Ivey 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."
This was cited by Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, with whom I was debating, and I answered it here.
Ivey again shows his ignorance for the term "Hyper-Calvinism," when used prior to the rise of the Hardshells, in the mid 19th century, for it did not at that time denote those who rejected gospel means and faith from the experience of regeneration, but to those who either rejected a certain kind of evangelistic appeal, or giving offers of salvation to the lost, or who believed in limited atonement. Further, Ivey blurs the distinction between "Hyper-Calvinism" and "High-Calvinism." Also, one must be sure to discern how a particular writer is defining and using such terms because Arminians will often define them differently than will Calvinists. For Ivey's argument to have any substance he will need to show how the authors he cites defined and used the terms.
Ivey wrote:
"The English Baptist historian A. C. Underwood identified Midlands England as a stronghold of hyper-Calvinism. He identified John Gill as a proponent of this theology. Further, he stated in his History of the English Baptists that it was principally through the influence of Andrew Fuller and William Carey that the "winter of hypercalvinism" finally came to an end for the Midland Baptists."
This testimony indicts Ivey and how he is defining the term "Hyper-Calvinism"! It is clear that the term was used by Underwood without any reference to rejection of gospel means! For he calls John Gill a "Hyper-Calvinist" and yet John Gill clearly taught gospel means! So, Ivey is dishonest to say that Underhill was identifying "Hyper-Calvinism" as including the rejection of means in regeneration!
Ivey wrote:
"In A Memorial of the 250th Anniversary of the Midland, now the West Midland Association 1655 to 1905, J. Gwynn Owen notes opposition in the 1770s and 80s by certain older ministers of the association to the promotion of manmade institutions such as Sunday Schools and Missionary Societies. These innovations were introduced to the Midlands by Elders Fuller and Carey who were members of the Association. In explaining their opposition to Fuller and Carey's ideas, Owen wrote of the older ministers, "These revered seniors were more or less bound by the doctrines of a higher Calvinism than now influences theology."
But, Ivey's statement says nothing about those "innovations" being a change in doctrine relative to the new birth! Ivey offers no proof that the "innovations" promoted by Fuller and Carey (if they were such) involved a change in the doctrine of regeneration through means and that faith was an essential element of the "life" received in the experience. Further, it is interesting how Fuller taught that "regeneration precedes faith"! This is what brought him into debate with Abraham Booth! See
here.
here.
here.
All that can possibly be referred to by the word "innovation" was the taking of the gospel to the heathen in a larger way via an association of churches. It was not new for Baptists to support missionaries to take the gospel to heathen, but this was generally limited to geographical areas near to where were existing Baptist churches. Also, as I have shown relative to John Ryland, Sr., he was not objecting to the gospel being preached to the lost for their conversion (regeneration), but to the eschatological timing of massive evangelism to the heathen of far distance lands. I have already dealt with this, see here.
When the historians say - "These revered seniors were more or less bound by the doctrines of a higher Calvinism than now influences theology," they did not have reference to gospel means, but to the doctrine of absolute predestination of all things, and to supralapsarianism, and to limited atonement, or to the teachings of John Gill. Further, the Sunday School question is a separate issue and not directly related to the means question.
Ivey wrote:
"An example of the intensity of disturbance the proposed schemes caused is found in an exchange between William Carey and the senior Elder John Ryland (who ordained Carey) during a ministerial conference held at Northhampton. Carey suggested, as a topic for discussion, the need for missionary efforts to deliver the gospel to save heathens in foreign countries. To this Elder Ryland, who was chairing the conference, responded, "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine." Elder Ryland's statement indicates his position concerning gospel instrumentality. Though he only included himself and Carey, his dismissal of Carey's topic for discussion may be interpreted as theological disagreement over the issue of Calvin's doctrine of gospel instrumentality in the regeneration of sinners. He evidently did not believe that hearing the gospel was a requirement for regeneration, or a stipulation of election."
But, this is all false, as I demonstrated in the previous posting cited (link). Ryland was objecting to the timing for doing massive heathen evangelism, not to the means of the gospel being preached for the salvation of sinners.
