"Dear Brother Clark:
There has been much said about the union of the Baptists. Eld. G.M. Thompson seemed to be very desirous that it should take place, and for which he has been, by some of the brethren, spoke ill of. I want to know who it is among the Baptists who would not rejoice accordingly to see it come to pass?--I must confess, my brother, though I know I am very ignorant and short-sighted, that I never saw anything but an union upon the true doctrines and principles of the gospel. But, my brother, I fear that there is spirits amongst some of our dear brethren, rather calculated to debar than to unite--making as it were baptism a test of fellowship. Let us take heed, my brethren, lest we should be found amongst those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I, for my part, never yet found anything in the New Testament, to say whether the old ministration should be an Old School or New School, or no school. The word says, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, &c. If the candidate is a believer, and the ordinance is administered according to the word, we are bound to receive him, if his walk is good. And I am confident you cannot find a thus saith the Lord to the contrary. And from the record of the Old Regular Baptists many years ago, we find that the question was brought before the Ketoctan Association for advice, and it was decided; that where the candidate was a believer, and the ordination was administered according to the word, it was considered to be valid baptism. That was their decision. And also the Kehukee Association decided in the same way. We read of no re-baptism, unless it was those twelve disciples which Paul found when going up in the church at Ephesus; and the greater part believe they were not re-baptized.--Now brethren, if we retain the name of the Old Regular Baptists, let us also retain the substance; for I feel confident we shall never, while in this militant state, arrive any nearer to the truth than they were in that age or time. I believe that old Dr. J. Gill was a true specimen of the Old Regular Baptists, also an able defender of the truth. We should be very careful not to be too positive on any point of doctrine, until we examine on any point of doctrine, until we examine well first, to see if it is clearly revealed in God's word; if not, throw it away, for I verily believe that everything that is necessary for the children of God to know, is clearly revealed in his word; but it is like hid treasure, it requires to be searched after and dug after, in order to find it. We are told to search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Christ. It is the book with the seven seals which the lion of the tribe of Judah alone was able to open and loose the seals thereof: the book of knowledge--the book of life."
Comments and Observations
Most people do not realize how the debate about a baptism's administrator, or validity, was hotly debated by various Baptist groups in the 19th century in America, especially among those known as "Landmark Baptists," and among the "Primitive" "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists. I have begun a series on this (one introductory post by Spurgeon) and plan to continue it soon. The citation above, though it does not directly relate to the "means question," yet I include it here now and will include it later when we complete the series on ordination practices. It shows that many PBs were not extremists on rebaptizing new converts from other orders when that baptism was in all points correct except that it was performed by Baptist churches not in the PB denomination.
The writer continued:
"Another thing, the Baptists have been meddling with to their own injury. That is, the means and anti means question. That God makes use of means or instrumentalities in the bringing about his purposes in the salvation of sinners; some being in favor, and some against it."
Comments and Observations
"Meddling with to their own injury"! This testimonial is so revealing historically speaking.
The writer continued:
"To be satisfied of the fact, that God does use means in bringing about his purposes, it is only necessary for one to divest himself of preconceived opinions, as much as in him lies, and he will be compelled to acknowledge the truth. I could produce a host of Scriptures to prove it out clearly to any rational, unprejudiced person, but I shall leave it for the honest enquirer after truth to search and examine for himself. I do not name this subject to provoke controversy by any means. But as I conceive it a very important point of doctrine in theology, and one the Old Baptists hold most sacred. Because if we think God raises up, qualifies, and sends forth his ministers into all the world to preach the the gospel to every creature, and not at the same time design to accomplish anything thereby, we had better stay at home; because all out of faith is sin. Did not God send Paul to the Gentiles, where Christ had never so much as been named? Did not Paul go down to Athens where they were wholly given to idolatry? God's purposes and designs are special and particular. If God designed that the walls of Jericho should fall down by the blowing of the ram's horns, in strict obedience to this command, do you suppose they would or could have fallen by any other means? We do not limit the Holy One of Israel; he can work with and without means, when and where he pleases.
