Ivey wrote:
"Most Primitive Baptist churches in existence today can trace their origins back through the Kehukee, Virginia, or Georgia Associations; or, through some other church in the area, constituted through the efforts of Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall, or the small army of evangelical elders they ordained. From these numerous Churches, successions reach England in one of two ways. Those who so desire, may claim succession through the Particular or, Regular Baptists, who joined union with the Separate Baptists. This path proceeds back to England through the Churches of the Philadelphia, Charleston, New York or other Particular Baptist Associations. Those who choose the Welch succession trace their primitive Baptist heritage through Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall. They follow it to Elder Valentine Wightman, Obadiah Holmes and Dr. John Clarke. It goes back through the Midland Association of 1655 prior to embracing Fuller's errors of Calvinist gospel instrumentality. It reaches back to Elder Edward Wightman of Burton, in the Midlands in 1612, whose preaching so inflamed Anglican clergy they burned him at the stake. It traces from this brother back to the ancient mother Church at Olchon, who claims her origin in the era of the Apostle Paul and the apostolic church in first century Rome, finally, back to the Savior in Jerusalem." (Chapter X)
Which "path," as a Hardshell "Landmarker," does Ivey take? He takes the "Welsh" or "Separate" Baptist "path." Further, he rejects the legitimacy of the "path" that goes through the "Regular" or "Particular" Baptists. But, which "path" did nearly all his forefathers take? Which "path" did the oldest Associations, the ones mentioned by Ivey, take? Which "path" have all his Hardshell historians taken?
Of course, Ivey errs in creating two separate and distinct "paths" of "succession," rather than one.
Further, Ivey reveals another one of his glaring contradictions by his thesis. Ivey argues that the Hardshells are the real "primitive" or "original" Baptists, and one of the reasons is because they reject the means of the gospel and faith in the work of salvation. He acknowledges that the London Confession, and the churches which endorsed it, via the Philadelphia confession, those who he said were the "Regular" Baptists, believed in gospel means in the the necessity of faith for salvation.
Also, Ivey has to accept certain distasteful conclusions, if one is to accept the propositions that are part of his overall thesis. First, he has to deny that those Hardshell churches with succession through the Regular Baptists, and through the Philadelphia and London confessions, are not legitimate churches of Christ. This would declare most of his Hardshell churches to be without a legitimate succession. Second, he has to admit that the vast majority of the first Hardshell churches believed in gospel means, seeing they accepted the old confessions.
Ivey cannot cite the original articles of faith of any of the Associations he has named and show that they denied means and the necessity of faith. If he could do it, he would do it. Rather, as we have seen, all he can do is to try to insert hardshellism into those old articles, "by hook or crook."
Ivey wrote:
"A small liberty is taken in calling these three Confessions Primitive Baptist Confessions of Faith. In so doing I disclose my slight prejudice."
We are glad to have this much of a confession by Ivey regarding his work. He admits being prejudicial in calling three of the oldest Particular/Calvinistic Baptist confessions Hardshell. He says he has a "slight prejudice," but the truth is, he has a lot of prejudice! Anyone who reads his work can see it, except for his dedicated cult members. He certainly does "take liberty" with the writings of the old Baptists just as did his forefathers in Fulton, and as they do with the sacred writings.
Ivey wrote:
"Elder Daniel King, one of the principle (sic) organizers of the Midland Association, was also probably familiar with the London Confession. In 1650 he wrote a book titled A Way to Sion, which was endorsed by four Elders from the London area. It is known that he retained contact with the London Churches during his ministry."
Ivey, by admitting that Daniel King was one of the "principal organizers of the Midland Association," has destroyed his own thesis! Why? Because it is clear that Daniel King, like the other Baptists who first established churches in the Midlands, in the 17th century, were believers in gospel means, and in full agreement and fellowship with the Midland churches.
