I have about 177 chapters written in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Chapter 7 "Time Salvation - A Novel Idea" (see here) should be a must read for my Hardshell brethren. Let me cite some from the beginning of that chapter.
"Secrecy" of some sort is a characteristic of a cult. Christians have their "secrets" (Psa. 25:14; Prov. 3:32), but the distinctive secrets of the Hardshell cult are not the secrets of God or of His kingdom.
Basically, religious secrets involve "special revelation" that the cult, and it alone, possesses. Christians have "special revelation"; for instance, the knowledge of Christ as being the Son of God (Matt. 16:16, 17). But the claimed "special revelation" of the Hardshell is nothing but the blindness of a heresy.
"Time Salvation"
Their primary "secret" revelation concerns the doctrine they call "Time Salvation." You have to be trained in Hardshell "dogma" to know all that the words convey. What the Hardshells believe the terminology, "Time Salvation," represents would never cross the average Bible reader's mind. You have to hear it from a Hardshell to be introduced to and informed in the meaning of its theological “jargon.”
I encourage all Hardshells to read this chapter.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Hardshell Antinomianism II
Chapter 176
In an article titled "ARE WE ANTINOMIANS?" (see here) Hardshell J.F. Poole, wrote the following in "The Remnant" (May - June 1988)
"Antinomianism! Yes; if by that expression we are condemned for opposing the witchcraft of conditionalism, duty faith, and assorted other heresies crept in unawares about us, then we are indeed Antinomians: we are against all such laws."
From these words it is obvious that a denial that evangelical faith is a condition of salvation is a form of antinomianism, and in this respects, by their own admission, Hardshells are antinomian. Also, these words affirm that a denial of "duty faith" is a form of antinomianism, and again the Hardshells plead guilty to being antinomian. "We are indeed Antinomians" says Poole in regard to these things.
Samuel Trott, one of the first leaders in the anti-mission movement, and a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, gave the general belief of the first Hardshells on the subject of "duty faith," In an article in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1839, titled "Duty Faith & Repentance. An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray," (see here) Trott wrote: (emphasis mine)
"On the other hand, I understand the Old School doctrine to be, that it is the duty of all rational beings to believe all God has spoken in the scriptures as they have access to them directly or indirectly, and to believe the testimony of the works of creation and providence, where the scriptures have not come. To disbelieve the record, which God hath given of His Son, is to make God a liar (I John 5:10;) and surely no person can do this and be guiltless. The obligation man is under thus to believe God, arises, not from any demand which the gospel as such peculiarly makes upon him, but from the nature and fitness of things, and from what God is. It is a law of our creation."
Thus, it is evident that once again we have today's Hardshells removed from the truth, from what is historically "Old Baptist" teaching on this point. Trott is very clear in stating that the unregenerate are under duty to believe the Scriptures and the Gospel. It is true that Trott, in this article, seems to back peddle from this statement, and to contradict himself, but still the statement is clearly made that all men are duty bound to believe.
Trott also wrote:
"The "duty of the unregenerate to repent," comes next under consideration."
"My own mind I confess has been much difficulted to draw a clear line of distinction between the different relations and senses in which the idea of repentance, is presented to our view in the scriptures, and between the idea of its being a duty incumbent on men at large, and that of its being a free gospel blessing bestowed by the exalted Saviour on the spiritual Israel of God."
Trott struggled with the same issue that Hyper Calvinists have traditionally. How can faith and repentance be both commanded and a gift. Today's Hardshells, sadly, think that they cannot be both, that for something to be commanded excludes it from being God's gift, and vise versa. They do not understand, for instance, the words of Augustine:
"O Lord, command what you will and give what you command."
I have on previous occasions written against the Hardshell notion that men are not commanded to become regenerate. See "Make You A New Heart". It seems the Hardshells would have sided with Pelagius rather than Augustine.
It is good that Trott and the first Hardshells did not reject in toto the truth of duty faith and repentance, as do today's Hardshells.
Trott continued:
"On the other hand I have never been able to receive in all points as correct, the explanations which Doctor Gill and other sound brethren have given of it. There will be found some difference between the explanation of this subject which I have to give, and that given by Brother Beebe in No.14, more particularly in relation to John's preaching repentance; this difference I trust is not such as to break any bones."
Regarding these words, notice how Trott, unlike later Hardshells, thought John Gill to be sound. Of course, I have already shown how Trott believed that conversion, by the Gospel, was the same as being born again, which is the view of Dr. Gill.
Notice also how Trott differs somewhat from editor Beebe on the subject. I have already shown in previous writings how Beebe imbibed the Pelagian premise that "a command implies ability to obey the command." He stated that to call upon sinners to believe and repent implied in them an ability to do so. Trott does not seem to agree with Beebe on this. As I have also shown elsewhere, most Hardshells have not understood that the natural man lacks moral ability, not physical ability.
Trott wrote:
"If on the other hand we suppose that the unregenerate are under no obligations to repent, we must consider them as justifiable in continuing on in their sins of whatever grade they may be. This I think none will admit; for there certainly are instances in the scriptures of unregenerated persons being exhorted or admonished to repent. The query then arises, Whence does this obligation to repent arise?"
Here, Trott demolishes the anti duty faith brethren's argumentation. He states what ought to be obvious to anyone with a reasonable unbiased mind. If it is not the duty of men to believe, repent, convert, or to have circumcised hearts, or to be saved, then their not doing these things cannot be "sin." They cannot be condemned for not doing these things. Trott confesses that this is untenable and a deduction that his brethren should be willing to acknowledge and which should keep them from denying duty faith, etc.
A.W. Pink wrote (1936) the following under the title of "Duty-Faith":
"It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ, otherwise their rejection of Him would be no sin. Many of our readers will be surprised to hear that this self-evident truth is denied by some who are, otherwise, sound in the Faith. They reason that it is "inconsistent" to call upon the spiritually dead to perform spiritual duties."
Any Hardshell today who denies duty faith ought to come forward and answer the charge that their denial forces them to excuse men for their rejection of the truth and of Christ.
"Whence does this obligation to repent arise?" Trott will answer by showing how he understands that commands do not imply ability, and by showing how he sees that man's inability is not physical, but moral.
Trott wrote:
"This law of Ten Commands, in its spirituality and as addressed to all, both Jews and Gentiles, I understand was given expressly to teach repentance. I do not say, to show that repentance was a part of the original requisition of the law, and a part of the righteousness it required; but that it is addressed to man as depraved and condemned, to call him off from self-confidence, and to repentance. I feel myself fully supported in this by the declarations of scripture, that the law was added by reason of transgression; entered that the offence might abound, &c.; and especially by this text, "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law" - for what? - "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God." What is this but self-condemnation before God, that is designed to be accomplished by the declaration of the law? And what is such self-condemnation, but repentance toward God? It is then I think clear, that it is the law of Ten Commandments in its spirituality that calls for repentance."
Notice how Trott recognizes how the law is spiritual, a fact not generally understood by today's Hardshells. Notice also how Trott correctly states that the law was not only a duty, but intended to produce repentance, or as Paul says, to be a schoolmaster to bring one to faith in Christ.
Trott was closer to the truth on this important issue than later Hardshells have been. Let us hope that today's Hardshells will repent of their error on this important point of doctrine.
In an article titled "ARE WE ANTINOMIANS?" (see here) Hardshell J.F. Poole, wrote the following in "The Remnant" (May - June 1988)
"Antinomianism! Yes; if by that expression we are condemned for opposing the witchcraft of conditionalism, duty faith, and assorted other heresies crept in unawares about us, then we are indeed Antinomians: we are against all such laws."
From these words it is obvious that a denial that evangelical faith is a condition of salvation is a form of antinomianism, and in this respects, by their own admission, Hardshells are antinomian. Also, these words affirm that a denial of "duty faith" is a form of antinomianism, and again the Hardshells plead guilty to being antinomian. "We are indeed Antinomians" says Poole in regard to these things.
Samuel Trott, one of the first leaders in the anti-mission movement, and a founding father of the "Primitive Baptist" denomination, gave the general belief of the first Hardshells on the subject of "duty faith," In an article in the "Signs of the Times" periodical for 1839, titled "Duty Faith & Repentance. An enquiry concerning the duty of the unregenerate to believe, repent or pray," (see here) Trott wrote: (emphasis mine)
"On the other hand, I understand the Old School doctrine to be, that it is the duty of all rational beings to believe all God has spoken in the scriptures as they have access to them directly or indirectly, and to believe the testimony of the works of creation and providence, where the scriptures have not come. To disbelieve the record, which God hath given of His Son, is to make God a liar (I John 5:10;) and surely no person can do this and be guiltless. The obligation man is under thus to believe God, arises, not from any demand which the gospel as such peculiarly makes upon him, but from the nature and fitness of things, and from what God is. It is a law of our creation."
