It is interesting that Elder Sylvester Hassell did not attend the Fulton council and expressed reservations about it before it occurred. However, after it was over he spoke favorably of the results. In this post (here) I showed that both C.B and Sylvester Hassell endorsed the 1689 Confession. I devoted several chapters in my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" to what the Hardshells have said about the 1689 London Baptist confession. In chapter 129, the fourth chapter in the series titled "Hardshells and the London Confession," I cited from Sylvester where he said the following in the June 1890 issue of "The Gospel Messenger":
"We want no change whatever in our old Articles of Faith...in no other human document, have I seen that truth so fully and correctly presented, without excrescence and without mutilation, (Rev. xxii. 18, 19,) as in the old London Baptist Confession of Faith. It sets forth what I and the great majority of Primitive Baptists of the United States believe to be “the apostles’ doctrine ...Thus the London Baptist Confession of Faith is the most fully and widely authorized statement of what Primitive Baptists believe the Scriptures to teach in regard to spiritual and eternal truths.”
I find this ironic since the Fulton elders did what they did with their footnotes because they said that the confession had old outdated language that was ambiguous. Hassell, however, says that the old confession was "so fully and correctly presented." But, the Fulton elders tried to correct the confession.
In this post (here) I cited what Sylvester said a few months after the Fulton Meeting. In February 1901 under the editorial title "The Union of all True Primitive Baptists" Hassell wrote the following in "The Gospel Messenger":
"During the last fifty years, and especially during the last twenty or thirty years, there have been many carnal, human (1 Cor. iii.), distressing, and ruinous strifes and divisions among Primitive Baptists, and for the last two or three years the fleshly biting and devouring of one another (Gal. v. 15) have become worse than ever, so that it almost seems, in some parts of the United States, as though the Lord had forsaken some of our people..."
This is basically what the Fulton elders said in their preface to the confession and gave as the reason why they were meeting, to bring about unity and to show how the 1689 confession taught what they taught.
Though Hassell endorsed the 1689 London Confession, yet he denied means, which is clearly taught in that old Baptist confession. So, he must have agreed with the footnotes that the Fulton ministers attached to those sections dealing with how God uses his word and the preaching of the gospel to save sinners and to make them children of God by a new birth. If he were honest, however, he would have confessed, like many "Primitive Baptist" ministers have stated since the Fulton meeting regarding the footnotes the elders of that meeting added to the old confession, that the old confession did in fact teach means and that he and his brethren did not believe in them.
In my series "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" in sections under the title "Hardshells and the London Confession" I gave several citations from elders who said this was the case. You can read several of these citations in the first chapter in that section (here). For instance, I cite the following words of Elder Harold Hunt taken from his book "The London Confession: And its Place in Baptist History" (2007) where he states:
"In 1900, the Primitive Baptists were seriously divided. They were about to split three ways. A large and representative body of capable Primitive Baptist preachers came together at Fulton, Kentucky. The Primitive Baptists were in crisis, and they intended to fend off a division if they could. Like the Regulars and Separates one hundred years before, they tried to use the London Confession as a rallying point.
They reaffirmed what they could accept; they explained away what they could not accept; and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away." (This sentence was in bold in Hunt's book - SG)
In this chapter (here) I cited Elder Bill Allen's article titled "Article 10 of the London Confession of 1689 Examined," (pastor of the Stephenville, Texas "Primitive Baptist Church") where he wrote the following (emphasis mine - SG):
"Below is just one of the problematic articles, no. 10, of the 1689 with the 3 related Fulton foootnotes. My problem with the Fulton footnotes is not that they were themselves unsound. They were quite sound, but the Fulton brethren were deceiving themselves in thinking that the 1689 was basically sound but just not properly understood....If we take the wording of the 1689, particularly in this article, for what it clearly says in plain English it can be easily seen that it is a hopeless wreck of a document that no amount of footnotes, explanations, or wishful thinking can fix...My point is that we should NOT make any endeavors to lay claim to the 1689 Confession but instead should do what the Fulton brethren did not and that is let those who believe such things have it as the Calvinists confession that it clearly is."
