Chapter 129
Elder Michael Gowens, present day pastor of Lexington (Ky.) "Primitive Baptist Church" wrote:
"Well, that is the very same argument made by the “missionary” Baptist Throgmorton in the Throgmorton-Potter debate of July 12, 1887 . They debated the question “Who Are the Primitive Baptists?” for four days at Fulton, KY, with Elder Throgmorton claiming that the “missionaries” were holding true to the faith of their fathers, and Elder Potter claiming that the “hardshells” were the original Baptists. Both quoted extensively from history, finding ample evidence for their respective views in ancient Creeds and Confessions."
First of all, I must say that Elder Gowens mistakes the facts from the debate he mentions, particularly as it relates to the question of the use of means in salvation. The fact is, Elder Potter gave no evidence that anyone denied the use of means in the eternal salvation of sinners prior to the birth of the Hardshells in the early 19th century.
Gowens continued (emphasis mine - SG):
"Of course, both sides claimed victory after the discussion. I think that the premise of this claim is the assumption that the 1689 London Baptist Confession is the standard of orthodoxy—the “litmus test” of what our Baptist forefathers believed. That premise is arguable—in fact, it is very suspect. Elder Harold Hunt has written at length on this issue; he does a masterful job of showing that the 1689 was an attempt to construct an ecumenical document for the sake of unifying the English Baptists, but that it was unsuccessful. I believe that the use of Confessions as an instrument to promote unity tends toward credalism. Confessions can promote uniformity, but uniformity is not the same thing as “the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4)." (Internet article "Questions and Answers Regarding Recent Primitive Baptist Tension" - see here)
It seems from this citation that Elder Gowens agrees with the thesis of Elder Hunt's book ("The London Confession: And its Place in Baptist History" - 2007) that the authors of the London Confession were not "Primitive Baptists" (Hardshells) because they believed in Gospel means and that faith in Christ was necessary for being eternally saved. It is one of the reasons why Elder Hunt says that the authors of the old Confession were "New School" or means Baptists. Remember too that Elder Hunt said this about the brethren at Fulton - "They reaffirmed what they could accept; they explained away what they could not accept; and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away."
Elder Bill Allen in an Internet article titled "Article 10 of the London Confession of 1689 Examined," (pastors the Stephenville, Texas "Primitive Baptist Church") writes (emphasis mine - SG):
"Below is just one of the problematic articles, no. 10, of the 1689 with the 3 related Fulton foootnotes. My problem with the Fulton footnotes is not that they were themselves unsound. They were quite sound, but the Fulton brethren were deceiving themselves in thinking that the 1689 was basically sound but just not properly understood....If we take the wording of the 1689, particularly in this article, for what it clearly says in plain English it can be easily seen that it is a hopeless wreck of a document that no amount of footnotes, explanations, or wishful thinking can fix...My point is that we should NOT make any endeavors to lay claim to the 1689 Confession but instead should do what the Fulton brethren did not and that is let those who believe such things have it as the Calvinists confession that it clearly is."
Allen also says:
"...this says the effectual calling is by the Word and Spirit. It is vital to the understanding of this article to discern exactly what they mean by the use of "Word". The Fulton brethren correctly insist that on the Living Word, i.e. Christ, is the source of the Effectual Call. Unfortunately, they would like us to believe that is what this article says. I contend that this is wishful thinking. They are imposing what we know to be the truth on what other men have said in an effort to white wash something that would have to otherwise rejected if taken for what it says. I contend the authors of this confession were consistent in their use "Word"." (see here)
Thus, we have added two other witnesses from current Hardshell leaders to show that they also recognize how the Fulton brethren were distorting the words of the old London Confession.
Elder Sylvester Hassell (1842-1928) wrote (emphasis mine - SG):
"A semblance of a proposition at the last session of the Kehukee Association, to change some words in the first two lines of the Fourth of our old Articles of Faith (Church History, page 699,) reading thus, “We believe that, when God made man at first, be was perfect, holy and upright, able to keep the law, but liable to fall,” was, as graphically described by one of our oldest ministers, “speedily thrown under the table among other rubbish,” by the oldest Primitive Baptist Association in the world. We want no change whatever in our old Articles of Faith; if changes are ever begun to be made, there will be no end to them, and we shall be imitating the religious societies of the world, and like them may plunge into infidelity."
"...in no other human document, have I seen that truth so fully and correctly presented, without excrescence and without mutilation, (Rev. xxii. 18, 19,) as in the old London Baptist Confession of Faith. It sets forth what I and the great majority of Primitive Baptists of the United States believe to be “the apostles’ doctrine;” and, like the apostolic churches, it is only by “continuing steadfastly in this doctrine,” that we can continue also “in fellowship, and in, breaking of bread, and in prayer. “—Acts ii. 42. I could not, in conscientiousness and faithfulness, receive or retain, as a member of my own Church, any person who believed this doctrine, as set forth in our Articles of Faith, to be a lie." ("'The Old Paths' Again" - The Gospel Messenger--June 1890 - see here)
It is to be noted that Elder Hassell wrote these words in 1890, ten years before the Fulton Convention, and that Elder Hassell was not in favor of changing any of the accepted confessions of the Hardshells. But, when the Fulton Confession came out, here is what Elder Hassell wrote:
"In the 18th century the Particular or Predestinarian Baptists of the United States re-affirmed and adopted these same Articles of Faith. In the 19th century all the Primitive Baptist churches of the United States either already had or adopted, substantially, though in a shorter form, these same Articles of Faith; and in the closing year of that century, 1900, the General Meetings of Primitive Baptists at Oakland City, Ind., and Fulton, Ky., unanimously re-affirmed and re-adopted the old London Baptist Confession of Faith. In 1850 Elder Burwell Temple, editor of The Primitive Baptist, the oldest Southern Primitive Baptist periodical, republished at Raleigh, N. C., in pamphlet form, bound in sheep-skin, the London Baptist Confession of Faith. My father, Elder C. B. Hassell, who began the Church History, collected the very oldest editions of the London Confession that he could obtain, and incorporated the full original text, with all the Scripture citations, in our Church History. Thus the London Baptist Confession of Faith is the most fully and widely authorized statement of what Primitive Baptists believe the Scriptures to teach in regard to spiritual and eternal truths. Our fathers were neither fools nor hypocrites; and spiritually we are neither wiser nor better than they were; indeed past and present facts prove that we are their inferiors in spiritual matters."
"There are occasional expressions in the London Confession and also in the Fulton Foot-notes that are not acceptable to all Primitive Baptists; but the general substance of doctrine in both the Confession and the Footnotes is the faith of the great body of the Primitive Baptists of the United States, as it was the faith of their fathers in this country and in England..." ("The London Baptist Confession of Faith With Fulton Foot-Notes" - see here)
Though Hassell had great reluctance to changing the accepted articles of faith in 1890, yet he does not criticize the work of the Fulton brethren who drastically changed the meaning of the London Confession. One must wonder why? Did Elder Hassell believe that the Fulton brethren were accurately interpreting the old Confession or did he believe they were misinterpreting it? I suspect that Hassell knew full well that they had misinterpreted the old Confession but chose not to say anything.
Elder David Montgomery, present day pastor and author of a leading Hardshell web page with lots of old articles from leading men of the past within their denomination, writes this about Hassell and the Fulton Convention.
"Below is pretty convincing proof as to why Elder Hassell did not attend the Fulton Convention as both his corresponding editors of the Gospel Messenger were very opposed to it. Their opposition was so strong that it became the official position of the "The Gospel Mesenger." It is important to note that Elder Hassell did write a very favorable article on the results of the Convention after it convened. When I get to heaven (by the Lord’s grace) I intend to query Brother Hassell about all this. Too many questions, too little information." (see here)
Perhaps Elder Hassell did not attend because he foreknew what would come of it and that he had already gone on record as being against altering the old confessions.
The Web page of Aberdeen Primitive Baptist church says:
"Our doctrines and our practices, we believe, are well grounded in the Word of God which is our final authority for our Faith and Practice. No human document is perfect, yet we are in basic agreement with both the London Confession of Faith of 1644 and of 1689."
On the same Web page they say:
"We do not believe that the Gospel is a means of regeneration, but that it is the means of conversion for the quickened soul." (see here)
The Hardshells say "we are in basic agreement" with the London Confessions, which is typical language of many Hardshells who continue to affirm their acceptance of the London Confession that their forefathers accepted. Others use similar language, saying that present Hardshell views are "substantially the same" as those of the London Confession. This language is meant to convey the idea that they are the successors of the old London churches of the 17th century yet without giving credence to those parts of it that they reject, particularly the parts dealing with the divine decrees and the use of means in effectual calling. This is nothing but a deception meant to fool the simple minded.
Elder David Bartley, a minister of the Absoluter faction, writing about the Fulton Confession in 1901 had these remarks to offer (emphasis mine - SG).
"So now, let us kindly consider this question of disturbance and compare the points at issue with the London Confession, which all claim to accept upon those points of difference. But why, then, the need or utility of the Fulton Convention? Why the address, the foot-notes and the appendix added to the good old Confession, which had been good enough for the Old Baptist people through the centuries, until this late upheaval? The plea for all this additional supplementary work of the recent convention has been stated in print frequently, and is thus given in the general address: “Language through the lapse of many years undergoes variations in applications and meanings, whereby certain clauses become more or less obscure in meaning. Wherever, in the opinion of this assembly, the meaning of a section was not apparent, foot-notes were added to bring out the meaning.” But if such a change of meaning and obscurity of language is true of one section of the old Confession, it is also true of every section, and just as true of the whole Bible, which is older than the London Confession. In all candor, then, why were the foot-notes confined to a few sections, and these the very places which treat of the doctrines involved in this new issue! This is very strange indeed, if the old Confession has really become doubtful and dark in meaning because of its age! If this is a valid cause for calling a convention of Baptists, why not bring out in easy and plain words the meaning of the entire Confession, so that all the Baptists may now understand and unite upon its meaning? Then, if the plea is a real and valid one, why not also get up a Baptist Convention to “bring out the more or less obscure meaning “of the ancient Bible!"
These remarks of Elder Bartley are very damaging to the work of the Fulton brethren and unmask the real intentions of the Convention. He shows that their stated purpose, which was to make plain those portions of the Confession which were too vaguely worded, or too ambiguous, containing too much archaic language, was all pretense! Why did they avoid explaining most of the sections? One says it is because they agreed with those sections! Yet, the same kind of language was used in those sections as in the others that were given footnotes! It is all too obvious to all, except to the simple minded cultists, that these brethren did not believe the sections which they footnoted.
In Elder Bartley's review of the Fulton Convention he objects to their reading their novel view of "time salvation" into the old London Confession, a doctrinal novelty that the old London brethren knew nothing about. Elder Bartley said:
"It should not be wondered at, therefore, that the introduction and pressure of these new issues among the Old Baptists met with opposition from many of them, whose hearts are established in the sacred belief of salvation by grace only, and in the unlimited sovereignty of God, just as declared in the London Confession; for the inevitable consequence of this innovation upon the gospel of the grace of God, by the new gospel (?) of conditional salvation in time, and of this recent war against God’s decree of all things, as held through the ages past, and solemnly set forth in the good old Confession, was confusion and division among the local churches, where these new issues sprung up and were urged. It was this opposition to sovereignty and grace that led to the disturbance and, in some local churches, the breaking of fellowship, all of which is lamentable and gives us all sorrow. The responsibility rests upon the new doctrines."
"In conclusion, there is one alleviating and consoling fact in all this new and strange movement among Baptists; that is, the so-called “National Convention” was nothing more than a voluntary individual meeting, without any authority or jurisdiction whatever to decide upon any point of doctrine or fellowship, so none of the churches of the saints are bound by it; and the good old doctrine of the London Confession relative to the unlimited decree and universal providence of God and salvation by his sovereign grace only, remains unshaken, true and sacred as before, not in the least curtailed, modified or “explained away.” And this doctrine of our forefathers and of the apostles of the Lord will stand immovable as a bulwark of God’s eternal truth long after this new movement against it shall have passed away, and the people “saved by the Lord” shall on and on down through the coming ages, till the Lord shall come and bring all his saints with him, ever abide steadfastly in the unlimited sovereignty of God and the gospel of salvation by his grace." ("Review of Fulton Convention Work" - Crawfordsville, Ind., Aug. 22, 1901. Signs Of The Times, Volume 69, No. 18. SEPTEMBER 15, 1901 - see here)
Elder Bartley is simply another witness that the purpose of the Fulton brethren was to "explain away" the clear meaning of the Confession in what it said about predestination and salvation.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Hardshells & The London Confession III
Chapter 128
In chapter three of "Regeneration," written by Elder W.H. Crouse, published in 1928, Elder Crouse attempts to defend the "anti-means" side against those of the "means" side from both Scripture and Baptist history. His main antagonist was Elder Screws of the "Progressive" faction. You can read the entire work here.
Crouse wrote:
"Much has been said about the London Confession of faith. It was written by a number of English Baptist ministers in 1689. Their manner of expression was quite different from ours. In so long a time language has naturally undergone some change. Some sections, standing alone, seem ambiguous. These sections, separated from the remainder of the Confession, and without explanation, have never been accepted by American Primitive Baptists as clearly and correctly expressing their faith. Taken as a whole, and properly explained, our ministry has most universally accepted it as a true expression of our faith. That there might be no misunderstanding in reference to its teaching the meeting at Fulton, Ky., in 1900, added explanatory footnotes. To illustrate let us notice a few sections."
Elder Crouse wrote his work as a result of controversy with some Hardshells in the 1920s who were returning to the teaching of the London Confession regarding God's use of means in salvation, a phenomenon that is even now occurring in a limited way among today's Hardshells. Some in the Progressive wing of the "Primitive Baptist Church," such as Elder Screws, were giving historical proof for the contention that the denial of means by the Hardshells was a modern innovation, just as Elder Watson had affirmed in his book "The Old Baptist Test." (1866) Elder Crouse attempted to rebut all the historical evidence that was against him on this point and one of those proofs was the London Confession of Faith.
Elder Crouse admits that some sections of the Confession, read by itself, teaches against the Hardshell anti-means position and that such sections "have never been accepted by American Primitive Baptists." Yet, this is clearly not the case. Most of the first generation Hardshell leaders believed in means in the new birth and eternal salvation, men such as Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, Hosea Preslar, John Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, James Osbourn, Daniel Jewett, etc. Also, the fact that there was a division in the 1880s over this issue shows that even at that date many Hardshells and Regular Baptists still believed in means.
Elder Crouse says that those sections which teach means are "ambiguous," and by this he wants his fellow cult members to believe that those sections really do not mean what they say. Well did Solomon say - "The simple believeth every word." (Prov. 14: 15) It is not doubted that the average cult member will believe everything that their leaders tell them, but Elder Crouse was delusional to think that anyone who looks at the issue honestly and researches the matter would believe him. The words of the old Confession were not "ambiguous" to the original Hardshells and to those who originally wrote the Confession. They are not ambiguous to me, nor are they ambiguous to Elders Tolley, Hanks, Hunt, Garrett, Sarrels, Ivey, nor many other Hardshells who have forsaken the Confession.
Elder Crouse says "Taken as a whole, and properly explained, our ministry has most universally accepted it as a true expression of our faith." "Properly explained"? How is it proper explanation to attempt to "explain away" the clear meaning of the document? The "explantory footnotes," as we shall see, are not "explanations" at all but perversions and distortions and many Hardshells candidly acknowledge this as we have seen.
Crouse cited this from the LBC:
Chapter 7, Section 2: “Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they might be saved, &c.”
Crouse then made these comments upon it.
"Primitive Baptists would not accept this section without explanation. Therefore a footnote was added setting forth our interpretation and calling attention to seven other sections where their teaching clearly shows that they held the same view we do on this point."
What Elder Crouse should have said was - "Primitive Baptists would not accept this section without twisting it to say something else." He admits that he cannot accept what it says. Further, what is "ambiguous" about what the Confession says in the section cited? Where is the "archaic language" that needs "explanation"? The first generation of Hardshells accepted the Confession and did not feel that it needed such "explanations." It was not till the year 1900 that Hardshells felt like the Confession needed to be reworded.
Elder Crouse thinks that the brethren who wrote the old Confession contradicted themselves, that they said things in other sections that showed that they did not mean what they said in the words cited above. But, no where in the Confession do the writers of the Confession say anything that denied what they said here. They believed that sinners are freely offered life and salvation, and this through the proclamation of the Gospel. The section also says that faith is required of sinners "that they might be saved." Basically, what Crouse is saying is - "we can accept what this section says if we can make it say something totally different." Hardshells do not believe that sinners are offered life and salvation! Therefore, they are not in agreement with the Confession and are not "primitive" Baptists.
