Chapter 131
Michael Ivey, who I have cited previously in this series, acknowledged that the Confession must surely teach the Gospel means position because he saw that this was the view of Hanserd Knollys, one of the leaders of the Particular Baptists of England who signed both the first and second London Confessions. If there was any doubt about what the Confession taught on this subject (though there should not be since the Confession states the matter very clearly), a review of the writings of the authors of the Confession would settle the matter.
It is one thing for the Hardshells at Fulton to say "we think this means," but it is another thing for them to say "we think that the authors of the Confession meant." In interpreting and understanding the words of the Confession one can also look at the writings of those authors who put their signatures to the Confession. It is not enough for the Hardshells to interpret the words of the Confession as they think they should be read and understood, but they must also show that this was in fact the view of the men who wrote and endorsed the Confession. In this posting we will show from the writings of the authors of the old Confession that they believed exactly what they wrote.
William Collins, was one of the signers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession and was a co-pastor of the Baptist Church at Petty France, London. In the year 1675, William Collins and Dr. Nehemiah Cox were ordained joint elders of the church in Petty France.
Said one author:
"Joseph Ivimey asserts "it is probable that the Baptist Catechism was complied by Mr. Collins, though it has by some means or other been called Keach's Catechism"."
"Such a testimony of his character and abilities well suits one thought to be co-editor (along with Nehemiah Coxe) of the Confession of Faith (see Documentary Sources and Origins of the Confession) and one to represent his church and subscribe it." (see here)
The following extracts from "Keach's Catechism" (see here) make it apparent what Collins, Keach, and the other signatories of the 1689 Confession believed about the preaching of the Gospel being the means God employs for producing faith and salvation. Thus, Collins, like Keach, was no friend to Hardshell "anti-means" doctrine. Also, it is further proof that the Confession itself is but the reflection of what Collins and the other signatories wrote in their personal writings. This Catechism was originally published to clarify the theology of the Second London Baptist Confession that was written in 1677 and published after the Glorious Revolution in 1689.
Collins gave us these questions and answers (emphasis mine - SG):
Q. 3. How do we know there is a God?
A. The light of nature in man, and the works of God, plainly declare that there is a God; but His Word and Spirit only, do effectually reveal Him unto us for our salvation.
(Rom. 1:18-20; Psalm 19:1,2; 2 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor. 1:21-24; 1 Cor. 2:9,10)
Q. 4. What is the Word of God?
A. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, being given by divine inspiration, are the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
(2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; Isaiah 8:20)
This is important for understanding what the authors of the Confession meant by "the Word" by which sinners are effectually to life and salvation. The catechism, which was attached to the London Confession, says that "the Word" is "the Scriptures." The catechism says that it is by "His Word and Spirit" that Christ is effectually revealed "unto us for our salvation."
Q. 33. How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us, by His Holy Spirit.
(John 3:5,6; Titus 3:5,6)
Q. 34. How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.
(Eph. 2:8; 3:17)
I don't know how language could be any clearer and unambiguous. The Spirit applies the redemption of Christ "by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling." This is exactly what the Confession itself affirms. They did not teach that men were united to Christ unto faith, but "by faith."
Q. 35. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel.
(2 Tim. 1:9; John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezekiel 36:26; John 6:44,45; 1 Cor. 12:3)
This definition of "effectual calling" uproots the Hardshell description of the experience. The authors of the Confession say that effectual calling (regeneration, new birth) includes conviction of sin, enlightenment concerning Christ, and actually embracing Christ as he is "freely offered to us in the Gospel."
Q. 92. What does God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requires of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.
(Acts 20:21; Acts 16:30,31; 17:30)
What is stated in this question and answer in the catechism is exactly what is taught in the Confession to which it was attached. In the Confession the authors affirmed that all who obey not the Gospel will be eternally destroyed and here they say the same thing.
Q. 93. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the Gospel.
(Heb. 10:39; John 1:12; Phil. 3-9; Gal. 2:15,16)
One cannot help but see how the authors of the Old Baptist Confession did not define "faith" as do our modern Hardshell innovators. They knew nothing of a "faith" that was not cognitive, that did not with the heart and mind embrace the revelation concerning Christ, what is "offered to us in the Gospel."
Q. 94. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
(Acts 2:37; Joel 2:13; Jer. 31:18,19: 2 Cor. 7:10,11; Rom. 6:18)
Notice that "repentance unto life," which is discussed in the Confession, is here made to include "apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ." Thus, it involves cognition.
Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
(Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)
Language could not be any clearer! The subject is the communication of the "benefits of redemption." The "ordinary means" for this communication includes "the Word," and "which are made effectual to the elect for salvation."
Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.
(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)
This verse uproots Hardshellism! The "preaching of the Word" is "an effectual means of convincing and converting (regenerating) sinners." And, thus it all is "through faith unto salvation."
Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.
(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)
What clear words to uphold the means position, which has always been the position of the real Old Baptists.
This old Catechism was adopted, used, and recommended by the Charleston Association in 1813. Whoever agrees with this catechism is a real "Old Baptist."
Nehemiah Coxe was the son of the early Particular Baptist leader Benjamin Coxe. He died in 1688, one year before the adoption of the 1689 Confession. Coxe was a co-pastor with William Collins and it is said that he and Collins wrote the draft of the 1689 Confession. Coxe was a qualified physician, skilled in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, and a discerning theologian.
Coxe wrote:
"It is sad to consider, how many there are among professors, that live in the world, as if there were no truth in the report of that which is to come, and have the meanest esteem of the most necessary means of salvation, viz., the Word, and ordinances of Christ, and a Gospel ministry; can expend perhaps an hundred pounds per annum, more or less, for the convenience, ornament, or delight of a frail carcase, but will not bestow half so much for the poor, or the support of Gospel worship." (From a funeral sermon preached by Coxe in 1681)
Coxe, another signatory to the Confession, says that "the Word" and "a Gospel ministry," are "the most necessary means of salvation."
Hercules Collins was a leading Particular Baptist pastor in London and was a signer of both the 1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confession.
In his Catechism we read (see here):
Q. 21 What is true faith? A. True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation.
1John 17:3, 17; Heb. 11:1-3; James 2:19
2Rom. 4:18-21; 5:1; 10:10; Heb. 4:14-16
3Matt. 16:15-17; John 3:5; Acts 16:14
4Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21
5Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-10
6Gal. 2:20
7Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:10
This destroys the Hardshell notion that saving faith is non-cognitive and brings no Gospel knowledge. This saving faith, said Collins, is "created in me by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel." Further, Collins knows nothing of a non-cognitive "faith" for he says that "true faith" is a "knowledge and conviction."
Q. Is then Salvation restored by Christ to all men who perished in Adam?
A. Not to all: but to those only who by a true Faith are ingrafted into him, and receive his benefits.
John 1: 12 and 3: 36. Isa. 53: 11. Psall. 2: 12. Rom. 11: 20. Heb. 4: 2 and 10: 39.
