I wish to provide a simple addendum to a point which is currently being debated between Brothers Stephen and Jason. I do not think it can be argued that the prevailing opinion of Primitive Baptist elders is that the majority of God’s elect will never be exposed to the gospel in time. The question which has surfaced, however, is whether it is the consensus view that those of the elect who DO hear it will receive it, and not reject it.
Consider the below statement by Elder Tom Hagler Jr.:
"Jesus has power over all flesh, so He could save everyone. However, this verse says Jesus limits eternal salvation to those the Father gave Him to save. This happens to be a very large number, as given in Revelation 5:9 and 7:9. Those Jesus saves include those who die as infants (it is the position of the writer that the non-elect do not die young…see more on this below), or those elect who have a mental deficiency, or the elect who live in a remote place and never hear the gospel preached. It also includes those of the elect of God who hear the gospel preached, but reject it for one reason or another."
http://www.basicbibledoctrines.com/downloads/Born_Again.pdf
This quotation was taken from Hagler's book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, of which I own a copy. I can specifically recall this book being on sale at the Smoky Mountain meeting in Pigeon Forge I attended years ago. It sat there on a long table along with other books being promoted by Elder Harold Hunt. If this is not the majority view, then it certainly is not wise propagating such a work at this yearly pilgrimage for many of the people.
In addition to this, I can specifically name respected elders who view Heb. 6:4-6 as describing truly regenerate children of God that reject the gospel of Christ.
Consisting with their denial of perseverance, many claim as well that 1 John 2:19 speaks of “regenerated antichrists” who eventually rejected the gospel.
I have also heard some claim that King Agrippa (Acts 26) was himself regenerate but rejected gospel conversion.
Furthermore, if this were truly the recognized position in this matter, Primitive Baptists would have to say that the "unconverted regenerate" only consists of those who never hear the gospel preached. There could no be such character amongst those elect who are exposed to biblical revelation. It would mean that all the elect who did hear the gospel would, without a doubt, get their time salvation. I don't think that the majority would affirm this.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Hardshell Abrasive Language
Recently Jason Brown, Hardshell "apologist," accused me of using "abrasive" language both when I was with the Hardshells and now in my writings against the Hardshells. But, I could write a lengthy book with citations from Hardshells being guilty of the thing of which Jason accuses me. The Hardshells "take the cake" when it comes to using abusive language against other Christians. In this posting I will give some examples of this from Elder Harold Hunt, a leading Hardshell, who used unbecoming and abrasive language against my father in a pamphlet titled - "Was Adolph Hitler A Godly Man," published in 1997.
Elder Hunt was one of the elders in the Powell's Valley Association that declared non-fellowship for my father for believing that Satan was a fallen angel from heaven. Elder Hunt had promised my dad that he would oppose Elder John Robbins and others in their attempts to make such views a test of fellowship. Yet, when the "Oak Ridge Council" convened, Elder Hunt did an about face and sided with Robbins and the Powell's Valley brethren, and declared dad and our church in disorder. Ever since that time he has had a grudge against my dad, even though they were formerly close friends.
In this pamphlet Hunt calls dad a "heretic" for believing in the fall of Satan from heaven as Luke 10: 18 states. (pg. 3) He also, on the same page, accuses dad of being a member of "a cult of admirers of Adolph Hitler," a gross fabrication. On the same page he says that "the Lord's service is no place for a coward." This is odd seeing that Elder Hunt was so afraid of Elder Robbins that he broke his vow to my dad and allowed Elder Robbins to make the issue of Satan's origin a test of fellowship, and turned his back on his ministerial friend.
On page five, Elder Hunt writes:
"We do not need any such thing in America, and we do not need anybody among our Primitive Baptist people, defending Adolph Hitler, and pretending he had the right to do what he did. The issues are too serious for us to beat around the bush. Our people must be informed.
The man leading up this movement is Eddie Garrett, of Middletown, Ohio. Elder S. T. Tolley, of Atwood, Tennessee, is aiding and abetting him to the best of his ability."
Is all this not rather "abrasive"? Is there anything wrong with the spirit of Hunt in writing such things and spreading such slander? Does Hunt manifest a kind and gentle spirit? Does he manifest a love for dad? A desire to win him over?
First of all, dad had only said that what Hitler did to the Jews was a result of the judgment of God upon them. Is that not true? But, how does this condone what Hitler did? Hunt shows a gross ignorance of scripture to deny that the Jews are under judgment and that God uses evil men to inflict wrath upon his people without blessing those evil men. Did God not use the Assyrians and the Babylonians to destroy his people and yet condemned the Assyrians and the Babylonians?
On page five Hunt wrote:
"Eddie Garrett has been rejected by the main body of our people for over twenty years."
But, who made Hunt a judge of such a thing? How does he know what "the main body" of Hardshells believe about dad? It is quite obvious that Hunt is simply out to do harm to dad. And why? Because he opposed the schismatic spirit of the Powell's Valley brethren?
I was at the "Oakridge Council" and recall some of the Hardshells pointing at dad and saying - "he is the devil." Isn't that rather abrasive?
On the same page Elder Hunt says:
"I can understand why Eddie Garrett would want to injure our people, having been shunned by our people for all these years. But, I cannot understand Elder Tolley's actions..."
Was not Elder Tolley part of the "main body" of Hardshells? Does Hunt not contradict himself?
On page six Hunt says;
"Our people rejected Eddie Garrett for good reason..."
Because he believed what Luke 10: 18 says? That was "good reason"?
On the same page he wrote:
"I have no ill will toward Eddie Garrett as a person; it is his doctrine that I oppose."
What a lie! Hunt shows all kinds of "ill will" towards dad "as a person." He tries to say it is dad's view of the origin of Satan and his view that the Holocaust resulted from the fact that the Jews were under God's wrath and judgment.
He says, on the same page:
"There was a time when he and I were very close."
And, what changed things? Was it not the cowardness of Hunt? Because he had no backbone and could not do battle with the pope of the Powell's Valley Association? That he feared for his own standing?
On the same page he wrote:
"I would be happy for him to be back in line with our people--if it was not for the doctrine he preaches."
What a lie! Hunt shows how he is very happy that dad is scandolized!
He also says, on the same page:
"I can imagine how I would feel if that was the case with me."
Yes, and his wanting to be accepted by all caused Hunt to turn his back on his friend! He showed how he was more concerned with his own standing in the Hardshell cult than to stand for what is right.
On page seven Hunt wrote:
"But, the Primitive Baptists do not need for Eddie Garrett to be rehabilitated."
He earlier said that he would love to see dad "back in line with our people," but now he says just the opposite. The truth is, Hunt is glad to see his friend scandolized.
Hunt says further, on the same page, that "those bars need to stay in place." What bars? The bars that disfellowship any who believe that Satan is a fallen angel? Why would anyone want to be in such a cult who are always creating bars of fellowship over non-essential matters? Among such schismatics?
Now, in conclusion, let us ask the readers about Jason's charge that I am abrasive in my speech - "am I as abrasive as Hunt?"
I might begin a series of postings in the future where I cite the numerous examples of abrasive speech from various Hardshells of the past and present. When this is done, it will be obvious that the Hardshells have no right to accuse anyone of using abrasive speech, for they are the world's worst.
Elder Hunt was one of the elders in the Powell's Valley Association that declared non-fellowship for my father for believing that Satan was a fallen angel from heaven. Elder Hunt had promised my dad that he would oppose Elder John Robbins and others in their attempts to make such views a test of fellowship. Yet, when the "Oak Ridge Council" convened, Elder Hunt did an about face and sided with Robbins and the Powell's Valley brethren, and declared dad and our church in disorder. Ever since that time he has had a grudge against my dad, even though they were formerly close friends.
In this pamphlet Hunt calls dad a "heretic" for believing in the fall of Satan from heaven as Luke 10: 18 states. (pg. 3) He also, on the same page, accuses dad of being a member of "a cult of admirers of Adolph Hitler," a gross fabrication. On the same page he says that "the Lord's service is no place for a coward." This is odd seeing that Elder Hunt was so afraid of Elder Robbins that he broke his vow to my dad and allowed Elder Robbins to make the issue of Satan's origin a test of fellowship, and turned his back on his ministerial friend.
On page five, Elder Hunt writes:
"We do not need any such thing in America, and we do not need anybody among our Primitive Baptist people, defending Adolph Hitler, and pretending he had the right to do what he did. The issues are too serious for us to beat around the bush. Our people must be informed.
The man leading up this movement is Eddie Garrett, of Middletown, Ohio. Elder S. T. Tolley, of Atwood, Tennessee, is aiding and abetting him to the best of his ability."
Is all this not rather "abrasive"? Is there anything wrong with the spirit of Hunt in writing such things and spreading such slander? Does Hunt manifest a kind and gentle spirit? Does he manifest a love for dad? A desire to win him over?
First of all, dad had only said that what Hitler did to the Jews was a result of the judgment of God upon them. Is that not true? But, how does this condone what Hitler did? Hunt shows a gross ignorance of scripture to deny that the Jews are under judgment and that God uses evil men to inflict wrath upon his people without blessing those evil men. Did God not use the Assyrians and the Babylonians to destroy his people and yet condemned the Assyrians and the Babylonians?
On page five Hunt wrote:
"Eddie Garrett has been rejected by the main body of our people for over twenty years."
But, who made Hunt a judge of such a thing? How does he know what "the main body" of Hardshells believe about dad? It is quite obvious that Hunt is simply out to do harm to dad. And why? Because he opposed the schismatic spirit of the Powell's Valley brethren?
I was at the "Oakridge Council" and recall some of the Hardshells pointing at dad and saying - "he is the devil." Isn't that rather abrasive?
On the same page Elder Hunt says:
"I can understand why Eddie Garrett would want to injure our people, having been shunned by our people for all these years. But, I cannot understand Elder Tolley's actions..."
Was not Elder Tolley part of the "main body" of Hardshells? Does Hunt not contradict himself?
On page six Hunt says;
"Our people rejected Eddie Garrett for good reason..."
Because he believed what Luke 10: 18 says? That was "good reason"?
On the same page he wrote:
"I have no ill will toward Eddie Garrett as a person; it is his doctrine that I oppose."
What a lie! Hunt shows all kinds of "ill will" towards dad "as a person." He tries to say it is dad's view of the origin of Satan and his view that the Holocaust resulted from the fact that the Jews were under God's wrath and judgment.
He says, on the same page:
"There was a time when he and I were very close."
And, what changed things? Was it not the cowardness of Hunt? Because he had no backbone and could not do battle with the pope of the Powell's Valley Association? That he feared for his own standing?
On the same page he wrote:
"I would be happy for him to be back in line with our people--if it was not for the doctrine he preaches."
What a lie! Hunt shows how he is very happy that dad is scandolized!
He also says, on the same page:
"I can imagine how I would feel if that was the case with me."
Yes, and his wanting to be accepted by all caused Hunt to turn his back on his friend! He showed how he was more concerned with his own standing in the Hardshell cult than to stand for what is right.
On page seven Hunt wrote:
"But, the Primitive Baptists do not need for Eddie Garrett to be rehabilitated."
He earlier said that he would love to see dad "back in line with our people," but now he says just the opposite. The truth is, Hunt is glad to see his friend scandolized.
Hunt says further, on the same page, that "those bars need to stay in place." What bars? The bars that disfellowship any who believe that Satan is a fallen angel? Why would anyone want to be in such a cult who are always creating bars of fellowship over non-essential matters? Among such schismatics?
Now, in conclusion, let us ask the readers about Jason's charge that I am abrasive in my speech - "am I as abrasive as Hunt?"
I might begin a series of postings in the future where I cite the numerous examples of abrasive speech from various Hardshells of the past and present. When this is done, it will be obvious that the Hardshells have no right to accuse anyone of using abrasive speech, for they are the world's worst.
Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
In Jason Brown's latest posting, he says many things that are not worth responding to, especially regarding the teachings of scripture. But, he does say some derogatory things about me personally, concerning my early years in the Hardshell denomination. It is these personal attacks that I will respond to. See here
http://primitivebaptistapologist.blogspot.com/
Brown wrote:
"Brother Garrett claims that views of soteriology that I have espoused are not the majority report among Primitive Baptists. I have mentioned previously that David Pyles, a prominent Elder among the Old Baptists, has testified to me that this is not the case. Perhaps Brother Garrett's father, who is also an Elder among the PB's, represents more of a minority than Brother Garrett realizes."
David Pyles and Jason Brown do not represent the surpassing majority view of today's Hardshells on either soteriology or predestination. He can claim otherwise but he cannot prove it. I have, on the other hand, proven my side of the question. I regularly cite leading Hardshell elders and apologists to show what is the stated view of the denomination. I cite from Sarrels, Cayce, etc. Let Brown come forward and deny that these are recognized leading men. Brother Fralick can also testify that Brown is wrong to affirm that most Hardshells agree with him and with Pyles.
Most Primitive Baptists do not believe that all the elect will embrace the gospel when they hear it. They certainly don't believe that hearing the gospel is necessary to be eternally saved.
My dad has been preaching with the Primitive Baptists for about 45 years and he knows what they teach. I also know what they teach.
