"And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." (Acts 16: 16-18 kjv)
Why would the apostle Paul be grieved over someone constantly affirming that the apostles were God's servants who show men the way of salvation? Further, why would a possessor of demonic spirits say such a truth? Difficult questions, huh?
My own view is that the reason Paul silenced the woman by divine power was because she was saying the words sarcastically. If we add punctuation (which was originally absent from the text, and which was later added by translators to help give the meaning of the text, and regarding punctuation translators have disagreed concerning a particular text) in order to bring out this sarcastic meaning of the words uttered by the soothsayer, we would have these examples:
"These men are servants of the most high God?" (connotation: that is laughable! An instance of sarcasm)
Just by adding the question mark one sees the sarcasm.
"These men...show unto us the way of salvation?" (the intended meaning is that the thing is absurd. Again, another instance of sarcasm, I believe)
Implied Meaning in the Sarcasm
These men cannot possibly be servants of God! Look at them! The thought is laughable! These men show "us," the wise ones, the way of salvation? Yea, right!
I think this sarcasm represents what the soothsayer was intending to convey. The damsel did not really believe that Paul was a servant of God and was really showing the way of salvation. She intends to convey the idea that anyone who wants to know God and the way of salvation should consult the wise ones, and those who have the spirits of the gods within them, as she professed to have, rather than some little unknown Jew! Her words were not only a case of sarcasm but of mockery. The damsel was shouting these words in a mocking way, similar to the way the soldiers spoke the words "Hail! King of the Jews!"
That is my interpretation in any case. What think ye?
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Friday, November 15, 2019
Baptist Watchman Citations (II)
In the April 10th, 1875 issue of the "Baptist Watchman," Elder (Dr.) R. (Richard) W. Fain, in his written debate with Duncan (published in "The Baptist, edited by Dr. J.R. Graves, and in Fain's paper), said that the Somerset Confession of 1656 stated the historic views of the Primitive or Old School Baptists. Well, here is part of that confession (cited by Fain):
XIX. THAT the Spirit is administered by or through the word of faith preached (Gal. 3:2) which word was first declared by the Lord himself, and was confirmed by them that heard him (Heb. 2:3.), which word is called the gospel of God's grace (Acts 20:24.), the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19.), the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17.), the weapon of a Christian (2 Cor. 10:4.); a faithful (Rev. 22:6.), quick, powerful (Heb. 4:12.), plain (Prov. 8: 9.), comfortable (Rom. 15:4.), pure (Ps. 12:6.), right, true (Ps. 33:4.), sound (Tit. 2:8.), and wholesome word (I Tim. 6:3.).
XX. THAT this spirit of Christ, being administer'd by the word of faith, worketh in us faith in Christ (John 3: 5; I Pet. 1:22 Acts 16:14; Gal. 5:22.) by virtue of which we come to receive our sonship (John 1:12; Gal. 3:26.), and is further administer'd unto us through faith in the promises of God (Eph. 1:13; Acts 2:38, 39; Acts 1:4.), waiting on him in those ways and means that he hath appointed in his word (John 14:15, 16, 17; Luke 11:9, 13.), this faith being the ground of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1.).
XXI. THAT justification is God's accounting and declaring that man justified from the guilt and condemnation of all his sin, who hath received Jesus Christ and doth believe in him (in truth and power) according to the record given of him by God in scripture (Rom. 4: 5; I John 5:10, 11; Joh. 3:36.).
XXII. THAT justification from the guilt and condemnation of sin is only obtained through faith in that man Jesus Christ, crucified at Jerusalem, and by God raised from the dead (Rom. 5:1, 9; Acts 13:38, 39; Rom. 4:25; 10:9.). And that those who bring in any other way of justification, do therein make void, and acquit themselves of having any interest in the gospel and grace of Christ (Gal. 2:21; 5:4.).
XXIII. THAT this faith being wrought in truth and power, it doth not only interest us in our justification, sonship, and glory, but it produceth as effects and fruits, a conformity, in a measure, to the Lord Jesus, in his will, graces and virtues (Rom. 5:3, 4; I John 3:23, 24; 2 Pet. 1:5, 6, 7; Gal. 5:6; Acts 26:18; I Thess 1:3.).
Did you see how those articles are mostly denied by today's "Primitive Baptists"? Is there any hint of an anti means sentiment?
XIX. THAT the Spirit is administered by or through the word of faith preached (Gal. 3:2) which word was first declared by the Lord himself, and was confirmed by them that heard him (Heb. 2:3.), which word is called the gospel of God's grace (Acts 20:24.), the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19.), the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17.), the weapon of a Christian (2 Cor. 10:4.); a faithful (Rev. 22:6.), quick, powerful (Heb. 4:12.), plain (Prov. 8: 9.), comfortable (Rom. 15:4.), pure (Ps. 12:6.), right, true (Ps. 33:4.), sound (Tit. 2:8.), and wholesome word (I Tim. 6:3.).