Another thing, can we rationally suppose God will accomplish anything through the foolishness of preaching, if we have not faith to believe he will do it? We are told, that, "without faith it is impossible to please God." God has a place, and a use, for all the material in his building, and it is our privilege and duty, as lively stones, built up a spiritual house, to offer up spiritual sacrifices; to seek after the Lord if haply we might feel after him and find him. Do we not see what wonderful works God hath wrought by his ancient worthies? Believing then that God has made nothing in vain, but that he has a use for, and purpose in, everything made under the sun, what kind of persons then ought we to be? Then let us be diligent in business, fervent in spirit serving the Lord; lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. "Knowing, brethren, beloved, you election of God." Bro. Clark, I am an old Predestinarian Baptist from the beginning to end, and can be nothing else--it is certain that I would be any and everything else if I could, whether it is from tradition or the Bible, God knoweth, and I am what I am. Not long since I thought I should never write another line for publication, feeling that I had neither part nor lot among the brethren, but was one alone, despised and hated by all, and even by myself, I wish you all well, highly favored of the Lord.
Well, amen to that! A "host of scriptures" that prove that God uses means in his purpose of salvation! Only a biased mind (like we see among today's PBs) would fail to see that proof!
Clark, in the same issue, wrote the following as an addition to what Sperry wrote. Under the heading "The Gospel And Quickened Sinners" he wrote:
"In this No. will be found a communication from Bro. Sperry, upon the subject of the preached gospel in connection with the work of God in quickening sinners dead in tresspasses and sins. Although direct reference is made to what we had written upon that upon that subject, and our views, without being understood, represented as HERESY, yet we have now neither time nor inclination to write anything more upon the subject, and only wish to say that a little more reserve would have been more becoming, especially in one who does not profess to be called of God to the work of the ministry, and therefore cannot be supposed to know what are the feelings and experience of a minister of the gospel, nor what at any time God may have bidden him to preach.
In answer to the request of brother Sears and others that we should publish our views again upon this subject, or review the article we published in the first Vol. of the Advocate, we have simply to say, that whilst we are aware that we did not, in the views then advanced, give satisfaction to the ultraists on either side, yet upon a careful review of the whole ground, and all that we then wrote, we can say, WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN, WE HAVE WRITTEN: we would not, should we undertake to write it over again alter a single word in it. These who may be particularly anxious to see these articles can send up for the first Vol. bound; and if hereafter it shall be thought advisable or necessary to republish them, it shall be cheerfully done."
Clearly Clark believed in means!
Here is what I wrote in Chpt. 43 - Addresses To The Lost II (see here) in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."
"Let those undertake it who are able to convince the gainsayers from the word of God, that such preaching was commanded by the Lord; and that the preaching of his servants as long as we have a Scriptural history of it furnishes a practical example of this mode of preaching the gospel."
From my studies of the history of the Hardshells since Watson uttered those words, in 1866, I can testify that none among them were "able" to do so. Rather, the slanders increased among the "ultraists" against those, like Watson, Thompson and others, who preached evangelistically. The charge of "Arminianism" by the "ultaists," by those who felt no duty to preach to "every creature,"against those who preached after the apostolic example, as did Watson, Grigg Thompson, John Clark, was indeed a slander and what Watson called, an "attempt to find Arminianism where there is none."
There are three things worth noting from the above words of Dr. Watson as this chapter is introduced.
1. "Such preaching was commanded by the Lord."
2. "We have a scriptural history of it."
3. "Scriptural example of this mode of preaching."
This chapter will begin to prove these things and ironically, from one who has been and is yet a true "Old Baptist," yours truly. I feel confident that Dr. Watson, Thompson, and Clark, were they alive today, would countenance this work I am doing.
Watson also said, in the previous chapter's citations:
"A gospel without exhortation; and without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his “other sheep.”" (Pages 84-86)
No Hardshell, in this day and time, can read these words and not feel indicted! And it was uttered by one of the founding fathers of Hardshellism, a founding father who is everywhere claimed as "one of their own"!
They do not preach the gospel! That is Dr. Watson's indictment. Yea, today's Hardshells are even suppressors and hinderers of this kind of gospel preaching! What does this say about their own state of salvation?
Said Watson further:
"...a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained."
Again, this is an indictment of Hardshellism as it has evolved today. It is a clear case of "leaven being introduced into the meal till the whole was leaven." He could hope for "reform," for a back tracing of their steps, but it was too late, and Dr. Watson held on to a vain hope in believing that the leaven could be expelled.
