In a book about Missionary Baptist pastor and historian, Robert Samuel Duncan, titled as "Life Story of R. S. Duncan" (see here), and written by Wiley J. Patrick, I have discovered that a written debate, lasting two years, was carried on by Dr. J. R. Graves, and Dr. R. W. Fain (Hardshell Baptist), which discussion involved the writings of Duncan.
I plan to keep researching the history of men like Dr. John M. Watson and Dr. R. W. Fain, two leading elders of middle Tennessee who sided with the anti-mission Baptists and were opponents of the mission Baptists and leaders such as Dr. R. B. C. Howell.
Here is what I have discovered about this two year discussion, about the book by Duncan on the Primitive Baptists, and on his other writings on the history of missions, and on Dr. Fain.
First, let me cite from the biography of Duncan.
"My aforesaid publications did not complete my literary work. In the early years of my missionary agency, I wrote a series in six chapters, under the caption: "Who Are the Primitive Baptists, the Missionary or the Anti-Missionary?"
This series was published in the Religious Herald of Richmond, Va., in 1872, and attracted some attention. They fell under the eye of J. R. Graves, editor of "The Baptist" of Memphis. He wrote, asking a more elaborate treatment of the same topic, in a series of articles for his paper, stipulating to pay me therefor liberally. I agreed thereto, and commenced, in Midsummer, 1873, an exhaustive treatise of the subject. These articles appeared weekly in "The Baptist," in some forty chapters. I traced the missionary principle and practice of the Baptists as existent among our churches of that day, back through the early American churches, thence up to and in the English and Welch churches (Baptists). I then passed on through the Dutch churches, the Paulicians, the Waldenses, the Donatists, the Novatians, and thence to the Apostolic churches. All along the line I found a missionary people. They were Propagandists.
Rev. R. W. Fain (Anti-Mission), editor of the "Baptist Watchman," Nashville, Tenn., solicited Dr. Graves for a discussion of the subject I had treated in his paper. He offered to publish my original articles in "The Watchman," if permitted to review them. I consented, and Dr. Graves accepted his offer. The discussion followed and was read by thousands of people. Thus the light shined out, where, possibly, it was most needed. This newspaper discussion lasted the larger part of another year, making almost two years' agitation of the missionary problem in the Southland.
I once thought of publishing in book form my above named articles, but the means were not available. I even did a considerable amount of work on the manuscript, which I have-yet on hand. The whole, if finished, would make a book of from three to five hundred pages." (pg. 135-136)
I am desperately wanting to find the issue of the "Religious Herald" for 1872 and the six chapters on "who are the Primitive Baptists?" written by pastor Duncan! I have not been able to find these old issues on the internet. I am also hoping to find old issues of "The Tennessee Baptist" and of the "Baptist Watchman" published by Dr. Fain. There are so many lost manuscripts like this that need locating by Baptist historians and preserved. The information in many of these old works is invaluable. If anyone has information on how to locate, especially on the internet, these old issues of the "Religious Herald" and the "Tennessee Baptist," please let me know.
Here are some tidbits of other information I have collected on Elder R. W. Fain and his publication work. Please note that he was a dear friend to Elder Watson, even completing the work of Dr. Watson on the book "The Old Baptist Test," and dying four years after his dear friend and both having a lasting effect on the history of middle Tennessee Baptists and of the mission controversy.
"The Baptist Watchman was established at Jasper, Ala., in 1868. It was moved to Murfreesboro in 1869, and to Nashville by C. W. Nance in 1872. B. E. Mullins and R. W. Fain were at that time the editors, and I, Bunyan Stephens, associate editor." (Page 369)
("History of Nashville, Tennessee" By John Wooldridge, Elijah Embree Hoss, William B. Reese")
See here
From the "Baptist History and Heritage" (Page 41) by Southern Baptist Historical Society, Southern Baptist Convention Historical Commission - Baptists (1975), I found a tidbit of information in which there is mention of "a discussion with R. W. Fain, a Primitive or "Old Baptist," and the mention of "Dayton," probably Dr. A. C. Dayton, and the mention of a comment "To Elder Samuel Boykin," Baptist Banner, January 23-June 25, 1864."
I hope I can locate more information about this debate.
From the book "Biographical Sketch of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers," we read this about Dr. Fain.
