Monday, April 28, 2014
Wilson Thompson - 1 Peter 1:23 And The Certainty Of Conversion
I recently read a brief blog posting on one of the more popular Hardshell Baptist websites (see Here), in which author Josh Winslett shared a quotation of Elder Wilson Thompson, a first-generation preacher of this faith and order. It is obviously posted in an attempt to prove that he is “in succession” with the conditional time salvation line of thinking invented in the late 1800s and advocated by the majority of the current generation.
The quotation is taken from Thompson’s autobiography, which can be found on www.primitivebaptist.org, a site managed by David Montgomery.
Writing in reference to our Baptist forefathers, Thompson states:
"They denied that the preaching of the gospel had any power to convert the dead sinner, or to give him life, and declared that man in nature was dead in trespasses and sins, and that as no means could be used to give life to one literally dead, even so no means could be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sins, that God effects that work of Himself, by His holy Spirit, without means or instruments, and the gospel is a proclamation of good tidings, of great joy to the soul that is prepared with a hearing ear and an understanding heart to receive it. To those who thus believe it is the power of God unto salvation, and it saves them from the false doctrines of men, and feeds and makes them strong in the truth."
It is not my present purpose to here address Thompson’s own error in misrepresenting our Baptist forefathers, yet I simply point out to the reader that he does so. As far as the rest of his statement is concerned I will be the first one to admit that on the cover these words seem to convey some semblance to the modern scheme mentioned above. Immediate or no-means regeneration, though not sufficient evidence to document conditional time salvation, is nevertheless a central component of it. In addition, his expression that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and it saves them from the false doctrines of men, and feeds and makes them strong in the truth” is language very similar to what usually comes from this camp, and gives weight to the notion that Thompson was considering the salvation of Romans 1:16 as a post-regeneration experience. Let it be clearly understood, though, that Thompson can be said to be an advocate of time salvation if and ONLY if he felt that acquaintance with the gospel was an optional experience for the people of God. However, when we consult further writings of Thompson we see that such is not the case!
Brother Stephen has made the assertion in the past that the first generation “Primitive” Baptists made a very close analogy between natural birth and spiritual birth. They held to a three-stage model of the whole death to life process in which there was a point of initial conception (i.e. regeneration), followed by a period of conviction analogous to the babe in the darkness of the womb, and then deliverance (i.e. new birth).
In chapter six of his work Simple Truth is contained the particular statement of Thompson which shows that this too was his stated position (emphasis mine – KF):
" This change wrought by the spirit, is called regeneration because it is begetting them unto a divine nature. The first work of the spirit on the heart is regeneration, or the implanting of that incorruptible seed with cleaves to holiness, and so it is sometimes called quickened, because this is a living seed, that causes the motions of life to appear, and this is always followed by the new birth which is effected when the soul is enabled to view Christ by faith, and lay hold of the comfort contained in the gospel, and so they are said to be born again, not of corruptable seed, but of an incorruptable seed, by the word of God." (Simple Truth, Wilson Thompson)
It is the highlighted portion of Thompson’s statement which overthrows any potential argument for portraying him as an advocate for modern-day conditionalism. A regeneration experience which is “always followed” by a gospel birthing is equivalent to saying that conditional time salvation is certain to the elect. This attacks the very heart of the modern-day heresy, which teaches that acquaintance with the gospel is no guarantee. Rather, it is something achieved only by ”a few” of God’s people. Furthermore, it is clear that Thompson treated 1 Peter 1:23 as respecting the last stage of his model (i.e. the new birth), being effected by the gospel, or the “word of God”.
Were Thompson to be ”invited into the stands” of the typical Hardshell church today and began to teach that the Word of 1 Peter 1:23 was not Christ, but the gospel (which is correct – KF), or that gospel conversion always follows regeneration, thereby not leaving room for regenerated heathens, unbelievers, idolators, and apostates, he would be muzzled, branded a heretic, declared ”out of order”, and promptly ostracized for the rest of his life.
It is this citation of Thompson which shows that the first one, cited by Winslett on marchtozion.com, cannot be used as evidence for conditionalism. The only thing that can be gathered from it is that Thompson was simply trying to avoid gospel instrumentality in the initial spark of his three-stage model of the saving process. The moment he makes the addition that gospel birthing always follows regeneration, as the latter citation exhibits, he leaves conditional Hardshellism.
Thompson and the rest of his contemporaries of similar opinion constitute a brick wall through which any attempt to find a succession of churches advocating conditionalism cannot penetrate.
As if Elder John Watson’s Old Baptist Test, written later, had not already done so.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Hardshells & The American Indian
The Hardshells of today make arguments, relative to the heathen (those who are ignorant of the one true and living God and of the Gospel), based upon emotion rather than upon the plain statements of Scripture. Relative to these heathen, the American Indians are often brought up as an example. Can we say that they are all lost because they knew nothing about the Father and Son? Emotion would want us to deny that they were all lost because they lacked knowledge of and faith in Father and Son, or in the Gospel revelation. An appeal is often made to man's sense of fairness in consideration of the question. Is it fair (or just) for God to deny salvation to the heathen who, through no fault of his own, was never taught the truth? If the American Indian died without faith in Christ because he had not heard of Christ, how can such a system be right?
The Hardshells will also argue that the Devil is more successful than God, which they say proves that the Gospel means position cannot be true.
If the American Indian was saved in spite of his having died without evangelical faith and knowledge, then being called, quickened, regenerated, born again, created anew, renewed, transformed, etc., do not involve cognition, enlightenment, nor evangelical faith, repentance, and conversion.
We can expect such arguments to be made by Universalists. And, interestingly, the Hardshells have had problems over Universalism and No-Hellism.
We are not to be guided by our reasoning or judgments, but by what is clearly taught in Scripture. When the Hardshells give us the Scripture evidence that affirms that those who die as heathens or pagans are nevertheless saved, we will be glad to listen to them. But when they put forth arguments and reasonings not founded on the express teaching of Scripture, we will turn away from them.
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." (Prov. 3: 5)
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8: 20)
Where in "the law and the testimony" is the salvation of faithless people affirmed? The burden is on the Hardshells to give us the Scriptural evidence. Keep in mind that we want plain statements of Scripture and not faulty deductions from texts of Scripture.
The Hardshell thinks that there are serious theological problems in denying the salvation of many of the heathen, such as the American Indians who died knowing nothing of Christ or true religion. That may or may not be, but let the Hardshell acknowledge how his own position creates far more theological problems.
Further, consider the historical evidence concerning the American Indian. Who took the Gospel to the Indians? The Hardshells or the Missionary Baptists? If the Hardshells had such a concern for the state of the Indian's soul, why has he not had any preachers to preach to the Indians? Was it not Missionary Baptists or other evangelicals who gave the good news to the Indians? The Hardshells have been no friend to the Indians, and had it been left to them alone, the Indians never would have heard the Gospel. I'll take the example of Isaac McCoy over that of Wilson Thompson, I'll take the example of J.M. Peck over that of Daniel Parker. When the Scripture speaks of "those who turn many to righteousness" (Dan. 12: 3), were they describing men like McCoy and Peck, or Thompson and Parker?
John Leland, in writing to John Taylor, cited this verse and thought that it was expressive of men like Taylor who were instrumental in winning the lost to Christ. Who is more like the character "they who turn many"? The Hardshells or non-Hardshells?
They who turn many to righteousness "shall shine like the brightness of the sky above," "like the stars forever and ever." God help us to be evangelical! More like Paul! More like Spurgeon and Moody! More like Carey and Fuller!
The Hardshells will also argue that the Devil is more successful than God, which they say proves that the Gospel means position cannot be true.
If the American Indian was saved in spite of his having died without evangelical faith and knowledge, then being called, quickened, regenerated, born again, created anew, renewed, transformed, etc., do not involve cognition, enlightenment, nor evangelical faith, repentance, and conversion.
We can expect such arguments to be made by Universalists. And, interestingly, the Hardshells have had problems over Universalism and No-Hellism.
We are not to be guided by our reasoning or judgments, but by what is clearly taught in Scripture. When the Hardshells give us the Scripture evidence that affirms that those who die as heathens or pagans are nevertheless saved, we will be glad to listen to them. But when they put forth arguments and reasonings not founded on the express teaching of Scripture, we will turn away from them.
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." (Prov. 3: 5)
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8: 20)
Where in "the law and the testimony" is the salvation of faithless people affirmed? The burden is on the Hardshells to give us the Scriptural evidence. Keep in mind that we want plain statements of Scripture and not faulty deductions from texts of Scripture.
The Hardshell thinks that there are serious theological problems in denying the salvation of many of the heathen, such as the American Indians who died knowing nothing of Christ or true religion. That may or may not be, but let the Hardshell acknowledge how his own position creates far more theological problems.
Further, consider the historical evidence concerning the American Indian. Who took the Gospel to the Indians? The Hardshells or the Missionary Baptists? If the Hardshells had such a concern for the state of the Indian's soul, why has he not had any preachers to preach to the Indians? Was it not Missionary Baptists or other evangelicals who gave the good news to the Indians? The Hardshells have been no friend to the Indians, and had it been left to them alone, the Indians never would have heard the Gospel. I'll take the example of Isaac McCoy over that of Wilson Thompson, I'll take the example of J.M. Peck over that of Daniel Parker. When the Scripture speaks of "those who turn many to righteousness" (Dan. 12: 3), were they describing men like McCoy and Peck, or Thompson and Parker?
John Leland, in writing to John Taylor, cited this verse and thought that it was expressive of men like Taylor who were instrumental in winning the lost to Christ. Who is more like the character "they who turn many"? The Hardshells or non-Hardshells?
They who turn many to righteousness "shall shine like the brightness of the sky above," "like the stars forever and ever." God help us to be evangelical! More like Paul! More like Spurgeon and Moody! More like Carey and Fuller!
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
What Advantage?
What advantage has it been to me to have been delivered from the Hardshell or "Primitive" Baptist cult? I was delivered from the heresies of Hardshellism in the mid 80s and I have been glad for it ever since. I regularly give thanks to the Lord for delivering me from the errors of Hyper Calvinism, Antinomianism, and Hardshellism.
I think of the many positive effects to my spiritual thinking, character transformation, increased sanctification, and perseverance, etc., as a result of my deliverance.
First, I have no reluctance to preach to the spiritually dead, to witness to the sinner, and to counsel him about his need of salvation. I am eager to witness to all, to plead with the lost.
Second, I have greater appreciation and assurance of salvation, my deliverance from heresy being evidence of God's care for me.
Third, I am more careful in my Christian walk, knowing that if I do not persevere and overcome, then I will not be finally saved. Contrary to my former Hardshell beliefs, my actions do have eternal consequences both for others and for myself.
Fourth, I am also more soberly aware of how my actions may be a means either in the obtaining of salvation or of damnation. I am not only a means in the salvation of dead sinners but also in the continuous salvation and perseverance of the regenerate.
Fifth, I have greater fellowship with other Christians who are not five point Calvinists, even with Arminians, being opposed to schismatic thinking and behavior. I appreciate these Christians and realize that they are people who love the Lord and seek to follow his will. I realize that they may be right in some areas where there is disagreement and I may be wrong. I am more patient and tolerant, and less stubborn, less a "Hardshell" "straightjacket."
Sixth, I am more humble in my view of myself, less ambitious, more respectful to those who know more and have superior experience. I am less given to rail, to accuse, to attack. I am far more removed from a "know it all" mentality now that I am no longer a hardheaded Hardshell. I have a greater appreciation for the gifts of others with whom I do not fully agree.
Seventh, I am a far more careful exegete of Scripture, and less inclined to take my presuppositions to Scripture. I am less likely to twist Scripture, being more honest in my reading of Scripture. In a nutshell, my hermeneutics are much better.
I am sure that there are other good things that have come to me as a result of my having been delivered from a cult. I know cult thinking. I know the dangers of being in a cult. I believe God wants me to use my experience to help people in the Hardshell cult to experience the same deliverance as I have.
I think of the many positive effects to my spiritual thinking, character transformation, increased sanctification, and perseverance, etc., as a result of my deliverance.
First, I have no reluctance to preach to the spiritually dead, to witness to the sinner, and to counsel him about his need of salvation. I am eager to witness to all, to plead with the lost.
Second, I have greater appreciation and assurance of salvation, my deliverance from heresy being evidence of God's care for me.
Third, I am more careful in my Christian walk, knowing that if I do not persevere and overcome, then I will not be finally saved. Contrary to my former Hardshell beliefs, my actions do have eternal consequences both for others and for myself.
Fourth, I am also more soberly aware of how my actions may be a means either in the obtaining of salvation or of damnation. I am not only a means in the salvation of dead sinners but also in the continuous salvation and perseverance of the regenerate.
Fifth, I have greater fellowship with other Christians who are not five point Calvinists, even with Arminians, being opposed to schismatic thinking and behavior. I appreciate these Christians and realize that they are people who love the Lord and seek to follow his will. I realize that they may be right in some areas where there is disagreement and I may be wrong. I am more patient and tolerant, and less stubborn, less a "Hardshell" "straightjacket."
Sixth, I am more humble in my view of myself, less ambitious, more respectful to those who know more and have superior experience. I am less given to rail, to accuse, to attack. I am far more removed from a "know it all" mentality now that I am no longer a hardheaded Hardshell. I have a greater appreciation for the gifts of others with whom I do not fully agree.
Seventh, I am a far more careful exegete of Scripture, and less inclined to take my presuppositions to Scripture. I am less likely to twist Scripture, being more honest in my reading of Scripture. In a nutshell, my hermeneutics are much better.
I am sure that there are other good things that have come to me as a result of my having been delivered from a cult. I know cult thinking. I know the dangers of being in a cult. I believe God wants me to use my experience to help people in the Hardshell cult to experience the same deliverance as I have.
What the first Hardshells Believed VIII
For the "Primitive Baptist" periodical for 1845 (see here)
"Shall Baptists admit in their churches this long-condemned heresy? Shall they unite with those who hold the doctrine of Cassian, Pelagius, or the Roman church, and reject the doctrine of the Reformation, the doctrine of the Baptists published in their Confession of Faith more than 200 years ago, and adopted by the first Association of Baptists in the United States, viz. the Philadelphia Association? Shall they reject the doctrine of the Bible, and shrink from a faithful discharge of duty, from faithfully declaring all the counsel of God, for the sake of money, applause, or members, or for fear of offending a gainsaying world?"
The "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists of 1845 thought ill of those Baptists who "reject" 1) the doctrine of the Reformation, or "Reformed" doctrine, and 2) the doctrine of the 1689 London Confession, and 3) the beliefs of the Philadelphia Association. Yet, today's Hardshells claim to oppose "Reformed" doctrine, rejecting its teaching regarding the absolute predestination of all things, of the use of means in the eternal salvation of sinners, and its teaching regarding justification by faith. They also disclaim the 1689 Confession but the first Hardshells did not. Today's Hardshells also reject being styled "Calvinists" for these reasons, though their forefathers had no hesitancy in claiming to be Calvinists. It seems that today's Hardshells are far less "primitive" or "original" than what they think.
"Shall Baptists admit in their churches this long-condemned heresy? Shall they unite with those who hold the doctrine of Cassian, Pelagius, or the Roman church, and reject the doctrine of the Reformation, the doctrine of the Baptists published in their Confession of Faith more than 200 years ago, and adopted by the first Association of Baptists in the United States, viz. the Philadelphia Association? Shall they reject the doctrine of the Bible, and shrink from a faithful discharge of duty, from faithfully declaring all the counsel of God, for the sake of money, applause, or members, or for fear of offending a gainsaying world?"
The "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptists of 1845 thought ill of those Baptists who "reject" 1) the doctrine of the Reformation, or "Reformed" doctrine, and 2) the doctrine of the 1689 London Confession, and 3) the beliefs of the Philadelphia Association. Yet, today's Hardshells claim to oppose "Reformed" doctrine, rejecting its teaching regarding the absolute predestination of all things, of the use of means in the eternal salvation of sinners, and its teaching regarding justification by faith. They also disclaim the 1689 Confession but the first Hardshells did not. Today's Hardshells also reject being styled "Calvinists" for these reasons, though their forefathers had no hesitancy in claiming to be Calvinists. It seems that today's Hardshells are far less "primitive" or "original" than what they think.
Friday, April 11, 2014
What the first Hardshells Believed VII
From June through November last I wrote six postings titled "What the first Hardshells Believed." From those posts it is clear that today's "Primitive Baptists" are not in agreement with their own founding fathers of the 1830-1860 period. Those previous postings contained citations from "The Primitive Baptist" periodical of the 1830s and 1840s. This posting will give a citation from the same paper for the year 1860 and it will be seen that the public stated view of the Hardshells, even at that time, was that people had to be converted in order to be finally and eternally saved. They were still teaching that the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of the elect.
It also must be remembered how it was in 1866-67 that Elder John Watson and Elder R.W. Fain published "The Old Baptist Test" and in this book Watson mentions how the anti means faction among the followers of Elder Daniel Parker were increasing in strength and is why Watson called, at that time (and in his last days), for a debate among the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists on this issue. In fact, Watson had been a writer and supporter of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical since its inception and clearly both Watson and that periodical taught the Gospel means position, as the following citations will further show.
From "The Primitive Baptist" (see here)
"Awful meditation! distressing thought! but it is true, --that all the world--our nearest friends and our bitterest enemies, which have not obtained repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus, --will hear his voice, and come forth unto eternal condemnation.--"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
Today's Hardshells do not believe that evangelical faith and repentance are essential to eternal salvation, but the above words are in direct contradiction to that view. Further, it is not some non-cognitive "faith" but "faith in the Lord Jesus."
Further, no Hardshell today interprets the perishing of the above cited verse to be eternal. They do not believe that Jesus was saying "repent or eternally perish." Yet, the first Hardshells did not believe such. And, in this light, who is the "primitive" Baptist?
I wonder if any of today's Hardshells would so warn the sinner? They love to boast of their popularity as funeral preachers, but I doubt that they would be found saying the things in the above citation. Spurgeon would have had no reluctance in using a funeral to warn the sinner. The Hardshells of today, because they do not warn the wicked, as did the first Hardshells, are doing harm to souls and displeasing God.
The article continued:
"Dear brethren and sisters, pray for sinners...that God would open their blinded eyes to see their awful condition, and that Jesus, who is "exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel," may give them "godly sorrow, which worketh repentance unto salvation, not to be repented of, but that leadeth to life eternal,"--that the awful judgment of "coming forth unto the resurrection of damnation," may be averted from their poor souls.
Pray for sinners to be eternally saved? No Hardshell today believes or practices this (to their shame). I have written about this in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Notice that being convicted of sin is not enough, but one must also repent, or actually turn, from sin to God, or be converted, in order to experience escaping final damnation.
The article continued:
O, sinner! this is your condition! You must obtain the favor of God,--"the Spirit of God bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God,"--or we must realize this dreadful "resurrection;" "He that believeth not is condemned already." "Turn ye, turn ye, for why will you die, O house of Israel." O, Sinner! pray for yourself; and if you feel that you are "living without God and without hope in the world," and see your great need of a Savior, we would say to you, Come boldly to a throne of grace; come just as you are; plead the name and righteous merits of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; put your whole trust in him, and cast your whole care upon him, for he careth for you."
Do Hardshells preach like this today? I do. Who is more "Primitive" then? Who is more in agreement with the first Hardshells?
It also must be remembered how it was in 1866-67 that Elder John Watson and Elder R.W. Fain published "The Old Baptist Test" and in this book Watson mentions how the anti means faction among the followers of Elder Daniel Parker were increasing in strength and is why Watson called, at that time (and in his last days), for a debate among the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists on this issue. In fact, Watson had been a writer and supporter of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical since its inception and clearly both Watson and that periodical taught the Gospel means position, as the following citations will further show.
From "The Primitive Baptist" (see here)
"Awful meditation! distressing thought! but it is true, --that all the world--our nearest friends and our bitterest enemies, which have not obtained repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus, --will hear his voice, and come forth unto eternal condemnation.--"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
Today's Hardshells do not believe that evangelical faith and repentance are essential to eternal salvation, but the above words are in direct contradiction to that view. Further, it is not some non-cognitive "faith" but "faith in the Lord Jesus."
Further, no Hardshell today interprets the perishing of the above cited verse to be eternal. They do not believe that Jesus was saying "repent or eternally perish." Yet, the first Hardshells did not believe such. And, in this light, who is the "primitive" Baptist?
I wonder if any of today's Hardshells would so warn the sinner? They love to boast of their popularity as funeral preachers, but I doubt that they would be found saying the things in the above citation. Spurgeon would have had no reluctance in using a funeral to warn the sinner. The Hardshells of today, because they do not warn the wicked, as did the first Hardshells, are doing harm to souls and displeasing God.
The article continued:
"Dear brethren and sisters, pray for sinners...that God would open their blinded eyes to see their awful condition, and that Jesus, who is "exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel," may give them "godly sorrow, which worketh repentance unto salvation, not to be repented of, but that leadeth to life eternal,"--that the awful judgment of "coming forth unto the resurrection of damnation," may be averted from their poor souls.
Pray for sinners to be eternally saved? No Hardshell today believes or practices this (to their shame). I have written about this in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Notice that being convicted of sin is not enough, but one must also repent, or actually turn, from sin to God, or be converted, in order to experience escaping final damnation.
The article continued:
O, sinner! this is your condition! You must obtain the favor of God,--"the Spirit of God bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God,"--or we must realize this dreadful "resurrection;" "He that believeth not is condemned already." "Turn ye, turn ye, for why will you die, O house of Israel." O, Sinner! pray for yourself; and if you feel that you are "living without God and without hope in the world," and see your great need of a Savior, we would say to you, Come boldly to a throne of grace; come just as you are; plead the name and righteous merits of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; put your whole trust in him, and cast your whole care upon him, for he careth for you."
Do Hardshells preach like this today? I do. Who is more "Primitive" then? Who is more in agreement with the first Hardshells?
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
God NOT Sovereign In Conditionalism
From time to time I come across certain assertions made by my former acquaintances of the “Primitive” Baptists in which they contradict themselves; and I strongly suspect, do not even know it. I blame a lot on this on the general ignorance of systematic theology, failing to know the implications that the modern time salvation paradigm has on basic bible doctrines. On the cover the statement seems to uphold their doctrine as exalting God higher than any other belief system found within Christendom (which is their intention), yet when it is actually applied to their novel paradigm, He is abased and their teaching is in fact revealed to be a cloaked form of Arminianism.
In answer to the question “What’s the difference between Primitive Baptists and other Baptists?”, the Camp Creek Primitive Baptist Church website says:
“We firmly believe that God is sovereign in all matters….” (See Here)
To which I reply, no, you do not believe this! I should know since I’m a former teacher within this order. There are particular areas where Hardshellism does NOT recognize where God is sovereign, and it is the point of this brief article to show the two main areas of doctrine where this is so.
First, God is not sovereign in limited predestination.
If God were sovereign in all matters, He would be so over those things which the limited or conditionalist view of predestination says He has not in any sense caused. But to be sovereign over a matter presupposes that God is actually involved in the execution of the event! Except for the salvation of God’s people, however, and possibly those few events where God is said to have “intervened”, Conditionalism makes free-will the FIRST cause of what remains. This was one of the major things I saw when the Lord was delivering me from this teaching. Everything must have a FIRST cause, and if God is not that FIRST cause, then what is? Gravity? Dirt? The Big Bang? The only alternative outside of some scientific or evolutionary response is to reply the free-will of man. Conditionalism cannot reply that God is sovereign over all events, for most of those events it is said He has not caused!
So how can God be sovereign over that which conditional predestination says He is not even involved in bringing to pass? I’m sure Martin Luther would have a field day with this, seeing that is similar to Erasmus's free-will philosophy.
Second, God is not sovereign in conditional time salvation.
Now here's a sad admission! A woeful depiction of the Almighty God! That Hardshellism does not believe that God is sovereign in all matters is proven when the question is really pondered:
”Is God sovereign in gospel conversion (i.e. time salvation)?”
This is a stickler in the "Primitive Baptist" paradigm, and a question which, when honestly pursued, will expose the Arminianism implicit within Conditionalism. Being overly protective of God's sovereignty in eternal salvation (which is of course to be commended of all Christians), they have so sliced and diced the scriptures, separating those things God has joined together, that they have left themselves vulnerable to the charge of being Arminian with respect to their beloved time salvation doctrine. This hypothetical "second" salvation available to the elect child of God "already regenerated" is said to be accomplished by free-will. Just ask one to preach from Acts 2:40 and you'll see. So how can one speak of God being sovereign in time salvation when He doesn't even have anything to do with bringing it to pass? It sounds strange seeing that is a works-system, but I can remember my deceived friends being almost boastful of there being a salvation that only they can do, which God wouldn't do for them.