Crouse continued:
"Thus the reader will see that Primitive Baptists accept the London Confession, ONLY when taken as a whole, and giving to each section that interpretation which the complete Confession demands. It seems strange to us that they would say, “wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation”; but the remainder of the Confession clearly shows that those words did not mean to them what they would, without explanation, mean to us. The most of our American associations and churches in drafting their articles of faith have entirely eliminated this ambiguity and set forth their faith in language so clear that all may easily understand."
Crouse admits that he cannot accept the Confession at face value. He can accept it as changed and when made to say something else. Why doesn't he just admit, like other Hardshells have done, that he does not believe the old Confession? When Crouse says that "most of our American associations and churches...have entirely eliminated this ambiguity," he means that he has rejected what it says and substituted something totally different. What the Fulton document "eliminates" is not "ambiguity" but the actual clear teaching of the Confession. Besides, as I have said, all one has to do is to read the other writings of the London brethren who wrote the old Confession to discern what they meant. It is also to be noted that the new articles of faith that Crouse says the Hardshells wrote did not have anything like what the Confession says. You will not find anything close to the idea that God offers unto sinners life and salvation.
Crouse wrote:
"Since we deny that God regenerates sinners through the means of the ministry and the preached word we are no longer to be considered as Primitive but as “Modern” Baptists...And all our ministers, present and past, whom we considered true Primitives, we are now informed, were only “Modern” Baptists, all because they did not believe that God uses such means in the regeneration of sinners."
Did not Elder John Watson in his "Old Baptist Test" say that those who were beginning to deny the use of means in salvation were "modern innovators"? Would he not know? When Crouse says "all our ministers, present and past, whom we considered true Primitives...did not believe that God uses such means in the regeneration of sinners," the key phrase is "whom we considered true Primitives." It is easy to show how all our Baptist forefathers, prior to the 19th century, believed that God used means in the eternal salvation of the elect, as we have shown in previous chapters and will yet show in future chapters. But, in doing so, all Crouse has to do is to say "we don't consider them true Primitives." But, this will be difficult for him to do. Was Elder John Watson and Elder R. W. Fain not true Primitives? Was Elder John Clark and Elder James Osbourn not true Primitives?
Crouse continued:
"Let me state clearly his line of reasoning:
1. To be a Primitive Baptist one must believe the London Confession, which confession teaches that God uses the gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners.
2. We repudiate that Confession in that we deny that God uses the gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners.
3. Therefore, we are not Primitive Baptists."
This was the "line of reasoning" that Elder Screws made against Crouse and it is the same which I have made throughout this book on the Hardshell Baptist cult. The ancestral line of Hardshell churches were churches that endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of Faith and believed that the Gospel was God's ordained means for calling the elect to life and salvation. But, this is now denied by the Hardshells and therefore they have no right to be deemed to be "primitive" or "original" Baptists. It was because Ivey saw this problem that he sought to find another line of succession than that which goes through the churches who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions. He thought he found it in a "Welsh Succesion," but in this he failed as I have shown in other writings which I will eventually include in this book. Elder Harold Hunt, who I have already cited, also saw that a succession could not be legitimately made through the churches who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions and also sought to find another ancestral line which he thought he found among the "Anabaptists" of England. But, he also failed as I shall show in future chapters wherein I review various Hardshell histories.
Crouse continued:
"To escape that conclusion we MUST prove at least one of the premises to be false. The second we readily acknowledge to be true. We must therefore prove the first false or admit that we are not Primitive Baptists-we must either prove that one does not have to believe the London Confession to be a Primitive, or that the Confession does NOT teach that God uses the gospel as a means in regeneration."
Elder Crouse admits that he repudiates the Confession's belief in means but denies that one must be in agreement with the Confession in order to be deemed a "primitive" or "original" Baptist. The problem that Crouse has is in the fact that his forefathers all attempted to prove their succession by claiming agreement with the old Confession. Crouse chooses, like the Fulton elders, to deny that the old Confession taught means. But, in this he can only convince those Hardshells who will believe anything, the dishonest ones. As I have shown, many Hardshells admit that the Confession teaches the means doctrine. And, anyone not in the cult, and who has no bias, will acknowledge that the Confession clearly teaches the use of means.
Crouse continued:
"But let us apply the syllogism to the Editor:
1. To be a Primitive Baptist one must believe the London Confession, which confession teaches that God does NOT use the gospel as a means in regeneration.
2. The Editor repudiates that Confession in that he teaches that God does use the gospel as a means in regeneration.
3. Therefore, the Editor is NOT a Primitive Baptist."
Elder Crouse is taking the position that the London Confession does not teach the use of means in salvation, as did the Fulton brethren. But, in doing so, he only shows how dishonest he is, and how he is a devoted member of a cult. That the Confession teaches the Gospel means position is clear to any unbiased minds. As I have shown, even many Hardshells acknowledge that the Confession teaches the means doctrine. But, Crouse will not admit it. Is this not typical of the cults? Show them in the Scriptures where their false doctrines are taught against and all they will do is to deny it. Just as cults twist and distort the Scriptures so do the Hardshells twist and distort the London Confession.
Crouse continued:
"I have already shown what Throgmorton said about that Confession. He insisted that he, as a Missionary Baptist minister, was standing on that confession, so far as it relates to the use of the gospel in the regeneration of sinners. And you remember that HE charged Elder Daily with denying that faith. Said he, “In denying my proposition, Brother Daily is out of harmony with the Old Baptist Faith! If he shows that I am wrong in this discussion, he will show that the Old London Confession of 1689, of which his people have boasted so much, is wrong. If he shows that my proposition is wrong, good-bye to the doctrine of the old Baptists. I am here to defend the Old Baptist Faith, as to what is involved in this discussion. Brother Daily is here to oppose it, and to overthrow it, if he can! Will you ‘Old School’ Baptists follow him in this?”"
What could such argumentation prove to anyone? It is only intended to be an argument to those in the Hardshell cult who have made such men as Elder Daily into a cult leader who could not possibly be in error. Crouse assumes that he must be right about the teaching of the old Confession on means because Elder Daily took the position of Elder Crouse! Crouse, rather than using the London Confession as a criterion for judging who is "primitive" uses rather the beliefs of Elder Daily as the criterion! The truth of the matter is, Throgmorton was right about what the Confession taught about means, and many Hardshells agree with Throgmorton.
Crouse continued:
"So you see when these “Original”(?) Baptists charge US with having repudiated the London Confession, and they assure the brethren that in contending for gospel regeneration they are standing on the London Confession and defending Old Baptist Faith, they are only joining hands with Dr. Throgmorton, the Missionary; and they are publishing to the world that Elder John R. Daily and those who stood with him were traitors to Old Baptist Faith and that Throgmorton was faithful and true! The idea of Elder John R. Daily trying to repudiate and destroy Old Baptist Faith, and W. P. Throgmorton weeping and wailing over it, and declaring that Old Baptist faith SHALL NOT be destroyed!
And after thousands of prayers have gone up in thanksgiving to God for such a man as Elder Daily to so ably present and defend our faith, as he did in that discussion; and after thousands of volumes of that published discussion have been circulated in the interests of our cause, these self-styled “Original” Baptists fly to the defense of Throgmorton and declare to the world that he was right and Daily was wrong! And then they ask us to be quiet, that there is no principle involved, that there is no need for a fight, and will be none!"
What baseless argumentation is this from Elder Crouse! The Hardshells are right about the London Confession because John Daily took the position of the Fulton brethren in denying that the London Confession taught the use of means! The Hardshells are right because Throgmorton could not have been right! Elders Hunt and Ivey, two later day "historians" for the Hardshells have both put out books where they say that the London Confession is a "New School" Baptist document in teaching the means doctrine! Seems like they don't agree with either Daily or the Fulton Convention.
Further, thousands of Particular Baptist churches today embrace the London Confession and believe that it teaches means. Are they all deceived about what the Confession plainly says? The ones who wrote the original Confession have shown what they meant by their statements on means by looking at their other writings and yet we are to believe, if Crouse is right, that they really did not mean what they wrote!
Crouse continued:
"As we have said before, if the London Confession does teach that God uses the preached word in regenerating sinners, that is NOT the faith of Primitive Baptists. Primitive Baptists have the right to interpret that Confession for themselves when they adopt it, and they have NEVER so interpreted it."
What an admission! "Primitive Baptists have the right to interpret that Confession for themselves"! They have the right to twist and distort it! I guess they have the same right to interpret the Scriptures in any way they want, regardless of the facts? Do citizens have a right to "interpret" the statutes in any way they want? Do they have a right to misinterpret the writings of others? Frankly, Elder Tolley was right in calling on the Hardshells to write their own confession rather than trying to pretend to believe in the old London Confession. That would have been the more honest thing to do.
Elder Crouse then cites this section from the London Confession:
"Chapter X, Section 1. “Those whom God hath predestinated unto life he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace of salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made most willing by his grace.”
Then he adds these comments:
"Undoubtedly they were here speaking of regeneration or the impartation of eternal life to dead sinners. This is the effectual call, as they say in Section II. This work is done they say conjointly by the Word and Spirit.
They positively mention no other way in which this work is done. So, if by the “Word” they mean the gospel, then where do our brethren who hold that interpretation and harp on the London Confession, find in this section any ground for saying that sinners are ever regenerated without the gospel? Here again they bind themselves to the position that eternal salvation is limited to the scope of the gospel. And it is another rule in logic that whatever proves too much for one’s proposition proves nothing."
Notice that Crouse is not trying to properly explain or interpret the Confession, but trying to find fault with it, trying to argue with it. Crouse gives the impression that the authors of the Confession may not have possibly meant by "the Word" the Gospel or the Scriptures, but could have meant that "the Word" means Christ. But, as Ivey observed, the texts given in the Confession shows that they did not mean Christ but the Gospel. Further, it is not true that the writers of the Confession were saying that all sinners must be called externally by the preaching of the Gospel, for they spoke of the regeneration of infants as being done without it. That is why they spoke of God's ordinary method, in regard to adults who are called and quickened, and God's extraordinary method in regard to infants. Further, they were not denying that even infants attain to faith and enlightenment, but felt that such cases were mysteries of which the Scriptures were silent.
Crouse wrote:
"They must do one of three things, viz.,
1. They must renounce this section of the Confession altogether, or
2. They must deny that the “Word” means the gospel, or
3. They must admit that none can be regenerated where the gospel has not gone."
But, all this is false, as I have already shown. The "Word" does mean the Gospel as the section with its Scriptural references show, and as other sections of the Confession also show. Further, the Confession does say that all, except those who die in infancy, who die without hearing the Gospel are lost, a fact which Elder Hunt acknowledges is the teaching of the Confession.
Crouse continued:
"But this was NOT the meaning of this Section. In the Fulton Meeting, 1900, this footnote was added: “We do not understand that sinners are effectually called by the written word IN ANY SENSE out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation but by Christ, the Word of God. The quickening and renewing of the holy Spirit prepares the sinner to answer the gospel call, as seen in Section 2 (2 Tim. 1: 9; 1 John 4:6).”"
It is not my intention to deal with this false accusation now for I will look at the Fulton footnotes in a separate chapter. However, I will say that the "footnote" does not "explain" anything but simply denies what the Confession plainly says. All the footnotes does is to give their own views on the subject which are in opposition to what the Confession plainly says. Further, many Hardshells are honest enough to admit it and confess that these Hardshell elders are simply trying to "explain away" the teaching of the Confession. At least Elder Hanks in giving his approval of the Confession's parts he could agree with, left out this section.
Crouse continued:
"We all KNOW that they meant by the “Word” the Word which John says was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)-the Word which lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23). “And this is the word,” says Peter, “which by the gospel is preached unto you.” This Word is NOT the gospel. It is the Word which the gospel declares unto us-even the Lord Jesus Christ. By this Word (Christ) ye are born again.
But concerning these footnotes Elder Screws, who claims to be an “original”, says: “In 1900 the Fulton Convention, composed of representatives from nearly all parts of our country, adopted this confession, with some explanatory footnotes, which footnotes are more confusing than explanatory.”"
But, the "Word" of the Confession is not Christ, as Elder Ivey admits, though he praised the Fulton Sanhedrin for their misinterpretations! But, again, we shall have more to say on this later. Further, Elder Screws was correct when he said that the Fulton footnotes were "more confusing than explanatory." Further, would not the numerous writings of the authors of the London Confession not show what they meant by this section?
Crouse continued:
"If the Editor could prove (which he can not) that our representatives erred in their explanation and that the London brethren did mean to teach that sinners are effectually called out of a state of death by the written word he will have established fellowship with London, but NOT with the Primitives of the United States whom our ministers at Fulton represented, nor yet with Christ and the inspired Apostles upon whose teaching our faith is founded."
But, it is an easy thing to prove that the Fulton brethren "erred in their explanation" of the London Confession. All Baptist writers prior to the birth of the Hardshells who discussed this article of the Confession all interpreted it as teaching that God calls by the Gospel or written word of God. Even the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist Church" interpreted it this way. It was not till later in the 19th century that some Hardshells began to say that the Confession really does not mean what it says. Further, as I have said, Elders like Hunt and Ivey who have written extensively on this topic have admitted that the Hardshells cannot claim agreement or succession through the London Baptists.
Crouse continued:
"Let us note other parts of the Confession:
Chapter X, Section 2 “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature co-working with his special grace; the creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, UNTIL, being quickened and renewed by the holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.”
That doesn’t sound much like they thought sinners were regenerated through the ministry and the preached word."
Again, all Crouse is doing is attacking what he perceives to be contradictions in the old Confession. But, the Confession is not contradictory. This section does not contradict the previously cited section. All this section does is to explain what happens in the effectual call. Sinners are brought to "answer this call," this call which they affirm is "by the Gospel," and which causes them to "embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it." Also, it is again clear that they believe that grace, life, and salvation are "offered and conveyed" through the Gospel call. Nothing could be plainer. There is no "archaic" or "ambiguous" language here. Crouse tries to make an argument on the fact that the article seems to teach that one is quickened or regenerated before answering the call, but the article is not affirming that any who are called do not instantly answer the call and believe the Gospel. The authors associate the "calling" with the "offering" and one cannot be said to be "called" unless he has answered the call, and one canot be said to have obtained what is offered until he has willingly received it. They certainly did not believe that any were "effectually" called until the call effected an answer.
Crouse continued:
"We call special attention to this section. Here is the “effectual” call; the call from death to life. This is regeneration. FIRST there must be life imparted by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead; then there is the outflow, the effect, the “answer” as they call it, and the laying hold upon or embracing of the grace or promises of God. And in this outflow is to be found all the Christian graces, faith, love and everything else. The preached word may and often does manifest, increase and develop these graces, but the preached word has no more to do in this work of quickening the dead than it had with raising Christ from the grave. The ONLY agency or means mentioned in this work is the Holy Spirit; and as to any avenue or channel or medium through which or by which the Holy Spirit flowed into the soul to accomplish this Work they are as silent as the grave. Now note that in the fourth section, which we will quote, they turn to the gospel call-the call by the ministry of the word, and note carefully how clearly they distinguish between the effectual call and the gospel call-how separate and distinct they are from each other, and that the gospel call is wholly ineffective UNTIL the sinner is made alive; and to be made alive is to be regenerated.
Section 4: “Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit; yet, not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ.”"
Again, Crouse thinks that the Confession teaches that regeneration precedes faith and conversion, and that the authors of it believed that people can be regenerated who are not converted. Yet, this is clearly not what they are saying as the rest of the Confession makes clear, a fact even acknowledged by Elder Hunt who confessed that they taught that one had to believe the Gospel or burn in Hell. All this section of the Confession is making clear is that the authors of the Confession did not believe that the "word alone" was sufficient to effectually call or quicken anyone. But, they also did not believe that this work was by the "Spirital alone." They rejected what would later be known as Campbellism (word alone) and Hardshellism (Spirit alone). Certainly they made a distinction between the "word" and "Spirit."
Crouse continued:
"To this section our representatives at Fulton added the following footnote: “We understand for man to be spiritually profited by the gospel he must have been born of God and made partaker of his divine nature, and by the words ‘common operations of the Spirit’ is understood as teaching that the gospel has an enlightening and moral influence upon all rational men.”
We would not need to tell our readers that this is Primitive Baptist doctrine."
But, this is nothing but a willful misrepresentation of the words of the Confession. I will deal with it at length when we examine the Fulton footnotes in greater detail. How the Hardshell elders in Fulton "understood" the Confession is no argument at all, for they operated from a clear bias, and were not honest with the Confession, a fact which many Hardshells acknowledge. Again, even if we admit that they argued for a logical priority of regeneration preceding conversion, as do many "Reformed" writers today, such as James White, it does not argue that they believed in any chronological order, or that they believed that any were effectively called who were not converted. What they were saying was that the word alone was of no effectiveness apart from the work of the Spirit.
