"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (I Cor. 3: 5-7)
Paul is clearly talking about the experience of conversion in these verses, about how sinners are converted into Christians, about how unbelievers are made into believers. "Ministers" of the gospel are instruments, in the hand of God, "by whom you believed." This is confirmed in many other verses of scripture. Notice these:
"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)
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." (John 17: 20)
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10: 14, 15)
Clearly the "believing" that Paul has under consideration, in I Corinthians 3, is that believing which is effected by the preaching of the gospel. Not even the Hardshells can deny this plain fact.
But, the "believing" is also said to be the result of an act of God in conjunction with the preaching and planting of the apostle. People believe because God "gave to" them. "Man" is not in the original. Those who God directed his "giving" work to were the ones who believed. What is the nature of this divine giving? Paul says that God "gives the increase," that is, he is the reason for its success, for its productivity or germination. This recalls the testimony of the Psalmist who said:
"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psalm 127: 1)
Except the Lord bless the preaching to a particular heart, there will be no success. Solomon said that "safety (victory) is of the LORD." (Prov. 21: 31) "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich," also testified Solomon. (Prov. 10: 22) The blessing of the Lord is the reason for success.
Thus, the credit is given to the Lord for the success of preaching in making believers. Some reject this teaching because they think that to give all the credit to the Lord for the success necessarily means that he likewise receives all the blame for the lack of success in preaching. But, this argument could only have weight if it were proven that God were under obligation to do for all what he does only for some. But, God is under no obligation to cause the preaching of the gospel to succeed with everyone.
The Hardshells are good Calvinists to constantly affirm that "faith is the gift of God," what is effectually given to all the elect when they are called to life and salvation. The problem they have, with this verse, however, is the fact that the faith that is "given" in this verse is clearly faith that comes by the preaching of the gospel. And, they do not believe that "gospel faith" is sovereignly and effectually given to all the elect when they hear the gospel. They do not believe that gospel faith is "given" of God to the elect in the same way that "seed faith" is given in "regeneration." When they argue with Arminians they will affirm that "faith is the gift of God," meaning it is effectually given, being by "irresistible grace." But, when their attention is called to these words in I Corinthians 3, they will forget all their argumentation against the Arminians and now argue that this giving of gospel faith does not mean that it is effectually given. Thus, "the legs of the lame are not equal." They do not see that "conversion" is as much the work of God as is "regeneration." But, the real old Baptists did not divorce conversion from regeneration, and saw the giving of faith, by the gospel, to be an effectual calling.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
Elder Hassell on Means
Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:
"...no true Primitive Baptist believes that any instrumentality of man has ever sent, or will ever send, a single soul to glory. As no means can be used to give natural life to one literally dead, so no means can be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sin." ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Meansism," in The Gospel Messenger, September, 1894)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/834/36/
"No means can be used to give natural life to one literally dead"? Did not God raise the dead through prophets and apostles? Did not God use Ezekiel's preaching to bring the dry dead bones to life? How can such a learned Elder say such things? How did God give you and me natural life? Was it not through natural birth? Was it not through the medium of mothers and fathers? Through procreation?
"...no true Primitive Baptist believes that any instrumentality of man has ever sent, or will ever send, a single soul to glory. As no means can be used to give natural life to one literally dead, so no means can be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sin." ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Error of Meansism," in The Gospel Messenger, September, 1894)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/834/36/
"No means can be used to give natural life to one literally dead"? Did not God raise the dead through prophets and apostles? Did not God use Ezekiel's preaching to bring the dry dead bones to life? How can such a learned Elder say such things? How did God give you and me natural life? Was it not through natural birth? Was it not through the medium of mothers and fathers? Through procreation?
Chapter 106 - Hardshells and Predestination IX
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (I Cor. 10: 13)
What does this verse teach us about the permissive will of God? It speaks of God not suffering, permitting, or allowing the occurrence of events. It shows that God's "will" is involved in his permitting. God's permission is "willing" permission. Thus, as we have shown, God's permitting is both done willingly and knowingly. Thus, what is permitted to exist, or to occur, is still the result of God's prior willing, and his willing is his decreeing (or predestinating), and therefore cannot be excluded from the decrees of God. Can temptations occur if God declares that he "will not suffer" them? Certainly not. Thus, to say that nothing occurs that God does not permit is all the same as saying that nothing occurs that God did not will or choose to occur. Notice these other instances where divine permission was required for the occurrence of things.
"And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ." (Luke 4: 41)
"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." (Acts 14: 16)
"So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine." (Matt. 8: 31)
Clearly these verses also show how the divine permission is necessary for the occurrence of acts and events. The demons could speak only as they were permitted to do so, could move here or there only as they were suffered. Nations could only walk in their own ways because God allowed it. Thus Paul said that it is "in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17: 28)
Clearly the story of Job also teaches the same things relative to the permissive will of God. All that Satan did to Job was a result of God's willing permission. Satan could do no more than what God willingly allowed him to do. God's willing permission was even viewed by Job as the cause of his sufferings. Though it was Satan who directly "took away" what Job possessed, yet Job says of God - "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away." (Job 1: 21) Job said - "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips." (2: 10) This is similar to the words of Jeremiah, that were cited in a previous chapter: "Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (3: 37, 38) What can "come to pass" apart from God "commanding," God willing it? Further, Jeremiah is in agreement with Job and affirms that this includes both "evil and good." The experience of Job was a "temptation," and we have already seen that Paul says that "no temptation" occurs apart from God's willingly allowing it.
These simple facts should have brought agreement between the Conditonalist and Absoluter factions, or at least kept them from dividing and declaring each other in disorder. Sin occurs because God allows it, not because he directly produces it. But, this allowance is necessary for sin's occurrence. Further, God has good reason for permitting things, including sin. He has determined to bring a greater good into existence by his permitting sin.
In the last chapter the extremism of the Absoluter faction was examined, chiefly by looking at the analysis of Elder Sylvester Hassell. Most of the Absoluter extremes cited by Hassell were shown to be worthy of valid criticism. A modern Hardshell, Elder Joe Hildreth, wrote:
"The Absolute view continued to be evidenced even among churches not engulfed with this doctrine. For instance, such expressions as, “Brother Joe, you have to be born a Primitive Baptist,” and, “You will join the church when God gets ready for you.” Yet, many, many times since a child have I heard preachers say, “God is not going to take you by the hair of your head and bring you into the church.” I have never heard it preached from the pulpit, but some advocated that “all events and things are working together for good.” ("Primitive Baptists And The 20th Century," 2010)
http://www.marchtozion.com/history/93-primitive-baptists-and-the-20th-century
Elder Hildreth, who I met in my early years in the Hardshell church, sees remnants of "Absolutism" even among his Conditionalist faction. The first of those remnants regarded joining the Hardshell cult. The view that one becomes a member of the Hardshell church in the same way he is regenerated, i.e. unconditionally and irresistibly, was indeed a teaching of the Absoluter faction. But, how did such a view originate? Was it not because the first Hardshells saw conversion as being born again? Like all Calvinists, the Hardshells believe that being "born again" is irresistible, the result of an efficacious or effectual call. Joining the church of Christ, or becoming a member of the "body of Christ," was part of that conversion/new birth experience, according to the first Hardshells.
The Conditionalist faction, however, rejected the idea that "conversion" was any part of being "born again." To them, being converted was a mere "time salvation," what was not certain for all the elect and called, but what was only true of those regenerated souls who chose, or who did not resist, becoming a Christian. Becoming a Christian, or member of Christ's visible body, to the Conditionalist, was not necessary for being eternally saved, but was a free choice that the born again child of God made, apart from any divine compulsion. Becoming a member of the church was a result of willing obedience, not a result of irresistible grace.
