History of the Georgia Baptist Association

 The following is not meant to be a story that "flows". It is the collective facts, thoughts and documentation of the earliest Baptists of Georgia. I have tried to be clear when something is my opinion or personal thoughts. Historical writings that are the most popular, tend to concentrate on Baptists in New England, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky. As Baptists moved south and west, the American Revolution was imminent, and I suppose historians concentrated on that, then writing about Baptist history picks up again in earnest after the Revolution. Georgia Baptist history is unique, in that we get to see some of how the second generation Baptist sons carried on the work of their fathers in faith, while still seeing the fathers alive. It is us getting to see the passing of the torch between generations. These Baptist sons would be the equivalent of the "Apostolic Fathers" of the first century church, among American Baptists in historical terms. Those like Abraham Marshall, Peter Smith and Adiel Sherwood, and Samuel Cartledge, were all taught directly by those involved in the early expansion of Baptists and were instrumental in promulgating the Baptist faith, not only pastored the churches their fathers/mentors founded, but saw the beginning of a God ordained missionary movement, the largest the world has ever known. The Georgia Baptist Convention, was the first Convention of any state, which united Baptists beyond the associational level.

Organized 1784 by Kiokee, Fishing Creek, Upton Creek (now Greenwood), Red's Creek (now Abilene), and Little Brier Creek churches. Fathers of the association include Daniel Marshall, Abraham Marshall and Silas Mercer. The New Georgia Encyclopedia says this about Daniel Marshall;

Of the 104 known Baptist churches organized in Georgia during the eighteenth century, a large number of them trace their origins to Marshall or to one of his junior colleagues. He (Daniel Marshall) was succeeded as pastor of Kiokee by his son Abraham and later by a grandson, Jabez. Thus he founded a sixty-one-year ministerial dynasty, an occurrence rare in Baptist circles. He apparently owned at least 400 acres of land in Georgia (but no slaves) and left an estate “of considerable value.” To his contemporaries Marshall was a man of holy zeal, meekness, and patience, but his gifts, in the words of his son Abraham, “were by no means above mediocrity.” One honest friend, Morgan Edwards, described him as “a weak man, a stammerer, and no scholar,” and admitted that Marshall’s success was “surprising when we consider that he is a man of no bright parts, nor eloquence nor learning. Piety, earnestness and honesty are all he can boast of.” It almost sounds like the description of Moses does it not? Perhaps the Savannah River is the Baptist "Red Sea" he crossed to get into Georgia. Those Hardshells in Georgia that insist Kiokee Church was "staunchly predestinarian" either do not know the history, or are repeating falsehoods. We will see what type of preachers Daniel, Abraham, and Jabez Marshall were by reading Jesse Mercer's memoirs quoted further along in the article. These three pastored Kiokee Chruch for the first 65 years of it's existence. The Hardshells in eastern Georgia have claimed Kiokee Church has "revised" it's history to delete their earliest theology. However, as the record will surely show it is the Hardshells who have "revised" their history.

This association was instrumental in forming the Georgia Baptist Convention. The first missionary conference, known as the Powellton Conference, occurred May 1, 1801 "to evangelize the heathen in idolatrous lands", and included a representative from the Hephzibah Association, Francis Ross, at the Powellton Baptist Church of Christ. The Georgia Association's "third child", the Ocmulgee, turned its back on its missionary heritage in 1833, and faded away. First Baptist Church, Washington, Ga, was the first church of any denomination to conduct Vacation Bible School. Another interesting fact, which may be  considered evidence that Georgia Baptists sprang from Separate Baptist roots, is this association (as well as most modern day Georgia Baptists) practiced certain "ordinances" that Regular Baptists did not practice, such as the laying on of hands, anointing the sick, the right hand of fellowship, and dedication of children. These, along with Communion, and baptism were considered ordinances of the church.  While these are no longer considered "ordinances", they are still practiced as signs. There was also foot washing (still practiced by some but not all Georgia Baptists) and the kiss of charity, no longer practiced. ( I believe the "anointing of the sick" and the dedication of children" denotes that the Separates viewed determinism  in a different light than the Regulars. However, this has positive implications for both groups. The Regular Baptists did not "dedicate children" probably on the grounds that they were distancing themselves from Reformed theology, and did not presume that their own children were in the covenant of grace until they made a profession of faith for themselves. The Separates, on the other hand, were adamant that "giving" their children to God at an early age, would ensure that when God called them to a purpose, they had already been affirmed and taught by their parent and elders, to follow His voice.)

 One significant aspect of the Georgia Baptist Association is that it may be the first instance in which Baptists actually took the lead in holding an inter-denominational
gathering. In 1803-1804, the Georgia Baptist Association held meetings at six different
churches throughout the Association to promote an association-wide revival. The
meetings were held on Fridays, one to three months apart. To these gatherings, the
leaders of the Association invited “orderly” non-Baptist ministers who “may expect to be
treated with respect, provided they make themselves known."

For the first decade, the Association didn't even bother to adopt articles of faith. Once they did, they simply took articles from other associations, modified them to their own theology, and did not refer to them much at all. Once again though, as I have explained in other articles, the phraseology of the articles may sound very calvinistic to today's hearer. "We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God" will cause a casual historian to place them into the strict Calvinist camp, just as happened with the Eastern District PB, Original Tennessee PB, Beulah PB, Hiwassee PB and Oak Grove PB Associations, all of which have an almost identical article. However, when reading Jesse Mercer's memoirs, quoted further along in this article, we see a truer picture. Insight into their theology comes from a statement made by  Adiel Sherwood, pastor of the Eatonton Church, Eatonton Ga, who established the first Sunday School in Georgia, who said “I am aware that there are staunch professors to be found, who would smite me on one cheek, for displacing a fold of Mr. Wesley’s prunella gown—and others, who would smite me on the other cheek, for disturbing a curl of Doctor Gill’s wig. But I trust that the truth is found between the extremes.”  This "between the extremes" theology, is believed by the vast majority of Georgia Baptists today, and is perhaps, the reason Georgia Baptists held out the hands of cooperation to both Methodists and Presbyterians. As the "Campmeeting" tradition took root in Georgia, they almost always involved preachers and leaders from all three denominations, and they agreed to not concentrate on what divided them. One preacher who preached at my church growing up, would say this, about when he was saved; "I got saved under the preaching of a Methodist preacher, and joined the Baptist church, at a Presbyterian campground." The Presbyterians in this part of Georgia were not the typical "Princeton Presbyterians" found further north, and quite often issued "invitations". The Smyrna Presbyterian Campground/Campmeeting founded in 1846 right down the road from me, still meets every July, with a mixture of Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist preachers. The same for Salem Methodist Campground just a few miles from me, that my Dad's family attended every year even as staunch Baptists.

Sherwood goes on to draw a distinction between human conjectures about God’s plan which he called “philosophizing” and the duty to obey God’s decrees regardless of the relationship between divine sovereignty, and human freedom. To illustrate this distinction, Sherwood presents a number of conclusions that he believes arise out of such“philosophizing.” He states, “Man is totally depraved; is unable to turn himself to God; and it requires the sovereign agency of divine grace to affect the work.”  Sherwood goes on to say, "But those using such notions of depravity conclude, [that] our attempts to
inculcate religion on the minds of our children, are of little or no consequence. When God undertakes the work, it will be affected.” Such conclusions, Sherwood believed, arise out of human deduction, not biblical truth. Another “conclusion” addressed by Sherwood is that some Calvinists (what we would call hypers) said “They say God, in his sovereign pleasure, has decreed the salvation of all[who] are to be saved; the rest, through the sinful propensity of their dispositions, will go on in sin, and of course . . . sink to final destruction. Some conclude that “all our efforts with a view to salvation . . . must be useless.” Again, however, such conclusions are based on human conjecture and ignore the duty of believers, decreed by God, to expend all possible efforts in sharing the Gospel. Sherwood states “whatever our various sentiments may be with respect to divine predestination, let none of us suffer these sentiments to paralyze our efforts . . . We use the means, and leave the issue with God." Notice how some would use Sherwood's use of the phrase "totally depraved"  as proof of him being staunchly Calvinist. They neglect to see that he is speaking as a 5 pointer would speak, not as he would speak, and they ignore his statement that "the truth is found between the extremes" which shows he did not believe humanity is a bunch of robots, that could not be taught the truth, even in an unsaved state. He obviously believed all children are affected by teaching them the precepts of God. He is accusing his strict Calvinist brothers of using "reasoning" to "conclude" things, when they are the ones who railed against the use of "reason". Notice how he said "those using such notions of depravity" which implies he did not hold those views. At least three strict Calvinist pastors from other associations, had a change of mind, took his words to heart, and began earnestly praying for the salvation of sinners, exhorting sinners, and pleading with them to come to Christ, which they had never done before.

