Chapter 148
In the last chapter I mentioned how the Hardshells would have done better to have held their own revival and protracted meetings without the errors they denounced in the Black Rock Address. But, as was shown, they went to the extreme of denouncing them altogether, even if they were conducted properly. The reason given was that they did not want to look like others, which was truly a case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." They should have followed the example of Jesse Mercer, a leading Old Baptist at the time of the Black Rock Address, and a person once held in high esteem by many of the first Hardshells. From the "Memoirs of Jesse Mercer Memoirs of Jesse Mercer" by Charles D. Mallary (see here), we read:
"From the foregoing, it is evident that Mr. Mercer was a believer in the reality and desirableness of revivals of religion, and that he labored to encourage and promote them amongst his churches. How often and feelingly he repeated the quotation, "Lord, revive us, Lord, revive us," in his letters to pious friends, many can well remember. He probably depended more upon the stated and uniform administration of the means of grace, and less upon special and extraordinary efforts, than many of his brethren; yet upon all suitable occasions, he was ready to assist at protracted meetings, and he generally brought to them a fervent, prayerful and anxious heart. On such occasions, he never lost sight of the absolute necessity of the Spirit's influence to give efficacy to the means of grace. This sentiment seemed to be-interwoven, in the most complete, scriptural, and engaging manner, with his prayers, his exhortations and preaching. Every thing like glorying in men and measures, to the forgetfulness of human weakness, and the glory of God, his humble, holy spirit, deeply deplored and sincerely loathed. He had no fellowship for forced, unnatural, and mechanical efforts to move the sympathies, "and get up a revival." Every thing boisterous, confusing and disorderly, in the progress of religious meetings, was abhorrent from his judgment and feelings. "Let every thing be done decently and in order," was the rule which he inculcated on others, and by which his own course was habitually governed."
It must be remembered that Jesse Mercer was a five point Calvinist and a believer in missions and evangelism. But, he was not guilty of conducting revival and protracted meetings with the errors mentioned by the Black Rockers. But, the Black Rockers did not believe they could be countenanced because they gave the appearance of supporting men like Finney and the Arminians. Mercer, however, took a more mature and sound approach to the excesses of men like Finney. Mercer did not "throw out the baby with the bath water." Mercer did not go to an extreme in fighting the extremism of men like Finney. The Black Rock Hardshells would have done well to follow the lead of such men as Mercer. Mercer was the editor of the "Christian Index" at the time of the Black Rock Address and often wrote articles in response to what was being written against such things as protracted meetings, Sunday Schools, and mission organizations, in the first Hardshell periodicals. Those periodicals would often attempt a reply to what Mercer and others wrote against the Hardshell criticisms.
The author cites Mercer further:
"When men grasp the means, even of God's appointment, with a design of accomplishing the end, both shall be nothing, except it be to produce Ishmaelites—sons of the. flesh. It is one thing for men to take hold of the means, as agents, and go to work like Jehu, to show their zeal for the Lord of Hosts; and quite another thing to go forth with equal zeal, but with entire dependence on the power that moves them, like the axe, or saw, shaken by the hand of a cunning workman. I have seen, (as it appears to me,) too much leaning to the efficiency of means, (or to the sufficiency of human ability to comply,) if they were faithfully plied. Thus the success of some ministers in the conversion of sinners, more than others, has been merged into the difference of mode used in addressing them. As if, [were] the means rightly used, and sinners properly addressed, the success would necessarily follow, which to me robs God of his glory."
What Hardshell could possibly find fault with such words? They almost sound like the things the Black Rockers were saying. But, again, though Mercer agreed with many of the things that the first Hardshells were saying against the types of methods used by men such as Finney, he nevertheless did not go to the Hardshell extreme and showed rather that protracted and revival meetings could be conducted in keeping with the doctrines of sovereign grace.
Again, Mercer said:
"What we often hear of getting up and continuing revivals, seems to be too of the same sort. As if, whenever Christians will unite in, and faithfully use the means, a revival will of consequence follow; which renders the cause of the conversion of sinners, into the faithful use of the means, or holds God dependent on his people for the success of his gospel. Not but Christians ought to live always in the faithful discharge of every duty, looking to God for his reviving grace, to give effect to all their efforts. But I fear that revivals are too often gotten up in appearance only. That Satan, the better to effect his purposes, assumes the angel of light, and does wonders by the slight of men, I doubt not. When God works, Satan goes to work also. Thus it may be in revivals; a great wind, followed by earthquake and fire, may rend the mountains and break the rocks of human passions, while God may pass on only in milder forms of divine power, at which the prophets of the Lord wrap their blushing faces in the mantle of humble acknowledgment. My desire is, that in the use of the means, whether for the revival of grace, or the awakening of sinners, he that glories, may glory in the Lord." (pg. 73-75)
Again, it is for such words that Mercer was well liked and esteemed by the first Hardshells. But, Mercer did not denigrate the use of means or go into error regarding the use of means. Further, Mercer did not think it right to declare all Christians who practiced holding evangelistic meetings as in disorder.
Adiel Sherwood (1791-1879) was a leader among Georgia Baptists and an associate of Jesse Mercer. He, like Mercer, often combated the extremism of the Hardshells even answering, item by item, the "Kehukee Declaration" of 1827 in his "Strictures on the Kehukee Association." Writing about Sherwood, Jarrett Burch wrote:
"Sherwood admitted that Jesse Mercer did not appreciate the new measures, although Sherwood did. Mr. Mercer never adopted the practice of inviting unconverted persons to be prayed for, as is the custom with most ministers, in protracted meetings. He would pray and weep over those that requested it; but thought it was carrying things too far to exhort sinners and ask them up to certain seats. Such measures were not employed in his early ministry, not much by the Baptists of this State till after 1820, though they had been by the Methodists; hence he questioned the propriety, fearing that animal excitement would preponderate and spurious conversions be the result." (Adiel Sherwood: Baptist Antebellum Pioneer in Georgia By Jarrett Burch, page 59 - see here)
Again, Mercer sounds like a Hardshell. But, Mercer did not think that such things should be made a test of fellowship. The Hardshells went to an extreme by making such a practice a test of fellowship. As we have already seen, the Kehukee brethren in the 1700s practiced inviting sinners under conviction to be prayed for.