The Absoluter no doubt erred in telling people that they should wait upon the Lord to drag them into the church. Even it is true that men become Christians by irresistible grace, it is not apart from commands and exhortations to duty that this is accomplished. This was the error of the Absoluter.
Next, Hildreth mentions the fact that some in the Conditionalist faction were saying that "all things work together for good to those who love God" (Rom. 8: 28) and he sees this as being "Absolutism," and what is false. But, the view that "all things work together for good" for the Christian is what the scriptures plainly affirm, and is what all the first Hardshells affirmed to be the truth. Numerous citations from the first generation Hardshells could be given to prove this fact. Thus, the "primitive" view of Romans 8: 28 was to interpret "all things" as all inclusive, and so the Conditionalist view that "all things" really mean only "some things," is a novel interpretation.
The Romans 8: 28 Battleground
All the first, and most of the second generation of Hardshells, had no problem with interpreting "all things" in Romans 8: 28 to include the evils in the lives of the people of God. They included their temptations, and both their failures and successes.
Do "all things" work together for evil to those who do not love God? Who can deny that this is so? Of course, the working together "for good" has ultimacy in view, what is the end, final destiny, or final fulfillment of all things. Paul is not affirming that all things work together for the mere temporal good of God's chosen and foreknown. "For (unto) good" is not fulfilled or completely realized in this life, but in the life to come, when the elect are glorified and dwell in their eternal state.
All things will finally work to the detriment (evil) of those who do not love God when they are confined in the eternal prison of Gehenna and Lake of Fire. All their works will judged as evil, even those that are externally good. This is evident because "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) This is why the great king said - "the plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. 21: 4)
Do the sins of the saints produce eternal good? That is the chief question in debate. But, have we not shown that the sins of the wicked produce eternal evil? Have we not shown that all that occurs can only occur if God wills it, permissively or otherwise? Do not both sides agree that the existence of evil is owing to God's willing it? Do not both sides agree that God chose to permit the existence of sin and evil for good reasons? For a good end? To bring some greater good out it by overruling it?
How comforting is it to believe that only a few things work together for the eternal good of the elect? How is it comforting to believe that sin exists without any good purpose? That it's existence is meaningless? That sin is an unforeseen accident?
Further, let it be remembered that God's permitting an event, or suffering its existence, does not necessitate that one believe that God permits evil because evil is the end, that this is what he ultimately takes pleasure in. Sin is a distasteful means. For instance, men choose to suffer the evil of pain, in physical exercise, not because they enjoy the pain, as an end in itself, but because it is a means to a greater good, the good of health.
In the final chapters in this series we will look at some more historical writings on this subject.
"Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." (James 4: 13-15)
What does this verse teach us about the permissive will of God? It speaks of God not suffering, permitting, or allowing the occurrence of events. It shows that God's "will" is involved in his permitting. God's permission is "willing" permission. Thus, as we have shown, God's permitting is both done willingly and knowingly. Thus, what is permitted to exist, or to occur, is still the result of God's prior willing, and his willing is his decreeing (or predestinating), and therefore cannot be excluded from the decrees of God. Can temptations occur if God declares that he "will not suffer" them? Certainly not. Thus, to say that nothing occurs that God does not permit is all the same as saying that nothing occurs that God did not will or choose to occur. Notice these other instances where divine permission was required for the occurrence of things.
"And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ." (Luke 4: 41)
"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." (Acts 14: 16)
"So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine." (Matt. 8: 31)
Clearly these verses also show how the divine permission is necessary for the occurrence of acts and events. The demons could speak only as they were permitted to do so, could move here or there only as they were suffered. Nations could only walk in their own ways because God allowed it. Thus Paul said that it is "in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17: 28)
Clearly the story of Job also teaches the same things relative to the permissive will of God. All that Satan did to Job was a result of God's willing permission. Satan could do no more than what God willingly allowed him to do. God's willing permission was even viewed by Job as the cause of his sufferings. Though it was Satan who directly "took away" what Job possessed, yet Job says of God - "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away." (Job 1: 21) Job said - "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips." (2: 10) This is similar to the words of Jeremiah, that were cited in a previous chapter: "Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (3: 37, 38) What can "come to pass" apart from God "commanding," God willing it? Further, Jeremiah is in agreement with Job and affirms that this includes both "evil and good." The experience of Job was a "temptation," and we have already seen that Paul says that "no temptation" occurs apart from God's willingly allowing it.
These simple facts should have brought agreement between the Conditonalist and Absoluter factions, or at least kept them from dividing and declaring each other in disorder. Sin occurs because God allows it, not because he directly produces it. But, this allowance is necessary for sin's occurrence. Further, God has good reason for permitting things, including sin. He has determined to bring a greater good into existence by his permitting sin.
In the last chapter the extremism of the Absoluter faction was examined, chiefly by looking at the analysis of Elder Sylvester Hassell. Most of the Absoluter extremes cited by Hassell were shown to be worthy of valid criticism. A modern Hardshell, Elder Joe Hildreth, wrote:
"The Absolute view continued to be evidenced even among churches not engulfed with this doctrine. For instance, such expressions as, “Brother Joe, you have to be born a Primitive Baptist,” and, “You will join the church when God gets ready for you.” Yet, many, many times since a child have I heard preachers say, “God is not going to take you by the hair of your head and bring you into the church.” I have never heard it preached from the pulpit, but some advocated that “all events and things are working together for good.” ("Primitive Baptists And The 20th Century," 2010)
http://www.marchtozion.com/history/93-primitive-baptists-and-the-20th-century
Elder Hildreth, who I met in my early years in the Hardshell church, sees remnants of "Absolutism" even among his Conditionalist faction. The first of those remnants regarded joining the Hardshell cult. The view that one becomes a member of the Hardshell church in the same way he is regenerated, i.e. unconditionally and irresistibly, was indeed a teaching of the Absoluter faction. But, how did such a view originate? Was it not because the first Hardshells saw conversion as being born again? Like all Calvinists, the Hardshells believe that being "born again" is irresistible, the result of an efficacious or effectual call. Joining the church of Christ, or becoming a member of the "body of Christ," was part of that conversion/new birth experience, according to the first Hardshells.
The Conditionalist faction, however, rejected the idea that "conversion" was any part of being "born again." To them, being converted was a mere "time salvation," what was not certain for all the elect and called, but what was only true of those regenerated souls who chose, or who did not resist, becoming a Christian. Becoming a Christian, or member of Christ's visible body, to the Conditionalist, was not necessary for being eternally saved, but was a free choice that the born again child of God made, apart from any divine compulsion. Becoming a member of the church was a result of willing obedience, not a result of irresistible grace.
The Absoluter no doubt erred in telling people that they should wait upon the Lord to drag them into the church. Even it is true that men become Christians by irresistible grace, it is not apart from commands and exhortations to duty that this is accomplished. This was the error of the Absoluter.
Next, Hildreth mentions the fact that some in the Conditionalist faction were saying that "all things work together for good to those who love God" (Rom. 8: 28) and he sees this as being "Absolutism," and what is false. But, the view that "all things work together for good" for the Christian is what the scriptures plainly affirm, and is what all the first Hardshells affirmed to be the truth. Numerous citations from the first generation Hardshells could be given to prove this fact. Thus, the "primitive" view of Romans 8: 28 was to interpret "all things" as all inclusive, and so the Conditionalist view that "all things" really mean only "some things," is a novel interpretation.
