Tracing Hardshell History

This posting is closely aligned with these postings:

"Nooses Around The Neck" (here)

"Change In Traditional Interpretation & It's Significance" (here)

"Hardshell Lies About Their History" (here)

 "An Analysis Of 19th Century PB Leaders" (here)

The Battles Among The Old Schoolers

(after separation from Mission Baptists)

1. Trinitarianism

involving these errors

- Arianism

- Sabellianism

The non trinitarian views were championed by Elders Samuel Trott, Gilbert Beebe, and Wilson Thompson and the periodical "Signs of the Times" and those holding those views came to be known as the "Beebe Old School Baptists."

Those who opposed the Arianism and Sabellianism of the above named elders were James Osbourn (the chiefest), John Clark (who wrote a book against these errors of the Beebe Baptists), John Watson, etc.

2. Eternal Vital Unionism (or "Two Seedism" in general)

involving these errors

- the nature of regeneration or rebirth

- eternal children (of both Christ and the Devil)

- non Resurrection of the bodies

- denial of the second coming of Christ in person

3. Means in Regeneration and Rebirth

involving these questions

- whether faith in Christ and repentance (conversion) are requirements for salvation

- what is the nature of saving faith

- what does it mean to hear God's voice in salvation (in the internal call)

4. Absolute Predestination Of All Things

involving these questions

- the extent of the divine decrees

- the nature of free will 

- God's permissive will

- whether God be in any sense a "cause" of moral evil

- looking at all the first Hardshell periodicals it seems clear that all believed all things happen according to God's will, decree, sufferance, or predestination

- a faction arose that denied the absolute predestination of all things and these became known as "limited predestinarians" or "conditionalists."

5. The Great Commission & Missions

involving these questions

- whether the church, apart from the ministry, are under the Commission

- whether the commission was fulfilled in the first century by the apostles

- whether the church has a duty to teach the bible by Sunday Schools and Bible Classes

- whether the church has a duty to provide means for the education of ministers (support seminaries)

- though many opposed individual or church responsibility for the great commission, yet not all, and so was a matter of dispute in later years

6. Musical Instruments in Church Worship

involving these questions

- do the scriptures authorize them?

- should the issue be a test of fellowship (orthodoxy)?

7. Sunday Schools & Bible Classes

- first Hardshells generally opposed them because it was new in Baptist history and not specifically mentioned in scripture

- after a few years many Hardshells began to see the need for such and to promote them but they continued to be a point of dissension 

This list and outline could be improved, expanded, etc., but thought I would put this "first draft" out there now, for "the time is short."

Tidbits Of Hardshell History

The following are some historical tidbits of information that deserve memorializing, especially for future historians.

Tidbit #1

Did you know that Elder W. P. Throgmorton, who debated two famous Hardshell debaters, Lemuel Potter and John R. Daily (as many Hardshell cult leaders know, for these debates have been popularly received and recommended, being reprinted by the cult brotherhood several times), also had several other debates with Hardshell leaders? I have read one of the Potter debates and the Daily debate, even have those in my library. But, of the others, I have never seen, though perhaps I will, as an historian, find them somewhere in the future (if they were ever written down and published).

Throgmorton's Hardshell Debates

1. Lemuel Potter (2) (Note: I did not know Potter had two debates. I thought the one I have was the only one)

2. T. S. Dalton (Note: I did not know of this debate. I don't have the date it occurred which would be important as Dalton first believed in gospel means and then changed to anti means)

3. S. F. Cayce (2) (Note: I never knew of these debates. Why were these not kept in print by the Hardshells as the Potter and Daily debates have been? Could it be that Cayce failed miserably? I suspect so)

4. John R. Daily (Note: I have read this debate several times, and though I agree with Daily on the Atonement question, I agreed with Throgmorton on means and the conditions of salvation)

5. J. B. Denton (Note: I think the source for this information means J.C. Denton who I have cited before, see here)

Tidbit #2

1. The periodical "Herald of Truth," mentioned by Elder John Watson in his book "The Old Baptist Test," was not only supported by him shortly before his death, but first edited by Elder R. W. Fain, a fellow doctor with Watson, who completed the above book, wrote its preface, and edited the "Herald of Truth," which seems to have been begun in the late 1850s, continued after the Civil War, taken over by elder Dalton after Fain's death, and later merged it with the Hardshell periodical "Zion's Advocate." 

