Chapter 146
Appealing to the Minds of Unregenerate Sinners
Gilbert Beebe wrote:
“Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well, the devils also believe and tremble” - James ii. 19. That devils are susceptible of that kind of conviction that compels them to yield to the force of truth, and believe that of which they are rationally convinced by testimony, is a sufficient demonstration that intelligent beings without spiritual life are capable of conviction, and may be led to believe that there is a God, a heaven and a hell, because they are unable to resist the testimony presented to their minds that such is the case. And because unregenerate men, and even children, are capable of such convictions, many have attempted to prove that genuine faith is a fruit of the natural mind, and a condition of life and salvation. Upon this false conclusion, all the machinery of the present age is brought to bear upon the intellectual powers of men, in order to bring them to believe certain things in regard to God and a future state. From their cradles to their tombs they are taught religion as they are taught earthly things, in the same natural and systematic manner that they are instructed in the arts and sciences of this world. The modern religious inventions, such as infant, Sabbath and theological schools, &c., are all based upon the same false and deceptive theory, and the general motto with arminians is Moral suasion. While we admit that natural men possess intellectual powers of mind sufficient to draw correct and legitimate conclusions from all given principles in nature, and to believe all such things as are, supported by such testimony as they deem sufficient, yet we contend, and by the eternal truth of heaven we prove, that their belief or disbelief in this manner can never change their nature, make one hair white or black, nor bring them one step towards God, holiness or heaven." ("MORAL SUASION OR NATURAL CONVICTION, VS. THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL," 1843 - see here)
The issue to be addressed concerns the role that "moral suasion" plays in conversion. Doubtless there are those, like the Campbellites, who believed that the preaching of the word is in itself sufficient to transform the soul. But, Hardshells who have embraced the "Spirit alone" view have gone to the other extreme and denied that the preaching of the word, with its persuasive appeals, plays any role at all. The truth, as the Scriptures and the writings of our Baptist forefathers taught, is that it is by both the Spirit and the word that men are regenerated and converted. But, more on this shortly.
He also wrote:
"From this Scripture and its connection, as well as from all other parts of the Scriptures, we are clearly taught that no external evidence presented to the natural intellect of man, can possibly make men savingly acquainted with our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, and the only Savior of lost, helpless sinners." ("John 5: 40," 1855 - see here)
Had Beebe added the word "alone" to his above remarks he would have been stating a truth. Had he said "no external evidence alone presented to the natural intellect," he would have stated a truth. The great Calvinist teachers of old all taught that there was a power separate and apart from the word that was necessary, a physical energy (non moral) of the Spirit was also necessary. But, again, more on this later. From the above words of Beebe, one can see how Beebe tends to view the natural depravity and inability of man to not be strictly moral, but also physical. This issue was addressed and refuted in the previous series "Hardshell Pelagianism."
Beebe also wrote,
"If these Jews, with all the testimony which was presented to their natural understanding, were still destitute of saving faith in him, how preposterous that Gentile sinners, with more limited opportunities, should become more savingly acquainted with him, as the true God, and eternal Life, without a special revelation of him to them as such, by the Father. “No man knoweth the Son but the Father, and he to whom the Father will reveal him.”" (ibid)
Beebe is affirming that one must have spiritual understanding before he can savingly hear and believe the Gospel. He fails to see how the Lord uses the preaching of the Gospel to change the natural understanding of men and to give spiritual understanding. It is absurd to think of man having a spiritual understanding without knowledge of truth and its propositions. If one follows the logic of Beebe then he must confess that it is a foolish act to preach the Gospel or to attempt to persuade those sinners who are yet unregenerate. Yet, clearly, as has been shown in this book, Christ often preached the Gospel to those who were unregenerate, even using arguments in his appeals. Was Christ not doing what Beebe condemns? Further, it is clearly taught in Scripture that the way the Father and Son are "revealed" is by the preaching of the word. Does not Paul write - "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" And, "how shall they hear without a preacher?"
Beebe continued:
"We are aware that many are taught that sinners, in a state of unregeneracy, are only deficient in their inclination, and that if by moral suasion their natural minds could be convinced by argument, or otherwise, that it would be to their interest to come to Christ, their wills would yield, and there would be no other impediment in their way. Allowing this theory to be true, there would be no need of a Christ to save a sinner at all. Every intelligent being knows that the human will of man is accessible to the power of man; and if nothing more were required than a change of will, the selfishness of man may be successfully appealed to by the eloquence of revivalists, and their carnal will enlisted to be happy here and hereafter, and if this were all the difficulty, the work would then be done. But this idea conflicts not only with the Scriptures, but also with the experience of every quickened sinner." (ibid)
Clearly Beebe is arguing based upon the assumption that man's inability is not strictly moral and that a change of will is not sufficient to change the moral nature of a man. But, this theory has already been shown to be false. Again, no sound Old Baptist or Calvinist affirms that the word can by itself change the sinful will and disposition of a sinner. But, the fact that the Bible is filled with addresses to the unregenerate, and that such addresses make use of arguments and persuasive appeals, destroys the reasoning of Beebe.
John Owen, who was widely read by the those Old Baptists who wrote the London Confessions, addressed this topic. He wrote:
"I shall, therefore, in general, refer the whole work of the Spirit of God with respect unto the regeneration of sinners unto two heads:— First, That which is preparatory for it; and, secondly, That which is effective of it. That which is preparatory for it is the conviction of sin; this is the work of the Holy Spirit, John xvi. 8. And this also may be distinctly referred unto three heads:— 1. A discovery of the true nature of sin by the ministry of the law, Rom. vii. 7. 2. An application of that discovery made in the mind or understanding unto the conscience of the sinner. 3. The excitation of affections suitable unto that discovery and application, Acts ii. 37. But these things, so far as they belong unto our present design, have been before insisted on. Our principal inquiry at present is after the work itself, or the nature and manner of the working of the Spirit of God in and on the souls of men in their regeneration; and this must be both negatively and positively declared:—
FIRST, The work of the Spirit of God in the regeneration of sinners, or the quickening of them who are dead in trespasses and sins, or in their first saving conversion to God, doth not consist in a moral suasion only. By suasion we intend such a persuasion as may or may not be effectual; so absolutely we call that only persuasion whereby a man is actually persuaded."
Owen is talking about the experience of being regenerated, which he equates with being converted. He speaks of what is preparatory to it. He speaks of conviction of sin as being preparatory to it. In affirming that conviction of sin is preparatory to regeneration, he denies the modern Hardshell notion that conviction of sin is an evidence of a prior regeneration. I dealt with this issue in chapters 54 and 55. He also correctly says that regeneration "doth not consist in a moral suasion ONLY." Owen, like our Old Baptist forefathers, did not completely exclude moral persausion from effecting regeneration, as did Beebe. Rather, he saw that the Holy Spirit makes use of preaching, with its persausive arguments, to bring about conviction and faith.