Ivey wrote:
"Indicating enthusiastic support for gospel instrumentality together with its trappings of Sunday schools and Missionary societies, Owen is generally unsympathetic toward the doctrines held by Elder Ryland and the other "revered seniors" among the ministry of the Midland Association. By the time Owen wrote his memorial work the Midland Association had progressed from primitive to Calvinist to Arminian in theology. Therefore, Owen deserves commendation for resisting temptations to write a revisionist history which would not accurately present the original doctrine of the Midland Association and the strain which introduction of gospel agency caused."
When Ivey says, "By the time Owen wrote his memorial work the Midland Association had progressed from primitive to Calvinist to Arminian in theology," he is stating his own baseless opinion, and offers no proof for what he asserts, a typical practice of Ivey in his work. We have already seen how he does not know how the terms "Hyper-Calvinism" and "High-Calvinism" are traditionally used, and how the terms "Regular Baptist" and "Reformed" are used, and even what the term "primitive" Baptist denotes. So it is also likely that his definition of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are no doubt also novel. But, the typical Hardshell cult member will not investigate honestly this matter for themselves, and will be content to accept what Ivey says about their history, for "the simple believe every word." (Prov. 14: 15)
Ivey commends Owen "for resisting temptations to write a revisionist history which would not accurately present the original doctrine of the Midland Association," and yet, ironically, this is exactly what Ivey tries to do in his book! He could not "resist temptation," and so writes a baseless "revisionist history," for the Hardshell cult member's benefit, for he must know that no honest historian will take his work seriously.
I have already shown how Ivey distorts the confession of faith of the Midland Association (which upheld the gospel as a means, and which taught the necessity of evangelical faith for being eternally saved) when he tries to make it say otherwise than what it plainly says. This is exactly what the hundred old Hardshell elders assembled in Fulton (1900) did in their distortion of the London Confession, wherein they sought to deny that it taught gospel means. Ivey agrees that the London Confession teaches means, and that his revered leaders of his denomination grossly distorted the historic confession. But, ironically, we see Ivey doing the exact the same thing in his distortion of the words of the old Midland Confession!
Ivey wrote:
"Owen erroneously labels the beliefs of the original Elders of the Midland as High Calvinism."
This is more evidence of Ivey's "speaking out of both sides of his mouth." First, he argues that the fact that the old Baptists of the Midlands were styled as "Hyper" and "High" Calvinists proves that they rejected gospel means and were Hardshells. But, now, he is saying that Owen was wrong to say that the old Baptists of the Midlands embraced "High Calvinism"!
Ivey continued:
"However, he accurately presents their doctrinal position concerning the relationship of gospel agency and new birth with the following statement. "For the logical High-Calvinist could find no scope in his rigorous creed for the operation of any human agency in winning the unconverted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God saves all who are predestinated, and no man can help or hinder His sovereign and effectual grace.""
But, there is nothing in the characterization of Owen relative to the "High-Calvinist" of the old Midland Baptists that would, in itself, show that Owen was affirming that they rejected faith and means in regeneration. Also, we do not know what Owen had in mind when he speaks of "human agency," and when he says "no man can help or hinder" God's work of salvation. Calvinistic Baptists who believe in means, like Gill, Fuller, and Booth, for instance, nevertheless would also affirm that human agencies avail not, but they did believe that divine agencies did avail. They did not see preaching the gospel as a "human agency" in the sense Owen probably uses the term. Besides, why doesn't Ivey simply give us proof for asserting that the Midland's Baptists rejected means? Surely if Owen meant what Ivey asserts, even Owen would have cited some old document or article of faith, to prove that he had the rejection of gospel means in mind. Also, Dr. Gill, who was a devout High-Calvinist, and who believed in means, could say "no man can help or hinder" God in calling his elect.
Further, notice how Owen affirms that the old Midland Baptists believed "in winning the unconverted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ"! True, not by strictly "human agencies," but how can a man be "won" and "converted" to Christ without the gospel?
Ivey wrote:
"Owen's assessment of the original beliefs of the founders of the Midland Association suggests they were primitives, not high Calvinists."
