In the last posting in this series we were in Vols. 1 & 2 of "The Primitive Baptist" for the years 1836-1837. In this posting we will jump nine years to 1845 (Vol. 10) and see if there has been any changes in views regarding means in that time period. It was in this decade that changes in doctrine regarding means and the nature of regeneration and conversion began to take place. But more on that later, the Lord willing.
Vol. 10 (1845)
"Because the Old School Baptists hold that there is an elect people according to the foreknowledge of God (i Pet. i, 2.) whom God hath, from the beginning, chosen to salvation through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth (II Thess. 2:13) and who will be effectually called; tbat is, who will be (1) convinced of their sin and misery, (2) enlightened in the knowledge of Christ and (3) persuaded and enabled by the divine spirit to embrace Jesus Christ, revealed as the free gift of God to them, in the gospel..." (I added the numbers for the above items in the process of "effectual calling")
These words show that "The Primitive Baptist" periodical and the Kehukee Association as late as 1845 were still holding to the doctine of means. Further, though the birth analogy is not used in these words, yet the three stages of the regeneration to birth experience is seen. A man was not saved or sanctified until the convicted sinner came to "embrace Jesus Christ."
"...we say, because we hold this doctrine, natural and unrenewed men will say, Then we may all sit down and give ourselves no uneasiness or concern about our future state, nor attend, to any of the means or duties of religion, as the end will come out just the same whether we do, or not. Nay, they will accuse us of holding, and pretend themselves for a time to hold, this very principle, viz: that wicked men may just as well give themselves no concern about religion." (Circular Letter of the South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association, 1844, see here)
Here the first Hardshells in South Carolina did not accept the consequences of Hyper Calvinism and anti duty faith teachings. They thought that unsaved men should concern themselves about religion.
"But, I will, say, stop, O man, before you go too far; for I would suppose that Paul might have said the same...when the Lord said to him, speak, Paul, for I have much people in this city. But Paul was so well taught of God, as to know that the preaching of the gospel was the means in God's own hand by which he intended to save many; and these many here spoken of, must have been God's chosen people, and that God was able to make and would make that gospel which he had committed a dispensation to him, the great power of God to the salvation of them very, people." (pg.. 23, by Laban Massey, 1845)
There is no mention of "time salvation," for that doctrine had not yet been formulated. These Hardshells are still holding to the position of the old London and Philadelphia confessions that the preaching of the Gospel is God's ordained means of saving his elect by bringing them to faith in Christ.
"In this day of effort, we are told much about the necessity of sending the gospel to the heathen, and Paul calls it the power of God unto salvation; consequenctly I am led to believe, that the gospel in a scriptural sense, is that ever which mortals have no control. Though doubtless the preaching of the gospel, is the ordinary means the Lord makes use of, in bringing his children from nature's night and darkness, into the glorious light and liberty of the gospel; yet I am led to believe from experience as well as divine revelation, that God is as able, by his power, to arrest the impenitent in his career, as also in due time to speak peace to his troubled soul, without any external means, as he was to call the world into existence, by the word of his power." (pg. 188-89)
Here may be the first hint of a departure from the means view and the view that evangelical faith is intricately linked with regeneration life. God is able to do the work of regeneration and conversion without preachers. Though saying this however, they still affirm that the "preaching of the gospel is the ordinary means."
"Then we should never think we are doing the works of God only, by believing on him whom he hath sent; for this, says the scripture, is the work of God, and so soon as we get faith in the only begotten of the Father, our chains all fall off."
"Hence it is, if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed, Then faith, says Paul, is the gift of God; yet faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Thus, we hear the scriptures and we acknowledge our condemnation to be just; this is belief, we believe there is a God and that he is just. Thus faith comes by hearing; then after the legitimacy of his claims admitted, the Lord works in us to believe in his Son and thus we work the works of God by believing on him whom he hath sent. Thus we get the righteousness of Christ, that came by faith, called the faith of God's elect." (pg. 253)
Well, that is pretty clear. In teaching this the first Hardshells were in agreement with their Baptist forefathers. Brother Kevin Fralick and I believe what is written in the above. We are therefore the real Old Baptists.
"Brethren, when we were in our polluted state of sin, we possessed the same spirit of iniquity, that now works in the children of disobedience. But when it pleased God, who works all things after the counsel of his own will, to shine into our hearts by his own spirit, as unto a light in a dark place--this then, we were brought to see what we were by nauture, and what we must be by grace, if ever saved. Now in this condition, we could not see how God could be just and save such sinners as we were. Now, we could not see, 'till it pleased God to remove that load of sin and guilt, and shed his love through ever faculty of our souls; then we could see that Jesus had died for us, had rose for us and had hunted us out, like he did Jacob. And now being born again, old things have passed away and behold all things have become new." (pg. 237)
Notice how being born again was identified as taking place when a convicted sinner comes to faith in Jesus and the good news.
"But those that are born after the spirit are called by the spirit at the time and place that the Lord designed to call them; for he has loved them with an everlasting love, therefore he has brought them into the kingdom of his dear Son; and they have the witness in themselves they have come in a way that they knew not, they have come with mourning and supplication, they have felt themselves the chief of sinners, they have been stript of all doing power, saying in bitterness of soul, Lord save, I perish. Thus they are brought unto Christ Jesus, where the promises of God are; yea, an amen to the glory of God. All boasting is excluded by the law of faith, and they are must come by that law, for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (pg. 229)
Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus! That is the same thing that Elder John Clark (editor of "Zion's Advocate") would later affirm in his battle with Beebe and the Two Seeders. Today's Hardshells do not believe that they are children of God by faith.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Monday, December 14, 2015
J. M. Peck on Hyperism
John Mason Peck was one of the great first "Hardshell Slayers." He was the first to debate Daniel Parker, one of the fathers of the anti-mission movement. Here is what he had to say about Hyper Calvinism and the "born again before faith" error.
"But there are some things which Regular Baptists have been accused of propagating, and some speculations preached by good men, which cannot be found, or legitimately inferred, by implication from this Confession of Faith (Philadelphia). These things are not there, and can not be implied from the doctrines taught..."
In a recent posting Philadelphia Confession = Hardshellism? I showed where the Philadelphia Confession, the historic confession of the oldest Hardshell churches, did not teach the Hardshell anti means view, and thus showed that they are no longer primitive Baptists. I have also shown in numerous postings over the years how the writings of the signers of the London and Philadelphia confessions fully showed even further how they all believed in means.
Elder Peck, like Elder R.B.C. Howell, was one of the first champion apologists against the birth of hardshellism. The following are some of Peck's further statements on this subject.
"Some may yet imagine and teach that the Spirit regenerates the elect without means, or the subordinate agency of his gospel. But in this they teach directly contrary to the unequivocal declarations of the Confession of Faith, no less than against the scriptures. The doctrine of means, or the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration, as well as in all its adjuncts, is taught very plainly and directly in chapters 1st, 7th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 14th, and 20th; and is taught by implication in several other chapters. The only exception made is in chapter X, under "Effectual Calling," sec. 3: --
"Elect Infants, dying in Infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh, when and where, and how he pleaseth. So also all other persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."
The construction put on the first clause of this section by brethren in the Philadelphia Association was this: That the phrase "Elect Infants" includes all who died in a state of unconscious infancy -- that the second clause referred to adult idiots, and others, who were rendered incapable of being "outwardly called by the ministry of the word," by some providential acts.
The authors and revisors [sic] of this "Confession" would have repudiated with the expressions of horror, the mischievous speculation that God has an elect people, scattered among the nations of the earth -- that he knows his own -- and that he quickens or regenerates these without the gospel or any of the instrumentalities he has provided. REGULAR BAPTISTS were missionary Baptists, and knew the meaning of the great commission to preach the gospel to every creature, specially in view of their conversion and salvation.
The Confession of Faith teaches the doctrine of "particular election," without regard to human merit; but it also teaches the necessity of preaching the gospel to all men, without which sinners capable of hearing the gospel cannot be saved. The anti-christian dogma that the gospel need not be preached to sinners of every class and grade, for the specific purpose of being the instrument of their conversion and salvation through the mighty working of the Holy Spirit, has no place in the Confession of Faith of Regular Baptists." (THE BAPTISTS - Regular, Separate and United" By John M. Peck, 1855)
http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/peck.bapt.reg.sep.unit.html
"But there are some things which Regular Baptists have been accused of propagating, and some speculations preached by good men, which cannot be found, or legitimately inferred, by implication from this Confession of Faith (Philadelphia). These things are not there, and can not be implied from the doctrines taught..."
