Potter-Throgmorton Debate Review

With this posting I will begin to review some things said by Elder Lemuel Potter and W.P. Throgmorton in their debate in 1887. But, before I do this, let me preface with some introductory comments.

First, I read this debate when I was a young Hardshell preacher.

Second, after I had been delivered from the Hardshell cult, I began to want to read this debate again, this time without the cult blinders. However, I did not have that debate in my library. Father had it and I more than once asked him to let me borrow it. But, he would not. Why? He did not want me to use it to write against the Hardshells.

Third, when father passed away about four years ago, my sister was in charge of getting rid of father's many books. I asked her to let me have that debate. She also refused. All of his books (except the ones she and my nephew kept) were donated to the Southern Baptist library in Louisville, Ky.

The reader can judge for himself what this reveals about the cult.

Now, let me begin my review by examining some things said by Dr. Throgmorton in his first negative speech.

Throgmorton said (all emphasis mine):

"A few more words about Hardshell peculiarities as to this matter of fellowship:—

Hardshells have persons about them who hold that God uses means and instrumentalities in the conversion of the ungodly. More generally they hold that he uses nothing of the kind, but that he brings men to Christ independently of all means. But they do not make either of these positions, it seems, a bar to fellowship."

Historians of the "Primitive," "Old School," or old "Regular" Baptists will see much to take note of in these words from Dr. Throgmorton. The following are important points to note:

1) Elder Throgmorton was well versed in the history of this sect, having many of them in his part of southern Illinois. What he says therefore is of great significance.

2) Elder Potter was a champion of the faction that held to a no means view of salvation.

3) Elder Potter, in his writings, denied that there were believers in means among the sect, either at the time of the debate with Throgmorton, or in the previous years from 1832 until 1887. This was a flat out lie or deception on the part of Potter, and all kinds of evidence there is to prove it. Some of that evidence was presented by Throgmorton in the debate. I have posted lots of evidence in this blog that also shows how Potter was denying what he knew was the truth.

4) The date of the debate was 1887, a time when the sect was splitting over the issue of means (which took place during the latter quarter of the 19th century).

5) In the statement of Throgmorton, he states that in 1887 that there were in the sect two sides on the question of means.

6) He states that the anti means side, at that time, was the "general" or majority view.

7) He states that there was no formal division as yet on this issue, and that both sides fellowshipped each other.

In my research I have found that the means view was the predominant view from 1832 and up to the Civil War.

I have also found, in that time period, that many held to a view that says that "regeneration" and "rebirth" were not the same thing, the former being done apart from means, while the latter was associated with evangelical faith and repentance, or conversion, and that this was accomplished by means of the gospel.

I have found that both Wilson Thompson and Gilbert Beebe, in the 1840s, strongly advocated the no means view of "regeneration," though they did not deny that the regenerated sinner still needed to be born again by faith.

Elder William Beebe (son of Gilbert) edited the "Southern Baptist Messenger" from Georgia, and in the 1850s had writers who wrote to the paper and advocated for the anti means view.

In the 1850s there were some who wrote to "Zion's Advocate" (edited by Elder John Clark, a believer in means) who denied means. These were rebuffed, however, by Clark.

In the 1850s Elder Watson was completing his book, "The Old Baptist Test," and he affirmed means as being the view of the Old Baptists but noted that some (a minority) were beginning to assert the no means view, and that gospel faith and conversion were not necessary for final salvation.

In about 1867, Elder J. M. Thompson, debated Lawson (Campbellite) and denied that God used means in "regeneration."

It was not until Potter and his debate with Throgmorton, however, that we find that the distinction between regeneration and rebirth was no longer the predominant view, and that the anti means side began to affirm that one could be a heathen in faith and still saved.

The division over means, called the "Burnam Pence" controversy, was the catalyst for the sect becoming totally anti means, making gospel conversion unnecessary for rebirth, and affirming that many who were heathen in faith were nevertheless regenerated and born again. Those who held to means became a minority, many of the means faction going to the Missionaries or other Baptist groups.

In the next posting we will continue to review this debate.

(Note: I still plan to finish writings in my other series, as time allows. Such as on "Baptist Ordination Practices," "Redemption," etc. Pray for us. We have had health issues of late and have been busy with home improvement projects. Only God knows how long I have left in which to finish these writings)