Burch continued:
"Yet, his (Sherwood) motivation behind strengthening his denomination concerned preachers and their preaching. He wished for strong exhortations that placed a demand upon the hearer. He recalled such a concern occurring in 1823. After a meeting of the Georgia Association Mission Board, he discussed new methods of delivery with other ministers. He remembered, "After business was over, a minister's meeting was proposed, that is, that friendly criticisms should be made on the exercises, manner, faults, and defects of ea c minister...(Later) All retired up stairs except Mr. M. (Mercer); but the brethren were so much interested in the new exercises, as they all lodged in one large room, that they kept talking till a late, very late hour." The subject of exercises could have ranged from practical preaching techniques to the debatable methods of revivalist preachers. Sherwood never criticized the methods he employed. He believed in strong exhortations that demanded a response, knowing this practice could easily be mistaken as being unorthodox or Arminian, In fact, he firmly perceived that his opponents could not tell the difference. He once stated, "But we suspect that many mistake practical preaching for Arminianism, not knowing the true import of the term. Everything but absolute election is Arminianism with them." (page 60)
One should recall the words of Elder John Watson in his "Old Baptist Test" (1866) and his lament over the fact that extremism had led the Hardshells to almost entirely fail in their ministry of exhortation, both to saints and sinners. It was a good thing for these early Baptist ministers to discuss how sinners are to be exhorted and addressed. It is a good thing that they did not go to extremes as did the Hardshells. One should also recall the struggles that Elder John Leland had over the same issues discussed in the above mentioned preacher's meeting. Recall also how both Elder John Watson and Elder John Clark both spoke of how the anti means Hardshells were fond of calling those who believed in means as being "Arminians." Watson said such was a false charge and Clark said that it was actually those who denied means, and who taught a conditional time salvation view that were the real Arminians.
Burch continued, addressing the popularity of altar calls:
"In most of the narratives, individuals came forward to find "the Lord precious." They "came forward" to "desire the prayers of God's people." Sherwood did not view the practice of a sinner's walking forward at the end of a sermon as constituting an act of saving faith or repentance, but rather the sinner stepped forward to discover if God would save him or her. Hence, the audience's prayers were valuable to the meeting. Although there is no mention of an anxious seat (or bench), the front of the assembly was the anxious area. Therefore, the debatable aspect of Sherwood's form of revivalism to traditional Baptists consisted of whether or not sinners should be exhorted toward an active response within the meeting (i.e., asked to step forward for minsters to pray for them)." (page 63)
Such testimony as this from Mercer and Sherwood show that the missionary Baptists were not all Arminian and that they agreed with the Black Rockers on many of the points raised. Spurgeon never practiced calling sinners forward although he did hold private meetings with "awakened sinners." I firmly believe, however, that many conservative Baptists have used altar calls in a manner that ought not to be condemned or styled as being Arminian.
Burch continued:
"Before Sherwood's theology of means can be studied, an analysis of the historiography of the Primitive Baptist movement would be helpful in exploring the precise nature of the opposition he encountered." (ibid)
This is exactly what we have been doing in this series. We have looked at the objections of the Hardshells and their choice to declare all Baptists who held protracted meetings as being in disorder and cut off from the church of Christ. Clearly, such men as Sherwood and Mercer met the Hardshells on their objections and actions of declaring non fellowship.
Burch continued:
"Noticing the (Kehukee - SG) declaration as an attempt of antimission Baptists to disassociate themselves from the missionary cause and lead others in this direction, Sherwood wrote against their point of view with the tract, "Strictures of the Kehukee Association." Printed originally for the Federal Union, a local paper in Milledgeville, Georgia, the tract was reprinted by the Biblical Recorder and the Religious Herald, the denominational newspapers of North Carolina and Virginia."
In these "strictures" Sherwood responded to the objections of the Hardshells, even agreeing, as did Mercer, with many of the things that they said. However, he saw their declaration of non fellowship as an unjustifiable act, manifesting arrogance and making too much out of it, believing that there was a better way to combat the errors of Arminian revivalists that by declaring non fellowship with orderly Baptist brethren.
Sherwood wrote his strictures under the name of Nehemiah. Wrote Burch:
"As Nehemiah (the rebuilder of Jerusalem's Wall), Sherwood attacked the logic of Kehukee's declaration. In ten strictures, he revealed the absurdity of the contentions of Kehukee. Nine strictures functioned as a review of each charge, while the last summarized the missionary view of such proceedings. He opened the strictures with his frustration over the circulation of the "Declaration and Circular" (the Kehukee Declaration and the previous letter by Lawrence caused these strictures). These documents had circulated from North Carolina to "us, ignorant Georgians," "battering our wretched condition" and "enlightening our ignorance."
These strictures are not yet available on the Internet but can be read probably through obtaining the book by the inter library loan program. But, not only Sherwood, but many others fully answered the fallacies in the Kehukee Address and in the first Hardshell periodicals.
Burch wrote:
"Sherwood first tackled the term society used in the Declaration. The Kehukee Association defined a society as an organization such as missionary, tract, and Bible societies as well as theological seminaries. Opposition to an extra-biblical organization came from a strict "Thus saith the Lord" that dictate "every step they take, for every sentiment they adopt, and every measure they recommend." The Kehukee Assocation held to an inconsistent position; they disliked societies, but the association itself functioned as a society (an entity not specified in Scripture). Nehemiah stated, "Now our Georgia Bibles know nothing about 'Reformed Associations.'" Why would Kehukee oppose societies when it utilized associations with a "meeting on a stated day, a clerk and book for their churches, etc?" (pg. 72)
This is a powerful rebuttal to the Hardshell denigration of a religious "society." The same thing can be said in regard to the Hardshell denigration of the word "convention." When the various state Baptist conventions were being formed in the early 19th century, the Hardshells began to vehemently protest. Of course, in all this they were hypocrites. As Sherwood pointed out, associations can be defined as societies. Also, the "Primitive Baptist" periodical of the 1830s had its "agents" for its promotion. Was not this a society? Further, Hardshells have had numerous societies formed through the years. Elder Bradley and other Hardshells formed the "Old School Hymnal Company" and sells hymnals to many Hardshell churches. Is this not a society? One of the objections that the Hardshells made against mission, tract, and other kinds of Baptist societies was that they had presidents, secretaries, treasurers, etc. But, as Sherwood noted, their associations had officers. Further, the Hardshells have held their own conventions. In fact, the Black Rock Address was made after there was a call that went out to all the Baptist churches for a "convention" to address their complaints. The creation of the infamous Fulton Confession was made as the result of what is called "The Fulton Convention" of Hardshells.
Sherwood mentions the Hardshell argument that such societies were not mentioned specifically in scripture. Bob Ross refers to this as "patternism," a characteristic of both the Campbellites and the Hardshells. Do they find their beloved associations specifically mentioned in scripture? Where do they find mention of church clerks? Where do they find hymnal companies and periodical organizations? Where do they find radio preaching?
In concluding this section on protracted meetings, a number of points should be made summarily. First, that the Hardshells went way overboard in their reaction to the kind of protracted meetings being held by Methodists, Finney, and some evangelistic minded Baptists. Second, they were acting arrogantly to make this issue a test of fellowship and use it to divide Baptists. Third, there was a better way to combat such errors than that of declaring non fellowship, and Mercer was a good example of such. Fourth, it must be insanity for the Hardshells to neglect doing good because other groups that they despised were doing them. Fifth, it is also insanity to think that there is anything wrong with having meetings that last for more than three days.