The theology of the early Georgia Baptists was very similar to the way Baptist historian George Washington Paschal said of the Holston Baptists, when he stated "In the Broad River several of the leading Baptist ministers were ardent Calvinists and champions of the Doctrine of Election, and in general were Regular Baptists, accepting in full the Philadelphia Confession and Articles of Faith based upon it; on the other hand, the churches that came to the French Broad from the Holston Association and their ministers had a Separate Baptist heritage, and like Shubal Stearns thought the New Testament a sufficient confession of faith, and like him, refused to accept Higher Calvinism and the Doctrine of Election, and were classed as Arminians and Free Willers. Probably, it was among the ministers and leaders rather than among the members generally that this difference was most pronounced, and it was less marked in some churches than in others. . . . All of the leading spirits were Calvinistic, but there were many minds that revolted at the sterner aspects of Calvinism. Men generally held to the idea of moral free agency." The Holston Baptist Association was comprised of churches formerly associated with the Sandy Creek Association, and was the first association in Tennessee. This would be an association theologically similar to the Georgia Association, as it too was founded by those from Sandy Creek. On a side note, there were Separate Baptists who taught final apostasy possible, even before the advent of the Free Will Baptists. Some of those who were descended from the Arminian Separate Baptists, who disagreed with the exclusivity of landmarkism, later broke away from the Baptist family, forming what would become the Church of God in the 1880's through the work of Baptist ministers Richard Spurling and William F. Bryant. Although the practice of speaking in tongues did not begin until around 1908, the "holiness" and spirited style of worship was inherited from the Separate Baptists. Had they not adopted a hierarchical form of church gov't, they could have still been considered part of the Baptist family. I find it ironic that most Baptists today use the Church of God hymnal, known as the Red Back Hymnal.

   The majority of churches in the Georgia Association claim they have never been "predestinarian" although they never rejected  the label "Calvinist" until they refused "to fellowship any who are so extreme in their predestinarian doctrine" came to light, when in 1833 they "exposed their true nature". Does this statement refer to hardshell hyperism, or was this statement merely an accusation because some churches rejected "mission societies"? We will never know for sure. One thing is for sure though, after the split between Mission and Anti Mission Baptists, a preacher from the Georgia Association, when traveling through North Carolina where there were many Free Will Baptists, was asked by another Baptist preacher there, "Are you a Calvinist or Free Will?", to which he replied "I am a Baptist". It is thought by some, that the saying "Neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but Baptist" comes from this incident. This rings loud to me the sentiment that Separate Baptists had about labels. They didn't really care what you called them. Whenever they were called "Calvinists" they had no remarks, and when they were called "Arminians", they offered no correction. Also during this period, the Anti Missions Baptists had coalesced in Georgia, taking with them a large number of Calvinistic Baptists, in the same way the Campbellite movement took away many Arminian leaning Baptists. With those two movements taking away the extremes as both ends, this left the majority of Baptists somewhere in the middle. Remarks made by some ministers in the Georgia Association, when asked if they were concerned about the divisions, said "Perhaps God is pruning the tree". In one sense, that statement is absolutely true, for both extremes frowned upon missions. This paved the way for full fledged missions support among Georgia Baptists, with dissenters all but gone. 

* Note; There were some General Atonement Georgia Baptists who also became "Primitive Baptists", but they all eventually rejoined their original associations, much the same as happened in Tennessee. None remained in the PB camp as some did in Tn and Va. The last general atonement PB churches in Georgia, which straddled the Georgia-Florida line in the Beulah PB Association, dropped the PB name in the early 1900's, becoming Independent Baptists who now support missions through direct giving to missionaries, and are still opposed to "societies" or mission boards. Ironically, I found this group through J.G. Crowley, who says of himself in an email to me,  " I am an Absoluter so rank that I consider "Antinomian fatalist" a compliment, and despise "progressive sanctification" only slightly less than I do Arminianism and Arianism". He is a history professor at Valdosta State University in Georgia.  He alerted me to several PB associations that were General Atonement, so as "rank" as he may be, at least he is honest, as most PB's would deny that any PB association rejected limited atonement or were not predestinarian. He belongs to a group known as the Wiregrass PB's, who are so strict that they refuse to even paint their churches, the Alabaha PB Association in Georgia that officially still believes in "means", but that evangelism must occur "only when God directly sends a man, and for whatever reason, God has not directed such in a long time" according to Crowley. Though the Alabaha Association never denounced "means" I believe they became so influenced by other hardshell PB's that they developed an unbiblical doctrine that asserts God must "directly" send someone to evangelize. In my view, God  has already "directly" commanded us to go evangelize in the written word of Scripture. Numerically, Primitive Baptists in Georgia were never as numerous as in the states north of it, and even fewer were found in Louisiana and Florida. Even many who were here, tended to be more "liberal" than those in North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. In Georgia, we see many PB's adopting Sunday Schools as early as the 1860's, along with instruments. I am not however denying that there were hardshells present, and still are. In Georgia however, there are many counties who never had a single PB church of any stripe.

 It is in Georgia where the Progressive Primitive Baptist movement began, which saw them adopting Sunday School, musical instruments, paid pastors, Christian flags in churches etc. Also, there was a fairly large defection of PB churches in Georgia to the SBC in the early 1900's. One church, Gum Branch Baptist Church  was founded as a PB church in 1833, but by the 1860's had already begun a Sunday School. By the early 1900's they were a member of two different Missionary Baptist Associations, one was an SBC and the other independent of the SBC. A division in the church came when the majority voted to officially affiliate with the SBC, the minority forming Liberty Missionary Baptist Church. Gum Branch supports the SBC missions, and Liberty supports independent missionaries. The churches are directly across the street from each other and still share the same cemetery. Gum Branch was formed as an arm of Beards Creek, which is still a PB Church among the Progressives. Gum Branch offers 5 different Confessions that they will allow members to subscribe to. Liberty has no trace of Calvinism left in it, and in true Independent Baptist form has no "confession" other than the Bible. Just another example, I believe, that supports my theory that even the Primitives in Georgia retained much of the Separate Baptist heritage, which had a more liberal mind that lead to the formation of the Progressives, as well as allowing a diversity of opinion in theology, as Gum Branch does, as well as the  "Bible Alone" confessionalism of Liberty. In talking with hardshell PB's in Georgia, they deny that they came from Separate Baptist heritage, but they cannot give me an answer as to why many of their churches never adopted a purely 5 point Calvinist articles of faith until after the Civil War. Many of their earliest articles of faith seem to be worded in a way that both limited and general atonement believers could accept. Of course I had to spend hours digging them up on my own, because today's Hardshells have no idea that they once had them, or are covering them up. (More on that in another article). They also cannot produce any proof they ever belonged to  Regular Baptist association, though they now lay claim to the Philadelphia/London Confessions, albeit with the many footnotes contained in the Fulton Confession. The earliest mention of the Philadelphia Confession among Georgia's PB's does not appear until 1871. So it appears to me that they were wrestling with theology because of the increasing entrenchment of hardshellism which culminated in the Fulton Confession. However, I may be wrong. It is indisputable though, that the Progressive PB's are by far the largest faction in Georgia.

  The Powellton Baptist Church (Baptist Church of Christ at Powellton) in 1793 excommunicated some members "for having broken communion with the General Baptist". What does "General Baptist" refer to?? There are no details, so I cannot discern if a break occurred between general atonement Baptists and calvinistic ones that may have been in the same church, or if it refers to some type of preaching against a general atonement view. Since I do not know the facts, I cannot say whether this refers to doctrine or not, but would love to know. Some historians say that it refers to the General Missionary Committee or the General Association of Georgia Baptists, the first name of the Georgia Baptist Convention. However, those historians who espouse this view evidently did not do their homework, as these organizations did not come into existence until 1802 and 1822 respectively. So any excommunications that took place in 1793 did not involve those organizations.