XX. THAT this spirit of Christ, being administer'd by the word of faith, worketh in us faith in Christ (John 3: 5; I Pet. 1:22 Acts 16:14; Gal. 5:22.) by virtue of which we come to receive our sonship (John 1:12; Gal. 3:26.), and is further administer'd unto us through faith in the promises of God (Eph. 1:13; Acts 2:38, 39; Acts 1:4.), waiting on him in those ways and means that he hath appointed in his word (John 14:15, 16, 17; Luke 11:9, 13.), this faith being the ground of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1.).
XXI. THAT justification is God's accounting and declaring that man justified from the guilt and condemnation of all his sin, who hath received Jesus Christ and doth believe in him (in truth and power) according to the record given of him by God in scripture (Rom. 4: 5; I John 5:10, 11; Joh. 3:36.).
XXII. THAT justification from the guilt and condemnation of sin is only obtained through faith in that man Jesus Christ, crucified at Jerusalem, and by God raised from the dead (Rom. 5:1, 9; Acts 13:38, 39; Rom. 4:25; 10:9.). And that those who bring in any other way of justification, do therein make void, and acquit themselves of having any interest in the gospel and grace of Christ (Gal. 2:21; 5:4.).
XXIII. THAT this faith being wrought in truth and power, it doth not only interest us in our justification, sonship, and glory, but it produceth as effects and fruits, a conformity, in a measure, to the Lord Jesus, in his will, graces and virtues (Rom. 5:3, 4; I John 3:23, 24; 2 Pet. 1:5, 6, 7; Gal. 5:6; Acts 26:18; I Thess 1:3.).
Did you see how those articles are mostly denied by today's "Primitive Baptists"? Is there any hint of an anti means sentiment?
Monday, November 11, 2019
Baptist Watchman Citations (I)
In a follow up to "Means Still Taught In 1875" (here) I will begin to make available certain citations from the "Baptist Watchman" that deal with doctrinal issues, revealing what were the beliefs and practices of those known as "Primitive" or "Old School" before and after the American Civil War, and what controversies they experienced as a denomination. We will call this series of citations (with commentary) "Baptist Watchman Citations."
March 20, 1875 (Vol. 6)
By W. A. Bowden
Lone Cedar, Ky
"But I had rather say the spirit of the soul, or mind. This is when regeneration takes place preparatory to being born again. Not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, even this true God, and eternal life, which liveth and abideth forever. Here God has begun a good work, and he will perfect it; for he has seen of the travail of his soul, and he is true and cannot lie; and as sure as he brings to the birth, that sure he will cause to be delivered.
What do these words say about the belief of the PBs on regeneration or being born again? Do they not show that the view - that regeneration (implanting of seed) was not the same as being born again (evangelical conversion) - was not only taught before and after the 1832 split, but was still believed in 1875? Notice that the PBs believed that "regeneration takes place preparatory to being born again." Both were viewed as being necessary for complete or final salvation, and both viewed as the work of God.
Bowden continued:
"When the poor dead sinner is thus quickened, he begins to work, but he still quite ignorant of the true God. He believes that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and now he begins to reform his life, believing that he must get better, or God will never have mercy. But as he increases in the knowledge of the true God, of his holiness, of his justice, and of his Divine perfection, he learns more of his own lost and helpless condition, until finally he comes to the end of his own strength. He sees and feels that the law is holy, just and good; that he is carnal, sold to sin. Like a crane or a swallow, he is made to chatter; like a lonesome dove, he is made to mourn, saying my day of grace is gone; I am forever lost, and it is just Lord, undertake for me. O, if possible, have mercy upon me, a sinner."
Notice how the quickening or regeneration does not bring one to know God! To know God, he must have a conversion experience! Of course, I see the fallacies in such a view. But, my point in this is to show that the PBs still, in the 1870s believed that evangelical conversion was the new birth.
"Now, the way that was ordained to life, the poor sinner finds is death; for we must die to sin before we can possess eternal life and live unto holiness. And now, in the process of regeneration, or pro-creation in Christ Jesus, the sinner is taught to know God truly as his Savior, and that all his former views while in nature's night were wrong, and that he was ignorant of the character of the true God. But, now, when it pleased God to reveal himself in the forgiveness of his sins, altogether lovely and the chief among ten thousand, how easy it was to die, that it was all for Jesus' sake. And now the sinner can discover that of this true God, Jesus is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Here is one now prepared to glory in the Lord.
In this way God's people are made acquainted with the true God and are possessors of eternal life."
Regeneration a "process"? What PB today would affirm this? I have no problem with it. Nor would the real Old Particular Baptists. Still, this citation shows what the first generation of PBs believed about regeneration, conversion, and the new birth.
The no means view was a new "innovation" made by some extremists in the mid to late 19th century and sadly, by devilish and cult tactics, took over the denomination and pushed the believers in the historic doctrine of means out of it. Their no means view of the new birth was not the "primitive" view of their fathers and therefore their calling themselves "primitive" is a joke.
Elder Sonny Pyles said that this view of regeneration and the new birth was not the view of his forefathers, and yet we have shown just the opposite. See the posting "Sonny Pyles vs. P.D. Gold" (here).
March 20, 1875 (Vol. 6)
By W. A. Bowden
Lone Cedar, Ky
"But I had rather say the spirit of the soul, or mind. This is when regeneration takes place preparatory to being born again. Not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, even this true God, and eternal life, which liveth and abideth forever. Here God has begun a good work, and he will perfect it; for he has seen of the travail of his soul, and he is true and cannot lie; and as sure as he brings to the birth, that sure he will cause to be delivered.