In the remainder of this series of chapters we will look at the other things condemned in the Black Rock Address.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Alabaha Association
I have just read through The “Gold Standard” of the Wiregrass Primitive Baptists of Georgia: A History of the Crawford Faction of the Alabaha River Primitive Baptist Association, A Thesis submitted to the Graduate School Valdosta State University (see here). The author has done research into the history of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination. In this writing the author focuses on the Alabaha Association of Georgia and shows that, unlike other "Primitive Baptist" associations, the Alabaha has not changed her doctrine. He shows that the controversy and division over the "means" doctrine did not cause the Alabaha association to change in doctrine as did other Hardshell churches and associations. Here are some of the citations on this point.
"A particularly interesting theological point that the Alabaha Association defended during this period, and continues to defend until the present day is the means doctrine. This principle considered the gospel as the “means” by which God regenerated the elect and suggested that preachers address both saint and sinner. This doctrine was in circulation among the Baptists long before they arrived in Georgia. The London Confession of 1689, an influential document for Primitive Baptist theology, taught that the, “word and Spirit of God” could raise sinners, but only at God’s appointed time." (pg. 29)
"The means doctrine appeared to be favored by early antimissionary associations in southeastern Georgia. The 1833 Ochlocknee Association noted that the ministers appointed to preach the Sunday services delivered sermons, “to the consolation of mourners, the establishment of saints, and the alarming of sinners.” Isham Peacock’s preaching during this time was said to have, “alarmed sinners into convulsions.” The minutes of the influential Union Church also mention sermons that were, “alarming to poor careless sinners.” Even after the initial split with the missionaries, the Suwannee Association still asked ministers to “preach the word wherever you go, and whenever you can go; it is …for the consolation of his children, for the comforting of mourners and the alarming of sinners.” (pg. 29)
"However, support for the instrumentality of the gospel soon faded among the Primitive Baptists in the region. According to Crowley, “With the missions disputes raging, many Primitives adopted the opinion that regeneration is always the direct act of the Holy Spirit, independent of any instrumentality.” In 1855, the circular letter of the Pulaski Association’s made clear their position on the means doctrine:
The savior was far from teaching that the preaching of the gospel or any other labor of man was for the awakening of dead sinners…the Life giving power is of God and of God alone…How absurd then the idea of the preaching of the gospel being the ordinary and extraordinary means in the hands of God of giving life to sinners, it is closely allied to the great mammoth principle of missionism." (pg. 29-30)
"The antimeans position was soon adopted by the majority of Primitive Baptists in the nation. However, the change was not universal. The Alabaha disliked the antimeans position from its inception among the Primitives in the area. In the early 1850s, the association proclaimed the gospel as “the means of salvation” and lamented the dissension “respecting the preaching of the gospel” and “falling out about the way and plan of salvation.” Tensions would only increase as the decade went on." (pg. 30)
"During this time, a major dispute erupted between the Alabaha and its parent organization, the Suwannee River Association. In 1860, Job E. W. Smith, moderator of the Suwannee River Association, preached at the Alabaha River Association’s annual meeting. During his sermon, Smith unequivocally advocated for the antimeans position when he held up the Bible and told the congregation, “You have been told that this is the word of God; do you believe it? I say it is not, it is ink and paper.” Smith also stated “the Gospel had no saving efficacy in it to the awakening of sinners; it was only for the feeding of the flock.” The Alabaha, who had long advocated the instrumentality of the Gospel, declared that Smith’s words were “a departure from the faith” and recommended “that this body withdraw her correspondence from the Suwannee Association until she becomes reclaimed.” (pg. 34)
"The Suwannee Association responded quickly. The association’s minutes from 1861 claimed that the “whole ministry stands impeached by the Alabaha River. Their circular letter warned of characters that had, “a great zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” The letter also noted that you could tell preaching was “not of God” if it was, “generally engaged to alarm sinners.” The next year, the Suwannee declared salvation through the means doctrine, an “uncertain sound.” In 1869, the association declared baptisms performed by the Alabaha to be invalid, because of differing faith. In that year’s circular letter, Issac Coon stated that the purpose of the gospel was for saving “a believer from all the bogs, dens, swamps, breakers, quicksands and damnable delusions of false teachers.” (pg. 34-35)
"As the Civil War was ending, the Alabaha was beginning its move into an isolation brought about by its rigid adherence to the association’s founding principles." (pg.
"In 1881, the association responded to other Primitive Baptists who declared the Bennett faction to be the “true” Alabaha River Association by rechristening themselves as the “Original Constitution Alabaha River Association.” The association’s 1884 circular letter provides important information on the deeper reasons for the split. It seems the means doctrine was still an important issue when the split occurred, for the Bennettites were accused of taking the antimeans position in this letter. Perhaps those who split with Bennett in 1871, dissatisfied with the association’s stance on gospel instrumentality, used the homestead controversy to separate themselves from the association. The circular address does not mention the homestead controversy and instead emphasizes the debate over instrumentality. A typical passage from the letter reads:
The Assyrians cried with a loud voice in the Jew’s language, just as a great many are trying to do today, using the Jew’s language and carrying a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof saying, that the gospel of our Christ, the right arm of God has no power in it to raise the dead, it can only feed the living after they have been raised by some other power." (pg. 45)
"Though the debate raged on outside of the Alabaha Association, existing records from the latter half of the 1880s do not mention the split or the debate over the means doctrine." (pg. 47)
"As the 1890s approached, the Crawfordite (Original Constitution) Alabaha River Association had been completely cut off from the rest of the Primitive Baptist community in the region." (pg. 47)
"Because the Crawfordites remained unchanged throughout the Progressive Era they emerged on the other side as the only association in the region that still rigidly adhered to the principles of the Primitive Baptists at the time of their split with the missionaries." (pg. 50)
"During the late nineteenth century, some Primitive preachers began to fear the moral apathy the doctrine of absolute predestination could inculcate among their believers. The preachers’ fears may not have been unfounded, as a genuine decline in morality during the postWar years seems to have been a reality in South Georgia and the early circular letters of the Union Association frequently bemoaned the moral state of the region. This led some Primitive preachers to speak against the doctrine of absolute predestination during the last years of the nineteenth century, in the form of the “conditional time salvation” doctrine. This “timely salvation” included a sense of communion with God and a respite from the guilt of neglected duties to God. Some Primitive Baptist ministers referred to it as “working out your own salvation.” (pg. 51-52)
"The idea of “time salvation” caught on quickly among Primitive Baptists in South Georgia...The introduction of “conditional time salvation” was responsible for a number of splits across the country, though one split directly related to the doctrine in South Georgia." (pg. 52)
These citations give further evidence that the original position of the Hardshells was that the Gospel was the means God used in the regeneration of sinners, the teaching of the Old Baptists who adopted the 1689 London Confession and the Philadelphia Confession. It also shows that the rejection of the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things and the teaching of "time salvation" showed a change in doctrine. All this proves that today's Hardshells are not "primitive" but a new sect.
