Elder Gilbert Beebe, as has been stated, was the foremost leader of the new denomination who called themselves first "Reformed Baptists," then "Old School Baptists," and then "Primitive Baptists." He was appointed by the signers of the "Black Rock Address" to begin the denomination's first periodical, "The Signs of the Times." What was taught in that periodical by Beebe and other leaders of the new denomination represented the general views of the denomination at the first. As was stated earlier, the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things was the known view of Beebe and the Signs of the Times. Here are some things that Beebe wrote on the doctrine of "Predestination."
Wrote Beebe:
"But there are those who while they admit what is called the foreknowledge of God, deny that his knowledge is based upon his own purpose and determinate counsel."
This is what today's Conditionalist Hardshells deny. They deny, as Elder Beebe believed, and as the London Confession affirmed, that God's foreknowledge is "based upon his own purpose and determinate counsel." Further, when Beebe says "there are those," he does not mean "there are some Old School Baptists," but "there are some Christians, i.e., the Arminians and Free Willers." The view that foreknowledge and providence are the results of God's eternal purpose, or predestination, and not the causes of it, is the teaching of the London Baptist Confession of 1689. It clearly stated in section three on the "Decrees of God," - "hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future." They refer to these passages: Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18. Today's Conditionalist Hardshells, who represent the overwhelming majority of today's "Primitive Baptists," do not accept this as the truth, but like the Arminians, believe that predestination often follows foreknowledge. Acts 2: 23 mentions "the determinate counsel (predestination) and foreknowledge of God." Which is first in this passage?
Wrote Beebe:
"They urge the following objections to predestination. It is fatalism, it destroys man’s free-agency, and his accountability, and makes God the author of sin; and some there are who go still farther and say if the doctrine of predestination be true, God in predestinating the events of time, etc., has transcended his right and is unjust. Our friend R.S., we think, will agree with us, that it very easily becomes poor sinful dying mortals thus irreverently, not to say blasphemously, to question the eternal right of God to do what seemeth to him good, in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth, or to set up their standards of justice and denounce their creator if he does not abide by their decisions. Let all such first meet the searching interrogative of the inspired apostle, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, to form one vessel to honor” etc.? The holy prophet of Jehovah, by inspiration, has informed us that God is the potter, and we are the clay. Hence we must acknowledge his eternal right to dispose of all things, all events, and of all worlds according to his own pleasure. Let this be admitted and all murmuring against his predestination will cease. It is not our purpose to meet the objections urged by men to the doctrine of divine revelation, and by logical argument to put them to silence; nor do we design to attempt to make the doctrine palatable to the natural mind of man which is enmity against God, for all such attempts are without the least prospects of success. The enmity of the carnal mind is fully demonstrated in the objections which they bring, but we design rather to search out and call the attention of our inquiring friend to what God has revealed in the scriptures on the subject, and this we will do, if God permit, whether men will hear, or whether they forbear. The term predestination, as we have intimated, has reference to the order and succession of events in time, by which the eternal designs of God are brought to pass. And, so far as pass, predestination simply signifies that God had purposed, God’s providence is concerned in bringing his designs to decreed, ordained, or destined the accomplishment of those things before they were, in order of time brought to pass.— Hence to us, it is predestination, with God it is destination, because his infinity connects and comprehends the end with the beginning, for he is himself the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending."
Beebe denied that he believed in "fatalism," or that God was the "author of sin." He denied the affirmation that says that predestination is not compatible with the fact of man's accountability. These are the charges that the Arminian and Pelagian have charged against predestinarians and old Baptists, and are the same charges brought by most of today's Hardshells. They will still agree, like many Arminians, that God foreknows all things, and that what God foreknows will certainly and must come to pass, and that nothing can come to pass if God do not willingly allow it. Beebe did not deny that man was not a free moral agent.