Brown wrote:
"Sometimes an abrasive approach incites controversy where the issues broached are not the real or only cause of division. Did Brother Garrett, while among the Primitive Baptists, approach these issues with humility and patience? Or was he as much as a firebrand then as he appears to be on his blog now? As a young Elder among the PB's in the early 80's, did Elder Stephen Garrett intreat the older Elders with the same respect he would his father, as the Scripture commands? I wonder how much of his difficulties were personality rather than doctrine. I appreciate and admire Brother Garrett's intellect and knowledge and I read his blog with interest even where we disagree. I am not arguing ad hominem against Brother Garrett's views here - I'm simply suggesting that Brother Garrett could have been more fruitful with patience. It takes wine time to ferment."
"I am not arguing ad hominem"? Unbiased people, who know what "ad hominem" is, will believe otherwise.
Obviously Brown was not around in the 70s and early 80s to know the truth about my relationship with the Hardshells. So he is obviously repeating hearsay. I wonder who gave him these ideas about my personality? Could it be David Pyles? David I did meet when I stayed with his father, Elder Sonny Pyles, for several days, back in the late 70s, when David was a teenager. So, I suspect that what Brown is saying is coming from Sonny Pyles. And, if so, Sonny is not one to be accusing people of being "abrasive," as this is one of his own characteristics, one that he even confesses to be true of him! When it comes to being "abrasive," I cannot "hold a candle" to Sonny.
If Brown will read the chapter on my experiences with the Hardshells he ought to see that it was men like John Robbins and C. M. Mills who were the truly "abrasive" types!
I am "abrasive" now? That is not an "ad hominem" attack? Is it not my argumentation that is what is "abrasive" to the Hardshells, rather than my spirit and personality? Perhaps I should say as Paul - "though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge."
"Humility and patience"? Are those characteristics of the Hardshells? Anyone who reads the lambastic words of the Hardshells, over the past two hundred years, can see that this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." Anyone who knows their history knows that the Hardshells are of a very schismatic spirit and extremely abrasive.
Peter was older than Paul. Did Paul treat Peter with the kind of treatment due to older elders when he reproved Peter for his hyprocrisy?
I could have manifested "more patience"? I was very patient! Letting popes like John Robbins and C. M. Mills run roughshod over me. Men like Elders Benton and McLamb insisted that I agree with them on the rich man and Lazarus in order to be ordained? I put up with a lot of abuse from the Hardshells for many years and exercised lots of patience.
David and Sonny Pyles have succeeded with the Hardshells because of their meek and quiet spirit?
I am supposed to show love, patience, and humility towards Hardshells but what about their lack of showing such to me? Why does that not get mentioned? I could give numerous examples of the evil spirit that many Hardshells have manifested to both my father and myself. Were the Hardshells who made the origin of Satan a test of fellowship operating from a meek and patient spirit? Were those Hardshells who wanted to declare non-fellowship against any who believed that the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught what happens when people die operating from a spirit of humility and patience?
Brown has not been abrasive himself in his writings against me?
I recall Elder Sonny Pyles saying about me, in the midst of my troubles with the Hardshells, that I showed "sterling wisdom" and a "godly spirit." Has he now changed his mind? I know in my own heart that I was very humble and patient in taking all the abuse that was shown to me by the Hardshells. Let Brown come forward and prove otherwise. What proof can he give to show that I was as he accuses?
http://primitivebaptistapologist.blogspot.com/
Brown wrote:
"Brother Garrett claims that views of soteriology that I have espoused are not the majority report among Primitive Baptists. I have mentioned previously that David Pyles, a prominent Elder among the Old Baptists, has testified to me that this is not the case. Perhaps Brother Garrett's father, who is also an Elder among the PB's, represents more of a minority than Brother Garrett realizes."
David Pyles and Jason Brown do not represent the surpassing majority view of today's Hardshells on either soteriology or predestination. He can claim otherwise but he cannot prove it. I have, on the other hand, proven my side of the question. I regularly cite leading Hardshell elders and apologists to show what is the stated view of the denomination. I cite from Sarrels, Cayce, etc. Let Brown come forward and deny that these are recognized leading men. Brother Fralick can also testify that Brown is wrong to affirm that most Hardshells agree with him and with Pyles.
Most Primitive Baptists do not believe that all the elect will embrace the gospel when they hear it. They certainly don't believe that hearing the gospel is necessary to be eternally saved.
My dad has been preaching with the Primitive Baptists for about 45 years and he knows what they teach. I also know what they teach.
Brown wrote:
"Sometimes an abrasive approach incites controversy where the issues broached are not the real or only cause of division. Did Brother Garrett, while among the Primitive Baptists, approach these issues with humility and patience? Or was he as much as a firebrand then as he appears to be on his blog now? As a young Elder among the PB's in the early 80's, did Elder Stephen Garrett intreat the older Elders with the same respect he would his father, as the Scripture commands? I wonder how much of his difficulties were personality rather than doctrine. I appreciate and admire Brother Garrett's intellect and knowledge and I read his blog with interest even where we disagree. I am not arguing ad hominem against Brother Garrett's views here - I'm simply suggesting that Brother Garrett could have been more fruitful with patience. It takes wine time to ferment."
"I am not arguing ad hominem"? Unbiased people, who know what "ad hominem" is, will believe otherwise.
Obviously Brown was not around in the 70s and early 80s to know the truth about my relationship with the Hardshells. So he is obviously repeating hearsay. I wonder who gave him these ideas about my personality? Could it be David Pyles? David I did meet when I stayed with his father, Elder Sonny Pyles, for several days, back in the late 70s, when David was a teenager. So, I suspect that what Brown is saying is coming from Sonny Pyles. And, if so, Sonny is not one to be accusing people of being "abrasive," as this is one of his own characteristics, one that he even confesses to be true of him! When it comes to being "abrasive," I cannot "hold a candle" to Sonny.
If Brown will read the chapter on my experiences with the Hardshells he ought to see that it was men like John Robbins and C. M. Mills who were the truly "abrasive" types!
I am "abrasive" now? That is not an "ad hominem" attack? Is it not my argumentation that is what is "abrasive" to the Hardshells, rather than my spirit and personality? Perhaps I should say as Paul - "though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge."
"Humility and patience"? Are those characteristics of the Hardshells? Anyone who reads the lambastic words of the Hardshells, over the past two hundred years, can see that this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." Anyone who knows their history knows that the Hardshells are of a very schismatic spirit and extremely abrasive.
Peter was older than Paul. Did Paul treat Peter with the kind of treatment due to older elders when he reproved Peter for his hyprocrisy?
I could have manifested "more patience"? I was very patient! Letting popes like John Robbins and C. M. Mills run roughshod over me. Men like Elders Benton and McLamb insisted that I agree with them on the rich man and Lazarus in order to be ordained? I put up with a lot of abuse from the Hardshells for many years and exercised lots of patience.
David and Sonny Pyles have succeeded with the Hardshells because of their meek and quiet spirit?
I am supposed to show love, patience, and humility towards Hardshells but what about their lack of showing such to me? Why does that not get mentioned? I could give numerous examples of the evil spirit that many Hardshells have manifested to both my father and myself. Were the Hardshells who made the origin of Satan a test of fellowship operating from a meek and patient spirit? Were those Hardshells who wanted to declare non-fellowship against any who believed that the story of the rich man and Lazarus taught what happens when people die operating from a spirit of humility and patience?
Brown has not been abrasive himself in his writings against me?
I recall Elder Sonny Pyles saying about me, in the midst of my troubles with the Hardshells, that I showed "sterling wisdom" and a "godly spirit." Has he now changed his mind? I know in my own heart that I was very humble and patient in taking all the abuse that was shown to me by the Hardshells. Let Brown come forward and prove otherwise. What proof can he give to show that I was as he accuses?
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Chapter 108-Hardshells & Predestination XI
One of the important historical events in the feuding of Conditionalist and Absoluter factions over the doctrine of the divine decrees (predestination) was the "Danville (Va.) Church Trial and Division" of 1926. The division over predestination, in a local church in Danville, led to a general meeting of "leading" men among the Hardshells to investigate the exclusion of Elder J. R. Wilson, chiefly for denying the absolute predestination of all things. This meeting formed a committee of investigation and presented evidence on the points in controversy to the general body. Elder S. E. Copeland was "clerk" of this body and Elder R. H. Pittman was the "compiler." The announcement of the meeting was published in "The Primitive Baptist" and in "The Advocate and Messenger," and the records of the general meeting were later published under title of "In Defense of Truth or Danville Church Division Investigated."
The announcement also read as follows:
"The people will be met in Danville; expenses of ministers will be paid. We have invited Elders Hassell, Dalton, Hanks, Turnipseed, Petty, Webb, Cayce, Pittman, Vass, Thompson, Dickerson, Copeland, Rawlston, Parker, Monsees and others. All lovers of the truth and ministers everywhere are cordially invited to be at this important meeting.
Done by order of the church in Danville, Va., at her regular conference, Feb. 1926. J. R. Wilson, Moderator, W. L. Parker, Clerk."
Of course, many leading Hardshell elders came to the council meeting to discuss the exclusion of Elder Wilson and the issues involved. The record states:
"The moderator and clerk also in a special way invited the following elders and brethren to meet with us in the investigation by writing them special personal letters, some of them being opposed to Elder Wilson and those with him in this unhappy division in Danville Church."
Thus the Danville church trial and the case of Elder Wilson became the final formal declaration of non-fellowship between Conditionalists and Absoluters. This trial is important for the presence of leading Hardshell elders at the meeting and for the historical records that it contains. Thus is is further recorded:
"The churches that met with Mill Church by messengers, and those represented by brethren who came only on their own accord, not being especially appointed by their respective churches to represent them in this meeting, were assembled together in the Mill Church house on Friday, May 28, 1926 and after song service and prayer by Elder J. N. Bobo of Alabama were invited to take seats in conference. They are as follows:
A Committee on Information was appointed to gather evidence bearing on the question of doctrine and order involved, predestination, good works, etc. and associations and their recently assumed authority over the churches. This was done because it was claimed by those opposing Eld. Wilson and those with him, that his (Eld. Wilson's) abusive language toward the moderator and the church was the cause of the division, and not the doctrine, nor the assumed authority of the association over the churches, while Eld. Wilson and those with him contend that it was the doctrine and the assumed associational authority that caused the division.
Now it is the understanding of this Investigation Committee that it is called upon to find out whose claim is right, and to say who, in their best judgment, is the church in order in Danville."
Thus, there were three issues to be decided. First, whether the doctrine of absolute predestination of all things were "the" cause of the division. Second, whether the association exercised an "assumed authority over the churches." Third, whether any personal misdeeds of Elder Wilson was "the" cause. Clearly, however, all three issues were causes. Whether one cause was the superior cause became the point to be decided. Another issue, however, as we shall see, concerned "time salvation," or "the one salvation" view. Two other issues also were involved, as we shall see. The fifth issue concerned the doctrine of "the non-resurrection of the dead," and the sixth issue concerned "the annihilation of the wicked."
The record continues:
"Now, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and prayerful consideration of the troubles leading up to the division we were brought to the following conclusions or findings, (the evidence upon which we based them being appended hereto) to-wit:
1. We find that the doctrine of the indiscriminate predestination of God-making no distinction between God's attitude toward sin and His attitude toward righteousness was the main cause which led to the division in Danville Church; this being clearly evident by opposition upon the part of some in certain associations to the preaching of certain elders because these elders were not advocates of "the absolute predestination of all things",-and this was before the trouble in Danville Church."
This document was written by the Conditionalist faction and so may be viewed as being biased. Does the first finding of the "Investigative Committee" object to the doctrine of the "absolute predestination of all things"? In the first part of the citation it does not seem that they condemn it per se, but only condemn "making no distinction between God's attitude toward sin and His attitude toward righteousness." But, the forefathers, who espoused the doctrine, did not fail to make such a distinction, so one wonders whether the Conditionalists are simply fighting a "straw man." Were the Absoluters of the 1920's failing to make such a distinction as did Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, to whom they confessed to be in agreement? Is the Committee and Council not only condemning the "Absolutism" of the brethren of the 1920s, or of their forefathers also?
The record continues:
"2. We find that also the doctrine of "the one salvation theory" and the assumed authority of associations over the churches was involved in the contention of brethren, and that Elder J. R. Wilson and those who would not advocate these things were opposed by some in different associations."
Why is the doctrine of "one salvation" connected with the doctrine of predestination? Why did the Absoluters, and those who confessed to believe in the absolute predestination of all things, reject the idea of "time salvation," or "conditional time salvation"? Why did they rather promote the view that the bible only speaks of "one salvation"? Was it because the Absoluter faction still believed in gospel means, and that the new birth was the same thing as gospel conversion? Possibly this was true, to some degree. By the 1920s both factions had almost completely rejected the gospel means view of their forefathers, so it is unlikely that the Absoluters rejected the novel view of "time salvation" as held to by the Conditionalist faction. But, this connection will be investigated further in the next chapter or two. But, we might here ask the questions - "which view was the novel view? which was the original view?"
The record continues:
"3. We find that Elder J. R. Wilson was excluded by Danville Church without gospel labor, and that the charge against him, of abusive language toward the moderator and the church (which appeared in the papers) was not correct.
4. We find that Elder Wilson, after his exclusion from the Danville Church was received into the Mill Church on confession of faith before gospel labor was bestowed by Mill Church upon Danville Church, and that Elder Wilson realizing the mistake thus made went before Danville Church,-first in December 1923 and upon two other occasions during the months following having laid down his gift while thus laboring for reconciliation, making confession for any mistakes made by himself, and asking forgiveness for same, and that Danville Church refused to forgive Elder Wilson.