The Romans 8: 28 Battleground
All the first, and most of the second generation of Hardshells, had no problem with interpreting "all things" in Romans 8: 28 to include the evils in the lives of the people of God. They included their temptations, and both their failures and successes.
Do "all things" work together for evil to those who do not love God? Who can deny that this is so? Of course, the working together "for good" has ultimacy in view, what is the end, final destiny, or final fulfillment of all things. Paul is not affirming that all things work together for the mere temporal good of God's chosen and foreknown. "For (unto) good" is not fulfilled or completely realized in this life, but in the life to come, when the elect are glorified and dwell in their eternal state.
All things will finally work to the detriment (evil) of those who do not love God when they are confined in the eternal prison of Gehenna and Lake of Fire. All their works will judged as evil, even those that are externally good. This is evident because "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) This is why the great king said - "the plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. 21: 4)
Do the sins of the saints produce eternal good? That is the chief question in debate. But, have we not shown that the sins of the wicked produce eternal evil? Have we not shown that all that occurs can only occur if God wills it, permissively or otherwise? Do not both sides agree that the existence of evil is owing to God's willing it? Do not both sides agree that God chose to permit the existence of sin and evil for good reasons? For a good end? To bring some greater good out it by overruling it?
How comforting is it to believe that only a few things work together for the eternal good of the elect? How is it comforting to believe that sin exists without any good purpose? That it's existence is meaningless? That sin is an unforeseen accident?
Further, let it be remembered that God's permitting an event, or suffering its existence, does not necessitate that one believe that God permits evil because evil is the end, that this is what he ultimately takes pleasure in. Sin is a distasteful means. For instance, men choose to suffer the evil of pain, in physical exercise, not because they enjoy the pain, as an end in itself, but because it is a means to a greater good, the good of health.
In the final chapters in this series we will look at some more historical writings on this subject.
"Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." (James 4: 13-15)
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Identifying the Saved
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God...For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe...But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (I Cor. 1: 18, 21, 23, 24)
How do the Hardshells deal with these verses? They clearly say, like Romans 1: 16, that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" to all who "believe." The common "apology" given by the Hardshells is to say that these verses simply say that the gospel "saves" those who are already saved, that it saves temporally those who are already saved eternally. They further affirm that the "believer" is not a gospel believer, or believer in Christ, but a simple theist, or simply one who believes that he is a lost sinner. The difficulties with this twisted "interpretation" are several, however. First, it is impossible to make the "salvation" resulting from believing, in the many bible passages which state the fact, anything other than eternal salvation. Second, it is impossible to make the "believer" of the bible into a simple theist, or applicable to pagans and polytheists.
But, another thing that overthrows the Hardshell perversion of these words is to realize that Paul is identifying or describing those who are "saved" and "called." Who are they? Paul says that they are they who "believe" the gospel, who accept Christ as being the Wisdom and Power of God. Paul says that "them who are the called," or "the saved," are they who recognize Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God, or who believe the gospel testimony. However, this is denied by the Hardshells. They do not believe that this is a description of the saved, or what is true of all of those who are saved, for they teach that most of those who are saved do not believe the gospel, do not accept Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God. Paul does not say - "to some of them who are saved, Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God." What he says about the "saved," about "believers," is true of all of them, being what is characteristic of them. Thus, the passage destroys Hardshellism, for it says that those who are saved believe in Christ, that he is God's Wisdom and Power. Those who are saved are those who recognize the gospel as the power of God.
How do the Hardshells deal with these verses? They clearly say, like Romans 1: 16, that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" to all who "believe." The common "apology" given by the Hardshells is to say that these verses simply say that the gospel "saves" those who are already saved, that it saves temporally those who are already saved eternally. They further affirm that the "believer" is not a gospel believer, or believer in Christ, but a simple theist, or simply one who believes that he is a lost sinner. The difficulties with this twisted "interpretation" are several, however. First, it is impossible to make the "salvation" resulting from believing, in the many bible passages which state the fact, anything other than eternal salvation. Second, it is impossible to make the "believer" of the bible into a simple theist, or applicable to pagans and polytheists.
But, another thing that overthrows the Hardshell perversion of these words is to realize that Paul is identifying or describing those who are "saved" and "called." Who are they? Paul says that they are they who "believe" the gospel, who accept Christ as being the Wisdom and Power of God. Paul says that "them who are the called," or "the saved," are they who recognize Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God, or who believe the gospel testimony. However, this is denied by the Hardshells. They do not believe that this is a description of the saved, or what is true of all of those who are saved, for they teach that most of those who are saved do not believe the gospel, do not accept Christ as the Wisdom and Power of God. Paul does not say - "to some of them who are saved, Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God." What he says about the "saved," about "believers," is true of all of them, being what is characteristic of them. Thus, the passage destroys Hardshellism, for it says that those who are saved believe in Christ, that he is God's Wisdom and Power. Those who are saved are those who recognize the gospel as the power of God.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Preaching Repentance & Faith
Elder John M. Watson, who wrote "The Old Baptist Test" (1866), was a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination but he would not fellowship today's Hardshells who have gone to extremes and deny that hearing the gospel and faith in Christ are means of being eternally saved. These he called "Antinomians," "ulraists," and "modern innovators." He also chided these Hardshell brethren with having "violated" the great commission. He wrote:
"Their connection with each other involves, in the plainest manner, the duty of preaching to every creature "repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." The Lord has ordained this way; our violation of it in the 19th century will not cause it to fail; others will do the work; it needs must be done; and this may be the cause why so few are coming into our churches! We have violated our commission. "Let us search and try our ways, and turn to the Lord."" (Pgs. 520)
Notice that Watson confesses that the "Primitive Baptists" had violated the great commission. He also says that this violation was "the cause why so few are coming into our churches!" It is sad that the Hardshells did not listen to Elder Watson and repent.
Watson wrote:
"Let us learn our duty as ministers, examine our commission, and see how fully it authorizes us, in faith, to exhort the sinner to repent, believing that the Lord can give him repentance; so as to believe, believing that the Lord can give faith." (Pg. 329)
How did the first Baptist preach? "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." To whom were these words addressed? to the pentitent or impenitent? To the impenitent of course. Who gave repentance? The Lord. How did Christ? "Repent ye and believe the gospel." How did the twelve? "They went out and preached that men shoud repent." (Pg. 517, 518)
"Were all of John's hearers converted before he said, "repent ye"? Were those (already-SG) repenting and believing to who Christ preached repentance and faith? Were those addressed by the twelve? Were the Athenians? What was Simon's state? Were those "quickened" who were bidden and refused to come to the feast? These questions, when properly answered, show most conclusively that we should preach repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, "to every creature"--to "all men everywhere." If we say our preaching is to the (already-SG) called of the Lord, and to them only, and make no distinction between the many called and the few chosen, we will involve the tenet of universalism."
"For if we preach only to the "quickened," all must be in that state, as our commission and work embraces "every creature." The commission includes those who believe not, as subjects of our address, as plainly as those who believe. Mark 16:16" (Pg. 519) (Mark 6: 12)
These are words of condemnation for the Hardshells, coming from one who helped to form the denomination. Again, it is sad that the Hardshells did not heed the words of Watson. Notice how Watson warned the Hardshells about becoming involved in the "tenet of universalism," a common occurrence among the Hardshells in their history. Watson condemns the modern Hardshell notion that the gospel was only to be preached to those already saved.
Before we look at some additional things stated by Elder Watson, let us notice some scripture on the subject of preaching to the lost.
"And they went out, and preached that men should repent."
This was not just preached to some men, but to all men, without distinction.