What Beebe affirms is what John Calvin also affirmed. Wrote Calvin:
"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5)
But, neither Calvin or Beebe believed that predestination was fatalism or that it made null and void human choice and responsibility. Neither believed that God was the blameworthy cause of sin, or that God was accountable to his creature's for his actions, nor denied that God gave Adam free choice as respects his obeying or disobeying the law of his Maker. It is unjust for the Conditionalist Hardshells to say that Absoluters, like Beebe, "believed" that God was the author of sin. They did not believe it. Conditionalists may say that they believe that the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things logically makes God the author of sin, but they have no right to say that they actually avow such. But, like Beebe said, some men think that if two propositions seem incompatible and contradictory, in scripture, then one or both is to be rejected, or altered to conform with each other. But, faith would accept both propositions, and would not allow human ability to comprehend the harmony of both to force one into disbelieving or altering either proposition. Such believe that they are compatible though we cannot confidently know how. The Conditionalists want to divorce all mystery from the doctrine of the divine decrees.
Beebe wrote:
"Having, as clearly as we are able, defined predestination, we pass to enquire whether it be a Bible doctrine. If it be a Bible doctrine, we must admit it, or reject the Bible as a record of infallible and eternal truth, and take the open ground of infidelity. And who can trace the sacred pages of the holy book and say that it contains no testimony in support of the doctrine? In the absence of predestination how was it that the prophets of Jehovah foretold the events of ages, thousands of years before those events were actually fulfilled?"
Were the doctrine of the predestination of all things not clearly taught in numerous passages of holy scripture, and was rather confined to one or two obscure passages, then it might be justifiable not to believe the doctrine. But, it is plainly taught. In an earlier chapter, many verses were cited where "all things" are said to be "from God." God is specifically said to "work all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph. 1: 11) God controls all things. But his control or government of all things necessarily infers a prior divine choice as to this control, and thus connects with the divine decrees or with predestination. Providence is but the actual working out of God's prior purpose(s).
Beebe wrote:
"There are those who admit the doctrine of predestination, so far as it applies to the coming of the Savior, the work which he was to perform, the sufferings which he was to endure, and the glory which was to follow; and also in relation to the good works which God before ordained that his people should walk in; but reject the idea that his purpose and foreknowledge extends to the wicked acts of men and devils. But for ourself, it is our firm conviction that if a single event could possibly transpire from the creation of the world to the end of time, from the rise and fall of empires, to the falling of a sparrow, or a hair of our head to the ground, that such unforeseen and consequently unprovided for events would unavoidably endanger and render uncertain the execution of what is admitted to be ordained and decreed of God."
Beebe is simply affirming what is historic old Baptist doctrine, what was taught by Zanchius and Gill. The saying, "if he is not Lord of all, then he is not lord at all," is appropriate. They knew that God's providence and government of all things was in fulfillment of God's eternal purpose. Neo-Hardshells deny God's decrees involve "all things," thinking that the "wicked acts of men and devils" can be no part of those "all things," for they think that it makes God to be the creator of sin. They think that such a belief in predestination destroys God's holiness, justice, and goodness. But, here again, they use their own ability to comprehend this doctrine as the criterion for judging its veracity. But, this is typical of their hermenuetics, as I intend to show in a series on "Hardshell Hermenuetics." What ever happened to the criterion that says - "God said, I believe it, and that settles it"?
Beebe wrote:
"But aside from all human reasoning, or vain speculation on the subject, God has informed us, by his inspired apostles, that Jesus was delivered by his determinate counsel, and foreknowledge, and put to death by wicked hands. And again, the inspired apostles break forth in praise to God, in devout acknowledgement both of the decree and of its accomplishment, that, “And when they had heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of the servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontious Pilate, with the gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” (Acts iv. 24-28). Here let it be observed the holy apostles of the Lamb did not start back with horror, and exclaim, fatalism! this makes God the author of sin! or this destroys the accountability of man! They saw nothing in all this reflecting unfavorably on the character or purity of the supreme God; but they saw such harmony in the purpose, decrees, and actual accomplishment of the designs of God, as led them simultaneously and with one accord to lift up their voice in devout adoration and praise to the Most High God, whose providential government was so clearly manifested in controlling all events."