Thus, it is evident that once again we have today's Hardshells removed from the truth, from what is historically "Old Baptist" teaching on this point. Trott is very clear in stating that the unregenerate are under duty to believe the Scriptures and the Gospel. It is true that Trott, in this article, seems to back peddle from this statement, and to contradict himself, but still the statement is clearly made that all men are duty bound to believe.
Trott also wrote:
"The "duty of the unregenerate to repent," comes next under consideration."
"My own mind I confess has been much difficulted to draw a clear line of distinction between the different relations and senses in which the idea of repentance, is presented to our view in the scriptures, and between the idea of its being a duty incumbent on men at large, and that of its being a free gospel blessing bestowed by the exalted Saviour on the spiritual Israel of God."
Trott struggled with the same issue that Hyper Calvinists have traditionally. How can faith and repentance be both commanded and a gift. Today's Hardshells, sadly, think that they cannot be both, that for something to be commanded excludes it from being God's gift, and vise versa. They do not understand, for instance, the words of Augustine:
"O Lord, command what you will and give what you command."
I have on previous occasions written against the Hardshell notion that men are not commanded to become regenerate. See "Make You A New Heart". It seems the Hardshells would have sided with Pelagius rather than Augustine.
It is good that Trott and the first Hardshells did not reject in toto the truth of duty faith and repentance, as do today's Hardshells.
Trott continued:
"On the other hand I have never been able to receive in all points as correct, the explanations which Doctor Gill and other sound brethren have given of it. There will be found some difference between the explanation of this subject which I have to give, and that given by Brother Beebe in No.14, more particularly in relation to John's preaching repentance; this difference I trust is not such as to break any bones."
Regarding these words, notice how Trott, unlike later Hardshells, thought John Gill to be sound. Of course, I have already shown how Trott believed that conversion, by the Gospel, was the same as being born again, which is the view of Dr. Gill.
Notice also how Trott differs somewhat from editor Beebe on the subject. I have already shown in previous writings how Beebe imbibed the Pelagian premise that "a command implies ability to obey the command." He stated that to call upon sinners to believe and repent implied in them an ability to do so. Trott does not seem to agree with Beebe on this. As I have also shown elsewhere, most Hardshells have not understood that the natural man lacks moral ability, not physical ability.
Trott wrote:
"If on the other hand we suppose that the unregenerate are under no obligations to repent, we must consider them as justifiable in continuing on in their sins of whatever grade they may be. This I think none will admit; for there certainly are instances in the scriptures of unregenerated persons being exhorted or admonished to repent. The query then arises, Whence does this obligation to repent arise?"
Here, Trott demolishes the anti duty faith brethren's argumentation. He states what ought to be obvious to anyone with a reasonable unbiased mind. If it is not the duty of men to believe, repent, convert, or to have circumcised hearts, or to be saved, then their not doing these things cannot be "sin." They cannot be condemned for not doing these things. Trott confesses that this is untenable and a deduction that his brethren should be willing to acknowledge and which should keep them from denying duty faith, etc.
A.W. Pink wrote (1936) the following under the title of "Duty-Faith":
"It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ, otherwise their rejection of Him would be no sin. Many of our readers will be surprised to hear that this self-evident truth is denied by some who are, otherwise, sound in the Faith. They reason that it is "inconsistent" to call upon the spiritually dead to perform spiritual duties."
Any Hardshell today who denies duty faith ought to come forward and answer the charge that their denial forces them to excuse men for their rejection of the truth and of Christ.
"Whence does this obligation to repent arise?" Trott will answer by showing how he understands that commands do not imply ability, and by showing how he sees that man's inability is not physical, but moral.
Trott wrote:
"This law of Ten Commands, in its spirituality and as addressed to all, both Jews and Gentiles, I understand was given expressly to teach repentance. I do not say, to show that repentance was a part of the original requisition of the law, and a part of the righteousness it required; but that it is addressed to man as depraved and condemned, to call him off from self-confidence, and to repentance. I feel myself fully supported in this by the declarations of scripture, that the law was added by reason of transgression; entered that the offence might abound, &c.; and especially by this text, "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law" - for what? - "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God." What is this but self-condemnation before God, that is designed to be accomplished by the declaration of the law? And what is such self-condemnation, but repentance toward God? It is then I think clear, that it is the law of Ten Commandments in its spirituality that calls for repentance."
Notice how Trott recognizes how the law is spiritual, a fact not generally understood by today's Hardshells. Notice also how Trott correctly states that the law was not only a duty, but intended to produce repentance, or as Paul says, to be a schoolmaster to bring one to faith in Christ.
Trott was closer to the truth on this important issue than later Hardshells have been. Let us hope that today's Hardshells will repent of their error on this important point of doctrine.
Friday, September 12, 2014
The Only Ones
By branching off my Facebook friend list I eventually come
across the page of a “Primitive” Baptist elder.
In a discussion which ensued from one of his postings, this comment was
made:
“In fact, PBs are the
FEW MINOR REMNANT of the Elect Family out of every (nation – KF)- Rev. 5:9.
Mat. 7:13-14”
There you have it! Unmistakable
proof that Conditionalist Hardshells
feel themselves to be the elite from all the rest of the regenerated community!
This statement is cultic. All other regenerate souls may constitute God’s
elect children, “eternally speaking” (to borrow their language), yet they only
comprise a special inner circle. The
remnant within the remnant! Only they walk
the straight and narrow into temporal life here on Earth! Every other Christian is on the temporal road to destruction!
If I could think of a word stronger than heresy, I would use it.
This statement is contradictory. At times, Hardshells can be found speaking of their beloved time salvation as if it is OF the Lord. Hence, you will find them using the expressions temporal elect, the elect within the elect, or as in this case, few minor remnant, in order to denote those who they would say have been saved in time. Most of the time, however, they refer to it as something NOT OF the Lord, and that the child of God must do this for himself! What a contradiction! Labeling “Primitive” Baptists as God’s temporal elect or some similar expression is language which,
obviously, raises the subject of God’s decree. It assumes that time salvation
is the product of God’s election!!! But this contradicts their usual manner of
explanation that time salvation is
the effect of the free-will of those said to be “already regenerated”! So which one is it? Is time
salvation the effect of God’s election
I have noticed this contradiction for years now.
This statement discourages
a desire for growth. The smaller the congregation and the lesser number of churches, the more evidence that we are the only ones! Sad.
This statement lastly raises
a very interesting question. If time salvation is gained only by PB
Conditionalists, then what do we call the experience of a so-called regenerated
person who hears and believes the gospel as preached by anyone other than a
Hardshell minister? If it wasn’t
regeneration and it wasn’t true conversion, then what is it? Obviously he experienced some kind of change.
But what do we call that change? Are
there two kinds of time salvation?
Friday, September 5, 2014
Sonny Pyles on Paul's Conversion
Elder Sonny Pyles, a leading apologist for the "Primitive Baptists," preached a sermon on "Justification" (part one), wherein he made several statements that I wish to examine. I have previously written against the heresy of Pyles (see here).
About the salvation of Paul on the Damascus road, Pyles said:
"Paul was not a child of God from his mother's womb...that is not Old Baptist doctrine."
Now, I certainly do agree with brother Pyles that Saul (who became Paul) was not regenerated while he was in his mother's womb, as some of today's Hardshells teach (including my dad, Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr.), but was not regenerated until the Lord appeared to him on the Damascus road. It is true that none of the first Hardshells took this view, at least none that I am aware, and would have considered calling Saul regenerated while he was a Christ rejecter and persecuter of Christians an absurdity. But, one wonders how such a view ever came about? Is it not a natural result of their heretical views on the nature and means of regeneration? In fact, many Hardshells today will tell you that they believe that most of the elect are born again while they are infants, or even before they are naturally born.
Is it possible to be regenerated and believe and do as Saul did before his meeting with the Lord on the Damascus road? People who teach that Paul was regenerated while in his mother's womb (perhaps like John the Baptist) of course totally reject any idea of perseverance for those who have been regenerated. Obviously so. This, however, is what is difficult for Hardshells like Sonny to accept. It certainly would not have been accepted by the Hardshell founding fathers who believed in perseverance and who believed that the truly regenerated would never be a Christ rejecter and murderer of Christians.
Sonny also said:
"Paul is an example of direct regeneration without the Gospel."
