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!
No comments:
Post a Comment