Crouse wrote:
"Our people WILL NOT accept this doctrine. They WILL NOT fellowship nor condone it."
Yes, we know this, but they ought to be honest, as the elders I have cited have been, and admit that the London Confession does not support the view of the Hardshells, which view says that many are "regenerated" who are still heathens, who are still believers in other gods and religions other than the Christian. The Fulton brethren would have been better off to have done as Hanks and simply omitted those sections of the old Confession that they did not agree with, and then endorsed those parts which they could have endorsed. They had every right to write their own confession, but they had no right to twist and distort the meaning of the Confession to suit their own ill designs. In doing so they showed themselves to be dishonest men and members of a cult.
Crouse next cites this section of the Confession:
Chapter XIV, Section 1: “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word.”
He then responds:
"We will examine this section carefully presently, but first let us notice the position of our means brethren. If this section teaches what they would have us believe that regeneration is by the ministry of the word, then we draw the following conclusion, and challenge successful contradiction:
First: Faith and belief MUST precede regeneration."
But, this is all a false analysis. The view of the London brethren was that conversion and regeneration were synonymous or concurrent. They were teaching that where there is regeneration, there is faith in Christ, and vice versa. They did not believe that one could define salvation, effectual calling, new birth, or regeneration, by the causes alone but also by the effects.
Crouse continued:
"Whatever is meant by the expression “to the saving of their souls” follows and is dependent upon faith and belief."
"Whatever is meant by 'to the saving of their souls'? Only a Hardshell would question what such an expression means. Is Crouse implying that the London brethren believed in the later Hardshell novel invention of "time salvation"? Where is his proof for insinuating such an idea? The Confession confesses in several sections that faith in Christ and in the Gospel is necessary for being eternally saved, a fact which Elder Hunt and other later Hardshell elders admit. Further, the founding fathers of Hardshellism also confess that faith in Christ via the Gospel is required of every adult sinner.
Crouse continued:
"An unregenerate sinner is dead in sins-destitute of eternal life. He is in the flesh-carnal- sold under sin. In this condition he must exercise faith and belief, if faith and belief precede regeneration. But the Bible teaches us that faith is a fruit of the Spirit and that those who have the Spirit are children of God. It also teaches us that he that behieveth IS born of God, and that they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
In these words of Crouse, he is not "explaining" the Confession but arguing against it! Why would he need to argue against it if it was actually teaching what he believed? Further, if for the sake of argument we admit that the London brethren were Hardshells and did not believe in the means doctrine, could they not have clearly said so? Would they have left any doubt? Further, the arguments that Crouse offers to rebut the teaching of the Confession and of the Scriptures have been answered by me in previous chapters of this book. He refers to I John 5: 1 that says "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." But, is this what Hardshells believe? Do they not believe that many who are not believers in Christ are likewise "born of God"? The words of John deny that any who is not a Christian is born of God. I have already dealt at length with this argument in previous chapters and simply refer the reader to those chapters for a more complete rebuttal of Crouse's argument.
In chapter three of "Regeneration," written by Elder W.H. Crouse, published in 1928, Elder Crouse attempts to defend the "anti-means" side against those of the "means" side from both Scripture and Baptist history. His main antagonist was Elder Screws of the "Progressive" faction. You can read the entire work here.
Crouse wrote:
"Much has been said about the London Confession of faith. It was written by a number of English Baptist ministers in 1689. Their manner of expression was quite different from ours. In so long a time language has naturally undergone some change. Some sections, standing alone, seem ambiguous. These sections, separated from the remainder of the Confession, and without explanation, have never been accepted by American Primitive Baptists as clearly and correctly expressing their faith. Taken as a whole, and properly explained, our ministry has most universally accepted it as a true expression of our faith. That there might be no misunderstanding in reference to its teaching the meeting at Fulton, Ky., in 1900, added explanatory footnotes. To illustrate let us notice a few sections."
Elder Crouse wrote his work as a result of controversy with some Hardshells in the 1920s who were returning to the teaching of the London Confession regarding God's use of means in salvation, a phenomenon that is even now occurring in a limited way among today's Hardshells. Some in the Progressive wing of the "Primitive Baptist Church," such as Elder Screws, were giving historical proof for the contention that the denial of means by the Hardshells was a modern innovation, just as Elder Watson had affirmed in his book "The Old Baptist Test." (1866) Elder Crouse attempted to rebut all the historical evidence that was against him on this point and one of those proofs was the London Confession of Faith.
Elder Crouse admits that some sections of the Confession, read by itself, teaches against the Hardshell anti-means position and that such sections "have never been accepted by American Primitive Baptists." Yet, this is clearly not the case. Most of the first generation Hardshell leaders believed in means in the new birth and eternal salvation, men such as Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, Hosea Preslar, John Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, James Osbourn, Daniel Jewett, etc. Also, the fact that there was a division in the 1880s over this issue shows that even at that date many Hardshells and Regular Baptists still believed in means.
Elder Crouse says that those sections which teach means are "ambiguous," and by this he wants his fellow cult members to believe that those sections really do not mean what they say. Well did Solomon say - "The simple believeth every word." (Prov. 14: 15) It is not doubted that the average cult member will believe everything that their leaders tell them, but Elder Crouse was delusional to think that anyone who looks at the issue honestly and researches the matter would believe him. The words of the old Confession were not "ambiguous" to the original Hardshells and to those who originally wrote the Confession. They are not ambiguous to me, nor are they ambiguous to Elders Tolley, Hanks, Hunt, Garrett, Sarrels, Ivey, nor many other Hardshells who have forsaken the Confession.
Elder Crouse says "Taken as a whole, and properly explained, our ministry has most universally accepted it as a true expression of our faith." "Properly explained"? How is it proper explanation to attempt to "explain away" the clear meaning of the document? The "explantory footnotes," as we shall see, are not "explanations" at all but perversions and distortions and many Hardshells candidly acknowledge this as we have seen.
Crouse cited this from the LBC:
Chapter 7, Section 2: “Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they might be saved, &c.”
Crouse then made these comments upon it.
"Primitive Baptists would not accept this section without explanation. Therefore a footnote was added setting forth our interpretation and calling attention to seven other sections where their teaching clearly shows that they held the same view we do on this point."
What Elder Crouse should have said was - "Primitive Baptists would not accept this section without twisting it to say something else." He admits that he cannot accept what it says. Further, what is "ambiguous" about what the Confession says in the section cited? Where is the "archaic language" that needs "explanation"? The first generation of Hardshells accepted the Confession and did not feel that it needed such "explanations." It was not till the year 1900 that Hardshells felt like the Confession needed to be reworded.
Elder Crouse thinks that the brethren who wrote the old Confession contradicted themselves, that they said things in other sections that showed that they did not mean what they said in the words cited above. But, no where in the Confession do the writers of the Confession say anything that denied what they said here. They believed that sinners are freely offered life and salvation, and this through the proclamation of the Gospel. The section also says that faith is required of sinners "that they might be saved." Basically, what Crouse is saying is - "we can accept what this section says if we can make it say something totally different." Hardshells do not believe that sinners are offered life and salvation! Therefore, they are not in agreement with the Confession and are not "primitive" Baptists.
Crouse continued:
"Thus the reader will see that Primitive Baptists accept the London Confession, ONLY when taken as a whole, and giving to each section that interpretation which the complete Confession demands. It seems strange to us that they would say, “wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation”; but the remainder of the Confession clearly shows that those words did not mean to them what they would, without explanation, mean to us. The most of our American associations and churches in drafting their articles of faith have entirely eliminated this ambiguity and set forth their faith in language so clear that all may easily understand."
Crouse admits that he cannot accept the Confession at face value. He can accept it as changed and when made to say something else. Why doesn't he just admit, like other Hardshells have done, that he does not believe the old Confession? When Crouse says that "most of our American associations and churches...have entirely eliminated this ambiguity," he means that he has rejected what it says and substituted something totally different. What the Fulton document "eliminates" is not "ambiguity" but the actual clear teaching of the Confession. Besides, as I have said, all one has to do is to read the other writings of the London brethren who wrote the old Confession to discern what they meant. It is also to be noted that the new articles of faith that Crouse says the Hardshells wrote did not have anything like what the Confession says. You will not find anything close to the idea that God offers unto sinners life and salvation.
Crouse wrote:
"Since we deny that God regenerates sinners through the means of the ministry and the preached word we are no longer to be considered as Primitive but as “Modern” Baptists...And all our ministers, present and past, whom we considered true Primitives, we are now informed, were only “Modern” Baptists, all because they did not believe that God uses such means in the regeneration of sinners."
Did not Elder John Watson in his "Old Baptist Test" say that those who were beginning to deny the use of means in salvation were "modern innovators"? Would he not know? When Crouse says "all our ministers, present and past, whom we considered true Primitives...did not believe that God uses such means in the regeneration of sinners," the key phrase is "whom we considered true Primitives." It is easy to show how all our Baptist forefathers, prior to the 19th century, believed that God used means in the eternal salvation of the elect, as we have shown in previous chapters and will yet show in future chapters. But, in doing so, all Crouse has to do is to say "we don't consider them true Primitives." But, this will be difficult for him to do. Was Elder John Watson and Elder R. W. Fain not true Primitives? Was Elder John Clark and Elder James Osbourn not true Primitives?
Crouse continued:
"Let me state clearly his line of reasoning:
1. To be a Primitive Baptist one must believe the London Confession, which confession teaches that God uses the gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners.
2. We repudiate that Confession in that we deny that God uses the gospel as a means in the regeneration of sinners.
3. Therefore, we are not Primitive Baptists."
This was the "line of reasoning" that Elder Screws made against Crouse and it is the same which I have made throughout this book on the Hardshell Baptist cult. The ancestral line of Hardshell churches were churches that endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of Faith and believed that the Gospel was God's ordained means for calling the elect to life and salvation. But, this is now denied by the Hardshells and therefore they have no right to be deemed to be "primitive" or "original" Baptists. It was because Ivey saw this problem that he sought to find another line of succession than that which goes through the churches who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions. He thought he found it in a "Welsh Succesion," but in this he failed as I have shown in other writings which I will eventually include in this book. Elder Harold Hunt, who I have already cited, also saw that a succession could not be legitimately made through the churches who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions and also sought to find another ancestral line which he thought he found among the "Anabaptists" of England. But, he also failed as I shall show in future chapters wherein I review various Hardshell histories.
Crouse continued:
"To escape that conclusion we MUST prove at least one of the premises to be false. The second we readily acknowledge to be true. We must therefore prove the first false or admit that we are not Primitive Baptists-we must either prove that one does not have to believe the London Confession to be a Primitive, or that the Confession does NOT teach that God uses the gospel as a means in regeneration."
Elder Crouse admits that he repudiates the Confession's belief in means but denies that one must be in agreement with the Confession in order to be deemed a "primitive" or "original" Baptist. The problem that Crouse has is in the fact that his forefathers all attempted to prove their succession by claiming agreement with the old Confession. Crouse chooses, like the Fulton elders, to deny that the old Confession taught means. But, in this he can only convince those Hardshells who will believe anything, the dishonest ones. As I have shown, many Hardshells admit that the Confession teaches the means doctrine. And, anyone not in the cult, and who has no bias, will acknowledge that the Confession clearly teaches the use of means.
Crouse continued:
"But let us apply the syllogism to the Editor:
1. To be a Primitive Baptist one must believe the London Confession, which confession teaches that God does NOT use the gospel as a means in regeneration.
2. The Editor repudiates that Confession in that he teaches that God does use the gospel as a means in regeneration.
3. Therefore, the Editor is NOT a Primitive Baptist."
Elder Crouse is taking the position that the London Confession does not teach the use of means in salvation, as did the Fulton brethren. But, in doing so, he only shows how dishonest he is, and how he is a devoted member of a cult. That the Confession teaches the Gospel means position is clear to any unbiased minds. As I have shown, even many Hardshells acknowledge that the Confession teaches the means doctrine. But, Crouse will not admit it. Is this not typical of the cults? Show them in the Scriptures where their false doctrines are taught against and all they will do is to deny it. Just as cults twist and distort the Scriptures so do the Hardshells twist and distort the London Confession.
Crouse continued:
"I have already shown what Throgmorton said about that Confession. He insisted that he, as a Missionary Baptist minister, was standing on that confession, so far as it relates to the use of the gospel in the regeneration of sinners. And you remember that HE charged Elder Daily with denying that faith. Said he, “In denying my proposition, Brother Daily is out of harmony with the Old Baptist Faith! If he shows that I am wrong in this discussion, he will show that the Old London Confession of 1689, of which his people have boasted so much, is wrong. If he shows that my proposition is wrong, good-bye to the doctrine of the old Baptists. I am here to defend the Old Baptist Faith, as to what is involved in this discussion. Brother Daily is here to oppose it, and to overthrow it, if he can! Will you ‘Old School’ Baptists follow him in this?”"
What could such argumentation prove to anyone? It is only intended to be an argument to those in the Hardshell cult who have made such men as Elder Daily into a cult leader who could not possibly be in error. Crouse assumes that he must be right about the teaching of the old Confession on means because Elder Daily took the position of Elder Crouse! Crouse, rather than using the London Confession as a criterion for judging who is "primitive" uses rather the beliefs of Elder Daily as the criterion! The truth of the matter is, Throgmorton was right about what the Confession taught about means, and many Hardshells agree with Throgmorton.
Crouse continued:
"So you see when these “Original”(?) Baptists charge US with having repudiated the London Confession, and they assure the brethren that in contending for gospel regeneration they are standing on the London Confession and defending Old Baptist Faith, they are only joining hands with Dr. Throgmorton, the Missionary; and they are publishing to the world that Elder John R. Daily and those who stood with him were traitors to Old Baptist Faith and that Throgmorton was faithful and true! The idea of Elder John R. Daily trying to repudiate and destroy Old Baptist Faith, and W. P. Throgmorton weeping and wailing over it, and declaring that Old Baptist faith SHALL NOT be destroyed!
And after thousands of prayers have gone up in thanksgiving to God for such a man as Elder Daily to so ably present and defend our faith, as he did in that discussion; and after thousands of volumes of that published discussion have been circulated in the interests of our cause, these self-styled “Original” Baptists fly to the defense of Throgmorton and declare to the world that he was right and Daily was wrong! And then they ask us to be quiet, that there is no principle involved, that there is no need for a fight, and will be none!"
What baseless argumentation is this from Elder Crouse! The Hardshells are right about the London Confession because John Daily took the position of the Fulton brethren in denying that the London Confession taught the use of means! The Hardshells are right because Throgmorton could not have been right! Elders Hunt and Ivey, two later day "historians" for the Hardshells have both put out books where they say that the London Confession is a "New School" Baptist document in teaching the means doctrine! Seems like they don't agree with either Daily or the Fulton Convention.
Further, thousands of Particular Baptist churches today embrace the London Confession and believe that it teaches means. Are they all deceived about what the Confession plainly says? The ones who wrote the original Confession have shown what they meant by their statements on means by looking at their other writings and yet we are to believe, if Crouse is right, that they really did not mean what they wrote!
Crouse continued:
"As we have said before, if the London Confession does teach that God uses the preached word in regenerating sinners, that is NOT the faith of Primitive Baptists. Primitive Baptists have the right to interpret that Confession for themselves when they adopt it, and they have NEVER so interpreted it."
What an admission! "Primitive Baptists have the right to interpret that Confession for themselves"! They have the right to twist and distort it! I guess they have the same right to interpret the Scriptures in any way they want, regardless of the facts? Do citizens have a right to "interpret" the statutes in any way they want? Do they have a right to misinterpret the writings of others? Frankly, Elder Tolley was right in calling on the Hardshells to write their own confession rather than trying to pretend to believe in the old London Confession. That would have been the more honest thing to do.
Elder Crouse then cites this section from the London Confession:
"Chapter X, Section 1. “Those whom God hath predestinated unto life he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace of salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made most willing by his grace.”
Then he adds these comments:
"Undoubtedly they were here speaking of regeneration or the impartation of eternal life to dead sinners. This is the effectual call, as they say in Section II. This work is done they say conjointly by the Word and Spirit.
They positively mention no other way in which this work is done. So, if by the “Word” they mean the gospel, then where do our brethren who hold that interpretation and harp on the London Confession, find in this section any ground for saying that sinners are ever regenerated without the gospel? Here again they bind themselves to the position that eternal salvation is limited to the scope of the gospel. And it is another rule in logic that whatever proves too much for one’s proposition proves nothing."