So how can it be said on one hand that God is sovereign in time salvation, and on the other say that I must save myself (per their view of Acts 2:40)? Which one is it? The question really is not even permissible, for it must first be allowed that God is actually involved in the event. Only then could one begin to entertain the question of whether the grace of God was irresistible or not in performing it.
In this system it cannot be said that God is sovereign, for according to the teaching of time salvation many of the regenerate reject the gospel, reject Christ, refute to repent, believe, practice holiness, or persevere in the faith. Otherwise, the irresistible grace of God would successfully impart these virtues into His people.
To admit that God is sovereign in gospel conversion would also mean that He is so despite the fact that means are involved, something which our moderns say renders the transaction not secure because it is dependent upon man.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Hardshell Philosophizing and Revelation 5:9
“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Rev. 5:9)
Sentiments, more than biblically acquired knowledge, prevent most “Primitive” or Hardshell Baptists from submitting to the idea that all men who die without knowledge of the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ are doomed to everlasting torment. Much hindsight about the fate of unevangelized heathens in centuries gone by occupies their apologetics. A popular text among them, Revelation 5:9 is often set forth in an attempt to justify the belief that history is full of unconverted regenerates whom despite never hearing the gospel were nevertheless saved into heaven. However, the redeemed “out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” is a portrait of the total number of God’s elect, not what the family of God is at every given moment in time. This is a crucial observation, and one which having escaped the Hardshell interpreter, has led him to the tragic conclusion that God’s elect are to be found among those who live and die in heathendom. Yet even if the text were to be understood as a continuous portrait of the family of God throughout history, it should be remembered that the text only specifically says where the elect were found. It does not specifically state 1) what their new life in Christ is like, and 2) what state they are in at the time of death. Even if it were true that there remained an elect among the heathen nations at all times in history, Rev. 5:9 provides no basis for believing that they would have remained in heathendom till they die. Heathens across the globe shall obviously be quickened by the Holy Spirit, thus fulfilling the fact of Rev. 5:9. Yet they then become converts to the Christian religion! They do not remain spiritual vegetables void of any awareness of their salvation, as predicated by Hardshellism. In order to be a friend to this heretical system, Revelation 5:9 would not only have to demonstrate from where some of God’s elect are found, but that they remain unconverted, having a hollow-log regeneration and sanctification experience.
To be specific, the question I heard most often when I was among this people was “What about the American Indians before 1492?” I have to admit that this used to remain on the top of my tongue as well when I imbibed this heresy.
The first thing that I now say in response to this is that such a question is a prime example of philosophizing, of which the Hardshells are notorious for doing when trying to refute the claims of Calvinisim. Instead of simply accepting the Bible truth that one must abide in the doctrine of Christ (i.e. be a Christian) in order to have God (2 John 9), they resort to speculation to settle the matter. Since most Hardshells have been made overly sentimental by hearing much of God’s sovereignty in salvation, but not in reprobation, they have a difficult time accepting the possibility that vast numbers of unevangelized people were not of God’s elect. They boast of the broad scope of their doctrine as including more souls than any other taught in Christendom, not realizing that the broadness is not supposed to go beyond what God himself has set. God’s salvation is indeed broad, but not as Hardshellism suggests, which stretches it to the point that many of the reprobate are thought to be God’s elect.
Instead of philosophizing about spiritual matters, we do well to stick to the word of God. Let me demonstrate how the Hardshell speculation and sentimental conviction that multitudes of unevangelized souls are heaven-bound falls flat with not just the Bible, but one of their very own popular passages.
In John 10:27 Jesus says:
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
I can remember discussing in the past with Brother Stephen what a difficult task it would be for Hardshells to answer the question:
”Did the American Indians who were elect follow Christ?”
Since I was once a hollow-log heretic myself, I’m glad I was never asked it. Many Hardshells today would place the concept of following Christ in the category of discipleship, something which their modern time salvation paradigm says is not necessary to be finally saved into heaven. The problem is that Jesus specifically states his sheep DO follow Him, not might. Furthermore, following Christ is descriptive of the subjective experience of salvation, razing to the ground their imagination that such may not follow regeneration, and that only the objective fact of salvation is certain.
So on one hand we have the Hardshell sentiment and preconceived grid that multitudes of elect heathens void of knowledge of Christ die and go to heaven, and on the other an affirmative from Christ himself that His sheep would follow Him in this life. Which one is to be given the preeminence? If I lived at an earlier time and didn’t have the benefit of hindsight in which I could speculate about the fate of past peoples, would I not affirm without hesitation the truth that God's sheep, all of them, will follow Christ?
I’m quite sure at this point that instead of submitting to the obvious teaching here, Hardshells would attempt to wiggle out by saying one of the following:
1) Elect heathens follow Christ below the level of consciousness.
2) Elect heathens follow Christ in regeneration only, but not in the subsequent life.
3) There are two kinds of following Christ; one necessary without the gospel as a means, and the other unnecessary with gospel means. Elect heathens get the
former, but not the latter.
All of this is simply avoiding what is the Bible truth. Jesus saves, not just to populate heaven, but to change mens’ lives and turn them to be followers of Him. Why, oh why, my Hardshell brethren, can you not see this? Or will not see it? Cast to the dunghill your endless philosophizing about who lived at what time and where in trying to deny the certainty of Christian conversion as part of salvation, and get your beliefs from Biblical exegesis!
Wherever the elect are found, they shall be made followers of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Thursday, March 13, 2014
History of Baptist Mission Work IV
Chapter 173
Hassell continued:
"After thirty or forty years’ experience, since the separation, however, it was ascertained that the Old School were not all dead, that some were still in existence, and by some unaccountable means they were in a state of outward prosperity to all human appearance. This so astonished the New School that they, supposing a good name was becoming popular, and might be some cause for success, suddenly changed their tactics, and assumed the name of “Old School or Primitive Baptists” to themselves, which they had themselves given to the Bible Baptists, and had for many previous years been aspersing and holding in the greatest contempt!"