5. We find that Mill Church also realized her mistake in receiving Elder Wilson as above stated, and rescinded said act and that she, together with Lawyer Spring and Dan River Churches, realizing that they had erred by retaining Elder Wilson as pastor before bestowing gospel labor upon Danville Church for reconciliation did, by messengers, go before Danville Church in her regular conference, first in December, 1924, and upon two other occasions, receiving the promise of forgiveness by Danville Church, which act she later rescinded. Then said messengers, while making the third effort for peace, were told by Danville Church that they would have no more to do with the case, but had referred it to the association!"
Thus, Elder Wilson and his followers were judged to be the ones in good order by the Council. Both sides were judged to have made mistakes in exercising discipline.
One cannot help but see how ironic it is for both sides to be disputing over the "assumed authority of associations over churches" seeing that both sides are guilty of promoting "association rule" among their churches. The council meeting itself became the "supreme court" in a local church matter! Associations and Churches had sent representatives to this general council meeting so that it could decide the matter for the local churches! It is ironic, and hypocritical too, for the Hardshells to have associations, and councils, and yet to condemn associations (societies) of Christians for the promotion of bible distribution, and evangelism, and Christian education. They have as much "scriptural authority" for the former as Mission Baptists do for the latter. I refer the reader back to chapter three where I talked about my personal experiences among the Hardshells and of the "popery" and "association rule" that prevails among many Hardshell churches.
The record continues:
"6. We further find that a minority of Danville Church consisting of about seventeen members withdrew from said church being aggrieved because of the doctrine (of the absolute predestination of all things that come to pass) held to, advocated or tolerated by the majority, and the illegal exclusion of Elder Wilson, did, with him (on the night that they last visited Danville Church seeking reconciliation and being told at this time to stay away from the church) retire to the home of Elder Wilson where a conference was organized by messengers from the following churches: Lawyer Spring, High Hill, Mill, Union Grove, Strawberry, Sugartree, High Point, Dan River, Walton, Martinsville and Leatherwood, by electing Elder J. M. Bagwell moderator and H. M. Baucom, Clerk, and upon investigation by the said conference in session Elder J. R. Wilson and those with him were declared to be the church in order and doctrine at Danville, and the Baptists present recognized them as such by the extention of the right hand of fellowship, and
7. We find that before this present meeting efforts were made by Lawyer Spring and Mill Churches, and by Elder Wilson and others to call a council of Elders for the purpose of bringing about a reconciliation, but that no agreement could be reached, and this call for investigation was open for all and not a one sided affair.
Now, we, the Investigating Committee believe from the evidence submitted that Elder J. R. Wilson and those standing with him is the church in order at Danville, Va., and we respectfully submit the evidence hereto appended for the careful consideration of all Baptists concerned."
Where is the "scriptural authority" for a "council of Elders" to decide matters of dispute within churches, or between churches? How can they legitimately practice having such associations and councils and yet denounce all the associations, societies, and boards of Mission Baptists as lacking "scriptural authority"?
The record continues:
"The first witness heard and questioned was Eld. J. R. Wilson who testified as to How The Trouble Started, the cause of the division, etc. Eld. Wilson said that about fifteen years ago he was sent as a messenger or correspondent from the Mayo Association to visit the Pig River association. W. I. Carnell, an excluded absoluter from Tennessee was visiting in the bounds of the Pig River at that time. Knowing his standing; that he was not then identified with orderly Baptists, Elders A. B. Philpot and J. R. Wilson entered their protest against his preaching among the Baptists here, whereupon Elder J. C. Hurst a member of the Pig River questioned Elder Wilson on the doctrine of predestination. Elder Wilson answered that he believed in the doctrine of predestination as the Bible teaches it, but he did not believe, nor could he fellowship the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things both good and evil, nor the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the dead and the annihilation of the wicked; that it was not then the doctrine of the Mayo Association of which he was a member. Elder J. C. Hurst (now excluded from the orderly Baptists) said he was an absoluter and he objected to Elder Wilson in that association. His objection was sustained and Elder Wilson, who had already been seated and appointed to preach, was unseated and not allowed to fill the appointment."
It is interesting to me that Elder Hurst is listed in the book "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers of the United States" (1919) and compiled by Elder R. H. Pittman. I am sure that Elder Pittman would have "excluded" Hurst from his book had it been published a few years later. Notice from this citation how the additional issues in dispute were mentioned, the issue of "the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the dead" and of "the annihilation of the wicked."
The record continues:
"Shortly after this meeting Elders L. H. Hardy and J. R. Wilson had extensive correspondence over the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things that come to pass both good and evil. Elder Hardy in said correspondence endorsed the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things. He said that sin was as much a link in God's predestination as righteousness. Elder Wilson could not agree with him."
I am sure that the "extensive correspondence" over the doctrine of predestination between Hardy and Wilson reflected the general argumentation and debate that had been published for many years. Notice again how the issue is framed. It is not a question as to whether all things were predestined, but whether good and evil were predestined in the exact same way. Both sides should have been able to agree that sin is willed permissively, and that apart from God's will of permission, no sin could exist.
The record continues:
"A few years later Elder J. A. Shaw preached in one of our associations that God predestinated that Czolgosz should kill McKinley at that particular time and place. Some in the Staunton River, Pig River and Upper Country Line Associations, who were in sympathy, did not object, neither the pastor, Elder Spangler, nor the moderator of the association, but Elder W. F. Pruitt, then a member of the Upper Country Line, and Elder J. R. Wilson and others did object to that extreme position. At that same association (the Staunton River) those extremists objected to Elders Lee Hanks, R. H. Pittman, and W. F. Pruitt preaching on that occasion "because they are not sound.""
Concerning the debate over the killing of McKinley we have already analyzed that issue in previous chapters. Again, how could the Conditionalist faction deny that McKinley could not have been murdered did the Lord not allow it? It was certainly unprofitable, however, for the Absoluter faction to find it necessary to go around preaching that God willed the murder of Mckinley, as though it was no sin. It was certainly against the preceptive will of God, though it was in accordance with God's permissive will.
The record continues:
"The absoluters hold that Adam was passive in disobedience or the fall; that man is as passive after regeneration as he was before; that the association holds power over the churches and when a church joins an association she surrenders her sovereignty. We the Baptists with Elder Wilson do not believe that Adam was predestinated to break the law God gave him, but that he was responsible for his fall. Now, fallen man is passive in regeneration, but active after regeneration. God put man in the garden to dress and keep it; not for the purpose of violating the law and falling. Adam was not forced to disobey; he sinned willfully." (Statement by Elder F. F. Eggleston)
The question of the passivity or activity of men has been long debated. All this discussion involves the question of the "freedom of the will." Is the will free? In what way? To what degree? How does freedom relate to responsibility and guilt? From what does Christ and the truth set free in salvation? and in sanctification and perseverance?
The psychology of the will is not only debated theologically but philosophically. Determinism has its theological context and its scientific context. Generally, in the debates on this topic, determinism is often set in opposition to the freedom of the will. To what extent is the will determined? Are there causes to choice? Can choice and behavior be predicted? If it can be predicted, is it not because one knows that there are causes to choice? Are the causes of choice simple influence or determinative?
Can God predetermine the sanctification and perseverance of believers without predetermining every act of obedience? Are the terms passive and active sufficient to describe the salvation or perseverance experience? To describe and explain "obedience"?
How should disagreement over these questions affect church fellowship and cooperation?
These are questions which the Hardshells have not been able to handle well. Both factions erred in contending that the whole work of regeneration, including conversion and the new birth, was in some respects passive and in some respects active. This is what is clear in the London Confession. Both factions are not consistent on this topic. Most will affirm, as did their forefathers, that the will is acted upon in salvation, citing verses such as Psalm 110: 3 and Philippians 2: 13. The Conditionalist faction fails to appreciate the fact that the general obedience of Christians may be said to result from "constraint," as Paul said - "the love of Christ constrains us." (II Cor. 5: 14)
One verse that needs to be examined in the light of this controvesy is Galatians 5: 17, where Paul says:
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"so that ye cannot do the good that ye would which may be understood both of evil things and of good things. The former seems to be chiefly the apostle's sense; since the whole of this text is a reason given why those who walk spiritually shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh, because they have a powerful governing principle in them, the Spirit, or grace; which though the flesh lusts against, and opposes itself unto, yet that also rises up against the flesh, and often hinders it from doing the works and lusts of it. There is in regenerate men a propensity and inclination to sin, a carnal I, that wills and desires sin, and wishes for an opportunity to do it, which when it offers, the flesh strongly solicits to it; but the Spirit, or the internal principle of grace, opposes the motion; and like another Joseph says, how can I commit this great wickedness and sin against a God of so much love and grace? it is a voice behind and even in a believer, which, when he is tempted to turn to the right hand or the left, says, this is the way, walk in it, and will not suffer him to go into crooked paths with the workers of iniquity; and so sin cannot have the dominion over him, because he is under grace as a reigning principle; and the old man cannot do the evil things he would, being under the restraints of mighty grace. This is the apostle's principal sense, and best suits with his reasoning in the context; but inasmuch as the lusting and opposition of these two principles are mutual and reciprocal, the other sense may also be taken in; as that oftentimes, by reason of the prevalence of corrupt nature, and power of indwelling sin, a regenerate man does the evil he would not, and cannot do the good he would; for he would always do good and nothing else, and even as the angels do it in heaven; but he cannot, because of this opposite principle, the flesh."
These words of Gill should have been the bond of union between Conditionalists and Absoluters as respects sin and its relation to the believer's life. A good book on this topic was written by John Owen titled "Indwelling Sin In Believers."
God does not have to directly cause every act of obedience in a believer. It is sufficient that he has planted the principle of grace in the soul of a believer, which principle will surely cause the believer to win the war with sin and the flesh, though sometimes losing particular battles and skirmishes. Just as a believer may say, when he disobeys, "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. 7: 17), so he may so when he obeys, "yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)
Believers blame themselves for their sins but they give credit to God for their righteousnesses. Should such a proposition not be enough to prevent division between Conditionalists and Absoluters?
The record continues:
"Brother W. L. Parker stated as follows:-"Brother Moderator and Brethren: I feel weak and insufficient to the task of testifying in so grave and great a cause but will state the facts as I see them, for the consideration and benefit of God's people everywhere. This trouble which is so great a menace to our people first appeared, according to the best historical account that I have of it, in the bounds of the Sand Lick Association on May 16, 1896, and the issue was the doctrine of "the absolute predestination of all things” which caused a division in several churches and associations in that country. This doctrine gradually crept eastward until the year 1915 when it was introduced in the Pig River Association by Elders W. I. Carnell from the state of Ohio and J. C. Hurst of Roanoke, Va. and it was tolerated and advocated by others. But it was opposed by Elders. J. R. Wilson and A. B. Philpot, the much loved and efficient assistant moderator of that old and honored association. Elder J. R. Wilson was, on that occasion, sent as a messenger to represent the Mayo Association, and he was received and seated, but later he was called in question and unseated because of his opposition to Elders W. I. Carnell and J. C. Hurst on their doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things and the non-resurrection of the body."
"This trouble which is so great a menace to our people." And, what a needless trouble it was and is!
The record continues:
"Eld. Ben Martin said at Friendship Church while preaching, 'that just before we got to the depot this morning, the train blew for the station and my father said, 'Ben we just as well turn around, we are too late,' and I said, come on, if the Lord has predestinated for us to go to Friendship, He will hold the train some way. We got to the depot several minutes before the train. The Lord had caused a strong wind to blow a telegraph pole across the track and delayed the train. I believe that God predestinated before the foundation of the world that the wind should blow that telegraph pole down.' I replied that, 'I did not believe that God would injure any company, corporation or individual just to accommodate a man who was too lazy to get up soon enough to catch a train.' Will you please sign my name to the 'Hassell Peace Proposition' that was unanimously endorsed at the Council Meeting?" (Bassett, Va. J. T. Jackson)
I have not been able to find the "Hassell Peace Proposition" but I am sure it would be worth reviewing.
The debate between the Conditionalist and Absoluter about the telegraph pole demonstrates how one's views on the subject of divine providence affect one's worldview, and how one interprets events.
In an article titled "Background and Observations of the Danville Document," Elder Joseph R. Holder wrote some comments on the division resulting in Danville. See
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1398/36/
Holder wrote:
"There can be no doubt that the problems in the Primitive Baptist Church at Danville, Virginia in 1923 gave our critics ample fuel for criticism. Notwithstanding this sad event, the document here reviewed offers a wealth of information from a wide array of respected and reasonable Primitive Baptists throughout the eastern and southern states of that time. This document further reveals a number of major theological issues that surrounded the primary doctrine of contention, the extreme view of predestination referred to typically at the time and in this document as “the predestination of all things.”"
The reader can see why I have chosen to include much evidence from the Danville trial in this series. Elder Holder acknowledges the watershed nature of this event.
Holder continues:
"The problem in the Danville, Virginia church was not an isolated problem. Advocates of absolute predestination and the “one salvation theory” as it is termed in the Danville document used this issue to spread their beliefs across the whole eastern seaboard of this country. They used the Danville problem to further division among Primitive Baptists, claiming that the problem was with a preacher’s conduct, but, as the facts were investigated and reported in this document, the real problem was doctrine, specifically the “new doctrine” (so termed by advocates of absolute predestination at the time) had to do with absolute predestination of all things and the “one salvation theory,” the idea that God causatively predestinated our faith and obedience as fully as he predestinated our final destiny in glory. Advocates of absolute predestination rejected both multiple aspects of salvation, eternal and temporal, and they fiercely rejected that our temporal deliverances, or blessings in obedience, are conditional on us in any way."
