Disgruntled? Irrelevant.

I do not spend as much time writing on this blog as I once did.  That is due to a couple of reasons.   I have been working two jobs for over two years so that my lovely wife is able to stay at home and live the sort of life I desire for her.  It does my heart good.  And the other is for my own spiritual growth.  I have compiled a fairly decent size library over the years.  Few things bring me more happiness and assurance in my standing with God than to be found reclining in my chair with a dusty old book written by some dear servant of God hundreds of years ago.  My happy place!!!  My own personal ‘backside of the desert’!  For my own sanctification I spend more time these days studying various topics and dwell less and less upon Hardshellism and its numerous heresies.

Yet the recent charge has been stated again that this blog is a ‘disgruntled gossip blog’.  And I must speak out against this accusation. To be fair, one could possibly argue that we are disgruntled.  It’s only normal to expect that one would be upset upon being shunned or kicked out of a club, organization, football team, church, etc.  That’s a perfectly normal thing to expect for anyone who has been ostracized.  And I’ll be honest here. The thing which upset me the most about my departure from the Primitive Baptists, however, was not that they were intolerate to my new-found beliefs or that they would not give me a fair opportunity to defend my position. Rather, it was this.  A year or so after I was excluded the church denied my father a burial plot behind the church because he had been excluded, all because of his connection to me.  While on his death bed the church decided (perhaps by only a few which had influence) to deny him a spot. This hurt us very bad and left my mom, sisters, and myself scrambling, trying to quickly find a place to lay my father to rest.

I personally deny that I am disgruntled anymore, yet only the Lord knows my heart.  I believe that enough time has passed and I have ventured on to other bible topics which occupy my daily thoughts. It is, as I have said, my happy place. The charge that my writings can be dismissed because I am disgruntled falls flat from the simple fact that I came to my views long, long before I departed from the PBs. My writings are the results of many, many hours of mental torment, and sleepless nights, as I wrestled with scriptures which I saw as being twisted to support a paradigm, despite doing violation to the most basic rules of bible interpretation.  I came to my conclusion long before I was excluded from the PBs; and to this, my fellow blogger Stephen can testify.

But here’s the thing.  My own heart, and that of Brother Stephen’s, has no bearing on the content presented on this site.  What influence does my attitude towards the Primitive Baptists, for instance, have to do with the charge that Hardshellism was not taught prior to the 19^th century?  The charge is either true or not true.  If I make the statement that modern PB views of regeneration, conversion, faith, perseverance, sanctification, and predestination are heretical, new among Baptists, and do not stand up to scrutiny, or that their peculiar views of Romans 1:16, 1 Peter 1:23, etc. are likewise wrong, can this charge be ignored and/or denied by my opponents because I have been left upset by my exclusion?  Folks do not even have to investigate the claim because I cannot possibly be right because of my past experience with the PBs?  Who ever won a debate by not investing the claims of the other party, but rather drew a conclusion about their state of mind, and pushed it off on others to deter them from their own investigation? What gullible audience thinks such tactics are justifiable? The idea that myself and/or Brother Stephen have some ax to grind is irrelevant to the discussion, and all honest minds know it.  Even dishonest minds know it, if they will truly look within. Even if it were true it makes no difference. Objective claims are determined true or not true without regard to the person. So do us a favor, but I daresay we shouldn’t hold our breath. If there is a response to this or one of Stephen’s article, let it not be about us or our motive.  Why not address some of the substance that we present? That’s what we, and probably others, would like to see.

It is with a deep sigh that I say I think I know what lies behind the continuous ‘dodge’ we meet with here on our blog.  The claims presented on this site are bold and steep mountains to scale, something which a people laden with tradition are hesitant to confront.  Not only myself and Brother Stephen, but other notable men among the PBs have come to see the error of Hardshellism and agree more or less with our position. To confront and submit to this evidence would not involve simply changing one’s interpretation of a verse here and there, but rather lead to a complete paradigm shift. The people who have heretofore felt justified in not sharing the gospel with the unregenerate would suddenly wake up with the realization that they must put on the mantle of responsibility towards the lost, and tell men that must repent and believe in Christ, or else! Landmarkism and the claim that we are the only ones in the world preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ would all come crumbling to the ground, and there would have to be an admission that we have been wrong for over 150 years.  That’s tough! Challenges to paradigms are not often well received, especially when they've been in place for decades.  It is much the same sort of thing we see happening within the evolutionary community, which does not wish to confront the evidence of the intelligent design movement for fear that the whole superstructure would collapse. Therefore, instead of confronting this evidence, the opposing side wishes to just call them “Creationists”, ignoring the contrary evidence that is now coming to light.  In like manner, attention is being directed away from the insurmountable hurdle presented herein, our claims dismissed, and lay persons are encouraged to do the same, based on some perceived animosity we may or may not have against those to which we once belonged. It’s a classic red herring through means of ‘poisoning the well’!

