After posting An Example Of Biased Interpretation? and giving time for comments, and having received only one comment from brother Fralick (I am not surprised that the Hardshell committed cult member ignores looking at the response to the citation from the 1879 minutes of the Powell's Valley Association of Primitive Baptists - that is to be expected), I will now give my own further thinking about it.
First, let me say that the answer of these elders raises more questions than it answers (in fact, they really give what is a non-sensical answer).
Questions Raised (by the answer of two Hardshell preachers)
The following are initial questions which the "interpretation" given of the statement raises.
Question #1
Did these elders know of the citation, or was it new to them?
Question #2
If they knew of it, being well versed in the history of the Hardshells of east Tennessee, then perhaps they can enlighten us all on that history, and thus give credence to their interpretation of the Association committee's statement.
Question #3
If they did not know of it, how come they were so quick to interpret the statement as they did? Was there anything in the context of the statement, or in other historical materials of the time, that would warrant the Hardshell elders affirming that the statement concerns what Hardshells term "conversion," or "time salvation," or of that which does not connect with "regeneration" or eternal salvation?
Question #4
Assuming that they did not have reason to interpret the committee's statement as they did, then why did they so interpret it? Or rather, misinterpret the statement?
Question #5
Does the fact that the elders refused to "see the obvious" not reveal an inner bias against any facts that overthrow the cult's image of itself? Is it not seeing with blinders, and an extreme form of bias? Is it not a kind of psychological "denial" complex?
Question #6
Is This A Unique Occurrence? Or is it commonplace among Hardshells? Are there other historical writings that they twist and distort, against all reason and evidence to the contrary?
Examples of how Hardshells twist historical writings
Did not the fifty one elders who put out the Fulton Confession not distort the words of the London Confession, even by the admission of many Hardshell leaders? Have they not distorted the words of John Ryland Sr.? Have they not misinterpreted the writings of Benedict the historian, especially his book "Fifty Years Among The Baptists"?
Question #7
Is it possible that the Hardshells twist and misinterpret the plain language of Scripture as they do the above named writings? As the two elders did?
I believe that the elders undoubtedly handle many passages of Scripture just like they did the statement of the 1879 committee concerning "the heresy of two seedism." They take presuppositions to the Bible just like they do to the historical records. The presupposition that the statement overthrew was the one that said "our denomination has always believed in the anti means view." (or "is no new view")
Finally, let me cite the statement again and see if the statement concerns only a temporal salvation (which is what evangelical 'conversion' is to the Hardshell) or not.
"We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address.We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church."
More Questions
1. Where is "conversion" or "time salvation" alluded to in the statement?
2. What does it mean to teach that people are eternally justified apart from the preaching of the gospel?
3. Who teaches that people are eternally justified apart from hearing and believing the gospel?
4. Who teaches that "the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address"?
5. Who is it that denies that God uses "means" in "calling his elect" and in "the work of the Spirit in the church"?
Final Observation
The "interpretation" of the two elders to the committee's statement forces one to conclude that the two seed heresy involved a denial that God uses means in conversion and time salvation! Did they not think of that? But, since when has anyone, two seeders included, ever denied that means were necessary in conversion and time salvation? The answer of the two elders assumes that the dispute was over whether the Lord used means in conversion, and yet that has never been a disputed matter among the Hardshells who deny means in eternal salvation. Notice how the word "means" is used more than once, the committee wanting all to know that they did not believe "the two seed heresy" which denied that one must hear and believe the gospel to be eternally saved. All the first Hardshells rejected the anti means view of the two seeders, but their children, esteeming themselves wiser than their fathers, accepted that heresy.
Facts are stubborn things.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Friday, April 8, 2016
An Example of Biased Interpretation?