"Fain, Elder R. W. (M.D.), of Nashville, Tenn., was born December 8, 1807; died February 2, 1870. Dr. Fain was a close friend and fellow-laborer of the late Elder John M. Watson and revised and greatly enlarged the second edition of Dr. Watson's book entitled "Old Baptist Test." He was a gifted preacher and able writer, skillful physician and higly esteemed by his brethren as a minister and by his contemporaries in the medical profession." ("Biographical Sketch of Old School Baptist Ministers" by Elder R. H. Pittman, page 101)
There is mention in Dr. Watson's "Old Baptist Test" a paper he supported called "The Herald of Truth." And one source says: "About the same time the Herald of Truth, a Baptist paper, was published by Dr. R. W. Fain." (See here)
If anyone has information on where information can be had on these items of interest mentioned, please let me hear from you. I have done Internet searches for "The Baptist" periodical that Dr. Graves edited and have not found it. I have also searched for the 1871 issue of "The Religiious Herald" of Richmond, Virginia. I have also searched for "The Baptist Watchman" that was edited by Elder Fain.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Hassell on Universal Commands
Elder Sylvester Hassell, probably the greatest spokesman for Hardshellism, from the late 19th to the early 20th centuries, is a unique character to study for anyone researching the history of the "Primitive Baptist Church." He is a kind of "link" between the first generation of Hardshells (1820s-1860s) and the second (1860s-1900) and third (1900-1940s) generations. In Hassell's doctrinal views one can see reflections of the first generation's views, and one can also see the reflections of the second and third generation's views. Notice what Hassell says about preaching repentance to all men, a view that most of today's modern Hardshells reject. (emphasis mine)
Q. Who are "the all-men-everywhere" whom Paul says in his discourse at Athens "God commands to repent?" (Acts 17:30).
A. The whole world of human beings, the whole human race, whom Paul says, in the next verse, God will judge by Jesus Christ. God is the same since the fall of man that He was before, and His holy law, which requires all His intelligent creatures to love and worship Him exclusively and supremely, is the standard of all creature obedience, and cannot change, even if man, by his own will and sin, has rendered himself unable to obey that law. If a man owes another a thousand dollars, and is not able to pay him a cent, he owes him just the same. Ability is not the limit of obligation. If it were, no human being would be under any obligation to God; for no human being in the present state can spiritually and perfectly fulfill any commandment of God. All men should be told, as Christ told His hearers, that "unless they repent they will perish." (Luke 13:3-5). (see here)
Q. Who are "the all-men-everywhere" whom Paul says in his discourse at Athens "God commands to repent?" (Acts 17:30).
A. The whole world of human beings, the whole human race, whom Paul says, in the next verse, God will judge by Jesus Christ. God is the same since the fall of man that He was before, and His holy law, which requires all His intelligent creatures to love and worship Him exclusively and supremely, is the standard of all creature obedience, and cannot change, even if man, by his own will and sin, has rendered himself unable to obey that law. If a man owes another a thousand dollars, and is not able to pay him a cent, he owes him just the same. Ability is not the limit of obligation. If it were, no human being would be under any obligation to God; for no human being in the present state can spiritually and perfectly fulfill any commandment of God. All men should be told, as Christ told His hearers, that "unless they repent they will perish." (Luke 13:3-5). (see here)
First Hardshells Believed in Means
In the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," a writer wrote (see here): (emphasis mine)
Extracts From Circular Letters. The Elders and Messengers, composing the Lexington Particular Baptist Association—to the several independent Churches, of which it is composed, send greeting (1841).
"It therefore plainly follows, that every person must undergo a radical change and become 'a new creature,' before he can properly & truly be styled a child of God. And this change cannot be effected by any creature, whether in heaven, Earth, or hell; but must be accomplished by Him alone, whose prerogative it is to create. God alone, and only God, can give 'a clean heart.' He alone, and only He can make a man, who is dead in trespasses & sins, to become a living member of Christ's mystical body, which is the Church. It is the resurrection power of Christ, that awakens the sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, to a sense of divine things; and puts him in the possession and enjoyment of everlasting life.
