"Regenerated" but not "Born"?

Or "Regenerated" but not "Converted"?

The following excerpt is from "Chpt. 115 - Mediate or Immediate?" (here)

Jesus also spoke of the birth process in these words:

"A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." (John 16: 21)

Surely to be "born into the world" means to have existence in the world.  Birth brings a person into being in the ordered world.  So, likewise does spiritual birth bring one into being in the ordered world of grace and of the kingdom of God.  When does one enter the spiritual world?  Is it not after being delivered from the womb, when the birth process is finished?

What are the consequences to the belief that there is a gap in time between regeneration (see implantation and germination) and birth?  What are the consequences for making spiritual birth to be, in every way, exactly like physical birth?

The most absurd and unscriptural consequence is that it redefines the nature of regeneration.  First, it affirms that a person is "regenerate" who is not "born," and this in spite of the fact that regenerate means the same thing as reborn.  It creates a difference where there is no difference.

Second, it affirms that a man is "regenerate" who is yet unsanctified and unjustified, for sanctification and justification, in scripture, are said to be "by faith."  (See Acts 26: 18 & Rom. 5: 1)

Third, it affirms that a man is regenerate, has a changed heart and new nature, but who is yet an unbeliever and impenitent in heart, and who still is condemned and has the wrath of God abiding upon him.  (See John 3: 18, 36)

Fourth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet taken possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is "received" (active voice) through faith via the gospel.  (Gal. 3: 2;  Rom. 8: 15) 

Fifth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not been forgiven of sins, for forgiveness comes by faith.  (See Acts 26: 18)

Sixth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet in darkness (in the womb) and has not come into the light, whereas the scriptures define the regeneration experience as involving enlightenment. (See II Cor. 4: 6)

Seventh, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unwashed and unclean, for cleansing is "by the word."  (See Eph. 5: 26)

Eighth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unconverted, for conversion is by faith.  (See Acts 3: 19)

Ninth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet saved, for men are saved by faith.  (See Eph. 2: 8)

Tenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet "received (active voice - by faith) the atonement."  (See Rom. 5: 11)

Eleventh, it affirms that regeneration precedes justification whereas the scriptures are clear that justification is logically first.  (See Col. 2: 13)

Twelfth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet under the power and dominion of Satan.  (See Acts 26: 18)

Thirteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not a child and heir of God.  (the Greek word "teknon" - becoming children involves birth - tek - See Rom. 8: 17)

Fourteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not liberated, for being yet in the womb the infant is still confined.  (See Rom. 6: 18)

Fifteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet united to Christ, which is by faith.  (See I Cor. 6: 19)

Sixteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet had his person and garments washed in the blood of the Lamb.  (See Rev. 7: 14 - active voice in Greek)

Seventeenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate whose sins have not been propitiated.  (See Rom. 3: 25 where propitiation is "through faith")

Needless to say, there are other absurd consequences, but these should be sufficient to show the untenable theory of those who divorce regeneration from birth, and from faith and conversion.

Don't Know Jesus? No Big Deal!

This is what today's "Primitive Baptists" (aka "Hardshells") believe about the teaching of Scripture regarding salvation. Recently a Hardshell sent me a text where he said that, according to the means view, the present Corona virus is keeping people from being saved by its shutting down church meetings (gatherings over 10 or 50 people) and thus keeping people from hearing the gospel. He thought that the fact that less gospel was being preached, due to the virus, was really no big deal! God's people will be saved whether they ever hear any gospel! Believers in Means and in the necessity of evangelical faith and repentance for salvation therefore, by Hardshell thinking, are logically forced to admit that less church meetings means less saved, and to the Hardshell mind, such an admission is theological stupidity. In a nutshell I simply say that the Hardshell message is well stated in the title of this posting - Don't Know Jesus? No Big Deal! Less preaching and teaching about Jesus? No big deal! People will be saved whether they ever know Jesus via the gospel!

I am so glad to be free of such twisted logic and debased reasoning!

My PB Glasses

A few years ago Brother Stephen shared an article in which the author stated that in order to see things the Primitive Baptist way, you had to put on a certain pair of glasses.  I don’t know if this brother realizes just how true his statement was.  For the benefit of our readers, I thought I would share some of the “rules” I myself used to follow when I taught the regeneration and optional gospel conversion heresy.  This list is probably not exhaustive, but is probably the main ones I used to decode the scriptures so to speak. I think it pretty safe to say that this is how many of my former friends tend to think.

If a gospel command is given, presume the audience is “already regenerated”.

Whatsoever occurs after regeneration is unnecessary and therefore optional.

If a condition appears in a text where eternal salvation is under consideration, then make the condition a subconscious one.

If the condition cannot be made a subconscious one, then presume the salvation is of a temporal nature.

If a condition appears in a text where eternal salvation is under consideration, then presume there must be two kinds of that condition taught in scripture: one subconscious, necessary, and a gift received in the new birth, whereas the other is conscious, unnecessary, and earned by works after the new birth.

If a salvation text contains a verb where men are seen doing something to be saved, then presume the salvation is of a temporal nature.

*******

If you analyze these you will notice that each of them actually stem from a broader underlying, unbiblical premise, which is the idea that the subjective experience of salvation may be divorced from the objective fact of it.

I do not believe these anymore, thank the Lord.

Morning Star Rising

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." (II Peter 1:19)

We have introduced the study of what is meant by "until the day star arise in your hearts." Let us continue it.

Said one commentator:

"But it is hard to see how the Second Coming arises in the heart of the believer." (Mark Dunagan Commentary on the Bible)

That this is true in regard to many bible commentators on the passage is not denied. However, the difficulty in seeing the connection between the experience of the morning star rising in the hearts of Christians and the day dawning is due to the fact that the subject it encompasses has received little attention by writers on the second coming.

That subject involves the experiences of Christians who are left alive, or remain, unto the coming of that day.

What does the bible say about the state of Christianity at the time of the morning star rising, and when the day is beginning to dawn on this dark world? What about the Omega or last generation of Christians? Are there any clues as to the state and character of these Christians of the last generation?

We know that the bible has much to say about the state of the lost, or of the world, at the time of Christ's return. But, what about the state of the church? Before addressing these questions, let us look at some commentary on our text.

Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

"The words: ἕως οὔ κ. τ. λ., show that for the believer another condition of matters will commence. The time when the day dawns in the hearts of the Christians, and the morning star arises, and when consequently they can do without the light, has been variously determined. According to Dorner, it is “a time within the development of the Christian life in the individual; that time, namely, when what is matter of history shall become living knowledge, influencing entirely the whole life” (Lehre v. d. Pers. Christi, 2 ed. part I. p. 104). But such a separation of the development of the Christian life of his readers into two periods can the less be assumed here, that the author would thus accuse them of still possessing a purely outward Christianity, and it can hardly be supposed that he should have considered the word of prophecy as unnecessary for the advanced Christian. Early commentators already correctly applied the words to the Parousia. It is erroneous, however, to understand them of that event itself, for with the advent the morning passes into the perfect day. The point of time which Peter has in view is that immediately preceding the second coming, the time when the σημεῖον (sign) of the Son of man appears (Matthew 24:30), when believers are to lift up their heads because their ἀπολύτρωσις draweth nigh (Luke 21:28), when accordingly the morning star which ushers in the day shall arise in their hearts; similarly Wiesinger and Brückner."

Yes, indeed, have the commentators "been variously" different in ascertaining the "time" for the day star rising and thus of its significance. There is no question in my mind that the day star rising in the hearts of believers is an event that takes place in the last hour of the night and immediately before the morning of the day.

Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament

"The reference, therefore, seems to be to the day of Christ’s Second Coming, in comparison with which the present state of the world is the time of night and darkness. The prophetic word to which believers are to give earnest heed is a lamp which is to go on shining until the Christ of whom it testifies appears. The fact that this is the ministry it is meant to serve is the reason why they ought to give such heed to it. And when the day of the Lord’s Advent, which shall be like the rising of dawn upon the world, is about to enter, as enter it certainly shall, its signs shall make themselves known to Christ’s own flock—in their hearts shall rise a light and assurance like the day-star, which comes with the day and attests its full entrance. Those, therefore, are right who think that the particular point of time in view is that immediately heralding the Second Advent itself, ‘the time when the sign of the Son of man appears (Matthew 24:30), when believers are to lift up their heads because their redemption draweth nigh (Luke 21:28), when accordingly the morning-star which ushers in the day shall arise in their hearts’ (Huther)."