Owen continued:
"Concerning this we must consider,—
Now, concerning this whole work I affirm these two things :—
1. That the Holy Spirit doth make use of it in the regeneration or conversion of all that are adult, and that either immediately in and by the preaching of it, or by some other application of light and truth unto the mind derived from the word; for by the reasons, motives, and persuasive arguments which the word affords are our minds affected, and our souls wrought upon in our conversion unto God, whence it becomes our reasonable obedience. And there are none ordinarily converted, but they are able to give some account by what considerations they were prevailed on thereunto. But,—
2. We say that the whole work, or the whole of the work of the Holy Ghost in our conversion, doth not consist herein; but there is a real physical work, whereby he infuseth a gracious principle of spiritual life into all that are effectually converted and really regenerated, and without which there is no deliverance from the state of sin and death which we have described; which, among others, may be proved by the ensuing arguments." (CHAPTER V. "THE NATURE, CAUSES, AND MEANS OF REGENERATION," see here)
Again, Owen insists that moral persuasion alone will not affect regeneration. He says, just like our Old Baptist forefathers, that "there is a real physical (or non moral - SG) work" involved. I insist that this has always been the Old Baptist position. If one goes back and reads the debates our Baptist forefathers had with Alexander Campbell, who promoted the idea that the word alone was sufficient, and that moral persuasion alone was sufficient, he will see how they argued just as did Owen.
Charles Finney, adopting Pelagian ideas, insisted that regeneration was effected solely by the moral persuasion inherent in Gospel addresses to sinners, and denied that there was needed any additional power of the Spirit. In his Systematic Theology he wrote:
"That this change is effected through the truth presented by the Holy Spirit, or by a Divine moral persuasion...The Divine moral suasion theory regards regeneration as being induced alone by a moral influence."
"Since the advocates of this theory admit that the Bible teaches that regeneration is induced by a divine moral suasion, the point of debate is simply, whether the Bible teaches that there is also a physical influence exerted by the Holy Spirit, in exciting the constitutional susceptibilities." (pg. 422 - see here)
There was nothing wrong for the Black Rock Hardshells to object to the evangelistic methods of Finney and others, but it was wrong for them to declare non fellowship for all Baptists who held any kind of evangelistic, revival, or protracted meetings. They went to an extreme themselves in doing so. Some Hardshells have since realized this and so do have protracted meetings.
The debate over evangelistic methods has continued into our day. Many continue to go to extremes on the issue of "altar calls." The same issues raised by those, like the Black Rockers, and others in the days of Finney, are still debated. The chief issue concerns the making of false converts, or shallow ground hearers. But, we will look at these issues in the next posting.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Saturday, August 10, 2013
What the First Hardshells Believed V
The Gospel Messenger was a second generation Hardshell periodical and was started by Elder J. R. Respass and later joined by Elder Sylvester Hassell. Let us see what was the stated position on the question of means and of the nature of regeneration and on the necessity of faith, not merely for a time salvation, but for an eternal one.
Elder W. M. Mitchell, a well known writer in the Hardshell periodicals of the mid and late 19th century, wrote:
"If our Mississippi correspondent, has ever been truly converted to God, and born of an incorruptible seed by the word of God, he loves the truth in his heart, and there is some hope for his being instructed in the right way of the Lord, though he may have been much bewildered in mind and led astray by the doctrines and commandments of men." Questions From a Missionary Baptist. (by W.M. Mitchell for The Gospel Messenger--December 1883 (see here)
"Every true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12. His faith in Christ is not the cause of his spiritual birth, but the result and fruit of it, as the Scriptures clearly teach. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.”—l John 5:1." (1 John 3:9) (Written by W.M. Mitchell for The Gospel Messenger-September 1882 (see here)
"In order to salvation, it is necessary that we be born again; that we have faith, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; but as salvation is of the Lord, these things are as much of him as our redemption, calling or justification..." (Elder W. M. Mitchell in the Southern Baptist Messenger, 1860, pg. 15)
Elder J. R. Respass wrote:
"When a man is born again, he, the man, becomes a new creature...but as woman in pangs of travail is delivered by birth, so he is delivered by faith, and rejoices in the truth." (Elder J. R. Respass in The Gospel Messenger, 1883, pg. 57)
Elder John Rowe wrote:
"Not, however, without repentance and faith, though some have been so full of folly, as to affirm that if sinners are saved upon the principles we maintain, then repentance and faith are needless things....Whereas none ever have, or will repent and believe, evangelically, except under the influence of special grace applied to them." (Elder John Rowe, "My Grace is Sufficient for Thee," in the Gospel Messenger, 1881, pg. 9)
Elder J.B. Hendrickson wrote:
"But not so with living faith: it invariably springs from a living source, and has for its end and object, the final salvation of all those who are its happy recipients." (Elder J. B. Hendrickson in the Gospel Messenger, 1881, pg. 11)
For more citations like these, see our former posting "New Birth and Its Effects".
From the citation given by Elder Respass, he clearly believed as did many of the first generation of Hardshells, such as Beebe, Trott, Thompson, Conrad, etc., that the regeneration was distinct from the new birth, and that spiritual birth was completely like physical birth, having three stages, first the begetting (seed implantaion), then the growth in the womb, corresponding to being in darkness and not yet delivered, and then finally the birth, corresponding to the time of deliverance and the coming to light, which is what takes place when one believes the Gospel and is converted. Obviously, none of the first generation of Hardshells believed that any of the elect would fail to be converted, which is why many of their articles of faith said that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted."
Elder W. M. Mitchell, a well known writer in the Hardshell periodicals of the mid and late 19th century, wrote:
"If our Mississippi correspondent, has ever been truly converted to God, and born of an incorruptible seed by the word of God, he loves the truth in his heart, and there is some hope for his being instructed in the right way of the Lord, though he may have been much bewildered in mind and led astray by the doctrines and commandments of men." Questions From a Missionary Baptist. (by W.M. Mitchell for The Gospel Messenger--December 1883 (see here)
"Every true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12. His faith in Christ is not the cause of his spiritual birth, but the result and fruit of it, as the Scriptures clearly teach. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.”—l John 5:1." (1 John 3:9) (Written by W.M. Mitchell for The Gospel Messenger-September 1882 (see here)
"In order to salvation, it is necessary that we be born again; that we have faith, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; but as salvation is of the Lord, these things are as much of him as our redemption, calling or justification..." (Elder W. M. Mitchell in the Southern Baptist Messenger, 1860, pg. 15)
Elder J. R. Respass wrote:
"When a man is born again, he, the man, becomes a new creature...but as woman in pangs of travail is delivered by birth, so he is delivered by faith, and rejoices in the truth." (Elder J. R. Respass in The Gospel Messenger, 1883, pg. 57)
Elder John Rowe wrote:
"Not, however, without repentance and faith, though some have been so full of folly, as to affirm that if sinners are saved upon the principles we maintain, then repentance and faith are needless things....Whereas none ever have, or will repent and believe, evangelically, except under the influence of special grace applied to them." (Elder John Rowe, "My Grace is Sufficient for Thee," in the Gospel Messenger, 1881, pg. 9)
Elder J.B. Hendrickson wrote:
"But not so with living faith: it invariably springs from a living source, and has for its end and object, the final salvation of all those who are its happy recipients." (Elder J. B. Hendrickson in the Gospel Messenger, 1881, pg. 11)
For more citations like these, see our former posting "New Birth and Its Effects".
From the citation given by Elder Respass, he clearly believed as did many of the first generation of Hardshells, such as Beebe, Trott, Thompson, Conrad, etc., that the regeneration was distinct from the new birth, and that spiritual birth was completely like physical birth, having three stages, first the begetting (seed implantaion), then the growth in the womb, corresponding to being in darkness and not yet delivered, and then finally the birth, corresponding to the time of deliverance and the coming to light, which is what takes place when one believes the Gospel and is converted. Obviously, none of the first generation of Hardshells believed that any of the elect would fail to be converted, which is why many of their articles of faith said that "all the elect will be regenerated AND converted."
