1500! Plus 684!

This short posting will be number 1500! A milestone!

But, between Kevin and me we have 684 'draft' postings! So much to get done before the Lord calls us home! Most of those drafts need to be turned into completed articles and they have much yet unpublished information in them on bible doctrine and history. 

I am going to try to put out as much as I can before my race is run. I cannot do as much as I once did. Some of my medications make me sleepy and I suffer from fatigue. I love to read! So, you see, I have to do as much as I can now before the time comes when I can do very little. I will try to do as Paul said and "make the most of the time you have" (Eph. 5: 16).

I also still have lots of work to do on my numerous books. So many need finishing and publishing. Which do I work on first? Which is most important? A book on the pre or post trib debate? A book on the weak and strong brothers (already mostly done)? A book on the Hardshells? Etc.

Pray for us.

Nashville's Bethel PB Church

Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, in the Nashville, Tenn. area (see here), is pastored by Ronald Lawrence. I knew Ronald, having met him in the late 70s. He was an elder in the Little River Association of North Carolina, an association I visited back then. 

Father and I visited Bethel back in the 70s when it was pastored by Elder Vern Jackson who I well remember. Father spoke there on appointment and I was asked to "introduce" the service. I spoke about 10 minutes speaking on Psalm 34:1 and the words "I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth." I also remember the private talks that father had with brother Jackson about doctrinal issues. During that trip to middle Tennessee we also visited several other churches in the Nashville area. I spent a lot of time in middle Tennessee when I was a young Hardshell minister. 

I spent much time with Milton Lillard, pastor of many of the churches in that area (and Franklin and Murfreesboro), some which were once pastored by that famous elder Dr. John M. Watson, author of "The Old Baptist Test."

It is also where Dr. and Elder R.W. Fain labored for many years, editing Watson's book and writing the introduction, publishing two periodicals, the "Herald of Truth" and the "Baptist Watchman" with fellow minister and doctor, J. B. Stephens.

This is one of the largest churches among the non progressive faction of the Pbs. Their building is a rather large and expensively built one. You can see the picture of it on their web page.

In this posting I want to review a few things said on this church's web page. In the section "About Primitive Baptists" we read (emphasis mine):

"The name “Primitive” was first used in the early 1830’s when a major division came in the Baptist family. One group advocated a general atonement with salvation by the work of Christ, plus belief of the gospel by the sinner. They came to be known as “New School” or “Missionary Baptists”. The other group continued holding steadfastly to the doctrine of “Particular Redemption” with salvation entirely by the grace of God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. They came to be known as “Old School” or “Primitive Baptists”. Therefore, the word “Primitive” denotes the desire to maintain the identity of the Lord’s church as he established it and gave it to his disciples." (here)

There is so much falsehood in these words that it requires a least a few words. First, the division was not over the question of the extent of the atonement! Second, it certainly was not about means or whether belief of the gospel was necessary for final salvation! Concerning the former, elder J. H. Grime in his "History of Middle Tennessee Baptists" said this about the division in Middle Tennessee: 

"In this fight there was no doctrinal contention, as both parties stood firmly fixed on Calvinistic principles." (pg. 11, see here)

Grime had shown that those who believed in general atonement nearly all left in the Campbellite division in 1827, so the later Hardshell division was not over that issue. He writes:

"Prosperity attended the above minority, and in 1834 they had fairly recovered from the shock of 1827; but it was not for them to enjoy this state of peace longer. This time, however, it was not a doctrinal difference which disturbed their peace, but that of methods practiced." (ibid)

This is what Brother Bob L. Ross and I have said (along with others before us). The split with the "Missionaries" was over methods of evangelism and church autonomy and not over doctrine.

Further, if one reads the "Black Rock Address" he will see no mention of the atonement question and he will see no declaration against the use of means in the new birth or salvation. (See my posting about the Black Rock Address in the posting "Montgomery on "Time Salvation" - here) In that Address the authors of the document believed that the elect are "chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." In fact, if Lawrence and his brethren at Bethel church will read the early periodicals, such as "The Primitive Baptist" out of North Carolina, they will see how the above passage is often cited to show that belief of the gospel was a part of that salvation to which sinners had been chosen.

In closing let me say a few things about some of their other articles. First, under "Purpose of the Church" they say: 

"The Church was established by Christ (Matthew 16:18) to be a home (on earth) away from home (Heaven) for God’s children. It is a refuge or sanctuary where one may receive spiritual comfort, rest and peace, and instruction in righteousness. The church was also established to give glory to God by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. (Ephesians 3:21)"

How misguided! Do you see any reference to the kinds of labors or works in which the church should be involved, in this statement? Yes, they mention "giving glory" and "receiving," but where is the work? Is there not labor in the vineyard for the saints as a body? Paul wrote to the church at Corinth and said:

"Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain."

Next the statement of faith says:

"Purpose of the Gospel" - "The gospel was never designed to bring eternal life to anyone. It means nothing to the dead sinner, but is good news and glad tidings to the born-again child of God who feels to be poor and needy and unworthy of God’s mercy and grace, to hear that Jesus paid the sin debt, saved him from his sins and now he is preserved in Christ. (Isaiah 40:1 & 9, Isaiah 52:7, Ephesians 4:11-12, 2nd Timothy 1:9-10, John 21:15-17, Acts 20:28, 1st Peter 5:1-3)"

This is not biblical and it is not the historic view of our Baptist forefathers! The founding fathers of the Pb denomination would not accept that view! There are so many scriptures that completely overthrow this statement.

Under "Basic Difference Between Primitive Baptists and Other Religious Groups" the statement says: 

"The main difference may be summarized by a look at the subject of cause and effect. What others say is the cause of salvation (such as belief, faith, repentance, baptism or other acts by an individual), Primitive Baptists believe these acts are the effects of, or evidence of, spiritual life and can only be performed sincerely by those already in possession of eternal life. In other words, salvation is totally by God’s grace."

What a misrepresentation! Is belief and repentance an immediate effect of God's causation? Cannot God use an instrument in his causation? If belief and repentance are effects of God's work in rebirth, will they not be universal in all upon whom God does this work? Is not faith a result of God's grace? Is conversion by the gospel not by God's grace? If God uses an instrument in his work, it then ceases to be his gracious work?

What about calling men to salvation, or evangelism? Why is there no mention of that glorious work? Does not "the bride" say, along with the Spirit, to all sinners, "come and take the water of life freely"? (Rev. 22: 17)  Does the body of believers, acting together as a church, "hold forth the word of life" to sinners? (Phl. 2: 16)

Next the statement says under "Regeneration, New Birth, Being Born Again: 

"These different terms define what happens when God quickens one of his children into eternal life. We believe this is done by the life-giving voice of Jesus Christ and is always effectual and irresistible on the part of the individual. This is done separate and apart from the preaching of the gospel and without any aid of man. (John 3:6-8, John 5:25, John 6:37, Romans 8:30, Ephesians 2:1, 2nd Timothy 1:9)"

Again, this is simply contrary to the express teachings of scripture. None of the scriptures cited say what the statement says! The "life giving voice" of the Lord is heard in the preaching! People don't hear Jesus speaking to them when Elder Lawrence preaches? Good God, please help them! 

Elder Hosea Preslar, who lived in middle Tennessee with Watson (before moving back to NC in the bounds of the Bear Creek Association), wrote this about the Two Seed view of "anti means."

"But some object (the "ultraist" Hardshells - SG) to these ideas and say all this is the work of the spirit of God; and the gospel has nothing to do with it. Ah, a gospel without a spirit! Well, God save me from a gospel that has not His spirit. God says His word is quick and powerful, and He says by Peter, This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you; I Peter 1: 25. And as to the subjects of Gospel address, it is to every creature the disciples were commanded to preach the gospel; and Paul said, Whom we preach warning every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, etc.; Col. 1: 28. So we see that their idea on that point is false as the balance, and we will now give their last, but not least error a passing notice." (see here)

In enumerating the errors of the Two Seeders, Preslar listed this as one of them:

Sixthly: That the gospel never was designed for anything else, but for the edification of the body of Christ, and that believers are the only subjects of gospel address.

(See here)

Next, the Bethel statement says:

"Practice of the Church" - "The worship service is patterned after the New Testament example and authority which consists of congregational singing, prayer and preaching. Musical instruments are not used in the services because there is no New Testament command or example for them. Even though musical instruments were in existence during the time that Christ established his church, there is no record of their use in the worship services. We do believe in singing and making melody in the heart to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16)"

Patternism! The thing that characterizes both the Campbellites and Hardshells! Also, there are just several things wrong in what is said about musical instruments, which we have shown many times before. Where are church associations in the bible? Where is radio preaching? Etc.

