Absurd Statements From Hardshells

Wrote Elder C.H. Cayce in commenting upon I Peter 4: 17-18:

“Them that obey not the gospel of God,” we think, are the Lord's children who hear the gospel, or understand it, but do not obey it."

"The “end of them that obey not the gospel of God” will be in suffering the chastening rod for their disobedience. “For if we sin willfully,after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for opf judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me. I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge His people.” (Hebrews 10:26-30). The Lord judges His people, and punishes them for their disobedience."

In a recent posting concerning how Hardshells have gone to extremes in Bible interpretation in identifying "the saved" with "the lost" ("Them That Are Lost" Are Saved?), we saw that Hardshell leader Ronnie Loudermilk spouted the same kind of nonsense as was put forth by Elder C.H. Cayce in the above citation. Cayce was one who helped to mold the PBs into a cult in the latter part of the nineteenth and in the early part of the twentieth century.

How are saved people described by Cayce? By his interpretation of the passages cited, he believes that saved people are described as

1. "Them that obey not the gospel"
2. "Who shall receive sorer punishment" ("punished with everlasting destruction")
3. "Who sin willfully in rejecting the gospel"
4. "Tread under foot the Son of God"
5. "Insults the Spirit of grace"
6. "Despise the gospel"

Is the judgment merely temporal? Who can believe it except a Hardshell Universalist?

Who of our Baptist forefathers prior to the Hardshells ever taught such a thing?

In spite of the clear description of lost people, Cayce wants to make the words to be descriptive of saved people. On what basis can he so interpret the words of the text? Because the text cited says "the Lord will judge his people." But, by "his people" is meant the nation of Israel, and this included saved as well as lost people. Though even Judas, Jezebel, etc., were Israelites, of "his people," they were not so in heart and spirit. They were Israelites outwardly in the flesh but not so in heart. (See Rom. 2:28-29) So also today we say that believers are "the Lord's people" but we do not mean that all who profess faith are actually saved people. There are many hypocrites.

Still, you can see how Cayce was a quasi Universalist.

Elder Thomas Meredith & Hardshellism

The following citations from Elder Thomas Meredith of North Carolina are worth sharing. Meredith was a founder of the NC Baptist Convention and a leading opponent of both Campbellism and Hardshellism. He was instrumental in helping Elder Mark Bennett to see the truth and depart from the Hardshells, who at the time were fast developing into a cult.

Meredith spoke of the theological machinations of the "Old Schoolers" as involving being

"initiated into the mysteries of spiritualizalion." (Biblical Recorder, Saturday, July 13, 1839; Page: 3 - here)

(Note: see my posting Hardshell Mysticism & Esoteric Christianity)

On the "ordo salutis" or the relationship of evangelical faith and regeneration, Meredith wrote:

“As soon as the sinner is truly regenerated [or made alive ), and thereby becomes in fact a child of God, his sins are in fact forgiven, still the promise is not to regeneration but to faith.” “The idea is, not that the sinner is not forgiven till he believes, but as no one who does not believe can have adequate evidence of regeneration, none but believers can claim the promise.” After showing from Scripture that the regenerated will certainly believe, he says: “It is about as difficult to conceive of regeneration without faith as it is faith antecedent to regeneration.”  

(Ford's Christian Repository & Home Circle, Volume 50, Issue 4, page 256 - SEE HERE)

Well, amen to that!

"Children of Zion"

Many songs sing about being "children of Zion." Who are these people? Our forefathers rightly identified them with those who are believers, who have been "born of God." But, the term shows how both the Lord and his church are involved in begetting children to God. The Lord is the father, and the church is the mother, because it is through her that the Lord will bring about the birth of the Spirit. In other words it is by the Spirit and the word.

"...this man was born there" (Psa. 87:4-7).

On these words Dr. Gill wrote in his commentary:

"...but it designs many persons in each of those countries that should be born again, of water, and of the Spirit, of the incorruptible seed of grace, by the ministry of the word; who, because they should be regenerated by means of the Gospel preached in Zion, therefore are said to be born there; and besides, being born again, they are admitted members of Zion, and to all the privileges of Zion, as true born Israelites; and are brought up there, are nourished with the sincere milk of the word, and nursed with the breasts of Gospel ordinances there administered; and so Zion, or Jerusalem, the Gospel church, is truly the mother of them all, ( Galatians 4:26)."

That is Old Baptist doctrine.

I am so glad to be a child of Zion! Are you?

Hymn

"Glorious Things Of Thee Are Spoken, Zion City of our God" (here)

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb. 12:22-23)

Lecture recommendation

Dr. Michael Kruger, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, has an excellent series of lectures on the New Testament available online.  There is a 30-part series on the gospels and another 24-part series on the origin and authority of the New Testament Canon. They are extremely interesting and cover very important material that Christians should be aware of, especially in this day and age.

I highly recommend them.

Lectures by Dr. Kruger

The Primitive Baptist Overreaction

In a recent posting by Brother Stephen I was encouraged to read these words by Elder Ben Winslett:

“"While controversy often results in precision in how theology is expressed, we must be careful not to rush to the opposite extreme of that which we disagree. There is a ditch on each side of the road. Opposing an idea by swerving to the opposite extreme renders one in just as much error as he initially and rightly rejected.”

This is extremely sound advice, as the Elder is absolutely correct on this.  But sound advice must be heeded, and the unfortunate thing is that the very system which he and those of like mind have chosen to embrace is the epitome of overreacting to error! Hardshellism is an extreme reaction to Arminianism on the left, and an embracing of Hyper-Calvinism on the right!

It did not begin this way however.  The conception of the Primitive Baptist denomination was a reaction to modern missionary methods but it was not initially what we might call "extreme" or an "overreaction", for, as an examination of the historical data will reveal, the early founders adhered to gospel means and those methods which they thought were of God.  This is a point thoroughly documented on this site. The “throwing out of the baby with the bath water” (i.e. anti-means) would come later once the evolution of doctrine began and the missionary movement began to be attacked at the root.

