Duke Research Results (1)

This posting will deal with the truth about what Elder John Clark, editor of "Zion's Advocate" believed in means in regeneration or new birth. I want to show that 1) He did in fact believe in means and the issues of "Zion's Advocate" during his time as editor (1854-1882) show it conclusively, and 2) PBs who claimed that he denied means are liars and perverters of historical facts.

See these postings previously made showing some of these citations from Clark's own hand in his periodical:

Elder John Clark On Means

Was Elder John Clark a neo Hardshell?

Elder John Clark - Means Of Regeneration

In this posting I wrote:

This is interesting and revealing testimony! It is from Elder E. H. Burnam, a close associate of Elder Clark, one of Elder Clark's named associate editors of Zion's Advocate, published out of Luray, Virginia. He spoke for a large number of "Primitive" or old "Regular" Baptists who were part of the anti mission movement, and which was mostly anti Sunday Schools, anti ministerial education, anti bible and tract societies, etc., who nevertheless believed in means and in bible classes and theological education for ministers, and who believed in church sponsored missionaries. Elder Burnam claims, in this trial, that the first old Baptists believed in means in the new birth, that faith in Christ was necessary to regeneration, and that Elder Clark believed as he did. The Hardshells, who denied means, denied that the first old Baptists believed in means and denied that Elder Clark believed in means. What is the truth? Well, I believe Burnam. Why would he lie? Besides, in the following citations, McInturf himself cites from the first volume of Zion's Advocate, from 1854, to show the Clark affirmed means. Why would Clark print the Purifoy's writing if he did not agree with it? Also, I have citations from Clark where he clearly affirmed means. But, I have also seen at least one citation where Clark seems to clearly deny means. But, since the entire writing of Clark unavailable, the citation may be questioned. The Primitive Baptist web site that gives the Clark citation, where Clark seems to deny means in regeneration, the one citing Clark has a ... after his citation. Now, I have seen Hardshells take the writings of Baptist forefathers, such as John Gill, and cite them piecemeal, out of context, and purposefully omit certain portions of paragraphs, and even sentences, with their ... , and thus distort the original author's words and intent. 

Well, I have the proof that the citation that has been accredited to Clark, as supposedly denying means, are a lie. I was right to have doubted the veracity of the citation in question! The words attributed to Clark were not Clark's words at all! He begins by saying "Our opponents say "..." Yet, Elder Crouse, in his attempt to show that the anti means doctrine was not new, cited the words of Clark's opponent (who could not see how means could be used) as though they were Clark's words! Crouse falsified the words of Elder Clark long after Clark was dead and pawned it off on his Hardshell brothers as being the words of Clark.

In the book "Regeneration or the New Birth" by William H. Crouse (see here), a book upheld by Sonny Pyles as stating things accurately, Crouse wrote:

"Elder John Clark, a recognized leader among Primitive Baptists, for years editor of Zion's Advocate (afterwards edited by T.S. Dalton, C.H. Waters, John R. Daily, and now by R.H. Pittman) in an editorial on this subject in June 1858, said:

"We can conceive how agencies and instrumentalities can be employed in ministering to the living, but what place they have in giving life we cannot so readily conceive.***Is it scripturally true that God uses instrumentality in quickening, or giving life, to sinners dead in tresspasses and sins. The burden of proof, we know, rests upon these who affirm this, but let us see a moment what saith the revelation of God upon the subject.***(John 5: 21; 25; Born 4:17, 2 Cor.3:6, Eph. 2: 4,5,10; Col. 2:13, I Tim. 6:13; Heb. 4:12.) This array of scriptural testimony is sufficient, we should think, to establish the proposition that God quickens the sinner independent of means."

Now, here is what Clark actually wrote (I have the copy right in front of me):
(The Capitals are from Clark and the highlighting is mine)

"Beloved Brethren.--It appears we have fallen upon perilous times, when almost every species of heresy is being introduced into the O. R. Baptist churches. Notwithstanding there are many periodicals started up amongst the Baptists, proposing reformation or a returning to the original landmarks: yet I find they are very slow in returning. I for my part go in for a radical and thorough reform. No partial work will suit the sincere inquirer after truth. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth, will neutralize those belligerent spirits; and work a perfect union amongst the brethren. I discover there is some one wishes to know "whether it is God, the Holy Spirit, that quickens, or makes alive dead sinners, independent of any means or instrumentalities?" I answer in the affirmative: that is one truth, but yet not the whole truth. Notwithstanding God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, yet he has seen fit, in his infinite wisdom, to make use of means and instrumentalities in bringing about his purposes: and so far from God being dependent upon them, they are entirely dependant upon him for success. We readily acknowledge God alone has power to quicken or make alive dead sinners, or in other words to open the blind eyes, &c--But is it not as clearly revealed that God has his own way in doing this great work? We readily agree that God is the first cause of all causes; but does that nullify the idea of his making use of second causes to accomplish his purposes? I think not. Now for proof that God does make use of means, or second causes, in awakening dead sinners. "I have begotten you through the gospel" (I Cor. iv. 15). "For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5). "Whereunto he calley you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thes. ii:14). "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers, by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man" (I Cor. 3:5) "To OPEN THEIR EYES, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" &c. (Acts xxvi.18) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ FOR IT IS THE POWER OF GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth, the the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16) "Now when THEY HEARD THIS they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD" (Acts xvii.20) "And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the SAYING OF THE WOMAN, which testified, he told me all I ever did" (John iv.36). Of his own will begat he us WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOG, which liveth and abideth forever. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH THEM and confirming the word with signs following. So shall MY WORD be that goeth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall ACCOMPLISH that which I please, an it shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it (Isaiah lv.11) If the above named scriptures are not sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that God does make use of means and instrumentalities in awakening and making alive dead sinners, then the bible is of but little use; as well without as with it. The opposer says, "we CAN conceive how agencies and instrumentalities can be employed in administering to the living, but what place they can have in giving life we cannot so readily conceive." Brethren are not aware of the dilemma there (they?) are in by holding that position. If indeed the gospel is of no manner of use in quickening of dead sinners, why should it be of any use in keeping them alive when made alive? Is not the same power that makes them alive without the use of means able to keep them alive without the use of means? I see as much propriety in the one case as the other. But they say Christ says, Feed my sheep; he says also, preach the gospel to every creature; so nullify the gospel. But, my brethren, the true bible doctrine is most clear, that God has ordained the preaching of the gospel for some special purposes, and those purposes he will accomplish through the word preached. These very brethren who oppose God's making use of means in the awakening of dead sinners say they have no authority from the word of God, to believe that any are saved when the gospel is not preached. O consistency! what a jewel thou art!"

Do you see what Crouse did? He took Clark's opponent's proposition (given by Clark in quotation marks) and attributed that proposition to Clark! Do you see how the Hardshells use their infamous ellipsis to omit pertinent information so as to take a writer totally out of context and make him to say exactly what he does not say?

When Clark first affirms that God regenerates apart from means, he does not mean that this is true in every case. This is clear because in the remainder he shows how ordinarily God does use means.

Further, the rest of the citation by Crouse, what he attributes to Clark in the same article, I did not see in the article at all! Such cult histories! Rubbish!