The Conditionalist faction were apostates from the Old Baptist faith in denying that "faith and obedience" were not part of the salvation that God had chosen the elect to obtain. The apostle Paul did not separate salvation from belief of the truth. He wrote that "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 13) One can also see how both sides failed to see how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, as I shall show in an upcoming series. The error of both sides consisted in their denying that faith was a requirement for being eternally saved.
Holder continues:
"Advocates of only one salvation, or as it was described in the Danville document the “one salvation theory,” often strongly affirm their belief that this view is the historical view of Baptists, as well as the correct Biblical interpretation."
Of course, the Absoluter side was correct to deny that the Old Baptists ever believed in the novel view of "time salvation."
The announcement also read as follows:
"The people will be met in Danville; expenses of ministers will be paid. We have invited Elders Hassell, Dalton, Hanks, Turnipseed, Petty, Webb, Cayce, Pittman, Vass, Thompson, Dickerson, Copeland, Rawlston, Parker, Monsees and others. All lovers of the truth and ministers everywhere are cordially invited to be at this important meeting.
Done by order of the church in Danville, Va., at her regular conference, Feb. 1926. J. R. Wilson, Moderator, W. L. Parker, Clerk."
Of course, many leading Hardshell elders came to the council meeting to discuss the exclusion of Elder Wilson and the issues involved. The record states:
"The moderator and clerk also in a special way invited the following elders and brethren to meet with us in the investigation by writing them special personal letters, some of them being opposed to Elder Wilson and those with him in this unhappy division in Danville Church."
Thus the Danville church trial and the case of Elder Wilson became the final formal declaration of non-fellowship between Conditionalists and Absoluters. This trial is important for the presence of leading Hardshell elders at the meeting and for the historical records that it contains. Thus is is further recorded:
"The churches that met with Mill Church by messengers, and those represented by brethren who came only on their own accord, not being especially appointed by their respective churches to represent them in this meeting, were assembled together in the Mill Church house on Friday, May 28, 1926 and after song service and prayer by Elder J. N. Bobo of Alabama were invited to take seats in conference. They are as follows:
A Committee on Information was appointed to gather evidence bearing on the question of doctrine and order involved, predestination, good works, etc. and associations and their recently assumed authority over the churches. This was done because it was claimed by those opposing Eld. Wilson and those with him, that his (Eld. Wilson's) abusive language toward the moderator and the church was the cause of the division, and not the doctrine, nor the assumed authority of the association over the churches, while Eld. Wilson and those with him contend that it was the doctrine and the assumed associational authority that caused the division.
Now it is the understanding of this Investigation Committee that it is called upon to find out whose claim is right, and to say who, in their best judgment, is the church in order in Danville."
Thus, there were three issues to be decided. First, whether the doctrine of absolute predestination of all things were "the" cause of the division. Second, whether the association exercised an "assumed authority over the churches." Third, whether any personal misdeeds of Elder Wilson was "the" cause. Clearly, however, all three issues were causes. Whether one cause was the superior cause became the point to be decided. Another issue, however, as we shall see, concerned "time salvation," or "the one salvation" view. Two other issues also were involved, as we shall see. The fifth issue concerned the doctrine of "the non-resurrection of the dead," and the sixth issue concerned "the annihilation of the wicked."
The record continues:
"Now, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and prayerful consideration of the troubles leading up to the division we were brought to the following conclusions or findings, (the evidence upon which we based them being appended hereto) to-wit:
1. We find that the doctrine of the indiscriminate predestination of God-making no distinction between God's attitude toward sin and His attitude toward righteousness was the main cause which led to the division in Danville Church; this being clearly evident by opposition upon the part of some in certain associations to the preaching of certain elders because these elders were not advocates of "the absolute predestination of all things",-and this was before the trouble in Danville Church."
This document was written by the Conditionalist faction and so may be viewed as being biased. Does the first finding of the "Investigative Committee" object to the doctrine of the "absolute predestination of all things"? In the first part of the citation it does not seem that they condemn it per se, but only condemn "making no distinction between God's attitude toward sin and His attitude toward righteousness." But, the forefathers, who espoused the doctrine, did not fail to make such a distinction, so one wonders whether the Conditionalists are simply fighting a "straw man." Were the Absoluters of the 1920's failing to make such a distinction as did Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, to whom they confessed to be in agreement? Is the Committee and Council not only condemning the "Absolutism" of the brethren of the 1920s, or of their forefathers also?
The record continues:
"2. We find that also the doctrine of "the one salvation theory" and the assumed authority of associations over the churches was involved in the contention of brethren, and that Elder J. R. Wilson and those who would not advocate these things were opposed by some in different associations."
Why is the doctrine of "one salvation" connected with the doctrine of predestination? Why did the Absoluters, and those who confessed to believe in the absolute predestination of all things, reject the idea of "time salvation," or "conditional time salvation"? Why did they rather promote the view that the bible only speaks of "one salvation"? Was it because the Absoluter faction still believed in gospel means, and that the new birth was the same thing as gospel conversion? Possibly this was true, to some degree. By the 1920s both factions had almost completely rejected the gospel means view of their forefathers, so it is unlikely that the Absoluters rejected the novel view of "time salvation" as held to by the Conditionalist faction. But, this connection will be investigated further in the next chapter or two. But, we might here ask the questions - "which view was the novel view? which was the original view?"
The record continues:
"3. We find that Elder J. R. Wilson was excluded by Danville Church without gospel labor, and that the charge against him, of abusive language toward the moderator and the church (which appeared in the papers) was not correct.
4. We find that Elder Wilson, after his exclusion from the Danville Church was received into the Mill Church on confession of faith before gospel labor was bestowed by Mill Church upon Danville Church, and that Elder Wilson realizing the mistake thus made went before Danville Church,-first in December 1923 and upon two other occasions during the months following having laid down his gift while thus laboring for reconciliation, making confession for any mistakes made by himself, and asking forgiveness for same, and that Danville Church refused to forgive Elder Wilson.
5. We find that Mill Church also realized her mistake in receiving Elder Wilson as above stated, and rescinded said act and that she, together with Lawyer Spring and Dan River Churches, realizing that they had erred by retaining Elder Wilson as pastor before bestowing gospel labor upon Danville Church for reconciliation did, by messengers, go before Danville Church in her regular conference, first in December, 1924, and upon two other occasions, receiving the promise of forgiveness by Danville Church, which act she later rescinded. Then said messengers, while making the third effort for peace, were told by Danville Church that they would have no more to do with the case, but had referred it to the association!"
Thus, Elder Wilson and his followers were judged to be the ones in good order by the Council. Both sides were judged to have made mistakes in exercising discipline.
One cannot help but see how ironic it is for both sides to be disputing over the "assumed authority of associations over churches" seeing that both sides are guilty of promoting "association rule" among their churches. The council meeting itself became the "supreme court" in a local church matter! Associations and Churches had sent representatives to this general council meeting so that it could decide the matter for the local churches! It is ironic, and hypocritical too, for the Hardshells to have associations, and councils, and yet to condemn associations (societies) of Christians for the promotion of bible distribution, and evangelism, and Christian education. They have as much "scriptural authority" for the former as Mission Baptists do for the latter. I refer the reader back to chapter three where I talked about my personal experiences among the Hardshells and of the "popery" and "association rule" that prevails among many Hardshell churches.
The record continues:
"6. We further find that a minority of Danville Church consisting of about seventeen members withdrew from said church being aggrieved because of the doctrine (of the absolute predestination of all things that come to pass) held to, advocated or tolerated by the majority, and the illegal exclusion of Elder Wilson, did, with him (on the night that they last visited Danville Church seeking reconciliation and being told at this time to stay away from the church) retire to the home of Elder Wilson where a conference was organized by messengers from the following churches: Lawyer Spring, High Hill, Mill, Union Grove, Strawberry, Sugartree, High Point, Dan River, Walton, Martinsville and Leatherwood, by electing Elder J. M. Bagwell moderator and H. M. Baucom, Clerk, and upon investigation by the said conference in session Elder J. R. Wilson and those with him were declared to be the church in order and doctrine at Danville, and the Baptists present recognized them as such by the extention of the right hand of fellowship, and
7. We find that before this present meeting efforts were made by Lawyer Spring and Mill Churches, and by Elder Wilson and others to call a council of Elders for the purpose of bringing about a reconciliation, but that no agreement could be reached, and this call for investigation was open for all and not a one sided affair.
Now, we, the Investigating Committee believe from the evidence submitted that Elder J. R. Wilson and those standing with him is the church in order at Danville, Va., and we respectfully submit the evidence hereto appended for the careful consideration of all Baptists concerned."
Where is the "scriptural authority" for a "council of Elders" to decide matters of dispute within churches, or between churches? How can they legitimately practice having such associations and councils and yet denounce all the associations, societies, and boards of Mission Baptists as lacking "scriptural authority"?
The record continues:
"The first witness heard and questioned was Eld. J. R. Wilson who testified as to How The Trouble Started, the cause of the division, etc. Eld. Wilson said that about fifteen years ago he was sent as a messenger or correspondent from the Mayo Association to visit the Pig River association. W. I. Carnell, an excluded absoluter from Tennessee was visiting in the bounds of the Pig River at that time. Knowing his standing; that he was not then identified with orderly Baptists, Elders A. B. Philpot and J. R. Wilson entered their protest against his preaching among the Baptists here, whereupon Elder J. C. Hurst a member of the Pig River questioned Elder Wilson on the doctrine of predestination. Elder Wilson answered that he believed in the doctrine of predestination as the Bible teaches it, but he did not believe, nor could he fellowship the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things both good and evil, nor the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the dead and the annihilation of the wicked; that it was not then the doctrine of the Mayo Association of which he was a member. Elder J. C. Hurst (now excluded from the orderly Baptists) said he was an absoluter and he objected to Elder Wilson in that association. His objection was sustained and Elder Wilson, who had already been seated and appointed to preach, was unseated and not allowed to fill the appointment."
It is interesting to me that Elder Hurst is listed in the book "Biographical History of Primitive or Old School Baptist Ministers of the United States" (1919) and compiled by Elder R. H. Pittman. I am sure that Elder Pittman would have "excluded" Hurst from his book had it been published a few years later. Notice from this citation how the additional issues in dispute were mentioned, the issue of "the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the dead" and of "the annihilation of the wicked."
The record continues:
"Shortly after this meeting Elders L. H. Hardy and J. R. Wilson had extensive correspondence over the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things that come to pass both good and evil. Elder Hardy in said correspondence endorsed the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things. He said that sin was as much a link in God's predestination as righteousness. Elder Wilson could not agree with him."
I am sure that the "extensive correspondence" over the doctrine of predestination between Hardy and Wilson reflected the general argumentation and debate that had been published for many years. Notice again how the issue is framed. It is not a question as to whether all things were predestined, but whether good and evil were predestined in the exact same way. Both sides should have been able to agree that sin is willed permissively, and that apart from God's will of permission, no sin could exist.
The record continues:
"A few years later Elder J. A. Shaw preached in one of our associations that God predestinated that Czolgosz should kill McKinley at that particular time and place. Some in the Staunton River, Pig River and Upper Country Line Associations, who were in sympathy, did not object, neither the pastor, Elder Spangler, nor the moderator of the association, but Elder W. F. Pruitt, then a member of the Upper Country Line, and Elder J. R. Wilson and others did object to that extreme position. At that same association (the Staunton River) those extremists objected to Elders Lee Hanks, R. H. Pittman, and W. F. Pruitt preaching on that occasion "because they are not sound.""
Concerning the debate over the killing of McKinley we have already analyzed that issue in previous chapters. Again, how could the Conditionalist faction deny that McKinley could not have been murdered did the Lord not allow it? It was certainly unprofitable, however, for the Absoluter faction to find it necessary to go around preaching that God willed the murder of Mckinley, as though it was no sin. It was certainly against the preceptive will of God, though it was in accordance with God's permissive will.
The record continues:
"The absoluters hold that Adam was passive in disobedience or the fall; that man is as passive after regeneration as he was before; that the association holds power over the churches and when a church joins an association she surrenders her sovereignty. We the Baptists with Elder Wilson do not believe that Adam was predestinated to break the law God gave him, but that he was responsible for his fall. Now, fallen man is passive in regeneration, but active after regeneration. God put man in the garden to dress and keep it; not for the purpose of violating the law and falling. Adam was not forced to disobey; he sinned willfully." (Statement by Elder F. F. Eggleston)
The question of the passivity or activity of men has been long debated. All this discussion involves the question of the "freedom of the will." Is the will free? In what way? To what degree? How does freedom relate to responsibility and guilt? From what does Christ and the truth set free in salvation? and in sanctification and perseverance?
The psychology of the will is not only debated theologically but philosophically. Determinism has its theological context and its scientific context. Generally, in the debates on this topic, determinism is often set in opposition to the freedom of the will. To what extent is the will determined? Are there causes to choice? Can choice and behavior be predicted? If it can be predicted, is it not because one knows that there are causes to choice? Are the causes of choice simple influence or determinative?
Can God predetermine the sanctification and perseverance of believers without predetermining every act of obedience? Are the terms passive and active sufficient to describe the salvation or perseverance experience? To describe and explain "obedience"?
How should disagreement over these questions affect church fellowship and cooperation?
