Ivey wrote:
"In the general conference of 1646 Elder Benjamin Cox, pastor of Abington Church, presented an appendix to the Confession. The existence of this document indicates that at least one church in London, of the original seven, considered the Confession either too vague or else inaccurate in presenting the doctrine of regeneration. Lumpkin describes Cox's work as characterizing a "higher Calvinism than the second edition.""
This is a blatant falsehood! Ivey says that Cox's "appendix" to the old London confession is proof that Cox and his particular church disagreed with the confession on the question of means in regeneration. But, if one reads the appendix, it is clear that Cox believed in gospel means, and wrote more clearly on that point than the confession itself! See my posting on this here.
Ivey wrote:
"Particularly, Elder Cox took exception to the Pelagian implications of Gospel agency in regeneration. In article seven of his appendix he wrote;
Though we confess that no man doth attain unto faith by his own good will; John 1:13, yet we judge and know that the Spirit of God doth not compel a man to believe against his will, but doth powerfully and sweetly create in a man a new heart, and make him to believe and obey willingly, Ezekiel 36:26,27; Psalms; 110:3. God thus working in us both to will and to do, of His good pleasure, Philippians 2:13."
Where does Cox deny gospel means in these words? Where does he divorce faith from the experience of regeneration? Where does he deny that faith in Christ is necessary to salvation? It is unbelievable how Ivey or any Hardshell can read these words and yet affirm that Cox was Hardshell! Cox clearly affirms that the "attaining of faith" is part and parcel of what it means to be born of God! He says that the "new heart" given in regeneration is one that is "made to believe and obey"! Further, most Hardshells say that being "made willing" is no part of regeneration for they say it is all a non-cognitive and sub-conscious experience.
Also, if Ivey would cite other statements from Cox in his appendix, it would further show that he believed in gospel means. But, conveniently, Ivey does not cite those other clear statements where Cox denies hardshellism.
Ivey wrote:
"Also, it is reasonable to conclude that the 1689 London Confession accurately represents the beliefs of its ratifiers and their congregations. To think otherwise is to accuse the Particular Baptists of surrendering conscience to political opportunity. Such a possibility flies in the face of all they suffered prior to 1689. Liberty of Conscience was, from the beginning, a fundamental tenet of the Particular Baptists. It seems highly unlikely these courageous brethren would have abandon certain elements of their doctrine simply to gain religious toleration."
In my previous posting in this review I have already commended Ivey for disagreeing with his Hardshell brethren who make liars out of the old Baptists who wrote the London confession by affirming that they wrote what they did, not because they really believed what they did, but wrote falsehoods in order to avoid persecution. In the above statement he again condemns those Hardshells who argue this way.
Ivey wrote:
"With regard to gospel instrumentality in regeneration, there is evidence that at least some of the early leaders of the Particular Baptists held Calvinist Presbyterian religious views. Hansard Knollys expressed his support for this tenet in an exposition of the work of the ministry, to preach the gospel, in relation to God's sovereignty in regeneration. He declared, "I say then when they (ministers) have done this, they must leave the issue to the Lord, who onely (sic) makes this ministry powerful to whom he pleaseth, giving them repentance...enabling them to believe in him unto remission of sins and everlasting life. And surely God hath appointed the Ministry, especially for this end, that by means thereof he might worke faith in all those whom he hath ordained unto eternal life."
Only "some" of the first Particular Baptists believed in gospel means as did Knollys? Where is the evidence to support Ivey's idea that some others did not believe as Knollys? He gives no evidence but only makes such unfounded statements. Further, it is clear that Knollys was in full fellowship with Clark of the church in Newport, who Ivey claims rejected gospel means! Notice the citation of Ivey regarding the faith of the real primitive Baptists! "believe in him UNTO remission of sins and everlasting life"!
Ivey wrote:
"Knollys demonstrated a position which balanced gospel agency and election in a sermon titled The World that Now is, and the World that is to Come. He stated, "If the sinner be willing to open the door of his heart, Christ will come in by his holy Spirit and He will communicate of his Grace to his soul. Not that you can do those things of your selves; I have told you, without Christ you can do nothing, John 15.5. But it is your duty to do them and it is the Free Grace of God, to work in you to will and to do, according to his good pleasure, Phil. 2.12,13. That he so working in you, you may work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
Clearly Knollys, by Ivey's own admission, rejected Hardshell ideas about regeneration occurring apart from faith and means. Yes, it is a "balanced" view, contrary to hardshellism, which is an unbalanced view.
