These songs make me so happy! I hope they do you!
The Primitive Quartet
"I'll Look For You" (HERE)
"It's Gonna Be Wonderful" (HERE)
"I'M Going There" (HERE)
"God Put A Rainbow In The Clouds" (HERE)
From the album "The Model Church [1981]" (HERE)
First song - "Lord, Don't Leave Me Here"
Fourth song - "Let Me Travel Along"
Other Good Songs on this Album!
From the album "He Is The Light" (1975) (HERE)
Many Good Songs In This Album. The three songs that begin at the 720 mark are just great!
"That Wonderful City Built Above"
"When you judge me Lord"
"Just beyond the river"
Oh how happy these songs make me feel!
The Inspirations
Then We'll Be Glad
Some Day Soon
Acapella Hymns
Sweet Hour Of Prayer
The Church's One Foundation
When I Survey The Wondrous Cross
Wonderful Grace Of Jesus
Victory In Jesus
The Lily Of The Valley
Blessed Assurance
Angels Are Singing
Glorious Things Of Thee Are Spoken
Tell It To Jesus
Wonderful Words Of Life
When I Survey The Wondrous Cross
Rise, Ye Children Of Salvation
Sweetly Resting
He Hideth My Soul
Crown Him With Many Crowns
Where He Leads Me
He Gave Me A Song
I Know Whom I Have Believed
The Love Of God
Heaven"s Gonna Shine
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Friday, April 12, 2019
Mark Bennett vs. Grigg Thompson
As an historian of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists, I am constantly looking for old records, books, and other writings that help tell the history (or historiography) of this denomination. Several years ago I mentioned two important works that I had seen referenced and looked for those works in libraries. The first was the debate that was carried on in the pages of "The Baptist" (edited at the time, 1873, by Dr. J.R. Graves) between Elder R.W. Fain of the Hardshells and R.S. Duncan (see my posting Where Is This Info? and It Is Now Available!). The second concerned two debates that were held between Elder Mark Bennett (former editor of "The Primitive Baptist" who left the Hardshells and became a spokesman against them) and Elder Grigg Thompson in 1852.
Over the past couple years I was finally able to read these debates, two before the Civil War and one after. What did I learn from reading them? Let me tell you.
In none of these debates was the issue of means in salvation denied by the Hardshells! The entire debate during this time period was still over methods of fulfilling the Great Commission! What does that tell us? It tells us that the PBs did not for many years deny that the preached gospel was the means God had ordained for saving sinners. It was not until, as Elder Burnam testified in the Mt. Carmel Church trial, the latter half of the nineteenth century that the deniers of means became significant.
Concerning Bennett, see my posting Elder Mark Bennett. In the "History of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention" By Livingston Johnson (see here) we have this testimony:
"Elder Mark Bennett labored as a missionary in the Kehukee Association. This was an anti-Missionary Association. His report shows that the field was a hard one and he was somewhat discouraged. Hear him: "The professing community of all denominations exhibits generally a mournful state of declension. Many of the preachers possess scarcely a single qualification of a bishop, especially of the anti order, and many churches tolerate dram-drinking to that excess that half the number of white male members are given daily to intoxication." The opposition of the anti-missionaries is so great that he hardly knows what to recommend, but is convinced that it is unnecessary for him to labor among them any more."
Now let me give you the important notes that I took reading the Bennett/Thompson debate.
Notes from the 1853 debate (here) (highlighting mine)
Bennett's first speech
"While the good, and pious, of all denominations of Christians, are laboring to send the gospel to all nations, and to afford the means of grace, to every nation, tongue, and kindred, Mr. Thompson and his denomination are doing all they can to oppose the spread of the gospel, and to obstruct the benevolent operations of the day, and to prevent if possible the carrying out of the benevolent designs of the Saviour, when he gave the Commission, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
Bennett's second speech
"They are laboring to send the gospel into all the world, and Mr. Thompson and his friends are doing all they can to oppose this benevolent and scriptural enterprise. I have traveled and preached among his brethren,--I love them,--and have enjoyed many pleasant seasons among them,--I now see some in this congregation that I used to take by the hand as brethren--I still love them, and believe with them in the doctrine of grace, and that God will save his Elect, but it is through the instrumentality of a preached word, that they are to be saved. I know the liberality of the Old Baptists of this country, but they are doing nothing to send the gospel to the poor benighted heathens! Oh! if they would but help us, what a vast amount of good might be done through their instrumentality!"
"It is by means of preaching that souls are to be saved, and the preacher cannot go, unless means are provided for his support; to supply these means Missionary societies are formed, and good men of all denominations, are contributing to the support of the gospel, and for the evangelizing of the world. Their efforts have already been blessed in the salvation of thousands of immortal sols, and all the christian world is praying for their success. The heathens are turning from their idols, to the religion of the gospel, and while thousands of them are rejoicing in hope of immortality, they bless God for the message of peace and salvation sent them, through the labours of our pious Missionaries. And while these Missionaries, like the messengers of peace, are carrying the glad tidings of salvation to poor blind sinners of all nations, and are instrumental in opening the eyes of thousands, and of saving them from the wrath to come, Mr. Thompson and his friends are opposing them and calling them hirelings."
Bennett's Third Speech
"The Missionaries are the servants of Christ, and are sent forth to do his work, and have been instrumental in converting thousands. God works by means, and the gospel is the means of saving souls, for,--"how can they believe on him whom they have not heard?" Men have to preach the gospel, and "how shall they preach unless they are sent? and how shall they go unless we make provisions for them?"
Second debate in Goldsboro
Bennett's First Rebuttal Speech
"I do not care what the plan is, so it will answer the end designed, and the gospel can be sent into all the world; I go for it: it is the good I am after, and I care but little what the plan is, so that the end is accomplished. We might quarrel about plans all our lifetime, and no good would be done. I am for doing the good, let the plan be whatever it may, and if Mr. Thompson will give us a good one we will do all we can upon it; but so long as he gives us none, we must operate upon our own plan, and do all the good we can."
Bennett's Last Speech
"Mr. Thompson has boasted much because I once opposed the Missionary Enterprise. It is true, that I, for a long time tried to believe with the old Baptists and, like Mr. Thompson, was trying to war against the benevolent operations of the day, but I knew that the commission said "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." And I saw that the old Baptists were doing all that they could to oppose the spread of the gospel. I therefore began to think they must be wrong, and after mature deliberation and investigation, I became convinced that the "Modern Missionary Enterprise" was all the plan that was doing any good, and I ceased to war against it and have ever since been doing all I can for it. I doubt not, but that brother Meredith used to pity me, when I was warring against him, and saying hard things of him, as much as I now pity Mr. Thompson, and all those laboring under the same delusion that he is."
"The gospel is the means of salvation, for it has pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. God works by means, to accomplish all of his great and good promises. He used the clay and the spittle in opening the eyes of the blind man. How can we believe on him of whom we have not heard? and how can we hear without a preacher? and how can they preach except they be sent? It is therefore important that the gospel should be preached, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Paul says that it came not in word only, but in the Holy Ghost and in power. It is evident therefore that it is the means by which God saves sinners. Paul says, that the word of reconciliation has been committed to us, as the ambassadors of Christ. It is, therefore, through the earthen vessels that the gospel is to be preached, and it is through their instrumentality that sinners are to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Mr. Thompson (interrupting) asked "Is Mr. Bennett to be allowed to introduce a host of new arguments in his closing speech when I have no chance to reply?"
Mr. Bennett proceeded.
"Mr. Thompson seems disposed to not let me close my speech: he must be alarmed for the tottering fabric he has been laboring to set up."
"Shall we oppose giving to all men the means of salvation? My conscience often reproved my while I opposing the spread of the gospel. But I now feel that I am doing God's service, and I hope to live and die an advocate for the spread of the gospel, so that at the end I may be able to give a good account of my stewardship. It is a happy thought for the pious man to believe that he has been instrumental in doing his fellow creatures good, and imparting to them the word of Eternal Life. To do good, and to communicate for the spread of the gospel, is the great and important duties, which belong to christians, and how any christian can spend a whole lifetime without doing anything for the spread of the gospel and the salvation of his fellow-man, is to me a mystery. Our Lord loved sinners and gave his life for them, and it is through his name that remission of sin is to be preached to all the world, and it cannot be preached to all the world unless we send out preachers, for the Bible will not be translated and sent to the heathens in any other way than through the instrumentality of men, and those men must be paid for their labour or they cannot do it, for they cannot live upon the wind."
