Hardshells should go to school on the Bible teaching of effectual calling. T. P. Simmons wrote the following in his systematic theology (emphasis mine).
"The Outward and Inward Calls has to do with the purposing and planning of salvation. The atonement has to do with the provision of it. We come now to study the application and communication of salvation to the elect.
I. THE OUTWARD CALL
The Scripture clearly speaks of two different calls. The first one in the order of occurrence is known generally as the outward or external call. The following Scriptures refer to this call: Isa. 45:22; 55:6; Matt. 9:13; 11:28; 22:14; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; Rev. 22:17. There are other Scriptures that evidently refer to both calls. These are reserved until we take up the inward call.
1. THE CALL IS THROUGH THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL.
It was by means of the gospel that Jesus called sinners to repentance. Today every presentation of the gospel is a call to men to forsake sin and trust Christ. The preaching of the gospel is also properly attended by a setting forth of man’s need of salvation and of his duty and responsibility under God to repent and believe (Acts 17:30). There should also be the earnest entreaty to men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20) and an invitation to all that labor (Matt. 11:28), and are athirst (Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; Rev. 22:17).
2. THIS CALL IS AN INDIRECT CALL OF THE SPIRIT.
See the discussion of the indirect work of the Spirit in the lost in Chapter IX.
3. THIS CALL, THEREFORE, IS GENERAL.
By this we mean that it is not confined to the elect (Matt. 22:14). We are commanded to preach the gospel to all. This call is intended for all men, though all do not hear it. This is true just as all men are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30), even though all men do not hear this command.
4. THIS CALL, OF ITSELF, IS ALWAYS INEFFECTIVE.
To Israel God said: "When I called, ye did not answer" (Isa. 65:12). The call referred to here was an outward call similar to the call now under discussion. Because of man’s depravity, the preaching of the gospel alone is never sufficient to bring him to Christ. He needs more than an outward call. The gospel "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16); but "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged" (1 Cor. 2:14). Man must be enabled to turn from sin and believe on Christ. Jer. 13:23; John 12:39, 40; 6:44, 65.
Nevertheless it is the immediate duty of all to accept this call. Acts 17:30.
5. THIS CALL IS SINCERE.
Arminians object that the Calvinistic system of doctrine makes a general call insincere. Sincere means "being in reality as in appearance. Intending precisely what one says or what one appears to intend." Having defined the term under discussion, we are now prepared to examine into the exact grounds of this objection. Three Calvinistic teachings are pointed out as rendering a general call insincere. They are:
(1) The teaching that man by nature is unable to turn from sin to Christ.
Arminians say if the case with the natural man were such as Calvinists represent it, and this were fully known to God, then God could not be sincere in inviting men to come to Christ. But there is nothing in the general call that makes it appear that all men are able to respond to it. This is nothing more than an unwarranted inference. And it has its foundation, not in the call itself, but in an erroneous conception of man’s state by nature. Hence this call is not insincere.
"God’s call to all men to repent and to believe the gospel is no more insincere than His command to all men to Love Him with all the heart. There is no obstacle in the way of men’s obedience to the gospel, that does not exist to prevent their obedience to the law. If it is proper to publish the commands of the law, it is proper to publish the invitations of the gospel. A human being may be perfectly sincere in giving an invitation which he knows will be refused. He may desire to have the invitation accepted, while yet he may, for certain reasons of justice and personal dignity, be unwilling to put forth special efforts, aside from the invitation itself, to secure the acceptance of it on the part of those to whom it is offered" (Strong).
Does God’s invitation or call to all men any more appear to indicate that all men can accept it than His command to all men to love Him supremely appears to indicate that all men can do it?
(2) The teaching as to God’s elective purpose to save only a portion of Adam’s race.
Arminians say if God has purposed to save only a portion of Adam’s race, then He cannot sincerely invite all men to come to Christ for salvation. Let it first be remarked as to this phase of the objection that the objector, to have even the semblance of consistency, must deny the foreknowledge of God. For, if God foreknew everything, then He certainly foreknew that all men would not believe the gospel, since we see that all do not. And certainly no evangelical would say that God purposed to save those who reject the gospel. So, if the foreknowledge of God be true, then God purposed to save only a part of Adam’s race, believers. Hence consistency demands that the Arminian surrender either this phase of the objection or else surrender the foreknowledge of God. He cannot be logical and hold both.
(3) The doctrine of a limited atonement.
This was touched on in relation to the sincerity of God’s general call through the gospel in the previous chapter. However we give it further brief notice. If one is going before a large number of people to offer to each one of them a ten-dollar bill, and he has inerrant knowledge before hand that only a hundred out of that number will accept his offer, need he in order to make a sincere offer to all have more than one hundred ten-dollar bills? Surely not. Knowing that he has a sufficient number to supply all that will accept the offer, he can most freely and sincerely say, "Let every one of you that desires a ten-dollar bill come to me and I will give you one." Is it not manifest to all who can think logically that, in a case such as is described above, the failure of all the people except the hundred to receive a ten-dollar bill would be due to their refusal of the offer, and not to lack of provision?
God’s general call is in appearance no more than it is in reality. And He appears to intend no more than He does actually intend. This does not appear as something that all men can respond to nor as something that will enable men to come to Christ or that will necessarily impel them to come. Nor does this call appear to affirm that God has made a futile provision of salvation for those who persist in unbelief. In this call God appears to intend that all men are welcome if they will come; that all who come will be received. He actually intends just this. It is just as much a Bible truth that all who come to Christ will be saved as it is that only the elect will be saved. We can heartily and gladly subscribe to the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith in saying that "nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth except his own inherent depravity and voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ."
In other words, these are the things that send the sinner to Hell.
II. THE INWARD CALL
The following Scriptures refer to the inward call: Acts 2:39; Rom. 1:6; 8.28, 30; 9:11,24; 1 Cor. 1:1,26; 7:15; Gal. 1:15; 5:8; Eph. 4:4; Col. 3:15; 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1.15; 2:9; 3:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3,10; Jude 1. Some of these Scriptures, as has been indicated already, seem to allude to both the inward and outward call.
1. THIS CALL IS A DIRECT CALL THROUGH THE SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit takes the preached gospel and opening the heart of the sinner (Acts 16:14), applies the word to the heart in regenerating power. It is then, and only then, that man is able to understand and receive the things of the Spirit of God. Thus the inward call is also through the gospel, but it is through the gospel as applied by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures touching on this work of the Spirit through the word will be given when we study regeneration.
2. THIS CALL IS PARTICULAR. By means of it the chosen objects of God’s saving grace are singled out. The difference here between the outward and the inward calls may be imperfectly illustrated by the difference between a general invitation extended by a church to the people of a community to attend its services and the personal invitations that are extended to particular individuals by the membership of the church. Of course, as we have said, this only imperfectly illustrates the difference between God’s two calls. Rom. 8:30 shows the particularity of this call.