Ivey wrote:
"Elder Cox's appendix suggests that in 1646 not all Particulars Baptists embraced certain principles of Calvinism. But, adoption of the overtly Calvinistic tenets of the 1689 Confession indicates if dissenting arguments were presented at the general conference, they were not publicly acknowledged."
"If dissenting arguments were presented"? Ivey wants to insinuate that such dissenting views were present, even though there is no record of such! Further, it seems that Cox's appendix came out stronger on gospel means than the old confession itself!
Ivey wrote:
"Inclusion of Chapter Ten, parts one and three, which deals with gospel instrumentality in the effectual call, and Chapter fourteen, part one, which describes saving faith through a concert of divine impartation and rational belief of the gospel, together with supporting scriptural references, all serve to demonstrate the commitment the conferees had to Calvin's doctrine. By expressing the heart of Calvin's theory of regeneration in their Confession they moved away from those brethren who held to primitive faith. This tends to indicate the theology of the 1689 Confession went beyond political expediency and embraced conscience. These brethren were Calvinists with regard to Gospel agency. It must be assumed they heartily believed what they wrote into their Confession."
Again, we commend Ivey for his refusal to make the old Baptists, who wrote the confession, dishonest liars, as some of his Hardshell brethren have done. But, we disagree with him in his assertion that the gospel means position originated with Calvin, but with the scriptures. We also disagree with Ivey's unfounded assertion that the London brethren "moved away from...the primitive faith." Ivey cannot prove such a base falsehood, but makes such statements in the Hardshell tradition of uttering falsehoods.
Ivey wrote:
"Such practices were in contrast to the early Baptists of Wales in the Midlands, who claimed their succession of Baptist heritage through the mother church in Olchon Valley located on the Wales/England border, which is part of that area of Britain known as the Midlands. Their ancient Baptist heritage included principles of closed membership and communion. They were not reformed, claiming a succession to Christ through the Apostle Paul. Former pastor of Olchon Baptist Church, John Howells, states the ancient Britons of Wales, around Olchon, maintained an unbroken chain of succession from Christ."
Ivey is wrong to insinuate that the Particular Baptists who wrote the two old London confessions, men like Knollys, Kiffin, and Spilsbury, did not claim succession from the apostles. Ivey implies that the Particular Baptists did not claim a succession to Christ, but he is wrong and his baseless assertion shows how ignorant he is of the history of the English Particular Baptists of 17th century England. Ivey is also wrong, as I have already shown, in affirming that the Welsh Baptist were not in agreement with their London brethren.
Note: The above citations from Ivey are from Chapter 3 of his book.
Ivey wrote:
"We have described the faith and order of the Primitive Baptists of Olchon. We have detailed their reluctance, as late as 1654, to open their communion; that Howell Vaughn would not accept the irregularity of open communion, which was evidently an acceptable practice among at least some of the London Particular Baptists. (We here also note how Olchon sent 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). The writer will now attempt to satisfy those who must have a clear expression of the beliefs of the Olchon Baptists." (Chapter 5)
I have already addressed these statements of Ivey in my rebuttal to Jason Brown. I showed how the churches that were associated with the church at Olchon were served and established by ministers from the London churches! Further, the Welsh churches had, like the London churches, those who practice open and those who practice closed communion. The same is true relative to the practice of "laying on of hands." But, how does such disagreement prove that there was disagreement regarding the nature and means of regeneration?
Ivey wrote:
"Fellowship is acceptable proof of common theology since it is documented that Olchon Church was very strict in matters of faith and practice."
What an interesting confession is this! It reveals the inconsistency of Ivey who will argue that inter-church fellowship sometimes proved agreement and at other times argue that it does not prove agreement. But, seeing he affirms that the church at Olchon would only fellowship churches which they agreed with in doctrine, then it is clear that Ivey's thesis is wrong and shows that the fellowship that the Olchon church had with their London brethren, and with churches in Wales that were constituted by the London brethren, demonstrated agreement with them on the means of regeneration!