Recently I asked a friend of mine who has just attended the Annual Smokey Mountain Meeting of Primitive Baptists in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, to take the following citation with him. It is from the 1879 minutes of the Powell's Valley Association of Primitive Baptists (See here for my previous posting). Knowing in advance that he was going to be attending, I wanted him to ask some of the local Hardshell elders what they thought of it, seeing he would be in east Tennessee and in the bounds of said association, and seeing that some preachers from it would be at the meeting.
From the 1879 minutes of the Powell's Valley Association of Primitive Baptists, given by Edwards in his book "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee," we have this statement from the committee appointed to deal with tenets of "the two-Seed Heresy."
"We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address.We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church." (emphasis mine)
My Hardshell brother showed this to some ministers at the meeting and sent me this message:
"I showed what you wrote to a couple preachers including brother ****. They all said that quote is referring to conversion and not regeneration."
I wrote this back quickly:
"Conversion? Such involves eternal justification? No one can be eternally justified apart from the preaching of the gospel. How can that be misunderstood? Also, "calling the elect" is not regeneration but only conversion? Doesn't the statement identify the "calling" of the elect with "the work of the Spirit"?
I know PBs don't want to accept the fact, but the truth is, their no means view originated with the Two Seeders, with whom East Tennessee has been greatly troubled."
Before I write further on this, here in this blog, I thought I would give others a chance to make comments. Did the elders properly interpret the words of the Powell's Valley minutes? Or, is it, as I believe, a case of biased interpretation? One that reveals much about the Hardshell psyche?
From the 1879 minutes of the Powell's Valley Association of Primitive Baptists, given by Edwards in his book "The History of the Baptists of Tennessee," we have this statement from the committee appointed to deal with tenets of "the two-Seed Heresy."
"We as an association advise our sister churches to have no fellowship with what is generally known as the two-Seed Heresy or those who teach the doctrine of an Eternally damned or Eternally Justified outside of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and teach that the unbeliever is no subject of gospel address.We believe that God makes use of the Gospel as a means of calling his Elect and this means is the work of the Spirit in the church." (emphasis mine)
My Hardshell brother showed this to some ministers at the meeting and sent me this message:
"I showed what you wrote to a couple preachers including brother ****. They all said that quote is referring to conversion and not regeneration."
I wrote this back quickly:
"Conversion? Such involves eternal justification? No one can be eternally justified apart from the preaching of the gospel. How can that be misunderstood? Also, "calling the elect" is not regeneration but only conversion? Doesn't the statement identify the "calling" of the elect with "the work of the Spirit"?
I know PBs don't want to accept the fact, but the truth is, their no means view originated with the Two Seeders, with whom East Tennessee has been greatly troubled."
Before I write further on this, here in this blog, I thought I would give others a chance to make comments. Did the elders properly interpret the words of the Powell's Valley minutes? Or, is it, as I believe, a case of biased interpretation? One that reveals much about the Hardshell psyche?
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
My Conversations With Father (III)
In a conversation just a few years ago, I read to dad this statement from Elder Sylvester Hassell.
"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)." (I have cited this numerous times in several postings, giving the larger context)
This was cited by me in the context of our discussion about the question "will all the elect hear the gospel and believe?" That question has been a matter of some discussion in recent years by some. I said to dad - "how can you claim that all the elect will not hear the gospel and be in line with Hassell?" Dad responded - "well I know what Hassell meant." He went on to explain that all Hassell meant was that all the elect, in "regeneration," would "hear" the "voice" of Christ "speaking" to them and calling them out of spiritual death into spiritual life. He would conclude - "that is all Hassell meant."
