Today's Hardshells are promoting a theological model that they title "From sonship to discipleship." By this they advocate that one is first made, by regeneration, a son or child of God, and then later (perhaps) become disciples of Jesus. Such a view might be tolerable did they believe that regeneration instantly produced disciples, but, the sad fact is, today's Hardshells teach that very few of those who are children of God by regeneration become followers of Christ. In this short posting I would like to show how the Scriptures teach just the opposite, that it rather teaches that discipleship precedes sonship or regeneration. The first verse that shows this is from John 6: 45 where Jesus said:
"Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
"Hearing" (listening or paying attention) and "learning" are what disciples (students or learners) do. To "disciple" anyone is to teach them. To be a disciple of another is to be a student and follower of the teachings of a discipler. Thus, notice that one must first be discipled by the Father before he comes to Christ. Also, coming to Christ is how one obtains life by regeneration as Jesus taught in John 5: 40 where he said that coming to him was in order to obtaining life. Thus, John 6: 45 says that all who are discipled by the Father become children of God by coming to Christ, thus the order is first discipleship and then regeneration or sonship.
Consider also what Jesus taught about his sheep in John chapter 10. In that chapter he says "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (vs. 27) When he says "my sheep" he does not speak of only some of his sheep, but what is true of them all. He did not say "some of my sheep," but "my sheep," meaning all of them. Since to "follow" involves discipleship, it is clear that Jesus is saying "all my sheep are my disciples."
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Hardshells & Mission Opposition XXII
Chapter 165
From the "Primitive Baptist" for June 8, 1839 we read (emphasis mine):
"He again asks: "How are those to hear where there are no Bibles, and no preachers to explain God's word." He now is speaking of heathens. If we are to judge of this matter from past events, we shall answer, that persecution will be the means of their hearing the true, genuine, unadulterated gospel of the Son of God. For persecution has been instrumental in sending the true evangelical gospel to the destitute Gentile nations of the earth, from the days of John the Baptist until now."
There are a few things to be examined from these early remarks by the Hardshells. First, it is obvious that the first Hardshells did not use the defense of later Hardshells, such as C. H. Cayce, in affirming that the heathen did not have to hear the Gospel in order to be saved. The first Hardshells did not deny that the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of the elect. For instance, Elder James Osbourne, a leader among the first anti-mission Hardshells, wrote:
"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began." (From the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" for July, 1839, Vol. 3, pge 14)
Further, if one reads the issues of the "Primitive Baptist" in the 1830s, he will see that the view of Elder Osbourne was the stated view of the first Hardshells.
Second, the first Hardshells, believing that the elect must, and would, hear the Gospel and be saved, nevertheless rejected the mission organizations then being promoted by many Baptists. Their defense of such opposition was to affirm that the Lord would see that the elect hear the Gospel without these organizations. Their chief defense was to say that it is the Lord's sole responsibility to see that the elect hear the Gospel, and not the responsibility of churches and Christians. In so arguing they affirmed that the method the Lord uses to bring the Gospel to the elect was persecution. Is this correct?
While it is not to be denied that the Lord has used persecution to spread the Gospel, it is denied that this is his only or preferred method. In Acts 8: 4 we indeed see how the Lord used persecution to spread the disciples, and this spreading of the disciples produced a spreading of the Gospel. Luke wrote:
"Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word."
No one denies that the Lord has used persecution to scatter the disciples, and in scattering them, he in effect was also scattering the word. The question is, however, was this his only method? Surely it is not his only method. Did the Apostle Paul travel around the Roman Empire as a result of persecution? No. Did he not go and preach as the Lord led him and as he was helped by the disciples? Further, when the Apostle was commissioned by the Lord, the Lord said to Paul:
"...for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee..." (Acts 26: 16-17)
Paul's going to the Gentiles was not the effect of being persecuted but the result of an order given to him by the Lord. Indeed the Lord had told his disciples - "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another." (Matt. 10: 23) But, surely this was not always the reason why Paul went from one city to another. To assume this is to assume what is clearly not true from Scripture. Paul asked - "And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10: 15) The Hardshells would add these words to the words of the Apostle - "how shall they go and preach except they be persecuted?"
In giving the orders of the Great Commission, there is no mention of persecution. The Lord did not say - "go into all the world and preach the Gospel only when you are persecuted and forced to do so."
Further, our Lord said these words prior to his ascension:
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1: 8)
Surely no one can think that the Lord was prophesying that this spreading of the Gospel would be strictly a result of persecution. The reason assigned for this success of the Gospel was the giving of Pentecostal power to the disciples and not the result of persecution.
It seems clear to me that the Hardshells present this apology for the spreading of the Gospel in order to justify their own lack of mission work, their own disobedience to the Lord's command to his disciples in the Great Commission. They want to say that the work of spreading the Gospel is all the Lord's work and responsibility and they therefore feel no responsibility or guilt.
Further, in the Acts 8: 4 passage, it is the disciples who went everywhere preaching the word, and not merely the ordained ministry. So, this passage goes against the Hardshell notion that the duty and commission to preach the Gospel was given solely to the ministry. Elder R. H. Pittman, in the Mt. Carmel Church trial, from which I have already given reference, was questioned about this. Notice his answers:
Q. You preach the gospel, don’t you?
A. I try to.
Q. You believe that anybody can preach the gospel, don’t you, ordained or not ordained?
A. I don’t believe that it is the duty of all men to preach the gospel.
Q. But the right, isn’t it?
A. No; I believe it is the duty of some men to preach the gospel.
Pittman's answers show the Hardshell spirit as regards the preaching of the Gospel. The average Hardshell lay person feels no duty to proclaim the good news, believing that only ministers should have such a burden. Yet, as I have pointed out, Hardshell congregations will sing the song "I Love To Tell The Story," in which are the lines "I love to tell the story, for some have never heard The message of salvation from God’s own holy Word."