What do these words say about the belief of the PBs on regeneration or being born again? Do they not show that the view - that regeneration (implanting of seed) was not the same as being born again (evangelical conversion) - was not only taught before and after the 1832 split, but was still believed in 1875? Notice that the PBs believed that "regeneration takes place preparatory to being born again." Both were viewed as being necessary for complete or final salvation, and both viewed as the work of God.
Bowden continued:
"When the poor dead sinner is thus quickened, he begins to work, but he still quite ignorant of the true God. He believes that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and now he begins to reform his life, believing that he must get better, or God will never have mercy. But as he increases in the knowledge of the true God, of his holiness, of his justice, and of his Divine perfection, he learns more of his own lost and helpless condition, until finally he comes to the end of his own strength. He sees and feels that the law is holy, just and good; that he is carnal, sold to sin. Like a crane or a swallow, he is made to chatter; like a lonesome dove, he is made to mourn, saying my day of grace is gone; I am forever lost, and it is just Lord, undertake for me. O, if possible, have mercy upon me, a sinner."
Notice how the quickening or regeneration does not bring one to know God! To know God, he must have a conversion experience! Of course, I see the fallacies in such a view. But, my point in this is to show that the PBs still, in the 1870s believed that evangelical conversion was the new birth.
Bowden continued:
"Now, the way that was ordained to life, the poor sinner finds is death; for we must die to sin before we can possess eternal life and live unto holiness. And now, in the process of regeneration, or pro-creation in Christ Jesus, the sinner is taught to know God truly as his Savior, and that all his former views while in nature's night were wrong, and that he was ignorant of the character of the true God. But, now, when it pleased God to reveal himself in the forgiveness of his sins, altogether lovely and the chief among ten thousand, how easy it was to die, that it was all for Jesus' sake. And now the sinner can discover that of this true God, Jesus is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Here is one now prepared to glory in the Lord.
In this way God's people are made acquainted with the true God and are possessors of eternal life."
Regeneration a "process"? What PB today would affirm this? I have no problem with it. Nor would the real Old Particular Baptists. Still, this citation shows what the first generation of PBs believed about regeneration, conversion, and the new birth.
The no means view was a new "innovation" made by some extremists in the mid to late 19th century and sadly, by devilish and cult tactics, took over the denomination and pushed the believers in the historic doctrine of means out of it. Their no means view of the new birth was not the "primitive" view of their fathers and therefore their calling themselves "primitive" is a joke.
Elder Sonny Pyles said that this view of regeneration and the new birth was not the view of his forefathers, and yet we have shown just the opposite. See the posting "Sonny Pyles vs. P.D. Gold" (here).
Friday, November 8, 2019
Means Still Taught In 1875
The following was written in the Baptist Watchman for Feb. 6, 1875. Elders R. W. Fain and J. B. Stephens, both medical doctors and leaders of the Primitive Baptists at the time, were editors. In the issues for this year (1875) that I have read so far, I notice that elder W. P. Throgmorton was a subscriber and that Elder Lemuel Potter is mentioned. The latter fact is significant but I cannot go into why now for the time is short.
The following citation shows that the orthodox view of the first PBs was a belief in means for salvation but it also shows that there were still some of the anti means side promoting a heterodox view, connected with the views of the "Two Seeders" or "ultraists" (like we saw in Zion's Advocate for the 1850s), being the no means view. I say that this is more evidence that the means view was still the leading view of the Primitive Baptist church as late as 1875.
In the following citation, the highlighting is mine. It is a letter to the editor by a Wm. L Stegall from Henderson Station, Tenn. Dec. 1874.
To the Editors of the Baptist Watchman
I am pained, also, to see some differences among some of the Primitive Baptist, on doctrinal points. Some (a minority or majority? - SG) holding what is called "eternal children doctrine," (associated with "Two Seedism" - SG) which I cannot see that the scriptures justify. I believe the church stood complete in the purpose of God in Christ from the beginning of time in the covenant between the Father and the Son, for he spoke of things that were not as though they were. Again, some (a minority or majority? - SG) say he works without means. I just as well say that Jesus did not open the eyes of the blind man without the clay and spittle, or that the fish was not used to carry Jonah to land, or a Jonah to preach to the Ninevites; or that God did not use Ezekiel and the wind in resurrecting the dry bones of the valley. To say that he does not use man to speak to man, and his purposes not carried out by it, is strange to me indeed. The Apostle said he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, because it is the power of God unto salvation (not the power after salvation) to every one that believe. If then it is the power of God, we ought not to limit it. The book says, "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake." (Feb. 6, 1875 Issue)
Obviously this writer and the supporters of the Baptist Watchman believed that God used means in executing his eternal and saving purposes.
Another thing that Stegall said in this letter that is interesting is this:
"The "Old Baptist Test," a book written by our lamented Dr. Watson corresponds with Osburns writings. The editorials of the Watchman also contain the doctrinal principles, etc., of Osburn; also, many of the correspondents of the Watchman write the same things. Osburn was regarded as foremost among the best preachers of his day."