What think ye?
Over the past couple years I was finally able to read these debates, two before the Civil War and one after. What did I learn from reading them? Let me tell you.
In none of these debates was the issue of means in salvation denied by the Hardshells! The entire debate during this time period was still over methods of fulfilling the Great Commission! What does that tell us? It tells us that the PBs did not for many years deny that the preached gospel was the means God had ordained for saving sinners. It was not until, as Elder Burnam testified in the Mt. Carmel Church trial, the latter half of the nineteenth century that the deniers of means became significant.
Concerning Bennett, see my posting Elder Mark Bennett. In the "History of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention" By Livingston Johnson (see here) we have this testimony:
"Elder Mark Bennett labored as a missionary in the Kehukee Association. This was an anti-Missionary Association. His report shows that the field was a hard one and he was somewhat discouraged. Hear him: "The professing community of all denominations exhibits generally a mournful state of declension. Many of the preachers possess scarcely a single qualification of a bishop, especially of the anti order, and many churches tolerate dram-drinking to that excess that half the number of white male members are given daily to intoxication." The opposition of the anti-missionaries is so great that he hardly knows what to recommend, but is convinced that it is unnecessary for him to labor among them any more."
Now let me give you the important notes that I took reading the Bennett/Thompson debate.
Notes from the 1853 debate (here) (highlighting mine)
Bennett's first speech
"While the good, and pious, of all denominations of Christians, are laboring to send the gospel to all nations, and to afford the means of grace, to every nation, tongue, and kindred, Mr. Thompson and his denomination are doing all they can to oppose the spread of the gospel, and to obstruct the benevolent operations of the day, and to prevent if possible the carrying out of the benevolent designs of the Saviour, when he gave the Commission, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
Bennett's second speech
"They are laboring to send the gospel into all the world, and Mr. Thompson and his friends are doing all they can to oppose this benevolent and scriptural enterprise. I have traveled and preached among his brethren,--I love them,--and have enjoyed many pleasant seasons among them,--I now see some in this congregation that I used to take by the hand as brethren--I still love them, and believe with them in the doctrine of grace, and that God will save his Elect, but it is through the instrumentality of a preached word, that they are to be saved. I know the liberality of the Old Baptists of this country, but they are doing nothing to send the gospel to the poor benighted heathens! Oh! if they would but help us, what a vast amount of good might be done through their instrumentality!"
"It is by means of preaching that souls are to be saved, and the preacher cannot go, unless means are provided for his support; to supply these means Missionary societies are formed, and good men of all denominations, are contributing to the support of the gospel, and for the evangelizing of the world. Their efforts have already been blessed in the salvation of thousands of immortal sols, and all the christian world is praying for their success. The heathens are turning from their idols, to the religion of the gospel, and while thousands of them are rejoicing in hope of immortality, they bless God for the message of peace and salvation sent them, through the labours of our pious Missionaries. And while these Missionaries, like the messengers of peace, are carrying the glad tidings of salvation to poor blind sinners of all nations, and are instrumental in opening the eyes of thousands, and of saving them from the wrath to come, Mr. Thompson and his friends are opposing them and calling them hirelings."
Bennett's Third Speech
"The Missionaries are the servants of Christ, and are sent forth to do his work, and have been instrumental in converting thousands. God works by means, and the gospel is the means of saving souls, for,--"how can they believe on him whom they have not heard?" Men have to preach the gospel, and "how shall they preach unless they are sent? and how shall they go unless we make provisions for them?"
Second debate in Goldsboro
Bennett's First Rebuttal Speech
"I do not care what the plan is, so it will answer the end designed, and the gospel can be sent into all the world; I go for it: it is the good I am after, and I care but little what the plan is, so that the end is accomplished. We might quarrel about plans all our lifetime, and no good would be done. I am for doing the good, let the plan be whatever it may, and if Mr. Thompson will give us a good one we will do all we can upon it; but so long as he gives us none, we must operate upon our own plan, and do all the good we can."
Bennett's Last Speech
"Mr. Thompson has boasted much because I once opposed the Missionary Enterprise. It is true, that I, for a long time tried to believe with the old Baptists and, like Mr. Thompson, was trying to war against the benevolent operations of the day, but I knew that the commission said "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." And I saw that the old Baptists were doing all that they could to oppose the spread of the gospel. I therefore began to think they must be wrong, and after mature deliberation and investigation, I became convinced that the "Modern Missionary Enterprise" was all the plan that was doing any good, and I ceased to war against it and have ever since been doing all I can for it. I doubt not, but that brother Meredith used to pity me, when I was warring against him, and saying hard things of him, as much as I now pity Mr. Thompson, and all those laboring under the same delusion that he is."
"The gospel is the means of salvation, for it has pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. God works by means, to accomplish all of his great and good promises. He used the clay and the spittle in opening the eyes of the blind man. How can we believe on him of whom we have not heard? and how can we hear without a preacher? and how can they preach except they be sent? It is therefore important that the gospel should be preached, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Paul says that it came not in word only, but in the Holy Ghost and in power. It is evident therefore that it is the means by which God saves sinners. Paul says, that the word of reconciliation has been committed to us, as the ambassadors of Christ. It is, therefore, through the earthen vessels that the gospel is to be preached, and it is through their instrumentality that sinners are to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Mr. Thompson (interrupting) asked "Is Mr. Bennett to be allowed to introduce a host of new arguments in his closing speech when I have no chance to reply?"
Mr. Bennett proceeded.
"Mr. Thompson seems disposed to not let me close my speech: he must be alarmed for the tottering fabric he has been laboring to set up."
"Shall we oppose giving to all men the means of salvation? My conscience often reproved my while I opposing the spread of the gospel. But I now feel that I am doing God's service, and I hope to live and die an advocate for the spread of the gospel, so that at the end I may be able to give a good account of my stewardship. It is a happy thought for the pious man to believe that he has been instrumental in doing his fellow creatures good, and imparting to them the word of Eternal Life. To do good, and to communicate for the spread of the gospel, is the great and important duties, which belong to christians, and how any christian can spend a whole lifetime without doing anything for the spread of the gospel and the salvation of his fellow-man, is to me a mystery. Our Lord loved sinners and gave his life for them, and it is through his name that remission of sin is to be preached to all the world, and it cannot be preached to all the world unless we send out preachers, for the Bible will not be translated and sent to the heathens in any other way than through the instrumentality of men, and those men must be paid for their labour or they cannot do it, for they cannot live upon the wind."
What think ye?
Hardshells & "Victory In Jesus"
"Victory in Jesus" was the final song E. M. Bartlett wrote (1939). The hymn also became his best known and most embraced song. Pbs sing this song much. But, do they believe what they sing?
Here are the original words of the song. Notice the several times the singer sings "I heard."
I heard an old, old story,
How a Savior came from glory,
How He gave His life on Calvary
To save a wretch like me;
I heard about His groaning,
Of His precious blood's atoning,
Then I repented of my sins
And won the victory.
How did we hear this "old, old story"? Was it by the personal preaching of Jesus to us as some Hardshells have taught? Or, rather, was it from hearing from "preachers"?
Further, when did we "repent" and "won the victory"? Was it not after we believed what we heard and repented?
The Hardshells of today change the word "won" to "saw." But, this is a corruption.
Further, if the personal preaching of Jesus is what we heard, did Jesus tell us about all the things this song talks about?
Also, can one either see or win the victory without hearing (and believing) and repenting?
Chorus
O victory in Jesus,
My Savior, forever.
He sought me and bought me
With His redeeming blood;
He loved me ere I knew Him
And all my love is due Him,
He plunged me to victory,
Beneath the cleansing flood.
When did he plunge me to victory? What experience is this talking about? A subconscious experience? A non cognitive "regeneration"? Or, rather, a gospel conversion that results from hearing?