He would also say the same thing about Elder David Pyles who came close to saying the same thing as Hassell. Both believe that all the elect will hear the gospel spoken to them personally by the Lord, apart from preaching through men or angels. So, they deny that all the elect will hear the gospel as preached through creatures, on the one hand, and yet affirm that they will all hear the gospel and be brought to faith via the direct personal speaking/preaching of Christ,
My retort to dad was to say that at least he could see how Hassell was reflecting the view of his forefathers in uniting elements of "regeneration" with that of "conversion"; And, that he did not make regeneration or the new birth something on the subconscious level, or non-cognitive, an event wherein the person did not "learn" anything of the Father (John 6: 45)
I would often challenge dad to tell me how he could, on the one hand, make "regeneration" to be an experience wherein one learns and believes, and yet make it non-cognitive? I would ask dad - "what do the elect 'learn' when they are 'drawn' by the Father?" He often refused to answer. And, whatever answer he may have given at times, like saying "they learn that there is a supreme being and that he is a sinner." To which I would respond - "so infants who are 'regenerated' learn these things?" Again, he would often avoid answering. Further, in his later years, I tried my best not to push him to raise his blood pressure. In the last few years we both tried not to get into heated arguments, though I must say, I tried harder. It was simply dad's nature not to run from a fight. I would also ask him in response - "so all who believe in a supreme being are elect and regenerated?" And, "so only atheists are lost?" And, "is it a knowledge of facts about just any 'god'?"
This would often lead me to ask dad - "are all who are 'regenerated' brought to 'love' and 'know' God?" He would often say "yes." I then would reply - "but how can one love and know another on a subconscious level?" And, "how can one love a person they know nothing about?" Generally, at this point, emotions often got involved and the discussion would end.
"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)." (I have cited this numerous times in several postings, giving the larger context)
This was cited by me in the context of our discussion about the question "will all the elect hear the gospel and believe?" That question has been a matter of some discussion in recent years by some. I said to dad - "how can you claim that all the elect will not hear the gospel and be in line with Hassell?" Dad responded - "well I know what Hassell meant." He went on to explain that all Hassell meant was that all the elect, in "regeneration," would "hear" the "voice" of Christ "speaking" to them and calling them out of spiritual death into spiritual life. He would conclude - "that is all Hassell meant."
He would also say the same thing about Elder David Pyles who came close to saying the same thing as Hassell. Both believe that all the elect will hear the gospel spoken to them personally by the Lord, apart from preaching through men or angels. So, they deny that all the elect will hear the gospel as preached through creatures, on the one hand, and yet affirm that they will all hear the gospel and be brought to faith via the direct personal speaking/preaching of Christ,
My retort to dad was to say that at least he could see how Hassell was reflecting the view of his forefathers in uniting elements of "regeneration" with that of "conversion"; And, that he did not make regeneration or the new birth something on the subconscious level, or non-cognitive, an event wherein the person did not "learn" anything of the Father (John 6: 45)
I would often challenge dad to tell me how he could, on the one hand, make "regeneration" to be an experience wherein one learns and believes, and yet make it non-cognitive? I would ask dad - "what do the elect 'learn' when they are 'drawn' by the Father?" He often refused to answer. And, whatever answer he may have given at times, like saying "they learn that there is a supreme being and that he is a sinner." To which I would respond - "so infants who are 'regenerated' learn these things?" Again, he would often avoid answering. Further, in his later years, I tried my best not to push him to raise his blood pressure. In the last few years we both tried not to get into heated arguments, though I must say, I tried harder. It was simply dad's nature not to run from a fight. I would also ask him in response - "so all who believe in a supreme being are elect and regenerated?" And, "so only atheists are lost?" And, "is it a knowledge of facts about just any 'god'?"
This would often lead me to ask dad - "are all who are 'regenerated' brought to 'love' and 'know' God?" He would often say "yes." I then would reply - "but how can one love and know another on a subconscious level?" And, "how can one love a person they know nothing about?" Generally, at this point, emotions often got involved and the discussion would end.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
My Conversations With Father (II)
Over the years I challenged my father on his assertion that the Hardshells of today, represented by the "Conditionalist" faction, with whom he identified, to prove that their peculiar views on "regeneration" and "effectual calling" are the historic teaching of the Predestinarian or Particular Baptists. I challenged him many times, as I have all other Hardshells, to show that their views on the new birth were taught by any leading Baptist spokesman or confession prior to the Hardshells of the mid to late 19th century. He assured me that history shows that the Baptists held to the anti means and "Spirit alone" view prior to the 19th century. I demanded that he send me the proof, and he never did. And why? Because he had the evidence but did not want to produce it, or rather, that no such evidence exists?