Again, how much clearer can the authors of the Confession be? Only a blinded Hardshell cult member will fail to grasp what is meant by faith being the means whereby sinners "are ingrafted into him and receive his benefits."
Q. What is Faith? (page 7)
A. It is not only a knowledge, whereby I surely assent to all things which God hath revealed unto us in his Word, but also an assured trust kindled in my heart by the Holy Ghost, through the Gospel, whereby I make my repose in God, being assuredly resolved that Remission of Sins, everlasting Righteousness, and life is given not to others only, but to me also, and that freely through the Mercy of God, for the Merits of Christ alone.
Heb. 11:13. Jam. 2: 19. Gal. 2: 10. Rom. 4:16. and 5: 1 and 10:10. Rom. 1: 16 and 10:17. I Cor. 1: 21. Mar. 16: 16. Acts 16:14. Mat. 16: 17. John 3: 5. Gal. 5: 22. Phil. 1: 19. Rom. 3: 24, 25. Acts 10: 45
Does Collins define "faith" as do our Hardshell brethren? Did he think that there was such a thing as "non-cognitive faith"? Did he think that there was true traith apart from hearing the Gospel?
Q. But why art thou called a Christian? (pg. 12-13)
A. Because through Faith I am a member of Jesus Christ, and partaker of his anointing, that both I may confess his name, and present my self unto him a lively Sacrifice of thankfulness, and also may in this life fight against Sin and Satan with free and good conscience, and afterwards enjoy an everlasting Kingdom with Christ.
Acts 11: 26. I Cor. 6: 15. I John 2: 27. Isa. 59: 2. I John 2: 28. Matt. 10: 33. Rom. 12: 1. Apoc. 5: 8. I Pet. 2: 5. 2 Tim. 2: 12. Rom. 6: 12, 13. Apoc. 1: 6. I Tim. 1: 18, 19.
Q. But when thou believest all these things, what profit redoundeth thence unto thee?
A. That I am righteous in Christ before God, and an Heir of eternal Life.
Rom. 1: 17. John 3: 36. Rom. 3: 4 and 22, 24, 25, 28. Rom. 5: 1. Gal. 2: 16. Eph. 2: 8,9.
Q. How art thou righteous before God? (pg. 22-23)
A. Only by Faith in Christ Jesus. So that although my Conscience accuse me that I have grievously tresspassed against all the Commandments of God, and have not kept one of them, and further am as yet prone to all Evil, yet notwithstanding if I embrace these Benefits of Christ with a true Confidence and Persuasion of mind, the full and perfect Satisfaction, Righteousness and Holiness of Christ, without any Merit of Mine, of the meer Mercy of God is imputed and given unto me, and that so, as if neither I had committed any Sin, neither any Corruption did stick unto me, yea as I my self had perfectly accomplished that Obedience which Christ accomplished for me.
Rom. 3: 9. Rom. 7: 23. Rom. 3: 22. Joh. 3: 18. Tit. 3: 5. Eph. 2: 8,9. I John 2: 2. Rom. 3: 24. Deut. 9: 5,6. Ezek. 36: 22. I John 2: 1, Rom. 4: 4,5. 2 Cor. 5: 19. I Cor. 5: 21.
Q. Why affirmist thou that thou art made Righteous by Faith only? (pg. 23-24)
A. Not for that I please God through the Worthiness of meer Faith, but because only the Satisfaction, Righteousness and Holiness of Chrit is my Righteousness before God, and I cannot take hold of it, or apply it unto my self any other way than by Faith.
I Cor. 1: 30 and I Cor. 2: 2. I John 5: 1.
These questions and the answers to them make it clear what the authors of the Confession believed about faith and its relation to salvation. The answers clearly show that they believed that faith was necessary for salvation and this is exactly what they affirmed in the Confession.
Q. Seeing then that only Faith maketh us Partakers of Christ and his Benefits, whence doth it proceed? (Pg. 25)
A. From the Holy Ghost, who kindleth it in our Hearts by the preaching of the Gospel, and other Ordinances, and confirmeth it by the use of the Sacraments.
Eph. 2: 8 and 6: 23. John 3: 5. Phil. 1: 29. Mat. 28: 19,20. I Pet. 1: 22, 23.
Here they show that they believe that faith is produced by the means of Gospel preaching and that they know nothing of the kind of "faith" that the Hardshells speak about, a faith that does not come by the Gospel and that is non-cognitive.
Q. Of what Parts consisteth the Conversion of Man unto God? (pg. 47-48)
A. It consisteth of the mortifying of the old Man, and a quickening of the new Man.
Rom. 6: 4,5. Eph. 4: 22, 23, 24. Col. 3: 5, 8, 9, 10. I Cor. 5: 7. 2 Cor. 7: 11
This is very clear. The authors of the Confession view "conversion" as being all the same as the "quickening." This is denied, however, by the Hardshells.
In his book "Mountain of Brass," Collins wrote (see here):
"The sanctification of the church at Thessalonica, and their belief of the truth (2 Thess. 2:13), was in order to that salvation they were chosen and appointed unto from the beginning (1 Thess. 5:9). In a word, our calling, justification, and glorification, are all the effects of God's eternal purpose."
Again, Collins writes what is the belief of the London brethren who authored the London Confession and it is clear that he believed what is stated in the Confession and what the Hardshells deny that it teaches.
English Particular Baptist, Hanserd Knollys, of London Baptist Confession fame, and an early preacher in America, was unlike our modern Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists, for he believed that the gospel was a means in salvation. Knollys said:
"So often as the Gospel comes to any Soul not in word only, but in power and in the Holy Spirit, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, there is a Miracle wrought in them that receive the Gospel, Luke 7:22, and they then receive the Holy Spirit with his graces and gifts… So then we need not stay [i.e. wait] for a Ministry with Miracle, being we have a Word with Miracle." (Knollys - "The Shining as a Flame of Fire in Zion," London: 1646, as cited by Haykin in "English Particular Baptists of the 17th Century")
Michael Ivey, as we have already seen, acknowledges that Knollys believed in Gospel means and here is another citation which proves it. Knollys was a signer of both the first and second London Confessions.
Here is an article from John Spilsbury's personal confession of faith.
"I believe that God of his grace, in his own time, effectually calls such as shall be saved to the knowledge of the truth, who is said, of his own will to beget us by the word of truth: in which work of grace, nature is as passive, as a child in the parents begetting of it; and so God by His Spirit works faith in the hearts of all such to believe in Christ, and his righteousness, only for justification. And thus they are made righteous before God in Christ, and so conformable to the will of God the Father through the Son; and also made holy through the work of regeneration, and the holy Spirit of grace dwelling in them; yet all such have still, as long as they live here in the flesh, remaining in them, an old man, that original corruption, the flesh that wars against the spirit, which hinders them in their obedience both to God and to man, and many times draws them to that which is evil, and contrary to their intentions; yet all of them shall through Christ overcome, and safely be brought to glory at last."