In a recent posting Philadelphia Confession = Hardshellism? I showed where the Philadelphia Confession, the historic confession of the oldest Hardshell churches, did not teach the Hardshell anti means view, and thus showed that they are no longer primitive Baptists. I have also shown in numerous postings over the years how the writings of the signers of the London and Philadelphia confessions fully showed even further how they all believed in means.
Elder Peck, like Elder R.B.C. Howell, was one of the first champion apologists against the birth of hardshellism. The following are some of Peck's further statements on this subject.
"Some may yet imagine and teach that the Spirit regenerates the elect without means, or the subordinate agency of his gospel. But in this they teach directly contrary to the unequivocal declarations of the Confession of Faith, no less than against the scriptures. The doctrine of means, or the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration, as well as in all its adjuncts, is taught very plainly and directly in chapters 1st, 7th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 14th, and 20th; and is taught by implication in several other chapters. The only exception made is in chapter X, under "Effectual Calling," sec. 3: --
"Elect Infants, dying in Infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh, when and where, and how he pleaseth. So also all other persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word."
The construction put on the first clause of this section by brethren in the Philadelphia Association was this: That the phrase "Elect Infants" includes all who died in a state of unconscious infancy -- that the second clause referred to adult idiots, and others, who were rendered incapable of being "outwardly called by the ministry of the word," by some providential acts.
The authors and revisors [sic] of this "Confession" would have repudiated with the expressions of horror, the mischievous speculation that God has an elect people, scattered among the nations of the earth -- that he knows his own -- and that he quickens or regenerates these without the gospel or any of the instrumentalities he has provided. REGULAR BAPTISTS were missionary Baptists, and knew the meaning of the great commission to preach the gospel to every creature, specially in view of their conversion and salvation.
The Confession of Faith teaches the doctrine of "particular election," without regard to human merit; but it also teaches the necessity of preaching the gospel to all men, without which sinners capable of hearing the gospel cannot be saved. The anti-christian dogma that the gospel need not be preached to sinners of every class and grade, for the specific purpose of being the instrument of their conversion and salvation through the mighty working of the Holy Spirit, has no place in the Confession of Faith of Regular Baptists." (THE BAPTISTS - Regular, Separate and United" By John M. Peck, 1855)
http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/peck.bapt.reg.sep.unit.html
Sunday, December 13, 2015
What the first Hardshells Believed X
I have written many "series" that could each be small books. Many of these series on particular subjects are part of my ongoing book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Some are not part of it but may be found either in this Old Baptist blog or in the Baptist Gadfly blog. One such series has been entitled "What The First Hardshells Believed." In the continuation of that series I post this addition. For previous entries in this series and this subject see these:
From the "Primitive Baptist" (1837) and
What the first Hardshells Believed IX and
What the first Hardshells Believed VIII and
What the first Hardshells Believed VII and
What the first Hardshells Believed VII (second under that title) and
What the first Hardshells Believed VI and
What the first Hardshells Believed V and
What the first Hardshells Believed IV and
First Hardshells on Rom. 8: 28 and
What the first Hardshells Believed III and
What the first Hardshells Believed II and
What the first Hardshells Believed
In this posting we will look at some citations from Vol. 2 (1837) and Vol. 3 of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical.
"The predestinarian believes in the foreknowledge of God, and that all men by nature deserve condemnation. The predestinarian believes in the atonement of the Lord Jesus, and that his righteousness is made over and imputed to all his spiritual children by and through the means or instrumentality of faith, as the law of righteousness that it might be of grace. The predestinarian believes that the means and the end are inseparably connected, and that works and faith are as much united as soul and body; and that God knoweth them that are his...And this is eternal life, that they believe on the only true God, and in Jesus Christ whom he has sent." (pg. 126)
Notice how the first Hardshells believed in "means" and that "the means and the end are inseparably connected." Today's Hardshells almost universally reject this view. So, if they don't even agree with their founding fathers on this issue, how can they legitimately call themselves "primitive" or "old school"?
"Bro. Bennett: Being well pleased with the doctrine contained in the Primitive Baptist, edited by yourself, and believe the doctrine to be in accordance with the word of God, and that it is therefore calculated to disseminate life, light, and immortality to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, and is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; comforting, confirming, and establishing them in the faith.." (pg. 142)
Again, this is not what is advocated by today's Hardshells. Today's "Primitive Baptists" will say that the means doctrine is "Arminianism," or as some are now doing, calling such a belief in means "Calvinism."
From Vol. 3
Elder John Watson wrote:
"We are informed by the apostle, in 2 Thess. 2: 13, that a sanctification of the spirit is necessarily connected with a belief of the truth; and those who cannot bear sound doctrine, would not at all be benefited, by our softening down gospel truths. We are directed in 2 Tim. 2: 23, to instruct those who oppose the truth, in meekness, hoping that the Lord may grant them "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (Pg. 83)
"So we understand that sanctification and faith are the means of that salvation to which God had chosen these Thessalonians. In short, we should take no man's opinion in such cases, nor have an opinion of our own, without a thus saith the Lord for it; for opinion must always be founded upon evidence." (pg. 95)
We know what Elder Watson believed about means in the new birth. His "Old Baptist Test" is full of statements in line with what he writes here. Further, Elder John Clark was a frequent writer and supporter of this periodical and he obviously shared the beliefs of Watson, Lawrence, Hassell, Bennett (the first editor), and others who supported this Kehukee Association supported paper. So too did Wilson Thomspon and his son Grigg Thompson read this periodical, the latter especially.
"So then, he hath chosen us that we might be holy, etc. consequently will give us the means of salvation, which are faith and holiness. And God is onmiscient (sic), or every where present, and therefore none of his elect shall miss the end designed; that is, eternal life: For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God, etc. Chosen in him before the foundation of the world, etc. So then, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And even in the same way that the Lord sent his gospel to all the world once, even so now will he send it where he pleaseth; for he is of one mind and one way, and hath not said to the church, send ye my gospel any where." (pg. 109-10)
"I find the will of God is to believe the record that God has given us of his Son for salvation, which would include all the fundamental principles of the gospel, and a good deal more; and the doctrine of election and predestination, and final perseverance of the saints, all of which I believe in." (pg. 115)
"...as I do believe God has chosen his people in Christ before the world was, and that according to his own purpose. And as he has made the choice of the characters that shall inherit his kingdom above, he has also ordained the means by which they shall be prepared and qualified for that eternal world. He has not chosen his people in Christ and left the means to be used necessary to bring them there in the hands of men. No, sir, he has ordained the preaching of the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, as his own method of saving his elect." (pg. 145)
Today's Hardshells have apostatized from what their forefathers believed. Is this not why they have wanted to hide such old periodicals and information over the past one hundred years or so? But, thanks to the Internet, such works are being taken out of the closets of libraries and discovered. And oh what a discovery it is for those Hardshells today who know nothing of their real history.
"But perhaps the effort party may conclude there is still something for them to do, preachers must be prepared and sent to preach; but I want you also to remember, that God has not left this work in the hands of men, to say who shall preach his gospel, or who shall be instrumental in his hands in bringing his elect to a saving knowledge of his truth and glorious inheritance above. No, sir, he has reserved this work also to himself, he calls and qualifies his ministers to preach Jesus." (pg. 145)
"Therefore we need no other means now than were needed eighteen hundred years ago; it then required the power of God to quicken a dead sinner and make him alive, it requires the same now and nothing short of that will effect the salvation of the soul. God saved his chosen people before missionary societies were introduced, by the ministers he chose, by the means he ordained, and not by plans devised by mortals; consequently they were indebted to him alone for that salvation, he was entitled to all praise and glory: Not unto us, but unto thy name give glory." (pg. 146)
Notice how it is said "we need no other means." You see, these Hardshells rejected "human means," such as seminaries, Sunday schools, revival meetings, etc., but they did not "throw the baby out with the bath water" as their later descendents would do, for though they rejected these "human means" they did not see this as excluding the preaching of the Gospel as a divinely appointed means.