Hardshells & Mission Opposition II
Chapter 145
In the previous chapter we began looking at the stated opposition of the first Hardshells against protracted and revival meetings and examined some of their arguments against them. In this chapter we will continue to do the same.
The Address continued:
"Some may be ready to inquire whether protracted meetings, as such, may not with propriety be held, providing they be held without excluding doctrinal preaching, or introducing any of these new plans. However others may judge and act, we cannot approve of such meetings for the following reasons."
"lst. Because by appointing and holding a protracted meeting, as such, although we may not carry it to the same excesses to which others do, yet as most people will make no distinction between it and those meetings where all the borrowed machinery from Methodist campmeetings is introduced, we shall generally be considered as countenancing those meetings."
These words reveal one of the traits of the Hardshell cult. They have such an animosity towards what they judge as "Arminianism" and with the "Missionary Baptists" that they strive to avoid anything that is connected with those people. I used to hear some Hardshells oppose singing certain songs because, as they said, "the Missionaries and Arminians sing those songs." Even though the songs did not advocate any doctrines which the Hardshells considered as false, yet they refused to sing them because the above groups sang them. In the above words of the Address, they say that they cannot approve of preappointed revival or protracted meetings because "most people will make no distinction between" the protracted meetings of the Hardshells and those held by Arminians and Mission Baptists. They have the mentality of not wanting to be like other groups and so do all they can to be different. Is this also why they have been reluctant to meet every Sunday, choosing to continue to meet only once or twice per month? Is this why they rarely hold prayer meetings?
Most Hardshell churches will not "pass the offering plate" but choose to only have a box for persons to donate money to the church. Is this because the Scriptures dictate the manner of collecting contributions? No. It is rather because the Arminian and Mission Baptist churches pass the collection plate and the Hardshells do not want to do what they do. Notice these words regarding the criticism that Elder Lasserre Bradley and the Cincinnati church received regarding their having appointed protracted meetings.
"In recent years there have been some among the Primitive Baptists who have been advocating changing some of our practices because they claim them to be man made traditions. A leading proponent of this movement is Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr., pastor of the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church...In The Baptist Witness dated November 1996 you will find an article entitled "A visit to Black Rock"...The article touches on protracted meetings, camp meetings and Sunday schools; inferring that the Primitive Baptists have developed man made traditions in these areas by not wanting to "look like others" or being more concerned with "opposing the other side" than being biblical correct." ("The Old Paths versus Man Made Traditions" - see here)
The Black Rockers could not approve of having a protracted meeting even if it avoided the errors of the high pressure revivalists and confined their meetings to simply preaching Bible doctrine! Is this not intensely revealing about their cult mentality? They have a mentality similar to that of the Amish. If some other group of Christians do a certain thing, the Hardshells do not want to come close to doing it, no matter how scriptural and right it might be in itself. The Scriptures speak of "abstaining from all appearance of evil," but the Hardshells want to abstain from all appearance of being like any other group of Christians, especially those they label as Arminian and Missionary. Elder Bradley realized this and spoke of the Hardshells developing man made traditions out of the desire to not "look like others."
The Hardshells have often been characterized by "anti ism," for they are opposers of nearly everything that Arminians or Mission Baptists practice. Reading the Black Rock Address demonstrates this very clearly.
Elder Henry Sheets, who answered the Hardshell apologists regarding their claims to being the old or primitive Baptists, in his book "A History of the Liberty Baptist Association: From Its Organization in 1832 to 1906," wrote:
"The ministers used frequently, at the close of worships, to sing a spiritual song suited to the occasion, and go through the congregation, and shake hands with people while singing. The ministers usually, at the close of preaching, would tell the congregation, that if there were any persons who felt themselves lost and condemned, under the guilt and burden of their sins, that if they would come near the stage, and kneel down, they would pray for them. Shame at first kept many back, but as the work increased, numbers apparently under strong conviction would come and fall down before the Lord at the feet of the ministers, and crave an interest in their prayers. Sometimes twenty or thirty at a time. And at some Union Meetings, two or three hundred would come, and try to come as near as they could. This very much engaged the ministers, and many confessed that the Lord heard the prayers of His ministers, and had reason to hope their souls were relieved from the burden of their sins, through the blood of Christ. It had a powerful effect on the spectators to see their wives, their husbands, children, neighbors, etc, so solicitous for the salvation of their souls; and was sometimes a means of their conviction. Many ladies of quality, at times were so powerfully wrought on as to come and kneel down in the dust in their silks to be prayed for."
Sheets continued:
Thus, it is obvious that the opposition to revival and protracted meetings was a new thing and the Hardshells have no claim to being "primitive" in this opposition.
Elder J. H. Oliphant, a leading Hardshell at the turn of the twentieth century, wrote:
"Between 1860 and 1870 a dozen or more Baptist preachers in Indiana broke away from the old paths, went into the protracted meeting business, and would take in over one hundred at a single meeting. Mourner’s benches, Arminian preaching, etc. Yet they made the plea that they were the “Old Baptists,” the true successors of those who held the London confession of faith." ("Church Divisions," 1910 - see here)
What a picture of the Hardshell cult mentality! Was it breaking away from the old paths for those Baptist preachers to hold protracted meetings? No! Was it a bad thing to see over a hundred people profess Christ in one of these meetings? No! What does Oliphant mean by "Arminian preaching"? Was it the kind that Elder Leland did, who said that the best preaching had a little Arminianism mixed with it? Was it the kind of preaching done by the old Kehukee brethren before the rise of the Hardshells? Was it the kind of preaching that the Parkerites condemned among the Old Baptists, the kind that the "ultrast" and "modern innovators" who were denying means and the use of exhortation in preaching, as Elder Watson spoke about? Also, it is a falsehood, as I have shown, for the Hardshells to pretend that they are the "true successors of those who held the London confession of faith"!
As I have stated in previous chapters, the Hardshells actually think it is a mark of their spirituality and correctness for them to be baptizing so few! Thus, when they read of the successes of others, they consider it a proof that they are preaching falsely. Had the Hardshells been present in the Book of Acts when some three thousand were converted or when more than five thousand were converted, they would have accused the Apostle of preaching like Arminians and that the converts could not be genuine! This attitude reminds me of the words of Jude - "These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage." (Jude 1: 16 NIV) Such are the Hardshells! It is also reminds me of Isaiah 65: 5 - "Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou."
The Black Rock Address continued:
"2nd. Because the motives we could have for conforming to the custom of holding these newly invented meetings are such as we think cannot bear the test. For we must be induced thus to conform to the reigning custom either in order to shun the reproach generally attached to those who will not conform to what is popular, or to try the experiment whether our holding a four days' meeting will not induce the Holy Ghost to produce a revival among us commensurate with the strange fire enkindled by others; or else we must be led to this plan from having imbibed the notion that the Holy Ghost is somehow so the creature of human feelings that he is led to regenerate persons by our getting their animal feelings excited; and therefore that in the same proportion as we can by any measure get the feelings of the people aroused, there will be a revival of religion. This latter motive can scarcely be supposed to have place with any who would not go the whole length of every popular measure."
It was a falsehood for the Black Rockers to refer to revival and protracted meetings as being "newly invented" as has been shown. Notice again how one of the reasons to oppose revival and protracted meetings is to not "conform" to what others are doing, as if all that others are doing is error!