I have in various writings written against this interpretation of Paul's conversion/regeneration. I do agree that Paul's conversion is a "pattern" of how all the elect are called and quickened. (See I Tim. 1: 15-17) I have shown how Paul's regeneration was not anything like Hardshell regeneration. Here is how they differ.
1. Paul was both regenerated and converted at the same time
2. Paul cognitively and savingly knew and believed in Jesus in his regeneration experience
3. Paul was made a believer in the Gospel in his regeneration
4. Paul heard the Gospel from the mouth of Jesus who said - "I am Jesus"
5. Paul became a willing servant of Jesus in his regeneration, being made free from sin when he obeyed the word of the Lord
6. Repentance and actual turning away from sin and to Christ occurred in his regeneration
7. The Lord's speaking to Saul was not on the subconscious level. Paul knew, in his regeneration, who was speaking to him.
These reasons militate against the Hardshell understanding of the nature and causes of regeneration. So, do they not have any real argument in the case of Paul? Yes, they do have one. They argue that Jesus did not speak to Paul through a medium, through communicators of the word. So, since there was no preacher present, and supposedly no Gospel knowledge previously possessed by Saul, therefore preachers and Gospel knowledge are not necessary to be regenerated. That is their reasoning. What can we say about it?
About no preachers being present with Paul when the Lord regenerated him, such a fact does not prove them to be unnecessary. It is not the view of those who believe that the Spirit regenerates by means of the preached word that regeneration only occurs in the presence of preachers or while they are hearing the preaching. Many have heard the Gospel by preachers, left the church house, and gotten by themselves, reflected on what they heard, and then came to faith and spiritual life. The preacher was the means, yes, but that did not require the preacher to be present when the seed of the Gospel actually germinated. So, this argument is really no argument at all. Further, if this fact is insisted upon by men like Pyles, then by their own argument about Paul being a pattern, then he would have to say that no one was ever born again in the presence of a Gospel messenger. Absurd. Reductio ad absurdum.
Further, though the Lord spoke to Saul directly on the Damascus road, this was not the first time the Lord spoke to him. Did not Paul write in Hebrews that God had in time past spoken to his people "by the prophets"? (Heb. 1: 1,2) When Saul read the Scriptures, was the Lord not speaking to him? Is this not further proven by the fact that the Lord said to Saul - "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks"? Was it not the pricks of the word of God that he had been taught and which was in his conscience goading him?
Further, did Paul not know the Gospel message he was opposing? Did he not hear preachers like Stephen? Yes, yes, which all disproves the Hardshell contention that there was no Gospel present in Saul's regeneration/conversion. The seed of the word was in Saul's heart and mind, but had not yet been understood or believed. It was a seed that had not yet germinated.
So, was Paul's regeneration a Hardshell regeneration? No. Does Paul's regeneration exclude the use of means? No. Does Paul's regeneration exclude his coming to evangelical faith? No.
About the salvation of Paul on the Damascus road, Pyles said:
"Paul was not a child of God from his mother's womb...that is not Old Baptist doctrine."
Now, I certainly do agree with brother Pyles that Saul (who became Paul) was not regenerated while he was in his mother's womb, as some of today's Hardshells teach (including my dad, Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr.), but was not regenerated until the Lord appeared to him on the Damascus road. It is true that none of the first Hardshells took this view, at least none that I am aware, and would have considered calling Saul regenerated while he was a Christ rejecter and persecuter of Christians an absurdity. But, one wonders how such a view ever came about? Is it not a natural result of their heretical views on the nature and means of regeneration? In fact, many Hardshells today will tell you that they believe that most of the elect are born again while they are infants, or even before they are naturally born.
Is it possible to be regenerated and believe and do as Saul did before his meeting with the Lord on the Damascus road? People who teach that Paul was regenerated while in his mother's womb (perhaps like John the Baptist) of course totally reject any idea of perseverance for those who have been regenerated. Obviously so. This, however, is what is difficult for Hardshells like Sonny to accept. It certainly would not have been accepted by the Hardshell founding fathers who believed in perseverance and who believed that the truly regenerated would never be a Christ rejecter and murderer of Christians.
Sonny also said:
"Paul is an example of direct regeneration without the Gospel."
I have in various writings written against this interpretation of Paul's conversion/regeneration. I do agree that Paul's conversion is a "pattern" of how all the elect are called and quickened. (See I Tim. 1: 15-17) I have shown how Paul's regeneration was not anything like Hardshell regeneration. Here is how they differ.
1. Paul was both regenerated and converted at the same time
2. Paul cognitively and savingly knew and believed in Jesus in his regeneration experience
3. Paul was made a believer in the Gospel in his regeneration
4. Paul heard the Gospel from the mouth of Jesus who said - "I am Jesus"
5. Paul became a willing servant of Jesus in his regeneration, being made free from sin when he obeyed the word of the Lord
6. Repentance and actual turning away from sin and to Christ occurred in his regeneration
7. The Lord's speaking to Saul was not on the subconscious level. Paul knew, in his regeneration, who was speaking to him.
These reasons militate against the Hardshell understanding of the nature and causes of regeneration. So, do they not have any real argument in the case of Paul? Yes, they do have one. They argue that Jesus did not speak to Paul through a medium, through communicators of the word. So, since there was no preacher present, and supposedly no Gospel knowledge previously possessed by Saul, therefore preachers and Gospel knowledge are not necessary to be regenerated. That is their reasoning. What can we say about it?
About no preachers being present with Paul when the Lord regenerated him, such a fact does not prove them to be unnecessary. It is not the view of those who believe that the Spirit regenerates by means of the preached word that regeneration only occurs in the presence of preachers or while they are hearing the preaching. Many have heard the Gospel by preachers, left the church house, and gotten by themselves, reflected on what they heard, and then came to faith and spiritual life. The preacher was the means, yes, but that did not require the preacher to be present when the seed of the Gospel actually germinated. So, this argument is really no argument at all. Further, if this fact is insisted upon by men like Pyles, then by their own argument about Paul being a pattern, then he would have to say that no one was ever born again in the presence of a Gospel messenger. Absurd. Reductio ad absurdum.
Further, though the Lord spoke to Saul directly on the Damascus road, this was not the first time the Lord spoke to him. Did not Paul write in Hebrews that God had in time past spoken to his people "by the prophets"? (Heb. 1: 1,2) When Saul read the Scriptures, was the Lord not speaking to him? Is this not further proven by the fact that the Lord said to Saul - "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks"? Was it not the pricks of the word of God that he had been taught and which was in his conscience goading him?
Further, did Paul not know the Gospel message he was opposing? Did he not hear preachers like Stephen? Yes, yes, which all disproves the Hardshell contention that there was no Gospel present in Saul's regeneration/conversion. The seed of the word was in Saul's heart and mind, but had not yet been understood or believed. It was a seed that had not yet germinated.
So, was Paul's regeneration a Hardshell regeneration? No. Does Paul's regeneration exclude the use of means? No. Does Paul's regeneration exclude his coming to evangelical faith? No.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Sonny Pyles - "I'm a Hardshell Baptist"
Elder Sonny Pyles, a leading apologist for the "Primitive Baptists," preached a sermon on "Justification" (part one), wherein he made several statements that I wish to examine. I have previously written against the heresy of Pyles (see here).
I intend to examine some things Sonny said in this sermon, in this and the next postings.
Elder Pyles said:
"There are lots of new things preached today that are not Primitive Baptist doctrine."
Boy, that is the truth! What about their claim to being old and original Baptist then? Further, it is worse than Sonny realizes. In fact, his own belief about regeneration and conversion are new doctrines, not believed by the Old Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells. Interesting is the fact that the founding fathers of the new "Primitive Baptist" denomination generally believed in regeneration by means of the Gospel. Pyle's direct and immediate regeneration is neither Biblical nor Baptistic.
Sonny said:
"I don't intend to change. I'm a Hardshell Baptist without compromise and without apology." (He says at least three times in part one "I'm a Hardshell Baptist")
When I first began to write against those who call themselves "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, I stated why I cannot call them such, and why I call them "Hardshells." Some PBs wrote to me and said that my labeling "Primitives" as "Hardshells" was a kind of slander. I have since pointed out on numerous occasions how many "Primitive Baptists" accept with pleasure the label. Certainly Sonny claims it here.
Further, when Sonny says he does not intend to change, he reflects that stubbornness that is part of the definition of what it means to be "Hardshell."
In all the debates I have been engaged in, publicly or privately, I have always expressed a willingness to change my mind on Bible doctrine when I have been shown my error. Does Sonny think that he "got it right" on every point of doctrine the first time he took a position? No, Sonny has never changed because he always got it right the first time. Yea, right.