   When searching old records and histories of Georgia Baptist churches, 90% of them were originally named "so and so Baptist Church of Christ". Did the Regular Baptists ever style their churches as "Baptist Church of Christ" or was this a Separate Baptist tradition? If anyone has info on that, I'd love to see it.

   Jesse Mercer, son of Silas, who was much more calvinistic than his father, an SBC forefather and namesake of Mercer University when writing about the division of Missionary and Anti Missionary Baptists wrote ;

   It seems to be taken for granted that all those venerable fathers, who founded the Baptist Denomination in this state [Georgia], were as stern calvinistic preachers as are the opposers of the new plans.  But this is altogether a mistake. Abraham Marshall [Son of Daniel] was never considered a predestinarian preacher. Some of them were so--seemed to be set for the defense of the gospel.  Of these, Silas Mercer and Jeptha Vining were the chief.  To use his own figure; he used to say, 'he was short legged  and could not wade in such deep water.'  He, with several others, was considered sound in the faith, though low Calvinists. Peter Smith and some others were thought rather Arminian; some quite so. 

But no division was thought of till Jeremiah Walker adopted and preached openly the doctrine of final apostasy.  Then a division ensued; but soon after the death of Mr. W., the breach was healed.  And here it may not be amiss to add, that the Baptists in the upper parts of South Carolina, in those days, comprehended mostly, it is believed, in the Bethel Association, were general provisionists. I think most of their ministers preached what is now called General Atonement.  But this was never thought of as a bar to correspondence, or even Christian communion." (Memoirs of Elder Jesse Mercer, C.D. Mallary, 1832, pp.201-2, quoted in A History of the Kiokee Baptist Church in Georgia, James Donovan Mosteller, MA., B.D., Th.D., First Printing, 1952, p.37, emphasis mine).

Here we can see that non predestinarian preachers were still considered "Calvinists" though "low" ones. Abraham Marshall pastored Kiokee Church for 35 years. Those who say Kiokee Church was "sternly calvinistic" evidently do not believe the testimony of Jesse Mercer, who was himself a staunch Calvinist, more so than his father, Silas. This also shows that evidently some were even further along towards Arminianism than the "low" Calvinists. It appears to be that the line of no return, or line in the sand, was the teaching of the possibility of final apostasy. You may ask "how can one get any closer to Arminianism than believing general atonement and that any person may freely choose or reject Christ, unless he believes that final apostasy is possible? This would take several paragraphs to explain, but in short, those who would have been "quite so" as Dr. Mercer said, would say that if a person stayed too long in sin, the removal of God's blessing from them might lead them to doubt their salvation, without actually losing it. This doctrine is prevalent among most Old Regular Baptists. When they speak of "questioning to see if you be in the faith", they are expressing a doubt. Many Old Regulars would say that if doubt never occurs, then you are not saved. For how can you doubt that which you never possessed? To say this in a comical way, it would be the equivalent of a parent, who frustrated with the disobedience of their young child saying, "you can't be MY child, for MY child would never act this way". When a child is very young, such a statement may cause very real anxiety. So too does God say this to His disobedient children, they say. Although I cannot prove it, I believe many Primitive Baptists took this doctrine and applied it to eternal election. For they say "The one who is worried about attaining salvation, already possesses it, for how can an unregenerate man even want it?" Just another example (if I am correct) of two groups sharing the same doctrine, with two opposite interpretations. In one, the doubt forces you to search to see if you were ever saved in the first place, and in the other to see that it has been guaranteed from eternity past. Also, in 1794, four churches of the Georgia Association that lay across the border in South Carolina, were given letters of dismissal so they could join the Bethel Association in that state. According to Jesse Mercer, the Bethel Association were general atonement believers, so this further shows that Georgia and South Carolina Baptists held more than a few of what would now be called "Non Calvinists". (The History of the Baptist Denomination in Georgia, Samuel Boykin, volume 8, page 34, published 1881)

As an example of widely held beliefs about salvation among the Georgia Association, read article 6 of Bethlehem Church from 1828. "We believe that eternal salvation is the free gift of God, entirely apart from man's works, and is possessed by any and all who have faith in and receive Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. This is the elective grace of God, in that He did predestine us to be conformed to the image of his Son, to be called, justified, and glorified, that none should perish but have eternal life." This may sound calvinistic to the casual reader but pay close attention to the language. There is no mention of a "certain number", it clearly states the condition of faith and "receiving". This is their explanation of conversion, and THEN the predestination begins. Notice also that it is in present tense (have faith, receive). The predestination spoken of here refers not to who will be saved, but to what happens to those already saved. Also note the order. "Calling" in this article refers not to the gospel call, but to service after belief in Christ. To "receive Jesus Christ" makes clear that one must consciously affirm the Gospel or be converted, and then "elective grace" the call to service, or spiritual gifts, justification and glorification, all of which combine to conform us to the image of the Son. The "gift of God" is salvific grace and the rest is "elective grace". This is why some confessions, such as the New Hampshire Confession, uses the word "graces" plural. General grace is offered to all persons, and once they believe, elective grace begins. This is another example of why some erroneously confuse this view, with the "general grace" taught by 4 point Calvinists.

Georgia's Baptists who were calvinistic, were more like the Ketocton Regulars in Virginia, who were more independent minded than the Philadelphia Regulars. For example, in Robert Boyle C. Howell’s 1857 history of early Baptists in Virginia" he records that as early as 1769 the "Ketocton, a Regular, or Calvinistic Association in Northern Virginia, addressed the Sandy Creek, a Separate, or Arminian Association" in Southern Virginia and North Carolina about a possible union. (Robert Boyle C. Howell, The Early Baptists of Virginia (Philadelphia: The Bible and Publication Society, 1857), 45-46. I have written about the Ketocton Association, who withdrew from the Philadelphia Association after only three years, and adopted Articles of Faith that left out the "certain number" clause found in other Regular articles of faith. While maintaining that they were Calvinists, they were much more mild in their calvinism. They withdrew from the Philadelphia Association, because they disagreed with Particular Atonement, and thought it presumption  that any person "was without hope". It is no surprise that they were open to a union with Sandy Creek, and even while calling them Arminian, there was enough common ground to open talks with the Sandy Creekers. This should remove all doubt that many Regulars considered Sandy Creek as "Arminian", as well as showing some among the Regulars to be less calvinistic than some historians want to admit. Remember, there were only two "options" to label yourself at that time. Georgia Baptists are direct descendants of Daniel Marshall and Sandy Creek.

Hosea Holcomb (1780-1841), an Alabama Baptist preacher and later historian, once wrote to fellow  Calvinists in Georgia, assuming they would be just as concerned as he because many Georgia Baptist fathers were not strict predestinarians. He was lamenting the fact that a "considerable number of preachers (in Alabama) were "departing from the old Baptist foundation" and that many young preachers "dreaded the doctrine of predestination and election". One who responded stated "Let them alone, for they have the Separates Spirit, and are not departing from old Baptists, they are just as old as we, and unless your churches earnestly tend to the Commission of Christ as furious as they, you haven't right to bring charge against them". This seems to show that those Calvinists in Georgia either were used to the diversity that the Separates afforded, or knew that the majority of the Georgia Baptist Association were not predestinarian and the founding of non predestinarian churches were outpacing the more strict Calvinist ones.

* Note. I am not sure that the Separates could be considered as old as the Regulars, unless he is referring to those Baptists who held to a general atonement. If that is what he  referred to, then yes they are "just as old". The First Baptist Church in America (Providence R.I.) was definitely a General Six Principle Baptist Church in 1652. The First Baptist Church of Rhode Island (Newport) was a General Baptist Church, and from them sprang the American Seventh day Baptists, who were mostly general atonement believers. The First Baptist Church of Charleston began as a mixture of  Arminian and Calvinist members. Richard Furman and Shubal Stearns were both baptized by a General Baptist. Stearns was discipled and ordained by Wait Palmer, a general atonement Separate Baptist, so if "lineage"defines who a preacher is, then Stearns would fall into the General Baptist camp, as he was never baptized nor ordained by any other.

