Hardshell Evolution in Doctrine II

For the first posting of this series, see Hardshell Evolution In Doctrine I.

The year 1846 is an important date.

In this year was the famous trial dealing with the question of means that occurred in the White Water Association in Indiana, which division was led by Elder John Sparks on the means side and Elder Wilson Thompson on the anti means side. This trial (By George C. Clark) can be read on the Internet (see here). In this trial Thompson said (emphasis mine):

"There can be no means used until they are brought to life. As soon as life is in them, then means may be used; God never appointed any means, scriptures or any thing else, until they are made alive; one vital spark of life is sufficient to make alive from sin. The scriptures and the word are intended for living men alone. The Bible and the preached word are the means by which God works on men after they are made alive."

This was the view of one of the founding fathers of Hardshellism. He and Gilbert Beebe were in league on this point. The latter, as I have shown in several writings, taught that the "birth" was not the beginning of the child, or the time when the child is made alive. That occurred months prior to the birth (generally nine months) when the "seed" germinated and produced life. "Regeneration" was viewed as occurring apart from means, apart from conversion, apart from evangelical faith and repentance, and was viewed as the beginning of "life," the beginning of existence of a spiritual man. But, they did not believe that this "regeneration" was the same as the "birth," or the "bringing forth" in spiritual delivery. They believed that evangelical conversion was that birth and delivery, and that it was as much necessary for eternal salvation as was the "regeneration" or "implanting" of the seed of divine life.

In the citation from Thompson's writings, anterior to the 1832 split, he believes that the gospel is the means of "begetting" children of God. The question is this; does he still believe this in 1846 for the trial in question? If so, the trial should have focused on that point. The question that should have been asked, then, would be "do you believe that the birth that follows regeneration is accomplished by means and is necessary for eternal salvation?" If Thompson still held to the three stage view of spiritual birth, like most of his brethren, he would have answered yes.

However, the trial debate seems to make regeneration and birth to be the same. So, the means side holds to the view that regeneration or new birth occurs by God's use of means. They also affirm that this is the stated view of their historic confessions and articles of faith. On this point, they were right and had all the evidence (same as in the later Mt. Carmel Church trial).

Wrote editor Clark:

"A witness for the means side, a Mr. Hackleman testified that the view propounded by Thompson was then a new doctrine, saying:

"The second point which I intend to enforce is, that the Means party have put that construction on their articles of faith authorized by the views of Baptist writers and commentators. Their doctrine, I think, I shall be able to show, completely harmonizes with the sentiments of the old Baptist writers, commentators, and confessions of faith, and that, in reality, the Anti-Means party hold new doctrines and sentiments. I shall, as a matter of policy, commence with the writings of the Rev. Wilson Thompson. I say as a matter of policy, for he is the leader, the Ajax, of the opposition, and if I can swamp them by quotations from his writings, it will hardly be necessary to proceed to the investigation of more respectable and learned authors. Once upon a time he wrote a work called "Simple Truth." It was printed at Lebanon, O., in 1821."

The idea that regeneration was without means but birth was by means was not new among the Baptists, a point I have shown in my writings. However, all Baptists had previously taught that the new birth was accomplished by means of producing evangelical faith. The denial of this truth was what indeed was new and novel among the Old Baptists.

Hackleman continued:

"It would hardly be fair to hold the reverend gentleman and his followers in the "anti-means" doctrines responsible for what is contained in the preface of "Simple Truth," where he says in speaking of salvation, "We should therefore make use of every laudable exertion to propagate and explain it, to the weakest capacity of human beings. But from a sense of the importance of the work, and my own inadequacy, I have hitherto deferred the undertaking," &c. The importance of what work, Mr. Thompson? The propagation and explanation of the gospel plan of salvation. But at page 07, in speaking of the gospel he says, "Wherein Sarah and her son were figures of the gospel, and those under it, first, she was a figure of the gospel in her name Sarah, which signifies lady, princess, princess of the multitude; and this name was given to her because the blessing of God was upon her, and nations of people should come to her, to denote that the gospel was to go amongst all nations, with the blessings of God attending it, and bring forth children in different nations, who are to be born again of an incorruptible seed by the word of God, which by the gospel is preached unto you." It occurs to me, this is pretty strong "means" doctrine. Much credit is given to the gospel and to the word of God in the bringing forth of christian children in different nations. Such a statement may be a "simple truth," but nevertheless it is an important truth, and one which bears directly on the present controversy. But I have not much time to devote to "Simple Truth," as the "Triumphs of Truth," by the same author, furnishes further evidence of the correctness of the Means doctrine."

This shows that Thompson first held to the traditional Baptist view in regard to means, but sometime after, when he joined the anti mission movement, he began to teach differently. However, it is possible that even in 1821 Thompson believed that regeneration was without means but that the birth was by means.

Hackleman also said:

"I might make other quotations in the same connection from the "Triumphs of Truth," but this copious extract is amply sufficient. The great apostle of anti-means, twenty-two years ago, advocated precisely the same doctrine which is still advocated by those whom he so bitterly denounces. In 1821, the gospel was an efficient means, according to "Simple Truth," in bringing forth children in different nations, for the blessings of God attended it. These children then were born again of an incorruptible seed by the word of God, which was preached. In 1824 it was sound Baptist doctrine to insist that the people were pricked to the heart by or under Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, and that a model of a church was where the members were prepared by first gladly receiving the word; secondly, by being baptized; and thirdly, by being added to the church. But in 1846, it is heresy to maintain such propositions!"

It is interesting how 1846 was not only the date when Elder Wilson Thompson formally asserted the no means view of regeneration in the above trial, but is also the date when Elder Gilbert Beebe, a close associate of Thompson, also first asserted the view.  In an article titled "Means" (see here), Beebe wrote (Dec. 15, 1846):

"...for the words used by the means party, as defined by himself, show that they believe that God speaks the word of life in quickening dead sinners through good men and through bad men, through his preachers, and through the devil’s ministers, thus using them as means or instruments in performing the work of regeneration, while every syllable of this is denied in the most unequivocal manner by the advocates of truth, called the anti-means party."

He also wrote:

"...in the quickening of the dead, there are neither means nor instrumentalities used."

But, though he taught this in relation to "regeneration" or "quickening," he did not teach it in relation to being "born again."

It is interesting that the means side won their case in court. Why is this interesting? Because the means side lost in the Mt. Carmel trial that occurred many years later and the Hardshells have used this fact to argue that such a victory proves that they were right historically on the point. But, that logic flies back on them when we consider that the anti means side lost in the 1846 trial! In that trial the evidence presented showed that the means side were the ones still teaching the historic Baptist view on the point.