Acts 2: 23 and 4: 27, 28 clearly show that the wicked acts of men in the murdering of Christ was eternally purposed and ordained by God. Even Conditionalists must confess that these wicked acts could not have been performed had God not giving his willing permission. Why cannot "willing permission" be equated with "pre-determination"? The wicked intended evil by their murder, but God intended good by it. (See Gen. 50: 20) Both "intentions" were necessary for the acts, both human and divine. But, Conditionalist Hardshells will want to affirm that only human intention was necessary, in the case of Joseph and Christ, but then will, on the other hand, want to affirm that nothing can come to pass apart from his willing permission. Thus, they contradict themselves, and ironically, seeing they use their ability to make compatible the decrees of God with human guilt, they nevertheless still embrace contradictory (incompatible) propositions!
Beebe wrote:
"The case also of Joseph and his brethren is a very clear and striking illustration of the overruling government of God, as embracing all events. And who shall dare to charge God with unrighteousness, because he retains in his own hand a supreme control of all beings and of all events; because he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. Who has a right to infer that God is the fountain of sin or unholiness; when we are informed that men with wicked hands, do whatsoever his hand and counsel before determined should be done? Paul when declaring what God had said of Pharaoh, that for this purpose he had raised him up to make his power known in him, etc., anticipated the blasphemous out breakings of the human mind in opposition to the predestination of God. “Thou wilt surely say unto me, Why doth he yet find fault,” or hold man as a responsible being, “for who has resisted his will?” But the apostle did not forbear to declare this doctrine because men resisted and blasphemed it; but says the apostle, “Nay, but who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?” etc. When the enmity of the human heart is subdued by the quickening power and grace of God in regeneration, then the heaven-born child is reconciled to God, and loves to contemplate the power and glory of Jehovah."
Beebe defends the doctrine of the divine decrees, respecting all things, against the charge that it makes God to be "the fountain of sin" and judges that those who make such false statements against the doctrine are "the blasphemous out breakings of the human mind" in opposition to God's sovereignty and to the plain declarations of scripture. A truthful analysis!
Beebe wrote:
"One reason we have thought why some of the children of God have seemed to be unreconciled (in their minds - SG) to this doctrine is that they have failed to discriminate between the overruling power and providence of God and the effusions of his Spirit. “Let no man say when he is tempted, that he is tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted, neither tempteth he any man.” When men are tempted to sin they are tempted of their own lusts, and by the devil. But how hopeless and desperate would be the condition of all who are tempted, if God had not the power and providence to control the temptation, and overrule its effect according to his eternal purpose and pleasure for the good of his tried and tempted children, and for the glory of his own great name. Our every temptation, though they flow not from (directly - SG) God, are directed, and restricted and made serviceable to his saints, by him, is absolutely certain. Hence Peter assured the saints that God would control this matter. He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond that which ye are able; but will also with the temptation make a way for your escape. That glorious High Priest which becometh us, was himself tempted in all points as his children are, and knows how to succour them that are tempted. Soon after he was baptized, he was led up by the Spirit, unto the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. He was not led there by the devil; but by the Holy Spirit of the Lord God which was upon him. Neither was he tempted of the Spirit of God which led him into the wilderness; but he was tempted of the devil. The devil could neither afflict poor old Job, nor even drown the herd of swine, until he received permission of the Lord, and it is hard for us to think that any of the saints, however shy they may seem to be of the doctrine of predestination, really would wish or be willing that God should have less, or that sin or Satan should have more power." (Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, Volume III - pgs. 18-25, Feb. 1, 1854
http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=365
In a work titled "The Works of Gilbert Beebe," Beebe wrote the following concerning Romans 9:11-13
(From Signs of the Times—July 15, 1869).
Beebe continues to deny that sin is "from God" directly, or that God is the immediate cause of sin, or culpable in any way for sin, but he also shows that nothing can occur apart from the will of God, by his sovereign permission, as the case of Job clearly shows. Beebe acknowledged, as the scriptures teach, that "all things are of (from) God." (Rom. 11: 36, etc.) He shows that the temptations of Christ were of the devil, but were nevertheless that temptation which was in accordance with the will of God. He also shows how the willing permission of God, in the story of Job, showed that the permissive will of God was the determining factor in the occurrence of the events brought about by the devil in the life of Job.
