THE BAPTIST WITNESS (March 1997 Volume XLVI Number 3)
"Preachers' Meetings" by Lasserre Bradley, Jr.
"Mysticism has had its influence among our people."
Boy, is that not the truth!
Now let us cite from Elder Lemuel Potter's book against the doctrine of the eternal seed.
A DENIAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL CHILDREN, OR TWO SEEDS IN THE FLESH, by Elder Lemuel Potter, 1880, 67 pp. (SEE HERE)
THE NEW BIRTH
"About half a century ago metaphysics was introduced among the Old School Baptists..."
I intend, the Lord willing, to put together some examples of what Bradley and Potter had in mind when they made these statements about their denomination's theological meanderings over the years. Mysticism and metaphysics in theology are a Hardshell landmark.
The Hardshells are the biggest "hair splitters" in theology that I have ever known. They are like those medieval scholastics who debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin!
Before closing this short post I must also include these words of Bradley from the same source. He wrote:
"A man who will only fellowship those who see eye to eye with him on every subject will soon find he is all by himself."
I hope every Hardshell hears what he is saying!
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Fearing God - The Duty of Man
When I was having my long discussion on this blog with Hardshell apologist Jason Brown, we got into the issue of whether the "fear of God" was a proof of regeneration. In other words, are all those in Scripture who are said to have feared God and trembled before him those with renewed souls? Brown contended that Cornelius (Acts 10) was regenerated or born again before he came to Christ, before he believed and obeyed the Gospel, because he is said to fear God. My contention was that he was not saved till he heard the Gospel by the mouth of Peter and was saved. (Acts 11; 14) I also contended that the extreme position of Brown and the Hardshells on this issue forces them to say that the demons are regenerate, for they fear God and tremble before him. (James 2: 19)
In this posting I do not wish to focus on the issue of whether all who fear God are saved, but to focus on whether fearing God be not both a duty and a blessing accompanying new life in Christ. One of the leading Hardshell premises that they have given as an oracle to the world, which they think inspired and a rule or key for interpreting Scripture, is one that says "whatever is a duty cannot be necessary for eternal salvation." And this similar one - "whatever is given in regeneration cannot be a duty."
Of course I have already in this blog posted numerous proofs from Scripture that show the falsity of their proposition. In this posting I will add to those proofs this text.
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Ecc. 12: 12-14)
What is the "whole duty of man"? Does it not include fearing God? Keeping all his commandments?
Wrote Dr. Gill in his commentary on verse 12:
"Fear God" and especially Jesus Christ, the "Alpha" and "Omega", the sum and substance of the whole Bible..."
On verse 13 he said:
"the fear of God" includes the whole of internal religion, or powerful godliness; all the graces of the Spirit, and the exercise of them; reverence of God, love to him, faith in him, and in his Son Jesus Christ; hope of eternal life from him; humility of soul, patience and submission to his will, with every other grace...and "keeping of the commandments", or obedience to the whole will of God, is the fruit, effect, and evidence of the former; and takes in all the commands of God, moral and positive, whether under the former or present dispensation; and an observance of them in faith, from a principle of love, and with a view to the glory of God..."
I don't know why some men claim that Dr. Gill was opposed to duty faith and repentance in light of the above words. Gill says that the command to "fear God" includes loving and believing God and his Son Jesus Christ. He also says that it "takes in all the commands of God," which must include the command to believe and repent and acknowledge Christ.
On verse 14 he wrote:
"Not in this life, but in the day of the great judgment, as the Targum explains it; that is, whatever has been done by men, from the beginning of the world, or will be to the end; all being observed and taken notice of by the omniscient God, who has registered them in the book of his remembrance, and, being Judge, will be able to bring them all into account at that awful day: which is here given as a reason why men should fear God, and keep his commandments..."
Was the view of Gill here the "old Baptist" view in the time of Gill and before? Is it NOT the view of today's Hardshells who nevertheless call themselves "primitive" Baptists?