By "Osburn" he means James Osbourn, who we have cited many times in this blog. We have surely shown how he believed in means in the eternal salvation of the elect, as did the Kehukeeites that he had great influence over in the 1832 split and thereafter. He wrote many works. I have read several.
The following citation shows that the orthodox view of the first PBs was a belief in means for salvation but it also shows that there were still some of the anti means side promoting a heterodox view, connected with the views of the "Two Seeders" or "ultraists" (like we saw in Zion's Advocate for the 1850s), being the no means view. I say that this is more evidence that the means view was still the leading view of the Primitive Baptist church as late as 1875.
In the following citation, the highlighting is mine. It is a letter to the editor by a Wm. L Stegall from Henderson Station, Tenn. Dec. 1874.
To the Editors of the Baptist Watchman
I am pained, also, to see some differences among some of the Primitive Baptist, on doctrinal points. Some (a minority or majority? - SG) holding what is called "eternal children doctrine," (associated with "Two Seedism" - SG) which I cannot see that the scriptures justify. I believe the church stood complete in the purpose of God in Christ from the beginning of time in the covenant between the Father and the Son, for he spoke of things that were not as though they were. Again, some (a minority or majority? - SG) say he works without means. I just as well say that Jesus did not open the eyes of the blind man without the clay and spittle, or that the fish was not used to carry Jonah to land, or a Jonah to preach to the Ninevites; or that God did not use Ezekiel and the wind in resurrecting the dry bones of the valley. To say that he does not use man to speak to man, and his purposes not carried out by it, is strange to me indeed. The Apostle said he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, because it is the power of God unto salvation (not the power after salvation) to every one that believe. If then it is the power of God, we ought not to limit it. The book says, "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake." (Feb. 6, 1875 Issue)
Obviously this writer and the supporters of the Baptist Watchman believed that God used means in executing his eternal and saving purposes.
Another thing that Stegall said in this letter that is interesting is this:
"The "Old Baptist Test," a book written by our lamented Dr. Watson corresponds with Osburns writings. The editorials of the Watchman also contain the doctrinal principles, etc., of Osburn; also, many of the correspondents of the Watchman write the same things. Osburn was regarded as foremost among the best preachers of his day."
By "Osburn" he means James Osbourn, who we have cited many times in this blog. We have surely shown how he believed in means in the eternal salvation of the elect, as did the Kehukeeites that he had great influence over in the 1832 split and thereafter. He wrote many works. I have read several.
Old Baptist & Medical Hemp (1874)
In the weekly periodical "The Baptist Watchman," edited by elders R.W. Fain and J.B. Stephens, both doctors in the Nashville area, there are advertisers on the last pages (as other Old School papers of the time). Not only has it been interesting to read the old periodicals for their doctrinal writings, but also sometimes to see the advertisements for products and services.
In the issues I am reading (mid 1870s) I found this advertisement for "East India Hemp" and the words "What We Know About It" under the title.
"Instead of devoting a column to the merits of this strange and wonderful plant, we remain silent and let it speak for itself through other lips than ours, believing that those who have suffered most can better tell the story. We will here quote word for word from letters received, simply adding out testimony to the rest in saying, that when this plant is properly prepared, we know that it positively cures consumption, and will break up a fresh cold in twenty-four hours.
St. Mary's Church, Allegheny City, Pa. November 10, 1874.
The East India Hemp has been taken by Rev. Matthias Binder, O S B, and Rev. Sebastian Arnold, O S B, both assistant pastors of this church, and so far has given relief to both. They suffered from affections of the lungs and bronchial organs. We have recommended, through charity to sufferers, the Cannabis Indica to different persons, and continue the same in good conscience, knowing the effects by experience. Please find inclosed (sic) check for twelve bottles of syrup, pills and lintment (sic). We shall inform you in due time further success the medicines shall meet with.
Yours truly,
Rev. Ferdinand Wolf, O S B
87 Washington Street
China Grove, Rowan Co, N C, Oct. 21, 1874
Send one dozen Ointment and one of Cannabis Indica. When Mr. J. W. Fisher brought his wife to me for examination, I found her in the incipient stage of tuberculous consumption. Then it was I concluded to make a fair trial of Indian Hemp, and now there is a general demand for those remedies. The Ointment excels everything and anything of its kind I ever saw or tried; in many cases it acts like a charm.
Fraternally yours,
P A Sifford, MD
A Sample of others on the use of medical hemp
"Inclosed is $10 for more of the Indian Hemp. I can truly say that this medicine has done me more good than all the doctors and I had several of the best in the country. My cough is a great deal better and my chills and night sweats are gone. You may look for several orders soon, as many have seen the effect of this medicine on me."
"Your treatment for consumption has so improved my condition that the inquiry comes every day from my friends, What are you taking? Several are talking of sending for some of your medicine, and James Huff desires me to order for him $9 worth of the Hemp."
Is this not interesting in light of the "medical marijuana" issue of today? And of the debate about the uses of Hemp?
I publish this because I thought others might like to know this fact. Historians often find such things in their research. What think ye? We know that pastors today must give counsel on the use of Hemp, right?