Again, this is my view exactly. The fulfillment of the prediction for the day star to arise in the heart can only be with the final generation of believers, to those who "are alive and are left unto the coming of the Lord."

Gill's commentary:

"and the day star arise in your hearts; or "the sun", as the Syriac version renders it; not Christ, the morning star, the dayspring from on high, and the sun of righteousness, who was already risen upon them; nor the grace of God implanted in their hearts, by which they were already called out of darkness, and made light in the Lord; but as the day star is the bringer of light, as the word used signifies, or the forerunner of the day, so it here intends the immediate signs and forerunners of the coming of Christ; which when observed in their hearts, and by their understandings, as being come to pass, they may lift up their heads with joy, because their redemption draws near, Luke 21:28 and so the Ethiopic here renders it, "and redemption, arise for you in your hearts". Now till this time the sure word of prophecy concerning Christ's second coming is to be "taken heed unto", as a lamp, light, and torch, to direct us to it, to encourage us to love it, long for it, and hasten to it: and in so doing we shall "do well"; it will be well for the glory of God and Christ, this being setting our seals to them as true; and well for ourselves to keep up our faith, hope, and expectation of it, unmoved."

Gill here puts the fulfillment of the day star rising at the time immediately preceding the coming of Christ and of that new day.

Commentators at preceptaustin.com:

"The second coming of Christ will have not only an externally transforming impact on the universe (2Pe 3:7, 8, 3:9, 10, 11, 12, 13-See notes 2Pe 3:7-8, 3:9, 10, 11-13), but also an internally transforming impact (in your hearts) on those believers who are alive when Jesus returns, forever removing any of their remaining doubts. The perfect, albeit limited, revelation of the Scriptures will be replaced with the perfect and complete revelation of Jesus Christ at the second coming (Jn 14:7, 8, 9, 10, 11; 21:25).

At that time believers will have perfect knowledge and all prophecy will be abolished

for now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now (we) know in part, but then (we) will know fully just as (we) also have been fully known. (1Cor 13:14)

Hiebert has an interesting comment on the somewhat difficult to interpret phrase "in your hearts" writing that "The truth that Christ is coming again must first arise in their hearts, like the morning star, giving assurance of coming day. Assured of His anticipated return, they will be alert to detect the gleams of dawn breaking through the darkness. Those who disregard the light of prophecy will not understand the significance of these harbingers of coming day. Such a living hope must have a transforming impact upon daily life." (preceptaustin - here)

Vine adds that phosphoros "is used of the morning star, as the light–bringer, 2 Pet. 1:19, where it indicates the arising of the light of Christ as the Personal fulfilment, in the hearts of believers, of the prophetic Scriptures concerning His Coming to receive them to Himself. (Vine, W E: Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. 1996. Nelson)

I agree with these comments.

Believing strongly as I do that I may yet see the coming of the Lord and of that glorious day, I am looking for the Lord's "knocking" and for the day star to rise in my heart! I look forward to being an eyewitness and participant in the events scheduled by God for the "end of days." Are you eagerly watching for the signs of his coming? Are you prepared for that day? The rock caves will not hide from the day of the Lord's vengeance, wrath, and tribulation. Only in Jesus, the "rock of ages," can one be safe. Many believers will have to give their lives for their allegiance to Christ in these last days. Others will be kept safe and secure, and even empowered in miraculous ways.

Laboring In The Word & Doctrine

I have been "laboring in the word and doctrine" (I Tim. 5:17) as usual and want to share a brief about my present studies.

I have been studying the doctrine of the second coming a lot (as I have for fifty years now), and particularly as it relates to these verses and their meaning and fulfillment:

1) The "bow" that the rider on the white horse (Rev. 6:2) has and what kind of "bow." Why is there no mention of arrows and a quiver? Or is there?

The Greek word for "bow" is from the Greek word "toxon" (from which we get our word "toxic" i.e. poisonous) and this is the only time the word is used in the NT. Some give the definition of poison (which was often connected with archers shooting poison arrows). Toxon in the Septuagint sometimes referred to the bow as a weapon for shooting arrows, but was also used to denote both bow and arrows, and was even used to denote the "bow" Lord God placed in the clouds after a rain (rainbow). There is much more research to do on the use and meaning of "bow" (toxon) in Rev. 6:2. However, it seems clear to me that the "bow" is a symbol and means for the "conquering" of the rider.

2) What is meant by Peter's words "until the day dawn and the day star (or morning star) arises in your hearts"? (II Peter 1:19) I have no doubt that by "the day" is meant the "day of the Lord" or the day of the Lord's coming again. But, what is meant by Peter's added thought "until the morning star arises in your hearts"? Obviously this is not a description of conversion, seeing that the ones Peter addresses are the ones already converted. Clearly this day star rising in the hearts of believers is something that is anticipated by those converted, something to occur in the future. But when in the future? When after conversion? Later when the believer comes to some greater revelation of truth and doctrine, to some post conversion experience? Or, rather, as I think, is it something to be experienced by those believers who live at the extreme period of this present age of darkness, on the very eve of the day dawning? After all, the analogy between the rising of the morning star and the commencement of the "day" is the focus of the apostle. The morning star arises before the day dawn. It appears in the last hour of the night and is a forerunner of the day, announcing and being a sign of the coming day. Therefore, I conclude that Peter was foretelling an experience that will occur in the hearts of believers who "are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." They will become aware of the impending day by what is affected by this experience of having the morning star arise in their hearts. I look for it to renew and to empower believers in that day. What think ye?

3) "And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately." (Luke 12:36)

What is the significance of Christ, at his return, "knocking" to enter? Since this knocking of the Lord is in conjunction with his coming again, it must be fulfilled in that generation of believers who "are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." How will Christ "knock" in regard to believers when he comes again? Also, how do the end time believers "open to him"? Does he come into them in a mighty way before he comes to all in the awful judgments of the Apocalypse? Is this knocking and opening, connected as it is to the time when the Lord comes, connected with the day star rising in the hearts of those "faithful and few" at the time of the end?

Am I watching and eagerly waiting for these things? What is the fate of those nominal believers who are not so watching and waiting? What saith the scriptures?

Continue to study other things too, of course. I also stay busy with other things. Pray for us.

Hosea 6:1-3 - "After Two Days..." (III)

Dual Fulfillment

Of OT prophecies that have a dual fulfillment, we can especially notice these:

1. in the coming of Christ (some aspects fulfilled in the first, and some in the second coming)
2. in the coming of Elijah (some aspects fulfilled in John the Baptist, others in Elijah at the 2nd coming)
3. as in the coming of the kingdom (some aspects fulfilled in the church, others at the 2nd coming)

Date Setting

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." (Matt. 24:36 nkjv)

This statement of the Lord does not condemn all efforts to know when Christ is coming again. What it condemns is anyone knowing the "day" and "hour" of the Lord's return. It does not condemn the idea that disciples may know whether "that day," the day of Christ's return and of the resurrection of the just, is near or far. It did not condemn the idea that disciples will know the month, year, time and season, of "that day." To prove this we only have to look at these words of the Apostle Paul:

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." (I Thess. 5:1-4 kjv)

Those who know the word of God know "the times and seasons" though they know not "the day and the hour." There is no real contradiction here. We cannot affirm that Christ meant, by his words "no man knows the day nor the hour," that one could not know the "times and seasons." We can see this by examining the analogy of a woman experiencing labor pains as signs of her immanent delivery.

Christ returns and his return will follow the birth pangs. So, just as when a woman becomes pregnant, doctors are able to determine the "expected" time of birth, generally in the ninth month. Thus one may know the general time and season for the birth, though he will not know the day nor the hour. So, likewise, students of the word of God in relation to the second coming of Christ will see signs of his coming, will see the birth pains (travail of creation, etc.) preceding his coming. Don't you see?

Paul says that it is only upon the lost that Christ comes totally unexpected, as a thief in the night. He says positively that this is not so in regard to the truly saved who know their bibles, for that day will not overtake them as a thief!

"So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near." (Luke 21: 31 nkjv)

These words of Jesus show us that the disciples who see "these things happening" may see the time and season for the coming of the Lord is "at the door" (Matt. 24:33). Wrote Paul:

"that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." (II Thess. 2:2)

When we see this "falling away" and the coming of Antichrist, then we know Christ coming is imminent.