In this posting I do not wish to focus on the issue of whether all who fear God are saved, but to focus on whether fearing God be not both a duty and a blessing accompanying new life in Christ. One of the leading Hardshell premises that they have given as an oracle to the world, which they think inspired and a rule or key for interpreting Scripture, is one that says "whatever is a duty cannot be necessary for eternal salvation." And this similar one - "whatever is given in regeneration cannot be a duty."
Of course I have already in this blog posted numerous proofs from Scripture that show the falsity of their proposition. In this posting I will add to those proofs this text.
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Ecc. 12: 12-14)
What is the "whole duty of man"? Does it not include fearing God? Keeping all his commandments?
Wrote Dr. Gill in his commentary on verse 12:
"Fear God" and especially Jesus Christ, the "Alpha" and "Omega", the sum and substance of the whole Bible..."
On verse 13 he said:
"the fear of God" includes the whole of internal religion, or powerful godliness; all the graces of the Spirit, and the exercise of them; reverence of God, love to him, faith in him, and in his Son Jesus Christ; hope of eternal life from him; humility of soul, patience and submission to his will, with every other grace...and "keeping of the commandments", or obedience to the whole will of God, is the fruit, effect, and evidence of the former; and takes in all the commands of God, moral and positive, whether under the former or present dispensation; and an observance of them in faith, from a principle of love, and with a view to the glory of God..."
I don't know why some men claim that Dr. Gill was opposed to duty faith and repentance in light of the above words. Gill says that the command to "fear God" includes loving and believing God and his Son Jesus Christ. He also says that it "takes in all the commands of God," which must include the command to believe and repent and acknowledge Christ.
On verse 14 he wrote:
"Not in this life, but in the day of the great judgment, as the Targum explains it; that is, whatever has been done by men, from the beginning of the world, or will be to the end; all being observed and taken notice of by the omniscient God, who has registered them in the book of his remembrance, and, being Judge, will be able to bring them all into account at that awful day: which is here given as a reason why men should fear God, and keep his commandments..."
Was the view of Gill here the "old Baptist" view in the time of Gill and before? Is it NOT the view of today's Hardshells who nevertheless call themselves "primitive" Baptists?
Monday, December 28, 2015
The Subjective Experience Guaranteed
In his treatise Temporal Salvation: A Bogus or Biblical Concept? Elder Michael
Gowens states the underlying premise that he and his fellow Primitive Baptist
Conditionalists follow when interpreting the Bible:
"Does the
objective fact of redemption by Christ depend on man's perception or
understanding of that fact?"
A
denial that the subjective experience of a sinner plays any role whatsoever in
salvation is the chief assertion of the heretical doctrine that is conditional time salvation, as
manifested by its claim that personal faith,
repentance, and holiness are not required for salvation.
This
is largely due to ignorance. My former acquaintances continue to show that they
do not understand what eternal salvation itself is! If they did, they would see
the error in attempting to divorce from it what God decreed to produce in those
whom He chose to salvation!
Let
my mistaken friends search the following scriptures, and in them see manifested the intent of God at each step of the order of salvation to produce the
subjective experience in the objects of salvation.
The
subjective experience is guaranteed:
a) by election (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 1
Peter 2:9; Rom. 11:7)
b) by promise (Ezekiel 36:27)
c) by redemption (Matt. 1:21; Titus 2:14)
d) by regeneration (Eph. 2:10)
e) by sanctification (John 17:17; John 10:28)
f) by being necessary for final salvation
(John. 5:29; Rom. 2:7; Rev. 7:14)
Sunday, December 27, 2015
"Primitive Baptist Seminary"
Since Hardshells do not generally believe in any kind of organized and structured ministerial education, nor the systematic teaching of the various branches of Christian science, the typical Hardshell pastor and elder must get this education from some other source or in some other manner.
All agree that the Hardshell elder must learn on his own by private study of Scripture and theological works, especially those of his own forefathers. He must be self trained and NOT formally trained by a school of elders and pastors, for this would be taboo. He must not get any education through any organized or structured classes or courses of instruction, or from a theological school, for this is the wrong way to learn the Scriptures or to become an apologist (which every pastor is called to be). Thus the individual pastor is limited in his manner of becoming "skilled in the word."