There are several things that Hassell states that demand examination. First, however, let us notice the time period referred to by Hassell when he says "after thirty or forty years’ experience." If we take the starting date of 1827 (Kehukee Declaration) and add thirty years, then we are at 1857 and are specifically talking about the period from 1857 to 1867. There is no question but that the whole period from 1827 to 1867 (forty years, or a generation) is most important in studying the beginnings of "The Primitive Baptist Church." Further, a closer look at the time between 1857 to 1867 is also very revealing. What does Hassell say was happening in that period?
First, he says that it became evident that the prophecy about the demise of the newly formed Hardshell denomination, first uttered in the 1830s by the opposers of the Hardshell schismatics, was finally proven to be false. He says that the Hardshells were "in a state of outward prosperity" and this was evident "to all human appearance."
One cannot help but think of how the Hardshells want to have it both ways. They want to say, as Hassell does for the Hardshells of the 1850s and 1860s, that their prosperity proved that the "Missionary" or "New School" were wrong and that they were right, but then, at other times, when the Hardshells acknowledged their decline, or lack of prosperity, they would say that such a decline proved that they were right (for the truth is always with the little few they say). So, their contradiction is what is self evident.
Hassell says that the Missionary Baptists began to acknowledge that they had been wrong to have prophesied of the downfall of the Hardshells and that they, in the 1850s and 1860s, were confessing that error. He also says that these Missionary Baptists, who had long opposed the Hardshells, were "astonished" at the continued existence and growth of the Hardshells. Not only were the Missionary Baptists astonished, but they were also puzzled and bewildered about the reason for the astonishing phenomenon. He says that it was by "some unaccountable means." However, he then argues that such a realization led the Missionary Baptists to account that the success of the Hardshells was due in large part to their marketing of themselves as the "Old School," or as the "Primitive," Baptists.
Of course, Hassell makes statements under the appearance of "history" which are simply opinions that are put for facts. Hassell shows that he is writing primarily for the cult members, and not as an apologetic for others to examine and judge. Cult members will accept statements by their leaders as facts without the least effort to verify the truth or accuracy of those statements. Hassell offers no proof for his conclusions. He does not give citations from Missionary Baptist sources of the period in question to substantiate his allegations.
Further, the first opposers of the Hardshell schismatics, men like R.B.C. Howell and J.M. Peck, who predicted the decline of the "old school," did not, to my knowledge, ever predict the total extinction of the new heretical sect. What they predicted was a decline toward practical nothingness, toward being such a minute part of the Baptist or Christian world.
Indeed, at one point in the 19th century, the Hardshells were a leading force, representing a large number of people, especially on the frontier, but that time is long past and the "Primitive Baptist" denomination has dwindled down to probably less than 50,000 people. So, the prophecy was not proven to be false, but time has rather shown it to have been genuine.
Secondly, Hassell represents it as a new practice in the 1860s-1870s for Missionary Baptists to argue that the Hardshells were really the new Baptists, and not the real primitive Baptists. I have already shown how both Peck and Howell early on, in the 1830s, argued that those calling themselves old school or primitive Baptists were not really so. They did this by showing Baptist precedent for mission work and for theological education. Of course, in the first generation time period, there was no disagreement or debate over whether the Scriptures or the Baptist confessions taught the use of the preaching of the Gospel as a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. The fact that there was a larger number of Missionary Baptist historians and apologists in the 1860s and 1870s who were arguing as did Peck and Howell proves nothing.
Hassell said that the second generation Missionary Baptists, in studying the matter, began to suppose that it was in the Hardshell choice of a denominational name, and the marketing of the name, that led the Missionary Baptists to adopt the Hardshell practice. The truth of the matter is that the Hardshells adopted the name of "primitive" or "old school" as a tactic and as a way to market themselves. The fact is, however, that they mislabeled themselves, for they were not in keeping with the traditional beliefs and practices of the English and American Particular Baptist churches. The answer to the question - who is the rightful descendant of those first Baptists who gave us the accepted confessions of the Particular or Regular Baptists? - is an easy one to answer, as I have shown. I have the benefit of others before me, like Howell and Peck, who totally demolished the Hardshell claims.
Also, the point being asserted by Hassell assumes that the Missionaries of the 1860s and 1870s were envious of the numerical growth of the Hardshells and coveted their tactics. But, how can this be when the Missionary Baptists were outgrowing the Hardshells in that period by a large percentage? Hassell insinuates that the motives of the Missionaries, in claiming to be the real Old Baptists, and in denying the pretentious claims of the Hardshells, were not doing so because they really believed such, but only wanted to claim to be so in order to be successful like the Hardshells. Such Hardshell apologetics!
Perhaps Hassell, in talking about the 1860s and 1870s, has in mind the controversy led by Dr. Graves in this time period. During this time there was much debate among Baptists, including those in the young Southern Baptist Convention, concerning principles of Landmarkism, including the propriety and scriptural basis for "mission boards." Graves led a wing of Baptists that would later become known as the "anti board Baptists." These agreed with the Hardshells in their protestations against certain mission methods and organizations, yet they did not oppose all mission work, for they stressed that mission work should be in the control of local churches. Graves and the leaders in the Landmark anti board wing, however, were staunch opponents of Hardshell beliefs and practices. They would never have admitted that the Hardshells were the true old Baptists and that they were themselves new.
Hassell continued:
"For some few years now prior to the writing of this history, their ablest minds, through the medium of pulpit and press, have been endeavoring to prove themselves the veritable Primitive Baptists of the nineteenth century! It is likely their affliction will increase as the prosperity of Zion becomes more and more manifest, and the well established among themselves forsake them and go where they rightfully belong, to the citizenship of the saints and the household of God."
"Their ablest minds," in the time period under consideration, "have been endeavoring to prove themselves the veritable Primitive Baptists of the nineteenth century." Again, the insinuation is that this was the first time that men had called into question the claim of the Hardshells to being in agreement with the Baptists of preceding centuries. I am sure that Hassell knew how Peck opposed Parker in the 1820s, and that he answered the Hardshell claim that theological schools and missionary organizations were new among the Baptists. I am sure that he knew of Dr. Howell and how he stated, in "The Baptist" of the 1830s, how the claim of the Hardshells to being primitive was false. Many others could be named from these early decades. These denied that they were departing from the historic teaching of the Baptists.