Ivey insinuates that King did not have intimate fellowship with the London brethren who wrote the old London confessions, though he admits that four of those leading London brethren wrote an endorsement to his book. But, this is unlikely, as the men who endorsed his book wrote about King as if he were a close associate of theirs. John Myles, Thomas Proud, and Benjamin Cox, all endorsers of the old London confession, were the first laborers among the Midland churches, and we have seen how these men believed in gospel means. King's book was endorsed by Thomas Patient, William Kiffen, John Spilsbery, and John Pearson, leading Particular Baptists of London, and writers of the old London confessions. These men wrote this about King in the foreward of his book:
"It has laid upon some of our Spirits, as a duty, to put out our weak ability for the discovering of these gross errors and mistakes. But it has pleased God to stir up the Spirit of our Brother, Daniel King, Whom we judge to be a faithful and painful Minister of Jesus Christ, to take this work in hand before us. And we judge that He has been much assisted of God in the work in which He has been very painful."
This demonstrates that the London brethren were in full fellowship and perfect agreement with Daniel King, a leader among the Welsh Baptists, and those of the Midland Association.
Daniel King wrote, in a sub-title, "That The Commission To Preach And Baptize Was Given To Christ's Disciples, As Disciples."
Though this statement does not deal directly with the subject of the means of salvation, yet it does deal with the Great Commission, another subject in which the Hardshells are not "primitive." It is a leading contention of the Hardshells to affirm that the commission was not given to all "disciples," but only to the apostles, or to all the apostles and ministers called of God. They deny that the commission was given to the church as a whole. But, clearly, King did not believe it. He is therefore not a good source for Hardshell notions and succession.
Under the sub-heading "Jesus Christ, the Prophet of God for His Saints and His Church," King wrote:
"And secondly, they lie not only under wrath and condemnation only, but also under much ignorance and blindness of mind. God has appointed Him to be a Prophet, furnished with all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, to deliver man out of this part of His misery, through His saving teaching. He is that Prophet of God, which Moses foretells God should raise up to us from among our brethren, which He commands us to hear."
How does King say that God saves men? "Through His saving teaching," or by the word and Spirit, just as the old confessions affirm. Thus, King, a leader of the Midland's brethren, was no Hardshell!
Under the sub-title - "So for the Evangelical Covenant" - King wrote:
"1. Here is my Son (said God) tendered in the Gospel; take Him, and rest upon Him for life and salvation, and cleave to Him, with renouncing of all other things. (Isa. 42:6). I will (said a Covenant-heart that is taught of God, I will) rest upon nothing on this side of Christ; but now live upon, and unto Christ, by the power of Christ in my heart. Now here is a Covenant, Rom. 10:9-11. IF YOU SHALL CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH THE LORD JESUS, AND SHALL BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART THAT GOD HATH RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, YOU SHALL BE SAVED: FOR WITH THE HEART MAN BELIEVES UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND WITH THE MOUTH CONFESSION IS MADE UNTO SALVATION. For the Scripture said, WHOSOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM SHALL NOT BE ASHAMED. So Hosea 2:19. God speaks of a Covenant, a Marriage-covenant between Him and His people: I WILL BETROTH THEE UNTO ME FOR EVER, etc. And in the last verse you may see the mutual consent on both sides: I will say to them, YOU ART MY PEOPLE: There is the consent of God's part: And they shall say, YOU ART OUR GOD: There is the consent on the people's part. So you may see the answer of an Evangelical covenanting heart, Phil. 3:9. AND BE FOUND IN HIM, NOT HAVING ON MINE OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, WHICH IS OF THE LAW; BUT THAT WHICH IS THROUGH THE FAITH OF CHRIST, THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF GOD BY FAITH. Gal. 3:14, THAT THE BLESSING OF ABRAHAM MIGHT COME ON THE GENTILES THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, THAT WE MIGHT RECEIVE THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT THROUGH FAITH. Here is my Son that was promised to Abram (said God) I will take Him, said Faith: (NOTE) Now here is an Agreement, or covenant. And this observe by the way, that where God makes the Evangelical Covenant with a soul, He gives the heart to accept of the Covenant, as by comparing two places you may see, Isa 54:10, FOR THE MOUNTAINS SHALL DEPART, AND THE HILLS BE REMOVED; BUT MY KINDNESS SHALL NOT DEPART FROM THEE; NEITHER SHALL THE COVENANT OF MY PEACE BE REMOVED, SAID THE LORD, THAT HATH MERCY ON THEE: And so He goes on to declare the excellent privileges of the people in covenant. And verse 13, He said, ALL YOUR CHILDREN SHALL BE TAUGHT OF THE LORD. And that this teaching is believing, whereby they take hold of the Covenant, is clear by our Savior Christ's exposition of this place, John 6:45, IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS, AND THEY SHALL BE ALL TAUGHT OF GOD: EVERY MAN THEREFORE THAT HATH HEARD, AND LEARNED OF THE FATHER, COMES TO ME, that is, BELIEVES IN ME, as the 35th verse expounds it."