This is what brother Fralick and I believe and we are therefore the real Old or Primitive Baptists.
From the "Primitive Baptist" (1837) and
What the first Hardshells Believed IX and
What the first Hardshells Believed VIII and
What the first Hardshells Believed VII and
What the first Hardshells Believed VII (second under that title) and
What the first Hardshells Believed VI and
What the first Hardshells Believed V and
What the first Hardshells Believed IV and
First Hardshells on Rom. 8: 28 and
What the first Hardshells Believed III and
What the first Hardshells Believed II and
What the first Hardshells Believed
In this posting we will look at some citations from Vol. 2 (1837) and Vol. 3 of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical.
"The predestinarian believes in the foreknowledge of God, and that all men by nature deserve condemnation. The predestinarian believes in the atonement of the Lord Jesus, and that his righteousness is made over and imputed to all his spiritual children by and through the means or instrumentality of faith, as the law of righteousness that it might be of grace. The predestinarian believes that the means and the end are inseparably connected, and that works and faith are as much united as soul and body; and that God knoweth them that are his...And this is eternal life, that they believe on the only true God, and in Jesus Christ whom he has sent." (pg. 126)
Notice how the first Hardshells believed in "means" and that "the means and the end are inseparably connected." Today's Hardshells almost universally reject this view. So, if they don't even agree with their founding fathers on this issue, how can they legitimately call themselves "primitive" or "old school"?
"Bro. Bennett: Being well pleased with the doctrine contained in the Primitive Baptist, edited by yourself, and believe the doctrine to be in accordance with the word of God, and that it is therefore calculated to disseminate life, light, and immortality to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, and is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; comforting, confirming, and establishing them in the faith.." (pg. 142)
Again, this is not what is advocated by today's Hardshells. Today's "Primitive Baptists" will say that the means doctrine is "Arminianism," or as some are now doing, calling such a belief in means "Calvinism."
From Vol. 3
Elder John Watson wrote:
"We are informed by the apostle, in 2 Thess. 2: 13, that a sanctification of the spirit is necessarily connected with a belief of the truth; and those who cannot bear sound doctrine, would not at all be benefited, by our softening down gospel truths. We are directed in 2 Tim. 2: 23, to instruct those who oppose the truth, in meekness, hoping that the Lord may grant them "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (Pg. 83)
"So we understand that sanctification and faith are the means of that salvation to which God had chosen these Thessalonians. In short, we should take no man's opinion in such cases, nor have an opinion of our own, without a thus saith the Lord for it; for opinion must always be founded upon evidence." (pg. 95)
We know what Elder Watson believed about means in the new birth. His "Old Baptist Test" is full of statements in line with what he writes here. Further, Elder John Clark was a frequent writer and supporter of this periodical and he obviously shared the beliefs of Watson, Lawrence, Hassell, Bennett (the first editor), and others who supported this Kehukee Association supported paper. So too did Wilson Thomspon and his son Grigg Thompson read this periodical, the latter especially.
"So then, he hath chosen us that we might be holy, etc. consequently will give us the means of salvation, which are faith and holiness. And God is onmiscient (sic), or every where present, and therefore none of his elect shall miss the end designed; that is, eternal life: For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God, etc. Chosen in him before the foundation of the world, etc. So then, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And even in the same way that the Lord sent his gospel to all the world once, even so now will he send it where he pleaseth; for he is of one mind and one way, and hath not said to the church, send ye my gospel any where." (pg. 109-10)
"I find the will of God is to believe the record that God has given us of his Son for salvation, which would include all the fundamental principles of the gospel, and a good deal more; and the doctrine of election and predestination, and final perseverance of the saints, all of which I believe in." (pg. 115)
"...as I do believe God has chosen his people in Christ before the world was, and that according to his own purpose. And as he has made the choice of the characters that shall inherit his kingdom above, he has also ordained the means by which they shall be prepared and qualified for that eternal world. He has not chosen his people in Christ and left the means to be used necessary to bring them there in the hands of men. No, sir, he has ordained the preaching of the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, as his own method of saving his elect." (pg. 145)
Today's Hardshells have apostatized from what their forefathers believed. Is this not why they have wanted to hide such old periodicals and information over the past one hundred years or so? But, thanks to the Internet, such works are being taken out of the closets of libraries and discovered. And oh what a discovery it is for those Hardshells today who know nothing of their real history.
"But perhaps the effort party may conclude there is still something for them to do, preachers must be prepared and sent to preach; but I want you also to remember, that God has not left this work in the hands of men, to say who shall preach his gospel, or who shall be instrumental in his hands in bringing his elect to a saving knowledge of his truth and glorious inheritance above. No, sir, he has reserved this work also to himself, he calls and qualifies his ministers to preach Jesus." (pg. 145)
"Therefore we need no other means now than were needed eighteen hundred years ago; it then required the power of God to quicken a dead sinner and make him alive, it requires the same now and nothing short of that will effect the salvation of the soul. God saved his chosen people before missionary societies were introduced, by the ministers he chose, by the means he ordained, and not by plans devised by mortals; consequently they were indebted to him alone for that salvation, he was entitled to all praise and glory: Not unto us, but unto thy name give glory." (pg. 146)
Notice how it is said "we need no other means." You see, these Hardshells rejected "human means," such as seminaries, Sunday schools, revival meetings, etc., but they did not "throw the baby out with the bath water" as their later descendents would do, for though they rejected these "human means" they did not see this as excluding the preaching of the Gospel as a divinely appointed means.
This is what brother Fralick and I believe and we are therefore the real Old or Primitive Baptists.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Robert Hall vs. Hardshell Hyperists
Robert Hall Sr. was a leader among 18th century English Particular Baptists. He is known for his fight against "false Calvinism" or "Hyper Calvinism." Especially in "Help To Zion's Travellers" does Hall refute the errors of the Hyper Calvinist concerning duty faith and Gospel offers and invitations.
In 1836 "The Christian Index" published from Hall his apology against the false Calvinists. The Hardshells took notice of it and in the first volume of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical (1836) a response is made to the Index and to Hall's writing. In this posting I will give that response and add some comments.
Vol. 1 of "The Primitive Baptist" (1836)
"False Calvinism" by Robert Hall
Robert Hall wrote a Preface to his father's popular little work, called "A Help to Zion's Travellers." It has some valuable observations on hyper-Calvinism, which we do not think are reprinted in the regular editions of that distinguished author's works.
"Another principle," he says, "assumed as a basis by the high Calvinist is, that the same things cannot be the duty of man and the gift of God, or in other words, that what is matter of promise, can on no occasion be the matter of obligation. The scriptures frequently affirm faith and repentance to be the gift of God; hence it is concluded that they cannot be obligatory on the unregenerate, a conclusion diametrically opposed to innumerable passages of the Old and New Testaments, which insist in the most peremptory style on the true conversion and a lively faith as the most essential duties; which other passages are equally expressive in exhibiting as matter of promise." (pg. 373)
"Robert Hall maintains, as it is seen above, that faith and repentance are both, the duty of men, and the gift of God. The Christian Index tells us that Hall quoted several passages of scripture from the Old and New Testaments, in proof of his doctrine, we should have been gratified if the Index had given us the references only to those passages of scripture, that we might examine his evidence. The truth is, Robert Hall can offer no scripture to support his doctrine. He, or any other person, may quote scripture, and that too with the view to sustain some proposed point of doctrine; but after it is admitted that "the scriptures frequently affirm faith and repentance to be the gifts of God," no quotations from scripture, nor any mode of reasoning, to prove them duties and "obligatory on the unregenerate, can save Robert Hall or any of his advocates from the charge of absurdity."
This Hardshell says the same thing that James Wells would also say some thirty years after this (see the previous posting on Wells). The Hyper Calvinist cannot see how faith and repentance can be duties and yet be necessary for salvation. He cannot see how they can be BOTH duties and gifts or works of God. Hall, and the true Calvinists, cannot understand why the Hyper or False Calvinist cannot see how they can both (logically speaking) be true, without contradiction, and how it is in fact the teaching of holy scripture.
Our Hardshell critic of Hall Sr. and Jr. says that no scripture was given to support the fact that faith and repentance were both duties and sovereign efficacious gifts of God. This is what Wells also said of the duty faith position. And yet, Hall, Fuller, and others have constantly quoted scripture to prove their thesis. In fact, in my recent posting James Wells on Duty Faith, I cited several verses that prove the point. Did this Hardshell not know of them? Like Wells seemed not to know of them?