Dad, like many Hardshells, accepted things about PB history on the word of others, and he did not act like a noble Berean nor check the veracity of what he was told by Hardshell "historians."
I recall him being stunned into silence just a year ago when I showed him how the Powell's Valley Association held to the means view up till at least 1879 and that this was additional proof that the old Baptist doctrine, prior to that time, even among the Hardshells, advocated the means position.
I would also often tell father - "Dad, I am more old Baptist than you are."
Dad, like many Hardshells, accepted things about PB history on the word of others, and he did not act like a noble Berean nor check the veracity of what he was told by Hardshell "historians."
I recall him being stunned into silence just a year ago when I showed him how the Powell's Valley Association held to the means view up till at least 1879 and that this was additional proof that the old Baptist doctrine, prior to that time, even among the Hardshells, advocated the means position.
I would also often tell father - "Dad, I am more old Baptist than you are."
Monday, April 4, 2016
My Conversations with Father
I will with this posting begin a new series (not that I don't have enough already to finish) titled "My Conversations with Father." I hope it will prove to be profitable to some. Many have been interested in my possible conversation with Elder Sonny Pyles, and I have a series to finish titled "My Meeting With Sonny Pyles" wherein I relate a fictional conversation between us. (Perhaps we will one day have an actual dialogue)
Over the past 35-40 years I have had numerous private debates and discussions with dad about many points of doctrine. I am sure that many people would love to have heard them!
Well, in this posting, I want to relate a short part of one conversation that we had about 5-8 years ago when I began writing intensely on PB doctrine. Knowing that dad liked certain kinds of jocular jabs in debate, I said to him about my own personal confrontation with Hardshells - "Dad, I eat Hardshells and Campbellites for breakfast." (Actually I was rephrasing a line from a movie where Swartzeneggar was in a fight with a Green Beret dude and said to him "I eat Green Berets for breakfast")
At my comment my father gave a big laugh. It was a laugh that only he and I could know what it signified. Further, he never showed where my jest was not in fact based upon historical fact. It did not take dad long to realize that he was not going to say things to me without me challenging him to prove his statements of fact.
Over the past 35-40 years I have had numerous private debates and discussions with dad about many points of doctrine. I am sure that many people would love to have heard them!
Well, in this posting, I want to relate a short part of one conversation that we had about 5-8 years ago when I began writing intensely on PB doctrine. Knowing that dad liked certain kinds of jocular jabs in debate, I said to him about my own personal confrontation with Hardshells - "Dad, I eat Hardshells and Campbellites for breakfast." (Actually I was rephrasing a line from a movie where Swartzeneggar was in a fight with a Green Beret dude and said to him "I eat Green Berets for breakfast")
At my comment my father gave a big laugh. It was a laugh that only he and I could know what it signified. Further, he never showed where my jest was not in fact based upon historical fact. It did not take dad long to realize that he was not going to say things to me without me challenging him to prove his statements of fact.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
John Gill - A Blasphemer?
Hardshell Zack Guess wrote (as cited previously by me in the posting The Gospel - The Means of Grace V.- HERE): (emphasis mine)
"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in some sense he is the father of these Corinthians and they were his children. The instrument by which they were born was the gospel. Many people interpret this to mean that Paul was the father of the Corinthians in the sense that he had caused them to be born again when he preached the gospel to them. But that this is exactly not what the text is teaching can be shown by the following considerations.
In the first place, it would have been blasphemy for the Corinthians to refer to Paul as a father in the sense that He was the means of bringing eternal life to them. No man can receive this honor because God alone is to receive the credit and glory for the salvation of His people."
