly the article of faith is intended to convey Holmes' views on eternal salvation. This in itself destroys any Hardshell attempt to twist the words of Holmes and make them to deal with a temporal salvation.

Thus it is a blatant falsehood, unworthy of a Christian historian, for Ivey to say:

"From Elder Holmes confession of faith it may be concluded he held firmly to the doctrines of sovereign grace. Not only so, but his theology is best described as primitive, rather than reformed. Elder Holmes was not a Calvinist."

But, Elder Holmes was a "Calvinist," not that he was a Presbyterian or follower of John Calvin, but that he was not "Arminian," and that he believed as his London brethren, the ones who wrote the two great confessions of 1644 and 1689. Ivey admits that these old confessions were "Calvinistic" but affirms that Clark and Holmes did not accept them as their own, or agreed with their sentiments. But, more on this point later.

Next, in article twenty-nine of Holme's confession, we read:

"I believe that as God prepared a begetting ministry, even so does He also prepare a feeding ministry in the church, who are a people called out of the world by the word and Spirit of the Lord, assembling themselves together in a holy brotherhood, continuing in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, breaking bread and prayer."

Regarding this article of faith Ivey said:

"Elder Holmes divided the functionality of the gospel into two categories. He wrote it "begets souls to the truth" and "feeds the church." He explains the instrumentality of the gospel with two separate articles In neither article does he intimate the gospel is in any way linked functionally to regeneration."

But, again, this is false, and represents the typical way Ivey and other Hardshells twist and distort words when they want to. Clearly the "begetting" that Holmes is talking about is that "begetting" mentioned by Christ and the apostles. What does Holmes affirm about this divine "begetting"? That it is a non-cognitive and sub-conscious experience? One that produces no faith in Christ and the truth, as the Hardshells teach?

Elder Holmes connects this "begetting" with being "called out of the world by the word and Spirit of the Lord." Clearly Holmes connected being "born again" with being "called," and affirmed that it is "by the word and Spirit of the Lord," just like his brethren in London affirmed in their confessions.

Elder Holmes also contrasts the "begetting" ministry with the ministry of "feeding." Clearly the begetting ministry relates to lost sinners, those outside the body of Christ, while the feeding ministry relates to those sinners who have believed and were incorporated into the body of Christ. It is absolutely absurd for Ivey to say that the words of Holmes "does not intimate the gospel is in any way linked functionally to regeneration." But, "begetting" or being "begotten by God," in the new testament, is the same as being "regenerated." Thus, a "begetting ministry" is the same as a "regenerating ministry." Let Ivey give us the evidence to prove that Holmes was not using "begetting" in the same way as did Jesus and the apostles, or as his London brethren, or as something different from "regeneration."

But, this is typical of Ivey in his "history." He is not an honest historian, but one who is intent on presenting his interpretations of history as historical fact. We can accept historical facts, but we cannot accept such distortions of facts, or the commentary of dishonest historians as Ivey and other Hardshell "historians." Hardshells are infamous for their "revisionist histories."

Ivey wrote:

"Concerning new birth he (Holmes) wrote: "I believe that no man can come to the Son but they that are drawn by the Father to Him, and they that come He will in no wise cast away. I believe none has power to choose salvation or to believe in Christ, for life is the gift only of God.""

It is interesting that Ivey says that Holmes, in this article, is talking about the "new birth." How does he know? He can say that Holmes did not have the new birth in mind when he talked of "begetting," but he can here? That is ironic and comical. I certainly believe that Holmes is talking about salvation or new birth in the above words, but I am consistent, and believe he also was talking about it in the article concerning a "begetting ministry."

Clearly Holmes, in this article as in the previous one, associates "begetting" (new birth) with "calling" and with "coming to Christ" and "believing in Christ." But, the Hardshells do not associate these things together. Holmes clearly associates spiritual "life" with coming to Christ and believing in Christ. And, in the previous article, Holmes spoke of believing in Christ "for life." He is not contradicting himself here in these words, as Ivey would have him do if we accept Ivey's interpretation of the words of Holmes.