3. THIS CALL IS ALWAYS EFFECTIVE. It is manifest that the Scriptures given at the beginning of the discussion of this call refer to an effective and efficient call. This call is never resisted; yet, in responding to it, man acts voluntarily and freely. See chapter on "The Free Agency of Man." The effectiveness of this call is shown by Rom. 8:28, 30; 1 Cor. 1:24.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Monday, April 20, 2015
Potter Also Said
Potter also said:
"I think myself, that if a man believes a thing, he has a right to preach it, but I have my serious doubts about any man, even if he is a minister in the Regular Baptist church, having the right to make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held by that church, and fighting it to the grief of those who do believe and preach just what the church has always believed, and what she still believes. I believe, and the Old School Baptist church believes, the doctrine of the following pages, and in order to set forth the Baptist doctrine, and defend it against the assaults of those who do not believe it, and to teach our people what the doctrine of the church is on this subject, this little book is offered to the public." ("Regeneration, Christian Warfare, and State of the Dead", CHAPTER 1 - see here)
I find it bewildering that Potter and neo Hardshells of his ilk would say that no Baptist had "the right to make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held by that church...just what the church has always believed" and yet begin to preach that
1. Men can be saved and regenerated who remain heathen in belief
2. The new testament, when speaking of "believers," may allude to many heathen idolaters
3. Man must have faith in God and Christ before he can have knowledge of God and Christ
4. That the preaching of the Gospel by heaven sent men is no means for producing faith and regeneration
Where is Potter's evidence that the Baptists believed such things prior to the rise of the anti mission Hardshells? The truth is, Potter was as much an "innovator" in doctrine as Alexander Campbell.
Potter may have had mission methods, Sunday Schools, and seminaries in mind when he said what he did, thinking that such things were entirely new, when in fact they were not, but his statement indicts himself for he cannot, nor can his followers today, show that their aberrant and novel views are the historic teaching of his Baptist forefathers.
No wonder then that Potter would give his doubts about the London Confession. Notice these words:
"THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689. In chapter 23, of that confession, we have the following..."
Why was he questioning the confession that his predecessors all endorsed? Further, Potter wrote these words and was dead prior to the Fulton Convention wherein his fellow Hardshells endorsed the Confession as having been the document that their churches were all founded upon.
As stated above, Potter preached the novel view that one must have faith (belief) before he can hear the Gospel or receive knowledge of Christ. Notice these words of his:
"Those who hear the gospel profitably must first have faith. If the gospel must necessarily be preached to them before they have faith, then it follows that they must of necessity hear the gospel unprofitably before they can have faith. If this preaching must be done in order that a man have faith, then we have it that a man must hear the gospel unprofitably in order that he may have faith, after which he will hear the gospel profitably. Now the truth taught in this text is that a man must have faith to enable him to hear the gospel in a profitable manner. This faith is the fruit, of the Spirit of God. Gal. v, 22 : "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.'' If faith is the fruit of the Spirit, and a man must have faith in order to hear the gospel profitably, then a direct or immediate operation of the Spirit upon the heart is necessary; for man believes with the heart, and the Spirit is not likely to bear fruit where it is not. If it produces faith in the sinner's heart it must be in his heart. This must take place before he receives the gospel. If this is not so, tell us what is, and how you know." (Labors and travels of Elder Lemuel Potter, pages 325-326 - see here)
"If the gospel must necessarily be preached to them before they have faith"?
"If this preaching must be done in order that a man have faith"?
Potter's New Doctrine (Neo-Hardshellism)
Faith does not come by hearing the Gospel preached by preachers
Apostle Paul's Doctrine
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
"I think myself, that if a man believes a thing, he has a right to preach it, but I have my serious doubts about any man, even if he is a minister in the Regular Baptist church, having the right to make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held by that church, and fighting it to the grief of those who do believe and preach just what the church has always believed, and what she still believes. I believe, and the Old School Baptist church believes, the doctrine of the following pages, and in order to set forth the Baptist doctrine, and defend it against the assaults of those who do not believe it, and to teach our people what the doctrine of the church is on this subject, this little book is offered to the public." ("Regeneration, Christian Warfare, and State of the Dead", CHAPTER 1 - see here)
I find it bewildering that Potter and neo Hardshells of his ilk would say that no Baptist had "the right to make war on any sentiment of doctrine that has always been held by that church...just what the church has always believed" and yet begin to preach that
1. Men can be saved and regenerated who remain heathen in belief
2. The new testament, when speaking of "believers," may allude to many heathen idolaters
3. Man must have faith in God and Christ before he can have knowledge of God and Christ
4. That the preaching of the Gospel by heaven sent men is no means for producing faith and regeneration
Where is Potter's evidence that the Baptists believed such things prior to the rise of the anti mission Hardshells? The truth is, Potter was as much an "innovator" in doctrine as Alexander Campbell.
Potter may have had mission methods, Sunday Schools, and seminaries in mind when he said what he did, thinking that such things were entirely new, when in fact they were not, but his statement indicts himself for he cannot, nor can his followers today, show that their aberrant and novel views are the historic teaching of his Baptist forefathers.
No wonder then that Potter would give his doubts about the London Confession. Notice these words:
"THE CHURCH ADVOCATE believes that the sinner, the Adam sinner, is the subject of salvation; that it is the man that is the subject of the new birth, and that this man has a soul and a body, and that the soul is born again, in the work of regeneration in time, and that it goes immediately to heaven when the body dies. We believe that in the resurrection, the body will be born again, and go to heaven, and that the soul and body will be reunited in heaven, and thus the sinner will be born again, and saved. This has been the doctrine of our people for the past two hundred years, provided it was our people who first drew up and published the London Confession of Faith, in England, in the year 1689. In chapter 23, of that confession, we have the following..."
Why was he questioning the confession that his predecessors all endorsed? Further, Potter wrote these words and was dead prior to the Fulton Convention wherein his fellow Hardshells endorsed the Confession as having been the document that their churches were all founded upon.
As stated above, Potter preached the novel view that one must have faith (belief) before he can hear the Gospel or receive knowledge of Christ. Notice these words of his:
"Those who hear the gospel profitably must first have faith. If the gospel must necessarily be preached to them before they have faith, then it follows that they must of necessity hear the gospel unprofitably before they can have faith. If this preaching must be done in order that a man have faith, then we have it that a man must hear the gospel unprofitably in order that he may have faith, after which he will hear the gospel profitably. Now the truth taught in this text is that a man must have faith to enable him to hear the gospel in a profitable manner. This faith is the fruit, of the Spirit of God. Gal. v, 22 : "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.'' If faith is the fruit of the Spirit, and a man must have faith in order to hear the gospel profitably, then a direct or immediate operation of the Spirit upon the heart is necessary; for man believes with the heart, and the Spirit is not likely to bear fruit where it is not. If it produces faith in the sinner's heart it must be in his heart. This must take place before he receives the gospel. If this is not so, tell us what is, and how you know." (Labors and travels of Elder Lemuel Potter, pages 325-326 - see here)
"If the gospel must necessarily be preached to them before they have faith"?
"If this preaching must be done in order that a man have faith"?