Ivey wrote:
"One significant trait of the Midland churches, as with their nearby Welsh sisters, was their independence from the London churches during the seventeenth century. As we have noted, they opposed an open communion, which was sometimes practiced in the London churches. Further, it appears from Davis' statements concerning the practice of open communion that the ordinances of the church are where these brethren drew the line of fellowship. According to Davis, Powell, Wroth, Erbury and Penry were all allowed to preach in the Welsh churches; however, it appears they were not allowed to commune. The statement of the Midland Association Constitution regarding closed communion may be similarly interpreted."
Here Ivey admits that the Welsh Baptists of the Midland Association recognized those London Baptists who practiced closed communion, and these believed in gospel means! What Ivey did not show is how the Welsh Baptists refused to recognize the London brethren because of their belief in gospel means and on the necessity of faith for salvation.
Ivey wrote:
"However, the most significant indicator of the Midland Association's independence and theological distinction from the London Particular Baptists is their Confession of Faith. While the 1644 London Confession is termed mildly Calvinistic by Lumpkin, the Midland brethren penned a confession which closely resembles eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century Primitive Baptist Confessions."
Yes, but as we have seen, the Midland Confession does not differ from the London Confession regarding the nature and means of regeneration! So, the Midland Confession does not reflect Hardshell beliefs. Also, if one examines both confessions, it will be clear that Ivey's characterization is false, for the Midland Confession was not "independent" of the London Confession, and was not "theologically distinct" from it. Ivey asserts such things but offers no evidence to support his assertions.
Ivey wrote:
"Article eight of the Midland Confession plainly marks a divergent theology from the tenets of Calvinism. However, according to Lumpkin and Tull, it was actually a response to the growing number of free will Arminian Baptist churches appearing in the mid-seventeenth century. The Midlands, in particular, experienced a considerable increase in Baptist churches which professed the tenets of semi-pelagian Arminianism. However, the wording of the article also contradicts Calvin's modified pelagian theories of divine impartation of a saving faith before regeneration. It reads:
8. That all men until they are quickened by Christ are dead in trespasses; and therefore have no power of themselves to believe savingly. But faith is a free gift of God, and the mighty work of God in the soul, even like the rising of Christ from the dead. Therefore (we) consent not with those who hold that God hath given power to all men to believe to salvation.
By stating that man is dead and has no power to believe savingly of himself, they removed precursor faith as an instrument of justification prior to actual regeneration. Their order is new birth, belief. They indicated that men who are dead in trespasses and sin cannot believe until they are quickened. This principle eliminates requisite gospel agency in regeneration. Calvinism teaches belief is in reaction to a concerted medium of the Holy Ghost and the gospel; whereby one believes and is justified, and after being justified is born again. This distinction separates primitive faith from Calvinism."
When Ivey says that "Article eight of the Midland Confession plainly marks a divergent theology from the tenets of Calvinism," he is stating a falsehood. No unbiased mind would read the eighth article and see hardshellism in it. Only one who wants to see it sees it, it being a case of someone "seeing what he wants to see."
Ivey's sources even say that "it was actually a response to the growing number of free will Arminian Baptist churches," and not, as Ivey affirms, a response to the growing number of London Calvinistic Baptist churches!
Ivey says that "the wording of the article also contradicts Calvin's modified pelagian theories of divine impartation of a saving faith before regeneration," but as I have said before when Ivey has said the same thing, this shows Ivey's ignorance. Again, Ivey is falsely characterizing Calvinists views on the relation of faith to regeneration. They argued that faith and regeneration were inseparable. Some Calvinists did affirm that, logically speaking, regeneration preceded faith, but they did not argue that it did so chronologically, but all confessed that faith was produced in regeneration, and this is exactly what the Midland Confession affirmed! Ivey is blinded by his own bias not to see it. Further, it is laughable that Ivey would accuse Calvin of holding to "Pelagianism"! Actually, it is the Hardshells who are Pelagian in inbibing the "command implies ability" proposition!
Notice how the eighth article speaks of believing to salvation (believe savingly). So, that in itself is enough to prove Ivey's contention to be false! They speak of not once, but twice, of "believing to salvation." They also define "faith" as what is given in the divine quickening! They say that faith is created by the same power that quickens! Hardshells today do not believe that faith is created efficaciously in the hearts of those quickened!
