Under a posting - "Two Heads Are Better Than One?" - Hardshell apologist Jason Brown writes about Elder Fralick and myself:
"Kevin Fralick has joined Stephen Garrett in a new blog entitled, "Old Baptist", in an effort to prove that all Baptists historically believed that the new birth is normally effected by God through the gospel as preached by men. Primitive Baptists have claimed the title of "Old Baptists" historically, but have denied that God effects regeneration through the gospel."
Yes, and brother Kevin and I, together with several others who are in support of our efforts, want to see the counter evidence from Jason and the Hardshells about their beliefs being the same as the first Baptists of the old confessions. Brother Kevin and I represent the views of the real "Old Baptists."
Jason wrote:
"By this I mean that the new birth is not clearly shown in the Scripture to be effected by the preached gospel. One might assume from such texts as James 1:18, 1 Corinthians 4:15, or 1 Peter 1:23 that the new birth can be effected by the preaching of the gospel, but this would not prove that it normally is."
Jason is a rebel against the plain teachings of scripture, a sign of his cult status. The passages mentioned could not be any clearer about how God begets by the gospel. Were Peter, James, and Paul not stating how God begets sinners? How God did it normally, regularly, universally? Where is Jason's authority for affirming that these writers are only saying that some were begotten by the gospel? Is Jason admitting that these passages teach that the early Christians were begotten by the gospel? Why won't Jason simply deal with the passages themselves?
Jason wrote:
"Indeed, it can hardly be established that the first two texts refer to the new birth at all; a conversion into gospel truth akin to the one mentioned in Luke 22:31-32 might be in view in regard to James 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 4:15. It seems highly unlikely to suppose that Peter was unregenerate in Luke 22:31-32, as the passage indicates that Peter already possessed faith."
Well, at least, here, Jason does make an attempt to address the passages in question! But, does he give any exegesis of the passages? No, but rather simply denies that they teach that God begets through the gospel! Then he falls back upon the use of his human reason and says "it seems higly unlikely to suppose"! He then speaks of Luke 22 where Jesus addresses Peter as though he was not yet "converted," yet for what reason I cannot discern. How does the reference to Peter's need of "conversion" explain the passages teaching means?
Certainly Peter was regenerated in Luke 22, though he still needed to be "converted." But, this "conversion" is not that which is synonymous with regeneration. The word "converted" generally connects with regeneration, but not always. The word means to "change" one's thinking and behavior, and certainly regeneration changes one's thinking and behavior, but there is still need for conversion in the lives of God's regenerated people. James 5: 19, 20 demonstrates this. James speaks of "converting" a "brother" from the "error of his ways" and "saving (preserving) a soul from death."
Jason wrote:
"1 Peter 1:23 can be understood as suggesting a division between the word of God proper and the gospel, rather than the notion that the text suggests we are born again by the word of God, which is the gospel. The gospel is revelation of the word of God, and it is by the word of God proper that the elect are born again. The text seems to be more clearly understood making this distinction."
When Peter says - "and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you," he simply is saying "this is the message which was announced to you by the gospel." So, how does this destroy Peter's affirmation that God's elect are "born again by the incorruptible word"?
What is "the word of God proper"? Is it not the message about Jesus and God's plan of salvation? Is this word different from "the truth" (vs. 22)? Peter said, earlier in the chapter, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (vs. 9) Faith in what? Is it not the revelation of God pertaining to Christ and salvation, or to the message of the gospel? Faith in this "word of God"? Is this incorruptible word the same as "the gospel" (vs. 12)? When Peter says, a few verses later, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (2: 3), what "word" is under consideration? Is not "THE word" the same word of I Peter 1: 23?
Jason wrote:
"A defense of the idea that regeneration is effected by God alone through the Holy Spirit outside of means is necessary to explain how all the elect inherit eternal life."
Hardshellism is to be believed, according to Jason, because it is a logical "neccessity" to harmonize the scriptures on this matter! Laughable! I have shown this to be false in my writings.
Jason wrote:
"Presuming that a portion of the elect of God were/are physically incapable of hearing the gospel as preached by man, an explanation that harmonizes spiritual birth with those that are capable of hearing the preached gospel is preferable as the simplest explanation. One might suppose that God could grant temporary mental powers to the mentally incompetent elect; however, if faith is linked to mental awareness, it would seem that all parts of salvation would require it. How could sanctification occur without the mental awareness? This alternative is not logically preferable, if we are concerned with parsimony."
Jason shows himself to be in a quagmire, on a slippery slope himself. His problem is with his use of human reason in trying to understand the things of God! At first he argues that regeneration cannot be on a mental or conscious level because some are regenerated who have no mental or conscious life and yet, at other times, is forced to see regeneration as incorporating revelation, or being taught something by God. He argues, on the one hand, that the infant and the idiot prove his hardshellism, and then, on the other hand, says that God can give mental power to such characters! He speaks of what is "logically preferable"! Was it logical or reasonable for God to tell Ezekiel to preach to dead dry bones in order that they might live?
Jason wrote:
"We are at liberty to posit such an explanation because the Bible is not clear about how God saves the mentally incompetent, or the unborn."
If God is "not clear" on how infants and idiots are saved, then why is Jason building his entire soteriology upon their cases? Incredible! He affirms that he is "at liberty" to twist scripture on the subject. He is "at liberty" to speak where the bible is silent.
Jason wrote:
"We know that the amount of individuals that have lived on the earth who possessed competent mental function only represents a fraction of the total human race. There have been far more individuals who died in infancy or before they were born, not to mention those who continued to live without mental competence, than individuals who developed to a state of mental competence."
Again, using human logic! Yet, if Jason looks at the case of John the Baptist, who the Hardshells affirm was born again while in his mother's womb, John the Baptist was given mental powers to believe the gospel!
Jason, in conclusion, wrote:
"So, if it truly is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (Romans 4:16), the doctrine of Justification must extend to the infant or the mentally incompetent elect the same as it would to anyone, which is by the gift in regeneration of the root of faith: trust in God."
The key words in the above is "the same as." Rather than dealing with what scripture says on the issue, Jason uses logical argumentation founded on the case of infants and idiots, and yet he has not proven from scripture that these characters are not begotten by the gospel, and who do not have revelation of Jesus in their hearts and minds. Does Jason not accept those prophetic statements about God writing his word upon the heart as describing regeneration? Does Jason not believe that the infant and idiot, in being regenerated, have this revelation, this writing upon their hearts, that they have "learned" of the Father?
Friday, July 8, 2011
"Garrett's Error"
Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, under a posting titled "Garrett's Error" wrote the following:
"Steven Garrett has allowed his passion to overrule reason in regard to his opposition to the Primitive Baptists. I have stated in my first post that Garrett believes that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration was contrived by them in the context of the anti-mission split among the Baptists in 1832."
First, my name is spelled StePHen, not SteVen. Jason says that I "overrule reason." Again, Jason shows that his cult's heresy regarding regeneration, or their soteriological errors, are the result of reason and logic, for why else would he condemn my proofs and argumentation as being against "reason"? Jason and the Hardshells need to quit "leaning upon their own understanding" (upon their own reasonings) and accept humbly the plain declarations of scripture! Paul said that true gospel ministers and apologists "cast down reasonings" (II Cor. 10: 5). The apostle Paul, if he were here, would be casting down Hardshell "reasonings" just as I. Regarding the other things he said, it is repitition and I have previously rebutted his comments about the novelty of PB teaching.
Jason cites from the work of my dear friend and associate, Brother Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, from his work "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," where Bob wrote this:
"This theory gives precedence of power to the spoken words of Christ, which He supposedly speaks directly to the individual. Notice that the "speaking," according to Beebe, PRECEDES the "hearing" and the "life." This would mean that Christ speaks to the "dead alien sinner" BEFORE the sinner is "alive." Therefore, the Word of Christ is addressed to the "dead," yet the Hardshells object to the Baptist position that the Gospel, or Word, is to be preached to the "dead," and is accompanied by the Holy Spirit in pursuance of God's sovereign purpose in effectual calling." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 6)"
Jason then gives the web page where Bob's writings against Hardshellism can be read. At this location:
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
What is odd, however, is how Jason says:
"Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea."
I am at a loss to understand how Jason could endorse Bob's words and yet argue for Hardshellism! Was this an honest admission or a kind of slur and sarcasm?
Jason wrote:
"The idea that immediate regeneration was a "novel" doctrine is historical fiction. Again, Garrett seems to confuse opposition to the doctrine of immediate regeneration with opposition to a separaton of immediate regeneration from the gospel as preached by men. Garrett's true objection seems to be the latter. It is a historical fact that many Puritan Divines believed that the actual act of regeneration was not mediated through the preached word, e.g. Samuel Hopkins. Many modern Reformed Theologians take this view as well, like R.C. Sproul. The idea that this doctrine originated in 1832 is preposterous. What Garrett must mean is that the total separation of the preached gospel from the immediate act of regeneration was/is a Primitive Baptist contrivance."
Hardshell views on regeneration are novel and new, at least among Baptists. It has never been denied, by Bob Ross or myself, that some of the Presbyterians were the first to omit means in regeneration, at least in the case of infants. But, if Jason wants to know about how the first Baptists of the London confession responded to this kind of regeneration, he should read Spilsbury's debate with the Presbyterian Bakewell, on the matter! Jason would find himself in line with Bakewell rather than with Spilsbury, and yet they claim to be the "original" Baptists!
What Jason also fails to admit is this, that the Presbyterians who promoted this view, Hopkins, Shedd, and Hodge, all believed that conversion would automatically follow or attend regeneration, at least in the case of adults. Will Jason agree with them on this?
Has Jason given us historical evidence to prove that Baptists in the 18th century, believed Hardshell views?
Jason wrote:
"...by Garrett's admission in various blogs John Gill is inconsistent in portraying the preached gospel as a means of the Spirit in regeneration."
I never said Gill was "inconsistent"! Let Jason show us the statement where I said this! I have shown that it is the Hardshells who have accused Gill of being inconsistent, repeating the argument of John Daily (Daily-Throgmorton Debate) where Daily argued that Gill taught means in regeneration in his Commentaries, but had changed his mind, in his older days, and wrote a different view in his Body of Divinity and in his book The Cause of God and Truth. In my book, in the series of chapters titled "Gill and the Hardshells," I show that Gill is consistent and that the Hardshells have twisted the words of Gill, as they did the words of the London Confession in Fulton (1900), and as they do the scriptures. Also, did not the Philadelphia Association, in its early history, not recommend to all the ministry the commentaries of Gill?
Jason wrote:
"Obviously, for Gill to hedge on this issue speaks to an ongoing climate within Christendom way before Beebe that was to some degree uncertain about gospel instrumentality in regeneration."
But, the argument Jason gives is not valid because his first premise is false. John Gill did not "hedge" on the issue, was not inconsistent, and it is a lie told by Jason and the Hardshells, when they ought to know better. Therefore, Jason's conclusion (thesis), that there was a degree of uncertainly about the gospel being a means in regeneration, among the Baptist family, before the 19th century, is false. Where is the proof of this? That John Gill held Hardshell views? Where is the proof? I have shown in my writings where Gill never changed his mind on this "issue."
Jason wrote:
"The idea that Baptist Theologians and Puritan Divines before Beebe were all consistently on the same page about gospel instrumentality in regeneration oversteps what can be rationally established; indeed, to make such a generalization of history attests to an irrational fervor that marks a personal vendetta."
Again, all this is funny, because all Jason and the Hardshells need to do is to cite Baptist records, prior to the 19th century, where the Baptists believed hardshellism! All he does is make statements about history without any shred of evidence to prove his statements. Does not their universal acceptance of the Philadelphia confessions show that the Baptists were united in the view that sinners are born again by the gospel? Notice again how Jason speaks of what is "rational" and "irrational." Reason/logic is his determining factor in what he believes!
I can generalize (induce) from the writings of the 17th and 18th century that the Particular Baptists universally believed that the gospel was the means God used to beget his people. How can Jason induce hardshellism from the historical records when there are no records of hardshellism being the faith of Baptists prior to the 19th century rise of the Hardshells?
Jason resorts to a typical Hardshell approach to my writings by speaking of some "personal vendetta" that I am judged to have. Jason can't meet the arguments and proofs so he makes ad hominem attacks, and seeks to "poison the well." How can Jason excuse his own self in the matter of "personal vendetta"? Is his response to my writings not a "personal vendetta"? How can he judge my writings as such but not his own?
Jason wrote:
"The unscriptural application of the doctrine of immediate regeneration among many modern Primitive Baptists is when they make gospel rejection the norm for regenerate children of God. This rejection of the gospel certainly does not follow logically from the simple idea that regeneration precedes gospel faith. An underlying universalism or quasi-universalism is truly to be blamed. Indeed, the Scripture provides ample proof that the preaching of the cross is the power of God to them that are saved (1 Cor. 1:18). It is the nature of those that are regenerate to embrace in faith the revelation available to them. Gospel rejection is a fruit of the eternally damned (Mark 16:16, 2 Thes. 1:7-9)."
This statement is repitition from a previous posting and I have already, in my previous rebuttal to that posting, dealt with these things. Jason is arguing that some (albeit not all, nor the majority), of those who are "regenerated" will accept Christ and believe his gospel. And what of those "regenerated" ones who reject the gospel? Will they be saved? What does Paul say about all those who do not believe the gospel in II Thess. 1: 8, 9? Jason affirms that a man can be "regenerated" and yet be a gospel and Christ rejecter? He can be antichrist and still be "regenerated"!
Jason writes in conclusion, saying:
"So it is vain to oppose the ridiculous conclusions of some modern Primitive Baptists by an attack on the doctrine of immediate regeneration, as the real culprit is an underlying universalism."
Again, I am glad to have this admission by Jason. Some of today's Hardshells have "ridiculous conclusions." I believe Jason still holds to some of those "ridiculous conclusions" and needs to rid himself of them and accept what the scriptures and our historic confessions teach. Further, "the real culprit" is Hardshell denial of means in regeneration, of divorcing conversion from regeneration. The "real culprit" is this reliance of the Hardshells upon their reason and logic rather than upon scripture.
"Steven Garrett has allowed his passion to overrule reason in regard to his opposition to the Primitive Baptists. I have stated in my first post that Garrett believes that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration was contrived by them in the context of the anti-mission split among the Baptists in 1832."
First, my name is spelled StePHen, not SteVen. Jason says that I "overrule reason." Again, Jason shows that his cult's heresy regarding regeneration, or their soteriological errors, are the result of reason and logic, for why else would he condemn my proofs and argumentation as being against "reason"? Jason and the Hardshells need to quit "leaning upon their own understanding" (upon their own reasonings) and accept humbly the plain declarations of scripture! Paul said that true gospel ministers and apologists "cast down reasonings" (II Cor. 10: 5). The apostle Paul, if he were here, would be casting down Hardshell "reasonings" just as I. Regarding the other things he said, it is repitition and I have previously rebutted his comments about the novelty of PB teaching.
Jason cites from the work of my dear friend and associate, Brother Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, from his work "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," where Bob wrote this:
"This theory gives precedence of power to the spoken words of Christ, which He supposedly speaks directly to the individual. Notice that the "speaking," according to Beebe, PRECEDES the "hearing" and the "life." This would mean that Christ speaks to the "dead alien sinner" BEFORE the sinner is "alive." Therefore, the Word of Christ is addressed to the "dead," yet the Hardshells object to the Baptist position that the Gospel, or Word, is to be preached to the "dead," and is accompanied by the Holy Spirit in pursuance of God's sovereign purpose in effectual calling." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 6)"
Jason then gives the web page where Bob's writings against Hardshellism can be read. At this location:
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
What is odd, however, is how Jason says:
"Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea."
I am at a loss to understand how Jason could endorse Bob's words and yet argue for Hardshellism! Was this an honest admission or a kind of slur and sarcasm?
Jason wrote:
"The idea that immediate regeneration was a "novel" doctrine is historical fiction. Again, Garrett seems to confuse opposition to the doctrine of immediate regeneration with opposition to a separaton of immediate regeneration from the gospel as preached by men. Garrett's true objection seems to be the latter. It is a historical fact that many Puritan Divines believed that the actual act of regeneration was not mediated through the preached word, e.g. Samuel Hopkins. Many modern Reformed Theologians take this view as well, like R.C. Sproul. The idea that this doctrine originated in 1832 is preposterous. What Garrett must mean is that the total separation of the preached gospel from the immediate act of regeneration was/is a Primitive Baptist contrivance."