Next, the statement says:

"Also, there are no Sunday Schools for lack of New Testament authority. Their beginning was not until the 18th century in England, and then was only to teach reading, writing and arithmetic to underprivileged children. However, this does not mean in any way that Primitive Baptists do not believe in teaching children. The scriptures teach that parents are to teach their children at home privately (Ephesians 6:4), and then under the sound of a gospel minister in the public assembly."

Again, so many errors in these words! Teaching the bible to people in classes has "lack of New Testament authority"? Are you kidding me? Further, the Baptists have always been involved in teaching children by the use of catechisms, as I have shown before. 

Finally the statement closes with these words:

"We would encourage the reader of this pamphlet to search the scriptures as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) to see if these things are so."

Really? Well, we do that very thing in this blog!

Bradley Should Speak

Elder Grigg Thompson, son of elder Wilson Thompson, was a leader for the newly formed "Primitive Baptist Church" in the 19th century. He in his later years gave a final address to the "Primitive Baptists" about several of his concerns and to recall the early years of the formation  of that denomination. I would love for Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. to do something similar. 

Seeing his days are few (being in his 80s) it seems to me that he should do the same, especially in view of his and his church's seeming change in doctrine away from Hardshellism (see my recent posting "Cincinnati Primitive Baptist News" - here). 

If his church now believes in means and in God's decree or predestination concerning all things, as well as in Bible classes, missionary work, theological education, etc., then why not speak to the denomination and let them know of his spiritual and theological journey in this regard? I think it could encourage other Pb churches to "consider your ways" theologically and historically and hopefully lead them to take the direction of Elder Jeremiah Bass (new pastor at Cincy) and others, such as Kevin Fralick, Jeremy Sarber, Stephen Emmons, etc.

Further, it seems to me that Cincinnati church could take the lead in discussing these things with other Pb ministers and churches. It seems to me that the Cincinnati church, under the leadership of Bass and Bradley, have a great opportunity in this respect.

What think ye?

"The Church Advocate" Periodical

"The Church Advocate" periodical was first begun by Elder Daniel Parker in 1829 to promote his "two seed" views. What is interesting is the fact that Elder Lemuel Potter, about fifty years or so later, an opponent of "Two Seedism," started a paper and named it "Church Advocate."

"Elder Lemuel Potter resumed publication of his paper, the "Church Advocate" in 1892, to oppose the "means" doctrine. The first issue of the paper in 1892 aggressively opposed those who were introducing these departures. Elder Potter stated that the "Means" party claimed that they had about 100 churches with about 5,000 members." (From Primitive Baptist Library - here)

I have not been able to ascertain when he first began this paper. I do know that he used it to fight two major theological views; Two Seedism and Means. 

I am at a loss to understand why Potter would name his paper after the leader of Two Seedism while supposedly opposing it. Well, if one reads Potter's book "Life And Travels Of A Poor Sinner" (here) he will find Potter saying this:

"When I first joined the church and began to preach, there was a great deal said about the Two Seed doctrine, and the most of our preachers of southern Illinois believed it. It was nothing uncommon to hear a minister speak out in favor of that doctrine in his sermons. It seemed that in our immediate connection, it had the ascendency (sic). Some of the Associations in our correspondence passed resolutions that the belief or disbelief of that doctrine should not be a bar to fellowship. For several years after I commenced preaching, I rather favored it, enough to accept it at least, and without any investigation of the matter, I did not know but what it was the doctrine of our people generally. I finally began to study the matter for myself, and I soon became satisfied that if it was the Baptist doctrine I did not believe it. After trying to discourage the agitation of it for a few years, I studied the matter so much that I finally concluded to write on that subject, which I did, and put out a small work, giving my objections to it, in the year 1880." (pg. 262) 

If he started his paper while still favoring Two Seedism, then the above tells us why. It is because he favored that teaching. 

It is good that he later used that paper to teach people out of Two Seedism, but I wonder if he did not wait not only till he had studied the issue further, but till he thought that Two Seedism was dying? And, so then would want to "jump on the bandwagon" and oppose what he at first favored.

Further, it is interesting that he opposed Two Seedism and Means because it is clear that the anti means view originated with the Two Seeders.

What think ye?

Peck-Parker Debates

John Mason Peck 

1789-1858

Daniel Parker

1781-1844

"J. M. Peck twice met Daniel Parker in debate in Indiana. The first was in June, 1822, in Gibson county, at a special session of the Wabash District Association. The contest lasted the entire day and was decided by vote of thirty-five to five in favor of missions. In 1825, the second debate occurred before the White River Association in which the association unanimously voted against Parker."

"Referring to these events Dr. De Blois, the biographer of John M. Peck, describes these scenes as follows: 

Peck "visited various churches and associations, and met the famous (or infamous) Daniel Parker, politician, theologian, reactionary and propagandist. This shrewd and able man embodied the whole devilish spirit of the anti-mission crusade, and had a smooth tongue, considerably eloquent, and a genius for a persistent proselytism."

"Describing the latter sessions of the Association he says: "The subject of missions came up. This was occasioned by one church having charged another with having supported missions." This constituted a serious grievance. Mr. Parker arose and delivered a fiery address, denouncing all missionary effort in lurid and forceful terms. Mr. Peck obtained leave to speak and defended the missionary enterprises of the denomination with great fervor. It was a memorable occasion. Two of the most noteworthy leaders of religious thought and feeling that the 19th century produced were present, face to face, at the meeting of a few humble and insignificant churches. They spoke mightily, the discussion lasted for five hours. Mr. Peck must have appreciated the vigor of his antagonist for he says: "I never before met with so determined opposer to missions in every aspect." But the virile and eloquent Parker, State Senator, splendid man of affairs, religious leader, founder of a sect and stalwart reactionary in all that concerned the kingdom of Christ, received a startling rebuff; for the very Association which had declined to recognize the missionary and had refused him a seat three days before, voted heartily to sustain the cause of missions, and resolved, by formal vote, to support the church which had raised a contribution for the great cause." (De Blois, 48, 49)

From "A History of the Baptists" by John T. Christian, chapter VII, "The Anti-Effort Secession from the Baptists" (here)

Who would not have wanted to be there during those debates!?

I am sure that Peck destroyed Parker and the votes show it. Parker no doubt appealed to the emotions of the unlearned frontiersmen, many who could not even read. In many quarters he was very successful, but when he met men like Peck, his success was stymied. 

I do not doubt that the "spirit" that animated Parker was as described above. I am saddened that such a spirit continued to animate his followers, many of whom called themselves "primitive" or "old school." It was an "anti" spirit, a spirit of opposition to any who did not agree with them who possessed it. It was also a "do nothing" spirit (many called the Hardsells "Do Nothings" and "anti effort" Baptists). It was a spirit that said "come not near to me for I am holier (and more orthodox and Baptistic) than thou."

What think ye?

Baptists Were Once All United? (II)

This posting will be a short follow up to the posting "Baptists Were Once All United?" (here).

If the Baptists were all united in faith and practice at the start of the 19th century, believing as the "Primitive Baptists" do today, then how can we account for the three major divisions in the Baptist family in the first half or so of the 19th century? That time period gave us first the Campbellite division, then the Hardshell division, and then the Landmark division. The first two divisions show that the Baptist denomination, though holding to core beliefs that were common to all three, yet differed in regard to soteriology. 

If the Baptists were all united on that subject, why the Hardshell and Campbellite divisions? 

The Landmark controversy showed that the Baptists were not all agreed on ecclesiology. 

What think ye?

God's Elect or World's Elite?

"who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" 

(Rom. 8: 33 kjv)

"according to the faith of God's elect" 

(Titus 1: 1)

The new testament talks a lot about "God's elect." Who are these people? The nation of Israel? The physical descendants of Israel (Jacob)? How are they different from the world's elite, their chosen ones? This is what this writing will address.

In showing the distinction in scripture between "God's elect" and the world's "elite," focus will be upon the first epistle of Paul to the elite Greek city of Corinth (a city I was privileged to visit many years ago). This area of study deserves attention.

There is historically a close connection in thought between being "elect" and being "elite."

I have written previously in life about the difference, biblically speaking, between "election," which is of grace and unconditional, and "selection," which is where a thing is chosen because it is better than others things in the group of things (as when I select a melon at the store from among the several melons, upon the basis of my judgment of which is best). However, in this research paper we will observe how Paul in his Corinthian epistles contrasted God's elect with the world's elite. 