When Holmes says "none has power to choose salvation or to believe in Christ," he teaches against Hardshellism, for Hardshells believe that "power to choose" and "power to believe" precedes actual choosing and believing. They teach that those who believe are they who have been previously given "power" to do so. But, Holmes believed that those who believe are not they who had a power to do so before they believed! Hardshells believe that God, in "regeneration," gives power to choose and believe, but does not itself produce choice and faith. Thus, those who do choose and repent do so because they have power to do so, but this is what is denied by Holmes.

When Holmes says "none has power to choose salvation or to believe in Christ, for life is the gift only of God," he clearly is defining what he means by "life." "Life" is defined as involving choosing salvation and believing in Christ. Let us quote again the words of Holmes and put "faith" in the place of "life" and see how it makes perfect sense. "I believe none has power to choose salvation or to believe in Christ, for faith (life) is the gift only of God." It is faith life that Holmes is talking about. There is no evidence in these words to demonstrate that Holmes believed that "life" existed where there was no "faith," as do the Hardshells.

In commenting upon the words of Holmes in this article, he wrote:

"The first statement resembles the primitive belief that God must aid preachers with liberty of explanation and hearers with liberty of comprehension for the doctrines of grace to be understood and accepted as truth. "I believe the precious gift of the Spirit's teaching was procured by Christ's ascension and given to men, begetting souls to the truth and for the establishment and consolations of those that are turned to the Lord.""

The first thing to notice about the commentary of Ivey is how he attempts to dilute (corrupt) the words and sentiments of Holmes. He wants to severely limit the statement of Holmes to a single minor premise, one involving the success of preaching to those already saved. But, Holmes again mentions "begetting" by such preaching, and this begetting is always the same as regeneration, both in scripture and in the writings of the old Baptists. Holmes is affirming that both the preaching of the gospel and the acceptance of it by believers, or of their being "begotten," were "procured by Christ's ascension and given to men." But, this is Calvinism, what is taught in scripture and in the old Baptist confessions, and is what is denied by Ivey and the Hardshells. They do not believe that faith in Christ, by the gospel, is one of the things procured for the elect by his death. Does Ivey believe that "time salvation" (conversion) was procured for all the elect by the death of Christ?

In Ivey's work, he attempts to prove that the old Welsh Baptists of the Midland Association rejected Calvinism and the old London confession of 1644. How does he prove it? He says that it can be deduced from these facts. First, they wrote their own confession. Second, they did not have inter-church fellowship with the London brethren. Third, they did not attend several conferences of the London brethren. Ivey admits that the London brethren did not believe in Hardshell views on salvation and on the instrumentality of the gospel and on the necessity of faith in being saved or born again and thus has to argue this way in order to uphold his thesis that affirms that the Welsh Baptists believed hardshellism. However, consider these facts.

"Louis Asher, late professor at the Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary, Jacksonville, TX in his biography JOHN CLARKE (1609-1676), Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc., Pittsburgh, 1997, supports the above remarks concerning John Clarke being a particular Baptist. On page 75, Asher states: “Outside of publishing his book ILL NEWES, one of the first things that Dr. Clarke did when he arrived in London was to join a Particular Baptist Church, the one that William Kiffin pastored.”

Thus, using Ivey's own criteria, Clark was a Particular Baptist who was in full fellowship and doctrinal agreement with the London brethren! If not fellowshipping and associating with the London proved disagreement (Ivey's argument), then conversely, fellowshipping and associating with them must demonstrate agreement! Clark shows his agreement with the London brethren by his "joining" with a "Particular Baptist Church," and that pastored by the famous William Kiffin, who was involved in writing the old Baptist confessions, which Ivey admits taught gospel means!

Asher is further cited as saying:

"On page 95, he further states: “particular redemption or limited atonement was a descriptive tenet of the Particular Baptists of London, a group with which Dr. Clarke was associated. Like the Puritan and Presbyterian theology, the Regular Baptist with Clarke believed the doctrine of God’s election to eternal life was according to His sovereign will and pleasure. To Clarke, the atonement was for believers as he stated in Article 12: [to] all that are or shall be saved.” Read appendix B of Asher’s book for a more detailed ’articles of faith’ by Obadiah Holmes and John Clarke. I highly recommend Asher’s book for those who want to know the truth about John Clarke and the First Baptist Church in America. Read The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 for a much more detailed understanding of the doctrinal position of the Particular Baptist of England. William Kiffin, mentioned previously, was a signer of this confession."