"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5: 32)
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent..." (Acts 17: 30)
Notice that Jesus refers to "calling" sinners. Sinners are "called" to Christ and salvation, called to faith and repentance. All the elect are predestined to be "called." (Rom. 8: 29, 30) This calling is "by the gospel." (II Thess. 2: 14) Jesus did this "calling" of sinners himself through his own preaching of the gospel. But, he now calls sinners through his sent ministers. Paul says that "God now commands all men everywhere," but he did this through the preaching of the apostle. Paul's commanding and calling of sinners to repentance was God's commanding and calling.
The Hardshells are forced into the position of affirming that it is the "righteous" who are called by the gospel, for they believe that the gospel is only addressed to those who are already born again and saved, already justified and made righteous. But, Jesus said that it is the unrighteous, the sinner, the uncalled, who are "called" by preaching.
Sometimes the Hardshells will affirm that "repentance" is a grace "given in regeneration," but deny that is is given through the medium of preaching. They will therefore teach "two kinds of repentance," one evangelical and one not. They are infamous for saying there are "two kinds" of things, such as "two kinds of saving faith," and "two kinds of salvation," etc.
They will affirm that the repentance that results from hearing the gospel call is not that repentance which is said to be "given" by God, affirming that evangelical repentance is not "given" as the non-evangelical and necessary kind of repentance.
"I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 3, 5)
Jesus announces the fate of those who do not heed the gospel call and repent. They shall perish. The typical Hardshell twist on this passage is to insist that the "perishing" is temporal, and they say that the word "likewise" proves it. The perishing that Christ alluded to, they say, was a temporal perishing, was a strictly physical death and destruction. Of course, the Universalists also argue the same way.
But, consider how their view is the untenable view. Is Christ saying - "except you repent, you shall die physically"? Will they not die physically even if they repent? Such nonsense! If they say that it is not physical death, per se, but a calamitous death, such as occurred to those upon whom the tower fell and who were butchered by Pilate, this still does not help them in their denial that the perishing is eternal. Is Christ saying - "except you repent, you shall suffer a temporal destruction like those on whom the tower fell"? But, this is not true of all those who fail to repent! They do not all suffer such a calamitous death.
Now, it is true that many Jews, in 70 A.D., did suffer a calamitous fate similar to those mentioned by Christ. But, Christ is not hear addressing the Jewish nation, but individuals, some of whom no doubt died prior to 70 A.D. Further, the statement is no less true after A.D. 70 than before it. Will the Hardshells say that the warning about perishing for failure to repent was only true for Jews prior to A.D. 70?
Who can deny that the terrible and horrible death of those mentioned is "like" to the destruction of Hell?
"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 27)
These were the words of Jesus in his commissioning of disciples to preach the gospel. What does Christ want his disciples to proclaim and announce? Announce repentance and remission, two things that are linked together, and which cannot be divided. Where there is no repentance there is no remission. Notice how Peter fulfilled these commission orders on the Day of Pentecost and after it.
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2: 38)
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19)
What was the end in view, the outcome and result, of repentance? "The remission of sins." Do Hardshells tell sinners to "repent for the remission of sins"?
"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20: 21)
Again, this is not what was testified to only some Jews and Greeks, but "to" all Jews and Greeks. But, the Hardshells do not so testify to all men.
"But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts 26: 20)
Again, there is no limitation in these words of exhortation. It is not some Jews and some Gentiles, but all Jews and Gentiles. Notice also that the command is both to "repent" and to "turn to God," things which are necessary for salvation.
"And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 39)
If all that believe are justified, then those who do not believe are not justified. This proclamation was so that men would know the way of salvation.
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Peter 3: 9)
Whether by "any" and "all" are meant "all men" or "all the elect," the Hardshells have a problem either way. Of course, they all affirm that the reference is to "all the elect." And, they affirm that this "will" of God is determinate, being what has been predestined. Thus, they will say that all the elect will "come to repentance." The problem is, they do not believe that this repentance is the same repentance commanded of men, but is a repentance that is non-evangelical, a repentance that even idol worshipping pagans possess. But, they have no scripture that describes a "repentance" that does not involve a changing of the mind regarding God and Christ. Further, their statements that "regeneration produces no ideas" or produces no conviction, and that it is "non-cognitive," goes against the very meaning of the word, which denotes a change of mind.
Since God has willed that all the elect come to repentance, and repentance is always evangelical and cognitive, in scripture, then they must acknowledge that God's willing that all come to repentance is the same as saying that all will come to hear and believe the gospel.
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (II Tim. 2: 24-26)
This text, like the one in II Peter 3: 9, gives the Hardshells great difficulty. Most Hardshells have traditionally applied this to the experience of regeneration, making it the result of effectual calling, or what is certain to be given to all the elect when they are regenerated. But, notice how this "repentance" is the result of gospel instruction and entails "acknowledging of the truth." Thus, it is clearly an evangelical repentance. This has led some of them to affirm that this "repentance" is indeed evangelical, but is not what is necessary for eternal salvation, but to a "time salvation," one that is conditioned upon the already regenerated person choosing, after the Arminian fashion, to repent. The problem here is in the fact that this repentance is said to be "given," and they, as Calvinists, have traditionally argued that God's "giving" faith and repentance denotes what is effectually given. Thus, when they debate Arminians and argue that the divine "giving" that is connected with regeneration denotes what is effectual and irresisitible, all the Arminian has to do is to say - "well you don't believe that God's giving repentance in II Tim. 2: 24-26 means that it is given effectually."
Elder Watson wrote:
"What said the prophet? "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." I would just state here, at once, that I have no idea that sinners, dead in tresspasses and sins, will ever believe through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners. If it be said by the objector that they are deaf and cannot hear it, faith replies God can open their ears; if said they are dead, faith again says God will give them life; and thus faith can meet all the objections which can be urged against preaching to the very chief of sinners, and at the same time exclude that Arminianism which some affect to see in a course of this kind. Where is the Arminianism, I would ask, in doing what the Lord has expressly commanded us to do? unless, however, it be by doing these things without faith. It seems to me that two very opposite errors may be indicated here:
1. The Arminian takes the means out of the hands of God, in toto, or in part, and uses them according to His own strength, and they then degenerate into Arminian powers.
2. The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in tresspasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
"Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
"Our not exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is a gross deviation from the gospel rule, and a palpable perversion of the great commission under which we preach. Let us pursue the revealed method of God, and not the assumed one which we now follow. If ultraist, in their blindness, call us Arminians, let us bear it for the truth's sake. We had better suffer ourselves than deviate from our commission. I know I shall have to dispute every inch of ground here; that many are ready to catch at my words, and dispute all I may write; therefore I appeal to "the law and to the testimony."
(ibid)
"This violation of our commission has engendered a spirit of coldness and indifference about those yet unbrought; by some they are not cared for, prayed for, nor preached unto; this spirit in like manner extends to the "babes" in Christ, the sheep, and the sheep only, are fed. Let us examine our commission again, and search out the things therein included." (Pg. 521)
"These deviations, great, grievous and palpable as they are, do not..." (Pg. 522, 523)
"The very commission itself assures us that some would not believe, and yet includes them in the gospel address. It is in this and similar ways that the spirit of exhortation has been grieved and lost in our pulpits. This shows the great propriety of rightly dividing the word of God, and not shunning to declare all of it--to feed the lambs, to feed the sheep, to exhort all, every creature to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ...If our Old Baptist system be right, it will be found in agreement with every text, and if we have to alter or abridge the commission to preach the gospel, it is plain evidence of an error among us." (Pg. 535)
"The Lord has plainly revealed the great truth, that all christians are saved by grace, but in our predestinarian ultraisms we are too little inclined to study the Lord's way of saving His people; His plan as connected with earthly things, signs, means, methods, or what you please to term them. The Antinomian affects to despise them because the Arminian perverts them. Both are wrong. If it be the Lord's method to have us say to sinners dead in tresspasses and sins, repent and believe, we should practice it. Our exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is according to the Lord's plan, and how can we reject it, or neglect it, without the very consequences which have followed. Our commission, alas! brethren, has been narrowed down to the words "feed my sheep."