This statement reveals how Ivey often presents Owen as contradicting himself and yet he offers Owen as a source for his thesis! He earlier cited Owen as affirming that the Midland Baptists were "High-Calvinists" and says that this proves that they were "primitive" but now Ivey denies that they were "high Calvinists"!
Ivey wrote:
"Further, his statement concerning the younger generation of preachers implies that gospel instrumentality in regeneration was newly introduced and represented a doctrinal departure from the original beliefs of the Midland brethren. "The younger generation of ministers, like Fuller of Kettering; Carey of Moulton; Sutcliffe of Olney and the younger Ryland, being more open to conviction, and less wedded to the old, rigid creed, began to advocate a modification of the old views, and to adopt as the basis of their ministry a moderate Calvinism which permitted them to appeal to the unconverted.""
I have already dealt with this reasoning by Ivey and shown it to be false. Ivey wants us to believe that the younger Ryland was in disagreement with his father respecting the nature and means of regeneration, but he fails to prove it. It is rather likely that both agreed, the only disagreement concerning the eschatological timing for mass heathen evangelism. Further, there is no dispute as to whether there were disagreements respecting the manner of appealing to the unconverted, but such a disagreement does not imply disagreement on the use of means.
Ivey wrote:
"Thus, with the passing of such stalwarts as Elder John Ryland the next generation of ministers pursued new theologies, leading their brethren away from true and historic doctrines of grace which had been held by the Baptists of Wales and the Midlands for almost 1700 years."
But, this is a baseless assertion of Ivey. He gives no proof for his assertion. He certainly gives no documentary evidence to prove that there was a change in doctrine relative to the nature and means of regeneration. Fuller did present a change relative to the general nature of the atonement, but he did not offer a change relative to regeneration. Fuller and Gill were in agreement respecting means.
Ivey wrote:
"In the late 1780's the younger generation of preachers, Led by the younger Ryland, initiated efforts to have the 1655 confession removed from the heading of Midland Association circular letters. Eventually they were successful. By the early 1800s the excesses and errors of Calvinism, introduced through the single false doctrine of gospel instrumentality in regeneration, served to establish Sunday schools and missionary societies in the churches."
Again, Ivey makes claims here without the least shred of proof. Does Ivey think that anyone, other than his own Hardshell fellow cult members, will accept what he says without such evidence? It seems to me that if Ryland, Jr. and Carey were introducing new teachings relative to regeneration, then there would be some clear record of the opposition which Ivey could cite! If the Midland brethren were Hardshell, would the Hardshells not write clear denials of means in their opposition? Then why is there no record of written objections to means by those who opposed the evangelistic appeals of them? Why does Ivey not cite the arguments of Ryland's and Carey's opponents which show that they objected to missions and Sunday Schools because they taught the "new doctrine" concerning means?
Ivey wrote:
"This once doctrinally pure group of churches, with roots of ancient origin, finally amalgamated with Arminian General Baptist churches in 1851 as the West Midland Association. Thus, the error of Calvin's gospel instrumentality theory finally led them into Arminianism."
But, again Ivey gives no evidence to support his claims! Why does he think he can simply say such things without any proof?
Ivey wrote:
"The account of the Churches of the Midland Association was repeated many times among the primitive churches of England and Wales. By the late eighteenth century most were fully merged and identified with Calvinist Particular Baptists. Despite this phenomenon the distinct identity of faith and practice of the primitives was not lost. Before they were completely integrated with the Particulars, some of their numbers migrated to America."
The Midland churches "fully merged and identified with Calvinist Particular Baptists"? No! Rather, they had been one with their London and Calvinistic brethren all along! Further, if the Midland brethren were truly Hardshells, then how could they easily be converted into Arminians? How are they then alike today's Hardshells in this regard? Ivey says that the Midland brethren lost their "identity" as Hardshells but yet Hardshell succession was not all lost, because, before they went astray, they "migrated to America"! But, I have shown that the first Welsh Baptists in America were all believers in gospel means!