This clear declaration of the way and means of salvation needs little comment and clearly denies Hardshell teachings. And, remember, King was a leader of the Midland churches!
Next, King wrote:
"3. It is for the subject matter of it, the Spirit and Word that is to be given, and the Gentiles are partakers of the Spirit and Word of the Gospel as well as the Jews, Eph 3:6 THAT THE GENTILES SHOULD BE FELLOW HEIRS, AND OF THE SAME BODY, AND PARTAKERS OF HIS PROMISE IN CHRIST BY THE GOSPEL. Gal 3:2: RECEIVED YOU THE SPIRIT BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW OR BY THE HEARING OF FAITH? That is, the Gospel. Mark, RECEIVED YOU, you Galatian Gentiles, RECEIVED YOU THE SPIRIT, etc. Acts 2:17, I WILL POUR OUT OF MY SPIRIT UPON ALL FLESH, said God. Therefore upon the Gentiles as well as the Jews."
Again, this needs little comment. It demonstrates that King believed that it is by God's "Spirit and Word" (gospel) that people are saved, born again, receive the Spirit, etc. This is against hardshellism.
King then records an "objection" to his views, and answers it.
"Objection: But it is said, in the Covenant, THEY SHALL NO MORE TEACH EVERY MAN HIS NEIGHBOR, AND EVERY MAN HIS BROTHER, SAYING KNOW THE LORD; FOR THEY SHALL ALL KNOW ME, etc. But we see no such covenant fulfilled yet, and Therefore this is made to Israel only, and reaches not the Gentiles, but the Jews at their conversion."
"Answer 1: That this teaching means the teaching of the Spirit, I confess; but that this Therefore excludes the teaching of God, by man, as an instrument, I deny."
"Is not He as truly taught of God that is taught by God's instruments in God's way, as He that is taught by immediate inspiration?"
Little comment is needed here also. King denies the "anti-means," or "Spirit alone" view of regeneration. Hardshells often argue that "if salvation were dependent upon means, then salvation would not be of God, but of men." But, King rejects that logic. A man may be said to be taught or saved by God, even though done by men. Clearly King is dealing with salvation and he believes that it involves revelation and knowledge of the truth, but Hardshells deny that men are enlightened when they are saved (regenerated). King did not believe, as do the Hardshells, that regeneration was non-cognitive and on the sub-conscious level.
King recorded these words:
"2. Those speeches in Scripture that say (as Paul did to the jailer) BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND YOU SHALL BE SAVED, are but promises that center into, and depend upon the Covenant; for there is difference between a promise and a Covenant: God promised, Jer. 31:33 I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT. Now Here He promises to make the Covenant, but it was not a Covenant in force till the death of Christ, and so confirmed by His blood. So is that of believing in Christ, and being saved, a conditional promise, (I mean in the clear manifestation of it.) That upon believing, a man shall be saved; but the Covenant is absolute, free without condition: Nay, the conditions of the promises are absolutely promised in the Covenant: so that they all, promises and conditions both, have their life from the Covenant. And Therefore by virtue of the Covenant we have faith given, which is the condition to salvation: For God says I WILL WRITE MY LAW IN THEIR HEARTS, etc. And this is part of His law (I mean the law of liberty) that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, 1 John 3:23. Now this is promised to be written in the Heart, by virtue of this covenant: so that if this Covenant be not in force, there can be no faith, and so no salvation. Beside (He says) they shall know me; now knowledge is put for faith, John 17:3. THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL, THAT THEY KNOW THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM YOU HAS SENT. And knowledge is the ground of faith, Rom. 10:14 HOW SHALL THEY BELIEVE ON HIM OF WHOM THEY HAVE NOT HEARD? Therefore there can be no knowing God, nor believing in God, but by virtue of this covenant: And so the conditional covenant that they speak of, flows out of this covenant which is absolute, and Therefore it must needs be of force to us Gentiles."