To exhort sinners to repent does not conflict with the doctrine that God alone can give life and repentance; or to believe does not conflict with the truth that faith is the gift of God; nor do the exhortations, warnings and threatenings oppose the doctrine that the believer is kept by the power of God; no more indeed than if it were now said that the leper's cure was not of God, because he bathed in Jordan; that the bringing forth of fruits meet for repentance was not of God, because John exhorted them to repent. Our ultraists would then have said, why bathe in Jordan, as God only can cure the leprosy?" (Pg. 536)
"We call on sinners to awake from the sleep of death by faith, believing that God will give them life; to repent because he has promised to give repentance; to believe because He gives faith, to persevere because He is the finisher of our faith. Shall we give up this part of the work of the ministry because it has been Armianized, and call all Arminians who carry it out? Faith divests all these things of Arminianism; faith which has regard to what the Lord will do, and not a false trust in what we may do ourselves." (Pg. 537)
"Our system should not only embrace the doctrine of salvation by grace, but also the method or way of grace. The way of grace is to call on sinners to live as well as to give life, to exhort them to repent, as well as to give repentance, to exhort unbelievers to believe as well as to give faith. It both leads by the spirit, and exhorts by the word." (Pg. 537)
"But alas! Where are our exhorters? They are characters almost unknown among us. Where is the preacher who stops in his ultra doctrinal course to exhort either saint or sinner? Some particular dogma must be proved by a perversion of revealed truth; the sincere milk of the word is withheld, strong meats are poisoned, and the great spiritual interest of the congregation is disregarded--all this, and even more, the peace and well being of the household of faith is broken up, if necessary, to establish some ultra tenet." (Pg. 537)
"But to return: after all that has been preached and written on the subject of means, the whole doctrine resolves itself into this truth, that means are nothing more or less than the ways or methods of the Lord in doing the things which He has purposed. He could do the same things by any other methods or ways were he disposed so to act, or without any means at all; at least without such as involve human acts." (Pg. 537, 538)
"We believe the Lord can save sinners without our preaching to them, but that does not excuse us from saying to them, repent ye and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; that He can save them without water baptism or the Lord's supper, but that He does not authorize us to dispense with them. But verily we have deviated so far from the Bible in our views and feeling, if one were to call on sinners to repent, in the earnest, warm and emphatic way, which Christ and His disciples did, he would be regarded as an Arminian." (Pg. 538)
"But until the spirit of exhortation shall revive, and cease to be vexed, grieved and quenched, as it has been for a long time, we need not expect much reformation in our mode of preaching. There are, however, a few who have eyes to see, and hearts to deplore the things now under consideration. The errors of preachers are not private ones, but are disseminated from the pulpit among the brethren, and produce among them contentions, divisions, coldness and barrenness; they act on their minds as doth a canker on the body." (Pg. 538, 539) See this posting for further citations from Watson.
http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/05/chpt-76-great-commission-xi.html
Thus, we see that today's Hardshells are against the scriptures and that they are not really "primitive" or "old" Baptists on this important subject.
"Their connection with each other involves, in the plainest manner, the duty of preaching to every creature "repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." The Lord has ordained this way; our violation of it in the 19th century will not cause it to fail; others will do the work; it needs must be done; and this may be the cause why so few are coming into our churches! We have violated our commission. "Let us search and try our ways, and turn to the Lord."" (Pgs. 520)
Notice that Watson confesses that the "Primitive Baptists" had violated the great commission. He also says that this violation was "the cause why so few are coming into our churches!" It is sad that the Hardshells did not listen to Elder Watson and repent.
Watson wrote:
"Let us learn our duty as ministers, examine our commission, and see how fully it authorizes us, in faith, to exhort the sinner to repent, believing that the Lord can give him repentance; so as to believe, believing that the Lord can give faith." (Pg. 329)
How did the first Baptist preach? "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." To whom were these words addressed? to the pentitent or impenitent? To the impenitent of course. Who gave repentance? The Lord. How did Christ? "Repent ye and believe the gospel." How did the twelve? "They went out and preached that men shoud repent." (Pg. 517, 518)
"Were all of John's hearers converted before he said, "repent ye"? Were those (already-SG) repenting and believing to who Christ preached repentance and faith? Were those addressed by the twelve? Were the Athenians? What was Simon's state? Were those "quickened" who were bidden and refused to come to the feast? These questions, when properly answered, show most conclusively that we should preach repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, "to every creature"--to "all men everywhere." If we say our preaching is to the (already-SG) called of the Lord, and to them only, and make no distinction between the many called and the few chosen, we will involve the tenet of universalism."
"For if we preach only to the "quickened," all must be in that state, as our commission and work embraces "every creature." The commission includes those who believe not, as subjects of our address, as plainly as those who believe. Mark 16:16" (Pg. 519) (Mark 6: 12)
These are words of condemnation for the Hardshells, coming from one who helped to form the denomination. Again, it is sad that the Hardshells did not heed the words of Watson. Notice how Watson warned the Hardshells about becoming involved in the "tenet of universalism," a common occurrence among the Hardshells in their history. Watson condemns the modern Hardshell notion that the gospel was only to be preached to those already saved.
Before we look at some additional things stated by Elder Watson, let us notice some scripture on the subject of preaching to the lost.
"And they went out, and preached that men should repent."
This was not just preached to some men, but to all men, without distinction.
"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5: 32)
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent..." (Acts 17: 30)
Notice that Jesus refers to "calling" sinners. Sinners are "called" to Christ and salvation, called to faith and repentance. All the elect are predestined to be "called." (Rom. 8: 29, 30) This calling is "by the gospel." (II Thess. 2: 14) Jesus did this "calling" of sinners himself through his own preaching of the gospel. But, he now calls sinners through his sent ministers. Paul says that "God now commands all men everywhere," but he did this through the preaching of the apostle. Paul's commanding and calling of sinners to repentance was God's commanding and calling.
The Hardshells are forced into the position of affirming that it is the "righteous" who are called by the gospel, for they believe that the gospel is only addressed to those who are already born again and saved, already justified and made righteous. But, Jesus said that it is the unrighteous, the sinner, the uncalled, who are "called" by preaching.
Sometimes the Hardshells will affirm that "repentance" is a grace "given in regeneration," but deny that is is given through the medium of preaching. They will therefore teach "two kinds of repentance," one evangelical and one not. They are infamous for saying there are "two kinds" of things, such as "two kinds of saving faith," and "two kinds of salvation," etc.
They will affirm that the repentance that results from hearing the gospel call is not that repentance which is said to be "given" by God, affirming that evangelical repentance is not "given" as the non-evangelical and necessary kind of repentance.
"I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 3, 5)
Jesus announces the fate of those who do not heed the gospel call and repent. They shall perish. The typical Hardshell twist on this passage is to insist that the "perishing" is temporal, and they say that the word "likewise" proves it. The perishing that Christ alluded to, they say, was a temporal perishing, was a strictly physical death and destruction. Of course, the Universalists also argue the same way.