The social and cultural world in which the Corinthians lived in the first century is not any different in our day as respects the world's standard for judging "status"  or "class" in society, whether one is "elite" or "slave" (or as in India's "untouchables" or in the non elite). When we think of the "social elite," the "high born" or "noble," what qualities or assets set them apart or characterize them? Likewise, those who are not elite, what is their status and character? These are the very kinds of questions that the apostle Paul, by the Spirit's inspiration, will seek to answer in his first epistle to the ancient Corinthians. 

Let us begin by defining "elite." Wrote one source:

"An elite is a relatively small group of people with the highest status in a society, or in some domain of activity, who have more privileges or power than other people due to their status. Elitism is believing in or promoting this sort of arrangement, whether that be in the academic world, politics, art, sports, or anywhere else. The word elite was originally French for ‘select’ or ‘chosen’ and comes from the same Latin root, eligere, as elect." (See philosophy terms)

Today, as in the first century, we have "academic elites," and "Hollywood elites," and "Sports elites," etc. Notice too how "elite" is closely associated with "elect." When I was in one of my advanced Sociology classes in college I recall the professor walking into class one day and asking - "has anyone ever heard of the concept of the elect?" I recall that I was the only person to raise my hand! Of course, I was thinking more of the religious concept of "elect" while she was thinking of the social concept. Let me also add that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and certainly not so in Corinthian society where religious thought is intertwined with social and political thought. 

Our source continues:

"In socio-political philosophy elitism is the belief that societies must or should be ruled by an elite, and theorists of elitism study how the elite gain and maintain their status, and what they get for it." (ibid)

Who is destined to rule the world? Well, ultimately, it is "God's elect." So Paul says to the Corinthians - "do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (6: 2) Yet, the saints (God's elect) do not rule the world now. Rather, the world's own chosen and elite are now ruling and reigning. But, of these things we will say more later. Let us return to the definition of "elite" and "elitism." Under "The History of Elitism" our source says (emphasis mine): 

"We know enough about our ancient past to be able to say that most ancient civilizations, once they were big enough to have cities, had elitism. Human civilizations have always had power relatively concentrated in the hands of a few, and the elite have often received that status from parentage and wealth, although with many exceptions; at times, the strongest, smartest, or boldest individuals have been able to raise themselves to elite status. In some societies priests, intellectuals, and/or artists have had the potential to gain elite status, although usually only in cooperation with the political and economic elite. In any case, although there have been scattered anti-elitist voices throughout human history, elitism has been a relatively unquestioned and universal feature of human societies until the past few hundred years." (ibid) 

Notice that "elitism" has been around since the dawn of human communities. Ancient Corinth was a big and important city at the time of Paul's ministry there. 

Sociologist speak of "social mobility" which deals with how people may move within a "class system." Its definition is as follows:

"Social mobility, movement of individuals, families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or stratification. If such mobility involves a change in position, especially in occupation, but no change in social class, it is called “horizontal mobility.” An example would be a person who moves from a managerial position in one company to a similar position in another. If, however, the move involves a change in social class, it is called “vertical mobility” and involves either “upward mobility” or “downward mobility.” An industrial worker who becomes a wealthy businessman moves upward in the class system; a landed aristocrat who loses everything in a revolution moves downward in the system." (Britannica - see here)

Notice that "mobility involves a change in position." Think of the "change of status" or "social mobility" that occurred to the Corinthians when they became Christians! They became children of God! Born of nobility, yea, born of God! What a change of position! But, more on that later. 

Again, we have these scholarly words:

"Perhaps the most controversial debate concerning elitism, is whether it is the best thing for everyone in a society. Throughout human history, most people have believed that the elite ruled by right; that they deserved to be the elite, and had better personal qualities than the rest of us, whether that was supposed to be because of the families they came from, because they were chosen by God, or because they competed for their status with superior strength or intelligence. This idea was not often questioned before the past 400 years and remains a common belief today. In Asia, even more than America, people tend to believe that the leaders of powerful corporations are superior human beings who have rightfully earned their privileges. But even if you reject heredity and God as sources of elite status, you may believe that the people who are raised in the best environments and receive the best educations are going to end up most qualified to wield power."(ibid) 

As we look at Paul's discussion of God's elect in his first epistle to the Corinthians, we will see him discuss how God's chosen, God's elite ones, are of a different character than are the world's elite. They are the ones that God qualifies for rule, who become "superior human beings" in "the world to come." But, again, more on that later.

"Those who argue in favor of elitism on a rational basis, usually make two main claims: That the existence of some kind of elite is necessary for a successful society, and That it is better for all of us if people with superior breeding, intelligence, and education have that elite status; because they will make the best decisions anyone could make. Those who argue against elitism also make two claims: That power corrupts; that elite groups will always use their power for selfish ends, rather than doing the best for the rest of us, and That it would be possible to run a healthy society without elite privilege if people of all different types were cared for, educated, and empowered properly."  (ibid) 

Next, our source cites these words from Winston S. Churchill:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."  

Yes, but we could also say of some cases - "the best argument against rule by elite few is a five minute conversation with them," meaning that the world's elite are rarely humble, generally snobbish, and condescending in their demeanor with inferiors. The "ruling elite" are too often drunk with pride and hubristic bullying, and humiliation of inferiors, and of the weak, poor, and uneducated.

Further, just who decides who is superior? There are generally many elite. Do they decide among themselves who rules? Who becomes the elite of the elite, or super elite? Or, do the masses democratically decide which of the elite or superiors do the ruling?

Wrote one writer:

"Elect is a related term of elite. Elite is a related term of elect. As adjectives the difference between elite and elect is that elite is of high birth or social position...As nouns the difference between elite and elect is that elite is a special group or social class of people which have a superior intellectual, social or economic status as, the elite of society while elect is one chosen or set apart." (From "Elite vs Elect - What's the difference?" here)

The Greek (or Roman) standard for determining character and social status is what Paul and the sacred writers would call a worldly or depraved human standard. The criteria used to judge a man's worth and destiny is different for the world than it is for God (or for Paul or for scripture). In the next chapter we will take up that part of our subject.

Tracing Hardshell History

This posting is closely aligned with these postings:

"Nooses Around The Neck" (here)

"Change In Traditional Interpretation & It's Significance" (here)

"Hardshell Lies About Their History" (here)

 "An Analysis Of 19th Century PB Leaders" (here)

The Battles Among The Old Schoolers

(after separation from Mission Baptists)

1. Trinitarianism

involving these errors

- Arianism

- Sabellianism

The non trinitarian views were championed by Elders Samuel Trott, Gilbert Beebe, and Wilson Thompson and the periodical "Signs of the Times" and those holding those views came to be known as the "Beebe Old School Baptists."

Those who opposed the Arianism and Sabellianism of the above named elders were James Osbourn (the chiefest), John Clark (who wrote a book against these errors of the Beebe Baptists), John Watson, etc.

2. Eternal Vital Unionism (or "Two Seedism" in general)

involving these errors

- the nature of regeneration or rebirth

- eternal children (of both Christ and the Devil)

- non Resurrection of the bodies

- denial of the second coming of Christ in person

3. Means in Regeneration and Rebirth

involving these questions

- whether faith in Christ and repentance (conversion) are requirements for salvation

- what is the nature of saving faith

- what does it mean to hear God's voice in salvation (in the internal call)

4. Absolute Predestination Of All Things

involving these questions

- the extent of the divine decrees

- the nature of free will 

- God's permissive will

- whether God be in any sense a "cause" of moral evil

- looking at all the first Hardshell periodicals it seems clear that all believed all things happen according to God's will, decree, sufferance, or predestination

- a faction arose that denied the absolute predestination of all things and these became known as "limited predestinarians" or "conditionalists."

5. The Great Commission & Missions

involving these questions

- whether the church, apart from the ministry, are under the Commission

- whether the commission was fulfilled in the first century by the apostles

- whether the church has a duty to teach the bible by Sunday Schools and Bible Classes

- whether the church has a duty to provide means for the education of ministers (support seminaries)

- though many opposed individual or church responsibility for the great commission, yet not all, and so was a matter of dispute in later years

6. Musical Instruments in Church Worship

involving these questions

- do the scriptures authorize them?

- should the issue be a test of fellowship (orthodoxy)?

7. Sunday Schools & Bible Classes

- first Hardshells generally opposed them because it was new in Baptist history and not specifically mentioned in scripture

- after a few years many Hardshells began to see the need for such and to promote them but they continued to be a point of dissension 

This list and outline could be improved, expanded, etc., but thought I would put this "first draft" out there now, for "the time is short."