Beebe wrote:
"In the purpose of God according to election, the discrimination set forth by the apostle in our context, in the family of Abraham, between the children of the flesh, and the children of promise, and between the twin sons of Isaac, clearly shows the sovereignty of God in election, and rejection or reprobation. “For the children” [namely, Jacob and Esau] “being not yet born,” [that is, they were not born when God told Rebecca that] “the elder of them should serve the younger.” God’s decision therefore was not influenced either by the good or bad works of the children, but upon his own unbiased decree. “That the purpose of God according to election might stand.” If we admit then that God had a purpose in the matter, and that his purpose was not influenced by the good or bad works of either the elected or the rejected, we cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion that God’s purpose was a sovereign purpose. But here arises the enmity of the carnal mind of man. If God had rested the destiny of these two children on the purpose of their own will, Arminians would have been satisfied; but in resting his decision on the counsel of his own will, they rage and blaspheme."
Beebe taught what was called "double predestination," that God had not only elected some to salvation, but had destined others to condemnation. Again, this was the general view of the first Hardshells, and has a long tradition in the ranks of all Predestinarian and Particular Baptists. Of course, all supralapsarians believe in "reprobation," or in God's eternal purpose to damn some. Supralapsarians and other High Calvinists believe the "clay" to represent humanity before it's becoming evil by the fall, and does not, as the Low Calvinists and Infralapsarians affirm, represent "fallen humanity," or humanity after it has become corrupt clay. Beebe argues as did Calvin, Beza, Twisse, Zanchius, and Gill, that the vessels are "fitted for destruction" by the Potter, and that their creation by God is "unto dishonor." If the clay, however, is already destroyed (by sin), and already in a state of "dishonor" (by sin), then how could it be formed for such by God?
Beebe wrote:
"It is also infallibly provided as to how God’s purpose in the election of his people shall stand, both negatively and positively. Negatively, “not of works.” Neither the willing of Isaac, nor the vigorous running of Esau could shake or disturb the standing of God’s purpose concerning them; and as the infallible standing of his purpose in their case is “according to election,” so the election of grace shall stand unaffected by the will or works of men. “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; but of God that sheweth mercy.”
That which was done before the world began, could not have been induced by anything done by us after the world began. Then let earth rebel, and hell despair, the purpose of God in and according to election stands firmly as stands the throne and government of the eternal God, nor can the gates of hell prevail against it."
Beebe also refers the reader to the fact that Paul expressly says that the choice of Jacob, and the rejection of Esau, was not based upon the good or evil acts of either, but that God's eternal purpose was the sole basis. Beebe also has mentioned how Paul plainly says "so then it is not of him who wills or runs, but of God..."
http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Beebe,%20Gilbert/romans9.htm
Elder Samuel Trott was also a leader of the newly formed denomination and he wrote the following on "Predestination."
Trott wrote:
"This sentiment, “The absolute predestination of all things” as expressed in the Prospectus of The Signs Of The Times, has called forth so much invective from some, and so much ridicule from others of the popular Baptists of this region that one would conclude some strange and absurd idea had been advocated; some whim daringly promulgated as a part of the secret things of God (Deuteronomy 29:29)."
Notice that Trott says that the opposition to the old Baptist doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things was coming from the "popular Baptists," not from the Hardshell Old Schoolers. But, now, the same opposition comes from most of today's Hardshells. Trott would consider today's Hardshells to be "popular Baptists"!
Trott wrote:
"It therefore, may not be amiss, to re-examine the subject, and inquire whether it be a revealed truth of God, or a visionary notion of man, which is calling forth such malicious sneers from those who profess to be the servants of God.