Whatever may be the instrumentality, which may be employed, the Holy Ghost alone begins and completes the work of awakening the dead sinner, and giving him, and supporting in him, eternal life. It is the Holy Ghost alone, that causes the sound of the Gospel, "the voice of the Son of God" to reverberate through the cold and dreary regions, of the sinners heart, and that brings him to the sense of hearing. It is the Spirit alone that accompanies the sense of hearing, in the sinner, with the sense of seeing; and removes all impediments to his having a view of the rays of light, which beam forth from the Sun of Righteousness; from whence he now hears a Voice that speaks, as never man spake: by which illumination he is brought to discern, that the great things—the incomparable accents of the said voice, are irrefragible truth. By this light the Spirit leads the awakened sinner, to a knowledge of the only true God." (pgs. 38. 39)
"But notwithstanding this, he desires happiness as much as ever; but he does not desire it at the expense of God's glory. He now is prepared to be brought to a knowledge of Jesus Christ. The Spirit leads his mind to trace these rays of light to their source; and to his unspeakable astonishment, he discovers that the source of this incomparable light, is the Lamb of God..— The Sin Atoning Lamb!!—that all these emotions within him, have originated from the Spirit of Christ!—generated &. nourished by the fructifying rays, that emanate from this Sun of suns,— the Sun Of Righteousness! His soul is absorbed with wonder mid amazement! Here he beholds the Way, the only way to God,—here he beholds the Truth, the truth of God,—and here he discovers and realizes the Life, the life of God. These views [brought home in the Spirit's power,] transform his soul into the likeness of Christ—He now has the Spirit of Christ."
"These divine realities take possession of every Christian heart; and when the sinner is thus taught, he may then be said to know the Lord Jesus Christ. And this knowledge is eternal life. "And this is eternal life, that they may know the only true God, & Jesus Christ whom he hath sent." This knowledge has a transforming influence upon his soul, and he aspires to a greater knowledge of this kind—to "grow in grace and increase in the knowledge of Christ Jesus." All this knowledge &, change, is free sovereign grace." (pgs. 38, 39)
Today's Hardshell are much newer in their views on means than they imagine. Not only did the Old Baptists of the pre-nineteenth centuries not believe in the Hardshell "anti-means" view, but not even the leading founding fathers of the Hardshell demonination denied the use of means. From the above abstracts it is clear that they believed that evangelical knowledge and faith were essentials of the regeneration experience. Neo-Hardshells would not agree with their founders, however.
Extracts From Circular Letters. The Elders and Messengers, composing the Lexington Particular Baptist Association—to the several independent Churches, of which it is composed, send greeting (1841).
"It therefore plainly follows, that every person must undergo a radical change and become 'a new creature,' before he can properly & truly be styled a child of God. And this change cannot be effected by any creature, whether in heaven, Earth, or hell; but must be accomplished by Him alone, whose prerogative it is to create. God alone, and only God, can give 'a clean heart.' He alone, and only He can make a man, who is dead in trespasses & sins, to become a living member of Christ's mystical body, which is the Church. It is the resurrection power of Christ, that awakens the sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, to a sense of divine things; and puts him in the possession and enjoyment of everlasting life.
Whatever may be the instrumentality, which may be employed, the Holy Ghost alone begins and completes the work of awakening the dead sinner, and giving him, and supporting in him, eternal life. It is the Holy Ghost alone, that causes the sound of the Gospel, "the voice of the Son of God" to reverberate through the cold and dreary regions, of the sinners heart, and that brings him to the sense of hearing. It is the Spirit alone that accompanies the sense of hearing, in the sinner, with the sense of seeing; and removes all impediments to his having a view of the rays of light, which beam forth from the Sun of Righteousness; from whence he now hears a Voice that speaks, as never man spake: by which illumination he is brought to discern, that the great things—the incomparable accents of the said voice, are irrefragible truth. By this light the Spirit leads the awakened sinner, to a knowledge of the only true God." (pgs. 38. 39)
"But notwithstanding this, he desires happiness as much as ever; but he does not desire it at the expense of God's glory. He now is prepared to be brought to a knowledge of Jesus Christ. The Spirit leads his mind to trace these rays of light to their source; and to his unspeakable astonishment, he discovers that the source of this incomparable light, is the Lamb of God..— The Sin Atoning Lamb!!—that all these emotions within him, have originated from the Spirit of Christ!—generated &. nourished by the fructifying rays, that emanate from this Sun of suns,— the Sun Of Righteousness! His soul is absorbed with wonder mid amazement! Here he beholds the Way, the only way to God,—here he beholds the Truth, the truth of God,—and here he discovers and realizes the Life, the life of God. These views [brought home in the Spirit's power,] transform his soul into the likeness of Christ—He now has the Spirit of Christ."