See here

Again, more evidence of the close fellowship between Clark and the London brethren, with men like Spilsbury, Knollys, and Kiffin, all who taught means in regeneration.

Our author states:

"The Calvinist character of these New England Baptists in the seventeenth century is thus apparent, and the Testimony of Obadiah Holmes places him centrally in that tradition."

But Ivey denies such facts and argues that Clark and Holmes were not Calvinists, not Particular Baptists, not in agreement with their London brethren regarding means in regeneration.

But, let us cite more from the confessional teachings of Clark and Holmes. They said:

"Now in this faith or belief I stand, not doubting but it is the faith of God's elect, for He knows who are His and the elect shall obtain it." (pg. 87)

In speaking of the "faith of God's elect," these old Baptists were talking about a "faith" which all the elect would possess, not what some few of them would possess. And, how did they define this faith that all regenerated souls possessed? This "faith" was the beliefs stated by Holmes and Clark in their confession! All the elect will believe those things, for it is "the faith of God's elect." This "faith," said Clark and Holmes, "the elect SHALL obtain it." This is hardshellism denied. They clearly believed that all the elect would come to believe the gospel and be converted as part of their being "begotten" or "regenerated."

In Holme's private letters he wrote:

"Yet, my dear wife, those things are but common favors that many may have their part in. But consider that the choice particular favor that many receive not which God has given to thee in choosing and calling thee to the knowledge of Himself and His dear Son which is life eternal." (Letter to his wife, pg. 96)

To read the articles of faith of Holmes, from his "last will and testimony," see the account given by Edwin Scott Gaustad

See here

Here Holmes clearly identifies the gift of salvation, which results from God's "choice particular favor," and that it involves "choosing and calling thee to the knowledged of Himself and His dear Son," and argues that such an evangelical knowledge "is life eternal." Clearly Holmes cannot be classed as "Hardshell" in his beliefs.

Writing on Dr. Clark, Louis Franklin Asher, Ph.D, wrote:

"In 1651 Clarke made public an expression of his beliefs. The first pronouncement of his religious convictions demonstrated his repugnance of the Puritan religious beliefs and intolerance. This was illustrated by both his liberal spirit of toleration and his own theological beliefs. While theologically they were strongly hostile to the Congregational Puritans, they were remarkable in harmony with the English Particular Baptists of London."

But, Hardshell Michael Ivey disagrees, affirming that Clark and Holmes were not in "remarkable harmony" with the "English Particular Baptists of London"! Further, Ivey disagrees with such and gives absolutely no evidence to prove it, and even ignores the evidence that overthrows his empty assertions.

Asher wrote:

"Unlike Roger Williams and his vacillating opinions in religious practices, Clarke opposed even the slightest compliance to the Puritan rule; that is mere attendance in one of their churches. Moreover Clarke never wavered from his Baptist convictions. Clarke’s beliefs bore a kinship to the Antinomians but in a way which was both confusing and misleading to the Puritan magistracy. He did not share in the Antinomian religious notions altogether, but according to his own account, he opted to associate with the Antinomians for two basic reasons: He believed in the free exercise of the individual conscience, and he held to the basic premise of Antinomianism, a “covenant of grace.”

Clark was no "antinomian" of the Hardshell variety.

Asher wrote:

"Another minister, Hanserd Knollys, who became a non-conformist in England and came to New England for awhile, was later identified with Clarke and Lenthal among the Particular Baptists of London." (pg. 46)

Notice how Knollys, of the London brethren, was "identifed with Clark"! Knollys believed, like Spilsbury, Kiffin, and Keach, that the gospel was a means in regeneration and that none would be saved who did not believe the gospel. Thus, Clark, like his London brethren, was not Hardshell.

Asher wrote:

"By 1644, when Lucar joined the group, he could have brought the strict Baptist order from the British Baptists, which constituted the church along more modern lines. Yet Lucar may have treated the church as a mission church, and the church without any visible changes in practice or doctrine voted to cooperate with the Particular Baptists of London. Soon after this, in fact, such a church posture was publicly revealed without any indication of reorganization." (pgs. 52, 53)

Thus, the Newport church, pastored by Clark and Holmes, cordially received their London brethren, embracing the same faith as them. It was also a missionary church, not a Hardshell church.