Consider these facts also as it relates to knowing the date or time of the Lord's first coming. The Hebrews had the prophecy of Daniel concerning the 70 weeks which was a time line taking them "unto the Messiah" (Dan. 9). And, though they should have known the year for the Lord's 1st coming, they would not have necessarily known the day or hour.

Hosea 6:1-3 - "After Two Days..." (II)

This is my follow up to the introductory posting on this passage (see HERE). But before I give my thoughts on the passage, I would like to make an observation.

I am surprised that my first posting got few reads. Other articles have gotten lots of reads. Why is this? I am puzzled. Is it because of the audience for this blog? Are they not interested in this important passage? If so, why?

First, I would like to cite the last three verses of Hosea chapter five, along with the verses in chapter six which we are focusing upon, and which are important for help in ascertaining the correct interpretation of 6: 1-3.

"When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah saw his wound, then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to king Jareb: yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your wound. For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him. I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth." (Hosea 5:13-15 & 6:1-3)

In ascertaining what is meant by "after two days" and "in the third day" we will first give the majority view that the prophecy relates to the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

Fulfillment In Jesus' Resurrection

Wrote Albert Barnes in his commentary:

"After two days will He revive us (or quicken us, give us life,) in the third day He will raise us up - The Resurrection of Christ, and our resurrection in Him and in His Resurrection, could not be more plainly foretold. The prophet expressly mentions “two days,” after which life should be given, and a “third day, on” which the resurrection should take place. What else can this be than the two days in which the Body of Christ lay in the tomb, and the third day, on which He rose again, as “the Resurrection and the life” John 11:25, “the first fruits of them that slept” 1 Corinthians 15:20, the source and earnest and pledge of our resurrection and of life eternal? The Apostle, in speaking of our resurrection in Christ, uses these self-same words of the prophet; “God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us - hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” Ephesians 2:4-6.

The Apostle, like the prophet, speaks of that which took place in Christ our Head, as having already taken place in us, His members.: “If we unhesitatingly believe in our heart,” says a father, “what we profess with our mouth, we were crucified in Christ, “we” died, “we” were buried, “we” also were raised again on that very third day. Whence the Apostle saith, “If ye rose again with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God” Colossians 3:1. “As Christ died for us, so He also rose for us. “Our old man was nailed to the wood, in the flesh of our Head, and the new man was formed in that same Head, rising glorious from the tomb.” What Christ, our Head, did, He did, not for Himself, but for His redeemed, that the benefits of His Life, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, might redound to all...they partook of what He did.

In no other way, could our participation of Christ be foretold. It was not the prophet‘s object here, nor was it so direct a comfort to Israel, to speak of Christ‘s Resurrection in itself. He took a nearer way to their hearts. He told them, “all we who turn to the Lord, putting our whole trust in Him, and committing ourselves wholly to Him, to be healed of our wounds and to have our griefs bound up, shall receive life from Him, shall be raised up by Him.” They could not understand “then,” how He would do this. The “after two days” and, “in the third day,” remained a mystery, to be explained by the event. But the promise itself was not the less distinct, nor the less full of hope, nor did it less fulfill all cravings for life eternal and the sight of God, because they did not understand, “how shall these things be.” Faith is unconcerned about the “how.” Faith believes what God says, because He says it, and leaves Him to fulfill it, “how” He wills and knows. The words of the promise which faith had to believe, were plain.

The “two days” and “the third day” have nothing in history to correspond with them, except that in which they were fulfilled, when Christ, “rising on the third day from the grave, raised with Him the whole human race”.

I have no doubt that there was an initial fulfillment of this prophecy in the resurrection of Christ. But, that this is the only fulfillment, I reject. But, before I give the reasons for my view, which may be called a "dual fulfillment," let us note these passages which speak of Christ being resurrected in the third day.

“And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” (Luke 13:32)

"Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”" (John 2:19)

Now, before I give the reasons why a dual fulfillment is to be viewed in the interpretation of the prophecy, let me cite Dr. John Gill on the final fulfillment of it.

Wrote Gill: in his commentary:

"but the Targum comes nearer the truth, which paraphrases the words thus,

"he will quicken us in the days of consolation which are to come, and in the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up;''

where by days of consolation are meant the days of the Messiah, with which the Jews generally connect the resurrection of the dead; and if we understand them of the last days of the Messiah, it is not much amiss; for the words respect the quickening and raising up of the Jews in the latter day, the times of Christ's spiritual coming and reign: and these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead, when there can be little or no hope of his reviving, Luke 24:21; or of a short time, for which two or three days is a common phrase; and both true in this case: it is a long time Israel and Judah have been in captivity, and there may seem little hope of their restoration; but it will be a short time with the Lord, with whom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years: and this I take to be the sense of the words, that after the second Millennium, or the Lord's two days, and at the beginning of the third, will be the time of their conversion and restoration, reckoning from the last destruction of them by the Romans; for not till then were Israel and Judah wholly in a state of death: many of Israel were mixed among those of Judah before the Babylonish captivity, and many returned with them from it; but, when destroyed by the Romans, there was an end of their civil and church state; which will both be revived on a better foundation at this period of time: but if this conjecture is not agreeable (for I only propose it as such), the sense may be taken thus, that in a short time after the repentance of Israel, and their conversion to the Lord, they will be brought into a very comfortable and happy state and condition, both with respect to things temporal and spiritual;

and we shall live in his sight; comfortably, in a civil sense, in their own land, and in the possession of all their privileges and liberties; and in a spiritual sense, by faith on Jesus Christ, whom they shall now embrace, and in the enjoyment of the Gospel and Gospel ordinances; and the prophet represents the penitents and faithful among them as believing and hoping for these things."

I believe Dr, Gill is on target in viewing the "days" as expressive of milleniums. The first two days would then correspond to two thousand years and third day would to the Millenium, which in the Apocalypse is to be 1000 years. (Rev. 20)

We know from the Scriptures that the Millennial reign of Christ with his saints on the earth is referred to as both a single "day" and also as a "thousand years."

In many prophecies, from both testaments, there is reference to "that day." Many times "that day" refers to the time of Christ's return, to the day of the resurrection, and also to the "thousand years." We are therefore fully warranted to interpret "day" as meaning a thousand years. The question then is whether the days of the Hosea prophecy are each 1000 years long. I believe, as others, that they do.

Observations

Besides the fact that the thousand years of Revelation twenty are called a "day" in many scriptures, we may also observe these other things.

The prophecy concerns the resurrection of those who have repented and have returned in faith to the Lord. It does not directly relate to the resurrection of the Messiah. The death and wounding ("he has torn and smitten") of the ones who are resurrected does not relate to the death and wounding of Christ. That wounding resulted from the sins of the people. It was affliction sent as wages for sin.

Though it is true that the apostle Paul taught that all the elect (believers) died and suffered with Christ, were buried and resurrected with Christ, and even ascended into heaven with Christ, we know that he had clear reference to a representative or vicarious, rather than to a personal, action. Literally, Christians have not yet been resurrected nor ascended to heaven to a gloried state where they "live in his sight."

If the prophecy is viewed as completely fulfilled (by the saints being representatively raised when Christ was raised), then we must either 1) deny that believers will actually be raised personally in the coming resurrection, or 2) believe in a dual fulfillment. Don't you see?

The prophecy says that it is "in the third day" that penitents will, after they have been revived and restored, "live in his sight." At this point we should perhaps ask some questions, such as

1) does "in" not also include "throughout" so that "in that day" means "in and throughout that day"?

2) does "day" refer to the "split second" ("twinkling of an eye") when mortals become immortals?

3) does "day" reference a twenty four hour day?

4) or, does "day" refer to some definite, or indefinite, period of time?

5) does "day" in "the third day" denote eternal days?

6) ought not the definition given to "day" be the same for the first, second, and third days?

7) if "in and throughout that day" the saints will "live in his sight" is the correct idea, then does this fact not give reason for rejecting the seeing of "day" as a mere 24 hour period?

8) if "day" refers to a 24 hour period, then the text must say "after 48 hours and in the third 24 hour period"

Now, I am convinced that by the "third day" the "thousand years" of Revelation twenty is referenced. The reasons for this conclusion are these:

1) the "living in his sight" refers to the time when the saints "reign of the earth" for a 1000 years

2) the concept of "living in his sight" seems to denote a long, not a short, period of time

3) it is very difficult to see "living in his sight" as being only fulfilled now (through my representative ascension into heaven with Christ)

From this reasoning I must say that "the third day" being "a thousand years," then "two days" must refer to a period of two thousand years. Likewise, if "day" denotes a 24 hour day, then "after two days" must denote after 48 hours, etc.