Primitive Baptists rightly see Arminianism as error. Where it becomes an overreaction, however, is by advocating a total rejection of that which gives even the slightest appearance of it.  We say ‘appearance’ of Arminianism, for Primitive Baptists see it in some instances where it really does not exist.  Preaching the gospel to the lost, the necessity upon men to repent and believe, endurance to the end, are examples of the responsibility God has imposed upon mankind.  PBs feel that the enforcement of this responsibility amounts to salvation by works, and is thus erroneously labeled Arminianism.  Dismissing any inkling of human involvement in salvation, a system of doctrine is developed which eliminates responsibility from the outworking of salvation.  To put it in terms consistent with our illustration, the ditch on the left side of the road is avoided, the middle road of truth is passed over, and into the ditch on the other side of the road they sadly plunge.  In other words, Arminianism is denied, the balanced system of Calvinism (so I'm led to believe) is missed, and a form of Hyper-Calvinism is embraced.  The result is an overly simplistic and irreverent proposal of how to reconcile the apparent tension of the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man by simply divorcing the concepts altogether.

“But the doctrine (of modern PBs – KF) has made it very easy to say, we are completely separate and distinct from kind of a free-will view of salvation. But therein I think is even a challenge itself because what we tend to do in reacting to one error, is do what? Go into another error. Overreact. So our theology can’t be derived from studying an error, and saying, “Now how can I refute that”? That's what happens in debates; you wind up overstating your case because, after all I've got to beat, I've got to win. Okay?

So we’ve got to be cautious, not to just look out there and see the landscape in the religious world and say “How can we refute all those things and here's my arguments”?And so we build them bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and as the generations go on, they get even larger.” (Elder Thomas Mann)

Mann is spot on here.

So we have now cited two elders, Elder Mann and Winslett, both admonishing the propriety of using caution when reacting to error.  Elder Mann, however, sees that it is Hardshell doctrine itself which resulted from failure to exercise this caution!  He is absolutely correct in his assessment. The arguments against Arminianism by PBs are large.  Too large in fact, where they end up overstating their case by a complete repudiation of things which they ought to retain.

"What happened? Probably, we went into another ditch trying to refute an error, right? (Mann)

Went into another ditch?  Yes.

In my mind this happened in the latter part of the 19^th century, possibly early 20^th, when the discussions surrounding gospel means really began to heat up. The anti-means view gained the supremacy within the denomination, and the doctrine of gospel time salvation was invented along with all the new definitions of words and re-interpreting of certain passages that such a view demanded.

Search this site and you will find tons of evidence showing how the PBs of the 1800s were much more balanced, however, asserting the necessity of faith and repentance, and gospel preaching:  

"In order to salvation, it is necessary that we be born again; that we have faith, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; but as salvation is of the Lord, these things are as much of him as our redemption, calling or justification..." (Elder W. M. Mitchell, The Southern Baptist Messenger, 1860)


"Not, however, without repentance and faith, though some have been so full of folly, as to affirm that if sinners are saved upon the principles we maintain, then repentance and faith are needless things....Whereas none ever have, or will repent and believe, evangelically, except under the influence of special grace applied to them." (Elder John Rowe, "My Grace is Sufficient for Thee", The Gospel Messenger, 1881)

As one approaches the turn of the century, however, this balance began to be lost.  Take for example the statement of Elder Waters who wrote in 1890 that sinners were 'saved, faith or no faith'.

Take that Missionary Baptists! 

Take that Means Baptists!

Sinners don't even have to believe in Christ so why speak of missions? Why talk of gospel means?

It doesn't get more extreme than that!

It’s important for me to point out that this middle ground of truth for which we contend is understood to be within the context of eternal salvation.  That all talk regarding human responsibility belongs to the Primitive Baptist invention of a second, unnecessary, temporal salvation where the hypothetical ‘already regenerated’ man becomes his own Savior, is not middle ground for there is a changing of context from matters eternal to that of temporal. To shout ‘salvation by grace’ but that men only need to repent and believe for reasons ‘while we live here below’ is a denial of the balance of truth.  To emphasize one side at the exclusion of the other is to lie in the ditch, either to the left or to the right, whereas the truth lies right down the middle.

If any object that Hardshellism is an overreaction to Arminianism (or should I say ‘apparent’ Arminianism), what might I ask would constitute an overreaction?  What could be a more extreme response, for instance, to missionary work than by replying that sinners don’t need to hear the gospel at all?  What more extreme take on the necessity of faith and repentance can there be but to affirm they are in fact not necessary?  With regard to free-will (a true error) what more extreme view exists but to affirm that the will can actually be bypassed in both regeneration and the ensuing life? And what more extreme reaction to the view that salvation necessarily produces changes in our lives by denying that any thing of a subjective nature is required?

What greater overreaction to something can there be but the flat denial of that certain something?

A true, sound, balanced position allows for the use of conditions, necessities, secondary causation, good works, responsibility, etc. when explaining the outworking of salvation.  To the typical Primitive Baptist however, these are distinctive marks of Arminianism, buzzwords which send up red flags as soon as they are confronted. There is little to no deliberation in the mind as to what is actually meant by these terms and in what sense they are necessary but are immediately deemed inadmissible and the result is an overreaction. 

I can tell you this. I have been delivered from Hardshellism for about 10 years now and have since read behind lots of authors. It is absolutely crucial to understand what writers mean when they use these terms for distinctions are to be made. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is. I am absolutely convinced that part of the overreaction of Primitive Baptists lies in a failure to think matters through clearly before immediately discarding it.

Take for instance this statement by Elder Alton Richards in 1956:

"When salvation is mentioned in connection with the acts of men; or man is to perform some action to bring about a better situation for himself, they know it is to be to the child of God (one freed from the guilt of sin), and refers to a timely deliverance, or something that is for man's benefit while he lives here in the world."

Note as well these words from Elder S.N. Redford:

""I told him further that God's Word teaches that the eternal salvation of sinners is unconditional on the sinner's part, and that in every instance where it bases salvation on conditions it has reference to a temporal, or time salvation of God's people."

