To Brother Green

The following is my response to Elder Green. You can read his comments in the previous post by Elder Fralick. My response is so long that I have to make it as a posting rather than putting it in the com box.

Dear Brother Green:

You wrote:

"I am persuaded that we can discuss the issue of gospel regeneration and other issues on this site until the cows come home and not change any of our opinions. I am not skilled in the art of debate, nor do I desire to learn the art."

Ironically, are you not debating about debating? Are you not giving an argument for not debating?

In your first comment you recommend discussing doctrinal differences and now you decry discussion. Ironic again.

Brother, you may not be skilled in "the art of debate," but you are skilled in sophistry and in making ad hominem attacks. Rather than debate/discuss our differences, all you want to do is to attack the "spirit" by which you think we write. You do not prove any of the things you charge upon us, but simply make accusations. I wonder if you debate with those you are seeking to convert to Hardshellism? Perhaps you pick and choose who you debate with? You perhaps debate with those who know less than you but not with those you perceive know more than you?

Your comment affirming the uselessness of discussion is because you think that it is not profitable, that no one will change his mind. Are you not affirming that either you or we are not honest in our Bible interpretations? Why else would you say such a thing? You are either condemning yourself or us in saying that discussion is useless.

Further, the history of the "Primitive Baptist" church is a history of debating. You are condemning your own great leaders in condemning Bible discussion. Are you therefore better than they?

You wrote:

"As Kevin can attest, I strive to preach/teach the simple doctrine of the Bible and have honestly laboured to better understand the whole counsel of God. I encourage all of God's people to search the scriptures and seek to identify with a body that best models the doctrine and practice of the Bible. I find that home to be with the Primitive Baptist Church. Obviously, we do not agree on this issue."

Here you say that you are "honest" in your attempts to understand the true teaching of scripture. Then, you must think that Kevin and I are the dishonest ones. If you are honest and we are honest, then ought not our discussion of the scriptures be profitable?

Why don't you prove that the Hardshells are the "best model" of truth? Your simply saying so does not make it so. Why don't you prove that unbelievers will be saved? Why don't you prove that the Hardshells are the original Baptists?

You do a good job of tooting your own horn about how honest you are in studying the Bible but you insinuate that we are not. What kind of honest discussion is this? Should you make such accusations without proof?

You say that each person should "seek to identify with a body that best models the doctrine," and yet your first comment was condemnatory of Kevin for doing so! Isn't that hypocritical?

You wrote:

"It is not profitable to use the Bible as a baseball bat to beat any individual/group into submission. Granted, some PB's have been guilty of entering into 'attack mode', but not all That is now how I and many other PB's operate. Again, doctrinal differences can be discussed without grinding axes."

Is that your judgment of Kevin and me? Is it right to make such accusations in a dialogue without proof? What about your "spirit" in making such unfounded charges? Do you not know that all cults react the way you do when their heresies are exposed? Kevin and I beat people with a Bible bat? Are you in the habit of making such accusations without proof? Do you feel that you are prompted by the Holy Spirit in doing this?

Not only "some" but most Hardshells have been in "attack mode" for the past two hundred years. If you know anything about your history you will know that this is so. Now, you may say that you are an exception, but your saying so does not prove it.

You say that Hardshells do not operate as they used to do. Then, who is superior? You or your forefathers?

You wrote:

"Perhaps the reluctance of other PB's to discuss any issues that are presented on this site is the sharp manner in which you ask questions."

I wonder, brother Green, do you think that Jesus ever asked questions in a "sharp manner"? Isn't the best apologetic method to interrogate? To use the Socratic method? Did not the apostles also use this method? Why don't you try to answer the questions? I am sure, brother, that the reason the Hardshells don't want to discuss doctrine here is because they know they cannot win the argument. Now, how can we prove who is right? You say that the Hardshells don't discuss doctrine here because we have a bad spirit. I say that they can't defend their heresies. Again, how can we prove who is correct?

You wrote:

"Most Christians are peaceful folk and have no desire to place themselves in a hostile environment with others systematically attacking their faith."

What do you mean by "peaceful folk"? People who do not defend their views on scripture? People like the Hardshells? Again, you think that your simply saying this makes it so? Can you prove that the Hardshells are "peaceful folk" by looking at the history of your denomination?

How do you know that "most" Christians are "peaceful folk"? How are we not peaceful folk here at the Old Baptist blog? Do you think it is right for you to accuse without proof?

How is our blog a "hostile environment"? Do we not give the Hardshells all the space they want to rebut anything that we have said? Is it wrong to systematically attack cults and heretics? What do the scriptures say? Do you not think that this is the typical response that cult members will give when their teachings are examined?

You comments, my brother, are full of accusations against our character. This is not the way to have a discussion.

You wrote:

"It is my experience that those who are honestly seeking clarification and understanding about another person's belief system are better served by doing so with humility and charity."

In this statement you are affirming that you are the one with "humility and charity" and brother Kevin and I are not. Again, your comments are nothing but character assassination. I find it simply amazing that you would come here and toot your own horn, about how peaceful, humble, charitible, and honest you are, and how we are not so. What kind of discussion is this? Who is being hostile in such accusations? You or us?

You wrote:

"Stephen, I have been with your father on several occasions since moving north and have enjoyed our times together. He has been an encouragement to me personally. I feel him to be a great student of God's word. Do you believe him to be governed by emotion and philosophy?"

Yes, but my dad has not been shy about discussing our differences over the years. Further, he has been a champion debater for the Hardshells over the years. Was he wrong? Was Thompson, Daily, and Cayce also wrong?

Let us not discuss my dad's emotions and philosophy. Let us discuss the scriptures and the history of the Old Baptists, okay? Why are you afraid to do this?

You wrote:

"Kevin, you are entitled to believe whatever you desire. If your intent is to rescue others from error, you would be better served by considering what I previously wrote."

So, you are the expert on how to convert the saints out of error? How do you do this? Apart from Bible discussion? You convert people into Hardshell doctrine by telling them how sweet, kind, loving, honest, and humble you are?

You wrote:

"As far as Eld. John Watson goes, he should not be held up as the standard of orthodoxy. He was a fallible man such as us."

He may not be a standard for orthodoxy but he demonstrates that the first Hardshells did not deny the use of means in saving sinners to eternal life. Why don't you cite someone prior to Watson who denied that the elect must hear the gospel and believe it to be saved? Was the London Confession not a standard of orthodoxy for your Hardshell forefathers?

You wrote:

"I am not aware of endorsing any man that shares the views which you teach on this blog (at least not at the time). We can explore this issue privately if you desire, but it is not pertinent to my initial request."

I will let brother Kevin address this as it involves him.

You wrote:

"I am sorry that you feel ostracised or muzzled. That is not how I interpreted the events surrounding your departure from the PB's. Again, we can discuss these issues privately if you desire."

Again, brother Kevin can address this. However, I was "ostracised" and "muzzled" when I was with the Hardshells and have been slandered since leaving them. The Hardshells have also "ostracised" my dad, as you should know.

You wrote:

"I will take a closer look at the info compiled on your blog as time permits. Regardless of differences, I pray that a spirit of humility will prevail if I have opportunity to post."

The kind of "humility" that you manifest in all the harsh accusations you make against us?

You wrote:

"Again, I encourage both of you to withdraw from the name calling and deriding (cultists, etc.)."

Your words are an example of the "pot calling the kettle black," for your comments have been full of derision and false accusation. Brother, take a look at yourself and what you have written.