Ivey said - "By stating that man is dead and has no power to believe savingly of himself, they removed precursor faith as an instrument of justification prior to actual regeneration." But, this is Ivey's "reading into" the words of the Confession what is not there and demonstrates the bias of Ivey, and shows that he is no better than the Fulton brethren who did the same type of thing to the London Confession. Again, what Ivey needs to show is how the article divorces faith from the experience of regeneration! This he cannot do, however, as anyone who is honest will observe.
Ivey wrote:
"With inclusion of article eight in their Confession of faith, the Midland brethren denied the Arminian tenet of free-willism. However, it is both ironic and significant; it also distinguished the theology of the Midland Churches from all who subscribed to a theology of saving faith through the concerted agency of the Holy Ghost and the gospel. They rejected the theory of saving faith in response to Arminian teachings; but, in so doing, they also rejected the Calvinistic notions of gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Their statement regarding the relationship of regeneration and faith is an acceptable representation of what orthodox twentieth century Primitive Baptists believe."
I must confess that such torturing of the words of the Midland Confession, by Ivey, stirs up my righteous indignation! Is this all Ivey has to prove that the Welsh Baptists were Hardshells? People will laugh at such attempts! Their statement regarding the relationship of faith to salvation is clear! They said "believe to salvation"! Why can't Ivey cite a clear-cut article that says "we deny that faith is required for regeneration or salvation"? Why can't he cite a statement by the Welsh Baptists where they said - "we deny that the gospel is a means in salvation"?
Ivey wrote:
"An interesting aside to the writing of the Midland Confession of faith is the involvement of Benjamin Cox who was Pastor of Abington Church in London. As already mentioned, he attended the 1646 ministerial conference of the London Confession where, not fully satisfied with the language of the 1644 Confession, he presented a twenty-two point appendix to the 1646 edition. At the request of Warwick Church Cox attended the first session of the Midland Association as a corresponding messenger from Abington Church. It may be supposed this request was the result of his authorship of the proposed appendix. It may also explain the markedly polemic tenor of the Midland Confession. It is reasonable to believe, as an invited representative to the Midland Association, Elder Cox's views were given significant consideration."
All this reasoning by Ivey is false for I have shown how Cox argued for the necessity of faith for salvation, and of gospel means, in his appendix! Further, Cox endorsed the confession that Ivey says the Midland churches opposed! Yet, they invited and welcomed Cox! Ivey's whole thesis is overthrown!
Ivey wrote:
"We have already presented his (Cox) statement concerning regeneration."
But, this is not true! Ivey only cited a part of Cox's appendix, and even the part he cited does not say what he wants it to say! The article he did cite from Cox's appendix support gospel means and the necessity of faith for salvation. Other articles in Cox's appendix are even more clearly in support of gospel means, as I have previously shown in my posting on Cox.
Ivey wrote:
"Lumpkin asserts the Midland Confession is modeled after the 1644 London Confession. He believes Daniel King's friendship with the Particular Baptists in London establishes an argument for his assertion. Further, he notes certain similarities. However, none of these claims explain the differences between the two documents, which will be discussed in greater detail in Part Three of this work. With Elders King and Cox present, both having access to the London Confession, if the Midland Brethren had fully endorsed the London document, it seems reasonable they would have adopted it, in some form, as their confession. They did not. Lumpkin's conclusion, that the Midland Confession is modeled after the 1644 London Confession, is probably the result of his lack of familiarity with primitive Baptist doctrine. It is probable he mistakenly presumed these primitive Baptists were Calvinists. His error is understandable assuming he was not versed in the doctrinal distinctions of the two theologies."
All this is but speculation on the part of Ivey, who can only offer such because he can find no proof that the Welsh Baptists rejected the stated beliefs of the London churches relative to regeneration and salvation. Ivey gives no proof that shows that the Midland Confession differed from the London Confession on the doctrine of salvation. He disagrees with Lumpkin who says that the two confessions were not different in substance, affirming that the Midland Confession was "modeled after the 1644 Confession." Ivey disagrees but produces no evidence to back his claims. Ivey speaks of the "error" of Lumpkins but does not offer any proof that Lumpkins was in error. Ivey offers no support from other historians either.
No comments:
Post a Comment