"A particularly interesting theological point that the Alabaha Association defended during this period, and continues to defend until the present day is the means doctrine. This principle considered the gospel as the “means” by which God regenerated the elect and suggested that preachers address both saint and sinner. This doctrine was in circulation among the Baptists long before they arrived in Georgia. The London Confession of 1689, an influential document for Primitive Baptist theology, taught that the, “word and Spirit of God” could raise sinners, but only at God’s appointed time." (pg. 29)
"The means doctrine appeared to be favored by early antimissionary associations in southeastern Georgia. The 1833 Ochlocknee Association noted that the ministers appointed to preach the Sunday services delivered sermons, “to the consolation of mourners, the establishment of saints, and the alarming of sinners.” Isham Peacock’s preaching during this time was said to have, “alarmed sinners into convulsions.” The minutes of the influential Union Church also mention sermons that were, “alarming to poor careless sinners.” Even after the initial split with the missionaries, the Suwannee Association still asked ministers to “preach the word wherever you go, and whenever you can go; it is …for the consolation of his children, for the comforting of mourners and the alarming of sinners.” (pg. 29)
"However, support for the instrumentality of the gospel soon faded among the Primitive Baptists in the region. According to Crowley, “With the missions disputes raging, many Primitives adopted the opinion that regeneration is always the direct act of the Holy Spirit, independent of any instrumentality.” In 1855, the circular letter of the Pulaski Association’s made clear their position on the means doctrine:
The savior was far from teaching that the preaching of the gospel or any other labor of man was for the awakening of dead sinners…the Life giving power is of God and of God alone…How absurd then the idea of the preaching of the gospel being the ordinary and extraordinary means in the hands of God of giving life to sinners, it is closely allied to the great mammoth principle of missionism." (pg. 29-30)
"The antimeans position was soon adopted by the majority of Primitive Baptists in the nation. However, the change was not universal. The Alabaha disliked the antimeans position from its inception among the Primitives in the area. In the early 1850s, the association proclaimed the gospel as “the means of salvation” and lamented the dissension “respecting the preaching of the gospel” and “falling out about the way and plan of salvation.” Tensions would only increase as the decade went on." (pg. 30)
"During this time, a major dispute erupted between the Alabaha and its parent organization, the Suwannee River Association. In 1860, Job E. W. Smith, moderator of the Suwannee River Association, preached at the Alabaha River Association’s annual meeting. During his sermon, Smith unequivocally advocated for the antimeans position when he held up the Bible and told the congregation, “You have been told that this is the word of God; do you believe it? I say it is not, it is ink and paper.” Smith also stated “the Gospel had no saving efficacy in it to the awakening of sinners; it was only for the feeding of the flock.” The Alabaha, who had long advocated the instrumentality of the Gospel, declared that Smith’s words were “a departure from the faith” and recommended “that this body withdraw her correspondence from the Suwannee Association until she becomes reclaimed.” (pg. 34)
"The Suwannee Association responded quickly. The association’s minutes from 1861 claimed that the “whole ministry stands impeached by the Alabaha River. Their circular letter warned of characters that had, “a great zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” The letter also noted that you could tell preaching was “not of God” if it was, “generally engaged to alarm sinners.” The next year, the Suwannee declared salvation through the means doctrine, an “uncertain sound.” In 1869, the association declared baptisms performed by the Alabaha to be invalid, because of differing faith. In that year’s circular letter, Issac Coon stated that the purpose of the gospel was for saving “a believer from all the bogs, dens, swamps, breakers, quicksands and damnable delusions of false teachers.” (pg. 34-35)
"As the Civil War was ending, the Alabaha was beginning its move into an isolation brought about by its rigid adherence to the association’s founding principles." (pg.
"In 1881, the association responded to other Primitive Baptists who declared the Bennett faction to be the “true” Alabaha River Association by rechristening themselves as the “Original Constitution Alabaha River Association.” The association’s 1884 circular letter provides important information on the deeper reasons for the split. It seems the means doctrine was still an important issue when the split occurred, for the Bennettites were accused of taking the antimeans position in this letter. Perhaps those who split with Bennett in 1871, dissatisfied with the association’s stance on gospel instrumentality, used the homestead controversy to separate themselves from the association. The circular address does not mention the homestead controversy and instead emphasizes the debate over instrumentality. A typical passage from the letter reads:
The Assyrians cried with a loud voice in the Jew’s language, just as a great many are trying to do today, using the Jew’s language and carrying a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof saying, that the gospel of our Christ, the right arm of God has no power in it to raise the dead, it can only feed the living after they have been raised by some other power." (pg. 45)
"Though the debate raged on outside of the Alabaha Association, existing records from the latter half of the 1880s do not mention the split or the debate over the means doctrine." (pg. 47)
"As the 1890s approached, the Crawfordite (Original Constitution) Alabaha River Association had been completely cut off from the rest of the Primitive Baptist community in the region." (pg. 47)
"Because the Crawfordites remained unchanged throughout the Progressive Era they emerged on the other side as the only association in the region that still rigidly adhered to the principles of the Primitive Baptists at the time of their split with the missionaries." (pg. 50)
"During the late nineteenth century, some Primitive preachers began to fear the moral apathy the doctrine of absolute predestination could inculcate among their believers. The preachers’ fears may not have been unfounded, as a genuine decline in morality during the postWar years seems to have been a reality in South Georgia and the early circular letters of the Union Association frequently bemoaned the moral state of the region. This led some Primitive preachers to speak against the doctrine of absolute predestination during the last years of the nineteenth century, in the form of the “conditional time salvation” doctrine. This “timely salvation” included a sense of communion with God and a respite from the guilt of neglected duties to God. Some Primitive Baptist ministers referred to it as “working out your own salvation.” (pg. 51-52)
"The idea of “time salvation” caught on quickly among Primitive Baptists in South Georgia...The introduction of “conditional time salvation” was responsible for a number of splits across the country, though one split directly related to the doctrine in South Georgia." (pg. 52)
These citations give further evidence that the original position of the Hardshells was that the Gospel was the means God used in the regeneration of sinners, the teaching of the Old Baptists who adopted the 1689 London Confession and the Philadelphia Confession. It also shows that the rejection of the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things and the teaching of "time salvation" showed a change in doctrine. All this proves that today's Hardshells are not "primitive" but a new sect.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
The Towaliga Association on the Gospel
The period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a tumultuous one for the Primitive Baptist denomination. It was this era which saw the rise and ascendancy of conditionalism along with its gospel denying power. This does not mean however that the truth was without a witness, albeit a minority.
An excerpt from the minutes of the Towaliga Primitive Baptist Association in September, 1896 reads: (emphasis mine – KF):
“ARTICLE FIFTEEN
We believe and shall contend, that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; that the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto them that are saved, it is the power of God; that we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us; that no man can preach the gospel only by the power and spirit of the gospel; that there is no power in him that preaches it, nor him that hears it, be he saint or sinner, abstractly considered; and hence, that whatever power there is, must be in the gospel itself, and that whatever is divinely purposed to be accomplished by the preaching of it, must be accomplished by the power that is in the gospel itself, and not by any supposed or implied power either in him that preaches it, or in those who hear it; and therefore that the Arminian on the one hand, who places the efficacy of the gospel in the power and disposition of the sinner to hear and accept, and the Antinomian on the other hand, who places its efficacy exclusively in a power to hear previously lodged in the heart by the quickening energy of the Holy Spirit, are both wrong both meet in tarnishing the glory of the gospel, by robbing it of any intrinsic power in itself, and in lodging the sole power to make the preaching of it efficacious, in the subject addressed by it.