Hardshell views on regeneration are novel and new, at least among Baptists. It has never been denied, by Bob Ross or myself, that some of the Presbyterians were the first to omit means in regeneration, at least in the case of infants. But, if Jason wants to know about how the first Baptists of the London confession responded to this kind of regeneration, he should read Spilsbury's debate with the Presbyterian Bakewell, on the matter! Jason would find himself in line with Bakewell rather than with Spilsbury, and yet they claim to be the "original" Baptists!
What Jason also fails to admit is this, that the Presbyterians who promoted this view, Hopkins, Shedd, and Hodge, all believed that conversion would automatically follow or attend regeneration, at least in the case of adults. Will Jason agree with them on this?
Has Jason given us historical evidence to prove that Baptists in the 18th century, believed Hardshell views?
Jason wrote:
"...by Garrett's admission in various blogs John Gill is inconsistent in portraying the preached gospel as a means of the Spirit in regeneration."
I never said Gill was "inconsistent"! Let Jason show us the statement where I said this! I have shown that it is the Hardshells who have accused Gill of being inconsistent, repeating the argument of John Daily (Daily-Throgmorton Debate) where Daily argued that Gill taught means in regeneration in his Commentaries, but had changed his mind, in his older days, and wrote a different view in his Body of Divinity and in his book The Cause of God and Truth. In my book, in the series of chapters titled "Gill and the Hardshells," I show that Gill is consistent and that the Hardshells have twisted the words of Gill, as they did the words of the London Confession in Fulton (1900), and as they do the scriptures. Also, did not the Philadelphia Association, in its early history, not recommend to all the ministry the commentaries of Gill?
Jason wrote:
"Obviously, for Gill to hedge on this issue speaks to an ongoing climate within Christendom way before Beebe that was to some degree uncertain about gospel instrumentality in regeneration."
But, the argument Jason gives is not valid because his first premise is false. John Gill did not "hedge" on the issue, was not inconsistent, and it is a lie told by Jason and the Hardshells, when they ought to know better. Therefore, Jason's conclusion (thesis), that there was a degree of uncertainly about the gospel being a means in regeneration, among the Baptist family, before the 19th century, is false. Where is the proof of this? That John Gill held Hardshell views? Where is the proof? I have shown in my writings where Gill never changed his mind on this "issue."
Jason wrote:
"The idea that Baptist Theologians and Puritan Divines before Beebe were all consistently on the same page about gospel instrumentality in regeneration oversteps what can be rationally established; indeed, to make such a generalization of history attests to an irrational fervor that marks a personal vendetta."
Again, all this is funny, because all Jason and the Hardshells need to do is to cite Baptist records, prior to the 19th century, where the Baptists believed hardshellism! All he does is make statements about history without any shred of evidence to prove his statements. Does not their universal acceptance of the Philadelphia confessions show that the Baptists were united in the view that sinners are born again by the gospel? Notice again how Jason speaks of what is "rational" and "irrational." Reason/logic is his determining factor in what he believes!
I can generalize (induce) from the writings of the 17th and 18th century that the Particular Baptists universally believed that the gospel was the means God used to beget his people. How can Jason induce hardshellism from the historical records when there are no records of hardshellism being the faith of Baptists prior to the 19th century rise of the Hardshells?
Jason resorts to a typical Hardshell approach to my writings by speaking of some "personal vendetta" that I am judged to have. Jason can't meet the arguments and proofs so he makes ad hominem attacks, and seeks to "poison the well." How can Jason excuse his own self in the matter of "personal vendetta"? Is his response to my writings not a "personal vendetta"? How can he judge my writings as such but not his own?
Jason wrote:
"The unscriptural application of the doctrine of immediate regeneration among many modern Primitive Baptists is when they make gospel rejection the norm for regenerate children of God. This rejection of the gospel certainly does not follow logically from the simple idea that regeneration precedes gospel faith. An underlying universalism or quasi-universalism is truly to be blamed. Indeed, the Scripture provides ample proof that the preaching of the cross is the power of God to them that are saved (1 Cor. 1:18). It is the nature of those that are regenerate to embrace in faith the revelation available to them. Gospel rejection is a fruit of the eternally damned (Mark 16:16, 2 Thes. 1:7-9)."
This statement is repitition from a previous posting and I have already, in my previous rebuttal to that posting, dealt with these things. Jason is arguing that some (albeit not all, nor the majority), of those who are "regenerated" will accept Christ and believe his gospel. And what of those "regenerated" ones who reject the gospel? Will they be saved? What does Paul say about all those who do not believe the gospel in II Thess. 1: 8, 9? Jason affirms that a man can be "regenerated" and yet be a gospel and Christ rejecter? He can be antichrist and still be "regenerated"!
Jason writes in conclusion, saying:
"So it is vain to oppose the ridiculous conclusions of some modern Primitive Baptists by an attack on the doctrine of immediate regeneration, as the real culprit is an underlying universalism."
Again, I am glad to have this admission by Jason. Some of today's Hardshells have "ridiculous conclusions." I believe Jason still holds to some of those "ridiculous conclusions" and needs to rid himself of them and accept what the scriptures and our historic confessions teach. Further, "the real culprit" is Hardshell denial of means in regeneration, of divorcing conversion from regeneration. The "real culprit" is this reliance of the Hardshells upon their reason and logic rather than upon scripture.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Jason on Garrett's Work
In a blog posting titled "Primitive Baptists Contra Stephen Garrett," Hardshell apologist, Jason Brown, announced to the world that he had created a blog simply for the purpose of responding, mostly critically, to my thesis and its proofs. Welcome to the debate brother! I have been wanting a Hardshell apologist to come forward and debate these issues! Praise the Lord. Debating via blogs is okay, maybe even better, in this age, than orally in Lincoln-Douglas style, before a physical audience. In his introductory blog posting, Jason wrote:
"The impetus of this blog was finding the blog of Stephen Garrett in which, among other things, he has tasked himself with revealing to the world that the Primitive Baptist denomination is a cult."
So we have a spokesman for the Hardshells, finally, after trying to get one since the early nineties! I salute Jason for being open to debate publicly what I have written about the "Primitive Baptists." I will be defending my thesis, that the Hardshells are a cult, and not "primitive" or "original" Baptists on leading points of doctrine. I am discussing (debating) Hardshellism now with a PB elder, but he wants to remain incognito in regard to our discussions. So, again, hooray to Jason for being willing to "reveal to the world" that the Hardshells are not a cult, but the "one and only true church of Jesus Christ," the "only ones" who preach a pure gospel, the only ones truly "converted."
Jason wrote:
"I want to state at the outset that many of Stephen Garrett's criticisms of present day Primitive Baptists are not without warrant."
We are glad to have this much admission from our Hardshell "apologist." In his writings, Jason has pointed out some of those areas where today's "Primitive Baptists" are worthy of criticism. We will look at those things as we review Jason's apologetic responses to my writings. The question to be asked is this - are these condemnations of today's Hardshells minor or major, serious, or incidental?
Jason wrote:
"Particularly with reference to the view that many Primitive Baptists hold today that most of the world is in fact comprised of regenerate children of God, which they erroneously affirm from texts of Scripture that state that the family of God is a numerous seed. Such texts are not in a context of a definite contrast to the damned, and, consequently, it simply does not follow that there will be more people in heaven than hell, let alone that most now living are of the redeemed."
Notice that Jason admits that "many" of his brethren believe that "most of the world" are children of God (elect). We are glad that Jason makes this confession, but would ask him these questions: 1) Is this a serious major issue? 2) What Hardshell teachings helped to create this error? 3) Does such an error motivate, or hinder, them to evangelize?
Surely Jason knows that this error (warranted criticism) represents one of the first steps to Hardshell Universalism, and that universalism and no-hellism have plagued the Hardshell denomination.
Jason wrote:
"First, I want to point out that Mr. Garrett claims that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration is unbiblical. He believes that the regenerating Spirit of God is ordinarily mediated through the preached word. He has claimed that Primitive Baptists contrived this doctrine in the context of the division among the Baptists in 1832."
One thing that should be noticed is how Jason will not call me "brother," but only calls me "mister." Most Hardshells treat me this way. I find this ironic, funny. By Jason's own admission, many Hardshells believe that most people in the world are born again children of God, even those who worship idols, and believe in gods many and lords many, but Stephen Garrett, a professed follower of Christ, is not allowed to be one of those children of God!
Yes, I do claim that the Hardshell version of "immediate regeneration" is not biblical. In my writings against Hardshell "immediate regeneration" I have cited numerous scriptures that clearly teach that God operates through the gospel, that faith in Christ, and repentance from sin and to God, are essential experiences in being regenerated, born again, or converted. There is no need to look at all those scriptures now in this context, but many chapters of my book on the Hardshells demonstrate from scripture that God begets through the word and by faith.
Jason said that I believe "that the regenerating Spirit of God is ordinarily mediated through the preached word." And is this not what is said in the old London Confession? What the real old or primitive Baptists said about the matter? They surely did not believe that all were born again alike, as Hardshells often teach, erroneously, from John 3: 8.
I believe, like the signers of the old London Confession, men like Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, Handserd Knollys, John Spilsbury, etc., that regeneration and conversion were different aspects of the same experience, that they are concurrent experiences in being regenerated or born again, or "things that accompany salvation," and that regeneration involves cognition, or recognition, of the gospel truth, of God's gospel being written upon the heart, or of faith and repentance.
Jason says: "He has claimed that Primitive Baptists contrived this doctrine in the context of the division among the Baptists in 1832."
Yes, and where is the evidence to the contrary from the PBs, or from the Hardshell apologist? Why doesn't Jason cite the historical records from the 17th or 18th century that show that the old Baptists believed hardshell views on regeneration and the new birth? Jason does later attempt to find some small "evidence" but I will address those efforts as we come to those portions of Jason's writings where he presents his feeble evidence. I have shown all kinds of evidence to show that the Baptists, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, in the 1820-1840 period, were united around what was taught in the London and Philadelphia confessions on the subject of means in salvation. Jason even later admits that these old confessions taught means in regeneration! Yet, he claims to be primitive or original!
Jason wrote:
"Mr. Garrett objects to completely divorcing the operation of the Spirit in regeneration from the outward preached gospel, but note that he does make a distinction. The actual act of regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit of God alone. Logically, then, the act of regeneration is immediate when God recreates the dead, alien sinner, which gives them the spiritual discernment to recognize their need of a saviour. There is nothing unbiblical about insisting that regeneration precedes gospel acceptance and a profession of faith."
I couple together regeneration and conversion because the bible couples them, and even Jason admits this in one of his postings, as I shall show later! I also couple them together as did John Gill, and the writers and endorsers of the London and Philadelphia confessions!
Of course I make a distinction between the words regeneration and conversion, but that does not mean that I divorce them from the singular experience. The question is, however, do the scriptures so distinguish the words so as to divorce them from the same experience? Does Jason and the Hardshells not believe that the words "resurrected" and "quickened" refer to the same experience and yet are two distinct words? Just because two or more words are used to describe the saving work of God, does this mean they are divorced, or separate experiences? Such bad logic! Is regeneration different from being born again (begotten) even though they are distinct words and concepts? Is "calling" a different experience from being "quickened"?
Jason said - "The actual act of regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit of God alone." Well, the Holy Spirit is the lone source of regeneration, but the Spirit uses the means of the gospel. This is what our forefathers taught in their writings and in the confessions, saying regeneration or the new birth was "by his Word and Spirit." They did not teach "Spirit Alone" regeneration. It is interesting how Jason gave us no scripture that says that regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit alone apart from means. In fact, numerous passages say we are begotten by the gospel. (James 1: 18; I Peter 1: 23-25; I Cor. 4: 15)
Jason said - "Logically, then, the act of regeneration is immediate when God recreates the dead, alien sinner, which gives them the spiritual discernment to recognize their need of a saviour."
But, do we get our doctrine by human logic and reasoning or by the express and plain declarations of scripture? This is typical of Hardshells, who make their arguments based upon "logic" rather than on "thus saith the Lord." I have written several chapters in my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult dealing with this kind of hermeneutic.
Jason and the Hardshells, as I have shown in my book, make regeneration (rebirth) an unconscious experience, and affirm that it produces no sensations, no ideas, no convictions. Is this what the bible teaches? Is this what the original Baptists believed, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" in the early 19th century?
Here is what John Gill wrote in his "Body of Divinity," that book where some Hardshells advance the theory that Gill changed his view regarding the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration, a falsehood I have overthrown in the chapters in my book on "Gill and the Hardshells."
John Gill wrote:
"On Regeneration" (Chapter 11 - Body of Divinity)
"...regeneration, in this view of it, is no other than spiritual light in the understanding."
"The graces of Christ, as faith, and hope, and love, are wrought in the hearts of regenerate persons, and soon appear there."
"...such as are begotten again, are begotten to a lively hope, and have it, and believe in the Son of God; and love him that begot, and him that is begotten (1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 5:1)."
"...that men are dead in trespasses and sins; and can no more quicken themselves than a dead man can; as soon might Lazarus have raised himself from the dead, and the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision, have quickened themselves and lived."
"...so the Spirit of God breathes on dry bones, and they live..."
"Regeneration is a passive work, or rather, men are passive in it; as they must needs be, in the first infusion and implantation of grace, and the quickening of them; even as passive as the first matter created was, out of which all things were made; and as a dead man, when raised from the dead is; or as the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision were, while the Spirit of God breathed upon them, and then they became active..."
"...regeneration is not of him that willeth; God, of his own will, begets men again, and not of theirs: nor are they born of "the will of men", of the greatest and best of men, who are regenerated persons themselves; these, of their will, cannot convey regenerating grace to others; if they could, a good master would regenerate every servant in his family; a good parent would regenerate every child of his; and a minister of the gospel would regenerate all that sit under his ministry; they can only pray and use the means; God only can do the work."
"...regeneration ought to precede baptism; faith and repentance, which are graces given in regeneration, are required previous to baptism..."
"...but though they are men, and men only, whom God regenerates, yet not all men; all men have not faith, and hope, and love; they are a kind of first fruits of his creatures, whom of his own will he begets with the word of truth..."
"IV. The effects of regeneration, or the ends to be answered, and which are answered by it, and which show the importance and necessity of it.
"1. A principal effect of it; or, if you will, a concomitant of it, is a participation of every grace of the Spirit. Regenerate ones have not only the promise of life made to them, but they have the grace of life given them; they live a new life, and walk in newness of life: they partake of the grace of spiritual light; before, their understandings were darkened; but now they are enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of divine things; they were before, darkness itself; but now are made light in the Lord."
"...in regeneration, they are begotten to a "lively hope", and have it; a good hope, through grace, founded upon the person, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which is of use to them both in life and death...In short, regenerate persons are partakers of all the fruits of the Spirit; of all other graces, besides those mentioned; as humility, patience, self-denial, and resignation to the will of God."
"They are loved of God with an everlasting love; but then the first open display of it to them is in regeneration, when God draws them with lovingkindness to himself, as a fruit and effect, and so an evidence of his ancient love to them. They are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; but this is not known by them till the gospel comes, not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; working powerfully in them, regenerating, quickening, and sanctifying them..."
Now, could anything be more clear? Does Gill not speak for the Baptists of the 18th century? Do the Hardshells not speak highly of Dr. Gill, and yet refuse to follow him in this original Baptist view? Does Gill teach "Spirit Alone" regeneration? No! Does he teach that regeneration produces no convictions of the heart and mind about God and religious truth, as do Jason and the Hardshells?
Jason does say that God, in regeneration, gives the sinner knowledge that he needs a Savior. But, this is a contradiction to what he says elsewhere on the subject, for elsewhere he affirms that there is nothing learned in regeneration, that it is all on the subconscious level. Jason actually believes that regeneration only makes enlightenment possible, but is not enlightenment itself. Yet, Gill clearly did not agree with Hardshellism on this. Hardshellism says that God does not teach a man anything in regeneration! Yet Jesus said, in speaking of regeneration, "Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father comes unto me." (John 6: 45. This teaching of the Father is part of his work of "drawing" the sinner to Jesus. But, what does the Father teach in regeneration? Also, since Jason and the Hardshells are fond of bringing up the case of the infant and idiot to prove that regeneration is on the subconscious level, and that a person learns nothing, how does he harmonize that with Jesus saying that the work of being drawn to Jesus involves "learning"?