I intend to examine some things Sonny said in this sermon, in this and the next postings.
Elder Pyles said:
"There are lots of new things preached today that are not Primitive Baptist doctrine."
Boy, that is the truth! What about their claim to being old and original Baptist then? Further, it is worse than Sonny realizes. In fact, his own belief about regeneration and conversion are new doctrines, not believed by the Old Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells. Interesting is the fact that the founding fathers of the new "Primitive Baptist" denomination generally believed in regeneration by means of the Gospel. Pyle's direct and immediate regeneration is neither Biblical nor Baptistic.
Sonny said:
"I don't intend to change. I'm a Hardshell Baptist without compromise and without apology." (He says at least three times in part one "I'm a Hardshell Baptist")
When I first began to write against those who call themselves "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, I stated why I cannot call them such, and why I call them "Hardshells." Some PBs wrote to me and said that my labeling "Primitives" as "Hardshells" was a kind of slander. I have since pointed out on numerous occasions how many "Primitive Baptists" accept with pleasure the label. Certainly Sonny claims it here.
Further, when Sonny says he does not intend to change, he reflects that stubbornness that is part of the definition of what it means to be "Hardshell."
In all the debates I have been engaged in, publicly or privately, I have always expressed a willingness to change my mind on Bible doctrine when I have been shown my error. Does Sonny think that he "got it right" on every point of doctrine the first time he took a position? No, Sonny has never changed because he always got it right the first time. Yea, right.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Hardshell Antinomianism I
Chapter 175
Introduction
Those who call themselves "Primitive Baptist" (aka "Hardshells") have historically been accused of being "Antinomian." When attempting a denial of the accusation, Hardshells have entirely missed the point and have not cleared themselves, by their apologies, for being "Antinomian."
Integral to the system of antinomianism is a denial of duty and responsibility.
Are all men responsible to obey the moral laws of God?
Are all men responsible to acknowledge their sins and just condemnation?
Are all men responsible to repent of their sins and return to God?
Are all men responsible to believe the Gospel or on Christ?
Are all men responsible for their rejection of the Gospel?
Are all men responsible to pray to God?
Are all men responsible to praise and worship God?
Are all men responsible for whether they are finally saved or lost?
Are all men called to salvation?
Is it a sin to be impenitent? Is it a sin to reject Christ and his word and salvation?
Hardshells do not believe that it is sin for lost souls to refuse faith and repentance. The reason for this heterodox view is their denial of duty faith and repentance.
Hardshells are not Antinomian because they deny that all men are responsible to obey the moral laws of God, but are Antinomian because they deny that all men are responsible to believe God and his word, and deny that all men are duty bound to believe the Gospel and repent of their sins.
Article 26 of the confession of the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists Churches states:
"We deny duty faith and duty repentance - these terms suggesting that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God."
Hardshells agree with this, though some of the first Hardshells did not, at least to the degree of today's Hardshells.
Hardshells are inconsistent in regard to their Pelagianism, or in regard to the idea that commands imply ability.
If we accept the Pelagian criteria, then we would have to say that all men are able to obey the law, for they certainly are all under duty to obey the law. Most Hardshells would correctly affirm that, in the context of obeying God's moral law, men are commanded to obey even though they cannot, and thus would deny the Pelagian idea that a "command implies ability to obey the command." But, in the context of evangelical commands, the command to seek God, pray, believe, confess, repent, etc., the Hardshell will say "such commands imply ability to obey." For evidence of this, see Hardshell Pelagianism I of chapter 138 of my ongoing book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."
For example, Gilbert Beebe wrote:
"To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so."
But, why does Beebe not argue that to call upon dead sinners to obey the moral law implies ability in them to do so? He is grossly inconsistent. He admits that a moral command does not imply ability to do the thing commanded, but he will not admit that an evangelical command likewise does not imply ability to do the thing commanded.
But, as stated, then the Hardshell cannot call it sin when a person refuses to repent or to believe. This dilemma they are not willing to come to terms with, and so ignore it, and go on stubbornly being contradictory.
In this series of articles I will expound upon how the Hardshells are indeed Antinomians, particularly because they deny duty faith and repentance.
Introduction
Those who call themselves "Primitive Baptist" (aka "Hardshells") have historically been accused of being "Antinomian." When attempting a denial of the accusation, Hardshells have entirely missed the point and have not cleared themselves, by their apologies, for being "Antinomian."
Integral to the system of antinomianism is a denial of duty and responsibility.
Are all men responsible to obey the moral laws of God?
Are all men responsible to acknowledge their sins and just condemnation?
Are all men responsible to repent of their sins and return to God?
Are all men responsible to believe the Gospel or on Christ?
Are all men responsible for their rejection of the Gospel?
Are all men responsible to pray to God?
Are all men responsible to praise and worship God?
Are all men responsible for whether they are finally saved or lost?
Are all men called to salvation?
Is it a sin to be impenitent? Is it a sin to reject Christ and his word and salvation?
Hardshells do not believe that it is sin for lost souls to refuse faith and repentance. The reason for this heterodox view is their denial of duty faith and repentance.
Hardshells are not Antinomian because they deny that all men are responsible to obey the moral laws of God, but are Antinomian because they deny that all men are responsible to believe God and his word, and deny that all men are duty bound to believe the Gospel and repent of their sins.
Article 26 of the confession of the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists Churches states:
"We deny duty faith and duty repentance - these terms suggesting that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God."
Hardshells agree with this, though some of the first Hardshells did not, at least to the degree of today's Hardshells.
Hardshells are inconsistent in regard to their Pelagianism, or in regard to the idea that commands imply ability.
If we accept the Pelagian criteria, then we would have to say that all men are able to obey the law, for they certainly are all under duty to obey the law. Most Hardshells would correctly affirm that, in the context of obeying God's moral law, men are commanded to obey even though they cannot, and thus would deny the Pelagian idea that a "command implies ability to obey the command." But, in the context of evangelical commands, the command to seek God, pray, believe, confess, repent, etc., the Hardshell will say "such commands imply ability to obey." For evidence of this, see Hardshell Pelagianism I of chapter 138 of my ongoing book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."
For example, Gilbert Beebe wrote:
"To call on dead sinners to repent and believe the gospel implies ability in them to do so."
But, why does Beebe not argue that to call upon dead sinners to obey the moral law implies ability in them to do so? He is grossly inconsistent. He admits that a moral command does not imply ability to do the thing commanded, but he will not admit that an evangelical command likewise does not imply ability to do the thing commanded.
But, as stated, then the Hardshell cannot call it sin when a person refuses to repent or to believe. This dilemma they are not willing to come to terms with, and so ignore it, and go on stubbornly being contradictory.
In this series of articles I will expound upon how the Hardshells are indeed Antinomians, particularly because they deny duty faith and repentance.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Oliphant vs. Pence
In an article titled "More on The Wisdom of the "Heathen", J. H. Oliphant, Hardshell preacher and apologist, and moderator of the infamous "Fulton Convention" or "Fulton Confession," and published in "The Primitive Monitor" for November, 1907, wrote in defence of the new hybrid view of the late 19th century Hardshells that affirmed that many of the pious heathen were already "born again," and that the Gospel or word of God was therefore not necessary for being eternally saved. The time of this article (1907) is important, as well as is the person to whom Oliphant is responding (Elder W. T. Pence). (see here)
Oliphant begins (emphasis mine):
"I received a clipping from a recent number of Elder Pence's paper, in which he criticizes an article from me in a recent number of the Primitive Baptist. I will write concerning the matter again...Many have held, as Elder Pence, seems to hold, that there can be no salvation where there is no bible. I think the Missionaries usually make this plea."
The idea that there are heathen who have been born again, saved, and justified, although they have no faith in the Hebrew God or in Christ and his atonement, is a novel view, one that was not believed by Baptists until the "rise of the Hardshells" in the 19th century. For instance, the London Confession is clear on this point, denying that any are saved who die without Gospel knowledge and faith. Dr. Gill also, in his Body of Divinity, affirms the same. Further, it was not even the view of the first generation of Hardshells, being a novelty of second and third generation Hardshells.
Besides being novel, it is also entirely heterodox, against the plain teachings of the Scriptures, as Elder Pence was asserting.
When Olipant denies that there can be any salvation apart from the Bible, he is really asserting that salvation exists where there is no knowledge of the Bible's revelation concerning God and Christ. This idea is so clearly against the Scriptures that one wonders how and why this novel idea gained a following. Does Oliphant have any Scriptures that affirm the salvation of heathen who die without faith in the God of the Bible and of his way of salvation through Christ? No, he does not, as we shall see.