It seems that it is allowable that a Hardshell elder study the books used by seminarians and to be benefited by them. I would dare say that the ablest of their ministry are men who have done this very thing. They have read and studied the books used by Baptist seminaries, or read other books by the teachers in those seminaries, and got some education without formally sitting in a class or taking exams. I think anyone can see the inconsistency in such practice.
There are those extreme Hardshells who might even decry reading and studying systematic theology via the works of men outside the Hardshell denomination. These ultraist brethren insist that one can be the best of theologians and Bible interpreters by using basic Bible tools and reading the works of sound "Primitive Baptists." Yet, to my knowledge the only Hardshell to write a "systematic theology" under the "Primitive Baptist" banner was Elder R. V. Sarrels. (note: a book not worthy to be called such, and one from which I cite in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult") Such books are the only legitimate source of instruction for Hardshell pastors, according to these extremists. But, if he limits himself to these, he will know very little.
Because of the fact that the Hardshells don't believe in giving too much financial support the average Hardshell pastor must work full time in secular work and this leaves him very little time for intense education in Christian doctrine.
The general lack of systematic understanding of Scripture, of church history, of the original languages of Scripture, etc., are all looked upon by Hardshells with favor and seen as being against the traditional Hardshell idea of preachers receiving heavenly inspiration during attempts to preach (God gives the message to the preacher at the time of preaching). Preparing for sermons by study of a particular subject or text, for the purpose of preaching on it in advance of a coming meeting, is frowned upon and viewed as hindering the Spirit.
My answer to this problem is to visit the Old Baptist Test blog and study and you will become learned in areas of church doctrine and history and it won't cost you anything but your time.
Get a degree from us!
"Primitive Baptist Seminary"
Professors:
Stephen Garrett
Kevin Fralick
All agree that the Hardshell elder must learn on his own by private study of Scripture and theological works, especially those of his own forefathers. He must be self trained and NOT formally trained by a school of elders and pastors, for this would be taboo. He must not get any education through any organized or structured classes or courses of instruction, or from a theological school, for this is the wrong way to learn the Scriptures or to become an apologist (which every pastor is called to be). Thus the individual pastor is limited in his manner of becoming "skilled in the word."
It seems that it is allowable that a Hardshell elder study the books used by seminarians and to be benefited by them. I would dare say that the ablest of their ministry are men who have done this very thing. They have read and studied the books used by Baptist seminaries, or read other books by the teachers in those seminaries, and got some education without formally sitting in a class or taking exams. I think anyone can see the inconsistency in such practice.
There are those extreme Hardshells who might even decry reading and studying systematic theology via the works of men outside the Hardshell denomination. These ultraist brethren insist that one can be the best of theologians and Bible interpreters by using basic Bible tools and reading the works of sound "Primitive Baptists." Yet, to my knowledge the only Hardshell to write a "systematic theology" under the "Primitive Baptist" banner was Elder R. V. Sarrels. (note: a book not worthy to be called such, and one from which I cite in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult") Such books are the only legitimate source of instruction for Hardshell pastors, according to these extremists. But, if he limits himself to these, he will know very little.
Because of the fact that the Hardshells don't believe in giving too much financial support the average Hardshell pastor must work full time in secular work and this leaves him very little time for intense education in Christian doctrine.
The general lack of systematic understanding of Scripture, of church history, of the original languages of Scripture, etc., are all looked upon by Hardshells with favor and seen as being against the traditional Hardshell idea of preachers receiving heavenly inspiration during attempts to preach (God gives the message to the preacher at the time of preaching). Preparing for sermons by study of a particular subject or text, for the purpose of preaching on it in advance of a coming meeting, is frowned upon and viewed as hindering the Spirit.
My answer to this problem is to visit the Old Baptist Test blog and study and you will become learned in areas of church doctrine and history and it won't cost you anything but your time.
Get a degree from us!
"Primitive Baptist Seminary"
Professors:
Stephen Garrett
Kevin Fralick
Friday, December 18, 2015
Another Text on Duty Faith
Like Romans 3 (recently dealt with regarding duty faith), this passage in Romans chapter two also gives the Hardshells a hard time as regards their teaching that evangelical unbelief and impenitence are no sins for the non elect and therefore there will be no condemnation in the day of judgment for such.