In the issues I am reading (mid 1870s) I found this advertisement for "East India Hemp" and the words "What We Know About It" under the title.
"Instead of devoting a column to the merits of this strange and wonderful plant, we remain silent and let it speak for itself through other lips than ours, believing that those who have suffered most can better tell the story. We will here quote word for word from letters received, simply adding out testimony to the rest in saying, that when this plant is properly prepared, we know that it positively cures consumption, and will break up a fresh cold in twenty-four hours.
St. Mary's Church, Allegheny City, Pa. November 10, 1874.
The East India Hemp has been taken by Rev. Matthias Binder, O S B, and Rev. Sebastian Arnold, O S B, both assistant pastors of this church, and so far has given relief to both. They suffered from affections of the lungs and bronchial organs. We have recommended, through charity to sufferers, the Cannabis Indica to different persons, and continue the same in good conscience, knowing the effects by experience. Please find inclosed (sic) check for twelve bottles of syrup, pills and lintment (sic). We shall inform you in due time further success the medicines shall meet with.
Yours truly,
Rev. Ferdinand Wolf, O S B
87 Washington Street
China Grove, Rowan Co, N C, Oct. 21, 1874
Send one dozen Ointment and one of Cannabis Indica. When Mr. J. W. Fisher brought his wife to me for examination, I found her in the incipient stage of tuberculous consumption. Then it was I concluded to make a fair trial of Indian Hemp, and now there is a general demand for those remedies. The Ointment excels everything and anything of its kind I ever saw or tried; in many cases it acts like a charm.
Fraternally yours,
P A Sifford, MD
A Sample of others on the use of medical hemp
"Inclosed is $10 for more of the Indian Hemp. I can truly say that this medicine has done me more good than all the doctors and I had several of the best in the country. My cough is a great deal better and my chills and night sweats are gone. You may look for several orders soon, as many have seen the effect of this medicine on me."
"Your treatment for consumption has so improved my condition that the inquiry comes every day from my friends, What are you taking? Several are talking of sending for some of your medicine, and James Huff desires me to order for him $9 worth of the Hemp."
Is this not interesting in light of the "medical marijuana" issue of today? And of the debate about the uses of Hemp?
I publish this because I thought others might like to know this fact. Historians often find such things in their research. What think ye? We know that pastors today must give counsel on the use of Hemp, right?
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
New PB Research
It takes a lot of effort to do historical research. It also costs money as well as time. Over the past year I was able to spend a day at Duke University doing research on the writings of Zion's Advocate for the 1850s -1870s. It produced much good documentary research.
I have ordered from Southern Baptist historical library in Nashville copies of several old periodicals that are on microfilm. Like issues of Zion's Advocate, these periodicals are hard to find in libraries. None are available on the Internet (as old issues of "The Primitive Baptist" of NC are now). So, I have to either drive long distances to these libraries or order them as I am now doing.
I am getting issues of these periodicals
The Old Baptist Banner (Jan. 20, 1838-April 1839) Murfreesboro/Nashville, TN
The Correspondent (May 1839-April 1840) Murfreesboro, TN
The Baptist Watchman (1871,1873-1875, 1879) Murfreesboro/Nashville, TN
Elder John Watson was one of the supporters and backers, and writer and editor, of the Old Baptist Banner and The Correspondent. Elder R.W. Fain, a medical doctor like Watson, and one who wrote the Preface for "The Old Baptist Test," edited The Baptist Watchman. The time period for these issues should reveal the battle with the "ultraists" brothers. More to come, the Lord willing.
I have ordered from Southern Baptist historical library in Nashville copies of several old periodicals that are on microfilm. Like issues of Zion's Advocate, these periodicals are hard to find in libraries. None are available on the Internet (as old issues of "The Primitive Baptist" of NC are now). So, I have to either drive long distances to these libraries or order them as I am now doing.
I am getting issues of these periodicals
The Old Baptist Banner (Jan. 20, 1838-April 1839) Murfreesboro/Nashville, TN
The Correspondent (May 1839-April 1840) Murfreesboro, TN
The Baptist Watchman (1871,1873-1875, 1879) Murfreesboro/Nashville, TN
Elder John Watson was one of the supporters and backers, and writer and editor, of the Old Baptist Banner and The Correspondent. Elder R.W. Fain, a medical doctor like Watson, and one who wrote the Preface for "The Old Baptist Test," edited The Baptist Watchman. The time period for these issues should reveal the battle with the "ultraists" brothers. More to come, the Lord willing.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (VII)
Under "BY WHOM IS ORDINATION?" Hiscox wrote:
"Admitting that, for the sake of order, ceremonial ordination should be continued, where resides the right and the power to set men apart to this service? Is it in a Church, or in a Council or Presbytery?"
The ordaining of men into ministry by presbyteries is really only "ceremonial ordination," not real ordination. I was therefore not "ordained" by the two presbyteries who performed this "ceremonial ordination" by "laying on of hands" of "the presbytery." Rather, each time I accepted a call to pastor a church, either as leading pastor or associate, I was really "ordained" by NT standards. By the latter reckoning I have been ordained four times. Of course, as far as being ordained by God to preach and to serve, I was ordained only once!