This Hardshell says that it is "absurd" to think that a gift cannot be a duty. But, ironically, it is this Hardshell's reasoning that is absurd. Further, calling the duty faith position "absurd" is no argument against the view but simply an opinion. This Hardshell brother is certainly not doing as Wells would later advise and handle this subject with care! Further, he is not willing to acknowledge, as did Wells, that the anti duty faith view was not the general view of the Baptists of former centuries, especially of those of the 17th century. And, he does not seem to see how there are "problems on both sides of this question" as Wells acknowledged. To this conceited Hardshell apologist, the great Calvinists and Particular Baptists of former times believed in what is "absurd"! What arrogance!
Our Hardshell apologist responds further, saying -
"There is no law which says, Thou shalt believe in the Lord Jesus Christ: nor is there any law which says, Thou shalt repent of thy sins. Hence it is not duty which enjoins these...How can men owe that to God, which is a gift FROM HIM?"
This Hardshell offers two reasons why he cannot accept the duty faith position (if you recall, Wells gave three objections to the view). First, he says there is no law commanding men to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, he simply affirms (by use of a rhetorical) that what is a gift from God cannot also be a duty.
It is easy to reply to the first by simply citing the numerous passages that command all men to repent and believe (which I have done many times, and in recent postings on this subject). But, let me just cite one.
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." (Acts 17: 30)
Did our Hardshell brother forget such verses?
One interesting note here is to observe how these first Hardshells (1830s) did not think faith and repentance were unnecessary for being finally saved in heaven, as do our modern day Hardshells.
The Hardshell rebuttal to Hall continued:
"We admit that man is bound to obey the divine commands of the law of God; but it does not follow that faith and repentance are commanded."
Again, how can he not see that the scriptures show that faith and repentance are indeed commanded?
He continues:
"But waiting till they enquired,--what they should do, that is (not as duty to God, but,) to be saved, he directed them to repent, etc., adding the promise is unto you, etc. The jailer also enquired how he could be saved. The answer was, believe, etc. This was direction, instruction, etc., and not a command."
It was not a command? Does this brother not know that such words (repent, believe, etc. are in the imperative mood and denotes a command?). It was instruction, direction, but not command? Now, who is really guilty of the "absurd"?
He continued:
"Once more. If faith, repentance, etc., be duties obligatory upon the unregenerate, then condemnation came by the gospel as well as by the law."
But, condemnation does come through the Gospel! That does not mean that men who have not heard the Gospel are not condemned! It only means that those who hear the Gospel and reject it INCREASE their sins and condemnation. Isn't this brother affirming that rejection of the Gospel is no sin to the unregenerate? Is he not saying that God is pleased that the unregenerate disbelieve his word and reject his offers of mercy and pardon, and reject his given Son?
He continued with his Hardshell reasoning, saying -
"For faith and repentance belong to gospel, and not to law."
Is he saying that what is commanded by Jesus in the new testament is not law, not obligatory? What did James refer to when he spoke of "the law of liberty" (James 1: 25)? Was it not the Gospel? If God "commands" all men to repent, is this not Gospel law?
He continued:
"And if the unregenerate owe it as duty to the gospel to repent, but fail, then the gospel must arraign them before its bar and pass sentence of condemnation against them. Whereas there is no condemnation in the gospel, neither to those who have obeyed it, nor to those who have not."
He clearly affirms that rejection of the Gospel by the unregenerate is no sin! No unregenerate person will be condemned for not obeying God's command to repent! Now, who is being not only absurd but opposed to clear scripture teaching?
He continued:
"Indeed, sin is the transgression of the law: (I John 3: 14) but Robert Hall teaches that sin is the transgression of the gospel." (pg. 375)
Do we have to prove to Hardshells that unbelief and rejection of Christ are sins? Unbelievable! Do we have to prove to them that sinners will be judged, in the day of final judgment, for their rejection of Christ and the Gospel? Again, I have cited numerous passages through the years to prove these things (as others have before me).
Notice these verses, that this Hardshell seems to not know anything about.
"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me." (jon 16: 8-9)
"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." (I John 3: 23)
In 1836 "The Christian Index" published from Hall his apology against the false Calvinists. The Hardshells took notice of it and in the first volume of "The Primitive Baptist" periodical (1836) a response is made to the Index and to Hall's writing. In this posting I will give that response and add some comments.
Vol. 1 of "The Primitive Baptist" (1836)
"False Calvinism" by Robert Hall
Robert Hall wrote a Preface to his father's popular little work, called "A Help to Zion's Travellers." It has some valuable observations on hyper-Calvinism, which we do not think are reprinted in the regular editions of that distinguished author's works.
"Another principle," he says, "assumed as a basis by the high Calvinist is, that the same things cannot be the duty of man and the gift of God, or in other words, that what is matter of promise, can on no occasion be the matter of obligation. The scriptures frequently affirm faith and repentance to be the gift of God; hence it is concluded that they cannot be obligatory on the unregenerate, a conclusion diametrically opposed to innumerable passages of the Old and New Testaments, which insist in the most peremptory style on the true conversion and a lively faith as the most essential duties; which other passages are equally expressive in exhibiting as matter of promise." (pg. 373)
"Robert Hall maintains, as it is seen above, that faith and repentance are both, the duty of men, and the gift of God. The Christian Index tells us that Hall quoted several passages of scripture from the Old and New Testaments, in proof of his doctrine, we should have been gratified if the Index had given us the references only to those passages of scripture, that we might examine his evidence. The truth is, Robert Hall can offer no scripture to support his doctrine. He, or any other person, may quote scripture, and that too with the view to sustain some proposed point of doctrine; but after it is admitted that "the scriptures frequently affirm faith and repentance to be the gifts of God," no quotations from scripture, nor any mode of reasoning, to prove them duties and "obligatory on the unregenerate, can save Robert Hall or any of his advocates from the charge of absurdity."
This Hardshell says the same thing that James Wells would also say some thirty years after this (see the previous posting on Wells). The Hyper Calvinist cannot see how faith and repentance can be duties and yet be necessary for salvation. He cannot see how they can be BOTH duties and gifts or works of God. Hall, and the true Calvinists, cannot understand why the Hyper or False Calvinist cannot see how they can both (logically speaking) be true, without contradiction, and how it is in fact the teaching of holy scripture.
Our Hardshell critic of Hall Sr. and Jr. says that no scripture was given to support the fact that faith and repentance were both duties and sovereign efficacious gifts of God. This is what Wells also said of the duty faith position. And yet, Hall, Fuller, and others have constantly quoted scripture to prove their thesis. In fact, in my recent posting James Wells on Duty Faith, I cited several verses that prove the point. Did this Hardshell not know of them? Like Wells seemed not to know of them?
This Hardshell says that it is "absurd" to think that a gift cannot be a duty. But, ironically, it is this Hardshell's reasoning that is absurd. Further, calling the duty faith position "absurd" is no argument against the view but simply an opinion. This Hardshell brother is certainly not doing as Wells would later advise and handle this subject with care! Further, he is not willing to acknowledge, as did Wells, that the anti duty faith view was not the general view of the Baptists of former centuries, especially of those of the 17th century. And, he does not seem to see how there are "problems on both sides of this question" as Wells acknowledged. To this conceited Hardshell apologist, the great Calvinists and Particular Baptists of former times believed in what is "absurd"! What arrogance!
Our Hardshell apologist responds further, saying -
"There is no law which says, Thou shalt believe in the Lord Jesus Christ: nor is there any law which says, Thou shalt repent of thy sins. Hence it is not duty which enjoins these...How can men owe that to God, which is a gift FROM HIM?"
This Hardshell offers two reasons why he cannot accept the duty faith position (if you recall, Wells gave three objections to the view). First, he says there is no law commanding men to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, he simply affirms (by use of a rhetorical) that what is a gift from God cannot also be a duty.
It is easy to reply to the first by simply citing the numerous passages that command all men to repent and believe (which I have done many times, and in recent postings on this subject). But, let me just cite one.
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent." (Acts 17: 30)
Did our Hardshell brother forget such verses?