If one researches the history of the spread of the Gospel, he will see that persecution has not been the only way that the Lord has used to inform men of the blessed truth of the Gospel. In England in the 17th century, as we shall see, the Particular Baptists who wrote and endorsed the 1689 London Confession, were heavily involved in sending missionaries to Wales and other parts of the British Isles. It was not persecution, therefore, that took the Gospel into those areas, but the cooperative work of those Baptists.
Also, many of the oldest Hardshell churches in the southern United States were founded by the missionary work of churches and ministers in the Sandy Creek Association, men like Daniel Marshall. Marshall helped to convert many of the early settlers in the southern states and to form them into churches and he went into those areas, not because he was persecuted and had to flee to those areas, but because he was a missionary and was supported by the churches in the Sandy Creek Association. And, I repeat, many of these old churches later became Hardshell churches.
Thus, the apologetic defense given by the Hardshells for why they do not involve themselves in mission work is untenable and does not excuse themselves from their own responsibility. The confession of Elder John Watson, one of the founding fathers of the Hardshell church, still echoes loud and clear - "we have violated our commission."
In a "Circular Letter to the Old School Baptists Throughout the United States" by Elder Joshua Lawrence (March 9, 1839, Vol. 4), Lawrence wrote:
"...that missions is the invention of men, a plan of priestcraft, a spirit of intrigue and covetousness, and contrary to the book, and a destroyer of brotherly love."
This is typical of the kind of language and harsh judgment given by the Hardshells throughout their history against Baptists who supported mission work. No Hardshell ought to complain about harsh language being used against them by Missionary Baptists when their own history is full of such scathing rebukes and denunciations.
Lawrence continued:
"This was my opinion after many years observation, and every step they have advanced has but the more confirmed me in the correctness of my opinion, that it is but another popish speculation, another crusade against the heathen to take the city of Jerusalem for wealth and plunder, or gain by godliness, or to make merchandize of the saints, to fill the pockets of proud priests; for some of them rather beg than work, yet I have never seen one that said, enough, enough."
When Lawrence says "after many years," he is referring to the period of time from 1792 till 1827, the former being the date the Hardshells assign to Andrew Fuller beginning missionary work and the latter date to the Kehukee Association's declaration against mission work by churches. That is thirty five years. I also mentioned in the early chapters of this book how Elder Griffin, in his book "The History of the Mississippi Baptists," also acknowledged that mission work existed for many years before anyone rose to oppose it. Both Griffin and Lawrence admit these facts, and yet want to say that such work was the cause of division among the Baptists. But, the cause of the division was the rising up of men like Lawrence who began, after many years, to oppose mission work.
Again, notice the harsh language and the cruel judgment given by Lawrence against his fellow Baptists who had been supporting mission work for at least 35 years.
Lawrence wrote:
"Ye hirelings, ye beggars, ye agents, ye sea-scourers, ye Boards, ye conventionists, ye traders in memberships, ye track venders and money hirelings, this is not the good old way."
Again, more evil speaking against Lawrence's Baptist brethren.
Lawrence continued:
"To say nothing of presidents, vice presidents, corresponding secretaries, auditors, etc. etc., titles borrowed from the world of mankind, with directors and directresses, all of the devil's and men's making and bringing into the church of God; not one of which titles is to be found in an apostolic church nor the great and good Book, you well know but is the length of the foot of antichrist to a hair's breadth, fro the title of archbishop through all the grades of popery even to the un and friar. Then whoseoever is on the Lord's side gird on his sword of truth, and slay every man his brother missionary; for they have brought these abominations into the church of God, to bear grief, division and distress, and troubled, greatly troubled, the Baptist camp of Israel; having no warrant from the Book for these above things."
Of course, I have already shown how the Hardshells are hypocrites in these things, having many organizations where they themselves have men with such titles. And, notice again how Lawrence puts all Baptists who supported missions in league with Antichrist. And notice how Lawrence calls his Hardshell brethren to "slay every man his brother missionary." With such language, no Hardshell can claim that the Missionary Baptists are evil speakers. Further, it was not mission work that caused division, for this was part of Baptist history for many years, as Lawrence and Griffin acknowledge, but it was the contentious and schismatic rise of the Hardshells that caused the division and disruption.
Lawrence wrote:
"And now, dear brethren, try this experiment one year; and in the close, I hope you will not be able to say, your dollar is thrown away. Even although it was for the information you will obtain from different States, how the Old School cause is going on."
This was written by Lawrence as a plea for money to support the Hardshell periodical "The Primitive Baptist." One can clearly see the hypocrisy. He denounces as hireling beggars those Baptists who asked for money to support missions, but sees nothing wrong with his own solicitation for money to support his beloved periodical. Money for "the old school cause," the cause of opposing mission work, is good, but money to support mission work is filthy lucre!
Lawrence wrote:
"However, we neither ask, nor wish to compel any Old School Baptist, or any of its patrons to take it (the "Primitive Baptist" periodical - SG) longer than they see cause so to do with a free will, as all men's purses belong to themselves to dispose of as they choose to do. Yet I, Joshua Lawrence, will say, that although I care no more what the missionists may say of me than that of the croaking of so many frogs in a pond, yet I say the Old School Baptists will repent it to let the Primitive Baptist go down, when perhaps too late. Think for yourselves, and so shall I; but this I know to be a fact, that most of the Old School Baptists are a closefisted and covetous set, or else they would not have treated their ministers as they have done for sixty years."
Surely anyone not in the cult can see what a grand admission this is by Hardshell leader Lawrence. He says his Old School Baptists "are a closefisted and covetous set," and that they were guilty of ill treating their ministers by not financially supporting them for sixty years. Is this not what they showed themselves to be in their failure to support mission work and to denounce all those who supported them? Also, even after the death of Lawrence and the first generation of Hardshells, the Hardshells continued to so decry money that their ministers continued to be defrauded.
Lawrence goes on in the same article to speak of how the New School went to one extreme in demanding money while the Old School went to the other.
In the next chapter we will look at a confession made in recent years by a long standing elder in the Hardshell church and in which he acknowledges how the Black Rock Address was an extreme and the cause of the decline of the Hardshell church.