"These divine realities take possession of every Christian heart; and when the sinner is thus taught, he may then be said to know the Lord Jesus Christ. And this knowledge is eternal life. "And this is eternal life, that they may know the only true God, & Jesus Christ whom he hath sent." This knowledge has a transforming influence upon his soul, and he aspires to a greater knowledge of this kind—to "grow in grace and increase in the knowledge of Christ Jesus." All this knowledge &, change, is free sovereign grace." (pgs. 38, 39)
Today's Hardshell are much newer in their views on means than they imagine. Not only did the Old Baptists of the pre-nineteenth centuries not believe in the Hardshell "anti-means" view, but not even the leading founding fathers of the Hardshell demonination denied the use of means. From the above abstracts it is clear that they believed that evangelical knowledge and faith were essentials of the regeneration experience. Neo-Hardshells would not agree with their founders, however.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Regeneration = Conversion
In the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," an "Old School" or Hardshell periodical of the 1830s, a Hardshell writes the following about regeneration and conversion and demonstrates that today's Hardshells have departed from the faith of their founders.
The writer, Elder Elisha Andrews, wrote (emphasis mine):
"Thus stands the testimony of God of the inspired writers and of the ancient saints; and they all speak the same language and agree perfectly in the same point, that conversion, that is, a saving change from nature to grace, is a work of God, and emphatically the effect of divine graces. Here I might, with propriety, close up my argument, and conclude that the evidence is triumphant and incontrovertible. Nor do I see what can be said against it, unless some one should choose to distinguish between regeneration and conversion, and say that, although the former is the work of God, yet the latter is the work of the creature. All I have to say on the subject is, that the distinction is gratuitous, and wholly baseless; no such distinction is recognized by the sacred writers; they uniformly use these two words, as convertible terms; Neither do I conceive that, if we philosophize ever so much, we can make out any other distinction than there is between cause and effect: the production of a principle of holiness in the heart, and the active exercise of that principle. I suppose that, if Lazarus was raised from the dead by the miraculous power of Jesus Christ, and consequently acted, that is, performed the duties and functions of life, those acts ought to be considered as the effects of that miraculous, power, without which, they never would have existed..." (page 181, see here)
The writer, Elder Elisha Andrews, wrote (emphasis mine):
"Thus stands the testimony of God of the inspired writers and of the ancient saints; and they all speak the same language and agree perfectly in the same point, that conversion, that is, a saving change from nature to grace, is a work of God, and emphatically the effect of divine graces. Here I might, with propriety, close up my argument, and conclude that the evidence is triumphant and incontrovertible. Nor do I see what can be said against it, unless some one should choose to distinguish between regeneration and conversion, and say that, although the former is the work of God, yet the latter is the work of the creature. All I have to say on the subject is, that the distinction is gratuitous, and wholly baseless; no such distinction is recognized by the sacred writers; they uniformly use these two words, as convertible terms; Neither do I conceive that, if we philosophize ever so much, we can make out any other distinction than there is between cause and effect: the production of a principle of holiness in the heart, and the active exercise of that principle. I suppose that, if Lazarus was raised from the dead by the miraculous power of Jesus Christ, and consequently acted, that is, performed the duties and functions of life, those acts ought to be considered as the effects of that miraculous, power, without which, they never would have existed..." (page 181, see here)
Monday, February 20, 2012
Hassell on Perseverance
In our recent series on "Hardshells and Perseverance," I showed that the denial of the doctrine of the perseverance of the chosen and called is a departure from the old Baptist faith, and also against the teaching of the Hardshell forefathers in the nineteenth century. Here is what Elder Sylvester Hassell, the most revered spokesman for Hardshell beliefs in the last 150 years, had to say about the perseverance of the saved. Hassell lived from 1842-1928. (emphasis mine)
Q. Please explain I John 3:9. Also 3:1-8 and I Cor. 6:18.
A. The first passage reads as follows: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God." In the light of other scriptures and in view of the doctrine of regeneration this passage can only mean one thing and that is: the regenerated cannot live a life of sin because of the holy principle implanted in him in regeneration. He is morally unable to live such a life because the governing disposition of the soul has been changed and he hates sin and loves righteousness. I John 3:1-8. "If we say we have no sin" and do not need the cleansing blood of Jesus "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." The first passage teaches that no Christian can live in sin. He is not its slave. He is not under its dominion and power. While the second passage teaches all are sinners and need the cleansing blood of Jesus. I Cor. 6:18 - "Every sin that a man doeth is without the body." This passage does not mean that the body is not involved in sin. It is the instrument of sin. Sin is conceived in the heart and executed by the body. And every sin a man doeth is against his body because it leaves its mark on the body. (see here)
I encourage our modern "ultraist" Hardshells to go back to the old Baptist faith of their forefathers.