Notice that Crouse is not trying to properly explain or interpret the Confession, but trying to find fault with it, trying to argue with it. Crouse gives the impression that the authors of the Confession may not have possibly meant by "the Word" the Gospel or the Scriptures, but could have meant that "the Word" means Christ. But, as Ivey observed, the texts given in the Confession shows that they did not mean Christ but the Gospel. Further, it is not true that the writers of the Confession were saying that all sinners must be called externally by the preaching of the Gospel, for they spoke of the regeneration of infants as being done without it. That is why they spoke of God's ordinary method, in regard to adults who are called and quickened, and God's extraordinary method in regard to infants. Further, they were not denying that even infants attain to faith and enlightenment, but felt that such cases were mysteries of which the Scriptures were silent.
Crouse wrote:
"They must do one of three things, viz.,
1. They must renounce this section of the Confession altogether, or
2. They must deny that the “Word” means the gospel, or
3. They must admit that none can be regenerated where the gospel has not gone."
But, all this is false, as I have already shown. The "Word" does mean the Gospel as the section with its Scriptural references show, and as other sections of the Confession also show. Further, the Confession does say that all, except those who die in infancy, who die without hearing the Gospel are lost, a fact which Elder Hunt acknowledges is the teaching of the Confession.
Crouse continued:
"But this was NOT the meaning of this Section. In the Fulton Meeting, 1900, this footnote was added: “We do not understand that sinners are effectually called by the written word IN ANY SENSE out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation but by Christ, the Word of God. The quickening and renewing of the holy Spirit prepares the sinner to answer the gospel call, as seen in Section 2 (2 Tim. 1: 9; 1 John 4:6).”"
It is not my intention to deal with this false accusation now for I will look at the Fulton footnotes in a separate chapter. However, I will say that the "footnote" does not "explain" anything but simply denies what the Confession plainly says. All the footnotes does is to give their own views on the subject which are in opposition to what the Confession plainly says. Further, many Hardshells are honest enough to admit it and confess that these Hardshell elders are simply trying to "explain away" the teaching of the Confession. At least Elder Hanks in giving his approval of the Confession's parts he could agree with, left out this section.
Crouse continued:
"We all KNOW that they meant by the “Word” the Word which John says was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)-the Word which lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23). “And this is the word,” says Peter, “which by the gospel is preached unto you.” This Word is NOT the gospel. It is the Word which the gospel declares unto us-even the Lord Jesus Christ. By this Word (Christ) ye are born again.
But concerning these footnotes Elder Screws, who claims to be an “original”, says: “In 1900 the Fulton Convention, composed of representatives from nearly all parts of our country, adopted this confession, with some explanatory footnotes, which footnotes are more confusing than explanatory.”"
But, the "Word" of the Confession is not Christ, as Elder Ivey admits, though he praised the Fulton Sanhedrin for their misinterpretations! But, again, we shall have more to say on this later. Further, Elder Screws was correct when he said that the Fulton footnotes were "more confusing than explanatory." Further, would not the numerous writings of the authors of the London Confession not show what they meant by this section?
Crouse continued:
"If the Editor could prove (which he can not) that our representatives erred in their explanation and that the London brethren did mean to teach that sinners are effectually called out of a state of death by the written word he will have established fellowship with London, but NOT with the Primitives of the United States whom our ministers at Fulton represented, nor yet with Christ and the inspired Apostles upon whose teaching our faith is founded."
But, it is an easy thing to prove that the Fulton brethren "erred in their explanation" of the London Confession. All Baptist writers prior to the birth of the Hardshells who discussed this article of the Confession all interpreted it as teaching that God calls by the Gospel or written word of God. Even the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist Church" interpreted it this way. It was not till later in the 19th century that some Hardshells began to say that the Confession really does not mean what it says. Further, as I have said, Elders like Hunt and Ivey who have written extensively on this topic have admitted that the Hardshells cannot claim agreement or succession through the London Baptists.
Crouse continued:
"Let us note other parts of the Confession:
Chapter X, Section 2 “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature co-working with his special grace; the creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, UNTIL, being quickened and renewed by the holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.”
That doesn’t sound much like they thought sinners were regenerated through the ministry and the preached word."
Again, all Crouse is doing is attacking what he perceives to be contradictions in the old Confession. But, the Confession is not contradictory. This section does not contradict the previously cited section. All this section does is to explain what happens in the effectual call. Sinners are brought to "answer this call," this call which they affirm is "by the Gospel," and which causes them to "embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it." Also, it is again clear that they believe that grace, life, and salvation are "offered and conveyed" through the Gospel call. Nothing could be plainer. There is no "archaic" or "ambiguous" language here. Crouse tries to make an argument on the fact that the article seems to teach that one is quickened or regenerated before answering the call, but the article is not affirming that any who are called do not instantly answer the call and believe the Gospel. The authors associate the "calling" with the "offering" and one cannot be said to be "called" unless he has answered the call, and one canot be said to have obtained what is offered until he has willingly received it. They certainly did not believe that any were "effectually" called until the call effected an answer.
Crouse continued:
"We call special attention to this section. Here is the “effectual” call; the call from death to life. This is regeneration. FIRST there must be life imparted by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead; then there is the outflow, the effect, the “answer” as they call it, and the laying hold upon or embracing of the grace or promises of God. And in this outflow is to be found all the Christian graces, faith, love and everything else. The preached word may and often does manifest, increase and develop these graces, but the preached word has no more to do in this work of quickening the dead than it had with raising Christ from the grave. The ONLY agency or means mentioned in this work is the Holy Spirit; and as to any avenue or channel or medium through which or by which the Holy Spirit flowed into the soul to accomplish this Work they are as silent as the grave. Now note that in the fourth section, which we will quote, they turn to the gospel call-the call by the ministry of the word, and note carefully how clearly they distinguish between the effectual call and the gospel call-how separate and distinct they are from each other, and that the gospel call is wholly ineffective UNTIL the sinner is made alive; and to be made alive is to be regenerated.
Section 4: “Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit; yet, not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ.”"
Again, Crouse thinks that the Confession teaches that regeneration precedes faith and conversion, and that the authors of it believed that people can be regenerated who are not converted. Yet, this is clearly not what they are saying as the rest of the Confession makes clear, a fact even acknowledged by Elder Hunt who confessed that they taught that one had to believe the Gospel or burn in Hell. All this section of the Confession is making clear is that the authors of the Confession did not believe that the "word alone" was sufficient to effectually call or quicken anyone. But, they also did not believe that this work was by the "Spirital alone." They rejected what would later be known as Campbellism (word alone) and Hardshellism (Spirit alone). Certainly they made a distinction between the "word" and "Spirit."
Crouse continued:
"To this section our representatives at Fulton added the following footnote: “We understand for man to be spiritually profited by the gospel he must have been born of God and made partaker of his divine nature, and by the words ‘common operations of the Spirit’ is understood as teaching that the gospel has an enlightening and moral influence upon all rational men.”
We would not need to tell our readers that this is Primitive Baptist doctrine."
But, this is nothing but a willful misrepresentation of the words of the Confession. I will deal with it at length when we examine the Fulton footnotes in greater detail. How the Hardshell elders in Fulton "understood" the Confession is no argument at all, for they operated from a clear bias, and were not honest with the Confession, a fact which many Hardshells acknowledge. Again, even if we admit that they argued for a logical priority of regeneration preceding conversion, as do many "Reformed" writers today, such as James White, it does not argue that they believed in any chronological order, or that they believed that any were effectively called who were not converted. What they were saying was that the word alone was of no effectiveness apart from the work of the Spirit.
Crouse wrote:
"Our people WILL NOT accept this doctrine. They WILL NOT fellowship nor condone it."
Yes, we know this, but they ought to be honest, as the elders I have cited have been, and admit that the London Confession does not support the view of the Hardshells, which view says that many are "regenerated" who are still heathens, who are still believers in other gods and religions other than the Christian. The Fulton brethren would have been better off to have done as Hanks and simply omitted those sections of the old Confession that they did not agree with, and then endorsed those parts which they could have endorsed. They had every right to write their own confession, but they had no right to twist and distort the meaning of the Confession to suit their own ill designs. In doing so they showed themselves to be dishonest men and members of a cult.
Crouse next cites this section of the Confession:
Chapter XIV, Section 1: “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word.”
He then responds:
"We will examine this section carefully presently, but first let us notice the position of our means brethren. If this section teaches what they would have us believe that regeneration is by the ministry of the word, then we draw the following conclusion, and challenge successful contradiction:
First: Faith and belief MUST precede regeneration."
But, this is all a false analysis. The view of the London brethren was that conversion and regeneration were synonymous or concurrent. They were teaching that where there is regeneration, there is faith in Christ, and vice versa. They did not believe that one could define salvation, effectual calling, new birth, or regeneration, by the causes alone but also by the effects.
Crouse continued:
"Whatever is meant by the expression “to the saving of their souls” follows and is dependent upon faith and belief."
"Whatever is meant by 'to the saving of their souls'? Only a Hardshell would question what such an expression means. Is Crouse implying that the London brethren believed in the later Hardshell novel invention of "time salvation"? Where is his proof for insinuating such an idea? The Confession confesses in several sections that faith in Christ and in the Gospel is necessary for being eternally saved, a fact which Elder Hunt and other later Hardshell elders admit. Further, the founding fathers of Hardshellism also confess that faith in Christ via the Gospel is required of every adult sinner.
Crouse continued:
"An unregenerate sinner is dead in sins-destitute of eternal life. He is in the flesh-carnal- sold under sin. In this condition he must exercise faith and belief, if faith and belief precede regeneration. But the Bible teaches us that faith is a fruit of the Spirit and that those who have the Spirit are children of God. It also teaches us that he that behieveth IS born of God, and that they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
In these words of Crouse, he is not "explaining" the Confession but arguing against it! Why would he need to argue against it if it was actually teaching what he believed? Further, if for the sake of argument we admit that the London brethren were Hardshells and did not believe in the means doctrine, could they not have clearly said so? Would they have left any doubt? Further, the arguments that Crouse offers to rebut the teaching of the Confession and of the Scriptures have been answered by me in previous chapters of this book. He refers to I John 5: 1 that says "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." But, is this what Hardshells believe? Do they not believe that many who are not believers in Christ are likewise "born of God"? The words of John deny that any who is not a Christian is born of God. I have already dealt at length with this argument in previous chapters and simply refer the reader to those chapters for a more complete rebuttal of Crouse's argument.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Hardshells & the London Confession II
Chapter 127
In the previous chapter it was noted how the Hardshells have been divided over the London Confession of faith. Historically, it was adherence to this Confession that the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist Church" claimed to be the original Baptist church. It was also shown how it was due to a departure from the teachings of the Confession regarding the absolute predestination of all things and of God's use of the Gospel in the salvation of the elect that led later generations to either twist and distort the Confession's teaching on those topics or to disregard it altogether and to admit that it does not teach basic Hardshell views. The Fulton Confession was an attempt to justify the historic adherence to the Confession by denying that it taught absolute predestination of all things and the means position. However, it was a failure, as Elder Hunt confessed, for the Confession clearly teaches those doctrines, a fact which many other Hardshells have frankly, though reluctantly, admitted. In this chapter we will continue to cite from leading Hardshell writers for proof of this.
Ivey continued (emphasis mine - SG):
"Elder Cox's appendix suggests that in 1646 not all Particulars Baptists embraced certain principles of Calvinism. But, adoption of the overtly Calvinistic tenets of the 1689 Confession indicates if dissenting arguments were presented at the general conference, they were not publicly acknowledged. Inclusion of Chapter Ten, parts one and three, which deals with gospel instrumentality in the effectual call, and Chapter fourteen, part one, which describes saving faith through a concert of divine impartation and rational belief of the gospel, together with supporting scriptural references, all serve to demonstrate the commitment the conferees had to Calvin's doctrine. By expressing the heart of Calvin's theory of regeneration in their Confession they moved away from those brethren who held to primitive faith. This tends to indicate the theology of the 1689 Confession went beyond political expediency and embraced conscience. These brethren were Calvinists with regard to Gospel agency. It must be assumed they heartily believed what they wrote into their Confession."
Thus, Ivey agrees with Hanks, Tolley, Garrett, Sarrels, Hunt, and others, that the London Confession teaches the Gospel means position.
In the forward to Ivey's work, he wrote:
"This book began as a simple desire to understand a seeming inconsistency which I believed existed in Primitive Baptist history relative to the question of our succession as Christ's church. I could not resolve the differences I perceive between Primitive Baptist Confessions of Faith and the 1689 London Confession of Faith. I heard various arguments relating to differences in language, but did not accept them because the King James Version of the Bible is written in the same language and is readily understandable. I was given an explanation that the London brethren were attempting to escape persecution and so, wrote an "acceptable" confession. This did not seem to make sense to me since the church has always been a dissenting body from popular religion and always suffered persecution for her convictions. It did not seem reasonable that men who came to Baptist conviction knowing full well the persecution they must suffer would suddenly lay their convictions aside to avoid persecution. My problem with resolving the language of the London Confession to Primitive Baptist faith was centered around the concepts of saving faith, and gospel agency as it is described in Articles 10 and 14 of the 1689 edition."
Ivey acknowledges that the Hardshells have a problem with the fact that the London Confession has been historically adopted by the "Primitive Baptist Church" as proof that they had a succession to Baptists of former centuries and were therefore not a new denomination. The insurmountable difficulty is, however, that what the Confession teaches on Gospel instrumentality is opposed to Hardshell views. He then states what has been one of the ways that his forefathers dealt with this problem. He gives the response of those who wrote the foreward to the Fulton Confession wherein they sought to convince others that the old Confession did not really teach the Gospel means position, but only seems to do so, and that the reason why it only seemed to do so was because of the old English in which it was written. Ivey rejects this line of reasoning and so should all others. Ivey also gives another justification of the Hardshells in response to their historic acceptance of the Confession, a Confession which teaches contrary to Hardshell views. He says that some Hardshells claim that the signers of the Confession really did not believe in Gospel means, even though the Confession says that they did. Ivey rejects this position also for he saw that the signers of the Confession were not dishonest men or men who would lie about their beliefs (as charged by some Hardshells) through fear of persecution.
The articles of the Confession that Ivey confesses are not in keeping with Hardshell beliefs are cited by him. He says:
"In part these articles state:
Article 10, Part 1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, he is pleased, in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace.
Article 14, Part 1. The Grace of Faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the Ministry of the Word; by which also and by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other means appointed of God, it is increased, and strengthened."
In response, Ivey writes:
"The archaic language and punctuation of the London Confession, to some measure, leaves the meanings of the these articles open to interpretations. However, inclusion of proof texts seem to indicate the London brethren believed in gospel agency, or instrumentality, in regeneration. Particularly, the use of II Thessalonians 2:13-14 as a proof text for Article 10 led me to conclude the authors believed that gospel utility includes its employment as a verbal instrument of effectual calling in regeneration. In addition, the use of Romans 10:14-17 to define the Ministry of the Word in Article 14 caused me to believe they were writing of the preached word, despite the use of capital punctuation. If I understand what they wrote, it is: The divine influence of faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe and thereby save their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily produced by the agency of the preached word."
There is no "archaic language" in the London Confession. That is what some Hardshells want others to believe so that they can get them to believe that the Confession does not really say what it says. Ivey is honest enough to acknowledge that the Confession's statements, as cited above, do in fact teach that God saves his people through the preaching of the Gospel.
Ivey continued:
"My perplexity concerning the meanings of these articles was heightened when I read a copy of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith. I discovered the language of Article 10, parts 1 and 3 in the two Confessions is identical. Also, I found the only difference in the language of Article 14, part 1 is the London Confession substituted the phrase, "by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other Means appointed of God" for the Westminster phrase "by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer." Apparently, the only hesitance the Particular Baptists had with this part of the article of the Westminster Confession was the latter's reference to baptism and the Lord's supper as sacraments. The only other difference I found was incidental punctuation and capitalization. At first, I thought capitalization had some significance, but upon closer review I discovered the original transcript of the London Confession used capitalization indiscriminately. Therefore, I was unable to determine any significance for capitalized words."
Ivey, like other Hardshells, find it impossible to honestly accept the reasoning of the elders who wrote the foreward and reworked the old London Confession in Fulton, Kentucky. Ivey knows that the Confession's words unmistakedly teach the Gospel means position. He also rejects the twisting of some Hardshells who argue that "the Word" by which men are effectually called is not the Gospel, is Christ, because "Word" is capitalized in the Confession. He shows that this is no proof for the Confession made frequent use of capitalization. He also sees that the texts the Confession refers to for proof of their affirmations shows that they meant the Gospel or the Scriptures by their use of "the Word."
Ivey continued:
"Knowing that Presbyterian Calvinism teaches a principle of gospel agency in regeneration using the same two articles to set forth their position, I became convinced the early Particular Baptists also must have believed the same."