From the "Primitive Baptist" for June 8, 1839 we read (emphasis mine):
"He again asks: "How are those to hear where there are no Bibles, and no preachers to explain God's word." He now is speaking of heathens. If we are to judge of this matter from past events, we shall answer, that persecution will be the means of their hearing the true, genuine, unadulterated gospel of the Son of God. For persecution has been instrumental in sending the true evangelical gospel to the destitute Gentile nations of the earth, from the days of John the Baptist until now."
There are a few things to be examined from these early remarks by the Hardshells. First, it is obvious that the first Hardshells did not use the defense of later Hardshells, such as C. H. Cayce, in affirming that the heathen did not have to hear the Gospel in order to be saved. The first Hardshells did not deny that the Gospel was a means in the eternal salvation of the elect. For instance, Elder James Osbourne, a leader among the first anti-mission Hardshells, wrote:
"But if so be that the specific object which the Deity had in-view, and designed to accomplish by means of, or in a way compatible with the gospel which he ordained and promulgated, was the eternal salvation of the bride, the Lamb's wife, Rev. 21; 9; we then of course may safely conclude, that that specific object must and will be accomplished, just in that way and manner as infinite wisdom may have dictated. And lo, this is what we do believe and rejoice in; and in the gospel we also believe, every necessary arrangement and provision is made and permanently settled for the effecting the salvation of that church which was the object of God's everlasting love and delight, and which he gave to his Son before time began." (From the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" for July, 1839, Vol. 3, pge 14)
Further, if one reads the issues of the "Primitive Baptist" in the 1830s, he will see that the view of Elder Osbourne was the stated view of the first Hardshells.
Second, the first Hardshells, believing that the elect must, and would, hear the Gospel and be saved, nevertheless rejected the mission organizations then being promoted by many Baptists. Their defense of such opposition was to affirm that the Lord would see that the elect hear the Gospel without these organizations. Their chief defense was to say that it is the Lord's sole responsibility to see that the elect hear the Gospel, and not the responsibility of churches and Christians. In so arguing they affirmed that the method the Lord uses to bring the Gospel to the elect was persecution. Is this correct?
While it is not to be denied that the Lord has used persecution to spread the Gospel, it is denied that this is his only or preferred method. In Acts 8: 4 we indeed see how the Lord used persecution to spread the disciples, and this spreading of the disciples produced a spreading of the Gospel. Luke wrote:
"Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word."
No one denies that the Lord has used persecution to scatter the disciples, and in scattering them, he in effect was also scattering the word. The question is, however, was this his only method? Surely it is not his only method. Did the Apostle Paul travel around the Roman Empire as a result of persecution? No. Did he not go and preach as the Lord led him and as he was helped by the disciples? Further, when the Apostle was commissioned by the Lord, the Lord said to Paul:
"...for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee..." (Acts 26: 16-17)
Paul's going to the Gentiles was not the effect of being persecuted but the result of an order given to him by the Lord. Indeed the Lord had told his disciples - "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another." (Matt. 10: 23) But, surely this was not always the reason why Paul went from one city to another. To assume this is to assume what is clearly not true from Scripture. Paul asked - "And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 10: 15) The Hardshells would add these words to the words of the Apostle - "how shall they go and preach except they be persecuted?"
In giving the orders of the Great Commission, there is no mention of persecution. The Lord did not say - "go into all the world and preach the Gospel only when you are persecuted and forced to do so."
Further, our Lord said these words prior to his ascension:
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1: 8)
Surely no one can think that the Lord was prophesying that this spreading of the Gospel would be strictly a result of persecution. The reason assigned for this success of the Gospel was the giving of Pentecostal power to the disciples and not the result of persecution.
It seems clear to me that the Hardshells present this apology for the spreading of the Gospel in order to justify their own lack of mission work, their own disobedience to the Lord's command to his disciples in the Great Commission. They want to say that the work of spreading the Gospel is all the Lord's work and responsibility and they therefore feel no responsibility or guilt.
Further, in the Acts 8: 4 passage, it is the disciples who went everywhere preaching the word, and not merely the ordained ministry. So, this passage goes against the Hardshell notion that the duty and commission to preach the Gospel was given solely to the ministry. Elder R. H. Pittman, in the Mt. Carmel Church trial, from which I have already given reference, was questioned about this. Notice his answers:
Q. You preach the gospel, don’t you?
A. I try to.
Q. You believe that anybody can preach the gospel, don’t you, ordained or not ordained?
A. I don’t believe that it is the duty of all men to preach the gospel.
Q. But the right, isn’t it?
A. No; I believe it is the duty of some men to preach the gospel.
Pittman's answers show the Hardshell spirit as regards the preaching of the Gospel. The average Hardshell lay person feels no duty to proclaim the good news, believing that only ministers should have such a burden. Yet, as I have pointed out, Hardshell congregations will sing the song "I Love To Tell The Story," in which are the lines "I love to tell the story, for some have never heard The message of salvation from God’s own holy Word."
If one researches the history of the spread of the Gospel, he will see that persecution has not been the only way that the Lord has used to inform men of the blessed truth of the Gospel. In England in the 17th century, as we shall see, the Particular Baptists who wrote and endorsed the 1689 London Confession, were heavily involved in sending missionaries to Wales and other parts of the British Isles. It was not persecution, therefore, that took the Gospel into those areas, but the cooperative work of those Baptists.
Also, many of the oldest Hardshell churches in the southern United States were founded by the missionary work of churches and ministers in the Sandy Creek Association, men like Daniel Marshall. Marshall helped to convert many of the early settlers in the southern states and to form them into churches and he went into those areas, not because he was persecuted and had to flee to those areas, but because he was a missionary and was supported by the churches in the Sandy Creek Association. And, I repeat, many of these old churches later became Hardshell churches.
Thus, the apologetic defense given by the Hardshells for why they do not involve themselves in mission work is untenable and does not excuse themselves from their own responsibility. The confession of Elder John Watson, one of the founding fathers of the Hardshell church, still echoes loud and clear - "we have violated our commission."