Though Spilsbury did not sign the second London Confession, having died prior to its writing, he was nevertheless one of the first leaders of the London Particular Baptist churches and what he expresses in the above citation is what was the common faith of the churches who endorsed the London Confession of 1689.
All this testimony is simply further proof that the authors of the London Confession believed in Gospel means and that the effort of the Fulton elders was nothing but an attempt to convince their own cult members that they did not believe it, but it is nothing but a deception intended to deceive their own members.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Hardshells & The London Confession V
Chapter 130
In this chapter we will look at those sections of the Fulton Confession where it added footnotes to the London Confession of 1689 and show how they plainly distort the meaning of the Confession in an attempt to subvert and in pretense claim to be in agreement with it.
Chapter I - Of the Holy Scriptures - On section (6)
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.9
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word,11...
11. Jn 6:45; 1Co 2:9-12.
Fulton Footnote: We do not understand this section to teach that eternal life is obtained by the understanding of or obedience to the Scriptures.
What is this footnote but a denial of the words of this section? It is no "explanation" at all but simply a denial and controverting of what the Confession says. They (the "we") say that they "do not understand" the words of the Confession to mean what it plainly says. But, anyone not controlled by bias has no problem "understanding" what is meant by the article in question. Why does "salvation" not include the obtaining of "eternal life"? The Confession says that there are things that are necessary to be known for salvation and yet this is exactly what is denied by the Hardshells. They teach that there is no knowledge of truth that is necessary to being saved, at least none that comes by the Scriptures.
Further, notice "the Word" that the Confession mentions is "the Holy Scriptures" and that "Word" is capitalized. This point argues against those who say that "the Word" in the section on "effectual calling" is not the Scriptures because "the Word" there is capitalized.
The old Confession also speaks of "saving understanding," but such terminology is against Hardshellism for they do not believe that man has to understand anything to be saved. After all, by their own logic, how can an infant or idiot "understand" anything? One of the Scriptures that the Confession references is John 6: 45 - "they shall all be taught of God" - "heard and learned of the Father." The authors of the Confession, the real Old Baptists, believed that sinners were taught truth in being saved and that the Father did this teaching via the Scriptures.
7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;12 yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.13
12. 2Pe 3:16.
13. Ps 19:7; 119:130.
Fulton Footnote: We understand this relates to children of God having spiritual conception.
If the purpose of the footnotes are not to deny the teaching of any section but to simply "explain" it, then how has the footnote accomplished that end? Again, all they ("we") say is "we understand this" to mean such and such. The truth is, they understood perfectly what the article says, and so they should have said "we twist and distort this to mean."
The article in dispute again says that there are "things which are NECESSARY to be known, believed and observed for salvation." But, this again completely overthrows Hardshellism. They believe that a man does not have to "know" and "believe" anything in order to be saved. Hardshells think a man can have "faith" (belief) and not believe anything!
The article also speaks of the "means" that God has ordained to impart this saving knowledge to his people, and that they are "the Scriptures." I do not see how any Hardshell can fail to see how the Fulton brethren are being dishonest or are in willful denial of plain facts.
The old Hardshell Sanhedrin says "we understand this relates to children of God having spiritual discernment." Okay, but how has that explained anything? Where has their explanation cleared up any "archaic" and "ambiguous" language? Do they believe that all children of God have "spiritual conception"? Do they believe that one must have "spiritual perception" in order to be a child of God and saved? How do they believe one obtains this "spiritual perception"? Do they agree with the article that such comes by "means" of "the Holy Scriptures"?
Chapter III - Of God's Decree
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto;13 wherefore they who are elect, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,14 are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,15 and kept by His power through faith unto salvation;16 neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.17
13. 1Pe 1:2; 2Th 2:13.
14. 1Th 5:9-10.
15. Ro 8:30; 2Th 2:13.
16. 1Pe 1:5.
17. Jn 10:26; 17:9; 6:64.
Fulton Footnote: We do not understand the words "all the means thereunto" include other means than those especially set out in this section. "Redeemed by Christ," "effectually called," "by his spirit," etc.
It is the intention of this footnote to convince the Hardshell cult members that the Confession, by its reference to "the means" do not intend to include the Scriptures. But, the preceding article on "the Holy Scriptures" uses the word "means" in reference to "the Holy Scriptures." This article mentions "the means" for being "effectually called unto faith in Christ." Further, one of the Scriptures that the Confession cites is II Thess. 2: 13 where the Apostle says - "Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." Again, this footnote does not explain anything but only intends to deny what the Confession plainly affirms. Where do they point to archaic and ambiguous language? Does not this section say "through faith" and well as "by his Spirit"?
These Fulton perverters of the old London Confession attempt to make the writers of the Confession to be contradictory, as if they affirm means in one section and deny it in another. But, the Confession is very consistent and the men who wrote the Confession were far abler to express themselves than the Hardshells.
Chapter VII - Of God's Covenant
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,2 wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;3 and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.4
2. Ge 2:17; Gal.3:10; Ro 3:20-21.
3. Ro 8:3; Mk 16:15-16; Jn 3:16.
4. Eze 36:26-27; Jn 6:44-45; Ps 110:3.
Fulton Footnote: By the words "offereth unto sinners life and salvation" etc., we do not understand that the gift of eternal life is offered to alien sinners, but should be understood as meaning the assurance or enjoyment of spiritual or divine life, as is taught in John 20:30,31 and Galatians 6:7,8. The following places in the Confession describe the alien sinners as being unable to accept an offer of life: Chapter XX., Section 4; Chapter IX., Section 3; Chapter III., Section 6; and for further explanation of the doctrine herein set forth and from which said doctrine is deducible, see Confession, Chapter XVII., Section 3; Chapter XVIII., Sections 3 and 4; Chapter X., Section 4; Chapter XX., Sections 1 and 4; 2 Peter 1:10, 11.
Again, the Hardshells refuse to believe what the plain English of the Confession says. They say they do not understand that the "life and salvation" that is "offered unto sinners" is "eternal life." But, the question is not what the Hardshells believe, but what did the authors of the Confession believe? Why would the Confession speak of offering salvation to those who already have it? Further, they plainly say that this is offered "unto sinners," sinners who do not already have "life" and "salvation." Anyone without a bias and intent to deceive will have no problem understanding what the Old Baptists meant who wrote this article of the old Confession. Further, the Scriptures they use (Ro 8:3; Mk 16:15-16; Jn 3:16) to define what they mean by "life and salvation" are passages that deal with obtaining eternal salvation and eternal life. John 3:16 says - "that whoever believes in him may have everlasting life." In spite of this undeniable proof, the Hardshells say we don't think they mean "eternal life" by "life and salvation"!