Potter's New Doctrine (Neo-Hardshellism)
Faith does not come by hearing the Gospel preached by preachers
Apostle Paul's Doctrine
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Potter's Contradiction
Lemuel Potter may have been a man of little physical stature, yet he stood tall among Hardshell debaters and apologists of the second half of the 19th century. In my mind he is to be credited with leading the Hardshells further into error, being one of the founding fathers of the neo Hardshells who Elder Watson called "ultraists" and "modern innovators." In debate Potter said (emphasis mine):
"I do not worship a God that tries to do things and cannot. I do not worship a God that does not know what he is about. I do not serve a God that has any purposes or plans the results of which he does not know. I do not serve a God that, when he does know the results of his plans for which he made them will never be brought about, will trust in them. I do not serve a God who will invent a plan for the salvation of his people that he knows will fail and never save them." (Discussion on Foreign Missions, page 538)
Now notice this from him:
"I will make a statement of our religious principles. That is this, our faith is, that if the church and minister will teach exclusively what the Bible teaches, and practice just precisely what it requires, that all the good results that God intended to accomplish by that means will be brought about." (see here)
Notice how Potter here makes an "if...then" argument relative to one of the purposes of God. If the "minister will teach," then "all the good results that God intended to accomplish by that means will be brought about."
Questions
What if the minister does not teach?
Is it God's purpose to teach and convert to faith in Christ all the elect?
"I do not worship a God that tries to do things and cannot. I do not worship a God that does not know what he is about. I do not serve a God that has any purposes or plans the results of which he does not know. I do not serve a God that, when he does know the results of his plans for which he made them will never be brought about, will trust in them. I do not serve a God who will invent a plan for the salvation of his people that he knows will fail and never save them." (Discussion on Foreign Missions, page 538)
Now notice this from him:
"I will make a statement of our religious principles. That is this, our faith is, that if the church and minister will teach exclusively what the Bible teaches, and practice just precisely what it requires, that all the good results that God intended to accomplish by that means will be brought about." (see here)
Notice how Potter here makes an "if...then" argument relative to one of the purposes of God. If the "minister will teach," then "all the good results that God intended to accomplish by that means will be brought about."
Questions
What if the minister does not teach?
Is it God's purpose to teach and convert to faith in Christ all the elect?
Monday, April 13, 2015
What do you say?
In my writings against the absurdities of Hardshellism I have often shown how the Hardshell understanding of "regeneration" (in relation to being convicted of sin) makes the Holy Spirit into a liar. This argument was made by brother Throgmorton against Hardshell debater John R. Daily, as I shall show. First, however, let me cite from chapter 18 of my book on the Hardshell cult to remind the reader of the argument
Sarrels says again:
"True conviction is exclusively the experience of the quickened or regenerate man. Like conversion to which, under the working of the Holy Spirit, it leads, conviction results from regeneration. He who is convicted of sin sees himself to be a guilty sinner (BUT IS HE REALLY?) in the sight of God, and perceives that his own righteousness is as "filthy rags." He knows and feels that if he is ever saved it can be only by the grace of God. With no righteousness of his own to plead, this broken, penitent wretch--wretch in his own sight, but not in God's sight--is ready to turn to God." (ibid)
Did you notice that? "Not in God's sight." In other words, the convicted soul is not really what the Holy Spirit is convincing him that he is! One senses that Sarrels felt the weight of such a "reductio ad absurdum," for he writes in closing these words.
"...the quickened person in conviction sees himself NOT as he actually is, but as he would be without the grace of God." (ibid)
Can you believe that bunk? A man under conviction is being convicted of only hypothetical sin! He is not being convicted of actual sin! The Holy Spirit is telling the convicted soul a lie when he tells him he is lost and condemned! The Holy Spirit lies when he convinces such an one that he is unclean and in need of pardon and justification! Unbelievable!
Notice this from Dr. Danbury.
"Dr. Danbury on the Daily-Throgmorton Debate" (emphasis mine SG)
"The Daily-Throgmorton debate has come and gone, and I, having had the privilege of hearing every word of the same, thought it might be of some use to those who did not hear it, to say something of my impressions of the same.
As to the men, Mr. Daily is a fine appearing man, and speaks with force, as well as eloquence. He impresses one with the thought that he wants to be known as a scholar and to this end he endeavors to make it appear that what he says is not to be called in question. He is not clear however in his statement of the position he takes, nor does he appear to get the force of his opponent's arguments. He frequently misquotes, as well as misapplies the argument of his opponent. He does not seem to care for the rules of controversy, as he did not, in this discussion, attempt to define his position at any time. His affirmative speeches were delivered principally from manuscript which he read quite well.
Brother Throgmorton on the other hand is clear in statement, quick to comprehend an argument, logical from first to last. He does not deal in sophistry, but from the start goes to the question in debate telling what he means by each term in the proposition that all may know what the point at issue is.
Mr. Daily in this debate gave more time to what was not in the questions being debated than he did to the questions under consideration. It appeared to me that he was not satisfied with the questions as stated. It frequently occurred that he would state what ought to have been the question instead of trying to prove his position.
Yet he had signed both propositions as satisfactory and spent four days trying to make the people believe that he should have been allowed to discuss something else. It frequently seemed he made statements that would involve him in the most absurd positions.
As to the arguments on each side it was in my judgment one of the greatest victories for the position held by Brother Throgmorton that could have been gained. Some of the positions taken by Mr. Daily were that the Gospel was to call out those for whom Christ died, and to make known to them the fact that they were God's children by exciting in them a conviction for sin and making them know that they were vile sinners, while at the same time they were really born of God and the elect of God.
Brother Throgmorton showed that if this was the case that the Holy Spirit made them believe a lie, to which Daily did not reply. I wish that all of our Baptist people could have heard this discussion for themselves as I did." (From the book section titled "FIFTY DEBATES," page 119.
"to which Daily did not reply"! Says it all, does it not?
And what about Sarrel's attempt to solve the difficulty? Laughable, is it not? Very sad too to see such blindness and deception. It is the mindset of cult members.
Sarrels says again:
"True conviction is exclusively the experience of the quickened or regenerate man. Like conversion to which, under the working of the Holy Spirit, it leads, conviction results from regeneration. He who is convicted of sin sees himself to be a guilty sinner (BUT IS HE REALLY?) in the sight of God, and perceives that his own righteousness is as "filthy rags." He knows and feels that if he is ever saved it can be only by the grace of God. With no righteousness of his own to plead, this broken, penitent wretch--wretch in his own sight, but not in God's sight--is ready to turn to God." (ibid)
Did you notice that? "Not in God's sight." In other words, the convicted soul is not really what the Holy Spirit is convincing him that he is! One senses that Sarrels felt the weight of such a "reductio ad absurdum," for he writes in closing these words.
"...the quickened person in conviction sees himself NOT as he actually is, but as he would be without the grace of God." (ibid)
Can you believe that bunk? A man under conviction is being convicted of only hypothetical sin! He is not being convicted of actual sin! The Holy Spirit is telling the convicted soul a lie when he tells him he is lost and condemned! The Holy Spirit lies when he convinces such an one that he is unclean and in need of pardon and justification! Unbelievable!
Notice this from Dr. Danbury.
"Dr. Danbury on the Daily-Throgmorton Debate" (emphasis mine SG)
"The Daily-Throgmorton debate has come and gone, and I, having had the privilege of hearing every word of the same, thought it might be of some use to those who did not hear it, to say something of my impressions of the same.
As to the men, Mr. Daily is a fine appearing man, and speaks with force, as well as eloquence. He impresses one with the thought that he wants to be known as a scholar and to this end he endeavors to make it appear that what he says is not to be called in question. He is not clear however in his statement of the position he takes, nor does he appear to get the force of his opponent's arguments. He frequently misquotes, as well as misapplies the argument of his opponent. He does not seem to care for the rules of controversy, as he did not, in this discussion, attempt to define his position at any time. His affirmative speeches were delivered principally from manuscript which he read quite well.
Brother Throgmorton on the other hand is clear in statement, quick to comprehend an argument, logical from first to last. He does not deal in sophistry, but from the start goes to the question in debate telling what he means by each term in the proposition that all may know what the point at issue is.
Mr. Daily in this debate gave more time to what was not in the questions being debated than he did to the questions under consideration. It appeared to me that he was not satisfied with the questions as stated. It frequently occurred that he would state what ought to have been the question instead of trying to prove his position.
Yet he had signed both propositions as satisfactory and spent four days trying to make the people believe that he should have been allowed to discuss something else. It frequently seemed he made statements that would involve him in the most absurd positions.
As to the arguments on each side it was in my judgment one of the greatest victories for the position held by Brother Throgmorton that could have been gained. Some of the positions taken by Mr. Daily were that the Gospel was to call out those for whom Christ died, and to make known to them the fact that they were God's children by exciting in them a conviction for sin and making them know that they were vile sinners, while at the same time they were really born of God and the elect of God.
Brother Throgmorton showed that if this was the case that the Holy Spirit made them believe a lie, to which Daily did not reply. I wish that all of our Baptist people could have heard this discussion for themselves as I did." (From the book section titled "FIFTY DEBATES," page 119.
"to which Daily did not reply"! Says it all, does it not?
And what about Sarrel's attempt to solve the difficulty? Laughable, is it not? Very sad too to see such blindness and deception. It is the mindset of cult members.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
More Evidence From Zion's Landmark (1887)
Elder P. D. Gold was a most influential second generation minister and apologist for the newly formed "Primitive Baptist" denomination. A synopsis of his bio is as follows (highlights mine):
"A prominent publisher and religious leader, Pleasant Daniel Gold was born in 1833 to Milton and Martha Fortune Gold in what in now Cleveland County, North Carolina. An ambitious young man, P. D. Gold sought to attend school and move beyond his agrarian upbringing. As such, he borrowed money and went to school, studied law, and received his license in 1856. He began to practice law in Shelby as a partner with future governor John W. Ellis. Soon after establishing himself in Shelby, Gold decided to enter the ministry. He then attended Furman University and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His educational pursuits were interrupted by the Civil War when he enlisted in the Confederate army, serving as a chaplain and nurse until a fever ended his military service.
In the late 1860s, Gold decided to change his church affiliation and switched from the Missionary Baptist Church, or “New School,” to the Primitive Baptist Church, or the “Old School.” He joined the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Church of Halifax, home of the state’s most active Primitive Baptist organization. Gold was such a dynamic personality in his new calling that he joined the church, was baptized, ordained, and preached a sermon all in the same day. As part of his new mission, he co-founded a newspaper called Zion’s Landmark in 1867 with L. I. Bodenheimer. Gold became associate editor in 1871 and served as editor from 1872 until 1920. The paper became the leading publication of the Primitive Baptist Church."
Here are some additional citations that every Hardshell today should know exists. It is more evidence that as late as 1887 it was still acceptable to believe that being born again was equivalent to evangelical conversion.
A TRUE CHRISTIAN (page 338)
"Every one that has "passed from death unto life," has had his burden of sin and guilt removed, feels and can realize that there has been some kind of miraculous change from some source, but after this change there is necessarily something else ahead. But in order to scrutinize this subject closely I will briefly enumerate some of the changes and conflicts through which God's children have to pass."
"2nd. We believe that all believers are born again of an incorruptible seed, and as I have herein before stated that sinners are convicted and quickened into life thus pass from death unto life; but now I will try to explain more explicitly in a brief way what I know by experience of the travail from nature to grace."
"Firstly there is a begetting or quickening, then the sinner has a knowledge he is a sinner before God because his blinded eyes have been opened, and his deaf ears are unstopped, and then he is cognizant of his true condition. — Secondly, there is a travail of soul, and as I have said he probably mourns for weeks, months or years. Thirdly, then at an unexpected and appointed time he is delivered of his load of sin and guilt, and is freed from the law of sin and death, "old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." I possibly might say more on these points, but this I consider enough for the present. My dear brethren, If we are worthy to be called christians, Hardshells, Iron Jackets, or anything else for the sake of Jesus let us glory in such stigmas."
see here
"A prominent publisher and religious leader, Pleasant Daniel Gold was born in 1833 to Milton and Martha Fortune Gold in what in now Cleveland County, North Carolina. An ambitious young man, P. D. Gold sought to attend school and move beyond his agrarian upbringing. As such, he borrowed money and went to school, studied law, and received his license in 1856. He began to practice law in Shelby as a partner with future governor John W. Ellis. Soon after establishing himself in Shelby, Gold decided to enter the ministry. He then attended Furman University and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His educational pursuits were interrupted by the Civil War when he enlisted in the Confederate army, serving as a chaplain and nurse until a fever ended his military service.
In the late 1860s, Gold decided to change his church affiliation and switched from the Missionary Baptist Church, or “New School,” to the Primitive Baptist Church, or the “Old School.” He joined the Kehukee Primitive Baptist Church of Halifax, home of the state’s most active Primitive Baptist organization. Gold was such a dynamic personality in his new calling that he joined the church, was baptized, ordained, and preached a sermon all in the same day. As part of his new mission, he co-founded a newspaper called Zion’s Landmark in 1867 with L. I. Bodenheimer. Gold became associate editor in 1871 and served as editor from 1872 until 1920. The paper became the leading publication of the Primitive Baptist Church."
Here are some additional citations that every Hardshell today should know exists. It is more evidence that as late as 1887 it was still acceptable to believe that being born again was equivalent to evangelical conversion.
A TRUE CHRISTIAN (page 338)
"Every one that has "passed from death unto life," has had his burden of sin and guilt removed, feels and can realize that there has been some kind of miraculous change from some source, but after this change there is necessarily something else ahead. But in order to scrutinize this subject closely I will briefly enumerate some of the changes and conflicts through which God's children have to pass."
"2nd. We believe that all believers are born again of an incorruptible seed, and as I have herein before stated that sinners are convicted and quickened into life thus pass from death unto life; but now I will try to explain more explicitly in a brief way what I know by experience of the travail from nature to grace."
"Firstly there is a begetting or quickening, then the sinner has a knowledge he is a sinner before God because his blinded eyes have been opened, and his deaf ears are unstopped, and then he is cognizant of his true condition. — Secondly, there is a travail of soul, and as I have said he probably mourns for weeks, months or years. Thirdly, then at an unexpected and appointed time he is delivered of his load of sin and guilt, and is freed from the law of sin and death, "old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." I possibly might say more on these points, but this I consider enough for the present. My dear brethren, If we are worthy to be called christians, Hardshells, Iron Jackets, or anything else for the sake of Jesus let us glory in such stigmas."
see here
An Important Historical Snapshot
"...natural birth is a figure of spiritual birth."
"But such a thing cannot be; for there cannot be a child without a father and mother, and there cannot be a father and mother without a child." ("Being Born Again," in "Zion's Landmark, page 1, Dec. 15, 1887)
I have previously shown in my historical writings on the development of the Hardshell denomination that the common view of the first Hardshells was to view "regeneration" as distinct from being "born again," the former being compared to the planting of the male seed in natural birth and the coming forth out of the womb to the new birth. From the above citation it is clear that this view was still being believed and taught. It was not a view that had as yet in 1887 been totally discarded.
It was about this time, however, that Potter had his debate with Throgmorten, a debate which helped to change the new denomination's view on regeneration and the new birth. It was about 1890 when Elder Clark died, and when a serious debate over means began. Those leading the "modern innovators" or "ultraist" Hardshells, in addition to Potter, were men like Dr. C.H. Waters, T.S. Dalton, John Daily, C.H. Cayce, Walter Cash, and Sylvester Hassell.
I want every neo Hardshell to know that the above view was the view of his founding fathers. If the Hardshells were baptized by these men, and they were heretics, how can they say their baptisms today are valid?
I have for years asked today's Hardshells to tell us who is the mother in spiritual birth. Do they not have a birth without a mother?
"But such a thing cannot be; for there cannot be a child without a father and mother, and there cannot be a father and mother without a child." ("Being Born Again," in "Zion's Landmark, page 1, Dec. 15, 1887)
I have previously shown in my historical writings on the development of the Hardshell denomination that the common view of the first Hardshells was to view "regeneration" as distinct from being "born again," the former being compared to the planting of the male seed in natural birth and the coming forth out of the womb to the new birth. From the above citation it is clear that this view was still being believed and taught. It was not a view that had as yet in 1887 been totally discarded.
It was about this time, however, that Potter had his debate with Throgmorten, a debate which helped to change the new denomination's view on regeneration and the new birth. It was about 1890 when Elder Clark died, and when a serious debate over means began. Those leading the "modern innovators" or "ultraist" Hardshells, in addition to Potter, were men like Dr. C.H. Waters, T.S. Dalton, John Daily, C.H. Cayce, Walter Cash, and Sylvester Hassell.
I want every neo Hardshell to know that the above view was the view of his founding fathers. If the Hardshells were baptized by these men, and they were heretics, how can they say their baptisms today are valid?
I have for years asked today's Hardshells to tell us who is the mother in spiritual birth. Do they not have a birth without a mother?
Sunday, April 5, 2015
A Serious Hardshell Heresy
"Every effort to impart spiritual knowledge to the natural man must prove abortive." ("Zion's Landmark," Dec. 1st, 1887 - see here)
This was stated in one of the leading Hardshell periodicals after the Civil War. In reading this I was taken aback by the utter nonsense uttered by second generation Hardshells. No leading Baptist apologist prior to the birth of the Hardshell cult would have uttered such utter unscriptural propositions, There are a number of things I want to say about this man-made proposition.
First, it is certainly true that "every effort to impart spiritual knowledge" to "the natural man," will fail where that "effort" lacks the spiritual influence and blessing of the Spirit of God. The word of God by itself cannot "impart spiritual knowledge" of course, But, a denial of the "word alone" view of the Campbellites and Pelagians does not force one into the Hardshell "spirit alone" view.
These Scriptures uphold this view of things:
"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psa' 127:1)
"So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (I Cor. 3:7)
So, indeed yes, every effort to impart spiritual knowledge to the non-spiritual apart from the blessing of God will prove abortive.
Second, we must accept the implied truth that affirms that EVERY EFFORT, WITH THE BLESSING OF GOD, RATHER THAN BEING A CERTAIN FAILURE, MUST PROVE A SUCCESS.
If all effort (at anything) must prove a failure ("in vain"), or be futile, when that effort lacks God's blessing, as taught from the above passages, then it must be true that all effort, with God's blessing and the special influence of the Spirit, must be successful (the opposite of what it means to be in vain). But, the Hardshells will not likely want to face such a logical fact.
Third, accepting such a man made and unscriptural proposition puts the Hardshells into great difficulty when they read passages where a prophet, teacher, or Christ himself, was involved in the act of imparting "spiritual knowledge" to lost souls. In such a case, the Hardshell heretic must go to work on such passages and do one of these things.
1) Deny that in a given passage (where it seems that spiritual knowledge is being imparted) that it is "spiritual" knowledge being imparted (in cases where it is clear that unregenerate or natural men were being addressed or taught). For instance, if a Hardshell says that the moral law is to be imparted to all men, then he must deny that the law contains spiritual knowledge.
2) Deny that in a given passage it is "natural," rather than "spiritual," men who are being taught. (And what is "teaching" but a way to "impart" knowledge?)
3) Deny that there is any case example in scripture where God, directly or indirectly, put forth effort to impart knowledge to men who were devoid of the Spirit (which is what it means to be a 'natural' man).
It is amazing to me how any serious and honest Bible student can read the Bible and make such a statement.
The whole old testament was addressed to the Jews, and most of these were unregenerate men. The book of Proverbs is addressed to all rational men and Wisdom, or spiritual knowledge, is there viewed as the responsibility of all to receive.
The ministry of the Baptist, of Christ, of the apostles and new testament evangelists, all make it their mission to impart the Gospel (which is true spiritual knowledge) to all men. Did not Paul write the following?
"Whom we preach , warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col. 1:28)
Will the Hardshells say that it was not "spiritual knowledge" that Paul labored to impart? Will they deny that this teaching was to "every man"?
The above Hardshell proposition is not only grossly anti scripture, but it makes Jesus and the Bible teachers all fools for trying to do the impossible in their efforts to teach the lost spiritual truth.
Further, who can doubt that the Hardshells who invented this anti biblical premise have used it as an excuse for their being "anti effort" Baptists? For their lack of effort in imparting spiritual knowledge?
Also, my own experience is against this Hardshell proposition. Others (thank God for them) made "efforts" to get me to think about God and his word while I was a natural man. God blessed that effort and I received that knowledge and was saved just like the first Christians.
This was stated in one of the leading Hardshell periodicals after the Civil War. In reading this I was taken aback by the utter nonsense uttered by second generation Hardshells. No leading Baptist apologist prior to the birth of the Hardshell cult would have uttered such utter unscriptural propositions, There are a number of things I want to say about this man-made proposition.
First, it is certainly true that "every effort to impart spiritual knowledge" to "the natural man," will fail where that "effort" lacks the spiritual influence and blessing of the Spirit of God. The word of God by itself cannot "impart spiritual knowledge" of course, But, a denial of the "word alone" view of the Campbellites and Pelagians does not force one into the Hardshell "spirit alone" view.
These Scriptures uphold this view of things:
"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." (Psa' 127:1)
"So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (I Cor. 3:7)
So, indeed yes, every effort to impart spiritual knowledge to the non-spiritual apart from the blessing of God will prove abortive.