John Gill a blasphemer? Did Gill not teach the very view that Guess calls "blasphemy"? Yet, his forefathers honored Gill and called him sound in the faith.
They were both born by the instrument of the gospel, but not? Does he not contradict himself?
"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in some sense he is the father of these Corinthians and they were his children. The instrument by which they were born was the gospel. Many people interpret this to mean that Paul was the father of the Corinthians in the sense that he had caused them to be born again when he preached the gospel to them. But that this is exactly not what the text is teaching can be shown by the following considerations.
In the first place, it would have been blasphemy for the Corinthians to refer to Paul as a father in the sense that He was the means of bringing eternal life to them. No man can receive this honor because God alone is to receive the credit and glory for the salvation of His people."
John Gill a blasphemer? Did Gill not teach the very view that Guess calls "blasphemy"? Yet, his forefathers honored Gill and called him sound in the faith.
They were both born by the instrument of the gospel, but not? Does he not contradict himself?
S. Hassell's Keen Observation on 20th Century Hardshellism
In Avoiding One Extreme, Do Not Fall Into Another
Written by Sylvester Hassell
ADVOCATE AND MESSENGER
Williamston, N.C., December 1927 (SEE HERE)
"In the narrow Straits of Messina, between Italy and Sicily, with a strong current, and almost a mile's depth of water, there are two rocks, not far apart, Scylla and Charybdis, and navigation between them was dangerous, so that there was an ancient saying--"In shunning Scylla, do not fall upon Charybdis." For nearly a hundred years the most of Primitive Baptists have carefully avoided falling upon the Scylla of Fatalism, and, in doing so, I am sorry to learn that a few of them seem to be about to fall upon the Charybdis of Arminianism."
This is so true, and only those who have studied Hardshell history exhaustively can appreciate these insightful words of the renowned historian. Hassell warned that the result of the division over the extent of predestination, i.e. "the absolute predestination of all things," had pushed those who opposed it, those who would later be known as "Conditionalists," into Arminianism. And, his warning and prophecy has proved true since he wrote this about ninety years ago.
Here is what I have previously cited from Elder John Clark on this point. (SEE HERE)
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"
The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.
To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.
The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."
("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson wrote this in his "Old Baptist Test":
"In short, we have taught the word of doctrine to our hearers, without stopping to exhort them to be "doers of the word." Such preaching has been a great injury to us as a denomination; it has quenched the spirit of exhortation among us, and the exhorter is afraid to call on sinners to repent, for fear of being called an Arminian. Parkerites and Antinomians call the things which have been so much neglected Arminianism, and they have thus, in a goodly degree, suppressed them. But, as there is some prospect of our getting clear of that heresy, we hope to see the spirit of exhortation revive among us again; to see our ministers take up the long-neglected things just indicated; and to see our Brethren going forth in all the obedience of faith. We had better thus incur the Parkerite’s reproachful term, Arminian, than the Bible penalties for a neglect of them." (Page 330)
"There is, strange to say, an error entertained by some brethren, that the minister of the Lord should not call on "all men every where to repent;" of sinners to look to Christ and be saved; nor on unbelievers to believe. They are constantly saying, to preach in this way betrays Arminianism on the part of the ministry which thus exhorts its hearers, and also on the part of the Church which tolerates such preaching! Observe, shall we become Arminians by faithfully preaching according to the commission given by the Savior? Some, indeed seem to think so! For when the minister discharges his duty zealously, faithfully and in a gospel manner, there are certain ones who cry out, he is an Arminian! The great error, that this is one of the varieties of Arminianism, is affecting both our pulpits and Churches; for instead of requiring this kind of preaching, and sustaining it as a Church, we fear some are opposed to it, and use their influence to suppress it? I ask now, in the name of this world-wide commission, including as it does every creature capable of hearing, and which authorizes and commands the ministerial servants of the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature,who does so? with that love, zeal and regard for the sinner, I subjoin to the question, which the Lord enjoins. Further, is it not to be feared that we have in this way grieved and silenced to some extent the spirit of exhortation in our pulpits?The spirit of exhortation which spoke out plainly and fully, through primitive ministers in the great affair of bringing in these "other sheep" we fear is now with us only in a grieved and vexed state! Primitive preachers did not suppress it, nor attempt to confine its word of exhortation to believers only, as some affect to do among us!"(Pages 84,85) (for more)
It is indeed a truth that the extreme opposition to absolute predestination was one of the factors to drive present day Hardshells into Arminianism. Their Arminianism is to be found in several areas, chiefly in what they teach about the life of the Christian after regeneration. Today's Conditionalist Hardshells are nothing but Arminians as regards what they teach about sanctification, perseverance, etc., and in what they teach under the umbrella term "time salvation."