One cannot really understand fully what the Black Rockers were opposing without understanding the revival methods of the Methodists, mentioned by the Black Rockers specifically, and of Charles Finney, who had been conducting successful revival and protracted meetings in New York in the immediate years leading up to 1832. Though it is true that Finney went overboard in his tactics, the Hardshells clearly went to another extreme in their opposition. But more on this in the next chapters.
In the previous chapter we began looking at the stated opposition of the first Hardshells against protracted and revival meetings and examined some of their arguments against them. In this chapter we will continue to do the same.
The Address continued:
"Some may be ready to inquire whether protracted meetings, as such, may not with propriety be held, providing they be held without excluding doctrinal preaching, or introducing any of these new plans. However others may judge and act, we cannot approve of such meetings for the following reasons."
"lst. Because by appointing and holding a protracted meeting, as such, although we may not carry it to the same excesses to which others do, yet as most people will make no distinction between it and those meetings where all the borrowed machinery from Methodist campmeetings is introduced, we shall generally be considered as countenancing those meetings."
These words reveal one of the traits of the Hardshell cult. They have such an animosity towards what they judge as "Arminianism" and with the "Missionary Baptists" that they strive to avoid anything that is connected with those people. I used to hear some Hardshells oppose singing certain songs because, as they said, "the Missionaries and Arminians sing those songs." Even though the songs did not advocate any doctrines which the Hardshells considered as false, yet they refused to sing them because the above groups sang them. In the above words of the Address, they say that they cannot approve of preappointed revival or protracted meetings because "most people will make no distinction between" the protracted meetings of the Hardshells and those held by Arminians and Mission Baptists. They have the mentality of not wanting to be like other groups and so do all they can to be different. Is this also why they have been reluctant to meet every Sunday, choosing to continue to meet only once or twice per month? Is this why they rarely hold prayer meetings?
Most Hardshell churches will not "pass the offering plate" but choose to only have a box for persons to donate money to the church. Is this because the Scriptures dictate the manner of collecting contributions? No. It is rather because the Arminian and Mission Baptist churches pass the collection plate and the Hardshells do not want to do what they do. Notice these words regarding the criticism that Elder Lasserre Bradley and the Cincinnati church received regarding their having appointed protracted meetings.
"In recent years there have been some among the Primitive Baptists who have been advocating changing some of our practices because they claim them to be man made traditions. A leading proponent of this movement is Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr., pastor of the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist church...In The Baptist Witness dated November 1996 you will find an article entitled "A visit to Black Rock"...The article touches on protracted meetings, camp meetings and Sunday schools; inferring that the Primitive Baptists have developed man made traditions in these areas by not wanting to "look like others" or being more concerned with "opposing the other side" than being biblical correct." ("The Old Paths versus Man Made Traditions" - see here)
The Black Rockers could not approve of having a protracted meeting even if it avoided the errors of the high pressure revivalists and confined their meetings to simply preaching Bible doctrine! Is this not intensely revealing about their cult mentality? They have a mentality similar to that of the Amish. If some other group of Christians do a certain thing, the Hardshells do not want to come close to doing it, no matter how scriptural and right it might be in itself. The Scriptures speak of "abstaining from all appearance of evil," but the Hardshells want to abstain from all appearance of being like any other group of Christians, especially those they label as Arminian and Missionary. Elder Bradley realized this and spoke of the Hardshells developing man made traditions out of the desire to not "look like others."
The Hardshells have often been characterized by "anti ism," for they are opposers of nearly everything that Arminians or Mission Baptists practice. Reading the Black Rock Address demonstrates this very clearly.
Elder Henry Sheets, who answered the Hardshell apologists regarding their claims to being the old or primitive Baptists, in his book "A History of the Liberty Baptist Association: From Its Organization in 1832 to 1906," wrote:
"Our Anti-mission brethren are very unlike the Primitive Baptists in their decided opposition to revival meetings. We never hear them pray for a revival of religion or know of them making a protracted effort. Who ever hears one of their preachers exhorting the unconverted to repent?"
Sheets continued:
Sheets continued:
"Before the split our Baptist brethren did this, and they had glorious revivals and large ingatherings into their churches. Even the historic old Kehukee, now so decidedly opposed to revival measures, was at one time much in favor with them; they prayed for them and otherwise greatly encouraged them. We quote from Burkitt and Read's History, pages 145-146,
"The ministers used frequently, at the close of worships, to sing a spiritual song suited to the occasion, and go through the congregation, and shake hands with people while singing. The ministers usually, at the close of preaching, would tell the congregation, that if there were any persons who felt themselves lost and condemned, under the guilt and burden of their sins, that if they would come near the stage, and kneel down, they would pray for them. Shame at first kept many back, but as the work increased, numbers apparently under strong conviction would come and fall down before the Lord at the feet of the ministers, and crave an interest in their prayers. Sometimes twenty or thirty at a time. And at some Union Meetings, two or three hundred would come, and try to come as near as they could. This very much engaged the ministers, and many confessed that the Lord heard the prayers of His ministers, and had reason to hope their souls were relieved from the burden of their sins, through the blood of Christ. It had a powerful effect on the spectators to see their wives, their husbands, children, neighbors, etc, so solicitous for the salvation of their souls; and was sometimes a means of their conviction. Many ladies of quality, at times were so powerfully wrought on as to come and kneel down in the dust in their silks to be prayed for."
Sheets continued:
"Strange as it may seem to people living now, there is not one word anywhere, in all the old church records or Baptist histories examined, where they opposed revival measures at first. In fact, such a thing seems never to have been thought of. But, on the other hand, they carried them on for some time."
"That they ever should have taken such a stand in regard to revival measures is beyond comprehension, unless, in their opposition to us in almost everything else, they thought that they ought to oppose this measure also." (Chapter 26, pages 186-188, see here)
Thus, it is obvious that the opposition to revival and protracted meetings was a new thing and the Hardshells have no claim to being "primitive" in this opposition.
Elder J. H. Oliphant, a leading Hardshell at the turn of the twentieth century, wrote:
"Between 1860 and 1870 a dozen or more Baptist preachers in Indiana broke away from the old paths, went into the protracted meeting business, and would take in over one hundred at a single meeting. Mourner’s benches, Arminian preaching, etc. Yet they made the plea that they were the “Old Baptists,” the true successors of those who held the London confession of faith." ("Church Divisions," 1910 - see here)
What a picture of the Hardshell cult mentality! Was it breaking away from the old paths for those Baptist preachers to hold protracted meetings? No! Was it a bad thing to see over a hundred people profess Christ in one of these meetings? No! What does Oliphant mean by "Arminian preaching"? Was it the kind that Elder Leland did, who said that the best preaching had a little Arminianism mixed with it? Was it the kind of preaching done by the old Kehukee brethren before the rise of the Hardshells? Was it the kind of preaching that the Parkerites condemned among the Old Baptists, the kind that the "ultrast" and "modern innovators" who were denying means and the use of exhortation in preaching, as Elder Watson spoke about? Also, it is a falsehood, as I have shown, for the Hardshells to pretend that they are the "true successors of those who held the London confession of faith"!
As I have stated in previous chapters, the Hardshells actually think it is a mark of their spirituality and correctness for them to be baptizing so few! Thus, when they read of the successes of others, they consider it a proof that they are preaching falsely. Had the Hardshells been present in the Book of Acts when some three thousand were converted or when more than five thousand were converted, they would have accused the Apostle of preaching like Arminians and that the converts could not be genuine! This attitude reminds me of the words of Jude - "These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage." (Jude 1: 16 NIV) Such are the Hardshells! It is also reminds me of Isaiah 65: 5 - "Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou."