We believe that the gospel is to be preached to every creature; that God in His providence brings within the pale of its proclamation, leaving it to God alone, the sole power and prerogative of accomplishing His own blessed purpose in it; that God has inseparably connected His word and the gospel with the ingathering of His own chosen and redeemed people, and that as all these, both Jew and Gentile, must be brought, He has so connected His purpose, power, providence, and grace, that wherever He has a people in this world, His word will go, and His gospel will be proclaimed, in spite of all opposing power, and will not return unto Him void, or fall stillborn on the ears and hearts of men, but will accomplish the thing which He pleases, and prosper in the thing whereunto He sends it. On the other hand we believe that where God has, in His judicial providence, withdrawn His word and gospel from any country, and suffered the people to lapse into idolatry, it is to be regarded as indubitable evidence that He has no people in that country to be called by it, and it would be, and is, heaven-daring presumption on the part of men, to undertake, by means of their own, to send it there again.
We believe that the purpose of God in the gospel is
1ST That the gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body, and partakers of God’s promise through the gospel (Ephesians 3:6).
2ND That the faith of His elect should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:5).
3RD To call the chosen ones through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14).
4TH To abolish death and bring life and immortality to light, in those to whom grace was given in Christ Jesus before the world began, as made manifest by experimental appearing of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 1: 9, 10).
5TH To open the eyes of the redeemed ones, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in Christ (Acts 26:17, 18).
6TH To feed, comfort and instruct, and to reprove, rebuke and warn God’s regenerate and living people (John 21:15, 16; Acts 20:23; 2 Timothy 4:1, 2)."
The article begins with a reference to Romans 1:16 and 1 Cor.1:18. There is no reason to believe that they understood these passages to mean anything other than the one great eternal salvation in Christ, and not a mere time salvation. They affirm that the power must be in the gospel (only as the power of God rest upon it – KF) and deny the Pelagian notion that the power lies in the unregenerate sinner himself. What is more noteworthy is their denail that the power of the gospel rests "exclusively in a power to hear previously lodged in the heart by the quickening energy of the Holy Spirit". What an indictment upon those today who feel that the gospel is to be preached only to those who are "already saved", who argue for human ability as a prerequisite to be subject to its message!
They were not opposed to the indiscriminate preaching of the Word, feeling that it should be preached to every creature. They did not use the sovereignty of God to set aside the role of the gospel as do our moderns, but rightly understood the relationship between the two. Because God is sovereign He will see to it "that wherever He has a people in this world, His word will go", and that it will accomplish the ingathering of "his own chosen and redeemed people". Hardly a mere time salvation!
They did not pine for "regenerate heathen", but felt that if a land continued for some time unevangelized it was evidence that God had no people there. The only thing questionable to me is their conviction that if such a place were found, men should not strive to carry the gospel there. But this I can't be sure of as I don't know what they mean by "means of their own".
The passages they reference to support their convictions are destructive of today's teachings. The Gentiles are partakers of God's promise "through the gospel" (Ephesians 3:6) and are chosen to a "belief of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:13). They cite as well Acts 26:17-18, a verse which absolutely destroys any anti-means system!
Monday, August 19, 2013
Fearing God
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils (Greek demons) also believe, and tremble." (James 2: 19)
I have reasoned with Hardshells and others who think that Cornelius was a saved or regenerate man before he came to believe in Jesus. I have already written on this in Chpt. 88 - Hardshell Proof Textx X. One of the reasons why this cannot be true is because of the word of God to Cornelius:
"...Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou, and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11: 13-14)
Hardshells insist that the salvation promised to Cornelius and his household, as a result of believing the Gospel, was not eternal salvation from sin and Hell, but a mere temporal salvation. They insist that Cornelius was already eternally saved, and would be finally saved, whether he ever heard the Gospel or believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. But, numerous Scriptures prove that all who do not believe in Christ are lost. For instance:
1) "He who does not believe shall be condemned." (Mark 16: 16) 2)
2) "...and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36) 3)
3) "...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24)
4) "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 15: 22)
Hardshells argue that Cornelius' fear of God was proof of his regeneration and I cited the above words of James to show that such a deduction was untenable. If fearing God, in itself, was proof of a regenerated state, then the demons would be regenerate. One Hardshell recently attempted to answer this rebuttal by saying that it was not appropos to cite the case of demons and apply them to the case of men. In other words, he argued that it is true that the fear of God by demons does not prove they are regenerate but the fear of God by men does prove that they are regenerate. But, his reply should be directed to the Apostle James for James thought it was apropos to use the case of demons to prove his case relative to men.
James affirmed that believing in one God was not sufficient to prove that one is saved, and he brings up the case of demon belief in one God to prove it. But, our Hardshell opponent would say to James - "you are correct to argue that belief in one God by demons does not prove that demons are saved, but you are wrong to infer the same with regard to men; men who believe in one God are saved." But, James does use the case of demon faith in God to prove that men who believe in one God are not saved. Likewise, James proves that one can believe in one God and fear that one God and still be lost. And, what is the proof James gives? He says that the demons believe and fear God. But, they are lost. Ergo, men who believe in one God and fear God are not saved. What James is showing is that mere belief in one God and fear of him is not enough for salvation.
Besides, though Cornelius feared God, there was yet no faith in Christ. Fear of God, by itself, is no proof of regeneration. Faith is what proves that a man is regenerate and there is no record that Cornelius had faith in Christ before he heard the Gospel. In fact, Peter testifies that it was through his preaching to Cornelius that Cornelius came to faith.
"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15: 7)
Cornelius was not a believer in Jesus before he heard Peter preach to him about Jesus. This is what Paul taught.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?...So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 14-17)
How could Cornelius be saved before he believed and called upon the name of the Lord? If faith comes by hearing the word of God, and Cornelius had not yet heard it, then Cornelius did not have faith till he heard Peter preach the word.
Further, the Apostles interpreted the coming to faith in Christ, by Cornelius, as being equivalent to Cornelius being "granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11: 18)
Now let us look at some other men who feared God before they were saved, or men who feared God and his judgment and who were not saved.
