This is a pic of the ministers attending the 2016 Smoky Mountain Primitive Baptist Meeting, a bi-annual meeting of Hardshells (mostly preachers). (see here)
I attended this meeting a couple times when I was a Hardshell and even once after I had left them. It was begun by Elder Gene Barker, a preacher I met as a young Hardshell preacher in the 70s. This meeting has become a place for preachers to go and show off their preaching talents and to discuss the affairs of the Hardshell denomination.
My nephew, Elder John Davenport, has been attending these meetings, especially since father passed away. I suppose he feels as though he needs these elders as he tries to pastor the church father pastored in Ohio. He is the young minister seated in the front row, fourth from the right.
Does anyone notice anything unusual about this picture? Where are the young preachers? Does this picture not reflect the state of the denomination as a whole?
No, it doesn't. The young preachers were either at work, caring for their families, churches, didn't want to go, or couldn't afford the trip. Posts like this are an obvious misreprentation and do much to demonstrate your dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for the late posting of your comment. It seems you and several other comments were in "awaiting moderation" and I was not alerted to that fact. Hopefully, better late than never!
ReplyDeleteThat may be true, but you refuse to see what the pic reveals about your state of affairs.
Blessings,
Stephen
Let's examine Stephen Garrett's hopelessly flawed hermeneutic in dealing with Elder Winslett's comment...
ReplyDeleteBW: The young preachers were either at work, caring for their families, churches, didn't want to go, or couldn't afford the trip.
SG: That may be true, but you refuse to see what the pic reveals about your state of affairs.
TETH: If what Elder Winslett says "may be true," per Garrett's admission, then it is also true that the picture DOES NOT, yea CANNOT reveal what Garrett insists regarding the Hardshell's state of affairs, because he admits the possibility of valid, alternative explanations. For Garrett to sustain that the picture proves a dearth of young ministers among the PBs would require a total rejection Elder Winslett's alternatives in order to be logically valid.
TETH: Perhaps more to the point, I doubt that we PBs would deny that we have fewer young ministers than we'd like to have, and certainly far fewer than are in other orders. I believe that is an indisputable fact. More puzzling however, is the question of how this observation alone forms any manner of proof that PBs are in a sad state of affairs - implying a sort of direct condemnation of God as a result of error. Time would not permit an examination of the manifold instances in the word of God wherein the commonly-opposed, waning minority are in the right and where the popular, zealous, growing, religious alternatives were dead wrong.
God bless,
TETH
Dear Teth:
ReplyDeleteAfter all these years, you finally visit here and then pick such a topic to begin a discussion? How revealing.
Why don't you take your best shot at more serious issues?
Stephen
SG: After all these years, you finally visit here and then pick such a topic to begin a discussion?
ReplyDeleteTETH: I've visited before. Generally visitors are afforded the liberty of choosing how to begin a discussion. I was not aware that there were specific rules of engagement.
SG: How revealing.
TETH: If you believe my comment reveals something you'd do well to just state that openly rather than hiding behind a nebulous and seemingly nefarious implication. That said, if you believe my demonstration of an embarrassing logical error in your previous remarks is in error, I invite you to provide your case why my statement is wrong in your next response.
SG: Why don't you take your best shot at more serious issues?
TETH: Perhaps I will. :)
God bless,
TETH
Yes, you are at liberty to begin discussion any time. You are also at liberty to choose the subject.
ReplyDeleteI don't care to waste time discussing such things. I stand by my observation.
You thought my comment revealed something. What's good for the goose... I thought your comment, and the timing of it, and the subject of it, likewise reveals something.
You are showing that you do not know how to have a gentlemanly discussion and lack Christian graces in your labels and judgments.
The logical error is in your head. Want to debate "Hardshell logic"?
When you take your best shot, we will be ready as always. I predict you will "miss the mark" (hamartia).
Stephen
SG: Yes, you are at liberty to begin discussion any time. You are also at liberty to choose the subject.
ReplyDeleteTETH: Correct.
SG: I don't care to waste time discussing such things.
TETH: Time-thriftiness is a tough sell for a man who has taken the time to write or post over 1000 blog entries “discussing such things” over the last 9 years.
SG: I stand by my observation.
TETH: Your observation was explicitly invalidated in no uncertain terms in my response. Your refusal to explicitly defend that observation as a “waste of time” and to double-down on a demonstrably false assertion is surprising given the unimaginable amount of time you’ve dedicated to criticizing PBs. I invite you to either set forth a logical case for your comments in the aforementioned article, or admit that you were out of line to insist that the picture “reveals” something about our “state of affairs.” The latter would be preferable and honorable, IMO.
SG: You thought my comment revealed something.
TETH: Yes. Your comment revealed a logical flaw in your argument. I set forth a clear and explicit explanation of that logical flaw in no uncertain terms in my response.
SG: What's good for the goose... I thought your comment, and the timing of it, and the subject of it, likewise reveals something.
TETH: I don’t have any problem with you thinking that my comment, timing, or subject “reveal something.” I would simply ask – what did it reveal? Tell me what the revelation is. It might be, “TETH’s an unapproachable theological Ninja.” No? See how easy it is to be misunderstood when you resort to ambiguous insinuations?
SG: You are showing that you do not know how to have a gentlemanly discussion and lack Christian graces in your labels and judgments.
TETH: If taking the time to dispassionately point out an embarrassing logical blunder in your comment seems ungentlemanly, you’ll no doubt find me insufferably rude. “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16) Moreover, for a man who has spent 9 years and over 1000 blog posts referring to his Christian brethren in the Primitive Baptist church as members of a “cult” – you’ve got mighty thin skin when it comes to pointing out an irrefutable logical blunder in your own writing. I would recommend you accept my comments in the spirit of brotherly correction in which they are offered (James 5:19-20). I commit to trying to view your comments under the assumption that you hold your beliefs in sincerity and are genuinely interested in the ministerial well-being of others. I invite you to return the favor.