Tidbits Of Hardshell History

The following are some historical tidbits of information that deserve memorializing, especially for future historians.

Tidbit #1

Did you know that Elder W. P. Throgmorton, who debated two famous Hardshell debaters, Lemuel Potter and John R. Daily (as many Hardshell cult leaders know, for these debates have been popularly received and recommended, being reprinted by the cult brotherhood several times), also had several other debates with Hardshell leaders? I have read one of the Potter debates and the Daily debate, even have those in my library. But, of the others, I have never seen, though perhaps I will, as an historian, find them somewhere in the future (if they were ever written down and published).

Throgmorton's Hardshell Debates

1. Lemuel Potter (2) (Note: I did not know Potter had two debates. I thought the one I have was the only one)

2. T. S. Dalton (Note: I did not know of this debate. I don't have the date it occurred which would be important as Dalton first believed in gospel means and then changed to anti means)

3. S. F. Cayce (2) (Note: I never knew of these debates. Why were these not kept in print by the Hardshells as the Potter and Daily debates have been? Could it be that Cayce failed miserably? I suspect so)

4. John R. Daily (Note: I have read this debate several times, and though I agree with Daily on the Atonement question, I agreed with Throgmorton on means and the conditions of salvation)

5. J. B. Denton (Note: I think the source for this information means J.C. Denton who I have cited before, see here)

Tidbit #2

1. The periodical "Herald of Truth," mentioned by Elder John Watson in his book "The Old Baptist Test," was not only supported by him shortly before his death, but first edited by Elder R. W. Fain, a fellow doctor with Watson, who completed the above book, wrote its preface, and edited the "Herald of Truth," which seems to have been begun in the late 1850s, continued after the Civil War, taken over by elder Dalton after Fain's death, and later merged it with the Hardshell periodical "Zion's Advocate." 

2. When searching for copies of this old periodical I found that there were three periodicals by that name. One is a 19th century Mennonite periodical. The other is connected with the "Church of Christ" denomination in the 20th century. Finally, there is the Hardshell periodical. Further, I have not been able to see any issues for the Hardshell Herald of Truth. Oddly, one can find the others very easy! Southern Baptist Historical Library in Nashville has a few early issues that I am trying to get copies.

Causes Giving Birth To Hardshellism

The things I say now in this short posting are said as a result of 48 years of historical studying of "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Old Regular" Baptists, including those known as "Two Seed" Baptists. The evidence supporting my statements are to be found in this blog and in my other blogs, especially "The Baptist Gadfly." 

What are the causes for the birth of Hardshellism, or what we generally know today as "The Primitive Baptist Church"? (There are exceptions to this characterization as some who call themselves "primitive Baptists" are still in existent, and who believe as their founders, as respects means and perseverance. As an example, see my posting about the Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists here and here and here)

Multi Causal

I say, as an historian of Hardshellism, that there was not a single cause for what Dr. B.H. Carroll called "the rise of the Hardshells," in the early nineteenth century (In his treatise called "The Genesis Of American Anti-Missionism"). There were several causes and I have ruminated on them for many years. In listing those causes I will try to keep discussion of them short though it could easily be enlarged.

1. Hyper Calvinism

- as distinct from "high Calvinism" (predestination of all things)

- offering Christ to sinners & evangelical methods

Note: means not an issue in 17th and 18th century Hyper Calvinism as all believed in them 

2. Two Seedism

- novel idea promoted by Daniel Parker involving "eternal children" and "eternal vital union"

- changed the nature of regeneration as previously understood ('hollow log' regeneration)

- changed the nature of election  as previously understood (God's choice was obligatory)

3. Misunderstanding the "outward call" vs. the "inward call"

- the idea that the inward call was not in conjunction with the outward gospel call

- the idea that the spirit spoke to sinners saying "this is the truth" when hearing or reading the word 

4. Misunderstanding "spiritual influence" that is separate from the word

- Campbell in his paper The Christian Baptist (later "Millennial Harbinger") argued this point with Baptists

- In fighting the "word alone" theory of Campbell, another extreme, the "Spirit alone" view, was embraced

- The spiritual influence apart from the word was viewed as all that was essential for rebirth

5. Misunderstanding the forefathers on "unconditional salvation"

- Misunderstanding "unconditional" election, thinking it also entails unconditional salvation

- Misunderstanding what is meant by "conditional"

These items should be enlarged upon, but I cannot do so now. I have been wanting to expand this thesis for some time. With my time on earth becoming less and less, I put forth now this beginning outline.

Beebe On Faith & Salvation

Gilbert Beebe

Middletown, New York

1800-1881

It seems appropriate to look at another article by Elder Gilbert Beebe, signer or the "Black Rock Address," and editor of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" periodical, "The Signs of the Times" (began in 1832 at the same time of the signing of the Address), as a follow up to our look at his 1846 editorial titled "Means." This is because it is on the subject of "faith" and its relation to salvation. It is written several years after the article on "Means." It is titled "What is Faith?" (June 15, 1860, see here).

Beebe wrote (emphasis mine):

"Webster defines the word as signifying "Belief; assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence." And what he denominates Evangelical faith, justifying and saving faith, he says is the "assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will, or approbation of the heart." And this definition is established by the colleges and universities of our country generally, and indorsed (sic) by all Arminians and legalists everywhere. But the definition of the term as used in the Scriptures, as defined by the inspired apostles, differs very widely from the popularly received definitions of men. The apostle John speaks of it as a child from heaven, born of God, and inspired with heavenly life, and triumphing over the world. "For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world: even our faith." That faith which is the creature of the carnal mind of man, the mere assent of the judgment of our fleshly mind, although cordially received and confidently relied upon, is but, at best, a creature of our own, born of the flesh, and can no more overcome the world, than can the flesh itself; because no stream can rise above its fountain. Differing then, in parentage and birth as widely as the distance between earth and heaven, these two kinds of faith have no vital relationship with each other. The faith produced by the convictions of our natural judgment, how ever cordially assented to or indorsed by the will of man, is nevertheless a child of earth, which, could it overcome the world, would overcome itself, as it is an element of the world. But that faith which is of God, and in God, is the faith of the Son of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ is himself the author and the finisher of it. This is the faith of God's elect. By it, all the saints are distinguished from the world, as none can possess it unless they be born of God, and as without it no man can please God. We do not understand that the birth of faith is distinct from the birth of the saints; but an element of the new, heavenly and spiritual birth, which is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God; that birth which is of an incorruptible seed, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever; and, therefore, unlike the flesh, which is grass, and the goodliness thereof, which is the flower of grass, for they must wither and fall away; but the word of the Lord, the source, fountain and origin of true faith, liveth and abideth forever. This true and living faith is, then, an element of the heaven-born child of God, and only by it can we overcome the world, the flesh and the devil; only by it can we approach the throne of grace, draw nigh unto God, or cry Abba, Father. For he that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and the belief in God's being and perfections is the act of vital faith."

One of the things that the anti means Hardshell leaders, like Beebe, Trott, and Wilson Thompson realized early in their denominational history and development, was their need to 

1) reinterpret those passages of scripture that have been historically understood to teach means, and 

2) explain the relationship between faith and salvation (repentance too). 

As we saw in our previous postings Discussion On I Cor. 4:15 and Beebe On James 1:18, Beebe's effort at interpreting those two passages was clearly a case of "wresting" (II Peter 3: 16) the scriptures. In fact, we saw how Beebe's views were full of novelty, a thing, ironically, the Hardshells claimed to be protesting against as concerning religious faith and practice. Is not the anti means view novel among Baptists? Is Beebe's Two Seed view of James 1: 18 a novelty?

In the article on "Means" we saw Beebe attempt to deal with two of the major passages that have been understood traditionally as teaching God's use of the word of truth, or gospel, in the work of salvation (including regeneration and rebirth). There are many such passages however. But, I am sure that Beebe and his brethren can hack and hew on them in the same way as he has on I Cor. 4: 15 and James 1: 18. 

In this editorial from Beebe on "Faith" we look at Beebe's explanation of the relationship between faith and salvation, of the work of God in producing faith. We will see how his views on "faith" (which most Pbs of the 20th century accepted) are likewise not orthodox, being an invention arising out of necessity due to their adopting the anti means novelty. What saith the scripture? What saith Beebe?

When a man begins his position paper by denying a generally accepted definition of the thing to be discussed, or redefined, he surely must have such a weight of evidence worthy to the task. But, as any unbiased mind can see, Beebe did not meet the task. 