According to the ancient prophecy, God will first leave Israel, then, according to his promise to the penitents in Israel, he will return, or "come back," to heal them of their judgment wounds and affliction, to resurrect them to "live in his sight" in immortal glory. Thus, the return of the Lord (second coming of Christ), promised in the text to the penitents, is tied to the time when the saints are resurrected.

These are the reasons why I believe that this ancient prophecy is of the utmost importance for Christians in the year 2020!

Dr. Henry Morris wrote the following on the third day of the prophecy (emphasis mine):

"Two prophetic mysteries are suggested here. Jesus Christ, representing the true Israel in His death, was raised the third day. The earthly nation of Israel, seemingly "dead" as a nation for about two thousand years, will be raised for her thousand-year millennial reign when she returns to Messiah, and He to her at the end of this present age (Ezekiel 37:12-14). On the divine equation that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years." (2 Peter 3:8). (Defender's Study Bible)

These are my views exactly.

So, just where are we today in 2020 in relation to the ending of those "two days" and to the beginning of that glorious "third day" when saints will be resurrected to live with God?

Gill thought that the "two days" perhaps began in 70 AD when Jerusalem and the Temple were utterly destroyed by the Romans under Titus, and then were scattered as a people, and ceased to be a political state or nation, and would be time when God left Israel, which is, of course, the time when the two days began. Note that the "two days" is a reference to the time when the Lord is absent from Israel. The two days began with the Lord leaving Israel and ended with his return.

If we take the view of Barnes and others (that the three days of Christ from the time of his death to the time of his resurrection), then we must say that the first two days denotes the time of the Father leaving Christ (crucifixion) and "in the third day" denotes that the Father returned to Christ (and us in him) in Christ's resurrection. Don't you see?

If Dr. Gill is correct, we can expect Christ to return in AD 2070, because this is two thousand years from AD 70. Don't you see? That is fifty years from now. I am sure I will not be alive then. But, I am nevertheless deeply affected in spirit to think of how close that is for the younger generation. Things will get worse before they get better when Christ the Redeemer returns to Israel, to all who are Jews inwardly.

I lean strongly towards the view that sees the "two days" of the Lord's absence to correspond to the two thousand years between the Ascension of Christ and his return. Though the Temple had not year been destroyed, it nevertheless had been vacated and declared desolate by the Lord. (Matt. 23: 38) The crucifixion then must be the place to begin the start of the "two days" of the Lord's absence, and of Israel's affliction and death, and the end of the "two days" will mark his return to revive, heal, restore, and resurrect to glorious immortality.

What think ye? Will the Lord come in the year 2030? If we date the resurrection and Ascension to the year 30 AD, then two thousand years will end in that year. Don't you see? Of course, this is as true as is our present calendar.

What about not knowing "the day nor the hour" of Christ's return? In the next and final article in this short series on this important ancient prophecy, we will discuss that question and offer some addendum thoughts.

Potter-Throgmorton Debate Review IV

Throgmorton said:

I have another document I want to read to you: -

“Mt. Vernon, Ill., July 7, 1887.

Q. When were you connected with the Hardshell Baptist Church?

A. From February, 1881, to December, 1886, I was a member of Middlefork church, Franklin County, Illinois.

Q. What is the standing of the Middlefork church in the association?

A. It was the most influential church in the Bethel Association and in Southern Illinois.

Q. Who is pastor of that church?

A. Eld. Josiah Harriss has been pastor of that church since February or March, 1877-1879.

Q. What other position of honor does he hold in the denomination?

A. He has been moderator of Bethel Association since 1879.

Q. How is he on “Parkerism?"

A. He teaches that there is an uncreated, self-existent, eternal evil spirit, who was always at enmity to God; and that the non-elect are his children by origin.

Q. How is he on the use of means?

A. He teaches that God uses no means whatever in the conversion of alien sinners, and that the elect are the only subjects of Gospel address.

Q. Does the Middlefork church agree with its pastor in these views?

A. The membership generally accept his teaching as Gospel truth, but a few in my knowledge do not agree with him as to these questions.

Truly yours,

A. C. Webb."

Bro. Webb is a young man 30 years of age, and a son of Elder Elisha Webb, who, in his day, was one of the most prominent and influential Hardshell ministers in Southern Illinois. A. C. Webb was excluded from this Middlefork Hardshell Church on account of free-masonry.

(Elder Potter. Where does he belong now?)

Throgmorton. He is a Missionary Baptist now.

I wanted to give this information from the debate for several reasons.

1. After this debate, several Hardshells left the cult and became Mission Baptists! None, to my knowledge, left the Mission Baptists and became Hardshell.

2. The Hardshells of today do not know of the tremendous influence the "Two Seeders" and their related doctrines had on their denomination, well late into the 19th century.

3. It shows that the "no means" view was started by the Two Seeders.

Potter's 2nd

"In the first place, I will state that Dr. Watson was an old Baptist. He was one of our brethren, “Hardshells," as he calls us. He seems to contend very earnestly that the Gospel should be preached to every creature. We claim Dr. Watson as a representative man. Mr. Throgmorton recognizes him as an able man. That does not sound like the doctrine of our church would prohibit the Gospel being preached to every creature. He was pointing out some of the imperfections of our people, showing their remissness in duties, earnestly urging them not to embrace new doctrines, but to preach and practice the old doctrine of the church. Watson knew what the doctrine had been. I wish to call the attention of the brethren to that fact. I believe it is right to preach the Gospel to every creature. So do my brethren. Not that I claim to be a representative man, but I stand here to represent my brethren."

Since Potter, and many others before him, acknowledged the standing of Dr. Watson, why is it that very few of their elders today know anything about him? Why is it that so few of them today have read his book and other writings? Is it not because they want to "bury in oblivion" information about him? And that this is because they know how he showed that the first PBs held to the means view? And that he condemned the "modern innovators" or "ultraists" that were teaching Two Seed ideas, including the no means view of regeneration or new birth?

How can Potter, however, claim to be Old Baptist when he held to the very heresies Watson condemned?

Potter continued:

"He comes out very pointedly and says that he did not say that Calvinism was a curse to any community, when he was up this morning. He seems to think that he had a point on that. But he says that he said Hyper-Calvinism was a curse to any community,—not Calvinism. He discriminates between the two,— makes a distinction between them. I want that noticed by all. Now previous to the introduction of Fuller's Ministry, I read from one historian that the prevailing system of doctrine among the Baptist Churches at that time was Ultra-Calvinism. What kind of Calvinism was Ultra-Calvinism? What is the difference between Ultra-Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism? I would love to have him explain that to the audience. Is my opponent Calvinistic? The churches used to have Hyper-Calvinism. The churches believed in the calling of the Holy Spirit, and that all for whom Christ died will be eternally saved. Is that Hyper-Calvinism? If it is, it is just what the old Philadelphia association believed, as I shall show you. By the way, he makes a discrimination between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, why does he not prove the difference?"

Notice that Potter in these words does not object to "Calvinism." Yet, our present day Hardshells decry being styled such! What changed? Was it not the Calvinistic belief in means and in the necessity of conversion for final salvation?

Hyper Calvinism is the denial that offers of salvation are to be made to all men, and that God has no love or desire for the salvation of all.

Potter continued:

"I now propose to notice my arguments a little further and show you some objections to the proposition that is to the missionaries being the original Baptists. I was on the point this morning that they had departed from the faith that they did not agree in doctrine. Upon that point I wish to continue, from the very fact that their practices have grown out of the doctrine they teach. However, I wish to notice this point a little further, concerning the universal damnation of the heathen."

All the historical evidence shows that what Potter here affirms is a gross falsehood. There is all kinds of evidence that the Baptists, in both England and America, supported sending out preachers to preach to those who had never heard the gospel. Just look at all the evidence we have given on this point in our blogs. Further, the idea that the "heathen" would be saved without faith in Christ, or without conversion to the Christian faith, was not the teaching of the Old Baptists prior to the "rise of the Hardshells." It was not even the general teaching of the founding fathers of the Hardshells.