One interesting note here is to observe how these first Hardshells (1830s) did not think faith and repentance were unnecessary for being finally saved in heaven, as do our modern day Hardshells.
The Hardshell rebuttal to Hall continued:
"We admit that man is bound to obey the divine commands of the law of God; but it does not follow that faith and repentance are commanded."
Again, how can he not see that the scriptures show that faith and repentance are indeed commanded?
He continues:
"But waiting till they enquired,--what they should do, that is (not as duty to God, but,) to be saved, he directed them to repent, etc., adding the promise is unto you, etc. The jailer also enquired how he could be saved. The answer was, believe, etc. This was direction, instruction, etc., and not a command."
It was not a command? Does this brother not know that such words (repent, believe, etc. are in the imperative mood and denotes a command?). It was instruction, direction, but not command? Now, who is really guilty of the "absurd"?
He continued:
"Once more. If faith, repentance, etc., be duties obligatory upon the unregenerate, then condemnation came by the gospel as well as by the law."
But, condemnation does come through the Gospel! That does not mean that men who have not heard the Gospel are not condemned! It only means that those who hear the Gospel and reject it INCREASE their sins and condemnation. Isn't this brother affirming that rejection of the Gospel is no sin to the unregenerate? Is he not saying that God is pleased that the unregenerate disbelieve his word and reject his offers of mercy and pardon, and reject his given Son?
He continued with his Hardshell reasoning, saying -
"For faith and repentance belong to gospel, and not to law."
Is he saying that what is commanded by Jesus in the new testament is not law, not obligatory? What did James refer to when he spoke of "the law of liberty" (James 1: 25)? Was it not the Gospel? If God "commands" all men to repent, is this not Gospel law?
He continued:
"And if the unregenerate owe it as duty to the gospel to repent, but fail, then the gospel must arraign them before its bar and pass sentence of condemnation against them. Whereas there is no condemnation in the gospel, neither to those who have obeyed it, nor to those who have not."
He clearly affirms that rejection of the Gospel by the unregenerate is no sin! No unregenerate person will be condemned for not obeying God's command to repent! Now, who is being not only absurd but opposed to clear scripture teaching?
He continued:
"Indeed, sin is the transgression of the law: (I John 3: 14) but Robert Hall teaches that sin is the transgression of the gospel." (pg. 375)
Do we have to prove to Hardshells that unbelief and rejection of Christ are sins? Unbelievable! Do we have to prove to them that sinners will be judged, in the day of final judgment, for their rejection of Christ and the Gospel? Again, I have cited numerous passages through the years to prove these things (as others have before me).
Notice these verses, that this Hardshell seems to not know anything about.
"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me." (jon 16: 8-9)
"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." (I John 3: 23)
"...he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (I John 5: 10)
Friday, December 11, 2015
17th century Baptists on Gospel Offers
From the 1644 London Particular Baptist Confession of Faith (SEE HERE)
(emphasis mine)
VI.
(1) This therefore is life eternal, to know the only true God, and whom He has sent Jesus Christ.(2) And on the contrary, the Lord will render vengeance in flaming fire to them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1) John 17:3; Heb. 5:9; Jer. 23:5, 6
2) 2 Thes. 1:8; John 3:36
XXIV.
That faith is ordinarily(1) begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to(2) any power or capacity in the creature, but it is wholly(3)passive, being dead in sins and trespasses, does believe, and is converted by no less power,(4) then that which raised Christ from the dead.
1) Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21
2) Rom. 9:16
3) Rom. 2:1, 2; Ezek. 16:6; Rom 3:12
4) Rom. 1:16; Eph. 1:19; Col 2:12
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,(1) is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a(2) sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made(3) a Prince and a Savior for such sinners.
1) John 3:14, 15; 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37
2) 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5; 5:8
3) Acts 5:30-31; 2:36; 1 Cor. 1:22-24
From the 1689 London Particular Baptist Confession of Faith (SEE HERE)
10. Effectual Calling
Those whom God has predestinated to life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time to effectually call by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ...Man is dead in sins and trespasses until quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit. By this he is enabled to answer the call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it. This enabling power is no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
20. The Gospel and Its Influence
The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable for life, God was pleased to promise Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect and bringing to life within them faith and repentance. In this promise the substance of the Gospel was revealed and shown to be the effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.
This promise of Christ and the salvation which comes by Him, is revealed only by the Word of God. The works of creation and providence with the light of nature do not reveal Christ or His grace even in a general or obscure way. How much less, therefore, can those who are devoid of the revelation of Christ by the promise (or the Gospel) be enabled by the light of nature to arrive at saving faith or repentance.
(emphasis mine)
VI.
(1) This therefore is life eternal, to know the only true God, and whom He has sent Jesus Christ.(2) And on the contrary, the Lord will render vengeance in flaming fire to them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1) John 17:3; Heb. 5:9; Jer. 23:5, 6
2) 2 Thes. 1:8; John 3:36
XXIV.
That faith is ordinarily(1) begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to(2) any power or capacity in the creature, but it is wholly(3)passive, being dead in sins and trespasses, does believe, and is converted by no less power,(4) then that which raised Christ from the dead.
1) Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21
2) Rom. 9:16
3) Rom. 2:1, 2; Ezek. 16:6; Rom 3:12
4) Rom. 1:16; Eph. 1:19; Col 2:12
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,(1) is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a(2) sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made(3) a Prince and a Savior for such sinners.
1) John 3:14, 15; 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37
2) 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5; 5:8
3) Acts 5:30-31; 2:36; 1 Cor. 1:22-24
From the 1689 London Particular Baptist Confession of Faith (SEE HERE)
10. Effectual Calling
Those whom God has predestinated to life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time to effectually call by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ...Man is dead in sins and trespasses until quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit. By this he is enabled to answer the call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it. This enabling power is no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
20. The Gospel and Its Influence
The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable for life, God was pleased to promise Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect and bringing to life within them faith and repentance. In this promise the substance of the Gospel was revealed and shown to be the effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.
This promise of Christ and the salvation which comes by Him, is revealed only by the Word of God. The works of creation and providence with the light of nature do not reveal Christ or His grace even in a general or obscure way. How much less, therefore, can those who are devoid of the revelation of Christ by the promise (or the Gospel) be enabled by the light of nature to arrive at saving faith or repentance.
Wilson Thompson Originally Espoused Gospel Means
Thompson wrote the following in the 1820s many years before he changed his views and became a Hardshell anti means adherent. What he says here is the old Baptist position. (emphasis mine)
"Wherein Sarah and her son were a figures of the gospel and those under it, first she was a figure of the gospel in her name Sarah, which signifies lady, princess, princess of the multitude; and this name was given to her because the blessing of God was upon her, and nations of people should of her, to denote that the gospel was to go amongst all nations, with the blessing of God attending it, and bring forth children in different nations, who are to be born again of an incorruptable seed by the word of God, which by the gospel is preached unto you."–
Again, Sarah was Abraham’s companion and ruler in his house, to shew that the gospel was a companion of God, and a rule in his house, whose house ye are. –
Again, Sarah lived in Abraham’s affections, long before she brought forth any children; so thegospel is the good will of God towards his people; which lived in his affections long before it was manifest in bringing forth children to him. –
Again there was a set time for Sarah to bring forth Isaac, so there was a set time for the gospel dispensation to take place. Sarah brought forth a promised seed, to denote that the gospel brings forth a seed of promise, or the heirs according to promise. -
Again, Sarah's son was born after Agar's to denote that the gospel dispensation should be after the law, and as Sarah was a figure of the gospel, or its dispensation, so her son was a figure of those under it; or the spiritual seed of Abraham, first in his name Isaac, which signifies laughter, and may denote the joy and gladness experienced by all those born under the ministration of the gospel. Isaac was not born after the flesh, but after the spirit, to denote that those born under the gospel, are born not of the flesh but of the spirit. Isaac was Abraham’s heir to denote that those born under the influence of the gospel, are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. Isaac was born by promise, to denote that those born under the gospel, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. And as Isaac was persecuted by Ishmael, so it is now: but as then Agar and her son were cast out, and Ishmael could not be hear with Isaac; so the glory of the law disappears, and those under it are cast out, when the superior glory of the gospel breaks forth amongst the Gentiles, and brings forth its heaven born children; and so we see that these things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants." (See Chapter 56 - On Conviction III)
Children are begotten by the Gospel. That was the position of Thompson before the rise of the Hardshells.