Asher wrote:

"The only active Baptist ministry, in fact, in all of New England by 1650 was initiated and supported by the Newport church under the leadership of Dr. Clarke, Elders Lucar, and Obadiah Holmes." (pg. 61)

But, notice that Lucar came from the London churches! He was received by the Newport church by letter!

Asher wrote:

"Like the Anabaptists, Clarke conceived salvation apart from Christ as unobtainable, and no one has the power or initiative to choose God’s gift; rather it begins with God. The way in which one is to learn of Christ, the free gift, is by His God-sent ministry which teaches Christ as the only Savior. Following this calling and sending through the exercise of such a ministry, lost mankind — on an individual basis — is drawn to Christ by the Father through the Holy Spirit." (pg. 98)

Again, this is all contrary to Hardshell teachings about regeneration and salvation. Clark believed that the "God-sent ministry" is the means of bringing men to Christ, of drawing them to Christ.

Asher wrote:

"Clarke expanded on his position of a sent ministry by adding, “Although God can bring men to Christ, and to cause them to believe in him for life, yet he hath appointed an ordinary way to effect that great work of faith, which is by means of sending a ministry into the world.” Since Clarke believed the Gospel exists as a general message to all mankind, here it would seem he denounced “hardshellism.” Yet, at the same time, Clarke held that the power of Satan kept men from choosing God." (pgs. 100-101)

"He denounced 'hardshellism'"! (or what would be later become hardshellism) Notice that Clark says - "cause them to believe in him for life." How is that in agreement with hardshellism? Further, this believing in order to spiritual life is equated with "that great work of faith." Again, this is a denial of hardshellism.

Asher wrote:

"Clarke believed in and practiced missionary work. His method of spreading the “Good News” was through preaching and teaching. He was persuaded that coercion could not accomplish what the power of the gospel through preaching could. People voluntarily receive the message of God, Clarke argued, when the heart is awakened by the quickening Spirit of God. To him, therefore, if this method failed to accomplish the intended result, then no power or force of men on earth could perform the task." (pg. 107)

Clark a Missionary Baptist! Notice that Asher says that Clark believed that part of being quickened was voluntarily receiving the gospel message! Again, hardshellism denied!

Asher wrote:

"Clarke’s Eschatology was chiliastic — that is, he believed in a form of the premillennial coming of Christ in His second advent. This belief set forth the notion that a 1,000-year reign on earth would begin when Christ returned the second time." (pg. 111)

And, in the same line, wrote:

"To Clarke the Kingdom would not be ushered in by mankind through social or political reforms but only by Christ when He returns to earth at His second coming (parousia). In fact, when this event occurs, as Clarke expressed it, Christ will descend from Heaven “in the form of a King with his glorious Kingdom, according to promise.” Only at this time will the saints of God reign with Christ in His millennial Kingdom. f431 During this future worldsaving event, the righteous faithful, Clarke maintained, will be rewarded by certain vested priorities. Indeed, in his discussion of Matthew 25, Clarke posited that the Lord will then say: “Have thou Authority (in my Kingdom) over ten cities.” (pgs. 111-112)

Asher wrote:

"Baptists, as revealed through Clarke’s faith, became known by their evangelistic or missionary efforts. A mission spirit and its emerging widespread practice were obviously a challenge to the Baptist way from its earliest New England inception. This became evidenced by the long and controversial missionary crusade waged by Clarke and Mark Lucar at Seekonk in 1649. The repercussions from this venture were shocking, to say the least, but the overall effect was gratifying to the Baptists. Very soon Baptists appeared in numbers, and their impact ranged far and wide, being felt throughout all New England in record time." (pg.112 - "JOHN CLARKE, 1609-1676" by Louis Franklin Asher Ph.D.)

See here

Regarding the millenial views of Clark, Ivey wrote:

"Evidently, Elder Holmes was a millennialist. Concerning the resurrection of the just he wrote: "I believe the promise of the Father concerning the return of Israel and Judah, and the coming of the Lord to raise up the dead in Christ, and to change them that are alive that they may reign with him a thousand years, according to the Scriptures.""