Second, we must accept the implied truth that affirms that EVERY EFFORT, WITH THE BLESSING OF GOD, RATHER THAN BEING A CERTAIN FAILURE, MUST PROVE A SUCCESS.
If all effort (at anything) must prove a failure ("in vain"), or be futile, when that effort lacks God's blessing, as taught from the above passages, then it must be true that all effort, with God's blessing and the special influence of the Spirit, must be successful (the opposite of what it means to be in vain). But, the Hardshells will not likely want to face such a logical fact.
Third, accepting such a man made and unscriptural proposition puts the Hardshells into great difficulty when they read passages where a prophet, teacher, or Christ himself, was involved in the act of imparting "spiritual knowledge" to lost souls. In such a case, the Hardshell heretic must go to work on such passages and do one of these things.
1) Deny that in a given passage (where it seems that spiritual knowledge is being imparted) that it is "spiritual" knowledge being imparted (in cases where it is clear that unregenerate or natural men were being addressed or taught). For instance, if a Hardshell says that the moral law is to be imparted to all men, then he must deny that the law contains spiritual knowledge.
2) Deny that in a given passage it is "natural," rather than "spiritual," men who are being taught. (And what is "teaching" but a way to "impart" knowledge?)
3) Deny that there is any case example in scripture where God, directly or indirectly, put forth effort to impart knowledge to men who were devoid of the Spirit (which is what it means to be a 'natural' man).
It is amazing to me how any serious and honest Bible student can read the Bible and make such a statement.
The whole old testament was addressed to the Jews, and most of these were unregenerate men. The book of Proverbs is addressed to all rational men and Wisdom, or spiritual knowledge, is there viewed as the responsibility of all to receive.
The ministry of the Baptist, of Christ, of the apostles and new testament evangelists, all make it their mission to impart the Gospel (which is true spiritual knowledge) to all men. Did not Paul write the following?
"Whom we preach , warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col. 1:28)
Will the Hardshells say that it was not "spiritual knowledge" that Paul labored to impart? Will they deny that this teaching was to "every man"?
The above Hardshell proposition is not only grossly anti scripture, but it makes Jesus and the Bible teachers all fools for trying to do the impossible in their efforts to teach the lost spiritual truth.
Further, who can doubt that the Hardshells who invented this anti biblical premise have used it as an excuse for their being "anti effort" Baptists? For their lack of effort in imparting spiritual knowledge?
Also, my own experience is against this Hardshell proposition. Others (thank God for them) made "efforts" to get me to think about God and his word while I was a natural man. God blessed that effort and I received that knowledge and was saved just like the first Christians.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Wilson Thompson's Fall
The following is an excerpt from my series on Hardshells and the Great Commission" (chapter 72). I think it needs to be read and studied by every Hardshell.
Elder Wilson Thompson, a leading Hardshell "founding father," and of whom I will have much to say in future chapters, said:
"When I was raised from the water the first thought that I recollect was, “O! that sinners could but see and feel the beauties of a Savior’s love!” Such a weighty and painful sense of their blind and dead condition came over me that I felt a strong desire to speak of the glorious plan of salvation." (Autobiography, chapter three)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1193/36/
That is wonderful to read! A precious story! Sad, however, that this evangelistic spirit was soon lost by this brother! How did he lose this zeal? What happened?
Before I answer those questions, from citations from his "Autobiography," I want to cite statements from him where this early missionary spirit was at work in his heart and conscience. After that I will cite him on the great "ephiphany" that he experienced one day on a lonely dusty road in the wilderness of Kentucky.
From Chapter twelve, a chapter titled - "Conflict and Deliverance," this Elder writes:
"...for I had viewed the missionary scheme only as being a benevolent plan for promoting the spread of the gospel. Whether or not it was a scriptural plan, I had not examined, nor once questioned.
My mind became greatly impressed with the vast importance of preaching the gospel to ALL nations. And as these poor heathen savages were among us (Indians - SG), and we had their land, and had greatly reduced their numbers, I felt that I would seize the opportunity now offered for carrying the gospel among them."
I must stop at this point and ask every Hardshell to answer this simple question about what Thompson has written about his early desires to be a missionary. Was he at this time being led by the Spirit and word of God or by the devil? This is a very important question! They must answer it! If they say yes, then they will not be able, justly or consistently, to say that his later experience, wherein he lost this missionary spirit, was also of God rather than, as I believe, was of the devil and of the flesh.
Thompson continues:
"I soon made my resolution known to the churches, but I met with strong opposition from all the members. My house soon became crowded, day and night, with my best friends, often pleading with tears in their eyes for me NOT to go. They presented their own destitute condition, if I should leave them; and then they would point out all the horrors and privations that I must endure in spending a life among these superstitious and cruel barbarians. Elder William Jones, whom I regarded as an able teacher in Israel, came, with several others, and stayed most of two days and one night. He labored hard to persuade me to abandon the undertaking, but all to no effect. No one said a word about the enterprise being wrong or anti-scriptural; all seemed to admit that the wonderful movements, the zeal and perseverance now so suddenly and so simultaneously springing up in the United States and Europe did surely give some strong indications that the time was at hand when the gospel was to be preached to every nation. All this was admitted, but I must not leave them to engage in this work."
I must here pause and emphasize several important points from these words of the great "Father Thompson."
First, observe how Thompson, by his narration of the discussions among the Baptists concerning his stated "resolution" to go fulfill the "Great Commission," by going to Indiana and preaching the gospel, with the great Missionary Baptist, Elder Isaac McCoy, that he gives us a picture of what the Baptists believed about missions and the "Great Commission."
Thompson basically admits that there was not an anti-mission Hardshell Baptist in existence! There was no opposition to the sending of missionaries, by the church, to heathens who had never heard the gospel! The only opposition was from friends who wanted him to stay because they wanted him as pastor!
Anyone reading this story, thus far, must be awestruck with the missionary zeal that filled the heart of Wilson Thompson! He came out of the waters of baptism wanting to preach the gospel to dead sinners, and believed that their salvation depended upon it.
He believed, and who can doubt it, that he had been providentially prepared for this mission trip to the Indians, and to join Elder McCoy!
Who can doubt that he was being led by the Spirit of God to do as he had been prepared to do and had been inspired to do? Well, what happened to quench this missionary Spirit that was sent to him by the Lord? Are we not all now anxious to see the "end of the story"?
He continues:
"This, I thought, looked selfish in them; for if the time had come for the gospel to be preached to those heathen people, some one must go and preach it, and I believed then, as I do now, that God fixes the field of labor for each of His called ministers, and in that place alone will they be profitable. And when He is about to move one of His ministers from one place to another, circumstances and impressions will open up the way. My mind was not decided as yet, as to whether I should finally engage as a missionary or not; this should depend on my impressions and their evidence respecting my duty as presented to my mind. I must be satisfied what was the Lord’s will, and that should govern me without regarding ease or toil, privation or plenty; and for this knowledge I was seeking and praying, fully believing that God would direct me, for I was submissive to His will. This I told to all that talked to me."