"Wherein Sarah and her son were a figures of the gospel and those under it, first she was a figure of the gospel in her name Sarah, which signifies lady, princess, princess of the multitude; and this name was given to her because the blessing of God was upon her, and nations of people should of her, to denote that the gospel was to go amongst all nations, with the blessing of God attending it, and bring forth children in different nations, who are to be born again of an incorruptable seed by the word of God, which by the gospel is preached unto you."–
Again, Sarah was Abraham’s companion and ruler in his house, to shew that the gospel was a companion of God, and a rule in his house, whose house ye are. –
Again, Sarah lived in Abraham’s affections, long before she brought forth any children; so thegospel is the good will of God towards his people; which lived in his affections long before it was manifest in bringing forth children to him. –
Again there was a set time for Sarah to bring forth Isaac, so there was a set time for the gospel dispensation to take place. Sarah brought forth a promised seed, to denote that the gospel brings forth a seed of promise, or the heirs according to promise. -
Again, Sarah's son was born after Agar's to denote that the gospel dispensation should be after the law, and as Sarah was a figure of the gospel, or its dispensation, so her son was a figure of those under it; or the spiritual seed of Abraham, first in his name Isaac, which signifies laughter, and may denote the joy and gladness experienced by all those born under the ministration of the gospel. Isaac was not born after the flesh, but after the spirit, to denote that those born under the gospel, are born not of the flesh but of the spirit. Isaac was Abraham’s heir to denote that those born under the influence of the gospel, are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. Isaac was born by promise, to denote that those born under the gospel, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. And as Isaac was persecuted by Ishmael, so it is now: but as then Agar and her son were cast out, and Ishmael could not be hear with Isaac; so the glory of the law disappears, and those under it are cast out, when the superior glory of the gospel breaks forth amongst the Gentiles, and brings forth its heaven born children; and so we see that these things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants." (See Chapter 56 - On Conviction III)
Children are begotten by the Gospel. That was the position of Thompson before the rise of the Hardshells.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
James Wells on Duty Faith
James Wells was a severe antagonist of the great Charles Spurgeon, even doubting that Spurgeon had ever been born again. The Hyper Calvinists, such as among the old Strict Baptists and among today's Hardshell Baptists, look at Wells with admiration and think that he represents their doctrinal tradition of anti duty faith and anti means regeneration.
In this posting I will be citing from Wells, from his work "The Faith of God’s Elect; and a Word upon Duty Faith," being A SERMON – Preached on Sunday Morning, August 30th, 1868, by MR. JAMES WELLS AT THE NEW SURREY TABERNACLE, WANSEY STREET (SEE HERE). From these citations we will see that Wells, though denying duty faith, did not go to such extremes in doing so as do today's Hardshells, and see that Well's attempt to answer the affirmative arguments of those who believed in duty faith (as Spurgeon) were not sound, cogent, or scriptural.
Wrote Wells (all emphasis mine):
"...some hold that it is the duty of all men savingly to believe in Christ; and there is a piece of logic which is the stronghold of that system, and before I make a few remarks carefully upon it I am free to confess that there are difficulties on both sides of the question."
It is good that Wells at least gives the appearance of wanting to be fair in the debate over the question of duty faith. He is at least more honest than most of our neo Hyper Calvinist Hardshells for he acknowledges that "there are difficulties on both sides of the question." Today's Hardshells have become so cock sure about their anti duty faith and anti means regeneration positions that they will not make the same acknowledgment as did Wells.
Wrote Wells:
"We cannot suppose that when such men as Bunyan, and many of the great Puritans of that day-the majority of them-held the doctrine of duty-faith, we cannot suppose but there must be something bearing in that way in the Scriptures in their estimation."
Notice the admission! One of the leaders of the anti duty faith side admitting that his view is not the orthodox view of his forefathers, of the great Particular Baptists leaders of the 17th century. Further, when he says "the majority of them" he should have said "nearly all of them."
Wrote Wells:
"They were men of mighty minds, and yet they held that doctrine."
Again, another revealing admission by a leading 19th century Hyper Calvinist, and one which I am sure agitates the consciences and minds of men like Wells. He has admitted that the majority of the great Puritans (like Owen) and Baptists (like Bunyan, the 1689 Confession signers, etc.) believed in duty faith and now he admits that these men (with whom he disagrees) were great men. I would like for our modern Hardshells to at least agree with Wells that the denial of duty faith is not the traditional view of Particular Baptists.
Wells continued:
"So that when we see men the reality of whose religion we cannot dispute hold a doctrine of that kind, let us handle it carefully."
Yes, indeed, let us handle it carefully (just as we should every teaching of scripture). But, it is difficult to even get today's simple minded Hardshells to "handle" it at all, and certainly not with care. How did John Gill handle it? Did not men like Brine and Wells go much further astray on this subject than their admired Gill?
Wrote Wells:
"Let us see whether there may not be some difficulties on our side as well as on theirs. It is very easy to ridicule the sentiment of an opponent; it is very easy to be sarcastic, but it is not so easy to refute."
Will you at least confess this much my Hardshell brothers? Or, will you remain so arrogant in affirming your heterodox view while denouncing the other side as being unlearned and in error on this issue?
Wrote Wells:
"Infidels may ridicule the Bible, but they never have been and never will be able to refute it. Now their argument, then, is this-that if faith be not a duty, unbelief is no sin. That is a very powerful declaration, and that is the stronghold of that doctrine; and I must hold with it, because it is a piece of logic as correct as possible; no man can deny it."
I wish that we could get at least our modern Hardshells to make even this admission! But, many of them will not be so honest as Wells appears or desires to be. Did you get what he said my Hardshell brothers? "No man can deny it." Yet, this is what you all do! You will not say that "unbelief is sin."
Wrote Wells:
"Therefore it comes to this, that unbelief is sin, and that there must be a sense in which it is the duty of the creature to believe; for if not, then unbelief is no sin. Well, I have always held that it is the duty of the creature to believe the word of God, that it is the duty of the creature to act according to the light that God gives; that it was the duty of the old world to listen to Noah, by which they might have escaped the flood; that it was the duty of the Ninevites to listen to Jonah, which they did, and believed, and saved their city; that it was the duty of Capernaum, the cities of Judah and Jerusalem, to believe that the Saviour was the Messiah, and to bow to him, and the cities might have remained to this day, as witness the Saviour:- If these things had been done, he said, in Sodom, they would have repented long ago, and their city would have remained to this day."
Notice that Wells, though he is going to DENY "duty faith," yet here admits that "unbelief is sin," and this being so, "it is the duty of the creature to believe." If I only had this citation by itself, I would think that Wells and Spurgeon were in agreement. I would that our modern Hardshell and Strict Baptist brothers would at least come back to the less extreme view of Wells and affirm what he wrote in the above citation.
Wrote Wells:
"But then this natural belief is one thing, and the faith that God gives to his people is quite another thing. I therefore hold unbelief be sin; that is, I hold it to be sinful for a man to be an infidel; I hold it to be sinful for a man to disbelieve the Bible."
Again, in reading these words you would not think that Wells was against duty faith, It is also interesting to note how our present day Hardshells go even further than Wells and would deny what Wells wrote in the above words.
Wells continued:
"But I do not hold it to be sinful for a man not to have saving faith. When I come to saving faith, I come into another region altogether. In the first case, man’s duty, there I am in the region of human responsibility. Man is a voluntary agent, and is responsible for his acts. I do not hold the atheistical doctrine of irresponsibility. All men are responsible, and there will be at the last great day a greater condemnation for the persecutors and enemies of the Lord than for others."
Wells attempts to harmonize his affirmation of some kind of duty faith on the one hand with his denial of another kind of non duty faith on the other hand. He does what John Brine did, and so too Dr. Gill in some cases. What these biblical expositors did was to make the "two kinds of" argument that has characterized the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists in their writings and hermeneutics. There are two kinds of faith, two kinds of repentance, two kinds of salvation, two kinds of conversion, etc. Wells gives us two kinds of "unbelief" and two kinds of "belief" (or faith).
Wells says that the kind of belief or faith required of all men is "natural faith" (whatever that means) but not "saving faith." But, he does not give any clear definition and distinction between the two. Is it that the belief God requires of all men lacks something? What is it? The heart? The object of belief?