Ivey wrote:
"Tull presents a moderately detailed, though prejudicial, description of the theology of the Midland Baptists. His description of circa 1770 Midland Association doctrine resembles present day Primitive Baptist doctrine. He begins, "The enervating effect of hyper-Calvinism stemmed from a rigid view of the doctrine of election. This view held that God had decreed before the world began who would be saved and who would be lost. Therefore, it was conceived to be both useless and highly presumptuous to invite men to repent and believe."
Here is more contradictory statements by Ivey! In 1770 he says that the Midland brethren were Hardshell but yet he said earlier that "by the late eighteenth century most were fully merged and identified with Calvinist Particular Baptists." So, he is saying that "one minute they were Hardshells and the next minute they were not"? Who does he think will believe him in such?
I think Tull probably overstates things in the citation by Ivey. I think he is alluding to the debate over the kind of addresses (preaching) to be presented to the unconverted, a debate that had been going on for about eighty years, since Hussey wrote "God's operations of grace: but no offers of his grace." But, even Hussey believed that regeneration occurred through the preaching of evangelic truth! Further, Dr. Gill objected to certain kinds of appeals to the unconverted, but yet believed in gospel means. Notice how Tull uses the word "invite." He does not say that the old Midland Baptists objected to "commanding" or "exhorting" the lost about salvation, but about "inviting" them. The Hyper-Calvinists did often object to the use of such words as "invite" and "offer." Even Gilbert Beebe, one of the most well-known of the Hardshell founding fathers, said he believed that sinners should be "commanded" to believe and repent, but not "invited" to do so.
Ivey wrote:
"Speaking of the duty of reprobates according to hyper-Calvinist theology, so called, Tull continued: "It was not, therefore, their duty to repent, to have faith, to pray.....It was not their duty, because these were gifts of divine grace, not human attainments. Closely related to the belief that faith was not a duty was the belief that a warrant was necessary to believe. A warrant was an evidence or a sign of a work of divine favor in the soul. Conviction of sin, with its accompanying mental distress, was such a sign or warrant. Such a warrant and the faith which followed were implanted in the heart at the initiative of divine grace, and they could not be initiated by the sinner."
One wonders what parts of Tull's words were omitted by Ivey by his ellipsis, for Hardshells are infamous for leaving out pertinent information by such use of the ellipsis, and thereby have taken a writer's words out of context. But, dealing with the part he did give us from Tull, again, the "hyper-Calvinist" objection was not to the means of the gospel, but to the manner of presenting it to the unconverted! Yes, there was disagreement about what is called "duty faith," but even those who denied it nevertheless still believed that sinners were born again by the gospel!
Yes, some of the 18th century "hyper-Calvinists" did speak about a necessary "preparation" or "warrant" for giving one the command to believe and repent, but again this did not imply or prove that they rejected means, or believed that unbelievers will be finally saved.
Ivey wrote:
"Henry Veddar, writing of the mission/anti-mission divisions used the phrase hyper-Calvinism to describe a group who terminated fellowship with the Regular Baptists. His brief editorial describes and identifies these hyper-Calvinists. "There were also a number of Calvinistic Baptists bodies that for one reason or another, decline fellowship with the Regular Baptists. A considerable number of Baptists in the early part of this century separated from the other churches on account of doctrinal and practical differences. Holding to hyper-Calvinistic theology, they were opposed to missions, Sunday schools, and all contrivances which seem to make the salvation of man depend on human effort. They call themselves Primitive Baptists, and have been known as Anti-Mission, Anti-Effort, Old, and Hardshell Baptists."
Note; the above citations of Ivey are from his chapter six.
In response to this citation of Ivey from Veddar it must be said, first of all, that Veddar is speaking about the early 19th century, when the Hardshells were born as a denomination, and so he is proving what needs no proof. No one denies that hardshellism existed in the early to mid-19th century, but whether it existed prior to the 19th century! Further, there is no denial that the birth of the Hardshells expanded on the definitions and characterizations of Hyper-Calvinism. Now, with the birth of the Hardshells, it could be said that Hyper-Calvinism had taken on a new element, vis., the rejection of the traditional description of the nature of regeneration and of the means involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment