Over a year ago I wrote an article titled "Arise From The Dead!" in which I wrote against the view of Hardshell apologist Jason Brown on the passage. You can read the subsequent exchanges on this here and here and here. In this posting I want to cite from Elder Watson on this point and show that Watson took the same view of the text as I do, and that my view is the Old Baptist view and Brown's is the neo-Hardshell view. Watson wrote:
"We call on sinners to awake from the sleep of death by faith, believing that God will give them life; to repent because he has promised to give repentance; to believe because He gives faith, to persevere because He is the finisher of our faith. Shall we give up this part of the work of the ministry because it has been Arminianized, and call all Arminians who carry it out?" (page 537)
Observe that Watson says that it is "part of the work of the ministry" to "call on sinners to awake from the sleep of death." So, who is more in league with Watson? Neo-Hardshells like Brown, or we here at the Old Baptist blog?
Friday, October 18, 2013
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Elder Watson Condemns Hardshell Error
Elder (Dr.) John Watson in his "Old Baptist Test" wrote these words (emphasis mine):
""And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 15: 15-16. The unscriptural sayings which have been predicated of this text, have done much heretical mischief among the Old Baptists. Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism, with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" (pages 327-28)
Elder Watson was one of the main leaders in the anti-mission movement and founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" church. His book was published just after the Civil War and just before his death. He was a major leader of Baptist in the then western territories, especially of middle Tennessee. Every Hardshell ought to read this book. It will surely show him what was the doctrinal beliefs of the first Hardshells.
Who does the elder refer to when he speaks of his "ultraist" brethren? It was those who denied that the Great Commission was still in operation, and who denied that the Gospel is to be preached to dead sinners, and who denied that the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. By these standards, today's Hardshells are "ultraists" and are not in agreement with Elder Watson, whose views were the standard view of the first generation of Hardshells. Elder Watson wrote frequently in the "Signs of the Times," the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," the "Primitive Baptist," and even was a co-editor of the "Old Baptist Banner," all periodicals of the 1830s. He was in fellowship with the first great leaders among the "Old School" Baptist, and was a close friend to such men as Elder Grigg Thompson, Elder John Clark, Elder James Osbourn, and other such notables.
It is interesting how the "ultraists" not only rejected the idea that the Gospel was to be preached to the spiritually dead, but even rejoiced in the idea. Elder Watson rightly saw this as a disgusting thing. It can be truly said that the day that the Hardshells took on this idea is the day that "Ichabod" was written over them.
Also, Watson considers such errors to be "heretical." He also says that such heresies had caused much "mischief" among the Old Schoolers. If he were alive today he would no doubt stand amazed at how much more serious was this mischief. Later in his book, on page 517, he wrote:
"Our not exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is a gross deviation from the gospel rule, and a palpable perversion of the great commission under which we preach."
Notice Watson's further description of the heresy that the "ultraist" had begun to believe and preach. He says their heresy is a "gross deviation from the gospel rule" and a "palpable perversion of the great commission." Would that today's Hardshells would repent of their error and listen to Elder Watson, who wrote this for their benefit.
Watson went on to say:
"Let us pursue the revealed method of God, and not the assumed one which we now follow. If ultraist, in their blindness, call us Arminian, let us bear it for the truth's sake. We had better suffer ourselves than deviate from our commission." (page 517-18)
Notice how Watson not only identifies the ultraist Hardshells as heretics, but says that they are blind. They are the ones who call those who believe in means "Arminian," which is a falsehood.
He also wrote:
"The violation of our commission has engendered a spirit of coldness and indifference about those yet unbrought; by some they are not cared for, prayed for, nor preached unto; this spirit in like manner extends to the "babes" in Christ, the sheep, and the sheep only, are fed." (page 521)
Watson says that the ultraist Hardshells had violated the commission, which is no minor transgression. He says their anti means doctrine had created a spirit in them that lacked any concern for the lost. He no doubt would agree that such a spirit and heresy has turned them into a cult, were he here today.
Elder Watson continued (pages 327-28):
"That the commission extends to such, is apparent from the fact that some believe, and some do not. Those who believe were unbelievers before, and the unbelieving of others can only be predicated of their hearing. What said the prophet? "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." I would just state here, at once, that I have no idea that sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, will ever believe through the mere preaching of the Gospel, or through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary, greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners."
The force of Watson's logic on the commission is based upon the assumption that those who are "unbelievers," who are not believers in the Gospel, are "dead in trespasses and sins." He says that the command to preach the Gospel even to unbelievers is proof that it is to be preached to those who are spiritually dead. But, this shows that Watson believed that the terms "unbeliever" and "dead" are connected. If one is an unbeliever, then he is dead. If one is dead, then he is an unbeliever. Such logic, however, would never be conceded to by today's ultraist Hardshells who believe that there are many who are unbelievers but who are spiritually alive.
In proving that the Gospel is to be preached to the spiritually dead, and that it is a means in the hand of God in raising the dead, Watson goes to the story of Ezekiel's prophesying to the dry dead bones. It was this story that overthrew all my arguments against means, when I was a Hardshell believer in the Spirit alone view. All the arguments that Hardshells have ever made against the means view can be overcome by a simple look at the story of Ezekiel and the raising of the dead. Perhaps this is why the Hardshells of today do not want to debate, for in debate they would have to deal with how Ezekiel's raising of the dead destroys all their logical arguments.
Elder Watson continued:
"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." (pages 327-28)
Watson correctly identifies the anti means ultraist Hardshells as being "Antinomian."
Watson's book is filled with such refutation of the anti means doctrine that later, after his death, took over the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist denomination. It would be good if all Hardshells today would read his book and consider what he says.
""And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 15: 15-16. The unscriptural sayings which have been predicated of this text, have done much heretical mischief among the Old Baptists. Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism, with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" (pages 327-28)
Elder Watson was one of the main leaders in the anti-mission movement and founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" church. His book was published just after the Civil War and just before his death. He was a major leader of Baptist in the then western territories, especially of middle Tennessee. Every Hardshell ought to read this book. It will surely show him what was the doctrinal beliefs of the first Hardshells.
Who does the elder refer to when he speaks of his "ultraist" brethren? It was those who denied that the Great Commission was still in operation, and who denied that the Gospel is to be preached to dead sinners, and who denied that the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. By these standards, today's Hardshells are "ultraists" and are not in agreement with Elder Watson, whose views were the standard view of the first generation of Hardshells. Elder Watson wrote frequently in the "Signs of the Times," the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," the "Primitive Baptist," and even was a co-editor of the "Old Baptist Banner," all periodicals of the 1830s. He was in fellowship with the first great leaders among the "Old School" Baptist, and was a close friend to such men as Elder Grigg Thompson, Elder John Clark, Elder James Osbourn, and other such notables.
It is interesting how the "ultraists" not only rejected the idea that the Gospel was to be preached to the spiritually dead, but even rejoiced in the idea. Elder Watson rightly saw this as a disgusting thing. It can be truly said that the day that the Hardshells took on this idea is the day that "Ichabod" was written over them.
Also, Watson considers such errors to be "heretical." He also says that such heresies had caused much "mischief" among the Old Schoolers. If he were alive today he would no doubt stand amazed at how much more serious was this mischief. Later in his book, on page 517, he wrote:
"Our not exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is a gross deviation from the gospel rule, and a palpable perversion of the great commission under which we preach."
Notice Watson's further description of the heresy that the "ultraist" had begun to believe and preach. He says their heresy is a "gross deviation from the gospel rule" and a "palpable perversion of the great commission." Would that today's Hardshells would repent of their error and listen to Elder Watson, who wrote this for their benefit.
Watson went on to say:
"Let us pursue the revealed method of God, and not the assumed one which we now follow. If ultraist, in their blindness, call us Arminian, let us bear it for the truth's sake. We had better suffer ourselves than deviate from our commission." (page 517-18)
Notice how Watson not only identifies the ultraist Hardshells as heretics, but says that they are blind. They are the ones who call those who believe in means "Arminian," which is a falsehood.
He also wrote:
"The violation of our commission has engendered a spirit of coldness and indifference about those yet unbrought; by some they are not cared for, prayed for, nor preached unto; this spirit in like manner extends to the "babes" in Christ, the sheep, and the sheep only, are fed." (page 521)
Watson says that the ultraist Hardshells had violated the commission, which is no minor transgression. He says their anti means doctrine had created a spirit in them that lacked any concern for the lost. He no doubt would agree that such a spirit and heresy has turned them into a cult, were he here today.
Elder Watson continued (pages 327-28):
"That the commission extends to such, is apparent from the fact that some believe, and some do not. Those who believe were unbelievers before, and the unbelieving of others can only be predicated of their hearing. What said the prophet? "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." I would just state here, at once, that I have no idea that sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, will ever believe through the mere preaching of the Gospel, or through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary, greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners."
The force of Watson's logic on the commission is based upon the assumption that those who are "unbelievers," who are not believers in the Gospel, are "dead in trespasses and sins." He says that the command to preach the Gospel even to unbelievers is proof that it is to be preached to those who are spiritually dead. But, this shows that Watson believed that the terms "unbeliever" and "dead" are connected. If one is an unbeliever, then he is dead. If one is dead, then he is an unbeliever. Such logic, however, would never be conceded to by today's ultraist Hardshells who believe that there are many who are unbelievers but who are spiritually alive.
In proving that the Gospel is to be preached to the spiritually dead, and that it is a means in the hand of God in raising the dead, Watson goes to the story of Ezekiel's prophesying to the dry dead bones. It was this story that overthrew all my arguments against means, when I was a Hardshell believer in the Spirit alone view. All the arguments that Hardshells have ever made against the means view can be overcome by a simple look at the story of Ezekiel and the raising of the dead. Perhaps this is why the Hardshells of today do not want to debate, for in debate they would have to deal with how Ezekiel's raising of the dead destroys all their logical arguments.
Elder Watson continued:
"The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in trespasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." (pages 327-28)
Watson correctly identifies the anti means ultraist Hardshells as being "Antinomian."
Watson's book is filled with such refutation of the anti means doctrine that later, after his death, took over the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptist denomination. It would be good if all Hardshells today would read his book and consider what he says.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Another Wants Out of the Cult
A few days ago I received an e-mail from a Hardshell preacher who wanted to talk to me about his getting out of the Hardshell cult. So, I sent him my telephone number and he called me and we talked for a couple hours. He not only has come to see the heresies of the Hardshells, and their schismatic spirit, but also their cult status.
This elder is a very well educated man with lots of religious experience and education obtained before he joined the Hardshells. He stated that our writings here on the Old Baptist blog have been of much help to him and we were glad to hear it. I invited him to come and join with Elder Fralick and me and write here. He said that he was afraid that he was at present too angry at the Hardshells to write. I told him that I understood, but that since he also expressed much love for many of the Hardshells, that he would hopefully in time come to see how he might be of help to others like himself, and write for their benefit. It is my hope that others will also come to see the errors of the Hardshells and come out of the cult. I get e-mails periodically from ordinary lay persons who have been helped by our writings and who have been saved from the cult.
What should someone in the Hardshell cult do when they discover that they are in a cult? When they discover that the Hardshells believe and practice serious doctrinal errors? Especially, what should those who are preachers do?
For those who remain convinced of the doctrines of grace, and of the basic tenets of Calvinism, there are really only two choices. First, they can separate from their church with those who agree with them and begin a new church after the order of the genuine Old Baptist faith. This is what Elder Fralick did. Second, they can find another Baptist church in their area that holds to the doctrines of grace. Many Baptist churches called "sovereign grace Baptists" or "particular Baptists" hold to the 1689 London Confession of faith. The Internet makes finding such churches much easier. Further, there are some good moderate Calvinistic churches and there is no reason why one cannot find a home with them. There are even "founders friendly" churches among the Southern Baptists who still hold to the doctrines of grace.
I counseled this elder on how to grow a church if he decides to do so. He certainly must become evangelistic, something that the Hardshells did not teach him to do. He must have a love for souls and a desire to see people converted. If this means knocking on doors in the community, or standing on the street corner preaching or handing out tracts, it must be done. To grow a church requires labor. It is no easy job. But, where the heart is right, and fully engaged, the work will be blessed by the Lord. Many large churches began with a home Bible study or weekly prayer meeting.
In starting a new church, I certainly would not call it a "Primitive Baptist" church, for I would not want people to get the wrong impression. Just simply "Baptist" is sufficient, although "Old Baptist Church" is also worthy of consideration.
This preacher and I both agreed that the Hardshells are generally very ignorant of the Scriptures. I attribute this to their lack of a teaching ministry, to their not having Bible classes and Sunday Schools. I told this preacher that most of the elders in the Hardshell church are also grossly ignorant, especially in the rules of Bible interpretation. People are hungry for the word of God and for a church to grow there has to be a serious teaching ministry. Music is important, yes, but it is only secondarily so.
In closing let me say that I have withheld this preacher's name. He can make his own announcement about his leaving the Hardshells. I pray the Lord will be with him and his family as he seeks the guidance of the Lord.
This elder is a very well educated man with lots of religious experience and education obtained before he joined the Hardshells. He stated that our writings here on the Old Baptist blog have been of much help to him and we were glad to hear it. I invited him to come and join with Elder Fralick and me and write here. He said that he was afraid that he was at present too angry at the Hardshells to write. I told him that I understood, but that since he also expressed much love for many of the Hardshells, that he would hopefully in time come to see how he might be of help to others like himself, and write for their benefit. It is my hope that others will also come to see the errors of the Hardshells and come out of the cult. I get e-mails periodically from ordinary lay persons who have been helped by our writings and who have been saved from the cult.
What should someone in the Hardshell cult do when they discover that they are in a cult? When they discover that the Hardshells believe and practice serious doctrinal errors? Especially, what should those who are preachers do?
For those who remain convinced of the doctrines of grace, and of the basic tenets of Calvinism, there are really only two choices. First, they can separate from their church with those who agree with them and begin a new church after the order of the genuine Old Baptist faith. This is what Elder Fralick did. Second, they can find another Baptist church in their area that holds to the doctrines of grace. Many Baptist churches called "sovereign grace Baptists" or "particular Baptists" hold to the 1689 London Confession of faith. The Internet makes finding such churches much easier. Further, there are some good moderate Calvinistic churches and there is no reason why one cannot find a home with them. There are even "founders friendly" churches among the Southern Baptists who still hold to the doctrines of grace.
I counseled this elder on how to grow a church if he decides to do so. He certainly must become evangelistic, something that the Hardshells did not teach him to do. He must have a love for souls and a desire to see people converted. If this means knocking on doors in the community, or standing on the street corner preaching or handing out tracts, it must be done. To grow a church requires labor. It is no easy job. But, where the heart is right, and fully engaged, the work will be blessed by the Lord. Many large churches began with a home Bible study or weekly prayer meeting.
In starting a new church, I certainly would not call it a "Primitive Baptist" church, for I would not want people to get the wrong impression. Just simply "Baptist" is sufficient, although "Old Baptist Church" is also worthy of consideration.
This preacher and I both agreed that the Hardshells are generally very ignorant of the Scriptures. I attribute this to their lack of a teaching ministry, to their not having Bible classes and Sunday Schools. I told this preacher that most of the elders in the Hardshell church are also grossly ignorant, especially in the rules of Bible interpretation. People are hungry for the word of God and for a church to grow there has to be a serious teaching ministry. Music is important, yes, but it is only secondarily so.
In closing let me say that I have withheld this preacher's name. He can make his own announcement about his leaving the Hardshells. I pray the Lord will be with him and his family as he seeks the guidance of the Lord.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Jesus was no Pelagian
A local Hardshell elder sends out a daily commentary on a verse of scripture to an emailing group of which I have remained a part ever since my departure from them. Today, his devotional was from Matthew 11:28 which reads:
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
He comments as expected:
“This is not an invitation to those who have not been “born again” for the Lord also said, ‘No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him’ (John 6:44).”
Now what is the reason why he objects to the commandment being directed toward the unregenerate? It is because he assumes that sinners must have the ability to come before they can be commanded to come. And not only does he assume it, but he thinks that Jesus held to the same premise. Our Lord would not tell those who could not come to Him that they should do so.
It has been repeatedly pointed out on this blog that commands do not imply ability. To have that as a premise when one confronts the invitations to sinners in scripture is to imbibe Pelagianism.
R.C. Sproul wrote:
“For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it” (R.C. Sproul)
To say that Christ would not command the regenerate due to a lack of ability on their part is to charge him with Pelagian logic!
Sorry, but Jesus was no Pelagian!
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Hardshells & Mission Opposition XXIII
Chapter 166
In closing out this series on the Hardshells and their opposition to fulfilling the mission of the Great Commission and of the church, and of my analysis of the Black Rock Address, I would like to cite from an article titled "AN “OPEN-HEART” LETTER TO PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS...AND ALL OTHERS" by Charles Carrin (2012), an eighty plus year old Hardshell elder. Elder Carrin wrote (see here):
"I had moved to Atlanta the year before, 1949, having been ordained in Miami, and was pastor at the Memorial P.B. Church just a mile from the Atlanta Church were Brother Thomas spoke. Half a mile from my church was the East Atlanta P.B. Church and a mile beyond that was Bethany Church. There were probably 25 Primitive Baptist Churches in the area now occupied by metropolitan Atlanta. Many had fine brick buildings and historic cemeteries. Some 500 other P.B. congregations were scattered across Georgia. But the outlook was frightening. The churches were divided into a myriad of warring groups that forbade fellowship with each other. Each of the three congregations nearest my church represented a different faction. Where Jesus had called His disciples “together”, Luke 9:1, Primitive Baptists had defiantly torn them apart."
What Elder Carrin bears witness to is nothing new. It is not simply a characteristic of the mid twentieth century, but of the entire history of the Hardshell denomination. They are schismatics, backbiters, and heretical.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"The rejection I experienced had a positive effect. It motivated me even more to discover why Primitive Baptists treated each other like enemies. Little Flock Church in Miami where I grew up and had loved me as a child now held my ministry in contempt–even though we were agreed theologically. It, like most others, was locked into the mind-set of 18th century pioneer-tradition. Old customs held equal authority with Scripture. Though my Atlanta congregation was growing I still knew that “death was in the pot” and eventually awaited all of us. II Kings 4:38-40. Something was stalking the denomination that we did not know how to stop."
Others have had a similar experience in the Hardshell church and such experiences have had the positive effect of waking up the person to see the perils of being in the Hardshell cult. I had such an experience. Elder Fralick who is co-editor of our "Old Baptist" blog also had a bad experience with the Hardshells that the Lord turned into a blessing, using it to pull us away from a cult. The amount of divisions and schisms in the Hardshell denomination shows how schismatic they are as a people. There is very little longsuffering and forbearance among the Hardshells, who are quick to cast off all who do not conform to what tradition and local Hardshell popes decree.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"In 1953, I could endure the pain no longer and asked the Primitive Western Union–of which my congregation was a member–to authorize me to write a letter to all Primitive Baptist Churches in the United States. The purpose was an appeal that we pray for each others restoration to the unity and power of former years. With the Session’s approval I then hand-addressed letters to more than 3,000 Primitive Baptist Churches in the U.S. I remember the number very well. Every state was represented. After mailing them I waited fearfully. When responses began arriving they were not only discouraging but in some cases hostile. I was rebuked angrily for thinking that churches “needed the petition of designing men for their health and well-being”. In some cases, I was ordered to remove church names from the list. My weeping intensified."
Many other Hardshells, over the past 180 years, having a burden to see the Hardshells repent of their errors and anti spirit, sought to reform the denomination, but all met with failure. The Hardshell spirit was just too stubborn and obstinate.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Today I doubt that 500 of those 3,000 churches are still alive–and all these are tragically small. They wield no power beyond their own membership. Unlike our ancestors who helped shape America, P.B. influence in public life today is non-existent. Because of that spiritual decline, I must share some observations I gained over the past 62 years of ministry. Part of this will be facts you may not want to hear. Even so, the motive behind my letter is love for you and the churches we have mutually served. Regardless of your faction, I ask you to hear me to the end. Like most of you, I came from a long Primitive Baptist background."
I believe that Elder Carrin was sincere, though the Hardshells will probably want to attack the motives of men like Carrin, as they have all who write against their errors. Our goal is to save a few Hardshells. We are under no delusions that there will be any great numbers of them who will repent and turn back to the Old Baptist faith of their fathers.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"I waited a long time for God's answer to my question about the decline, but when the first part came–as if by thunder–it was in our history–. You probably know that in 1832 at Black Rock Church in Baltimore County, Maryland, a large number of Baptist Pastors and laymen met to protest changes that were appearing in the churches. Specifically, they opposed six new practices: Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, Bible Societies, Missions, Theological Schools, and Protracted Meetings. Other efforts that would have promoted church unity were also opposed. –Their concerns were not about doctrinal issues but practical–."
When Elder Carrin speaks of the problem with the Hardshell church, he attributes it to their history, a point I have made throughout this book. Most Hardshells have been told lies about their history. They do not know their real history. The truth is, they do not believe what their founding fathers believed and if they were alive today, they would not be accepted by today's Hardshells. There has truly been a coverup of the history of the Hardshells, particularly up until the 1860s. The authors that Hardshells today cite as expressive of the view of their forefathers are second and third generation Hardshells. They do not keep in print anything written in the time period before the 1860s because they cannot find their views being advocated prior to that time. Nearly all Hardshells today think that the founding fathers of Hardshellism all believed that the Gospel was no means in accomplishing the eternal salvation of the elect, and that conversion was not necessary to be eternally saved, but if they would read what the first Hardshells wrote, they will see that this is false.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"My personal view of Black Rock or these six topics is of no value. –The only thing of importance is what history has confirmed:– A century and a half after the Black Rock meeting thousands of its participating churches were dead. Disastrous fighting and declarations of non-fellowship broke out and infected every congregation that joined the movement. Even peace-loving churches who later took part were affected by it. These churches were not killed by Sunday Schools, Missions, Tract Societies, etc. Not at all. On those issues the churches were strongly agreed. The villain was something totally different."
Jesus said that one can identify the kind of tree by the fruit it bears. By this standard we judge that the fruit of the Black Rock Address was destruction to many churches. The Hardshells must face the music about these facts of their history. They will continue to dwindle and die because they have departed from the Scriptures and the Old Baptist faith. Today their church members know very little of the Bible, and their being against teaching the Bible to their members in classes has contributed to this. Likewise, their ministers are generally ignorant of systematic theology and the rudimental principles of biblical hermeneutics, all of which could have been corrected had they been for training of ministers.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"My conviction is this: If such dangerous, divisive spirits could infect the disciples in Jesus’ day they are certainly more capable of doing so now–and I am convinced it was this kind of villain that secretly embedded itself in the 1832 meeting. Why do I say that? Look at the results! Thousands of churches have been destroyed. That was not the work of the Holy Spirit! Even churches that temporarily escaped later became victimized by it."
All that Elder Carrin is doing is judging by looking at the fruit of the Hardshell denunciations in the Black Rock Address.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Listen carefully to these words: Churches either bear good fruit or God removes them from His garden. There is no exception. I looked for Primitive Baptist fruit. There was none. Evangelism was dead. Charity was non-existent. The churches existed solely for themselves; no one else. All fruit-bearing practices–by default–died at Black Rock. As a result, hundreds of fruitless congregations had fallen victim to God's axe. This shocked me: God Himself had been the executioner. He was the one who cut down barren ministries and cast them away."
Elder Carrin is accurate in his analysis of what has befallen the Hardshell churches. His statement that "evangelism is dead" is correct, and where evangelism is dead in churches, so will the churches be dead. Elder Watson spoke of this in his book "The Old Baptist Test" as I have already observed. He decried the Hardshell "ultraist" giving up the practice of exhorting sinners and calling those who do practice it "Arminians." If the Hardshell church is ever to be saved from death, it will have to once again begin the practice of exhorting all, both saints and sinners, about their duty and about what they must do to be saved. Elder Carrin lays the cause of the Hardshell rot at the Black Rock Address and this is true, but it is also true that it springs from their Hyper Calvinism.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Primitive Baptists emphatically refused foreign missions and all other fruit-bearing action. We happily preached "grace" as a doctrine but rejected it as a vital practice in the life of the church."
Again, all this is very true. But, I would add that the chief blame lies in the fact that the Hardshells would later alter their doctrine on regeneration by means of Gospel preaching, and the necessity of evangelical faith and repentance for salvation, and on perseverance. It was their antinomian spirit that brought death, the idea that salvation was solely God's responsibility and that those saved had no responsibility in the matter.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"P.B. claims to being the “original church” are an insult to Jesus who "loved the church and gave Himself for it," Ephesians 5:25, but to the Holy Spirit who empowered it at Pentecost. Acts 2 .,,Where there is no power, the Holy Spirit has not come. In spite of that fact, dying P.B. churches and powerless ministries arrogantly claim to have the only valid baptism, the only valid communion, the only valid gospel...After 2,000 years of work on the earth if the dysfunctional P.B. Church is the only church the Holy Spirit has been able to produce He is a total, utter, failure. Read that statement again. It is true. As a long-term P.B. Elder I am willing to say it. Millions of believers around the world are legitimately receiving both baptism and communion in which Primitive Baptist have no part. In spite of their efforts to make changes, my own progressive P.B's. are in as tragic decline as the original old-line. Why? They are still trying to evangelize the doctrines of election and predestination instead of evangelizing Christ. Acts 26:18. They refuse to deal with their theological-bias and admit their rejection of authentic Scriptural truths."
These statements by Elder Carrin are spot on and need little comment. They reflect the same judgment that I have consistently made throughout this book. Today's Hardshells are like a person dying with cancer but who refuses to believe it. They are living in denial.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"But, I need to confess my own sin and failure as a P.B. Pastor. For 30+ years on the radio and in my pulpit, I too desperately tried to evangelize the doctrines of election and predestination. I failed. I tried to convert people to our church instead of converting them to Christ. I failed again. I tried to convince people of the validity of our baptism above all others. That also failed. I re-baptized all who came. I denied Communion to those who had no P.B. baptism. Worse still, I was ignorant of Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God."
What Elder Carrin is really acknowledging is the fact that the Hardshells are a cult and that their Landmark views are part of the problem. Further, Elder Carrin is simply stating what Elder Watson had warned about in 1866. The Hardshells will never save themselves from death until they return to the Old Baptist faith.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"A Primitive Baptist-gospel is pointless and powerless. It is self-centered and destructive. If the gospel we preach is not impacting the world around it we have the wrong gospel. I don't care how expert we may be in Bible doctrine, if the Holy Spirit is not using our message to bring others to Christ and submission to the Kingdom our preaching is a failure. Where is the grief-stricken conscience that drives P.B. pastors to their knees, asking “Am I to blame for the death of my church? What is wrong with my preaching?! Why am I not getting New Testament results?” If we genuinely ask God He will tell us."
Would to God that this message by Elder Carrin were taken to heart by the Hardshells. He writes out of grief and love for the cause. All honest Hardshells who read such words know in their hearts that what he says is right. The Hardshells think that evangelism is simply proselyting people to Hardshellism. Recall that Elder Leland had a burden to see sinners saved, weeping over the fact, and yet Hardshells have the audacity to claim that they are in league with Leland.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"I will go further in acknowledging my own sin. For 30 years of ministry there were certain New Testament scriptures which I was unable to preach. Why? I felt honor-bound to interpret every Bible verse through our Articles of Faith. If scriptures did not agree with the Articles I thought I was confused about the Scripture. The Articles were right. If I had preached any Scripture contrary to the Articles I would have been excommunicated. I am convinced many other godly pastors are submitting to the same tragic error--and getting the same zero-results in their ministry. Today I realize that the enormity of Scripture can never be reduced to a few humanly-composed statements of faith. But, you don't have to believe me. Look at facts! Look at history! Look at statistics! Look at what the Holy Spirit is now doing in China, Africa, South America, where millions are coming to Christ and the church is exploding. In the years of my own ministry believers in China have grown from 50,000 to more than 100,000,000. And that occurred under vicious Communist persecution. Are these Christians real? Yes! They are true lovers of Jesus."
These are the same things I have been saying throughout this book.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Am I concerned? Of course I am. Angered? Yes! I was concerned 60 years ago when I heard Brother Thomas’ preach! I wept. I mourned about it. That night I went home groaning over the danger we were in. What we were forewarned that evening has fully come to pass. Vainly, I pleaded with the churches 60 years ago. And I am doing so again. Jesus has not changed His mind since He said, “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away”. Did you hear that? If your ministry and your P.B. church are not bearing fruit for the Kingdom of God expect to be cut off!"
Elder Carrin speaks of how he tried to bring the Hardshells to their senses, how he tried to call them to repent and reform, and how his efforts failed. He is not the first to try to save the Hardshells for many throughout their history tried it and failed, for the most part.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Primitive Baptists, hear me! Preachers had better come to terms with God. He is not going to adjust His word to your religious absurdity. Don't fight against Him. Acts 5:39. The New Testament is not a book–it is an unbreakable Covenant! You have dared to use your religious scissors to cut out parts that did not fit your doctrine. Stop it! No part of God’s Word is expendable."
Elder Carrin is again correct in his affirmation about how the Hardshells interpret Scripture. On this I hope to speak about in upcoming chapters. Though they boast of how they are the only ones who rightly divide the word of truth, it is really just the opposite. They are guilty of eisegesis and know little about exegesis. Their preachers would have been well served to have attended seminary and learned about hermeneutics.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Little Flock Church where I grew up is dead. The once-beautiful and crowded Miami Church that baptized and ordained me is dead. My first church in Atlanta is dead. Utoy is dead. The church served by Elder Gilbert Beebe, Moderator of the Black Rock Conference, is dead. Thousands of great churches are dead. Others have a name that they are alive but in reality are dead. Revelation 3:1. Jesus said, “The words that I speak to you they are spirit and they are life.” John 6:63. It is impossible to speak Jesus’ words through the gospel and death to prevail. Genuine, authentic gospel imparts life! It is “spirit”! These churches died because they did not have a full New Testament gospel. They had a Primitive Baptist substitute. The substitute killed them. That terrifies me. It ought to terrify you. Churches do not die of old age; they have to be killed. What kills them? Preachers with a synthetic gospel!"
Hyper Calvinism killed the Hardshells! Failure to preach to sinners has killed them. Opposing efforts to fulfill the Great Commission has killed them.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"I am fully convinced of this: God saw the fruitlessness, religious legalism, and fighting, in P.B. churches, and removed the Candlestick. It is gone. Gone forever! The Candlestick is not coming back. Hear me: Nothing will ever restore it. The denomination cannot be revived. Stop trying. It is finished. Bury the dead past and get on with reality! The “tree” has been cut down." "The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us that we have sinned!” Lamentations 5:16. Do I believe this? Yes! Absolutely! Nor will I be quiet about it. The Holy Spirit will never be tied to a dead tree stump. Don’t try to keep Him there. Brother Thomas’ 1950 warning was prophetic. Acts 2:17. Whether you like my saying it or not is not my concern. My only desire is to see you rescue whatever time remains and move on with an authentic New Testament ministry. This is not 1832. It is 2012! God expects us to act accordingly. We are in the end-times of human history. Wake up! We were not sent to embalm the dead but to raise the dead."
I agree that the Hardshells, as a denomination, cannot be saved. But, it is possible to save some of them. It is also possible that those Hardshells today who are seeing their errors, such as those in the "liberal movement," may be successful in at least setting up a counter set of "Primitive Baptist" churches. Let us hope so.
In closing out this series on the Hardshells and their opposition to fulfilling the mission of the Great Commission and of the church, and of my analysis of the Black Rock Address, I would like to cite from an article titled "AN “OPEN-HEART” LETTER TO PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS...AND ALL OTHERS" by Charles Carrin (2012), an eighty plus year old Hardshell elder. Elder Carrin wrote (see here):
"I had moved to Atlanta the year before, 1949, having been ordained in Miami, and was pastor at the Memorial P.B. Church just a mile from the Atlanta Church were Brother Thomas spoke. Half a mile from my church was the East Atlanta P.B. Church and a mile beyond that was Bethany Church. There were probably 25 Primitive Baptist Churches in the area now occupied by metropolitan Atlanta. Many had fine brick buildings and historic cemeteries. Some 500 other P.B. congregations were scattered across Georgia. But the outlook was frightening. The churches were divided into a myriad of warring groups that forbade fellowship with each other. Each of the three congregations nearest my church represented a different faction. Where Jesus had called His disciples “together”, Luke 9:1, Primitive Baptists had defiantly torn them apart."
What Elder Carrin bears witness to is nothing new. It is not simply a characteristic of the mid twentieth century, but of the entire history of the Hardshell denomination. They are schismatics, backbiters, and heretical.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"The rejection I experienced had a positive effect. It motivated me even more to discover why Primitive Baptists treated each other like enemies. Little Flock Church in Miami where I grew up and had loved me as a child now held my ministry in contempt–even though we were agreed theologically. It, like most others, was locked into the mind-set of 18th century pioneer-tradition. Old customs held equal authority with Scripture. Though my Atlanta congregation was growing I still knew that “death was in the pot” and eventually awaited all of us. II Kings 4:38-40. Something was stalking the denomination that we did not know how to stop."
Others have had a similar experience in the Hardshell church and such experiences have had the positive effect of waking up the person to see the perils of being in the Hardshell cult. I had such an experience. Elder Fralick who is co-editor of our "Old Baptist" blog also had a bad experience with the Hardshells that the Lord turned into a blessing, using it to pull us away from a cult. The amount of divisions and schisms in the Hardshell denomination shows how schismatic they are as a people. There is very little longsuffering and forbearance among the Hardshells, who are quick to cast off all who do not conform to what tradition and local Hardshell popes decree.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"In 1953, I could endure the pain no longer and asked the Primitive Western Union–of which my congregation was a member–to authorize me to write a letter to all Primitive Baptist Churches in the United States. The purpose was an appeal that we pray for each others restoration to the unity and power of former years. With the Session’s approval I then hand-addressed letters to more than 3,000 Primitive Baptist Churches in the U.S. I remember the number very well. Every state was represented. After mailing them I waited fearfully. When responses began arriving they were not only discouraging but in some cases hostile. I was rebuked angrily for thinking that churches “needed the petition of designing men for their health and well-being”. In some cases, I was ordered to remove church names from the list. My weeping intensified."
Many other Hardshells, over the past 180 years, having a burden to see the Hardshells repent of their errors and anti spirit, sought to reform the denomination, but all met with failure. The Hardshell spirit was just too stubborn and obstinate.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Today I doubt that 500 of those 3,000 churches are still alive–and all these are tragically small. They wield no power beyond their own membership. Unlike our ancestors who helped shape America, P.B. influence in public life today is non-existent. Because of that spiritual decline, I must share some observations I gained over the past 62 years of ministry. Part of this will be facts you may not want to hear. Even so, the motive behind my letter is love for you and the churches we have mutually served. Regardless of your faction, I ask you to hear me to the end. Like most of you, I came from a long Primitive Baptist background."
I believe that Elder Carrin was sincere, though the Hardshells will probably want to attack the motives of men like Carrin, as they have all who write against their errors. Our goal is to save a few Hardshells. We are under no delusions that there will be any great numbers of them who will repent and turn back to the Old Baptist faith of their fathers.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"I waited a long time for God's answer to my question about the decline, but when the first part came–as if by thunder–it was in our history–. You probably know that in 1832 at Black Rock Church in Baltimore County, Maryland, a large number of Baptist Pastors and laymen met to protest changes that were appearing in the churches. Specifically, they opposed six new practices: Tract Societies, Sunday Schools, Bible Societies, Missions, Theological Schools, and Protracted Meetings. Other efforts that would have promoted church unity were also opposed. –Their concerns were not about doctrinal issues but practical–."
When Elder Carrin speaks of the problem with the Hardshell church, he attributes it to their history, a point I have made throughout this book. Most Hardshells have been told lies about their history. They do not know their real history. The truth is, they do not believe what their founding fathers believed and if they were alive today, they would not be accepted by today's Hardshells. There has truly been a coverup of the history of the Hardshells, particularly up until the 1860s. The authors that Hardshells today cite as expressive of the view of their forefathers are second and third generation Hardshells. They do not keep in print anything written in the time period before the 1860s because they cannot find their views being advocated prior to that time. Nearly all Hardshells today think that the founding fathers of Hardshellism all believed that the Gospel was no means in accomplishing the eternal salvation of the elect, and that conversion was not necessary to be eternally saved, but if they would read what the first Hardshells wrote, they will see that this is false.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"My personal view of Black Rock or these six topics is of no value. –The only thing of importance is what history has confirmed:– A century and a half after the Black Rock meeting thousands of its participating churches were dead. Disastrous fighting and declarations of non-fellowship broke out and infected every congregation that joined the movement. Even peace-loving churches who later took part were affected by it. These churches were not killed by Sunday Schools, Missions, Tract Societies, etc. Not at all. On those issues the churches were strongly agreed. The villain was something totally different."
Jesus said that one can identify the kind of tree by the fruit it bears. By this standard we judge that the fruit of the Black Rock Address was destruction to many churches. The Hardshells must face the music about these facts of their history. They will continue to dwindle and die because they have departed from the Scriptures and the Old Baptist faith. Today their church members know very little of the Bible, and their being against teaching the Bible to their members in classes has contributed to this. Likewise, their ministers are generally ignorant of systematic theology and the rudimental principles of biblical hermeneutics, all of which could have been corrected had they been for training of ministers.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"My conviction is this: If such dangerous, divisive spirits could infect the disciples in Jesus’ day they are certainly more capable of doing so now–and I am convinced it was this kind of villain that secretly embedded itself in the 1832 meeting. Why do I say that? Look at the results! Thousands of churches have been destroyed. That was not the work of the Holy Spirit! Even churches that temporarily escaped later became victimized by it."
All that Elder Carrin is doing is judging by looking at the fruit of the Hardshell denunciations in the Black Rock Address.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Listen carefully to these words: Churches either bear good fruit or God removes them from His garden. There is no exception. I looked for Primitive Baptist fruit. There was none. Evangelism was dead. Charity was non-existent. The churches existed solely for themselves; no one else. All fruit-bearing practices–by default–died at Black Rock. As a result, hundreds of fruitless congregations had fallen victim to God's axe. This shocked me: God Himself had been the executioner. He was the one who cut down barren ministries and cast them away."
Elder Carrin is accurate in his analysis of what has befallen the Hardshell churches. His statement that "evangelism is dead" is correct, and where evangelism is dead in churches, so will the churches be dead. Elder Watson spoke of this in his book "The Old Baptist Test" as I have already observed. He decried the Hardshell "ultraist" giving up the practice of exhorting sinners and calling those who do practice it "Arminians." If the Hardshell church is ever to be saved from death, it will have to once again begin the practice of exhorting all, both saints and sinners, about their duty and about what they must do to be saved. Elder Carrin lays the cause of the Hardshell rot at the Black Rock Address and this is true, but it is also true that it springs from their Hyper Calvinism.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Primitive Baptists emphatically refused foreign missions and all other fruit-bearing action. We happily preached "grace" as a doctrine but rejected it as a vital practice in the life of the church."
Again, all this is very true. But, I would add that the chief blame lies in the fact that the Hardshells would later alter their doctrine on regeneration by means of Gospel preaching, and the necessity of evangelical faith and repentance for salvation, and on perseverance. It was their antinomian spirit that brought death, the idea that salvation was solely God's responsibility and that those saved had no responsibility in the matter.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"P.B. claims to being the “original church” are an insult to Jesus who "loved the church and gave Himself for it," Ephesians 5:25, but to the Holy Spirit who empowered it at Pentecost. Acts 2 .,,Where there is no power, the Holy Spirit has not come. In spite of that fact, dying P.B. churches and powerless ministries arrogantly claim to have the only valid baptism, the only valid communion, the only valid gospel...After 2,000 years of work on the earth if the dysfunctional P.B. Church is the only church the Holy Spirit has been able to produce He is a total, utter, failure. Read that statement again. It is true. As a long-term P.B. Elder I am willing to say it. Millions of believers around the world are legitimately receiving both baptism and communion in which Primitive Baptist have no part. In spite of their efforts to make changes, my own progressive P.B's. are in as tragic decline as the original old-line. Why? They are still trying to evangelize the doctrines of election and predestination instead of evangelizing Christ. Acts 26:18. They refuse to deal with their theological-bias and admit their rejection of authentic Scriptural truths."
These statements by Elder Carrin are spot on and need little comment. They reflect the same judgment that I have consistently made throughout this book. Today's Hardshells are like a person dying with cancer but who refuses to believe it. They are living in denial.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"But, I need to confess my own sin and failure as a P.B. Pastor. For 30+ years on the radio and in my pulpit, I too desperately tried to evangelize the doctrines of election and predestination. I failed. I tried to convert people to our church instead of converting them to Christ. I failed again. I tried to convince people of the validity of our baptism above all others. That also failed. I re-baptized all who came. I denied Communion to those who had no P.B. baptism. Worse still, I was ignorant of Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God."
What Elder Carrin is really acknowledging is the fact that the Hardshells are a cult and that their Landmark views are part of the problem. Further, Elder Carrin is simply stating what Elder Watson had warned about in 1866. The Hardshells will never save themselves from death until they return to the Old Baptist faith.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"A Primitive Baptist-gospel is pointless and powerless. It is self-centered and destructive. If the gospel we preach is not impacting the world around it we have the wrong gospel. I don't care how expert we may be in Bible doctrine, if the Holy Spirit is not using our message to bring others to Christ and submission to the Kingdom our preaching is a failure. Where is the grief-stricken conscience that drives P.B. pastors to their knees, asking “Am I to blame for the death of my church? What is wrong with my preaching?! Why am I not getting New Testament results?” If we genuinely ask God He will tell us."
Would to God that this message by Elder Carrin were taken to heart by the Hardshells. He writes out of grief and love for the cause. All honest Hardshells who read such words know in their hearts that what he says is right. The Hardshells think that evangelism is simply proselyting people to Hardshellism. Recall that Elder Leland had a burden to see sinners saved, weeping over the fact, and yet Hardshells have the audacity to claim that they are in league with Leland.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"I will go further in acknowledging my own sin. For 30 years of ministry there were certain New Testament scriptures which I was unable to preach. Why? I felt honor-bound to interpret every Bible verse through our Articles of Faith. If scriptures did not agree with the Articles I thought I was confused about the Scripture. The Articles were right. If I had preached any Scripture contrary to the Articles I would have been excommunicated. I am convinced many other godly pastors are submitting to the same tragic error--and getting the same zero-results in their ministry. Today I realize that the enormity of Scripture can never be reduced to a few humanly-composed statements of faith. But, you don't have to believe me. Look at facts! Look at history! Look at statistics! Look at what the Holy Spirit is now doing in China, Africa, South America, where millions are coming to Christ and the church is exploding. In the years of my own ministry believers in China have grown from 50,000 to more than 100,000,000. And that occurred under vicious Communist persecution. Are these Christians real? Yes! They are true lovers of Jesus."
These are the same things I have been saying throughout this book.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Am I concerned? Of course I am. Angered? Yes! I was concerned 60 years ago when I heard Brother Thomas’ preach! I wept. I mourned about it. That night I went home groaning over the danger we were in. What we were forewarned that evening has fully come to pass. Vainly, I pleaded with the churches 60 years ago. And I am doing so again. Jesus has not changed His mind since He said, “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away”. Did you hear that? If your ministry and your P.B. church are not bearing fruit for the Kingdom of God expect to be cut off!"
Elder Carrin speaks of how he tried to bring the Hardshells to their senses, how he tried to call them to repent and reform, and how his efforts failed. He is not the first to try to save the Hardshells for many throughout their history tried it and failed, for the most part.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Primitive Baptists, hear me! Preachers had better come to terms with God. He is not going to adjust His word to your religious absurdity. Don't fight against Him. Acts 5:39. The New Testament is not a book–it is an unbreakable Covenant! You have dared to use your religious scissors to cut out parts that did not fit your doctrine. Stop it! No part of God’s Word is expendable."
Elder Carrin is again correct in his affirmation about how the Hardshells interpret Scripture. On this I hope to speak about in upcoming chapters. Though they boast of how they are the only ones who rightly divide the word of truth, it is really just the opposite. They are guilty of eisegesis and know little about exegesis. Their preachers would have been well served to have attended seminary and learned about hermeneutics.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"Little Flock Church where I grew up is dead. The once-beautiful and crowded Miami Church that baptized and ordained me is dead. My first church in Atlanta is dead. Utoy is dead. The church served by Elder Gilbert Beebe, Moderator of the Black Rock Conference, is dead. Thousands of great churches are dead. Others have a name that they are alive but in reality are dead. Revelation 3:1. Jesus said, “The words that I speak to you they are spirit and they are life.” John 6:63. It is impossible to speak Jesus’ words through the gospel and death to prevail. Genuine, authentic gospel imparts life! It is “spirit”! These churches died because they did not have a full New Testament gospel. They had a Primitive Baptist substitute. The substitute killed them. That terrifies me. It ought to terrify you. Churches do not die of old age; they have to be killed. What kills them? Preachers with a synthetic gospel!"
Hyper Calvinism killed the Hardshells! Failure to preach to sinners has killed them. Opposing efforts to fulfill the Great Commission has killed them.
Elder Carrin wrote:
"I am fully convinced of this: God saw the fruitlessness, religious legalism, and fighting, in P.B. churches, and removed the Candlestick. It is gone. Gone forever! The Candlestick is not coming back. Hear me: Nothing will ever restore it. The denomination cannot be revived. Stop trying. It is finished. Bury the dead past and get on with reality! The “tree” has been cut down." "The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us that we have sinned!” Lamentations 5:16. Do I believe this? Yes! Absolutely! Nor will I be quiet about it. The Holy Spirit will never be tied to a dead tree stump. Don’t try to keep Him there. Brother Thomas’ 1950 warning was prophetic. Acts 2:17. Whether you like my saying it or not is not my concern. My only desire is to see you rescue whatever time remains and move on with an authentic New Testament ministry. This is not 1832. It is 2012! God expects us to act accordingly. We are in the end-times of human history. Wake up! We were not sent to embalm the dead but to raise the dead."
I agree that the Hardshells, as a denomination, cannot be saved. But, it is possible to save some of them. It is also possible that those Hardshells today who are seeing their errors, such as those in the "liberal movement," may be successful in at least setting up a counter set of "Primitive Baptist" churches. Let us hope so.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
From Discipleship to Sonship
Today's Hardshells are promoting a theological model that they title "From sonship to discipleship." By this they advocate that one is first made, by regeneration, a son or child of God, and then later (perhaps) become disciples of Jesus. Such a view might be tolerable did they believe that regeneration instantly produced disciples, but, the sad fact is, today's Hardshells teach that very few of those who are children of God by regeneration become followers of Christ. In this short posting I would like to show how the Scriptures teach just the opposite, that it rather teaches that discipleship precedes sonship or regeneration. The first verse that shows this is from John 6: 45 where Jesus said:
"Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
"Hearing" (listening or paying attention) and "learning" are what disciples (students or learners) do. To "disciple" anyone is to teach them. To be a disciple of another is to be a student and follower of the teachings of a discipler. Thus, notice that one must first be discipled by the Father before he comes to Christ. Also, coming to Christ is how one obtains life by regeneration as Jesus taught in John 5: 40 where he said that coming to him was in order to obtaining life. Thus, John 6: 45 says that all who are discipled by the Father become children of God by coming to Christ, thus the order is first discipleship and then regeneration or sonship.
Consider also what Jesus taught about his sheep in John chapter 10. In that chapter he says "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (vs. 27) When he says "my sheep" he does not speak of only some of his sheep, but what is true of them all. He did not say "some of my sheep," but "my sheep," meaning all of them. Since to "follow" involves discipleship, it is clear that Jesus is saying "all my sheep are my disciples."
"Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
"Hearing" (listening or paying attention) and "learning" are what disciples (students or learners) do. To "disciple" anyone is to teach them. To be a disciple of another is to be a student and follower of the teachings of a discipler. Thus, notice that one must first be discipled by the Father before he comes to Christ. Also, coming to Christ is how one obtains life by regeneration as Jesus taught in John 5: 40 where he said that coming to him was in order to obtaining life. Thus, John 6: 45 says that all who are discipled by the Father become children of God by coming to Christ, thus the order is first discipleship and then regeneration or sonship.
Consider also what Jesus taught about his sheep in John chapter 10. In that chapter he says "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (vs. 27) When he says "my sheep" he does not speak of only some of his sheep, but what is true of them all. He did not say "some of my sheep," but "my sheep," meaning all of them. Since to "follow" involves discipleship, it is clear that Jesus is saying "all my sheep are my disciples."
Hardshells & Mission Opposition XXII
Chapter 165
From the "Primitive Baptist" for June 8, 1839 we read (emphasis mine):
"He again asks: "How are those to hear where there are no Bibles, and no preachers to explain God's word." He now is speaking of heathens. If we are to judge of this matter from past events, we shall answer, that persecution will be the means of their hearing the true, genuine, unadulterated gospel of the Son of God. For persecution has been instrumental in sending the true evangelical gospel to the destitute Gentile nations of the earth, from the days of John the Baptist until now."
There are a few things to be examined from these early remarks by the Hardshells. First, it is obvious that the first Hardshells did not use the defense of later Hardshells, such as C. H. Cayce, in affirming that the heathen did not have to hear the Gospel in order to be saved. The first Hardshells did not deny that the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of the elect. For instance, Elder James Osbourne, a leader among the first anti-mission Hardshells, wrote:
"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began." (From the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" for July, 1839, Vol. 3, pge 14)
Further, if one reads the issues of the "Primitive Baptist" in the 1830s, he will see that the view of Elder Osbourne was the stated view of the first Hardshells.
Second, the first Hardshells, believing that the elect must, and would, hear the Gospel and be saved, nevertheless rejected the mission organizations then being promoted by many Baptists. Their defense of such opposition was to affirm that the Lord would see that the elect hear the Gospel without these organizations. Their chief defense was to say that it is the Lord's sole responsibility to see that the elect hear the Gospel, and not the responsibility of churches and Christians. In so arguing they affirmed that the method the Lord uses to bring the Gospel to the elect was persecution. Is this correct?
While it is not to be denied that the Lord has used persecution to spread the Gospel, it is denied that this is his only or preferred method. In Acts 8: 4 we indeed see how the Lord used persecution to spread the disciples, and this spreading of the disciples produced a spreading of the Gospel. Luke wrote:
"Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word."
No one denies that the Lord has used persecution to scatter the disciples, and in scattering them, he in effect was also scattering the word. The question is, however, was this his only method? Surely it is not his only method. Did the Apostle Paul travel around the Roman Empire as a result of persecution? No. Did he not go and preach as the Lord led him and as he was helped by the disciples? Further, when the Apostle was commissioned by the Lord, the Lord said to Paul:
"...for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee..." (Acts 26: 16-17)
Paul's going to the Gentiles was not the effect of being persecuted but the result of an order given to him by the Lord. Indeed the Lord had told his disciples - "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another." (Matt. 10: 23) But, surely this was not always the reason why Paul went from one city to another. To assume this is to assume what is clearly not true from Scripture. Paul asked - "And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10: 15) The Hardshells would add these words to the words of the Apostle - "how shall they go and preach except they be persecuted?"
In giving the orders of the Great Commission, there is no mention of persecution. The Lord did not say - "go into all the world and preach the Gospel only when you are persecuted and forced to do so."
Further, our Lord said these words prior to his ascension:
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1: 8)
Surely no one can think that the Lord was prophesying that this spreading of the Gospel would be strictly a result of persecution. The reason assigned for this success of the Gospel was the giving of Pentecostal power to the disciples and not the result of persecution.
It seems clear to me that the Hardshells present this apology for the spreading of the Gospel in order to justify their own lack of mission work, their own disobedience to the Lord's command to his disciples in the Great Commission. They want to say that the work of spreading the Gospel is all the Lord's work and responsibility and they therefore feel no responsibility or guilt.
Further, in the Acts 8: 4 passage, it is the disciples who went everywhere preaching the word, and not merely the ordained ministry. So, this passage goes against the Hardshell notion that the duty and commission to preach the Gospel was given solely to the ministry. Elder R. H. Pittman, in the Mt. Carmel Church trial, from which I have already given reference, was questioned about this. Notice his answers:
Q. You preach the gospel, don’t you?
A. I try to.
Q. You believe that anybody can preach the gospel, don’t you, ordained or not ordained?
A. I don’t believe that it is the duty of all men to preach the gospel.
Q. But the right, isn’t it?
A. No; I believe it is the duty of some men to preach the gospel.
Pittman's answers show the Hardshell spirit as regards the preaching of the Gospel. The average Hardshell lay person feels no duty to proclaim the good news, believing that only ministers should have such a burden. Yet, as I have pointed out, Hardshell congregations will sing the song "I Love To Tell The Story," in which are the lines "I love to tell the story, for some have never heard The message of salvation from God’s own holy Word."
If one researches the history of the spread of the Gospel, he will see that persecution has not been the only way that the Lord has used to inform men of the blessed truth of the Gospel. In England in the 17th century, as we shall see, the Particular Baptists who wrote and endorsed the 1689 London Confession, were heavily involved in sending missionaries to Wales and other parts of the British Isles. It was not persecution, therefore, that took the Gospel into those areas, but the cooperative work of those Baptists.
Also, many of the oldest Hardshell churches in the southern United States were founded by the missionary work of churches and ministers in the Sandy Creek Association, men like Daniel Marshall. Marshall helped to convert many of the early settlers in the southern states and to form them into churches and he went into those areas, not because he was persecuted and had to flee to those areas, but because he was a missionary and was supported by the churches in the Sandy Creek Association. And, I repeat, many of these old churches later became Hardshell churches.
Thus, the apologetic defense given by the Hardshells for why they do not involve themselves in mission work is untenable and does not excuse themselves from their own responsibility. The confession of Elder John Watson, one of the founding fathers of the Hardshell church, still echoes loud and clear - "we have violated our commission."
In a "Circular Letter to the Old School Baptists Throughout the United States" by Elder Joshua Lawrence (March 9, 1839, Vol. 4), Lawrence wrote:
"...that missions is the invention of men, a plan of priestcraft, a spirit of intrigue and covetousness, and contrary to the book, and a destroyer of brotherly love."
This is typical of the kind of language and harsh judgment given by the Hardshells throughout their history against Baptists who supported mission work. No Hardshell ought to complain about harsh language being used against them by Missionary Baptists when their own history is full of such scathing rebukes and denunciations.
Lawrence continued:
"This was my opinion after many years observation, and every step they have advanced has but the more confirmed me in the correctness of my opinion, that it is but another popish speculation, another crusade against the heathen to take the city of Jerusalem for wealth and plunder, or gain by godliness, or to make merchandize of the saints, to fill the pockets of proud priests; for some of them rather beg than work, yet I have never seen one that said, enough, enough."
When Lawrence says "after many years," he is referring to the period of time from 1792 till 1827, the former being the date the Hardshells assign to Andrew Fuller beginning missionary work and the latter date to the Kehukee Association's declaration against mission work by churches. That is thirty five years. I also mentioned in the early chapters of this book how Elder Griffin, in his book "The History of the Mississippi Baptists," also acknowledged that mission work existed for many years before anyone rose to oppose it. Both Griffin and Lawrence admit these facts, and yet want to say that such work was the cause of division among the Baptists. But, the cause of the division was the rising up of men like Lawrence who began, after many years, to oppose mission work.
Again, notice the harsh language and the cruel judgment given by Lawrence against his fellow Baptists who had been supporting mission work for at least 35 years.
Lawrence wrote:
"Ye hirelings, ye beggars, ye agents, ye sea-scourers, ye Boards, ye conventionists, ye traders in memberships, ye track venders and money hirelings, this is not the good old way."
Again, more evil speaking against Lawrence's Baptist brethren.
Lawrence continued:
"To say nothing of presidents, vice presidents, corresponding secretaries, auditors, etc. etc., titles borrowed from the world of mankind, with directors and directresses, all of the devil's and men's making and bringing into the church of God; not one of which titles is to be found in an apostolic church nor the great and good Book, you well know but is the length of the foot of antichrist to a hair's breadth, fro the title of archbishop through all the grades of popery even to the un and friar. Then whoseoever is on the Lord's side gird on his sword of truth, and slay every man his brother missionary; for they have brought these abominations into the church of God, to bear grief, division and distress, and troubled, greatly troubled, the Baptist camp of Israel; having no warrant from the Book for these above things."
Of course, I have already shown how the Hardshells are hypocrites in these things, having many organizations where they themselves have men with such titles. And, notice again how Lawrence puts all Baptists who supported missions in league with Antichrist. And notice how Lawrence calls his Hardshell brethren to "slay every man his brother missionary." With such language, no Hardshell can claim that the Missionary Baptists are evil speakers. Further, it was not mission work that caused division, for this was part of Baptist history for many years, as Lawrence and Griffin acknowledge, but it was the contentious and schismatic rise of the Hardshells that caused the division and disruption.
Lawrence wrote:
"And now, dear brethren, try this experiment one year; and in the close, I hope you will not be able to say, your dollar is thrown away. Even although it was for the information you will obtain from different States, how the Old School cause is going on."
This was written by Lawrence as a plea for money to support the Hardshell periodical "The Primitive Baptist." One can clearly see the hypocrisy. He denounces as hireling beggars those Baptists who asked for money to support missions, but sees nothing wrong with his own solicitation for money to support his beloved periodical. Money for "the old school cause," the cause of opposing mission work, is good, but money to support mission work is filthy lucre!
Lawrence wrote:
"However, we neither ask, nor wish to compel any Old School Baptist, or any of its patrons to take it (the "Primitive Baptist" periodical - SG) longer than they see cause so to do with a free will, as all men's purses belong to themselves to dispose of as they choose to do. Yet I, Joshua Lawrence, will say, that although I care no more what the missionists may say of me than that of the croaking of so many frogs in a pond, yet I say the Old School Baptists will repent it to let the Primitive Baptist go down, when perhaps too late. Think for yourselves, and so shall I; but this I know to be a fact, that most of the Old School Baptists are a closefisted and covetous set, or else they would not have treated their ministers as they have done for sixty years."
Surely anyone not in the cult can see what a grand admission this is by Hardshell leader Lawrence. He says his Old School Baptists "are a closefisted and covetous set," and that they were guilty of ill treating their ministers by not financially supporting them for sixty years. Is this not what they showed themselves to be in their failure to support mission work and to denounce all those who supported them? Also, even after the death of Lawrence and the first generation of Hardshells, the Hardshells continued to so decry money that their ministers continued to be defrauded.
Lawrence goes on in the same article to speak of how the New School went to one extreme in demanding money while the Old School went to the other.
In the next chapter we will look at a confession made in recent years by a long standing elder in the Hardshell church and in which he acknowledges how the Black Rock Address was an extreme and the cause of the decline of the Hardshell church.
From the "Primitive Baptist" for June 8, 1839 we read (emphasis mine):
"He again asks: "How are those to hear where there are no Bibles, and no preachers to explain God's word." He now is speaking of heathens. If we are to judge of this matter from past events, we shall answer, that persecution will be the means of their hearing the true, genuine, unadulterated gospel of the Son of God. For persecution has been instrumental in sending the true evangelical gospel to the destitute Gentile nations of the earth, from the days of John the Baptist until now."
There are a few things to be examined from these early remarks by the Hardshells. First, it is obvious that the first Hardshells did not use the defense of later Hardshells, such as C. H. Cayce, in affirming that the heathen did not have to hear the Gospel in order to be saved. The first Hardshells did not deny that the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of the elect. For instance, Elder James Osbourne, a leader among the first anti-mission Hardshells, wrote:
"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began." (From the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" for July, 1839, Vol. 3, pge 14)
Further, if one reads the issues of the "Primitive Baptist" in the 1830s, he will see that the view of Elder Osbourne was the stated view of the first Hardshells.
Second, the first Hardshells, believing that the elect must, and would, hear the Gospel and be saved, nevertheless rejected the mission organizations then being promoted by many Baptists. Their defense of such opposition was to affirm that the Lord would see that the elect hear the Gospel without these organizations. Their chief defense was to say that it is the Lord's sole responsibility to see that the elect hear the Gospel, and not the responsibility of churches and Christians. In so arguing they affirmed that the method the Lord uses to bring the Gospel to the elect was persecution. Is this correct?
While it is not to be denied that the Lord has used persecution to spread the Gospel, it is denied that this is his only or preferred method. In Acts 8: 4 we indeed see how the Lord used persecution to spread the disciples, and this spreading of the disciples produced a spreading of the Gospel. Luke wrote:
"Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word."
No one denies that the Lord has used persecution to scatter the disciples, and in scattering them, he in effect was also scattering the word. The question is, however, was this his only method? Surely it is not his only method. Did the Apostle Paul travel around the Roman Empire as a result of persecution? No. Did he not go and preach as the Lord led him and as he was helped by the disciples? Further, when the Apostle was commissioned by the Lord, the Lord said to Paul:
"...for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee..." (Acts 26: 16-17)
Paul's going to the Gentiles was not the effect of being persecuted but the result of an order given to him by the Lord. Indeed the Lord had told his disciples - "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another." (Matt. 10: 23) But, surely this was not always the reason why Paul went from one city to another. To assume this is to assume what is clearly not true from Scripture. Paul asked - "And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10: 15) The Hardshells would add these words to the words of the Apostle - "how shall they go and preach except they be persecuted?"
In giving the orders of the Great Commission, there is no mention of persecution. The Lord did not say - "go into all the world and preach the Gospel only when you are persecuted and forced to do so."
Further, our Lord said these words prior to his ascension:
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1: 8)
Surely no one can think that the Lord was prophesying that this spreading of the Gospel would be strictly a result of persecution. The reason assigned for this success of the Gospel was the giving of Pentecostal power to the disciples and not the result of persecution.
It seems clear to me that the Hardshells present this apology for the spreading of the Gospel in order to justify their own lack of mission work, their own disobedience to the Lord's command to his disciples in the Great Commission. They want to say that the work of spreading the Gospel is all the Lord's work and responsibility and they therefore feel no responsibility or guilt.
Further, in the Acts 8: 4 passage, it is the disciples who went everywhere preaching the word, and not merely the ordained ministry. So, this passage goes against the Hardshell notion that the duty and commission to preach the Gospel was given solely to the ministry. Elder R. H. Pittman, in the Mt. Carmel Church trial, from which I have already given reference, was questioned about this. Notice his answers:
Q. You preach the gospel, don’t you?
A. I try to.
Q. You believe that anybody can preach the gospel, don’t you, ordained or not ordained?
A. I don’t believe that it is the duty of all men to preach the gospel.
Q. But the right, isn’t it?
A. No; I believe it is the duty of some men to preach the gospel.
Pittman's answers show the Hardshell spirit as regards the preaching of the Gospel. The average Hardshell lay person feels no duty to proclaim the good news, believing that only ministers should have such a burden. Yet, as I have pointed out, Hardshell congregations will sing the song "I Love To Tell The Story," in which are the lines "I love to tell the story, for some have never heard The message of salvation from God’s own holy Word."
If one researches the history of the spread of the Gospel, he will see that persecution has not been the only way that the Lord has used to inform men of the blessed truth of the Gospel. In England in the 17th century, as we shall see, the Particular Baptists who wrote and endorsed the 1689 London Confession, were heavily involved in sending missionaries to Wales and other parts of the British Isles. It was not persecution, therefore, that took the Gospel into those areas, but the cooperative work of those Baptists.
Also, many of the oldest Hardshell churches in the southern United States were founded by the missionary work of churches and ministers in the Sandy Creek Association, men like Daniel Marshall. Marshall helped to convert many of the early settlers in the southern states and to form them into churches and he went into those areas, not because he was persecuted and had to flee to those areas, but because he was a missionary and was supported by the churches in the Sandy Creek Association. And, I repeat, many of these old churches later became Hardshell churches.
Thus, the apologetic defense given by the Hardshells for why they do not involve themselves in mission work is untenable and does not excuse themselves from their own responsibility. The confession of Elder John Watson, one of the founding fathers of the Hardshell church, still echoes loud and clear - "we have violated our commission."
In a "Circular Letter to the Old School Baptists Throughout the United States" by Elder Joshua Lawrence (March 9, 1839, Vol. 4), Lawrence wrote:
"...that missions is the invention of men, a plan of priestcraft, a spirit of intrigue and covetousness, and contrary to the book, and a destroyer of brotherly love."
This is typical of the kind of language and harsh judgment given by the Hardshells throughout their history against Baptists who supported mission work. No Hardshell ought to complain about harsh language being used against them by Missionary Baptists when their own history is full of such scathing rebukes and denunciations.
Lawrence continued:
"This was my opinion after many years observation, and every step they have advanced has but the more confirmed me in the correctness of my opinion, that it is but another popish speculation, another crusade against the heathen to take the city of Jerusalem for wealth and plunder, or gain by godliness, or to make merchandize of the saints, to fill the pockets of proud priests; for some of them rather beg than work, yet I have never seen one that said, enough, enough."
When Lawrence says "after many years," he is referring to the period of time from 1792 till 1827, the former being the date the Hardshells assign to Andrew Fuller beginning missionary work and the latter date to the Kehukee Association's declaration against mission work by churches. That is thirty five years. I also mentioned in the early chapters of this book how Elder Griffin, in his book "The History of the Mississippi Baptists," also acknowledged that mission work existed for many years before anyone rose to oppose it. Both Griffin and Lawrence admit these facts, and yet want to say that such work was the cause of division among the Baptists. But, the cause of the division was the rising up of men like Lawrence who began, after many years, to oppose mission work.
Again, notice the harsh language and the cruel judgment given by Lawrence against his fellow Baptists who had been supporting mission work for at least 35 years.
Lawrence wrote:
"Ye hirelings, ye beggars, ye agents, ye sea-scourers, ye Boards, ye conventionists, ye traders in memberships, ye track venders and money hirelings, this is not the good old way."
Again, more evil speaking against Lawrence's Baptist brethren.
Lawrence continued:
"To say nothing of presidents, vice presidents, corresponding secretaries, auditors, etc. etc., titles borrowed from the world of mankind, with directors and directresses, all of the devil's and men's making and bringing into the church of God; not one of which titles is to be found in an apostolic church nor the great and good Book, you well know but is the length of the foot of antichrist to a hair's breadth, fro the title of archbishop through all the grades of popery even to the un and friar. Then whoseoever is on the Lord's side gird on his sword of truth, and slay every man his brother missionary; for they have brought these abominations into the church of God, to bear grief, division and distress, and troubled, greatly troubled, the Baptist camp of Israel; having no warrant from the Book for these above things."
Of course, I have already shown how the Hardshells are hypocrites in these things, having many organizations where they themselves have men with such titles. And, notice again how Lawrence puts all Baptists who supported missions in league with Antichrist. And notice how Lawrence calls his Hardshell brethren to "slay every man his brother missionary." With such language, no Hardshell can claim that the Missionary Baptists are evil speakers. Further, it was not mission work that caused division, for this was part of Baptist history for many years, as Lawrence and Griffin acknowledge, but it was the contentious and schismatic rise of the Hardshells that caused the division and disruption.
Lawrence wrote:
"And now, dear brethren, try this experiment one year; and in the close, I hope you will not be able to say, your dollar is thrown away. Even although it was for the information you will obtain from different States, how the Old School cause is going on."
This was written by Lawrence as a plea for money to support the Hardshell periodical "The Primitive Baptist." One can clearly see the hypocrisy. He denounces as hireling beggars those Baptists who asked for money to support missions, but sees nothing wrong with his own solicitation for money to support his beloved periodical. Money for "the old school cause," the cause of opposing mission work, is good, but money to support mission work is filthy lucre!
Lawrence wrote:
"However, we neither ask, nor wish to compel any Old School Baptist, or any of its patrons to take it (the "Primitive Baptist" periodical - SG) longer than they see cause so to do with a free will, as all men's purses belong to themselves to dispose of as they choose to do. Yet I, Joshua Lawrence, will say, that although I care no more what the missionists may say of me than that of the croaking of so many frogs in a pond, yet I say the Old School Baptists will repent it to let the Primitive Baptist go down, when perhaps too late. Think for yourselves, and so shall I; but this I know to be a fact, that most of the Old School Baptists are a closefisted and covetous set, or else they would not have treated their ministers as they have done for sixty years."
Surely anyone not in the cult can see what a grand admission this is by Hardshell leader Lawrence. He says his Old School Baptists "are a closefisted and covetous set," and that they were guilty of ill treating their ministers by not financially supporting them for sixty years. Is this not what they showed themselves to be in their failure to support mission work and to denounce all those who supported them? Also, even after the death of Lawrence and the first generation of Hardshells, the Hardshells continued to so decry money that their ministers continued to be defrauded.
Lawrence goes on in the same article to speak of how the New School went to one extreme in demanding money while the Old School went to the other.
In the next chapter we will look at a confession made in recent years by a long standing elder in the Hardshell church and in which he acknowledges how the Black Rock Address was an extreme and the cause of the decline of the Hardshell church.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Hardshells & Mission Opposition XXI
Chapter 164
"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch." (Acts 11: 22)
From these words it seems quite clear that the Jerusalem church not only sent Barnabas on a preaching mission but also marked out the area where he was to labor. Of course, had Barnabas felt a burden to go to areas beyond what is specified, he could relate such to the church for their consideration. And, whether or not they agreed to support him in going in those further areas, he of course would be free to go on his own. But, the Jerusalem church did not send out Barnabas with the instructions - "go where you feel like going." Rather, they told him precisely where to go, a thing the Hardshells condemn. The commission of Barnabas, from the Jerusalem church, was for him to "go," and it was obvious that he was to go and teach. Surely this was by authority of the Great Commission. So, the Great Commission allowed churches to send forth missionaries with the order to the missionaries to "go." And, so, all the talk about the Great Commission saying "go" rather than "send" is no argument at all, a point I enlarged upon in my series on the Great Commission. And, the allegation that a church cannot specify a missionary's field of labor is also found to be unscriptural.
It is true that a church cannot compel a minister to go to a certain area to preach. That minister is free to interpret his own impressions from the Lord. But, to say that a church cannot also be impressed by the Lord to see that the Gospel is preached in certain barren areas, is a falsehood. Why do Hardshells think that only ministers have a burden to see that the Gospel is preached, especially in those areas where the people are ignorant of the Gospel? And, if a church is burdened to see the Gospel go into certain destitute areas where the people are heathen, is she unable to do anything to see that the Gospel goes to those places? Can she not send out a call to those with a burden to preach to go to those places? Although it is true, for instance, that a minister is free to go where he pleases to preach, the church also is free to choose, with its limited funds, which ministers to support, and base this decision on where she is particularly desirous of seeing the Gospel preached. In other words, is a church obligated to support a minister in his mission work solely based upon that minister's lone impression, disregarding any impressions that she might have of her own? It seems that McKee thinks that the minister chooses his own field of labor without any input from the churches from whom he might expect support.
McKee wrote:
"The present day movement is more in line with the Landmark Missionary Baptist church than with the Primitive Baptists in the area of missions. The Landmark Baptists opposed other Missionary Baptists (Southern Baptist) in the mid 1800s because of their belief that the separate mission board/society was not scriptural. They held the view that the local church was given a commission to spread the Gospel and each local body should therefore be active in church sponsored missions, foreign and domestic. As far as I know their Doctrine and practices are not presently or ever have been such that any orderly Old Line Primitive Baptists would embrace them in church fellowship."
Whether or not those Hardshells in the "liberal movement" are in agreement with Landmark Missionary Baptists is beside the point and proves nothing. All through McKee's attack on Hardshell support of mission work there is not the slightest bit of proof given to condemn it. What the Black Rock Address teaches or what the Landmarkers teach is not proof. What is needed is proof from Scripture above all things. Do the Scriptures condemn churches supporting missionary work? Also, is such work in accordance with traditional Baptist practice? Did the Baptists who wrote and endorsed the 1689 London Confession believe in church sponsored missionary work? It can be easily shown how the Baptist church has always been a missionary church. This will be done in our next series following the present.
McKee wrote:
"There are some doctrinal points being taught by the Present day Movement that the Black Rock Brethren did not believe. (1) The Commandments commonly referred to as the great commission were given to the church and not to the Apostles. "In Matthew 28:19-20, baptism was given as a church ordinance and inseparably linked to baptism was the command to teach all nations. You cannot accept baptism as a church ordinance without accepting that the command to teach all nations is also addressed to the church." (Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan. 1996)"
If church support of missionary work be dependent upon proving that the Great Commission was given to the church, then the case is easy to decide. I have already proven, in the series on the Great Commission, that it was indeed given to the entire body of professing Christians. Did Elder Watson not believe that the Hardshells had violated this commission? Elder Harter was correct to point out the inconsistency of saying that baptism is a "church ordinance" while denying that the church was given authority to baptize per the Great Commission. Further, as I have argued, the Lord's Supper was given to the apostles, but what Hardshell argues that this proves that it was only for the apostles and ministers? Also, when Jesus said that the apostles should teach the disciples to observe "all things" that they themselves had been commanded to do, this cannot exclude the command to go and teach.
McKee wrote:
"The Black Rock Brethren wrote: "that we [ministers] do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to his apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age, to "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us. They believed the minister should go 'as the providence of God directed." [NOT THE CHURCH DIRECTING OR SPONSORING]"
But, as I have shown, the Black Rockers were in error to limit the Great Commission to apostles and ministers. If, however, we affirm that all disciples are "ministers," or servants, then it is true that the command to go and teach all the nations is given "primarily to his apostles and through them to his ministers (disciples) in every age." Who did Jesus have in mind by the pronoun "them" in "teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you"? Was it ministers or disciples? Truly the latter. It is not the will of the Lord that only ministers be taught to observe the commands of the Great Commission but that all disciples be taught to observe them.
McKee wrote:
"A final quote from the Black Rock address further reveals that the present day movement is infected with more of the same diseases the leaders of the 1800 movement were plagued with."
Is it a "disease" for ordinary disciples to want to do all that the Great Commission commands? Is it a disease to desire that others hear the blessed Gospel? Is it a disease to support those who go forth to preach the Gospel among the heathen?This is hardshellism! The condemnation and slander of all efforts to see that the Gospel is taken to the uttermost parts of the earth!
McKee cited these words from the Black Rock Address:
"The missionary, instead of going into such neighborhoods as Christ's ministers used to visit, Where they would be most likely to have an opportunity of administering food to the poor of the flock, seeks the more populous villages and towns, where he can attract the most attention, and do the most to promote the cause of missions and other popular institutions."
I have already refuted these words from the Black Rock Address. But, Mckee, writes these words concerning them:
"This is true in today's movement also. There are some among us that are hungering and thirsting for numbers more than righteousness (staying in the old paths)."
Again, this is another example of how the Hardshells consider themselves judges of the hearts of the Lord's people. McKee makes himself such a judge. How does he know that those in the "liberal movement" are more interested in money, for its own sake, than they are for righteousness? Surely such an accusation demands proof from McKee. But, like his Hardshell forefathers, he is accustomed to making such slanderous accusations against the motives of others without the least shred of evidence to support his case. Again, McKee is "speaking evil" of his brethren, a thing the Scriptures condemn, as we have seen. Did not James write these words against such a practice?
"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." (James 4: 11)
By setting himself up as a judge and condemner of his brethren, McKee shows himself to not being a doer of the law. As John Gill said, in commenting upon this verse, "such a person not only infringes the right of the law, but assumes the place of the Judge and lawgiver himself."
Further, it seems obvious that McKee condemns as an evil any desire "for numbers." Though he condemns having a greater desire for numbers versus a desire for righteousness, it is really a condemnation of having any desire for numbers that McKee really condemns. Such a condemnation has been a tradition with the Hardshells and was begun as a way of defending their loss and lack of numbers. They often say that the large numbers of conversions by other Baptists only show that such Baptists are heretics, and that their own lack of numbers proves that they are the true Baptists. However, if one searches the Scriptures, he will see how the biblical authors had a different attitude about numbers than do the Hardshells.
Jesus said:
"And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14: 23)
It is obvious from these words of Jesus that he was interested in numbers. "Go," said Jesus, and "compel" all, by preaching and exhortation, to "come," and that so that the house of the Lord would be filled.
The writer of the Book of Acts was not someone who looked upon large numbers of conversions as a sign of corruption, but as a sign of the Lord's blessing. In Acts 2: 41 Luke says - "the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." In Acts 4: 4 he wrote - "and the number of the men was about five thousand." In Acts 21: 20 we read - "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe." In Acts 19 Luke wrote:
"And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." (vs. 18-20)
Notice the use of the word "many." Notice also how Luke sees the fact of many conversions as a sign that the work of God was growing mightily and prevailing.
McKee continued:
"The present domestic and international radio program conducted by Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. seeks to be in large markets (populous areas) here and abroad. Self-promoting letters of praise are frequently read to the listeners to gain support for their effort by implying their success and usefulness. The program appears to be edited, produced and marketed by offering for sale, self-promoting, expository sermon series. The Program is promoted as an outreach ministry and has taken on the same flavor and tactics of most other worldly religious radio programming in the use of 800 numbers, credit cards, operating the program with a deficient of thousands of dollars and increasing appeals for monetary support."
The attitude of Elder McKee is the end result of a long Hardshell history of condemning all efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. If McKee had been present in the time of the Apostle Paul, he no doubt would have condemned the Apostle for preaching in major cities like Athens, Corinth, Phillipi, Jerusalem, Rome, etc. Further, I have no doubt that the Apostle would have used radio preaching had it been available in his day. McKee can find no good in the efforts to preach the Gospel to as many as possible. He again shows himself as a judge of the hearts and motives of others, and one who speaks evil of his brethren.
McKee wrote:
"I realize my stating this about the Baptist Bible Hour will disturb many who go by the name Primitive Baptist and will bring charges of jealousy from many quarters. This would not be new because all those in the past that led or supported departures in faith and practices, have always accuse the one’s opposing them of jealousy and being against the spread of the Gospel."
McKee realizes what his denunciations give the appearance of, and thinks that his assurances to the contrary are sufficient to counter them. But, he is deluded to think so. Had McKee himself been a great evangelizer, going to destitute and unpopulated areas, to preach the Gospel, and brought this up as evidence that he was not against preaching the Gospel, he would have more to offer than simply his denunciations and denials. Further, it is not only jealousy that seems to be guiding men like McKee, but an opposition to preaching the Gospel.
McKee continued:
"As God as my witness I do not desire any harm or tearing down of any of God's people that I feel faithful brethren must oppose. My little efforts have already estranged me from many of those that I count as dear children who have become followers of those attempting to change the Primitive Baptists. I'm convinced that many of them would once have firmly opposed any 'outreach ministry' or use of worldly tactics knowing that it is in direct opposition to the plain teachings of the scriptures, which teach us that the world knows us not, and we are to be a separate people and come out from among them. (1John 3:1, IICor 6:11-18)."
Again, McKee tries to persuade people that his opposition to preaching the Gospel is not really an opposition to preaching. But, in this effort he miserably fails. All except the blind can see that the spirit that is motivating him is not one that is favorable to seeing the Gospel preached to as many as possible. He says that the Scriptures condemn the practice of preaching the Gospel to the masses! He even thinks that I John 3: 1 condemns it! He thinks that this passage teaches against preaching the Gospel to the world! But, he would no doubt condemn Christ for telling his disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole world! McKee's method is let others preach the Gospel to the world, reveal the elect, and then McKee will come along and preach to the elect thus revealed.
McKee wrote:
"In conclusion: the Black Rock brethren, just as true old Baptists are today, were in support of true biblical missions which took place during the birth and infancy of this nation. Most old Baptist Ministers that traveled on foot and horseback to preach the Gospel during the early part of this nations (sic) history did so because they were lead by the Spirit of God. Ministers such as Elder Wilson Thompson tried the spirit of Modern Missionarism and rejected it."
Thus, according to McKee, "biblical missions" is where a minister goes forth to preach the Gospel without any support from Christians, using his own money. One wonders how much of this kind of biblical mission McKee has done? As far as what Baptist history shows us about church sponsored missions, we will see how she has always practiced mission work. McKee has the idea that only those who go out preaching with their own money and without support are being led by the Spirit of God! Also, based upon the history of the Hardshells, the Spirit of God must get the blame for the lack of Hardshells going forth to preach the Gospel to the heathen and the destitute.
McKee continued:
"We should be thankful for those that blew the alarm in that day as the seeds of the 1800's mission movement were being sown by those that repeatedly tried to institute a itinerant church/associational mission plan by encouraging the association to gather money and send out ministers to destitute churches within their bounds."
Oh yes! let us be thankful for the Hardshells opposing all efforts to preach the Gospel to those who have never heard it! Let us praise the Hardshells who have done a better job at taking the Gospel to those who have never heard! Also, as far as associations being involved in mission work, we will see in our next series how the Philadelphia Association, the oldest in America, was involved in mission work in the 18th century. We will also see how the London brethren who authored and endorsed the 1689 confession, also formed associations to promote mutual support of missionaries.
McKee continued:
"This plan found strong objections among the Kuhukee (sic) assc. Members and was not generally implemented until the cry of works! Works! Works! (Spread the Gospel) far exceeded the sounds of alarm and many timid souls halted between two opinions and became polluted by designing men. The exact situation now exists among the Primitive Baptists in America. Many good Old Baptists have been captured by the "syren song of "No danger"; be not deceived; it leads to destruction..."
In regard to the Kehukee Association, it will be seen how she herself was formed into a Regular or Calvinistic Association by the missionary efforts of John Gano, who was sent out as a missionary by the Philadelphia Association! Also, for many years the Kehukee Association supported missionary work until the rise of the Hardshells.
Oh yes! it leads to "destruction" for a church or group of churches to be involved in supporting missionaries who go forth to preach the Gospel! But, the history of the Hardshell church shows that it was their opposition to missions that have rather destroyed them, not the supporters of missions. The Hardshells today are not a hundredth percent of what they were when they first began. Yet, mission Baptists have steadily grown throughout the years.
"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch." (Acts 11: 22)
From these words it seems quite clear that the Jerusalem church not only sent Barnabas on a preaching mission but also marked out the area where he was to labor. Of course, had Barnabas felt a burden to go to areas beyond what is specified, he could relate such to the church for their consideration. And, whether or not they agreed to support him in going in those further areas, he of course would be free to go on his own. But, the Jerusalem church did not send out Barnabas with the instructions - "go where you feel like going." Rather, they told him precisely where to go, a thing the Hardshells condemn. The commission of Barnabas, from the Jerusalem church, was for him to "go," and it was obvious that he was to go and teach. Surely this was by authority of the Great Commission. So, the Great Commission allowed churches to send forth missionaries with the order to the missionaries to "go." And, so, all the talk about the Great Commission saying "go" rather than "send" is no argument at all, a point I enlarged upon in my series on the Great Commission. And, the allegation that a church cannot specify a missionary's field of labor is also found to be unscriptural.
It is true that a church cannot compel a minister to go to a certain area to preach. That minister is free to interpret his own impressions from the Lord. But, to say that a church cannot also be impressed by the Lord to see that the Gospel is preached in certain barren areas, is a falsehood. Why do Hardshells think that only ministers have a burden to see that the Gospel is preached, especially in those areas where the people are ignorant of the Gospel? And, if a church is burdened to see the Gospel go into certain destitute areas where the people are heathen, is she unable to do anything to see that the Gospel goes to those places? Can she not send out a call to those with a burden to preach to go to those places? Although it is true, for instance, that a minister is free to go where he pleases to preach, the church also is free to choose, with its limited funds, which ministers to support, and base this decision on where she is particularly desirous of seeing the Gospel preached. In other words, is a church obligated to support a minister in his mission work solely based upon that minister's lone impression, disregarding any impressions that she might have of her own? It seems that McKee thinks that the minister chooses his own field of labor without any input from the churches from whom he might expect support.
McKee wrote:
"The present day movement is more in line with the Landmark Missionary Baptist church than with the Primitive Baptists in the area of missions. The Landmark Baptists opposed other Missionary Baptists (Southern Baptist) in the mid 1800s because of their belief that the separate mission board/society was not scriptural. They held the view that the local church was given a commission to spread the Gospel and each local body should therefore be active in church sponsored missions, foreign and domestic. As far as I know their Doctrine and practices are not presently or ever have been such that any orderly Old Line Primitive Baptists would embrace them in church fellowship."
Whether or not those Hardshells in the "liberal movement" are in agreement with Landmark Missionary Baptists is beside the point and proves nothing. All through McKee's attack on Hardshell support of mission work there is not the slightest bit of proof given to condemn it. What the Black Rock Address teaches or what the Landmarkers teach is not proof. What is needed is proof from Scripture above all things. Do the Scriptures condemn churches supporting missionary work? Also, is such work in accordance with traditional Baptist practice? Did the Baptists who wrote and endorsed the 1689 London Confession believe in church sponsored missionary work? It can be easily shown how the Baptist church has always been a missionary church. This will be done in our next series following the present.
McKee wrote:
"There are some doctrinal points being taught by the Present day Movement that the Black Rock Brethren did not believe. (1) The Commandments commonly referred to as the great commission were given to the church and not to the Apostles. "In Matthew 28:19-20, baptism was given as a church ordinance and inseparably linked to baptism was the command to teach all nations. You cannot accept baptism as a church ordinance without accepting that the command to teach all nations is also addressed to the church." (Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan. 1996)"
If church support of missionary work be dependent upon proving that the Great Commission was given to the church, then the case is easy to decide. I have already proven, in the series on the Great Commission, that it was indeed given to the entire body of professing Christians. Did Elder Watson not believe that the Hardshells had violated this commission? Elder Harter was correct to point out the inconsistency of saying that baptism is a "church ordinance" while denying that the church was given authority to baptize per the Great Commission. Further, as I have argued, the Lord's Supper was given to the apostles, but what Hardshell argues that this proves that it was only for the apostles and ministers? Also, when Jesus said that the apostles should teach the disciples to observe "all things" that they themselves had been commanded to do, this cannot exclude the command to go and teach.
McKee wrote:
"The Black Rock Brethren wrote: "that we [ministers] do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to his apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age, to "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us. They believed the minister should go 'as the providence of God directed." [NOT THE CHURCH DIRECTING OR SPONSORING]"
But, as I have shown, the Black Rockers were in error to limit the Great Commission to apostles and ministers. If, however, we affirm that all disciples are "ministers," or servants, then it is true that the command to go and teach all the nations is given "primarily to his apostles and through them to his ministers (disciples) in every age." Who did Jesus have in mind by the pronoun "them" in "teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you"? Was it ministers or disciples? Truly the latter. It is not the will of the Lord that only ministers be taught to observe the commands of the Great Commission but that all disciples be taught to observe them.
McKee wrote:
"A final quote from the Black Rock address further reveals that the present day movement is infected with more of the same diseases the leaders of the 1800 movement were plagued with."
Is it a "disease" for ordinary disciples to want to do all that the Great Commission commands? Is it a disease to desire that others hear the blessed Gospel? Is it a disease to support those who go forth to preach the Gospel among the heathen?This is hardshellism! The condemnation and slander of all efforts to see that the Gospel is taken to the uttermost parts of the earth!
McKee cited these words from the Black Rock Address:
"The missionary, instead of going into such neighborhoods as Christ's ministers used to visit, Where they would be most likely to have an opportunity of administering food to the poor of the flock, seeks the more populous villages and towns, where he can attract the most attention, and do the most to promote the cause of missions and other popular institutions."
I have already refuted these words from the Black Rock Address. But, Mckee, writes these words concerning them:
"This is true in today's movement also. There are some among us that are hungering and thirsting for numbers more than righteousness (staying in the old paths)."
Again, this is another example of how the Hardshells consider themselves judges of the hearts of the Lord's people. McKee makes himself such a judge. How does he know that those in the "liberal movement" are more interested in money, for its own sake, than they are for righteousness? Surely such an accusation demands proof from McKee. But, like his Hardshell forefathers, he is accustomed to making such slanderous accusations against the motives of others without the least shred of evidence to support his case. Again, McKee is "speaking evil" of his brethren, a thing the Scriptures condemn, as we have seen. Did not James write these words against such a practice?
"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." (James 4: 11)
By setting himself up as a judge and condemner of his brethren, McKee shows himself to not being a doer of the law. As John Gill said, in commenting upon this verse, "such a person not only infringes the right of the law, but assumes the place of the Judge and lawgiver himself."
Further, it seems obvious that McKee condemns as an evil any desire "for numbers." Though he condemns having a greater desire for numbers versus a desire for righteousness, it is really a condemnation of having any desire for numbers that McKee really condemns. Such a condemnation has been a tradition with the Hardshells and was begun as a way of defending their loss and lack of numbers. They often say that the large numbers of conversions by other Baptists only show that such Baptists are heretics, and that their own lack of numbers proves that they are the true Baptists. However, if one searches the Scriptures, he will see how the biblical authors had a different attitude about numbers than do the Hardshells.
Jesus said:
"And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14: 23)
It is obvious from these words of Jesus that he was interested in numbers. "Go," said Jesus, and "compel" all, by preaching and exhortation, to "come," and that so that the house of the Lord would be filled.
The writer of the Book of Acts was not someone who looked upon large numbers of conversions as a sign of corruption, but as a sign of the Lord's blessing. In Acts 2: 41 Luke says - "the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." In Acts 4: 4 he wrote - "and the number of the men was about five thousand." In Acts 21: 20 we read - "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe." In Acts 19 Luke wrote:
"And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." (vs. 18-20)
Notice the use of the word "many." Notice also how Luke sees the fact of many conversions as a sign that the work of God was growing mightily and prevailing.
McKee continued:
"The present domestic and international radio program conducted by Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. seeks to be in large markets (populous areas) here and abroad. Self-promoting letters of praise are frequently read to the listeners to gain support for their effort by implying their success and usefulness. The program appears to be edited, produced and marketed by offering for sale, self-promoting, expository sermon series. The Program is promoted as an outreach ministry and has taken on the same flavor and tactics of most other worldly religious radio programming in the use of 800 numbers, credit cards, operating the program with a deficient of thousands of dollars and increasing appeals for monetary support."
The attitude of Elder McKee is the end result of a long Hardshell history of condemning all efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. If McKee had been present in the time of the Apostle Paul, he no doubt would have condemned the Apostle for preaching in major cities like Athens, Corinth, Phillipi, Jerusalem, Rome, etc. Further, I have no doubt that the Apostle would have used radio preaching had it been available in his day. McKee can find no good in the efforts to preach the Gospel to as many as possible. He again shows himself as a judge of the hearts and motives of others, and one who speaks evil of his brethren.
McKee wrote:
"I realize my stating this about the Baptist Bible Hour will disturb many who go by the name Primitive Baptist and will bring charges of jealousy from many quarters. This would not be new because all those in the past that led or supported departures in faith and practices, have always accuse the one’s opposing them of jealousy and being against the spread of the Gospel."
McKee realizes what his denunciations give the appearance of, and thinks that his assurances to the contrary are sufficient to counter them. But, he is deluded to think so. Had McKee himself been a great evangelizer, going to destitute and unpopulated areas, to preach the Gospel, and brought this up as evidence that he was not against preaching the Gospel, he would have more to offer than simply his denunciations and denials. Further, it is not only jealousy that seems to be guiding men like McKee, but an opposition to preaching the Gospel.
McKee continued:
"As God as my witness I do not desire any harm or tearing down of any of God's people that I feel faithful brethren must oppose. My little efforts have already estranged me from many of those that I count as dear children who have become followers of those attempting to change the Primitive Baptists. I'm convinced that many of them would once have firmly opposed any 'outreach ministry' or use of worldly tactics knowing that it is in direct opposition to the plain teachings of the scriptures, which teach us that the world knows us not, and we are to be a separate people and come out from among them. (1John 3:1, IICor 6:11-18)."
Again, McKee tries to persuade people that his opposition to preaching the Gospel is not really an opposition to preaching. But, in this effort he miserably fails. All except the blind can see that the spirit that is motivating him is not one that is favorable to seeing the Gospel preached to as many as possible. He says that the Scriptures condemn the practice of preaching the Gospel to the masses! He even thinks that I John 3: 1 condemns it! He thinks that this passage teaches against preaching the Gospel to the world! But, he would no doubt condemn Christ for telling his disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole world! McKee's method is let others preach the Gospel to the world, reveal the elect, and then McKee will come along and preach to the elect thus revealed.
McKee wrote:
"In conclusion: the Black Rock brethren, just as true old Baptists are today, were in support of true biblical missions which took place during the birth and infancy of this nation. Most old Baptist Ministers that traveled on foot and horseback to preach the Gospel during the early part of this nations (sic) history did so because they were lead by the Spirit of God. Ministers such as Elder Wilson Thompson tried the spirit of Modern Missionarism and rejected it."
Thus, according to McKee, "biblical missions" is where a minister goes forth to preach the Gospel without any support from Christians, using his own money. One wonders how much of this kind of biblical mission McKee has done? As far as what Baptist history shows us about church sponsored missions, we will see how she has always practiced mission work. McKee has the idea that only those who go out preaching with their own money and without support are being led by the Spirit of God! Also, based upon the history of the Hardshells, the Spirit of God must get the blame for the lack of Hardshells going forth to preach the Gospel to the heathen and the destitute.
McKee continued:
"We should be thankful for those that blew the alarm in that day as the seeds of the 1800's mission movement were being sown by those that repeatedly tried to institute a itinerant church/associational mission plan by encouraging the association to gather money and send out ministers to destitute churches within their bounds."
Oh yes! let us be thankful for the Hardshells opposing all efforts to preach the Gospel to those who have never heard it! Let us praise the Hardshells who have done a better job at taking the Gospel to those who have never heard! Also, as far as associations being involved in mission work, we will see in our next series how the Philadelphia Association, the oldest in America, was involved in mission work in the 18th century. We will also see how the London brethren who authored and endorsed the 1689 confession, also formed associations to promote mutual support of missionaries.
McKee continued:
"This plan found strong objections among the Kuhukee (sic) assc. Members and was not generally implemented until the cry of works! Works! Works! (Spread the Gospel) far exceeded the sounds of alarm and many timid souls halted between two opinions and became polluted by designing men. The exact situation now exists among the Primitive Baptists in America. Many good Old Baptists have been captured by the "syren song of "No danger"; be not deceived; it leads to destruction..."
In regard to the Kehukee Association, it will be seen how she herself was formed into a Regular or Calvinistic Association by the missionary efforts of John Gano, who was sent out as a missionary by the Philadelphia Association! Also, for many years the Kehukee Association supported missionary work until the rise of the Hardshells.
Oh yes! it leads to "destruction" for a church or group of churches to be involved in supporting missionaries who go forth to preach the Gospel! But, the history of the Hardshell church shows that it was their opposition to missions that have rather destroyed them, not the supporters of missions. The Hardshells today are not a hundredth percent of what they were when they first began. Yet, mission Baptists have steadily grown throughout the years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)