Wrote Wells:
"Thus, then, it is the duty of man to receive his Creator; here is his responsibility; and he is responsible in proportion as he has not done so, and will be favored with a less condemnation in proportion as he has done so."
Wells speaks of "the duty of man to receive his Creator." Why would God require men to receive him in any other way than as he is revealed in Scripture? Would not his duty to receive his Creator mean that he should do so with a full heart? With joy and honesty of soul? Would it not include believing in Christ the Son of God and receiving his teachings, heeding his warnings, and taking his advice?
If one only had the above words alone, outside of their context, one could cite Wells as a believer in duty faith, but if he reads the whole, he will see that Wells is writing against duty faith. It would be good if our modern Hardshells who favor Wells over Spurgeon would at least come back to the less extreme view of Wells and at least confess what he said in the words just cited.
But, after saying the above things, Wells asks rhetorically - "But what has this to do with saving faith? Why, just nothing at all."
The faith or belief that God requires of his creatures is not such as will save them? Where did he get that idea? Let us hear him explain.
Wrote Wells:
"I will now just name three things that hinder me from receiving the doctrine that it is the duty of all men savingly to believe in Christ. First, it is a doctrine which whether those that believe it or not, rests the eternal salvation of man upon the creature, and takes it out of the hand of the Lord. Any principle that you hold that will not bear carrying out must be wrong. Now, then, let us try this question. It is my duty savingly to believe in Christ; consequently it is my duty to be regenerated; therefore it is my duty to be loved with an everlasting love; it is my duty to be chosen to salvation; it is my duty to be interested in Christ; it is my duty to have all my sin pardoned, and my soul eternally saved."
Wells falsely reasons that whatever is necessary for salvation cannot be a duty. Further, he gives no Scripture that affirms his thesis or premise. Of course, there are abundant scripture to show that his proposition is false, as I shall show (as many others have before me). He then states that such a view would "rest the eternal salvation of man upon the creature" and would "take it out of the hand of the Lord." But, as he has already admitted, such was not the belief of Well's Baptist forefathers or of the great Puritan writers. They did not believe that faith being a duty made it a non essential to salvation. They believed that saving faith could be, and actually is, both a duty and a sovereign gift of God's grace and that such a view did not entail the assumed consequences of Well's Hyper Calvinist reasoning.
Further, in these words, Wells charges his opponents with believing more than they do when he says that all fallen sinners are duty bound to believe that they are chosen to salvation, or that Christ died in their stead, etc. He is wrong to think that the Scriptures do not command all fallen men to seek God and his favor and forgiveness, or to become holy through regeneration. The following scriptures show that the objection of Wells is itself what is contrary to Scripture.
"Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God." (Lev. 20: 7)
"Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." (James 4: 8)
Gill's Commentary
"...yet such exhortations are not in vain, since they may be useful to convince men of their pollution, who are pure in their own eyes, as these hypocritical, nominal professors, might be; and to bring them to a sense of their inability to cleanse themselves ("awaken" them - SG), and of the necessity of being cleansed elsewhere; and to lead them to inquire after the proper means of cleansing, and so to the fountain of Christ's blood, which only cleanses from all sin."
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." (Matt. 23: 25-26)
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Eze. 18: 31)
"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4:4)
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19)
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2:40)
"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5: 14)
The question is this - does God call or invite all men to look to him for salvation from their sins? And, if he does, then is it not the duty of all men to accept that invitation?
Another question is this - if men are commanded to believe that Christ is the Savior of the world, and to believe all that he has revealed, does that not include believing the promises that Christ attached to his declarations of what is man's duty to believe?
Are there not teachings from Christ about the nature of the Gospel's invitations to men and of the promises attached to them, about the blessings and curses attached to either reception or rejection of those invitations?
Wrote Wells:
"The third and last, and not the least objection I have to that doctrine is this, that I can find it nowhere in the Scriptures."
Perhaps he missed seeing the above Scriptures?
In this posting I will be citing from Wells, from his work "The Faith of God’s Elect; and a Word upon Duty Faith," being A SERMON – Preached on Sunday Morning, August 30th, 1868, by MR. JAMES WELLS AT THE NEW SURREY TABERNACLE, WANSEY STREET (SEE HERE). From these citations we will see that Wells, though denying duty faith, did not go to such extremes in doing so as do today's Hardshells, and see that Well's attempt to answer the affirmative arguments of those who believed in duty faith (as Spurgeon) were not sound, cogent, or scriptural.
Wrote Wells (all emphasis mine):
"...some hold that it is the duty of all men savingly to believe in Christ; and there is a piece of logic which is the stronghold of that system, and before I make a few remarks carefully upon it I am free to confess that there are difficulties on both sides of the question."
It is good that Wells at least gives the appearance of wanting to be fair in the debate over the question of duty faith. He is at least more honest than most of our neo Hyper Calvinist Hardshells for he acknowledges that "there are difficulties on both sides of the question." Today's Hardshells have become so cock sure about their anti duty faith and anti means regeneration positions that they will not make the same acknowledgment as did Wells.
Wrote Wells:
"We cannot suppose that when such men as Bunyan, and many of the great Puritans of that day-the majority of them-held the doctrine of duty-faith, we cannot suppose but there must be something bearing in that way in the Scriptures in their estimation."
Notice the admission! One of the leaders of the anti duty faith side admitting that his view is not the orthodox view of his forefathers, of the great Particular Baptists leaders of the 17th century. Further, when he says "the majority of them" he should have said "nearly all of them."
Wrote Wells:
"They were men of mighty minds, and yet they held that doctrine."
Again, another revealing admission by a leading 19th century Hyper Calvinist, and one which I am sure agitates the consciences and minds of men like Wells. He has admitted that the majority of the great Puritans (like Owen) and Baptists (like Bunyan, the 1689 Confession signers, etc.) believed in duty faith and now he admits that these men (with whom he disagrees) were great men. I would like for our modern Hardshells to at least agree with Wells that the denial of duty faith is not the traditional view of Particular Baptists.
Wells continued:
"So that when we see men the reality of whose religion we cannot dispute hold a doctrine of that kind, let us handle it carefully."
Yes, indeed, let us handle it carefully (just as we should every teaching of scripture). But, it is difficult to even get today's simple minded Hardshells to "handle" it at all, and certainly not with care. How did John Gill handle it? Did not men like Brine and Wells go much further astray on this subject than their admired Gill?
Wrote Wells:
"Let us see whether there may not be some difficulties on our side as well as on theirs. It is very easy to ridicule the sentiment of an opponent; it is very easy to be sarcastic, but it is not so easy to refute."
Will you at least confess this much my Hardshell brothers? Or, will you remain so arrogant in affirming your heterodox view while denouncing the other side as being unlearned and in error on this issue?
Wrote Wells:
"Infidels may ridicule the Bible, but they never have been and never will be able to refute it. Now their argument, then, is this-that if faith be not a duty, unbelief is no sin. That is a very powerful declaration, and that is the stronghold of that doctrine; and I must hold with it, because it is a piece of logic as correct as possible; no man can deny it."
I wish that we could get at least our modern Hardshells to make even this admission! But, many of them will not be so honest as Wells appears or desires to be. Did you get what he said my Hardshell brothers? "No man can deny it." Yet, this is what you all do! You will not say that "unbelief is sin."
Wrote Wells:
"Therefore it comes to this, that unbelief is sin, and that there must be a sense in which it is the duty of the creature to believe; for if not, then unbelief is no sin. Well, I have always held that it is the duty of the creature to believe the word of God, that it is the duty of the creature to act according to the light that God gives; that it was the duty of the old world to listen to Noah, by which they might have escaped the flood; that it was the duty of the Ninevites to listen to Jonah, which they did, and believed, and saved their city; that it was the duty of Capernaum, the cities of Judah and Jerusalem, to believe that the Saviour was the Messiah, and to bow to him, and the cities might have remained to this day, as witness the Saviour:- If these things had been done, he said, in Sodom, they would have repented long ago, and their city would have remained to this day."
Notice that Wells, though he is going to DENY "duty faith," yet here admits that "unbelief is sin," and this being so, "it is the duty of the creature to believe." If I only had this citation by itself, I would think that Wells and Spurgeon were in agreement. I would that our modern Hardshell and Strict Baptist brothers would at least come back to the less extreme view of Wells and affirm what he wrote in the above citation.