Questions

1. Did Beebe succeed in redefining the meaning of the word "faith"? 

2. He seems to deny the common definition that says that "faith" is "belief" or "assent of the mind to the truth" - does he deny that faith is such? On what basis?

3. The definition Beebe opposes says that "faith" is an "assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will, or approbation of the heart." Does he deny that faith is such? On what basis?

4. Beebe says that he and his Hardshell Two Seeders deny "faith which is the creature of the carnal mind of man," which is "the mere assent of the judgment of our fleshly mind." Who teaches that faith is produced by the carnal and fleshly mind? Is that not a clear case of the "red herring" fallacy and method of deceit?

5. Who teaches that saving faith is "faith produced by the convictions of our natural judgment"? Is that not another "red herring"? 

6. Have the Hardshells not a history of misrepresenting their opponents, of using red herrings, and other instances of fallacious reasoning?

7. Does Beebe ever show that "faith" is non cognitive, or that it does not involve belief of biblical facts?

New Birth Makes Believers

Beebe said: 

"This true and living faith is, then, an element of the heaven-born child of God" and that faith, or belief, is an "an element of the new, heavenly and spiritual birth."

He also said:

"We do not understand that the birth of faith is distinct from the birth of the saints"

What do these statements reveal about the "state of flux" in which Beebe and his brethren in the anti mission movement found themselves, within a generation of their formation, in regards to faith and its relationship to salvation? 

If we ask today's "Primitive Baptists" (majority or predominant view) this question, what would be their answer? Question: is faith given or created in regeneration? I suspect that they would nearly all say, as I have heard them say many times (and have said so myself) - "faith is given in regeneration." If you question them further on this answer, I am sure that you will get a strange definition to the word "faith" (just as Beebe was attempting to give). Further, you will no doubt see them jump hoops in trying to deal with all the contradictions that their novel definition produces. 

I am sure that the reason why Beebe and today's Pbs will affirm the statement "faith is given in regeneration" is because 1) this is clearly revealed to be so in scripture, and 2) it is the belief of Baptist confessions and historic leaders. So, they have needed to keep the statement but change its meaning. 

Beebe, however, existing nearer in time to pre 19th century Baptist sentiments than today's Pbs, well knew that the historic view joined together evangelical faith with being born again. One did not exist where the other was absent. To Beebe's ancestors, and even to the majority of his brethren in the first half of the 19th century, faith was not to be divorced from the new birth. There was no such thing as a "regenerated unbeliever." The above statements by Beebe show this to be the case. Further, Beebe never once denied that true saving faith involved belief of truth.

Wrote Beebe:

"This heaven-begotten and heaven-born faith, is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen... And as the faith of the gospel is the faith of Jesus Christ, and as the righteousness which alone can justify us before God is by the faith of the Son of God, who hath loved us and given himself for us, so it must be a substance, in distinction from all shadows, passions or exercises of the natural mind, or energies of unrenewed men."

What kind of faith is it that is produced in regeneration according to Beebe? "The faith of the gospel." 

Wrote Beebe:

"Third. If we have this faith, we shall learn by experience that we cannot control it, exercise or enlarge it; but on the contrary, it will assuredly control, exercise and govern us."

Is that not an affirmation of the certainty of the perseverance of believers?

Beebe on James 1: 18

Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the leading founders of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist denomination, wrote the following in 1846. It is his answer to a question from one of his brethren who espoused means and the title of the editorial is "Means." I cited from this editorial in my previous posting on I Cor. 4: 15. I also noted how the Hardshell web page that has many Beebe writings has become inaccessible. Nevertheless I am sure that the editorial can be found if one goes to the date given in 1846 and reads the "Signs of the Times." 

This 1846 editorial writing shows that he recognized that his view on "means" was not the leading view of his brethren, nor of his forefathers. 

In Beebe's editorial writing he looks at several scripture passages that the means advocates (being the majority and historic view) mentioned in their inquiry to him. 

Besides I Cor. 4: 15 there are these comments of Beebe on James 1:18 (emphasis mine):

10. “Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth.” – James i. 18. Instead of honored instrumentalities, the whole power of producing the conception and consequent birth of the children of God is in this test accredited to “His own will” alone, that is, to the sovereign, immutable will of God, which proves the position we have taken in the preceding item of our reply."

Notice how Beebe speaks of the two aspects of procreation, of "conception" and "consequent birth." As I have shown, the making of "conception" to be "regeneration" and the "birth" to be "conversion," with the fetus growth and travail of "delivery" coming in between, was a very common view among the first generation of Hardshells and even persisted to some degree into the 20th century (when it became a minority view and one opposed by the majority). 

Recall too that this text has been the chief text used in a discussion of this three stage model of birth and procreation. The Greek word for "begat" is not the general new testament word used for birth, being a word that generally denotes the birth of the fetus from mother's womb.

The idea that the new birth is accomplished by the power or will of God is not questioned by either side in the debate over God's use of means, or "the word of truth." The question is whether saying it is by the power of God, or the will of God, excludes the written or preach word as a means. This text obviously shows that the birth can be both by the power and will of God and be, at the same time, "by the word of truth." Beebe and the Hardshells err in thinking that one excludes the other. Many additional examples can be given in addition to the one we have right in front of us in James 1: 18 to sustain this rebuttal. Therefore, Beebe is blatantly wrong in affirming that means are taught against in this verse. Is it not marvelous how a man can take a verse that clearly teaches God's use of the word as a means in rebirth and affirm that it actually denies means!?

Further, where is the mother in this begetting, according to Beebe and his anti means brothers? Have I not often shown this to be a weakness in their anti means philosophy? Have I not shown that the church is our mother because she gave us "the word of truth"? The spiritually born are "children of Zion," of mother Jerusalem. 

The Two Seed View

Beebe continued:

"Perhaps the means renders will try to make some capital of the words “with the word of his power,” construing the word of his power to imply instrumentality. One of two things must be intended by these words: “With the word,” they were begotten by the Father of lights, spoken of in the context. Christ is the only begotten of the Father; but as a begotten emanation from the Godhead, he is the life of his people, head of his body, the church, mediator, &c.; as God he is self-existent, equally with the Father; but as the life and immortality of his spiritual body, he is the beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature; and in this sense he only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, [not even by the magic Power of means,] whom no man hath seen nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting’. Amen. Now the one production of spiritual life was what we understand to be the begetting of both the head and the body, so that if Christ as the Word is intended by James, the saints have a common origin with Christ their head, and both be that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 

Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, the two leading writers for the "Signs of the Times," here promote their own version of Daniel Parker's "Two Seedism." Who would have ever interpreted James 1: 18 in the absurd fashion of these Two Seed Hardshells? 

The Direct Speaking View

Beebe continued:

"Or, secondly, if by the word of truth we are to understand his word, as used Isaiah lv. 10, still there is no room for arminians to introduce a particle of means. The world was created by the same word. God said, “Let there be light.” It was by the omnipotence of his word that all things came into existence, and we may with the same propriety talk of God’s having used means in the creation, as in quickening his children."

Why does Beebe limit the possible meanings (interpretations) of the passage, saying it must mean "one of two things"? Why is not the historic view of the verse not one of those possible interpretations? Is Beebe's Two Seed and Arian view not a new one? What Baptists, or any other, interpreted James 1: 18 as talking about the eternal generation of the Son of God, of his being eternally "begotten" of the Father? And, whoever spoke of this begetting of the children of God as being what occurred in eternity past when the Son was begotten?

The context is very clear on what is meant by "the word of truth." It is the word of God, whether written or orally communicated. Further, Christ is never called "the word of truth" as a title, as he is called "the word (logos) of God." Further, Beebe in his reply speaks of "the word of his power" but James 1: 18 says "word of truth." Did not all Beebe's forefathers interpret James 1: 18 as Gill? 

Wrote Dr. Gill:

"with the word of truth; not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is sometimes ascribed to him; and this act of begetting is done by the Father, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead; but the Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again; see (Ephesians 1:13) (1 Peter 1:23) and hence ministers of it are accounted spiritual fathers." (Commentary)

Which view is the historic or "Old Baptist" view? That of Beebe, Trott, and the Two Seed Hardshells? Or, that of Dr. Gill?

What Happened To It?

Recently I cited from an article by Gilbert Beebe from the 1846 issue of the "Signs of the Times" titled "Means." I have another posting about ready in which I cite again from this article. Well, the link I gave from asweetsavor.com is not available now! I have seen this happen before. I cite from a Hardshell web page, one that gives an old article, and walla! It is gone! What think ye?

