I believe it is inconsistent for the Hardshells, in their "anti-means" views about regeneration, to pray for the salvation of their unregenerate children. They do not believe that the gospel and word of God, the truth, are "means" in the new birth, arguing that no human means of any kind are used. But, that would exclude the prayers of humans too, would it not? You would expect it to be against the creed and practice of the Hardshells to pray for the salvation of the lost, for then their prayers, by their "logic," would become "means," human means, and that can never be, at least for neoHardshells. Yet, what do we find in many cases? We find Hardshells praying for the salvation of their children! We find the old Hardshells, like Grigg Thompson, calling upon his concerned mothers and fathers to pray to God to regenerate their children. Why do this if you do not believe in such "means"?
But, it must be said that nearly all of today's Primitive Baptists say that they do not pray for the regeneration of the lost. Yet they show that they are in this not "primitive" or "old" Baptists at all, for Elders John Watson and Grigg Thompson, two leading men of the first generation of "anti mission" Baptists, believed in praying for the eternal salvation of children!
Elder John Watson
"It was through Him that an affectionate and believing mother hoped and prayed that the lost might be found; that the brand might be plucked from the fire. That prayer--as elsewhere stated in this work was heard and answered by Him who had in mercy prompted it. The prayer was the gift of grace--Rom. 4:15; enabling a distressed mother to trust in God for the salvation of her son under all the adverse circumstances of his case." (Old Baptist Test, page 31)
Watson believed in both the means of gospel preaching and the means of prayer in the salvation of the elect. He believed that the prayers of his mother for his salvation were "means" in his regeneration and conversion.
Notice these words from Elder Grigg Thompson, from the close of some of his sermons.
"It is a creation, and a creation work is above the power of the creature. No power but that power which gave being to the world can give being to this new creature. It is not born of the flesh, or of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God; John, i, 13. Human means, or instrumentalities, with all the ordinances and service of the church must forever fail, and can not, in whole or in part, produce this new creature."
And further:
"This doctrine drives despair from the mind of the Christian in regard to his unregenerated children and friends, and emboldens him to carry them to the throne of mercy in his prayers, knowing that where means and instrumentalities must forever fail, God can perform the work."
"Consistency Thou Art A Jewel!"
Surely the average Christian can see the great inconsistency in these views. This "leading light" in Hardshellism, this "founding father," believed that salvation and regeneration were, in one instance, performed without any human means, such as the preaching of the gospel by God sent men, but he, in another instance, believes that God moves upon mothers and fathers to pray for the salvation and regeneration of their children! Why can one be a "means" and the other not? I ask all Hardshells to come forward and tell us how they stand on this issue. Do you pray for the regeneration and salvation of your lost children? I try to remember my days as a Hardshell. Did I pray for the salvation of my unregenerate friends and family?
I believe I did do so, but 1) I did not see the inconsistency in it as I do now, and 2) I did not pray with the "fervent spirit" of a soul winner who believed in human means (under the direction of the Holy Spirit).
Thompson said further, in his sermon endings:
"You may see no encouraging indications in your children or friends toward God, or spiritual things; nay, possibly they are haters of God, and persecutors of his children, they deride and hold in scorn the humble disciple of Christ. This, indeed, is sad, and very sad, but remember that the work of grace is from above; God can new create them, and command the light to shine in their hearts to give them the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The Spirit of the Lord can breathe upon the dry bones and make them live; it can subdue the proud and stubborn heart, and make it willingly yield itself to God, and delight in the things it now hates. Thy heart may now be sad, tears of grief may stream from thy eyes, as you realize their sad condition, and your inability to change their hearts, or snatch them from their awful fate. But God can make thee rejoice; oh, he can turn all thy sad groanings into sweetest songs over thy most hopeless friend or child. As the father of the prodigal, thou mayest yet say, "This my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. And they began to be merry;" Luke, xv, 24.
Dear brother or sister, these difficulties are with men, and not with God. He can speak, and the dead live; he works the regeneration, quickening, conversion, and faith in the sinner by the same power which raised up Christ from the dead, and will subdue all things unto himself. Let the truth drive despair from your heart, and cause you with boldness to come to a throne of grace in their behalf."