I must here pause again to emphasize certain points from his testimony. First, he clearly was not of the view, at this state in his life and ministry, that the "Great Commission" had been fulfilled! So, even though he had fellowship with another Hardshell "founding father," with Elder Gilbert Beebe, he nevertheless disagreed with Beebe, who promoted the idea that it had been fulfilled. Thompson may have later changed his views on the "Great Commission," after he became an "anti-mission" or Hardshell Baptist, but he did not believe such things at the first, nor did the Baptists with whom he was associated.
Second, about going to preach the gospel to the "heathen," he says - "someone must go and do it." Oh that the Hardshells of today would heed these words of their beloved founder!
Third, he says that his "mind was not decided as yet as to whether he should engage as a missionary or not." Obviously then Thompson, at the start, did not believe it was against the bible or Baptist beliefs for him to be a missionary to the heathen!
Thompson continues:
"My contemplated winter tour to Raccoon Station and thence though the Indian tribes in the Wabash Valley, and so on to Fort Wayne, where Elder McCoy designed a location, would probably show, by the next spring, what the prospect of success was, and what the path of duty would probably be. I met their arguments on privations and hardships by saying: “I was born in the new settlements of Kentucky, which the Indians called the ‘‘bloody ground’’, in the year 1788, and I had been raised to the use of the rifle; the chase of the deer, the bear, the panther, and other wild animals, was the sport of my leisure hours; I had learned most of the habits of the Indians, and was used to camp life; I was a woodsman that could not lose my compass, and I did not know but the Omnipotent Disposer of events might have been superintending my education in the forest as a college far more suitable for an Indian missionary than any school of science could be. These matters time would doubtless develop.” I further told my friends that I hoped to be found submissively waiting and observing the openings of Providence, prayerfully seeking for wisdom to understand them, and for the leadings of the Holy Spirit to guide me in the right way that I might not go astray, for “it was not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”
Thompson was clearly in the Spirit with these thoughts! The Holy Spirit was definitely laying out to him clearly his duty. How can anyone reading these words today and not see a beautiful picture of how God both prepares and calls a missionary! But, what happens to stop him?
He continues:
"I started home alone on foot, and as I was walking fast and in a thinking mood, suddenly these words came to my mind: “Who hath required this at your hand? ” It thrilled through my whole frame and set me all of a shiver. I stood motionless, except a shaking from head to foot, with eyes bent toward the ground. I could not answer the interrogation, but this inquiry started calmly in my mind: “God ‘‘worketh all things after counsel of His own will"; if He intends to send the gospel to the Indians, or to any other heathen nation, He has not only fixed the time for it but has arranged the system. And have you the evidence that this is either the time or the system which He hath appointed?” I saw myself on the verge of a precipice, and, like a blind man, was about to leap I knew not whither. I stood without moving hand or foot, and trembling with solemn awe! In my mind I said: “Lord, shall I know what Thy system is and whether this is it or not? O, Lord, teach me, and let not my feet be taken in the snare of the crafty.” The reply to my mind was quick and satisfactory: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.’’ Search it carefully and you will find the Lord’’s plan.”
During all this time I stood like a statue in the road. It seemed to me that I must have stood there half an hour without raising my eyes from the ground or moving a limb. I often look back to that time as the most solemn period in all my life. When the last-mentioned text came so forcibly to my mind, I was fully satisfied that this new system of missions was of human origin. It was new, and I knew but very little about it; but the text relieved me, by fully convincing me that I would find the Lord’s plan plainly set out in the Scriptures. My trembling left me at once. I felt calm, but still I was anxious to discover the Divine system for the spread of the gospel among the heathen. I proceeded homeward with my mind at ease, and I have never felt that sort of mission fever since."
Lost his "mission fever"! A mission fever that clearly was of the Lord! Here is the story of the Hardshell denomination exemplified in the experience of one man! If one knows the history of this denomination, and of their affection for dreams, visions, and such experiences as The following Thompson had on that lonely road, he will agree with this observation.
I have already written much about Elder Wilson Thompson and his son Elder Grigg Thompson, and also his descendents and other relatives, Elders R.W. Thompson and Elder J. M. Thompson, all Hardshell debaters and apologists.
If the reader wants to see some things I have written previously on Wilson Thompson, he should read chapter 57 titled "The Original Paradigm." In that chapter I also show how Wilson Thompson seemed to hold to the "Three Stage Model" of the "new birth" as fellow Kentuckian, Elder William Conrad. So, we have Beebe, Trott, Thompson, and Conrad who clearly taught this view.
My dad (Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr.) told me recently that when he first came among the Hardshells, and when he had spent a lot of time with Elder S. T. Tolley (editor of the "The Christian Baptist" and whom I know personally, having been in his home several times, and whom both Brother Ross and myself have cited in our writings on the Hardshells), that he asked Elder Tolley about the view that there were "stages" in the new birth after the model I have discussed. He apparently was considering that view when seeking out the Hardshells. He said to me - "Elder Tolly told me - 'the Old Baptists will not have that.'"
Well, Tolley was wrong! In fact, that was the common first view of the Hardshells! Stay tuned! More to come!
Elder Wilson Thompson, a leading Hardshell "founding father," and of whom I will have much to say in future chapters, said:
"When I was raised from the water the first thought that I recollect was, “O! that sinners could but see and feel the beauties of a Savior’s love!” Such a weighty and painful sense of their blind and dead condition came over me that I felt a strong desire to speak of the glorious plan of salvation." (Autobiography, chapter three)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1193/36/
That is wonderful to read! A precious story! Sad, however, that this evangelistic spirit was soon lost by this brother! How did he lose this zeal? What happened?
Before I answer those questions, from citations from his "Autobiography," I want to cite statements from him where this early missionary spirit was at work in his heart and conscience. After that I will cite him on the great "ephiphany" that he experienced one day on a lonely dusty road in the wilderness of Kentucky.
From Chapter twelve, a chapter titled - "Conflict and Deliverance," this Elder writes:
"...for I had viewed the missionary scheme only as being a benevolent plan for promoting the spread of the gospel. Whether or not it was a scriptural plan, I had not examined, nor once questioned.
My mind became greatly impressed with the vast importance of preaching the gospel to ALL nations. And as these poor heathen savages were among us (Indians - SG), and we had their land, and had greatly reduced their numbers, I felt that I would seize the opportunity now offered for carrying the gospel among them."
I must stop at this point and ask every Hardshell to answer this simple question about what Thompson has written about his early desires to be a missionary. Was he at this time being led by the Spirit and word of God or by the devil? This is a very important question! They must answer it! If they say yes, then they will not be able, justly or consistently, to say that his later experience, wherein he lost this missionary spirit, was also of God rather than, as I believe, was of the devil and of the flesh.
Thompson continues:
"I soon made my resolution known to the churches, but I met with strong opposition from all the members. My house soon became crowded, day and night, with my best friends, often pleading with tears in their eyes for me NOT to go. They presented their own destitute condition, if I should leave them; and then they would point out all the horrors and privations that I must endure in spending a life among these superstitious and cruel barbarians. Elder William Jones, whom I regarded as an able teacher in Israel, came, with several others, and stayed most of two days and one night. He labored hard to persuade me to abandon the undertaking, but all to no effect. No one said a word about the enterprise being wrong or anti-scriptural; all seemed to admit that the wonderful movements, the zeal and perseverance now so suddenly and so simultaneously springing up in the United States and Europe did surely give some strong indications that the time was at hand when the gospel was to be preached to every nation. All this was admitted, but I must not leave them to engage in this work."