Throgmorton's 3rd

"I come next to a consideration of the Sunday-school question. My opponent, you know, says he does not believe in them. It devolves on me now to show that Sunday-schools are warranted by Scripture, or that if they are wrong they are not of such a character as to warrant a denominational non-fellowship against a church which has a Sunday-school. I can take either of these positions and be a Missionary Baptist in good standing. There are some Missionary Churches which do not have Sunday-schools and which do not see the propriety of having them. But they are willing that the brotherhood shall have liberty on this question. If another church does have a Sunday-school it is not made a bar to fellowship between them. In other words, a Missionary Baptist Church does not expect every other Missionary Baptist Church to "sneeze every time it takes snuff." However, I shall take the ground that Sunday-schools are in harmony with the word of God. Of course I do not mean that the word, Sunday-school, is in the Bible; but that its essential idea is there. It is found in the command. “teach all nations," and in the fact that “teachers " were a gift in the New Testament Church. Just how this command to teach was to be carried out in all its minutia, we cannot tell. These matters are largely left to our common sense and to surroundings. We are to teach the truth. But just how we shall do it is largely left to us. Ministers are to preach; but much is not explained as to the manner. We are not told whether the preacher shall stand or sit; whether he shall occupy the pulpit or the floor; whether the preaching shall be done in a house, or in a grove. The preacher is to study that he may preach well. But we are not told whether he shall write his sermons and preach from the manuscript: or whether he shall write and commit them; or whether he shall preach entirely extempore. Hence, we infer that the preacher ought to do what his judgment dictates as best at the time. Men, and women, and children are to be taught. The church is to teach them through her ministers and teachers. The time, the place, the manner, so that all things are done decently and in order, are left with us. Paul disputed in the school of Tyrannus for two whole years. He taught in this school. Ac 19:9. Aquila and Priseilla took Apollos after they had heard him, and expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly. The Savior on the mountain sat and taught his disciples in the language which we generally call "the Sermon on the Mount." Now what is a Sunday-school? It is a gathering which assembles on Sunday in which the Bible is studied and taught. Is it right to gather on Sunday? Yes. Is it right to study the Word on Sunday? Yes. Is it right to teach the Word on Sunday? Yes. Then it is right to have a Sunday-school."

This defense of Sunday Schools, and general education in the scriptures, was ably given by Dr. Throgmorton! All Potter could do is to say that it is wrong because "Sunday School" was not specifically mentioned in scripture! Yet, Throgmorton showed the hypocrisy in such an argument by showing how the PBs had many things in their practice that were not specifically mentioned.

Throgmorton continued:

"Of course I do not maintain that everything done in Sunday- schools is right; not at all. That does not, however, say that the Sunday-school itself is unscriptural. I do not suppose that Brother Potter would say that everything done in a Hardshell church is right. That, however, does not mean that Hardshell churches are not churches of Christ. Everything that is made up of men and women has of necessity much in it that is imperfect. This is true of individual Christians, and of individual Christian associations of every sort. A Sunday-school as such cannot be objected to. The time, the gathering, the studying, the teaching, are all right. “O, it is the organization we object to! Where do you get your superintendent, your secretary, your other officers?" These are in obedience to the command: "Let all things be done decently and in order." I might retort by asking: “Where do you get your church rules of decorum, your moderator, your clerk, etc., for church business meetings?" The Bible does not name them. You are obliged to answer just as I do as to the Sunday-school organization, that it is in obedience to the command: "Let all things be done decently and in order." 

Again, a powerful defense! And, Potter had no sound rebuttal to it!

Throgmorton continued:

"The Sunday-school is just like the weekly prayer-meeting and the monthly business meeting. It is all right to have them, but the mode of conducting them is left to our sense of propriety. (I suspect that the fact that the Hardshells do not have Sunday-schools may be the reason why “so few are coming into their churches," as Dr. Watson says.) Nor is any church bound to have these things. Yet every church might be greatly profited by having them. Missionary Baptists have these things, but do not make having them a test of denominational fellowship. Hardshell Baptists have the monthly business meeting on Saturday, with its moderator and clerk, its motions and seconds, and its church records, none of which is named in so many words in the whole New Testament. They infer the whole thing! But when it comes to the weekly meeting for Bible study on Sunday, with its superintendent and clerk, its teachers and classes, they say: “Away with it. We will have nothing to do with it, nor will we have denominational fellowship with a church that does have anything to do with it." Evidently a people so inconsistent cannot be the Primitive Baptists. Evidently on this point the Missionary Baptists are Primitive."

Again, an unanswerable defense!

Potter's 3rd

"He says that I said that this was the first organization of the kind among Baptists. Then he goes on to state that there was one in England organized in the year 1792. That is rather recent. I think, for a Bible Church, or a Bible institution to commence. Why didn't he give us a date away back yonder in 42 or 52 or somewhere along there in the New Testament days? But this institution was not organized till the year 1792, in England. I challenge him to mention a Missionary Baptist prior to that time. If he does not do it in his next speech I will understand why. That is that he cannot. I want this people to understand that I challenge him for a Missionary Baptist prior to the year 1792."

Though it is true that the Baptists did not have a denomination wide effort to send the gospel far off to heathens, yet they did support more local missionaries. In England the 17th century Baptists sent preachers into parts of England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. In America in the 18th century there were preachers sent to the frontier, to preach to sinners who were ignorant of the gospel message, and to the Indians. So, the reasoning of Potter was shown to be a mere Sophist evasion.

Consider also the fact that the English Baptists did not practice congregational singing in the 17th century until Benjamin Keach taught them to do so. After Keach's teaching the churches began to have congregational singing as a part of their worship. But suppose someone in that day, who opposed such singing, said "that is new among the Baptists"? To be "primitive" Baptists we must not change on this matter could have been argued (in the same way Potter is) in relation to changes in the degree of support for theological education and Sunday Schools. Just because some things were not generally practiced by Baptists of former times proves nothing. Perhaps the reason is because they were not perfect!

Potter continued:

"He then refers to Scripture. He quotes a number of texts to show that Bible preachers have taken up collections. Indeed, he said a good deal in his speech on that subject. He refers us to quite a number of texts to show that the Apostle took up collections for missionary purposes. But if any one of his quotations had missionism in it I failed to get that text. Did anyone here see missionism in any text he read?

Voice from the audience: “I did."

Mr. Potter: One man says he did. Well, Brother Throgmorton will wish to tell us where it is. You had better tell him which one it is for he does not know.

Now I want to give you some Scripture on the subject of collections. 1Co 16:1-4; Ac 11:27,30; 24:17; Ro 15:25-27; 2Co 8:1-4; 9:1,12; Ga 2:9-10. I have looked over these Scriptures and I find the quotations here are all on the subject of collections. You would think from what he said a moment ago that I would deny anything of that kind, but they are not on the subject of collections for ministers nor for missionary purposes nor for any other purpose, only for the poor. Now, I want that distinctly understood. He says if a "Hardshell” church were to have such a committee as that to make collections for the poor, it would be unchurched. I challenge him for the proof of any church or association doing so. ''Hardshells'' are not guilty of everything he says they are. I want to tell you what we have done in that particular, actually done. There is a brother here from Indiana, and another from Tennessee. They will both be witnesses to what I am going to say. I did attend a church in Posey County, Indiana, for about eleven years. That church did take up collections frequently for brothers and sisters that were poor.

But those passages of Scripture he introduces he says were not for the purpose of collecting for the poor saints only, but for ministers and missionary purposes also. But I want it understood that the collections the Apostles made were for the poor. But in all those texts of Scripture such an expression does not occur as "Missionary support." The Apostles said nothing about collections for benevolent purposes. Of course it was, but there was only one purpose in it, and that was for the poor. In talking about the collections made by the Apostles in the New Testament, that they were what would now be called, "Missionary support." What were they called then? What were the Apostles called? Were they called missionaries then? No, sir. What would you call them now? Missionaries, because you are one and you want to be identical with them, and that is why. They were not called so in the New Testament."

What a pitiful response to the argumentation of Throgmorton! The apostles and other evangelists cannot be called "missionaries" because that precise term is not used! I guess we should not use the word "Trinity" either! What is a "missionary"? One sent on a mission to preach the gospel! Is that not what occurred in the bible, as in Acts 13: 3-4? They were "sent" by the church and by the Holy Spirit!

Further, it is wrong for Potter to argue that none of the collections of the early saints was for supporting preachers on their missions to preach to the nations. The Hardshells affirm that they can take up collections for the poor but not for the preachers! Absurd!