(From "The Primitive Preacher," section titled "A New Creature")
Here is what is inconsistent and unacceptable in the above words of Thompson.
First, notice that Thompson defines "regeneration" as an experience that gives sinners "...the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." How is this anything akin to the modern Hardshell definition of "regeneration"? The modern Pb will say there is no "knowledge" of Christ or gospel truth implanted in the mind in "regeneration"! They will all now say that the sinner learns nothing in "regeneration" for it is all on the "unconscious level." Does Thompson's definition of "regeneration" apply to the "regenerated infant" or to the "regenerated idiot," or to the "regenerated heathen"? No, it does not.
He says, "Human means, or instrumentalities, with all the ordinances and service of the church must forever fail, and can not, in whole or in part, produce this new creature." Is prayer not a "human means"?
He said again, in a sermon ending:
"I see a sister weeping; I know her, and can understand the meaning of those tears that flow so freely from her eyes; her heart is burdened; she feels that her sorrows are more than she can bear. I can look into the face of the daughter, for whom those tears are flowing, floating upon the stream of time to the ocean of eternal destruction and misery, thoughtless and unconcerned. For you those tears are shed; for you those prayers are rising up to the throne of mercy. 0, blessed Jesus! was thy sympathizing heart moved with compassion at the tears of bereaved sisters at the grave of a dead brother, and wilt thou not hear the cries of these thy saints, whose hearts are broken with grief, as they look upon their beloved ones dead in sin, and realize in their hearts that thou alone canst give life to the dead, and break the fetters that bind their captive souls, and set the prisoners free? Thou canst save; thy word is spirit, and it is life. My dear brother, you tremble like a leaf shaken by the wind. I know thy feelings, I can read thy heart; for I, too, have shed the tear of sorrow, and drank the bitter dregs you are now drinking. 0, how sad it is to feel and know that our words can not reach or move the hearts of those we love!" ("Abiding In Christ")
I can testify that I have not heard a single modern Hardshell pray for the lost in this manner. They manifest no such prayers for the unregenerate in their church meetings. Again, it must perplex one to read how Elder Grigg Thompson can believe in such prayers to be divine means to regenerate the lost, but not the preaching of the gospel!
He again preached to his hearers, saying:
"Our tears and prayers can never wash your sin and guilt away; none but Jesus can save from sin, cleanse the guilty sinner, and save him from sinking down into the pit of endless woe! and all I can do is to close this feeble address with the humble prayer, God be merciful to sinners." (Ibid)
Again, all this is the height of inconsistency. If the prayers of the saints are means in regeneration, then so are their words, when they are the words of Christ, which, whether spoken by himself, as in his earthly ministry, or by his servants today, they are indeed "spirit and life."
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Dr. Watson on the Dry Bones
One of the passages of scripture that helped me to overcome the errors of Hardshellism, who deny the use of preachers and gospel preachers, in the new birth, was Ezekiel's story of the "dry bones." All of the logical arguments I used to defend the "no-means" or "Spirit alone" view of regeneration were shown to be false by this story. The Hardshells commonly talk about how silly it is to preach to the dead, to talk about spiritual things to one who is spiritually dead, to one who has no spiritual ears. That, according to the Hardshells, would be like offering a physically dead man if he would like a drink of water, and that would be foolish, by their logic. But, that will not work on the case of Ezekiel's preaching to the dead! Hardshell logic makes a fool out of God and the prophet for God told him to preach to dry dead bones, saying "hear ye the word of the Lord"!
Dr. John M. Watson wrote:
"What said the prophet? "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." I would just state here, at once, that I have no idea that sinners, dead in tresspasses and sins, will ever believe through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners. If it be said by the objector that they are deaf and cannot hear it, faith replies God can open their ears; if said they are dead, faith again says God will give them life; and thus faith can meet all the objections which can be urged against preaching to the very chief of sinners, and at the same time exclude that Arminianism which some affect to see in a course of this kind. Where is the Arminianism, I would ask, in doing what the Lord has expressly commanded us to do? unless, however, it be by doing these things without faith. It seems to me that two very opposite errors may be indicated here:
1. The Arminian takes the means out of the hands of God, in toto, or in part, and uses them according to His own strength, and they then degenerate into Arminian powers.