Hiscox continued:
"The answer is brief, and should be conclusive. The right of ordination is inherent in the Church; and in no other body of men whatever. This conclusion is inevitable to those who hold to Church independency, and repudiate sacramental ordination and hierarchical assumptions, as Baptists do."
Well, amen to that! Would to God many of our Presbyterian Baptists would see this!
Hiscox continued:
"The contrary claim, that the right inheres in a Council or Presbytery, and that the ceremony must be performed by those who have had hands laid on them, in order to be valid, is so preposterous, that no man should make it unless he be prepared to defend holy orders by Episcopal hands as a sacrament, with an uninterrupted apostolical succession. For to that he must be finally driven."
Again, amen! This is what our Baptist forefathers who wrote the first and second London Confessions also taught. How did so many Baptists get away from the purity of the original teaching?
Hiscox continued:
"That the right of ordination resides in the local, visible Church though ministers may be called upon to advise in the matter, and to perform the public services will be evident from the following considerations:
1. Because all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local Church. This is the only organic form of Christian life divinely appointed. Christ instituted no society but the Church, and to it He committed authority to administer His laws. This is the Baptist doctrine, held, taught and defended, always and everywhere."
Yes, "all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local Church." And, amen to "this is the Baptist doctrine, held, taught and defended, always and everywhere."
Hiscox continued:
"Councils and Presbyteries, as organized bodies, are of human, not of divine origin or authority, and cannot be essential to, much less supersede, the Church in the performance of any ecclesiastical functions."
I am sure that my stubborn Hardshell brothers will be very much against the idea that they have anything about them religiously that is "of human" rather than "of divine origin or authority," but they suffer under a delusion in this regard. Are not their associations of human origin?
Hiscox continued:
"A Council is created by the Church which convenes it. Now to suppose that a Church has not power to ordain, while a Council has, is to suppose that the body created has more power than that which created it. Moreover, the Council has no inherent power, and possesses only what the Church which called it has conferred upon it. It is, therefore absurd to suppose the Council can do more than the Church."
Again, this is simply logical and what the bible teaches.
Hiscox continued:
"And further, Christ gave to the churches pastors and teachers. But if Councils hold the right to ordain, the churches cannot enjoy these most important gifts of ministerial service divinely bestowed, without the consent of a Council, a body of men for which the great Head of the Church made no provision.
2. Because a Church is a body complete in itself as to authority, though without officers."
How did so many Baptists get away from this basic truth?
Hiscox continued:
"It has power to create officers out of its own members, and set them apart to the service for which they may be chosen, by any form or ceremony it may choose, or without any ceremony, at its option. The right to choose and enjoy the ministry of its own religious teachers, without let or hindrance from any, is one of the primary rights with which Christ has invested His churches.
3. Because that in the primitive churches, though there was an apostleship and a discipleship, there was no such division into clergy and laity as afterward sprang up and now prevails. There was no official caste or class, save as the Holy Spirit, working in each, developed certain gracious capabilities, which the churches used for the edification of the body. It was neither cleric nor laic, but a common discipleship. All alike constituted a holy priesthood, ordained to offer spiritual sacrifices unto God. And the churches selected and elected teachers and leaders, as the fitting qualifications were developed which commended the individuals."
Authority is in Christ and his word and he has invested this authority in individuals and in independent assemblies. I got my authority to teach, preach, baptize, eat the Lord's Supper, etc., from Christ and from his word. Why do I need to get it anywhere else? Is that not what Gill and Spurgeon said, as we have observed?
Hiscox continued:
"It is indisputable that after the primitive age the common discipleship was divided by this class-distinction into clergy and laity. Then developed the hierarchical tendency to wrest ecclesiastical authority from the churches and vest it in an ambitious clergy. Especially did this tendency show itself in the claim that the right of ordination belonged exclusively to the clergy. For in no other way could they so effectually dominate the churches as by holding in their own hands the exclusive right to consecrate and invest their pastors. This right conceded, the churches were powerless in the grasp of their despotic spiritual rulers. The demand now for an exclusive clerical ordination has this same hierarchical tendency for its germ and life."
Churches ought not to ever concede their authority that they have from Christ. We must beware of the dangers of the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
Hiscox continued:
Dr. Wm. B. Johnson said:
"The sole power of ordaining to the pastorate or bishopric is lodged with the churches." Gospel Developed, pp. 133, 144-
Dr. Strong says:
"It is always to be remembered, however, that the power to ordain rests with the Church; and that the Church may proceed without a Council, or even against the decisions of a Council. Such ordination, of course, would give authority only within the bounds of the individual Church." Systematic Theology, p. 5/4.
Hiscox cites others, but these are sufficient to the point.
Hiscox continued:
4. Because the claim made by some, that while a Church may have the right to ordain or set apart a minister for themselves, ordination by a Council makes one a minister for the whole denomination, is false, illogical and absurd. A Church cannot, in deed, make a man a minister to any but themselves. The fact that they had chosen him and approved his ministry, would to that extent give him credit with other churches. Nor yet can a Council do any more than give a man the credit of their approval and commendation. They cannot make him a minister for any Church save that one which asked their advice and cooperation in his ordination."