Potter continued:

"I am going to leave that to a Missionary Baptist himself. I hold in my hand a book written by Mr. David Benedict, pastor of the Pawtucket Church, Rhode Island, written in 1860. That was Twenty-seven years ago; 1860 is the date of the book. Well now from what he says, he had been among the Baptists about fifty years. Mr. Benedict says, “fifty years ago," that would be 1810, just a little before the spirit of missionism began among the Baptists of the United States,— "fifty years ago, not an agent for collecting funds for any object of benevolence or literature was to be seen in the whole Baptist field!"

That is what Mr. Benedict says. And he is a responsible man. Does he tell the truth? I would love for Mr. Throgmorton to pay some respect to this. Let us notice that again. Fifty years ago, not an agent for the collecting of funds for any object of benevolence or literature was to be seen in the whole Baptist field!”

Mr. Throgmorton: "Read a little further, Brother Potter."

Again, we repeat the things we just noted in the previous comment. Just because some Baptists in former times were not able to do certain things, or were ignorant in regard to them, does not prove that those Baptists in those times were to be mimicked.

Throgmorton responded:

"He says. I do not find in Scripture any collections in money except for the poor. I suppose then Paul's wages were not really wages, but that they were alms given as for the poor. Not so. Paul received wages from the churches while at Corinth for his preaching; and these wages were brought to him by what would now be called a Missionary Board, as I showed you."

I do not recall Potter even attempting a response to this rebuttal. How any Hardshell can affirm that Paul did not receive collections from the churches to help support him in his missionary labors in light of the passages discussed is simply astounding.

Throgmorton continued:

"He quotes Benedict to show that up to 1810 there were no traveling agents abroad. But what does that signify? I have seen Missionary Baptist associations in my time which had no traveling agents. Indeed I know some such now. Are they therefore not Missionary Baptist associations? Not at all. Benedict goes on to say,—Brother Potter read it in the same connection,—that long before this [1810] agents had traveled for Rhode Island College and collected money. True, in 1810 no one dreamed that so soon there would be so many agents in the field. No one dreamed what wonderful things God would do for His people; but when the time came, just as there were agents to raise funds in New Testament times for the poor saints, so there were agents in our times."

Throgmorton continued:

"Brother Potter quotes Benedict, Vol. 2, pp. 56, 57, Ed. 1813, as to the discussion of the question, “Is salvation by Christ made possible for every individual of the human race?" This was in the old Sandy Creek Association. Did you ever hear of a Hardshell association discussing such a question as that? They never think of such a thing. The fact that the question was discussed shows that there were contending views. So there were. Benedict says that the contestants were almost equal in numbers; and the final result of the discussion was, they agreed to tolerate each other. That was in 1775. Hardshells would not tolerate the idea that salvation is made possible for all men, for a moment. Therefore, Sandy Creek Association was not a Hardshell association. Missionaries do tolerate such views; therefore, they are the Primitive Baptists."

Potter made no response to this line of argument and his silence speaks volumes!

Throgmorton continued:

"As he read one of my brethren on the Sunday-school question, I will read one of his on that subject. He tries to use Murdock against me on the question of Christian liberty as to expedients. I will quote from an article in the “regular Baptist magazine," written by W. A. Roth well.

"'Teach all nations,’ is the language of Christ. Children are a part of all nations." Shall we presume to make a difference where Christ made none, namely, teaching adults to the exclusion of children? He certainly designed that all who are capable of understanding the words of eternal life, should be taught the words of eternal life.

Shall we dare to make a distinction where Christ made none?"

This brother is certainly right and should be heard. Listen to him further: —

"Some who oppose Sunday-schools urge, as a reason for their opposition, that it is a duty of parents to teach their children the fear of the Lord, instructing them in the Scriptures. True. But suppose they refuse or neglect to do so, what then? * * * Again, it is contended by some that Sunday-schools, as now managed, are practically nurseries to the church on the one hand, and hot-beds of sectarianism on the other. Grant that this is true, what more does it amount to than an abuse or perversion of an institution, while it by no means argues that Sunday-schools in themselves, or when property conducted, are wrong. Moreover, seeing that they are perverted and misused, there is a greater reason why those who think they hold the truth, go forth and teach the truth, as they may have opportunity, in the hope of counteracting the errors complained of."

Exactly! The abuse of a thing does not mean the thing itself is not good.

Throgmorton continued:

"But he seems to think that the salvation of the heathen is a big question in this discussion. I will settle this matter right here. The heathen “are a law unto themselves." If they keep the law perfectly, they will be saved without the Gospel; but not one of them does this. “There is not a just man in all the earth that liveth and sinneth not." They are all sinners. Every individual has his faults, and there is no salvation for an actual sinner, except through faith in Jesus Christ. Will Brother Potter deny that? "But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb 11:6. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Ro 10:17. Peter was sent to the Gentiles “that they by his mouth might hear the Word of the Gospel and believe." Ac 15:7. He that believeth not is condemned already." Joh 13:18. Paul was sent to the heathen "that they might receive the forgiveness of sins." Ac 26:18. Does God work faith without the Word? Show us a case. He could have arranged matters that way but he did not. “It pleased him by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1Co 1:21. Now, if Brother Potter has some other way, of course he will tell us what that way is. But God's way is plain, and he saves by the Word as a means — by the foolishness of preaching. So Peter was sent to the heathen that they might accept the provisions of God's grace that they might not be lost, but believe and be saved. This was what the old Philadelphia Association believed, according to Brother Potter's own quotation, twenty-six years before the split between his people and mine. Well may we send the Gospel to the heathen. God has commanded us to do it."

Again, Potter had no defense to make against such argumentation.

Potter-Throgmorton Debate Review III

Potter's Response To Throgmorton:

"We have been very well-entertained with an able and eloquent speech this morning, in the introduction of a discussion that has been long expected, on the important — to Baptists — question: “Who are the Primitive Baptists?" I hope you have all listened, and that you have considered the arguments presented, and their application and interpretation. My friend affirms that the Missionary Baptists are the Primitive Baptists, that they are the old Baptists and of course, it becomes necessary, and will be his duty and purpose, his effort, to show the marks of identity between the Missionary Baptists of today, and the ancient Baptists prior to the division. We want to see some of these marks. Of course he has labored here to show some of them."

Potter continued:

"The question now is, whether the Missionary Baptists of today still stand upon the same old platform that the Baptists did prior to the division, or whether we do. My friend is here to claim that he and his brethren stand on the ancient platform, and that we are not on it...Now which of us stand on the same platform that the ancient Baptists did? That is the question, I want all of you to understand."

To all this we can simply say that Potter did not give any evidence that the Baptists, prior to the 1832 division, held to the aberrant and novel views of the Hardshells.

Potter continued:

"However, I wish to make this statement; and I want him to understand that I shall have use for it (and if he does not agree with me, I want him to say so); I claim that if an organization of any kind be rent by the introduction of new rules, regulations or doctrines, that the innovators, and not the party that adheres to the old rules, regulations and doctrines, are the seceding party. That is my position. It occurs to me that it is sound doctrine. I apprehend that he will have no objection to that. I am going to take it for granted that he agrees to it."

But, as we will see, the things that Potter claimed were "new" doctrines, produced by the Missionary "innovators," by those who supported missions and religious education, were not new. In fact, the "innovators" were the Hardshells. What was new with the Hardshells were

1) Making such things a "test of fellowship" (and is the reason why they were early on called "new test" men)

2) Affirming that men did not have to be Christian in faith to be saved.

3) Affirming that the unregenerate were not commanded to believe and repent for salvation.

In fact, Elder John Watson, in his book "The Old Baptist Test," called his Two Seed brethren, who espoused these ideas, "innovators"!

Throgmorton's response to all this was this:

"He begins his notice of my argument by telling us that the two bodies now in controversy were once one people. That is true. He tells us that the old body held to certain faith and principles, which is also true. When we divided, he tells us then there were two bodies. He says when a body is divided by innovations, the ones holding the innovations are the seceders. All of which is very much in point in this discussion."

But, the Hardshells even admitted that they were the seceders and that they were the ones who created new doctrines and practices.