2. When searching for copies of this old periodical I found that there were three periodicals by that name. One is a 19th century Mennonite periodical. The other is connected with the "Church of Christ" denomination in the 20th century. Finally, there is the Hardshell periodical. Further, I have not been able to see any issues for the Hardshell Herald of Truth. Oddly, one can find the others very easy! Southern Baptist Historical Library in Nashville has a few early issues that I am trying to get copies.

Causes Giving Birth To Hardshellism

The things I say now in this short posting are said as a result of 48 years of historical studying of "Primitive" or "Old School" or "Old Regular" Baptists, including those known as "Two Seed" Baptists. The evidence supporting my statements are to be found in this blog and in my other blogs, especially "The Baptist Gadfly." 

What are the causes for the birth of Hardshellism, or what we generally know today as "The Primitive Baptist Church"? (There are exceptions to this characterization as some who call themselves "primitive Baptists" are still in existent, and who believe as their founders, as respects means and perseverance. As an example, see my posting about the Eastern Association of Primitive Baptists here and here and here)

Multi Causal

I say, as an historian of Hardshellism, that there was not a single cause for what Dr. B.H. Carroll called "the rise of the Hardshells," in the early nineteenth century (In his treatise called "The Genesis Of American Anti-Missionism"). There were several causes and I have ruminated on them for many years. In listing those causes I will try to keep discussion of them short though it could easily be enlarged.

1. Hyper Calvinism

- as distinct from "high Calvinism" (predestination of all things)

- offering Christ to sinners & evangelical methods

Note: means not an issue in 17th and 18th century Hyper Calvinism as all believed in them 

2. Two Seedism

- novel idea promoted by Daniel Parker involving "eternal children" and "eternal vital union"

- changed the nature of regeneration as previously understood ('hollow log' regeneration)

- changed the nature of election  as previously understood (God's choice was obligatory)

3. Misunderstanding the "outward call" vs. the "inward call"

- the idea that the inward call was not in conjunction with the outward gospel call

- the idea that the spirit spoke to sinners saying "this is the truth" when hearing or reading the word 

4. Misunderstanding "spiritual influence" that is separate from the word

- Campbell in his paper The Christian Baptist (later "Millennial Harbinger") argued this point with Baptists

- In fighting the "word alone" theory of Campbell, another extreme, the "Spirit alone" view, was embraced

- The spiritual influence apart from the word was viewed as all that was essential for rebirth

5. Misunderstanding the forefathers on "unconditional salvation"

- Misunderstanding "unconditional" election, thinking it also entails unconditional salvation

- Misunderstanding what is meant by "conditional"

These items should be enlarged upon, but I cannot do so now. I have been wanting to expand this thesis for some time. With my time on earth becoming less and less, I put forth now this beginning outline.

Beebe On Faith & Salvation

Gilbert Beebe

Middletown, New York

1800-1881

It seems appropriate to look at another article by Elder Gilbert Beebe, signer or the "Black Rock Address," and editor of the first "Primitive" or "Old School" periodical, "The Signs of the Times" (began in 1832 at the same time of the signing of the Address), as a follow up to our look at his 1846 editorial titled "Means." This is because it is on the subject of "faith" and its relation to salvation. It is written several years after the article on "Means." It is titled "What is Faith?" (June 15, 1860, see here).

Beebe wrote (emphasis mine):