2. The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in tresspasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
Dr. John M. Watson wrote:
"What said the prophet? "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." I would just state here, at once, that I have no idea that sinners, dead in tresspasses and sins, will ever believe through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners. If it be said by the objector that they are deaf and cannot hear it, faith replies God can open their ears; if said they are dead, faith again says God will give them life; and thus faith can meet all the objections which can be urged against preaching to the very chief of sinners, and at the same time exclude that Arminianism which some affect to see in a course of this kind. Where is the Arminianism, I would ask, in doing what the Lord has expressly commanded us to do? unless, however, it be by doing these things without faith. It seems to me that two very opposite errors may be indicated here:
1. The Arminian takes the means out of the hands of God, in toto, or in part, and uses them according to His own strength, and they then degenerate into Arminian powers.
2. The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in tresspasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
Watson - Ultraists (Hardshells) = Innovators
Wrote Elder Watson:
"When the Holy Spirit testifies of Christ, then comes the efficiency of preaching. John 15: 26.
Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14. Paul, it is true, preached the Gospel in word only, while the election of God was manifested in the power and assurance of the Holy Spirit imparted to his words; when received by the elect which apart from that power and assurance would have been received in word only, as it really was by others not embraced in the divine election. I Thess. 1: 4." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 399, 400)
The above comments from John Watson, a leading figure after the division over missions and means, in the 1830's, in the Nashville, Tennessee area, and an opponent of R. B. C. Howell and the missionary Baptist Church there, is important historical evidence about "who are the Primitive Baptists?" Clearly, Dr. Watson said that the "anti-means" brethren were "modern innovators," teaching a "Spirit alone" view of "regeneration" which their forefathers did not teach. These brethren, who promoted the "novel" view that affirm "regeneration" before, apart from, or without the use of the means of the gospel, were inventors of new doctrine, and were "ultra" or "hyper" in their views, and certainly not "primitive" nor "original."
"When the Holy Spirit testifies of Christ, then comes the efficiency of preaching. John 15: 26.
Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14. Paul, it is true, preached the Gospel in word only, while the election of God was manifested in the power and assurance of the Holy Spirit imparted to his words; when received by the elect which apart from that power and assurance would have been received in word only, as it really was by others not embraced in the divine election. I Thess. 1: 4." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 399, 400)
The above comments from John Watson, a leading figure after the division over missions and means, in the 1830's, in the Nashville, Tennessee area, and an opponent of R. B. C. Howell and the missionary Baptist Church there, is important historical evidence about "who are the Primitive Baptists?" Clearly, Dr. Watson said that the "anti-means" brethren were "modern innovators," teaching a "Spirit alone" view of "regeneration" which their forefathers did not teach. These brethren, who promoted the "novel" view that affirm "regeneration" before, apart from, or without the use of the means of the gospel, were inventors of new doctrine, and were "ultra" or "hyper" in their views, and certainly not "primitive" nor "original."
Monday, June 20, 2011
Dr. John Watson (Hardshell) on Means
The following are statements from Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson of Middle Tennessee, a leader among the first generation of "Primitive" or "Old School" ("Hardshell") Baptists but who was no "Hyperist," believing in means (in regeneration) and missions. Notice these excerpts from his famous book (published about 1866), "The Old Baptist Test." He fought against the "Antinomians" and "Hyperists," or the "ultra brethren," as he called them. He also called Hyperism a "heresy."
(Emphasis mine - SG)
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep." (Pages 84-86)
"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Arminians." (Page 86)
"While we combat this ministerial deviation of ours on the part of some, which affects to find Arminianism where there is none, let us carefully guard against those tenets which do really involve it. For instance, when we in our doctrine maintain that by means of our devising, we can extend the spiritual blessings of the gospel beyond the ordination or election of God, and employ such means for such a purpose, we then deviate both from the principles and practical course of the gospel, and thereby plainly indicate that we are Arminians in the proper sense of that term, so justly opprobious to the Old Order of Baptists. But as long as we call on men to repent every where, believing that God only can give repentance, and that he will give it to as many as are ordained unto eternal life, even if He does not to as many as we may address, we may escape all Arminianism, and more especially if our practical course in preaching does not involve any unscriptural methods."