Again, little comment is necessary. It would be difficult for even Hardshells to twist these words! And, remember, Ivey says that King was a leader of the Midland churches, who Ivey says were Hardshells!
"Question 5: The fifth Question for the explication of the words, is, Who are His seed and His seed's seed spoken of Here?"
"Answer: You see this HE, is Christ; and by seed, peradventure He means the Apostles, Whom He first called to Him, and sent them forth to beget others; He calls them children, John 21:5 CHILDREN, HAVE YOU ANY MEAT? Mark 10:24 CHILDREN, HOW HARD IS IT FOR THOSE THAT TRUST IN RICHES TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD; speaking to His disciples, as the verse shows: And by His seed's seed, may be meant those that they begot to Him, as Paul says to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 4:15: THOUGH YE HAVE TEN THOUSAND INSTRUCTORS IN CHRIST, YET HAVE YE NOT MANY FATHERS, FOR IN CHRIST JESUS I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU BY MY GOSPEL.
But to give you the full meaning; I conceive by seed, and seed's seed, He means all Believers among Jews and Gentiles, all the Sons of God by faith, John 1:12,13 BUT AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM, TO THEM GAVE HE POWER TO BECOME THE SONS OF GOD, EVEN TO THOSE WHICH BELIEVED ON HIS NAME: WHICH WERE BORN NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD. Here is His seed, Gal. 3:29. IF YE BE CHRIST'S, THEN ARE YE ABRAHAM'S SEED, AND HEIRS ACCORDING TO PROMISE.
This is clear-cut! King believed in gospel means, that sinners are begotten by the preaching of the gospel. This was the teaching of the Midland Association of churches! How can Ivey deny it? Therefore, the Hardshells are not "Primitive" Baptists!
See here for the book "Way to Sion."
In "PART THREE: Historic Confessions of Faith" (Chapter XI) of Ivey's book, and under the sub-heading "Three Primitive Baptist Confessions of Faith," Ivey wrote:
"The London Confession omits any relationship between scriptural knowledge and time salvation.
This is an admission that is worth observing. Ivey admits that the Hardshell notion of "time salvation" is absent in the writings of the old Baptists who wrote the London Confession. He tries to find it in other old Baptist confessions, but he is not so honest with them as he is with the London Confession, for he tries to put his novel idea of "time salvation" into the mouths of those old Baptists. Is Ivey condemning those many Hardshells who attempt to insert their idea of "time salvation" into the words of the London Confession?
Ivey wrote:
"The sentiment of Article twenty-four of the 1644 London is absent in the Midland Confession. Article Twenty-four: "Faith is ordinarily begotten by the preaching of the gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to any power or agency in the creature; but it being wholly passive, and dead in trespasses and sins, doth believe and is converted by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead."
But, this is a falsehood. The Midland Confession did not teach anything different. We have shown how Ivey twists the words of that confession in an attempt to make it disagree with what is stated in the oldest London confession.
Ivey wrote:
"The order of this statement is unmistakable. It says faith is normally acquired by the preaching of the gospel. It continues by saying God does not respect any power or agency in the hearing creature, because the hearing creature is passive, being dead in trespasses and sins; upon hearing, the dead creature believes and is converted by the same power which raised Christ from the dead. The inference of this article cannot be denied. It is dealing with regeneration. The creature is dead in trespasses and sins. It is converted by the power that raised Christ from the dead. This conversion must be a conversion from death to life, since the analogy of Christ which is used is from death to life. Further, it notes the conversion is effected by the Spirit of God. Finally it plainly declares the gospel is the ordinary means for arranging belief, and that belief precedes conversion. It says God does not respect any agency in the creature. However, the article ascribes the gospel as an agency of belief to regeneration. The logical conclusion is: Without the gospel there is no faith and therefore no regeneration."
Ivey gives a good and honest interpretation of the words of the old Baptists who wrote the first London confession! Hooray for him in not attempting to revise them and distort them to conform them to hardshellism. Further, how can Ivey and the Hardshells say that the "Means Baptists" (Missionary Baptists) are not "primitive"? Further, since the first old Baptists of both London and the Midland Welsh community, held to these views, where is the Hardshell "succession" and "primitive" origins? Also, notice how Ivey says "the INFERENCE of this article cannot be denied." That is all he has is "inference"! And, improper inference at that! He does this continually, saying such and such words "suggests" or "infers" hardshellism, but cannot produce simple clear-cut statements as proof!