Jason said - "There is nothing unbiblical about insisting that regeneration precedes gospel acceptance and a profession of faith."
"Insisting"? Jason himself, as we shall see from his blog writings, admits that the new testament writers often spoke of regeneration in terms of gospel conversion. It seems then that the scriptures insist upon it. It is unbiblical, of course. This I have proven in my writings on hardshellism. Where is his biblical authority for affirming that regeneration precedes faith, occurs apart from faith, for the character known as a "regenerated unbeliever"? Why do Jason and the Hardshells "insist" on divorcing what God has joined together?
Jason then wrote:
"His central objection to Old Baptists is that they do not believe that the act of regeneration is always or ordinarily accompanied by the gospel as preached by men, not that the gospel is the means of regeneration per se, as in without the Spirit, or in supremacy to the Spirit."
Bingo! Correct! They deny what the bible clearly teaches, what the old confessions teach, what the true Old Baptists believed! The Spirit is supreme in the work of regeneration and it will be successful in every case. But, does Jason not say the same thing about conversion? Will he affirm that he was converted by the Holy Ghost? Or, will he say, that he was not converted by the Holy Spirit since means were involved? If he can say that he was converted by the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit was supreme in the work of conversion, even though the Spirit used the means of the gospel, why cannot he say the same in regard to regeneration?
Jason wrote:
"The question here is whether we can deduce from Scripture that regeneration always or even ordinarily occurs in the context of gospel preaching."
"Deduce"? Can Jason and the Hardshells not give us plain words from scripture that deny the use of means in the word of God? Why can we means Baptists produce many passages that say we are begotten by the gospel and word of truth for our position, plain words, and yet the Hardshells cannot produce a passage that affirms that "begetting" takes place apart from recognition and faith in the gospel truth? Again, Jason and the Hardshells are relying upon their human reasoning, which is faulty in regard to spiritual matters.
The divine "begetting" is said to be "with the word of truth," and the other scriptures never contradict that proposition. James, Paul, and Peter do not say "a few (some) are begotten by the word of God" but indicate that all of God's people are born again this way. Jason and the Hardshells often argue, from John 3: 8, that all the elect experience this "begetting" in exactly the same manner. Their position is, therefore, that none are begotten by (or under) the influence of gospel truth. Yet, if Jason admits that some (or even one) were regenerated by the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, whereby faith is produced, then he must say, to be consistent with his interpretation ("deduction") on John 3: 8, that all the elect are likewise "begotten with the word of truth."
I challenge Jason, or any other Hardshell, to show, from scripture, where a person is ever said to be begotten but who had not been converted?
Jason wrote:
"Garrett offers what he considers three proof texts of his view that gospel preaching is the ordinary means by which men are regenerated. I say "means" in the sense that it accompanies the act of regeneration, which even he makes distinct from preaching."
About the "making distinctions" I have already made rebuttal to his comments and logic on that point. I did offer passages that plainly say that men are begotten by the gospel, the word of truth, the word of God and Jason has not shown how those scriptures do not prove begetting by the gospel. I have shown what regeneration is in itself, how it is intimately connected with enlightenment, with coming in faith to Jesus. This faith can only come by the gospel per Paul in Romans 10, for Paul says "how shall they believe in him in whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" If they cannot have faith without hearing the gospel, then they cannot be regenerated without hearing the gospel, for faith and spiritual life are linked together in this divine "begetting" as John Gill said.
Jason wrote:
"He cites 1 Corinthians 4:15, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 as proof of his view. The general problem of accepting these texts as proof texts of his view is that even if we conceded that the texts refer to regeneration being performed by the preached gospel, how would this necessarily imply his contention that regeneration always occurs thusly? That inference would simply not follow logically from these texts."
Notice that Jason does not deal with the passages themselves here! "If we admit," he says, "for the sake of argument," it seems, that these passages taught regeneration by the means of the gospel. Should he not admit that these verses destroy his hardshellism? I have chapters in my book on these passages and do not want to elaborate here. Let Jason go and read them and then respond to my rebuttal of their contentions, claims, propositions, and hermenuetic. I have already addressed the point about whether all are born again the same way, and have done so extensively already in my ongoing book on hardshellism.
Jason wrote:
"No Primitive Baptist would deny that it has been the case that individuals under the sound of the preached gospel were regenerated and embraced and professed faith in Jesus Christ, as in Acts 13:48. However, such instances do not prove that it is always or normally so in reference to those deprived of outward revelation whether by geography or intellectual capacity."
This is a hardshell dodge on the relation. It is even a little "wily." In comparing the relation of the preaching of the gospel with the experience of regeneration, he is saying that preaching is not in any sense a cause, even though some were regenerated while listening to it, in much the same way that a room has nothing to do with an event occurring within it. But, this view is far from scriptural, as my writings on hardshellism have proven.
Jason speaks of those "deprived of outward revelation," meaning heathens, people who know not the true God and Jesus Christ, whom he wants to say are filled with people who have been "regenerated" and "begotten," as did C. H. Cayce in regard to the Athenian pagans, who he said were "regenerated" though worshipping false gods and knowing nothing of Jesus and the way of salvation. Antichrists born of the Spirit? Only Hardshells could affirm such heresy, such blasphemy. Why does Jason not accept what the London Confession says about the heathen? Does it not say all heathen are lost?
Jason wrote:
"What the texts Mr. Garrett cites and Acts 13:48 do show is that it is the nature of the truly regenerate to respond to the gospel in faith, if they are under the sound of it. It is inconsistent to suppose that a regenerate son would totally reject the gospel, as the same Spirit that testifies within them that they are the children of God would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:16)."
Certainly this view of Jason would not represent the majority view among today's Hardshells. First of all, the Hardshells are fond of pointing out that they are the one and only "true church," with valid baptisms and real converts, and the only ones entrusted with the gospel, the only ones preaching it! The view that most of the elect, who hear the gospel, will believe it, is not the majority view, but one more akin to the "liberal movement" among today's Hardshell denomination, many of whom are coming back to the Old Baptist faith as regards regeneration and means.
Jason said - "it is the nature of the truly regenerate to respond to the gospel in faith." This is close to the truth, but not the full truth. Let us add this statement and see if Jason can endorse it, or tell us why he cannot - "it is the nature of the truly regenerate to believe and repent at the moment they are regenerated"?
Jason wrote:
"It seems to me that Mr. Garrett commits the slippery slope fallacy of reasoning to suppose that distinguishing sonship from discipleship results in the unscriptural view that most mentally competent, mature adults now living that openly reject the gospel are going to heaven as ignorant sons."
Again, Jason wants to argue from logic, by his use of "reasoning," rather than upon plain propositions and statements from scripture. Jason admits, as we shall see from his own blog postings (to be examined in order) that the scriptures do not segregate regeneration from conversion in their inspired writings. So, by his own admission, he is making distinctions where he ought not to make them.
He again reasons about the supposed regeneration of infants and idiots but cites no scripture. I have addressed these logical arguments, "vain reasonings," in my book on the Hardshell argumentation on "Spirit Alone" regeneration and refer the reader to those chapters.
Jason wrote:
"An obvious teaching from 3:8 about the new birth is that it is not effected by any means or by any cause that we could observe. This naturally runs afoul of the idea that regeneration occurs only or even ordinarily through gospel preaching, as this would be an obvious cause."
Jesus connected, in John 3, being born again with believing the gospel (vss. 13-18) According to Jason and the Hardshells, Paul, James, and Peter, in teaching that the Spirit begets through the gospel, "run afoul" of what Jesus taught in John 3 about being "born again"?
Jason wrote:
"The text proves that the only relevant cause of the new birth is the Spirit of God, as the gospel as preached by men would be moot as far as it's effect on dead men.'
Jason resorts to the worn out logical reasoning invented by his Hardshell forefathers when he argues that the preaching of the gospel to the "dead" is stupid, nonsensical, and therefore any who believe it are illogical! Gill illogical? Keach, Kiffin, Spilsbury, Knollys, all stupid? Jason ought to read Watson and Clark regarding the lessons from Ezekiel preaching to the valley of dead dry bones and how such an event destroys Hardshell logic on preaching to the dead in order that they might live thereby. Jesus was constantly preaching to the non-elect, to the unregenerate, was he not? This I have shown in several chapters in my book, in the series on "Addresses to the Lost," how Jesus preached the gospel to those he knew were dead spiritually, and even told them how they could be saved! But, don't you know, Jesus was doing what was silly and illogical in preaching the gospel to the dead and telling them how they could be saved!
In conclusion, let me say that I have finished my review of Jason's first apologetic response to my writings and that I will be reviewing his other rebuttal postings next.
"The impetus of this blog was finding the blog of Stephen Garrett in which, among other things, he has tasked himself with revealing to the world that the Primitive Baptist denomination is a cult."
So we have a spokesman for the Hardshells, finally, after trying to get one since the early nineties! I salute Jason for being open to debate publicly what I have written about the "Primitive Baptists." I will be defending my thesis, that the Hardshells are a cult, and not "primitive" or "original" Baptists on leading points of doctrine. I am discussing (debating) Hardshellism now with a PB elder, but he wants to remain incognito in regard to our discussions. So, again, hooray to Jason for being willing to "reveal to the world" that the Hardshells are not a cult, but the "one and only true church of Jesus Christ," the "only ones" who preach a pure gospel, the only ones truly "converted."
Jason wrote:
"I want to state at the outset that many of Stephen Garrett's criticisms of present day Primitive Baptists are not without warrant."
We are glad to have this much admission from our Hardshell "apologist." In his writings, Jason has pointed out some of those areas where today's "Primitive Baptists" are worthy of criticism. We will look at those things as we review Jason's apologetic responses to my writings. The question to be asked is this - are these condemnations of today's Hardshells minor or major, serious, or incidental?
Jason wrote:
"Particularly with reference to the view that many Primitive Baptists hold today that most of the world is in fact comprised of regenerate children of God, which they erroneously affirm from texts of Scripture that state that the family of God is a numerous seed. Such texts are not in a context of a definite contrast to the damned, and, consequently, it simply does not follow that there will be more people in heaven than hell, let alone that most now living are of the redeemed."
Notice that Jason admits that "many" of his brethren believe that "most of the world" are children of God (elect). We are glad that Jason makes this confession, but would ask him these questions: 1) Is this a serious major issue? 2) What Hardshell teachings helped to create this error? 3) Does such an error motivate, or hinder, them to evangelize?
Surely Jason knows that this error (warranted criticism) represents one of the first steps to Hardshell Universalism, and that universalism and no-hellism have plagued the Hardshell denomination.
Jason wrote:
"First, I want to point out that Mr. Garrett claims that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration is unbiblical. He believes that the regenerating Spirit of God is ordinarily mediated through the preached word. He has claimed that Primitive Baptists contrived this doctrine in the context of the division among the Baptists in 1832."
One thing that should be noticed is how Jason will not call me "brother," but only calls me "mister." Most Hardshells treat me this way. I find this ironic, funny. By Jason's own admission, many Hardshells believe that most people in the world are born again children of God, even those who worship idols, and believe in gods many and lords many, but Stephen Garrett, a professed follower of Christ, is not allowed to be one of those children of God!
Yes, I do claim that the Hardshell version of "immediate regeneration" is not biblical. In my writings against Hardshell "immediate regeneration" I have cited numerous scriptures that clearly teach that God operates through the gospel, that faith in Christ, and repentance from sin and to God, are essential experiences in being regenerated, born again, or converted. There is no need to look at all those scriptures now in this context, but many chapters of my book on the Hardshells demonstrate from scripture that God begets through the word and by faith.
Jason said that I believe "that the regenerating Spirit of God is ordinarily mediated through the preached word." And is this not what is said in the old London Confession? What the real old or primitive Baptists said about the matter? They surely did not believe that all were born again alike, as Hardshells often teach, erroneously, from John 3: 8.
I believe, like the signers of the old London Confession, men like Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, Handserd Knollys, John Spilsbury, etc., that regeneration and conversion were different aspects of the same experience, that they are concurrent experiences in being regenerated or born again, or "things that accompany salvation," and that regeneration involves cognition, or recognition, of the gospel truth, of God's gospel being written upon the heart, or of faith and repentance.
Jason says: "He has claimed that Primitive Baptists contrived this doctrine in the context of the division among the Baptists in 1832."
Yes, and where is the evidence to the contrary from the PBs, or from the Hardshell apologist? Why doesn't Jason cite the historical records from the 17th or 18th century that show that the old Baptists believed hardshell views on regeneration and the new birth? Jason does later attempt to find some small "evidence" but I will address those efforts as we come to those portions of Jason's writings where he presents his feeble evidence. I have shown all kinds of evidence to show that the Baptists, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, in the 1820-1840 period, were united around what was taught in the London and Philadelphia confessions on the subject of means in salvation. Jason even later admits that these old confessions taught means in regeneration! Yet, he claims to be primitive or original!
Jason wrote:
"Mr. Garrett objects to completely divorcing the operation of the Spirit in regeneration from the outward preached gospel, but note that he does make a distinction. The actual act of regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit of God alone. Logically, then, the act of regeneration is immediate when God recreates the dead, alien sinner, which gives them the spiritual discernment to recognize their need of a saviour. There is nothing unbiblical about insisting that regeneration precedes gospel acceptance and a profession of faith."
I couple together regeneration and conversion because the bible couples them, and even Jason admits this in one of his postings, as I shall show later! I also couple them together as did John Gill, and the writers and endorsers of the London and Philadelphia confessions!
Of course I make a distinction between the words regeneration and conversion, but that does not mean that I divorce them from the singular experience. The question is, however, do the scriptures so distinguish the words so as to divorce them from the same experience? Does Jason and the Hardshells not believe that the words "resurrected" and "quickened" refer to the same experience and yet are two distinct words? Just because two or more words are used to describe the saving work of God, does this mean they are divorced, or separate experiences? Such bad logic! Is regeneration different from being born again (begotten) even though they are distinct words and concepts? Is "calling" a different experience from being "quickened"?
Jason said - "The actual act of regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit of God alone." Well, the Holy Spirit is the lone source of regeneration, but the Spirit uses the means of the gospel. This is what our forefathers taught in their writings and in the confessions, saying regeneration or the new birth was "by his Word and Spirit." They did not teach "Spirit Alone" regeneration. It is interesting how Jason gave us no scripture that says that regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit alone apart from means. In fact, numerous passages say we are begotten by the gospel. (James 1: 18; I Peter 1: 23-25; I Cor. 4: 15)
Jason said - "Logically, then, the act of regeneration is immediate when God recreates the dead, alien sinner, which gives them the spiritual discernment to recognize their need of a saviour."
But, do we get our doctrine by human logic and reasoning or by the express and plain declarations of scripture? This is typical of Hardshells, who make their arguments based upon "logic" rather than on "thus saith the Lord." I have written several chapters in my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult dealing with this kind of hermeneutic.
Jason and the Hardshells, as I have shown in my book, make regeneration (rebirth) an unconscious experience, and affirm that it produces no sensations, no ideas, no convictions. Is this what the bible teaches? Is this what the original Baptists believed, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" in the early 19th century?
Here is what John Gill wrote in his "Body of Divinity," that book where some Hardshells advance the theory that Gill changed his view regarding the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration, a falsehood I have overthrown in the chapters in my book on "Gill and the Hardshells."
John Gill wrote:
"On Regeneration" (Chapter 11 - Body of Divinity)
"...regeneration, in this view of it, is no other than spiritual light in the understanding."
"The graces of Christ, as faith, and hope, and love, are wrought in the hearts of regenerate persons, and soon appear there."
"...such as are begotten again, are begotten to a lively hope, and have it, and believe in the Son of God; and love him that begot, and him that is begotten (1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 5:1)."
"...that men are dead in trespasses and sins; and can no more quicken themselves than a dead man can; as soon might Lazarus have raised himself from the dead, and the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision, have quickened themselves and lived."