The Fulton elders then say of the words of the Confession that it "should be understood as meaning the assurance or enjoyment of spiritual life." Well, had the authors of the Confession meant that, were they unable to say it? The Hardshell "explanation" affirms that the words of the Confession are really saying that God is making an offer to saved and spiritually alive sinners, not to unsaved and spiritually dead sinners. They say that "life and salvation" are not really being offered but the "assurance" of it. But, this is a wilful perversion of the clear language of the text and the Hardshells show themselves to be deceitful and dishonest perverters of it. This same kind of perverting of words is not limited to the words of the Confession but, worst of all, to the Scriptures also.
Further, if one will examine the texts of Scripture referenced by the Confession, then he will see that by "life and salvation" they mean not the assurance of such, but the things themselves.
The Fulton Sanhedrin then attempts to say that their interpretation or explanation of the Confession's words must mean what the Hardshells say because the Confession elsewhere says that sinners are unable to accept the offer of life and salvation. But, this is no argument at all. The Confession does affirm that the dead and unsaved sinner is not able to accept the call but that the call nevertheless offers him such. This is no more a contradiction than the fact that Christ told those paralyzed to stretch forth his hands. They believed that the call to life by the Gospel was not sufficient in itself, nor than anyone in himself could accept what is offered, but they also believed that the elect would be enabled by the Spirit to do that which they were unable to do in themselves. They have already stated that God would make his people willing to accept the offer by his power. Notice how this is explained in the Confession in chapter eight.
8. To all those for whom Christ has obtained eternal redemption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them;38 uniting them to Himself by His Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey,39 governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit,40 and overcoming all their enemies by His mighty power and wisdom,41 in such manner and ways as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.42 (Chapter 8)
( John 6:37; John 10:15, 16; John 17:9; Romans 5:10; John 17:6; Ephesians 1:9; 1 John 5:20; Romans 8:9, 14; Psalms 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 26; John 3:8; Ephesians 1:8 )
The Confession is clear that God does "apply and communicate" "eternal redemption" by "uniting to Himself...by His Word and Spirit" the elect.
Chapter IX - Of Free Will
4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,7 and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;8 yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.9
7. Col 1:13; Jn 8:36.
8. Php 2:13.
9. Ro 7:15,18-19,21,23.
Fulton Footnote: We understand the expression "when God converts" to mean when God regenerates.
This is an interesting footnote in that the Hardshell brethren agreed with the Confession in affirming that regeneration and conversion were basically the same experience, a truth that today's Hardshells will not affirm.
Chapter X - Of Effectual Calling
1. Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,1 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;2 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;3 taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh:4 renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.6
1. Ro 8:30; 11:7; Eph 1:10-11, 2Th 2:13-14.
2. Eph 2:1-6.
3. Ac 26:18; Eph 1:17-18.
4. Eze 36:26.
5. Dt 30:6; Eze 36:27; Eph 1:19.
6. Ps 110:3; SS 1:4.
Fulton Footnote: 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
One wonders why the Hardshells did not interpret "predestined unto life" to mean predestined to assurance of life as they did to the previous section about offering life and salvation to sinners? Why did "life" there not mean life but here it does mean life?
The Hardshells do not explain the words of the Confession here but simply say that they do not believe that "the written word" is designed by the authors when they say "by His Word and Spirit." But, again, this is a distortion. All through the Confession "the Word" always means "the Scriptures." And, as we shall see, even the Hardshells acknowledge that "the Word" elsewhere in the Confession means the Scriptures. Also, notice that they cite II Thess. 2: 13 as proof of what they mean by "the Word." In that passage Paul says that believers are "called by the Gospel" in obtaining that salvation to which they have been chosen.
Further, it is clear that by "effectual calling" the authors of the Confession denote being made spiritually alive since they cite Eph. 2: 1-6 as defining it.
Notice also the reference to Acts 26: 18 for proof of what the Confession is affirming and what they intend by "the Word." That passage gives the reason why the Apostle Paul was sent to preach the Gospel. It reads:
"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
Every Hardshell rejects the idea that this passage is dealing with being effectually called or regenerated! They realize that if they apply it to eternal salvation then their doctrine is destroyed. But, the authors of the old Confession believed that the passage did show proof for their view that sinners are effectually called by "the Word."
Further, the Confession cites Eph. 1: 17-19 to define what is involved in being effectually called. It is to be made a Gospel believer. They affirm that to be regenerated or effectually called one has to be enlightened by the Gospel.
3. Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
10. Jn 3:3,5-6.
11. Jn 3:8.
Fulton Footnote: We understand this section to teach that all persons dying in infancy are of the elect, and will therefore be saved. We do not understand from this that infants and insane persons are saved in a manner different from the manner in which all other elect persons are saved. The word "others" in Section 4 has no reference to infants, but adults who are subjects of the ministry of the Word.
How could the Fulton brethren think that the Confession agreed with them in their footnote? They clearly believed that infants and others who were "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" were "regenerated and saved" without this outward calling by the Word. Thus, though the Hardshells did not believe that the manner was different between infants and adults, yet the Confession clearly believed it. Again, the footnote is simply in disagreement with the article.
Further, by "others" the Confession is alluding to idiots, who are "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." But, the Hardshell Sanhedrin thinks that the "others" are adults who are capable of being called by the ministers of the Word. Are idiots "subjects of the ministry of the Word"? The footnote wants us to believe that they are and yet the article itself denies it!
Some Hardshells even use this section to try and affirm that the Confession is affirming that the heathen who have never heard the Gospel are saved, being some of those "others" who are "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." But, this cannot be what the authors of the Confession had in mind because later in the Confession they affirm that all the heathen who die without knowledge of the Gospel are eternally doomed. This was acknowledged by Elder Hunt to be the case.
4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit,12 yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:13 much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.14
12. Mt 22:14; 13:20-21; Heb 6:4-5.
13. Jn 6:44-45,65; 1Jn 2:24-25.
14. Ac 4:12; Jn 4:22; 17:3.
Fulton 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.
This article of the Confession denies that anyone who is not a Christian is saved and yet this is what Hardshells deny. How then can they claim to believe the old London Confession? The Confession says "much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved." How "ambiguous" is that? Is that "archaic" language? Do their words mean that heathens can be saved while remaining heathens? If a man can read clear language such as this and see just the opposite is willfully blinded.
The supposed "explanation" of the footnote is no explanation at all and does not even address what is being affirmed by the article. The article is affirming the fact that the word of God alone is not able to save, but requires the Spirit in addition to the word. Again, the Confession is denying the "word alone" view that would later characterize the Campbellite movement. Throughout the Confession they say "by his Word AND Spirit."
Further, the footnote says "we understand" rather than "we understand this article to mean." What the Hardshells "understand" and what the authors of the Confession "understand" are clearly two different things. The article says nothing about the "ordo salutis," about whether men are born again before faith. The article is clearly talking about being saved, and affirms that one must first come to Christ, by faith, in order to be saved. The word "saved" is used twice in the article and it affirms that men must come to Christ to be saved, that they must be Christian, must believe in Christ.