So at least in Georgia, the State Convention seemed to be composed of Calvinists, Non Calvinists and Arminian leaning Baptists. There is some evidence that talks with Free Will Baptists were taking place, but they declined to join. One reason given for their rejection of the SBC could explain why the Free Will Baptists declined, as their request that Calvinists stop using the phrase "doctrines of grace" to refer to Calvinism was implying that those who were not Calvinist did not possess the "doctrines of grace". This also shows it probable that most Georgia Baptists were never in the "Regular Baptist" camp. As a historian, I have searched for years for signs of a Regular Baptist presence in Georgia, and while I have definitely found Calvinistic Baptists, I have to date found no association who used the word "Regular" except for two, and it referred not to Calvinism but to a distinction between them and Free Will Baptists and Primitive Baptists. In other words they said "we are not Primitive nor Free Will, but regular Baptists". Sometimes the word "regular" can also refer to the Regulative Principle of worship and not necessarily to doctrine. Using that definition, the Campbellites could be called "regular".

Robert Semple, a Baptist historian wrote:

"...the Regulars [Calvinists] complained that the Separates...kept within their communion many who were professed Arminians, etc. To these things it was answered by the Separates...that if there were some among them who leaned too much towards the Arminian system they were generally men of exemplary piety and great usefulness in the Redeemer’s kingdom, and they conceived it better to bear with some diversity of opinion in doctrines than to break with men whose Christian deportment rendered them amiable in the estimation of all true lovers of genuine godliness.

Indeed, that some of them had now become fathers in the Gospel, who previous to the bias which their minds had received had borne the brunt and heat of persecution, whose labors and sufferings God had blessed, and still blessed to the great advancement of His cause. To exclude such as these from their communion would be like tearing the limbs from the body." (History of the Baptists in Virginia, Robert Baylor Semple, First Published, 1810, pp 68-69 emphasis mine).

Since Semple wrote this before 1810, this should remove any doubt that many Separates considered themselves "professed Arminians". Did "leaned too much towards the Arminian system" mean TOTAL Arminianism, or did it mean FURTHER towards it than the majority of Separates? In any event, it seems some Separates were not afraid of the Arminian label. It seems to be another case of the  majority Separates being considered "Calvinist" by many historians, because most believed final apostasy  not possible, as noted above by Dr. Mercer, when Jeremiah Walker started to openly preach such. This attitude of the Separates of refusing to disavow those self professed "Arminians" was pretty much the norm in Georgia. (I highly doubt a self professed "Arminian" in the Separate camp that Semple speaks of  meant classical Arminianism, but probably referred to their belief that the atonement was general and provisionist in nature, just as it is doubtful that every time others called them "Calvinists", it meant a five pointer. However, it is true that there were some Separates who did believe final apostasy was possible, and there are a few United Baptists today who believe this. The Uniteds who believe this today, are probably descended from Separates that joined the Regulars in forming United Baptists, thus they retained the name "United")

One church from the Ocmulgee Association, which was very much Calvinist, asked for admission to the Georgia Association  because "the churches in our current Association have reared the ugly head of an anti Gospel in refusing the command of Christ to send the Gospel to heathen lands, and we rather be counted among the liberal Gospel preachers than among the nones." ("Liberal" in this sense meant those who "liberally spread the seed of the Gospel". I presume that the "nones" means that those who do not preach to the lost, have no gospel at all) Several times in my studies, I have run across the term "liberal Gospel preachers", and when taken in context, usually means those who are "general provisionists" or general atonement preachers. "Liberal" did not have a negative connotation as it does today, and did not imply a rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture.

In closing, my goal here was to quote as many contemporary persons as possible, so we could get a truer glimpse of old Baptist sentiment. During the writing of this article I spoke with a Baptist history professor, who had no idea that there was a such thing as general atonement Primitive Baptists. How can one teach Baptist history and not know these things? Too many times a modern historian portrays only what he wishes to highlight. That is one reason why I sometimes use the word "predestinarian" to convey a theological concept, rather than "Calvinist". However, even that term has problems, because all Christians are "predestinarian" in some sense. For now though, the word is usually associated with a very narrow part of a belief soteriologically. One hundred years from now, a historian may see that word used by a Free Will Baptist in his writing, and be sloppy enough to say he believed in something  that is not true of him.  I hope I have given a clearer picture of the variances of Baptists, at least in Georgia, how they coalesced and became who they are today. But most of all, no matter what your leanings, we must know that "labels" used in the early days of Baptists in America, were used with much more variance than they are today. One label or one word, cannot adequately describe a group of Baptists from that era. I too learned this the hard way when I discovered the Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists. Before I spoke directly with some of them, I spoke with a Primitive Baptist from another association who told me "they are complete and total Arminians". I did not know any  better, so I assumed they must be classical Arminians, because of one person's dissatisfaction with them. I remember thinking "something is wrong here", as I could not imagine a PB being a "complete Arminian". From that point on, I learned to research further than a mere "label" that another person may give to a group. The Eastern District PB's have a Separate Baptist heritage, while the Old Regulars have a Regular Baptist heritage, yet their doctrines are indistinguishable from each other for the most part. Some claim the Old Regulars are predestinarian because they cling to the title "Regular", and they readily admit they are descended form those who adhered to the Philadelphia Confession. What has been left out though, is that they took the confession and modified to such a degree, that they cannot be called predestinarian by today's normal use of the word. We must, as much as possible, speak directly to a group, or read contemporary accounts. Some Separate Baptists have been "smitten on one cheek" and some "on the other"as Adiel Sherwood described. Some on both. I am proud to label myself as a" shouting, invitation giving, crying, hand raising, hell chasing, Holy Ghost filled, Word proclaiming, sinner inviting, prophet of warning, people loving Baptist, who proclaims to a lost world "Jesus saves, Jesus Saves!". How's that for a label?

Beliefs about the Afterlife (xxv)

That is the question we began to consider in the previous chapter. And the answer is? Well, it is yes and no. It is the same in that it is eternal or unending and in the fact that it involves torment. However, it does seem that there is within that paradigm some difference of degree of punishment. Consider also the fact that the first occupants of hell (such as Cain) have been in the torments of Hell longer than anyone else. So, let us consider a few more things as we delve deeper into this aspect of our subject.

Guilty Of All

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." (James 2: 10-13)

We mentioned this text in the previous chapter. This text seems to say that all are equally guilty and if equally guilty then equally punished. 

It does not mean that those who go to Hell have committed every possible transgression. Further, as we will see, there are degrees of sin and severer punishments corresponding thereto. The same thing is also said by Paul in these words: 

“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” (Gal. 3:10). 

There are thus sins of omission as well as commission. Everyone is thus, in a sense, equally cursed. They are equally guilty of the whole law and equally cursed. But, consider that every law breaker is a criminal, but not all criminals have committed the same crimes or are equally punished. All sinners receive the same penalty, which is death. (Romans 6:23) But as it only takes one crime to make one a criminal, so it only takes one sin to make one a "transgressor of the law." 

It can also be argued that all the ten commandments are interrelated so that to commit one involves the others in some sense or degree. To not love God with all the heart makes one an idolater (for something else is put in the place of God), and robs God of his glory, and is a spiritual adulterer and fornicator in that idolatry, etc. But that is not what James has in mind for he says a lawbreaker may have "committed no adultery" and "yet kill" according to James. True, to commit adultery is to kill in a sense, for it often kills a family, and other things. But, again that is not what James is saying. He is simply saying that we are all in the same group, that group going by the name of "transgressors." One transgression is all it takes to become a member of the group of the guilty and condemned. "Transgressors" is like the words "felons" or "criminals." In such words we see both genus and difference, or groups and subgroups, for not all felons and criminals are equal in the "degree" and in the heinousness of the crime. Thus we speak of felons in the first degree, or second, etc. In the laws given to Moses we see a classification of crimes in which some are viewed as more criminal and received greater punishment. 

Greater Sins & Condemnation

"Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (John 19: 11 NIV)

You can hear it said by many of the biblically illiterate populace that "there are no big and little sins." Well, that is not exactly right. If such words are interpreted to mean that any sin, even the smallest, brings eternal damnation, then it is true. However, it cannot be true if it intends to say that all sin is equal in its heinousness or moral evil. Murder is more a crime than is penny-ante pilfering. Even in human criminal statutes we have both misdemeanors and felonies and classes within those two. The apostle John wrote of "sin unto death" and "sin not unto death" I his first epistle (5th chapter). 