Today's Hardshells have also been challenged to give the Scriptural proof for their novel idea, and to explain how they interpret the numerous verses that teach the absolute necessity of Christian enlightened (experience revelation) for faith and salvation. All Oliphant and the Hardshells can do is to offer inferences and logical deductions in proof of their hybrid teaching. They can give no clear cut, straight forward, passages which assert their proposition, so they rely on their own human reasonings, as I have often pointed out before. (For instance, see here)
Oliphant continued:
"Paul said, "In him we live and move and have our being," and then showed that their own poets had said as much, "For we are also his offspring." Paul quoted from the heathen words of instruction for Christianity. Paul spoke of their inscription "To the unknown God, whom therefore ye ignorantly worship." He recognized a spirit of devotion among them, something commendable, and quoted from their author words of wisdom. There are some texts that indicate that heathen nations are interested in salvation. "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest." And all the nations of the earth shall be blest in him." "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blest." Here is a blessing for "all the nations" and "all the families of the earth." But how can this be if "seven tenths of the nation are swept away without one ray of light among them?" "For thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people under heaven." How could this be if the work on grace is wholly excluded from seven-tenths of the nations of the earth? or if it be restricted to those who have bible advantages?"
John saw a great multitude that no man can number "of all kindreds and people and tongues who stood before the throne and before the lamb clothed in white robes," etc."
Such statements as this better agree with the idea that God's method of salvation is not limited to human efforts, especially when we remembered that only about one fourth of the race has ever been favored with Bible advantages."
Notice how none of the passages cited and alluded to assert prima facie the proposition of Oliphant. None of those verses affirm that anyone who dies without faith is saved. Oliphant thinks that making faith necessary for salvation is inconsistent with wholesale heathen damnation. He is relying on his own presuppositions and logical deductions rather than upon the plain express statements of Scripture. Ironically, though he relies upon logical deduction to sustain his doctrine, his logic is seriously flawed. His analysis is a good example of eisegesis rather than exegesis. He brings propositions and premises into the discussion without first proving their source in Scripture.
Notice how Oliphant says "but how can this be?" and how such and such a fact "better agrees with" another supposed fact. Is he not "leaning upon his own understanding," a thing forbidden in Scripture? (Prov. 3: 5) No fundamental doctrine of Scripture is to be based upon mere inferences and deductions, but upon the clearest and plainest statements of Scripture. Oliphant not only shows his hermeneutical flaws in this way, but he also shows it by the fact that he allows his presuppositions to control his handling of the word of God. In other words, if a passage of Scripture seems to teach contrary to the Hardshell premise that says "God uses no human means in the eternal salvation of sinners," then that verse will then be twisted in such a way as to harmonize with their premise.
Oliphant offers this syllogistic logic to prove the salvation of heathen idolaters.
1. The pagans had a "spirit of devotion," or were devout and religious.
2. A "spirit of devotion" is evidence of regeneration.
3. The pagans were regenerated.
Of course, what is wrong with this logic is the fact that premise #2 is false. Jesus certainly did not believe that such was an evidence of salvation, but of damnation. Likewise, the apostles did not view heathen religious devotion as proof of regeneration. By this logic the Hardshells would have all, except atheists, to be regenerated and heirs of eternal life. Is this not quasi universalism?
Actually, though the Bible teaches the elect "few," and the reprobate "many," the Hardshells reverse this and say that the "few" are the reprobate and the "many" are the elect.
Oliphant also offers this syllogism:
1. The pagans believed that humans were created by divinity or divinities.
2. Believing this is proof of regeneration.
3. The pagans who believed this are regenerated.
Again, where is Oliphant's Scriptural support for premise (presupposition) #2? Just because Paul cites a heathen writer to show agreement on a theological point does not equate with his affirming the salvation of the one being cited. That idea is ludicrous.
The idea that the Athenian polytheists were already born again before they heard the Gospel is a view that late 19th century Hardshells adopted to uphold their idea of "regenerated heathen." Oliphant argues that since the heathen were religious, believed in divine beings, and in some things in common with Hebrews and Christians, therefore they must be born again. But, no where in Scripture are such things put forth as evidence of salvation.
In my book I cited from Hardshell apologist Sarrels who, like Oliphant, attempted to find evidences of regeneration in the heathen. He thought that any good person was regenerated since "goodness" is a fruit of the Spirit. (Gal. 5: 22) The person will not have any faith, for "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10: 17), but according to Oliphant, Cayce, Sarrels, Waters, Dalton, Daily, and other late 19th century Hardshell leaders, faith is not essential to salvation. In fact, Elder Waters uttered the new Hardshell banner in 1890 with these words - "Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith." Though this is what is now believed by today's Hardshells, it is not the teaching of the Old Baptists nor of the Scriptures, but is an invention of men, that which helps identify them as a cult.
Because Paul cites some things from the heathen writers, therefore he must have viewed them as regenerated and saved? That is very poor reasoning. Paul and the Biblical writers also cite from Satan and demons. According to the reasoning of Oliphant, that must mean that they are regenerated children of God!
Oliphant continued:
"There was no Bible, not even the ten commandments or the golden rule, for the first fifteen hundred years of the world, and yet we read of men and women that knew God, the true God, and the right worship. Josephus tells us that Abraham argued from the vastness of creation and the beauty and order of it that there is but one God. Tillotson argued, I think rightly, that we learn of the being of God from the works of his hands, and "There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard." Jacob and all the Patriarchs had lived and died before the first line of the Bible was written. Enoch had walked with God; Noah had built the ark, and Abel had made acceptable sacrifice to God without the aid of the Bible. All these are referred to in the New Testament as the true servants of God. Though Abraham was surrounded with error in the midst of the Chaldees yet he knew the true God and obeyed him and became the father of the faithful in all ages, and all this without a Bible or a preacher. Job lived before Abraham in the land of Uz, supposed to be Arabia. He knew the true God and the true worship with none of the advantages Elder Pence seems to think indispensable to the knowledge and worship of God."
First of all, we notice again how Oliphant, in typical Hardshell fashion, tries to slip in a proposition that he assumes to be true, with the supposition that it will be accepted without questioning. But, those "skilled in the word of righteousness" will not be so accepting. Oliphant's false premise says that there "was no Bible," no word of God, "for the first fifteen hundred years of the world." That is a gross falsehood. The word of God, yea, even the Gospel, was in existence during those fifteen hundred years.
Oliphant affirms that the ancient believers, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the Patriarchs, "knew God, the true God, and the right worship" and yet had no word of God! Is that not preposterous?
It is true that the first part of the Bible was formally written by Moses, but to assume that what Moses wrote was entirely new revelation is an error. Oliphant admits that what Moses believed is what Abraham believed. Further, what Abraham believed was what the first family believed, what the first prophets taught. Luke says that "His holy prophets...have been since the world began." (Luke 1: 70) Did the ancient antediluvian believers not have any word of God? Did they not have the promise of the Redeemer who would be wounded by the serpent's seed and would crush the head of the serpent? Does not ancient Mazzaroth show that the ancients had great knowledge of the true nature of God and of the coming Messiah?
Does Oliphant not know that oral revelation was in existence before Moses wrote the Pentateuch? That the word of God existed in the minds of men and communicated orally? Does Oliphant not know that there was revelation before it was written down? Does he not know that when it is said that Abel had "faith," that this presupposes knowledge of the truth believed?
We are told by Jude that Enoch, "the seventh from Adam," prophesied of the coming of the Lord. Did he not get this knowledge by the word of God? The truth is, the ancients had the gist of the Bible existent in their hearts and understandings.
Oliphant thinks that the fact that a vast host is finally redeemed is logically inconsistent with the idea that only those who hear the word of God are saved. But, again, why base one's doctrine on such imagined reasonings rather than upon what is clearly stated in Scripture? Those of us who believe that God saves through the means of the word and revelation of God have no problem seeing men of all nations in heaven.
Oliphant continued:
"After Moses' time centuries passed with but a small part of the Bible written as we now have it. Christ was known in it only in types and shadows. Forty centuries went by, and all that train of nations had been swept away before a line of the New Testament was written. Yet we see a succession of the true worshippers from Abel to the coming of Christ. "All thy children shall be taught of God," and God found a way to teach and make himself and his will known to the children of men in the various nations of earth throughout all those centuries."
So, what is Oliphant saying? He is not denying that the ancient believers, before the written Bible, had been taught divine truth, but he denies that this divine teaching was by means of indirect communication. His argument, if valid, rather than proving that men were saved apart from faith in divine revelation, would prove merely that they were saved by God directly speaking the word to ancient believers and not by prophets or communicators of the word. It seems to me that such a view ignores the plain facts of history as revealed in Scripture, which affirm that sufficient revelation has existed from the beginning to bring men to know God and his way of salvation through a mediator.