Predestination is the same in meaning, with fore-ordination or fore-appointment; and is with God, one with pre-determination; for as God declares, so He determines, “the end from the beginning; saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isaiah 46:10). Thus the pre-determination of God, to admit sin into the world embraced in it the decreeing of the time, manner, results &c. of that event. And His pre-determination to bruise His Son in the place of sinners included in it the instruments, time, place and manner of His death. (Compare Acts 2:23 and 4:25-28, and John 17:1, and Hebrews 13:11,12). The doctrine of predestination, then, is this, that God has so predetermined every event, as to fix with such precision its limits and bounds, its causes and effects, that with Him it is divested of all contingency. This, Brother Beebe, is the monstrous doctrine, that you engage to maintain, in your paper, and which we Old Fashioned Baptists, some of us, profess to believe, and which is drawing down upon you and us the reproaches and contempt of all the learned gentry among Baptists. 318 The term “absolute” has been prefixed to the word “predestination” by yourself and others, to distinguish the doctrine you hold from the idea of a conditional predestination. Strictly speaking, however, this is an unnecessary appendage. A conditional predestination, is no predestination at all; for the predestination of an event conditionally, is but a pre-determination to leave the event undetermined, and therefore excludes predestination altogether."
These words of Trott are cogent and irresistible. They are what the Baptists, up till the time of Trott, had taught.
Trott Continues:
Thus we see that predestination of God in this case not only secures the leading purpose that the elect shall be conformed to the glorious image of His Son, but also fixes the limits and determines the end of all things that transpire in relation to them."
"If all persons with whom we have to do were disposed, cheerfully, to submit to the decision of Divine revelation, there would be but one question more to decide in order to determine whether all things, absolutely, or things in a limited sense, are predestinated, or worked according to the decision of the counsel of God’s own will, and that question is: How far does the government of God extend? If His government extends universally over matter and mind, then there is no movement either of matter or mind but what God “works after the counsel of His own will,” or determines the result thereof according to the “good pleasure of His will.” King Nebuchadnezzar evidently thought that God’s dominion was universal over both heaven and earth for he said of Him, “He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest Thou?”" (Daniel 4:35).
"Still, however, many persons are unwilling to believe that the predestination of God has anything to do with the wicked actions of men or devils. They, in order to be consistent with themselves, ought to believe that wickedness is under the control of an opposite power, and that God exercises no control over wicked actions or thoughts, to limit their extent, or to overrule their results in accordance with His purposes; lest thereby He should be charged with being the author of sin.
I think, however, I shall be able to bring from the Scriptures of truth several facts which go to prove that the predestination of God determines the results, fixes the limits and so controls the actions and devices of both good and wicked men and devils, so as to cause them to terminate in the furtherance of His own glorious purposes.
The first proof I shall bring in support of this position is the declaration of the apostle, relative to the crucifixion of Christ as recorded in Acts 2:23, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, YE have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” I know there are those who say that the event accomplished by the death of Christ was so glorious and of so great magnitude as to justify the making use of wicked men or predestinating their acts relative to it. But this is measuring the Mind of God by our little contracted views. We are apt to be so dazzled by splendid events as to overlook the necessary means by which the event may have been accomplished; whereas if the event had been less splendid, we should have condemned those means. But let us beware of attaching such imperfections to God. As great as was the benefit accomplished by the death of Christ, it did not lead God to overlook the perpetrators of the act...Indeed it is altogether idle to attempt to separate the foreknowledge of God from His predestination...It is said by the apostle relative to what Herod and Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, did to Christ, that they did “whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:27,28).
How today's Conditionalists can disagree with this and still claim to be biblical and primitive is astounding.
Trott wrote:
"If the above is not sufficient to establish the fact that God predestinates and controls the evil acts of men, we have additional proof from the history of Joseph and his brethren. Joseph says to his brethren, “Be not grieved nor angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither, for God did send me before you to preserved life;” and again, “God sent me before you to preserve a posterity in the earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So it was not you that sent me hither, but God” (Genesis 45: 5-7,8). And in Genesis 50:20, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass as it is this day, to save much people alive.” Thus we see that while Joseph’s brethren thought evil against him and wickedly devised means to put him out of the way, in order to disappoint his prophetic dreams, God had determined that this very wickedness of theirs should be the means of bringing about the fulfillment of those dreams, and to terminate in His and their good. So also He employed the wickedness of Potipher’s wife, to bring about the ultimate exaltation of Joseph, and consequently to fulfill the purpose for which God sent him into Egypt. So full was Joseph in the belief of the predestination of God in that thing from the manifestation he had received that he said plainly to his brethren: “It was not you that sent me hither, but GOD.”"
Why would today's Hardshells deny such things?