Further, we have quantitative adjectives for both sin and righteousness. Concerning the latter Jesus said "except your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5: 20) Christ also said:

“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matt. 6: 23)

There are also scriptures that speak of wickedness being "great" (Gen. 6: 5; I Sam. 12:17; Job 22: 5; etc.). And, in the above text, the sin and guilt of Judas was "greater" than others who had a hand in the wrongful arrest and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ.   

Christ also said:

"While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 46 “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.” (Luke 20: 45-47)

Again, the word "most" is a comparative word denoting quantity. Some will be punished "most severely" and others less. 

Further, Jesus spoke of the "unpardonable sin" which is greater than all sins. Said the Lord Jesus:

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (Matt 12:31–32; See also Mark 3:28-29 and Luke 12:10)

Another scripture that shows the same fact is this:

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment ('greater condemnation' KJV)." (James 3:1-2)

It doesn't seem that the stricter judgment or greater condemnation of this passage refers to punishments in this life alone. Observation shows otherwise. So too the scriptures. The fact is, some of the most wicked people have lived long and suffered little, in this life, while some of the most godly have suffered much in this life. Further, we are told in scripture that some sinners are punished doubly so, in comparison with other sinners. Notice these texts that show this:

"Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her." (Rev. 18: 6)

"Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her forced labor has been completed; her iniquity has been pardoned. For she has received from the hand of the LORD double for all her sins." (Isaiah 40: 2)

 "And I will first repay them double their iniquity and their sin, because they have defiled My land with the carcasses of their detestable idols, and they have filled My inheritance with their abominations." (Jeremiah 16:18)

It seems that those who knew the truth and turned from it incur severer punishment than those who sin in ignorance. They may be said to receive double, not double what they deserve, but double what some others receive. 

The 18th century Baptist theologian, in his commentary on Matthew 23: 14 and the words "therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation" says (emphasis mine):

"both on account of their plundering and distressing the poor, the widows, and the fatherless; and also because of their hypocrisy in doing this under the cover of religion and holiness. Hence it appears, that there are degrees of punishment in hell, and that hypocrites, and all such who oppress the poor, under the mask of godliness, supposing gain to be that, will be partakers of the greatest degree of it." (Gill's Commentary on Matt. 23: 14)

I believe that is what the scriptures teach. The next question to address then is to describe how one person's eternal punishment can be more severe than another's eternal punishment. We have already seen that one sin is sufficient to warrant a person being guilty of the whole law and to bring eternal punishment. We have said that "eternal" punishment does not mean infinite in degree, but in length of time. 

Pains Of Conscience

Pains of conscience will not be the same. The mental anguish of Hell cannot be underestimated. It is as great as any pain to the bodies, which are as the worms of Gehenna, which die not.  It is a place where the body burns and feels intense pain and yet is not consumed. Gehenna (Hell) is the place “Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9: 44, 46, 48) 

John Gill comments in his commentary:

"The passage referred to, is in (Isaiah 66:24), and as there, the words are spoken of such, as transgressed against the Lord; so here, of such as offended any of Christ's little ones, or were offended by an hand, a foot, or eye, and retained them: by their worm is meant, their conscience; for as a worm that is continually gnawing upon the entrails of a man, gives him exquisite pain; so the consciences of sinners, will be continually flying in their faces, bringing their sins to remembrance, accusing them of them, upbraiding them with them, aggravating them, tormenting them for them, filling them with dreadful anguish and misery, with twinging remorses, and severe reflections, and which will never have an end. This will be always the case; conscience will be ever distressing, racking, and torturing them; it will never cease, nor cease doing this office, and so the Chaldee paraphrase of ( Isaiah 66:24 ) renders this phrase, (Nwtwmy al Nwhtmvn), "their souls shall not die"; but shall ever continue in the dreadful torments and unspeakable horrors of a corroding conscience; and by "the fire" may be meant the fire of divine wrath let into their souls, which will never be extinguished; and so Jarchi interprets the phrase in (Isaiah 66:24)..." (emphasis mine)

Thus we can answer two of our questions, which are:

1) How can there be degrees of punishment in Hell when it is equally "eternal" for all? If all are equally in the fires of Hell, how then can one be more in the fire than others?

2) Since each doomed soul has lost all good, how then can any single one have more or less good than another? Does "eternal" not only designate the duration of the ordained punishment but the quality of that punishment too? So that "eternal punishment" includes also the idea of "infinite in kind and degree"?

Some will suffer greater mental torments and agonies than others. Further, those who have sinned less, and who did not sin against light (people who knew better), will be tormented less. But in all cases the condemned will suffer most from the knowledge that they had rejected the knowledge of God and the way of salvation. 

Do the prisoners of Hell not get some good out of conversing with their fellow prisoners? Or, will they all be in "solitary confinement"? Will they be able to enjoy interacting with other prisoners? Will they be able to play games, have hobbies and pursuits, and other things for prisoners to do? On these questions we have nothing to offer but speculation for the scripture does not elaborate on the kind of existence the damned in eternal hell will experience.

The Justness of Eternal Punishment

Is eternal punishment just? Is it viciousness? It is safe to say that one of the most hated doctrines of the Christian faith (and Muslim belief also) is the belief in eternal punishment, especially the idea that most human beings will go to Hell rather than to Heaven. Further, it seems that all who go to Hell believe that they have been sent to Hell unjustly, that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, that it is too harsh. Rather than spending time confessing to God their sins they will rather spend their time denouncing him, cursing him, and spewing venomous hate against their Sovereign Lord. This is what is involved in hell's prisoners characteristically gnashing their teeth and screaming insults and blasphemies against the monarchy of Heaven, as we have written about in previous chapters. 

The justness of eternal punishment may be seen by considering several things. It is rejected by atheists, agnostics, and by several religions. Those who reject it believe either in annihilation of the unforgiven or in their salvation after a period of "serving time" in the prison of Hell. But, as we have seen, the bible does not teach either annihilation or universal salvation. It does not view the punishment of Hell as rehabilitation nor as reformatory or remedial. 

Will God ever relent and grant salvation to those who have suffered long in Hades or Gehenna? There is no scripture that indicates it. In fact, we have these words that seem to say that there is no reform of Hell's prisoners.

“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” (Rev. 22: 11)

The sentence seems severe to many because they fail to grasp the enormity of sin which is an act of rebellion against God. Those sinners who refuse God's offer of pardon are said to be at war with God, having "enmity" against him. (Rom. 8: 7) They chose the kingdom of darkness and the rule of Satan rather than the rule of God and so they get the punishment of a traitor who is guilty of treason against God and Heaven. In their lives they live as "enemies to God in their minds by wicked works" (See Col. 1: 21). On the text in Rev. 22: 11 John Gill writes the following in his commentary (emphasis mine):

"...the meaning of this expression is, he that is now found without a righteousness, and full of all unrighteousness, and acts unrighteously, will continue so; there will be no change made in him, no regeneration, renovation, repentance, or reformation; he will remain the same wicked man he ever was; or he that hurts, or does injury to his fellow creatures, will still do mischief; at least he will have the same inclination, though not the opportunity and power, but will attempt it, of which there will be an instance in the wicked dead, when raised (Revelation 20: 8)." 

In answering the question "How is an eternity in hell a just punishment for only a human lifetime of sin?" (See here) the "Got Questions" Christian apologetic web page says (emphasis mine):

"Second, the idea that we cease sinning after death is not taught in the Bible. Are those who go to hell suddenly sinless and perfect? No. Those who go into eternity without Christ will be confirmed in their wickedness. The hard-hearted will be eternally hard-hearted. There will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in hell (Matthew 25:30), but no repentance. Sinners in hell will be given over to their own nature; they will be sin-infected, evil, immoral, and depraved beings for all of eternity, forever unredeemed and unregenerate. The lake of fire will be a place of eternal rebellion against God—even as that rebellion is judged (Revelation 20:14–15; cf. Revelation 16:9, 11). Unsaved people do not only sin for 70, 80, 90, or 100 years. They sin for eternity."