Oliphant actually contradicts himself. In one breath, he wants to say that there was no Bible, or no revelation of religious or theological truth, prior to Moses, and yet in another breath asserts that people prior to Moses knew religious truth. If his point is to prove that men are saved who knew not God, he has miserably failed.
Oliphant wants us to believe that the manner in which God teaches all his children is by direct revelation, making all God's people into mystics, into prophets and apostles.
Also, consider that all the examples Oliphant offers of people who were supposedly "heathen," and who were nevertheless in favor with God, and born of his Spirit, were in fact, by his own admission, not "heathen" by definition, for they believed in the one true God and were "true worshippers."
Oliphant says that "God found a way to teach and make himself known" in those times before we had a formal written revelation. But, does he believe that those who have experienced this revelation are still by definition heathen, pagans, and polytheists? According to Oliphant, God can make himself known in regeneration and enlightenment in some "way" and manner, but this "way" cannot possibly be by means of prophets and communicaters of the word.
Oliphant wrote:
"How much of the Bible is indispensable to salvation? Twenty-five hundred years went by before one line of it was written, and near three thousand years were gone before one half the Old Testament was written, and four thousand years were gone before one line of the New Testament was written. These are all important facts as I see the subject. God's mercy was applied to multitudes before a line of the Bible was written. The redeemed shall come from every kindred tongue, and nation under heaven--a multitude that no man can number of all the families of the earth."
Oliphant gives the same rhetorical response as other Hardshells when he queries - "how much of the Bible is indispensable to salvation"? His purpose in asking this question is so that he can whittle down the amount of truth necessary to be believed in order to be classified as regenerate. He wants to whittle it down so as to exclude knowing the one true God, and so as to include polytheists.
Oliphant then says:
"Abraham knew of Christ and all the ancient worthies saw Christ by faith."
But, according to Paul, one must first hear the word about Christ in order to believe in him. (Rom. 10: 14-17) Also, this shows that there was revelation about Christ before Moses penned the first Scriptures.
Oliphant wrote:
"When the gentiles, which have no law, do by nature the things contained in the law, it shows the work of the law written in their hearts.” Paul believed there were Gentiles that had the work of the law written in their hearts, which is the new covenant of grace. Rom. ii. 8, 9 teach the same."
Romans 2: 8-9 does not teach that the heathen, while in heathendom, are regenerated. This is a novel interpretation of this passage. This passage was seized upon because it was judged as being one passage that at least comes close to asserting the regeneration of heathen and polytheists. I have previously destroyed this interpretation (see here) Notice that the passage does not say "which show the work of GRACE (or salvation) written in their hearts," but the "work of the LAW." Paul is not affirming that the heathen have a regenerated nature, but a moral nature, a conscience.
Oliphant wrote:
"When Peter went to the house of Cornelius he said, “I perceive of a truth that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” Peter learned that God’s mercy was operative in “every nation.” “He that feareth him and worketh righteousness;” such people are in every nation and “are accepted with him.”
Cornelius was not saved apart from hearing and believing the Gospel. He heard and he believed. To argue that he was saved before he became a believer is to affirm that men can be regenerate while unbelievers. But, the Scriptures know nothing of regenerated unbelievers.
Further, since "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6), how can Oliphant affirm that heathen people were pleasing God (working righteousness) apart from faith? Further, how can one "fear" him whom he knows nothing about?
Oliphant wrote:
"If all the good and pure is in Christendom it is little enough. But I am persuaded that a little of the good is in other nations. There are some who fear God and work righteousness, and they are accepted with him. There are some who “call upon the name of the Lord,” and there is a promise to them, Acts x. 1-4, also Acts ii. 21-3; Joel ii. 2. These have ever been my views. They are scriptural, as I understand the Bible."
So, like Sarrels, Oliphant argues that since heathen people do good things, therefore they must be born again! Oh wonderful logic!
Also, Oliphant again identifies the heathen, the ones who have not heard the Gospel or read a Bible, as people who "fear God and work righteousness," and who are "accepted with him." They even "call upon the Lord" though they do not know the Lord and continue to believe in false gods! Anyone who is not blinded by Hyper Calvinism and cult thinking can see how perverted is such reasoning and handling of the word of God.
Oliphant begins (emphasis mine):
"I received a clipping from a recent number of Elder Pence's paper, in which he criticizes an article from me in a recent number of the Primitive Baptist. I will write concerning the matter again...Many have held, as Elder Pence, seems to hold, that there can be no salvation where there is no bible. I think the Missionaries usually make this plea."
The idea that there are heathen who have been born again, saved, and justified, although they have no faith in the Hebrew God or in Christ and his atonement, is a novel view, one that was not believed by Baptists until the "rise of the Hardshells" in the 19th century. For instance, the London Confession is clear on this point, denying that any are saved who die without Gospel knowledge and faith. Dr. Gill also, in his Body of Divinity, affirms the same. Further, it was not even the view of the first generation of Hardshells, being a novelty of second and third generation Hardshells.
Besides being novel, it is also entirely heterodox, against the plain teachings of the Scriptures, as Elder Pence was asserting.
When Olipant denies that there can be any salvation apart from the Bible, he is really asserting that salvation exists where there is no knowledge of the Bible's revelation concerning God and Christ. This idea is so clearly against the Scriptures that one wonders how and why this novel idea gained a following. Does Oliphant have any Scriptures that affirm the salvation of heathen who die without faith in the God of the Bible and of his way of salvation through Christ? No, he does not, as we shall see.
Today's Hardshells have also been challenged to give the Scriptural proof for their novel idea, and to explain how they interpret the numerous verses that teach the absolute necessity of Christian enlightened (experience revelation) for faith and salvation. All Oliphant and the Hardshells can do is to offer inferences and logical deductions in proof of their hybrid teaching. They can give no clear cut, straight forward, passages which assert their proposition, so they rely on their own human reasonings, as I have often pointed out before. (For instance, see here)
Oliphant continued:
"Paul said, "In him we live and move and have our being," and then showed that their own poets had said as much, "For we are also his offspring." Paul quoted from the heathen words of instruction for Christianity. Paul spoke of their inscription "To the unknown God, whom therefore ye ignorantly worship." He recognized a spirit of devotion among them, something commendable, and quoted from their author words of wisdom. There are some texts that indicate that heathen nations are interested in salvation. "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest." And all the nations of the earth shall be blest in him." "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blest." Here is a blessing for "all the nations" and "all the families of the earth." But how can this be if "seven tenths of the nation are swept away without one ray of light among them?" "For thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue and people under heaven." How could this be if the work on grace is wholly excluded from seven-tenths of the nations of the earth? or if it be restricted to those who have bible advantages?"
John saw a great multitude that no man can number "of all kindreds and people and tongues who stood before the throne and before the lamb clothed in white robes," etc."
Such statements as this better agree with the idea that God's method of salvation is not limited to human efforts, especially when we remembered that only about one fourth of the race has ever been favored with Bible advantages."
Notice how none of the passages cited and alluded to assert prima facie the proposition of Oliphant. None of those verses affirm that anyone who dies without faith is saved. Oliphant thinks that making faith necessary for salvation is inconsistent with wholesale heathen damnation. He is relying on his own presuppositions and logical deductions rather than upon the plain express statements of Scripture. Ironically, though he relies upon logical deduction to sustain his doctrine, his logic is seriously flawed. His analysis is a good example of eisegesis rather than exegesis. He brings propositions and premises into the discussion without first proving their source in Scripture.
Notice how Oliphant says "but how can this be?" and how such and such a fact "better agrees with" another supposed fact. Is he not "leaning upon his own understanding," a thing forbidden in Scripture? (Prov. 3: 5) No fundamental doctrine of Scripture is to be based upon mere inferences and deductions, but upon the clearest and plainest statements of Scripture. Oliphant not only shows his hermeneutical flaws in this way, but he also shows it by the fact that he allows his presuppositions to control his handling of the word of God. In other words, if a passage of Scripture seems to teach contrary to the Hardshell premise that says "God uses no human means in the eternal salvation of sinners," then that verse will then be twisted in such a way as to harmonize with their premise.
Oliphant offers this syllogistic logic to prove the salvation of heathen idolaters.