Q. Please explain I John 3:9. Also 3:1-8 and I Cor. 6:18.
A. The first passage reads as follows: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God." In the light of other scriptures and in view of the doctrine of regeneration this passage can only mean one thing and that is: the regenerated cannot live a life of sin because of the holy principle implanted in him in regeneration. He is morally unable to live such a life because the governing disposition of the soul has been changed and he hates sin and loves righteousness. I John 3:1-8. "If we say we have no sin" and do not need the cleansing blood of Jesus "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." The first passage teaches that no Christian can live in sin. He is not its slave. He is not under its dominion and power. While the second passage teaches all are sinners and need the cleansing blood of Jesus. I Cor. 6:18 - "Every sin that a man doeth is without the body." This passage does not mean that the body is not involved in sin. It is the instrument of sin. Sin is conceived in the heart and executed by the body. And every sin a man doeth is against his body because it leaves its mark on the body. (see here)
I encourage our modern "ultraist" Hardshells to go back to the old Baptist faith of their forefathers.
From Keach's Catechism
Benjamin Keach was a signer of the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 and a leader of Particular Baptists in England and America. He was also a prolific writer and defender of the faith. He wrote "Keach's Catechism" which was often attached to the London and Philadelphia Confessions, the confession that all the oldest Hardshell churches endorsed.
The Hardshells who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900, met to restate their continued acceptance and endorsement of the old London/Philadelphia confession. One wonders how they could do this since the confession clearly teaches that God saves his people through faith, through the preaching of the gospel. The Fulton "elders" put "footnotes" to the old confession in those sections teaching the necessity of gospel faith for salvation, and in those footnotes they restate the words of the confession to conform to Hardshell "anti-means" dogma, making the old confession to say what it does not say. It was a dishonest undertaking, as many later Hardshells have admitted. Elder John R. Daily, a leading Hardshell debater, debated W. P. Throgmorton, Missionary Baptist, on the question of means, and Daily argued the same thing about the London Confession, as did the Fulton elders, that the old confession did not teach means. Then they will defend their own twist of the words of the confession, a confession which clearly teaches means in "effectual calling."
Had I been in debate with Daily, I would have cited from the writings of the leading men who signed the London Confession which would clearly show, in greater detail, how they believed in the use of the gospel in producing faith unto salvation, and that this additional proof shows that the interpretation of the Hardshells on those sections supporting means, does not say what the Hardshells try to make them to say. For instance, here is Keach's catechism, and the following questions and answers show that Keach believed in means, in the same way the confession states.
From Keach's Catechism (see here emphasis mine):
Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)
Q. 35. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel.
(2 Tim. 1:9; John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezekiel 36:26; John 6:44,45; 1 Cor. 12:3)
Q. 92. What does God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.
Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the Gospel.
(Heb. 10:39; John 1:12; Phil. 3-9; Gal. 2:15,16)
Q. 94. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
(Acts 2:37; Joel 2:13; Jer. 31:18,19: 2 Cor. 7:10,11; Rom. 6:18)
Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.
(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)
Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.
(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)
Of course, one could cite from other signers of the old confession, such as William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, Hercules Collins, etc., to further prove that the confesssion is saying the same thing as these said in their public writings. Thus, the Fulton "footnotes" are lies, perversions of the words of the Old Baptists, and is unworthy of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists."
The Hardshells who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900, met to restate their continued acceptance and endorsement of the old London/Philadelphia confession. One wonders how they could do this since the confession clearly teaches that God saves his people through faith, through the preaching of the gospel. The Fulton "elders" put "footnotes" to the old confession in those sections teaching the necessity of gospel faith for salvation, and in those footnotes they restate the words of the confession to conform to Hardshell "anti-means" dogma, making the old confession to say what it does not say. It was a dishonest undertaking, as many later Hardshells have admitted. Elder John R. Daily, a leading Hardshell debater, debated W. P. Throgmorton, Missionary Baptist, on the question of means, and Daily argued the same thing about the London Confession, as did the Fulton elders, that the old confession did not teach means. Then they will defend their own twist of the words of the confession, a confession which clearly teaches means in "effectual calling."