These are questions which the Hardshells have not been able to handle well. Both factions erred in contending that the whole work of regeneration, including conversion and the new birth, was in some respects passive and in some respects active. This is what is clear in the London Confession. Both factions are not consistent on this topic. Most will affirm, as did their forefathers, that the will is acted upon in salvation, citing verses such as Psalm 110: 3 and Philippians 2: 13. The Conditionalist faction fails to appreciate the fact that the general obedience of Christians may be said to result from "constraint," as Paul said - "the love of Christ constrains us." (II Cor. 5: 14)
One verse that needs to be examined in the light of this controvesy is Galatians 5: 17, where Paul says:
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"so that ye cannot do the good that ye would which may be understood both of evil things and of good things. The former seems to be chiefly the apostle's sense; since the whole of this text is a reason given why those who walk spiritually shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh, because they have a powerful governing principle in them, the Spirit, or grace; which though the flesh lusts against, and opposes itself unto, yet that also rises up against the flesh, and often hinders it from doing the works and lusts of it. There is in regenerate men a propensity and inclination to sin, a carnal I, that wills and desires sin, and wishes for an opportunity to do it, which when it offers, the flesh strongly solicits to it; but the Spirit, or the internal principle of grace, opposes the motion; and like another Joseph says, how can I commit this great wickedness and sin against a God of so much love and grace? it is a voice behind and even in a believer, which, when he is tempted to turn to the right hand or the left, says, this is the way, walk in it, and will not suffer him to go into crooked paths with the workers of iniquity; and so sin cannot have the dominion over him, because he is under grace as a reigning principle; and the old man cannot do the evil things he would, being under the restraints of mighty grace. This is the apostle's principal sense, and best suits with his reasoning in the context; but inasmuch as the lusting and opposition of these two principles are mutual and reciprocal, the other sense may also be taken in; as that oftentimes, by reason of the prevalence of corrupt nature, and power of indwelling sin, a regenerate man does the evil he would not, and cannot do the good he would; for he would always do good and nothing else, and even as the angels do it in heaven; but he cannot, because of this opposite principle, the flesh."
These words of Gill should have been the bond of union between Conditionalists and Absoluters as respects sin and its relation to the believer's life. A good book on this topic was written by John Owen titled "Indwelling Sin In Believers."
God does not have to directly cause every act of obedience in a believer. It is sufficient that he has planted the principle of grace in the soul of a believer, which principle will surely cause the believer to win the war with sin and the flesh, though sometimes losing particular battles and skirmishes. Just as a believer may say, when he disobeys, "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. 7: 17), so he may so when he obeys, "yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)
Believers blame themselves for their sins but they give credit to God for their righteousnesses. Should such a proposition not be enough to prevent division between Conditionalists and Absoluters?
The record continues:
"Brother W. L. Parker stated as follows:-"Brother Moderator and Brethren: I feel weak and insufficient to the task of testifying in so grave and great a cause but will state the facts as I see them, for the consideration and benefit of God's people everywhere. This trouble which is so great a menace to our people first appeared, according to the best historical account that I have of it, in the bounds of the Sand Lick Association on May 16, 1896, and the issue was the doctrine of "the absolute predestination of all things” which caused a division in several churches and associations in that country. This doctrine gradually crept eastward until the year 1915 when it was introduced in the Pig River Association by Elders W. I. Carnell from the state of Ohio and J. C. Hurst of Roanoke, Va. and it was tolerated and advocated by others. But it was opposed by Elders. J. R. Wilson and A. B. Philpot, the much loved and efficient assistant moderator of that old and honored association. Elder J. R. Wilson was, on that occasion, sent as a messenger to represent the Mayo Association, and he was received and seated, but later he was called in question and unseated because of his opposition to Elders W. I. Carnell and J. C. Hurst on their doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things and the non-resurrection of the body."
"This trouble which is so great a menace to our people." And, what a needless trouble it was and is!
The record continues:
"Eld. Ben Martin said at Friendship Church while preaching, 'that just before we got to the depot this morning, the train blew for the station and my father said, 'Ben we just as well turn around, we are too late,' and I said, come on, if the Lord has predestinated for us to go to Friendship, He will hold the train some way. We got to the depot several minutes before the train. The Lord had caused a strong wind to blow a telegraph pole across the track and delayed the train. I believe that God predestinated before the foundation of the world that the wind should blow that telegraph pole down.' I replied that, 'I did not believe that God would injure any company, corporation or individual just to accommodate a man who was too lazy to get up soon enough to catch a train.' Will you please sign my name to the 'Hassell Peace Proposition' that was unanimously endorsed at the Council Meeting?" (Bassett, Va. J. T. Jackson)
I have not been able to find the "Hassell Peace Proposition" but I am sure it would be worth reviewing.
The debate between the Conditionalist and Absoluter about the telegraph pole demonstrates how one's views on the subject of divine providence affect one's worldview, and how one interprets events.
In an article titled "Background and Observations of the Danville Document," Elder Joseph R. Holder wrote some comments on the division resulting in Danville. See
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1398/36/
Holder wrote:
"There can be no doubt that the problems in the Primitive Baptist Church at Danville, Virginia in 1923 gave our critics ample fuel for criticism. Notwithstanding this sad event, the document here reviewed offers a wealth of information from a wide array of respected and reasonable Primitive Baptists throughout the eastern and southern states of that time. This document further reveals a number of major theological issues that surrounded the primary doctrine of contention, the extreme view of predestination referred to typically at the time and in this document as “the predestination of all things.”"
The reader can see why I have chosen to include much evidence from the Danville trial in this series. Elder Holder acknowledges the watershed nature of this event.
Holder continues:
"The problem in the Danville, Virginia church was not an isolated problem. Advocates of absolute predestination and the “one salvation theory” as it is termed in the Danville document used this issue to spread their beliefs across the whole eastern seaboard of this country. They used the Danville problem to further division among Primitive Baptists, claiming that the problem was with a preacher’s conduct, but, as the facts were investigated and reported in this document, the real problem was doctrine, specifically the “new doctrine” (so termed by advocates of absolute predestination at the time) had to do with absolute predestination of all things and the “one salvation theory,” the idea that God causatively predestinated our faith and obedience as fully as he predestinated our final destiny in glory. Advocates of absolute predestination rejected both multiple aspects of salvation, eternal and temporal, and they fiercely rejected that our temporal deliverances, or blessings in obedience, are conditional on us in any way."
The Conditionalist faction were apostates from the Old Baptist faith in denying that "faith and obedience" were not part of the salvation that God had chosen the elect to obtain. The apostle Paul did not separate salvation from belief of the truth. He wrote that "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 13) One can also see how both sides failed to see how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, as I shall show in an upcoming series. The error of both sides consisted in their denying that faith was a requirement for being eternally saved.
Holder continues:
"Advocates of only one salvation, or as it was described in the Danville document the “one salvation theory,” often strongly affirm their belief that this view is the historical view of Baptists, as well as the correct Biblical interpretation."
Of course, the Absoluter side was correct to deny that the Old Baptists ever believed in the novel view of "time salvation."
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The Hand of Faith. Not necessary?
A difficulty I ran into when I once believed in time salvation was what to do with all the Bible verses which united faith with salvation. The gospel of John and the Roman and Galatian epistles have much to say about the subject, and were therefore very difficult books to face when I held to a doctrine which claimed many unbelievers were saved. An equal difficulty I had was how to face the “shadows” of salvation depicted in the Old Testament in which faith is part of the picture. In particular, I can remember the touching description of the sinner’s sacrifice:
“And he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering…” (Lev. 1:4)
On this passage, Matthew Henry writes:
“The offerer must put his hand upon the head of his offering, v. 4. "He must put both his hands," say the Jewish doctors, "with all his might, between the horns of the beast," signifying thereby, (1.) The transfer of all his right to, and interest in, the beast, to God, actually, and by a manual delivery, resigning it to his service. (2.) An acknowledgment that he deserved to die, and would have been willing to die if God had required it, for the serving of his honour, and the obtaining of his favour. (3.) A dependence upon the sacrifice, as an instituted type of the great sacrifice on which the iniquity of us all was to be laid. The mystical signification of the sacrifices, and especially this rite, some think the apostle means by the doctrine of laying on of hands (Heb. vi. 2), which typified evangelical faith. The offerer's putting his hand on the head of the offering was to signify his desire and hope that it might be accepted from him to make atonement for him. Though the burnt-offerings had not respect to any particular sin, as the sin-offering had, yet they were to make atonement for sin in general; and he that laid his hand on the head of a burnt-offering was to confess that he had left undone what he ought to have done and had done that which he ought not to have done, and to pray that, though he deserved to die himself, the death of his sacrifice might be accepted for the expiating of his guilt.”
The extending forth of the hand upon the head of the offering signified the sinner’s reliance upon the sacrifice for the covering of his sin. As a shadow it points beautifully to Ephesians 2:8 where it is declared that sinners are saved “by grace THROUGH faith”. The difficulty facing those who are steadfast in their claim to time salvation is what to do with this. It is obvious that the sinner knew what he was doing. He extended his hand and knew that he did it! This act on the sinner's part was a definite element of the transaction, and it was not complete unless he did so! But how could this shadow point to the salvation of the idol-worshipping heathen which time salvation says is regenerate? Has he placed the hand of faith upon Christ for salvation?
When I recently shared with my congregation the errors of time salvation which they used to condone themselves, I shared this passage with them. I told them God’s word says salvation is “by grace THROUGH faith”, whereas Hardshellism is “by grace at the EXPENSE of faith”. The Bible says lay the hand of faith upon Christ for salvation. Hardshellism says be saved whether you extend your hand or not!
Not only are the explicit passages of the necessity of faith for salvation against this heresy, but the shadows are as well.
“And he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering…” (Lev. 1:4)
On this passage, Matthew Henry writes:
“The offerer must put his hand upon the head of his offering, v. 4. "He must put both his hands," say the Jewish doctors, "with all his might, between the horns of the beast," signifying thereby, (1.) The transfer of all his right to, and interest in, the beast, to God, actually, and by a manual delivery, resigning it to his service. (2.) An acknowledgment that he deserved to die, and would have been willing to die if God had required it, for the serving of his honour, and the obtaining of his favour. (3.) A dependence upon the sacrifice, as an instituted type of the great sacrifice on which the iniquity of us all was to be laid. The mystical signification of the sacrifices, and especially this rite, some think the apostle means by the doctrine of laying on of hands (Heb. vi. 2), which typified evangelical faith. The offerer's putting his hand on the head of the offering was to signify his desire and hope that it might be accepted from him to make atonement for him. Though the burnt-offerings had not respect to any particular sin, as the sin-offering had, yet they were to make atonement for sin in general; and he that laid his hand on the head of a burnt-offering was to confess that he had left undone what he ought to have done and had done that which he ought not to have done, and to pray that, though he deserved to die himself, the death of his sacrifice might be accepted for the expiating of his guilt.”
The extending forth of the hand upon the head of the offering signified the sinner’s reliance upon the sacrifice for the covering of his sin. As a shadow it points beautifully to Ephesians 2:8 where it is declared that sinners are saved “by grace THROUGH faith”. The difficulty facing those who are steadfast in their claim to time salvation is what to do with this. It is obvious that the sinner knew what he was doing. He extended his hand and knew that he did it! This act on the sinner's part was a definite element of the transaction, and it was not complete unless he did so! But how could this shadow point to the salvation of the idol-worshipping heathen which time salvation says is regenerate? Has he placed the hand of faith upon Christ for salvation?
When I recently shared with my congregation the errors of time salvation which they used to condone themselves, I shared this passage with them. I told them God’s word says salvation is “by grace THROUGH faith”, whereas Hardshellism is “by grace at the EXPENSE of faith”. The Bible says lay the hand of faith upon Christ for salvation. Hardshellism says be saved whether you extend your hand or not!