"This salvation could not mean eternal salvation because it is based on conditions, and we know our eternal salvation depends alone upon what Christ does for us.  Then it must mean a Time or Common salvation."

So there you have it.  Basically, blanket rules that if you confront certain terms such as conditions or the actions of men when reading a salvation text, you immediately infer that it can have nothing to do with eternal salvation.  Notwithstanding the terrible error here, note that there is no deliberation, no pause to consider or think through the plausability of secondary causation, or that there can be such things as conditions of connections. This is careless and demonstrative of great ignorance.

Now contrast these statements with the following, from men who obviously knew how to make certain distinctions:

"All the unconditional spiritual promises of God, from the beginning to the end of the Scriptures, engage to work in His people all the conditions of the conditional promises, and thus ensure their salvation" (Sylvester Hassell).

Likewise, Elder John Watson:

"This doctrine does not stop here, but includes all ordinances, conditions, means, and modes of divine "workmanship." None of these are accidental or fortuitous as we may suppose, Reader, "Is not the Lord gone out before thee" in all these?" (Elder John Watson)

Notice no fear or hesitation on the part of Hassell or Watson to use such terms as conditions and means. Why? Because they were far more learned than their descendants and understood that they could use these terms, as long as they were explained correctly.

In closing, here are a few questions I would like to ask my former friends to ponder, in order to demonstrate the importance of thinking matters through clearly before rebelling to the opposite extreme.

1)     Does denial in free-will mean that God saves APART from the will?

      2)     Can salvation be thought of as conditional if God meets those conditions?

      3)     Are all conditions meritorious?

      4)     Are good works certain fruits of regeneration? If so does this mean that they are in some sense necessary to final salvation?

      5)   Does the inclusion of means in the outworking of salvation render it insecure if those means are guaranteed to come?

Walking the middle road of truth is where I long for you to be.

Elder Mark Bennett's Letter (1844)

I continue to find more information and writings by Elder Mark Bennett, the first editor of "The Primitive Baptist," and one who twice debated Elder Grigg Thompson, after he saw the errors of the Hardshells. The following is a letter published in The Biblical Recorder to Thomas Meredith*. The letter can be seen (HERE). Highlighting is mine.

*Rev. Thomas Meredith was beyond question the ablest man who has yet appeared among the Baptists of North Carolina, and as the founder, and for nineteen years the editor, of the Biblical Recorder, probably did more to develop the denomination than any man who has ever lived in the State. Mr. Meredith was born in Pennsylvania in 1797; came to North Carolina as pastor of the Newbern church in 1820; removed to Georgia in 1822; settled as pastor in Edenton, N. C., in 1825; originated the Baptist Interpreter in 1832, which was changed to the Biblical Recorder in 1834; removed to Newbern in 1835, and was pastor as well as editor till 1838, when he removed to Raleigh, and taught a female school in connection with editorial labors.

Mr. Meredith was the author of the constitution of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention, and of the masterly address of that body when organized in 1830. He was elected a Professor of Mathematics in Wake Forest College in 1835, but did not accept the position. He died in Raleigh in 1851. As an editor, he was the equal of any man in the United States in his day. (see here)

Dear Brother Meredith:

It is known to many in various parts of our country, that, a few years ago, I was standing in the front rank of opposition to the plans designed for the spread of the gospel, and for the improvement of the moral, intellectual, and physical condition of mankind. It is likewise known to a number of that many, that I now am considered a warm friend to those plans. And having had it suggested to me by President Wait of Wake Forest College that it would probably be productive of good to lay before the public through the Recorder, the reasons which have brought about this change in my views; and as it may be gratifying to others as well as brother Wait, and, under providence, may result in adding a little strength to the cause which is deemed so well worthy of all the aid it can receive, I proceed to give them in detail.

I will begin with naming the causes which led me to a patient examination of the mission question.

In the summer of 1835, I was consulted by bro. Joshua Lawrence, to know whether I would edit a religious news paper, to be printed in Tarborough, N.C. I consented to do so; but not until I had stated to Elder L. that I should claim the full exercise of editorial discretion; that, whatever I should judge adapted to promote the Old School cause and the cause of truth generally, might be published, but all else I should suppress: that, if necessary, I should trim the communications of our correspondents; and I should not hesitate to apply the pruning knife to his writings, sooner than to any other's. This course appeared at the time to receive his cordial approbation. But first acts of elision upon his writings met with complaints from him and censures against the editor.

Early in the third volume of the Prim. Bap. we published Elder L's "Baptist Associations proved from Scripture." Shortly thereafter we received a communication, in which the writer proposed to show the insufficiency of Elder L's proofs. I was about to publish the communication, when Elder L. expressed his high displeasure thereat, pronounced the correspondent unworthy of his confidence as an Old School baptist; and used language which strongly questioned the fidelity of the editor.

Towards the close of that volume, Elder L. gave us his first two articles on "The two seeds." In the front of the fourth volume, stands his second. The sentiments contained in those two articles met a dissent in and some strictures from "The Signs of the Times." For this, he denied the editor of the "Signs" an identity with Old S. Baptists, and rejected him from their confidence.

These things led me to regard with a more inquisitive eye, the prevailing spirit of our correspondents. And, although I had, in the first vol. first num. Prim. Bap. requested all writers for the paper "to abstain from abuse and ridicule of every kind; as ill comporting with the design of this (Prim. Bap.) paper; and although it was proclaiming in the very introduction that the Prim. Baap. was "principally intended to defend the Old School United Baptists from the many aspersions cast upon them by deluded persons professing their own faith;" and, although I was to sit out with the universal and impartial pruning knife; yet, borne along by the strong current of opposite views and sentiments, I had at length unintentionally and unexpectedly found myself at the head; (or rather at the foot,) of a paper which was celebrated for assailing and abusing other principles and other men.