In a "Circular Letter to the Old School Baptists Throughout the United States" by Elder Joshua Lawrence (March 9, 1839, Vol. 4), Lawrence wrote:
"...that missions is the invention of men, a plan of priestcraft, a spirit of intrigue and covetousness, and contrary to the book, and a destroyer of brotherly love."
This is typical of the kind of language and harsh judgment given by the Hardshells throughout their history against Baptists who supported mission work. No Hardshell ought to complain about harsh language being used against them by Missionary Baptists when their own history is full of such scathing rebukes and denunciations.
Lawrence continued:
"This was my opinion after many years observation, and every step they have advanced has but the more confirmed me in the correctness of my opinion, that it is but another popish speculation, another crusade against the heathen to take the city of Jerusalem for wealth and plunder, or gain by godliness, or to make merchandize of the saints, to fill the pockets of proud priests; for some of them rather beg than work, yet I have never seen one that said, enough, enough."
When Lawrence says "after many years," he is referring to the period of time from 1792 till 1827, the former being the date the Hardshells assign to Andrew Fuller beginning missionary work and the latter date to the Kehukee Association's declaration against mission work by churches. That is thirty five years. I also mentioned in the early chapters of this book how Elder Griffin, in his book "The History of the Mississippi Baptists," also acknowledged that mission work existed for many years before anyone rose to oppose it. Both Griffin and Lawrence admit these facts, and yet want to say that such work was the cause of division among the Baptists. But, the cause of the division was the rising up of men like Lawrence who began, after many years, to oppose mission work.
Again, notice the harsh language and the cruel judgment given by Lawrence against his fellow Baptists who had been supporting mission work for at least 35 years.
Lawrence wrote:
"Ye hirelings, ye beggars, ye agents, ye sea-scourers, ye Boards, ye conventionists, ye traders in memberships, ye track venders and money hirelings, this is not the good old way."
Again, more evil speaking against Lawrence's Baptist brethren.
Lawrence continued:
"To say nothing of presidents, vice presidents, corresponding secretaries, auditors, etc. etc., titles borrowed from the world of mankind, with directors and directresses, all of the devil's and men's making and bringing into the church of God; not one of which titles is to be found in an apostolic church nor the great and good Book, you well know but is the length of the foot of antichrist to a hair's breadth, fro the title of archbishop through all the grades of popery even to the un and friar. Then whoseoever is on the Lord's side gird on his sword of truth, and slay every man his brother missionary; for they have brought these abominations into the church of God, to bear grief, division and distress, and troubled, greatly troubled, the Baptist camp of Israel; having no warrant from the Book for these above things."
Of course, I have already shown how the Hardshells are hypocrites in these things, having many organizations where they themselves have men with such titles. And, notice again how Lawrence puts all Baptists who supported missions in league with Antichrist. And notice how Lawrence calls his Hardshell brethren to "slay every man his brother missionary." With such language, no Hardshell can claim that the Missionary Baptists are evil speakers. Further, it was not mission work that caused division, for this was part of Baptist history for many years, as Lawrence and Griffin acknowledge, but it was the contentious and schismatic rise of the Hardshells that caused the division and disruption.
Lawrence wrote:
"And now, dear brethren, try this experiment one year; and in the close, I hope you will not be able to say, your dollar is thrown away. Even although it was for the information you will obtain from different States, how the Old School cause is going on."
This was written by Lawrence as a plea for money to support the Hardshell periodical "The Primitive Baptist." One can clearly see the hypocrisy. He denounces as hireling beggars those Baptists who asked for money to support missions, but sees nothing wrong with his own solicitation for money to support his beloved periodical. Money for "the old school cause," the cause of opposing mission work, is good, but money to support mission work is filthy lucre!
Lawrence wrote:
"However, we neither ask, nor wish to compel any Old School Baptist, or any of its patrons to take it (the "Primitive Baptist" periodical - SG) longer than they see cause so to do with a free will, as all men's purses belong to themselves to dispose of as they choose to do. Yet I, Joshua Lawrence, will say, that although I care no more what the missionists may say of me than that of the croaking of so many frogs in a pond, yet I say the Old School Baptists will repent it to let the Primitive Baptist go down, when perhaps too late. Think for yourselves, and so shall I; but this I know to be a fact, that most of the Old School Baptists are a closefisted and covetous set, or else they would not have treated their ministers as they have done for sixty years."
Surely anyone not in the cult can see what a grand admission this is by Hardshell leader Lawrence. He says his Old School Baptists "are a closefisted and covetous set," and that they were guilty of ill treating their ministers by not financially supporting them for sixty years. Is this not what they showed themselves to be in their failure to support mission work and to denounce all those who supported them? Also, even after the death of Lawrence and the first generation of Hardshells, the Hardshells continued to so decry money that their ministers continued to be defrauded.
Lawrence goes on in the same article to speak of how the New School went to one extreme in demanding money while the Old School went to the other.
In the next chapter we will look at a confession made in recent years by a long standing elder in the Hardshell church and in which he acknowledges how the Black Rock Address was an extreme and the cause of the decline of the Hardshell church.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Hardshells & Mission Opposition XXI
Chapter 164
"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch." (Acts 11: 22)
From these words it seems quite clear that the Jerusalem church not only sent Barnabas on a preaching mission but also marked out the area where he was to labor. Of course, had Barnabas felt a burden to go to areas beyond what is specified, he could relate such to the church for their consideration. And, whether or not they agreed to support him in going in those further areas, he of course would be free to go on his own. But, the Jerusalem church did not send out Barnabas with the instructions - "go where you feel like going." Rather, they told him precisely where to go, a thing the Hardshells condemn. The commission of Barnabas, from the Jerusalem church, was for him to "go," and it was obvious that he was to go and teach. Surely this was by authority of the Great Commission. So, the Great Commission allowed churches to send forth missionaries with the order to the missionaries to "go." And, so, all the talk about the Great Commission saying "go" rather than "send" is no argument at all, a point I enlarged upon in my series on the Great Commission. And, the allegation that a church cannot specify a missionary's field of labor is also found to be unscriptural.