The Black Rock Address continued:
"2nd. Because the motives we could have for conforming to the custom of holding these newly invented meetings are such as we think cannot bear the test. For we must be induced thus to conform to the reigning custom either in order to shun the reproach generally attached to those who will not conform to what is popular, or to try the experiment whether our holding a four days' meeting will not induce the Holy Ghost to produce a revival among us commensurate with the strange fire enkindled by others; or else we must be led to this plan from having imbibed the notion that the Holy Ghost is somehow so the creature of human feelings that he is led to regenerate persons by our getting their animal feelings excited; and therefore that in the same proportion as we can by any measure get the feelings of the people aroused, there will be a revival of religion. This latter motive can scarcely be supposed to have place with any who would not go the whole length of every popular measure."
It was a falsehood for the Black Rockers to refer to revival and protracted meetings as being "newly invented" as has been shown. Notice again how one of the reasons to oppose revival and protracted meetings is to not "conform" to what others are doing, as if all that others are doing is error!
One cannot really understand fully what the Black Rockers were opposing without understanding the revival methods of the Methodists, mentioned by the Black Rockers specifically, and of Charles Finney, who had been conducting successful revival and protracted meetings in New York in the immediate years leading up to 1832. Though it is true that Finney went overboard in his tactics, the Hardshells clearly went to another extreme in their opposition. But more on this in the next chapters.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Sylvester Hassell's Doctrinal Change
Elder David Montgomery wrote:
"Elder R (Respass) was a father figure to Elder H (S. Hassell) and so naturally, Elder R’s thoughts and interpretations would have a significant meaning and value to Elder H. After Elder R died in 1895, the ownership of The Gospel Messenger passed to Elder H (Brother Hassell had been an assistant editor for a few years before). We see in the beginning years of his editorship, Brother H penned articles with the same theological bent as Brother R had before, but as the years passed, things changed. In the last decade of his life (1920’s) we read Elder Hassell writing articles advocating time salvation, conditional blessings and curses on God’s elect, and other subjects along the same lines. Why this shift? I will list a few possibilities." ("About Old Writings" - see here)
Is not this fact interesting and revealing? Those of us who know the history of the Hardshell denomination know well what it reveals. It shows that the notion of "time salvation" was a new doctrine and did not become the chief Hardshell apologetic method for handling those passages that make faith and repentance, together with perseverance, conditions for obtaining eternal life. The concept of "time salvation" did not become an apologetic response until the Hardshells had come to reject the Gospel means position. The fact that Elder Hassell waited till the end of his life to begin promoting it is probably because he was slow to accept it, knowing that it was not in keeping with the views of the first generation of Hardshells. Hassell had begun to find ways to answer the adversaries of Hardshellism and once made this statement - "Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."
So, "why this shift?" Is it not because the "time salvation" paradigm is a novel hybrid doctrine?
"Elder R (Respass) was a father figure to Elder H (S. Hassell) and so naturally, Elder R’s thoughts and interpretations would have a significant meaning and value to Elder H. After Elder R died in 1895, the ownership of The Gospel Messenger passed to Elder H (Brother Hassell had been an assistant editor for a few years before). We see in the beginning years of his editorship, Brother H penned articles with the same theological bent as Brother R had before, but as the years passed, things changed. In the last decade of his life (1920’s) we read Elder Hassell writing articles advocating time salvation, conditional blessings and curses on God’s elect, and other subjects along the same lines. Why this shift? I will list a few possibilities." ("About Old Writings" - see here)
Is not this fact interesting and revealing? Those of us who know the history of the Hardshell denomination know well what it reveals. It shows that the notion of "time salvation" was a new doctrine and did not become the chief Hardshell apologetic method for handling those passages that make faith and repentance, together with perseverance, conditions for obtaining eternal life. The concept of "time salvation" did not become an apologetic response until the Hardshells had come to reject the Gospel means position. The fact that Elder Hassell waited till the end of his life to begin promoting it is probably because he was slow to accept it, knowing that it was not in keeping with the views of the first generation of Hardshells. Hassell had begun to find ways to answer the adversaries of Hardshellism and once made this statement - "Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."
So, "why this shift?" Is it not because the "time salvation" paradigm is a novel hybrid doctrine?
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
The Hardshell Cover Up & Conspiracy
Elder Griffin says, reluctantly, on page 124 of his history, that "were we not bound by the truth of history to speak of these things [the missionary zeal of those early Baptists-S.G.] we would gladly hide them in oblivion." Though Elder Griffin did not omit the evidence that showed that the early Baptists of Mississippi were missionary in practice, and believed that it was the duty of the church to fulfill the Great Commission, by supporting Bible classes and ministerial education, his followers have not been so honest. I cited the above words of Griffin in Chapter Four of my ongoing book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," in the chapter titled "Hardshell History (primer)," and Elder Fralick has also written on how the Hardshells have generally done what Griffin refused to do, and that is "gladly hide in oblivion" the truth about what the Predestinarian or Particular Baptists believed in the centuries before the rise of the Hardshells and even the truth of what the first Hardshells really believed. (See Fralick's post - "Selective Publishing")
The Hardshell Ellipsis
One of the ways in which dishonest Hardshells hide the truth from their followers is to cite works by the use of ellipsis. By definition an ellipsis is an omission. Sometimes this is allowable, but sometimes it is used by dishonest writers for the purpose of hiding from the reader sections of a citation which is detrimental to the intention of the writer doing the citing. In my years of reading Hardshell works, I have found that they have often used the ellipsis dishonestly, to cover up the true meaning of the work they are citing. Elder Hanks did this often in his Hardshell history book titled "History of the Church of God," using the ellipsis to cut out those portions of the London Confession of Faith that he did not believe, those sections dealing with Gospel means and absolute predestination of all things. Many Hardshells do the same in citing John Gill's remarks on "Regeneration" in his Body of Divinity. It really is a conspiracy and just what one would expect from leaders of cults. Any time I see a Hardshell citation where they use the ellipsis I immediately become suspicious. I notice how the ellipsis was used extensively in the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial" book that the Hardshells have published. They not only edited the trial's testimony, but failed to include the evidence for the means position that was presented in the trial by those on the means side.
The Hardshell Ellipsis
One of the ways in which dishonest Hardshells hide the truth from their followers is to cite works by the use of ellipsis. By definition an ellipsis is an omission. Sometimes this is allowable, but sometimes it is used by dishonest writers for the purpose of hiding from the reader sections of a citation which is detrimental to the intention of the writer doing the citing. In my years of reading Hardshell works, I have found that they have often used the ellipsis dishonestly, to cover up the true meaning of the work they are citing. Elder Hanks did this often in his Hardshell history book titled "History of the Church of God," using the ellipsis to cut out those portions of the London Confession of Faith that he did not believe, those sections dealing with Gospel means and absolute predestination of all things. Many Hardshells do the same in citing John Gill's remarks on "Regeneration" in his Body of Divinity. It really is a conspiracy and just what one would expect from leaders of cults. Any time I see a Hardshell citation where they use the ellipsis I immediately become suspicious. I notice how the ellipsis was used extensively in the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial" book that the Hardshells have published. They not only edited the trial's testimony, but failed to include the evidence for the means position that was presented in the trial by those on the means side.
Evidence That Demands A Verdict
From my years of research into the history of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, I have discovered that Elder E H. Burnam, a "Primitive Baptist" preacher in the latter half of the 19th century, and who was an associate editor with Elder John Clark on the Hardshell paper "Zion's Advocate," was correct when he stated the following in the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial."