Study Greek? Yes, but

I am glad that more and more of our Pb brothers are studying Greek (and perhaps even Hebrew). Generally only a small minority of them have done so. Elder Zach Guess says he studied it for several years in college and says it was a great help to him. I notice that Elder Jeremiah Bass too has learned the language and I can see how it has helped him in his teaching the word. That is good. It really doesn't take that long an investment in time to learn basic Greek. In fact, that is really all a good bible teacher really needs. He does not have to become an expert in Greek. Most seminarians are taught enough Greek to do serious bible study, and to understand the issues debated by NT and Koine Greek experts. That is where I am. Do I wish I had studied more Greek, and Hebrew? Yes. But, I know enough to help me in my bible studies. What is more important than this is understanding basic grammar. In fact, one cannot really learn a foreign language if one does not understand basic grammar. Knowing the basics of English grammar should be mastered before tackling Greek grammar. If one masters his own native language's grammar, he will be better equipped to learn another language.

Bass On KJV Onlyism

Elder Jeremiah Bass, as I mentioned in a previous posting, has been called by Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church to be their senior pastor. As I mentioned, Elder Bass is opposed to KJV Onlyism as we are here. If you would like to read about his conversion from KJV Onlyism to the correct view (even of former PB leaders as Sylvester Hassell) please read "My Journey in the King James Version Debate" from Monday, March 14, 2011 (here). It is a must read for every "KJV Only" advocate.

Grigg Thompson On Two Seeders

From "The Measuring Rod" by Elder Grigg Thompson, who was one of the leading founders, along with his father Wilson, of the "Primitive Baptist" church, we have these important words (published 1860 - see here):

"But there is, at this time, three large and distinct organizations claiming to be Baptists, and also claiming to be the apostolic church, to wit: the Missionary (or more correctly the machinery) Baptists, which is the largest division, and the Two Seed, or Arian Baptists, which in numbers, perhaps, stand next, and the Primitive Baptists, which are, perhaps, in the United States numerically the weakest of the three."  (pg. 20-21)

Do you see how large a segment of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists were occupied by "Two Seed" Baptists? A larger group than the non Two Seed Primitives. Thompson does not want to include the Two Seed Baptists in with his "Primitive" group, listing them as a separate group entirely, but he knows that they were mingled together and were as one for much of the 19th century, a thing we have shown was admitted by Hardshell historian Sylvester Hassell. In fact, Thompson had a lot to say about Two Seedism, but will not cite him on it now. I simply want other historians to see how Two Seedism played a large role in forming today's "Primitive Baptist Church." Thompson says that the Two Seed or Arian Baptists were larger in number than his orthodox group of Pbs! 

Many of the ministers of the 19th century who are founding fathers of the "Primitive" Baptist church were Two Seeders. What does that fact reveal? What consequences to the legitimacy of many of their church constitutions, baptisms, etc., since such was performed by Two Seed heretics? (In view of their "Landmarkism") What think ye?

Notice also how Thompson connects "Two Seedism" with "Arianism," but that is another story.

On Homiletics

I have listened to a lot of preaching over the past 50 years or so, especially among Baptists. I have also done a good bit of preaching myself. I also have studied it. When I was a young minister I read a good bit of Baptist preacher John A. Broadus's Treatise "On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons," it being a classic work in the field of homiletics. I have also written much on the peculiar preaching style of many of the old "Primitive" and "Regular" Baptist preachers, of the sing song or chanting style. I have criticized the Stoical and professorial preaching of many, including many younger Pb ministers who want to get away from preaching with a sing song fashion or with emotion. It seems to me a case of going from one extreme to another. In any case, I think I have something to say about preaching delivery and style. I have criticized the inspiration view of many Two Seed and Hardshell Baptists relative to their preaching in the spirit.

Since the invention of radio and television, and Internet video posting, etc., a person can listen to a lot of preachers. Now, I do have some criteria for initially deciding who to listen to, and who not. I generally do not listen to women preachers, although I have listened to some bible teaching lessons given by women (some very good). I also do not generally listen to certain cult and sect teachers, such as Mormons, Catholics, Pentecostals. I listen mostly to Baptist teachers and preachers, especially in these days of old age.

Let me tell you who I think has had the best delivery style of modern ministers (both of whose style seem very close to what I imagine characterized Spurgeon, the "prince of preachers"). They are Adrian Rogers and Jerry Falwell (both now deceased). These men delivered well structured and learned discourses but also spoke with emotion and with some good pace and always kept their hearers attention. They were not Stoical! I even liked the preaching of old preachers like B.R. Laken. Yes, I know, these men were not five point Calvinists, and often attacked the beliefs of five pointers, but hey, I am talking about their preaching styles. Also, they preached a lot of messages Calvinists would enjoy. I did and still do.

I would encourage our young Baptist preachers to mimic these men in delivering sermons. Of course, delivering sermons and lessons must be preceded by "preparation," and of that aspect I have said nothing, focusing rather upon the manner of communication. 

I also do not mind ministers using notes, but they should be a general outline, and used for giving direct citations, and should not be relied upon. They should be helps not crutches. There should be room for extempore and direct address speaking within the framework or outline of the discourse. A preacher should keep as much eye contact as possible with his audience and too much looking at notes can be a distraction. What think ye?  

P.S. I think the best non Baptist preachers I have listened to over the years are John Hagee and D. James Kennedy, the former a Pentecostal (still active) and the latter Presbyterian (deceased). They had slightly different styles, Hagee showing greater emotion.

Cincinnati Primitive Baptist News

Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church has announced that Elder Jeremiah Bass of Stephenville, Texas has accepted the position of senior pastor there and is in the process of moving to Cincinnati. Elder Bradley it seems will take a subordinate position, due to his age I am sure. I found this out by listening to the beginning of services for this past Sunday (listen here). I had not ever heard of him, except I think I listened to him talk at Cincinnati over the past year along with several other young elders who it seemed were being invited to preach so the church could consider them as Bradley's successor. 

The introductory speaker said that Elder Bass was from Texas. I knew that Bass was a familiar name among Texas Hardshells and supposed he was of that clan who had several Hardshell preachers. So, I did a Google search and found information on him. The following information is what I have found. Before introducing this info, let me simply say that I am a little astounded that I have not heard of him before. 

His name search led me to "Shiloh Church" (here). In looking over their web page I saw this said in the link "About us": "Shiloh Church is a sovereign grace Baptist Church." Well, as you can imagine, several thoughts immediately popped into my mind. 

1) Cincinnati church and Bradley are calling a "sovereign grace Baptist" minister to be their "senior pastor"?

2) Does Bass and Shiloh church believe as do "sovereign grace" or "primitive" Baptists on salvation?

3. Does all this reveal that Cincinnati also believes in means?

Well, I looked over the Shiloh church web page and here are some interesting things from "What We Believe":

"STATEMENT OF FAITH" - "Shiloh Church holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as that which most accurately confesses what we believe as a church."

Well, that is typical of "Sovereign Grace Baptists" and still a few "Primitive Baptists." Does this mean that Shiloh church believes in means, perseverance, and what the confession says about God's decrees?

The articles of interest are:

7. We believe that in God's own appointed time and way (by means which he has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned, and sanctified; and that it is impossible that they can utterly refuse the call, but shall be made willing, by Divine grace, to receive the offers of mercy. 

8. We believe that justification in the sight of God is only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, received and applied by faith alone. 

9. We believe that such as are converted, justified, and called by God's grace, shall persevere in holiness, and never fall finally away.

Well, that is like many of the oldest Baptist (including primitive) confessions. These articles are not believed however by most of today's Hardshells.

On the church's web page is a link to the pastor's blog (under "Resources"). I checked it out and found out that on Saturday, May 26, 2012 is this entry under "Our Church" - "Our church here in Stephenville, Texas, is Shiloh Primitive Baptist Church." (See here) Under the link to "SHILOH CHURCH CONSTITUTION" we have "Adopted October 8, 2017." 

So, a church begun as "Shiloh Primitive Baptist Church" became "Shiloh Church" with the added line "Shiloh church is a sovereign grace Baptist church." Well, this is the direction we had hoped that more churches and preachers would take. I just wish I had known about Bass and Shiloh sooner. I have noticed how no PB web site seems to want to mention Elder Bass! I am sure, after perusing the sermons of Bass, that the Hardshells would not want much to do with him (except for some Progressives, or Eastern Association types, and some like Shiloh) and so accounts for them not mentioning him. But, what does it say about the direction of Cincinnati in calling Bass? hmm You think our writings here may have helped?