I think the Hardshells look at ordination by presbyteries as a kind of denominational ordination.
Hiscox continued:
"It is preposterous to claim that a Council can assure the confidence and fellowship of the entire denomination to any man on whom they may lay their hands. What is the denomination? It is not an organic entity; it has no corporate existence; it is not an ecclesiastical body; it has neither organization, laws nor officers, and has no means of expressing approval or dissent. It is a mere conception of the aggregate of all the churches. The ministers who lead and direct its activities are not the denomination; the journals that speak to and for it are not the denomination; and in the sense in which it is so often appealed to, or spoken for, it is a fiction.
When, therefore, did the denomination authorize a Council or Presbytery to ordain a man into its ministry, or give him the credit of its fellowship throughout the land? What havoc it makes with our theory of Church life, to claim that a Council sitting in Maine or Vermont can make a man an accredited minister for all the churches in Mississippi or Texas or Montana; or that a Presbytery acting in New York can give a man the fellowship of the churches in Chicago, St. Louis or San Francisco, and elsewhere and everywhere.
This question then remains, Is it right and proper for an unordained man to administer the ordinances? The prevailing opinion is, that he has no such right until the hands of the Presbytery have been laid on him an opinion that finds no warrant in the New Testament.
Any of the "royal priesthood" of the discipleship could baptize converts, and break the loaf and fill the cup at the Supper; preaching the Gospel was a higher function.
[Hiscox, E. T. The New Directory for Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1970, Kregel Publications: Pg. 345. (Now published under the title Principles & Practices for Baptist Churches)]
Everyone interested in this important subject should read the full writing of Hiscox on this subject. In our next posting we will look at some of the issues involved and at some historical incidents in Baptist history where the subject was discussed and debated.
"Admitting that, for the sake of order, ceremonial ordination should be continued, where resides the right and the power to set men apart to this service? Is it in a Church, or in a Council or Presbytery?"
The ordaining of men into ministry by presbyteries is really only "ceremonial ordination," not real ordination. I was therefore not "ordained" by the two presbyteries who performed this "ceremonial ordination" by "laying on of hands" of "the presbytery." Rather, each time I accepted a call to pastor a church, either as leading pastor or associate, I was really "ordained" by NT standards. By the latter reckoning I have been ordained four times. Of course, as far as being ordained by God to preach and to serve, I was ordained only once!
Hiscox continued:
"The answer is brief, and should be conclusive. The right of ordination is inherent in the Church; and in no other body of men whatever. This conclusion is inevitable to those who hold to Church independency, and repudiate sacramental ordination and hierarchical assumptions, as Baptists do."
Well, amen to that! Would to God many of our Presbyterian Baptists would see this!
Hiscox continued:
"The contrary claim, that the right inheres in a Council or Presbytery, and that the ceremony must be performed by those who have had hands laid on them, in order to be valid, is so preposterous, that no man should make it unless he be prepared to defend holy orders by Episcopal hands as a sacrament, with an uninterrupted apostolical succession. For to that he must be finally driven."
Again, amen! This is what our Baptist forefathers who wrote the first and second London Confessions also taught. How did so many Baptists get away from the purity of the original teaching?
Hiscox continued:
"That the right of ordination resides in the local, visible Church though ministers may be called upon to advise in the matter, and to perform the public services will be evident from the following considerations:
1. Because all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local Church. This is the only organic form of Christian life divinely appointed. Christ instituted no society but the Church, and to it He committed authority to administer His laws. This is the Baptist doctrine, held, taught and defended, always and everywhere."
Yes, "all ecclesiastical authority resides in the local Church." And, amen to "this is the Baptist doctrine, held, taught and defended, always and everywhere."
Hiscox continued:
"Councils and Presbyteries, as organized bodies, are of human, not of divine origin or authority, and cannot be essential to, much less supersede, the Church in the performance of any ecclesiastical functions."
I am sure that my stubborn Hardshell brothers will be very much against the idea that they have anything about them religiously that is "of human" rather than "of divine origin or authority," but they suffer under a delusion in this regard. Are not their associations of human origin?
Hiscox continued:
"A Council is created by the Church which convenes it. Now to suppose that a Church has not power to ordain, while a Council has, is to suppose that the body created has more power than that which created it. Moreover, the Council has no inherent power, and possesses only what the Church which called it has conferred upon it. It is, therefore absurd to suppose the Council can do more than the Church."
Again, this is simply logical and what the bible teaches.
Hiscox continued:
"And further, Christ gave to the churches pastors and teachers. But if Councils hold the right to ordain, the churches cannot enjoy these most important gifts of ministerial service divinely bestowed, without the consent of a Council, a body of men for which the great Head of the Church made no provision.
2. Because a Church is a body complete in itself as to authority, though without officers."
How did so many Baptists get away from this basic truth?
Hiscox continued:
"It has power to create officers out of its own members, and set them apart to the service for which they may be chosen, by any form or ceremony it may choose, or without any ceremony, at its option. The right to choose and enjoy the ministry of its own religious teachers, without let or hindrance from any, is one of the primary rights with which Christ has invested His churches.