Not only are the explicit passages of the necessity of faith for salvation against this heresy, but the shadows are as well.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Clark & Holmes on Predestination
The following was posted on a blog that I follow and authored by R. L. Vaughn called "Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths." It can be read here:
http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2011/12/clarke-and-holmes-on-decree-of-god.html
"Clarke and Holmes on the decree of God"
""The decree of God is that whereby God hath from eternity set down with himself whatsoever shall come to pass in time. Eph. i. 2. All things with their causes, effects, circumstances and manner of being, are determined by God. Acts ii. 23, Acts iv. 28. This decree is most wise; Rom. xi. 33; most just; Rom. ix. 13-14; eternal; Eph. i. 4-5, II Thess. ii. 13; necessary; Psa. xxxiii. 2, Prov. xix. 21; unchangeable; Heb. xi. 17; most free; Rom. ix. 13; and the cause of all good; Jam. i. 17; but not of any sin; I John i. 5. The special decree of God concerning angels and men is called predestination. Rom. viii. 30." -- Introductory to articles of faith evidently written by John Clarke and Obadiah Holmes for the baptized church of Christ in Newport, Rhode Island. I'm not sure when this was written, but sometime before Clarke's death in 1676. Typed as recorded in John Clarke (1609-1676) Pioneer in American Medicine, Democratic Ideals, and Champion of Religious Liberty, by Louis Franklin Asher, p. 117; This is a clear expression of what the English and American Particular Baptist believed regarding predestination." (emphasis mine SG)
John Clark and Obadiah Holmes were pastors of the first Baptist church in America. Notice that the first Baptists in America were not of the modern Hardshell type, for they say that "all things that come to pass in time" are the result of God's decree and determination. Yet, they also said that God was not the "cause" of "any sin." Surely by "cause" they meant the immediate or direct cause of sin, that he was not the culpable cause. They certainly could not be said to be rejecting the idea that God is no "cause" in any sense without contradicting themselves. God decrees and determines a thing but does not cause it in any sense? Doubtless the denial that God is the "cause" of sin simply meant that God is not the "author of sin," and doubtless Clark and Holmes believed that all things are predestined. They also differentiate between special and general predestination.
http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2011/12/clarke-and-holmes-on-decree-of-god.html
"Clarke and Holmes on the decree of God"
""The decree of God is that whereby God hath from eternity set down with himself whatsoever shall come to pass in time. Eph. i. 2. All things with their causes, effects, circumstances and manner of being, are determined by God. Acts ii. 23, Acts iv. 28. This decree is most wise; Rom. xi. 33; most just; Rom. ix. 13-14; eternal; Eph. i. 4-5, II Thess. ii. 13; necessary; Psa. xxxiii. 2, Prov. xix. 21; unchangeable; Heb. xi. 17; most free; Rom. ix. 13; and the cause of all good; Jam. i. 17; but not of any sin; I John i. 5. The special decree of God concerning angels and men is called predestination. Rom. viii. 30." -- Introductory to articles of faith evidently written by John Clarke and Obadiah Holmes for the baptized church of Christ in Newport, Rhode Island. I'm not sure when this was written, but sometime before Clarke's death in 1676. Typed as recorded in John Clarke (1609-1676) Pioneer in American Medicine, Democratic Ideals, and Champion of Religious Liberty, by Louis Franklin Asher, p. 117; This is a clear expression of what the English and American Particular Baptist believed regarding predestination." (emphasis mine SG)
John Clark and Obadiah Holmes were pastors of the first Baptist church in America. Notice that the first Baptists in America were not of the modern Hardshell type, for they say that "all things that come to pass in time" are the result of God's decree and determination. Yet, they also said that God was not the "cause" of "any sin." Surely by "cause" they meant the immediate or direct cause of sin, that he was not the culpable cause. They certainly could not be said to be rejecting the idea that God is no "cause" in any sense without contradicting themselves. God decrees and determines a thing but does not cause it in any sense? Doubtless the denial that God is the "cause" of sin simply meant that God is not the "author of sin," and doubtless Clark and Holmes believed that all things are predestined. They also differentiate between special and general predestination.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Old Baptist Missionary Spirit
It is a false charge of the Hardshells for them to affirm that the Old Baptist church has not always been a missionary body. When they made objection to the missionary operations of the Baptists, in the 1830s in America, they argued that such missionary zeal and operations were a new thing among the Baptists. However, this is a false claim. Men like R.B.C. Howell and J.M. Peck stood up to oppose the "anti-mission" Hardshells and showed that the Baptists have always been supporters of missions and church sponsored evangelism.
In a book called "CONFESSIONS OF FAITH AND OTHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTS," By Edward Bean Underhill, we read of the early Particular Baptists of England praying for greater missionary work. See
http://www.landmarkbaptist.org/documents/Confessions_of_Faith_and_Other_Public_Documents.pdf
Those Old Baptists wrote:
"And in as much as our Saviour Christ hath given this as one sign, not long preceding his next coming, saying, This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come; their hope therefore is, that in these latter days, at least for a time, God will, by the hands of such civil powers as shall favour the saints, open a door: of greater liberty to the saints, for the spreading of the gospel in the nations of the world, than usually hath been enjoyed in times past; and do verily believe that that measure of liberty this way, which hath of late years been allowed the people of God, hath contributed not a little (God being pleased therewith) towards those marvellous and unwonted successes, which have been given to those who have been instruments to procure the same."
(pg. 232, "THE HUMBLE REPRESENTATION AND VINDICATION Of many of the Messengers, Elders, and Brethren, belonging to severall of the BAPTIZED CHURCHES IN THIS NATION, of and concerning their Opinions and Resolutions touching the CIVIL GOVERNMENT of these Nations, and of their Deportment under the same," LONDON, 1654)
Signed by some of the messengers and elders of the baptized churches, present at this meeting in London, for themselves and in the behalf of the respective congregations to which they belong.
ELDERS
John Griffith,
Thomas Perrot,
Will. Allen,
Tho. Lamb,
George Haman,
John Parsons,
Edm. Blundel,
John Templeman,
Thu. Astey,
Stephen Dagnall,
Rob. Thomson Reeve.
In a book called "CONFESSIONS OF FAITH AND OTHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTS," By Edward Bean Underhill, we read of the early Particular Baptists of England praying for greater missionary work. See
http://www.landmarkbaptist.org/documents/Confessions_of_Faith_and_Other_Public_Documents.pdf
Those Old Baptists wrote:
"And in as much as our Saviour Christ hath given this as one sign, not long preceding his next coming, saying, This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come; their hope therefore is, that in these latter days, at least for a time, God will, by the hands of such civil powers as shall favour the saints, open a door: of greater liberty to the saints, for the spreading of the gospel in the nations of the world, than usually hath been enjoyed in times past; and do verily believe that that measure of liberty this way, which hath of late years been allowed the people of God, hath contributed not a little (God being pleased therewith) towards those marvellous and unwonted successes, which have been given to those who have been instruments to procure the same."
(pg. 232, "THE HUMBLE REPRESENTATION AND VINDICATION Of many of the Messengers, Elders, and Brethren, belonging to severall of the BAPTIZED CHURCHES IN THIS NATION, of and concerning their Opinions and Resolutions touching the CIVIL GOVERNMENT of these Nations, and of their Deportment under the same," LONDON, 1654)
Signed by some of the messengers and elders of the baptized churches, present at this meeting in London, for themselves and in the behalf of the respective congregations to which they belong.
ELDERS
John Griffith,
Thomas Perrot,
Will. Allen,
Tho. Lamb,
George Haman,
John Parsons,
Edm. Blundel,
John Templeman,
Thu. Astey,
Stephen Dagnall,
Rob. Thomson Reeve.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Chapter 107-Hardshells & Predestination X
In 1863 Elder Joel Hume had a debate with Stinson in which he said these things relative to the doctrine of predestination.
"It is to endeavor to enforce upon the minds of this audience, that I have been advocating the doctrine of the predestination of all things. But I do not believe it, not a word of it. I, being no scholar, may not quite understand how to present my views upon the subject. I would simply say this, as the best I can do, that in my judgment there is a vast difference between the foreknowledge of God and the predestination of God. I might thus present the matter: God has a permissive will, and he has a positive will. By that permissive will, all the wickedness, sin and rebellion, that has ever cursed the earth has been allowed, but not decreed." (2nd speech, emphasis mine)
This citation is one of the first that I have seen, from the 19th century, wherein objections to the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things are uttered. That the doctrine objected to was the view of the vast majority of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the 1830-1865 period is beyond dispute, as I have demonstrated in previous chapters. The decade from 1865-1875 seems to be a turning point in the developmental history of the Hardshell denomination. It was not only in this decade where the second generation of Hardshells began to assert themselves, but was also the decade when the "anti-means" wing of the denomination began to assert itself. This is evident from reading Elder Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test" (1866) and from taking note of the debate that Elder John A. Thompson held in Reynoldsburg, Ohio (1873) with Campbellite debater Ben J. Franklin. One of the debate propositions concerned the "means question." Elder Thompson advocated the position that became, in the late 19th century, the stated view of the denomination, the view that now universally characterizes the whole denomination.
This decade also saw the rise in the number of debaters among the Hardshells. Prior to this time, there was only a small handfull of Hardshells engaged in debates. Of these Elders Richard Newport and Elder Joel Hume were the most prominent. Elder Newport was part of the "Two Seed" faction and alligned with Elder Daniel Parker, one of the first founders of the Hardshell denomination. This was also the decade when Elder Lemuel Potter began his debating career and when he began to become one of the foremost spokesmen for the denomination, one of their chief apologists.
This decade saw the rise of those who began to deny the traditionally held belief regarding the divine decrees and the absolute predestination of all things and of those who deny the use of means in salvation and the new birth, and it was also a time when the Hardshells began to formulate a more precise apology for their opposition to evangelism and church mission work. After some 30-40 years of defending their opposition they had come to see how all their arguments were weak and that they could not oppose it so long as they retained a belief in means. Their previous arguments against mission work was based upon attacking methods, but, as Bob Ross has pointed out in his work on the history of the Hardshells, such arguments began to "wear thin." It was a very schismatic and divisive decade that began to create various factions, each claiming to be the true and original or "old line" Baptists.
Hume's error is his exclusion of God's permissive will from God's decrees. If God permits, it is because he previously chose to permit, thus his permission is part of his will, part of his decrees, part of his eternal counsel.
Hume said:
"He has a positive will, if he so desires, which can stop the sinner from cursing and swearing. Can not God stop the thief and murderer on his way to do his deeds? Now I do not wish to be understood, when I speak of the will of God being accomplished, as having any reference to this permissive will; for I want you to understand that all wicked actions of the sons and daughters of men come from a different source, from the wicked one. God has no hand in directing to evil, but he has a hand in directing the minds of men to do good actions. But individuals who act wickedly, act in an opposite spirit from the Lord Jesus Christ. I have special reference to God's positive will, what he designs to be accomplished. Now, will our brother tell us in what other light we are to understand the quotation made from Isaiah xlvi., 10, in which Jehovah says, "My counsels shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure," etc."
Again, Hume errs in divorcing God's willing permission from God's eternal decisions. It is true that the will of God is either permissive or positive. But, the eternal decrees include God's choices to permit.
Hume wrote:
"I know, my friends, that there is a confession of faith, that has this clause in it, "We believe that God foreordained and decreed all things whatsoever comes to pass." Now, I would have you understand that the Regular Baptists do not believe the doctrine, at least I can say I do not believe that God, in any sense of the term, is the author of evil, neither original nor personal evil. In reference to the violation of God's will, in the garden, by our first parents, I would have you understand, I believe God knows what Adam would do; but, at the same time, I would have you understand further, that I do not believe God influenced Adam to those acts, but he was influenced by the opposite spirit, the spirit of Anti-Christ. I trust I am understood upon that subject."
http://www.gospeltruth.net/Hume_Stinson_atonement/hume_stinson_entiretext.htm
Hume, of course, was incorrect about the beliefs of the "Regular Baptists." A large majority of them confessed to believe the London Confession and that all things come to pass because of God's decrees, that they "extended even to the first fall," as the Confession states.
In the remainder of this chapter we will look at what Dr. John Gill wrote in his "Body of Doctrinal Divinity," in Book 2, Chapter 1, "Of The Internal Acts And Works Of God; And Of His Decrees In General." We have already cited from Dr. Gill to prove the supralapsarian view.
Gill wrote:
"...among these internal acts of the mind of God, are his purposes and decrees; and these are "purposed in himself", (Eph. 1:9) for what is true of one of his purposes, is true of all; and that there are such in God is certain; and which respect, not only the affairs of grace, but those of providence; even the whole earth, and all things in it, (Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:11, 3:11; Isa. 14:24, 27) and which go by various names in scripture; sometimes they are called, "the thoughts of his heart"; these are the deep things of God, which lie in the inmost recesses of his mind; are only known by himself, and searched by his Spirit; as the thoughts of a man can only be known by the spirit of man within him (Ps. 33:11; Jer. 29:11; 1 Cor. 2:10, 11). Sometimes they are called the "counsels" of God, said to be "of old", ancient ones, even from eternity; and to be "faithfulness and truth"; faithfully and truly performed in time, (Isa. 25:1)...They are sometimes called "decrees", and so we commonly call them; being the determinations of the mind of God; what he has fixed, settled, and resolved upon, (Dan. 4:17; Zeph. 2:2) and so the "determinate counsel" of God, (Acts 2:23) sometimes they are expressed by "preordination" and predestination; so Christ is said to be "foreordained" before the foundation of the world, (1 Peter 1:20) and men are said to be "predestinated" to the adoption of children, and to an inheritance, (Eph. 1:5, 11) that is, afore appointed thereunto in the decrees of God; and often they are signified by his "will" and "pleasure"; by the "counsel of his will"; and by his "counsel" and "pleasure", (Rom. 9:19; Eph. 1:11; Isa. 46:10) they containing and expressing his mind and will; what it is his pleasure should be."
Notice that Gill says that God's decrees, or his predestination, extend to "all things."
Gill wrote:
"The "Sovereignty" of God over all, and his "independency", clearly show, that whatever is done in time, is according to his decrees in eternity; for if anything comes to pass without the will of God, or contrary to it, or what he has not commanded, that is decreed, (Lam. 3:37) how is he a sovereign Being, that does according to his will in heaven and in earth, and works all things after the counsel of his will? (Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11) and if anything is by chance and fortune, or the mere effect of second causes, and of the free will of men, independent of the will of God, and if he works under these, in subserviency to them, and takes his measures of operation from them, then he must be dependent on them; and how then can it be said with truth, that "of him, and through him, and to him, are all things?" (Rom. 11:36)."
"Whatever is done in time is according to his decrees in eternity." That was the view of the London Confession and of the Old Baptists but is not the view of the great majority of those who today call themselves "Primitive Baptists." Gill says that nothing comes to pass "without the will of God." Nothing comes to pass "independent of the will of God," all being dependent upon the will of God. Finally, he cites Romans 11: 36 which clearly supports the view that "all things" come to pass because God has willed it.