"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." (Acts 24: 25)
This was said of Felix, a wicked man who, at the time this was written, was clearly an unsaved man. Yet, the preaching of coming judgment caused him to tremble for fear. This is no unique experience. Lots of sinners have been made to fear when under conviction of sin. On this point Dr. Gill wrote:
"And this sort of fear arises, 2a1. From a sense of sin, and the guilt of it on the conscience, without a view of pardon; thus no sooner were Adam and Eve sensible of their sin and their nakedness by it, but they fled through fear from the presence of God, and hid themselves among the trees of the garden, as yet having no discovery of pardoning grace made to them; for said Adam to God calling for him, "I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself", Ge 3:10. Thus a wicked man, conscious of his guilt, flees when no man pursues, and is like Pashur, a Magormissabib, "fear round about", a terror to himself and others.
2a2. From the law entering the conscience of a sinner, having broken it and working wrath in it; for the law, when it comes with powerful convictions of sin, and with menaces of punishment for it, "it worketh" present "wrath", or a sense of it in the conscience, and leaves a "fearful looking for of judgment" to come, and of "fiery indignation" which shall consume "the adversaries" of God; when persons in such a condition and circumstances would be glad of rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of God, which appears to them intolerable.
2a3. From the curse of the law, and the weight of it on the conscience. The voice of the law is terrible, it is a voice of words which they that heard intreated they might hear no more. It accuses of sin, pronounces guilty for it, is a ministration of condemnation and a killing letter; its language is, "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them", #Ga 3:10 which to hear is dreadful when the conscience of a sinner is awakened; but how much more terrible is it, when a sinner feels as it were in his own apprehension all the curses of the law upon him, as he does when "the anger of the Lord, and his jealousy/ smoke against" him, "and all the curses written in the lair lie upon him", #De 29:20 with what slavish fear must he be then filled?
2a4. From a view of death as the demerit of sin; "The wages of sin is death", the just desert of it; sin is the sting of death, gives it its venom and fatal influence, and makes it that terrible thing it is; and some "through fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage", and are under a continual servile fear of it.
2a5. From a dread of hell and everlasting damnation. This fear is of the same kind with that of devils, who believe there is one God and tremble; tremble at present wrath and future torment. So wicked men, who have a fearful apprehension of everlasting punishment, it appears to them greater than they can bear, as it did to Cain." (on "The Fear Of God" in his Body of Practical Divinity)
Gill is right. Unregenerate men, when awakened to their danger, feel a deep sense of fear towards God and to coming judgment. Yet, this in itself is no proof of regeneration as Gill and other great Calvinists have pointed out. (See my chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction" for a further analysis of this issue.
"And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16: 27-31)
This jailer was under conviction of sin and possessed a fear of God and yet he knew that he was lost and needed to be saved. In answer to his question - "what must I do to be saved?" - the Apostle, had he been a Hardshell, would have said - "why nothing! The fact that you are in fear of God is evidence that you are already saved."
"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." (II Cor. 5: 11)
On this verse Spurgeon wrote in his autobiograhphy:
"I sometimes preach 'the terror of the Lord,' as Paul did when he said, 'Kinowing therefor the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;' but I do it as did the apostle, to bring them to a sense of their sins." (pg. 54 - see here)
Just as Felix trembled at the preaching of a final judgment day by the Apostle Paul, so we hope that sinners will likewise fall under such dread and fear. For such are good subjects for hearing the good news about salvation in Christ. The fear of God is what ought to lead men to Christ. It is a preparatory work to regeneration, not an evidence of it. The Hebrews who stood before Mt. Sinai when it "burned with fire," and its "blackness, and darkness, and tempest," (Heb. 12: 18) were terrified, and "so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake." (vs. 21) But, not all the Hebrews who stood before Mt. Sinai were born again children of God. In fact, the most of them were not. Yet, they all feared the God who appeared to them.
C. B. Hassell wrote:
"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)
Cornelius' heart was prepared by the Lord for the preaching of the Gospel, or for salvation. His heart was plowed up and prepared like the good soil in the parable of the sower and the seed. But, such preparation is not regeneration, as our Old Baptist forefathers understood, but was preparation for it. Whereever there is such a heart and soul, the Lord will get the Gospel to that person, as the elder Hassell stated. When Christ said that he "must go through Samaria" (John 4: 4), it was because a woman was there who needed the Gospel, needed to be saved, and whose heart the Lord had prepared for it. But, she was not saved till he came to her with the good news about living water. The Hardshells need to understand the difference between a heart that is being prepared for regeneration and regeneration itself.
I have reasoned with Hardshells and others who think that Cornelius was a saved or regenerate man before he came to believe in Jesus. I have already written on this in Chpt. 88 - Hardshell Proof Textx X. One of the reasons why this cannot be true is because of the word of God to Cornelius:
"...Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou, and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11: 13-14)
Hardshells insist that the salvation promised to Cornelius and his household, as a result of believing the Gospel, was not eternal salvation from sin and Hell, but a mere temporal salvation. They insist that Cornelius was already eternally saved, and would be finally saved, whether he ever heard the Gospel or believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. But, numerous Scriptures prove that all who do not believe in Christ are lost. For instance:
1) "He who does not believe shall be condemned." (Mark 16: 16) 2)
2) "...and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36) 3)
3) "...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24)
4) "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 15: 22)
Hardshells argue that Cornelius' fear of God was proof of his regeneration and I cited the above words of James to show that such a deduction was untenable. If fearing God, in itself, was proof of a regenerated state, then the demons would be regenerate. One Hardshell recently attempted to answer this rebuttal by saying that it was not appropos to cite the case of demons and apply them to the case of men. In other words, he argued that it is true that the fear of God by demons does not prove they are regenerate but the fear of God by men does prove that they are regenerate. But, his reply should be directed to the Apostle James for James thought it was apropos to use the case of demons to prove his case relative to men.
James affirmed that believing in one God was not sufficient to prove that one is saved, and he brings up the case of demon belief in one God to prove it. But, our Hardshell opponent would say to James - "you are correct to argue that belief in one God by demons does not prove that demons are saved, but you are wrong to infer the same with regard to men; men who believe in one God are saved." But, James does use the case of demon faith in God to prove that men who believe in one God are not saved. Likewise, James proves that one can believe in one God and fear that one God and still be lost. And, what is the proof James gives? He says that the demons believe and fear God. But, they are lost. Ergo, men who believe in one God and fear God are not saved. What James is showing is that mere belief in one God and fear of him is not enough for salvation.
Besides, though Cornelius feared God, there was yet no faith in Christ. Fear of God, by itself, is no proof of regeneration. Faith is what proves that a man is regenerate and there is no record that Cornelius had faith in Christ before he heard the Gospel. In fact, Peter testifies that it was through his preaching to Cornelius that Cornelius came to faith.
"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15: 7)
Cornelius was not a believer in Jesus before he heard Peter preach to him about Jesus. This is what Paul taught.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?...So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 14-17)
How could Cornelius be saved before he believed and called upon the name of the Lord? If faith comes by hearing the word of God, and Cornelius had not yet heard it, then Cornelius did not have faith till he heard Peter preach the word.
Further, the Apostles interpreted the coming to faith in Christ, by Cornelius, as being equivalent to Cornelius being "granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11: 18)
Now let us look at some other men who feared God before they were saved, or men who feared God and his judgment and who were not saved.