3. Because that in the primitive churches, though there was an apostleship and a discipleship, there was no such division into clergy and laity as afterward sprang up and now prevails. There was no official caste or class, save as the Holy Spirit, working in each, developed certain gracious capabilities, which the churches used for the edification of the body. It was neither cleric nor laic, but a common discipleship. All alike constituted a holy priesthood, ordained to offer spiritual sacrifices unto God. And the churches selected and elected teachers and leaders, as the fitting qualifications were developed which commended the individuals."
Authority is in Christ and his word and he has invested this authority in individuals and in independent assemblies. I got my authority to teach, preach, baptize, eat the Lord's Supper, etc., from Christ and from his word. Why do I need to get it anywhere else? Is that not what Gill and Spurgeon said, as we have observed?
Hiscox continued:
"It is indisputable that after the primitive age the common discipleship was divided by this class-distinction into clergy and laity. Then developed the hierarchical tendency to wrest ecclesiastical authority from the churches and vest it in an ambitious clergy. Especially did this tendency show itself in the claim that the right of ordination belonged exclusively to the clergy. For in no other way could they so effectually dominate the churches as by holding in their own hands the exclusive right to consecrate and invest their pastors. This right conceded, the churches were powerless in the grasp of their despotic spiritual rulers. The demand now for an exclusive clerical ordination has this same hierarchical tendency for its germ and life."
Churches ought not to ever concede their authority that they have from Christ. We must beware of the dangers of the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
Hiscox continued:
Dr. Wm. B. Johnson said:
"The sole power of ordaining to the pastorate or bishopric is lodged with the churches." Gospel Developed, pp. 133, 144-
Dr. Strong says:
"It is always to be remembered, however, that the power to ordain rests with the Church; and that the Church may proceed without a Council, or even against the decisions of a Council. Such ordination, of course, would give authority only within the bounds of the individual Church." Systematic Theology, p. 5/4.
Hiscox cites others, but these are sufficient to the point.
Hiscox continued:
4. Because the claim made by some, that while a Church may have the right to ordain or set apart a minister for themselves, ordination by a Council makes one a minister for the whole denomination, is false, illogical and absurd. A Church cannot, in deed, make a man a minister to any but themselves. The fact that they had chosen him and approved his ministry, would to that extent give him credit with other churches. Nor yet can a Council do any more than give a man the credit of their approval and commendation. They cannot make him a minister for any Church save that one which asked their advice and cooperation in his ordination."
I think the Hardshells look at ordination by presbyteries as a kind of denominational ordination.
Hiscox continued:
"It is preposterous to claim that a Council can assure the confidence and fellowship of the entire denomination to any man on whom they may lay their hands. What is the denomination? It is not an organic entity; it has no corporate existence; it is not an ecclesiastical body; it has neither organization, laws nor officers, and has no means of expressing approval or dissent. It is a mere conception of the aggregate of all the churches. The ministers who lead and direct its activities are not the denomination; the journals that speak to and for it are not the denomination; and in the sense in which it is so often appealed to, or spoken for, it is a fiction.
When, therefore, did the denomination authorize a Council or Presbytery to ordain a man into its ministry, or give him the credit of its fellowship throughout the land? What havoc it makes with our theory of Church life, to claim that a Council sitting in Maine or Vermont can make a man an accredited minister for all the churches in Mississippi or Texas or Montana; or that a Presbytery acting in New York can give a man the fellowship of the churches in Chicago, St. Louis or San Francisco, and elsewhere and everywhere.
This question then remains, Is it right and proper for an unordained man to administer the ordinances? The prevailing opinion is, that he has no such right until the hands of the Presbytery have been laid on him an opinion that finds no warrant in the New Testament.
Any of the "royal priesthood" of the discipleship could baptize converts, and break the loaf and fill the cup at the Supper; preaching the Gospel was a higher function.
[Hiscox, E. T. The New Directory for Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1970, Kregel Publications: Pg. 345. (Now published under the title Principles & Practices for Baptist Churches)]
Everyone interested in this important subject should read the full writing of Hiscox on this subject. In our next posting we will look at some of the issues involved and at some historical incidents in Baptist history where the subject was discussed and debated.
Monday, November 4, 2019
Elder Sonny Pyles Has Passed
At the site of Mt. Carmel PB church, I just read this notice (see here):
"Elder Sonny Pyles went Home to be with The Lord this morning around 11 a.m. Please hold up his family and loved ones in prayer."
There is a write up by his granddaughter that describes his last hours. He passed away Sunday morning it seems.
Pray for the family.
My daughter also called me a few days ago and told me Elder Newell Helms (her grandfather) was in the hospital with kidney failure. His heart is also weak. The doctor thought he only had a short time left, maybe a few months at best. Pray for him also.
"Elder Sonny Pyles went Home to be with The Lord this morning around 11 a.m. Please hold up his family and loved ones in prayer."
There is a write up by his granddaughter that describes his last hours. He passed away Sunday morning it seems.
Pray for the family.
My daughter also called me a few days ago and told me Elder Newell Helms (her grandfather) was in the hospital with kidney failure. His heart is also weak. The doctor thought he only had a short time left, maybe a few months at best. Pray for him also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)