Ivey sees several reasons why it cannot be denied that the Confession taught the Gospel means position. He cannot bring himself to accept the premises of the Fulton Convention whereby they sought to pervert the words and intention of the authors of the London Confession. Ivey is simply saying what many other Hardshells, like the elders I have already cited, have also reluctantly confessed. When I was a Hardshell elder and read the old Confession, there was no doubt in my mind about what they taught. I also was forced to affirm what Sarrels and Hunt confessed about the authors of the Fulton Confession. They were attempting to "explain away" the Confession's clear teachings, a "literary effort of TORTURING of language," and to "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY."
Ivey continued:
"As I continued to ponder these things, it came to my attention that certain brethren, who no doubt are struggling with these same questions, are teaching gospel agency in regeneration and citing an historic perspective of church succession through the Particular Baptists as a point to support their theology. Simply put, they assert Primitive Baptists abandoned their true beliefs in the 19th century, claiming that until then all orthodox churches subscribed to the tenets of the 1689 London Confession of Faith. They reason abandonment of the London Confession occurred gradually through minor deviations in theology, which developed as an extremist response to anti-missionary, anti-Arminian sentiments. They have asserted that gospel means, or agency in regeneration is first, a bible doctrine and second, an historic belief of the Primitive Baptists owing to our historical connection to the London Confession. I knew this could not be the case. I have read articles of faith written prior to the 19th century, which do not support gospel means."
It is obvious that Ivey is unable to refute the points made by those "certain brethren" who affirm that the London Confession teaches the use of means and that the abandonment of this belief by the Hardshells, in the late 19th century, was a departure from the faith of the Baptists prior to the birth of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination. How does Ivey respond to the points made by those brethren? First, he says of the fact that the Gospel means position is "an historic belief of the Primitive Baptists," that he simply "knew this could not be the case." Why could he not believe that this was in fact the case? All the historical evidence shows it to be the case. I suggest that the reason why he cannot accept the historical facts is because he is wedded to the Hardshell cult and to the belief that the Hardshell church is the church Jesus established and that it must have existed since the days of the Apostles, no matter what the evidence shows to the contrary!
He then says that he had "read articles of faith written prior to the 19th century which do not support gospel means." Yet, he produces none of those articles! He does attempt to do so in his book called "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists," but I have shown, in postings in my blog "The Old Baptist," that those citations do not affirm the views of the Hardshells. In Ivey's book he tries to say that the Welsh Baptists who wrote the "Midlands Confession" did not believe in means and that it was one of the reasons why they would not fellowship the London churches who accepted the London Confession. But, I have shown that this is false and will publish those postings in upcoming chapters on Hardshell history. What Ivey does in his book is to cite pre 19th century articles of faith that he thinks can be made to deny gospel means, but looked at honestly and with other historical evidence, shows that Ivey is simply reading into those articles what he wants to read into them, the very thing he condemned the Fulton Confession as doing!
Ivey continued:
"I have read Elder Wilson Thompson's autobiography in which a detailed narrative is given of his opposition in 1858 to this doctrine. And, I have read the sermons of Elder Greg Thompson in which he valiantly proclaims God's sovereignty in regeneration and refutes the notions of gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Further, careful restudy of this issue led me to believe the bible void of a doctrine which invokes the gospel in any way to any degree as a requisite principle of new birth."
Citing the words of Hardshell founding father Wilson Thompson does not prove that the Baptists of the 19th century believed as did Thompson. Further, Elder Thompson, though he rejected the idea that the preaching of the Gospel was a means in "regeneration," he did not reject the idea that it was unnecessary in being "born again." Thompson, like his associate, Elder Gilbert Beebe, another Hardshell founding father, that being "regenerated" was only a necessary stage that led to being born again, and that being born again was the same as being converted to Christ by the Gospel. So, to cite Thompson proves nothing as to the point in debate. Though Ivey claims to be a Baptist historian, especially of his own denomination, he shows how ignorant he is of what the first generation of Hardshells believed. In previous chapters in this book we show that Elder Beebe believed that being born of God was the same as being saved by the Gospel. This was also the view of other leaders in the 1830s, such as Samuel Trott, William Conrad, and James Osbourn. In the above citation from Ivey, he equates being "regenerated" with the "new birth" and seems to be ignorant of the fact that the first generation of Hardshells did not do so. Those founding fathers may have believed that no means were used in "regeneration" but they did believe means were used in "new birth."
Ivey continued:
"All this deepened my desire to know more about the circumstance of the writing of the London Confession. I did not initiate this study to find some non-London Confession succession of the church; rather, my intent was simply to understand how the 1689 London Confession came to such wide acceptance among the Baptists. Also, from a historical perspective, I was anxious to know what events caused the Primitive Baptists to leave it. What I found was a Baptist succession which does not embrace the London Confession or, for some, has only coincidental contact."
Thus, Ivey came up with what he thought was a better solution to the problem of tracing Hardshell succession back prior to the 19th century. He believes that his forefathers were wrong to trace their lineage through the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. The problem with Ivey's new solution is the fact that he was unable to find such a succession, even though he tried to do so. Further, he has not dealt with the fact that nearly all the oldest churches and associations of the Hardshells endorsed either the London or Philadelphia confessions! Ivey also acknowledges that the Hardshells have forsaken the London Confession! It was good enough for his Hardshell forefathers but not for him! What does that say? He says he did research in order to discover the causes for the Hardshells abandoning the London Confession. But, surely he knows the reason, though he is unwilling to acknowledge it. It was because the Hardshells abandoned believing in means!
Ivey continued:
"Neither am I attacking our forefathers who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900. To the contrary, I thank God for their efforts. These brethren were evidently struggling with the same issues, concerning the London Confession, with which I have struggled. They give historic precedence to my struggle. They arrived at a solution which satisfied themselves and their congregations. I applaud their efforts and its outcome. However, we cannot assume their solution is the last word on the matter. If they felt at liberty to scrutinize the London Confession from a theological perspective, is it not our privilege to scrutinize it from an historical vantage? I do not see the result of my work as confrontational towards theirs, rather as a complimentary addendum. Theological truths must always take precedent over historical perspective. But when theology and history agree, historical perspective compliments truth."
Ivey says that he is not attacking what his forefathers did to the old London Confession when they met in Fulton. Yet, has he not shown them to be dishonest? Has he not charged them with not accepting the plain statements of the Confession? He acknowledges that they struggled with the teaching of the Confession regarding means in salvation. He also rejects the "solution" that the Fulton elders invented, a solution which sought to convince the simple minded that the Confession really did not mean what it said! Ivey says that he applauds their efforts and the outcome! He also says that his work in writing "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists" is "a complimentary addendum" to what they wrote! Though the authors of the Fulton Confession attempted to "explain away" the clear meaning of the Confession, Ivey does not want to condemn them for doing it! Does this not show how he is a member of a cult?
Ivey continued:
"The Fulton brethren exercised their theological perspective of truth by adding footnotes to the London Confession. I have now come along and offered my applause for their work. I say to them, bravo! History affirms that your concerns were valid and your corrections accurate. Brethren in years past made the same corrections. It proves that the truths you penned at the bottom of the page are the same truths held by Old Baptists through the years. My work is merely an appreciative reaction to yours, a standing ovation."
Only a cult member would applaud the dishonesty of its leaders! Also, Ivey can't even be consistent with himself. He disagrees with the Fulton brethren about the Confession denying the Gospel means doctrine, and yet he says that their "concerns were valid" and "your corrections accurate." How could they be "accurate" if they distorted the words of the Confession? Yes, give these perverters of the old Confession a "standing ovation"! Ivey has acknowledged that the Confession clearly teaches that God uses the Gospel and word of God as an instrument in salvation, and yet he praises the Fulton Hardshell Sanhedrin for perverting it!
In the previous chapter it was noted how the Hardshells have been divided over the London Confession of faith. Historically, it was adherence to this Confession that the founding fathers of the "Primitive Baptist Church" claimed to be the original Baptist church. It was also shown how it was due to a departure from the teachings of the Confession regarding the absolute predestination of all things and of God's use of the Gospel in the salvation of the elect that led later generations to either twist and distort the Confession's teaching on those topics or to disregard it altogether and to admit that it does not teach basic Hardshell views. The Fulton Confession was an attempt to justify the historic adherence to the Confession by denying that it taught absolute predestination of all things and the means position. However, it was a failure, as Elder Hunt confessed, for the Confession clearly teaches those doctrines, a fact which many other Hardshells have frankly, though reluctantly, admitted. In this chapter we will continue to cite from leading Hardshell writers for proof of this.
Ivey continued (emphasis mine - SG):
"Elder Cox's appendix suggests that in 1646 not all Particulars Baptists embraced certain principles of Calvinism. But, adoption of the overtly Calvinistic tenets of the 1689 Confession indicates if dissenting arguments were presented at the general conference, they were not publicly acknowledged. Inclusion of Chapter Ten, parts one and three, which deals with gospel instrumentality in the effectual call, and Chapter fourteen, part one, which describes saving faith through a concert of divine impartation and rational belief of the gospel, together with supporting scriptural references, all serve to demonstrate the commitment the conferees had to Calvin's doctrine. By expressing the heart of Calvin's theory of regeneration in their Confession they moved away from those brethren who held to primitive faith. This tends to indicate the theology of the 1689 Confession went beyond political expediency and embraced conscience. These brethren were Calvinists with regard to Gospel agency. It must be assumed they heartily believed what they wrote into their Confession."
Thus, Ivey agrees with Hanks, Tolley, Garrett, Sarrels, Hunt, and others, that the London Confession teaches the Gospel means position.
In the forward to Ivey's work, he wrote:
"This book began as a simple desire to understand a seeming inconsistency which I believed existed in Primitive Baptist history relative to the question of our succession as Christ's church. I could not resolve the differences I perceive between Primitive Baptist Confessions of Faith and the 1689 London Confession of Faith. I heard various arguments relating to differences in language, but did not accept them because the King James Version of the Bible is written in the same language and is readily understandable. I was given an explanation that the London brethren were attempting to escape persecution and so, wrote an "acceptable" confession. This did not seem to make sense to me since the church has always been a dissenting body from popular religion and always suffered persecution for her convictions. It did not seem reasonable that men who came to Baptist conviction knowing full well the persecution they must suffer would suddenly lay their convictions aside to avoid persecution. My problem with resolving the language of the London Confession to Primitive Baptist faith was centered around the concepts of saving faith, and gospel agency as it is described in Articles 10 and 14 of the 1689 edition."
Ivey acknowledges that the Hardshells have a problem with the fact that the London Confession has been historically adopted by the "Primitive Baptist Church" as proof that they had a succession to Baptists of former centuries and were therefore not a new denomination. The insurmountable difficulty is, however, that what the Confession teaches on Gospel instrumentality is opposed to Hardshell views. He then states what has been one of the ways that his forefathers dealt with this problem. He gives the response of those who wrote the foreward to the Fulton Confession wherein they sought to convince others that the old Confession did not really teach the Gospel means position, but only seems to do so, and that the reason why it only seemed to do so was because of the old English in which it was written. Ivey rejects this line of reasoning and so should all others. Ivey also gives another justification of the Hardshells in response to their historic acceptance of the Confession, a Confession which teaches contrary to Hardshell views. He says that some Hardshells claim that the signers of the Confession really did not believe in Gospel means, even though the Confession says that they did. Ivey rejects this position also for he saw that the signers of the Confession were not dishonest men or men who would lie about their beliefs (as charged by some Hardshells) through fear of persecution.
The articles of the Confession that Ivey confesses are not in keeping with Hardshell beliefs are cited by him. He says:
"In part these articles state:
Article 10, Part 1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, he is pleased, in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace.
Article 14, Part 1. The Grace of Faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the Ministry of the Word; by which also and by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other means appointed of God, it is increased, and strengthened."
In response, Ivey writes:
"The archaic language and punctuation of the London Confession, to some measure, leaves the meanings of the these articles open to interpretations. However, inclusion of proof texts seem to indicate the London brethren believed in gospel agency, or instrumentality, in regeneration. Particularly, the use of II Thessalonians 2:13-14 as a proof text for Article 10 led me to conclude the authors believed that gospel utility includes its employment as a verbal instrument of effectual calling in regeneration. In addition, the use of Romans 10:14-17 to define the Ministry of the Word in Article 14 caused me to believe they were writing of the preached word, despite the use of capital punctuation. If I understand what they wrote, it is: The divine influence of faith, whereby the Elect are enabled to believe and thereby save their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily produced by the agency of the preached word."
There is no "archaic language" in the London Confession. That is what some Hardshells want others to believe so that they can get them to believe that the Confession does not really say what it says. Ivey is honest enough to acknowledge that the Confession's statements, as cited above, do in fact teach that God saves his people through the preaching of the Gospel.
Ivey continued:
"My perplexity concerning the meanings of these articles was heightened when I read a copy of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith. I discovered the language of Article 10, parts 1 and 3 in the two Confessions is identical. Also, I found the only difference in the language of Article 14, part 1 is the London Confession substituted the phrase, "by the administration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, Prayer and other Means appointed of God" for the Westminster phrase "by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer." Apparently, the only hesitance the Particular Baptists had with this part of the article of the Westminster Confession was the latter's reference to baptism and the Lord's supper as sacraments. The only other difference I found was incidental punctuation and capitalization. At first, I thought capitalization had some significance, but upon closer review I discovered the original transcript of the London Confession used capitalization indiscriminately. Therefore, I was unable to determine any significance for capitalized words."
Ivey, like other Hardshells, find it impossible to honestly accept the reasoning of the elders who wrote the foreward and reworked the old London Confession in Fulton, Kentucky. Ivey knows that the Confession's words unmistakedly teach the Gospel means position. He also rejects the twisting of some Hardshells who argue that "the Word" by which men are effectually called is not the Gospel, is Christ, because "Word" is capitalized in the Confession. He shows that this is no proof for the Confession made frequent use of capitalization. He also sees that the texts the Confession refers to for proof of their affirmations shows that they meant the Gospel or the Scriptures by their use of "the Word."
Ivey continued:
"Knowing that Presbyterian Calvinism teaches a principle of gospel agency in regeneration using the same two articles to set forth their position, I became convinced the early Particular Baptists also must have believed the same."
Ivey sees several reasons why it cannot be denied that the Confession taught the Gospel means position. He cannot bring himself to accept the premises of the Fulton Convention whereby they sought to pervert the words and intention of the authors of the London Confession. Ivey is simply saying what many other Hardshells, like the elders I have already cited, have also reluctantly confessed. When I was a Hardshell elder and read the old Confession, there was no doubt in my mind about what they taught. I also was forced to affirm what Sarrels and Hunt confessed about the authors of the Fulton Confession. They were attempting to "explain away" the Confession's clear teachings, a "literary effort of TORTURING of language," and to "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY."
Ivey continued:
"As I continued to ponder these things, it came to my attention that certain brethren, who no doubt are struggling with these same questions, are teaching gospel agency in regeneration and citing an historic perspective of church succession through the Particular Baptists as a point to support their theology. Simply put, they assert Primitive Baptists abandoned their true beliefs in the 19th century, claiming that until then all orthodox churches subscribed to the tenets of the 1689 London Confession of Faith. They reason abandonment of the London Confession occurred gradually through minor deviations in theology, which developed as an extremist response to anti-missionary, anti-Arminian sentiments. They have asserted that gospel means, or agency in regeneration is first, a bible doctrine and second, an historic belief of the Primitive Baptists owing to our historical connection to the London Confession. I knew this could not be the case. I have read articles of faith written prior to the 19th century, which do not support gospel means."
It is obvious that Ivey is unable to refute the points made by those "certain brethren" who affirm that the London Confession teaches the use of means and that the abandonment of this belief by the Hardshells, in the late 19th century, was a departure from the faith of the Baptists prior to the birth of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination. How does Ivey respond to the points made by those brethren? First, he says of the fact that the Gospel means position is "an historic belief of the Primitive Baptists," that he simply "knew this could not be the case." Why could he not believe that this was in fact the case? All the historical evidence shows it to be the case. I suggest that the reason why he cannot accept the historical facts is because he is wedded to the Hardshell cult and to the belief that the Hardshell church is the church Jesus established and that it must have existed since the days of the Apostles, no matter what the evidence shows to the contrary!
He then says that he had "read articles of faith written prior to the 19th century which do not support gospel means." Yet, he produces none of those articles! He does attempt to do so in his book called "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists," but I have shown, in postings in my blog "The Old Baptist," that those citations do not affirm the views of the Hardshells. In Ivey's book he tries to say that the Welsh Baptists who wrote the "Midlands Confession" did not believe in means and that it was one of the reasons why they would not fellowship the London churches who accepted the London Confession. But, I have shown that this is false and will publish those postings in upcoming chapters on Hardshell history. What Ivey does in his book is to cite pre 19th century articles of faith that he thinks can be made to deny gospel means, but looked at honestly and with other historical evidence, shows that Ivey is simply reading into those articles what he wants to read into them, the very thing he condemned the Fulton Confession as doing!