I heard about His healing,
Of His cleansing pow'r revealing.
How He made the lame to walk again
And caused the blind to see;
And then I cried, "Dear Jesus,
Come and heal my broken spirit,"
And somehow Jesus came and bro't
To me the victory.
How did you hear about his healing? Was it not in hearing the gospel news from a preacher? Further, can one be saved who did not cry "dear Jesus, come and heal my broken spirit"? Further, what victory came about as a result of this conversion? "Jesus came and bro't to me the victory."
I heard about a mansion
He has built for me in glory.
And I heard about the streets of gold
Beyond the crystal sea;
About the angels singing,
And the old redemption story,
And some sweet day I'll sing up there
The song of victory.
The song clearly teaches that it is through the gospel that sinners find victory in Jesus for their sins.
I ask my Hardshell brethren to either quit singing this song or agree with its sentiments.
Here are the original words of the song. Notice the several times the singer sings "I heard."
I heard an old, old story,
How a Savior came from glory,
How He gave His life on Calvary
To save a wretch like me;
I heard about His groaning,
Of His precious blood's atoning,
Then I repented of my sins
And won the victory.
How did we hear this "old, old story"? Was it by the personal preaching of Jesus to us as some Hardshells have taught? Or, rather, was it from hearing from "preachers"?
Further, when did we "repent" and "won the victory"? Was it not after we believed what we heard and repented?
The Hardshells of today change the word "won" to "saw." But, this is a corruption.
Further, if the personal preaching of Jesus is what we heard, did Jesus tell us about all the things this song talks about?
Also, can one either see or win the victory without hearing (and believing) and repenting?
Chorus
O victory in Jesus,
My Savior, forever.
He sought me and bought me
With His redeeming blood;
He loved me ere I knew Him
And all my love is due Him,
He plunged me to victory,
Beneath the cleansing flood.
When did he plunge me to victory? What experience is this talking about? A subconscious experience? A non cognitive "regeneration"? Or, rather, a gospel conversion that results from hearing?
I heard about His healing,
Of His cleansing pow'r revealing.
How He made the lame to walk again
And caused the blind to see;
And then I cried, "Dear Jesus,
Come and heal my broken spirit,"
And somehow Jesus came and bro't
To me the victory.
How did you hear about his healing? Was it not in hearing the gospel news from a preacher? Further, can one be saved who did not cry "dear Jesus, come and heal my broken spirit"? Further, what victory came about as a result of this conversion? "Jesus came and bro't to me the victory."
I heard about a mansion
He has built for me in glory.
And I heard about the streets of gold
Beyond the crystal sea;
About the angels singing,
And the old redemption story,
And some sweet day I'll sing up there
The song of victory.
The song clearly teaches that it is through the gospel that sinners find victory in Jesus for their sins.
I ask my Hardshell brethren to either quit singing this song or agree with its sentiments.
Dalton and Purifoy Originally Preached Gospel Means
Elder Tolbert Saunders Dalton (June 3, 1846 - July 30, 1931) was a leader among the Hardshells in that very important period of the late 19th and early 20th century. From history we learn that he was -
"Minister of the Primitive Baptist Church for 63 years. Enlisted in the southern army in 1863 as a private and came out major of the Seventh Kentucky Reg. of Volunteers."
In the comment section of my article Elder Hassell On Means I had this comment:
"Did T. S. Dalton drop his belief that the elect were ordinarily regenerated under the preaching of the gospel?"
Here is what I said in response:
"Many Hardshells did change their minds but I do not recall whether Dalton did." (see here)
Let me now give some testimony from The Trial and Decision of Mount Carmel Church-Part 1.
Elder J. B. McInturff is questioned and testifies as follows:
Q. Now, Mr. Mclnturff, will you be kind enough to produce those writings to which you referred?
A. I would just like to show that at one time Brother Dalton there (indicating) wrote one of the best articles on the subject of “Means” that I have ever seen. It is just gold. It is just exactly what we believe and a great deal better than I could express it myself. Now I had noted down here a good many places for different things, I didn’t know what you were going to ask me. I was going to show you that old Brother Clarke who was the founder of Zion’s Advocate taught the same, and Dr. Gill, the great commentator, did too."
McInturff was right! Elder Clark believed in means. So did Dalton. It was not till after the death of Clark that the anti means view began to gain momentum.
McInturff continued:
"And that Dr. Purifoy did the same but we have already spoken of him. On page 59 in the first volume of Zion’s Advocate, I have copied an article from it. Well, it is simply an editorial that I wrote. It is the beginning of the third number, March, 1891."
Obviously, many who had formerly held to the gospel means position, the original position, began to change their minds. Why?
McInturff continued:
“Commenting upon Romans 1:16, he says that the gospel ‘is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends’ (Vol. VIII. p. 437) Same volume; page 339, upon Acts XXVI, 18, he says ‘Now, though this is all the work of the spirit, by whom only the eyes of the understanding are enlightened; yet this is ascribed to the apostle, not as the efficient cause, but as the instrument and means, through preaching of the gospel, which the spirit of God would, and did, make use of.’”
Purifoy states what was the common accepted view of the Hardshells till the rise of the anti means faction in the late 19th century.
McInturff continued:
"Dr. Purifoy published in Zion’s Advocate in 1879 and here are his exact words taken from it. I can produce the original. Here are his exact words:
“I firmly believe that it is the duty of every gospel minister to preach repentance and remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, to all the unregenerate with whom he comes in contact in his pulpit ministrations. As he does this in the name of Jesus, realizing the utter inability of the sinner to repent until the grace of repentance is given him from on high, he has an assurance from the scriptures, that God’s word will not return unto Him void, but will accomplish that whereunto he sends it, and prosper in the thing he pleases. Thus the gospel ministry is instrumental in God’s hands, through Jesus, in raising dead sinners to newness of life---spiritual life---just as the apostles were instruments in His hands in casting out devils, healing the sick, and raising the dead.”
"Page 153 of The Old Paths for June 1891, the heading of the article is “Elder Dalton on ‘Means’.” This is quoted from Brother Dalton’s paper called The Herald of Truth for May, 1891. Brother Dalton used to publish that paper when he lived in Tennessee. If you will bear with me I will read the introduction to it."
(Reading:)
“In our March number, under the caption, ‘Further Testimony,’ our readers will remember that we quoted from an editorial written by Elder Dalton, and published in his paper of April 15, 1884. In Zion’s Advocate and Herald of Truth for May, 1891, he complains that we did not publish all of his article. We did omit several paragraphs; but with no intention of dealing unfairly with him, or of making him to appear to say what he did not intend to teach. The quotation we made was sufficient for our purpose; and the part omitted was in accord with it, if not positively strengthening to it. Indeed the entire paper is excellent reading, and is a masterly defense of the doctrine as held and taught by us; and if the writer of it still holds the sentiments he then expressed, we are with him heart and soul. In order that our readers may know whether he has just cause to complain, or whether, in omitting several paragraphs, we changed the sense of his article, and made him appear in a false light, we now give the entire paper, verbatim et literatim,---just as he sent it out to the public. The reader will please bear in mind that the article in question was written in reply to an anti-Means letter from one J. R. Hatcher, McEwens Tenn., which letter begins with the words, “If God quickens sinners by the preached gospel, how can it be said that he is an independent God? and if he ever did quicken one through preaching, will some one point out the scripture?”
