The Ultraist Response?

What did the "ultraist" Two Seed PBs say to Elder John Clark's apologetic for means, for preaching faith and repentance to the spiritually dead, etc.?

Before answering that important question, let us review the foundation principles of Clark's arguments against the "ultraist" no means view.

Clark's Principles

1. Faith and repentance are evangelical, produced by the preaching of the gospel.

2. Faith and repentance are what is necessary for salvation from hell and damnation.

3. Dead sinners are to be commanded to believe and repent for salvation.

4. The commands to believe and repent do not imply any ability in sinners.

5. The ancient mode of preaching (both in scripture and old Baptist history) shows that God's ministers addressed the spiritually dead and told them what they must do to be saved.

6. The preaching of the gospel is not merely intended as food for sheep, for those already saved, but also for the quickening of sinners.

7. Preaching to the spiritually dead is not "Arminianism."

8. The anti means view is what actually is "sublimated Arminianism," ironically.

What Will Be Our Retort?

What did the ultraist do in response to these principles?

He was forced to argue one or all of the following propositions:

1. Deny that the ones commanded to believe and repent were actually unregenerate.

(Stated affirmatively - only the regenerated are commanded to believe and repent)

2. Deny that the faith and repentance were evangelical (Beebe, Potter, etc.).

(Stated affirmatively - it is a legal or national repentance)

3. Affirm that evangelical commands imply ability to obey.

(Stated negatively - no unregenerate person has ability and so is not commanded)

Now, what do we find in the historical records?

What actually resulted from the means vs. anti means debate that began to be widely discussed in the 1850s? Where did the debate lead? What was the state of the ongoing debate in the 1860s? 1870s? 1880s? etc.? How many clinged to Clark's view (which was the original view)? Did they stay in the denomination, in general association with the anti means wing, until the more formal division in the time of the Mt. Carmel church division (and later court trial)? How did the debate finally end? Was it not in the division "over the means question" in the 1880s? The debate that Elder Lemuel Potter, leading the charge for the anti means wing of the denomination, had with Elders W.T. Pence, Yates, McInturf, E.H. Burnam, and others, leading the means side, represents the climax of the debate. It was debated for some thirty years before the anti means wing took over.

They continued their tradition of using "resolutions of non fellowship" and various "intimidation tactics" to scare the means side to either submit, or leave the denomination. The means churches, I am certain, went various ways once they saw the incalcitrant and intolerant spirit of the "ultraist" wing. The name or title to being "Old School," "Primitive," was not so valued by the means side that they felt like they could or should keep such titles painted on their houses of worship. Many writers, like Clark, in seeing so many false and diabolical doctrines being taught under the banner of "old school" or "primitive, concluded that continuing with such a title could be harmful due to the fact that such words were fast becoming nomenclatures for novel and cultic teachings.

The means churches are still around today, as we have shown in previous postings, such as concerning the several postings available here, but many did not retain the name "Primitive" or "Old School." Also, many of the 19th century PBs called themselves "Regular Baptists," including men like Potter. These churches no doubt joined other Calvinistic groups (Landmarkers), and semi Calvinistic groups (Southern Baptists), etc.

We find that the debate that was heating up in the pages of Zion's Advocate in the 1850s not only led to the separation of the means brethren from the anti means (ultraists and innovators - Watson), but did lead the ultraist Two Seed no means wing to false doctrines that men like Elder Sylvester Hassell would detail in the early 1890s.

Hassell's Articles (see here) delineating errors that were under the "Two Seed" umbrella:

"The Literal Interpretation of Scripture"

"The Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture"

"Strifes of Words and Hobby Horses"

"The Danger of Applying All Scripture to the Children of God"

"The Two Seed Heresy"

"The Error of Fatalism"

"The Error of Denying the Existence and Fall of Angels"

"The Error of Eternal Vital Unionism"

"The Error of Denial of a Change of the Soul in Regeneration"

"The Error of Conditionalism"

"CAN A CHURCH IN DISORDER DO THINGS IN ORDER?"

"FALSE AND DANGEROUS PROFESSED SPIRITUALIZATIONS OF THE PROPHESIES OF SCRIPTURE"

Like Crowley said in his book "Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South," you can still hear Two Seed ideas and expressions in Hardshell preaching, especially if one knows what to listen for.

The means folks, like Watson and Clark, in fighting with the ultraist PBs, forced the ultraists into further extremes. Perhaps more of today's PBs will see it and confess the truth.