"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." (Acts 24: 25)
This was said of Felix, a wicked man who, at the time this was written, was clearly an unsaved man. Yet, the preaching of coming judgment caused him to tremble for fear. This is no unique experience. Lots of sinners have been made to fear when under conviction of sin. On this point Dr. Gill wrote:
"And this sort of fear arises, 2a1. From a sense of sin, and the guilt of it on the conscience, without a view of pardon; thus no sooner were Adam and Eve sensible of their sin and their nakedness by it, but they fled through fear from the presence of God, and hid themselves among the trees of the garden, as yet having no discovery of pardoning grace made to them; for said Adam to God calling for him, "I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself", Ge 3:10. Thus a wicked man, conscious of his guilt, flees when no man pursues, and is like Pashur, a Magormissabib, "fear round about", a terror to himself and others.
2a2. From the law entering the conscience of a sinner, having broken it and working wrath in it; for the law, when it comes with powerful convictions of sin, and with menaces of punishment for it, "it worketh" present "wrath", or a sense of it in the conscience, and leaves a "fearful looking for of judgment" to come, and of "fiery indignation" which shall consume "the adversaries" of God; when persons in such a condition and circumstances would be glad of rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of God, which appears to them intolerable.
2a3. From the curse of the law, and the weight of it on the conscience. The voice of the law is terrible, it is a voice of words which they that heard intreated they might hear no more. It accuses of sin, pronounces guilty for it, is a ministration of condemnation and a killing letter; its language is, "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them", #Ga 3:10 which to hear is dreadful when the conscience of a sinner is awakened; but how much more terrible is it, when a sinner feels as it were in his own apprehension all the curses of the law upon him, as he does when "the anger of the Lord, and his jealousy/ smoke against" him, "and all the curses written in the lair lie upon him", #De 29:20 with what slavish fear must he be then filled?
2a4. From a view of death as the demerit of sin; "The wages of sin is death", the just desert of it; sin is the sting of death, gives it its venom and fatal influence, and makes it that terrible thing it is; and some "through fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage", and are under a continual servile fear of it.
2a5. From a dread of hell and everlasting damnation. This fear is of the same kind with that of devils, who believe there is one God and tremble; tremble at present wrath and future torment. So wicked men, who have a fearful apprehension of everlasting punishment, it appears to them greater than they can bear, as it did to Cain." (on "The Fear Of God" in his Body of Practical Divinity)
Gill is right. Unregenerate men, when awakened to their danger, feel a deep sense of fear towards God and to coming judgment. Yet, this in itself is no proof of regeneration as Gill and other great Calvinists have pointed out. (See my chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction" for a further analysis of this issue.
"And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16: 27-31)
This jailer was under conviction of sin and possessed a fear of God and yet he knew that he was lost and needed to be saved. In answer to his question - "what must I do to be saved?" - the Apostle, had he been a Hardshell, would have said - "why nothing! The fact that you are in fear of God is evidence that you are already saved."
"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." (II Cor. 5: 11)
On this verse Spurgeon wrote in his autobiograhphy:
"I sometimes preach 'the terror of the Lord,' as Paul did when he said, 'Kinowing therefor the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;' but I do it as did the apostle, to bring them to a sense of their sins." (pg. 54 - see here)
Just as Felix trembled at the preaching of a final judgment day by the Apostle Paul, so we hope that sinners will likewise fall under such dread and fear. For such are good subjects for hearing the good news about salvation in Christ. The fear of God is what ought to lead men to Christ. It is a preparatory work to regeneration, not an evidence of it. The Hebrews who stood before Mt. Sinai when it "burned with fire," and its "blackness, and darkness, and tempest," (Heb. 12: 18) were terrified, and "so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake." (vs. 21) But, not all the Hebrews who stood before Mt. Sinai were born again children of God. In fact, the most of them were not. Yet, they all feared the God who appeared to them.
C. B. Hassell wrote:
"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)
Cornelius' heart was prepared by the Lord for the preaching of the Gospel, or for salvation. His heart was plowed up and prepared like the good soil in the parable of the sower and the seed. But, such preparation is not regeneration, as our Old Baptist forefathers understood, but was preparation for it. Whereever there is such a heart and soul, the Lord will get the Gospel to that person, as the elder Hassell stated. When Christ said that he "must go through Samaria" (John 4: 4), it was because a woman was there who needed the Gospel, needed to be saved, and whose heart the Lord had prepared for it. But, she was not saved till he came to her with the good news about living water. The Hardshells need to understand the difference between a heart that is being prepared for regeneration and regeneration itself.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Through Belief
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13-14)
The word "belief" in this passage is another way of translating the Greek word "pistis," though it is generally translated as "faith." Strong gives its definition as - "conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it."
The fact that the King James Version translate pistis as "belief" in the above passage is detrimental to the Hardshells often defining it as someking of physical substance, or as "ability to believe." Also, the definition given by Strong is detrimental to the Hardshell idea that "pistis" sometimes denotes some kind of "seed faith" which lacks any belief of any truth.
One could translate "belief of the truth" as "faith of the truth." The object of faith is truth, Gospel truth, truth about God and Christ. Where there is no knowledge of God and Christ, there can be no faith.
Hardshells cannot possibly make the salvation of this text into a mere temporal salvation, seeing it is that salvation that is the result of God's having chosen. It is eternal salvation. This salvation is said to be "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Hardshells, however, do not believe that eternal salvation is "through belief of the truth."
The text also says that the chosen people are "called" to this salvation "by our gospel." The word "by" (Greek "dia") denotes instrumentality. The end of being called by the gospel is "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ," which cannot be interpreted to be a mere temporal blessing, but as descriptive of that final salvation to which the elect are chosen.
The first Hardshells understood all this. This passage was often cited by them, in the Black Rock Address, in their first periodicals, such as in "The Primitive Baptist," the "Signs of the Times," the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," and in the "Old Baptist Banner." They all affirmed that this verse taught the necessity of being converted to Christ by the preaching of the Gospel in order to be eternally saved. It would be good if our modern Hardshells would return to the Old Baptist faith regarding the teaching of these words of the Apostle.
The word "belief" in this passage is another way of translating the Greek word "pistis," though it is generally translated as "faith." Strong gives its definition as - "conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it."
The fact that the King James Version translate pistis as "belief" in the above passage is detrimental to the Hardshells often defining it as someking of physical substance, or as "ability to believe." Also, the definition given by Strong is detrimental to the Hardshell idea that "pistis" sometimes denotes some kind of "seed faith" which lacks any belief of any truth.
One could translate "belief of the truth" as "faith of the truth." The object of faith is truth, Gospel truth, truth about God and Christ. Where there is no knowledge of God and Christ, there can be no faith.
Hardshells cannot possibly make the salvation of this text into a mere temporal salvation, seeing it is that salvation that is the result of God's having chosen. It is eternal salvation. This salvation is said to be "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Hardshells, however, do not believe that eternal salvation is "through belief of the truth."