Remember that the first Hardshell apologists not only arrogantly claimed that they were the true primitive Baptists, but denied that any others were. They not only marketed themselves as being "old" or "primitive" but constantly labeled Baptists who supported missions and seminaries as being "new school," that is, the bringers of new beliefs and practices. Why would the supporters of missions and theological education not respond to the claims of the Hardshells? Hassell wants us to believe that it was not till a generation later that Missionary Baptists began to deny that the Hardshells were the truly old school or to claim that they were the real old Baptists.
As we have seen, however, the Hardshells have no historical records to show that there were any Baptists who held their views in the 17th and 18th centuries. Mission organizations existed in those previous centuries. So too did theological schools. But, where were the Hardshell protesters? They did not exist!
Remember also how the first Hardshells in North Carolina considered and adopted the name "Reformed Baptists" for awhile before they began using the terms "old school" and "primitive" as their distinctive modifiers. Why would they do this if they really thought that they were opposing what was totally new belief and practice among the Baptists? However, if they knew, as did Beebe, that the Baptists had a prior tradition of these things, then truly "reformed" would have been the proper adjective. It would have been an acknowledgement that what they were then advocating was not the general Baptist belief or practice of the time, though it had been sometime in the more distant past, but it needed to become once again Baptist belief.
Hassell, in talking about the prosperity of the Hardshells called it "the prosperity of Zion," for in his mind, the Hardshell church and Zion are one and the same. He said that the "affliction" of the Missionary Baptists "will increase" in proportion as "Zion" increases. Hassell calls his work a "history" but it has more such accusatory language than it does pure history. I have not referred to my own work "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" as a history, although it has lots of historical information in it. I think my work is similar to Hassell's in that it is really an "apology" or rational defence. Hassell's is an apology for the Hardshells, and mine is an apology for Mission Baptists. Further, I don't think that I have made charges without proof. My work is not mere opinion.
Notice that Hassell makes the most uncharitable accusation against Mission Baptists. He says that they are opposers of Zion, and are they who rejoice when Zion declines and mourn when she increases. But, this is all in keeping with Hardshell precedent, for their beginning was marked by the harshest judgments and denunciations, calling those who supported Sunday Schools, theological schools, and mission organizations, followers of Antichrist and a part of the mother of harlots. One cannot call Hassell's accusations "history" but biased opinion.
Hassell also gave his own prediction of the future as respects the prosperity of the Hardshells. He said that the prosperity of the Hardshells would become "more and more manifest" and that "the well established among themselves," that is, among the Missionary Baptists who are furthering the will of Antichrist, "would then forsake them and go where they rightfully belong, to the citizenship of the saints and the household of God." Notice again how in Hassell's mind the Missionary Baptists are not part of the citizenship of saints or the household of God. Making such an accusation and claim is proof that the Hardshells are a cult.
Were there Missionary Baptists who became Hardshells? Yes. But, were there not Hardshells who became Missionary? So, what does this prove?
In the next chapter we will continue to examine Hassell's anti mission apology.
Hassell continued:
"After thirty or forty years’ experience, since the separation, however, it was ascertained that the Old School were not all dead, that some were still in existence, and by some unaccountable means they were in a state of outward prosperity to all human appearance. This so astonished the New School that they, supposing a good name was becoming popular, and might be some cause for success, suddenly changed their tactics, and assumed the name of “Old School or Primitive Baptists” to themselves, which they had themselves given to the Bible Baptists, and had for many previous years been aspersing and holding in the greatest contempt!"
There are several things that Hassell states that demand examination. First, however, let us notice the time period referred to by Hassell when he says "after thirty or forty years’ experience." If we take the starting date of 1827 (Kehukee Declaration) and add thirty years, then we are at 1857 and are specifically talking about the period from 1857 to 1867. There is no question but that the whole period from 1827 to 1867 (forty years, or a generation) is most important in studying the beginnings of "The Primitive Baptist Church." Further, a closer look at the time between 1857 to 1867 is also very revealing. What does Hassell say was happening in that period?
First, he says that it became evident that the prophecy about the demise of the newly formed Hardshell denomination, first uttered in the 1830s by the opposers of the Hardshell schismatics, was finally proven to be false. He says that the Hardshells were "in a state of outward prosperity" and this was evident "to all human appearance."
One cannot help but think of how the Hardshells want to have it both ways. They want to say, as Hassell does for the Hardshells of the 1850s and 1860s, that their prosperity proved that the "Missionary" or "New School" were wrong and that they were right, but then, at other times, when the Hardshells acknowledged their decline, or lack of prosperity, they would say that such a decline proved that they were right (for the truth is always with the little few they say). So, their contradiction is what is self evident.
Hassell says that the Missionary Baptists began to acknowledge that they had been wrong to have prophesied of the downfall of the Hardshells and that they, in the 1850s and 1860s, were confessing that error. He also says that these Missionary Baptists, who had long opposed the Hardshells, were "astonished" at the continued existence and growth of the Hardshells. Not only were the Missionary Baptists astonished, but they were also puzzled and bewildered about the reason for the astonishing phenomenon. He says that it was by "some unaccountable means." However, he then argues that such a realization led the Missionary Baptists to account that the success of the Hardshells was due in large part to their marketing of themselves as the "Old School," or as the "Primitive," Baptists.
Of course, Hassell makes statements under the appearance of "history" which are simply opinions that are put for facts. Hassell shows that he is writing primarily for the cult members, and not as an apologetic for others to examine and judge. Cult members will accept statements by their leaders as facts without the least effort to verify the truth or accuracy of those statements. Hassell offers no proof for his conclusions. He does not give citations from Missionary Baptist sources of the period in question to substantiate his allegations.
Further, the first opposers of the Hardshell schismatics, men like R.B.C. Howell and J.M. Peck, who predicted the decline of the "old school," did not, to my knowledge, ever predict the total extinction of the new heretical sect. What they predicted was a decline toward practical nothingness, toward being such a minute part of the Baptist or Christian world.
Indeed, at one point in the 19th century, the Hardshells were a leading force, representing a large number of people, especially on the frontier, but that time is long past and the "Primitive Baptist" denomination has dwindled down to probably less than 50,000 people. So, the prophecy was not proven to be false, but time has rather shown it to have been genuine.