But, consider how their view is the untenable view. Is Christ saying - "except you repent, you shall die physically"? Will they not die physically even if they repent? Such nonsense! If they say that it is not physical death, per se, but a calamitous death, such as occurred to those upon whom the tower fell and who were butchered by Pilate, this still does not help them in their denial that the perishing is eternal. Is Christ saying - "except you repent, you shall suffer a temporal destruction like those on whom the tower fell"? But, this is not true of all those who fail to repent! They do not all suffer such a calamitous death.
Now, it is true that many Jews, in 70 A.D., did suffer a calamitous fate similar to those mentioned by Christ. But, Christ is not hear addressing the Jewish nation, but individuals, some of whom no doubt died prior to 70 A.D. Further, the statement is no less true after A.D. 70 than before it. Will the Hardshells say that the warning about perishing for failure to repent was only true for Jews prior to A.D. 70?
Who can deny that the terrible and horrible death of those mentioned is "like" to the destruction of Hell?
"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 27)
These were the words of Jesus in his commissioning of disciples to preach the gospel. What does Christ want his disciples to proclaim and announce? Announce repentance and remission, two things that are linked together, and which cannot be divided. Where there is no repentance there is no remission. Notice how Peter fulfilled these commission orders on the Day of Pentecost and after it.
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2: 38)
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19)
What was the end in view, the outcome and result, of repentance? "The remission of sins." Do Hardshells tell sinners to "repent for the remission of sins"?
"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20: 21)
Again, this is not what was testified to only some Jews and Greeks, but "to" all Jews and Greeks. But, the Hardshells do not so testify to all men.
"But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts 26: 20)
Again, there is no limitation in these words of exhortation. It is not some Jews and some Gentiles, but all Jews and Gentiles. Notice also that the command is both to "repent" and to "turn to God," things which are necessary for salvation.
"And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 39)
If all that believe are justified, then those who do not believe are not justified. This proclamation was so that men would know the way of salvation.
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Peter 3: 9)
Whether by "any" and "all" are meant "all men" or "all the elect," the Hardshells have a problem either way. Of course, they all affirm that the reference is to "all the elect." And, they affirm that this "will" of God is determinate, being what has been predestined. Thus, they will say that all the elect will "come to repentance." The problem is, they do not believe that this repentance is the same repentance commanded of men, but is a repentance that is non-evangelical, a repentance that even idol worshipping pagans possess. But, they have no scripture that describes a "repentance" that does not involve a changing of the mind regarding God and Christ. Further, their statements that "regeneration produces no ideas" or produces no conviction, and that it is "non-cognitive," goes against the very meaning of the word, which denotes a change of mind.
Since God has willed that all the elect come to repentance, and repentance is always evangelical and cognitive, in scripture, then they must acknowledge that God's willing that all come to repentance is the same as saying that all will come to hear and believe the gospel.
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." (II Tim. 2: 24-26)
This text, like the one in II Peter 3: 9, gives the Hardshells great difficulty. Most Hardshells have traditionally applied this to the experience of regeneration, making it the result of effectual calling, or what is certain to be given to all the elect when they are regenerated. But, notice how this "repentance" is the result of gospel instruction and entails "acknowledging of the truth." Thus, it is clearly an evangelical repentance. This has led some of them to affirm that this "repentance" is indeed evangelical, but is not what is necessary for eternal salvation, but to a "time salvation," one that is conditioned upon the already regenerated person choosing, after the Arminian fashion, to repent. The problem here is in the fact that this repentance is said to be "given," and they, as Calvinists, have traditionally argued that God's "giving" faith and repentance denotes what is effectually given. Thus, when they debate Arminians and argue that the divine "giving" that is connected with regeneration denotes what is effectual and irresisitible, all the Arminian has to do is to say - "well you don't believe that God's giving repentance in II Tim. 2: 24-26 means that it is given effectually."
Elder Watson wrote:
"What said the prophet? "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." I would just state here, at once, that I have no idea that sinners, dead in tresspasses and sins, will ever believe through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners. If it be said by the objector that they are deaf and cannot hear it, faith replies God can open their ears; if said they are dead, faith again says God will give them life; and thus faith can meet all the objections which can be urged against preaching to the very chief of sinners, and at the same time exclude that Arminianism which some affect to see in a course of this kind. Where is the Arminianism, I would ask, in doing what the Lord has expressly commanded us to do? unless, however, it be by doing these things without faith. It seems to me that two very opposite errors may be indicated here:
1. The Arminian takes the means out of the hands of God, in toto, or in part, and uses them according to His own strength, and they then degenerate into Arminian powers.
2. The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in tresspasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
"Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
"Our not exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is a gross deviation from the gospel rule, and a palpable perversion of the great commission under which we preach. Let us pursue the revealed method of God, and not the assumed one which we now follow. If ultraist, in their blindness, call us Arminians, let us bear it for the truth's sake. We had better suffer ourselves than deviate from our commission. I know I shall have to dispute every inch of ground here; that many are ready to catch at my words, and dispute all I may write; therefore I appeal to "the law and to the testimony."
(ibid)
"This violation of our commission has engendered a spirit of coldness and indifference about those yet unbrought; by some they are not cared for, prayed for, nor preached unto; this spirit in like manner extends to the "babes" in Christ, the sheep, and the sheep only, are fed. Let us examine our commission again, and search out the things therein included." (Pg. 521)
"These deviations, great, grievous and palpable as they are, do not..." (Pg. 522, 523)
"The very commission itself assures us that some would not believe, and yet includes them in the gospel address. It is in this and similar ways that the spirit of exhortation has been grieved and lost in our pulpits. This shows the great propriety of rightly dividing the word of God, and not shunning to declare all of it--to feed the lambs, to feed the sheep, to exhort all, every creature to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ...If our Old Baptist system be right, it will be found in agreement with every text, and if we have to alter or abridge the commission to preach the gospel, it is plain evidence of an error among us." (Pg. 535)
"The Lord has plainly revealed the great truth, that all christians are saved by grace, but in our predestinarian ultraisms we are too little inclined to study the Lord's way of saving His people; His plan as connected with earthly things, signs, means, methods, or what you please to term them. The Antinomian affects to despise them because the Arminian perverts them. Both are wrong. If it be the Lord's method to have us say to sinners dead in tresspasses and sins, repent and believe, we should practice it. Our exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is according to the Lord's plan, and how can we reject it, or neglect it, without the very consequences which have followed. Our commission, alas! brethren, has been narrowed down to the words "feed my sheep."