I felt the awkwardness of my situation, and that of the denomination to which I belonged.--To a discerning public we must have appeared in the outset, either to have been wanting in purpose, or else in firmness to carry it out. I still thought, however, that my brethren aimed well, and were injudicious and indiscreet only in their mode of opposition. But I could not resist the force of this truth, that good aims cannot justify unlawful means.

These facts, added to those named in my valedictory, fixed my determination to be no longer editor, after the 3d vol. was closed. They led me also to examine more closely into the state of our Ministry. The result of this investigation was, a conviction that we had departed in several important points from gospel ground. As the correspondents of the Prim. were unwilling to be contradicted, and to have their opinions thoroughly investigated, under the pretext that all controversy with each other must be avoided, so the ministry. If one of our ministers contradicted or differed with us, we straight regarded him with jealousy and suspicion. What we ourselves said in opposition to other denominations we viewed in the light of sacred duty; what others said against us, we did not hesitate to pronounce persecution.

That spirit that first infected the Hardshells is still present in today's Hardshells. Many things have changed with them in doctrine and practice, but this spirit is the same. We have had to test that spirit many times. Bennett says that the first "correspondents of the Prim. were unwilling to be contradicted, and to have their opinions thoroughly investigated." Still true today!

From this impression, we went a step further. We attached increased importance to faith or belief, and less to works; until almost all practical religion or good works seemed to us like self righteousness. We became afraid to preach up and insist upon practical piety; and our discourses or sermons became almost exclusively doctrinal.

This is still true today of the Hardshells, except now they even decry "belief" as well as works!

This step was followed by another. Those who attached great importance to works, and preached their necessity, were thought by us to be false professors and self righteous hypocrites.

And one of the tactics of these Antinomian and Hyper Calvinist Hardshell "ultraists" was to call any such preaching "Arminianism"!

We stopped not here. We opened an offensive warfare upon all other denominations, and that from the pulpit, which was cried to such length that half our sermons, many a time, was taken up in censuring them. A censorious spirit by this means pervaded our whole sect. And when all the rest, of course, condemned such a practice, we exclaimed that all other denominations were opposed to the O.S. Baptists. We claimed their objections as evidence of our orthodoxy. We published from the pulpit that all christendom was against us, in order to enlist public sympathy.

Whew! How true still! A "censorious spirit"! Yes, indeed. "Pervaded the whole sect."

From being always doctrinal in our preaching, we came to dwell almost entirely on the decrees of God. The believing of election was made indispensable to salvation. If a professor did not believe in that doctrine we did not scruple to dispute his gracious state. We preached it to the impenitent and unbelieving in the same manner as if their salvation depended on believing in that single point. We often appeared to preach it of spite, telling the people we did not care whether they believed it or not. It was the truth and help themselves if they could.

How revealing are these words from such an important witness!

As if we had not gone far enough yet, we tacitly contended for perfection in our ministry.--It was declared as our belief, that God never sent a man to preach the truth, and then sent another to contradict him: that any who contradicted the truth was not sent of God. The consequences of which is, man must be perfect in doctrine, or not divinely sent.

We strongly intimated that, we preached by inspiration. Our objections were pointed and strong not only against reading sermon, but also against notes to assist the memory in preaching. We did not wish our congregations to think we had meditated upon our subjects; nor that we preached by chance. And as there is but one more way, that of inspiration, we must have left them to infer that we preached in that way--Hence it was common to say we would preach just such texts as God gave us, and no other. We wished to impress men with the belief that, learned ministers preach from their knowledge of books; but we had a surer guide.

I have written about the Hardshell idea about what constitutes blessed preaching! "We strongly intimated that, we preached by inspiration." Is that not the thinking of cult leaders?

Finding the Ministry in this condition, I was naturally led to inquire more patiently into that of the church. The latter I found to be as deplorable as the former. Long accustomed to hear works ridiculed, she had become afraid of them, lest she should be liable to the charge of being hypocritical. She thus had a fair opportunity of indulging in sloth, lukewarmness, sleep, and every thing else, that shrinks from the cross.

She had not been reproved for unevenness, nor admonished for disobedience, until she would not bear reproof nor admonition. She would not tolerate a Minister who would describe her true state to her. She was prepared to hear him speak only of her purity, her orthodoxy, and stedfastness.

She had not been reminded of the unhallowed passions, tempers, and desires, which rage within and war against faithfulness and piety, until she had almost forgotten to expect their attack, or to search within for them. This maxim seems to have obtained in her: Sound in belief, sound in christianity.

Hearing her watchmen all the time crying the alarm of remote danger,--from Arminians, from missionaries, etc., she forgot to watch at home. By having her attention so long diverted from herself, and by the consequent neglect of the culture of the heart, appetite and passion gained a dangerous ascendant and hurtful influence over her. The churches were prayerless, negligent and indifferent. Virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, were daily slighted; worldly-mindedness, coldness, and covetousness prevailed; little communion and fellowship of the spirit, little enjoyment in fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, was felt or sought. They saw their condition was bad yet did not consider it their duty to attempt to alter it.

Among other vices, intemperance in the use of ardent spirits held a powerful sway. There were few churches in my knowledge but that were infested with this evil. And what was worse, where members of the churches had from long habit, nearly or quite lost the power of governing themselves, and needed a brotherly hand gently to draw them back, they were still encouraged and incited both by the example and arguments of their ministers. We were become a reproach and a byword to the world. Mine eye affected my heart; and I mourned for Zion.

I believed something must be done,--and should be done; and I determined to act though I should act alone. In 1840, my Association, the Contentnea, requested me to write a circular letter to attach to her minutes for 1841. In discharging this duty, I wrote on practical piety, and dwelt at some length on temperance. This circular advocated a total abstinence in all cases, provided spirits might be used as a medicine only. The circular passed and was printed, but proved to be very unsatisfactory to the churches, and the next circular was naturally designed as an answer, and warmly advocated the use of spirituous liquors. It was, however, rejected by the examining committee, and was not printed. Subsequently to this, a word was carefully mingled with pulpit discourses to justify and encourage the use.