Ivey wrote:
"As we shall attempt to show in our commentary of article eight of the Midland Confession, these brethren did not accept that rational belief, or gospel faith, is a prerequisite of regeneration. They did not place gospel faith ahead of regeneration. This is a fundamental dissimilarity between these two documents. There is no statement of gospel instrumentality in the Midland Confession. Apparently Lumpkin, in assessing the two documents, missed this fundamental difference. However, with such a drastic distinction in theology, it is apparent why the Midland Brethren did not use the London Confession of 1644 as a statement of their beliefs."
How Ivey can properly interpret the article from the old London confession, regarding faith and the means of salvation, but not do so with a similar article in the Midland Confession, is astounding. Here is what article eight says:
"That all men until they be quickened by Christ are dead in trespasses (Ephesians 2:1) and therefore have no power of themselves to believe savingly (John 15:5). But faith is the free gift of God, and the mighty work of God in the soul, even like the rising of Christ from the dead (Ephesians 1:19). Therefore consent not with those who hold that God hath given power to all men to believe to salvation."
I have already shown how Ivey twists these words. Clearly they affirm that people are saved by believing. Further, it is clear that these words are not talking about a Hardshell "time salvation," for they speak of this salvation as being the result of irresistible power, and as connected with being quickened to life.
Article three of the Midland Confession reads:
"We profess and believe the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, to be the word and revealed mind of God, which are able to make men wise unto Salvation, through faith and love which is in Christ Jesus; and that they are given by inspiration of God, serving to furnish the man of God for every good work; and by them we are (in the strength of Christ) to try all things whatsoever are brought to us, under the pretence of truth. II Timothy iii.15-17; Isaiah viii.20."
Regarding this article, Ivey wrote:
"Article three reveals a belief in divine inspiration of the Bible. It also proclaims the sufficiency of scripture "to make man wise unto salvation."
This article is a remarkable and distinct statement which demonstrates independent theological thinking. It expresses a distinctly Primitive Baptist tenet. It is the first Baptist confessional statement which plainly identifies God's providential ministering as the bible doctrine of timely salvation."
How blind is Ivey! How "prejudiced"! How a "taking liberties" with the words of the confession! A thing Ivey admits he is guilty of! This article, rather than upholding hardshellism, utterly denies it! Ivey says that this article is his ancient authority for the doctrine of "time salvation"! It is absolutely adsurd and ludicrous. This is a blatant and perfect example of eisegesis! Only brainwashed cult members can corrupt a text like this!
What "salvation" is under consideration by the confessors and by the apostle when they speak of being made "wise unto salvation"? First, if Ivey gives the standard Hardshell view on the passage, then they will say that the verse is talking not about being saved, but about being instructed in salvation, and thus make the salvation to be regeneration or eternal salvation. It is not typically interpreted as meaning "wise unto time salvation." However, their twist on the passage is to say that it means "being made wise to the fact that you are already saved." But, this is clearly not the meaning of either the apostle or of the Midland Baptists. What it teaches is that wisdom, like faith and repentance, are means of salvation. The text, to teach hardshellism, would reverse the order given and say "salvation unto wisdom." The old Baptists believed that gospel instruction and knowledge, by faith, was the means or condition of being saved.
Ivey wrote:
"These brethren recognized that peace, joy, contentment, assurance, consolation and even rational believing are all dependent, in some degree, upon man's obedience towards God's will. They noted that wisdom based salvation is established in one's faith and love in Christ. They associated the providential deliverance of this salvation to good works from a love motive, identifying scripture as the principle source for instruction in good works. With their last statement, concerning trying all things, they subscribed to a belief that scripture is the only rule of faith, practice, and daily living."
Ivey admits that "these brethren" believed that "man's obedience" was a condition of salvation, "established in one's faith and love in Christ," and yet wants to say that they were Hardshells! Also, where is there any evidence, in the article, that "these brethren" were only talking about an optional temporal salvation?