The text also says that the chosen people are "called" to this salvation "by our gospel." The word "by" (Greek "dia") denotes instrumentality. The end of being called by the gospel is "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ," which cannot be interpreted to be a mere temporal blessing, but as descriptive of that final salvation to which the elect are chosen.
The first Hardshells understood all this. This passage was often cited by them, in the Black Rock Address, in their first periodicals, such as in "The Primitive Baptist," the "Signs of the Times," the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," and in the "Old Baptist Banner." They all affirmed that this verse taught the necessity of being converted to Christ by the preaching of the Gospel in order to be eternally saved. It would be good if our modern Hardshells would return to the Old Baptist faith regarding the teaching of these words of the Apostle.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Hardshells on Immediate Regeneration
In an article titled "Total Depravity Requires Immediate Holy Spirit Regeneration" (see here) a Hardshell apologist wrote:
"Consider the testimony of the following verses that speak to the deadness of man's natural condition and thus underscore the need for the immediacy of regeneration and the folly of all other methods which rely upon human means."
I have dealt with this Hardshell argumentation in numerous places in my ongoing book and in my blogs. For instance, I wrote this on the subject:
"But, even in the Hardshell scheme of regeneration, dead people do hear the words of Christ before they are made alive! The Hardshell says that the dead cannot hear. Yet, they also teach that the dead must hear to be regenerated. They have no problem putting "hearing" before life when it comes to the words Christ himself speaks to the dead, but not those same words he speaks through the preacher of the gospel! I will deal with this other novel idea of the Hardshells, the "Direct Speaking" theory of regeneration, under a separate chapter. Brother Ross has dealt with this novel theory extensively and I hope to cite his remarks and extend upon them. Did the dead bones in Ezekiel 37 not hear the words of God, through Ezekiel, BEFORE they came to life?" ( "Chapter Nine - Hardshell Logic on Regeneration")
In another posting titled "Chpt. 86 - Hardshell Proof Texts VII" I dealt with the Hardshell argumentation on how a belief in total depravity necessitates a regeneration apart from the use of Gospel preaching. Please read that chapter.
"Consider the testimony of the following verses that speak to the deadness of man's natural condition and thus underscore the need for the immediacy of regeneration and the folly of all other methods which rely upon human means."
I have dealt with this Hardshell argumentation in numerous places in my ongoing book and in my blogs. For instance, I wrote this on the subject:
"But, even in the Hardshell scheme of regeneration, dead people do hear the words of Christ before they are made alive! The Hardshell says that the dead cannot hear. Yet, they also teach that the dead must hear to be regenerated. They have no problem putting "hearing" before life when it comes to the words Christ himself speaks to the dead, but not those same words he speaks through the preacher of the gospel! I will deal with this other novel idea of the Hardshells, the "Direct Speaking" theory of regeneration, under a separate chapter. Brother Ross has dealt with this novel theory extensively and I hope to cite his remarks and extend upon them. Did the dead bones in Ezekiel 37 not hear the words of God, through Ezekiel, BEFORE they came to life?" ( "Chapter Nine - Hardshell Logic on Regeneration")
In another posting titled "Chpt. 86 - Hardshell Proof Texts VII" I dealt with the Hardshell argumentation on how a belief in total depravity necessitates a regeneration apart from the use of Gospel preaching. Please read that chapter.
Hardshells on Cornelius
A "Primitive Baptist" has started a blog and one of the entries he made was for the purpose of trying to prove that Cornelius was a saved and regenerate man before he came to believe the Gospel or believe in Christ. He wrote:
"That said, what additional data do we have regarding Cornelius in Acts 10:2? The bible says that he "feared God." What does this tell us about Cornelius? Well, it ELIMINATES the possibility that he was unregenerate because Paul says such men have "no fear of God before their eyes."(Rom 3:18) The moment you affirm that Cornelius "feared God," you have admitted that he was "saved" in the sense of being regenerate (the Tit 3:5 sense), and all who are regenerate are already in possession of eternal life."
Here is the comment I left him.
Dear Brother, by your logic the demons are also regenerated because they tremble before God, which shows that they have a fear of God. (James 2: 19) Further, you have someone who does not believe in Jesus saved, and yet the Bible says that the wrath of God abides on the one who is not a believer in Jesus. (John 3: 36) (see here for the posting in his blog titled "theearstohear")
"That said, what additional data do we have regarding Cornelius in Acts 10:2? The bible says that he "feared God." What does this tell us about Cornelius? Well, it ELIMINATES the possibility that he was unregenerate because Paul says such men have "no fear of God before their eyes."(Rom 3:18) The moment you affirm that Cornelius "feared God," you have admitted that he was "saved" in the sense of being regenerate (the Tit 3:5 sense), and all who are regenerate are already in possession of eternal life."
Here is the comment I left him.
Dear Brother, by your logic the demons are also regenerated because they tremble before God, which shows that they have a fear of God. (James 2: 19) Further, you have someone who does not believe in Jesus saved, and yet the Bible says that the wrath of God abides on the one who is not a believer in Jesus. (John 3: 36) (see here for the posting in his blog titled "theearstohear")
Is Evangelical Faith a Gift or Not?
If a blessing is bestowed through instrumentality can it be called a gift of God?
If we remain true to the premise of many Primitive Baptists, then the answer must be no. Whatsoever involves men or any other means must be obtained by works. As Elder S.T. Tolley comments on Ephesians 2:8:
"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 what happens when one has created this dichotomy in his mind because of an a priori commitment to anti-means. Gospel-faith is considered as something distinct from the faith GIVEN by God, as if they are not the same.
Yet I read on another church’s website something contrary:
“We believe that evangelical faith is the gift of God (emphasis mine – KF) and good works are the fruit of faith, and justify us in the sight of men and angels, as evidence of our gracious state. Eph. 2:8, 10; Gal. 5:22; Rom. 5:1; Heb. 11:6." (see Here)
So is evangelical faith a gift of God or not? One says no. The other says yes. Certainly evangelical faith is a gift of God, but it is consistent with the teaching of time salvation to say that it isn't. It is part of that "salvation" which is by works.
But I am used to reading these sorts of contradictions.
If the faith which comes through the gospel is a gift, then God’s gifts may be imparted through means, can they not? How then is it stated that this "kind" of faith is obtained by the efforts of men, as opposed to that other "kind" of seed faith which is furnished by grace? Should we not then give glory to God for our “gospel salvation”, as it is called, instead of saying that it is something that we must do for ourselves?
On the other hand, if it is not a gift, then God does not “freely give us all things” (Rom. 8:32), does he? Peter was wrong when he stated that the power of God “hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). We must say only those blessings which we receive apart from means are gifts from the Lord. For the rest, God must be robbed of His glory. I must instead give credit to the preacher or boast of my own free-will when I “saved myself”.
In answer to the question “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?”(1 Cor. 4:7), I must reply…
Why those things which come through the gospel of course!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)