"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."
Elder W. T. Pence, an associate of Elder Burnam, debated Elder Lemuel Potter on the issue of whether the Bible taught the use of means in regeneration. Elder Potter wrote this about the debate:
"Elder Pence claimed that we could not find a single author or commentator, prior to fifty years ago, that took the Anti-means position. He referred to Dr. Watson, and the London Confession of Faith, and to Dr. Gill, and other authors, in order to prove that the Baptists had heretofore believed in the doctrine of means, and that our position among the Old School Baptists was entirely new."
(see here where I cited this previously)
Let us name the leaders of the first generation of Hardshells and look at what they are on record as believing.
Elder Joshua Lawrence, a leader in the Kehukee Association and in the anti mission movement in North Carolina and in the eastern states. He is on record as affirming the Gospel means position.
Elder Gilbert Beebe, a signer of the Black Rock Address and editor of the first and foremost Hardshell periodical, The "Signs of the Times," and he is on record as affirming that the new birth followed regeneration, being distinct from it, and was the same experience as "conversion," or that experience that comes to those who hear the Gospel of Christ and believe in him.
Elder Samuel Trott, a close associate of Beebe and frequent writer on the Signs of the Times periodical, he held the same view as Beebe.
Elder John Watson, a leader of the Baptists on the western frontier and of middle Tennessee, and a supporter of "The Old Baptist Banner" periodical, published out of Nashville in the late 1830s by Watson's associate, Elder Washington Lowe, is also on record as believing the Gospel means position.
Elder John Clark was a frequent writer to all four of the first Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, along with Elder Watson, and eventually started the paper "Zion's Advocate" in 1852 and all through this paper, even in the first issue, the means position was advocated.
Elder Wilson Thompson is often cited where he denies that God uses the means of the Gospel in the "regeneration" of sinners. But, what is often overlooked is the fact that he was in fellowship with Elders Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and William Conrad, and others, who espoused the view that regeneration was a distinct preparatory work from being born again, and that the former was effected without the means of faith and Gospel preaching, but that the latter was through faith and through the Gospel. He certainly did not believe that many of God's elect would die without coming to faith in Christ.
Elder William Conrad also believed as did Elders Trott and Beebe that the new birth was to be equated with the experience of Gospel conversion. He was a leader in Kentucky in the early to mid 1800s.
Elder Mark Bennett was editor of "The Primitive Baptist" and a leader of the denomination and the above periodical is filled with statements affirming the use of Gospel preaching in regenerating or giving spiritual birth to the elect.
Elder Burwell Temple also was a later editor of "The Primitive Baptist" and no doubt believed the Gospel means position.
Elder Daniel Jewett was editor of "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" and there is clear evidence in that paper that he and his fellow writers and his readers believed that the Lord used the preaching of the word to give birth to, or eternally save, his elect.
Elder James Osbourn was without question one of the foremost ring leaders of the newly formed Hardshell denomination and travelled widely after the division within the general Hardshell Baptist family and he is on record as also affirming the Gospel means position.
Elder Lawrence Greatrake was an outspoken early advocate for the Regular Baptists who opposed missions, Sunday Schools, theological schools, etc., and yet he is on record as supporting the Gospel means position.
Elder John Taylor, though he was one of the first to speak against the rise of mission organizations, Sunday Schools, and seminaries, he nevertheless shows by his writings that he believed that God uses Gospel preaching to call his elect to life and salvation.
Elder John Leland, like Elder Taylor, with whom he was friends, opposed the same things that the early Hardshells opposed, but nevertheless shows by his writings that he believed in the means position.
Elder Hosea Preslar, first a leader in the Bear Creek Association in North Carolina, and later a resident of middle Tennessee and friend of Elder Watson, is also on record as believing in the means position.
Elder Stephen Gard, a close ally of Wilson Thompson, and leader in the Miami Association in Ohio, is also on record as believing in Gospel means.
I find that it was not till the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, as Elder Burnam testified, that the "Primitive Baptists" began to embrace the anti means position. The founding fathers of the evolved Hardshell denomination are men such as R.W. Thompson (who preached this view in his debate with a Campbellite in Reynoldsburg, Ohio in 1874), and Elder Lemuel Potter, who defended this view in the 1880s and 1890s in debates with Elder W. T. Pence and Elder W. P. Throgmorton, and Elders C. H. Waters and T.S. Dalton about the same time. Two elders who took up the new hybrid doctrine and make it stick with the Hardshells were two great debaters, namely Elders C. H. Cayce and John R. Daily.
I have challenged the Hardshells to prove Elders Pence and Burnam wrong on their thesis that the anti means position is a new position, not only as regards Baptists of pre 19th century times, but even among their own denomination. When I debated Jason Brown here on this blog, I often challenged him to give us the citations from men of the early 19th century, among the Hardshells, who promoted the anti means position. He could not do it. I have challenged my father, who has preached for the Hardshells for nearly 50 years, and he cannot do it. Thus, the evidence for a verdict is clear. Today's Hardshells who deny that the elect are regenerated and eternally saved by the Gospel are a new denomination, or "modern innovators," as Elder Watson called them. If any Hardshell has evidence to prove that there were advocates for the anti means position in the 1830s, or 1840s, or even the 1850s, let him come forward and give us the evidence.
"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."
Elder W. T. Pence, an associate of Elder Burnam, debated Elder Lemuel Potter on the issue of whether the Bible taught the use of means in regeneration. Elder Potter wrote this about the debate:
"Elder Pence claimed that we could not find a single author or commentator, prior to fifty years ago, that took the Anti-means position. He referred to Dr. Watson, and the London Confession of Faith, and to Dr. Gill, and other authors, in order to prove that the Baptists had heretofore believed in the doctrine of means, and that our position among the Old School Baptists was entirely new."
(see here where I cited this previously)
Let us name the leaders of the first generation of Hardshells and look at what they are on record as believing.
Elder Joshua Lawrence, a leader in the Kehukee Association and in the anti mission movement in North Carolina and in the eastern states. He is on record as affirming the Gospel means position.
Elder Gilbert Beebe, a signer of the Black Rock Address and editor of the first and foremost Hardshell periodical, The "Signs of the Times," and he is on record as affirming that the new birth followed regeneration, being distinct from it, and was the same experience as "conversion," or that experience that comes to those who hear the Gospel of Christ and believe in him.
Elder Samuel Trott, a close associate of Beebe and frequent writer on the Signs of the Times periodical, he held the same view as Beebe.
Elder John Watson, a leader of the Baptists on the western frontier and of middle Tennessee, and a supporter of "The Old Baptist Banner" periodical, published out of Nashville in the late 1830s by Watson's associate, Elder Washington Lowe, is also on record as believing the Gospel means position.
Elder John Clark was a frequent writer to all four of the first Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, along with Elder Watson, and eventually started the paper "Zion's Advocate" in 1852 and all through this paper, even in the first issue, the means position was advocated.
Elder Wilson Thompson is often cited where he denies that God uses the means of the Gospel in the "regeneration" of sinners. But, what is often overlooked is the fact that he was in fellowship with Elders Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, and William Conrad, and others, who espoused the view that regeneration was a distinct preparatory work from being born again, and that the former was effected without the means of faith and Gospel preaching, but that the latter was through faith and through the Gospel. He certainly did not believe that many of God's elect would die without coming to faith in Christ.