I have suspected that Bradley and many Cincinnati church members have embraced means (Bradley's first belief before joining the Hardshell cult) as well as keeping to the doctrine of perseverance. In recent years Bradley and Cincinnati church have been in fellowship with the Progressives, and have embraced theological education and missions. In the entry on Cincinnati church ("Cincinnati PB Church's Recent Tension" - here), I mentioned the issue of KJV Onlyism and we had a comment from a member of that church on the subject. Well, one of the blog postings of Bass came out against KJV Onlyism, even affirming that there were better English translations. This is our view here. It was our blessed father's view. Glad the church in Cincinnati accepts Bass and his views on this.

Bass also prefers acapella but says the bible, including the NT, does not condemn instruments of music. (Note: Progressives have musical instruments)

Bass also is a big supporter of missions. His sermons show also that he believes in means in eternal salvation. 

The "Pastor's blog" of Bass has been since 2011 (here) and a perusal of his writings show them much in line with our own here. He is well versed in scripture, and which accounts for many Hardshells not wanting to tangle with him I strongly surmise. 

Bass has 243 sermons at sermonaudio (here) of which the Shiloh church web page also has a link thereto.

Elder Andrew Huffman served Cincinnati Church as Bradley's assistant for several years and I thought he would take over but he was called elsewhere in the past few years. I think elder Huffman also believed much like Bass. In fact, I suspect that many of the ministers that have been to Cincinnati church to preach in recent years believe like Bass. 

I have been hoping for years that I would live to see many Pb churches and preachers returning to the old Baptist faith of their fathers and am thankful for everyone who has done so, for able new testament men as Kevin, Jeremy Sarber, Stephen Emmons, et. als., who have been delivered from the cult.

What think ye?

Hardshell Dreams II

This is a follow up to the previous writing on this subject. In it I wish to cite from "The Divine Call" by Susan Roach (Phd), being the record of an interview done with "Primitive Baptist Preachers of North Louisiana" (here) in 1984, having this introduction (all highlighting mine):

"In 1984 she interviewed two ministers of the Oak Grove Primitive Baptist Church, a rural church in Winn Parish. The men reveal the worldview of Primitive Baptists and their spiritual testimonies offer parallel mystical experiences and transitional ordeals undergone by these men upon their conversions when they received the call to preach."

The following citations are taken from her report, along with my comments and observations. 

Dr. Roach writes:

"Unlike many Protestant denominations, ministers of the Primitive Baptist Church, a fundamentalist sect which believes in absolute predestination, are not required to attend a seminary. Instead, they are “called by God” into the role of preacher through a long spiritual ordeal."

Observations

1. Apparently Dr. Roach is interviewing ministers of the "Absoluter" faction of the PBs, for they still believe in the absolute predestination of all things (and which most of their founding fathers also did) and so their views will not reflect those Pbs today who decry Absolute predestination of all things (being the "Conditionalist" faction and which is the majority view of 20th and 21st century "Primitive Baptists"). 

2. Not only are ministers not required to attend a seminary, they would be forbidden to do so! They would be excluded if they did so! 

3. It is typical Hardshell thinking to say that believing in ministers being "called" excludes them being taught in a seminary. What glorious Hardshell logic! Attending seminary proves one is not called! Not attending seminary is proof of calling!

4. Preachers, as part of their calling, enter the ministry through "a long spiritual ordeal"? What do they mean? They mean that they tried to resist preaching but found that they could not resist, like Jonah, and so had to go through a Hell like his before they would make their ministerial calling sure.

Dr. Roach wrote:

"According to two such ministers from North Louisiana — “Elder Godwin” and “Elder Mercer,” as they are addressed by church members of the Oak Grove Primi­tive Baptist Church in Winn Parish—the role of the Primitive Baptist minister is primarily to speak words of comfort to “the flock” through poetic sermons which are chanted and formulaic in form. Unlike most denominations, which pay their ministers, the only remuneration received by the Primitive Baptist ministers is the reciprocal comfort they receive by giving God’s children comfort."

Observations

1. It was one of the ideas of the Two Seeders to say that the preaching of the gospel or word of God was only intended for the benefit of those already saved, for their comfort alone. It was not the leading view of the opponents of Two Seedism among the founders and first generation leaders of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist denomination for they taught that the gospel was also the means of effecting rebirth.

2. Notice again the reference to the peculiar preaching style of most 19th century frontier preachers, a thing much talked about by Elder Daniel Parker and many others in the Hardshell cult. In fact, with many, judging a person's call and success in sermon giving often depended on how well he could "get into the spirit" in melodiously singing out words with deep emotion. When a preacher was "blessed" to preach, he would enter into a sort of ecstatic state of speaking, a kind of inspiration.

3. The opposition to a preacher receiving any kind of financial support was very strong among the first Hardshells and it is still strong among many of them today, although some today have been able to correct their brethren on this point and do receive better financial support than ever before. 

Dr. Roach wrote:

"Primitive Baptists also differ from other Baptist groups in that the ministers and other members do not seek to convert others, since the Primitive Baptists do not believe in proselytizing. They believe that God has determined before the creation of the world who is predestined to salvation; therefore, any missionary attempts to convert nonbelievers is both useless and offensive."

Observations

1. Pbs don't seek to convert others? What do these elders mean by "convert"? Regeneration? New birth? Time salvation? Do not many PB churches today support efforts to "convert others" to their views? Proselyting? Though I agree that much of what today's PBs do in regard to "evangelism" (attempts to convert others) is really "proselyting," yet these two elders seem to think that all efforts to preach to the world in general are proselyting, which leads me to believe that they are of the Absoluter faction. But, this attitude and belief among that faction reveals something about their forefather's beliefs. 

2. It seems that these two elders connect being "converted" with being made a believer. Attempts to regenerate is useless and offensive? Or attempts to convert from doctrinal error is useless? These preachers have the attitude and belief which I often heard while I was a Hardshell elder, and expressed in these words: "if the Lord wants them to see it he will show it to them" (apart from any human efforts).

Dr. Roach wrote:

"This type of preaching, typically done by a folk preacher, is dependent upon Divine power. According to researcher Bruce Rosenberg, who has studied the callings of American folk preachers, “a person may be called to do the Lord’s work, but to preach requires ‘spiritual power.’ This feeling that one is divinely summoned is important in understanding sermon techniques. Only spiritual power allows one to preach well; that can only come from God…” Mercer confirms this: “Can’t no man preach. Preach­ing is done by the Spirit. The man—it’s just done through him … we are just an instrument in the hands of the almighty God, that through us he sends that unto his children; we deliver that that is delivered unto us.”"

Observations

1. It is strange that one could have this kind of belief about the mechanics of spiritual preaching and how God speaks through ministers and yet affirm "direct speaking" regeneration! The "legs of the lame are not equal here." It seems to me that what these elders affirm is consistent with sinners hearing the voice of the Lord in preaching. They say "preaching is done by the Spirit"? If this is so, then why promote the direct speaking view? Why affirm that one can't hear the Spirit through an instrument? What think ye?

2. Notice again the reference to the style of preaching of "folk preachers," or lay preachers, or frontier preachers, and the "sermon techniques" of those who believe these things about preaching by the Spirit. Notice how it has been an object of study by historians.

Dr. Roach wrote:

“… I got to where I was losing a lot of sleep. I got to where I would walk the floor a lot at night, shed tears, and I got in a terrible shape. Well, one night I had a dream or a vision whichever you want to call it, in my sleep. I dreamed that I was an old bending man, gray-headed. I saw myself just as plain as I am looking at you, and I was in the pulpit preaching. And I don’t know what I was preaching, but I was preaching real hard … and the pulpit down there at Oak Grove was where I was at … So I woke up, and there was an awful burden on me, an awful burden, and the burden was to preach the gospel and to comfort God’s children. Well, I vowed that I wouldn’t do that; I didn’t belong to the [Primi­tive Baptist] church … So I said, ‘I’ll show them something … I won’t have to preach if I don’t join the church.’ ” 

Still, the inner torment continued for Mercer. 

 

“So one night I was in deep trouble; I hadn’t slept any, and along about midnight, maybe after, I’d shed tears all night, maybe walked the floor; I was in awful shape. My wife, she couldn’t sleep … She says, ‘I’m goin’ to get up and make you some coffee.’ 

 

“I said, ‘Baby, coffee won’t do me no good.’ She said, ‘ Well, what in the world is wrong with you? I want to know.’ “I said, ‘I been called to preach.’ 

I said, ‘I’ll die and go to the bottom pits of hell before I’ll preach… .’