Gill wrote:
"The "immutability" of God requires eternal decrees in him, concerning everything that is in time; for if anything is done in time, that did not fall under his notice and will in eternity, this must be new to him, and produce a change in him; or if an after will in time arises in him, respecting anything he would have done, which he willed not before, this argues a change in him; whereas, in him there is "no variableness, nor shadow of turning". The knowledge of God, supposes and clearly proves and establishes the decrees of God; he is a "God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed", (1 Sam. 2:13) he has knowledge of all actions done in time; and such an exact knowledge of them, as if they were weighed by him, and before him; and this knowledge of them is not successive, as they are performed; "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning", or from eternity, (Acts 15:18) both what he would do himself, and what he wills to be done by others: and this knowledge is founded on his decrees; he knows that such and such things will be, because he has determined they shall be."
How the Conditionalist faction of Hardshells can claim to be "primitive" or "original" in their denial that all things have been decreed by God from eternity, in the light of these words from one of the leading spokesmen for the "Old Baptist" faith, is astounding. Today's Hardshells will not accept what Gill here affirms is the beliefs of the Old Baptists.
Gill wrote:
"Secondly, The extent of the decrees and purposes of God, deserve notice and consideration: and they reach to all things that come to pass in the world, from the beginning to the end of it. The world, and all things in it, were created by and according to the will and pleasure of God (Rev. 4:11)."
Again, today's Conditionalist Hardshells utterly reject these teachings of Gill, and which are none other than the teachings of scripture.
Gill wrote:
"In short, everything respecting all the individuals of the world, that have been, are, or shall be, all correspond with the decrees of God, and are according to them; men's coming into the world, the time of it, and all circumstances attending it; all events and occurrences they meet with, throughout the whole time of life; their places of habitation, their stations, calling, and employment; their circumstances of riches and poverty, of health and sickness, adversity and prosperity; their time of going out of the world, with everything attending that; all are according to the determinate counsel and will of God, (Eccl. 3:1, 2, 7:14; Acts 17:26; Job 14:5) and particularly, all that relate to the people of God, as well their spiritual and eternal, as temporal concerns; their election of God, their redemption by Christ, their effectual calling, which is according to the purpose of God; the time, manner, and means of it; all their changes in life; their afflictions and distresses, deliverances, and salvations from temptation and trouble; yea, even the final state and condition of good men and bad men, is settled and determined: but this will be more particularly considered under the special decrees of God, respecting rational creatures. All that Christ was to be, do, and suffer for his people, are what the hand and counsel of God before determined; his incarnation, the time of his coming into the world; all that he met with, from the hand of God, from men and devils, while in it; his sufferings and death, and all circumstances attending the same (Gal. 4:4; Acts 4:28, 2:23; Luke 22:22, 37). In a word, everything that comes to pass in this world, from the beginning to the end of it, is pre-ordained; everything, good and bad; good by his effective decrees; that is, such by which he determines what he will do himself, or shall be done by others; and evil things, by his permissive decrees, by which he suffers things to be done; and which he overrules for his own glory; yea, things contingent, which, with respect to second causes, may seem to be, or not be, as the free actions of men; such as the prophesies, founded on decrees, concerning the names of Josiah and Cyrus, and of actions being performed by them of their own free will, many hundreds of years before they were born; nay, even things of the least importance, as well as the greatest; the hairs of mens’ heads are numbered; two sparrows, not worth more than a farthing, and yet fall not to the ground, without the knowledge, will, and purpose of God (Matthew 10:29, 30)."
Dr. Gill believed that God's permissive will was a part of his decrees and in no way was inconsistent with the belief that God's will is the reason behind all things. Dr. Gill did not believe that God positively wills sin, but that he allows, because God intends to bring good from it. Again, this was the view of the old Baptists who wrote the London Confession, was the view of the English Particular Baptists during the days of Dr. Gill, and was the view of the first Hardshell founding fathers. It is not, however, the view of today's Conditionalist faction, the faction that represents the far greater part of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination.
On Lamentations 3:37 Gill wrote:
"Ver. 37. Who [is] he [that] saith, and it cometh to pass?.... Or, "who [that] says [this shall be], and it cometh to pass?" or, "who [is] he [that] saith [this shall] come to pass?" {i} this, or that, or the other thing, he wills and desires, and his heart is set upon:
[when] the Lord commandeth [it] not? has not willed and decreed it, but determined the contrary; for nothing escapes his knowledge and foreknowledge; or can resist his will; or control his power; or frustrate his councils, and counterwork his designs; whatever schemes men form to get riches, obtain honour, do mischief to others, prolong life to themselves, and perpetuate their names to posterity, being contrary to the purpose of God, never succeed; whenever they do succeed in any of the above instances, it is because God has commanded, or he has determined, it should be so; as in the instances of Joseph's brethren, in their usage of him; and of the Jews, in the crucifixion of Christ, Pr 16:9." (Commentary)
Again, today's Hardshells denounce such teachings and yet claim to be "Primitive Baptists"! They are not "primitive" on the nature and causes of regeneration, on God's use of means, and they are not "original" regarding the decrees of God.
On Romans 11:36 Gill wrote:
"Ver. 36. For of him, and through him, and to him are all things,.... Not only all things in nature and providence, he being the Maker and efficient cause of things, and the preserver and supporter of them their beings, and to whose glory they are all designed and directed; but all things in grace owe their original to him, as their first cause; they are produced by him, and make for his glory; they all spring from his sovereign will, are brought about by his almighty power, and tend to the glory of his grace; as does every thing in election, redemption, and regeneration..."
Dr. Gill here believes that "all things" is all inclusive, and does not mean "some things only." He believes what is the stated belief of the old Baptists who wrote the 1689 London Confession, that God is the "first cause." If one accept that one simple premise as true, then he cannot help but believe that everything is caused by the will of God. If one accepts the view that nothing can occur unless God positively causes it, or allows it, then he cannot help but believe that everything is the result of God's will.
On Proverbs 16:4 Gill wrote:
"Ver. 4. The Lord hath made all [things] for himself...this is chiefly, if not solely, to be understood of God's decrees and purposes; and of his ordering and appointing all things to bring about his own glory. Every thing is appointed of God; he has foreordained whatever comes to pass; there is a purpose for everything under the heavens, and a time fixed for the execution of it. Junius restrains it to "all men"; but it is true of all creatures and things, though especially men: all things are appointed by the Lord, respecting the temporal estate of men; their birth, and the time of it, with all the circumstances attending it; the place of their abode, their calling, station of life, and usefulness; all adverse and prosperous dispensations; their death, with all the events leading to it: and so likewise all things respecting their spiritual and eternal estate..."
If Dr. Gill were living today, he would be rejected as a heretic by most of today's so called Primitive Baptists, for saying such things. He would be called an "Absoluter." Hardshells would say that he believes that God is the cause and author of sin. Gill would be accused of being "Antinomian." The Hardshells simply have no basis to believe that Gill was a Hardshell as respecting his views on gospel means and on predestination. Gill, like the London Confession, is a good criterion for judging who is "primitive."
On Romans 8:28 Gill wrote:
"And we know that all things work together for good...all evil beings, as devils, persecuting magistrates, heretics, and false teachers: all things, good and bad: all good things, outward peace and prosperity, external gifts, the ministry of the word, the administration of ordinances, church censures, admonitions, and excommunications; all evil things, sin the evil of evils: original sin, or the fall of Adam, which contains all other sins in it, was attended with aggravating circumstances, and followed with dismal consequences, yet has been overruled for good; hereby a Saviour became necessary, who was sent, came, and wrought out salvation; has brought in a better righteousness than Adam lost; entitled his people to a better life than his was, and makes them partakers of the riches both of grace and glory: actual sin, inward or outward; indwelling sin; which is made use of, when discovered, to abate pride, to lead to an entire dependence on Christ, to teach saints to be less censorious, to depend on the power and grace of God to keep them, and to wean them from this world, and to make them desirous of another, where they shall be free from it; outward sins, of others, or their own; the sins of others, of wicked men, which observed, raise an indignation in the saints against sin, and a concern for God's glory, and to look into their own hearts and ways, and admire the grace of God to them, that this is not their case; of good men, which are recorded, and may be observed, not for example and encouragement in sin, but for admonition, and to encourage faith and hope under a sense of it; of their own, for humiliation, which issues in weakening the power of sin in themselves, and the strengthening of the graces of others..."
Again, Gill would be denounced by most of today's Hardshells as being an "Absoluter heretic" for saying such things.
Gill continued:
"...but from all this it does not follow, that God is the author of sin, only that he overrules it to wise and gracious purposes; nor should any take encouragement to sin, to do evil that good may come; nor is sin itself a real good; nor is it to be said that it does no hurt; for though it cannot hinder the everlasting salvation of God's people, it does a great deal of hurt to their peace and comfort; and that it is made to work in any form or shape for good, is not owing to its own nature and influence, which is malignant enough, but to the unbounded power and unsearchable wisdom of God: all evils or afflictions, spiritual and temporal, work together for good; all spiritual ones, such as the temptations of Satan, which are made useful for humiliation, for the trial of grace, to show us our weakness, our need of Christ, and to conform us to him, and also to excite to prayer and watchfulness; the hidings of God's face, which make his presence the more prized when enjoyed, and the more desirable. Temporal afflictions, afflictions in body, name, or estate, nay even death itself, all work together for the good of God's people."
Gill did not believe that God was the "author of sin," nor that such a view was deducible from the proposition that affirms that "nothing can come to pass unless God will it." He did not believe that God being the "first cause" meant that God was the "author of sin." God is the first "cause" of sin, but not the "author" of it, in the sense discussed by theologians. If "author" means the same as "first cause," then yes, God is the "author" of sin. But, he is not the "author" of sin in the sense that he is the immediate and direct cause of sin, or in that he delights in it. He does not will or suffer sin for its own sake, as the ultimate end, but he rather suffers its existence, so that by its existence he may work his own will in bringing about a greater good.
"It is to endeavor to enforce upon the minds of this audience, that I have been advocating the doctrine of the predestination of all things. But I do not believe it, not a word of it. I, being no scholar, may not quite understand how to present my views upon the subject. I would simply say this, as the best I can do, that in my judgment there is a vast difference between the foreknowledge of God and the predestination of God. I might thus present the matter: God has a permissive will, and he has a positive will. By that permissive will, all the wickedness, sin and rebellion, that has ever cursed the earth has been allowed, but not decreed." (2nd speech, emphasis mine)
This citation is one of the first that I have seen, from the 19th century, wherein objections to the doctrine of the absolute predestination of all things are uttered. That the doctrine objected to was the view of the vast majority of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists in the 1830-1865 period is beyond dispute, as I have demonstrated in previous chapters. The decade from 1865-1875 seems to be a turning point in the developmental history of the Hardshell denomination. It was not only in this decade where the second generation of Hardshells began to assert themselves, but was also the decade when the "anti-means" wing of the denomination began to assert itself. This is evident from reading Elder Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test" (1866) and from taking note of the debate that Elder John A. Thompson held in Reynoldsburg, Ohio (1873) with Campbellite debater Ben J. Franklin. One of the debate propositions concerned the "means question." Elder Thompson advocated the position that became, in the late 19th century, the stated view of the denomination, the view that now universally characterizes the whole denomination.
This decade also saw the rise in the number of debaters among the Hardshells. Prior to this time, there was only a small handfull of Hardshells engaged in debates. Of these Elders Richard Newport and Elder Joel Hume were the most prominent. Elder Newport was part of the "Two Seed" faction and alligned with Elder Daniel Parker, one of the first founders of the Hardshell denomination. This was also the decade when Elder Lemuel Potter began his debating career and when he began to become one of the foremost spokesmen for the denomination, one of their chief apologists.
This decade saw the rise of those who began to deny the traditionally held belief regarding the divine decrees and the absolute predestination of all things and of those who deny the use of means in salvation and the new birth, and it was also a time when the Hardshells began to formulate a more precise apology for their opposition to evangelism and church mission work. After some 30-40 years of defending their opposition they had come to see how all their arguments were weak and that they could not oppose it so long as they retained a belief in means. Their previous arguments against mission work was based upon attacking methods, but, as Bob Ross has pointed out in his work on the history of the Hardshells, such arguments began to "wear thin." It was a very schismatic and divisive decade that began to create various factions, each claiming to be the true and original or "old line" Baptists.
Hume's error is his exclusion of God's permissive will from God's decrees. If God permits, it is because he previously chose to permit, thus his permission is part of his will, part of his decrees, part of his eternal counsel.
Hume said:
"He has a positive will, if he so desires, which can stop the sinner from cursing and swearing. Can not God stop the thief and murderer on his way to do his deeds? Now I do not wish to be understood, when I speak of the will of God being accomplished, as having any reference to this permissive will; for I want you to understand that all wicked actions of the sons and daughters of men come from a different source, from the wicked one. God has no hand in directing to evil, but he has a hand in directing the minds of men to do good actions. But individuals who act wickedly, act in an opposite spirit from the Lord Jesus Christ. I have special reference to God's positive will, what he designs to be accomplished. Now, will our brother tell us in what other light we are to understand the quotation made from Isaiah xlvi., 10, in which Jehovah says, "My counsels shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure," etc."
Again, Hume errs in divorcing God's willing permission from God's eternal decisions. It is true that the will of God is either permissive or positive. But, the eternal decrees include God's choices to permit.