1. The pagans had a "spirit of devotion," or were devout and religious.
2. A "spirit of devotion" is evidence of regeneration.
3. The pagans were regenerated.
Of course, what is wrong with this logic is the fact that premise #2 is false. Jesus certainly did not believe that such was an evidence of salvation, but of damnation. Likewise, the apostles did not view heathen religious devotion as proof of regeneration. By this logic the Hardshells would have all, except atheists, to be regenerated and heirs of eternal life. Is this not quasi universalism?
Actually, though the Bible teaches the elect "few," and the reprobate "many," the Hardshells reverse this and say that the "few" are the reprobate and the "many" are the elect.
Oliphant also offers this syllogism:
1. The pagans believed that humans were created by divinity or divinities.
2. Believing this is proof of regeneration.
3. The pagans who believed this are regenerated.
Again, where is Oliphant's Scriptural support for premise (presupposition) #2? Just because Paul cites a heathen writer to show agreement on a theological point does not equate with his affirming the salvation of the one being cited. That idea is ludicrous.
The idea that the Athenian polytheists were already born again before they heard the Gospel is a view that late 19th century Hardshells adopted to uphold their idea of "regenerated heathen." Oliphant argues that since the heathen were religious, believed in divine beings, and in some things in common with Hebrews and Christians, therefore they must be born again. But, no where in Scripture are such things put forth as evidence of salvation.
In my book I cited from Hardshell apologist Sarrels who, like Oliphant, attempted to find evidences of regeneration in the heathen. He thought that any good person was regenerated since "goodness" is a fruit of the Spirit. (Gal. 5: 22) The person will not have any faith, for "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10: 17), but according to Oliphant, Cayce, Sarrels, Waters, Dalton, Daily, and other late 19th century Hardshell leaders, faith is not essential to salvation. In fact, Elder Waters uttered the new Hardshell banner in 1890 with these words - "Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith." Though this is what is now believed by today's Hardshells, it is not the teaching of the Old Baptists nor of the Scriptures, but is an invention of men, that which helps identify them as a cult.
Because Paul cites some things from the heathen writers, therefore he must have viewed them as regenerated and saved? That is very poor reasoning. Paul and the Biblical writers also cite from Satan and demons. According to the reasoning of Oliphant, that must mean that they are regenerated children of God!
Oliphant continued:
"There was no Bible, not even the ten commandments or the golden rule, for the first fifteen hundred years of the world, and yet we read of men and women that knew God, the true God, and the right worship. Josephus tells us that Abraham argued from the vastness of creation and the beauty and order of it that there is but one God. Tillotson argued, I think rightly, that we learn of the being of God from the works of his hands, and "There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard." Jacob and all the Patriarchs had lived and died before the first line of the Bible was written. Enoch had walked with God; Noah had built the ark, and Abel had made acceptable sacrifice to God without the aid of the Bible. All these are referred to in the New Testament as the true servants of God. Though Abraham was surrounded with error in the midst of the Chaldees yet he knew the true God and obeyed him and became the father of the faithful in all ages, and all this without a Bible or a preacher. Job lived before Abraham in the land of Uz, supposed to be Arabia. He knew the true God and the true worship with none of the advantages Elder Pence seems to think indispensable to the knowledge and worship of God."
First of all, we notice again how Oliphant, in typical Hardshell fashion, tries to slip in a proposition that he assumes to be true, with the supposition that it will be accepted without questioning. But, those "skilled in the word of righteousness" will not be so accepting. Oliphant's false premise says that there "was no Bible," no word of God, "for the first fifteen hundred years of the world." That is a gross falsehood. The word of God, yea, even the Gospel, was in existence during those fifteen hundred years.
Oliphant affirms that the ancient believers, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the Patriarchs, "knew God, the true God, and the right worship" and yet had no word of God! Is that not preposterous?
It is true that the first part of the Bible was formally written by Moses, but to assume that what Moses wrote was entirely new revelation is an error. Oliphant admits that what Moses believed is what Abraham believed. Further, what Abraham believed was what the first family believed, what the first prophets taught. Luke says that "His holy prophets...have been since the world began." (Luke 1: 70) Did the ancient antediluvian believers not have any word of God? Did they not have the promise of the Redeemer who would be wounded by the serpent's seed and would crush the head of the serpent? Does not ancient Mazzaroth show that the ancients had great knowledge of the true nature of God and of the coming Messiah?
Does Oliphant not know that oral revelation was in existence before Moses wrote the Pentateuch? That the word of God existed in the minds of men and communicated orally? Does Oliphant not know that there was revelation before it was written down? Does he not know that when it is said that Abel had "faith," that this presupposes knowledge of the truth believed?
We are told by Jude that Enoch, "the seventh from Adam," prophesied of the coming of the Lord. Did he not get this knowledge by the word of God? The truth is, the ancients had the gist of the Bible existent in their hearts and understandings.
Oliphant thinks that the fact that a vast host is finally redeemed is logically inconsistent with the idea that only those who hear the word of God are saved. But, again, why base one's doctrine on such imagined reasonings rather than upon what is clearly stated in Scripture? Those of us who believe that God saves through the means of the word and revelation of God have no problem seeing men of all nations in heaven.
Oliphant continued:
"After Moses' time centuries passed with but a small part of the Bible written as we now have it. Christ was known in it only in types and shadows. Forty centuries went by, and all that train of nations had been swept away before a line of the New Testament was written. Yet we see a succession of the true worshippers from Abel to the coming of Christ. "All thy children shall be taught of God," and God found a way to teach and make himself and his will known to the children of men in the various nations of earth throughout all those centuries."
So, what is Oliphant saying? He is not denying that the ancient believers, before the written Bible, had been taught divine truth, but he denies that this divine teaching was by means of indirect communication. His argument, if valid, rather than proving that men were saved apart from faith in divine revelation, would prove merely that they were saved by God directly speaking the word to ancient believers and not by prophets or communicators of the word. It seems to me that such a view ignores the plain facts of history as revealed in Scripture, which affirm that sufficient revelation has existed from the beginning to bring men to know God and his way of salvation through a mediator.
Oliphant actually contradicts himself. In one breath, he wants to say that there was no Bible, or no revelation of religious or theological truth, prior to Moses, and yet in another breath asserts that people prior to Moses knew religious truth. If his point is to prove that men are saved who knew not God, he has miserably failed.
Oliphant wants us to believe that the manner in which God teaches all his children is by direct revelation, making all God's people into mystics, into prophets and apostles.
Also, consider that all the examples Oliphant offers of people who were supposedly "heathen," and who were nevertheless in favor with God, and born of his Spirit, were in fact, by his own admission, not "heathen" by definition, for they believed in the one true God and were "true worshippers."
Oliphant says that "God found a way to teach and make himself known" in those times before we had a formal written revelation. But, does he believe that those who have experienced this revelation are still by definition heathen, pagans, and polytheists? According to Oliphant, God can make himself known in regeneration and enlightenment in some "way" and manner, but this "way" cannot possibly be by means of prophets and communicaters of the word.
Oliphant wrote:
"How much of the Bible is indispensable to salvation? Twenty-five hundred years went by before one line of it was written, and near three thousand years were gone before one half the Old Testament was written, and four thousand years were gone before one line of the New Testament was written. These are all important facts as I see the subject. God's mercy was applied to multitudes before a line of the Bible was written. The redeemed shall come from every kindred tongue, and nation under heaven--a multitude that no man can number of all the families of the earth."
Oliphant gives the same rhetorical response as other Hardshells when he queries - "how much of the Bible is indispensable to salvation"? His purpose in asking this question is so that he can whittle down the amount of truth necessary to be believed in order to be classified as regenerate. He wants to whittle it down so as to exclude knowing the one true God, and so as to include polytheists.
Oliphant then says:
"Abraham knew of Christ and all the ancient worthies saw Christ by faith."
But, according to Paul, one must first hear the word about Christ in order to believe in him. (Rom. 10: 14-17) Also, this shows that there was revelation about Christ before Moses penned the first Scriptures.
Oliphant wrote:
"When the gentiles, which have no law, do by nature the things contained in the law, it shows the work of the law written in their hearts.” Paul believed there were Gentiles that had the work of the law written in their hearts, which is the new covenant of grace. Rom. ii. 8, 9 teach the same."
Romans 2: 8-9 does not teach that the heathen, while in heathendom, are regenerated. This is a novel interpretation of this passage. This passage was seized upon because it was judged as being one passage that at least comes close to asserting the regeneration of heathen and polytheists. I have previously destroyed this interpretation (see here) Notice that the passage does not say "which show the work of GRACE (or salvation) written in their hearts," but the "work of the LAW." Paul is not affirming that the heathen have a regenerated nature, but a moral nature, a conscience.