"There are yet a few who contend for the general outward call of the Gospel, but we doctrinise it to (sic) much, lest some ultra brother should conclude that we are Arminians." (Page 89)
"Did these Corinthians hear through the preaching of Paul, by his words, or through the "demonstration of the spirit?" By both. The one was of the preacher, and the other of God. Who dare separate them? Who can unite them? God and God only. How do they become united?"
"This vital union of the word and the spirit is of grace; is not of the power of this world." (Page 94)
"As they are all brought by the same spirit, the same gospel." (Page 155)
"My text further says, "They shall hear my voice." – "the still small voice of truth pervading the whole soul in the power of the Holy Spirit." (Page 154)
"The Galatians began in the Spirit, by hearing the voice of Christ."
"Thus did these "other sheep" hear the voice of Christ according to the different modes of expression, as just cited, meaning in every example the same thing–the hearing of the voice of the Son of God inwardly, mystically, effectually. Christ never brought one of them without this." (Page 155)
"But they could not hear without a preacher, hence the divine plan included preaching, and inasmuch as it was embraced in the divine arrangement, it must be directed and maintained by the Lord, as it has always been and ever will be. "God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness," shined into their hearts, not only in the light of Paul’s preaching, but also in the light of the demonstration of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise Paul’s preaching would not have been heeded." (Pages 94,95)
"The blessings of Abraham–of the Gospel–came upon these Gentiles, by Jesus Christ, and not by works of righteousness, which they did...their state, being under sin before conversion, is the state which we know we were in. To be under sin, is to be under the curse of sin, and to be under the curse of sin, is to be under the death of sin. Nothing, then, but the Gospel, as the power of God, can deliver from this actual state of things. The soul must have life, it must repent, it must believe, it must persevere. Gospel blessings only, through Jesus Christ, not works of merit on our part–can produce these spiritual–not fleshy–results." (Page 112)
"The teaching of the Apostle is that the elect were chosen unto salvation from the beginning, through sanctification of the spirit unto a belief of the truth. Hence, as long as these "other sheep" are brought in, there will be a belief of the truth, through a sanctification of the spirit. It cannot, therefore, die out until all the elect are brought in." (Page 127)
"...let them have all the benefits of evangelical preaching, believing, as we do, that the great design of this providence about which I have been treating, is to bring in God’s elect among them, as I have before stated." (Page 142)
"We have often heard certain persons say, if they believed the things which we do, they would not exhort believers to perform their duties, or sinners to repent. They do not perceive how such exhortations and warnings may be transformed by the power of God into grace itself!
By our doctrine we are encouraged to exhort sinners, for we, by faith, look to the grace which sanctions it, and seals it often to the heart.
If these be the means of grace, let us employ them, though we may often fail in the use of them, in our own strength.
There is a palpable difference between a literal declaration of Gospel truths by the minister and a demonstration of them by the Holy Spirit; the former is general and the latter special. Nor does the specialty of the one interfere with the generality of the other. A supposition that these conflict with each other has induced many to conclude that we violate our doctrine whenever we exhort; but such a conclusion is very erroneous. The Gospel must be preached, in its literal fullness, to all, though a ‘demonstration of the Spirit’ he confined to a chosen few. Matt. 20:15,20; 22:16; I Thess. 1:5." (Page 233)
(Emphasis mine - SG)
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep." (Pages 84-86)
"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Arminians." (Page 86)
"While we combat this ministerial deviation of ours on the part of some, which affects to find Arminianism where there is none, let us carefully guard against those tenets which do really involve it. For instance, when we in our doctrine maintain that by means of our devising, we can extend the spiritual blessings of the gospel beyond the ordination or election of God, and employ such means for such a purpose, we then deviate both from the principles and practical course of the gospel, and thereby plainly indicate that we are Arminians in the proper sense of that term, so justly opprobious to the Old Order of Baptists. But as long as we call on men to repent every where, believing that God only can give repentance, and that he will give it to as many as are ordained unto eternal life, even if He does not to as many as we may address, we may escape all Arminianism, and more especially if our practical course in preaching does not involve any unscriptural methods."