Ivey wrote:
"By identifying a salvation which is from God, revealed in scripture, understood through wisdom, received through scriptural discernment, applied by good works, all accomplished through faith and love in Christ, these brethren provided a detailed description of the contingent for God delivering providential blessings of temporal deliverance, which is time salvation."
"Understood through wisdom" or a wisdom that saves? Ivey wants us to believe that the Midland confession is not talking about eternal salvation, but to the Hardshell idea of a "conditional time salvation," about a "salvation" that is not necessary for being saved from sin. This is Ivey's proof of hardshellism among the ancient Baptists? Laughable! It reveals the cultic bias of the Hardshells.
Ivey wrote:
"The absence of a polemic attitude in this article and the skill with which it is simply stated suggests the Midland brethren were both established and comfortable with the theology of a temporal salvation of providential deliverance. They recognized that, to a very large extent, this deliverance, or temporal saving, is contingent upon obedience to God's will. They understood that scriptures such as Philippians 2:12, Romans 1:16, II Corinthians 7:18, Philippians 1:19 and II Timothy 3:15 all reveal the principle of God's providential salvation of His people."
"Suggests"? It "suggest" no such things! Ivey says things here without the least shred of reason or proof! Only brainwashed cult members would ever be so blind and rebellious! Again, Ivey can produce no plain statement from the old Baptists to show they believed in his novel hybrid doctrine of "time salvation," but has to read it into the text. Any who are not married to this cult will see it.
Ivey this cited this article from the Midland Confession.
5th. That God elected and chose, in His Eternal counsel, some persons to life and salvation, before the foundation of the world, whom accordingly He doth and will effectually call, and whom He doth so call, He will certainly keep by His power, through faith to salvation. Acts xiii.48; Ephesians i.2-4; II Thessalonians ii.13; I Peter i.2, etc.
Ivey then comments upon this article and says:
"By associating works and faith these brethren revealed a fundamental theological connection. It is, faith is manifested by works."
But, affirming that "faith is manifested by works" does not infer hardshellism. That is a non-sequiter. Notice, however, the scriptures referred to by King in support of his views on faith and effectual calling by God's word and Spirit.
Ivey wrote:
"The Midland brethren understood that a fundamental distinction of manifestations of faith does not exist; that fundamentally, faith is proactive. That is, faith will express itself at some level, from the moment of new birth. In this context, conviction of sin which, as a response of godly morality may be manifest as genuine remorse, is a manifestation of faith which can be expressed absent any gospel knowledge."
Again, Ivey grossly misreads and twists the words of the old Midland Baptists. "Faith will express itself at some level, from the moment of new birth"? How is that in accordance with hardshellism? Do they believe that those who are regenerated while in the womb manifest faith? Also, Ivey says that the Midland brethren believed that "genuine remorse" for sin "is a manifestation of faith," and that such conviction of sin "can be expressed absent any gospel knowledge." But, all this is false. First, the Midland brethren believed no such thing and Ivey puts these ideas into the mouths of those brethren, for they said no such thing. Second, they are unscriptural. Many have come under conviction of sin who never were saved. Did not Pharaoh say "I have sinned"? The scriptures do not teach that conviction of sin can be experienced apart from the work of the Spirit through revelation of truth. But, not only does Ivey affirm that conviction of sin can be experienced without gospel knowledge, he even affirms that faith can be manifested without gospel knowledge! How unscriptural! Paul had a different idea! He said men cannot believe in him of whom they have no knowledge. Daniel King also said the same thing! He said that faith implies knowledge!
Ivey wrote:
"Thus, these brethren understood that the divine indwelling of regeneration, and nothing less, is the predessorary impetus for manifesting faith."
But, this too is false, and Ivey presents no evidence from the writings of the Midland brethren to prove it. Again, he is reading his hardshellism into those writings.
Ivey then cites another article from the same confession, which reads:
8th. That all men until they be quickened by Christ are dead in trespasses--Ephesians ii.1; and therefore have no power of themselves to believe savingly--John xv.5. But faith is the free gift of God, and the mighty work of God in the soul, even like the rising of Christ from the dead--Ephesians 1.19. Therefore consent not with those who hold that God hath given power to all men to believe to salvation.