"Webster defines the word as signifying "Belief; assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence." And what he denominates Evangelical faith, justifying and saving faith, he says is the "assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will, or approbation of the heart." And this definition is established by the colleges and universities of our country generally, and indorsed (sic) by all Arminians and legalists everywhere. But the definition of the term as used in the Scriptures, as defined by the inspired apostles, differs very widely from the popularly received definitions of men. The apostle John speaks of it as a child from heaven, born of God, and inspired with heavenly life, and triumphing over the world. "For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world: even our faith." That faith which is the creature of the carnal mind of man, the mere assent of the judgment of our fleshly mind, although cordially received and confidently relied upon, is but, at best, a creature of our own, born of the flesh, and can no more overcome the world, than can the flesh itself; because no stream can rise above its fountain. Differing then, in parentage and birth as widely as the distance between earth and heaven, these two kinds of faith have no vital relationship with each other. The faith produced by the convictions of our natural judgment, how ever cordially assented to or indorsed by the will of man, is nevertheless a child of earth, which, could it overcome the world, would overcome itself, as it is an element of the world. But that faith which is of God, and in God, is the faith of the Son of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ is himself the author and the finisher of it. This is the faith of God's elect. By it, all the saints are distinguished from the world, as none can possess it unless they be born of God, and as without it no man can please God. We do not understand that the birth of faith is distinct from the birth of the saints; but an element of the new, heavenly and spiritual birth, which is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God; that birth which is of an incorruptible seed, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever; and, therefore, unlike the flesh, which is grass, and the goodliness thereof, which is the flower of grass, for they must wither and fall away; but the word of the Lord, the source, fountain and origin of true faith, liveth and abideth forever. This true and living faith is, then, an element of the heaven-born child of God, and only by it can we overcome the world, the flesh and the devil; only by it can we approach the throne of grace, draw nigh unto God, or cry Abba, Father. For he that cometh unto God must believe that he is, and the belief in God's being and perfections is the act of vital faith."

One of the things that the anti means Hardshell leaders, like Beebe, Trott, and Wilson Thompson realized early in their denominational history and development, was their need to 

1) reinterpret those passages of scripture that have been historically understood to teach means, and 

2) explain the relationship between faith and salvation (repentance too). 

As we saw in our previous postings Discussion On I Cor. 4:15 and Beebe On James 1:18, Beebe's effort at interpreting those two passages was clearly a case of "wresting" (II Peter 3: 16) the scriptures. In fact, we saw how Beebe's views were full of novelty, a thing, ironically, the Hardshells claimed to be protesting against as concerning religious faith and practice. Is not the anti means view novel among Baptists? Is Beebe's Two Seed view of James 1: 18 a novelty?

In the article on "Means" we saw Beebe attempt to deal with two of the major passages that have been understood traditionally as teaching God's use of the word of truth, or gospel, in the work of salvation (including regeneration and rebirth). There are many such passages however. But, I am sure that Beebe and his brethren can hack and hew on them in the same way as he has on I Cor. 4: 15 and James 1: 18. 

In this editorial from Beebe on "Faith" we look at Beebe's explanation of the relationship between faith and salvation, of the work of God in producing faith. We will see how his views on "faith" (which most Pbs of the 20th century accepted) are likewise not orthodox, being an invention arising out of necessity due to their adopting the anti means novelty. What saith the scripture? What saith Beebe?

When a man begins his position paper by denying a generally accepted definition of the thing to be discussed, or redefined, he surely must have such a weight of evidence worthy to the task. But, as any unbiased mind can see, Beebe did not meet the task. 

Questions

1. Did Beebe succeed in redefining the meaning of the word "faith"? 

2. He seems to deny the common definition that says that "faith" is "belief" or "assent of the mind to the truth" - does he deny that faith is such? On what basis?

3. The definition Beebe opposes says that "faith" is an "assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will, or approbation of the heart." Does he deny that faith is such? On what basis?

4. Beebe says that he and his Hardshell Two Seeders deny "faith which is the creature of the carnal mind of man," which is "the mere assent of the judgment of our fleshly mind." Who teaches that faith is produced by the carnal and fleshly mind? Is that not a clear case of the "red herring" fallacy and method of deceit?

5. Who teaches that saving faith is "faith produced by the convictions of our natural judgment"? Is that not another "red herring"? 

6. Have the Hardshells not a history of misrepresenting their opponents, of using red herrings, and other instances of fallacious reasoning?

7. Does Beebe ever show that "faith" is non cognitive, or that it does not involve belief of biblical facts?

New Birth Makes Believers

Beebe said: 

"This true and living faith is, then, an element of the heaven-born child of God" and that faith, or belief, is an "an element of the new, heavenly and spiritual birth."

He also said:

"We do not understand that the birth of faith is distinct from the birth of the saints"

What do these statements reveal about the "state of flux" in which Beebe and his brethren in the anti mission movement found themselves, within a generation of their formation, in regards to faith and its relationship to salvation? 