Trott continued:
"These several proofs that I have brought forward are not to be considered as so many peculiar instances in which God’s government is exerted over the wicked actions of men; but rather as special illustrations of the universal government of God. They show how “surely He will cause the wrath of man to praise Him, and the remainder of wrath He will restrain” (Psalm 76:10)."
"The objection most frequently made to this doctrine is that it represents God as the author of sin. Most of those who make this objection will allow that God governs the world and that no event takes place but by His permission. Where is the difference between them and us?"
This is the same point that I have argued thus far. To affirm that nothing comes to pass without God's willing permission is to affirm God's predestination of all things.
Trott wrote:
"They, if I can comprehend their views, believe that God has not beforehand determined the wicked actions of men, that merely as a spectator He suffers the wicked to go on according to their own “free wills.” Of course, if God has had no previous determination relative to their acts, He can have no design in permitting them unless it be simply the general design of leaving those persons to aggravate their condemnation. Now it would seem to me that if either of these systems makes God the author of sin it is their view, for it makes God to be, in a most wanton manner, accessory to the vices of men. But why is such a system preferred? Surely, only, because it takes the government of God from Him and gives it to the will of man."
This is the dilemma that today's Conditionalists must deal with. Is God a mere spectator as to what he observes? Is his permitting with purpose?
Trott wrote:
"If any can find comfort in believing that men’s lives are thus left to the sport of chance, I envy them not that comfort.
"I do not see that this view of the subject any more makes God the author of sin than any other system would short of that of the Magi which supposed the existence of two gods, the one good and the other evil [Zoroastrianism]. Not any more than the Lord’s having appointed Peter the death by which he should glorify God made Him the author of the sin of his persecutors (See John 21:18-19)."
"What I have said upon this subject is probably not sufficient to satisfy the minds of some who may think they are honest inquirers after the truth. But it is not dependent upon me to vindicate the revelation and ways of God from the charge of sin. Let those who charge that doctrine which God has revealed, with sinful tendency, answer to Him for it."
"I will offer a few remarks for the consideration of those who think that God has too great affairs to manage to concern Himself with the smaller particles of matter, such as are seen floating in the air; for such professors there are. I would ask them whether they believe in the resurrection of the body? If so, whether they believe that God will raise the bodies of all or only such bodies He can find on the resurrection morn? We know that the bodies of many have been burned to ashes, and those ashes scattered towards the four winds of heaven; the bodies of others have been left to molder to dust on the surface of the earth; the graves of many have been opened and the dust that once composed the bodies mingled with other particles of earth, not to insist upon the continual process through which matter is passing of decomposition and new organization, by which that which was once the component part of an animal body becomes incorporated in a vegetable substance, etc. How can any person with these facts in view believe that God will or can raise the bodies of all persons unless they believe that He exercises infinite knowledge and that universal disposal of all things, that every particle of matter is present to His notice, passing through what process it may, filling by His direction the very place and accomplishing the very object He designed? Is this knowledge too wonderful for your comprehension? So it is for mine. But is it too extensive for our God whose understanding is infinite?"
"Another objection urged against the doctrine of predestination is that it would involve the notion of the Fatalist and destroy the “free-agency” of man and consequently his accountability. These notions must arise from ignorance of the true character of God who, as an efficient Intelligence, governs the world in wisdom and righteousness, causing everything to result in the greatest good. But in answer to the objection, suffice it to say that the universal experience of man and the sure word of prophecy both unite in establishing the fact that man in all his sinful transactions acts freely, and is accountable there for. I will notice a few instances in which the consciousness of guilt was manifested in persons, relative to transactions manifestly predestinated of God."
Thus Trott affirmed the exact thing as Beebe. Their view did not involve fatalism and the denial of human choice or "free agency." They did believe that God purposely permitted and overruled the choices of men towards the fulfillment of his will. They believed that man was responsible and that God's decrees determine all things.
Trott wrote:
"Thus it is that men and devils, instead of frustrating or retarding the righteous government of God by the acting out of their enmity, are, in their very acts of sinning against Him, made by His wise government to bring about His holy and eternal purposes. This view of the holiness and majesty of God, manifested in His overruling the sins of men to the promotion of His purpose of grace while it fills His enemies with wrath, constrains the true believer to “exalt Him and to worship at His footstool” (Psalm 99:5) under a feeling sense that “He is holy.”"