Here is Elder Dalton’s reply:
“ ‘Oh, that God’s children could see and understand the Bible teaching on the important subject of means and instrumentality, and cease to prescribe boundaries for the Lord. Is God limited? Can he not work when and where, and with whatsoever he pleases? Is he not an absolute sovereign? Who is willing to serve in the capacity of counselor for the Lord, and instruct him when to use an instrument, and when he must not? What are instruments, but so many dormant tools in the hands of the operator, with which he serves his own purpose? What are we, as a people, but so many instruments in the hands of God, by and through which he accomplishes his divine purposes? How came us to have being; was it mere chance, or did God have a purpose in our being? If so, are we not the means to accomplish that purpose? If so, will the purpose be accomplished without the means? Did God ever do anything except what he eternally purposed to do? If God eternally purposed to do a thing, did he not embrace from all eternity the way and means by which he would do it? Will he ever turn aside from the way and means fixed in eternity, and do the work some other way? Did God ever use means and instruments in doing his work? He surely has; could he not have done the work without them? He surely could. Why then did he use them? Because it was so fixed in his eternal counsel. Did not Jesus use clay and spittle when He opened the eyes of the blind man? Surely he did. Could he not have opened them without? He surely could for He had opened the eyes of the blind and used neither clay nor spittle; shall we therefore say, because He opened the eyes of some without either clay or spittle, he must therefore open the eyes of all? Do you not see, brethren, that you prescribe the boundaries of the Lord when you take such positions? If God so fixed in His Divine counsel to open the eyes of one blind man by means of the clay and spittle, and another’s eyes without them, shall we therefore say that God has turned aside from His ordained way, because he did either? Or shall we assume to say that God only ordained, from eternity, to open their eyes without means, and then used means once in a while to try His hand, to see whether he could use them or not? Brethren, can you feed sheep? Study well before you answer. Are you not merely instruments through which God feeds his sheep? Surely you have no food of yourselves to feed sheep; but God only uses you as a means or instrument through which he himself feeds His sheep. Did God ever feed a sheep only through the instrumentality of preaching? He surely has. Shall we therefore say that he must always feed them without? Surely not. Is it not God that feeds the sheep, either with or without the means? Surely it is. Is it not as much the work of God when the sheep are fed through the instrumentality of preaching, as when they are fed without these means? Surely it is. Is it not the spirit of God speaking in the minister that feeds the sheep? Surely it is. Can a man destitute of the spirit of God feed the sheep? Surely not; then it is the spirit that does the work is it not? Surely it is. Is the spirit that feeds the sheep the same spirit that makes them alive; or has God two spirits--- one to make alive, and another to feed them after they are alive? Now, brethren, let me say once for all, that all of the preachers that ever have, or ever will, live on earth cannot quicken one dead sinner into divine life; this is solely the work of the Holy Spirit; but for us to say that the spirit never speaks through the minister, and calls the dead to life is surely assuming too much. But be it remembered, that it is not the preacher that uses the spirit, no more than the rams horns used the children of Israel; but it is the spirit that uses the preacher, and thereby makes his words, God’s words, and God thereby accomplishes his divine purposes through the means which be himself has chosen and ordained, and thereby making the means as sure as the end, and the end as sure as the means. God once caused a dumb ass to speak, to accomplish his purpose. God could have forbid the madness of the prophet as well without the ass, but He chose to speak through the beast, as the means or instrument to that end. Shall we therefore assume that he must always speak through the means of a dumb ass, to rebuke prophets? Surely not. Well; what are we to learn from these scriptures? Why, my brother, we are to learn that God is not limited in his domain---he can, and does work either with or without means or instruments just as he chooses. Could God not have thrown down the walls of Jericho as well without the children of Israel blowing the rams horns as with it? Surely he could. Why then did he not do it? Because it was not his purpose so to do; but this doesn’t argue that rams horns must be blown every time there is a wall to be thrown down, or a city to be destroyed. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah without the rams horns.
Now, brethren, while I frankly confess that there was no one to preach to me, when I was first brought to see my condition, this does not argue that everyone must be surrounded with the same circumstances as myself, in order that God’s spirit quicken them into divine life. Oh, how many children of God, that have proven themselves to be such, can call to mind, that date the beginning of their experience under the sound of some faithful servant of God, as he portrayed the riches of God’s grace in the salvation of poor lost and ruined sinners? Perhaps they will say, the minister said certain words that pierced me into my very soul, and caused me to weep and cry, because I was a guilty sinner before God. Surely in such cases the Lord speaks by his spirit, through the minister, and makes his words God’s words, and thereby sends conviction home to the heart of that poor soul. Brethren these things have been a source of great comfort to me. I can now call to mind many that date the beginning of their conviction under my preaching; and while I have never claimed that it was me that did the work, I have rejoiced in the thought that God has used me as an humble instrument in his hands to accomplish his purposes, and I have received it as one of my strongest evidences, that I was a child of God, and a called minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let us call to mind the case of brother Paul, when the Lord told him that he had appeared to him delivering him from the Gentiles unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. What for---because they had received the forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified? No sir, but, “that they might receive the forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them; them that are sanctified, through faith that is in me.”
"Now, my brethren, how are we to understand such language as the above, unless we admit that Paul was the instrument through which God had ordained to accomplish this grand and glorious work? And yet the ax cannot boast itself against him that heweth therewith, nor the saw against him that shaketh it. For they are only dormant instruments in the hands of the operator, and “of themselves can do nothing,” but can do all things Christ strengthening them, so says brother Paul. But perhaps some brother will say, this is all true enough, but it looks like Arminianism. No, my brother, you are mistaken; Arminianism only looks a little like this, for what truth is there in the world that Arminians have not imitated? Shall we cease to proclaim the truth because Arminians will imitate it? Surely not; but we ought to be the more zealous in setting forth the true principles of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, because Arminians do imitate it. Counterfeits always imitate, or resemble, very much the genuine, but is only the stronger evidence of the existence of the genuine. And the Arminians believing that they use God as an instrument to do their bidding, is only the stronger proof that God uses his ministers as instruments in his hands to accomplish his designs; for Arminians always have the cart before the horse. But while this is true, we are sorry to have to say that there are some of our brethren who will not have the cart at all; they are willing to admit that the horse carries the load, but they are not wining for him to carry it in the cart, but must always carry it on his back; but we have some, thank the Lord, that will not prescribe how he shall carry it, but are wining to admit that he carries it, whether in the cart or on his back. ‘A hint to the wise is sufficient.’ Now, my brethren, let us cease to prescribe boundaries for the Lord, for the Bible clearly reveals to us that God sometimes uses instruments and performed his work, and afterwards done the same kind of a deed, and used no instrument; therefore, let us not say that if God used an instrument in one case he must use them in all. This, my brethren, is assuming to be the Lord’s instructor; but let us submit to revealed facts, and cease to strive above words to no profit. Hoping that this may terminate in good to us all, I am ever yours to serve in the cause of truth.”
My modern Hardshell brothers, do you agree with Dalton? Did he not teach the original view of your people?
"Minister of the Primitive Baptist Church for 63 years. Enlisted in the southern army in 1863 as a private and came out major of the Seventh Kentucky Reg. of Volunteers."
In the comment section of my article Elder Hassell On Means I had this comment:
"Did T. S. Dalton drop his belief that the elect were ordinarily regenerated under the preaching of the gospel?"
Here is what I said in response:
"Many Hardshells did change their minds but I do not recall whether Dalton did." (see here)
Let me now give some testimony from The Trial and Decision of Mount Carmel Church-Part 1.
Elder J. B. McInturff is questioned and testifies as follows:
Q. Now, Mr. Mclnturff, will you be kind enough to produce those writings to which you referred?
A. I would just like to show that at one time Brother Dalton there (indicating) wrote one of the best articles on the subject of “Means” that I have ever seen. It is just gold. It is just exactly what we believe and a great deal better than I could express it myself. Now I had noted down here a good many places for different things, I didn’t know what you were going to ask me. I was going to show you that old Brother Clarke who was the founder of Zion’s Advocate taught the same, and Dr. Gill, the great commentator, did too."
McInturff was right! Elder Clark believed in means. So did Dalton. It was not till after the death of Clark that the anti means view began to gain momentum.
McInturff continued:
"And that Dr. Purifoy did the same but we have already spoken of him. On page 59 in the first volume of Zion’s Advocate, I have copied an article from it. Well, it is simply an editorial that I wrote. It is the beginning of the third number, March, 1891."
Obviously, many who had formerly held to the gospel means position, the original position, began to change their minds. Why?
McInturff continued:
Purifoy states what was the common accepted view of the Hardshells till the rise of the anti means faction in the late 19th century.