"...so the Spirit of God breathes on dry bones, and they live..."
"Regeneration is a passive work, or rather, men are passive in it; as they must needs be, in the first infusion and implantation of grace, and the quickening of them; even as passive as the first matter created was, out of which all things were made; and as a dead man, when raised from the dead is; or as the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision were, while the Spirit of God breathed upon them, and then they became active..."
"...regeneration is not of him that willeth; God, of his own will, begets men again, and not of theirs: nor are they born of "the will of men", of the greatest and best of men, who are regenerated persons themselves; these, of their will, cannot convey regenerating grace to others; if they could, a good master would regenerate every servant in his family; a good parent would regenerate every child of his; and a minister of the gospel would regenerate all that sit under his ministry; they can only pray and use the means; God only can do the work."
"...regeneration ought to precede baptism; faith and repentance, which are graces given in regeneration, are required previous to baptism..."
"...but though they are men, and men only, whom God regenerates, yet not all men; all men have not faith, and hope, and love; they are a kind of first fruits of his creatures, whom of his own will he begets with the word of truth..."
"IV. The effects of regeneration, or the ends to be answered, and which are answered by it, and which show the importance and necessity of it.
"1. A principal effect of it; or, if you will, a concomitant of it, is a participation of every grace of the Spirit. Regenerate ones have not only the promise of life made to them, but they have the grace of life given them; they live a new life, and walk in newness of life: they partake of the grace of spiritual light; before, their understandings were darkened; but now they are enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of divine things; they were before, darkness itself; but now are made light in the Lord."
"...in regeneration, they are begotten to a "lively hope", and have it; a good hope, through grace, founded upon the person, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which is of use to them both in life and death...In short, regenerate persons are partakers of all the fruits of the Spirit; of all other graces, besides those mentioned; as humility, patience, self-denial, and resignation to the will of God."
"They are loved of God with an everlasting love; but then the first open display of it to them is in regeneration, when God draws them with lovingkindness to himself, as a fruit and effect, and so an evidence of his ancient love to them. They are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; but this is not known by them till the gospel comes, not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; working powerfully in them, regenerating, quickening, and sanctifying them..."
Now, could anything be more clear? Does Gill not speak for the Baptists of the 18th century? Do the Hardshells not speak highly of Dr. Gill, and yet refuse to follow him in this original Baptist view? Does Gill teach "Spirit Alone" regeneration? No! Does he teach that regeneration produces no convictions of the heart and mind about God and religious truth, as do Jason and the Hardshells?
Jason does say that God, in regeneration, gives the sinner knowledge that he needs a Savior. But, this is a contradiction to what he says elsewhere on the subject, for elsewhere he affirms that there is nothing learned in regeneration, that it is all on the subconscious level. Jason actually believes that regeneration only makes enlightenment possible, but is not enlightenment itself. Yet, Gill clearly did not agree with Hardshellism on this. Hardshellism says that God does not teach a man anything in regeneration! Yet Jesus said, in speaking of regeneration, "Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father comes unto me." (John 6: 45. This teaching of the Father is part of his work of "drawing" the sinner to Jesus. But, what does the Father teach in regeneration? Also, since Jason and the Hardshells are fond of bringing up the case of the infant and idiot to prove that regeneration is on the subconscious level, and that a person learns nothing, how does he harmonize that with Jesus saying that the work of being drawn to Jesus involves "learning"?
Jason said - "There is nothing unbiblical about insisting that regeneration precedes gospel acceptance and a profession of faith."
"Insisting"? Jason himself, as we shall see from his blog writings, admits that the new testament writers often spoke of regeneration in terms of gospel conversion. It seems then that the scriptures insist upon it. It is unbiblical, of course. This I have proven in my writings on hardshellism. Where is his biblical authority for affirming that regeneration precedes faith, occurs apart from faith, for the character known as a "regenerated unbeliever"? Why do Jason and the Hardshells "insist" on divorcing what God has joined together?
Jason then wrote:
"His central objection to Old Baptists is that they do not believe that the act of regeneration is always or ordinarily accompanied by the gospel as preached by men, not that the gospel is the means of regeneration per se, as in without the Spirit, or in supremacy to the Spirit."
Bingo! Correct! They deny what the bible clearly teaches, what the old confessions teach, what the true Old Baptists believed! The Spirit is supreme in the work of regeneration and it will be successful in every case. But, does Jason not say the same thing about conversion? Will he affirm that he was converted by the Holy Ghost? Or, will he say, that he was not converted by the Holy Spirit since means were involved? If he can say that he was converted by the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit was supreme in the work of conversion, even though the Spirit used the means of the gospel, why cannot he say the same in regard to regeneration?
Jason wrote:
"The question here is whether we can deduce from Scripture that regeneration always or even ordinarily occurs in the context of gospel preaching."
"Deduce"? Can Jason and the Hardshells not give us plain words from scripture that deny the use of means in the word of God? Why can we means Baptists produce many passages that say we are begotten by the gospel and word of truth for our position, plain words, and yet the Hardshells cannot produce a passage that affirms that "begetting" takes place apart from recognition and faith in the gospel truth? Again, Jason and the Hardshells are relying upon their human reasoning, which is faulty in regard to spiritual matters.
The divine "begetting" is said to be "with the word of truth," and the other scriptures never contradict that proposition. James, Paul, and Peter do not say "a few (some) are begotten by the word of God" but indicate that all of God's people are born again this way. Jason and the Hardshells often argue, from John 3: 8, that all the elect experience this "begetting" in exactly the same manner. Their position is, therefore, that none are begotten by (or under) the influence of gospel truth. Yet, if Jason admits that some (or even one) were regenerated by the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, whereby faith is produced, then he must say, to be consistent with his interpretation ("deduction") on John 3: 8, that all the elect are likewise "begotten with the word of truth."
I challenge Jason, or any other Hardshell, to show, from scripture, where a person is ever said to be begotten but who had not been converted?
Jason wrote:
"Garrett offers what he considers three proof texts of his view that gospel preaching is the ordinary means by which men are regenerated. I say "means" in the sense that it accompanies the act of regeneration, which even he makes distinct from preaching."
About the "making distinctions" I have already made rebuttal to his comments and logic on that point. I did offer passages that plainly say that men are begotten by the gospel, the word of truth, the word of God and Jason has not shown how those scriptures do not prove begetting by the gospel. I have shown what regeneration is in itself, how it is intimately connected with enlightenment, with coming in faith to Jesus. This faith can only come by the gospel per Paul in Romans 10, for Paul says "how shall they believe in him in whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" If they cannot have faith without hearing the gospel, then they cannot be regenerated without hearing the gospel, for faith and spiritual life are linked together in this divine "begetting" as John Gill said.
Jason wrote:
"He cites 1 Corinthians 4:15, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 as proof of his view. The general problem of accepting these texts as proof texts of his view is that even if we conceded that the texts refer to regeneration being performed by the preached gospel, how would this necessarily imply his contention that regeneration always occurs thusly? That inference would simply not follow logically from these texts."
Notice that Jason does not deal with the passages themselves here! "If we admit," he says, "for the sake of argument," it seems, that these passages taught regeneration by the means of the gospel. Should he not admit that these verses destroy his hardshellism? I have chapters in my book on these passages and do not want to elaborate here. Let Jason go and read them and then respond to my rebuttal of their contentions, claims, propositions, and hermenuetic. I have already addressed the point about whether all are born again the same way, and have done so extensively already in my ongoing book on hardshellism.
Jason wrote:
"No Primitive Baptist would deny that it has been the case that individuals under the sound of the preached gospel were regenerated and embraced and professed faith in Jesus Christ, as in Acts 13:48. However, such instances do not prove that it is always or normally so in reference to those deprived of outward revelation whether by geography or intellectual capacity."
This is a hardshell dodge on the relation. It is even a little "wily." In comparing the relation of the preaching of the gospel with the experience of regeneration, he is saying that preaching is not in any sense a cause, even though some were regenerated while listening to it, in much the same way that a room has nothing to do with an event occurring within it. But, this view is far from scriptural, as my writings on hardshellism have proven.
Jason speaks of those "deprived of outward revelation," meaning heathens, people who know not the true God and Jesus Christ, whom he wants to say are filled with people who have been "regenerated" and "begotten," as did C. H. Cayce in regard to the Athenian pagans, who he said were "regenerated" though worshipping false gods and knowing nothing of Jesus and the way of salvation. Antichrists born of the Spirit? Only Hardshells could affirm such heresy, such blasphemy. Why does Jason not accept what the London Confession says about the heathen? Does it not say all heathen are lost?
Jason wrote:
"What the texts Mr. Garrett cites and Acts 13:48 do show is that it is the nature of the truly regenerate to respond to the gospel in faith, if they are under the sound of it. It is inconsistent to suppose that a regenerate son would totally reject the gospel, as the same Spirit that testifies within them that they are the children of God would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:16)."
Certainly this view of Jason would not represent the majority view among today's Hardshells. First of all, the Hardshells are fond of pointing out that they are the one and only "true church," with valid baptisms and real converts, and the only ones entrusted with the gospel, the only ones preaching it! The view that most of the elect, who hear the gospel, will believe it, is not the majority view, but one more akin to the "liberal movement" among today's Hardshell denomination, many of whom are coming back to the Old Baptist faith as regards regeneration and means.
Jason said - "it is the nature of the truly regenerate to respond to the gospel in faith." This is close to the truth, but not the full truth. Let us add this statement and see if Jason can endorse it, or tell us why he cannot - "it is the nature of the truly regenerate to believe and repent at the moment they are regenerated"?
Jason wrote:
"It seems to me that Mr. Garrett commits the slippery slope fallacy of reasoning to suppose that distinguishing sonship from discipleship results in the unscriptural view that most mentally competent, mature adults now living that openly reject the gospel are going to heaven as ignorant sons."
Again, Jason wants to argue from logic, by his use of "reasoning," rather than upon plain propositions and statements from scripture. Jason admits, as we shall see from his own blog postings (to be examined in order) that the scriptures do not segregate regeneration from conversion in their inspired writings. So, by his own admission, he is making distinctions where he ought not to make them.
He again reasons about the supposed regeneration of infants and idiots but cites no scripture. I have addressed these logical arguments, "vain reasonings," in my book on the Hardshell argumentation on "Spirit Alone" regeneration and refer the reader to those chapters.
Jason wrote:
"An obvious teaching from 3:8 about the new birth is that it is not effected by any means or by any cause that we could observe. This naturally runs afoul of the idea that regeneration occurs only or even ordinarily through gospel preaching, as this would be an obvious cause."
Jesus connected, in John 3, being born again with believing the gospel (vss. 13-18) According to Jason and the Hardshells, Paul, James, and Peter, in teaching that the Spirit begets through the gospel, "run afoul" of what Jesus taught in John 3 about being "born again"?
Jason wrote:
"The text proves that the only relevant cause of the new birth is the Spirit of God, as the gospel as preached by men would be moot as far as it's effect on dead men.'
Jason resorts to the worn out logical reasoning invented by his Hardshell forefathers when he argues that the preaching of the gospel to the "dead" is stupid, nonsensical, and therefore any who believe it are illogical! Gill illogical? Keach, Kiffin, Spilsbury, Knollys, all stupid? Jason ought to read Watson and Clark regarding the lessons from Ezekiel preaching to the valley of dead dry bones and how such an event destroys Hardshell logic on preaching to the dead in order that they might live thereby. Jesus was constantly preaching to the non-elect, to the unregenerate, was he not? This I have shown in several chapters in my book, in the series on "Addresses to the Lost," how Jesus preached the gospel to those he knew were dead spiritually, and even told them how they could be saved! But, don't you know, Jesus was doing what was silly and illogical in preaching the gospel to the dead and telling them how they could be saved!
In conclusion, let me say that I have finished my review of Jason's first apologetic response to my writings and that I will be reviewing his other rebuttal postings next.
A Cayce Contradiction
Brother Stephen has correctly asserted in the past that Elder C.H. Cayce was one of the primary individuals who helped to instill the notion of time salvation among some of the Primitive Baptists of the 20th century. We say some for not all imbibe this idea. We should therefore not find it strange to see Cayce attempting to give an explanation of those many passages in the bible which connect the proclamation of the gospel with salvation, especially the tenth chapter of Romans.
Here is his view on Rom. 10:17.
"So, then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."--Verse 17.
"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)
To be honest, I'm a little shocked by what Cayce states here. His argument that the word is the 'speech of God' (apart from the gospel - KF) is, of course, a well-known and oft used defense by ultraists today who oppose the gospel means position, but the fact that he uses that argumentation here is strange. It is actually inconsistent with how, we think, he would treat the tenth chapter of Romans itself. Obviously, those who have passed on are not able to come to their defense, so we should be careful in our assumptions about what they would profess. Nevertheless, due to our familiarity with the time salvation paradigm we are almost positive that Cayce would practically be FORCED to treat Romans 10 in the same way as today's extremists. He would claim that Paul is proclaiming his desire for Israel to be the recipients of some form of temporal deliverance. That being the case, we find it odd that he would not allow the faith spoken of here to be that which comes through the gospel, which the immediate context proves beyond the shadow of a doubt (v.14-16)! In fact, instead of utterly opposing it he ought to be seeking to establish that it is the preached gospel under consideration! This would be the only way to be consistent with his assertion that the chapter is speaking of a GOSPEL or time salvation! The fact that he endeavors to demonstrate the hearing of the word as the speech which comes directly from God apart from the gospel proves that he was treating the passage and chapter itself as if it WAS treating of eternal salvation, something which today's extremists flatly deny! Otherwise, why the need to explain away the obvious teaching here that the faith mentioned comes through the proclaimed gospel? His opposition to gospel means in the scheme of salvation forced him to offer another way for faith to come---one which denied the very context of the passage, and would fit in with his anti-means hermeneutics! In order to be consistent with the time salvation paradigm, however, Cayce's argument should have run thus:
"The faith in verse 17 does come through the gospel, but since Romans 10 is speaking of 'time salvation' it presents no problems."
Something like this is what should have been stated and defended by the elder. He would have still been wrong, but at least it would have been in harmony with the system he helped to create. It is our belief that Elder Cayce devoted so much of his energy to attacking the gospel means position that he did so where even the slightest appearance of 'Arminianism', as he would erroneously see it, appeared. That is obviously what happened here. But again we state...if Romans 10 is speaking of 'time salvation', then there was no need for him to fret at the idea that the faith spoken of here came through the gospel!
By his interpretation of this passage Cayce finds himself at odds with his time salvation descendants. The advocates of this system today will admit that the faith of verse 17 DOES come through the gospel. But they find their necessary escape from the unwanted implications of gospel instrumentality by saying that Romans 10 is not speaking of eternal salvation, but time salvation, and that the faith mentioned is evangelical faith which is not essential for salvation. The interpretation given by Cayce is therefore incompatible with the very superstructure he helped to erect and is being defended by its proponents today!
Ah, what confusion reigns amongst those who so mutilate the scriptures under the pretense of 'rightly dividing' it!
It is certainly nice that we find a sound interpretation of this passage given to us by Dr. Gill:
"Ver. 17. So then faith comes by hearing,.... That is, by preaching; for the word hearing is used in the same sense as in the preceding verse; and designs the report of the Gospel, or the preaching of the word, which is the means God makes use of, to convey faith into the hearts of his people; for preachers are ministers, or instruments, by whom others believe: "
CHALLENGES:
1) Does faith come by hearing?
2) Was Elder Cayce treating Romans 10 as speaking of eternal salvation? If he
wasn't, why the need to deny the faith of verse 17 as coming by way of hearing
the gospel? If he was, is he therefore "out of order"?
3) If the faith of Romans 10:17 is part of an optional 'gospel salvation' for the
elect, should not Cayce be trying to PROVE that the faith comes by the 'gospel'?
4) Does the preposition 'by' in v.17 signify that means of some sort are to follow in the passage?
5) Is the faith which comes by hearing a gift of God's grace or a work of men?
6) If the faith which comes by hearing is of God's grace, then why is it stated that it is part of 'time salvation', which is a system of works?
7) If faith comes through the gospel does it cease to be of God?
8) Is Christ the author of 'evangelical faith' ?