Potter continued:

"I know that it has been charged against our people, ever since the days of Andrew Fuller, as I shall prove before I sit down, that the doctrine we advocate is the doctrine that the Missionary Baptists say paralyzes the efforts of ministers to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Upon their own hypothesis, they come up here represented by a gentleman of ability, and they say that we oppose the spread of the gospel to every creature. Let him prove this. I emphatically deny it. I want that distinctly understood. I am here to speak for the Regular Old School Baptists, now." 

Potter in this statement gives adherence to the ancient Baptist view that the gospel was to be preached to every creature, yet the "anti means" wing of the denomination (in 1887) was everywhere affirming that the gospel was to be preached only to the regenerate, and is, as of this date, the overwhelming view of the denomination.

Throgmorton responded:

"He next insists that I shall give authority for stating that Hardshells oppose the proclamation of the Gospel to every creature in their preaching. I thought my opponent was somewhat mystified before he came to this point. He ought to remember that I gave authority for that statement. I gave Dr. Watson, Old Baptist Test, pages 520 and 521, and elsewhere. But as my opponent did not seem to understand my proof of the position I took, I quote again page 521. “This violation of our commission has engendered a spirit of coldness and indifference about those yet un-brought; by some they are not cared for, prayed for, nor preached unto. This Spirit in like manner extends to the 'Babes' in Christ, the sheep, and the sheep only are fed. Let us examine our commission again, and search out the things therein included. What are they? To ‘feed the church of God,’ ‘to feed the sheep, to feed the lambs, to preach the Gospel to every creature.'"

Again, the paragraph on page 520, “the Lord has ordained this way," i.e., of preaching to the many, "our violation of it in the 19th century will not cause it to fail." Who has violated the commission? The Hardshell ministry, and Dr. Watson here asserts it as one of their denominational troubles. “Our violation of it in the nineteenth century will not cause it to fail; others will do the work; it needs must be done; and this may be the cause why so few are coming into our churches! WE HAVE VIOLATED OUR COMMISSION." Who have? The Hardshell ministers. How? In not preaching the Gospel to every creature, and subjecting those who do to the charge of Arminianism! Dr. Watson exhorts, “Let us search and try our ways and turn again to the Lord." It would be a good thing, Bro. Potter, to take Dr. Watson's advice yet."

These citations from Watson absolutely overthrew all the argumentation of Potter! Watson says that it was the "ultraist" wing of the movement, the "modern innovators," who in fact did decry preaching the gospel to every creature.

Potter continued:

"I am glad that I have the opportunity of speaking to quite a number, perhaps in this congregation, that are not very frequent listeners to our position, by our ministers. He says that we deny repentance and faith to be duties. Now, so far as that is concerned, I believe it is the duty of every man, woman and child, to do right; that a man that is pursuing a wrong course, and I, teach it everywhere, and so do my brethren, ought to quit, repent of it, and do right. I believe further than that, that when truth is presented to an individual man he ought to accept it. When God said to Adam, “In the day thou eatest the fruit thereof thou shalt surely die," Adam ought to have believed it. It was his duty to prove true. We claim it the duty of all people to repent of doing wrong, of sin, and that it is right for them to believe the truth, and accept it, wherever they find it. But we do not think that the salvation of sinners is on condition of their hearing the Gospel. That is what makes the issue between us. We deny that repentance is a condition of salvation."

The innovation, or "new" doctrine, that the Hardshells were fast embracing in the middle 19th century was that salvation was not conditioned upon them hearing the gospel. Notice that Potter is affirming that all men have the duty to believe the gospel, to repent of their sins, to believe Christ.

Potter continued:

"My friend believes that heaven depends upon the sinner voluntarily repenting and believing. We deny that. That makes an issue. Let us have the issue squarely. If there is any misunderstandings between us, let us get them out of the way. That is what we are here for."

Well, was this a new doctrine or not? Potter gave no evidence from Baptists prior to the 1832 division that showed that they too believed that repenting and believing were not necessary for being saved. On the contrary, all the Hardshell Baptist forefathers taught that repenting and believing were absolutely necessary for salvation.

Potter continued:

"He has a great deal to say about committees, boards, etc. I wish to state this, that according to his own speech he is under obligations to prove that committees, boards, missionary associations, and all those institutions, supported by the Missionary Baptists, are authorized by the Scriptures; or if not authorized by the Scriptures, that Baptists should not declare non-fellowship for them for having them. That is his liberality. You should not declare non-fellowship with anything, even if it is not authorized in the Scriptures, if it is considered expedient; thought or considered necessary." 

 What Potter means by something being "authorized" by the Scriptures is that it is specifically mentioned. Yet, as Throgmorton showed, this definition of what is meant by "authorized" condemns many things in the Hardshell church! They do not follow their own rule! Do they have associations? Where are they "authorized" in the bible? The Hardshell will likely say that they are authorized by its general principles! Exactly! "Oh consistency thou art a jewel"!

Potter continued:

"But while we are on the subject, he speaks of the fact that the regular Baptists have some irregularities. Some deny the resurrection of the body, and some deny the immortality of the soul, and yet we are in fellowship. He charges all those things on us to show that we are inconsistent in declaring non-fellowship with Arminianism, missionary boards, mission societies, and all this sort of things. Well, perhaps, we have among us enough that we do not endorse, without taking in any more. So far as that is concerned, I say this: so far as the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the dead is concerned, when a man comes out boldly with it, we do exclude him from our fellowship. The same with the “two-seed" doctrine. Some individuals may believe these; but the simple fact that some of these still exist among us, is not an evidence that we fellowship the doctrine. Not at all! But he has us fellowshipping everything. That is a mistake."

Potter acknowledges that the Hardshells, had historically, up to 1887, had gross heretics among them and did not declare non fellowship with them in all those years. How can they claim to have legitimate succession then? How can the baptisms by these heretics among the Hardshells be valid in light of their Landmarker views?

Potter continued:

"Then he says that Sunday-school work and other things are authorized in the New Testament, and it was his duty to prove that they are authorized in the New Testament, or if not, that it is wrong for the Baptists to declare non-fellowship with it. He insists that the Missionaries may or may not practice or hold to them. That is Missionary doctrine. Regular Baptists claim that when it comes to anything of a fundamental nature, or anything of importance, if it is an essential feature to the proclamation of the Gospel, or the salvation of sinners, it ought to be authorized in the Bible; or anything that is essential to the glory of God, should be supported by the Bible; - that if we cannot find it in the New Testament, that we hold other authority entirely foreign, and that we should declare non-fellowship for it."

 Again, the debate came down to what the bible "authorized" or "supported by the Bible." Notice that Potter says that it is only "anything of a fundamental nature, or anything of importance." But, who decides what is, and is not, of this nature? Are associations of that nature? Bible teaching via periodicals? Etc.?

Potter continued:

"About means and instrumentalities. I wish to make a remark about that. So far as the Lord being dependent on means, or any other power in the world, in the conversion of the sinner, Regular Baptists do not believe he is. We do not believe that the Spirit of God depends upon means or instrumentalities for this work. We believe that the Spirit of God operates upon the sinner in his conversion, anywhere, under any circumstances that he may choose, just precisely as he pleases; that it is not dependent on instrumentalities. Missionary Baptists do not believe that the Spirit of God ever goes beyond their ministers. There is the difference between them and us. In the Confession of Faith of the Franklin Association, of Southern Illinois, we have the following: -

“We believe that the influence of the Holy Spirit is co- extensive with the proclamation of the Gospel,"

This denies that the Spirit ever goes beyond the Gospel. We deny that doctrine. If this is what he means, by means and instrumentalities, we oppose it. Let us say, my friends, today, that this is certainly the great bug-bear." 

Here Potter is guilty of the "straw man" type of fallacious reasoning. If one believes that God uses means, then that means God is "dependent" on them! Was God dependent upon Ezekiel preaching to the dead bones? Was God dependent upon Peter when he raised the dead? Is God dependent on means when he converts and sustains his people by means? Was God dependent upon Moses when he used him to deliver his people? In spite of this fallacious and Sophist reasoning the Hardshells of today uphold Potter as one of their leading lights! The truth is, though God often uses means in accomplishing his purposes, it does not mean that he "depends" upon them! It is simply the way God has chosen to work in carrying out his purposes.

Potter continued:

"When we come to talk about means and instrumentalities, they believe that means are essential; that God never can carry on the work of saving sinners without them; that the Spirit is dependent on the preaching of the Gospel to the people. We deny any such doctrine as that. We deny it because it limits the salvation of God to where the Missionary gets to. We deny it, because all that part of the world that never sees the Bible or hears preaching inevitably must sink down to eternal ruin. Because the Missionaries do not go there. We deny any such doctrine as that." 