McInturff continued:
"Dr. Purifoy published in Zion’s Advocate in 1879 and here are his exact words taken from it. I can produce the original. Here are his exact words:
“I firmly believe that it is the duty of every gospel minister to preach repentance and remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, to all the unregenerate with whom he comes in contact in his pulpit ministrations. As he does this in the name of Jesus, realizing the utter inability of the sinner to repent until the grace of repentance is given him from on high, he has an assurance from the scriptures, that God’s word will not return unto Him void, but will accomplish that whereunto he sends it, and prosper in the thing he pleases. Thus the gospel ministry is instrumental in God’s hands, through Jesus, in raising dead sinners to newness of life---spiritual life---just as the apostles were instruments in His hands in casting out devils, healing the sick, and raising the dead.”
"Page 153 of The Old Paths for June 1891, the heading of the article is “Elder Dalton on ‘Means’.” This is quoted from Brother Dalton’s paper called The Herald of Truth for May, 1891. Brother Dalton used to publish that paper when he lived in Tennessee. If you will bear with me I will read the introduction to it."
(Reading:)
“In our March number, under the caption, ‘Further Testimony,’ our readers will remember that we quoted from an editorial written by Elder Dalton, and published in his paper of April 15, 1884. In Zion’s Advocate and Herald of Truth for May, 1891, he complains that we did not publish all of his article. We did omit several paragraphs; but with no intention of dealing unfairly with him, or of making him to appear to say what he did not intend to teach. The quotation we made was sufficient for our purpose; and the part omitted was in accord with it, if not positively strengthening to it. Indeed the entire paper is excellent reading, and is a masterly defense of the doctrine as held and taught by us; and if the writer of it still holds the sentiments he then expressed, we are with him heart and soul. In order that our readers may know whether he has just cause to complain, or whether, in omitting several paragraphs, we changed the sense of his article, and made him appear in a false light, we now give the entire paper, verbatim et literatim,---just as he sent it out to the public. The reader will please bear in mind that the article in question was written in reply to an anti-Means letter from one J. R. Hatcher, McEwens Tenn., which letter begins with the words, “If God quickens sinners by the preached gospel, how can it be said that he is an independent God? and if he ever did quicken one through preaching, will some one point out the scripture?”
Here is Elder Dalton’s reply:
“ ‘Oh, that God’s children could see and understand the Bible teaching on the important subject of means and instrumentality, and cease to prescribe boundaries for the Lord. Is God limited? Can he not work when and where, and with whatsoever he pleases? Is he not an absolute sovereign? Who is willing to serve in the capacity of counselor for the Lord, and instruct him when to use an instrument, and when he must not? What are instruments, but so many dormant tools in the hands of the operator, with which he serves his own purpose? What are we, as a people, but so many instruments in the hands of God, by and through which he accomplishes his divine purposes? How came us to have being; was it mere chance, or did God have a purpose in our being? If so, are we not the means to accomplish that purpose? If so, will the purpose be accomplished without the means? Did God ever do anything except what he eternally purposed to do? If God eternally purposed to do a thing, did he not embrace from all eternity the way and means by which he would do it? Will he ever turn aside from the way and means fixed in eternity, and do the work some other way? Did God ever use means and instruments in doing his work? He surely has; could he not have done the work without them? He surely could. Why then did he use them? Because it was so fixed in his eternal counsel. Did not Jesus use clay and spittle when He opened the eyes of the blind man? Surely he did. Could he not have opened them without? He surely could for He had opened the eyes of the blind and used neither clay nor spittle; shall we therefore say, because He opened the eyes of some without either clay or spittle, he must therefore open the eyes of all? Do you not see, brethren, that you prescribe the boundaries of the Lord when you take such positions? If God so fixed in His Divine counsel to open the eyes of one blind man by means of the clay and spittle, and another’s eyes without them, shall we therefore say that God has turned aside from His ordained way, because he did either? Or shall we assume to say that God only ordained, from eternity, to open their eyes without means, and then used means once in a while to try His hand, to see whether he could use them or not? Brethren, can you feed sheep? Study well before you answer. Are you not merely instruments through which God feeds his sheep? Surely you have no food of yourselves to feed sheep; but God only uses you as a means or instrument through which he himself feeds His sheep. Did God ever feed a sheep only through the instrumentality of preaching? He surely has. Shall we therefore say that he must always feed them without? Surely not. Is it not God that feeds the sheep, either with or without the means? Surely it is. Is it not as much the work of God when the sheep are fed through the instrumentality of preaching, as when they are fed without these means? Surely it is. Is it not the spirit of God speaking in the minister that feeds the sheep? Surely it is. Can a man destitute of the spirit of God feed the sheep? Surely not; then it is the spirit that does the work is it not? Surely it is. Is the spirit that feeds the sheep the same spirit that makes them alive; or has God two spirits--- one to make alive, and another to feed them after they are alive? Now, brethren, let me say once for all, that all of the preachers that ever have, or ever will, live on earth cannot quicken one dead sinner into divine life; this is solely the work of the Holy Spirit; but for us to say that the spirit never speaks through the minister, and calls the dead to life is surely assuming too much. But be it remembered, that it is not the preacher that uses the spirit, no more than the rams horns used the children of Israel; but it is the spirit that uses the preacher, and thereby makes his words, God’s words, and God thereby accomplishes his divine purposes through the means which be himself has chosen and ordained, and thereby making the means as sure as the end, and the end as sure as the means. God once caused a dumb ass to speak, to accomplish his purpose. God could have forbid the madness of the prophet as well without the ass, but He chose to speak through the beast, as the means or instrument to that end. Shall we therefore assume that he must always speak through the means of a dumb ass, to rebuke prophets? Surely not. Well; what are we to learn from these scriptures? Why, my brother, we are to learn that God is not limited in his domain---he can, and does work either with or without means or instruments just as he chooses. Could God not have thrown down the walls of Jericho as well without the children of Israel blowing the rams horns as with it? Surely he could. Why then did he not do it? Because it was not his purpose so to do; but this doesn’t argue that rams horns must be blown every time there is a wall to be thrown down, or a city to be destroyed. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah without the rams horns.
Now, brethren, while I frankly confess that there was no one to preach to me, when I was first brought to see my condition, this does not argue that everyone must be surrounded with the same circumstances as myself, in order that God’s spirit quicken them into divine life. Oh, how many children of God, that have proven themselves to be such, can call to mind, that date the beginning of their experience under the sound of some faithful servant of God, as he portrayed the riches of God’s grace in the salvation of poor lost and ruined sinners? Perhaps they will say, the minister said certain words that pierced me into my very soul, and caused me to weep and cry, because I was a guilty sinner before God. Surely in such cases the Lord speaks by his spirit, through the minister, and makes his words God’s words, and thereby sends conviction home to the heart of that poor soul. Brethren these things have been a source of great comfort to me. I can now call to mind many that date the beginning of their conviction under my preaching; and while I have never claimed that it was me that did the work, I have rejoiced in the thought that God has used me as an humble instrument in his hands to accomplish his purposes, and I have received it as one of my strongest evidences, that I was a child of God, and a called minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let us call to mind the case of brother Paul, when the Lord told him that he had appeared to him delivering him from the Gentiles unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. What for---because they had received the forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified? No sir, but, “that they might receive the forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them; them that are sanctified, through faith that is in me.”