9) If my faith in Christ is part of how I ‘save myself while I live here’, does it
not follow that I am the author of my own faith?
10) Is it hypocritical to sing the following words of "I Know Whom I Have Believed" in the song service? If so, why is it sung?
"I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.
I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word ,
Creating faith in Him."
Here is his view on Rom. 10:17.
"So, then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."--Verse 17.
"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)
To be honest, I'm a little shocked by what Cayce states here. His argument that the word is the 'speech of God' (apart from the gospel - KF) is, of course, a well-known and oft used defense by ultraists today who oppose the gospel means position, but the fact that he uses that argumentation here is strange. It is actually inconsistent with how, we think, he would treat the tenth chapter of Romans itself. Obviously, those who have passed on are not able to come to their defense, so we should be careful in our assumptions about what they would profess. Nevertheless, due to our familiarity with the time salvation paradigm we are almost positive that Cayce would practically be FORCED to treat Romans 10 in the same way as today's extremists. He would claim that Paul is proclaiming his desire for Israel to be the recipients of some form of temporal deliverance. That being the case, we find it odd that he would not allow the faith spoken of here to be that which comes through the gospel, which the immediate context proves beyond the shadow of a doubt (v.14-16)! In fact, instead of utterly opposing it he ought to be seeking to establish that it is the preached gospel under consideration! This would be the only way to be consistent with his assertion that the chapter is speaking of a GOSPEL or time salvation! The fact that he endeavors to demonstrate the hearing of the word as the speech which comes directly from God apart from the gospel proves that he was treating the passage and chapter itself as if it WAS treating of eternal salvation, something which today's extremists flatly deny! Otherwise, why the need to explain away the obvious teaching here that the faith mentioned comes through the proclaimed gospel? His opposition to gospel means in the scheme of salvation forced him to offer another way for faith to come---one which denied the very context of the passage, and would fit in with his anti-means hermeneutics! In order to be consistent with the time salvation paradigm, however, Cayce's argument should have run thus:
"The faith in verse 17 does come through the gospel, but since Romans 10 is speaking of 'time salvation' it presents no problems."
Something like this is what should have been stated and defended by the elder. He would have still been wrong, but at least it would have been in harmony with the system he helped to create. It is our belief that Elder Cayce devoted so much of his energy to attacking the gospel means position that he did so where even the slightest appearance of 'Arminianism', as he would erroneously see it, appeared. That is obviously what happened here. But again we state...if Romans 10 is speaking of 'time salvation', then there was no need for him to fret at the idea that the faith spoken of here came through the gospel!
By his interpretation of this passage Cayce finds himself at odds with his time salvation descendants. The advocates of this system today will admit that the faith of verse 17 DOES come through the gospel. But they find their necessary escape from the unwanted implications of gospel instrumentality by saying that Romans 10 is not speaking of eternal salvation, but time salvation, and that the faith mentioned is evangelical faith which is not essential for salvation. The interpretation given by Cayce is therefore incompatible with the very superstructure he helped to erect and is being defended by its proponents today!
Ah, what confusion reigns amongst those who so mutilate the scriptures under the pretense of 'rightly dividing' it!
It is certainly nice that we find a sound interpretation of this passage given to us by Dr. Gill:
"Ver. 17. So then faith comes by hearing,.... That is, by preaching; for the word hearing is used in the same sense as in the preceding verse; and designs the report of the Gospel, or the preaching of the word, which is the means God makes use of, to convey faith into the hearts of his people; for preachers are ministers, or instruments, by whom others believe: "
CHALLENGES:
1) Does faith come by hearing?
2) Was Elder Cayce treating Romans 10 as speaking of eternal salvation? If he
wasn't, why the need to deny the faith of verse 17 as coming by way of hearing
the gospel? If he was, is he therefore "out of order"?
3) If the faith of Romans 10:17 is part of an optional 'gospel salvation' for the
elect, should not Cayce be trying to PROVE that the faith comes by the 'gospel'?
4) Does the preposition 'by' in v.17 signify that means of some sort are to follow in the passage?
5) Is the faith which comes by hearing a gift of God's grace or a work of men?
6) If the faith which comes by hearing is of God's grace, then why is it stated that it is part of 'time salvation', which is a system of works?
7) If faith comes through the gospel does it cease to be of God?
8) Is Christ the author of 'evangelical faith' ?
9) If my faith in Christ is part of how I ‘save myself while I live here’, does it
not follow that I am the author of my own faith?
10) Is it hypocritical to sing the following words of "I Know Whom I Have Believed" in the song service? If so, why is it sung?
"I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.
I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word ,
Creating faith in Him."
Hardshell Apologist Responds
Jason Brown, a self proclaimed Hardshell "apologist," has responded to our writings on Hardshellism. (His blog is "primitivebaptistapologist.blogspot.com")
See here
I attempted to leave a comment this morning, on Jason's blog, but was unable to select a proper profile in order to post the comment. So, I will just make my comments here in a posting. Since Jason is reading this blog (welcome Jason!), he will get the comments either way.
However, I will be out of town today and will have no time to do any writing today.
I would like to add that I have been in an email discussion with a Hardshell elder regarding my writings. I asked him to let me post our discussion here, even leaving his name as anonymous, but he refused.
Blessings,
Stephen
See here
I attempted to leave a comment this morning, on Jason's blog, but was unable to select a proper profile in order to post the comment. So, I will just make my comments here in a posting. Since Jason is reading this blog (welcome Jason!), he will get the comments either way.
However, I will be out of town today and will have no time to do any writing today.
I would like to add that I have been in an email discussion with a Hardshell elder regarding my writings. I asked him to let me post our discussion here, even leaving his name as anonymous, but he refused.
Blessings,
Stephen
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Elder James Osbourne on Means
James Osbourn was one of the first leaders in the anti mission movement and had much to do with the separation of the Hardshells from the main body of Baptists. He lived in Baltimore, Maryland, and was a member of the Baltimore Association of Baptists. He was friends with the first leaders in the Hardshell movement, with men such as Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, Ambrose Booten, Joshua Lawrence, John M. Watson, etc.
According to a present day "Primitive Baptist" web page, edited by Elder David Montgomery, "Elder Osbourn was a staunch defender of the old paths. In the 1832 split with the Missionaries, he was instrumental in keeping many faithful to the truth. His opposition to the new and unscriptural ideas being promoted, earned him the ire of the new schoolers. However, we Primitives owe him a debt of gratitude."
Another PB elder said this about Osbourn:
"In my library I have four books written by James Osbourn. James Osbourn was born in England in 1780, sat under the ministry of the celebrated William Huntington, and converted under the ministry of John Harm. Later, Osbourn moved to America and was blessed to preach extensively and to write several books. Historian Sylvster Hassell said of him that he "was an Englishman, who traveled and preached much , and wrote many religious books." He was a part of the presbytery that ordained Sylveter Hassell's father, C. B. Hassell. Osbourn's autobiography is "The Lawful Captive Delivered.""
See here
Not all PB's seem to think so highly of Elder Osbourn, however, nor recognize the leading role he had in the creation of their sect. I have a book published by the "Primitive Baptists" called "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers" and I find Elder Osbourn omitted.
First, a little biographical information about Elder James Osbourn (sometimes spelled Osbourne). From his personal letters we learn that he was the youngest of fourteen children, and that he did not learn to read or write till he was in his twenties.
See here
We find Elder Osbourn mentioned in Hassell's history as a frequent visitor to the Kehukee Association in the early days of the anti mission movement. Hassell wrote this interesting tidbit about Elder Osbourn.
"The Association realizing the need of a Hymn Book suitable to the of thc churches, recommended Elder Osbourn, of Baltimore (who in the habit of having works issued from the press), to prepare a suitable book, to the best of his ability, for the use of the churches and on his own responsibility; to which he (being present) gave his consent."
(Minutes for the Kehukee Association, 1843, as given in History of the Church of God: Chapter XXIII, Written by Sylvester Hassell)
Hassell also said of Osbourn:
Sylvester Hassell said, in chapter nineteen of his "History of the Church of God," that "Elder James Osbourn was an Englishman, who traveled and preached much, and wrote many religious books."
See here
Elder Sheets, who wrote against the claims of the Hardshells, being a participant in the early debates with the PBs, wrote this about Elder Osbourn:
See here
"In 1832, Elder James Osborne, of Baltimore, was present. Through his influence a large majority of this Association declared non-fellowship with all the benevolent societies of the day, and have since assumed the name of "The Old School" or "Primitive Baptists." It is, however, a misnomer, for they were formerly the "Primitive Baptists," but by changing their position, and instead of remaining Missionary Baptists as they previously had been, they became the New Baptists."
"The Baltimore Baptist Association, so famous for its antimissionary character since 1836, was, previous to that date, a missionary Association."
"Elder James Osborne, who afterward became a disturber of the churches and a leader in the anti-mission ranks, was present and "cordially received" Brother Rice, and was afterward appointed a Home Missionary!"
"This result was secured, it is said, through the influence of a few men. The spirit of opposition was never spontaneous; it was wrought up by a few shrewd leaders. Elders James Osbourn of the Baltimore Association and John Stadler of the Country Line and Joshua Lawrence in the East, contributed more to the result in North Carolina than any dozen others. And it is quite likely true that Elder Osbourn's influence carried Stadler and Lawrence."
"Again we quote from the Biblical Recorder—an editorial— November, 1871: "The Rev. James Osbourn began to preach in the South and to feed the fires of covetousness by declaiming against 'money hunters.' He denounced all publications except his own, and all collections except for himself, and obtained subscriptions for his books before they were written. Elder Joshua Lawrence and many others were led astray."
Here is what Elder Osbourn wrote about the purpose of the gospel (emphasis mine SG).
"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began.
That God ordained the GOSPEL, and promulgated the same, with a settled purpose to save sinners thereby; and hence in this his gospel he says, "I will give them an heart to know me, that 1 am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God : for they shall return unto me with,their whole heart." And again says the Lord, 'Zaccheus make haste and come down, for to day I must abide at thy house.' And again it is said, 'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.' And we are told that the Lord works in men to will and to do of his own good pleasure; and that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost; Jer. 24, 7; Luke, 19, 5; Acts, 11, 48; Phil. 2, 13; Luke 19, 10. (14, 15)." (pg. 14)
See here
Will today's "Primitives" accept Osbourn? Why have they not preserved his books?
According to a present day "Primitive Baptist" web page, edited by Elder David Montgomery, "Elder Osbourn was a staunch defender of the old paths. In the 1832 split with the Missionaries, he was instrumental in keeping many faithful to the truth. His opposition to the new and unscriptural ideas being promoted, earned him the ire of the new schoolers. However, we Primitives owe him a debt of gratitude."
Another PB elder said this about Osbourn:
"In my library I have four books written by James Osbourn. James Osbourn was born in England in 1780, sat under the ministry of the celebrated William Huntington, and converted under the ministry of John Harm. Later, Osbourn moved to America and was blessed to preach extensively and to write several books. Historian Sylvster Hassell said of him that he "was an Englishman, who traveled and preached much , and wrote many religious books." He was a part of the presbytery that ordained Sylveter Hassell's father, C. B. Hassell. Osbourn's autobiography is "The Lawful Captive Delivered.""
See here
Not all PB's seem to think so highly of Elder Osbourn, however, nor recognize the leading role he had in the creation of their sect. I have a book published by the "Primitive Baptists" called "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers" and I find Elder Osbourn omitted.
First, a little biographical information about Elder James Osbourn (sometimes spelled Osbourne). From his personal letters we learn that he was the youngest of fourteen children, and that he did not learn to read or write till he was in his twenties.
See here
We find Elder Osbourn mentioned in Hassell's history as a frequent visitor to the Kehukee Association in the early days of the anti mission movement. Hassell wrote this interesting tidbit about Elder Osbourn.
"The Association realizing the need of a Hymn Book suitable to the of thc churches, recommended Elder Osbourn, of Baltimore (who in the habit of having works issued from the press), to prepare a suitable book, to the best of his ability, for the use of the churches and on his own responsibility; to which he (being present) gave his consent."
(Minutes for the Kehukee Association, 1843, as given in History of the Church of God: Chapter XXIII, Written by Sylvester Hassell)
Hassell also said of Osbourn:
Sylvester Hassell said, in chapter nineteen of his "History of the Church of God," that "Elder James Osbourn was an Englishman, who traveled and preached much, and wrote many religious books."
See here
Elder Sheets, who wrote against the claims of the Hardshells, being a participant in the early debates with the PBs, wrote this about Elder Osbourn:
See here
"In 1832, Elder James Osborne, of Baltimore, was present. Through his influence a large majority of this Association declared non-fellowship with all the benevolent societies of the day, and have since assumed the name of "The Old School" or "Primitive Baptists." It is, however, a misnomer, for they were formerly the "Primitive Baptists," but by changing their position, and instead of remaining Missionary Baptists as they previously had been, they became the New Baptists."
"The Baltimore Baptist Association, so famous for its antimissionary character since 1836, was, previous to that date, a missionary Association."
"Elder James Osborne, who afterward became a disturber of the churches and a leader in the anti-mission ranks, was present and "cordially received" Brother Rice, and was afterward appointed a Home Missionary!"
"This result was secured, it is said, through the influence of a few men. The spirit of opposition was never spontaneous; it was wrought up by a few shrewd leaders. Elders James Osbourn of the Baltimore Association and John Stadler of the Country Line and Joshua Lawrence in the East, contributed more to the result in North Carolina than any dozen others. And it is quite likely true that Elder Osbourn's influence carried Stadler and Lawrence."
"Again we quote from the Biblical Recorder—an editorial— November, 1871: "The Rev. James Osbourn began to preach in the South and to feed the fires of covetousness by declaiming against 'money hunters.' He denounced all publications except his own, and all collections except for himself, and obtained subscriptions for his books before they were written. Elder Joshua Lawrence and many others were led astray."
Here is what Elder Osbourn wrote about the purpose of the gospel (emphasis mine SG).
"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began.
That God ordained the GOSPEL, and promulgated the same, with a settled purpose to save sinners thereby; and hence in this his gospel he says, "I will give them an heart to know me, that 1 am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God : for they shall return unto me with,their whole heart." And again says the Lord, 'Zaccheus make haste and come down, for to day I must abide at thy house.' And again it is said, 'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.' And we are told that the Lord works in men to will and to do of his own good pleasure; and that Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost; Jer. 24, 7; Luke, 19, 5; Acts, 11, 48; Phil. 2, 13; Luke 19, 10. (14, 15)." (pg. 14)
See here
Will today's "Primitives" accept Osbourn? Why have they not preserved his books?
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Pence on Hardshell Origins
Elder Lemuel Potter represented the "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists in a Public Debate with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence , at Luray, Virginia, in 1890. Elder Pence represented those in the anti-mission movement who believed that regeneration and gospel faith could not be divorced, that regeneration or being born again was a work of God done through the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, or through hearing and believing the gospel. Several debates had been occurring among those who called themselves "Anti Mission Baptists," or "Old School Baptists," "Reform Baptists," "Old" or "Original Baptists." Many of the Calvinistic Baptist churches who became part of the anti mission movement were called "Regular Baptists."
From my historical studies of the 1820-1860 period, those in the anti mission movement who denied the use of means in the new birth were a minority. Certainly the early great leaders in the movement, believed in means, men such as James Osbourne, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, John M. Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, and several others that could be named, believed in means, that the gospel or word of God was the instrument, in the hand of the Holy Spirit, whereby the elect are born again.
By 1860 the minority, or Hardshell faction, was fast becoming the majority view. Elder Watson's book, "The Old Baptist Test," published about 1866, shows that the two factions were warring with one another, Watson calling the "no-means" side "ultraists," "antinomians," "modern innovators." He testified of the tactics of the "ultraist" side, how they charged those who believed in means with being "Arminians." The "ultraist" or Hardshell side also was opposed to giving any kind of gospel invitations to those who were lost, or dead in sin. Yet, it is clear that the Baptist practice had always been to warn the wicked and offer to them the way of salvation, and calling upon them to publicly repent and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. These forefathers were in the habit of inviting those under conviction to come forward and be prayed for. Such practices were not "Arminian."