That seems clearly to be the teaching of Rev. 22: 11 and it shows that there is no offer of salvation after being sentenced and locked up in Hell's Prison. The text does not say 

"he who is filthy let him be rehabilitated in Hell and when he has completely 'learned his lesson' he can be set free and suffered to enter into the happy Eden of Paradise."  

Further, temporary punishment cannot equal the crime of rebellion against God and Heaven. When we let prisoners loose from prison because they have served their time (sentence) we say that their "debt has been paid," meaning what the criminal owed to the government (or society) has been paid. But, the crime of treason against God and to follow Satan is so heinous that it demands unending punishment. 

Consider too what Got Questions says: "What it comes down to is this—if a person wants to be separated from God for eternity, God will grant that desire." 

This makes me think of that treatise I wrote on the expression used in the old testament when someone died, when they say that the departed was "gathered unto his people." I showed that this is true with both the righteous and the wicked. Each goes to his or her kind of people when they leave this world and enter the world of the dead. Further, the mindset of Hell's eternal prisoners will be as depicted by poet John Milton in his classic work "Paradise Lost" where Satan says "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." Milton also pictures the fallen angels working together to build their structure called "Pandemonium" and also engaged in discussions with other groups of criminal angels, or figuring out enterprises in which to engage and thus help them alleviate their pain. In a way they will become what is called "institutionalized." Hell will become "home" to them. 

Recall that Jesus taught the truth of eternal punishment. He said: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matt. 25: 46) Oftentimes those who believe in annihilation will contend that annihilation and/or non existence is an eternal punishment. That is possible in the way we speak of things among men, but in the scriptures eternal punishment is seen as what is being constantly experienced consciously. We saw that in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. We saw it also in Isaiah 14 where the inhabitants of the wicked in Sheol were all conscious.

Hades is a Jail and Gehenna a Prison

In previous chapters we have shown the difference between "Hades" and "Gehenna." Those in Hades are described as "spirits in prison" (I Peter 3: 19) as we have seen in previous chapters. In many ways human prisons are like the prisons of Hades and Gehenna. 

Both human prisons and divine prisons are intended to punish people for crimes committed. Both have guards who guard the prison. Both have sections, levels, or wards. Even those inmates with life sentences, and without possibility of parole, are often segregated based on the crime and the violent nature of the inmate. Why would we not think that Hell likewise was segregated?

So, what will existence be like in Hell? Well, we do not have concrete details. It is called a "lake of fire" and for this reason it is called torment and punishment. People in the time of the Apocalypse, or "day of the Lord," or "day of wrath," will get a taste of Gehenna when the fifth angel with one of the last bowls of divine wrath is poured upon earth's wicked. Says the text:

"...they gnawed their tongues for pain, And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds." (Rev. 16: 10-11)

On Determinism Again

One of the blogs I have been reading and following for many years is the Arminian confessing web page called "Arminian Perspectives" and in today's reading I read the post titled "An Arminian Response to the Calvinist use of Genesis 50:20 as a Prooftext for Compatibilism" and dated JULY 20, 2023, by the writer known as KANGAROODORT (See here) It also headlines these words - [Excerpt from John Piper on God Ordaining All Sin And Evil Part 1: An Arminian Response to Piper’s First “Question”]

The debate was between John Piper and Arminian Perspectives over the implications of Genesis 50: 20. The debate is how the selling of Joseph as a slave, by his brothers, and ending up in Egypt as a slave, was both intended for evil by Joseph's brothers and yet intended for good by God. 

The Arminian perspective on the event (Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers) is given in these words:

"This only means that throughout the whole process, God was working ultimate good out of their actions that they intended for evil."  

Well, both Arminians and Calvinists can agree on that; And, if we left it at simply saying that, we perhaps would be better off, in most circumstances any way. But, we want to know more about the details as to how the sin of selling Joseph into slavery was both the intention of the evil committing brothers and the intention of Lord God. Still, leaving it with just that statement raises many questions in our minds.

1) How can God insure that good will come from the sin of the brothers if he does not control the choices and doings of his human creatures? To read the story of Joseph's later experiences in Egypt show that the whole story had been foreseen of the Lord and thus came about as a result of his "determinate counsel and foreknowledge." To insure that good came from the sin, God had to give Joseph favor with some (which involved operating upon their wills and desires), including Pharoah. He also had to be in control of events and circumstances (which affect and determine what we think, choose, and do). 

2) Was God in any sense a cause of the sin? 

3) Did God want or desire, in any way, that the sin be committed? 

4) If God wanted the sin committed, and determined that it be committed, and was instrumental in its commission, then how is it sin or evil? And, how can the brothers be condemned for doing what God wanted? And, how can we then exonerate God or clear him of being guilty of doing evil himself? It seems that the brothers were doing the will of God when they sinned in selling their brother into slavery. 

Next AP (Arminian Perspective) says:

"But this doesn’t mean that God caused them to sin so that He could bring good out of it." 

 Again, let us substitute the words "knowingly permitted" for "caused." So, does AP deny that it all came about because God "knowingly (and willingly) permitted" it? Suppose God wills it not to happen and makes it thus an impossible occurrence? Did not Jeremiah ask "who is he that says and it comes to pass when the Lord commanded (decreed, or knowingly permitted) it not"? (Lam. 3: 37) 

Further, who can deny that God was in some sense a "cause" of the sin? Is he not the first cause of all things? Do not all causes and effects descend from him as the first cause? There would be no sin had God created this world as a world where sin was impossible. Both the world of angels and men have had evil to occur within them. But, we believe that the eternal state for redeemed man will be a world where sin is not possible. In regard to Aristotle's "four causes" (concerning which I have written before) we must say that God is at least the "material cause" of all causes and effects. Secondly, who can deny that God could have gotten Joseph into Egypt apart from the sin of his brothers? Thirdly, who can deny that God could have prevented the sin of the brothers as he did Abimelech? (Gen. 20: 6) Fourthly, if something cannot come to pass without God's permissive will, then his permissive will becomes a cause or necessary condition. 

Obviously God was a cause, but he was not the immediate cause, nor the one to whom guilt belongs for the act. They made a relatively free choice to do the evil. Satan, by the willing sufferance of God, put the thought of doing evil to Joseph in the hearts of his brothers. He was a cause. But, so too was the evil nature of sin and lust a cause, for they were moved to envy and jealousy. There were other causes too, what we call "second causes." Oftentimes an effect is the result of several causes, one cause often acting as a catalyst. The idea that God is no cause, in any sense, of a creature's sin is ridiculous. 

In law there is a logical argument called the "but for" rule for deciding the cause of an act (and thus responsibility). Lawyers frequently argue saying "but for" this, that would not have happened. Thus, in their search for causal responsibility, guilt or blame, the "but for" argument is applied. The problem is; Many effects are the result of the conjunction of several causes, and in such cases each cause would be shown to be responsible for the effect by the "but/for" argument.  For instance I could say "but for" my father I would not have been born. I could also say "but for" my mother I would not be here. Both are then shown to be responsible or the cause of my being born. Now, let us apply this reasoning to the existence of the evil of sin, which would be to help us understand the disagreement between Piper (and Calvinists and Predestinarians) and AP (Arminians). But for God not creating the creature man, there would have been no man, and if no man, no evil of sin. This shows that God is the cause and responsible agent of evil, what we might call the "material cause" of it all. But, God is unique in that he is the one and only Creator and he has creator rights, sovereign rights. Further, God takes this responsibility and it is his sovereign right to create a world where sin is not only possible, but inevitable. Further, no one has legal "standing" to challenge his decision. No creature can say to his Creator, by way of condemnation of him, "why did you make me this way?" 

Further, AP believes in the absolute and unlimited foreknowledge of God, unlike the Hyper Arminians, the Open Theists, or "Process" theologians, who say that God cannot foreknow the choices of his creatures for this would deny them their "free will." So, God made Adam man (including Joseph and his brothers) knowing that he was going to sin and bring all our woes upon the world. This brings us to consider what are called "product liability" laws and the philosophy behind them. 