SG: The logical error is in your head.
TETH: Railing, unsubstantiated accusation.
SG: Want to debate "Hardshell logic"?
TETH: Not particularly. I’d prefer to discuss biblical theology as time permits using only the bible and logical arguments based thereupon as our source material.
SG: When you take your best shot, we will be ready as always.
TETH: Given that you did not respond to this initial “shot” with an actual response in the form of a logical defense of your position, but rather dismissed it as a “waste of time” and doubled down on a demonstrably false position, your claim of “readiness” misses the mark.
SG: I predict you will "miss the mark" (hamartia).
TETH: Go pull your first arrow out of the barn door while I move the target a little closer.
May God bless our studies and understanding of his word,
TETH
I observed and stated:
ReplyDelete"what the pic reveals about your state of affairs."
"reflect the state of the denomination as a whole?"
Ben Winslet said:
"No, it doesn't."
Teth said:
"For Garrett to sustain that the picture proves a dearth of young ministers among the PBs."
Thus, both deny that the pic reflects the sociological and demographic makeup of the PBs.
Yet, here is what both said, Winslet in a separate writing and Teth in one of his comments.
Teth:
"I doubt that we PBs would deny that we have fewer young ministers than we'd like to have, and certainly far fewer than are in other orders. I believe that is an indisputable fact."
Wrote Ben Winslet in "Primitive Baptists and The 20th Century" (here)
"The 20th century was not kind to us when we consider our testimony and our numbers. Even as the population of America increased greatly, the number of our churches and our membership sadly declined, possibly near 50%. Many churches have closed and I am afraid this will continue for some years to come. As we know, many of our churches have as few as ten to twelve members or less."
"Children were not made to feel they had an important place in worship as they grew older."
"When I grew up I never saw a child baptized, and very few teenagers. The nearby churches we attended had very few young people, and they were not members. Most of the churches within a 40-mile radius of our home are gone now; the buildings used by other denominations, for community activities, singings, and sometimes completely removed."
"Frequent splits and divisions in the early part of the 20th Century were traumatic and dishonoring to the Cause of Christ...These splits and controversies had traumatic effects upon our people."
"The tragedy of these divisions has to be laid, as Paul states in his first letter to the Church at Corinth, to the carnality of man. May the favor of God, prayerfully, here in the onset of the 21st Century, deliver us from such divisions that were so infectious in the 20th Century."
Thus, it seems that the pic does reflect the Pbs.
Endnote: If controversy has perfected the Hardshells in doctrine, then why is Winslet decrying it, and wanting it to stop?
Let me suggest a better gathering of PBs. Let brethren like Kevin, Jeremy, and me spend an entire week with Teth and his apologetic preaching brethren in a structured discussion of our issues. I bet many, young and old, would come! I bet too that the funds would be made available. The videos would be very popular I am sure.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this is what the Lord would want us to do.
Blessings,
Stephen
SG: Thus, both [TETH and Winslett] deny that the pic reflects the sociological and demographic makeup of the PBs.
ReplyDeleteTETH: That is correct. The picture itself does not "reflect" the sociological and demographic makeup of the PBs, because, by your own admission, there are valid, alternate explanations for the demographic composition of the picture. This ramification of your admission is logically unavoidable and undermines your original claim regarding what the picture "reveals."
TETH: Apart from an earnest commitment to removing logical inconsistencies, one's assertions may become a log jam of confusion as errors are compounded over time. Do you agree?
Your brother in Christ,
TETH
tisk tisk tisk. TETH speaks out of both sides of his mouth! That takes practice! You should be a politician. Full of words but actually saying nothing. Let me tackle just two of TETH's statements.
ReplyDeleteTETH;" I’d prefer to discuss biblical theology as time permits using only the bible and logical arguments based thereupon as our source material.
Anyone can say this. The Campbellites say this, the Jehovahs Witnesses say this. To say you will "only" use the Bible is commendable, but what good can it do when you read scripture only thru the lens of your own doctrine or indoctrination? Everyone sees what they want to see until you take those glasses off. While I do not always agree with Stephen, nor he with me, he has always seen my point, and never censored anything Ive said, nor has he hidden anything uncovered my me. Not so with the hardshells.Does he wish the hardshells would change? Of course. But at the very least he has proven historically that they do not believe what they once did, thus they are not "primitive" in the sense of being original. Now if you feel that the first Primitives were wrong in their beliefs, and after studying the Bible you see their "error" then just say so. But dont pretend you believe what the Old Baptists believed before the late 18th century. History proves you wrong. You have gone from being "primitive" meaning "original" to being "primitive" meaning "backwards".
TETH:" Time would not permit an examination of the manifold instances in the word of God wherein the commonly-opposed, waning minority are in the right and where the popular, zealous, growing, religious alternatives were dead wrong".
Where in Scripture was the church ever in decline? Where in Scripture did the Lord stop adding to His church? Yes the church of Christ has ALWAYS been a "minority" in this world, but it has never been in decline. True the Scripture does say that there will be a falling away, especially near the end of time, but who is it that falls away? Is it those who search for truth, and when they find it, go towards it, or are those who "fall away" those who leave the truth they once embraced and stay in their error taking pride in saying "We are the Lord's chosen few, let the rest be damned"?
To take some kind of pride in your decline as some sort of proof that you are the remnant of Zion shows the depth of the deception you have embraced. Those who will not walk across the street to tell their neighbor of the Saviour will surely cry "Lord, Lord.....and His reply will be "I never knew you".