Had I been in debate with Daily, I would have cited from the writings of the leading men who signed the London Confession which would clearly show, in greater detail, how they believed in the use of the gospel in producing faith unto salvation, and that this additional proof shows that the interpretation of the Hardshells on those sections supporting means, does not say what the Hardshells try to make them to say. For instance, here is Keach's catechism, and the following questions and answers show that Keach believed in means, in the same way the confession states.
From Keach's Catechism (see here emphasis mine):
Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)
Q. 35. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel.
(2 Tim. 1:9; John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezekiel 36:26; John 6:44,45; 1 Cor. 12:3)
Q. 92. What does God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.
Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the Gospel.
(Heb. 10:39; John 1:12; Phil. 3-9; Gal. 2:15,16)
Q. 94. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
(Acts 2:37; Joel 2:13; Jer. 31:18,19: 2 Cor. 7:10,11; Rom. 6:18)
Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.
(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)
Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.
(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)
Of course, one could cite from other signers of the old confession, such as William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, Hercules Collins, etc., to further prove that the confesssion is saying the same thing as these said in their public writings. Thus, the Fulton "footnotes" are lies, perversions of the words of the Old Baptists, and is unworthy of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists."
Friday, February 17, 2012
The Faith of Ephesians 2:8
One place in which the Anti-Means Baptists assert their persuasion is Ephesians 2:8. Following the “system of two’s” that is conditional time salvation, the almost universal opinion among them is that the faith mentioned here is contrary to the “kind of faith” which comes through the gospel. As Elder S.T. Tolley writes:
"If, in fact, it should be(as some assume and wish it to be) that the faith mentioned here refers to gospel faith, which is brought about by the preaching of a preacher who must preach the gospel to a sinner who must hear, believe the message, and accept Christ (sic) as his Savior in order to be born again. But that simply cannot be allowed by the scriptural language where it says this is "...NOT of yourselves," but it is "...the gift of God...not of works..." The faith mentioned here is the faith that God GIVES to the ones chosen to salvation before the world began. It is that spiritual element which enables the born-again child of God to understand the gospel message and believe it. This is bestowed in the operation of the new birth---not by the preaching of the gospel." ("Must the Elect Family of God Hear and Believe the Gospel of Christ in Order to be Saved into Heaven's Glory?", The Christian Baptist, vol 35)
This is typical argumentation from those within the anti-means camp. It contains the faulty premise that appears over and over again when the ultraists approach the scriptures: If means are involved, then the transaction is not of God but of men, and any blessing resulting from it cannot properly be called a gift of God, but must be by the works of men. To anyone who knows the scriptures correctly, though, this premise is not biblical. Not only in salvation, but in the government of His creation, the God of Heaven has often used means for the accomplishment of His purposes. In not one of these cases can it be said of the event that it was not performed by the power of God. Would we say, for instance, that the feeding of Elijah by the brook was not of God because ravens were the means by which bread and flesh were conveyed? Or that I cannot render total praise unto God for anything I learn in a church service because the message was conveyed through a gospel preacher?
Take the faith of the Corinthian believers. Since wrought through Paul and Apollos (1 Cor. 3:5) was their faith in Christ therefore not a gift of God? If not a gift, then how did they receive it, seeing that God GIVES unto His people not some, but "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3)? Did they attain it by their own efforts maybe???
If the Hardshell premise regarding means is correct, then evangelical faith can never be claimed by anyone as being "of the Lord", but must be obtained by works. The terrible conclusion resulting from this is that every Christian who feels they've come to believe in Christ through some gospel influence must not render all the praise unto God, seeing that means were involved. God is either robbed of His glory, or must see it shared with men. The solution to much of what is wrong with the Hardshell doctrine lies therefore in coming to the understanding that the faith which comes through the gospel (Eph. 1:13) is still a gift (v.19).
The charge of Tolley that "Means Baptists" ASSUME or WISH the faith of Eph. 2:8 to be evangelical is therefore faulty. It is no wish on our part that such is the case. Rather, the matter is settled by subscribing to the analogy of faith. If the bible teaches that transactions involving means are yet "of the Lord" then there is no just cause in creating a premise which says otherwise. If we do, then all of God's instrumental workings amongst men must always be looked at as Arminian transactions, which is exactly the thing of which are moderns are guilty. If there are explicit passages which teach that faith is evangelical (e.g. Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:13; Romans 10:17; 1 Cor. 3:5; Gal. 3:2) then it is only being consistent with sound rules of interpretation to say that the SAME faith is recorded in Eph. 2:8. What evidence is there to the contrary, apart from the argument that God's gifts can't come through means, which is utterly refuted by the Bible itself? Where are all the passages in the Bible which speak of non-evangelical faith? It is so central to the defense of time salvation, there ought to be some biblical verses which speak of it in so many words.