Secondly, Hassell represents it as a new practice in the 1860s-1870s for Missionary Baptists to argue that the Hardshells were really the new Baptists, and not the real primitive Baptists. I have already shown how both Peck and Howell early on, in the 1830s, argued that those calling themselves old school or primitive Baptists were not really so. They did this by showing Baptist precedent for mission work and for theological education. Of course, in the first generation time period, there was no disagreement or debate over whether the Scriptures or the Baptist confessions taught the use of the preaching of the Gospel as a means in the eternal salvation of sinners. The fact that there was a larger number of Missionary Baptist historians and apologists in the 1860s and 1870s who were arguing as did Peck and Howell proves nothing.
Hassell said that the second generation Missionary Baptists, in studying the matter, began to suppose that it was in the Hardshell choice of a denominational name, and the marketing of the name, that led the Missionary Baptists to adopt the Hardshell practice. The truth of the matter is that the Hardshells adopted the name of "primitive" or "old school" as a tactic and as a way to market themselves. The fact is, however, that they mislabeled themselves, for they were not in keeping with the traditional beliefs and practices of the English and American Particular Baptist churches. The answer to the question - who is the rightful descendant of those first Baptists who gave us the accepted confessions of the Particular or Regular Baptists? - is an easy one to answer, as I have shown. I have the benefit of others before me, like Howell and Peck, who totally demolished the Hardshell claims.
Also, the point being asserted by Hassell assumes that the Missionaries of the 1860s and 1870s were envious of the numerical growth of the Hardshells and coveted their tactics. But, how can this be when the Missionary Baptists were outgrowing the Hardshells in that period by a large percentage? Hassell insinuates that the motives of the Missionaries, in claiming to be the real Old Baptists, and in denying the pretentious claims of the Hardshells, were not doing so because they really believed such, but only wanted to claim to be so in order to be successful like the Hardshells. Such Hardshell apologetics!
Perhaps Hassell, in talking about the 1860s and 1870s, has in mind the controversy led by Dr. Graves in this time period. During this time there was much debate among Baptists, including those in the young Southern Baptist Convention, concerning principles of Landmarkism, including the propriety and scriptural basis for "mission boards." Graves led a wing of Baptists that would later become known as the "anti board Baptists." These agreed with the Hardshells in their protestations against certain mission methods and organizations, yet they did not oppose all mission work, for they stressed that mission work should be in the control of local churches. Graves and the leaders in the Landmark anti board wing, however, were staunch opponents of Hardshell beliefs and practices. They would never have admitted that the Hardshells were the true old Baptists and that they were themselves new.
Hassell continued:
"For some few years now prior to the writing of this history, their ablest minds, through the medium of pulpit and press, have been endeavoring to prove themselves the veritable Primitive Baptists of the nineteenth century! It is likely their affliction will increase as the prosperity of Zion becomes more and more manifest, and the well established among themselves forsake them and go where they rightfully belong, to the citizenship of the saints and the household of God."
"Their ablest minds," in the time period under consideration, "have been endeavoring to prove themselves the veritable Primitive Baptists of the nineteenth century." Again, the insinuation is that this was the first time that men had called into question the claim of the Hardshells to being in agreement with the Baptists of preceding centuries. I am sure that Hassell knew how Peck opposed Parker in the 1820s, and that he answered the Hardshell claim that theological schools and missionary organizations were new among the Baptists. I am sure that he knew of Dr. Howell and how he stated, in "The Baptist" of the 1830s, how the claim of the Hardshells to being primitive was false. Many others could be named from these early decades. These denied that they were departing from the historic teaching of the Baptists.
Remember that the first Hardshell apologists not only arrogantly claimed that they were the true primitive Baptists, but denied that any others were. They not only marketed themselves as being "old" or "primitive" but constantly labeled Baptists who supported missions and seminaries as being "new school," that is, the bringers of new beliefs and practices. Why would the supporters of missions and theological education not respond to the claims of the Hardshells? Hassell wants us to believe that it was not till a generation later that Missionary Baptists began to deny that the Hardshells were the truly old school or to claim that they were the real old Baptists.
As we have seen, however, the Hardshells have no historical records to show that there were any Baptists who held their views in the 17th and 18th centuries. Mission organizations existed in those previous centuries. So too did theological schools. But, where were the Hardshell protesters? They did not exist!
Remember also how the first Hardshells in North Carolina considered and adopted the name "Reformed Baptists" for awhile before they began using the terms "old school" and "primitive" as their distinctive modifiers. Why would they do this if they really thought that they were opposing what was totally new belief and practice among the Baptists? However, if they knew, as did Beebe, that the Baptists had a prior tradition of these things, then truly "reformed" would have been the proper adjective. It would have been an acknowledgement that what they were then advocating was not the general Baptist belief or practice of the time, though it had been sometime in the more distant past, but it needed to become once again Baptist belief.
Hassell, in talking about the prosperity of the Hardshells called it "the prosperity of Zion," for in his mind, the Hardshell church and Zion are one and the same. He said that the "affliction" of the Missionary Baptists "will increase" in proportion as "Zion" increases. Hassell calls his work a "history" but it has more such accusatory language than it does pure history. I have not referred to my own work "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" as a history, although it has lots of historical information in it. I think my work is similar to Hassell's in that it is really an "apology" or rational defence. Hassell's is an apology for the Hardshells, and mine is an apology for Mission Baptists. Further, I don't think that I have made charges without proof. My work is not mere opinion.
Notice that Hassell makes the most uncharitable accusation against Mission Baptists. He says that they are opposers of Zion, and are they who rejoice when Zion declines and mourn when she increases. But, this is all in keeping with Hardshell precedent, for their beginning was marked by the harshest judgments and denunciations, calling those who supported Sunday Schools, theological schools, and mission organizations, followers of Antichrist and a part of the mother of harlots. One cannot call Hassell's accusations "history" but biased opinion.
Hassell also gave his own prediction of the future as respects the prosperity of the Hardshells. He said that the prosperity of the Hardshells would become "more and more manifest" and that "the well established among themselves," that is, among the Missionary Baptists who are furthering the will of Antichrist, "would then forsake them and go where they rightfully belong, to the citizenship of the saints and the household of God." Notice again how in Hassell's mind the Missionary Baptists are not part of the citizenship of saints or the household of God. Making such an accusation and claim is proof that the Hardshells are a cult.
Were there Missionary Baptists who became Hardshells? Yes. But, were there not Hardshells who became Missionary? So, what does this prove?
In the next chapter we will continue to examine Hassell's anti mission apology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)