At the close of Elder Watson's book, he called upon both sides to publicly debate the matter through the newly formed periodical, "The Herald," which it must be supposed was supported by the "means" side.
The leading men for the "no-means" side, at the beginning, were Wilson Thompson and his son Grigg Thompson, together with several other Thompson relatives, all who became leading first generation Hardshells. Wilson Thompson, however, seemed to hold to the view of Beebe and Trott, that the new birth was distinct from regeneration, that regeneration was first, without means, but that the new birth was equated with conversion, and was accomplished by the means of the gospel. His son Grigg, however, seems to have gone farther than his father, for he equated regeneration with the new birth and denied means altogether in the glorious work.
In the debate between Elder Lemuel Potter (second generation Hardshell who held great influence in the 1870-1890 period) and Elder Pence, here were the propositions.
First Proposition
"Do the Scriptures teach God's use of the gospel as a means of the regeneration of sinners?"
Pence affirms, Potter denies
Second Proposition
"Do the Scriptures teach that in the regeneration of the sinner, in all cases, the Holy Spirit operates without the use of the gospel as a means?"
Potter affirms, Pence denies
Both sides claimed to represent the historic or old Baptist faith, as expressed in the confessions of faith. Who was right?
A comment on the debate by a Hardshell who attended the debate, reads like this:
"Though Elder Pence claims to be a Primitive, or Regular Old School Baptist, it was clearly demonstrated in this discussion that he did not stand on the Baptist platform, but that he was a full-fledged Arminian both in doctrine and practice, and utterly failed to meet Bro. Potter's arguments."
Elder Pence claimed to be the real Old Baptist, and that the means position was the ancient view of Calvinistic Baptists who endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. Elder Burnam, an associate editor with Elder John Clark, on Zion's Advocate, also believed in means, and claimed that this was the original position of Baptists, even of the majority of those who were part of the anti mission movement. In the debate, Elder Pence gave clear historical evidence that the original Baptists believed that regeneration was through the gospel, as did many of the first leaders of the anti mission movement. This comment by a follower of Potter was a biased comment and is against the facts. Elder Pence, like Elder Throgmorton, demonstrated that the confessions and the great Baptist leaders of the past, all believed in gospel means. The commenter uses the "ultraist" tactic of calling the gospel means position "Arminian," a falsehood. Gill believed in means and he could hardly be labeled an "Arminian."
And again the Hardshell "ultraist" said:
"He (Elder Pence) contended that the gospel is a means in regeneration, and hooted at the idea of the gospel being preached only for a witness, and for the edifying of the body and for the perfecting of the saints, &c., as the Scriptures declare, and which Bro. Potter proved. Such assertions as "a sinner saved without the gospel was saved without Christ," and that the "gospel was the means by which the Spirit was conveyed to the sinner's heart," were made by him, which Bro. Potter showed was a perversion of the Scriptures. Brother Potter challenged him to find a quotation or an intimation in the word of God where the gospel was the power of God to unbelievers, or the unregenerate, or where the righteousness of God was revealed from faith to unbelief, which of course he failed to produce."
Elder Pence, of course, was on solid scriptural grounds in asserting that men are born again by the word of God. (James 1: 18, I Peter 1: 23-25) The idea that the gospel is preached only as a "witness" and not as a medium of salvation, is a dodge. But, what does the gospel bear witness to? Does it not bear witness to the fact that believers will be saved and that unbelievers will be lost?
The commenter refers to the fact that the passages which state that the gospel saves the believer is interpreted to mean saves those who are already saved (or born again), and that they are believers before they hear the gospel! But believers in what? Certainly not in the gospel, or in Jesus Christ! Certainly the gospel saves those who hear and believe the gospel, but no where, in scripture, is a person called a "believer" before he is informed of the gospel. He is called a "believer" because he believes the divine record concerning Jesus Christ. Romans 10 says that "faith comes by hearing," that one is not a believer before he hears and believes the gospel, contrary to Hardshell teaching. Paul asks - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" But, Hardshells believe that one is a believer before he hears! By their interpretations of Romans 1: 16 and I Cor. 1: 21 the believer is not a believer in the gospel, and is a believer before he hears the gospel!
And again the commenter wrote:
"Brother Potter quoted John 3:8, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit," and argued that, if every one was thus born of the Spirit, then all who are born of the Spirit must be born in like manner, and consequently could not tell from whence it cometh or whither it goeth, and if it came in the preached gospel, they could tell from whence it came. Numerous passages of Scriptures were quoted by Bro. Potter to prove that the sinner was regenerated by the direct contact or influence of the Spirit, independent of means and instrumentalities, which Elder Pence failed to disprove."
John 3: 8 does not affirm that all are born again apart from the application of gospel truth. Such an interpretation would contradict James 1: 18 and I Peter 1: 23-25, and numerous other passages. John 3: 8 does not say that all the elect are born again in precisely the same way. All are not born again by the personal appearance of Christ, as it was in the case of Saul (Paul). Many Hardshells affirm that John the Baptist was born again while in his mother's womb. But if so, and all are born again the same way, then are all not born again while in the womb? Besides, the scriptures do declare that all are born again by the word of truth! Consider also how Paul was converted at the same time he was born again, yet Hardshells affirm that many are born again who are never converted, and affirm that all are born again the same way.
And again, the commenter said:
"Elder Pence tried to make it appear that the anti-means, as he termed them, had departed from the old landmarks, and still they claim that they are trying to get us out of the old ruts, and that our churches are all dying out because we do not believe in means in regeneration, and do not have Sunday-schools, mission boards, female missionaries, etc., to build up our churches. What inconsistency! Do they not know that anyone can see the absurdity and falsity of such a position?"
But, Elder Pence was right and was stating what Elder Watson stated in his book "The Old Baptist Test"! Elder Burnam testified in the Mt. Carmel church trial that the anti-means, regeneration apart from faith, was a new invention, born in the latter half of the 19th century, and in this he was correct by a fair analysis of the historical records.
The commenter's name was J. G. Wiltshire and can be found
See here
A "Primitive Baptist" web page gives Elder Potter's written account of the debate, titled "An Account of Elder Pence's Affirmative Arguments and Elder Potter's Reply." Here is what Elder Potter wrote:
"Elder Pence claimed that we could not find a single author or commentator, prior to fifty years ago, that took the Anti-means position. He referred to Dr. Watson, and the London Confession of Faith, and to Dr. Gill, and other authors, in order to prove that the Baptists had heretofore believed in the doctrine of means, and that our position among the Old School Baptists was entirely new."
Elder Pence no doubt gave, as did Elder Throgmorton, plenty of historical evidence to prove his contentions. All Elder Potter could do is to deny the clear evidence and attempt to twist the writings of the Baptist forefathers. Elder Pence cited Baptist records to show that the Baptist did not hold to Hardshell views on the gospel and on the nature and causes of regeneration and challenged Elder Potter to cite one historical Baptist record, prior to the 19th century, that supported Hardshellism. Potter never refuted the records presented by Pence and never gave evidence to show that the first particular Baptists, who wrote the London confession, held to Hardshell views on the new birth.
Potter continued:
"He (Pence) referred to Acts 26: 16, where Paul went to the Gentiles to open their eyes, and argued that those people were unregenerate, and that in the process of regeneration through the ministry of the apostle, as a means, their eyes would be opened, and they would be turned from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God, etc. He referred also to Romans 1:16, "The gospel is the power of God to every one that believeth," and emphasized the fact that it was the power of God unto salvation, so that if it was the power of God unto salvation, it must be used in the salvation of the believer. I took the position that none of the Baptists, Gill, the London Confession of Faith, Dr. Watson, or any of the Old School Baptists took the position that he did; that the anti-means position was not a new thing among the Old School Baptists."
What was Potter's evidence to prove Pence wrong? None! How could he deny plain citations from the confessions, from Gill, Fain, and Watson? This is what many Hardshells do when you present them with clear evidence! They simply deny plain truth!
Potter continued:
"I took the position that in Acts 26:16, to deliver from the power of darkness, and to open their eyes, and turn them from the power of satan unto God, etc., had no allusion to the work of regeneration, whatever, but that regenerated people in the state of idolatry, or under the influences of false religions, were in darkness; and they were blinded, and that the gospel was to be preached to them, in order to open their eyes, and to get them out of that darkness, and bring them to understand the truth, that Jesus is the only Savior of sinners; and realize that their sins were forgiven when the blood of Jesus Christ was shed on the cross, that they now are capable of enjoying an inheritance among them that are sanctified, which means an inheritance among other saints."
The Hardshell interpretation of Acts 26: 16 has gross consequences. According to Potter and the Hardshells, being turned from the power of Satan unto God is not regeneration! Hardshell "regeneration" therefore, by their own admission, does not deliver one "from" the "power of Satan"! Nor save them "to" the "power of God"! Interesting, however, is the fact that all Hardshells that I know of interpret Colossians 1: 13 as descriptive of regeneration! It reads: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." Why is this passage regeneration but Acts 26: 16 is not? Both speak of being delivered from an evil power, one mentioning the "power of Satan" and the other the "power of darkness." Acts 26: 16 speaks of "opening the eyes" or of enlightenment, but Hardshells, because the preaching of Paul is a means make this enlightenment a post regeneration experience, of conversion, which they affirm is distinct from regeneration. All the elect will be regenerated but not all will be converted, according to their paradigm. Yet, the old articles of faith of most Hardshell churches state that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted"! Interesting too is the fact that Hardshells will often interpret some passages dealing with enlightenment as being regeneration! It seems that when means are involved, then the enlightenment is not regeneration, but when means are not mentioned, then regeneration is under consideration.
I have stated, in my ongoing work on Hardshellism, how the Hardshells make conversion a greater work than regeneration, and yet make the former to be effected in the manner of Arminianism, by free will and works, and yet make the latter to be in the manner of Calvinism, by sovereign grace! Conversion delivers one from the power of Satan and to the power of God, but regeneration does not!
This is one of the passages which helped to deliver me from Hardshellism. There is no way that an honest bible interpreter can read the description of salvation in Acts 26: 16 and not make it deal with regeneration or eternal salvation.
Potter said:
"My expression of the matter is, that they may enjoy the privileges of members of the Gospel church. In Romans 1:16, I took the position that the gospel was the power of God unto salvation to the believer, and not to the unbeliever. I challenged Elder Pence to show that the gospel was ever the power of God to an unsaved person, and I referred to I Cor. 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God."
Elder Pence never affirmed that the gospel is actually the power of God to any unbeliever, but that is potentially the power of God to every lost soul. Potter's interpretation forces him to define "believer" as something other than a believer in the one true God and a believer in Jesus! And, I ask, what does the "believer" of Romans 1: 16 believe before he hears and believes the gospel? What Potter and the Hardshells are attempting to do is reinterpret Romans 1: 16 to make it say that the gospel is the power of God to save (temporally) those who are already born again or eternally saved. But, they have to give a corrupt definition of who is designed by Paul when he says "believer."
The same with I Cor. 1: 18, where Potter and the Hardshells attempt to twist Paul's language to make him say that the gospel is not the power of God to save or regenerate, but is the power of God only to those who have already been regenerated apart from the gospel, but such interpretation is dishonest.
Potter continued:
"In his second speech he wished to know if there were any unregenerate people among the Gentiles. He claimed that if a man was under the power of satan, he certainly must be in a state of unregeneracy. He argued again, the difference between human and divine instrumentalities, contending that agencies and instruments in the hands of men were human, but in the hands of God they were divine."
I have already dealt with this Hardshell absurdity in looking at their handling of Acts 26: 16. But, notice again, how the Hardshells affirm that regeneration does not deliver a man from the power of Satan! Conversion does that! And remember, regeneration is all the work of God, according to Hardshellism, but conversion is part the work of God and part the work of the sinner. And, which, according to Hardshellism, does the greater saving?
Potter continued:
"While I admitted that the commission authorized the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, both saint and sinner, he wanted to know what God's object was in having the gospel preached to the unregenerate, if it was not for the purpose of regenerating them. My answer was, "This gospel shall be preached for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come."
This is a revealing admission by Elder Potter. He denies that the gospel is to be preached to all men with the purpose of saving them! Yet, what saith the scriptures?
"Whom (Christ) we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; THAT (for the purpose) we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Colossians 1: 28, 29)
"But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved." (John 5: 34)
"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thess. 2: 16)
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1: 6, 7)
These verses are clear! They say the gospel is to be preached to all men in order that all men might have opportunity to be saved! No amount of Hardshell twisting of these verses can overthrow their condemnation of Hardshellism. Notice also the last verse cited, how it mentions how John and his gospel preaching was for a "witness" but this did not exclude it being for the purpose of bringing all to faith in Christ.
Potter continued:
"He claimed that he believed in the doctrine of election, and that the gospel must be preached to every creature, both saint and sinner, so I wanted to know of him what God's object was in having the gospel preached to the non-elect, according to his view of the matter. It certainly could not be that he intended to regenerate them by having the gospel preached to them, then what was his object? He answered, that they might be judged according to men of the flesh. I claimed that that was a good answer, and that it was virtually the same that I had given him."
Perhaps Elder Pence could have done a better job of answering this query from Potter. He could have shown how there are two wills in God, one general, and one specific, one which is revealed and one which is hidden, one which is to all men, and one which is to the elect.
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4)
God does not want any to be lost and so offers salvation to all. Yet, he knows that the offer of saving mercy will be rejected by all, and so wills to so work on some men, the elect, so as to secure their voluntary reception of the offer of grace.
Potter continued:
"He undertook to show that Elder Clark was agreed with him on the subject of means. In this he gloriously failed, for I showed him from Zion's Advocate, that on the occasion of Elder Booten's ordination, Elder Clark was the moderator of the Presbytery, and that Elder Booten was interrogated on this very point, as to whether he believed in the Spirit's work in the regeneration of sinners, without, and independent of, all means and instrumentalities whatever. A correspondence between Elder J. B. Stephens, of Nashville, Tenn., and Elder Clark, concerning this matter, which was published in Zion's Advocate, shows that Elder Clark emphatically denied the use of any means or agencies outside of the divine Spirit in the regeneration of sinners. I am not prepared to give the date of the Advocate in which this correspondence occurred. In reply to my idea that the gospel was the power of God to the saved, Elder Pence rather made light, saying: "The power of God unto salvation to the man already saved?"
It was convenient of Potter not to give the citation from Elder Clark. In this blog I have cited statements from Elder Clark which showed clearly that he believed that sinners were born again by the preaching of the gospel. Now, it very well could be that Elder Clark agreed with Beebe, Osbourne, Trott, and others, that regeneration was distinct from the birth, and allowed no means in the former but did allowed them in the latter. In this case, Clark must be read carefully to see if he is talking about means in regeneration or in birth.
Elder Pence was right to make light of the Hardshell interpretation of Romans 1: 16. If the gospel is the power of God "UNTO" salvation, then obviously the people are not saved before they hear and believe the gospel.
Potter continued:
"He then referred to John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." He claimed that the preaching of the gospel was necessary to this belief, and that this belief was necessary to salvation, and challenged me, all through the discussion to prove one single case of regeneration in the absence of the gospel. He wanted me to prove that the people to whom God sent Paul were regenerated. I told him it was his place to prove that they were not regenerated, as that was his proof-text, and he was in the affirmative."
Elder Potter dodged the questions of Elder Pence. He refused to give one example of an elect and saved individual who did not profess faith in Christ. Hardshells have a hard time with all those passages that affirm that Christ and gospel rejecters will all be lost. In John 3: 36 it says that those who do not believe in Jesus, like the Athenian idolaters in Acts 17, are under the wrath of God, and do not get out from under that wrath until they believe in Jesus and the gospel. Notice this passage, another one that help to deliver me from Hardshellism.
"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power..." (II Thess. 1: 7-9)
What does Paul affirm will be the final destiny of all those who obey not the gospel? "Eternal destruction"! Is that not clear? Does it not destroy Hardshellism and their affirmation that not all those who reject the gospel will be lost?