"And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile..." (Rom. 2: 3-10)
Here Are The Facts
1. These people are lost Gentiles, people who have hard and impenitent hearts, evidences of a state of degeneration. They are immoral, evil doers, being contrasted with the well doers and seekers of eternal life, and by other descriptive terms that class them as unregenerate.
2. Their destiny is to receive wrath and vengeance in the day of judgment.
3. Two of the sins of these lost souls and for which they will be held accountable in the day of judgment are mentioned in the text and are non faith and non repentance.
Problem for Hardshells
They will be condemned for their "impenitent heart," yet if repentance be not a moral and religious duty and obligation then there cannot be any condemnation.
Secondly, they will be condemned for their unbelief for the text describes them as they who "do not obey (believe) the truth."
So, this text says that lost unregenerate sinners will be found guilty in the day of judgment for their unbelief and impenitence.
God says to all men - "repent ye and believe the Gospel" and those who do not do so will be condemned for it in the last day. It is disobedience as the text says. Not to believe and repent is disobedience. What say ye my brother Hardshells?
"And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile..." (Rom. 2: 3-10)
Here Are The Facts
1. These people are lost Gentiles, people who have hard and impenitent hearts, evidences of a state of degeneration. They are immoral, evil doers, being contrasted with the well doers and seekers of eternal life, and by other descriptive terms that class them as unregenerate.
2. Their destiny is to receive wrath and vengeance in the day of judgment.
3. Two of the sins of these lost souls and for which they will be held accountable in the day of judgment are mentioned in the text and are non faith and non repentance.
Problem for Hardshells
They will be condemned for their "impenitent heart," yet if repentance be not a moral and religious duty and obligation then there cannot be any condemnation.
Secondly, they will be condemned for their unbelief for the text describes them as they who "do not obey (believe) the truth."
So, this text says that lost unregenerate sinners will be found guilty in the day of judgment for their unbelief and impenitence.
God says to all men - "repent ye and believe the Gospel" and those who do not do so will be condemned for it in the last day. It is disobedience as the text says. Not to believe and repent is disobedience. What say ye my brother Hardshells?
Elder Bradley's Interview
Yesterday, interestingly, I watched two recent videos by Elders Sonny Pyles and Lasserre Bradley Jr., both who are up and age (as is my father also). In this posting I want to say a few things about Bradley's interview with a radio station dj in celebration of forty five years on that station. (SEE HERE)
Elder Bradley gave this interview sometime after his open heart surgery. He looked elderly but in good health (I have not seen a pic of him in many years). His mind seemed to be sharp. He appeared more fatherly and warm in his communication. Perhaps, like the old Baptists of former days, we should call Lasserre "father Bradley" rather than simply "brother Bradley"?
Elder Bradley was talking about how he loved the Psalms and valued them for their help for the Christian in his struggles and he spoke of how the Psalmist prayed that God would not forsake him and then said with a gleam in his eye, "even though God had promised that he would never forsake the Psalmist, nevertheless he prayed for God not to forsake him."
I thought that was profound and revealing about where Bradley might be in his mind relative to common errors of the Hardshells with whom he yet remains identified. Bradley's insight overthrows a leading Hardshell proposition (one they take to the Bible) which affirms that whatever is predestined or absolutely certain, in regard to the salvation of the elect, cannot in any case be an object of either prayer or duty. Bradley obviously sees the error in that and it is to be hoped that other Hardshells will agree with Bradley's insight from Scripture.
I think he also in this interview said that it is for the same reason why we may pray for the eternal salvation of others even though the salvation of others does not ultimately depend upon our praying. We pray God to save and keep us knowing in advance that he has unconditionally promised to do so. These things are not contradictory except in the the minds of today's extreme and false Calvinists.
Elder Bradley gave this interview sometime after his open heart surgery. He looked elderly but in good health (I have not seen a pic of him in many years). His mind seemed to be sharp. He appeared more fatherly and warm in his communication. Perhaps, like the old Baptists of former days, we should call Lasserre "father Bradley" rather than simply "brother Bradley"?