Notice again the fallacious reasoning of Potter. He reasons that if God chooses to make a means essential, then it means that it is because he "cannot" do otherwise! How absurd!

He objects to the idea that hearing the gospel is essential because it damns all those who never hear it! Oh glorious logic! He appeals to the carnal reasoning and the emotions of his audience. He does not cite scripture to overthrow the idea that faith via the gospel is necessary for salvation. Since there is no verse that affirms that, he has to appeal to human emotion and carnal reasoning.

Throgmorton replied:

"That is not the worst mistake he made in that speech, as I will show you further on. But as to this matter of preaching the Gospel. Do you remember the preacher eighteen hundred years ago named Paul, to whom the commission was given as recorded in the twenty-sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, beginning with the sixteenth verse: "But rise and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles unto whom now I send thee." What for, Brother Potter? He says that missionaries send out missionaries for a certain purpose. What was Paul sent out for? “To open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light." Why all this? "That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." This is scripture. Suppose you set yourself against that, Brother Potter.

Ac 15:7, on this same point. "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe." Don't you suppose that God works the same way yet? If be sent Paul among the Gentiles that the Gentiles might receive the forgiveness of sins, as stated in Paul's commission, don't you suppose that is the way he does now, no matter what view of election may be correct, so far as that is concerned?"

What a rebuttal! Throgmorton had scripture on his side and Potter had none.

Potter continued:

"Now I am going to show you that this is what the Missionary Baptists preach; that they do preach the universal damnation of all the heathen, unless they hear the Gospel. You need not take my word for that, I am going to show it to you from their own brethren. I do not know but that I might as well do that now as at any time. I call your attention to the minutes of the Philadelphia Association, page 426. This was at the session of that Association in 1806. This was about the time the Missionaries began to introduce the spirit of missionism among Baptists. On this occasion there was a circular letter prepared, setting forth the principles of missionism. The writer says in that letter: -

“Many have endeavored to extenuate the offenses of the heathen world. Idolators have been represented as the un­taught children of nature, whom the Supreme Being would rather pity than punish; but such are not the representations of the Holy Scriptures, the oracles of divine truth. That they who have sinned without the law, will be judged without the law, is admitted; but it is expressly declared, "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." That such as “change the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image" are "without excuse." And that "the judgment of God is" that "they who commit such things are worthy of death." Who will dare to oppose his judgment to the judgment of Infinite Wisdom and Righteousness? Or, who can be inactive when he hears the Bible proclaim, "Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, to the Jew first and also unto the Gentile."

That is their doctrine. They started out on that principle. None of you need to come up and say that the heathen had not given God excuse to damn them. That is the reason for your sending the Gospel to them. The Missionaries, in setting forth their doctrine, say that the heathen will not be saved unless they hear the Gospel. That is all the witness I am going to introduce on that point now. But I will have more afterwards. I will show my authority for this charge."

 But, all the forefathers of the Hardshells held to the universal damnation of the heathen. This is clear in the 1689 London Confession, by Dr. Gill, and even by most of the founding fathers of the Hardshells.

Where in the bible does the bible affirm that the "heathen," those who do not know God or his plan of salvation through Christ the Redeemer, are saved nonetheless?

Throgmorton replied:

"Brother Potter pretends to tell us that Missionary Baptists do not believe that the Spirit of God operates only with and through their preachers; that Missionism is based upon the idea that the Heathen without the gospel are lost; and he quotes Philadelphia minutes of 1806 to sustain his statement. How many years before the division was that, Bro. Potter? Twenty-six years before the division took place. I am astonished that he, my opponent, comes up here and quotes this as Missionary Baptist authority when, according to him, there was not a Missionary Baptist denomination or church on the whole earth! So you see he admits that before the division we were Missionary Baptists; absolutely quotes as a missionary document the minutes of an association which met twenty-six years before the division."

Not only did Potter admit that the doctrine of Throgmorton and the Mission Baptists was what was taught in 1806, but citations from other sources show that this was the view of the Philadelphia Association from their beginning! And, even prior to that, all the evidence shows that the English Particular Baptists held to salvation by means of faith, via the preaching of the gospel.

Potter continued:

"I will state this, that, as a people, Regular Baptists do not profess to be perfect. There are irregularities among us. We do not profess perfection. I agree in a great measure with what Dr. Watson says in his book. He did not say that we are not the Primitive Baptists. He claims that we are the Primitive Baptists. He is showing the imperfections of the Regular Baptists in their course. He does not say that they are all guilty. He does not even claim to be guilty himself. Perhaps a great number of others are not guilty. But it was to judge them as to this alone." 

 "Irregularities"? Are they not more than that? Are they not heresies? Two Seedism is only an "irregularity"?

Further, Watson never affirms that the anti means faction, whom he called "ultraists" and "modern innovators," were "Primitive Baptists," but rather affirmed that such brethren were heretics.

Potter continued:

"If Dr. Watson could be called up today, he would explain it that way. I understand Dr. Watson Sir. Throgmorton understood Dr. Watson. He does not say that we are not the church. He intimates no such thing. But he is exhorting them to duty. Upon these points his book was written." 

Watson does not say that the ultraist represented the true Old Baptist faith! Those who held to the doctrine of means were the real Old Baptists.

Potter continued:

"It was not written to certify the date of the division of the Missionary Baptists and ourselves. That was not intended. Both parties, Missionaries and ourselves, were having a great deal to say about each other. So that ministers from both denominations were frequently engaged in showing the faults and wrongs of the other. Now I think that is a full reply to all that he has said about Dr. Watson. He dare not tell you that Dr. Watson gave up the idea that we were the Primitive Baptists. He never intended to convey such an idea."

 No, that was not a "full reply" to what Watson said!

Throgmorton replied:

"He then tells you I said that Calvinism was a curse to any community. He was excited. I will not berate him too much for making that slip. I did not say that, Brother Potter. He made a great display over it. He says that “Throgmorton says that Calvinism is a curse." Did you notice when he came to read it that I did not say that, but that Hyper-Calvinism is a curse to any community. Is there no difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism? Yes, indeed.

He says he agrees to all Dr. Watson says. Then he must admit that Hardshells do not generally preach a full gospel, and that they have violated the commission, and that they have lost the Lord's institution as to paying pastors. I do not say that Dr. Watson admits that they are not Primitive. He claims that they are Primitive in spite of these errors. How in the name of common sense is it that they will fellowship these errors, and then declare non-fellowship with men and churches that hold errors which they are bound to admit are no worse? That is what you are to explain, Bro. Potter, and that is just where you will fail."

Here Throgmorton absolutely destroyed the argumentation of Potter! What a deceiver was Potter!

Potter continued:

"Now I call your attention to the Philadelphia Minutes, pages 177, 178, to show what the Baptists used to believe, before the division took place. While I read, I want all the Missionary Baptists here, as well as our own brethren, to compare what I read with the doctrines that the Missionary Baptists now teach in this country. I read: -

"From the whole, then, we see that there was a counsel held in eternity even from everlasting, respecting the recovery of man; that the Triune God did then contrive, find out, adjust and settle, speaking after the manner of men, the whole plan and scheme of that great and glorious work, who should be saved, by what means, and after what manner; that the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, should undertake for his chosen ones as their surety, and should assume this nature that he might make satisfaction to divine justice in their behalf; that all the gifts and graces necessary for the purpose should be treasured in him, Col 1:19. That the blessed Spirit should co-operate in mani­festing the whole to the world and applying the same to the chosen one, namely: by enlightening their darkened understandings, working in them faith and repentance, changing their vile affections, converting them from the service of sin and Satan to the service of the Living God, carrying on the work of grace begun, and keeping them, by the power of God, unto salvation; by every means making them meet for the inheritance of the saints in light, and finally bringing them to the full possession of it."

How Potter can cite these words and claim that his ultraist brethren were in agreement with them is ludicrous. Do PBs today believed that God predetermined the "means" of that salvation the words talk about? No! Does he believe that those born again have their darkened mind enlightened so that they are no longer heathen in faith? No! Does he believe that in the new birth God works "faith and repentance" in sinners? No! Does he believe that the elect, in being regenerated, are "converted from the service of sin and Satan and to the service of the living God? No!