"There are yet a few who contend for the general outward call of the Gospel, but we doctrinise it to (sic) much, lest some ultra brother should conclude that we are Arminians." (Page 89)
"Did these Corinthians hear through the preaching of Paul, by his words, or through the "demonstration of the spirit?" By both. The one was of the preacher, and the other of God. Who dare separate them? Who can unite them? God and God only. How do they become united?"
"This vital union of the word and the spirit is of grace; is not of the power of this world." (Page 94)
"As they are all brought by the same spirit, the same gospel." (Page 155)
"My text further says, "They shall hear my voice." – "the still small voice of truth pervading the whole soul in the power of the Holy Spirit." (Page 154)
"The Galatians began in the Spirit, by hearing the voice of Christ."
"Thus did these "other sheep" hear the voice of Christ according to the different modes of expression, as just cited, meaning in every example the same thing–the hearing of the voice of the Son of God inwardly, mystically, effectually. Christ never brought one of them without this." (Page 155)
"But they could not hear without a preacher, hence the divine plan included preaching, and inasmuch as it was embraced in the divine arrangement, it must be directed and maintained by the Lord, as it has always been and ever will be. "God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness," shined into their hearts, not only in the light of Paul’s preaching, but also in the light of the demonstration of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise Paul’s preaching would not have been heeded." (Pages 94,95)
"The blessings of Abraham–of the Gospel–came upon these Gentiles, by Jesus Christ, and not by works of righteousness, which they did...their state, being under sin before conversion, is the state which we know we were in. To be under sin, is to be under the curse of sin, and to be under the curse of sin, is to be under the death of sin. Nothing, then, but the Gospel, as the power of God, can deliver from this actual state of things. The soul must have life, it must repent, it must believe, it must persevere. Gospel blessings only, through Jesus Christ, not works of merit on our part–can produce these spiritual–not fleshy–results." (Page 112)
"The teaching of the Apostle is that the elect were chosen unto salvation from the beginning, through sanctification of the spirit unto a belief of the truth. Hence, as long as these "other sheep" are brought in, there will be a belief of the truth, through a sanctification of the spirit. It cannot, therefore, die out until all the elect are brought in." (Page 127)
"...let them have all the benefits of evangelical preaching, believing, as we do, that the great design of this providence about which I have been treating, is to bring in God’s elect among them, as I have before stated." (Page 142)
"We have often heard certain persons say, if they believed the things which we do, they would not exhort believers to perform their duties, or sinners to repent. They do not perceive how such exhortations and warnings may be transformed by the power of God into grace itself!
By our doctrine we are encouraged to exhort sinners, for we, by faith, look to the grace which sanctions it, and seals it often to the heart.
If these be the means of grace, let us employ them, though we may often fail in the use of them, in our own strength.
There is a palpable difference between a literal declaration of Gospel truths by the minister and a demonstration of them by the Holy Spirit; the former is general and the latter special. Nor does the specialty of the one interfere with the generality of the other. A supposition that these conflict with each other has induced many to conclude that we violate our doctrine whenever we exhort; but such a conclusion is very erroneous. The Gospel must be preached, in its literal fullness, to all, though a ‘demonstration of the Spirit’ he confined to a chosen few. Matt. 20:15,20; 22:16; I Thess. 1:5." (Page 233)
Dr. John Watson - Old Baptist Test
In 1867 Elder John M. Watson of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, submitted for publication his book called "The Old Baptist Test or Bible Signs of the Lord's People." Elder Watson, however, died* before its publication and it was left to Elder R. W. Fain, a fellow medical doctor with Elder Watson, to edit and publish his book. Its republication, in our times, is due to Elder Harvey Fulmer, a "Primitive" or "Hardshell" Baptist minister, with whom I am personally acquainted.