To exhort sinners to repent does not conflict with the doctrine that God alone can give life and repentance; or to believe does not conflict with the truth that faith is the gift of God; nor do the exhortations, warnings and threatenings oppose the doctrine that the believer is kept by the power of God; no more indeed than if it were now said that the leper's cure was not of God, because he bathed in Jordan; that the bringing forth of fruits meet for repentance was not of God, because John exhorted them to repent. Our ultraists would then have said, why bathe in Jordan, as God only can cure the leprosy?" (Pg. 536)
"We call on sinners to awake from the sleep of death by faith, believing that God will give them life; to repent because he has promised to give repentance; to believe because He gives faith, to persevere because He is the finisher of our faith. Shall we give up this part of the work of the ministry because it has been Armianized, and call all Arminians who carry it out? Faith divests all these things of Arminianism; faith which has regard to what the Lord will do, and not a false trust in what we may do ourselves." (Pg. 537)
"Our system should not only embrace the doctrine of salvation by grace, but also the method or way of grace. The way of grace is to call on sinners to live as well as to give life, to exhort them to repent, as well as to give repentance, to exhort unbelievers to believe as well as to give faith. It both leads by the spirit, and exhorts by the word." (Pg. 537)
"But alas! Where are our exhorters? They are characters almost unknown among us. Where is the preacher who stops in his ultra doctrinal course to exhort either saint or sinner? Some particular dogma must be proved by a perversion of revealed truth; the sincere milk of the word is withheld, strong meats are poisoned, and the great spiritual interest of the congregation is disregarded--all this, and even more, the peace and well being of the household of faith is broken up, if necessary, to establish some ultra tenet." (Pg. 537)
"But to return: after all that has been preached and written on the subject of means, the whole doctrine resolves itself into this truth, that means are nothing more or less than the ways or methods of the Lord in doing the things which He has purposed. He could do the same things by any other methods or ways were he disposed so to act, or without any means at all; at least without such as involve human acts." (Pg. 537, 538)
"We believe the Lord can save sinners without our preaching to them, but that does not excuse us from saying to them, repent ye and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; that He can save them without water baptism or the Lord's supper, but that He does not authorize us to dispense with them. But verily we have deviated so far from the Bible in our views and feeling, if one were to call on sinners to repent, in the earnest, warm and emphatic way, which Christ and His disciples did, he would be regarded as an Arminian." (Pg. 538)
"But until the spirit of exhortation shall revive, and cease to be vexed, grieved and quenched, as it has been for a long time, we need not expect much reformation in our mode of preaching. There are, however, a few who have eyes to see, and hearts to deplore the things now under consideration. The errors of preachers are not private ones, but are disseminated from the pulpit among the brethren, and produce among them contentions, divisions, coldness and barrenness; they act on their minds as doth a canker on the body." (Pg. 538, 539) See this posting for further citations from Watson.
http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/05/chpt-76-great-commission-xi.html
Thus, we see that today's Hardshells are against the scriptures and that they are not really "primitive" or "old" Baptists on this important subject.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Hardshell Falsehoods
Elder Lemuel Potter, in his debate on the "means question," with Elder W. T. Pence, in 1890, said:
"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." (Copied from "Zion's Advocate," 1890, pages 243-250)
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Potter-Pence1st.html
What gross falsehood! John Gill, in all his writings, taught means in regeneration/new birth. He taught it in his Commentary, in his Body of Divinity, and in his Cause of God and Truth. What can one say of a man who would utter such falsehood?
The London Confession of Faith also clearly teaches means in regeneration and effectual calling. Again, it is just utter falsehood.
Finally, it is clear that Elder Watson also taught means, and I have given numerous citations from Watson in my writings that prove it.
Elder W. H. Crouse, in his book on "Regeneration," a Hardshell textbook on the subject, said about Elder Watson.
"If “belief of the truth” is connected with regeneration, HOW much of the truth does one have to believe to be regenerated? Elder Screws says all “thus chosen are caused to believe the truth.” (Vol. 3, No. 7, page 1.) He admits that but few of our people throughout the United States for many years have believed that God regenerates through the preached word; Dr. Watson, in his attack upon our people, charged us with having woefully ignored the teaching of the Bible on this line. Now if Elder Screws and Dr. Watson have the truth, the rest of us have not--the denomination has not believed the truth on this point." ("Regeneration," Chapter 6)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/794/36/
Crouse followed Daily in saying that John Gill changed his mind and taught against means in his Body of Divinity and in his Cause of God and Truth than what he taught in his Commentary. But, I have shown how this is false. I have cited numerous statements from these latter works where Gill affirmed the same thing that he taught in his Commentary. But, Crouse never denies that Dr. Watson taught means, and thus would disagree with Potter about the views of Watson.
Elder David Montgomery, present day Hardshell, wrote:
"Elder John M. Watson in his book, "The Old Baptist Test or, Bible Signs of the Lord's People" (Pub. 1867), said many good and necessary things that would be pertinent to the church today, but to be honest, there are several passages from the book that I completely disagree with. Perhaps an examination of Elder Watson's book could become another item of discussion among us." ("Proving Time Salvation")
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/626/36/
I wonder which parts of Watson's book that Montgomery disagreed with? Was it not his belief in means in regeneration? Yes, let us have some honest discussion about the testimony of Elder Watson!
In the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial," we find these words:
"Now, we will quote some more recent authorities on the subject of Means. Elder Burnam in his deposition, page 17, quotes the Old Baptist Test, edited by John M. Watson, in 1867, who visited this very church in Luray and was well received and greatly esteemed and admired by Baptists here. He says, in Old Baptist Test:
“As the Father draws sinners to Christ by means which he has ordained to that end, let us not fail to employ them.”
Elder Burnam says that this Old Baptist Test was a recognized standard in the faith, and he had never heard it contradicted."
http://primitivebaptist.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828&Itemid=36
Was Burnam not correct about the views and authority of Elder Watson? What Hardshell can deny that Watson was a recognized leader of the Hardshells in the beginning?
Elder S. Hassell on Watson:
"Nearly thirty years ago “the beloved physician,” Eld. John M. Watson, professor of obstetrics in the medical department of the University of Nashville, Tenn, wrote in the "Old Baptist Test,' these wise and warning words: "We have become too ultra in most things. How great the change! Watchman! what of the night? I hear one respond, All is not well! another, that strange winds of doctrine are blowing; another, that the sickly dews of heresy are falling thickly around us, many are sickly and weak; another, that the sound of another gospel is heard in our midst, whereby many are being bewitched. I hear something of heavenly origin! Listen: "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' O, Israel, to you tents! Gird on the sword of the Spirit! put on the whole armor of God! Set up the waymarks and, in holy boldness and meekness, defend them against all heretical defacers! Above all things, avoid those prevailing ultraisms which are now eating on the Old Baptist Church as doth a canker--dividing churches and Associations, and disturbing the order and peace of the Baptists generally. Rebuke the ultraist whenever you meet with him--reclaim or reject him--let him be regarded constantly as the worst enemy of the Baptists of the present day!" ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture" - The Gospel Messenger--April 1893)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/847/36/
Hassell did not denounce Watson but considered him a leader among the Hardshells.
What Hardshell wants to come along and defend the statement of Elder Potter about the teachings of Gill, the London Confession, and of Elder Watson?
"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." (Copied from "Zion's Advocate," 1890, pages 243-250)
http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Potter-Pence1st.html
What gross falsehood! John Gill, in all his writings, taught means in regeneration/new birth. He taught it in his Commentary, in his Body of Divinity, and in his Cause of God and Truth. What can one say of a man who would utter such falsehood?
The London Confession of Faith also clearly teaches means in regeneration and effectual calling. Again, it is just utter falsehood.
Finally, it is clear that Elder Watson also taught means, and I have given numerous citations from Watson in my writings that prove it.
Elder W. H. Crouse, in his book on "Regeneration," a Hardshell textbook on the subject, said about Elder Watson.
"If “belief of the truth” is connected with regeneration, HOW much of the truth does one have to believe to be regenerated? Elder Screws says all “thus chosen are caused to believe the truth.” (Vol. 3, No. 7, page 1.) He admits that but few of our people throughout the United States for many years have believed that God regenerates through the preached word; Dr. Watson, in his attack upon our people, charged us with having woefully ignored the teaching of the Bible on this line. Now if Elder Screws and Dr. Watson have the truth, the rest of us have not--the denomination has not believed the truth on this point." ("Regeneration," Chapter 6)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/794/36/
Crouse followed Daily in saying that John Gill changed his mind and taught against means in his Body of Divinity and in his Cause of God and Truth than what he taught in his Commentary. But, I have shown how this is false. I have cited numerous statements from these latter works where Gill affirmed the same thing that he taught in his Commentary. But, Crouse never denies that Dr. Watson taught means, and thus would disagree with Potter about the views of Watson.