Ivey continued:
"I have read Elder Wilson Thompson's autobiography in which a detailed narrative is given of his opposition in 1858 to this doctrine. And, I have read the sermons of Elder Greg Thompson in which he valiantly proclaims God's sovereignty in regeneration and refutes the notions of gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Further, careful restudy of this issue led me to believe the bible void of a doctrine which invokes the gospel in any way to any degree as a requisite principle of new birth."
Citing the words of Hardshell founding father Wilson Thompson does not prove that the Baptists of the 19th century believed as did Thompson. Further, Elder Thompson, though he rejected the idea that the preaching of the Gospel was a means in "regeneration," he did not reject the idea that it was unnecessary in being "born again." Thompson, like his associate, Elder Gilbert Beebe, another Hardshell founding father, that being "regenerated" was only a necessary stage that led to being born again, and that being born again was the same as being converted to Christ by the Gospel. So, to cite Thompson proves nothing as to the point in debate. Though Ivey claims to be a Baptist historian, especially of his own denomination, he shows how ignorant he is of what the first generation of Hardshells believed. In previous chapters in this book we show that Elder Beebe believed that being born of God was the same as being saved by the Gospel. This was also the view of other leaders in the 1830s, such as Samuel Trott, William Conrad, and James Osbourn. In the above citation from Ivey, he equates being "regenerated" with the "new birth" and seems to be ignorant of the fact that the first generation of Hardshells did not do so. Those founding fathers may have believed that no means were used in "regeneration" but they did believe means were used in "new birth."
Ivey continued:
"All this deepened my desire to know more about the circumstance of the writing of the London Confession. I did not initiate this study to find some non-London Confession succession of the church; rather, my intent was simply to understand how the 1689 London Confession came to such wide acceptance among the Baptists. Also, from a historical perspective, I was anxious to know what events caused the Primitive Baptists to leave it. What I found was a Baptist succession which does not embrace the London Confession or, for some, has only coincidental contact."
Thus, Ivey came up with what he thought was a better solution to the problem of tracing Hardshell succession back prior to the 19th century. He believes that his forefathers were wrong to trace their lineage through the London and Philadelphia confessions of faith. The problem with Ivey's new solution is the fact that he was unable to find such a succession, even though he tried to do so. Further, he has not dealt with the fact that nearly all the oldest churches and associations of the Hardshells endorsed either the London or Philadelphia confessions! Ivey also acknowledges that the Hardshells have forsaken the London Confession! It was good enough for his Hardshell forefathers but not for him! What does that say? He says he did research in order to discover the causes for the Hardshells abandoning the London Confession. But, surely he knows the reason, though he is unwilling to acknowledge it. It was because the Hardshells abandoned believing in means!
Ivey continued:
"Neither am I attacking our forefathers who met in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900. To the contrary, I thank God for their efforts. These brethren were evidently struggling with the same issues, concerning the London Confession, with which I have struggled. They give historic precedence to my struggle. They arrived at a solution which satisfied themselves and their congregations. I applaud their efforts and its outcome. However, we cannot assume their solution is the last word on the matter. If they felt at liberty to scrutinize the London Confession from a theological perspective, is it not our privilege to scrutinize it from an historical vantage? I do not see the result of my work as confrontational towards theirs, rather as a complimentary addendum. Theological truths must always take precedent over historical perspective. But when theology and history agree, historical perspective compliments truth."
Ivey says that he is not attacking what his forefathers did to the old London Confession when they met in Fulton. Yet, has he not shown them to be dishonest? Has he not charged them with not accepting the plain statements of the Confession? He acknowledges that they struggled with the teaching of the Confession regarding means in salvation. He also rejects the "solution" that the Fulton elders invented, a solution which sought to convince the simple minded that the Confession really did not mean what it said! Ivey says that he applauds their efforts and the outcome! He also says that his work in writing "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists" is "a complimentary addendum" to what they wrote! Though the authors of the Fulton Confession attempted to "explain away" the clear meaning of the Confession, Ivey does not want to condemn them for doing it! Does this not show how he is a member of a cult?
Ivey continued:
"The Fulton brethren exercised their theological perspective of truth by adding footnotes to the London Confession. I have now come along and offered my applause for their work. I say to them, bravo! History affirms that your concerns were valid and your corrections accurate. Brethren in years past made the same corrections. It proves that the truths you penned at the bottom of the page are the same truths held by Old Baptists through the years. My work is merely an appreciative reaction to yours, a standing ovation."
Only a cult member would applaud the dishonesty of its leaders! Also, Ivey can't even be consistent with himself. He disagrees with the Fulton brethren about the Confession denying the Gospel means doctrine, and yet he says that their "concerns were valid" and "your corrections accurate." How could they be "accurate" if they distorted the words of the Confession? Yes, give these perverters of the old Confession a "standing ovation"! Ivey has acknowledged that the Confession clearly teaches that God uses the Gospel and word of God as an instrument in salvation, and yet he praises the Fulton Hardshell Sanhedrin for perverting it!
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Hardshells & The London Confession I
Chapter 126
In the year 1900, a large group of "Primitive Baptist" elders assembled together near Fulton, Kentucky for the purpose of putting forth a "Confession of Faith." In this endeavor they sought to reaffirm their adherence to the old London Confession of 1689 but with "footnotes" attached to portions of the old confession. Those infamous "footnotes" have been the subject of debate ever since. In the "Appendix" to their confession, historically called "The Fulton Confession of Primitive Baptists," the elders wrote:
"We recommend the London Confession of Faith as an expression of Bible truth. The articles of faith of our churches are substantially in harmony with the doctrine and practice set forth in that instrument, and we do heartily recommend the London Confession to the household of faith everywhere."
The Fulton Confession can be found here.
The Hardshells claim that their denomination is the "one true church of Christ," or "kingdom of God," and that all other church groups are not. This is why they will not accept the baptisms of any other church other than their own. It is also the reason why they eventually chose the name of "Primitive Baptist" for their denomination. By choosing this name they were declaring to all that they were the "original" Baptists and that all other Baptists were apostates from the original Baptist faith and the faith of the Apostles. Being "Landmarkers," they believe that no church can claim to be a true church of Christ unless it can show an unbroken chain of churches back to the days of the Apostles. One of the problems, however, with this claim is the fact that the Hardshells cannot show an unbroken chain of churches, believing the same thing, back in history prior to the 19th century. Though I have constantly challenged the Hardshells to prove that Baptists prior to the 19th century believed their hybrid and aberrant views on "Spirit alone regeneration" they have not as yet produced the evidence.
Throughout the 19th century the Hardshells claimed that they were the successors of those Baptists who wrote the London Confession of 1689 and yet it was often a source of difficulty for them as they gradually abandoned the Confession's teaching regarding the use of means in salvation. In the latter half of the 19th century, as the Hardshells divorced themselves completely from a belief in means, the claim to be in agreement with the old Confession became difficult, if not impossible. This difficulty led the Hardshells to decide which answer to give to their opponents, the means Baptists, regarding their alleged agreement with the Confession. Some chose to drop their claim of being the successors of the Baptists of London who wrote and endorsed the confession, together with those Baptists in America who endorsed the Philadelphia Confession, which was virtually the same. Others, however, chose to argue that the old Confession did not teach the use of means in salvation and began to reinterpret the old Confession to make it affirm a denial of means. This latter group could therefore continue to claim to be the successors of the Confession, and therefore "primitive" Baptists, but by affirming that those sections of the Confession that seemed to teach the use of means did not in fact teach such.
This latter group organized a large number of elders to meet in Fulton, Kentucky in 1900 in order to endorse the Confession and to reinterpret those sections that seemed to teach both the absolute predestination of all things and the use of means in effectual calling. In the next several chapters we will look at this issue and see whether the Confession teaches the use of means and what Hardshells have had to say about it. It is my view that those Hardshells who acknowledge that the Confession teaches the use of means in salvation are at least honest, though such an acknowledgment puts them into a hard spot as regards showing an unbroken succession of Hardshell churches. Those Hardshells who have chosen to reinterpret the Confession, and to affirm that the ministers who wrote it did not believe in means, i.e. that they were Hardshells like themselves, are dishonest interpreters of the old Confession.
My dear friend, Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, who has written a series of articles called "The History and Heresies of Hardshellism," wrote about this gathering of Hardshells in 1900. (see here and see here)
Wrote Brother Ross:
"THE FACT IS, IT WAS "UNDERSTANDING" THE BAPTIST CONFESSION WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THIS GATHERING OF HARDSHELLS TO HACK AND HEW ON THE CONFESSION IN THE EFFORT TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE. All of their pious reasons notwithstanding, the truth is, these Old School Primitive Baptists DID NOT BELIEVE the doctrines of the London Confession and would have set up "bars of fellowship" against every last one of those who originally signed the 1689 Confession had the signatories arisen from the dead and asked for a "home" among these Hardshell brethren." (Chapter 5)
From Chapter Four, Ross wrote (some emphasis mine - SG):
"In one of them -- the June 1971 issue -- Elder Tolley headlines a front-page article entitled A Re-Statement of Our Faith Needed. One of the primary targets of the article is the London Confession of 1689. Here are a few excerpts from Bro. Tolley's remarks:
Although the "London Confession" does set forth much of what we believe -- it does not clearly set forth our full and proper views on several points of doctrine.
Although we do accept most of the London Confession of Faith, we certainly do NOT agree with ALL of it! And we would not agree with the wording on some of the points even though we would agree with the sentiments.
To show that the "London Confession" does not set forth the beliefs of Primitive Baptists in full I will here give some excerpts from it: [then follows quotes from chapters 2, 10, 14, and 15].
This quote [from chapter seven of the Confession] has overtones of "Arminianism" in it . . . If a Primitive Baptist preacher should set forth such a statement from his pulpit you would clearly see the clamor that it would justly provoke.
They [signatories of the London Confession] believed that the "elect" are ordinarily called to regeneration and salvation by the medium of the preached word. Primitive Baptists do NOT believe this.
This [chapter 10] is NOT the concept that Primitive Baptists hold relative to "Effectual Calling."
Does this [chapter 14] sound like Primitive Baptists sentiment? It is not.
We believe that there will be millions of the "elect" saved in heaven who have never, nor will they ever, hear the gospel of the Son of God. [Tolley's comment on chapter 15, paragraph 5 of the Confession].
There are several similar expressions in the "London Confession" that we do not agree with, and some statements that need to be more fully explained in order to show just what is intended.
In Elder Tolley's "Library News," in this same issue, he says:
I have for several years talked with many ministers and other interested individuals about this ["a statement (confession) of faith of the Primitive Baptists of our times"] and there has been much interest in this long needed work.
If any of our readers will read the "London Confession of Faith" (this is the confession of faith that Primitive Baptists are said to believe) you will clearly see the need for re-stating our beliefs -- as we hold today."
In Elder Tolley's January 1983 issue of The Christian Baptist, he is still "grinding an ax" about the London Confession. He refers to chapters 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, and says:
It would be hard to understand how any man could fully endorse all that is stated therein and remain in good standing and full fellowship with Primitive Baptists. No one could be well informed on the doctrine and beliefs of the Strict Baptists of England and not understand that they were and are, today, different from Primitive Baptists of America on several important points.
The men who drew up the London Confession of Faith held what we call "absolute" tendencies, and, although they believed in predestination and election, they also believed that the gospel was ordinarily God's ordained means to call the elect to regeneration . . . We have published several articles in THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST pointing out these discrepancies."
Ross continues:
"Another editor could be added to these: I refer to Elder Eddie Garrett (my father - SG) of The Hardshell Baptist magazine. Garrett was on Elder Tolley's staff for some time, and from 1982 published his own monthly paper from Thompson Memorial Primitive Baptist Church, Franklin, Ohio. Garrett, who at the time also was in the same faction of Hardshells in Lassere Bradley's "Primitive Baptist Church Directory," stated in his paper some of the differences he has with the London Confession. He disagrees with this Confession on such doctrines as predestination, regeneration, effectual calling, the gospel, "means," and perseverance of the saints. He devotes a lengthy article to discussing "Confessions of Faith" in the May 1992 issue, saying, "There are some things in the London Confession of Faith that I do not agree with." He specifies "absoluter statements" and the "means doctrine." In another issue (June 1992), he specifies that he differs with the London Confession on perseverance of the saints, and he expounds his view on this in the issue of September 1989."
Under the heading ""Hatchet-Job" Done to the London Confession by Hardshell Book" Ross continued:
"Several years ago, a well-known Hardshell preacher, Elder Lee Hanks, compiled a number of historical items and published them under the title, The Church of God. I have the reprinted edition of 1982, published by Elder S. T. Tolley's Christian Baptist Publishing Company, and I have also examined an original edition.
The book mutilates the London Confession, not only omitting significant words (indicated by a series of dots), but it even cuts-out entire chapters! It omits chapters 5, 14, 15, and 17 thru 25. It is significant that the material which is omitted includes the same points of doctrine which Hardshells such as Tolley admittedly do not believe, particularly those that express the Baptist position on the use of the Word, or Gospel, in regeneration."
In chapter five Ross wrote (highlighting mine - SG):
"We have already called attention to Elder S. T. Tolley's repudiation of the London Confession (chapter four) on those chapters of the Confession which he specified, as he called for the composing of a new confession which would accurately represent Primitive Baptists. Another Hardshell, Elder R. V. Sarrels, who wrote a book presenting Hardshell doctrine, ostensibly called a "Systematic Theology," very candidly confesses that Primitive Baptists "do not believe" chapter three of the London Confession, and he charges that the Fulton Convention of 1900 wrote a footnote "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY" (Systematic Theology, pages 109, 110).
Sarrels indicates that the sweet brethren who gathered at Fulton, Ky. in 1900 were engaged in a "literary effort of TORTURING of language" when they tried to "clarify" and "explain" the London Confession. He says, "Moderate or Non-fatalist Calvinists must either repudiate this statement [in the London Confession] or resign themselves to the endless task of trying to make it mean what it does not say" (page 111)."
Thus, so far, several witnesses have been called forth to show that many Hardshells acknowledge that the old London Confession does in fact teach the Gospel means position. In honestly confessing this fact, these Hardshells are acknowledging that those Hardshells who have attempted to subvert its teachings by reinterpreting it were not honest.
Elder Harold Hunt, in his book "The London Confession: And its Place in Baptist History" (2007), states:
"In 1900, the Primitive Baptists were seriously divided. They were about to split three ways. A large and representative body of capable Primitive Baptist preachers came together at Fulton, Kentucky. The Primitive Baptists were in crisis, and they intended to fend off a division if they could. Like the Regulars and Separates one hundred years before, they tried to use the London Confession as a rallying point.
They reaffirmed what they could accept; they explained away what they could not accept; and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away." (This sentence was in bold in Hunt's book - SG)
Here is another honest confession from a leading Hardshell elder. "They explained away what they could not accept"! While it is a commendable thing for these Hardshells to be honest about the teaching of the Confession, it ought to cause them to see the ramifications of it.
Hunt wrote:
"They did everything that could be done to rehabilitate a fundamentally flawed document--and they failed. They had hardly done their work before the Primitive Baptists split into Absoluters, Progressives, and Old-Liners. The elders who assembled at Fulton, Kentucky in 1900, were some of the brightest and best the Lord's church has ever known--in any age." (pg. 20)
Elder Hunt says of the men who tried to "explain away" the teaching of the Confession on the use of means in effectual calling, that they were "some of the brightest and best the Lord's church has ever known." Of course, by "the Lord's church" Hunt means the "Primitive Baptist Church," and he says that their ablest men were dishonest interpreters of the old Confession!
On page 10 Hunt says that the Baptists who endorsed the 1689 Confession "were the New School Baptists of that day." By "New School Baptsts" Hunt means those who believe that the Gospel is God's ordained means of birthing children into the kingdom and who supported church sponsored evangelists. Hunt denies that the Confession is a "Primitive" or "Hardshell" document.
On pages 106-107 Hunt lists what he considers to be the errors of "the Particular Baptists in England who adopted the London Confession of 1689." The sixth error Hunt gives in these words:
"They erred in in retaining the doctrine that everybody who does not hear the preached gospel, and believe it, is going to burn."
Michael Ivey in his book "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists" believed that the Fulton brethren did not properly interpret or explain the confession relative to the use of means. He also did not believe that Primitive Baptists could or should trace their heritage through the Particular Baptists who endorsed the 1689 Confession, arguing that they should rather see it through the Welsh Baptists and their Midlands Confession of 1655. In chapter three (see here) Ivey wrote:
"With regard to gospel instrumentality in regeneration, there is evidence that at least some of the early leaders of the Particular Baptists held Calvinist Presbyterian religious views. Hansard Knollys expressed his support for this tenet in an exposition of the work of the ministry, to preach the gospel, in relation to God's sovereignty in regeneration. He declared, "I say then when they (ministers) have done this, they must leave the issue to the Lord, who onely (sic) makes this ministry powerful to whom he pleaseth, giving them repentance...enabling them to believe in him unto remission of sins and everlasting life. And surely God hath appointed the Ministry, especially for this end, that by means thereof he might worke faith in all those whom he hath ordained unto eternal life."