Oliphant wrote:
"When Peter went to the house of Cornelius he said, “I perceive of a truth that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” Peter learned that God’s mercy was operative in “every nation.” “He that feareth him and worketh righteousness;” such people are in every nation and “are accepted with him.”
Cornelius was not saved apart from hearing and believing the Gospel. He heard and he believed. To argue that he was saved before he became a believer is to affirm that men can be regenerate while unbelievers. But, the Scriptures know nothing of regenerated unbelievers.
Further, since "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6), how can Oliphant affirm that heathen people were pleasing God (working righteousness) apart from faith? Further, how can one "fear" him whom he knows nothing about?
Oliphant wrote:
"If all the good and pure is in Christendom it is little enough. But I am persuaded that a little of the good is in other nations. There are some who fear God and work righteousness, and they are accepted with him. There are some who “call upon the name of the Lord,” and there is a promise to them, Acts x. 1-4, also Acts ii. 21-3; Joel ii. 2. These have ever been my views. They are scriptural, as I understand the Bible."
So, like Sarrels, Oliphant argues that since heathen people do good things, therefore they must be born again! Oh wonderful logic!
Also, Oliphant again identifies the heathen, the ones who have not heard the Gospel or read a Bible, as people who "fear God and work righteousness," and who are "accepted with him." They even "call upon the Lord" though they do not know the Lord and continue to believe in false gods! Anyone who is not blinded by Hyper Calvinism and cult thinking can see how perverted is such reasoning and handling of the word of God.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Howell on being "Old School"
1801-1868
"I have not changed my ground in any particular. My position was taken, deliberately, sixteen years ago, after protracted investigation, and earnest prayer to God for direction. It cannot be expected, therefore, that I shall be blown about, as some others, by every wind of doctrine. I have been, from the beginning, still am, and ever expect to remain, a Baptist of the "Old School." I do not mean, by this, that I believe in the mummeries gotten up within the last twenty years, mainly by the agency of the noted Parker of "two seed" memory, and dubbed, for effect, with this name, now so ripe in Tennessee. No--far from it. The Parkerism, Campbellism, Mormonism, anti-effortism, antinomianism, and every other similar fantasy, which has originated, or been maintained, by wrong-headed enthusiasts, in Tennesseee, or elsewhere, whether through ignorance, from motives of interest or ambition, or because their imagination has gotten the better of their judgment, and their religion, I totally repudiate. I cannot consent to follow any of these fables, however cunningly devised." (see here)
Elder Sylvester Hassell, writing in the late 19th century, thought that it was a novelty that some Calvinistic Missionary Baptists, at that time, were claiming to be the real "primitive," "old school," or "original" Baptists. However, as I have before pointed out, in responding to Hassell's claim, sovereign grace Mission Baptists, who held to the 1689 London Confession, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, disclaimed that the Hardshells were indeed the true descendants of the Particular Baptists of former centuries. For instance, J. M. Peck, early on, refuted the claims of the Hardshells to being "primitive." Howell is another example of how the Hardshell claim was denied and overthrown. Howell's views on regeneration and the doctrines of grace, and concerning God's use of means, represent the true "old school" doctrine of Baptists. Howell rightly claims that the views of Parker and the Hardshells represented real novelty.
Wrote historian John T. Christian:
"The name by which they designated themselves was Primitive, or Old School, Baptists; and they claimed that all Baptists were originally of their contention, which certainly was not the fact."
J.M. Peck, a leading opponent of Parker and Hardshellism, wrote:
"They arrogate to themselves the name of Old School Baptists..." (see here)
In "BAPTIST SUCCESSION" a "HAND-BOOK OF BAPTIST HISTORY," D. B. Ray titled chapter II "THE "MISSIONARY" AND "OLD-SCHOOL" BAPTISTS." (see here) Ray wrote:
"But of late some of less information, or candor, contend that the "Missionary Baptists" broke off from the "Old School" or "Hard-Shell" Baptists, about thirty or forty years ago. And the Anti-Mission brethren even call the missionaries the "New School Baptists." And some even tell us that they can remember very well when the "Missionaries" started! Now, all that is necessary in order to settle this question of the priority of the Missionary or Anti-Missionary parties among Baptists, is to appeal to historic facts and documents."
Hardshells claim that they are the "old" Baptists and that the Mission and Means Baptists are the "new" Baptists. This is a falsehood and often made by those "of less information," or of less "candor." The question of who is "new on the block," or who has "priority" in age, is easily settled by looking at the "historic facts," a thing which I have been trying to get today's Hardshells to do for many years now. In fact, though I have called upon the Hardshells to prove their "succession," to prove that Baptists prior to the 19th century believed basic Hardshell doctrine, none have come forward with the historic evidence.
Ray also wrote:
"The Regular Baptists and the Anti-Mission Baptists were once together as one people; and, therefore, their history up to the separation was the same. The opposition of our Anti-Mission brethren to the mission work, and kindred objects, is a new feature among Baptists."
Again, this is an historical fact, and one which we again call upon our Hardshell brethren to disprove.
Ray also wrote:
"This declaration of Dr. Howell is fully sustained by historic facts. The opposition among Baptists to the mission work, is of recent date. But our Anti-Mission brethren tell us that they are not opposed to Bible missions, but only to the modern missionary system. Actions speak louder than words. If the modern Baptists, who claim to be the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptists, have ever sent out a missionary, either to the home or foreign field, I have not been informed of the fact. What "Hard-Shell" church has ever employed a missionary, upon the Bible or any other plan? They are emphatically Anti-Mission Baptists."
Since it has been easily proven that missionary and educational efforts have been part of Baptist history for centuries, then what is new is the "rise of the Hardshells" and their creating a "new test" for determining orthodoxy and fellowship. Dr. Howell wrote:
The name given by them to the antimissionaries is the most appropriate we have yet seen--New Test men. We propose that the self styled Old School, be hereafter called New Test. What say you brethren? It is not reproachful, and conveys the exact description of those brethren and Churches, who have done so much evil by introducing a new test of fellowship that is, making friendship to the Convention a crime for which they will exclude a member, and enmity the ground of his reception." (Page 38 - "The Baptist" - Vol. V. Jan. 1839 No. 1)
Ray also wrote:
"But were the ancient Baptists, up to the time of the separation, Missionary or Anti-Missionary? In his Letters to Dr. Watson, Dr. Howell says:
"But it is particularly to the fact, that the Philadelphia Association from our earliest account of it, was a missionary body, that I wish to call your attention. To place this beyond dispute, I shall quote a few items from the official records of that body."
Again, these are facts. We have presented the same historical evidence in our chapters dealing with the history of Baptist mission work, sabbath schooling, and theological education, showing that the old Baptists have always been involved in these things.
Ray also wrote:
"Thus, in examining the history of the old Baptists of America, more than one hundred years before the Hard-Shell separation, we find that these old Baptists were missionary Baptists."
Well, what say ye to all this, my brother Hardshells?
Ray also wrote:
"Again: Dr. Howell, in his Letters to Dr. Watson, has furnished us with the following valuable account of the missionary work of the old Baptists, not "Hard-Shells" of the old Charleston Association:
"The Charleston Association, honored for its antiquity, formed the 21st day of October, 1751. In 1755, four years after its constitution, and eighty-two years ago, there is this record — [Furman's History of the Charleston Association, Charleston edition of 1811, pp. 10, 11, etc.]: 'The Association, taking into consideration the destitute condition of many places in the interior settlements of this and the neighboring States (then provinces), recommended to the churches to make contributions for the support of a missionary to itinerate in those parts."
So, the old London brethren in the 1600s supported the above things, and so did the earliest churches and associations in America. So, how can the Hardshells say that such things were newly begun in the early 19the century?
Ray also wrote:
"From the foregoing reliable documents, and others which might be introduced, it is fully settled that the American Baptists, from the very first down to the Hard-Shell separation, were missionaries. And, instead of the Anti-Mission brethren being entitled to the appellation, "Old Baptists," by way of distinction, they are "a new fangled set of Baptists, never heard of until within the present century." but it is altogether a misrepresentation, to call the Anti-Mission brethren Old Baptists. It not only does injustice to the Regular Baptists of America, but it also tends to confirm the Anti-Mission brethren in their opposition to the spread of the Gospel, through missionary labor."
Again, let the Hardshell who can deny these things come forward and be heard.
"Mr. Benedict says: "Old School and Primitive Baptists are appellations so entirely out of place, that I can not, even as a matter of courtesy, use them without adding, so-called, or some such expression."
We feel the same way here at the Old Baptist blog. We consider ourselves the real Old Baptists and today's Hardshells to be imposters who arrogate to themselves the appellation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)