"Now, my brethren, how are we to understand such language as the above, unless we admit that Paul was the instrument through which God had ordained to accomplish this grand and glorious work? And yet the ax cannot boast itself against him that heweth therewith, nor the saw against him that shaketh it. For they are only dormant instruments in the hands of the operator, and “of themselves can do nothing,” but can do all things Christ strengthening them, so says brother Paul. But perhaps some brother will say, this is all true enough, but it looks like Arminianism. No, my brother, you are mistaken; Arminianism only looks a little like this, for what truth is there in the world that Arminians have not imitated? Shall we cease to proclaim the truth because Arminians will imitate it? Surely not; but we ought to be the more zealous in setting forth the true principles of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, because Arminians do imitate it. Counterfeits always imitate, or resemble, very much the genuine, but is only the stronger evidence of the existence of the genuine. And the Arminians believing that they use God as an instrument to do their bidding, is only the stronger proof that God uses his ministers as instruments in his hands to accomplish his designs; for Arminians always have the cart before the horse. But while this is true, we are sorry to have to say that there are some of our brethren who will not have the cart at all; they are willing to admit that the horse carries the load, but they are not wining for him to carry it in the cart, but must always carry it on his back; but we have some, thank the Lord, that will not prescribe how he shall carry it, but are wining to admit that he carries it, whether in the cart or on his back. ‘A hint to the wise is sufficient.’ Now, my brethren, let us cease to prescribe boundaries for the Lord, for the Bible clearly reveals to us that God sometimes uses instruments and performed his work, and afterwards done the same kind of a deed, and used no instrument; therefore, let us not say that if God used an instrument in one case he must use them in all. This, my brethren, is assuming to be the Lord’s instructor; but let us submit to revealed facts, and cease to strive above words to no profit. Hoping that this may terminate in good to us all, I am ever yours to serve in the cause of truth.”
My modern Hardshell brothers, do you agree with Dalton? Did he not teach the original view of your people?
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
The Reason for Quasi-Universalism?
I just recently read Brother Stephen's latest posting, and it made me think about my past experience among the Primitives. Perhaps he can chime in further as to what brought about this tendency toward quasi-universalism, but this is my quick thought which I discovered by experience.
During the time I was among them I came to attribute their quasi-universalism to sentiments. Atleast this was the impression I got from amongst those with which I was acquainted. At one time I myself would not even consider a scheme of salvation which did not yield at least 90% of the human race in heaven. My wife, originally from Russia, was bewildered by the teachings of this body of professed Christians on this point when we first got married. I can still recall how she and I would discuss the fate of those who died without knowledge of Christ or having heard the gospel. She would say "Kevin, they're lost!"
I would not even listen. My ears were completely deaf, and I refused in anger to even countenance such an idea.
There is something I know now from personal experience, and it brings me a lot of sadness. Without the grace of God, dealing with someone with a cultic mindset is, as one writer stated, an attempt to convince the unconvincible.
I remember the truth that Brother Stephen stated in his video with Bob Ross how there's an apparent beauty in thinking that most everyone is saved. How true that is! It kind of serves as a salve to our conscience to think that only a few men will be eternally lost. My pastor used to tell the story of a little heathen boy in some foreign country fetching a pail of water from the creek. Yet before he stooped over, he held up his hands in thanksgiving towards heaven.
How touching! How appealing to our emotions! How easy it is to be convinced that there are lots and lots of people in the world just like this! People who do not know Jesus Christ, but are saved nevertheless!
That sentiments play a huge role in the quasi-universalism of many PBs is evidenced by the fact that one of the very first responses to the gospel means pattern of salvation is an expressed concern for the fate of the unevangelized. Instead of a direct appeal to scripture, they resort to speculation. If I had a nickel for the number of times I was asked upon my exclusion, "What about the American Indians before 1492?"
But the scriptures do not call upon us to speculate, nor to base our soteriology upon our emotions. Rather, it teaches us to trust in the Almighty God, and to acknowledge that He will do what is right.
"Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy name..." (Jer. 10:25) is true whether I like it or not.
It's my duty as a Christian to accept that, and not devise a soteriological system to avoid it.
To this day I am firmly convinced that most PBs have been taught so much grace over the years with almost a total neglect of man's responsibility and God's holiness and justice, having placed most of it in the category of temporal salvation/damnation that they have an overly sentimental view of God. It all boils down to the balance of truth of which theologians often speak. The PBs lost it in the 19th century when they walked away from gospel means, and all the doctrines which such a view entails They rightly understand there is a wideness to God's mercy, but greatly err when they extend it past the boundary which God himself has established through the inclusion of unbelievers, heathens, and idolaters as part of the regenerated family of God. They then take this prior conviction that almost everyone is saved and impose it upon those passages which speak of the 'few' versus the 'many' to make it gel with their false soteriology.
I did it for years.
During the time I was among them I came to attribute their quasi-universalism to sentiments. Atleast this was the impression I got from amongst those with which I was acquainted. At one time I myself would not even consider a scheme of salvation which did not yield at least 90% of the human race in heaven. My wife, originally from Russia, was bewildered by the teachings of this body of professed Christians on this point when we first got married. I can still recall how she and I would discuss the fate of those who died without knowledge of Christ or having heard the gospel. She would say "Kevin, they're lost!"
I would not even listen. My ears were completely deaf, and I refused in anger to even countenance such an idea.
There is something I know now from personal experience, and it brings me a lot of sadness. Without the grace of God, dealing with someone with a cultic mindset is, as one writer stated, an attempt to convince the unconvincible.
I remember the truth that Brother Stephen stated in his video with Bob Ross how there's an apparent beauty in thinking that most everyone is saved. How true that is! It kind of serves as a salve to our conscience to think that only a few men will be eternally lost. My pastor used to tell the story of a little heathen boy in some foreign country fetching a pail of water from the creek. Yet before he stooped over, he held up his hands in thanksgiving towards heaven.
How touching! How appealing to our emotions! How easy it is to be convinced that there are lots and lots of people in the world just like this! People who do not know Jesus Christ, but are saved nevertheless!
That sentiments play a huge role in the quasi-universalism of many PBs is evidenced by the fact that one of the very first responses to the gospel means pattern of salvation is an expressed concern for the fate of the unevangelized. Instead of a direct appeal to scripture, they resort to speculation. If I had a nickel for the number of times I was asked upon my exclusion, "What about the American Indians before 1492?"
But the scriptures do not call upon us to speculate, nor to base our soteriology upon our emotions. Rather, it teaches us to trust in the Almighty God, and to acknowledge that He will do what is right.
"Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy name..." (Jer. 10:25) is true whether I like it or not.
It's my duty as a Christian to accept that, and not devise a soteriological system to avoid it.
To this day I am firmly convinced that most PBs have been taught so much grace over the years with almost a total neglect of man's responsibility and God's holiness and justice, having placed most of it in the category of temporal salvation/damnation that they have an overly sentimental view of God. It all boils down to the balance of truth of which theologians often speak. The PBs lost it in the 19th century when they walked away from gospel means, and all the doctrines which such a view entails They rightly understand there is a wideness to God's mercy, but greatly err when they extend it past the boundary which God himself has established through the inclusion of unbelievers, heathens, and idolaters as part of the regenerated family of God. They then take this prior conviction that almost everyone is saved and impose it upon those passages which speak of the 'few' versus the 'many' to make it gel with their false soteriology.
I did it for years.
"The real culprit is universalism"
The following citation is taken from my posting "Garrett's Error". It gives an amazing admission by Hardshell Jason Brown from our long discussion. Following his words I also gave my response to those words of honest confession.
"The real culprit is an underlying universalism." Have we not been saying this for many years? It was a good thing to get this honest confession from brother Jason. Will others not confess the same?
Jason writes in conclusion, saying:
"So it is vain to oppose the ridiculous conclusions of some modern Primitive Baptists by an attack on the doctrine of immediate regeneration, as the real culprit is an underlying universalism."
Again, I am glad to have this admission by Jason. Some of today's Hardshells have "ridiculous conclusions." I believe Jason still holds to some of those "ridiculous conclusions" and needs to rid himself of them and accept what the scriptures and our historic confessions teach. Further, "the real culprit" is Hardshell denial of means in regeneration, of divorcing conversion from regeneration. The "real culprit" is this reliance of the Hardshells upon their reason and logic rather than upon scripture.
"So it is vain to oppose the ridiculous conclusions of some modern Primitive Baptists by an attack on the doctrine of immediate regeneration, as the real culprit is an underlying universalism."
Again, I am glad to have this admission by Jason. Some of today's Hardshells have "ridiculous conclusions." I believe Jason still holds to some of those "ridiculous conclusions" and needs to rid himself of them and accept what the scriptures and our historic confessions teach. Further, "the real culprit" is Hardshell denial of means in regeneration, of divorcing conversion from regeneration. The "real culprit" is this reliance of the Hardshells upon their reason and logic rather than upon scripture.