This is a valuable book for any student of the history of the "anti mission movement" of the early 19th century, a movement that spawned the "Primitive Baptist" denomination. Elder Watson was a leader in this movement and was a spokesman for the movement in middle Tennessee, although his influence extended far beyond his adopted home state (he was born in North Carolina). He was a close associate of many of the leaders in this movement, such as Gilbert Beebe, Wilson and Grigg Thompson, John Clark, and James Osborne. He wrote articles for the movement's leading periodicals from the 1830s to time of his death, such papers as "The Signs of the Times," "The Old Baptist Banner," "The Primitive Baptist," "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," "The Herald of Truth," and many other smaller temporary periodicals, no doubt. When the leaders of the movement visited middle Tennessee, Elder Watson was there to greet them and recommend them to his Hardshell brethren.
Elder Watson was an ardent defender, during the controversial and formative years of the movement, of those who declared non fellowship for all Baptist churches who supported mission societies, Sunday schools, theological schools, and other such things. He believed, like his brethren in the movement, that such things were unscriptural, not according to the "pattern" given to the church. He was also an ardent opponent of Arminianism and often associated it with the things above mentioned.
In his book he does the best he can to defend the beliefs and actions of the "old order of Baptists," as he called his newly formed denomination, charging that those who promote theological schools were usurping the authority of Christ in the sending out of missionaries and in training ministers. He also thought, like his Hardshell brethren, that Sunday schools were usurping the authority of parents, who alone ought to teach their children in the things of God, and were Arminian in purpose and effect, usurping the work of the Holy Spirit. His defense of the "old order," however, was not sound or cogent.
Elder Watson thought, and subsequently claimed, that all those Baptists who supported theological and Sunday schools, and mission societies, were all Arminian, a false claim. Part of the impetus of the anti mission movement was its opposition to Andrew Fuller and his "general atonement" view, a view that Watson and his "anti" brethren universally connected with all who supported such things. This, however, was another error, for history shows that many Baptists who supported the above things remained "five point Calvinists," and believers in "limited atonement." J. H. Grime, also of Tennessee, in his history of Tennessee Baptists, shows how many supporters of missions and schools were fully committed five point Calvinists.
The value of this book is manifold. First, its historical importance is of great value. It was published in 1867, forty years after the "Kehukee Declaration" of 1827, which was the first formal statement made by a group of Baptist churches against schools and missionary enterprises. It was also published thirty five years after the "Black Rock Address" (1832) wherein an even more formal general declaration of "non fellowship" was made by those who opposed schools and missions. Elder Watson was present through the 1830s and 40s when the most commotion over missions and schools was heard and can therefore be taken as a reliable witness to the events and debates that occurred between Baptists relative to schools and missions.
Second, the book is valuable for its giving us a "snapshot" of things during the formative years of the "Primitive Baptist" church. Who were the Baptist people who first made up this movement? Were they all alike? Were they homogeneous or heterogeneous? Elder Watson's book shows what other historical records show, that those first in the "anti mission movement" were hetero. This is a fact that today's Hardshells do not want to acknowledge, wanting all to believe that the first "Primitives" were all one in sentiment and doctrine. For instance, there was one faction of the movement called "Two Seeders," followers of Elder Daniel Parker, the one who is most credited, by historians, with creating the movement and the present day "Primitive Baptist Church." The influence of Parker, in the middle and west Tennessee area, was large. The first anti mission Baptists, at first, held him in high esteem. But, he began to preach a novel view which came to be called "Two Seeds." This view stated that the human race was composed of two seeds, the devil's seed, and the Lord's seed. Had it restricted his view on the "seeds" to simply this, all had gone well with him and his followers. But, Parker went further. He taught that the devil was eternal, without beginning, a view that many saw as being Manichaeism. He taught that the children of God, or good seed, existed with Christ, in spirit, from eternity past and that the devil's seed were the literal offspring of the devil. This led him to describe the new birth experience as the coming down from heaven of the children of God to possess the physical body. Parker's "two seed" faction, however, became onerous to the anti movement. It became the first faction to be cut off from the main body of the movement.