Written by Sylvester Hassell
ADVOCATE AND MESSENGER
Williamston, N.C., December 1927 (SEE HERE)
"In the narrow Straits of Messina, between Italy and Sicily, with a strong current, and almost a mile's depth of water, there are two rocks, not far apart, Scylla and Charybdis, and navigation between them was dangerous, so that there was an ancient saying--"In shunning Scylla, do not fall upon Charybdis." For nearly a hundred years the most of Primitive Baptists have carefully avoided falling upon the Scylla of Fatalism, and, in doing so, I am sorry to learn that a few of them seem to be about to fall upon the Charybdis of Arminianism."
This is so true, and only those who have studied Hardshell history exhaustively can appreciate these insightful words of the renowned historian. Hassell warned that the result of the division over the extent of predestination, i.e. "the absolute predestination of all things," had pushed those who opposed it, those who would later be known as "Conditionalists," into Arminianism. And, his warning and prophecy has proved true since he wrote this about ninety years ago.
Here is what I have previously cited from Elder John Clark on this point. (SEE HERE)
"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"
The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.
To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.
The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."
("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)
Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson wrote this in his "Old Baptist Test":
"In short, we have taught the word of doctrine to our hearers, without stopping to exhort them to be "doers of the word." Such preaching has been a great injury to us as a denomination; it has quenched the spirit of exhortation among us, and the exhorter is afraid to call on sinners to repent, for fear of being called an Arminian. Parkerites and Antinomians call the things which have been so much neglected Arminianism, and they have thus, in a goodly degree, suppressed them. But, as there is some prospect of our getting clear of that heresy, we hope to see the spirit of exhortation revive among us again; to see our ministers take up the long-neglected things just indicated; and to see our Brethren going forth in all the obedience of faith. We had better thus incur the Parkerite’s reproachful term, Arminian, than the Bible penalties for a neglect of them." (Page 330)
"There is, strange to say, an error entertained by some brethren, that the minister of the Lord should not call on "all men every where to repent;" of sinners to look to Christ and be saved; nor on unbelievers to believe. They are constantly saying, to preach in this way betrays Arminianism on the part of the ministry which thus exhorts its hearers, and also on the part of the Church which tolerates such preaching! Observe, shall we become Arminians by faithfully preaching according to the commission given by the Savior? Some, indeed seem to think so! For when the minister discharges his duty zealously, faithfully and in a gospel manner, there are certain ones who cry out, he is an Arminian! The great error, that this is one of the varieties of Arminianism, is affecting both our pulpits and Churches; for instead of requiring this kind of preaching, and sustaining it as a Church, we fear some are opposed to it, and use their influence to suppress it? I ask now, in the name of this world-wide commission, including as it does every creature capable of hearing, and which authorizes and commands the ministerial servants of the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature,who does so? with that love, zeal and regard for the sinner, I subjoin to the question, which the Lord enjoins. Further, is it not to be feared that we have in this way grieved and silenced to some extent the spirit of exhortation in our pulpits?The spirit of exhortation which spoke out plainly and fully, through primitive ministers in the great affair of bringing in these "other sheep" we fear is now with us only in a grieved and vexed state! Primitive preachers did not suppress it, nor attempt to confine its word of exhortation to believers only, as some affect to do among us!"(Pages 84,85) (for more)
It is indeed a truth that the extreme opposition to absolute predestination was one of the factors to drive present day Hardshells into Arminianism. Their Arminianism is to be found in several areas, chiefly in what they teach about the life of the Christian after regeneration. Today's Conditionalist Hardshells are nothing but Arminians as regards what they teach about sanctification, perseverance, etc., and in what they teach under the umbrella term "time salvation."