Furthermore, the determination that Eph. 2:8 speaks of evangelical faith is not a WISH on the part of "Means Baptists" because that is what is suggested by the context. Here we borrow the popular expression of our moderns which they erroneously say describes their approach to scripture: rightly dividing the word of truth. Let us see who is actually following that rule.
The FIRST faith mentioned in the Ephesian letter is evangelical. As Paul writes in chapter 1, verse 13:
"In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise..."
Absolutely clear are the Apostle's words. What is especially uncomfortable to our moderns is that the surrounding context is language descriptive of eternal salvation. Try putting a time salvation twist on this!
A few verses down in verse 19 the same writer informs us that faith is a gift:
"And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power"
Now is it an example of rightly dividing the word of truth to say that the faith of verse 13 is the same or different than the one mentioned in verse 19? The answer is obvious to anyone who does not operate from a pre-conceived mental grid. The two faith's are actually one faith. The faith coming through the gospel in verse 13 is spoken of as a gift in verse 19. When we thus come to Ephesians 2:8, it is the context which leads to the conclusion that the faith mentioned here is the same as that presented thus far in the epistle. To assert otherwise, as the teaching of extreme time salvation must claim, is to say that there is an implicit switch from unnecessary evangelical faith in Eph. 1:13 to necessary non-evangelical faith in verse 19, and that the faith of Eph. 2:8 is the same as that of the latter, but different than that of the former! This example of sudden alternation, a common "hermeneutic" in the conditional time salvation heresy, is one of the things which led me to see the anti-means position as an unfair, dishonest press upon the word of God. It divides the word of truth alright. Divides it against itself!
Thus it is no wish on the part of "Means Baptists" to see evangelical faith taught in Eph. 2:8. Rightly dividing the word of truth using the analogy of faith and the context of the Ephesian letter settle the matter.
It is rather a WISH on the part of others to not see it this way.
"If, in fact, it should be(as some assume and wish it to be) that the faith mentioned here refers to gospel faith, which is brought about by the preaching of a preacher who must preach the gospel to a sinner who must hear, believe the message, and accept Christ (sic) as his Savior in order to be born again. But that simply cannot be allowed by the scriptural language where it says this is "...NOT of yourselves," but it is "...the gift of God...not of works..." The faith mentioned here is the faith that God GIVES to the ones chosen to salvation before the world began. It is that spiritual element which enables the born-again child of God to understand the gospel message and believe it. This is bestowed in the operation of the new birth---not by the preaching of the gospel." ("Must the Elect Family of God Hear and Believe the Gospel of Christ in Order to be Saved into Heaven's Glory?", The Christian Baptist, vol 35)
This is typical argumentation from those within the anti-means camp. It contains the faulty premise that appears over and over again when the ultraists approach the scriptures: If means are involved, then the transaction is not of God but of men, and any blessing resulting from it cannot properly be called a gift of God, but must be by the works of men. To anyone who knows the scriptures correctly, though, this premise is not biblical. Not only in salvation, but in the government of His creation, the God of Heaven has often used means for the accomplishment of His purposes. In not one of these cases can it be said of the event that it was not performed by the power of God. Would we say, for instance, that the feeding of Elijah by the brook was not of God because ravens were the means by which bread and flesh were conveyed? Or that I cannot render total praise unto God for anything I learn in a church service because the message was conveyed through a gospel preacher?
Take the faith of the Corinthian believers. Since wrought through Paul and Apollos (1 Cor. 3:5) was their faith in Christ therefore not a gift of God? If not a gift, then how did they receive it, seeing that God GIVES unto His people not some, but "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3)? Did they attain it by their own efforts maybe???
If the Hardshell premise regarding means is correct, then evangelical faith can never be claimed by anyone as being "of the Lord", but must be obtained by works. The terrible conclusion resulting from this is that every Christian who feels they've come to believe in Christ through some gospel influence must not render all the praise unto God, seeing that means were involved. God is either robbed of His glory, or must see it shared with men. The solution to much of what is wrong with the Hardshell doctrine lies therefore in coming to the understanding that the faith which comes through the gospel (Eph. 1:13) is still a gift (v.19).