“Anyway, I said that I would not preach. I wasn’t goin’ to do that. I went every time [to church] … And I really enjoyed it … The little old church over here was not active for a while; it was down because there was no pastor there. They got a little old preacher from out there in East Texas —Brother Wilburn Morris come in there, and he come up there and took over, but he had had a vision, … and he had saw me and Brother David in this vision as ministers. And the first time that he saw me, when I walked around the corner of that building there … He said, ‘There comes a man that I saw in a vision … he’s a hardshell preacher.’"

Observations

1. Notice the reliance upon dreams and visions. Again, one can read the old periodicals and see many writers and correspondents speaking of them.

2. This idea that a real call will often involve initial rebellion became a common idea in the Pb church. Anyone who volunteered preaching was suspect. The real God called ones are they who resist for awhile till they are overcome. This same belief is seen in churches asking ministers in a congregation to come forward and speak and expecting them to resist to some degree. To not resist at all would be a sign that the person is forward and not being led of the Lord.

Dr. Roach wrote:

"Elder Godwin’s conversion narrative mirrors Elder Mercer’s in many ways, but where Mercer had dreams about his destiny, Godwin had visions. Like Mercer, Godwin also was searching for religious answers before he had his ultimate conversion experience."

Observations

1. Confirms much of what I just observed about judging a man's call and conversion.

2. Notice again the importance of dreams.

Dr. Roach wrote:

"Both ministers agreed that when they were experiencing their religious callings, they were unsure of their sanity, and neither had ever heard of anyone else undergoing such experiences. However, they later learned from others that their ordeals were typical of mem­bers of their faith."

Observations

1. These "ordeals" are not only typical, but they became the standard by which to measure the genuineness of one's call (either to salvation or ministry). If you did not have such a Jonah type experience, then you were probably a fake, not having really been called.

2. "Unsure of their sanity." I wrote an entry in the Baptist Gadfly blog about Elder J.C. Hurst (late 19th century) who was a doctor and wrote a book on the insanity of the Hardshells and published it in a medical journal. Ironically, Hurst later became insane (joining the Hardshells). He was a leader in the Absoluter faction and well known. He is mentioned in biographical histories of Pb elders along with his writing on insanity.

Dr. Roach wrote:

"Detailing the events from their initial religious crisis to their ordination, Mercer and Godwin’s conversion stories demonstrate dramatically the ways in which their religious mystical struggles authenticate the spiritual calling. The Primitive Baptist belief that God chooses “the elect” calls for intense, unmistakable signs that one has indeed been chosen."

Observations

1. Notice how the "religious mystical struggles" are what will "authenticate" whether one has been either reborn or called to preach. In regard to rebirth, recall the popular first generation Pb view that spoke of the travail (struggle) of soul that comes between regeneration and rebirth. In regard to being called to preach, the same travail precedes the acceptance of the call.

2. Notice how the Hardshell psyche is always looking for "signs" that one has been "chosen" either for salvation or ministry. We could say a lot about that but will let it speak for itself.

Dr. Roach wrote:

"Initially, both men had mystical experiences which told them of their new destiny. Both men, having received calls around age forty, actively fought against the call, vowing upon vows that they would rather “go to the bottom pits of hell before preaching the gospel.” In spite of their resistance, both men found themselves destined to become ministers, especially after hearing another Primitive Baptist minister’s account of a mystical vision he had of both of them as ministers of the Oak Grove Church, which was in search of a minister at that time. With such authen­tication of their new roles, both men were compelled to answer the call and, thus, were given access to the speaking role of preacher, who, as an “instrument of the almighty God … comforts the flock,” and serves the Primitive Baptist Church with chanted sermons."

Observations

1. Notice the reference to "mystical experiences" and "mystical vision." I have several postings over the years on this point. For instance see "Hardshell Mysticism & Esoteric Christianity" (here). Notice again how such mystical experiences give "authentication" for their callings.

2. Also, notice again how the manner of sermon delivery is an important "sign" of inspired preaching. It will come as "chanted sermons."

Hardshell Dreams

In my travels among the Pbs in the 70s and early 80s I met several Hardshells who put a lot of stock in their dreams. One deacon even used it in a church conference when I was a Pb pastor, giving it as evidence that what was preached was dog meat. 

I met others who would tell their dreams, often as it related to their conversions. Others believed that one could come to faith in Christ while asleep!

Some preachers even related how they received their "call" to preach while in a dream. 

Further, in my numerous readings of 19th century Hardshell literature and published correspondence, I noticed how it was very frequent in that century for Hardshells to tell their dreams.  

Here is what one Hardshell of the present day said in reply to a Campbellite minister (highlighting mine):

"The Primitive Baptist believe in Spiritual dreams and visions and they believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to them in a small still voice as taught in the Scripture. I myself have been taught by the Holy Spirit in Spiritual dreams, Visions, and a small still voice. The Primitive Baptist believe that God hears and answers prayer today as he did in the first century." (See on page 10 of the e-book here)

This belief about dreams is not as prevalent today among the less "back woodsy" churches, but it is still no doubt believed by a few.

I recall more than once cautioning those who spoke of their dreams, and the interpretation of them, to not put them in place of the plain word of God. What think ye?

Another's Hardshell Experience

The following article has been sent to us by Ryan La Fleur from Louisiana. Ryan and I spoke by telephone recently for about an hour about his experiences with the Hardshell cult and I asked him to write some articles for us. So, with that in mind, here is the article by Ryan. If you would like to communicate with Ryan, you can leave a comment here or write to him at rlafleur640@gmail.com. 

Greetings to all in the Lord Jesus Christ’s name. While I never was involved with a so-called Primitive Baptist congregation, I was involved with them for several years following my departure from Baptist fundamentalism. The Hardshellers may point to say, “Ah, this is proof he is just lying.” Nevertheless, as evidence of the cultic nature of the Hardshell camp, none of the Louisiana churches so much as answered an email, had a functional phone number or even attempted to make contact after asking other elders to speak to them on my behalf. Though my assistance at the time of the 2016 flooding in Baton Rouge was welcomed, I was promptly told (again, all through another elder who had attempted to launch contact between myself as that assembly) it was unnecessary. 

The Hardshell network has weaved a dishonest tale concerning church history of both Baptists as well as other Protestant denominations, which is particularly geared to make Baptists think they are the true, apostolic church. If it was not for their already isolationist nature, this would begin to deceive more souls. What is more, while mine was not a negative experience by any means; an unnamed elder was actually generous enough to purchase me a laptop as well as a replacement when the former machine failed; I became suspicious of the Old Baptist church’s claims, doctrine as well as many divisions. The elders with which I cheifly associated were Vernon Johnson of Denton, Texas, Benjamin Winslett of Alabama, Keith Ellis, formerly of Amarillo PBC prior to its disbanding in or around 2016 where I was invited to become an out-of-town member as well as Jeff Winfrey. The latter was kind to send a pre-publication PDF copy of his work What Do Primitive Baptists Believe? with the request of my critique which I gave at that time. Of all these elders I can raise no complaint, neither against Rick Rairdon; they were Christian gentlemen in their conduct toward me. While no longer a Baptist, having returned to our familial Presbyterianism, it was the numerous contradictions in Hardshell theology which ultimately flung me into a valley of decision; as in the past with other denominations or cults, the scripture carried the day in the face of the Hardshell deceptions, especially a dishonest view of church history with noticeable Landmarkist bends. Now, I am a happy member of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Against the Hardsheller camps I bear no grudges, nor would I consider each of them aliens to the commonwealth of Israel; scores of them seem to be as I was, a disgruntled former evangelical seeking escape from the apostasy of the charismatic-evangelical movement in a non-evangelical yet seemingly conservative Baptist church. However, with the odd admixture of Pelagianism, KJV Onlyism, Antinomianism especially with their view of eternal justification, quasi-universalism in addition to Campbellite teachings, it is a wonder how any, their clergy particularly, might be justified; it is my estimation those which are have come in contact with gospel preaching apart from the Hardshell orders. It is my sincere hope this blog will cause Hardshellers to have a sincere pondering of their cultic theology and practices, which might bring forth sweet fruits of repentance to eternal life. My articles will serve to contrast the Hardshell doctrines against those of other cults, as well as the interesting similarities to Pentecostalism from the standpoint of one formerly affiliated within the Gospel Standard Baptists; the chagrin of the Harsheller types aside, the Gospel Standard does not teach the odd teachings found in what they proport to be their English counterparts.

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, {be} glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen, Jude 24-5.