Elder Watson knew Elder Parker and became a bitter opponent of Parker and the faction he represented. A large section of Elder Watson's book is an attack upon this faction, probably because the "Two Seeders" had a comparably large following in Tennessee.
Another valuable aspect of Watson's book lies in the snapshot that he gives of other factions within the evolving movement. He refers to his "ultraist" brethren who had little or no concern for the "unbrought heathen," for any kind of evangelism, who denied means altogether, who had "violated" their "commission," the great commission. These are they who were "finding Arminianism where there was none," who labeled as "Arminian" those who taught means in the new birth and who addressed dead alien sinners, offering them the gift of eternal life. This "ultraist" faction, sad to say, is the faction which outlasted the others so that today's "Primitive Baptists" are almost solely made up of this faction.
Watson shows, however, that there was a large faction of brethren, like himself, who believed in means in new birth, who were open to church run missions and evangelism, and who openly exhorted lost souls to repent and believe in Christ for salvation. Sadly, this faction was forced out of the movement, so that by the end of the 19th century, none remained.
The "Old Baptist Test" also shows what Watson and his majority faction believed about "perseverence of the saints," and about "conversion." The "ultraist" faction would later go further from their historical roots and deny perseverence altogether, claiming that they believed in "preservation," and not "perseverence."
Today's Hardshells are debating these questions again as a result of the emergence of the "liberal movement." They are debating this question - "will all the elect hear the gospel and be converted?" Elder Watson affirmed that they would. Thus, those Hardshells today who deny that hearing the gospel and being converted is necessary for eternal salvation, fail the "test" of being "old Baptist"!
Will today's "Primitive Baptists" come forward and debate these things? Will they give reply to the historical facts presented in Watson's book?
*Elder Watson states, in his book, in the section giving his autobiography, the following:
"While on the subject of my ministry I will state, that my health is at this time, June, 1866, very bad; my physicians are very doubtful of my recovery; in fact, I am afraid I shall not live long enough to supervise the printing of this work..." (pg. 40)
This is a valuable book for any student of the history of the "anti mission movement" of the early 19th century, a movement that spawned the "Primitive Baptist" denomination. Elder Watson was a leader in this movement and was a spokesman for the movement in middle Tennessee, although his influence extended far beyond his adopted home state (he was born in North Carolina). He was a close associate of many of the leaders in this movement, such as Gilbert Beebe, Wilson and Grigg Thompson, John Clark, and James Osborne. He wrote articles for the movement's leading periodicals from the 1830s to time of his death, such papers as "The Signs of the Times," "The Old Baptist Banner," "The Primitive Baptist," "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," "The Herald of Truth," and many other smaller temporary periodicals, no doubt. When the leaders of the movement visited middle Tennessee, Elder Watson was there to greet them and recommend them to his Hardshell brethren.
Elder Watson was an ardent defender, during the controversial and formative years of the movement, of those who declared non fellowship for all Baptist churches who supported mission societies, Sunday schools, theological schools, and other such things. He believed, like his brethren in the movement, that such things were unscriptural, not according to the "pattern" given to the church. He was also an ardent opponent of Arminianism and often associated it with the things above mentioned.
In his book he does the best he can to defend the beliefs and actions of the "old order of Baptists," as he called his newly formed denomination, charging that those who promote theological schools were usurping the authority of Christ in the sending out of missionaries and in training ministers. He also thought, like his Hardshell brethren, that Sunday schools were usurping the authority of parents, who alone ought to teach their children in the things of God, and were Arminian in purpose and effect, usurping the work of the Holy Spirit. His defense of the "old order," however, was not sound or cogent.
Elder Watson thought, and subsequently claimed, that all those Baptists who supported theological and Sunday schools, and mission societies, were all Arminian, a false claim. Part of the impetus of the anti mission movement was its opposition to Andrew Fuller and his "general atonement" view, a view that Watson and his "anti" brethren universally connected with all who supported such things. This, however, was another error, for history shows that many Baptists who supported the above things remained "five point Calvinists," and believers in "limited atonement." J. H. Grime, also of Tennessee, in his history of Tennessee Baptists, shows how many supporters of missions and schools were fully committed five point Calvinists.