I determined to make one more effort, though it should cost me the loss of fellowship--but I hoped I should not lose that. I could not help persuading myself that I could approach my brethren in so humble and affectionate a manner as not to incur their displeasure, if I did not gain their approbation. I therefore wrote and had published at a cost of $25, "An Essay on the use of spirituous liquors, etc," and distributed gratuitously.

It is true, I was afraid I should lose my brethren. I knew the rage of appetite when upheld by the power of habit. I knew also the deep and abiding prejudice against Temperance Societies; and jealousy which was constantly awake would be apt to identify the present movement with that Society. Notwithstanding all this, I still hoped to gain them. I thought they were compelled to see and consider the universal mischiefs of drunkenness; and that they would yield to the fact that all abstaining person testify to the unprofitableness and danger of the habit of dram drinking. Thus I hoped on, and wrote on.

Oh the courage and love of brother Mark Bennett! So many others, thankfully, followed him in later years and left this cult, praising God for their deliverance.

The pamphlet, it is hoped, did much good. But the power of habit over that of resolution, soon evinced the necessity of a pledge; and warmly recommended to my reason, my approbation, and my active aid, the Temperance Society. Where the man is immersed in weaker than infant imbecility, and decision has long lost all its tone in him; where he possesses no resistance against invitation, no remedy against derision; the pledge, the stake of his honor, his veracity, his reputation, comes to his relief.

Thus the uncomfortable and relaxed state of our Ministry, and of our churches, weakened in my mind, the claims of our opposition; and my reflections on the necessity and benefits of the temperance cause, led me to question the righteousness of our cause, and to admit the question of Missions to a candid hearing; when I reason with myself in the following manner:

Is it right, or is it wrong, for other nations, and the destitute parts of our own country, to hear the gospel and read the Bible?

I could not say it is wrong. For though the light of the gospel may be now extinct in many places where once it shone, yet we have nothing to show that it shall not be rekindled in the same places. Indeed we are assured it shall be the case to some extent: for Jerusalem, whose house is now left desolate, shall yet say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And yet if I should decided that it is right, I saw plainly I should lose considerable, if not the whole ground I occupied. Recollecting we had all along admitted it to be right, and seeing no cause to dispute it now, unless it was impliedly prohibited in the commission, go ye into all the world, etc.; or rather in the fulfillment of this commission, I turned o examine it after this method:

Was the commission carried out to its full extent during the day of inspiration, or during the Apostle's life-time, or not?

If it was, then under what authority does any man now preach? If that commission ceased with the Apostles, then we have no right or authority to preach under it. But if the obligation of that charge rests in all its force upon us, then is the space still defined into all the world. I answered, it is right, and proceeded to consider,

Will other nations ever receive the gospel in any way, except, either through miracles, or by the reading of the Bible and preaching?

It is not expected they will receive it through any miraculous means. For miracles, though they began the present dispensation, have long ago ceased, (unless we regard conversion as a miracle, but no one who understands the use of words will confound that term with miracles.) Again, if miracles were to precede the gospel, or accompany it to every nation, they would have come with it to America. The gospel, then, must go through the Bible and preaching. This is the only way in which it has spread for eighteen hundred years. The gospel dispensation, therefore, is going on without miracle or inspired men. It spreads its limits to all nations, and stretches out its duration always even to the end of the world. But,

The scriptures are silent, except they answer, Go. In vain shall we expect them to to specify that it is now God's time for America, but not for Asia and Africa. In vain shall we search for the passage that tells us the difference between his time for North Carolina and for Burmah. The gospel dispensation right in every candid ear, and sinks to every honest heart, Behold NOW is the accepted time; behold NOW is the day of salvation. Moreover, I felt it incumbent upon us who denied its being God's time to tell the people when it would be God's time, and how they might know it.--Lastly,

Are the plans now operated for spreading the gospel, justifiable means according to the scriptures?

If the gospel were to spread by miracles only, then were the missionary Institutions unjustifiable. They would then be substituting human agency for divine. But it is to be spread by simple methods and human instrumentalities; as it is to go by printing and reading; by walking, riding, and sailing by eating, drinking, and praying; by crossing rivers, mountains, seas and lakes; by buying food and raiment, and means for travelling; by singing, praying, preaching, and hearing; by building meeting houses, and buying ground for that purpose; by communicating to him that teacheth in all good thinks; by allowing the minister of the gospel a living, and giving the laborer his hire; and seeing that these means were in requisition in apostolic times, they are not only justifiable but commendable; nay, more, they are obligatory. I yielded my hearty assent to missions, as heaven's instruments, and ceased my opposition. 

As an historian, and so that more information like this may continue to fill this blog's archives, I am happy to share this and like material with our readers, and with all whom the sovereign, Lord God, may direct to read it.

"When Old, He Will Not Depart"?

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Prov. 22: 6)

Does this scripture have anything to say on the debate over whether converted people can live a Christian life and die in a worse state, spiritually or morally speaking, than when they first became Christians?

Passive Conversion

"I waited patiently for the Lord; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry. He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings. And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the Lord." (Psa. 40: 1-3 KJV)

This passage has been a favorite with Christians, including our Hardshell brothers. Many times this passage has been quoted by preachers in the midst of emotional discourse and emphasized how this was the experience of sinners when they are saved, when they are regenerated or converted.

Clearly the text describes a conscious conversion experience. It is not describing a secret sub conscious Hardshell "regeneration." Notice how the language of what God does for the penitent when he cries to the Lord, making God his trust, is in the passive voice. He did such and such. I was passive in this work. He brought me up out of the quicksand wherein I was sinking in sin. He set my feet upon a rock, even the rock of scripture, upon the Lord Jesus Christ. He established my goings in converting my heart. He put a new song in my mouth when he converted me and assured me of my salvation.

Recall the last posting where brother Jason Brown and I agreed that conversion is as much the work of God as is regeneration.