Potter continued:
"He then referred to John 5:25, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God," etc., and he referred to Dr. Gill to show that Gill claimed that the voice of the Son of God there, is the ministry of the gospel. In reply to which, I claimed that the voice of the Son of God in John 5:25, and the voice of the Son of God in the 27th verse of the same chapter, means the same voice. No person can afford to claim that it is not the same voice. In John 5:25, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live," and in the 27th verse, "Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth," etc. Now if the voice in the 25th verse means the preaching of the gospel, and is a means in quickening the dead sinner, then it follows that the voice in the 27th verse also means the preaching of the gospel, and is a means in raising the dead. Dr. Gill or no other man believes any such doctrine."
Notice how Potter does not deny that Gill taught that the "voice" of Jesus, in the work of regeneration, was the gospel, and yet, he claimed that Gill did not believe the gospel was a means in regeneration! Consistency thou art a jewel!
Copied from "Zion's Advocate," 1890, pages 243-250.
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Potter-Pence1st.html
An Account of Elder Potter's Affirmative Arguments and Elder Pence's Reply
"...claiming all the time that the anti-means was an innovation of the Baptist not exceeding fifty years."
This was the claim of Elder Pence and Elder Potter could not refute the evidence submitted to prove it. The Hardshells may claim to be "primitive" but they are not.
Potter wrote:
"He says our position on means and instrumentalities is new among Old School Baptists; in answer to which I claimed that his position was not only new, but there was not an Old School Baptist in America that believes as he does. There may be some among us that bear the name, but they are not Old School Baptists. I challenge him for an author, even of a little book that you could slip in your vest pocket, or less than that; (he spoke of some men writing a little book that you could stick in your vest pocket) a letter in any of our periodicals from any of our brethren who have said that if sinners are saved without the gospel, they were saved without Christ. I challenge him to produce an author or writer among us who, twenty years ago, would challenge for a regenerated sinner where the gospel was not. I further challenged him for an expression of his own in any article that he had written as far back as fifteen or twenty years ago, himself taking the position that people who are saved without the gospel are saved without Christ. In all this he ingloriously failed."
What Elder Pence argued was that no Baptist, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, in the early 19th century, believed that men were saved apart from faith in Christ. Elder Potter, nor any other Hardshell, living or dead, can cite a leading Baptist confession that states that men who believe not in Jesus will nevertheless be saved. The Hardshells are not "old" or "original" Baptists.
Potter wrote:
"Again I said, but if all he claims is true, that anti-means is a thing of recent date among us, he gives us credit for being the most successful set of ministers that ever trod the soil of America. With all our anti-missionism, he gives us the credit of having converted almost our entire denomination to the anti-means doctrine. We have converted, according to what he says, a great many of our preachers, as Elders Hess, Purifoy, Dalton, and a great many others, together with all our religious periodicals, except the Regular Baptist Magazine, who all now stand up in favor of the anti-means side of the question. Elder Pence and a few others stand alone, with a pitiful few here in Virginia, a small remnant in Ohio, and a few in Missouri, and none in Illinois that I know of, a mere few in Kentucky and Tennessee. With all their effort and their use of means, and their zeal and energy for the cause, while the whole church was once, according to what he says, where he now stands; and we with our anti-effort system, and anti-nomian principles have converted the whole denomination over. Of course that looks very reasonable."
How successful the anti means faction was is irrelevent. It is true that the Hardshell "ultraist" side took control of the anti mission movement toward the latter end of the 19th century, but this does not mean that they were expressing the original faith of the great leaders in the movement. Pence showed how the first great leaders in the movement did not deny means in regeneration, men like Watson, Fain, and Clark, and others, like Beebe, Trott, and Osbourne, though denying means in regeneration, did not deny them in the birth, a birth that they affirmed was as necessary to salvation as was regeneration.
Potter wrote:
"I have now given a brief outline of the arguments and positions occupied by us both during the discussion. It is not so much my intention in this article to show that I gained a victory over Elder Pence, as to show the position occupied by him. I hope that every reader may thoroughly understand the position taken by Elder Pence and those who agree with him. During the discussion, Elder T. N. Alderton of West Virginia approached Elder C. L. Yates, and asked him if he endorsed the positions advocated by Elder Pence, to which he replied that he did with all his heart. Let me say to all concerned, they are nothing more nor less than a set of Arminians, and the longer they stay in our ranks the greater the rupture will be when it does come. Let all the churches rid themselves of such things, and be careful to draw the line of demarcation at all times, and on all occasions between these innovations and the true doctrine of God, so that the saints may be comforted, edified, and built up in the most holy faith, and that God himself may be glorified."
The accusation that all who teach means in regeneration are "Arminian" is false. Was Watson and Gill Arminians? Were the writers of the London and Philadelphia confessions Arminian? No. Yet, they believed in means. Was it not Elder Watson who spoke of the followers of Daniel Parker who erroneously called those who believed in means "Arminian"?
See here
From my historical studies of the 1820-1860 period, those in the anti mission movement who denied the use of means in the new birth were a minority. Certainly the early great leaders in the movement, believed in means, men such as James Osbourne, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, John M. Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, and several others that could be named, believed in means, that the gospel or word of God was the instrument, in the hand of the Holy Spirit, whereby the elect are born again.
By 1860 the minority, or Hardshell faction, was fast becoming the majority view. Elder Watson's book, "The Old Baptist Test," published about 1866, shows that the two factions were warring with one another, Watson calling the "no-means" side "ultraists," "antinomians," "modern innovators." He testified of the tactics of the "ultraist" side, how they charged those who believed in means with being "Arminians." The "ultraist" or Hardshell side also was opposed to giving any kind of gospel invitations to those who were lost, or dead in sin. Yet, it is clear that the Baptist practice had always been to warn the wicked and offer to them the way of salvation, and calling upon them to publicly repent and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. These forefathers were in the habit of inviting those under conviction to come forward and be prayed for. Such practices were not "Arminian."
At the close of Elder Watson's book, he called upon both sides to publicly debate the matter through the newly formed periodical, "The Herald," which it must be supposed was supported by the "means" side.
The leading men for the "no-means" side, at the beginning, were Wilson Thompson and his son Grigg Thompson, together with several other Thompson relatives, all who became leading first generation Hardshells. Wilson Thompson, however, seemed to hold to the view of Beebe and Trott, that the new birth was distinct from regeneration, that regeneration was first, without means, but that the new birth was equated with conversion, and was accomplished by the means of the gospel. His son Grigg, however, seems to have gone farther than his father, for he equated regeneration with the new birth and denied means altogether in the glorious work.
In the debate between Elder Lemuel Potter (second generation Hardshell who held great influence in the 1870-1890 period) and Elder Pence, here were the propositions.
First Proposition
"Do the Scriptures teach God's use of the gospel as a means of the regeneration of sinners?"
Pence affirms, Potter denies
Second Proposition
"Do the Scriptures teach that in the regeneration of the sinner, in all cases, the Holy Spirit operates without the use of the gospel as a means?"
Potter affirms, Pence denies
Both sides claimed to represent the historic or old Baptist faith, as expressed in the confessions of faith. Who was right?
A comment on the debate by a Hardshell who attended the debate, reads like this:
"Though Elder Pence claims to be a Primitive, or Regular Old School Baptist, it was clearly demonstrated in this discussion that he did not stand on the Baptist platform, but that he was a full-fledged Arminian both in doctrine and practice, and utterly failed to meet Bro. Potter's arguments."
Elder Pence claimed to be the real Old Baptist, and that the means position was the ancient view of Calvinistic Baptists who endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. Elder Burnam, an associate editor with Elder John Clark, on Zion's Advocate, also believed in means, and claimed that this was the original position of Baptists, even of the majority of those who were part of the anti mission movement. In the debate, Elder Pence gave clear historical evidence that the original Baptists believed that regeneration was through the gospel, as did many of the first leaders of the anti mission movement. This comment by a follower of Potter was a biased comment and is against the facts. Elder Pence, like Elder Throgmorton, demonstrated that the confessions and the great Baptist leaders of the past, all believed in gospel means. The commenter uses the "ultraist" tactic of calling the gospel means position "Arminian," a falsehood. Gill believed in means and he could hardly be labeled an "Arminian."
And again the Hardshell "ultraist" said:
"He (Elder Pence) contended that the gospel is a means in regeneration, and hooted at the idea of the gospel being preached only for a witness, and for the edifying of the body and for the perfecting of the saints, &c., as the Scriptures declare, and which Bro. Potter proved. Such assertions as "a sinner saved without the gospel was saved without Christ," and that the "gospel was the means by which the Spirit was conveyed to the sinner's heart," were made by him, which Bro. Potter showed was a perversion of the Scriptures. Brother Potter challenged him to find a quotation or an intimation in the word of God where the gospel was the power of God to unbelievers, or the unregenerate, or where the righteousness of God was revealed from faith to unbelief, which of course he failed to produce."
Elder Pence, of course, was on solid scriptural grounds in asserting that men are born again by the word of God. (James 1: 18, I Peter 1: 23-25) The idea that the gospel is preached only as a "witness" and not as a medium of salvation, is a dodge. But, what does the gospel bear witness to? Does it not bear witness to the fact that believers will be saved and that unbelievers will be lost?
The commenter refers to the fact that the passages which state that the gospel saves the believer is interpreted to mean saves those who are already saved (or born again), and that they are believers before they hear the gospel! But believers in what? Certainly not in the gospel, or in Jesus Christ! Certainly the gospel saves those who hear and believe the gospel, but no where, in scripture, is a person called a "believer" before he is informed of the gospel. He is called a "believer" because he believes the divine record concerning Jesus Christ. Romans 10 says that "faith comes by hearing," that one is not a believer before he hears and believes the gospel, contrary to Hardshell teaching. Paul asks - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" But, Hardshells believe that one is a believer before he hears! By their interpretations of Romans 1: 16 and I Cor. 1: 21 the believer is not a believer in the gospel, and is a believer before he hears the gospel!
And again the commenter wrote:
"Brother Potter quoted John 3:8, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit," and argued that, if every one was thus born of the Spirit, then all who are born of the Spirit must be born in like manner, and consequently could not tell from whence it cometh or whither it goeth, and if it came in the preached gospel, they could tell from whence it came. Numerous passages of Scriptures were quoted by Bro. Potter to prove that the sinner was regenerated by the direct contact or influence of the Spirit, independent of means and instrumentalities, which Elder Pence failed to disprove."
John 3: 8 does not affirm that all are born again apart from the application of gospel truth. Such an interpretation would contradict James 1: 18 and I Peter 1: 23-25, and numerous other passages. John 3: 8 does not say that all the elect are born again in precisely the same way. All are not born again by the personal appearance of Christ, as it was in the case of Saul (Paul). Many Hardshells affirm that John the Baptist was born again while in his mother's womb. But if so, and all are born again the same way, then are all not born again while in the womb? Besides, the scriptures do declare that all are born again by the word of truth! Consider also how Paul was converted at the same time he was born again, yet Hardshells affirm that many are born again who are never converted, and affirm that all are born again the same way.
And again, the commenter said:
"Elder Pence tried to make it appear that the anti-means, as he termed them, had departed from the old landmarks, and still they claim that they are trying to get us out of the old ruts, and that our churches are all dying out because we do not believe in means in regeneration, and do not have Sunday-schools, mission boards, female missionaries, etc., to build up our churches. What inconsistency! Do they not know that anyone can see the absurdity and falsity of such a position?"
But, Elder Pence was right and was stating what Elder Watson stated in his book "The Old Baptist Test"! Elder Burnam testified in the Mt. Carmel church trial that the anti-means, regeneration apart from faith, was a new invention, born in the latter half of the 19th century, and in this he was correct by a fair analysis of the historical records.
The commenter's name was J. G. Wiltshire and can be found
See here
A "Primitive Baptist" web page gives Elder Potter's written account of the debate, titled "An Account of Elder Pence's Affirmative Arguments and Elder Potter's Reply." Here is what Elder Potter wrote:
"Elder Pence claimed that we could not find a single author or commentator, prior to fifty years ago, that took the Anti-means position. He referred to Dr. Watson, and the London Confession of Faith, and to Dr. Gill, and other authors, in order to prove that the Baptists had heretofore believed in the doctrine of means, and that our position among the Old School Baptists was entirely new."
Elder Pence no doubt gave, as did Elder Throgmorton, plenty of historical evidence to prove his contentions. All Elder Potter could do is to deny the clear evidence and attempt to twist the writings of the Baptist forefathers. Elder Pence cited Baptist records to show that the Baptist did not hold to Hardshell views on the gospel and on the nature and causes of regeneration and challenged Elder Potter to cite one historical Baptist record, prior to the 19th century, that supported Hardshellism. Potter never refuted the records presented by Pence and never gave evidence to show that the first particular Baptists, who wrote the London confession, held to Hardshell views on the new birth.
Potter continued:
"He (Pence) referred to Acts 26: 16, where Paul went to the Gentiles to open their eyes, and argued that those people were unregenerate, and that in the process of regeneration through the ministry of the apostle, as a means, their eyes would be opened, and they would be turned from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God, etc. He referred also to Romans 1:16, "The gospel is the power of God to every one that believeth," and emphasized the fact that it was the power of God unto salvation, so that if it was the power of God unto salvation, it must be used in the salvation of the believer. I took the position that none of the Baptists, Gill, the London Confession of Faith, Dr. Watson, or any of the Old School Baptists took the position that he did; that the anti-means position was not a new thing among the Old School Baptists."
What was Potter's evidence to prove Pence wrong? None! How could he deny plain citations from the confessions, from Gill, Fain, and Watson? This is what many Hardshells do when you present them with clear evidence! They simply deny plain truth!
Potter continued:
"I took the position that in Acts 26:16, to deliver from the power of darkness, and to open their eyes, and turn them from the power of satan unto God, etc., had no allusion to the work of regeneration, whatever, but that regenerated people in the state of idolatry, or under the influences of false religions, were in darkness; and they were blinded, and that the gospel was to be preached to them, in order to open their eyes, and to get them out of that darkness, and bring them to understand the truth, that Jesus is the only Savior of sinners; and realize that their sins were forgiven when the blood of Jesus Christ was shed on the cross, that they now are capable of enjoying an inheritance among them that are sanctified, which means an inheritance among other saints."
The Hardshell interpretation of Acts 26: 16 has gross consequences. According to Potter and the Hardshells, being turned from the power of Satan unto God is not regeneration! Hardshell "regeneration" therefore, by their own admission, does not deliver one "from" the "power of Satan"! Nor save them "to" the "power of God"! Interesting, however, is the fact that all Hardshells that I know of interpret Colossians 1: 13 as descriptive of regeneration! It reads: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." Why is this passage regeneration but Acts 26: 16 is not? Both speak of being delivered from an evil power, one mentioning the "power of Satan" and the other the "power of darkness." Acts 26: 16 speaks of "opening the eyes" or of enlightenment, but Hardshells, because the preaching of Paul is a means make this enlightenment a post regeneration experience, of conversion, which they affirm is distinct from regeneration. All the elect will be regenerated but not all will be converted, according to their paradigm. Yet, the old articles of faith of most Hardshell churches state that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted"! Interesting too is the fact that Hardshells will often interpret some passages dealing with enlightenment as being regeneration! It seems that when means are involved, then the enlightenment is not regeneration, but when means are not mentioned, then regeneration is under consideration.
I have stated, in my ongoing work on Hardshellism, how the Hardshells make conversion a greater work than regeneration, and yet make the former to be effected in the manner of Arminianism, by free will and works, and yet make the latter to be in the manner of Calvinism, by sovereign grace! Conversion delivers one from the power of Satan and to the power of God, but regeneration does not!
This is one of the passages which helped to deliver me from Hardshellism. There is no way that an honest bible interpreter can read the description of salvation in Acts 26: 16 and not make it deal with regeneration or eternal salvation.
Potter said:
"My expression of the matter is, that they may enjoy the privileges of members of the Gospel church. In Romans 1:16, I took the position that the gospel was the power of God unto salvation to the believer, and not to the unbeliever. I challenged Elder Pence to show that the gospel was ever the power of God to an unsaved person, and I referred to I Cor. 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God."
Elder Pence never affirmed that the gospel is actually the power of God to any unbeliever, but that is potentially the power of God to every lost soul. Potter's interpretation forces him to define "believer" as something other than a believer in the one true God and a believer in Jesus! And, I ask, what does the "believer" of Romans 1: 16 believe before he hears and believes the gospel? What Potter and the Hardshells are attempting to do is reinterpret Romans 1: 16 to make it say that the gospel is the power of God to save (temporally) those who are already born again or eternally saved. But, they have to give a corrupt definition of who is designed by Paul when he says "believer."