It is true that a church cannot compel a minister to go to a certain area to preach. That minister is free to interpret his own impressions from the Lord. But, to say that a church cannot also be impressed by the Lord to see that the Gospel is preached in certain barren areas, is a falsehood. Why do Hardshells think that only ministers have a burden to see that the Gospel is preached, especially in those areas where the people are ignorant of the Gospel? And, if a church is burdened to see the Gospel go into certain destitute areas where the people are heathen, is she unable to do anything to see that the Gospel goes to those places? Can she not send out a call to those with a burden to preach to go to those places? Although it is true, for instance, that a minister is free to go where he pleases to preach, the church also is free to choose, with its limited funds, which ministers to support, and base this decision on where she is particularly desirous of seeing the Gospel preached. In other words, is a church obligated to support a minister in his mission work solely based upon that minister's lone impression, disregarding any impressions that she might have of her own? It seems that McKee thinks that the minister chooses his own field of labor without any input from the churches from whom he might expect support.
McKee wrote:
"The present day movement is more in line with the Landmark Missionary Baptist church than with the Primitive Baptists in the area of missions. The Landmark Baptists opposed other Missionary Baptists (Southern Baptist) in the mid 1800s because of their belief that the separate mission board/society was not scriptural. They held the view that the local church was given a commission to spread the Gospel and each local body should therefore be active in church sponsored missions, foreign and domestic. As far as I know their Doctrine and practices are not presently or ever have been such that any orderly Old Line Primitive Baptists would embrace them in church fellowship."
Whether or not those Hardshells in the "liberal movement" are in agreement with Landmark Missionary Baptists is beside the point and proves nothing. All through McKee's attack on Hardshell support of mission work there is not the slightest bit of proof given to condemn it. What the Black Rock Address teaches or what the Landmarkers teach is not proof. What is needed is proof from Scripture above all things. Do the Scriptures condemn churches supporting missionary work? Also, is such work in accordance with traditional Baptist practice? Did the Baptists who wrote and endorsed the 1689 London Confession believe in church sponsored missionary work? It can be easily shown how the Baptist church has always been a missionary church. This will be done in our next series following the present.
McKee wrote:
"There are some doctrinal points being taught by the Present day Movement that the Black Rock Brethren did not believe. (1) The Commandments commonly referred to as the great commission were given to the church and not to the Apostles. "In Matthew 28:19-20, baptism was given as a church ordinance and inseparably linked to baptism was the command to teach all nations. You cannot accept baptism as a church ordinance without accepting that the command to teach all nations is also addressed to the church." (Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan. 1996)"
If church support of missionary work be dependent upon proving that the Great Commission was given to the church, then the case is easy to decide. I have already proven, in the series on the Great Commission, that it was indeed given to the entire body of professing Christians. Did Elder Watson not believe that the Hardshells had violated this commission? Elder Harter was correct to point out the inconsistency of saying that baptism is a "church ordinance" while denying that the church was given authority to baptize per the Great Commission. Further, as I have argued, the Lord's Supper was given to the apostles, but what Hardshell argues that this proves that it was only for the apostles and ministers? Also, when Jesus said that the apostles should teach the disciples to observe "all things" that they themselves had been commanded to do, this cannot exclude the command to go and teach.
McKee wrote:
"The Black Rock Brethren wrote: "that we [ministers] do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to his apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age, to "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us. They believed the minister should go 'as the providence of God directed." [NOT THE CHURCH DIRECTING OR SPONSORING]"
But, as I have shown, the Black Rockers were in error to limit the Great Commission to apostles and ministers. If, however, we affirm that all disciples are "ministers," or servants, then it is true that the command to go and teach all the nations is given "primarily to his apostles and through them to his ministers (disciples) in every age." Who did Jesus have in mind by the pronoun "them" in "teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you"? Was it ministers or disciples? Truly the latter. It is not the will of the Lord that only ministers be taught to observe the commands of the Great Commission but that all disciples be taught to observe them.
McKee wrote:
"A final quote from the Black Rock address further reveals that the present day movement is infected with more of the same diseases the leaders of the 1800 movement were plagued with."
Is it a "disease" for ordinary disciples to want to do all that the Great Commission commands? Is it a disease to desire that others hear the blessed Gospel? Is it a disease to support those who go forth to preach the Gospel among the heathen?This is hardshellism! The condemnation and slander of all efforts to see that the Gospel is taken to the uttermost parts of the earth!
McKee cited these words from the Black Rock Address:
"The missionary, instead of going into such neighborhoods as Christ's ministers used to visit, Where they would be most likely to have an opportunity of administering food to the poor of the flock, seeks the more populous villages and towns, where he can attract the most attention, and do the most to promote the cause of missions and other popular institutions."
I have already refuted these words from the Black Rock Address. But, Mckee, writes these words concerning them:
"This is true in today's movement also. There are some among us that are hungering and thirsting for numbers more than righteousness (staying in the old paths)."
Again, this is another example of how the Hardshells consider themselves judges of the hearts of the Lord's people. McKee makes himself such a judge. How does he know that those in the "liberal movement" are more interested in money, for its own sake, than they are for righteousness? Surely such an accusation demands proof from McKee. But, like his Hardshell forefathers, he is accustomed to making such slanderous accusations against the motives of others without the least shred of evidence to support his case. Again, McKee is "speaking evil" of his brethren, a thing the Scriptures condemn, as we have seen. Did not James write these words against such a practice?
"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." (James 4: 11)
By setting himself up as a judge and condemner of his brethren, McKee shows himself to not being a doer of the law. As John Gill said, in commenting upon this verse, "such a person not only infringes the right of the law, but assumes the place of the Judge and lawgiver himself."
Further, it seems obvious that McKee condemns as an evil any desire "for numbers." Though he condemns having a greater desire for numbers versus a desire for righteousness, it is really a condemnation of having any desire for numbers that McKee really condemns. Such a condemnation has been a tradition with the Hardshells and was begun as a way of defending their loss and lack of numbers. They often say that the large numbers of conversions by other Baptists only show that such Baptists are heretics, and that their own lack of numbers proves that they are the true Baptists. However, if one searches the Scriptures, he will see how the biblical authors had a different attitude about numbers than do the Hardshells.