Let it be known that today's Hardshells will not generally fellowship any who hold to premillenialism and so it is very inconsistent and dishonest for the Hardshells to claim that Clark was a Hardshell, for this reason alone.

On this Ivey wrote:

"Excluding his millennial reign theory, Elder Holmes' confession of faith is orthodox in all other areas."

He was Hardshell but not orthodox! Laughable! And Ivey wants us to take his work seriously?

In conclusion, let us notice these words of Ivey:

"It demonstrates a clear understanding of both eternal salvation and gospel deliverance. It plainly distinguishes new birth as a precursor to acceptance, or rational belief, in Christ. His handling of regeneration, together with his definitions of the functionality of the gospel indicates Elder Holmes was not reformed, despite his earlier exposure to Puritan Congregationalism. One must wonder if the harshness of Puritan Calvinism compelled him to look beyond the reformer's theology until he found in the scriptures and by Dr. Clarke's preaching a primitive doctrine, which "begot" his soul to gospel truth, which is the faith once delivered."

But, these are baseless assertions which the facts presented prove to be false. Why cannot Ivey simply quote words from Clark or Holmes which clearly affirm hardshellism? Does Ivey believe that the divine begetting (regeneration) produces faith in gospel truth, as did Holmes and Clark? How can he think that people will not see through his deceptions?

Ivey also wrote:

"As has been noted, beginning with Elder John Clarke, the churches and Elders of this succession had frequent and numerous contact with the Particular Baptists in England, and later, with the Regular Baptists in America. However, their friendly relations with the Particulars does not mean these brethren were themselves Particular Baptists. Their succession was primitive. Newport Baptist Church was constituted, fully embracing the principles of believers baptism and baptism by immersion, four years before the first baptismal service was held by the Particular Baptists in London."

Did you see how Ivey divorces the evidence of fellowship and agreement between the Newport church and their London brethren? They only had "friendly relations"? All the evidence presented show how this is a severe "down-playing" of the relationship and a stubborn refusal to see how it was far more than simple "friendly relations."

Ivey wrote:

"Dr. Barrows mistakenly characterized John Clarke's theology as that of the Regular Baptists. We shall presently demonstrate that his theology was primitive."

Wrong! Dr. Barrows was correct and Ivey is wrong! Barrows and others prove their assertions but Ivey has no proof of his views about Clark and Holmes.

Ivey says - "In faith and practice, the Newport Church was primitive Baptist…" But, he says this without any evidence, and against all the evidence to the contrary.

Ivey wrote:

"In late 1651 Elder Clarke sailed to England to administer the affairs of Rhode Island. He remained as the Colony's representative to the Crown for twelve years. During this time Elder Holmes served as interim pastor of Newport Church. He was ably assisted by Elder Mark Lucar, who was a charter member of Mr. Spilsbury's church in London, being baptized with fifty-two others in 1641 at the Particular's inaugural baptismal service."

This is all detrimental to Ivey's assertions! By Ivey's own admission, Lucar was a "charter member" of Spilsbury's church, and yet he received him into the communion of Newport Church. Spilsbury is on record as stating his belief that men were saved by the preaching of the gospel, and was one who helped to write the oldest London confession.

And again, on the relationship between Clark and the London brethren, Ivey wrote:

"The primitive Baptists of Newport maintained a cordial correspondence with the Particular Baptists in London. Numerous examples of their friendly relations are contained in letters written by both Elder Clarke and Elder Holmes. One such letter was written to Mssrs. Spilsbury and Kiffen by Elder Holmes shortly after his beating. In it he mentions Elder Clarke's impending journey to London, noting they will soon be able to hear Elder Clarke's account of the ordeal. The introduction of Elder Holmes letter suggests the close fellowship he felt toward the brethren in London. He began the correspondence, "Unto the well beloved brethren John Spilsbury and William Kiffen, and the rest that in London stand fast in the faith, and continue to walk steadfastly in that order of Gospel which was once delivered unto the saints by Jesus Christ; Obadiah Holmes, an unworthy witness that Jesus is Lord, and of late a prisoner for Jesus' sake at Boston, sendeth greetings."

How Ivey can say these things and yet deny that Clark and Holmes were in agreement with their London brethren on the means of salvation, is ludicrous.