Allen also says:
"...this says the effectual calling is by the Word and Spirit. It is vital to the understanding of this article to discern exactly what they mean by the use of "Word". The Fulton brethren correctly insist that on the Living Word, i.e. Christ, is the source of the Effectual Call. Unfortunately, they would like us to believe that is what this article says. I contend that this is wishful thinking. They are imposing what we know to be the truth on what other men have said in an effort to white wash something that would have to otherwise rejected if taken for what it says. I contend the authors of this confession were consistent in their use "Word"." (see here)
In the introduction to the Fulton Meeting's revision to the 1689 confession, they said they added the footnotes because language had changed dramatically since 1689 and certain parts of the confession were therefore ambiguous and not clear. In the preface they wrote (emphasis mine):
"The London Confession of Faith was approved by a unanimous vote of the meeting. In view of the fact that this instrument was written more than two hundred years ago and that our language naturally undergoes some change in so long a time, it was deemed prudent to add some explanations to those sections that seemed ambiguous."
However, there was nothing "ambiguous" or unintelligible about the wording of the confession. If the 1689 confession is outdated and therefore hard to understand, then why do they not say this about the King James Version that was written in Shakespearean or Elizabethan English? However, this stated reason for adding "explanations" via footnotes was a subterfuge. In 1901 Elder David Bartley saw right through this and wrote the following about the Fulton footnotes:
"So now, let us kindly consider this question of disturbance and compare the points at issue with the London Confession, which all claim to accept upon those points of difference. But why, then, the need or utility of the Fulton Convention? Why the address, the foot-notes and the appendix added to the good old Confession, which had been good enough for the Old Baptist people through the centuries, until this late upheaval? The plea for all this additional supplementary work of the recent convention has been stated in print frequently, and is thus given in the general address: “Language through the lapse of many years undergoes variations in applications and meanings, whereby certain clauses become more or less obscure in meaning. Wherever, in the opinion of this assembly, the meaning of a section was not apparent, foot-notes were added to bring out the meaning.” But if such a change of meaning and obscurity of language is true of one section of the old Confession, it is also true of every section, and just as true of the whole Bible, which is older than the London Confession. In all candor, then, why were the foot-notes confined to a few sections, and these the very places which treat of the doctrines involved in this new issue! This is very strange indeed, if the old Confession has really become doubtful and dark in meaning because of its age! If this is a valid cause for calling a convention of Baptists, why not bring out in easy and plain words the meaning of the entire Confession, so that all the Baptists may now understand and unite upon its meaning? Then, if the plea is a real and valid one, why not also get up a Baptist Convention to “bring out the more or less obscure meaning “of the ancient Bible!" (from chapter 129 of my series - See here and taken from "Review of Fulton Convention Work" - Crawfordsville, Ind., Aug. 22, 1901. Signs Of The Times, Volume 69, No. 18. SEPTEMBER 15, 1901)
I wrote this commentary on Bartley's words:
"These remarks of Elder Bartley are very damaging to the work of the Fulton brethren and unmask the real intentions of the Convention. He shows that their stated purpose, which was to make plain those portions of the Confession which were too vaguely worded, or too ambiguous, containing too much archaic language, was all pretense! Why did they avoid explaining most of the sections? One says it is because they agreed with those sections! Yet, the same kind of language was used in those sections as in the others that were given footnotes! It is all too obvious to all, except to the simple minded cultists, that these brethren did not believe the sections which they footnoted."
When Elder Lasserre Bradley, Jr. (who died recently) began to object to the doctrine of "time salvation" and to state his belief in the sure and certain perseverance of the saints, he was called before a special meeting of Hardshells to answer charges that he was preaching heresy and was declared to be in disorder because of it. Yet, he for fifty years or so was one of their leading ministers. He argued in that meeting that the Fulton elders put no footnotes to the section of the 1689 confession on the perseverance of saints which showed that they believed it as it was written and needed no explanations or clarifications. Yet, they did not listen to this reasoning. Elder Bartley showed that it was a pretense for the Fulton brethren to claim that their footnotes were a result of making the confession's words less ambiguous.
Elder Hassell should have been as honest as many other elders have been in acknowledging that the Fulton brethren were not honest in what they said was their reason for their modifying the old confession. Surely Hassell knew that the old confession taught that God used his word and the preaching of it to save sinners. So, the fact that he did not object to the twisting of the confession is a big spot on his record.