If I produce a product (create something) and I know in advance that it has a defect which likely will do harm, then I am responsible for that harm. Well, man, like angel, is God's creation and he created him with what we might call a defect or weakness, such as mutability and pliability, or some other limitation, and knew in advance what awful consequences would ensue as a result of such weakness. God is thus in some sense responsible, though he is not culpable nor does he need justification from creatures. God has judged that a world with human choice and the possibility of evil and rebellion against Heaven's monarchy is better, for the present time, than a world where there is no such freedom and independence, or self determination. In a nutshell, God created a world where evil was made possible, foreseen, and knowingly and willingly suffered to occur, by his decree/will/choice/determination/causation.  

Next, AP says: 

"Rather, at every step of the way, God was working out His plan to get Joseph to Egypt, even through the sinful free choices of his brothers. In this way, God was “sending”Joseph to Egypt by ensuring that Joseph got to Egypt even through the sinful free will choices that God in no way caused Joseph’s brothers to commit."

"God worked his purposes through the sinful free choices of his brothers." Determinists can avow the same thing, although they might define "free choices" somewhat differently. However, the question evaded is this: are there causes to choice and can God be the cause of anyone's free choice? Can he work internally in a person so that he or she wills and then does such and such? Does not Paul affirm that he can, at least as respects choices to do good, "work in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"? (Phil. 2: 13) So, it is not true to say that "God in no way caused Joseph's brothers to commit sin," and for the reasons given above on causality and foreknowledge. 

Further, could not God get Joseph to Egypt (send him) in a "way" other than through the sin way? Why did he choose to get Joseph to Egypt through the sin "way" and not through some good way? 

Next, AP says: 

 

"God is so wise that even the free will choices of His creatures cannot thwart His ultimate purposes, and God can use those choices, even sinful ones, to accomplish those purposes."

Amen! But, what is missing is the idea that God can cause a man to think a thought, to make a certain choice, and to do a certain thing. The scriptures are full of examples where God is shown to do that very thing. Consider only the words "the kings heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water; he turns it wherever he wishes." (Prov. 21: 1) I have already mentioned Phil. 2: 13.

Next, AP says: 

"So we conclude that while Joseph’s brothers’ intentions in their actions were to get rid of Joseph forever, God’s intentions in (or through) their actions were to get Joseph to Egypt. This in no way means that God caused those actions. But this will not do for Piper. He seems to want this passage to say something more, though appears hesitant to come right out and say it." 

 

So, the debate comes down to this question - Is God in any sense a "cause" of evil (sin)? I think the proposition that says he cannot in any way be a cause is absurd and a living in denial. Those who deny that God is in any sense a "cause" of evil will not generally deny affirming that God is a cause of good, yea, of all the good in the world. They also have little trouble agreeing with those who say that all the evil in the world comes from Satan. That sounds quite like ancient Manichean belief in two Gods, one who is the source and cause of all good and the other the source and cause of all evil. But, God says he is the Creator of Evil (Isa. 45: 7). That is, he is the one who created a world where evil is possible. 

Does that mean that God is the one who is immediately causing any creature's sin? Is he the one who tempts and entices anyone to sin? No, the bible teaches, and so does the 1689 London Baptist Confession, that God has decreed all things to happen as it does yet in such a manner that no man is forced or compelled to sin by God's influence or working, i.e. God is not the "author" of sin, meaning that sin is not his direct creation, but a byproduct of it. Can I minutely explain how God can be the cause of sin and yet find men justly responsible for the sins he in some sense causes? No, and neither has any man in my opinion. That is why I am Compatibilist as was Spurgeon. Man and angels have enough freedom and independency to make them responsible; And, God has enough wisdom and sovereign power to bring a man to make the choices he wants them to make. Consider that the record of Moses says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He also records that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. He also even records the fact that Pharaoh's heart was hardened without mentioning who or what caused it. Let us just leave it at that without explaining all the mechanics of how that works out. Let the Arminian wrestle with the text saying God hardened it, and let the Calvinist wrestle with the text saying Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Next, AP says: 

"...how God might intend for something other than what Joseph’s brother’s intended by their actions without in anyway needing to cause those specific actions or even approve of the motive behind them."

But, we have already concluded that nothing comes to pass but what God foresees and suffers to come to pass willingly and knowingly. 

Next, AP says: 

"God can mean for their evil intentions to bring about the good that God intends (getting Joseph to Egypt and saving many from famine and ultimately reconciling Joseph to his family, etc.) without in any way causing those actions or decreeing them from all eternity."

But, there is no way that God can be shown to not be the cause of all that is. Further, God foresaw what the brothers would do if he allowed them to do it and determined to let them do it rather than stopping them. 

AP admits that God may make use of evil to bring about good. And we can agree that God has not created or suffered the existence of sin and evil as an end in itself, for that would make him a lover of evil and sin. The good is the end, and God makes use of evil and sin as a means to bring about good. It is the question Paul raises in Romans three when he speaks of the question of doing evil that good may come, a proposition he denies. 

As I said recently in another posting, I will write more on this subject in the future. However, as was the case with the video about Calvinists not being able to answer a particular question, I was provoked to respond. The same is true with the blog entry by A.P. 

I say that each person must become fully persuaded in his own mind on this deep and fascinating subject.

The Two Witnesses of The Apocalypse are Persons

I am bewildered by how any serious bible student or teacher can say that the two witness prophets of Revelation chapter eleven are not individuals, but are symbols of groups. The same is true with the prophecies about the Antichrist, or man of sin, or the beast. Some try to say he is not an individual but a personification of a group. I was taught such idiocy when I was a Hardshell and yet even then I saw that it was not right. It is clear to any unbiased mind that the two witnesses are individuals. 

J.A. Seiss in his famous work titled "The Apocalypse" said this about the view that says the two witnesses of Revelation chapter eleven are not individual specific persons. (See here emphasis mine)

"These witnesses are persons. Primasius says, though somewhat equivocally, "The Two Witnesses represent the Two Testaments preached by the Christian Church to the world," and Bede, and Bishop Andrews, and Melchior, and Affelman, and Croly, and Wordsworth, and some others, have taken this view. But it is altogether a mistaken view, necessitated by the embarrassment occasioned by wrong conceptions of the Apocalypse, rejected by the overwhelming majority of interpreters ancient and modern, and utterly irreconcilable with the text. It is not true that the Old and New Testaments are preached to the world only 1260 days, or years, and then end their testimony;--that they are arrayed in sackcloth all the days they are preached;--that fire issues out of their mouths and kills those who will to injure them;--that there is no rain upon the earth during the days of their prophesying;--that they have power over waters to convert them into blood, or at will to smite the earth with plagues;--that they are capable of being killed by man;-or that indignity can be offered them, being dead, by refusing to allow them to be put into a sepulchre. Yet all these things are affirmed of these Witnesses. Nor is either the Old or the New Testament ever called a μαρτυρ (martyr - SG). Ten times do we find this word in the New Testament, and in every other place but this, no one questions that it denotes persons. In more than fifty places in the Old Testament, the corresponding Hebrew word denotes persons only. These Witnesses prophesy. This is the work of a person. More than one hundred times does this word (προψητευω) occur in the Bible, and never, except once by metonymy, but of persons. These Witnesses wear clothing of sackcloth, of which we read much in the Scriptures, but always of persons. They work miracles and execute judgments, but nothing of the sort is ever predicted of anything but personal agents. Not without the greatest violence to language and fact, therefore, can we regard these Witnesses as other than real persons. The conclusion may be very damaging to some men's cherished theories, but the integrity of God's word requires it, and it is impossible to escape it with any just regard to the laws of language and the nature of things."

 

These witnesses are individuals. No reader of the account, having no preconceived theory to defend, would ever think of taking them for bodies, or successions of people. All the early fathers, from whom we have any testimony on the subject, regarded them as two individual men. Two distinct and conspicuous bodies of witnesses for Christ, all prophesying in sackcloth through 1260 years, or even days, and all dying martyrs, as here represented, expositors have searched in vain to find in the history of the Christian ages. Such bodies of men, with such powers, and with such a history, have never existed. Modern writers have flattered themselves that they have found successions of people scattered through the middle ages, whom they would have us accept as The Two Witnesses of the text; but they have been obliged to purchase their conclusions at the expense of explaining away every distinct feature of the record, doing violence to the facts of history, and super-exalting almost every species of obscure and even heretical sects and sectarists as God's only acknowledged prophets. This is by far too great a cost at which to accept a theory, which, even if true, would be totally unworthy of a place in so solemn and momentous a book as this Apocalypse. Good and able men have satisfied themselves with it; but, on the same principles of interpretation, there is not a chapter in the Bible, nor a doctrine of our holy religion, which could not be totally explained away. By a happy inconsistency they do not so treat other portions of Scripture, or they would transmute the whole Revelation of God into uncertainty and emptiness. And whilst we give them credit for their learning, industry, and good intentions, and admit that a dim and imperfect correspondence to these Two Witnesses may perhaps be traced in the past history of the Church, yet, as we value the literal truth and certainty of the Divine Word, we cannot accept their expositions as exhaustive, or even as approximative to the revelation here given us."