"I now pass to the consideration of an objection made by the popular Baptists, more particularly against this doctrine as held by the Old School Baptists. Even those who profess to believe the doctrine of predestination make it, when professed by an Old School Baptist to be a very Pandora’s Box from whence springs Antinomianism and everything which they are accustomed to consider as evil in us. It is, according to their representation, our belief in the Absolute Predestination of all things that keeps us from engaging in the Benevolent Enterprises [Modern missionary and social gospel movement – Editor] of the day and prevents us from preaching repentance and faith as conditions of salvation, and from making any efforts to convert sinners, and in a word that it makes us very idle and wicked professors. This is the most unhallowed of all the objections made against this doctrine!"
Notice again that Trott would identify the "popular Baptists" as not being "Old School"! He denies the charge that believers in the predestination of all things are "Antinomians," or that they do not believe in preaching repentance and faith as conditions for salvation, or that they do not make efforts to convert sinners!
Trott wrote:
"It is not in one solitary instance, or two that we are reproached for holding this doctrine. There appears for a few months past to have been a general concert on the subject. Preachers while professing to preach the doctrine of predestination, have in the very same discourses, represented it to be Antinomianism and to have the most deadening influence when held by certain “Baptists,” meaning the Old School brethren. Others have given the same views on the subject in their publications in the religious papers: witness the letter of a certain celebrated preacher in Virginia published in the Religious Herald of December 20th, 1833. But it is perhaps proper to answer the objection, however unprincipled it is. The objection seems to imply that the whole sum of our faith is the doctrine of predestination; that all our religious course is determined by our belief in this one point of revelation."
Trott is against making a "hobby horse" out of the doctrine of predestination, which is what the "Absoluter" faction would later do, as I shall show in a future posting.
Trott wrote:
"Thus the predestination of God has secured that belief in the Absolute Predestination of all things will not make His servants idle, but on the contrary, it becomes an incentive to active obedience."
(Absolute Predestination in Signs of the Times, 1833)
In 1880 Elder Beebe wrote:
"The Old School or Primitive Baptists in former years have been very definitely identified and distinguished from all other religious or ecclesiastical organizations as Predestinarian Baptists, and as such have borne reproach and vituperation from those who hold more limited views of what we regard as the absolute and all pervading government of God over all beings, all events, and all worlds. With deep solicitude and painful concern we have witnessed in the preaching and writings of some of our brethren a disposition to so yield or modify the doctrine as to limit its application to such things as the carnal mind of man can comprehend or the wisdom of this world can approve. While some will concede that all things that they regard as pure and holy are ordained or predestinated of God, they deny that the absolute government of God does dictate by absolute decree the wicked works of wicked men and devils, for that, they say, would make God the author of sin. They therefore set up their judgment, and set bounds for Infinite Wisdom to be restricted to, and beyond which limitation He must not extend His government, without subjecting Himself to their censure as an unjust God and the author of sin."
In 1880 Beebe mentions the first objections against the historic belief in predestination by the Conditionalist faction, the faction that would later take over the denomination.
Beebe wrote:
"The standard of infinite purity and holiness is the will of God. There can be no higher law than the will of God, for only to the standard or counsel of His own will and pleasure does He Himself conform.
But, say some to whose minds the doctrine of the universal government is obscure, "We admit that God has predestinated some things, but do not admit that He has predestinated all things which come to pass." Let us see how this partial or limited government would accord with the Divine record.
Even the wickedness of ungodly men is restricted by predestination, so that "the wrath of man shall praise God, and the remainder of wrath He will restrain."
For death and hell can do no more than His hand and counsel have determined shall be done. Does this make God the author of sin? or, in other words, does this make Him a sinner, or charge on Him an imputation of impurity? By no means. Against whom is it possible for God to sin? Is He amenable to any law above Himself? If so, by what law can He be indicted, in what court can He be tried or convicted? How preposterous! It is His eternal right to do all His pleasure, "Nor give to mortals an account, or of His actions or decrees."