"The real culprit is an underlying universalism." Have we not been saying this for many years? It was a good thing to get this honest confession from brother Jason. Will others not confess the same?
Answering Hatfield et als
In the comment section of my article Hardshells And Alien Baptism (viii), an article reviewing Elder Herb Hatfield's Internet article, I today published this comment that seems clearly to be from Elder Hatfield. In this posting I wish to respond to what Hatfield said in response.
Hatfield left this comment:
"By the sovereign providence of God, I came across this article that I assume was written by a Mr Steven Garret. I do not know the person and he made no attempt to discuss my written article on baptism. Yet, he is so wise that he can tell me I am wrong without ever discussing the issue with me. NOt does he tell me of my errors, but he informs everyone that I am arrogant. This is an amazing evaluation since we have never met nor had any communication except this one article. The man processes great wisdom indeed. I have been called many things, but I believe it is the first time I have been accused of being "arrogant." My only defense is that I make no claim of greatness or wisdom, only what I read in the Word of God. I am just a sinner saved by the sovereign grace of God and my only hope of salvation is in the precious death of Jesus Christ. I do have some beliefs that I hold which I believe are based on the Word of God as I have been given understanding by the Holy Spirit. If that makes me to be arrogant, than I am guilty. The write also make the false accusation against me that I believe that only Primitive Baptists are saved. This is totally false. I believe that all God's elect are saved by Jesus Christ's death, regardless of what denomination they may belong to. I wish the writer had communicated with him, I might have saved him from making so many false statements."
My Reply
The old link for Hatfield's article is not available (wonder why?). It was for aberdeen primitive baptist church. However, the same article can be read here at Hatfield's church's web page of Mayhew PB church.
Yes, by the "sovereign providence of God"! However, for what purpose did God will for you to find this article? Or, do you deny that providence is but the actual working out of his eternal decrees (predestination)?
Is that purpose of God in order that you might be given opportunity to defend yourself and your article on the "administrator" of water baptism? So that you can say what you have said and even perhaps to correct me? Or, perhaps, so that you and others might be corrected? Has anyone else ever taken the time to review your doctrinal position on the subject? Should you not be glad that someone took the time to do so?
Since when do I need to first contact a person who writes a public article before I critique it? That is not only an undue requirement but highly impractical.
Also, since when do I have to have met in person an author before I can critique that writer's public writings?
Further, detecting arrogance in a person does not require meeting that person or knowing him personally. Arrogance can be, and often is, detected in that person's words and in their stated beliefs. Don't you see?
Further, I have, like others before me, pointed out the Hardshell "arrogance" many times. This arrogance is seen in their writings and in what they say about themselves and others. Should I take the time and find some examples?
For instance, note the citation I have given often from Dr. J.M. Peck who lived at the time of the division over mission methods.
"The name by which they designated themselves was Primitive, or Old School, Baptists; and they claimed that all Baptists were originally of their contention, which certainly was not the fact. "They arrogate to themselves," says J. M. Peck who was a contemporary, "the name of Old School Baptists because they reprobate all these measures (missions, education and Sunday schools, etc.), and declare non-fellowship with all Baptists who have anything to do with missionary work or any of those forms of active benevolence, and with all who hold correspondence with or fellowship missionary Baptists. In this charitable act they cut themselves off from at least nineteen-twentieths of all our Baptists in the United States, unless we can admit that a mere fragment of a party can exclude a vast majority" (J. M. Peck, Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, July 4, 1839)."
Thus, brother Peck was one of the first to identify "arrogance" with the the Hardshell psyche. Further, as I have shown in numerous instances, Hardshells say many things that reveal their arrogance, an arrogance that is often "cloaked" (like other sins) in external shows of "humility."
Is brother Hatfield willing to discuss the issue of his article with me and others? He seems perturbed that I did not locate him, find his phone number, call him, and discuss my criticisms of his views before publicly writing against them. The fact is, when I was writing on the subject of the administrator of baptism, I looked for Internet articles by PBs on that subject and I found (providentially?) the writing by Hardshell Hatfield. He was a good source for what PBs today believe on that subject.
Hatfield knows my father. Dad and I sometimes spoke of him. I believe dad was in his home. I believe they had some minor differences.
Comment from Hardshell "Anon"
"You have forgotten, or never new of the simplicity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. God had nothing to do with those who are not his and says he never knew them, and told them to depart. God does not even try to save those who are not his. You don't understand what the word hell means, You don't understand what the words saved means, and You do not understand what dead in trespasses and sins means. You are in danger of a hell fire that has nothing to do with eternal hell. You are creating for yourself a self created, self inflicted hell here on this earth for yourself. The power of death and life is of the tongue...You have outstepped bounds and damned yourself to a self created hell here on this earth. I suggest you shut it down. You believe in a weak sniveling puny little god. And you are about to get stepped on." April 1, 2019 at 9:07 AM (see here)
What is ironic to me is how this comment came to me shortly after the comment from Hatfield. The irony is seen in how the above Hardshell evinced the arrogant spirit that Hatfield had referenced in his separate and independent comment!
There is so much that smacks of biblical ignorance in these words that it is hardly worth the effort to respond. Obviously, this Hardshell is either a Universalist or Quasi Universalist.
If this brother really wants to discuss the issues he raises, then we welcome him.
Get stepped on? By whom? The Hardshells? God? If the former, how so? If the latter, how so? If the latter, will it be only a "temporal" smashing or squashing? Will it only bring me a temporal Hell?
Want to "reason together" to see which of us believes in a "puny little god"?
Let me suggest that we begin our discussion of the points you raise by looking at the words of our Lord in Matthew 23: 33-35.
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (KJV)
It seems clear that these words of Jesus uproot your proposition that says "God had nothing to do with those who are not his."
He certainly is dealing with those that are not his in these words. Surely "serpents" and "generation of vipers" are not descriptive of those who are his!
Further, the "damnation of hell" cannot be a mere temporal suffering that is confined to this life.
Gill on Matthew 23:33:
The phrase, (Mnhyg lv hnyd) , "the judgment, or damnation of hell", is a phrase often used in the Talmud F16, and Midrashes F17 of the Jews; and intends future torment, and the everlasting vengeance and wrath of God, the unquenchable fire prepared for the devil and his angels, and which impenitent unbelieving sinners cannot escape.
Hatfield left this comment:
"By the sovereign providence of God, I came across this article that I assume was written by a Mr Steven Garret. I do not know the person and he made no attempt to discuss my written article on baptism. Yet, he is so wise that he can tell me I am wrong without ever discussing the issue with me. NOt does he tell me of my errors, but he informs everyone that I am arrogant. This is an amazing evaluation since we have never met nor had any communication except this one article. The man processes great wisdom indeed. I have been called many things, but I believe it is the first time I have been accused of being "arrogant." My only defense is that I make no claim of greatness or wisdom, only what I read in the Word of God. I am just a sinner saved by the sovereign grace of God and my only hope of salvation is in the precious death of Jesus Christ. I do have some beliefs that I hold which I believe are based on the Word of God as I have been given understanding by the Holy Spirit. If that makes me to be arrogant, than I am guilty. The write also make the false accusation against me that I believe that only Primitive Baptists are saved. This is totally false. I believe that all God's elect are saved by Jesus Christ's death, regardless of what denomination they may belong to. I wish the writer had communicated with him, I might have saved him from making so many false statements."
My Reply
The old link for Hatfield's article is not available (wonder why?). It was for aberdeen primitive baptist church. However, the same article can be read here at Hatfield's church's web page of Mayhew PB church.
Yes, by the "sovereign providence of God"! However, for what purpose did God will for you to find this article? Or, do you deny that providence is but the actual working out of his eternal decrees (predestination)?
Is that purpose of God in order that you might be given opportunity to defend yourself and your article on the "administrator" of water baptism? So that you can say what you have said and even perhaps to correct me? Or, perhaps, so that you and others might be corrected? Has anyone else ever taken the time to review your doctrinal position on the subject? Should you not be glad that someone took the time to do so?
Since when do I need to first contact a person who writes a public article before I critique it? That is not only an undue requirement but highly impractical.