The same with I Cor. 1: 18, where Potter and the Hardshells attempt to twist Paul's language to make him say that the gospel is not the power of God to save or regenerate, but is the power of God only to those who have already been regenerated apart from the gospel, but such interpretation is dishonest.
Potter continued:
"In his second speech he wished to know if there were any unregenerate people among the Gentiles. He claimed that if a man was under the power of satan, he certainly must be in a state of unregeneracy. He argued again, the difference between human and divine instrumentalities, contending that agencies and instruments in the hands of men were human, but in the hands of God they were divine."
I have already dealt with this Hardshell absurdity in looking at their handling of Acts 26: 16. But, notice again, how the Hardshells affirm that regeneration does not deliver a man from the power of Satan! Conversion does that! And remember, regeneration is all the work of God, according to Hardshellism, but conversion is part the work of God and part the work of the sinner. And, which, according to Hardshellism, does the greater saving?
Potter continued:
"While I admitted that the commission authorized the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, both saint and sinner, he wanted to know what God's object was in having the gospel preached to the unregenerate, if it was not for the purpose of regenerating them. My answer was, "This gospel shall be preached for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come."
This is a revealing admission by Elder Potter. He denies that the gospel is to be preached to all men with the purpose of saving them! Yet, what saith the scriptures?
"Whom (Christ) we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; THAT (for the purpose) we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Colossians 1: 28, 29)
"But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved." (John 5: 34)
"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (I Thess. 2: 16)
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1: 6, 7)
These verses are clear! They say the gospel is to be preached to all men in order that all men might have opportunity to be saved! No amount of Hardshell twisting of these verses can overthrow their condemnation of Hardshellism. Notice also the last verse cited, how it mentions how John and his gospel preaching was for a "witness" but this did not exclude it being for the purpose of bringing all to faith in Christ.
Potter continued:
"He claimed that he believed in the doctrine of election, and that the gospel must be preached to every creature, both saint and sinner, so I wanted to know of him what God's object was in having the gospel preached to the non-elect, according to his view of the matter. It certainly could not be that he intended to regenerate them by having the gospel preached to them, then what was his object? He answered, that they might be judged according to men of the flesh. I claimed that that was a good answer, and that it was virtually the same that I had given him."
Perhaps Elder Pence could have done a better job of answering this query from Potter. He could have shown how there are two wills in God, one general, and one specific, one which is revealed and one which is hidden, one which is to all men, and one which is to the elect.
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4)
God does not want any to be lost and so offers salvation to all. Yet, he knows that the offer of saving mercy will be rejected by all, and so wills to so work on some men, the elect, so as to secure their voluntary reception of the offer of grace.
Potter continued:
"He undertook to show that Elder Clark was agreed with him on the subject of means. In this he gloriously failed, for I showed him from Zion's Advocate, that on the occasion of Elder Booten's ordination, Elder Clark was the moderator of the Presbytery, and that Elder Booten was interrogated on this very point, as to whether he believed in the Spirit's work in the regeneration of sinners, without, and independent of, all means and instrumentalities whatever. A correspondence between Elder J. B. Stephens, of Nashville, Tenn., and Elder Clark, concerning this matter, which was published in Zion's Advocate, shows that Elder Clark emphatically denied the use of any means or agencies outside of the divine Spirit in the regeneration of sinners. I am not prepared to give the date of the Advocate in which this correspondence occurred. In reply to my idea that the gospel was the power of God to the saved, Elder Pence rather made light, saying: "The power of God unto salvation to the man already saved?"
It was convenient of Potter not to give the citation from Elder Clark. In this blog I have cited statements from Elder Clark which showed clearly that he believed that sinners were born again by the preaching of the gospel. Now, it very well could be that Elder Clark agreed with Beebe, Osbourne, Trott, and others, that regeneration was distinct from the birth, and allowed no means in the former but did allowed them in the latter. In this case, Clark must be read carefully to see if he is talking about means in regeneration or in birth.
Elder Pence was right to make light of the Hardshell interpretation of Romans 1: 16. If the gospel is the power of God "UNTO" salvation, then obviously the people are not saved before they hear and believe the gospel.
Potter continued:
"He then referred to John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." He claimed that the preaching of the gospel was necessary to this belief, and that this belief was necessary to salvation, and challenged me, all through the discussion to prove one single case of regeneration in the absence of the gospel. He wanted me to prove that the people to whom God sent Paul were regenerated. I told him it was his place to prove that they were not regenerated, as that was his proof-text, and he was in the affirmative."
Elder Potter dodged the questions of Elder Pence. He refused to give one example of an elect and saved individual who did not profess faith in Christ. Hardshells have a hard time with all those passages that affirm that Christ and gospel rejecters will all be lost. In John 3: 36 it says that those who do not believe in Jesus, like the Athenian idolaters in Acts 17, are under the wrath of God, and do not get out from under that wrath until they believe in Jesus and the gospel. Notice this passage, another one that help to deliver me from Hardshellism.
"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power..." (II Thess. 1: 7-9)
What does Paul affirm will be the final destiny of all those who obey not the gospel? "Eternal destruction"! Is that not clear? Does it not destroy Hardshellism and their affirmation that not all those who reject the gospel will be lost?
Potter continued:
"He then referred to John 5:25, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God," etc., and he referred to Dr. Gill to show that Gill claimed that the voice of the Son of God there, is the ministry of the gospel. In reply to which, I claimed that the voice of the Son of God in John 5:25, and the voice of the Son of God in the 27th verse of the same chapter, means the same voice. No person can afford to claim that it is not the same voice. In John 5:25, "The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live," and in the 27th verse, "Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth," etc. Now if the voice in the 25th verse means the preaching of the gospel, and is a means in quickening the dead sinner, then it follows that the voice in the 27th verse also means the preaching of the gospel, and is a means in raising the dead. Dr. Gill or no other man believes any such doctrine."
Notice how Potter does not deny that Gill taught that the "voice" of Jesus, in the work of regeneration, was the gospel, and yet, he claimed that Gill did not believe the gospel was a means in regeneration! Consistency thou art a jewel!
Copied from "Zion's Advocate," 1890, pages 243-250.
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Potter-Pence1st.html
An Account of Elder Potter's Affirmative Arguments and Elder Pence's Reply
"...claiming all the time that the anti-means was an innovation of the Baptist not exceeding fifty years."
This was the claim of Elder Pence and Elder Potter could not refute the evidence submitted to prove it. The Hardshells may claim to be "primitive" but they are not.
Potter wrote:
"He says our position on means and instrumentalities is new among Old School Baptists; in answer to which I claimed that his position was not only new, but there was not an Old School Baptist in America that believes as he does. There may be some among us that bear the name, but they are not Old School Baptists. I challenge him for an author, even of a little book that you could slip in your vest pocket, or less than that; (he spoke of some men writing a little book that you could stick in your vest pocket) a letter in any of our periodicals from any of our brethren who have said that if sinners are saved without the gospel, they were saved without Christ. I challenge him to produce an author or writer among us who, twenty years ago, would challenge for a regenerated sinner where the gospel was not. I further challenged him for an expression of his own in any article that he had written as far back as fifteen or twenty years ago, himself taking the position that people who are saved without the gospel are saved without Christ. In all this he ingloriously failed."
What Elder Pence argued was that no Baptist, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, in the early 19th century, believed that men were saved apart from faith in Christ. Elder Potter, nor any other Hardshell, living or dead, can cite a leading Baptist confession that states that men who believe not in Jesus will nevertheless be saved. The Hardshells are not "old" or "original" Baptists.
Potter wrote:
"Again I said, but if all he claims is true, that anti-means is a thing of recent date among us, he gives us credit for being the most successful set of ministers that ever trod the soil of America. With all our anti-missionism, he gives us the credit of having converted almost our entire denomination to the anti-means doctrine. We have converted, according to what he says, a great many of our preachers, as Elders Hess, Purifoy, Dalton, and a great many others, together with all our religious periodicals, except the Regular Baptist Magazine, who all now stand up in favor of the anti-means side of the question. Elder Pence and a few others stand alone, with a pitiful few here in Virginia, a small remnant in Ohio, and a few in Missouri, and none in Illinois that I know of, a mere few in Kentucky and Tennessee. With all their effort and their use of means, and their zeal and energy for the cause, while the whole church was once, according to what he says, where he now stands; and we with our anti-effort system, and anti-nomian principles have converted the whole denomination over. Of course that looks very reasonable."
How successful the anti means faction was is irrelevent. It is true that the Hardshell "ultraist" side took control of the anti mission movement toward the latter end of the 19th century, but this does not mean that they were expressing the original faith of the great leaders in the movement. Pence showed how the first great leaders in the movement did not deny means in regeneration, men like Watson, Fain, and Clark, and others, like Beebe, Trott, and Osbourne, though denying means in regeneration, did not deny them in the birth, a birth that they affirmed was as necessary to salvation as was regeneration.
Potter wrote:
"I have now given a brief outline of the arguments and positions occupied by us both during the discussion. It is not so much my intention in this article to show that I gained a victory over Elder Pence, as to show the position occupied by him. I hope that every reader may thoroughly understand the position taken by Elder Pence and those who agree with him. During the discussion, Elder T. N. Alderton of West Virginia approached Elder C. L. Yates, and asked him if he endorsed the positions advocated by Elder Pence, to which he replied that he did with all his heart. Let me say to all concerned, they are nothing more nor less than a set of Arminians, and the longer they stay in our ranks the greater the rupture will be when it does come. Let all the churches rid themselves of such things, and be careful to draw the line of demarcation at all times, and on all occasions between these innovations and the true doctrine of God, so that the saints may be comforted, edified, and built up in the most holy faith, and that God himself may be glorified."
The accusation that all who teach means in regeneration are "Arminian" is false. Was Watson and Gill Arminians? Were the writers of the London and Philadelphia confessions Arminian? No. Yet, they believed in means. Was it not Elder Watson who spoke of the followers of Daniel Parker who erroneously called those who believed in means "Arminian"?
See here
Athenian Idolaters Born Again?
In debate over Paul's discourse to the Athenian idolaters in Acts 17, the Hardshells have had a tough time showing how they agree with Paul in affirming that the gospel is to be preached to "all men" and that "all men" are commanded to "repent" and "seek the Lord." In the editorial writings of C. H. Cayce, the greatest defender of Hardshellism, Cayce posted a letter from a brother Oliphant who was showing how the Hardshells are against what Paul taught because they do not believe in calling upon all to repent and seek the Lord. Cayce then responded to Oliphant with some comments relative to the passage. (all emphasis mine - SG)
First, let me cite from brother Oliphant's letter.
"The gospel also makes it the duty of 'all nations of men' that 'dwell on all the face of the earth' to seek the Lord. Acts 17: 26: 'And hath made of one blood (Adam) all nations of men (all human creatures), for to dwell on all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times before appointed (when they shoulud each exist), and the bounds of their habitation' (where they should each exist). Verse 27: 'That they (relative pronoun, which has for its antecedent all nations of men) should (duty) seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.' Verse 28; 'For in Him we live, move, and have our being' (existence). Here is accountability in its full force, declared by the Lord in His gospel, or counsel. Since all the human specie is commanded to repent, and seek the Lord, it is each and every one's duty, and God by His gospel requires all duty to be performed; and whatever God requires of His creatures is His 'counsel' to them; and He hath commanded His ministry 'shun not to declare the whole counsel of God." ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)
Cayce responded, saying:
"He does not quote all of the 28th verse. That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word." (Ibid)
Cayce did a hatchet job on this passage of scripture in order to uphold his false proposition, one that affirms that the unregenerate are never commanded to repent, seek the Lord, or to believe the gospel. It is a classic case of "twisting" the scripture. (II Peter 3: 16), of "handling the word of God deceitfully." (II Cor. 4: 2) It is classic Hyper Calvinism to deny the well meant offer of the gospel to all men. Cayce, in defining "offspring of God" to mean "born of God" has involved himself in several absurdities. His view identifies idol worshippers as "born again" children of God. He argues that the Athenian idolaters, even while in such a state, as "born again." Can anything be more absurd and against plain scripture?
These Athenian idolaters were not "believers" in the true God or in Jesus Christ, and yet Cayce will call them "believers" to whom the gospel should be preached! But, what they believe in is not the one true God, and yet Cayce will call them "believers"!
In his interpretation of Romans 1: 16 (and similar passages), Cayce will say that the gospel is the power of God to those who are "believers," but not the kind of "believer" who believes in the one true God and Jesus Christ! His kind of "believer" is anyone who believes in any kind of "god."
It is no wonder that Hardshells have had many problems with many of their people embracing "universalism" and "no-hellism."
Paul does not believe that all men are the spiritual children of God when he refers to them as the "offspring of God," but that they are all his creation. They are all his natural children. No Baptist forefather, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, interpreted the passage as does Cayce. Actually, Cayce and his Hardshell brethren believe a man can be a follower of AntiChrist and still be born of the Spirit of God! He can be a heathen idolater and still be born of God! Is that not absurd?
First, let me cite from brother Oliphant's letter.
"The gospel also makes it the duty of 'all nations of men' that 'dwell on all the face of the earth' to seek the Lord. Acts 17: 26: 'And hath made of one blood (Adam) all nations of men (all human creatures), for to dwell on all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times before appointed (when they shoulud each exist), and the bounds of their habitation' (where they should each exist). Verse 27: 'That they (relative pronoun, which has for its antecedent all nations of men) should (duty) seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.' Verse 28; 'For in Him we live, move, and have our being' (existence). Here is accountability in its full force, declared by the Lord in His gospel, or counsel. Since all the human specie is commanded to repent, and seek the Lord, it is each and every one's duty, and God by His gospel requires all duty to be performed; and whatever God requires of His creatures is His 'counsel' to them; and He hath commanded His ministry 'shun not to declare the whole counsel of God." ("The Spirituality Of The Gospel," Editorial Writings, Vol. 1, July 24, 1906, pages 98, 99)
Cayce responded, saying:
"He does not quote all of the 28th verse. That verse, in full, and the 29th and 30th verses read, 'For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' Paul is here preaching to a people who are the offspring of God--born of God--a people who have been worshipping God ignorantly, having an altar erected to the unknown God. They are commanded to turn away from their ignorant or idolatrous worship, and all those who are born of God, the offspring of God everywhere, who are engaged in such worship are commanded to repent. There is nothing in this text for the unregenerate. It is to the children of God who are engaging in false worship, and it is the duty of the ministry to admonish all such persons to repent, turn away from it and worship the Lord as directed in His word." (Ibid)
Cayce did a hatchet job on this passage of scripture in order to uphold his false proposition, one that affirms that the unregenerate are never commanded to repent, seek the Lord, or to believe the gospel. It is a classic case of "twisting" the scripture. (II Peter 3: 16), of "handling the word of God deceitfully." (II Cor. 4: 2) It is classic Hyper Calvinism to deny the well meant offer of the gospel to all men. Cayce, in defining "offspring of God" to mean "born of God" has involved himself in several absurdities. His view identifies idol worshippers as "born again" children of God. He argues that the Athenian idolaters, even while in such a state, as "born again." Can anything be more absurd and against plain scripture?
These Athenian idolaters were not "believers" in the true God or in Jesus Christ, and yet Cayce will call them "believers" to whom the gospel should be preached! But, what they believe in is not the one true God, and yet Cayce will call them "believers"!
In his interpretation of Romans 1: 16 (and similar passages), Cayce will say that the gospel is the power of God to those who are "believers," but not the kind of "believer" who believes in the one true God and Jesus Christ! His kind of "believer" is anyone who believes in any kind of "god."
It is no wonder that Hardshells have had many problems with many of their people embracing "universalism" and "no-hellism."
Paul does not believe that all men are the spiritual children of God when he refers to them as the "offspring of God," but that they are all his creation. They are all his natural children. No Baptist forefather, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, interpreted the passage as does Cayce. Actually, Cayce and his Hardshell brethren believe a man can be a follower of AntiChrist and still be born of the Spirit of God! He can be a heathen idolater and still be born of God! Is that not absurd?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)