If we ask today's "Primitive Baptists" (majority or predominant view) this question, what would be their answer? Question: is faith given or created in regeneration? I suspect that they would nearly all say, as I have heard them say many times (and have said so myself) - "faith is given in regeneration." If you question them further on this answer, I am sure that you will get a strange definition to the word "faith" (just as Beebe was attempting to give). Further, you will no doubt see them jump hoops in trying to deal with all the contradictions that their novel definition produces. 

I am sure that the reason why Beebe and today's Pbs will affirm the statement "faith is given in regeneration" is because 1) this is clearly revealed to be so in scripture, and 2) it is the belief of Baptist confessions and historic leaders. So, they have needed to keep the statement but change its meaning. 

Beebe, however, existing nearer in time to pre 19th century Baptist sentiments than today's Pbs, well knew that the historic view joined together evangelical faith with being born again. One did not exist where the other was absent. To Beebe's ancestors, and even to the majority of his brethren in the first half of the 19th century, faith was not to be divorced from the new birth. There was no such thing as a "regenerated unbeliever." The above statements by Beebe show this to be the case. Further, Beebe never once denied that true saving faith involved belief of truth.

Wrote Beebe:

"This heaven-begotten and heaven-born faith, is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen... And as the faith of the gospel is the faith of Jesus Christ, and as the righteousness which alone can justify us before God is by the faith of the Son of God, who hath loved us and given himself for us, so it must be a substance, in distinction from all shadows, passions or exercises of the natural mind, or energies of unrenewed men."

What kind of faith is it that is produced in regeneration according to Beebe? "The faith of the gospel." 

Wrote Beebe:

"Third. If we have this faith, we shall learn by experience that we cannot control it, exercise or enlarge it; but on the contrary, it will assuredly control, exercise and govern us."

Is that not an affirmation of the certainty of the perseverance of believers?

Beebe on James 1: 18

Elder Gilbert Beebe, one of the leading founders of the "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist denomination, wrote the following in 1846. It is his answer to a question from one of his brethren who espoused means and the title of the editorial is "Means." I cited from this editorial in my previous posting on I Cor. 4: 15. I also noted how the Hardshell web page that has many Beebe writings has become inaccessible. Nevertheless I am sure that the editorial can be found if one goes to the date given in 1846 and reads the "Signs of the Times." 

This 1846 editorial writing shows that he recognized that his view on "means" was not the leading view of his brethren, nor of his forefathers. 

In Beebe's editorial writing he looks at several scripture passages that the means advocates (being the majority and historic view) mentioned in their inquiry to him. 

Besides I Cor. 4: 15 there are these comments of Beebe on James 1:18 (emphasis mine):

10. “Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth.” – James i. 18. Instead of honored instrumentalities, the whole power of producing the conception and consequent birth of the children of God is in this test accredited to “His own will” alone, that is, to the sovereign, immutable will of God, which proves the position we have taken in the preceding item of our reply."

Notice how Beebe speaks of the two aspects of procreation, of "conception" and "consequent birth." As I have shown, the making of "conception" to be "regeneration" and the "birth" to be "conversion," with the fetus growth and travail of "delivery" coming in between, was a very common view among the first generation of Hardshells and even persisted to some degree into the 20th century (when it became a minority view and one opposed by the majority). 

Recall too that this text has been the chief text used in a discussion of this three stage model of birth and procreation. The Greek word for "begat" is not the general new testament word used for birth, being a word that generally denotes the birth of the fetus from mother's womb.

The idea that the new birth is accomplished by the power or will of God is not questioned by either side in the debate over God's use of means, or "the word of truth." The question is whether saying it is by the power of God, or the will of God, excludes the written or preach word as a means. This text obviously shows that the birth can be both by the power and will of God and be, at the same time, "by the word of truth." Beebe and the Hardshells err in thinking that one excludes the other. Many additional examples can be given in addition to the one we have right in front of us in James 1: 18 to sustain this rebuttal. Therefore, Beebe is blatantly wrong in affirming that means are taught against in this verse. Is it not marvelous how a man can take a verse that clearly teaches God's use of the word as a means in rebirth and affirm that it actually denies means!?

Further, where is the mother in this begetting, according to Beebe and his anti means brothers? Have I not often shown this to be a weakness in their anti means philosophy? Have I not shown that the church is our mother because she gave us "the word of truth"? The spiritually born are "children of Zion," of mother Jerusalem. 