Elder John Clark
As I have researched more in depth the history of the Hardshells I have discovered several additional surprises. I say "surprises" because I was (and continue to be), amazed at the false information I was fed from the Hardshells about their history. During those years, when I was a young minister among them, when I "sat at the feet of the elders," the Hardshell kind of "seminary," I was often told of the old preachers, who stood opposed to the "missionaries," men like Elder Wilson Thompson and his son Grigg, of Elder John Clark and Elder John Watson, were "one of their own," and that they believed and practiced things just like the Hardshells do today. I have since discovered how many falsehoods the Hardshells have put forth relative to their own history, how they believe things without the least shred of evidence, and even continue to believe those falsehoods no matter what historical records and facts are brought to their attention. It is just more proof that they indeed are a "cult," as I have already shown and demonstrated.
I have already called forth two "anti-mission" Hardshell Baptist, men who are recognized as being "Primitive." Many Hardshells who will read this work will be amazed at the information contained in it, information which has been conveniently withheld from the general assembly of Hardshells. They will learn things about their founding fathers and revered leaders that they will not want to readily acknowledge is true. I have already seen this with regard to my own father. I regularly talk to him about these things and he is very, very reluctant to acknowledge facts which he has extreme bias against believing.
So, before I go further in this look at "Addresses to the Lost," in the Scriptures, let me call forth some more witnesses on this matter, from more of the Hardshell "founding fathers."
Elder John Clark was a widely recognized leader among the Hardshells in the mid 1800's, being editor of one of their leading periodicals, in Virginia, the "Zion's Landmark." This paper was, many years later, taken over by Elder John R. Daily (whom I have already mentioned more than once, and will have more to say). Here is what Elder Daily said about Elder Clark.
"Zion's Advocate is a magazine dear to the hearts of many of the Lord's children. To hundreds of them it has long been a precious, welcome visitor. The name of its founder, Eld. John Clark, is still a household word in many homes. We hope to continue to make it what its name imports and what its respected and beloved founder intended it to be an advocate of the cause of Zion."
In a book recently published again by the Hardshells, "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers of the United States," we find Elder Clark mentioned in these favorable words.
He was born in 1804 in Orange county, Virginia. He was "baptized by Elder Daniel Davis in 1829. He was ordained in 1831 by Elders R. B. Semple, L. W. Battle and A. H. Bennett and commenced the work of the ministry..."
It is also said, in this biography, that he "commenced the publication of Zion's Advocate in 1852 and was editor over twenty eight years, and has left behind him a vast amount of solid information."
And, it is said that Elder Clark "was looked upon by some as theleading minister of the Old School Baptists in Virginia."(Pages 64,65)
Now, today's Hardshells will not want to give up Elder Clark, as they are willing to do with Elder Watson (although Hassell and Grigg Thompson had high regard and fellowship with Elder Watson), nor will they be at all willing to hear the things that will be presented by Elder Wilson Thompson either. It will become evident that today's Hardshells would not fellowship a large majority of the first Harshells because they believed in means and in calling upon all men to repent and believe the gospel, for salvation, although they did protest heavily against much of the "mission methodology" of the Baptist denomination.
But, let us now hear from Elder Clark now that his Hardshell credentials have been substantiated.
He wrote:
"The question is settled, that preaching, which is the Gospel of Christ, is what is in harmony God’s revealed will, and in strict accordance with the word of his grace. Upon the question of how this work is to be performed, we have the examples of Christ and his apostles for our guide."
This is exactly what Elder Watson said in the citation given at the outset of this chapter. All one has to do, to answer the question as to whether the gospel is to be preached to all so that all might have opportunity to be saved, is to look at all the preaching done by Christ and the apostles. Can we see them preaching to any who are not regenerated? What did they tell them? Well, Elders Watson, Thompson, and Clark all knew the results of that look. We will do this too in the next chapter.
He wrote further:
"The apostles were men of like passions with us. They had the same class of persons to preach to that we have. “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God,” was in the ministry of John the Baptist." In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying,"Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” After the baptism of Jesus and the forty days’ conflict with the Devil, and after John was committed to prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the Gospel." The apostles preached after this example, and according to the command of Christ, repentance and remission of sins among all nations."
Elder Clark saw clearly that Jesus and the apostles preached to those who were clearly not regenerated or born again and that they called upon them to repent, believe, come to Christ for salvation, etc.
He then wrote:
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever."
He is hammering the same thing as did Elder Watson! He is fighting the "Ultraists" and the "Antinomians" too! It seems very clear to me that Elder Clark believed in means, did not believe what Hardshells (and the "Gospel Standard Strict Baptists" of England in the mid 1800s) did on this matter of whether the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all men.