S. Hassell on the 1689 Confession
"The Union Of All True Primitive Baptists"
GOSPEL MESSENGER
Williamston, N.C., February 1901 (SEE HERE)
GOSPEL MESSENGER
Williamston, N.C., February 1901 (SEE HERE)
"During the last fifty years, and especially during the last twenty or thirty years, there have been many carnal, human (1 Cor. iii.), distressing, and ruinous strifes and divisions among Primitive Baptists, and for the last two or three years the fleshly biting and devouring of one another (Gal. v. 15) have become worse than ever, so that it almost seems, in some parts of the United States, as though the Lord had forsaken some of our people..."
Notice first that the great historian is talking about the period of time from 1850 to 1900, a most important period in the history of the Hardshell denomination. Hardshells today generally know very little about their history, and certainly do not know about the changes in doctrine and practice that have occurred among them since 1832.
Hassell continued:
"In the 17th century the Particular or Predestinarian Baptists of England and Wales declared, in the London Confession of 1689, what they believed the Scriptures taught in regard to God and man, predestination and election, creation and providence, the fall of man, the covenant of grace, the mediation of Christ, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, repentance and faith, good works, the final perseverance of the saints, the law and the gospel, Christian liberty and liberty of conscience, religious worship, the civil magistrate, marriage, the church, the communion of saints, baptism and the Lord's Supper, the state of man after death, the resurrection of the dead, and the last judgment. In the 18th century the Particular or Predestinarian Baptists of the United States re-affirmed and adopted these same Articles of Faith. In the 19th century all the Primitive Baptist churches of the United States either already had or adopted, substantially, though in a shorter form, these same Articles of Faith; and in the closing year of that century, 1900, the General Meetings of Primitive Baptists at Oakland City, Ind., and Fulton, Ky., unanimously re-affirmed and re-adopted the old London Baptist Confession of Faith."
"In 1850 Elder Burwell Temple, editor of The Primitive Baptist, the oldest Southern Primitive Baptist periodical, republished at Raleigh, N. C., in pamphlet form, bound in sheep-skin, the London Baptist Confession of Faith. My father, Elder C. B. Hassell, who began the Church History, collected the very oldest editions of the London Confession that he could obtain, and incorporated the full original text, with all the Scripture citations, in our Church History. Thus the London Baptist Confession of Faith is the most fully and widely authorized statement of what Primitive Baptists believe the Scriptures to teach in regard to spiritual and eternal truths. Our fathers were neither fools nor hypocrites; and spiritually we are neither wiser nor better than they were; indeed past and present facts prove that we are their inferiors in spiritual matters."
Based upon what Hassell here says, are Hardshells correct to say that the London confession has never been a criterion for deciding who is an original Baptist? Also, if conformity to this old confession determines who is and who is not a "Primitive" Baptist, then those Hardshell churches today who reject the confession have no claim to being "old" "primitive" or "original." Further, those Hardshells today, like Michael Ivey and Harold Hunt, who think the 1689 confession is no determiner of who is "old Baptist," think they are wiser than their forefathers, the thing Hassell scoffed at, when they are in fact "their inferiors." I have only one intention in my writings, and that is to get the Hardshells back to the old faith.