Thoughts on Jason Brown

Over the past few weeks I have looked over the many comments I have received since 2008 (when I first began blogging and writing articles for Internet viewing) and came across some comments from brother Jason Brown, with whom we had some interesting discussions in this blog a few years back. I don't know what happened to brother Jason, but I have thought of him and prayed for him many times. Jason first began to interact with me on my Baptist Gadfly blog, which was where I did most of my writing before beginning The Old Baptist Test blog. I thought it would be good to show these comments from Jason, and of my comments to him, and then make some observations on them.

Commented brother Jason Brown to me back in 2012 in an article I wrote in The Baptist Gadfly titled "Why The Difference?"

"I enjoyed the post, brother Garrett, and your recent series on the implications of hamartia. Fruitful study.

The Arminian notion of prevenient grace establishes indeed that men must bring something to a resistible grace, which logically necessitates a locus of righteousness apart from grace in those who respond and those who do not."

(present observations: that study on "hamartia" was a good one. Wish others could read it and be edified as was brother Jason. We could all help each other grow if we would just read what each other are writing and respond as Christian gentlemen)

Dear Brother Jason (highlighting mine):

I appreciate your approval. But, I would also add that this is true with conversion as well as with regeneration, a truth that is denied by "Primitive Baptists" today. They do not believe that God makes the difference as regards their conversion or "time salvation."

God makes the difference in every aspect of our salvation.

As you can see, I have been busy with writings here and have not had time to write for the Old Baptist blog. Hopefully, that will change in the future.

I am glad that we have gotten to know each other and I commend you for your willingness to challenge today's Hardshells regarding their departures from the Old Baptist faith.

Blessings,

Stephen

(present observations: Oh that more would emulate brother Jason! Would to God we would hear again from this dear brother!)

Jason then said in a return comment:

I have enjoyed our debate correspondence, brother Garrett, and hope the Lord blesses you in your study and defense of the doctrines of grace.

I agree that any that argue that conversion is not a work of God have obviously not considered the implications of 2 Peter 1:3, as God is the author of all things that pertain to life and godliness in the lives of His children, which plainly must encompass gospel faith.

However, though God makes the difference in all aspects of salvation, God does not sanctify His children equally, manifestly, as the thief on the cross proves. Even contrasting Old and New testament saints, it is clear that God blesses some with a greater clarity of gospel truth than others.

I know you've been busy, and look forward to future dialogue. I've listened to your debates - your recent one is up on the 46th Street CoC website, by the way.

(present observations: Would to God our modern Hardshells would listen to what Jason said in the above words! Did you see how we left off our discussion? No ad hominem arguments! No rudeness or unwarranted sarcasm! Just honest discussion of the scriptures! God bless that dear brother for being willing to discuss our differences and be willing to unite in our agreement!)

What think ye?

Effectual Conviction?

Arminians greatly object to the doctrine of effectual calling (or "irresistible grace") because they think that this amounts to coercion, to forcing a man to be saved against his will.  Sometimes the equivocation is simply stated as though the equating of calling with coercion is enough to dispute it.  But, such an argument assumes that all coercion is evil and unethical.  But, all compulsion is not so.  Jesus himself said that sinners are to be "compelled."  (Luke 14: 23)  It matters not that the kind of "compelling" be special, of a certain kind, as done with words only, in overthrowing the supposition that all coercion is unethical.  Parents daily compel their children.  Generals daily compel soldiers. 

To compel is to force.  Thus, when Arminians decry the idea of conversion being "forced," they are decrying sinners being "compelled."  But, Jesus said - "compel (or force) them to come."  Further, Paul says - "For the love of Christ constraineth us."  (II Cor. 5: 14) 

I once heard an Arminian preacher condemning effectual calling by grabbing his shirt collar and pulling it and saying - "God does not grab and pull us like this."  But, I thought to myself - "does he not believe that the shepherd's crook is designed to do this very thing?"  Does the shepherd not coerce and force the sheep back into the safety of the fold?  Would a parent not force a child to save the child?

I once heard another Arminian preacher saying that God was like a magnet and sinners were like nails.  The magnet was "drawing" and pulling, exerting force against force, on sinners.  But, said he, some sinners have hardened their hearts so that they have become like big railroad spikes, while other sinners, those who have not been sinners long, are like small tacks, and therefore easier for God to "draw" and pull to himself.  So, though God was drawing all, some men's resistance is greater than the power pulling them, and this is the reason why they are not effectually drawn.  The Calvininst sees the problem with the Arminian's making the magnet too small and insufficient in power. 

Is the magnet "forcing" the thing it draws?  Who can deny it?  Who can deny that the thing being drawn is resisting by the force of its weight?  Who can deny that the thing drawn will be effectually drawn if enough force is exerted by the magnet?

Some Arminians, seeing the "force" of the argument from the word "draw" (John 6: 44; 12: 32), how it denotes a dragging, or compelling, resort to saying - "but it may not always mean that."  They never deny that it is a forcing or compelling when the word is used for "drawing" water or fish, but they insist that when it is used of the drawing power of love, then it does not mean to compel or force. 

But, who can deny that when "attraction" is superior to resistance, even in the case of "falling in love," a compelling has taken place?  How many spouses have exclaimed of this experience - "I found him/her irresistibile"? 

Is God not able to successfully "woo" a heart?  Does he lack the necessary attraction?  Does he lack knowledge of what the object of his attraction will find irresistible?  By the Arminian scheme God lacks the power and wisdom to win a heart that he is determined to win.

Arminians often speak of how conviction of sin is that preparation of heart that precedes faith and salvation, and rightly so.  But, I have never heard one of them affirm that the experience of conviction may not be effectual and irresistible.  Does God ask the sinner for his permission to bring him under conviction of sin?  Does he not do this without such permission?  Further, can the sinner resist being convicted?  Can he say, "God has convicted me, but I will stop him"? 