Chapter XI - Of Justification
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth,1 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;2 not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;3 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness,4 they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.5
1. Ro 3:24; 8:30.
2. Ro 4:5-8; Eph 1:7.
3. 1Co 1:30-31; Ro 5:17-19.
4. Php 3:8-9; Eph 2:8-10.
5. Jn 1:12; Ro 5:17.
Fulton Footnote: We understand this section to teach that the elect are justified in the sight of the law by the actual work of Christ when he satisfied the law for them, and we believe this is applied to the elect in the work of regeneration, bringing personal righteousness or making their persons righteous in heart.
This footnote adds nothing to the article itself, for the article is plain enough. What the footnote says is simply the same thing the article itself says. But, let us see what the next article in this chapter in the Confession says.
2. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;6 yet it is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.7
6. Ro 3:28.
7. Gal 5:6; Jas 2:17,22,26.
4. God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect,11 and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification;12 nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.13
( Galatians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 4:25; Colossians 1:21,22; Titus 3:4-7 )
These articles make it clear that faith is"alone instrument of justification" and that the elect are "not justified personally until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them." This is not what Hardshells believe. They deny that evangelical faith is an instrument of justification.
Chapter XIV - Of Saving Faith
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,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.3
1. 2Co 4:13; Eph 2:8.
2. Ro 10:14,17.
3. Lk 17:5; 1Pe 2:2; Ac 20:32.
Fulton Footnote: By the words "faith as ordinarily wrought by the Word" we are taught to distinguish between life and the motions or fruits of life, because faith as one of the acts of life may be instrumentally produced by the Word. (Rom. 10:17) While life itself is the immediate gift of the Almighty (Rom. 7:23), and is antecedent to and the foundation of faith.
Why is it the the Hardshells think "the Word" here means the Scriptures or the preached word but did not think it meant such in the section on "effectual calling"? The reason is obvious.
The footnote does not explain anything but is itself in need of explanation. The words of the Confession are not archaic and ambiguous but clear. Faith is necessary for salvation and faith is ordinarily produced by the ministry of the Word. The Scriptures referred to show that the authors of the Confession believed that evangelical faith was necessary for being saved and this is what Hardshells do not believe. The Confession mentions the ministry of the Word as being "means" for producing faith which is unto salvation.
15. Repentance and Salvation
1. Such of the elect as are converted in riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life.1
1. Tit 3:2-5.
3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace,4 whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency,5 praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things.6
4. Zec 12:10; Ac 11:18.
5. Eze 36:31; 2Co 7:11.
6. Ps 119:6,128.
It is interesting that the Fulton Confession offers no footnotes to this section on "Repentance and Salvation." Again one should notice how the authors of the Confession use the term "converted" as meaning the same thing as being "effectual calling." Further, they say in effectual calling one is given repentance unto life. They cite Acts 11: 18 where this is plainly stated. They did not say "life unto repentance," which is Hardshell doctrine, but "repentance unto life." In this ordo salutis repentance comes before life. Further, they have already stated that sinners are offered "life and salvation" in the Gospel and that life and salvation are received by faith.
The Confession also says that "this saving repentance is an evangelical grace." By "evangelical" they mean that it is produced by the preaching of the Gospel.
Chapter XX - Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof
1. The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance;1 in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.2
1. Ge 3:15.
2. Rev 13:8.
2. This promise of Christ, and salvation by Him, is revealed only by the Word of God;3 neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by Him, so much as in a general or obscure way;4 much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.5
3. Ro 1:17.
4. Ro 10:14-15,17.
5. Pr 29:18; Isa 25:7; 60:2-3.
Fulton Footnote: We are taught by this section that nature does not reveal the scheme of human redemption to man. Nevertheless this fact does not render the work of Christ and the Spirit impossible in the regeneration and eternal salvation of sinners, even in the absence of the preached Word.
The Confession once again defines "effectual calling" in the words "effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." And, they say that the "means of calling the elect" is the "promise" of the "Gospel." The "promise" they allude to is the good news, the revealed or written promise. This is why they says "by the promise or gospel." The Confession also says that "faith and repentance" are begotten in the elect when they are called by the Gospel.
The Scriptures cited by the Confession makes it clear also that they believed that one must hear the Gospel in order to obtain faith and repentance and that faith and repentance are unto salvation.
This article also again states that all men who are without Gospel revelation are lost. "Men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise of the gospel" are not able to "attain saving faith and repentance." This was why Elder Hunt correctly said that the London Confession taught that one must be a Christian or burn.
The footnote, however, simply denies what the article in the Confession affirms. They say that this article does not mean that it is "impossible" for there to be regenerated and eternally saved sinners among the heathen who know not God. But, what God is able to do is not the question. No one denies that God is able to save apart from human preachers, but the question is whether God has chosen to do so. The footnote intends to convey the idea that men destitute of the Christian religion may be saved, and yet this is exactly what is denied by the article!
4. Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life;8 without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God.9
8. Ps 110:3; 1Co 2:14; Eph 1:19-20.
9. Jn 6:44; 2Co. 4:4,6.
These words of the Confession received no footnote by the Fulton brethren. But, it is clear that they believed that two things were necessary "that men who are dead in tresspasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated" or "for the producing in them a new spiritual life." The Gospel is the "outward means" and "an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul." They saw both the word and Spirit as the two causes. They use the word "means" twice in the article and the means is "the gospel." It is also to be observed how the Confession uses the terms "born again," "quickened," "regenerated," as equivalent to "conversion."
Chapter XXXII - Of the Last Judgment
2. The end of God's appointing this day, is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the eternal damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient:4 for then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and glory with everlasting rewards, in the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast aside into everlasting torments,5 and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.6
4. Rom 9:22-23.
5. Mat 25:21,34; 2 Ti 4:8.
6. Mat 25:46; Mk 9:48; 2Th 1:7-10.
Fulton Footnote: It is through the atoning sacrifice and perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to his people that they shall be acquitted in judgment.
Inasmuch as there is some difference of opinion concerning the teaching of some of the articles in the London Confession of Faith, we will submit the following in the way of explaining our understanding of their teaching:
We believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation received by the heirs of God distinct from eternal salvation, which does depend upon their obedience. The people of God receive their rewards for obedience in this life only. We believe that the ability of the Christian is the unconditional gift of God.
This article makes it clear, just as the Scriptures they cite affirm, that those who "obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ" will be "cast aside into everlasting torments." Again, this destroys Hardshellism.
The authors of the Fulton footnote had to get their "time salvation" somewhere into the Confession. They say "we believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation...distinct from eternal salvation." But, where does the London Confession teach such a novelty? Surely, had the old authors had believed such a thing, then they would have made such plain. In the above article the Confession even says "eternal salvation" and "everlasting torments" and "everlasting destruction."
