Though the "footnotes" made by the Hardshells (in 1900 A.D. in Fulton, Kentucky) to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith pretend to properly "explain" portions of that confession, they rather corrupt the text of the confession by trying to make it say what it clearly does not say, all in an attempt to try to show how it supports Hardshellism. This we have substantiated many times over the years. We had a series of articles on "Hardshells and the London Confession" and we cited from Hardshell leaders themselves who admit that their forefathers corrupted that confession by their "footnotes."
But, if one really wanted to know what the signatories of that confession were saying (not that the confession itself is not clear), all he would have to do is to read the writings of those men who wrote and produced that old confession. I have done that and have cited from their writings many times to show that the Hardshell "interpretation" (or misinterpretation) of the 1689 Confession is a perversion, an attempt to deceive the simple minded and the uninformed.
What think ye?
2 comments:
I agree, Brother Stephen. The Fulton Confession gave me many problems as a hardshell. When one reads Primitive Baptist books and histories, they will see that the Primitive Baptists talk much and very highly of the 1689 Confession and how that it is what the "old baptists" (supposedly Primitives) believed and how that is what they have always believed. Primitive Baptist writers and historians are glad to quote the sections on election and predestination. They will also make such claims as, "if you don't believe the 1689 then you are not the true old baptists". Yet, a plain and honest reading through the Confession will show that Primitive Baptists believe quite different from the 1689 brethren. So my question: Who changed? The Primitive Baptists changed and departed from the faith believed by the 1689 brethren and the baptist forefathers that came to America. All Primitive Baptists should read the confession and ask themselves if what is contained therein would be allowed in the stand of their Primitive Baptist church. If not, ask why did the Primitive Baptist, who claim to have an unbroken link with an unchanged doctrine, change their views? It is my opinion that the reason is that Primitive Baptists must have a link in their landmarker succession and the 1689 is that link. It is the beliefs that came to America and spread throughout the land. The Primitives must use this link, and they twisted and turned this Confession at Fulton, Kentucky to make it sound Primitive to establish a link of succession.
Dear Anon:
Thanks for your comment. The Fulton Confession notes are a noose around the neck of the Hardshell denomination.
It is facts like this that causes Hardshells to avoid discussing their history and doctrines with us here at the Old Baptist Test blog.
Blessings,
Stephen
Post a Comment