As God works powerfully, and sometimes irresistibly, in convicting of sin, so he does in also convicting of righteousness and judgment.  (John 16: 8)

The above is an article I wrote for The Baptist Gadfly in June, 2012. (see here)

John 3:3,5 and Hyper Calvinism

The following is from chapter 81 of my book on The Hardshell Baptists which I printed in my Baptist Gadfly blog (which preceded this blog). I felt it good to post it here. Any discussion on it from my Hardshell brothers is welcome.

The chapter was published in Sept. 2008. There are a couple of good comments from others in the comment box.

Besides John 1: 12, 13, and I John 5: 1, John 3: 3,5 is also used by the Hardshells and other Hyperists in order to attempt to prove that one is born again prior to faith and repentance.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3: 3 KJV)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (vs. 5)

The argument of the Hardshells, and others who promote the view that puts the new birth prior to faith, from the above words of Christ, affirms that these words teach that the new birth must occur before one believes, or repents, or savingly hears, or receives Christ, or experiences conversion.

But, this verse does not teach such an unscriptural notion.

First, the context shows how Christ interpreted the birth of the Spirit to be synonymous with coming to trust in Christ and in his atoning death.

Secondly, the "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom is not to be equated with believing or receiving Christ, nor with repenting, but with coming to experience the life of a child of God, in his Christian life now, but superlatively so in the world to come.

"See" does not mean to "believe," but to "experience," probably, to fully experience. Certainly no one can experience the spiritual life, either here and now, or in the world to come, unless he is first born of the Spirit through the word. Besides, is there no "seeing" or "entering" experienced IN the very act of being born?

Let us substitute some other words for "see" and "enter" and discover if it be scriptural or not.

"Except a man be born again he cannot experience God in salvation."
"Except a man be born again he cannot go to heaven."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be spiritually alive."
"Except a man be born again he cannot have Ezekiel's new heart."
"Except a man be born again he cannot please God."
"Except a man be born again he cannot have fellowship with God."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be translated into the kingdom."
"Except a man be born again he cannot be transformed."

Now, for the term "born again," in all the above examples, substitute the words "have faith" and see if it as scriptural.

Certainly "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom is Jewish. From the Old Testament, the believing Jew looked forward to the coming of an eternal kingdom where he would enjoy, in a glorified human body and spirit, the fullness of "life." It is therefore chiefly "eschatological." Peter referred to this eschatological "seeing" (experiencing) and "entering" the "eternal kingdom" of Christ, when he wrote:

"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Peter 1: 11 KJV)

The context clearly shows that Peter is addressing those who have been born again and who, in some limited way, have experienced the kingdom of the Messiah. Yet, this present enjoyment of the kingdom is limited, being only a foretaste or earnest deposit, while the fullest enjoyment will not be till after the return of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom.

D.A. Carson wrote (emphasis mine):

“To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, “to see the kingdom of God” was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life. The same equivalence is found in the Synoptics (cf. Mk. 9:43, 45 ‘to enter life’, parallel to 9:47 ‘to enter the kingdom of God/); it is particularly strong in the Fourth Gospel, where ‘kingdom’ language crops up only here (3:3, 5) and at Jesus’ trial (18:36) while ‘life’ language predominates. One of the most startling features of the kingdom announced in the Synoptics is that it is not exclusively future. The kingdom, God’s saving and transforming reign, has in certain respects already been inaugurated in the person works and message of Jesus.” (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According To John, P. 188)

So, it is a very weak argument, or none at all, to say that the words of Christ teach that one must be born again in order that he may later believe, repent, or be converted. Such a view, as I have said, eliminates faith, repentance, and a change of heart and mind from the very experience of the new birth.

Why can't the Hyperist see that part of the "deadness" of the alien depraved sinner is his "unbelief" and his "impenitence"? If they saw correctly that "spiritual death" involves unbelief and impenitence of heart, then they could see how coming to spiritual "life" involves coming out of dead faith, and dead thinking, and dead repentance, and dead works.

These same folks will affirm that the "new heart" must be first given before that heart can exercise faith and repentance. But, such a view divorces faith and repentance from being essential elements of the "new heart." If the "new heart" and "new life" do not include faith and repentance, then the "heart" is still unbelieving and impenitent, and so, how could it be said to be a "new" heart?

Jesus shows that he has primary allusion to an "eschatological" realization of "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom (to that which will not be experienced till the kingdom of Christ is established upon earth), when he says "whoever believes on him will have eternal life." (vs. 15, 16)

Surely this latter statement of Christ is eschatological, for the most part, is it not? Do those who argue erroneously on the words "seeing" and "entering," as the Hardshells and "Reformed" crowd, also see these words ('believe to eternal life') as not referring to "regeneration"? If they did, would they not have faith before regeneration?

So, the context shows that the "seeing" and "entering" into "eternal life," and into the "kingdom of God," are what is to be realized at the return of Christ. But, even if we allow it to refer to what takes place at the moment one is born again, or comes to faith, it still does not uphold the view that says the birth is completed without the creation of faith.

Besides, if the new life that is created by the new birth does not include faith, then how was the word a means in the birth? And, in our earlier chapters in this book, we looked at those passages that teach regeneration by the means of the word of God and faith in it, and overthrew the Hardshell objections to them. But, if faith is after the new birth, then the word of God cannot be a means in the giving of the life itself.

In the next chapter I will be continue looking at verses in the gospel of John that supposedly teach that one is born again before and apart from faith, as the Hardshells teach.

"Bearing Fruit In Old Age"

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing; To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him." (Psa. 92:12-15 KJV)

Here is another verse that disproves the position of Elder Winslett and his Hardshell brothers who deny perseverance.