Elder William Conrad also believed as did Elders Trott and Beebe that the new birth was to be equated with the experience of Gospel conversion. He was a leader in Kentucky in the early to mid 1800s.
Elder Mark Bennett was editor of "The Primitive Baptist" and a leader of the denomination and the above periodical is filled with statements affirming the use of Gospel preaching in regenerating or giving spiritual birth to the elect.
Elder Burwell Temple also was a later editor of "The Primitive Baptist" and no doubt believed the Gospel means position.
Elder Daniel Jewett was editor of "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" and there is clear evidence in that paper that he and his fellow writers and his readers believed that the Lord used the preaching of the word to give birth to, or eternally save, his elect.
Elder James Osbourn was without question one of the foremost ring leaders of the newly formed Hardshell denomination and travelled widely after the division within the general Hardshell Baptist family and he is on record as also affirming the Gospel means position.
Elder Lawrence Greatrake was an outspoken early advocate for the Regular Baptists who opposed missions, Sunday Schools, theological schools, etc., and yet he is on record as supporting the Gospel means position.
Elder John Taylor, though he was one of the first to speak against the rise of mission organizations, Sunday Schools, and seminaries, he nevertheless shows by his writings that he believed that God uses Gospel preaching to call his elect to life and salvation.
Elder John Leland, like Elder Taylor, with whom he was friends, opposed the same things that the early Hardshells opposed, but nevertheless shows by his writings that he believed in the means position.
Elder Hosea Preslar, first a leader in the Bear Creek Association in North Carolina, and later a resident of middle Tennessee and friend of Elder Watson, is also on record as believing in the means position.
Elder Stephen Gard, a close ally of Wilson Thompson, and leader in the Miami Association in Ohio, is also on record as believing in Gospel means.
I find that it was not till the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, as Elder Burnam testified, that the "Primitive Baptists" began to embrace the anti means position. The founding fathers of the evolved Hardshell denomination are men such as R.W. Thompson (who preached this view in his debate with a Campbellite in Reynoldsburg, Ohio in 1874), and Elder Lemuel Potter, who defended this view in the 1880s and 1890s in debates with Elder W. T. Pence and Elder W. P. Throgmorton, and Elders C. H. Waters and T.S. Dalton about the same time. Two elders who took up the new hybrid doctrine and make it stick with the Hardshells were two great debaters, namely Elders C. H. Cayce and John R. Daily.
I have challenged the Hardshells to prove Elders Pence and Burnam wrong on their thesis that the anti means position is a new position, not only as regards Baptists of pre 19th century times, but even among their own denomination. When I debated Jason Brown here on this blog, I often challenged him to give us the citations from men of the early 19th century, among the Hardshells, who promoted the anti means position. He could not do it. I have challenged my father, who has preached for the Hardshells for nearly 50 years, and he cannot do it. Thus, the evidence for a verdict is clear. Today's Hardshells who deny that the elect are regenerated and eternally saved by the Gospel are a new denomination, or "modern innovators," as Elder Watson called them. If any Hardshell has evidence to prove that there were advocates for the anti means position in the 1830s, or 1840s, or even the 1850s, let him come forward and give us the evidence.
The Position of Zion's Advocate
In the Mt. Carmel church trial this testimony and evidence was presented:
"Dr. Purifoy published in Zion’s Advocate in 1879 and here are his exact words taken from it. I can produce the original. Here are his exact words: “I firmly believe that it is the duty of every gospel minister to preach repentance and remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, to all the unregenerate with whom he comes in contact in his pulpit ministrations. As he does this in the name of Jesus, realizing the utter inability of the sinner to repent until the grace of repentance is given him from on high, he has an assurance from the scriptures, that God’s word will not return unto Him void, but will accomplish that whereunto he sends it, and prosper in the thing he pleases. Thus the gospel ministry is instrumental in God’s hands, through Jesus, in raising dead sinners to newness of life---spiritual life---just as the apostles were instruments in His hands in casting out devils, healing the sick, and raising the dead.”
There were four Hardshell periodicals in existence in the 1830s, the Signs of the Times, The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor, The Primitive Baptist, and the Old Baptist Banner. Each of these taught the Gospel means position. Zion's Advocate was a leading periodical begun in 1852 and taught the Gospel means position until it was taken over by the anti means side in the 1890s, after the death of Elder John Clark. The above citation shows what the position of the paper was during the time of Elder Clark's editorship.
"Dr. Purifoy published in Zion’s Advocate in 1879 and here are his exact words taken from it. I can produce the original. Here are his exact words: “I firmly believe that it is the duty of every gospel minister to preach repentance and remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, to all the unregenerate with whom he comes in contact in his pulpit ministrations. As he does this in the name of Jesus, realizing the utter inability of the sinner to repent until the grace of repentance is given him from on high, he has an assurance from the scriptures, that God’s word will not return unto Him void, but will accomplish that whereunto he sends it, and prosper in the thing he pleases. Thus the gospel ministry is instrumental in God’s hands, through Jesus, in raising dead sinners to newness of life---spiritual life---just as the apostles were instruments in His hands in casting out devils, healing the sick, and raising the dead.”
There were four Hardshell periodicals in existence in the 1830s, the Signs of the Times, The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor, The Primitive Baptist, and the Old Baptist Banner. Each of these taught the Gospel means position. Zion's Advocate was a leading periodical begun in 1852 and taught the Gospel means position until it was taken over by the anti means side in the 1890s, after the death of Elder John Clark. The above citation shows what the position of the paper was during the time of Elder Clark's editorship.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
What The First Hardshells Believed IV
Here are some other citations from an old Hardshell periodical, from the "Christian doctrinal advocate and spiritual monitor," where the first Hardshells are shown to disagree with today's modern Hardshell body.
"From Brother Jacob Wickizer, Rome, Pa.
Dear Brother Jewett,—Not stopping to apologize, I send you a few thoughts on 2 Thes. ii. 13; where the Apostle breaks out in language like this—
"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, Brethren beloved in the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and the belief of the Truth."
The TRUTH is that, which every heaven-born soul is made to believe by the operation of the Spirit of God in his experience.
Again, this in not the view of today's Hardshells! How can they claim to be "primitive" when they cannot find their views by any Baptist confession, church, or authorities, prior to the 19th century? And when they cannot even find their extreme view taught by their own "founding fathers" in the beginning of their seceder movement?
"The Lord that Spirit commences his work in the hearts of those, whom God hath from the beginning chosen unto salvation, first, by quickening them; and then he shows them their guilty, lost, helpless condition, by the revelation of his holiness, revealed in the law with the glory and majesty of God, as King. And thus the creature is made, not only to believe, but to realize, and to know, that he is a sinner all over defiled, that his whole head is sick and his whole heart faint. And he sees no way, that God could be just and justify such a polluted wretch, as he sees himself to be; and if he turn his mind to the world, he finds nothing there, that can ease his mind. The sound of the viol, instead of being music, is now grating to his ears. His merry companions are now no more the company, that he desires; no, he would rather be in some lonely place, where he might mourn over his lost and undone situation! And if he turns his thoughts to Heaven, he sees a God of justice, a being to whom all the hosts above delight to pay homage, and cry, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God,—who is and was and is to come." And feeling no desire, that God should change, even if il were possible,—he exclaims, no, I justly deserve to be banished from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. He now feels to loathe himself, and to give up till hope; he feels himself to be entirely polluted."