The charge of Tolley that "Means Baptists" ASSUME or WISH the faith of Eph. 2:8 to be evangelical is therefore faulty. It is no wish on our part that such is the case. Rather, the matter is settled by subscribing to the analogy of faith. If the bible teaches that transactions involving means are yet "of the Lord" then there is no just cause in creating a premise which says otherwise. If we do, then all of God's instrumental workings amongst men must always be looked at as Arminian transactions, which is exactly the thing of which are moderns are guilty. If there are explicit passages which teach that faith is evangelical (e.g. Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:13; Romans 10:17; 1 Cor. 3:5; Gal. 3:2) then it is only being consistent with sound rules of interpretation to say that the SAME faith is recorded in Eph. 2:8. What evidence is there to the contrary, apart from the argument that God's gifts can't come through means, which is utterly refuted by the Bible itself? Where are all the passages in the Bible which speak of non-evangelical faith? It is so central to the defense of time salvation, there ought to be some biblical verses which speak of it in so many words.
Furthermore, the determination that Eph. 2:8 speaks of evangelical faith is not a WISH on the part of "Means Baptists" because that is what is suggested by the context. Here we borrow the popular expression of our moderns which they erroneously say describes their approach to scripture: rightly dividing the word of truth. Let us see who is actually following that rule.
The FIRST faith mentioned in the Ephesian letter is evangelical. As Paul writes in chapter 1, verse 13:
"In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise..."
Absolutely clear are the Apostle's words. What is especially uncomfortable to our moderns is that the surrounding context is language descriptive of eternal salvation. Try putting a time salvation twist on this!
A few verses down in verse 19 the same writer informs us that faith is a gift:
"And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power"
Now is it an example of rightly dividing the word of truth to say that the faith of verse 13 is the same or different than the one mentioned in verse 19? The answer is obvious to anyone who does not operate from a pre-conceived mental grid. The two faith's are actually one faith. The faith coming through the gospel in verse 13 is spoken of as a gift in verse 19. When we thus come to Ephesians 2:8, it is the context which leads to the conclusion that the faith mentioned here is the same as that presented thus far in the epistle. To assert otherwise, as the teaching of extreme time salvation must claim, is to say that there is an implicit switch from unnecessary evangelical faith in Eph. 1:13 to necessary non-evangelical faith in verse 19, and that the faith of Eph. 2:8 is the same as that of the latter, but different than that of the former! This example of sudden alternation, a common "hermeneutic" in the conditional time salvation heresy, is one of the things which led me to see the anti-means position as an unfair, dishonest press upon the word of God. It divides the word of truth alright. Divides it against itself!
Thus it is no wish on the part of "Means Baptists" to see evangelical faith taught in Eph. 2:8. Rightly dividing the word of truth using the analogy of faith and the context of the Ephesian letter settle the matter.
It is rather a WISH on the part of others to not see it this way.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Hassell on Hardshell Succession
Elder Chastain, in his book "Discussion on the Worship of God" (1916) cited from Elder Sylvester Hassell, who was still living at the time, and who is regarded by the Hardshells as their greatest church historian. Chastain wrote:
"In reply to a question of how we can trace church succession, Brother Hassell writes me January 1, 1916, "In regard to an uninterrupted succession of churches from the apostles, no person on earth can trace it; and succession is buried in the unfathomable gulf of the obscure ages." (pg. 146)
What is more true, however, is the fact that no Hardshell church can show a succession prior to 1832! Yet, in spite of this fact, they boast that they are the one true church, or kingdom of God, and that all others are Babylonish and Anti-Christian. They claim to be "primitive" or original Baptists, but they cannot prove it. The Hardshell elders and "historians" tell their members such things and, as Solomon said, "the simple believe every word." (Prov. 14: 15) These things show their cult characteristics.
"In reply to a question of how we can trace church succession, Brother Hassell writes me January 1, 1916, "In regard to an uninterrupted succession of churches from the apostles, no person on earth can trace it; and succession is buried in the unfathomable gulf of the obscure ages." (pg. 146)
What is more true, however, is the fact that no Hardshell church can show a succession prior to 1832! Yet, in spite of this fact, they boast that they are the one true church, or kingdom of God, and that all others are Babylonish and Anti-Christian. They claim to be "primitive" or original Baptists, but they cannot prove it. The Hardshell elders and "historians" tell their members such things and, as Solomon said, "the simple believe every word." (Prov. 14: 15) These things show their cult characteristics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)