The Two Seed View

Beebe continued:

"Perhaps the means renders will try to make some capital of the words “with the word of his power,” construing the word of his power to imply instrumentality. One of two things must be intended by these words: “With the word,” they were begotten by the Father of lights, spoken of in the context. Christ is the only begotten of the Father; but as a begotten emanation from the Godhead, he is the life of his people, head of his body, the church, mediator, &c.; as God he is self-existent, equally with the Father; but as the life and immortality of his spiritual body, he is the beginning of the creation of God, and the first born of every creature; and in this sense he only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, [not even by the magic Power of means,] whom no man hath seen nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting’. Amen. Now the one production of spiritual life was what we understand to be the begetting of both the head and the body, so that if Christ as the Word is intended by James, the saints have a common origin with Christ their head, and both be that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 

Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, the two leading writers for the "Signs of the Times," here promote their own version of Daniel Parker's "Two Seedism." Who would have ever interpreted James 1: 18 in the absurd fashion of these Two Seed Hardshells? 

The Direct Speaking View

Beebe continued:

"Or, secondly, if by the word of truth we are to understand his word, as used Isaiah lv. 10, still there is no room for arminians to introduce a particle of means. The world was created by the same word. God said, “Let there be light.” It was by the omnipotence of his word that all things came into existence, and we may with the same propriety talk of God’s having used means in the creation, as in quickening his children."

Why does Beebe limit the possible meanings (interpretations) of the passage, saying it must mean "one of two things"? Why is not the historic view of the verse not one of those possible interpretations? Is Beebe's Two Seed and Arian view not a new one? What Baptists, or any other, interpreted James 1: 18 as talking about the eternal generation of the Son of God, of his being eternally "begotten" of the Father? And, whoever spoke of this begetting of the children of God as being what occurred in eternity past when the Son was begotten?

The context is very clear on what is meant by "the word of truth." It is the word of God, whether written or orally communicated. Further, Christ is never called "the word of truth" as a title, as he is called "the word (logos) of God." Further, Beebe in his reply speaks of "the word of his power" but James 1: 18 says "word of truth." Did not all Beebe's forefathers interpret James 1: 18 as Gill? 

Wrote Dr. Gill:

"with the word of truth; not Christ, who is the Word, and truth itself; though regeneration is sometimes ascribed to him; and this act of begetting is done by the Father, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead; but the Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are begotten and born again; see (Ephesians 1:13) (1 Peter 1:23) and hence ministers of it are accounted spiritual fathers." (Commentary)

Which view is the historic or "Old Baptist" view? That of Beebe, Trott, and the Two Seed Hardshells? Or, that of Dr. Gill?

What Happened To It?

Recently I cited from an article by Gilbert Beebe from the 1846 issue of the "Signs of the Times" titled "Means." I have another posting about ready in which I cite again from this article. Well, the link I gave from asweetsavor.com is not available now! I have seen this happen before. I cite from a Hardshell web page, one that gives an old article, and walla! It is gone! What think ye?

Study Greek? Yes, but

I am glad that more and more of our Pb brothers are studying Greek (and perhaps even Hebrew). Generally only a small minority of them have done so. Elder Zach Guess says he studied it for several years in college and says it was a great help to him. I notice that Elder Jeremiah Bass too has learned the language and I can see how it has helped him in his teaching the word. That is good. It really doesn't take that long an investment in time to learn basic Greek. In fact, that is really all a good bible teacher really needs. He does not have to become an expert in Greek. Most seminarians are taught enough Greek to do serious bible study, and to understand the issues debated by NT and Koine Greek experts. That is where I am. Do I wish I had studied more Greek, and Hebrew? Yes. But, I know enough to help me in my bible studies. What is more important than this is understanding basic grammar. In fact, one cannot really learn a foreign language if one does not understand basic grammar. Knowing the basics of English grammar should be mastered before tackling Greek grammar. If one masters his own native language's grammar, he will be better equipped to learn another language.

Bass On KJV Onlyism

Elder Jeremiah Bass, as I mentioned in a previous posting, has been called by Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church to be their senior pastor. As I mentioned, Elder Bass is opposed to KJV Onlyism as we are here. If you would like to read about his conversion from KJV Onlyism to the correct view (even of former PB leaders as Sylvester Hassell) please read "My Journey in the King James Version Debate" from Monday, March 14, 2011 (here). It is a must read for every "KJV Only" advocate.