I must here pause and emphasize several important points from these words of the great "Father Thompson."
First, observe how Thompson, by his narration of the discussions among the Baptists concerning his stated "resolution" to go fulfill the "Great Commission," by going to Indiana and preaching the gospel, with the great Missionary Baptist, Elder Isaac McCoy, that he gives us a picture of what the Baptists believed about missions and the "Great Commission."
Thompson basically admits that there was not an anti-mission Hardshell Baptist in existence! There was no opposition to the sending of missionaries, by the church, to heathens who had never heard the gospel! The only opposition was from friends who wanted him to stay because they wanted him as pastor!
Anyone reading this story, thus far, must be awestruck with the missionary zeal that filled the heart of Wilson Thompson! He came out of the waters of baptism wanting to preach the gospel to dead sinners, and believed that their salvation depended upon it.
He believed, and who can doubt it, that he had been providentially prepared for this mission trip to the Indians, and to join Elder McCoy!
Who can doubt that he was being led by the Spirit of God to do as he had been prepared to do and had been inspired to do? Well, what happened to quench this missionary Spirit that was sent to him by the Lord? Are we not all now anxious to see the "end of the story"?
He continues:
"This, I thought, looked selfish in them; for if the time had come for the gospel to be preached to those heathen people, some one must go and preach it, and I believed then, as I do now, that God fixes the field of labor for each of His called ministers, and in that place alone will they be profitable. And when He is about to move one of His ministers from one place to another, circumstances and impressions will open up the way. My mind was not decided as yet, as to whether I should finally engage as a missionary or not; this should depend on my impressions and their evidence respecting my duty as presented to my mind. I must be satisfied what was the Lord’s will, and that should govern me without regarding ease or toil, privation or plenty; and for this knowledge I was seeking and praying, fully believing that God would direct me, for I was submissive to His will. This I told to all that talked to me."
I must here pause again to emphasize certain points from his testimony. First, he clearly was not of the view, at this state in his life and ministry, that the "Great Commission" had been fulfilled! So, even though he had fellowship with another Hardshell "founding father," with Elder Gilbert Beebe, he nevertheless disagreed with Beebe, who promoted the idea that it had been fulfilled. Thompson may have later changed his views on the "Great Commission," after he became an "anti-mission" or Hardshell Baptist, but he did not believe such things at the first, nor did the Baptists with whom he was associated.
Second, about going to preach the gospel to the "heathen," he says - "someone must go and do it." Oh that the Hardshells of today would heed these words of their beloved founder!
Third, he says that his "mind was not decided as yet as to whether he should engage as a missionary or not." Obviously then Thompson, at the start, did not believe it was against the bible or Baptist beliefs for him to be a missionary to the heathen!
Thompson continues:
"My contemplated winter tour to Raccoon Station and thence though the Indian tribes in the Wabash Valley, and so on to Fort Wayne, where Elder McCoy designed a location, would probably show, by the next spring, what the prospect of success was, and what the path of duty would probably be. I met their arguments on privations and hardships by saying: “I was born in the new settlements of Kentucky, which the Indians called the ‘‘bloody ground’’, in the year 1788, and I had been raised to the use of the rifle; the chase of the deer, the bear, the panther, and other wild animals, was the sport of my leisure hours; I had learned most of the habits of the Indians, and was used to camp life; I was a woodsman that could not lose my compass, and I did not know but the Omnipotent Disposer of events might have been superintending my education in the forest as a college far more suitable for an Indian missionary than any school of science could be. These matters time would doubtless develop.” I further told my friends that I hoped to be found submissively waiting and observing the openings of Providence, prayerfully seeking for wisdom to understand them, and for the leadings of the Holy Spirit to guide me in the right way that I might not go astray, for “it was not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”
Thompson was clearly in the Spirit with these thoughts! The Holy Spirit was definitely laying out to him clearly his duty. How can anyone reading these words today and not see a beautiful picture of how God both prepares and calls a missionary! But, what happens to stop him?
He continues:
"I started home alone on foot, and as I was walking fast and in a thinking mood, suddenly these words came to my mind: “Who hath required this at your hand? ” It thrilled through my whole frame and set me all of a shiver. I stood motionless, except a shaking from head to foot, with eyes bent toward the ground. I could not answer the interrogation, but this inquiry started calmly in my mind: “God ‘‘worketh all things after counsel of His own will"; if He intends to send the gospel to the Indians, or to any other heathen nation, He has not only fixed the time for it but has arranged the system. And have you the evidence that this is either the time or the system which He hath appointed?” I saw myself on the verge of a precipice, and, like a blind man, was about to leap I knew not whither. I stood without moving hand or foot, and trembling with solemn awe! In my mind I said: “Lord, shall I know what Thy system is and whether this is it or not? O, Lord, teach me, and let not my feet be taken in the snare of the crafty.” The reply to my mind was quick and satisfactory: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.’’ Search it carefully and you will find the Lord’’s plan.”
During all this time I stood like a statue in the road. It seemed to me that I must have stood there half an hour without raising my eyes from the ground or moving a limb. I often look back to that time as the most solemn period in all my life. When the last-mentioned text came so forcibly to my mind, I was fully satisfied that this new system of missions was of human origin. It was new, and I knew but very little about it; but the text relieved me, by fully convincing me that I would find the Lord’s plan plainly set out in the Scriptures. My trembling left me at once. I felt calm, but still I was anxious to discover the Divine system for the spread of the gospel among the heathen. I proceeded homeward with my mind at ease, and I have never felt that sort of mission fever since."
Lost his "mission fever"! A mission fever that clearly was of the Lord! Here is the story of the Hardshell denomination exemplified in the experience of one man! If one knows the history of this denomination, and of their affection for dreams, visions, and such experiences as The following Thompson had on that lonely road, he will agree with this observation.
I have already written much about Elder Wilson Thompson and his son Elder Grigg Thompson, and also his descendents and other relatives, Elders R.W. Thompson and Elder J. M. Thompson, all Hardshell debaters and apologists.
If the reader wants to see some things I have written previously on Wilson Thompson, he should read chapter 57 titled "The Original Paradigm." In that chapter I also show how Wilson Thompson seemed to hold to the "Three Stage Model" of the "new birth" as fellow Kentuckian, Elder William Conrad. So, we have Beebe, Trott, Thompson, and Conrad who clearly taught this view.
My dad (Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Sr.) told me recently that when he first came among the Hardshells, and when he had spent a lot of time with Elder S. T. Tolley (editor of the "The Christian Baptist" and whom I know personally, having been in his home several times, and whom both Brother Ross and myself have cited in our writings on the Hardshells), that he asked Elder Tolley about the view that there were "stages" in the new birth after the model I have discussed. He apparently was considering that view when seeking out the Hardshells. He said to me - "Elder Tolly told me - 'the Old Baptists will not have that.'"
Well, Tolley was wrong! In fact, that was the common first view of the Hardshells! Stay tuned! More to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)