Elder David Montgomery, present day Hardshell, wrote:
"Elder John M. Watson in his book, "The Old Baptist Test or, Bible Signs of the Lord's People" (Pub. 1867), said many good and necessary things that would be pertinent to the church today, but to be honest, there are several passages from the book that I completely disagree with. Perhaps an examination of Elder Watson's book could become another item of discussion among us." ("Proving Time Salvation")
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/626/36/
I wonder which parts of Watson's book that Montgomery disagreed with? Was it not his belief in means in regeneration? Yes, let us have some honest discussion about the testimony of Elder Watson!
In the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial," we find these words:
"Now, we will quote some more recent authorities on the subject of Means. Elder Burnam in his deposition, page 17, quotes the Old Baptist Test, edited by John M. Watson, in 1867, who visited this very church in Luray and was well received and greatly esteemed and admired by Baptists here. He says, in Old Baptist Test:
“As the Father draws sinners to Christ by means which he has ordained to that end, let us not fail to employ them.”
Elder Burnam says that this Old Baptist Test was a recognized standard in the faith, and he had never heard it contradicted."
http://primitivebaptist.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=828&Itemid=36
Was Burnam not correct about the views and authority of Elder Watson? What Hardshell can deny that Watson was a recognized leader of the Hardshells in the beginning?
Elder S. Hassell on Watson:
"Nearly thirty years ago “the beloved physician,” Eld. John M. Watson, professor of obstetrics in the medical department of the University of Nashville, Tenn, wrote in the "Old Baptist Test,' these wise and warning words: "We have become too ultra in most things. How great the change! Watchman! what of the night? I hear one respond, All is not well! another, that strange winds of doctrine are blowing; another, that the sickly dews of heresy are falling thickly around us, many are sickly and weak; another, that the sound of another gospel is heard in our midst, whereby many are being bewitched. I hear something of heavenly origin! Listen: "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' O, Israel, to you tents! Gird on the sword of the Spirit! put on the whole armor of God! Set up the waymarks and, in holy boldness and meekness, defend them against all heretical defacers! Above all things, avoid those prevailing ultraisms which are now eating on the Old Baptist Church as doth a canker--dividing churches and Associations, and disturbing the order and peace of the Baptists generally. Rebuke the ultraist whenever you meet with him--reclaim or reject him--let him be regarded constantly as the worst enemy of the Baptists of the present day!" ("Interpreting the Scriptures-The Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture" - The Gospel Messenger--April 1893)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/847/36/
Hassell did not denounce Watson but considered him a leader among the Hardshells.
What Hardshell wants to come along and defend the statement of Elder Potter about the teachings of Gill, the London Confession, and of Elder Watson?
Hardshellism's Fundamental Tenet
Elder W. H. Crouse, in his book "Regeneration," a textbook for Hardshell beliefs on the subject, wrote:
"If regeneration precedes faith and belief, then it is wrong to say that all who do not have faith or belief are children of wrath and subject to everlasting death. And why should any of our ministers get 'sick and tired' of hearing some of us say that there will be thousands in heaven who never had gospel faith?" (Chapter 3, page 66)
It would not be surprising to hear Universalists affirm such as this, but for those who believe that some men will be eternally condemned, as do the Hardshells, to affirm such, is bewildering.
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36)
Clearly Jesus did not share the Hardshell belief, for he says that all those who do not believe in the Son of God "shall not see life," but will be "condemned" (Mark 16: 16). Paul plainly says "that they all might be damned who believed not the truth." (II Thess. 2: 12) Jesus says that "the wrath of God abides on" those who do not believe in Jesus. How Crouse and the Hardshells can so contradict Christ and yet claim to be bible believers, is astonishing.
Here is what the London Confession of 1689 said about the state of the heathen, of those who are without faith in Christ.
Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof
2._____ This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.
John Gill taught the same thing on the state of the heathen. The Hardshell tenet is practical Universalism and is to be rejected as heresy.
Paul spoke of "the faith of God's elect" (Titus 1: 1). This is the "faith" that is possessed by all those who are chosen to salvation. Thus, one cannot be "elect" who is "without faith." Further, Paul says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 14)
I rest my case.
"If regeneration precedes faith and belief, then it is wrong to say that all who do not have faith or belief are children of wrath and subject to everlasting death. And why should any of our ministers get 'sick and tired' of hearing some of us say that there will be thousands in heaven who never had gospel faith?" (Chapter 3, page 66)
It would not be surprising to hear Universalists affirm such as this, but for those who believe that some men will be eternally condemned, as do the Hardshells, to affirm such, is bewildering.
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36)
Clearly Jesus did not share the Hardshell belief, for he says that all those who do not believe in the Son of God "shall not see life," but will be "condemned" (Mark 16: 16). Paul plainly says "that they all might be damned who believed not the truth." (II Thess. 2: 12) Jesus says that "the wrath of God abides on" those who do not believe in Jesus. How Crouse and the Hardshells can so contradict Christ and yet claim to be bible believers, is astonishing.
Here is what the London Confession of 1689 said about the state of the heathen, of those who are without faith in Christ.
Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof
2._____ This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.
John Gill taught the same thing on the state of the heathen. The Hardshell tenet is practical Universalism and is to be rejected as heresy.
Paul spoke of "the faith of God's elect" (Titus 1: 1). This is the "faith" that is possessed by all those who are chosen to salvation. Thus, one cannot be "elect" who is "without faith." Further, Paul says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 14)
I rest my case.
Is J. P. Dale Correct?
Elder David Montgomery operates a leading "Primitive Baptist" web site. In an article titled "Proving Time Salvation," he wrote:
"I once telephoned Elder J.P. Dale to ask him about this subject. Elder Dale was at that time 87 years old and had been ordained to the ministry for almost 70 years. He did not know Elder Sylvester Hassell personally, but he knew several who did know him. Elder Dale had read Hassell thoroughly and in his opinion, Brother Hassell did not subscribe to the doctrine that teaches that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel."
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/626/36/
Hassell, however, wrote:
"There is no salvation, no eternal life, no enjoyment of heaven, without the renewing power of the Holy Ghost and the atoning death of the Son of God; and, unless we are first regenerated, or born again, or born from above, or born of God, or born of the purifying power of the Holy Spirit (called by Paul "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit," Titus 3:5), we will never truly repent or believe or obey or enter heaven; and, if we are thus born of God, we will certainly repent, believe, obey, and inherit the fullness of eternal life." (Gospel Messenger, 1896)
http://www.upbuild.org/articles29.html
"I once telephoned Elder J.P. Dale to ask him about this subject. Elder Dale was at that time 87 years old and had been ordained to the ministry for almost 70 years. He did not know Elder Sylvester Hassell personally, but he knew several who did know him. Elder Dale had read Hassell thoroughly and in his opinion, Brother Hassell did not subscribe to the doctrine that teaches that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel."
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/626/36/
Hassell, however, wrote:
"There is no salvation, no eternal life, no enjoyment of heaven, without the renewing power of the Holy Ghost and the atoning death of the Son of God; and, unless we are first regenerated, or born again, or born from above, or born of God, or born of the purifying power of the Holy Spirit (called by Paul "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit," Titus 3:5), we will never truly repent or believe or obey or enter heaven; and, if we are thus born of God, we will certainly repent, believe, obey, and inherit the fullness of eternal life." (Gospel Messenger, 1896)
http://www.upbuild.org/articles29.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)