It is my belief that the current paradigm among the Primitive Baptists is the end result of an attempt to explain away passages which teach gospel means in salvation, perseverance of the saints, and the predestination of all things from an anti-missionary spirit conceived in the early 19^th century.

That is an objective claim which I make, the truth of which depending solely on the result of investigation of the claim. What sort of individual ignores or denies such a statement, and what sort of reader thinks such is justified, on the basis that the one making the charge has some sort of bias, and therefore cannot possibly be right?  Objective claims are proven true or not true based on investigation of the facts and do not hinge on anything whatsoever about the one making it.

Answer the questions.

Address the issues.

Quit trying to poison the well.

Enough talk about our motives here.  Deal with the substance.

Come to the light.

I can only wonder how many there are from the opposing side following this discussion.  I speak not about our efforts here, but the larger discussion of those currently among the PBs who have come to see things as we do, more or less.  Do you think there are some inquisitive church members who would like to see these men allowed an opportunity to make their case for how and why they came to see Hardshellism a grievous error, instead of just ostracizing them?  They may be asking what if God has given them light on something that others have not received? True, they may end up disagreeing and still cling to their views but they would at least be given the chance to hear the opposing side.

On the other hand, are there any out there who are inquisitive from their own personal study?  Maybe someone is saying “Hmm. You know, I have been told all my life that we can trace our lineage back to the first century.  I wonder if it really is true or if I’ve been lied to?” Or are there some who have read the Roman letter and said “You know. It does seem odd that the Apostle Paul would write about eternal salvation in the ninth chapter and then all of a sudden switch to time salvation in the tenth chapter, and then revert back to eternal salvation in the eleventh chapter. Maybe the salvation is the same throughout.” Imagine the good and fairness of allowing an elder who is about to face exclusion the opportunity of having a week or so to lay out all that he has discovered to support his case.  Why can't this be? Scared that the congregation will hear how the Black Rock Address REALLY reads? Scared that he will share with them the 1777 Kehukee Association Articles of Faith? Or that they will learn of John Watson's Old Baptist Test, or the writings of PB authors prior to C.H. Cayce? Scared to see how he now handles passages which he used to twist and distort? Indeed, is there a fear that if one piece of the paradigm is questioned there is going to be an unravelling?

There are issues which need to be addressed, and to which we call attention on our blog.  We certainly hope there remain some, who, even though they may not agree with us, at least acknowledge that such tactics as ‘ad hominem’, ‘red herrings’, and ‘poisoning the well’ have no place in discovering the truth of a claim.  The questions we ask, the articles we post, the writers we cite, the history we share, have all been left unanswered, and a severe injustice is done to souls when they are encouraged to ignore important issues on the basis of such tactics, especially when they may be sincere seekers of the truth.  Our prayer is that there are some out there who would actually like to see the matters herein presented discussed, and not ignored.

Such are some of my thoughts with regard to being ‘disgruntled’.

The less tolerable charge, and the one which really unsettles me, is that we ‘gossip’ here.  This is totally laughable, and again, a tactic meant to distract!  One will search this site in vain for such material. The overwhelming bulk of articles on this blog deal with challenges to Hardshell doctrine and historical evidence overthrowing it.  Articles of faith, writings from 19^th century authors, and exegesis of Bible passages and doctrines are posted to show that the Hardshell view of scripture is new, unbiblical, and not Baptistic.  This is not gossip, but substance! Instead of speculating about whether we have an ax to grind, which could be true or not true, get to the meat of our claims!