Thus, in conclusion, it is clear to all unbiased minds that the Confession teaches that God saves, quickens, regenerates, calls, and converts by the preaching of the Gospel. Even honest Hardshells acknowledge this fact, yet there still remains some who, like the simple, "believe every word."
In this chapter we will look at those sections of the Fulton Confession where it added footnotes to the London Confession of 1689 and show how they plainly distort the meaning of the Confession in an attempt to subvert and in pretense claim to be in agreement with it.
Chapter I - Of the Holy Scriptures - On section (6)
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.9
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word,11...
11. Jn 6:45; 1Co 2:9-12.
Fulton Footnote: We do not understand this section to teach that eternal life is obtained by the understanding of or obedience to the Scriptures.
What is this footnote but a denial of the words of this section? It is no "explanation" at all but simply a denial and controverting of what the Confession says. They (the "we") say that they "do not understand" the words of the Confession to mean what it plainly says. But, anyone not controlled by bias has no problem "understanding" what is meant by the article in question. Why does "salvation" not include the obtaining of "eternal life"? The Confession says that there are things that are necessary to be known for salvation and yet this is exactly what is denied by the Hardshells. They teach that there is no knowledge of truth that is necessary to being saved, at least none that comes by the Scriptures.
Further, notice "the Word" that the Confession mentions is "the Holy Scriptures" and that "Word" is capitalized. This point argues against those who say that "the Word" in the section on "effectual calling" is not the Scriptures because "the Word" there is capitalized.
The old Confession also speaks of "saving understanding," but such terminology is against Hardshellism for they do not believe that man has to understand anything to be saved. After all, by their own logic, how can an infant or idiot "understand" anything? One of the Scriptures that the Confession references is John 6: 45 - "they shall all be taught of God" - "heard and learned of the Father." The authors of the Confession, the real Old Baptists, believed that sinners were taught truth in being saved and that the Father did this teaching via the Scriptures.
7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;12 yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.13
12. 2Pe 3:16.
13. Ps 19:7; 119:130.
Fulton Footnote: We understand this relates to children of God having spiritual conception.
If the purpose of the footnotes are not to deny the teaching of any section but to simply "explain" it, then how has the footnote accomplished that end? Again, all they ("we") say is "we understand this" to mean such and such. The truth is, they understood perfectly what the article says, and so they should have said "we twist and distort this to mean."
The article in dispute again says that there are "things which are NECESSARY to be known, believed and observed for salvation." But, this again completely overthrows Hardshellism. They believe that a man does not have to "know" and "believe" anything in order to be saved. Hardshells think a man can have "faith" (belief) and not believe anything!
The article also speaks of the "means" that God has ordained to impart this saving knowledge to his people, and that they are "the Scriptures." I do not see how any Hardshell can fail to see how the Fulton brethren are being dishonest or are in willful denial of plain facts.
The old Hardshell Sanhedrin says "we understand this relates to children of God having spiritual discernment." Okay, but how has that explained anything? Where has their explanation cleared up any "archaic" and "ambiguous" language? Do they believe that all children of God have "spiritual conception"? Do they believe that one must have "spiritual perception" in order to be a child of God and saved? How do they believe one obtains this "spiritual perception"? Do they agree with the article that such comes by "means" of "the Holy Scriptures"?
Chapter III - Of God's Decree
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto;13 wherefore they who are elect, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,14 are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,15 and kept by His power through faith unto salvation;16 neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.17
13. 1Pe 1:2; 2Th 2:13.
14. 1Th 5:9-10.
15. Ro 8:30; 2Th 2:13.
16. 1Pe 1:5.
17. Jn 10:26; 17:9; 6:64.
Fulton Footnote: We do not understand the words "all the means thereunto" include other means than those especially set out in this section. "Redeemed by Christ," "effectually called," "by his spirit," etc.
It is the intention of this footnote to convince the Hardshell cult members that the Confession, by its reference to "the means" do not intend to include the Scriptures. But, the preceding article on "the Holy Scriptures" uses the word "means" in reference to "the Holy Scriptures." This article mentions "the means" for being "effectually called unto faith in Christ." Further, one of the Scriptures that the Confession cites is II Thess. 2: 13 where the Apostle says - "Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." Again, this footnote does not explain anything but only intends to deny what the Confession plainly affirms. Where do they point to archaic and ambiguous language? Does not this section say "through faith" and well as "by his Spirit"?
These Fulton perverters of the old London Confession attempt to make the writers of the Confession to be contradictory, as if they affirm means in one section and deny it in another. But, the Confession is very consistent and the men who wrote the Confession were far abler to express themselves than the Hardshells.
Chapter VII - Of God's Covenant
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,2 wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;3 and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.4
2. Ge 2:17; Gal.3:10; Ro 3:20-21.
3. Ro 8:3; Mk 16:15-16; Jn 3:16.
4. Eze 36:26-27; Jn 6:44-45; Ps 110:3.
Fulton Footnote: By the words "offereth unto sinners life and salvation" etc., we do not understand that the gift of eternal life is offered to alien sinners, but should be understood as meaning the assurance or enjoyment of spiritual or divine life, as is taught in John 20:30,31 and Galatians 6:7,8. The following places in the Confession describe the alien sinners as being unable to accept an offer of life: Chapter XX., Section 4; Chapter IX., Section 3; Chapter III., Section 6; and for further explanation of the doctrine herein set forth and from which said doctrine is deducible, see Confession, Chapter XVII., Section 3; Chapter XVIII., Sections 3 and 4; Chapter X., Section 4; Chapter XX., Sections 1 and 4; 2 Peter 1:10, 11.
Again, the Hardshells refuse to believe what the plain English of the Confession says. They say they do not understand that the "life and salvation" that is "offered unto sinners" is "eternal life." But, the question is not what the Hardshells believe, but what did the authors of the Confession believe? Why would the Confession speak of offering salvation to those who already have it? Further, they plainly say that this is offered "unto sinners," sinners who do not already have "life" and "salvation." Anyone without a bias and intent to deceive will have no problem understanding what the Old Baptists meant who wrote this article of the old Confession. Further, the Scriptures they use (Ro 8:3; Mk 16:15-16; Jn 3:16) to define what they mean by "life and salvation" are passages that deal with obtaining eternal salvation and eternal life. John 3:16 says - "that whoever believes in him may have everlasting life." In spite of this undeniable proof, the Hardshells say we don't think they mean "eternal life" by "life and salvation"!
The Fulton elders then say of the words of the Confession that it "should be understood as meaning the assurance or enjoyment of spiritual life." Well, had the authors of the Confession meant that, were they unable to say it? The Hardshell "explanation" affirms that the words of the Confession are really saying that God is making an offer to saved and spiritually alive sinners, not to unsaved and spiritually dead sinners. They say that "life and salvation" are not really being offered but the "assurance" of it. But, this is a wilful perversion of the clear language of the text and the Hardshells show themselves to be deceitful and dishonest perverters of it. This same kind of perverting of words is not limited to the words of the Confession but, worst of all, to the Scriptures also.