Gill on verse 12 (highlighting mine):

"...so truly righteous persons are upright ones in heart and life, grow up into their head, Christ, and rise up heavenwards in their desires and affections; and, like the Israelites, the more they are pressed with the weight of afflictions, the more they grow; their grace and strength, their life and rigour, lie in their head, Christ; from whom was it possible they could be separated, as it is not, they would instantly die; they flourish under him, the sun of righteousness, and his warming beams of love, and bring forth the fruits of righteousness by him, to the glory of God; their leaf of profession does not wither, but is always green; the grace of God, which is in them, being an incorruptible and never dying seed..." (Commentary)

he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon;

"where the best, tallest, largest, and strongest cedars grow; (See Gill on Isaiah 37:24) to which the righteous are compared, who grow up by degrees higher and higher, even to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; and, stronger and stronger in him, go from strength to strength, having their spiritual strength renewed by him; and cast forth their roots in him, like Lebanon, and the cedars there; and spread their boughs and branches, like them, in the exercise of grace and discharge of duty; and grow in every grace, of faith, hope, love, humility, self-denial, and submission to the will of God, and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ; and are durable as the cedar, never die, their life being hid with Christ in God. Kimchi refers this to the days of the Messiah."

They shall still bring forth fruit in old age

"Being thus planted and watered, they shall not only bring forth the fruits of righteousness, but shall continue, and go on to do so, and even when they are grown old; contrary to all other trees, which, when old, cease bearing fruit; but so do not the righteous; grace is often in the greatest vigour when nature is decayed; witness Abraham, Job, David, Zachariah, and Elisabeth, and good old Simeon, who went to the grave like shocks of corn, fully ripe..."

That is Old Baptist doctrine. Winslett and his brothers do not believe what their forefathers believed. Further, their controversies have not perfected them in doctrine as he supposes.

I'll take the words of David (who Winslett said died in a worse state than when God first saved him!) rather than the speculations of the Hardshells.

One's "latter end" and Perseverance

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning." (II Peter 2:20 KJV)

This verse overthrows the reasoning of our Hardshell brothers who oppose the doctrine of the sure and certain perseverance of the saints. How so?

To demonstrate this, let me quote from a Hardshell elder with whom we have had some interaction over the past few months.

In "Avoiding Extremes" by Elder Ben Winslett (see here), Winslett wrote:

"While controversy often results in precision in how theology is expressed, we must be careful not rush to the opposite extreme of that which we disagree. There is a ditch on each side of the road. Opposing an idea by swerving to the opposite extreme renders one in just as much error as he initially and rightly rejected.

Example:

Error 1 - Every born again person - bar none - will grow in sanctification and holiness to the extent that they are effectively "supersaints" by the time they die."

Winslet thinks that if one's "latter end" of life is not better, but is the same or worse than at first conversion, that this does not mean he is not one of the elect. If there is little or no growth during the Christian life of a professor, then we should not conclude that this is evidence that the person was never truly saved.

The position of Winslett and the Hardshells is that many of those who are "elect and called" actually fit the description of those false professors as given by Peter, whose "latter end" is worse than when they were first converted.

He doesn't believe that the elect will be made to persevere in allegiance to Jesus, and thus, many of the elect live in sin and do not persevere, and in fact leave this world in a worse state than when they were first converted. But what does Peter say? "The latter end is worse than the beginning" with those described as "washed pigs" and "vomit eating dogs." But, if this is likewise true of the truly called, then Peter's reasoning amounts to nothing.

What think ye?

The Great Commission "hot potato"

The term "hot potato" has become a familiar metaphor to describe tense or urgent, often political, "hot topics" of dispute, ones that people would rather avoid dealing with if they could. 

It should become apparent, after this series has been completed, how fitting a metaphor is this term to represent the history of the discussion of the "Great Commission" among the "Ant-Mission," "Hardshell," "Primitive," "Old School," or "Old Regular Baptists." 

This topic was a leading stated cause of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists separating themselves from the main body of the Baptist denomination.

The questions discussed and debated were - "to whom was the Great Commission given?" Is it still binding upon any? Upon the present day ministry? Upon the church? Upon the individual disciple? 

Standing in an imaginary circle of hot potato game players, are the leading apologists of the Hardshell Denomination. The "hot potato" is the subject of the "Great Commission." Each of these "apologists" have passed around this "hot potato" for the past two hundred years, each giving forth a different reason for "passing on to someone else" the responsibility and duty of the "Great Commission." They all seem to hope that it does not "fall upon" them to personally fulfill the great command of Christ!

These are the words that begin my discussion of the Great Commission as it relates to the division with the Hardshells (from chapter 66). Several chapters were devoted to this subject and the above words were from the first chapter on that series.

From The Charleston Baptist Catechism

The following is from the Charleston Association's catechism for 1813 (see here) and shows what the Old Baptist belief was before the rise of the Hardshells. This shows that the Hardshells are new school and not worthy of the name "primitive" or "original" Baptists! (emphasis mine)

Q. How doth the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?

A. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us (Eph. 1:13, 14; John 6:37, 39; Eph. 2:8), and thereby uniting us to Christ, in our effectual calling (Eph. 3:17; 1 Cor. 1:9).

Now, my Hardshell brothers, this is the faith of your fathers! You may call it "Arminianism" but it is a false charge. Calling brothers who believe this "Arminian" stems either from ignorance or from wilful dishonesty.

Q. What is effectual calling?

A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14), whereby convincing us of our sin and misery (Acts 2:37), enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ (Acts 2:18), and renewing our wills (Ez. 36:26, 27), he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel (John 6:44, 45; Phil. 2:13).

Notice that effectual calling does not consist in mere conviction of sin but must include an embracing of Jesus Christ in the gospel!

Q. What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?

A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life (Acts 20:21), with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption (Pr. 2:1-6, 8:33 to the end; Is. 55:2, 3).

Q. What is faith in Jesus Christ?

How would are modern Hardshell innovators answer?

A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace (Heb. 10:39), whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel (Jn. 1:12; Is. 26:3, 4; Ph. 3:9; Gal. 2:16).

Q. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, baptism, the Lord's supper, and prayer; all which means are made effectual to the elect for salvation (Mt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:42, 46, 47).

Q. How is the word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation (Neh. 8:8; Acts 26:18; Ps. 19:8; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1: 15, 16, 10: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 15:4; 1 Cor. 14:24, 25; 1 Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; ).

Those who believe these principles are the real "Old Baptists" like we are here at the Old Baptist Test blog!