Jesus said:
"And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14: 23)
It is obvious from these words of Jesus that he was interested in numbers. "Go," said Jesus, and "compel" all, by preaching and exhortation, to "come," and that so that the house of the Lord would be filled.
The writer of the Book of Acts was not someone who looked upon large numbers of conversions as a sign of corruption, but as a sign of the Lord's blessing. In Acts 2: 41 Luke says - "the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." In Acts 4: 4 he wrote - "and the number of the men was about five thousand." In Acts 21: 20 we read - "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe." In Acts 19 Luke wrote:
"And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." (vs. 18-20)
Notice the use of the word "many." Notice also how Luke sees the fact of many conversions as a sign that the work of God was growing mightily and prevailing.
McKee continued:
"The present domestic and international radio program conducted by Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. seeks to be in large markets (populous areas) here and abroad. Self-promoting letters of praise are frequently read to the listeners to gain support for their effort by implying their success and usefulness. The program appears to be edited, produced and marketed by offering for sale, self-promoting, expository sermon series. The Program is promoted as an outreach ministry and has taken on the same flavor and tactics of most other worldly religious radio programming in the use of 800 numbers, credit cards, operating the program with a deficient of thousands of dollars and increasing appeals for monetary support."
The attitude of Elder McKee is the end result of a long Hardshell history of condemning all efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. If McKee had been present in the time of the Apostle Paul, he no doubt would have condemned the Apostle for preaching in major cities like Athens, Corinth, Phillipi, Jerusalem, Rome, etc. Further, I have no doubt that the Apostle would have used radio preaching had it been available in his day. McKee can find no good in the efforts to preach the Gospel to as many as possible. He again shows himself as a judge of the hearts and motives of others, and one who speaks evil of his brethren.
McKee wrote:
"I realize my stating this about the Baptist Bible Hour will disturb many who go by the name Primitive Baptist and will bring charges of jealousy from many quarters. This would not be new because all those in the past that led or supported departures in faith and practices, have always accuse the one’s opposing them of jealousy and being against the spread of the Gospel."
McKee realizes what his denunciations give the appearance of, and thinks that his assurances to the contrary are sufficient to counter them. But, he is deluded to think so. Had McKee himself been a great evangelizer, going to destitute and unpopulated areas, to preach the Gospel, and brought this up as evidence that he was not against preaching the Gospel, he would have more to offer than simply his denunciations and denials. Further, it is not only jealousy that seems to be guiding men like McKee, but an opposition to preaching the Gospel.
McKee continued:
"As God as my witness I do not desire any harm or tearing down of any of God's people that I feel faithful brethren must oppose. My little efforts have already estranged me from many of those that I count as dear children who have become followers of those attempting to change the Primitive Baptists. I'm convinced that many of them would once have firmly opposed any 'outreach ministry' or use of worldly tactics knowing that it is in direct opposition to the plain teachings of the scriptures, which teach us that the world knows us not, and we are to be a separate people and come out from among them. (1John 3:1, IICor 6:11-18)."
Again, McKee tries to persuade people that his opposition to preaching the Gospel is not really an opposition to preaching. But, in this effort he miserably fails. All except the blind can see that the spirit that is motivating him is not one that is favorable to seeing the Gospel preached to as many as possible. He says that the Scriptures condemn the practice of preaching the Gospel to the masses! He even thinks that I John 3: 1 condemns it! He thinks that this passage teaches against preaching the Gospel to the world! But, he would no doubt condemn Christ for telling his disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole world! McKee's method is let others preach the Gospel to the world, reveal the elect, and then McKee will come along and preach to the elect thus revealed.
McKee wrote:
"In conclusion: the Black Rock brethren, just as true old Baptists are today, were in support of true biblical missions which took place during the birth and infancy of this nation. Most old Baptist Ministers that traveled on foot and horseback to preach the Gospel during the early part of this nations (sic) history did so because they were lead by the Spirit of God. Ministers such as Elder Wilson Thompson tried the spirit of Modern Missionarism and rejected it."
Thus, according to McKee, "biblical missions" is where a minister goes forth to preach the Gospel without any support from Christians, using his own money. One wonders how much of this kind of biblical mission McKee has done? As far as what Baptist history shows us about church sponsored missions, we will see how she has always practiced mission work. McKee has the idea that only those who go out preaching with their own money and without support are being led by the Spirit of God! Also, based upon the history of the Hardshells, the Spirit of God must get the blame for the lack of Hardshells going forth to preach the Gospel to the heathen and the destitute.
McKee continued:
"We should be thankful for those that blew the alarm in that day as the seeds of the 1800's mission movement were being sown by those that repeatedly tried to institute a itinerant church/associational mission plan by encouraging the association to gather money and send out ministers to destitute churches within their bounds."
Oh yes! let us be thankful for the Hardshells opposing all efforts to preach the Gospel to those who have never heard it! Let us praise the Hardshells who have done a better job at taking the Gospel to those who have never heard! Also, as far as associations being involved in mission work, we will see in our next series how the Philadelphia Association, the oldest in America, was involved in mission work in the 18th century. We will also see how the London brethren who authored and endorsed the 1689 confession, also formed associations to promote mutual support of missionaries.
McKee continued:
"This plan found strong objections among the Kuhukee (sic) assc. Members and was not generally implemented until the cry of works! Works! Works! (Spread the Gospel) far exceeded the sounds of alarm and many timid souls halted between two opinions and became polluted by designing men. The exact situation now exists among the Primitive Baptists in America. Many good Old Baptists have been captured by the "syren song of "No danger"; be not deceived; it leads to destruction..."
In regard to the Kehukee Association, it will be seen how she herself was formed into a Regular or Calvinistic Association by the missionary efforts of John Gano, who was sent out as a missionary by the Philadelphia Association! Also, for many years the Kehukee Association supported missionary work until the rise of the Hardshells.