In the January, 1901 issue of "The Gospel Messenger" Hassell wrote the following about the Fulton Convention:
"I am very glad to learn that the General Meeting of Primitive Baptists at Fulton, Ky., November 14—18, was largely attended from all sections of the United States, and was very harmonious, and adopted, as an expression of its belief and practice, the London Baptist Confession of Faith, of 1689 (the most elaborate, comprehensive, and scriptural of all the Articles of Faith ever published by the Baptists), and the Digest of those Articles published in The Gospel Messenger of July, 1876, as "The Principles of The Gospel Messenger"; and that the Meeting agreed to publish, in one small volume, the Confession (with foot-notes explaining the obscure passages), and the Digest, and an Address to all Primitive Baptist churches, beseeching them to come together on this solid Bible platform (the faith of our fathers and of the great majority of the Primitive Baptists of to day), and to oppose all declarations of non- fellowship on minor points."
Notice that Hassell says that the 1689 confession was "the most elaborate, comprehensive, and scriptural" statement of faith ever written. That seems to undercut the claim of the Fulton elders who said they were adding footnotes because it was not elaborate or comprehensive. Yet he says: "the Meeting agreed to publish, in one small volume, the Confession (with foot-notes explaining the obscure passages)." "Obscure passages"? I thought he just said the old confession was clear and plain? Why did the Fulton elders need to "elaborate" on a confession that Hassell said was already "elaborate"?
In that same issue of "The Gospel Messenger" we find a letter from the moderator of the Fulton Meeting, from Elder J.H. Oliphant of Indiana who wrote to Hassell these words (emphasis mine):
"Much Esteemed Brother Hassell: — I attended the meeting at Fulton, Ky. I had felt undecided as to the propriety of going, up to within a few days of the time. I now believe it was best to go. A desire for fellowship and union was plainly manifested in every face and in every word. I prepared a Confession of Faith before I left home, but I found that all present wanted to reaffirm the old London Confession of Faith. It was decided to affix explanatory notes to those sections that seem to be ambiguous, not to change or deny their meaning, but to present the understanding we have of them. Each section of the whole Confession was read before the meeting, and approved separately, one by one; also the notes prepared by a committee were read separately and approved. It was a long, tedious task, but all present patiently waited and labored till all was done. Every section was approved by unanimous vote; in fact, every act of the meeting was done by unanimous vote, both in the open meeting, and in the work of the committee that prepared the notes. I felt that love and the utmost fellowship prevailed in every heart. Many tears were shed as the strong sentiments of that old document were read, and a deep conviction that the statements made in that instrument are true...I would have been so glad to see you there, but it was not so you could come. May the dear Lord bless you abundantly in all your labors. The time of toil will soon pass, and you will enter on your reward. Affectionately, Jas. H. Oliphant."
Why did Elder Oliphant feel a need to go to the Fulton meeting with a new prepared confession of faith? Does this not indicate that he knew that the 1689 confession was against the Hardshell "no means" view? That it taught that evangelical faith in Christ was a requirement for being born again and eternally saved? Oliphant says that when he got to Fulton he discovered that "all present wanted to reaffirm the old London Confession of Faith." Why did they want to do this seeing it clearly taught the means doctrine? Was it not because they had called themselves "primitive" Baptists, meaning that they were the "original" Baptists? So, they were in a proverbial "tight spot." So, they decided to do what they did, which was to endorse the confession but put footnotes in those sections dealing with doctrines that were dividing their sect and to make the confession agree with their "anti-means" doctrine, and their denial that all that comes to pass comes to pass because God has decreed it.
Hassell wrote the following words after the printed letter above from Oliphant:
"Elder Oliphant was the Moderator of the General Meeting, and also of the committee that examined and reported upon the London Confession."
Elder Oliphant knew that the 1689 confession taught that God uses means in salvation, that is why he intended to bring a draft of a new confession. But, instead, he went along with the other elders and perverted the old confession and show his dishonesty thereby. So too may it be said of Elder Hassell.
In the next chapter we will begin to look at what Elder Hassell wrote about the question of means God uses in the eternal salvation of sinners.
No comments:
Post a Comment