But there are many who admit the foreknowledge of God, and yet deny His determinate counsel, on which the certainty of all the events of time depends. Men may have a limited foreknowledge of things which God has made certain by His determinate counsel and irrevocable decrees, as it is said, "The living know that they must die;" but God’s foreknowledge depends on nothing outside of Himself, for He has challenged the universe to tell with whom He has taken counsel, or who has instructed Him. To us it seems perfectly clear that nothing could be foreknown that was undetermined, and that the foreknowledge and determinate counsel of God are inseparable.
It has been said by some that these great events which God has overruled for good were ordered of the Lord, but that the smaller matters, and the wickedness of men, were not predestinated. Our Savior has informed us that the determinate counsel of God in His all-pervading providence numbers the hairs of our head, so that not a hair can fall to the ground without Him; even the little sparrows are protected, and the ravens are provided with food by His determinate counsel. And Paul assures us that, "We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose."
It seems to us unreasonable, as well as unscriptural, to say that the government of God directs and controls some things, and that other things are left to the control of men or devils. If God’s government extends only to the good deeds of men, then is His absolute government totally excluded...We would not limit the government of our God, nor, because we cannot comprehend His designs, dare to say He has no designs.
Men act voluntarily when they commit sin; they have no more knowledge of or respect for the purpose of God, than Joseph’s brethren or Potiphar’s wife had in his case, for there is no fear of God before their eyes. It is even so with the princes of this world; if they had known Jesus, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But it was needful that Joseph should be cast into prison, and it was expedient that Christ should suffer, therefore that knowledge was withheld from the persecutors of Joseph and of Jesus, until they should fill up the cup of their wickedness. And it is thus in the wisdom of God that the world by wisdom shall not know Him. Yet such is the wisdom, power and righteous government of our God that He can and does set the exact bounds by which the wickedness of men and devils is limited, and beyond which they cannot go."
Beebe wrote:
"If it had been His pleasure to have prevented sin from entering into the world, can we doubt His power or wisdom or ability to have done so? If sin has entered this world in opposition to His will, or because He had not the wisdom and power to prevent its entrance, what assurance have we that it will not also enter the world to come? But it is to our mind far more consistent with what God has graciously made known to us of His being and attributes to believe that God had a purpose worthy of Himself, however inscrutable to us, in regard to the entrance of sin, as well as in regard to all things else. He bids us "Be still, and know that He is God." To our feeble mind the conclusion is unavoidable, that the predestination of God either controls all things or nothing.
The Arminian Conditionalist Hardshells have to affirm that God permitted sin without any purpose regarding it!
Beebe wrote:
"If we admit that God absolutely governs all things according to the counsel of His own will, and that He is immutable, then we must admit that He has determined what shall and what shall not transpire in time or in eternity. But to deny His universal control of all things, including all principalities and powers, thrones and dominions, things present or to come, whether they be visible or invisible, is to deny that He is the God of the whole earth, and virtually deny His eternal power and Godhead. If He has not the power and wisdom to determine all events, how can He cause all things to work together for good to them that love Him?
But while we hold that He is supreme in power, and that He works all things after the counsel of His own will, we are certain that He reigns in righteousness, and that there is no unrighteousness with Him. To admit the universal government of God is to admit the predestination of all things, from the falling of a sparrow to the dissolution of a world. In the absence of predestination, with what certainty could the Holy Ghost inspire the holy prophets and Apostles to foretell all that should ever come to pass?"
An old Hardshell writer of the 19th century, wrote:
"Since 'total depravity' in fallen humanity and devils is the entire real and sufficient cause of all sin being committed as often as God does not restrain and hinder them from it. For instead of causing creatures to sin, He hinders, prevents, and restrains them from sin, except that what sin it is His will to suffer the wicked to do. What he suffers of sin enacted is disagreeable, hateful, and offensive to Himself—hence must be disagreeable to His positive will, as His attribute. But by permissive will He decides to suffer (not hinder) sins committed. But to overrule them for good afterward, so it may later redound to His glory." (J. T. Oliphant, Primitive Baptist Principles)
http://www.the-remnant.com/absolute%20predestination.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment