Reviewing Ivey's Work VII

Ivey, in trying to find pre-17th century confessions which taught the Hardshell "anti-means," or "Spirit alone" view of regeneration, cites the Kehukee Association Articles of Faith, in chapter thirteen, from 1777. It reads:

6. We believe that it is utterly out of the power of men, as fallen creatures, to keep the law of God perfectly, repent of their sins truly, or believe in Jesus Christ, except they be drawn by the Holy Ghost.

Ivey then says:

"No doubt, use of the term is in reference to John 6:44; "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day." In this verse, the Savior indicates the need of the divine power of God to bring one to him. In verse 45 the Savior more fully develops this point. "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me." This verse teaches a principle of direct divine instruction. It indicates that every man, without failure, which is taught by God is drawn by God, to Christ. That is, every one who hears the quickening voice of God proceeds to Christ in a redemptive sense. Though God quickens, it is Christ who redeems. All who are quickened are instantly presented to Christ for effectual redemption. Another way of saying the same thing is; it is by the application of the blood of Christ that we are redeemed from our sins."

Yes, it is true that the confession, in the article cited, alludes to John 6. But, it is not true that they understood the passage as does Ivey, who represents the Hardshell "take" on the passage. In fact, Ivey's commentary on the passage is not at all in line with what the article itself says. Clearly the old Baptists who wrote the article believed that faith and repentance were the very things effected by being "drawn" by the Father to Christ. Where, in the article, however, do the old Baptists affirm that the "drawing" was regeneration? They saw regeneration as the effect of this drawing, not the drawing itself.

Ivey admits that all who are "drawn" by the Father, are likewise "taught" by the Father, and "come to Christ." This admission destroys the very doctine he tries to uphold! It destroys hardshellism! If being "taught" by the Father is the way the Father "draws," then this, rather than denying means, supports them! How can a man be "taught" without knowledge and truth? Let Ivey tell us what truth is taught by the Father as part of his "drawing"! If the "drawing" involves "teaching," or the acquisition of knowledge, then the effect of it is to learn! But, Hardshells say that nothing is "taught" and "learned" in regeneration, affirming that the experience is non-cognitive and on the sub-conscious level. Sinner's learn nothing in regeneration, remaining as ignorant as they were before! Their "regeneration" has no enlightenment, no revelation of truth, no deliverance from the darkness of ignorance. Ivey speaks of "direct divine instruction," a kind that includes no gospel revelation and knowledge, as what occurs in the "drawing" of the Father, but we would simply ask him - "what truth is taught in regeneration?"

Ivey affirms that all who are drawn and taught by the Father, without fail, "come to Christ." But, how can one "come to" Christ apart from his thoughts and understanding, apart from his heart, mind, and will? How can he do it apart from faith? Every old Baptist, outside of the Hardshells, have always understood coming to Christ to be conversion, to be a reference to "believing" in Jesus. Certainly Jesus interpreted "coming to" him as the same as "believing in" him. I have a couple chapters of my book on the Hardshells where I prove this from the context of John six, and cite our old Baptist forefathers who interpreted coming to Christ with coming to him in faith through the gospel. Thus, Jesus teaches against hardshellism, in that he affirms that all the elect, all who are "drawn" by the Father, will come to faith in Christ, this being the immediate and irresistible effect of such drawing.

Ivey said - "every one who hears the quickening voice of God proceeds to Christ in a redemptive sense."

What he means by these words is not clear, at least to the non-Hardshell. Being a former Hardshell, however, I know what Ivey means. "Hearing the voice of God" is not hearing it in the gospel! "Hearing" the voice of the Lord is not the same as hearing it attentively, cognitively, and consciously! It is not a hearing that is connected with believing! Further, by "proceeding to Christ" Ivey does not refer to what a man does consciously or cognitively! It is not what a person does with his heart and mind! How can a man, with his heart and mind, go to Christ, apart from knowing who is Christ and where he is? But, Ivey will insist that this "proceeding to Christ" is something the sinner does, but does not know that he is doing it! What does Ivey mean by going to Christ "in a redemptive sense"? One can only guess! Doubtless, he does not mean "in a conversion sense," for that would destroy his hardshellism. Further, Ivey wants to make this "coming to Christ" to be essential for "redemption"!

Ivey then wrote:

"This article does not exclude a need for gospel instruction in order to obey, repent or believe. The gospel is not mentioned because the article deals with the fundamental inability of man to approach God without a prior work of grace. It was not appropriate to discuss the gospel at this point. To do so may have confused some with notions of gospel instrumentality in regeneration."

"The gospel is not mentioned"? Sure, it is not mentioned specifically but it is clearly implied by the confession's mention of "believing in Jesus" and "repenting of sins." But, how can a man believe and repent apart from knowledge of the gospel, as Paul taught in Romans 10?

Ivey says that the article does not "exclude" "gospel instruction" for the production of obedience, repentance, and faith. Obviously, Ivey believes that "gospel instruction" is required for obedience, repentance, and faith. Thus, in denying the necessity of "gospel instruction" for salvation, Ivey is also denying the necessity of obedience, repentance, and faith, for salvation! But, this is what is at the heart of hardshellism. A more blasphemous message could not be put forth! So contrary to the whole tenor of scripture, against the plain declarations of scripture! Their message is - "he that believes not shall be saved"!

Ivey said - "The gospel is not mentioned because the article deals with the fundamental inability of man to approach God without a prior work of grace." Is Ivey saying that they taught that one could be a "believer in Jesus" apart from the gospel? Absurd ideas! They spoke of the inability to believe prior to believing! But, this is against hardshellism, which teaches that those who believe do so as a result of having a prior ability to believe! Such glaring inconsistency and contradiction!

There is no denying that "a prior work of grace" is necessary to believing and coming to Christ, but to affirm that this "prior work" is regeneration is false. The "prior work" is indeed the "drawing" and the "teaching" of the Father, but it is not regeneration, for regeneration is the actual coming to Christ, that which follows the drawing and teaching. If one makes the "drawing" and the "teaching" to be regeneration, then one is "regenerated" who has not yet been united to Christ! Besides, if the "drawing" and the "teaching" refer to "regeneration," then what does the "coming to Christ" refer to? It must refer to "conversion," and if so, then Ivey is admitting that all the regenerated will also be converted, but this is against modern hardshellism.

Why Cite The Old Kehukee Articles?

What is interesting about Ivey's attempts to deny that gospel means were taught in the Kehukee articles is the fact that he has already admitted that the Kehukee Association was "Regular Baptist," acceptors of the London Confession of 1689, which taught gospel means! So then, why is he now saying that they did not believe in gospel means? "Consistency thou art a jewel"!

Ivey then cites article seven of the old Kehukee confession, which said:

"We believe in God's appointed time and way (by means which he has obtained) the elect shall be called, justified and sanctified, and that it is impossible they can utterly refuse the call, but shall be made willing by divine grace to recieve the offers of mercy."

Ivey then commented, by saying:

"This article sets forth the principles of the operation of regeneration. It states that God's work of grace is irresistible. It identifies divine calling, justification and sanctification as the component principles of regeneration."

Ivey admits that this article is "setting forth the principles of the operation of regeneration." It is good that Ivey sees that the article teaches that the "work of grace is irresistible," and as being one of those principles. But, it is not good that Ivey fails to see how this regeneration, this "calling," is declared, by the old Kehukee brethren, to involve "offers of mercy." But, the Hardshells do not believe that the gospel contains "offers" of mercy and grace! The Kehukee article also says that the effect of being "called" is to be "made willing." That is, a man who has been successfully called is a man who is now "willing," when before he was unwilling. But, how does this fit with hardshellism which teaches that regeneration is non-cognitive and an unconcious experience? How can one be "willing" apart from understanding? This willingness is connected with "receiving" what is "offered." Is it not received by faith? Receiving offers is not what would be signified by the passive voice, but by the active voice.

Ivey wrote:

"By inserting the phrase (by means which he has obtained) the Kehukee brethren sent a message to all. They did not believe the gospel to be instrumental in regeneration. They are writing of means or methods which God alone utilizes in regeneration. This precludes man obtaining some means or methods to save himself or others. Because they are God's means they are not man's means. Some might suppose the means which the Kehukee brethren meant is gospel instrumentality. This is assigning a specific belief which they would not identify for themselves."

Ivey will not acknowledge that the confession's reference to "means" which God has obtained, or ordained, includes the preaching of God's word, God's gospel. But, this is "willing blindness," the kind of stubborness connected with the term "hardshell." He emphatically denies, without any reason to do so, that the Kehukee brethren had gospel preaching in mind when they spoke of the "means" of God's "calling" of sinners. They spoke of "means" as they relate, not only to "calling," but also to "justification" and "sanctification." But, do the scriptures not say that justification is "by faith"? The same confession, as we shall see, speaks of receiving Christ's righteousness "by faith." And, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Again, it is contradictory for Ivey to think that these words of the Kehukee confession are denying that the gospel and faith are means in regeneration, when he has stated elsewhere in his book that the Kehukee brethren, being Regular Baptists, and endorsers of the London Confession, believed in means.

"Means" for being called, justified, and sanctified, exclude gospel preaching and faith? Where do the Kehukee brethren say such a thing? Means for being "made willing" and for bringing about a sinner's acceptance of the offer, also exclude gospel preaching and faith?

"It is more likely they did not identify a specific means because they did not know it."

This is a stupid remark! It is arrogance. It insinuates that the old Kehukee Regular Baptists who wrote the article were ignorant. It says that they spoke about the means of being called, justified, and sanctified, and converted (receiving offers of mercy), but were ignorant of the means? This remark is indicting to the old Kehukee Baptists! What is "more likely" is the willful and stubborn ignorance of Ivey is keeping him from an honest interpretation of the document. Ivey admits, if you remember, to having a "prejudice" and bias in this matter!

Ivey then cites article eight of the old Kehukee confession, which reads as follows:

"We believe that justification in the sight of God is only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, received and applied by faith alone."

He then comments on this by saying:

"Article eight expands the definition of justification as it is used in the previous article. The order of the last phrase "received and applied by faith alone" suggests the Kehukee brethren held the exact same position concerning the doctrine of justification as was held by the Midland brethren. They understood that effectual justification is received by the faith of the operation of God (Colossians 2:12) Further, they understood that it is applied experientially in the believer's life based upon his faithful obedience to God as detailed in the gospel. The distinction made in the phrase "received and applied" indicates two activities of justification. It is received effectually in regeneration. It is also recieved experientially after regeneration through faith."

There is nothing amiss in the words of the article itself, but there is much amiss in the commentary of Ivey upon them. What a mess he makes of the words of the article! What a job to have to clean it up! It is a nasty job, but someone has to do it!

First, Ivey says that the confession is in agreement with the Midland confession, both supposed to be upholding Ivey's "Spirit alone" view of regeneration/calling. But, again, I remind you of how Ivey, when writing about the Separate versus the Regular Baptists, spoke of the latter as believing in gospel means, how they endorsed the London Confession, which Ivey admits taught the use of the gospel in regeneration! So, by Ivey's own logic, since the Regular Kehukee Baptists believed in means, and were in agreement with the Welsh Baptists of the Midlands, then they both believed in gospel means!

The confession's statement - "received and applied by faith alone," is like Baalim's ass before Ivey, blocking his interpretation and efforts to "get around" the clear implications of the statement.

It is not clear why Ivey commented upon the article by saying - "effectual justification is received by the faith of the operation of God." I suspect that Ivey's interpretation of the words of Paul about "the faith of the operation of God," is an interpretation which would eliminate the evangelical faith of the sinner in Christ and the gospel. He is making a "distinction," he says, one that he affirms is also made by the Kehukee brethren, wherein he comes up with two distinct ways in which personal justification is effected, one kind being styled as "effectual justification," and the other styled as "experiential justification." The former is "received and applied" apart from faith in a preached gospel, while the latter is "received and applied" by evangelical faith, which involves gospel means. Only "effectual justification" is necessary, according to hardshellism, for being eternally saved. "Experiential justification," on the other hand, is not necessary for being eternally saved. But, of course, there is nothing in the article which says all this, but is what Ivey "reads into" the article in order to make it conform with his Hardshell notions. There is no twice "receiving" of justification in the article! There is one receiving and one application that is alluded to!

Thus Ivey is wrong when he says - "'received and applied' indicates two activities of justification. It is received effectually in regeneration. It is also recieved experientially after regeneration through faith.'" All this is being read into the article and it is a character flaw in Ivey to do such a distortion work on the article.

Ivey then cites article nine of the confession, which stated:

"We believe, in like manner, that God's elect shall not only be called, and justified, but that they shall be converted, born again and changed by the effectual workings of God's holy Spirit."

Ivey then comments by saying:

"Continuing the discussion of the specific nature of regeneration, the Kehukee Confession reveals a principle of conversion. The word converted in this context deals with a fundamental change in the disposition of one born of God. The Apostle Paul characterized the fundamental nature of the conversion of regeneration in Romans 7 as initiating a warfare. He identified a basic change in affections as the stimulus of this conflict. This is the conversion of article nine."

Ivey admits that the Kehukee brethen had regeneration in mind when they spoke of conversion! But, all his Hardshell apologists say that conversion is not the same as regeneration! How are they then like the old Kehukee Regulars? But, now, because it suits Ivey, he will say that the Kehukee brethren, in using the term "conversion," do not refer to what is effected by the gospel! Ivey and the Hardshells are guilty of what is called "doublespeak." They give different definitions and interpretations of words whenever it suits their cause and purpose.

The above citations from Ivey are from "Chapter XIII - 1777 Kehukee Association Articles of Faith."

Ivey's Critics

Dr. R. E. Pound, learned old Baptist historian, in his review of Ivey's work, wrote (emphasis mine - SG):

"The next trap comes from a time conditionalist Primitive Baptist and his efforts to try and prove their succession apart from the original Particular Baptists in London. He tries to disassociation the London brethren from the Welsh and Midlands Baptists. He even has tried to disunite Dr. John Clark and the First Baptist Church founded in Newport, R. I., from the London Particular Baptists. He is Michael Ivey and his work is entitled Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice, June 1994. He is of the conditional time salvation Primitive Baptists (falsely so called for they are not primitive at all). This mishistory is an effort to justify their tampering with the 1689 London Confession which Ivey’s apostate forefathers did in the Fulton Convention near the year 1900. They did all they could to destroy absolute predestination, remove the preaching of the gospel from the work of effectual calling and many other things. Today, some of them even teach that many of God’s elect will die and go to heaven without knowing Jesus Christ or believing in Him. Because they cannot find any of their forefathers among the real and true old Baptists in history, men like Ivey have produced such false, misleading, and deceptive works in an effort to justify their apostate existence. There seems to be a purging going on and this terrible apostate, Christ dishonoring concept is being put out. Many of the American Primitive Baptists are trying to follow in the true faith and order of the historic old Particular Baptists. They will delight in the following work and its documentations and conclusions."

Pound also said:

"The time, conditionalist Primitive Baptist concept, that the Particular Baptists of London who issued the First London Confessions of Faith did not have much, if any, connection with the Welsh Baptists, the Midlands Baptists nor the early American Baptists. This I will disprove by showing how these different churches and their associations held the London brethren in such high esteem that they desired their blessings on their efforts. In addition, I will show that many of the preachers who came into Wales, the Midlands and early America came from the London churches and a close fellowship remained between Spilsbury’s and Kiffen’s one church and the new churches in these different areas. This will show that Michael N. Ivey’s claims about the ancient Welsh Baptists and the London Particular Baptists not being of one faith and order, are merely his own wishes. He wrote his work to support what is known in American Primitive Baptist history as the Fulton Convention. It is an effort at trying to give honor to the Kirklands and their associates who wanted to rework the old Baptist Confession issued in 1689. These are the conditional time salvation people who also teach a limited predestination and that many persons die and go to heaven who know not nor believe in Jesus Christ. Ivey’s work is wish history and is deceptive, subversive and misleading in addition to being untrue."

"The American Primitive Baptist writer, Michael N. Ivey, in his wish-history, called Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice, 1994; would have us to believe that this old Church at Olchon was not one with the London Particular Baptists, and that it reached out and constituted churches in Wales and also in the Midlands. The implication is that the Midland’s Confession is totally against the First London Confession of Faith. This connection I am making is very important and will show the false and misleading conclusions of Ivey, a time conditionalist Primitive Baptist. These old Baptists in Wales were one with the London Brethren. Their union with the five churches gathered by Myles and Proud prove this."

See here

These words of Dr. Pound make for a good conclusion for my own review of Ivey's "wish history."