Further, if one will examine the texts of Scripture referenced by the Confession, then he will see that by "life and salvation" they mean not the assurance of such, but the things themselves.
The Fulton Sanhedrin then attempts to say that their interpretation or explanation of the Confession's words must mean what the Hardshells say because the Confession elsewhere says that sinners are unable to accept the offer of life and salvation. But, this is no argument at all. The Confession does affirm that the dead and unsaved sinner is not able to accept the call but that the call nevertheless offers him such. This is no more a contradiction than the fact that Christ told those paralyzed to stretch forth his hands. They believed that the call to life by the Gospel was not sufficient in itself, nor than anyone in himself could accept what is offered, but they also believed that the elect would be enabled by the Spirit to do that which they were unable to do in themselves. They have already stated that God would make his people willing to accept the offer by his power. Notice how this is explained in the Confession in chapter eight.
8. To all those for whom Christ has obtained eternal redemption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them;38 uniting them to Himself by His Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey,39 governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit,40 and overcoming all their enemies by His mighty power and wisdom,41 in such manner and ways as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it.42 (Chapter 8)
( John 6:37; John 10:15, 16; John 17:9; Romans 5:10; John 17:6; Ephesians 1:9; 1 John 5:20; Romans 8:9, 14; Psalms 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 26; John 3:8; Ephesians 1:8 )
The Confession is clear that God does "apply and communicate" "eternal redemption" by "uniting to Himself...by His Word and Spirit" the elect.
Chapter IX - Of Free Will
4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,7 and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;8 yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.9
7. Col 1:13; Jn 8:36.
8. Php 2:13.
9. Ro 7:15,18-19,21,23.
Fulton Footnote: We understand the expression "when God converts" to mean when God regenerates.
This is an interesting footnote in that the Hardshell brethren agreed with the Confession in affirming that regeneration and conversion were basically the same experience, a truth that today's Hardshells will not affirm.
Chapter X - Of Effectual Calling
1. Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,1 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;2 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;3 taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh:4 renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.6
1. Ro 8:30; 11:7; Eph 1:10-11, 2Th 2:13-14.
2. Eph 2:1-6.
3. Ac 26:18; Eph 1:17-18.
4. Eze 36:26.
5. Dt 30:6; Eze 36:27; Eph 1:19.
6. Ps 110:3; SS 1:4.
Fulton Footnote: 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
One wonders why the Hardshells did not interpret "predestined unto life" to mean predestined to assurance of life as they did to the previous section about offering life and salvation to sinners? Why did "life" there not mean life but here it does mean life?
The Hardshells do not explain the words of the Confession here but simply say that they do not believe that "the written word" is designed by the authors when they say "by His Word and Spirit." But, again, this is a distortion. All through the Confession "the Word" always means "the Scriptures." And, as we shall see, even the Hardshells acknowledge that "the Word" elsewhere in the Confession means the Scriptures. Also, notice that they cite II Thess. 2: 13 as proof of what they mean by "the Word." In that passage Paul says that believers are "called by the Gospel" in obtaining that salvation to which they have been chosen.
Further, it is clear that by "effectual calling" the authors of the Confession denote being made spiritually alive since they cite Eph. 2: 1-6 as defining it.
Notice also the reference to Acts 26: 18 for proof of what the Confession is affirming and what they intend by "the Word." That passage gives the reason why the Apostle Paul was sent to preach the Gospel. It reads:
"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
Every Hardshell rejects the idea that this passage is dealing with being effectually called or regenerated! They realize that if they apply it to eternal salvation then their doctrine is destroyed. But, the authors of the old Confession believed that the passage did show proof for their view that sinners are effectually called by "the Word."
Further, the Confession cites Eph. 1: 17-19 to define what is involved in being effectually called. It is to be made a Gospel believer. They affirm that to be regenerated or effectually called one has to be enlightened by the Gospel.
3. Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
10. Jn 3:3,5-6.
11. Jn 3:8.
Fulton Footnote: We understand this section to teach that all persons dying in infancy are of the elect, and will therefore be saved. We do not understand from this that infants and insane persons are saved in a manner different from the manner in which all other elect persons are saved. The word "others" in Section 4 has no reference to infants, but adults who are subjects of the ministry of the Word.
How could the Fulton brethren think that the Confession agreed with them in their footnote? They clearly believed that infants and others who were "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" were "regenerated and saved" without this outward calling by the Word. Thus, though the Hardshells did not believe that the manner was different between infants and adults, yet the Confession clearly believed it. Again, the footnote is simply in disagreement with the article.
Further, by "others" the Confession is alluding to idiots, who are "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." But, the Hardshell Sanhedrin thinks that the "others" are adults who are capable of being called by the ministers of the Word. Are idiots "subjects of the ministry of the Word"? The footnote wants us to believe that they are and yet the article itself denies it!
Some Hardshells even use this section to try and affirm that the Confession is affirming that the heathen who have never heard the Gospel are saved, being some of those "others" who are "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." But, this cannot be what the authors of the Confession had in mind because later in the Confession they affirm that all the heathen who die without knowledge of the Gospel are eternally doomed. This was acknowledged by Elder Hunt to be the case.
4. Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit,12 yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:13 much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.14
12. Mt 22:14; 13:20-21; Heb 6:4-5.
13. Jn 6:44-45,65; 1Jn 2:24-25.
14. Ac 4:12; Jn 4:22; 17:3.
Fulton 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.
This article of the Confession denies that anyone who is not a Christian is saved and yet this is what Hardshells deny. How then can they claim to believe the old London Confession? The Confession says "much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved." How "ambiguous" is that? Is that "archaic" language? Do their words mean that heathens can be saved while remaining heathens? If a man can read clear language such as this and see just the opposite is willfully blinded.
The supposed "explanation" of the footnote is no explanation at all and does not even address what is being affirmed by the article. The article is affirming the fact that the word of God alone is not able to save, but requires the Spirit in addition to the word. Again, the Confession is denying the "word alone" view that would later characterize the Campbellite movement. Throughout the Confession they say "by his Word AND Spirit."
Further, the footnote says "we understand" rather than "we understand this article to mean." What the Hardshells "understand" and what the authors of the Confession "understand" are clearly two different things. The article says nothing about the "ordo salutis," about whether men are born again before faith. The article is clearly talking about being saved, and affirms that one must first come to Christ, by faith, in order to be saved. The word "saved" is used twice in the article and it affirms that men must come to Christ to be saved, that they must be Christian, must believe in Christ.
Chapter XI - Of Justification
1. Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth,1 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;2 not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone;3 not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness,4 they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.5
1. Ro 3:24; 8:30.
2. Ro 4:5-8; Eph 1:7.
3. 1Co 1:30-31; Ro 5:17-19.