Wrote Wells:
"But then this natural belief is one thing, and the faith that God gives to his people is quite another thing. I therefore hold unbelief be sin; that is, I hold it to be sinful for a man to be an infidel; I hold it to be sinful for a man to disbelieve the Bible."
Again, in reading these words you would not think that Wells was against duty faith, It is also interesting to note how our present day Hardshells go even further than Wells and would deny what Wells wrote in the above words.
Wells continued:
"But I do not hold it to be sinful for a man not to have saving faith. When I come to saving faith, I come into another region altogether. In the first case, man’s duty, there I am in the region of human responsibility. Man is a voluntary agent, and is responsible for his acts. I do not hold the atheistical doctrine of irresponsibility. All men are responsible, and there will be at the last great day a greater condemnation for the persecutors and enemies of the Lord than for others."
Wells attempts to harmonize his affirmation of some kind of duty faith on the one hand with his denial of another kind of non duty faith on the other hand. He does what John Brine did, and so too Dr. Gill in some cases. What these biblical expositors did was to make the "two kinds of" argument that has characterized the Hardshell Hyper Calvinists in their writings and hermeneutics. There are two kinds of faith, two kinds of repentance, two kinds of salvation, two kinds of conversion, etc. Wells gives us two kinds of "unbelief" and two kinds of "belief" (or faith).
Wells says that the kind of belief or faith required of all men is "natural faith" (whatever that means) but not "saving faith." But, he does not give any clear definition and distinction between the two. Is it that the belief God requires of all men lacks something? What is it? The heart? The object of belief?
Wrote Wells:
"Thus, then, it is the duty of man to receive his Creator; here is his responsibility; and he is responsible in proportion as he has not done so, and will be favored with a less condemnation in proportion as he has done so."
Wells speaks of "the duty of man to receive his Creator." Why would God require men to receive him in any other way than as he is revealed in Scripture? Would not his duty to receive his Creator mean that he should do so with a full heart? With joy and honesty of soul? Would it not include believing in Christ the Son of God and receiving his teachings, heeding his warnings, and taking his advice?
If one only had the above words alone, outside of their context, one could cite Wells as a believer in duty faith, but if he reads the whole, he will see that Wells is writing against duty faith. It would be good if our modern Hardshells who favor Wells over Spurgeon would at least come back to the less extreme view of Wells and at least confess what he said in the words just cited.
But, after saying the above things, Wells asks rhetorically - "But what has this to do with saving faith? Why, just nothing at all."
The faith or belief that God requires of his creatures is not such as will save them? Where did he get that idea? Let us hear him explain.
Wrote Wells:
"I will now just name three things that hinder me from receiving the doctrine that it is the duty of all men savingly to believe in Christ. First, it is a doctrine which whether those that believe it or not, rests the eternal salvation of man upon the creature, and takes it out of the hand of the Lord. Any principle that you hold that will not bear carrying out must be wrong. Now, then, let us try this question. It is my duty savingly to believe in Christ; consequently it is my duty to be regenerated; therefore it is my duty to be loved with an everlasting love; it is my duty to be chosen to salvation; it is my duty to be interested in Christ; it is my duty to have all my sin pardoned, and my soul eternally saved."
Wells falsely reasons that whatever is necessary for salvation cannot be a duty. Further, he gives no Scripture that affirms his thesis or premise. Of course, there are abundant scripture to show that his proposition is false, as I shall show (as many others have before me). He then states that such a view would "rest the eternal salvation of man upon the creature" and would "take it out of the hand of the Lord." But, as he has already admitted, such was not the belief of Well's Baptist forefathers or of the great Puritan writers. They did not believe that faith being a duty made it a non essential to salvation. They believed that saving faith could be, and actually is, both a duty and a sovereign gift of God's grace and that such a view did not entail the assumed consequences of Well's Hyper Calvinist reasoning.
Further, in these words, Wells charges his opponents with believing more than they do when he says that all fallen sinners are duty bound to believe that they are chosen to salvation, or that Christ died in their stead, etc. He is wrong to think that the Scriptures do not command all fallen men to seek God and his favor and forgiveness, or to become holy through regeneration. The following scriptures show that the objection of Wells is itself what is contrary to Scripture.
"Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God." (Lev. 20: 7)
"Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." (James 4: 8)
Gill's Commentary
"...yet such exhortations are not in vain, since they may be useful to convince men of their pollution, who are pure in their own eyes, as these hypocritical, nominal professors, might be; and to bring them to a sense of their inability to cleanse themselves ("awaken" them - SG), and of the necessity of being cleansed elsewhere; and to lead them to inquire after the proper means of cleansing, and so to the fountain of Christ's blood, which only cleanses from all sin."
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." (Matt. 23: 25-26)
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Eze. 18: 31)
"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4:4)
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19)
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2:40)
"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5: 14)
The question is this - does God call or invite all men to look to him for salvation from their sins? And, if he does, then is it not the duty of all men to accept that invitation?
Another question is this - if men are commanded to believe that Christ is the Savior of the world, and to believe all that he has revealed, does that not include believing the promises that Christ attached to his declarations of what is man's duty to believe?
Are there not teachings from Christ about the nature of the Gospel's invitations to men and of the promises attached to them, about the blessings and curses attached to either reception or rejection of those invitations?
Wrote Wells:
"The third and last, and not the least objection I have to that doctrine is this, that I can find it nowhere in the Scriptures."
Perhaps he missed seeing the above Scriptures?
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Seed faith, or faith God had in Christ?
It would be an understatement to say that I have gotten used to witnessing
contradictions in the soteriology of the “Primitive” Baptists. Some of
these however are only noticeable to those who have put under the microscope
the weightier doctrines of scripture. Yet this latest one I stumbled upon
(though I’ve known about it for many years) is so blatantly obvious that only
one who is inseparably wedded to his beliefs would refuse to acknowledge it.
On the website www.pbgrace.org are many articles, two of which are
called ‘Saved by Grace, but Whose Faith?’ and ‘The Christ of Arminianism’.
In the first
the author writes regarding Ephesians 2:8-9:
“Faith is
not man’s contribution to salvation but the gift of Christ which He sovereignly
imparts in regeneration. (John 3:3, John 6:44 & 65, John 15:16, Acts
11:18, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:1, Eph.
2:8-10, Phil. 1:29, Heb. 12:2)
In the second
however faith is handled differently. From the exact same passage!!!
It reads:
“The faith
under consideration then, cannot be yours. It is not your faith that
saves you, and the next verse tells us that – ‘and that not of yourselves.’
(Verse 9)
As we’ve shown
it can’t be our faith, we
conclude this is the faith God had in His son, Jesus, to fulfill the
agreement made before the world was formed. Christ was faithful to be
that sacrifice and pay that price.”
So there you
have it. A contradiction of which I need not convince you, but one
plainly set before the eyes. On the exact same website the faith of Eph. 2:8 is claimed to be what
Hardshells refer to as seed
faith in one article, but in
the other it is said to be the
faith which God had in His Son.
Well, which
one is it sir? Are we saved thru “seed faith”, or are we saved
thru “the faith God had in His Son”? Which one is necessary to be saved?
The idea that
there is a subconscious faith imparted in regeneration is the
traditional Hardshell interpretation of Ephesians 2:8 offered instead of evangelical faith…you know, the
“kind” spoken about in chapter one. It's called context folks. Look into it.
The other
idea, God having faith in His Son, is a persuasion believed by a minority, but
may be growing in acceptance. If it is, what does this mean for the
future? It is no secret that some of the PBs strongly object to the idea
that God has faith. Will those ministers who remain firm in their
position that seed faith is the proper apologetic response
to the notion that saving faith comes thru the gospel begin to ridicule those
who defer rather to some faith emanating from God. Or vice
versa?
Will this matter be “carried to the association”, or will these diverse
opinions among them continue to be tolerated? If the latter, then it will
prove only one thing. Hardshells are not really concerned about being of
one mind with regards to which exact “kind” of faith is necessary to be saved,
whether it be some faith which we have or God has. The only thing that
really matters is that an anti-gospel, anti-means conclusion is reached, which
both viewpoints, though opposing, provide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)