Oh yes! it leads to "destruction" for a church or group of churches to be involved in supporting missionaries who go forth to preach the Gospel! But, the history of the Hardshell church shows that it was their opposition to missions that have rather destroyed them, not the supporters of missions. The Hardshells today are not a hundredth percent of what they were when they first began. Yet, mission Baptists have steadily grown throughout the years.
"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch." (Acts 11: 22)
From these words it seems quite clear that the Jerusalem church not only sent Barnabas on a preaching mission but also marked out the area where he was to labor. Of course, had Barnabas felt a burden to go to areas beyond what is specified, he could relate such to the church for their consideration. And, whether or not they agreed to support him in going in those further areas, he of course would be free to go on his own. But, the Jerusalem church did not send out Barnabas with the instructions - "go where you feel like going." Rather, they told him precisely where to go, a thing the Hardshells condemn. The commission of Barnabas, from the Jerusalem church, was for him to "go," and it was obvious that he was to go and teach. Surely this was by authority of the Great Commission. So, the Great Commission allowed churches to send forth missionaries with the order to the missionaries to "go." And, so, all the talk about the Great Commission saying "go" rather than "send" is no argument at all, a point I enlarged upon in my series on the Great Commission. And, the allegation that a church cannot specify a missionary's field of labor is also found to be unscriptural.
It is true that a church cannot compel a minister to go to a certain area to preach. That minister is free to interpret his own impressions from the Lord. But, to say that a church cannot also be impressed by the Lord to see that the Gospel is preached in certain barren areas, is a falsehood. Why do Hardshells think that only ministers have a burden to see that the Gospel is preached, especially in those areas where the people are ignorant of the Gospel? And, if a church is burdened to see the Gospel go into certain destitute areas where the people are heathen, is she unable to do anything to see that the Gospel goes to those places? Can she not send out a call to those with a burden to preach to go to those places? Although it is true, for instance, that a minister is free to go where he pleases to preach, the church also is free to choose, with its limited funds, which ministers to support, and base this decision on where she is particularly desirous of seeing the Gospel preached. In other words, is a church obligated to support a minister in his mission work solely based upon that minister's lone impression, disregarding any impressions that she might have of her own? It seems that McKee thinks that the minister chooses his own field of labor without any input from the churches from whom he might expect support.
McKee wrote:
"The present day movement is more in line with the Landmark Missionary Baptist church than with the Primitive Baptists in the area of missions. The Landmark Baptists opposed other Missionary Baptists (Southern Baptist) in the mid 1800s because of their belief that the separate mission board/society was not scriptural. They held the view that the local church was given a commission to spread the Gospel and each local body should therefore be active in church sponsored missions, foreign and domestic. As far as I know their Doctrine and practices are not presently or ever have been such that any orderly Old Line Primitive Baptists would embrace them in church fellowship."
Whether or not those Hardshells in the "liberal movement" are in agreement with Landmark Missionary Baptists is beside the point and proves nothing. All through McKee's attack on Hardshell support of mission work there is not the slightest bit of proof given to condemn it. What the Black Rock Address teaches or what the Landmarkers teach is not proof. What is needed is proof from Scripture above all things. Do the Scriptures condemn churches supporting missionary work? Also, is such work in accordance with traditional Baptist practice? Did the Baptists who wrote and endorsed the 1689 London Confession believe in church sponsored missionary work? It can be easily shown how the Baptist church has always been a missionary church. This will be done in our next series following the present.
McKee wrote:
"There are some doctrinal points being taught by the Present day Movement that the Black Rock Brethren did not believe. (1) The Commandments commonly referred to as the great commission were given to the church and not to the Apostles. "In Matthew 28:19-20, baptism was given as a church ordinance and inseparably linked to baptism was the command to teach all nations. You cannot accept baptism as a church ordinance without accepting that the command to teach all nations is also addressed to the church." (Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan. 1996)"
If church support of missionary work be dependent upon proving that the Great Commission was given to the church, then the case is easy to decide. I have already proven, in the series on the Great Commission, that it was indeed given to the entire body of professing Christians. Did Elder Watson not believe that the Hardshells had violated this commission? Elder Harter was correct to point out the inconsistency of saying that baptism is a "church ordinance" while denying that the church was given authority to baptize per the Great Commission. Further, as I have argued, the Lord's Supper was given to the apostles, but what Hardshell argues that this proves that it was only for the apostles and ministers? Also, when Jesus said that the apostles should teach the disciples to observe "all things" that they themselves had been commanded to do, this cannot exclude the command to go and teach.
McKee wrote:
"The Black Rock Brethren wrote: "that we [ministers] do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to his apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age, to "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us. They believed the minister should go 'as the providence of God directed." [NOT THE CHURCH DIRECTING OR SPONSORING]"
But, as I have shown, the Black Rockers were in error to limit the Great Commission to apostles and ministers. If, however, we affirm that all disciples are "ministers," or servants, then it is true that the command to go and teach all the nations is given "primarily to his apostles and through them to his ministers (disciples) in every age." Who did Jesus have in mind by the pronoun "them" in "teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you"? Was it ministers or disciples? Truly the latter. It is not the will of the Lord that only ministers be taught to observe the commands of the Great Commission but that all disciples be taught to observe them.
McKee wrote:
"A final quote from the Black Rock address further reveals that the present day movement is infected with more of the same diseases the leaders of the 1800 movement were plagued with."
Is it a "disease" for ordinary disciples to want to do all that the Great Commission commands? Is it a disease to desire that others hear the blessed Gospel? Is it a disease to support those who go forth to preach the Gospel among the heathen?This is hardshellism! The condemnation and slander of all efforts to see that the Gospel is taken to the uttermost parts of the earth!
McKee cited these words from the Black Rock Address:
"The missionary, instead of going into such neighborhoods as Christ's ministers used to visit, Where they would be most likely to have an opportunity of administering food to the poor of the flock, seeks the more populous villages and towns, where he can attract the most attention, and do the most to promote the cause of missions and other popular institutions."