Here is more proof that the first Hardshells believed that regeneration and new birth were not the same, that the one preceded the other. I have shown in other writings, especially in my ongoing book on the Hardshells, that the first generation of Hardshells believed that spiritual birth had stages just like physical birth. They believed that a man was first "regenerated," apart from means and gospel truth, then under conviction of sin, comparable to being in the womb, in darkness, without freedom, and then finally was "born" from the womb, the latter being by the means of gospel truth being believed by the "quickened soul." This is not, of course, the view of today's neo Hardshells.
"The teaching of the Spirit reveals to his mind the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; teaches him his own poverty and wretchedness. He feels so poor, that he cannot say, that he will wear his own apparel and rat his own bread; no, he looks for it to Him, from whom comes every good and perfect gift. Thus they who are chosen of God &, brought to the belief of the truth, are all taught of God, all drink of the same fountain, rejoice in the same truth and speak the same things, and in short, belong to tho same family." (Nov. 2, 1841. Jacob Wickizer. pg. 146)
"That there should be a New Birth by regeneration, the soul is begotten of God, quickened, by his Spirit brought into labor under the law and heavy laden with sin, enlightened by the Spirit of God to feel the justice of his condemnation; views the mighty contrast between a Holy God and such a hell-deserving sinner, whose every thought, word and deed, is now and ever has been black as the tents of Kedar, a fountain issuing nothing but the most filthy bitter water; finds utter inability to cleanse one drop, or change the spot on his Ethiopian skin, being entirely destitute of any cleansing power or substance. At length, at the end of the law, he ceases from his own works, as God did from his at the creation of the world, and cries, 'Lord, save, or I perish?' Jesus Christ he views as his atonement, and by faith views him as his Lord and his God, the cheifest amongst ten thousands, the one altogether lovely."
This is more evidence of how the first Hardshells held to the view that regeneration was distinct from the new birth, that they believed the new birth to be the same as conversion, and that all the regenerated would be converted by the gospel.
"I am well aware, that the birth is not the origin of the child, neither does it add any new member or physical power to the soul; yet the child by being born, comes to enjoy some new faculties, such as seeing, crying, tasting...all new. I suppose, that I have witnessed thousands of natural births, during the practice of my medical profession; yet in no case have I been ready to believe, that it was never a child until it was born. As before observed, the child is as perfect a child, before it was born, as afterwards, but the birth manifests it to all around; so the 'New Birth' manifests the new-born soul to Israel, and to Israel only."
"I have thus far endeavored to give you my ideas, as to what constitutes regeneration, or the New Birth,—and what is done to an individual experiencing that wonderful change, and in what respect 'the believer or man in Christ is a New Creature.' But to be a little more explicit, I would add, it is 'Christ formed in you the hope of glory'..." (Squier Littell Sr. (Jan. 1842. pg. 147)
This is clear. The first Hardshells believed that all the elect would believe and hear the gospel, that being "taught of God" involved being taught the gospel.
see here
"From Brother Jacob Wickizer, Rome, Pa.
Dear Brother Jewett,—Not stopping to apologize, I send you a few thoughts on 2 Thes. ii. 13; where the Apostle breaks out in language like this—
"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, Brethren beloved in the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and the belief of the Truth."
The TRUTH is that, which every heaven-born soul is made to believe by the operation of the Spirit of God in his experience.
Again, this in not the view of today's Hardshells! How can they claim to be "primitive" when they cannot find their views by any Baptist confession, church, or authorities, prior to the 19th century? And when they cannot even find their extreme view taught by their own "founding fathers" in the beginning of their seceder movement?
"The Lord that Spirit commences his work in the hearts of those, whom God hath from the beginning chosen unto salvation, first, by quickening them; and then he shows them their guilty, lost, helpless condition, by the revelation of his holiness, revealed in the law with the glory and majesty of God, as King. And thus the creature is made, not only to believe, but to realize, and to know, that he is a sinner all over defiled, that his whole head is sick and his whole heart faint. And he sees no way, that God could be just and justify such a polluted wretch, as he sees himself to be; and if he turn his mind to the world, he finds nothing there, that can ease his mind. The sound of the viol, instead of being music, is now grating to his ears. His merry companions are now no more the company, that he desires; no, he would rather be in some lonely place, where he might mourn over his lost and undone situation! And if he turns his thoughts to Heaven, he sees a God of justice, a being to whom all the hosts above delight to pay homage, and cry, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God,—who is and was and is to come." And feeling no desire, that God should change, even if il were possible,—he exclaims, no, I justly deserve to be banished from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. He now feels to loathe himself, and to give up till hope; he feels himself to be entirely polluted."
Here is more proof that the first Hardshells believed that regeneration and new birth were not the same, that the one preceded the other. I have shown in other writings, especially in my ongoing book on the Hardshells, that the first generation of Hardshells believed that spiritual birth had stages just like physical birth. They believed that a man was first "regenerated," apart from means and gospel truth, then under conviction of sin, comparable to being in the womb, in darkness, without freedom, and then finally was "born" from the womb, the latter being by the means of gospel truth being believed by the "quickened soul." This is not, of course, the view of today's neo Hardshells.
"The teaching of the Spirit reveals to his mind the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; teaches him his own poverty and wretchedness. He feels so poor, that he cannot say, that he will wear his own apparel and rat his own bread; no, he looks for it to Him, from whom comes every good and perfect gift. Thus they who are chosen of God &, brought to the belief of the truth, are all taught of God, all drink of the same fountain, rejoice in the same truth and speak the same things, and in short, belong to tho same family." (Nov. 2, 1841. Jacob Wickizer. pg. 146)
"That there should be a New Birth by regeneration, the soul is begotten of God, quickened, by his Spirit brought into labor under the law and heavy laden with sin, enlightened by the Spirit of God to feel the justice of his condemnation; views the mighty contrast between a Holy God and such a hell-deserving sinner, whose every thought, word and deed, is now and ever has been black as the tents of Kedar, a fountain issuing nothing but the most filthy bitter water; finds utter inability to cleanse one drop, or change the spot on his Ethiopian skin, being entirely destitute of any cleansing power or substance. At length, at the end of the law, he ceases from his own works, as God did from his at the creation of the world, and cries, 'Lord, save, or I perish?' Jesus Christ he views as his atonement, and by faith views him as his Lord and his God, the cheifest amongst ten thousands, the one altogether lovely."
This is more evidence of how the first Hardshells held to the view that regeneration was distinct from the new birth, that they believed the new birth to be the same as conversion, and that all the regenerated would be converted by the gospel.
"I am well aware, that the birth is not the origin of the child, neither does it add any new member or physical power to the soul; yet the child by being born, comes to enjoy some new faculties, such as seeing, crying, tasting...all new. I suppose, that I have witnessed thousands of natural births, during the practice of my medical profession; yet in no case have I been ready to believe, that it was never a child until it was born. As before observed, the child is as perfect a child, before it was born, as afterwards, but the birth manifests it to all around; so the 'New Birth' manifests the new-born soul to Israel, and to Israel only."
"I have thus far endeavored to give you my ideas, as to what constitutes regeneration, or the New Birth,—and what is done to an individual experiencing that wonderful change, and in what respect 'the believer or man in Christ is a New Creature.' But to be a little more explicit, I would add, it is 'Christ formed in you the hope of glory'..." (Squier Littell Sr. (Jan. 1842. pg. 147)
This is clear. The first Hardshells believed that all the elect would believe and hear the gospel, that being "taught of God" involved being taught the gospel.
see here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)