4. Php 3:8-9; Eph 2:8-10.
5. Jn 1:12; Ro 5:17.
Fulton Footnote: We understand this section to teach that the elect are justified in the sight of the law by the actual work of Christ when he satisfied the law for them, and we believe this is applied to the elect in the work of regeneration, bringing personal righteousness or making their persons righteous in heart.
This footnote adds nothing to the article itself, for the article is plain enough. What the footnote says is simply the same thing the article itself says. But, let us see what the next article in this chapter in the Confession says.
2. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification;6 yet it is not alone in the person justified, but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.7
6. Ro 3:28.
7. Gal 5:6; Jas 2:17,22,26.
4. God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect,11 and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification;12 nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.13
( Galatians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 4:25; Colossians 1:21,22; Titus 3:4-7 )
These articles make it clear that faith is"alone instrument of justification" and that the elect are "not justified personally until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them." This is not what Hardshells believe. They deny that evangelical faith is an instrument of justification.
Chapter XIV - Of Saving Faith
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,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.3
1. 2Co 4:13; Eph 2:8.
2. Ro 10:14,17.
3. Lk 17:5; 1Pe 2:2; Ac 20:32.
Fulton Footnote: By the words "faith as ordinarily wrought by the Word" we are taught to distinguish between life and the motions or fruits of life, because faith as one of the acts of life may be instrumentally produced by the Word. (Rom. 10:17) While life itself is the immediate gift of the Almighty (Rom. 7:23), and is antecedent to and the foundation of faith.
Why is it the the Hardshells think "the Word" here means the Scriptures or the preached word but did not think it meant such in the section on "effectual calling"? The reason is obvious.
The footnote does not explain anything but is itself in need of explanation. The words of the Confession are not archaic and ambiguous but clear. Faith is necessary for salvation and faith is ordinarily produced by the ministry of the Word. The Scriptures referred to show that the authors of the Confession believed that evangelical faith was necessary for being saved and this is what Hardshells do not believe. The Confession mentions the ministry of the Word as being "means" for producing faith which is unto salvation.
15. Repentance and Salvation
1. Such of the elect as are converted in riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life.1
1. Tit 3:2-5.
3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace,4 whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency,5 praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things.6
4. Zec 12:10; Ac 11:18.
5. Eze 36:31; 2Co 7:11.
6. Ps 119:6,128.
It is interesting that the Fulton Confession offers no footnotes to this section on "Repentance and Salvation." Again one should notice how the authors of the Confession use the term "converted" as meaning the same thing as being "effectual calling." Further, they say in effectual calling one is given repentance unto life. They cite Acts 11: 18 where this is plainly stated. They did not say "life unto repentance," which is Hardshell doctrine, but "repentance unto life." In this ordo salutis repentance comes before life. Further, they have already stated that sinners are offered "life and salvation" in the Gospel and that life and salvation are received by faith.
The Confession also says that "this saving repentance is an evangelical grace." By "evangelical" they mean that it is produced by the preaching of the Gospel.
Chapter XX - Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof
1. The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance;1 in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.2
1. Ge 3:15.
2. Rev 13:8.
2. This promise of Christ, and salvation by Him, is revealed only by the Word of God;3 neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by Him, so much as in a general or obscure way;4 much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance.5
3. Ro 1:17.
4. Ro 10:14-15,17.
5. Pr 29:18; Isa 25:7; 60:2-3.
Fulton Footnote: We are taught by this section that nature does not reveal the scheme of human redemption to man. Nevertheless this fact does not render the work of Christ and the Spirit impossible in the regeneration and eternal salvation of sinners, even in the absence of the preached Word.
The Confession once again defines "effectual calling" in the words "effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." And, they say that the "means of calling the elect" is the "promise" of the "Gospel." The "promise" they allude to is the good news, the revealed or written promise. This is why they says "by the promise or gospel." The Confession also says that "faith and repentance" are begotten in the elect when they are called by the Gospel.
The Scriptures cited by the Confession makes it clear also that they believed that one must hear the Gospel in order to obtain faith and repentance and that faith and repentance are unto salvation.
This article also again states that all men who are without Gospel revelation are lost. "Men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise of the gospel" are not able to "attain saving faith and repentance." This was why Elder Hunt correctly said that the London Confession taught that one must be a Christian or burn.
The footnote, however, simply denies what the article in the Confession affirms. They say that this article does not mean that it is "impossible" for there to be regenerated and eternally saved sinners among the heathen who know not God. But, what God is able to do is not the question. No one denies that God is able to save apart from human preachers, but the question is whether God has chosen to do so. The footnote intends to convey the idea that men destitute of the Christian religion may be saved, and yet this is exactly what is denied by the article!
4. Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life;8 without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God.9
8. Ps 110:3; 1Co 2:14; Eph 1:19-20.
9. Jn 6:44; 2Co. 4:4,6.
These words of the Confession received no footnote by the Fulton brethren. But, it is clear that they believed that two things were necessary "that men who are dead in tresspasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated" or "for the producing in them a new spiritual life." The Gospel is the "outward means" and "an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul." They saw both the word and Spirit as the two causes. They use the word "means" twice in the article and the means is "the gospel." It is also to be observed how the Confession uses the terms "born again," "quickened," "regenerated," as equivalent to "conversion."
Chapter XXXII - Of the Last Judgment
2. The end of God's appointing this day, is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the eternal damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient:4 for then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and glory with everlasting rewards, in the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast aside into everlasting torments,5 and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.6
4. Rom 9:22-23.
5. Mat 25:21,34; 2 Ti 4:8.
6. Mat 25:46; Mk 9:48; 2Th 1:7-10.
Fulton Footnote: It is through the atoning sacrifice and perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to his people that they shall be acquitted in judgment.
Inasmuch as there is some difference of opinion concerning the teaching of some of the articles in the London Confession of Faith, we will submit the following in the way of explaining our understanding of their teaching:
We believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation received by the heirs of God distinct from eternal salvation, which does depend upon their obedience. The people of God receive their rewards for obedience in this life only. We believe that the ability of the Christian is the unconditional gift of God.
This article makes it clear, just as the Scriptures they cite affirm, that those who "obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ" will be "cast aside into everlasting torments." Again, this destroys Hardshellism.
The authors of the Fulton footnote had to get their "time salvation" somewhere into the Confession. They say "we believe the Scriptures teach that there is a time salvation...distinct from eternal salvation." But, where does the London Confession teach such a novelty? Surely, had the old authors had believed such a thing, then they would have made such plain. In the above article the Confession even says "eternal salvation" and "everlasting torments" and "everlasting destruction."
Thus, in conclusion, it is clear to all unbiased minds that the Confession teaches that God saves, quickens, regenerates, calls, and converts by the preaching of the Gospel. Even honest Hardshells acknowledge this fact, yet there still remains some who, like the simple, "believe every word."
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Hardshells & The London Confession IV
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)