"Knollys demonstrated a position which balanced gospel agency and election in a sermon titled The World that Now is, and the World that is to Come. He stated, "If the sinner be willing to open the door of his heart, Christ will come in by his holy Spirit and He will communicate of his Grace to his soul. Not that you can do those things of your selves; I have told you, without Christ you can do nothing, John 15.5. But it is your duty to do them and it is the Free Grace of God, to work in you to will and to do, according to his good pleasure, Phil. 2.12,13. That he so working in you, you may work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
Elder Ivey is another honest Hardshell regarding the teaching of the old London Confession regarding the Lord's use of means in salvation. He says that the fact that Hanserd Knollys believed in means, and who was a signer of the Confession, helps to show that the Confession does in fact teach the use of means. I have Internet articles from many of the signers of this old Confession, in addition to Knollys, which show that they all believed just exactly what they wrote in the Confession, that the Gospel is God's ordained means for calling the elect to life and salvation. I have argued that this evidence completely destroys the rebuttal apology of those Hardshells who say that the old Confession does not really teach means, but only seems to do so, and that properly "interpreted" it actually denies that God uses means. Thus, it is not enough for Hardshell elders, like the Fulton group, to simply twist and distort the words of the Confession in order to make it appear as though the authors of the Confession agreed with them, but they must also showed that this was in fact the view of the authors. But, in order to do this, they would need to cite from their other writings to substantiate their view that the authors did not really believe in means, though their Confession seems to affirm so.
In the next chapter we will continue to look at things Ivey says about the London Confession and look at some other witnesses to the teachings of the Confession regarding means. But, in summation, it is to be noted how many able writers today have acknowledged that the old Confession did in fact teach the use of means in salvation and that the work of the Fulton Convention in 1900 was an effort to make the Confession teach what it clearly does not teach.
In the year 1900, a large group of "Primitive Baptist" elders assembled together near Fulton, Kentucky for the purpose of putting forth a "Confession of Faith." In this endeavor they sought to reaffirm their adherence to the old London Confession of 1689 but with "footnotes" attached to portions of the old confession. Those infamous "footnotes" have been the subject of debate ever since. In the "Appendix" to their confession, historically called "The Fulton Confession of Primitive Baptists," the elders wrote:
"We recommend the London Confession of Faith as an expression of Bible truth. The articles of faith of our churches are substantially in harmony with the doctrine and practice set forth in that instrument, and we do heartily recommend the London Confession to the household of faith everywhere."
The Fulton Confession can be found here.
The Hardshells claim that their denomination is the "one true church of Christ," or "kingdom of God," and that all other church groups are not. This is why they will not accept the baptisms of any other church other than their own. It is also the reason why they eventually chose the name of "Primitive Baptist" for their denomination. By choosing this name they were declaring to all that they were the "original" Baptists and that all other Baptists were apostates from the original Baptist faith and the faith of the Apostles. Being "Landmarkers," they believe that no church can claim to be a true church of Christ unless it can show an unbroken chain of churches back to the days of the Apostles. One of the problems, however, with this claim is the fact that the Hardshells cannot show an unbroken chain of churches, believing the same thing, back in history prior to the 19th century. Though I have constantly challenged the Hardshells to prove that Baptists prior to the 19th century believed their hybrid and aberrant views on "Spirit alone regeneration" they have not as yet produced the evidence.
Throughout the 19th century the Hardshells claimed that they were the successors of those Baptists who wrote the London Confession of 1689 and yet it was often a source of difficulty for them as they gradually abandoned the Confession's teaching regarding the use of means in salvation. In the latter half of the 19th century, as the Hardshells divorced themselves completely from a belief in means, the claim to be in agreement with the old Confession became difficult, if not impossible. This difficulty led the Hardshells to decide which answer to give to their opponents, the means Baptists, regarding their alleged agreement with the Confession. Some chose to drop their claim of being the successors of the Baptists of London who wrote and endorsed the confession, together with those Baptists in America who endorsed the Philadelphia Confession, which was virtually the same. Others, however, chose to argue that the old Confession did not teach the use of means in salvation and began to reinterpret the old Confession to make it affirm a denial of means. This latter group could therefore continue to claim to be the successors of the Confession, and therefore "primitive" Baptists, but by affirming that those sections of the Confession that seemed to teach the use of means did not in fact teach such.
This latter group organized a large number of elders to meet in Fulton, Kentucky in 1900 in order to endorse the Confession and to reinterpret those sections that seemed to teach both the absolute predestination of all things and the use of means in effectual calling. In the next several chapters we will look at this issue and see whether the Confession teaches the use of means and what Hardshells have had to say about it. It is my view that those Hardshells who acknowledge that the Confession teaches the use of means in salvation are at least honest, though such an acknowledgment puts them into a hard spot as regards showing an unbroken succession of Hardshell churches. Those Hardshells who have chosen to reinterpret the Confession, and to affirm that the ministers who wrote it did not believe in means, i.e. that they were Hardshells like themselves, are dishonest interpreters of the old Confession.
My dear friend, Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, who has written a series of articles called "The History and Heresies of Hardshellism," wrote about this gathering of Hardshells in 1900. (see here and see here)
Wrote Brother Ross:
"THE FACT IS, IT WAS "UNDERSTANDING" THE BAPTIST CONFESSION WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THIS GATHERING OF HARDSHELLS TO HACK AND HEW ON THE CONFESSION IN THE EFFORT TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE. All of their pious reasons notwithstanding, the truth is, these Old School Primitive Baptists DID NOT BELIEVE the doctrines of the London Confession and would have set up "bars of fellowship" against every last one of those who originally signed the 1689 Confession had the signatories arisen from the dead and asked for a "home" among these Hardshell brethren." (Chapter 5)
From Chapter Four, Ross wrote (some emphasis mine - SG):
"In one of them -- the June 1971 issue -- Elder Tolley headlines a front-page article entitled A Re-Statement of Our Faith Needed. One of the primary targets of the article is the London Confession of 1689. Here are a few excerpts from Bro. Tolley's remarks:
Although the "London Confession" does set forth much of what we believe -- it does not clearly set forth our full and proper views on several points of doctrine.
Although we do accept most of the London Confession of Faith, we certainly do NOT agree with ALL of it! And we would not agree with the wording on some of the points even though we would agree with the sentiments.
To show that the "London Confession" does not set forth the beliefs of Primitive Baptists in full I will here give some excerpts from it: [then follows quotes from chapters 2, 10, 14, and 15].
This quote [from chapter seven of the Confession] has overtones of "Arminianism" in it . . . If a Primitive Baptist preacher should set forth such a statement from his pulpit you would clearly see the clamor that it would justly provoke.
They [signatories of the London Confession] believed that the "elect" are ordinarily called to regeneration and salvation by the medium of the preached word. Primitive Baptists do NOT believe this.
This [chapter 10] is NOT the concept that Primitive Baptists hold relative to "Effectual Calling."
Does this [chapter 14] sound like Primitive Baptists sentiment? It is not.
We believe that there will be millions of the "elect" saved in heaven who have never, nor will they ever, hear the gospel of the Son of God. [Tolley's comment on chapter 15, paragraph 5 of the Confession].
There are several similar expressions in the "London Confession" that we do not agree with, and some statements that need to be more fully explained in order to show just what is intended.
In Elder Tolley's "Library News," in this same issue, he says:
I have for several years talked with many ministers and other interested individuals about this ["a statement (confession) of faith of the Primitive Baptists of our times"] and there has been much interest in this long needed work.
If any of our readers will read the "London Confession of Faith" (this is the confession of faith that Primitive Baptists are said to believe) you will clearly see the need for re-stating our beliefs -- as we hold today."
In Elder Tolley's January 1983 issue of The Christian Baptist, he is still "grinding an ax" about the London Confession. He refers to chapters 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, and says:
It would be hard to understand how any man could fully endorse all that is stated therein and remain in good standing and full fellowship with Primitive Baptists. No one could be well informed on the doctrine and beliefs of the Strict Baptists of England and not understand that they were and are, today, different from Primitive Baptists of America on several important points.
The men who drew up the London Confession of Faith held what we call "absolute" tendencies, and, although they believed in predestination and election, they also believed that the gospel was ordinarily God's ordained means to call the elect to regeneration . . . We have published several articles in THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST pointing out these discrepancies."
Ross continues:
"Another editor could be added to these: I refer to Elder Eddie Garrett (my father - SG) of The Hardshell Baptist magazine. Garrett was on Elder Tolley's staff for some time, and from 1982 published his own monthly paper from Thompson Memorial Primitive Baptist Church, Franklin, Ohio. Garrett, who at the time also was in the same faction of Hardshells in Lassere Bradley's "Primitive Baptist Church Directory," stated in his paper some of the differences he has with the London Confession. He disagrees with this Confession on such doctrines as predestination, regeneration, effectual calling, the gospel, "means," and perseverance of the saints. He devotes a lengthy article to discussing "Confessions of Faith" in the May 1992 issue, saying, "There are some things in the London Confession of Faith that I do not agree with." He specifies "absoluter statements" and the "means doctrine." In another issue (June 1992), he specifies that he differs with the London Confession on perseverance of the saints, and he expounds his view on this in the issue of September 1989."
Under the heading ""Hatchet-Job" Done to the London Confession by Hardshell Book" Ross continued:
"Several years ago, a well-known Hardshell preacher, Elder Lee Hanks, compiled a number of historical items and published them under the title, The Church of God. I have the reprinted edition of 1982, published by Elder S. T. Tolley's Christian Baptist Publishing Company, and I have also examined an original edition.
The book mutilates the London Confession, not only omitting significant words (indicated by a series of dots), but it even cuts-out entire chapters! It omits chapters 5, 14, 15, and 17 thru 25. It is significant that the material which is omitted includes the same points of doctrine which Hardshells such as Tolley admittedly do not believe, particularly those that express the Baptist position on the use of the Word, or Gospel, in regeneration."
In chapter five Ross wrote (highlighting mine - SG):
"We have already called attention to Elder S. T. Tolley's repudiation of the London Confession (chapter four) on those chapters of the Confession which he specified, as he called for the composing of a new confession which would accurately represent Primitive Baptists. Another Hardshell, Elder R. V. Sarrels, who wrote a book presenting Hardshell doctrine, ostensibly called a "Systematic Theology," very candidly confesses that Primitive Baptists "do not believe" chapter three of the London Confession, and he charges that the Fulton Convention of 1900 wrote a footnote "to make this old article MEAN WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY" (Systematic Theology, pages 109, 110).
Sarrels indicates that the sweet brethren who gathered at Fulton, Ky. in 1900 were engaged in a "literary effort of TORTURING of language" when they tried to "clarify" and "explain" the London Confession. He says, "Moderate or Non-fatalist Calvinists must either repudiate this statement [in the London Confession] or resign themselves to the endless task of trying to make it mean what it does not say" (page 111)."
Thus, so far, several witnesses have been called forth to show that many Hardshells acknowledge that the old London Confession does in fact teach the Gospel means position. In honestly confessing this fact, these Hardshells are acknowledging that those Hardshells who have attempted to subvert its teachings by reinterpreting it were not honest.
Elder Harold Hunt, in his book "The London Confession: And its Place in Baptist History" (2007), states:
"In 1900, the Primitive Baptists were seriously divided. They were about to split three ways. A large and representative body of capable Primitive Baptist preachers came together at Fulton, Kentucky. The Primitive Baptists were in crisis, and they intended to fend off a division if they could. Like the Regulars and Separates one hundred years before, they tried to use the London Confession as a rallying point.
They reaffirmed what they could accept; they explained away what they could not accept; and they looked aside, and walked past what they could not explain away." (This sentence was in bold in Hunt's book - SG)
Here is another honest confession from a leading Hardshell elder. "They explained away what they could not accept"! While it is a commendable thing for these Hardshells to be honest about the teaching of the Confession, it ought to cause them to see the ramifications of it.
Hunt wrote:
"They did everything that could be done to rehabilitate a fundamentally flawed document--and they failed. They had hardly done their work before the Primitive Baptists split into Absoluters, Progressives, and Old-Liners. The elders who assembled at Fulton, Kentucky in 1900, were some of the brightest and best the Lord's church has ever known--in any age." (pg. 20)
Elder Hunt says of the men who tried to "explain away" the teaching of the Confession on the use of means in effectual calling, that they were "some of the brightest and best the Lord's church has ever known." Of course, by "the Lord's church" Hunt means the "Primitive Baptist Church," and he says that their ablest men were dishonest interpreters of the old Confession!
On page 10 Hunt says that the Baptists who endorsed the 1689 Confession "were the New School Baptists of that day." By "New School Baptsts" Hunt means those who believe that the Gospel is God's ordained means of birthing children into the kingdom and who supported church sponsored evangelists. Hunt denies that the Confession is a "Primitive" or "Hardshell" document.
On pages 106-107 Hunt lists what he considers to be the errors of "the Particular Baptists in England who adopted the London Confession of 1689." The sixth error Hunt gives in these words:
"They erred in in retaining the doctrine that everybody who does not hear the preached gospel, and believe it, is going to burn."
Michael Ivey in his book "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptists" believed that the Fulton brethren did not properly interpret or explain the confession relative to the use of means. He also did not believe that Primitive Baptists could or should trace their heritage through the Particular Baptists who endorsed the 1689 Confession, arguing that they should rather see it through the Welsh Baptists and their Midlands Confession of 1655. In chapter three (see here) Ivey wrote:
"With regard to gospel instrumentality in regeneration, there is evidence that at least some of the early leaders of the Particular Baptists held Calvinist Presbyterian religious views. Hansard Knollys expressed his support for this tenet in an exposition of the work of the ministry, to preach the gospel, in relation to God's sovereignty in regeneration. He declared, "I say then when they (ministers) have done this, they must leave the issue to the Lord, who onely (sic) makes this ministry powerful to whom he pleaseth, giving them repentance...enabling them to believe in him unto remission of sins and everlasting life. And surely God hath appointed the Ministry, especially for this end, that by means thereof he might worke faith in all those whom he hath ordained unto eternal life."
"Knollys demonstrated a position which balanced gospel agency and election in a sermon titled The World that Now is, and the World that is to Come. He stated, "If the sinner be willing to open the door of his heart, Christ will come in by his holy Spirit and He will communicate of his Grace to his soul. Not that you can do those things of your selves; I have told you, without Christ you can do nothing, John 15.5. But it is your duty to do them and it is the Free Grace of God, to work in you to will and to do, according to his good pleasure, Phil. 2.12,13. That he so working in you, you may work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
Elder Ivey is another honest Hardshell regarding the teaching of the old London Confession regarding the Lord's use of means in salvation. He says that the fact that Hanserd Knollys believed in means, and who was a signer of the Confession, helps to show that the Confession does in fact teach the use of means. I have Internet articles from many of the signers of this old Confession, in addition to Knollys, which show that they all believed just exactly what they wrote in the Confession, that the Gospel is God's ordained means for calling the elect to life and salvation. I have argued that this evidence completely destroys the rebuttal apology of those Hardshells who say that the old Confession does not really teach means, but only seems to do so, and that properly "interpreted" it actually denies that God uses means. Thus, it is not enough for Hardshell elders, like the Fulton group, to simply twist and distort the words of the Confession in order to make it appear as though the authors of the Confession agreed with them, but they must also showed that this was in fact the view of the authors. But, in order to do this, they would need to cite from their other writings to substantiate their view that the authors did not really believe in means, though their Confession seems to affirm so.
In the next chapter we will continue to look at things Ivey says about the London Confession and look at some other witnesses to the teachings of the Confession regarding means. But, in summation, it is to be noted how many able writers today have acknowledged that the old Confession did in fact teach the use of means in salvation and that the work of the Fulton Convention in 1900 was an effort to make the Confession teach what it clearly does not teach.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Selective Publishing
Quite some time ago I wrote an article entitled Getting It To the People in which I expressed my desire to see the writings of the 19th century Primitive Baptists make it into the hands of the people. This is something that needs to be done for the benefit of current members, prospective members, and sadly, ordained elders. As a young minister among them I was never told about some of the earlier works which, if read, will show an important difference between then and now. I can only now lament at the number who probably have little to no idea of the existence of these writings.
Thankfully I have been blessed in the past two years to share some of these older works I have come to treasure with those who are willing to listen. Just the other day I received a phone call from such a one, who received in the mail a small pamphlet entitled “Getting Books To Our Preachers” by Elder Harold Hunt. In this, the elder expresses his desire to see certain works republished and distributed. Unfortunately, the ones in mind are those of his own choosing.