Concerning this article Ivey wrote:
"While Elder Cox's influence is apparent in other articles of this Confession, it is nowhere more apparent than in article eight. This article is a compact statement of several articles of his appendix. In particular it communicates sentiments expressed by Elder Cox in article seven of his appendix. It states, "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 so make him to believe and obey willingly, Ezek. 36;26,27; Ps. 110:3. God thus working in us both to will and to do, of His good pleasure, Phil. 2:13." Elder Cox clearly understood that faith cannot exist in the child of God until after a new heart is created in him."
This is all false, for we have before shown how Cox endorsed the 1644 confession, and how his Appendix clearly upholds the gospel means position. Ivey misinterprets Cox. Cox believe that the "new heart" was a believing heart, not that one could have a "new heart" that was still an unbelieving and impenitent heart, as do the Hardshells. But, I have already looked into these articles in greater depth.
Ivey wrote:
"In addressing Pelagian error, the Midland brethren also identified their opposition to an underlying principle of Calvinist regeneration, which is gospel agency. Their statement presents faith as an evidence of regeneration, and concludes that this certainty eliminates any ability for men to believe savingly. The Midland brethren evidently believed new birth must precede rational comprehension of gospel faith. They likened faith to the rising of Christ from the dead. Before he rose he was alive. He did not first rise, then live. Regardless of the immediacy of his rising after life, the rising did not precede life."
Again, this is all false. Ivey says things about the Midland churches beliefs that are contrary to what are their clearly stated beliefs. He again "reads into" their writings his own Hardshell notions.
"Pelagian error"? Is that not the error of the Hardshells? Bob Ross, who has also written extensively against hardshellism, in "Chapter Six: HARDSHELL DOCTRINE IS PELAGIANISM IN A 19TH CENTURY PACKAGE," showed how it was the Hardshells who are the Pelagians. He said that "The 'Command Implies Ability' Theory Strips God's Word of Power." He says further:
"Pelagianism held that God bestowed on man the "capacity for his will and work" and that man's capacity, or ability, "come from God alone." This "capacity" was "implanted in us by God," according to Pelagius, a fifth century British monk after whom this school of thought is named.
While Hardshellism is certainly not Pelagian on the matter of man's nature in relation to the effect of the Fall of Man, it has adorned the old Pelagian concept of "command implies ability" in a new garb, format, or "package." What Pelagianism says of man in his natural state, Hardshellism merely shifts to man in a supposed "regenerated" state, before faith.
Basically, this is the same view being advocated by some today who called themselves "Reformed." They have the sinner "capacitated" with an "ability" prior to faith so as to be "enabled" to become a believer. They therefore say "regeneration precedes faith," for it is allegedly necessary for the sinner to be "alive" in order to have the "ability" to believe.
In effect, this logically denies that the power of the Word of God is suficient, in the hands of the Spirit, to resurrect the "dead" sinner, as illustrated by Ezekiel's dry bones (Ez. 37). It makes faith the act by the "regenerated" sinner's "ability" rather than the creative gift of the Holy Spirit."
Ivey cited another article of the confession, which says:
10th. That every man is justified by Christ--Romans; viii.33; I Cor. vi.11; apprehended by faith; and that no man is justified in the sight of God partly by Christ and partly by works. Romans iii.20,28,30; Gal. v.4.
Ivey then wrote these comments:
"The clause, "That every man is justified by Christ, apprehended by faith," makes the same distinction of order in justification and faith that is made in article eight concerning regeneration and faith. They did not precede justification with faith. The proper order is justification, then faith. However, they wrote that man is apprehended by faith. No doubt, their use of the word apprehended was deliberate. It sends a signal concerning this faith. It is a faith that apprehends."
Note: All the above citations from Ivey are from Chapter XII - 1655 Midland Confession of Faith.
It is true that the word "apprehend" may denote "to grasp mentally," or to understand, but it may also mean to "take into custody" or to arrest. Simply put, it means to "grasp" or to "take hold of." How is Christ and salvation obtained by the heart and mind? By faith! That is what our brethren taught in the above citation. What is the Hardshell view? That Christ and salvation are obtained (grasped or taken) apart from faith! What is Ivey's view of the "new heart" created in regeneration? Is it not a heart that is in unbelief and that has not apprehended Christ?
No comments:
Post a Comment