Elder Bradley was talking about how he loved the Psalms and valued them for their help for the Christian in his struggles and he spoke of how the Psalmist prayed that God would not forsake him and then said with a gleam in his eye, "even though God had promised that he would never forsake the Psalmist, nevertheless he prayed for God not to forsake him."
I thought that was profound and revealing about where Bradley might be in his mind relative to common errors of the Hardshells with whom he yet remains identified. Bradley's insight overthrows a leading Hardshell proposition (one they take to the Bible) which affirms that whatever is predestined or absolutely certain, in regard to the salvation of the elect, cannot in any case be an object of either prayer or duty. Bradley obviously sees the error in that and it is to be hoped that other Hardshells will agree with Bradley's insight from Scripture.
I think he also in this interview said that it is for the same reason why we may pray for the eternal salvation of others even though the salvation of others does not ultimately depend upon our praying. We pray God to save and keep us knowing in advance that he has unconditionally promised to do so. These things are not contradictory except in the the minds of today's extreme and false Calvinists.
Lawrence on Spiritual Conception & Birth
In this same writing as the previous posting, in talking about the sonship of Christ, Lawrence wrote (emphasis mine):
"Was Jesus Christ a born child of God, when he was conceived by his mother Mary. I answer no, because conception is not born, nor born again, in no sense of that word. Born is a very different word from conception; conception means a child in embryo, but born, or born again, means a child brought forth in full perfection. Then conception is not a born child...Or, to make it plainer, a predestinated child, a promised child, a conceived child, is not an actual child, is not a born child; what say you to this? Then a predestinated child, a promised child, nor a conceived child, is not a born child in no sense of that word, born; for the word born is the finishing stroke, but predestination, promising, and conception of a child, are preparatory causes to produce the effect, born child, or born again — what say you to this? A born child is not a born child until he is born." (SEE HERE)
Lawrence believed, like most of his brethren, that one may be "conceived" and therefore "alive" before spiritual birth ("regenerated"), yet he was not yet a born child of God until evangelical faith was produced, when there was "deliverance." Also, Lawrence put the emphasis on "the finishing stroke," on conversion, which is the new birth necessary for eternal salvation. However, today's Hardshells put all the emphasis on the conception, and think the birth is totally unnecessary, mistaking what is "preparatory" to birth for the birth.
Though I do not believe the scriptures break down the spiritual birth and generation process into precise stages as in physical birth, yet such a paradigm still correctly makes gospel conversion and the new birth to be the same. The error is to call that which is preparatory to new birth "regeneration" or a spiritual "conception" of some kind that precedes the birth.
One of the oft cited verses in the early issues of "The Primitive Baptist" is this one "for we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26) and it is clear that they understood this to mean that one was "born" of the Spirit by faith. That is what I believe and it is not Arminianism but historic Calvinism and traditional Old Baptist belief.
"Was Jesus Christ a born child of God, when he was conceived by his mother Mary. I answer no, because conception is not born, nor born again, in no sense of that word. Born is a very different word from conception; conception means a child in embryo, but born, or born again, means a child brought forth in full perfection. Then conception is not a born child...Or, to make it plainer, a predestinated child, a promised child, a conceived child, is not an actual child, is not a born child; what say you to this? Then a predestinated child, a promised child, nor a conceived child, is not a born child in no sense of that word, born; for the word born is the finishing stroke, but predestination, promising, and conception of a child, are preparatory causes to produce the effect, born child, or born again — what say you to this? A born child is not a born child until he is born." (SEE HERE)
Lawrence believed, like most of his brethren, that one may be "conceived" and therefore "alive" before spiritual birth ("regenerated"), yet he was not yet a born child of God until evangelical faith was produced, when there was "deliverance." Also, Lawrence put the emphasis on "the finishing stroke," on conversion, which is the new birth necessary for eternal salvation. However, today's Hardshells put all the emphasis on the conception, and think the birth is totally unnecessary, mistaking what is "preparatory" to birth for the birth.