He writes (emphasis mine - KF):
“I have made the point many times that, over the years, our Primitive Baptists have produced some of the most capable, edifying and doctrinally sound writers the Lord’s church has ever known. Men like John R. Daily, Lemuel Potter, J.S. Newman, and Claud Cayce are far more dependable than any of the most popular writers we find in the book stores. It has been a passion of mine to republish as many of those books as I possibly can, and we have succeeded in getting quite a few of them back in print. There are others I still intend to republish.”
Coming from one who has been brought to know that there has been an evolving of doctrine in the past 200 years or so, I know the observation which needs to be made here. It’s tough for folks to know what is out there, and the truth of their own history, when one of their leading distributors exerts his bias and gets to select and choose what arrives into the mailbox. I can almost guarantee that no works will be re-published except for those written towards the end of the 19th century and forward. Daily, Potter, Newman, and Cayce were all cut from the same conditional cloth and exerted their influence in the mid to late 1800s. Arriving into the mailboxes of many will therefore be more writings serving to propagate and further ingrain the people into what these particular men taught with no mention made of those leaders prior to this time.
Why not go back a little further and recirculate the 1777 Kehukee Association Articles of Faith, and show how they believed the elect would all be converted and subsequently persevere in holiness?
Why not republish William Fristoe’s History of the Ketocton Association and let the people read how they were “Means” Baptists?
Or distribute into the homes of many a copy of Elder John Watson’s The Old Baptist Test?
It would even be nice to see the Black Rock Address re-circulated with emphasis upon how the "means” passages of 2 Thes. 2:13-14 and 1 Cor. 1:21 were handled, and that the current generation is not even in line with their own celebrated epoch. Were these texts applied eternally or temporally?
To this list could be added a number of elders (Beebe, Trott, Thompson, Conrad, etc.) whose writings are still extant.
Contained as well in his pamphlet, Hunt takes note of the present controversy among his brethren:
“We have just come through a painful fight over Calvinism and the London Confession. Most of that conflict came from the fact that many of our preachers are better acquainted with writers like Arthur Pink, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur, and David Jeremiah, than they are with our own great writers.”
I would like to think that the preachers acquainted with these writers came to their position not exclusively from these men, but from the Bible itself. They then came to see that what these writers were teaching was in agreement with the scriptures. Atleast that’s the way it was with me. But I have heard this charge in my own case. Many times. I have read the works of Pink, Spurgeon, Gill, Owen, etc. for many years. However, I knew enough at the time to know where the point of distinction lied. I knew what to keep and what to place in the garbage (I speak according to my former opinion). Though Hunt will say later that “You can talk all you want to about eating the chicken and throwing away the bone; after awhile that bone will stick in your throat…”, I reply that if a person keeps focus in his mind to allow proper hermeneutics to dictate his Bible interpretation, he can do it. Coming to a position similar to what these giants of the past saw is a simple matter of biblical exegesis.
Does our own “great writers” include John Watson, John Clark, John Leland, David Bartley, Gregg Thompson, etc.? If not, why not? Does it include only those who lived in the latter half of the 19th century and since who imbibe certain anti-means preconceptions?
One thing for sure. You SHALL be able to read of these other writers and their works here on this blog.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
From the Signs of the Times Volume 67 – Hite's Letter
Recorded in the first issue of volume 67 of the Signs of the Times periodical, published in 1898, is a letter written by George Hite to his father. Here are a couple of quotes followed by points important to see.
May this be of help to some.
Hite wrote:
“It seems to me that the dear Old Baptists are going wild, some of them at least. The Scriptures certainly do not sustain some views now advanced. The old London confession of faith, the oldest we have, does not accord with some of the notions now held by our brethren. One of the Old Baptists who spoke as the Lord moved him, said, ‘Lord turn me, and I shall be turned, draw me, and I will run after thee.’ David, a man after God’s own heart, said, ‘Lord restore the joys of thy salvation.’ Paul said, ‘The things I would do, I do not, and the things I would not, them I do.’ So you see if the modern idea of receiving God’s blessings be true, Paul would not have been blessed at all. But Paul preached a better and sure way of receiving blessing. He said to the church, and the faithful in Christ Jesus, at Ephesus, ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.’ So you see the blessings in this life, as well as salvation in heaven, are according to God’s choice, and not ours.”
IMPORTANT POINTS:
1) The reference that the Old Baptists “were going wild” shows that the time period was a tumultuous one.
2) The scriptures do not support some of the modern views being advanced.
3) The 1689 LCF is endorsed as being the confession of the Old Baptists, and it does not support these views.
4) All spiritual blessings are given by grace, and none left to be obtained by free-will.
Hite wrote:
“There is but one salvation for us, and it is manifested in time, and continues throughout all eternity. Paul said to Timothy, ‘Take heed to thyself, and to the doctrine, continue in them, for in so doing thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.’ He was there contrasting sound doctrine with the false, from which they were by Paul exhorted to keep aloof. But you know that it is by grace that one knows the truth. Paul, as you will remember, once said, contrasting his labor with the labor of the other apostles, ‘I labored more abundantly than they all. Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.’ So you see that Paul was not a so called ‘time salvation’, for they labor to obtain the blessings, while Paul was blessed with grace which enabled him to labor more than the other apostles. You see, father, that it is by faith, that it might be by grace. That is to say, it is by grace from start to finish. It is through the gift of grace that one is enabled to believe, and what is not of faith is sin. Therefore any of our work which does not come through faith by grace, is sin. Grace, as you know, is the gift of God, which enables us to believe and act. Hence our good works come from God, as a gift of grace. In fact it is really God, or Christ in us, who does the good works.”
IMPORTANT POINTS:
1) One unbroken salvation is declared.
2) Paul was no advocate of time salvation.
3) Grace from start to finish. From regeneration to glorification, with no optional interlude for a “second” free-will based salvation.
4) Grace from start to finish, yet nevertheless it is "by faith".
5) Good works are of the Lord.
Signs of the Times Volume 67
May this be of help to some.
Hite wrote:
“It seems to me that the dear Old Baptists are going wild, some of them at least. The Scriptures certainly do not sustain some views now advanced. The old London confession of faith, the oldest we have, does not accord with some of the notions now held by our brethren. One of the Old Baptists who spoke as the Lord moved him, said, ‘Lord turn me, and I shall be turned, draw me, and I will run after thee.’ David, a man after God’s own heart, said, ‘Lord restore the joys of thy salvation.’ Paul said, ‘The things I would do, I do not, and the things I would not, them I do.’ So you see if the modern idea of receiving God’s blessings be true, Paul would not have been blessed at all. But Paul preached a better and sure way of receiving blessing. He said to the church, and the faithful in Christ Jesus, at Ephesus, ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.’ So you see the blessings in this life, as well as salvation in heaven, are according to God’s choice, and not ours.”
IMPORTANT POINTS:
1) The reference that the Old Baptists “were going wild” shows that the time period was a tumultuous one.
2) The scriptures do not support some of the modern views being advanced.
3) The 1689 LCF is endorsed as being the confession of the Old Baptists, and it does not support these views.
4) All spiritual blessings are given by grace, and none left to be obtained by free-will.
Hite wrote:
“There is but one salvation for us, and it is manifested in time, and continues throughout all eternity. Paul said to Timothy, ‘Take heed to thyself, and to the doctrine, continue in them, for in so doing thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.’ He was there contrasting sound doctrine with the false, from which they were by Paul exhorted to keep aloof. But you know that it is by grace that one knows the truth. Paul, as you will remember, once said, contrasting his labor with the labor of the other apostles, ‘I labored more abundantly than they all. Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.’ So you see that Paul was not a so called ‘time salvation’, for they labor to obtain the blessings, while Paul was blessed with grace which enabled him to labor more than the other apostles. You see, father, that it is by faith, that it might be by grace. That is to say, it is by grace from start to finish. It is through the gift of grace that one is enabled to believe, and what is not of faith is sin. Therefore any of our work which does not come through faith by grace, is sin. Grace, as you know, is the gift of God, which enables us to believe and act. Hence our good works come from God, as a gift of grace. In fact it is really God, or Christ in us, who does the good works.”
IMPORTANT POINTS:
1) One unbroken salvation is declared.
2) Paul was no advocate of time salvation.
3) Grace from start to finish. From regeneration to glorification, with no optional interlude for a “second” free-will based salvation.
4) Grace from start to finish, yet nevertheless it is "by faith".
5) Good works are of the Lord.
Signs of the Times Volume 67
Monday, December 17, 2012
A Lesson From the Prince
If I had to pinpoint the one sermon which was the most helpful in rescuing me from my non-exhortative, discriminatory, "only to those already saved" style of gospel preaching it would be that from none other than the Prince of Preachers himself:
"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. 'Nay,' saith one, 'but we mean that a man must have some good desires towards Christ before he has any warrant to believe in Jesus. Friend, do you not know what all good desires have some degree of holiness in them? But if a sinner hath any degree of true holiness in him it must be the work of the Spirit, for true holiness never exists in the carnal mind, therefore, that man is already renewed, and therefore saved. Are we to go running up and down the world, proclaiming life to the living, casting bread to those who are fed already, and holding up Christ on the pole of the gospel to those who are already healed? My brethren, where is our inducement to labour where our efforts are so little needed? If I am to preach Christ to those who have no goodness, who have nothing in them that qualifies them for mercy, then I feel I have a gospel so divine that I would proclaim it with my last breath, crying aloud, that Jesus came into the world to save sinners'—sinners as sinners, not as penitent sinners or as awakened sinners, but sinners as sinners, sinners 'of whom I am chief.'
Secondly, to tell the sinner that he is to believe on Christ because of some warrant in himself, is legal, I dare to say it—legal. Though this method is generally adopted by the higher school of Calvinists, they are herein unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal; it is strange that they who are so bold defenders of free grace should make common cause with Baxterians and Pelagians. I lay it down to he legal for this reason: if I believe in Jesus Christ because I feel a genuine repentance of sin, and therefore have a warrant for my faith, do you not perceive that the first and true ground of my confidence is the fact that I have repented of sin? If I believe in Jesus because I have convictions and a spirit of prayer, then evidently the first and the most important fact is not Christ, but my possession of repentance, conviction, and prayer, so that really my hope hinges upon my having repented; and if this be not legal I do not know what is. Put it lower. My opponents will say, 'The sinner must have an awakened conscience before he is warranted to believe on Christ.' Well, then, if I trust Christ to save me because I have an awakened conscience, I say again, the most important part of the whole transaction is the alarm of my conscience, and my real trust hangs there. If I lean on Christ because I feel this and that, then I am leaning on my feelings and not on Christ alone, and this is legal indeed. Nay, even if desires after Christ are to be my warrant for believing, if I am to believe in Jesus not because he bids me, but because I feel some desires after him, you will again with half an eye perceive that the most important source of my comfort must be my own desires. So that we shall be always looking within. 'Do I really desire? If I do, then Christ can save me; if I do not, then he cannot.' And so my desire overrides Christ and his grace. Away with such' legality from the earth!"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm
A great sense of freedom comes when one, formerly opposed to preaching without discrimination, finally understands that the sovereignty of God is no hindrance for preaching the gospel in its fullness to all who will hear.
"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. But you will tell me that I ought to preach it only to those who repent of their sins. Very well; but since true repentance of sin is the work of the Spirit, any man who has repentance is most certainly saved, because evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Where there is repentance there is faith already, for they never can be separated. So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it. Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. 'Nay,' saith one, 'but we mean that a man must have some good desires towards Christ before he has any warrant to believe in Jesus. Friend, do you not know what all good desires have some degree of holiness in them? But if a sinner hath any degree of true holiness in him it must be the work of the Spirit, for true holiness never exists in the carnal mind, therefore, that man is already renewed, and therefore saved. Are we to go running up and down the world, proclaiming life to the living, casting bread to those who are fed already, and holding up Christ on the pole of the gospel to those who are already healed? My brethren, where is our inducement to labour where our efforts are so little needed? If I am to preach Christ to those who have no goodness, who have nothing in them that qualifies them for mercy, then I feel I have a gospel so divine that I would proclaim it with my last breath, crying aloud, that Jesus came into the world to save sinners'—sinners as sinners, not as penitent sinners or as awakened sinners, but sinners as sinners, sinners 'of whom I am chief.'
Secondly, to tell the sinner that he is to believe on Christ because of some warrant in himself, is legal, I dare to say it—legal. Though this method is generally adopted by the higher school of Calvinists, they are herein unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal; it is strange that they who are so bold defenders of free grace should make common cause with Baxterians and Pelagians. I lay it down to he legal for this reason: if I believe in Jesus Christ because I feel a genuine repentance of sin, and therefore have a warrant for my faith, do you not perceive that the first and true ground of my confidence is the fact that I have repented of sin? If I believe in Jesus because I have convictions and a spirit of prayer, then evidently the first and the most important fact is not Christ, but my possession of repentance, conviction, and prayer, so that really my hope hinges upon my having repented; and if this be not legal I do not know what is. Put it lower. My opponents will say, 'The sinner must have an awakened conscience before he is warranted to believe on Christ.' Well, then, if I trust Christ to save me because I have an awakened conscience, I say again, the most important part of the whole transaction is the alarm of my conscience, and my real trust hangs there. If I lean on Christ because I feel this and that, then I am leaning on my feelings and not on Christ alone, and this is legal indeed. Nay, even if desires after Christ are to be my warrant for believing, if I am to believe in Jesus not because he bids me, but because I feel some desires after him, you will again with half an eye perceive that the most important source of my comfort must be my own desires. So that we shall be always looking within. 'Do I really desire? If I do, then Christ can save me; if I do not, then he cannot.' And so my desire overrides Christ and his grace. Away with such' legality from the earth!"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm
A great sense of freedom comes when one, formerly opposed to preaching without discrimination, finally understands that the sovereignty of God is no hindrance for preaching the gospel in its fullness to all who will hear.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Riner's Response
In the February 2010 issue of The Banner Herald Elder Scott Riner wrote a very good article entitled "The Old Paths - An Historical Response". It basically served as a return volley to the charge of modernism made upon those of the Progressive faction of the Primitive Baptists. It was a delight to read, and though outside of our present scope to relay it all, there are many things stated with which I agree. At the beginning reference is made to the importance of returning to the old paths in our worship. Yet before one does so, he of course must know what they are. As he says...
"But, this also begs the question, 'What have Primitive Baptists always believed historically?' I say that for the simple reason that often it depends upon how far back one goes to either define or defend their understanding of 'old paths'."
Bingo!
He writes again:
"There are several teachings that are often presented as 'orthodox' doctrine, along with the assertion that Primitive Baptists have always believed these things. However, original source documentation demonstrates that this is simply not the case."
Bingo number two!
Riner calls to remembrance Elder Sylvester Hassell's 1892 article New Theories and, in his own words, summarizes some of the innovations that the elder and historian noticed while on a 72-day preaching trip:
"Some of the 'innovative' interpretations include: 1) the denial of any real fundamental change made in individuals by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, 2) labeling all of the grounds in the parable of the Sower, the five foolish virgins, persons represented by the dog and the swine, the idolatrous as "children of God," 3) the only purpose of preaching is to comfort the people of God, and 4) the limiting of scriptural references which up to this point were said to be referring to eternal heaven, now believed to be speaking of only a present spiritual enjoyment of the believer here in time."
These interpretations are simply the fruits of conditionalism and its stripping down of salvation to be a more or less empty experience in many cases. If there indeed exists a desire to return to the "old paths", the first question must be what they are.
For its answer, the London Confession would be a good start.
"But, this also begs the question, 'What have Primitive Baptists always believed historically?' I say that for the simple reason that often it depends upon how far back one goes to either define or defend their understanding of 'old paths'."
Bingo!
He writes again:
"There are several teachings that are often presented as 'orthodox' doctrine, along with the assertion that Primitive Baptists have always believed these things. However, original source documentation demonstrates that this is simply not the case."
Bingo number two!
Riner calls to remembrance Elder Sylvester Hassell's 1892 article New Theories and, in his own words, summarizes some of the innovations that the elder and historian noticed while on a 72-day preaching trip:
"Some of the 'innovative' interpretations include: 1) the denial of any real fundamental change made in individuals by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, 2) labeling all of the grounds in the parable of the Sower, the five foolish virgins, persons represented by the dog and the swine, the idolatrous as "children of God," 3) the only purpose of preaching is to comfort the people of God, and 4) the limiting of scriptural references which up to this point were said to be referring to eternal heaven, now believed to be speaking of only a present spiritual enjoyment of the believer here in time."
These interpretations are simply the fruits of conditionalism and its stripping down of salvation to be a more or less empty experience in many cases. If there indeed exists a desire to return to the "old paths", the first question must be what they are.
For its answer, the London Confession would be a good start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)