I agree with this scholarly analysis completely.

The Seven Sealed Scroll

In my second chapter of my writing on "Redemption" (see here) I spoke of how the seven sealed scroll of Revelation chapter five deals with redemption and that we have such a book seen in the book of Jeremiah. Revelation five also connects the scroll with redemption for when the seals are broken by the Redeemer Lamb we hear the words sung by a host saying "you were slain and has redeemed us to God" which show that the opening of the sealed book is AN ACT OF REDEMPTION. 

"And Jeremiah said, The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle shall come unto thee saying, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth: for the right of redemption is thine to buy it. So Hanameel mine uncle's son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the Lord, and said unto me, Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine; buy it for thyself. Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord. (Jer. 32: 6-8 KJV)

Notice what this text reveals about Hebrew laws of forfeiture and redemption. It speaks of the "redeemer" (Hebrew goel) who has "the right of redemption" (authority "to buy" or "buy back") and "the right of inheritance" ("the redemption is thine"). Because of sin, our "rights" to all good is lost, but because of the "redeemer" (Christ), they are restored. Further, because the rights are restored by the redeemer paying the price of redemption, they can then be enforced and such enforcement restores what was lost to those who are redeemed.

"And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. And I subscribed the evidence, and sealed it, and took witnesses, and weighed him the money in the balances. So I took the evidence of the purchase, both that which was sealed according to the law and custom, and that which was open: And I gave the evidence of the purchase unto Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, in the sight of Hanameel mine uncle's son, and in the presence of the witnesses that subscribed the book of the purchase, before all the Jews that sat in the court of the prison. And I charged Baruch before them, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this evidence which is open; and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days." (9-14)

Here is a description of redemption as it deals with restoring a lost inheritance. There are "books" (scrolls) in connection with the acts of redemption. There is an "open scroll" and a "sealed scroll." Notice how these legal documents are described. Jeremiah says "I subscribed the evidence, and sealed it." He speaks of "the evidence of the purchase." He did all this redeeming transaction in the "presence of the witnesses that subscribed the book of the purchase." In a similar manner are real estate transactions performed in our day in our country.

The scroll being sealed shows that we have lost our inheritance and right to eternal life. The scroll opened and its contents disclosed shows us our redemption, our restoration of what we lost. I don't know why anyone who has studied this cannot see this. The series on Redemption will show you how much of redemption is still future (which many fail to grasp), thinking only of redemption as accomplished. I show that one of the duties of a "kinsman redeemer" (Hebrew "goel") was to avenge the redeemed by exacting punishment upon the enemies of the redeemed. And, that is what we see being done throughout the book of Revelation. Every scene therefore in the Apocalypse is an act of Redemption and Vengeance by Christ the kinsman redeemer.

Spurgeon on the Millennial Question

The great Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon was Premillennial. However, he did not preach much on unfulfilled prophecy and eschatology. John Gill, his predecessor, was Premillennial. Here are some of the proofs for his being Premillennial. One author, Dennis M. Swanson, has researched Spurgeon's works on the matter of the Millennium and he wrote a scholarly work giving us those citations (See here). Said Swanson (emphasis mine):

"The millennial reign of Christ. On the theme of millennial reign of Christ, Spurgeon was far from silent. Though he did not give a great deal of attention to it, when he did, his view was consistent. In 1865 he stated, 

Some think that this descent of the Lord will be post-millennial—that is, after the thousand years of his reign. I cannot think so. I conceive that the advent will be pre-millennial; that he will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth." (Spurgeon sermon - "Justification and Glory")

Said Swanson:

"This comment not only clarifies Spurgeon's position on the subject, but also shows his familiarity with other millennial positions and their key features. 

In another sermon he made the following oft-quoted remark regarding the millennial reign: 

We are looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" is the desire of every instructed saint. I shall not go into any details about when he will come: I will not espouse the cause of the pre-millennial or the post-millennial advent; it will suffice me just now to observe that the Redeemer's coming is the desire of the entire church. ("For Ever with the Lord")

Says Swanson:

"Iain Murray cites Spurgeon's disclaimer of not espousing the cause of two different millennial positions as an example of Spurgeon admitting "a fundamental uncertainty in his mind." (Citing Iain H. Murray in "The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy") However, it seems better to understand that Spurgeon was simply declining to elaborate on millennial views in this particular sermon."

"Discussing the relation of the timing of the return of Christ to the millennium and the necessity of its commencing that millennium, he rejected a postmillennial position:

"Paul does not paint the future with rose-colour: he is no smooth tongued prophet of a golden age, into which this dull earth may be imagined to be glowing. There are sanguine brethren who are looking forward to everything growing better and better and better, until, at the last this present age ripens into a millennium. They will not be able to sustain their hopes, for Scripture gives them no solid basis to rest upon. We who believe that there will be no millennial reign without the King, and who expect no rule of righteousness except from the appearing of the righteous Lord, are nearer the mark. Apart from the second Advent of our Lord, the world is more likely to sink into pandemonium than to rise into a millennium. A divine interposition seems to me the hope set before us in Scripture, and, indeed, to be the only hope adequate to the situation. We look to the darkening down of things; the state of mankind, however improved politically, may yet grow worse and worse spiritually." ("The Form of Godliness without the Power")

Says Swanson:

"He rejected any notion, however well-intended, that apart from the personal intervention of Christ a millennium would be possible. He called preachers who held to a postmillennial system those who "do not understand the prophecies" and asserted that "the great hope of the future is the coming of the Son of man." Thus it is clear that Spurgeon believed in an earthly millennium founded on and preceded by the Second Advent of Christ." (citing sermon "Jesus Only: A Communion Meditation") 

Swanson goes on to give Spurgeon's view that the righteous and unrighteous would be raised at different times, an essential part of Premillennialism. Says Swanson:

"The resurrection of the dead. A third area of Spurgeon's eschatological interest lay in the resurrections of the just and the wicked. Throughout his ministry he taught separate resurrections of the just and unjust. The discussion above has cited his distinction between "the first and second resurrection." ("The First Resurrection") 

"That he believed in a literal and physical resurrection is undeniable:

Yet this Paul believed, and this he preached—that there would be a resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust, not that the just and the unjust would merely live as to their souls, but that their bodies should be restored from the grave, and that a resurrection, as well as an immortality, should be the entail of every man of woman born, whatever his character might be." ("Resurrection for the Just and the Unjust") 

In the same sermon Spurgeon declared the resurrections would be distinct, separated by a period of time: "Notice that this reaping comes first, and I think it comes first in order of time. If I read the Scriptures aright, there are to be two resurrections, and the first will be the resurrection of the righteous." (Ibid.)

Says Swanson:

In 1891 The Sword and Trowel published the statement, nearly half of which dealt with the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. It closed with the final point: "Our hope is the Personal Pre-Millennial Return of the Lord Jesus in Glory." ("Mr. Spurgeon's Confession of Faith," in The Sword and Trowel)

Says Swanson under "Spurgeon and Historic Premillennialism": 

"Key features of historic premillennialism are twofold: (1) the kingdom will be the culmination of the church age and (2) the "rapture" will follow the tribulation, with the church going through the tribulation under the protection of God."

Spurgeon fits most consistently into the "historic or covenantal premillennial" system. The reasons for this conclusion are the following: First, Spurgeon believed that the church would go through the totality of the tribulation, but be protected."

Like on nearly everything, I agree with Spurgeon. I am an historic Premillennialist, rejecting the pre-tribulation idea as he did. Further, in my view of unfulfilled prophecy, we are on the verge of the great tribulation, that hour of trial that will come on all the earth to try and test all who dwell on the earth. (Rev. 3: 10)