It is also a shame that Sylvester would later in his life (in that period when factions were warring as never before), deny what the confession said on the use of means in effectual calling, though his father Cushing Biggs never did. In doing this, Sylvester was going against his own advice and condemning himself, believing that he was superior in this area of doctrine than his own father.
Hassell continued:
"Every Primitive Baptist family ought to have and keep and read the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and, asking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to search the Scriptures reverently and diligently to ascertain whether the doctrinal statements of the Confession are true or not, and having learned that these statements are scriptural and eternal truths, they should never, for any earthly consideration, deny or compromise them, nor be moved from them, in the least degree, by any member or minister or editor or author, whether Arminian or Predestinarian."
Well, amen to that!
Notice first that the great historian is talking about the period of time from 1850 to 1900, a most important period in the history of the Hardshell denomination. Hardshells today generally know very little about their history, and certainly do not know about the changes in doctrine and practice that have occurred among them since 1832.
Hassell continued:
"In the 17th century the Particular or Predestinarian Baptists of England and Wales declared, in the London Confession of 1689, what they believed the Scriptures taught in regard to God and man, predestination and election, creation and providence, the fall of man, the covenant of grace, the mediation of Christ, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, repentance and faith, good works, the final perseverance of the saints, the law and the gospel, Christian liberty and liberty of conscience, religious worship, the civil magistrate, marriage, the church, the communion of saints, baptism and the Lord's Supper, the state of man after death, the resurrection of the dead, and the last judgment. In the 18th century the Particular or Predestinarian Baptists of the United States re-affirmed and adopted these same Articles of Faith. In the 19th century all the Primitive Baptist churches of the United States either already had or adopted, substantially, though in a shorter form, these same Articles of Faith; and in the closing year of that century, 1900, the General Meetings of Primitive Baptists at Oakland City, Ind., and Fulton, Ky., unanimously re-affirmed and re-adopted the old London Baptist Confession of Faith."
"In 1850 Elder Burwell Temple, editor of The Primitive Baptist, the oldest Southern Primitive Baptist periodical, republished at Raleigh, N. C., in pamphlet form, bound in sheep-skin, the London Baptist Confession of Faith. My father, Elder C. B. Hassell, who began the Church History, collected the very oldest editions of the London Confession that he could obtain, and incorporated the full original text, with all the Scripture citations, in our Church History. Thus the London Baptist Confession of Faith is the most fully and widely authorized statement of what Primitive Baptists believe the Scriptures to teach in regard to spiritual and eternal truths. Our fathers were neither fools nor hypocrites; and spiritually we are neither wiser nor better than they were; indeed past and present facts prove that we are their inferiors in spiritual matters."
Based upon what Hassell here says, are Hardshells correct to say that the London confession has never been a criterion for deciding who is an original Baptist? Also, if conformity to this old confession determines who is and who is not a "Primitive" Baptist, then those Hardshell churches today who reject the confession have no claim to being "old" "primitive" or "original." Further, those Hardshells today, like Michael Ivey and Harold Hunt, who think the 1689 confession is no determiner of who is "old Baptist," think they are wiser than their forefathers, the thing Hassell scoffed at, when they are in fact "their inferiors." I have only one intention in my writings, and that is to get the Hardshells back to the old faith.
It is also a shame that Sylvester would later in his life (in that period when factions were warring as never before), deny what the confession said on the use of means in effectual calling, though his father Cushing Biggs never did. In doing this, Sylvester was going against his own advice and condemning himself, believing that he was superior in this area of doctrine than his own father.
Hassell continued:
"Every Primitive Baptist family ought to have and keep and read the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and, asking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to search the Scriptures reverently and diligently to ascertain whether the doctrinal statements of the Confession are true or not, and having learned that these statements are scriptural and eternal truths, they should never, for any earthly consideration, deny or compromise them, nor be moved from them, in the least degree, by any member or minister or editor or author, whether Arminian or Predestinarian."
Well, amen to that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)