Clark wrote again:
"The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience."
Again, this just echoes what Elder Watson wrote. But, let us hear Elder Clark further.
"To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism."
And again, he said:
"The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability."
("What To Preach and How To Preach" in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
And again he writes:
"When many of our people ran wild, a few years ago, in support of a great many institutions, which we considered as innovations in the house of God, our churches and ministers that remained seemed to have pressed very far to the other extreme, and so many have settled down upon the plan of not doing anything whatever to promote the cause of Christ and display the glory of God. Hence, when a minister exhorts to the performance of works of faith and labors of love, and is himself diligent in business, fervent in spirit serving the Lord, and insists upon the prompt compliance with all that Christ has commanded by those that love him, those hyper straight-laced brethren become alarmed, lest he should run into Arminianism." ("Correction In Churches" in Zion's Advocate--November 1869)
Were Elder Clark around today, in 2007, what would he see among those who put "Primitive Baptist" over their doors? He would see them as nothing but what he called "hyper straight-laced brethren"! He would be disappointed, like Elder Watson, could he also return, for he would see that the "Ultraists" and "extrmists"won out! It is a truly sad epitat to write on the tombstone of the "Hardshells."
Notice how we have terms (labels), other than "Hardshell," of course, or "anti-mission" Baptist, or "Old School," for these people, and from their own too! The are "Ultraists," and "Antinomians," and "Parkerites," and "hyper straight-laced"!
Now let us hear from one whom nearly all Hardshells acknowledge as truly "one of their own," a veritable "founding father." I do not cite these words from this founding father to prove that he believed in the use of "means" in regeneration, for that question will be dealt with later when I take up a more extended look at the first Hardshell founding fathers, but to show that he, like many of the first "anti-mission" Baptists, believed in preaching the gospel to all men, saint or sinner.
Samuel Trott, one of the first leaders in the anti-mission movement, and a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, gave the general belief of the first Hardshells on the subject of "duty faith,"In an article in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1839, titled "Duty Faith & Repentance. An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray," (see here) Trott wrote: (emphasis mine)
"On the other hand, I understand the Old School doctrine to be, that it is the duty of all rational beings to believe all God has spoken in the scriptures as they have access to them directly or indirectly, and to believe the testimony of the works of creation and providence, where the scriptures have not come. To disbelieve the record, which God hath given of His Son, is to make God a liar (I John 5:10;) and surely no person can do this and be guiltless. The obligation man is under thus to believe God, arises, not from any demand which the gospel as such peculiarly makes upon him, but from the nature and fitness of things, and from what God is. It is a law of our creation."
Trott also wrote:
"The "duty of the unregenerate to repent," comes next under consideration."
"My own mind I confess has been much difficulted to draw a clear line of distinction between the different relations and senses in which the idea of repentance, is presented to our view in the scriptures, and between the idea of its being a duty incumbent on men at large, and that of its being a free gospel blessing bestowed by the exalted Saviour on the spiritual Israel of God."
Trott struggled with the same issue that Hyper Calvinists have traditionally. How can faith and repentance be both commanded and a gift. Today's Hardshells, sadly, think that they cannot be both, that for something to be commanded excludes it from being God's gift, and vise versa. They do not understand, for instance, the words of Augustine:
"O Lord, command what you will and give what you command."
I have on previous occasions written against the Hardshell notion that men are not commanded to become regenerate. See "Make You A New Heart". It seems the Hardshells would have sided with Pelagius rather than Augustine.
It is good that Trott and the first Hardshells did not reject in toto the truth of duty faith and repentance, as do today's Hardshells.
Wrote Trott:
"On the other hand I have never been able to receive in all points as correct, the explanations which Doctor Gill and other sound brethren have given of it. There will be found some difference between the explanation of this subject which I have to give, and that given by Brother Beebe in No.14, more particularly in relation to John's preaching repentance; this difference I trust is not such as to break any bones."
Wrote Trott:
"If on the other hand we suppose that the unregenerate are under no obligations to repent, we must consider them as justifiable in continuing on in their sins of whatever grade they may be. This I think none will admit; for there certainly are instances in the scriptures of unregenerated persons being exhorted or admonished to repent. The query then arises, Whence does this obligation to repent arise?"
Good admission by Trott! Would to God that our modern PBs would admit it!
No comments:
Post a Comment