Though I do not believe the scriptures break down the spiritual birth and generation process into precise stages as in physical birth, yet such a paradigm still correctly makes gospel conversion and the new birth to be the same. The error is to call that which is preparatory to new birth "regeneration" or a spiritual "conception" of some kind that precedes the birth.
One of the oft cited verses in the early issues of "The Primitive Baptist" is this one "for we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26) and it is clear that they understood this to mean that one was "born" of the Spirit by faith. That is what I believe and it is not Arminianism but historic Calvinism and traditional Old Baptist belief.
Joshua Lawrence on Christ's Sonship
Joshua Lawrence wrote the following in "The Primitive Baptist" periodical for 1839 (vol. 4):
"We now will take up the conception of Jesus Christ. Was he the actual son of God before he was born of his mother? I say, no; for although he was a foreordained son and a long promised son, yet he was not a born son until Mary brought him forth. And thus the text saith: That holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the son of God. Again, the text saith; Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son. Luke, 1st chapter. Again: This day have I begotten thee. Again: When he bringeth the first begotten into the world. These texts show to me, Jesus Chrsist was not actually entitled to be called the Son of God, until he was born of this mother Mary. In his divine nature he is not son, but God; and no other God but he, a three-one God--the Christian's God in all ages. For if in his divine nature he be son, then he is not God; for one God cannot beget another God, for he who is begotten cannot be God, for to be a God he must be self-existent." (pg. 58-59 - SEE HERE)
"So then Jesus Christ is son of God in his human nature, and not in his divine; nor was he actually son of God until born of Mary. Was he son of God before he was conceived? I answer, no; except in the purpose, ordination, and determination of God, who spcaketh of things by the mouth of prophetsthat should be as tho they were."
In regard to Elder Lawrence, it is obvious that he believed in means in the new birth, as did nearly all the first generation Hardshells. But, like many of them, he was in error regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. Many of the first Hardshells entertained Arian, Sabellian, and anti Trinitarian views.
Some Hardshells today would agree with Lawrence in his denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ, and how his sonship is expressive of his divinity. But, this denial is against what is the historic teaching of the Old Baptists.
In reading the old issues of the first Hardshell periodicals, it is interesting to me how they picked what they could tolerate and what they could not. For instance, they could not tolerate support for missionaries or for religious education but could tolerate various heresies on the Trinity, and other such errors as Two Seedism, Eternal Vital Unionism, No-Hellism, etc. Is that not interesting? What does it say about their priorities?
"We now will take up the conception of Jesus Christ. Was he the actual son of God before he was born of his mother? I say, no; for although he was a foreordained son and a long promised son, yet he was not a born son until Mary brought him forth. And thus the text saith: That holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the son of God. Again, the text saith; Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son. Luke, 1st chapter. Again: This day have I begotten thee. Again: When he bringeth the first begotten into the world. These texts show to me, Jesus Chrsist was not actually entitled to be called the Son of God, until he was born of this mother Mary. In his divine nature he is not son, but God; and no other God but he, a three-one God--the Christian's God in all ages. For if in his divine nature he be son, then he is not God; for one God cannot beget another God, for he who is begotten cannot be God, for to be a God he must be self-existent." (pg. 58-59 - SEE HERE)
"So then Jesus Christ is son of God in his human nature, and not in his divine; nor was he actually son of God until born of Mary. Was he son of God before he was conceived? I answer, no; except in the purpose, ordination, and determination of God, who spcaketh of things by the mouth of prophetsthat should be as tho they were."
In regard to Elder Lawrence, it is obvious that he believed in means in the new birth, as did nearly all the first generation Hardshells. But, like many of them, he was in error regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. Many of the first Hardshells entertained Arian, Sabellian, and anti Trinitarian views.
Some Hardshells today would agree with Lawrence in his denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ, and how his sonship is expressive of his divinity. But, this denial is against what is the historic teaching of the Old Baptists.
In reading the old issues of the first Hardshell periodicals, it is interesting to me how they picked what they could tolerate and what they could not. For instance, they could not tolerate support for missionaries or for religious education but could tolerate various heresies on the Trinity, and other such errors as Two Seedism, Eternal Vital Unionism, No-Hellism, etc. Is that not interesting? What does it say about their priorities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)