Hume wrote:
"I know, my friends, that there is a confession of faith, that has this clause in it, "We believe that God foreordained and decreed all things whatsoever comes to pass." Now, I would have you understand that the Regular Baptists do not believe the doctrine, at least I can say I do not believe that God, in any sense of the term, is the author of evil, neither original nor personal evil. In reference to the violation of God's will, in the garden, by our first parents, I would have you understand, I believe God knows what Adam would do; but, at the same time, I would have you understand further, that I do not believe God influenced Adam to those acts, but he was influenced by the opposite spirit, the spirit of Anti-Christ. I trust I am understood upon that subject."
http://www.gospeltruth.net/Hume_Stinson_atonement/hume_stinson_entiretext.htm
Hume, of course, was incorrect about the beliefs of the "Regular Baptists." A large majority of them confessed to believe the London Confession and that all things come to pass because of God's decrees, that they "extended even to the first fall," as the Confession states.
In the remainder of this chapter we will look at what Dr. John Gill wrote in his "Body of Doctrinal Divinity," in Book 2, Chapter 1, "Of The Internal Acts And Works Of God; And Of His Decrees In General." We have already cited from Dr. Gill to prove the supralapsarian view.
Gill wrote:
"...among these internal acts of the mind of God, are his purposes and decrees; and these are "purposed in himself", (Eph. 1:9) for what is true of one of his purposes, is true of all; and that there are such in God is certain; and which respect, not only the affairs of grace, but those of providence; even the whole earth, and all things in it, (Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:11, 3:11; Isa. 14:24, 27) and which go by various names in scripture; sometimes they are called, "the thoughts of his heart"; these are the deep things of God, which lie in the inmost recesses of his mind; are only known by himself, and searched by his Spirit; as the thoughts of a man can only be known by the spirit of man within him (Ps. 33:11; Jer. 29:11; 1 Cor. 2:10, 11). Sometimes they are called the "counsels" of God, said to be "of old", ancient ones, even from eternity; and to be "faithfulness and truth"; faithfully and truly performed in time, (Isa. 25:1)...They are sometimes called "decrees", and so we commonly call them; being the determinations of the mind of God; what he has fixed, settled, and resolved upon, (Dan. 4:17; Zeph. 2:2) and so the "determinate counsel" of God, (Acts 2:23) sometimes they are expressed by "preordination" and predestination; so Christ is said to be "foreordained" before the foundation of the world, (1 Peter 1:20) and men are said to be "predestinated" to the adoption of children, and to an inheritance, (Eph. 1:5, 11) that is, afore appointed thereunto in the decrees of God; and often they are signified by his "will" and "pleasure"; by the "counsel of his will"; and by his "counsel" and "pleasure", (Rom. 9:19; Eph. 1:11; Isa. 46:10) they containing and expressing his mind and will; what it is his pleasure should be."
Notice that Gill says that God's decrees, or his predestination, extend to "all things."
Gill wrote:
"The "Sovereignty" of God over all, and his "independency", clearly show, that whatever is done in time, is according to his decrees in eternity; for if anything comes to pass without the will of God, or contrary to it, or what he has not commanded, that is decreed, (Lam. 3:37) how is he a sovereign Being, that does according to his will in heaven and in earth, and works all things after the counsel of his will? (Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11) and if anything is by chance and fortune, or the mere effect of second causes, and of the free will of men, independent of the will of God, and if he works under these, in subserviency to them, and takes his measures of operation from them, then he must be dependent on them; and how then can it be said with truth, that "of him, and through him, and to him, are all things?" (Rom. 11:36)."
"Whatever is done in time is according to his decrees in eternity." That was the view of the London Confession and of the Old Baptists but is not the view of the great majority of those who today call themselves "Primitive Baptists." Gill says that nothing comes to pass "without the will of God." Nothing comes to pass "independent of the will of God," all being dependent upon the will of God. Finally, he cites Romans 11: 36 which clearly supports the view that "all things" come to pass because God has willed it.
Gill wrote:
"The "immutability" of God requires eternal decrees in him, concerning everything that is in time; for if anything is done in time, that did not fall under his notice and will in eternity, this must be new to him, and produce a change in him; or if an after will in time arises in him, respecting anything he would have done, which he willed not before, this argues a change in him; whereas, in him there is "no variableness, nor shadow of turning". The knowledge of God, supposes and clearly proves and establishes the decrees of God; he is a "God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed", (1 Sam. 2:13) he has knowledge of all actions done in time; and such an exact knowledge of them, as if they were weighed by him, and before him; and this knowledge of them is not successive, as they are performed; "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning", or from eternity, (Acts 15:18) both what he would do himself, and what he wills to be done by others: and this knowledge is founded on his decrees; he knows that such and such things will be, because he has determined they shall be."
How the Conditionalist faction of Hardshells can claim to be "primitive" or "original" in their denial that all things have been decreed by God from eternity, in the light of these words from one of the leading spokesmen for the "Old Baptist" faith, is astounding. Today's Hardshells will not accept what Gill here affirms is the beliefs of the Old Baptists.
Gill wrote:
"Secondly, The extent of the decrees and purposes of God, deserve notice and consideration: and they reach to all things that come to pass in the world, from the beginning to the end of it. The world, and all things in it, were created by and according to the will and pleasure of God (Rev. 4:11)."
Again, today's Conditionalist Hardshells utterly reject these teachings of Gill, and which are none other than the teachings of scripture.
Gill wrote:
"In short, everything respecting all the individuals of the world, that have been, are, or shall be, all correspond with the decrees of God, and are according to them; men's coming into the world, the time of it, and all circumstances attending it; all events and occurrences they meet with, throughout the whole time of life; their places of habitation, their stations, calling, and employment; their circumstances of riches and poverty, of health and sickness, adversity and prosperity; their time of going out of the world, with everything attending that; all are according to the determinate counsel and will of God, (Eccl. 3:1, 2, 7:14; Acts 17:26; Job 14:5) and particularly, all that relate to the people of God, as well their spiritual and eternal, as temporal concerns; their election of God, their redemption by Christ, their effectual calling, which is according to the purpose of God; the time, manner, and means of it; all their changes in life; their afflictions and distresses, deliverances, and salvations from temptation and trouble; yea, even the final state and condition of good men and bad men, is settled and determined: but this will be more particularly considered under the special decrees of God, respecting rational creatures. All that Christ was to be, do, and suffer for his people, are what the hand and counsel of God before determined; his incarnation, the time of his coming into the world; all that he met with, from the hand of God, from men and devils, while in it; his sufferings and death, and all circumstances attending the same (Gal. 4:4; Acts 4:28, 2:23; Luke 22:22, 37). In a word, everything that comes to pass in this world, from the beginning to the end of it, is pre-ordained; everything, good and bad; good by his effective decrees; that is, such by which he determines what he will do himself, or shall be done by others; and evil things, by his permissive decrees, by which he suffers things to be done; and which he overrules for his own glory; yea, things contingent, which, with respect to second causes, may seem to be, or not be, as the free actions of men; such as the prophesies, founded on decrees, concerning the names of Josiah and Cyrus, and of actions being performed by them of their own free will, many hundreds of years before they were born; nay, even things of the least importance, as well as the greatest; the hairs of mens’ heads are numbered; two sparrows, not worth more than a farthing, and yet fall not to the ground, without the knowledge, will, and purpose of God (Matthew 10:29, 30)."
Dr. Gill believed that God's permissive will was a part of his decrees and in no way was inconsistent with the belief that God's will is the reason behind all things. Dr. Gill did not believe that God positively wills sin, but that he allows, because God intends to bring good from it. Again, this was the view of the old Baptists who wrote the London Confession, was the view of the English Particular Baptists during the days of Dr. Gill, and was the view of the first Hardshell founding fathers. It is not, however, the view of today's Conditionalist faction, the faction that represents the far greater part of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination.
On Lamentations 3:37 Gill wrote:
"Ver. 37. Who [is] he [that] saith, and it cometh to pass?.... Or, "who [that] says [this shall be], and it cometh to pass?" or, "who [is] he [that] saith [this shall] come to pass?" {i} this, or that, or the other thing, he wills and desires, and his heart is set upon:
[when] the Lord commandeth [it] not? has not willed and decreed it, but determined the contrary; for nothing escapes his knowledge and foreknowledge; or can resist his will; or control his power; or frustrate his councils, and counterwork his designs; whatever schemes men form to get riches, obtain honour, do mischief to others, prolong life to themselves, and perpetuate their names to posterity, being contrary to the purpose of God, never succeed; whenever they do succeed in any of the above instances, it is because God has commanded, or he has determined, it should be so; as in the instances of Joseph's brethren, in their usage of him; and of the Jews, in the crucifixion of Christ, Pr 16:9." (Commentary)
Again, today's Hardshells denounce such teachings and yet claim to be "Primitive Baptists"! They are not "primitive" on the nature and causes of regeneration, on God's use of means, and they are not "original" regarding the decrees of God.
On Romans 11:36 Gill wrote:
"Ver. 36. For of him, and through him, and to him are all things,.... Not only all things in nature and providence, he being the Maker and efficient cause of things, and the preserver and supporter of them their beings, and to whose glory they are all designed and directed; but all things in grace owe their original to him, as their first cause; they are produced by him, and make for his glory; they all spring from his sovereign will, are brought about by his almighty power, and tend to the glory of his grace; as does every thing in election, redemption, and regeneration..."
Dr. Gill here believes that "all things" is all inclusive, and does not mean "some things only." He believes what is the stated belief of the old Baptists who wrote the 1689 London Confession, that God is the "first cause." If one accept that one simple premise as true, then he cannot help but believe that everything is caused by the will of God. If one accepts the view that nothing can occur unless God positively causes it, or allows it, then he cannot help but believe that everything is the result of God's will.
On Proverbs 16:4 Gill wrote:
"Ver. 4. The Lord hath made all [things] for himself...this is chiefly, if not solely, to be understood of God's decrees and purposes; and of his ordering and appointing all things to bring about his own glory. Every thing is appointed of God; he has foreordained whatever comes to pass; there is a purpose for everything under the heavens, and a time fixed for the execution of it. Junius restrains it to "all men"; but it is true of all creatures and things, though especially men: all things are appointed by the Lord, respecting the temporal estate of men; their birth, and the time of it, with all the circumstances attending it; the place of their abode, their calling, station of life, and usefulness; all adverse and prosperous dispensations; their death, with all the events leading to it: and so likewise all things respecting their spiritual and eternal estate..."
If Dr. Gill were living today, he would be rejected as a heretic by most of today's so called Primitive Baptists, for saying such things. He would be called an "Absoluter." Hardshells would say that he believes that God is the cause and author of sin. Gill would be accused of being "Antinomian." The Hardshells simply have no basis to believe that Gill was a Hardshell as respecting his views on gospel means and on predestination. Gill, like the London Confession, is a good criterion for judging who is "primitive."
On Romans 8:28 Gill wrote:
"And we know that all things work together for good...all evil beings, as devils, persecuting magistrates, heretics, and false teachers: all things, good and bad: all good things, outward peace and prosperity, external gifts, the ministry of the word, the administration of ordinances, church censures, admonitions, and excommunications; all evil things, sin the evil of evils: original sin, or the fall of Adam, which contains all other sins in it, was attended with aggravating circumstances, and followed with dismal consequences, yet has been overruled for good; hereby a Saviour became necessary, who was sent, came, and wrought out salvation; has brought in a better righteousness than Adam lost; entitled his people to a better life than his was, and makes them partakers of the riches both of grace and glory: actual sin, inward or outward; indwelling sin; which is made use of, when discovered, to abate pride, to lead to an entire dependence on Christ, to teach saints to be less censorious, to depend on the power and grace of God to keep them, and to wean them from this world, and to make them desirous of another, where they shall be free from it; outward sins, of others, or their own; the sins of others, of wicked men, which observed, raise an indignation in the saints against sin, and a concern for God's glory, and to look into their own hearts and ways, and admire the grace of God to them, that this is not their case; of good men, which are recorded, and may be observed, not for example and encouragement in sin, but for admonition, and to encourage faith and hope under a sense of it; of their own, for humiliation, which issues in weakening the power of sin in themselves, and the strengthening of the graces of others..."
Again, Gill would be denounced by most of today's Hardshells as being an "Absoluter heretic" for saying such things.
Gill continued:
"...but from all this it does not follow, that God is the author of sin, only that he overrules it to wise and gracious purposes; nor should any take encouragement to sin, to do evil that good may come; nor is sin itself a real good; nor is it to be said that it does no hurt; for though it cannot hinder the everlasting salvation of God's people, it does a great deal of hurt to their peace and comfort; and that it is made to work in any form or shape for good, is not owing to its own nature and influence, which is malignant enough, but to the unbounded power and unsearchable wisdom of God: all evils or afflictions, spiritual and temporal, work together for good; all spiritual ones, such as the temptations of Satan, which are made useful for humiliation, for the trial of grace, to show us our weakness, our need of Christ, and to conform us to him, and also to excite to prayer and watchfulness; the hidings of God's face, which make his presence the more prized when enjoyed, and the more desirable. Temporal afflictions, afflictions in body, name, or estate, nay even death itself, all work together for the good of God's people."
Gill did not believe that God was the "author of sin," nor that such a view was deducible from the proposition that affirms that "nothing can come to pass unless God will it." He did not believe that God being the "first cause" meant that God was the "author of sin." God is the first "cause" of sin, but not the "author" of it, in the sense discussed by theologians. If "author" means the same as "first cause," then yes, God is the "author" of sin. But, he is not the "author" of sin in the sense that he is the immediate and direct cause of sin, or in that he delights in it. He does not will or suffer sin for its own sake, as the ultimate end, but he rather suffers its existence, so that by its existence he may work his own will in bringing about a greater good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)