Also, since when do I have to have met in person an author before I can critique that writer's public writings?
Further, detecting arrogance in a person does not require meeting that person or knowing him personally. Arrogance can be, and often is, detected in that person's words and in their stated beliefs. Don't you see?
Further, I have, like others before me, pointed out the Hardshell "arrogance" many times. This arrogance is seen in their writings and in what they say about themselves and others. Should I take the time and find some examples?
For instance, note the citation I have given often from Dr. J.M. Peck who lived at the time of the division over mission methods.
"The name by which they designated themselves was Primitive, or Old School, Baptists; and they claimed that all Baptists were originally of their contention, which certainly was not the fact. "They arrogate to themselves," says J. M. Peck who was a contemporary, "the name of Old School Baptists because they reprobate all these measures (missions, education and Sunday schools, etc.), and declare non-fellowship with all Baptists who have anything to do with missionary work or any of those forms of active benevolence, and with all who hold correspondence with or fellowship missionary Baptists. In this charitable act they cut themselves off from at least nineteen-twentieths of all our Baptists in the United States, unless we can admit that a mere fragment of a party can exclude a vast majority" (J. M. Peck, Baptist Banner and Western Pioneer, July 4, 1839)."
Thus, brother Peck was one of the first to identify "arrogance" with the the Hardshell psyche. Further, as I have shown in numerous instances, Hardshells say many things that reveal their arrogance, an arrogance that is often "cloaked" (like other sins) in external shows of "humility."
Is brother Hatfield willing to discuss the issue of his article with me and others? He seems perturbed that I did not locate him, find his phone number, call him, and discuss my criticisms of his views before publicly writing against them. The fact is, when I was writing on the subject of the administrator of baptism, I looked for Internet articles by PBs on that subject and I found (providentially?) the writing by Hardshell Hatfield. He was a good source for what PBs today believe on that subject.
Hatfield knows my father. Dad and I sometimes spoke of him. I believe dad was in his home. I believe they had some minor differences.
Comment from Hardshell "Anon"
"You have forgotten, or never new of the simplicity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. God had nothing to do with those who are not his and says he never knew them, and told them to depart. God does not even try to save those who are not his. You don't understand what the word hell means, You don't understand what the words saved means, and You do not understand what dead in trespasses and sins means. You are in danger of a hell fire that has nothing to do with eternal hell. You are creating for yourself a self created, self inflicted hell here on this earth for yourself. The power of death and life is of the tongue...You have outstepped bounds and damned yourself to a self created hell here on this earth. I suggest you shut it down. You believe in a weak sniveling puny little god. And you are about to get stepped on." April 1, 2019 at 9:07 AM (see here)
What is ironic to me is how this comment came to me shortly after the comment from Hatfield. The irony is seen in how the above Hardshell evinced the arrogant spirit that Hatfield had referenced in his separate and independent comment!
There is so much that smacks of biblical ignorance in these words that it is hardly worth the effort to respond. Obviously, this Hardshell is either a Universalist or Quasi Universalist.
If this brother really wants to discuss the issues he raises, then we welcome him.
Get stepped on? By whom? The Hardshells? God? If the former, how so? If the latter, how so? If the latter, will it be only a "temporal" smashing or squashing? Will it only bring me a temporal Hell?
Want to "reason together" to see which of us believes in a "puny little god"?
Let me suggest that we begin our discussion of the points you raise by looking at the words of our Lord in Matthew 23: 33-35.
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (KJV)
It seems clear that these words of Jesus uproot your proposition that says "God had nothing to do with those who are not his."
He certainly is dealing with those that are not his in these words. Surely "serpents" and "generation of vipers" are not descriptive of those who are his!
Further, the "damnation of hell" cannot be a mere temporal suffering that is confined to this life.
Gill on Matthew 23:33:
The phrase, (Mnhyg lv hnyd) , "the judgment, or damnation of hell", is a phrase often used in the Talmud F16, and Midrashes F17 of the Jews; and intends future torment, and the everlasting vengeance and wrath of God, the unquenchable fire prepared for the devil and his angels, and which impenitent unbelieving sinners cannot escape.
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Recent Hardshell Comments
I have taken an hiatus from writing lately, working on some building projects here at home. During the past couple weeks I have received two comments from Hardshells. I have not yet made a reply but plan to do so soon. For now, I want our readers to see these comments. Before I respond to them, anyone want to comment?
Comment
"You have forgotten, or never new of the simplicity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. God had nothing to do with those who are not his and says he never knew them, and told them to depart. God does not even try to save those who are not his. You don't understand what the word hell means, You don't understand what the words saved means, and You do not understand what dead in trespasses and sins means. You are in danger of a hell fire that has nothing to do with eternal hell. You are creating for yourself a self created , self inflicted hell here on this earth for yourself. The power of death and life is of the tongue ….You have outstepped bounds and damned yourself to a self created hell here on this earth. I suggest you shut it down. You believe in a weak sniveling puny little god. And you are about to get stepped on." April 1, 2019 at 9:07 AM (see here)
Comment
In the comment section of my article Hardshells And Alien Baptism (viii), an article reviewing Elder Herb Hatfield's Internet article, I published this comment that seems clearly to be from Elder Hatfield.
"By the sovereign providence of God, I came across this article that I assume was written by a Mr Steven Garret. I do not know the person and he made no attempt to discuss my written article on baptism. Yet, he is so wise that he can tell me I am wrong without ever discussing the issue with me. NOt does he tell me of my errors, but he informs everyone that I am arrogant. This is an amazing evaluation since we have never met nor had any communication except this one article. The man processes great wisdom indeed. I have been called many things, but I believe it is the first time I have been accused of being "arrogant." My only defense is that I make no claim of greatness or wisdom, only what I read in the Word of God. I am just a sinner saved by the sovereign grace of God and my only hope of salvation is in the precious death of Jesus Christ. I do have some beliefs that I hold which I believe are based on the Word of God as I have been given understanding by the Holy Spirit. If that makes me to be arrogant, than I am guilty. The write also make the false accusation against me that I believe that only Primitive Baptists are saved. This is totally false. I believe that all God's elect are saved by Jesus Christ's death, regardless of what denomination they may belong to. I wish the writer had communicated with him, I might have saved him from making so many false statements."
What think ye?
Comment
"You have forgotten, or never new of the simplicity of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. God had nothing to do with those who are not his and says he never knew them, and told them to depart. God does not even try to save those who are not his. You don't understand what the word hell means, You don't understand what the words saved means, and You do not understand what dead in trespasses and sins means. You are in danger of a hell fire that has nothing to do with eternal hell. You are creating for yourself a self created , self inflicted hell here on this earth for yourself. The power of death and life is of the tongue ….You have outstepped bounds and damned yourself to a self created hell here on this earth. I suggest you shut it down. You believe in a weak sniveling puny little god. And you are about to get stepped on." April 1, 2019 at 9:07 AM (see here)
Comment
In the comment section of my article Hardshells And Alien Baptism (viii), an article reviewing Elder Herb Hatfield's Internet article, I published this comment that seems clearly to be from Elder Hatfield.
"By the sovereign providence of God, I came across this article that I assume was written by a Mr Steven Garret. I do not know the person and he made no attempt to discuss my written article on baptism. Yet, he is so wise that he can tell me I am wrong without ever discussing the issue with me. NOt does he tell me of my errors, but he informs everyone that I am arrogant. This is an amazing evaluation since we have never met nor had any communication except this one article. The man processes great wisdom indeed. I have been called many things, but I believe it is the first time I have been accused of being "arrogant." My only defense is that I make no claim of greatness or wisdom, only what I read in the Word of God. I am just a sinner saved by the sovereign grace of God and my only hope of salvation is in the precious death of Jesus Christ. I do have some beliefs that I hold which I believe are based on the Word of God as I have been given understanding by the Holy Spirit. If that makes me to be arrogant, than I am guilty. The write also make the false accusation against me that I believe that only Primitive Baptists are saved. This is totally false. I believe that all God's elect are saved by Jesus Christ's death, regardless of what denomination they may belong to. I wish the writer had communicated with him, I might have saved him from making so many false statements."
What think ye?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)