The value of this book is manifold. First, its historical importance is of great value. It was published in 1867, forty years after the "Kehukee Declaration" of 1827, which was the first formal statement made by a group of Baptist churches against schools and missionary enterprises. It was also published thirty five years after the "Black Rock Address" (1832) wherein an even more formal general declaration of "non fellowship" was made by those who opposed schools and missions. Elder Watson was present through the 1830s and 40s when the most commotion over missions and schools was heard and can therefore be taken as a reliable witness to the events and debates that occurred between Baptists relative to schools and missions.
Second, the book is valuable for its giving us a "snapshot" of things during the formative years of the "Primitive Baptist" church. Who were the Baptist people who first made up this movement? Were they all alike? Were they homogeneous or heterogeneous? Elder Watson's book shows what other historical records show, that those first in the "anti mission movement" were hetero. This is a fact that today's Hardshells do not want to acknowledge, wanting all to believe that the first "Primitives" were all one in sentiment and doctrine. For instance, there was one faction of the movement called "Two Seeders," followers of Elder Daniel Parker, the one who is most credited, by historians, with creating the movement and the present day "Primitive Baptist Church." The influence of Parker, in the middle and west Tennessee area, was large. The first anti mission Baptists, at first, held him in high esteem. But, he began to preach a novel view which came to be called "Two Seeds." This view stated that the human race was composed of two seeds, the devil's seed, and the Lord's seed. Had it restricted his view on the "seeds" to simply this, all had gone well with him and his followers. But, Parker went further. He taught that the devil was eternal, without beginning, a view that many saw as being Manichaeism. He taught that the children of God, or good seed, existed with Christ, in spirit, from eternity past and that the devil's seed were the literal offspring of the devil. This led him to describe the new birth experience as the coming down from heaven of the children of God to possess the physical body. Parker's "two seed" faction, however, became onerous to the anti movement. It became the first faction to be cut off from the main body of the movement.
Elder Watson knew Elder Parker and became a bitter opponent of Parker and the faction he represented. A large section of Elder Watson's book is an attack upon this faction, probably because the "Two Seeders" had a comparably large following in Tennessee.
Another valuable aspect of Watson's book lies in the snapshot that he gives of other factions within the evolving movement. He refers to his "ultraist" brethren who had little or no concern for the "unbrought heathen," for any kind of evangelism, who denied means altogether, who had "violated" their "commission," the great commission. These are they who were "finding Arminianism where there was none," who labeled as "Arminian" those who taught means in the new birth and who addressed dead alien sinners, offering them the gift of eternal life. This "ultraist" faction, sad to say, is the faction which outlasted the others so that today's "Primitive Baptists" are almost solely made up of this faction.
Watson shows, however, that there was a large faction of brethren, like himself, who believed in means in new birth, who were open to church run missions and evangelism, and who openly exhorted lost souls to repent and believe in Christ for salvation. Sadly, this faction was forced out of the movement, so that by the end of the 19th century, none remained.
The "Old Baptist Test" also shows what Watson and his majority faction believed about "perseverence of the saints," and about "conversion." The "ultraist" faction would later go further from their historical roots and deny perseverence altogether, claiming that they believed in "preservation," and not "perseverence."
Today's Hardshells are debating these questions again as a result of the emergence of the "liberal movement." They are debating this question - "will all the elect hear the gospel and be converted?" Elder Watson affirmed that they would. Thus, those Hardshells today who deny that hearing the gospel and being converted is necessary for eternal salvation, fail the "test" of being "old Baptist"!
Will today's "Primitive Baptists" come forward and debate these things? Will they give reply to the historical facts presented in Watson's book?
*Elder Watson states, in his book, in the section giving his autobiography, the following:
"While on the subject of my ministry I will state, that my health is at this time, June, 1866, very bad; my physicians are very doubtful of my recovery; in fact, I am afraid I shall not live long enough to supervise the printing of this work..." (pg. 40)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)