I have already refuted these words from the Black Rock Address. But, Mckee, writes these words concerning them:
"This is true in today's movement also. There are some among us that are hungering and thirsting for numbers more than righteousness (staying in the old paths)."
Again, this is another example of how the Hardshells consider themselves judges of the hearts of the Lord's people. McKee makes himself such a judge. How does he know that those in the "liberal movement" are more interested in money, for its own sake, than they are for righteousness? Surely such an accusation demands proof from McKee. But, like his Hardshell forefathers, he is accustomed to making such slanderous accusations against the motives of others without the least shred of evidence to support his case. Again, McKee is "speaking evil" of his brethren, a thing the Scriptures condemn, as we have seen. Did not James write these words against such a practice?
"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." (James 4: 11)
By setting himself up as a judge and condemner of his brethren, McKee shows himself to not being a doer of the law. As John Gill said, in commenting upon this verse, "such a person not only infringes the right of the law, but assumes the place of the Judge and lawgiver himself."
Further, it seems obvious that McKee condemns as an evil any desire "for numbers." Though he condemns having a greater desire for numbers versus a desire for righteousness, it is really a condemnation of having any desire for numbers that McKee really condemns. Such a condemnation has been a tradition with the Hardshells and was begun as a way of defending their loss and lack of numbers. They often say that the large numbers of conversions by other Baptists only show that such Baptists are heretics, and that their own lack of numbers proves that they are the true Baptists. However, if one searches the Scriptures, he will see how the biblical authors had a different attitude about numbers than do the Hardshells.
Jesus said:
"And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14: 23)
It is obvious from these words of Jesus that he was interested in numbers. "Go," said Jesus, and "compel" all, by preaching and exhortation, to "come," and that so that the house of the Lord would be filled.
The writer of the Book of Acts was not someone who looked upon large numbers of conversions as a sign of corruption, but as a sign of the Lord's blessing. In Acts 2: 41 Luke says - "the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." In Acts 4: 4 he wrote - "and the number of the men was about five thousand." In Acts 21: 20 we read - "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe." In Acts 19 Luke wrote:
"And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." (vs. 18-20)
Notice the use of the word "many." Notice also how Luke sees the fact of many conversions as a sign that the work of God was growing mightily and prevailing.
McKee continued:
"The present domestic and international radio program conducted by Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. seeks to be in large markets (populous areas) here and abroad. Self-promoting letters of praise are frequently read to the listeners to gain support for their effort by implying their success and usefulness. The program appears to be edited, produced and marketed by offering for sale, self-promoting, expository sermon series. The Program is promoted as an outreach ministry and has taken on the same flavor and tactics of most other worldly religious radio programming in the use of 800 numbers, credit cards, operating the program with a deficient of thousands of dollars and increasing appeals for monetary support."
The attitude of Elder McKee is the end result of a long Hardshell history of condemning all efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. If McKee had been present in the time of the Apostle Paul, he no doubt would have condemned the Apostle for preaching in major cities like Athens, Corinth, Phillipi, Jerusalem, Rome, etc. Further, I have no doubt that the Apostle would have used radio preaching had it been available in his day. McKee can find no good in the efforts to preach the Gospel to as many as possible. He again shows himself as a judge of the hearts and motives of others, and one who speaks evil of his brethren.
McKee wrote:
"I realize my stating this about the Baptist Bible Hour will disturb many who go by the name Primitive Baptist and will bring charges of jealousy from many quarters. This would not be new because all those in the past that led or supported departures in faith and practices, have always accuse the one’s opposing them of jealousy and being against the spread of the Gospel."
McKee realizes what his denunciations give the appearance of, and thinks that his assurances to the contrary are sufficient to counter them. But, he is deluded to think so. Had McKee himself been a great evangelizer, going to destitute and unpopulated areas, to preach the Gospel, and brought this up as evidence that he was not against preaching the Gospel, he would have more to offer than simply his denunciations and denials. Further, it is not only jealousy that seems to be guiding men like McKee, but an opposition to preaching the Gospel.
McKee continued:
"As God as my witness I do not desire any harm or tearing down of any of God's people that I feel faithful brethren must oppose. My little efforts have already estranged me from many of those that I count as dear children who have become followers of those attempting to change the Primitive Baptists. I'm convinced that many of them would once have firmly opposed any 'outreach ministry' or use of worldly tactics knowing that it is in direct opposition to the plain teachings of the scriptures, which teach us that the world knows us not, and we are to be a separate people and come out from among them. (1John 3:1, IICor 6:11-18)."
Again, McKee tries to persuade people that his opposition to preaching the Gospel is not really an opposition to preaching. But, in this effort he miserably fails. All except the blind can see that the spirit that is motivating him is not one that is favorable to seeing the Gospel preached to as many as possible. He says that the Scriptures condemn the practice of preaching the Gospel to the masses! He even thinks that I John 3: 1 condemns it! He thinks that this passage teaches against preaching the Gospel to the world! But, he would no doubt condemn Christ for telling his disciples to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole world! McKee's method is let others preach the Gospel to the world, reveal the elect, and then McKee will come along and preach to the elect thus revealed.
McKee wrote:
"In conclusion: the Black Rock brethren, just as true old Baptists are today, were in support of true biblical missions which took place during the birth and infancy of this nation. Most old Baptist Ministers that traveled on foot and horseback to preach the Gospel during the early part of this nations (sic) history did so because they were lead by the Spirit of God. Ministers such as Elder Wilson Thompson tried the spirit of Modern Missionarism and rejected it."
Thus, according to McKee, "biblical missions" is where a minister goes forth to preach the Gospel without any support from Christians, using his own money. One wonders how much of this kind of biblical mission McKee has done? As far as what Baptist history shows us about church sponsored missions, we will see how she has always practiced mission work. McKee has the idea that only those who go out preaching with their own money and without support are being led by the Spirit of God! Also, based upon the history of the Hardshells, the Spirit of God must get the blame for the lack of Hardshells going forth to preach the Gospel to the heathen and the destitute.
McKee continued:
"We should be thankful for those that blew the alarm in that day as the seeds of the 1800's mission movement were being sown by those that repeatedly tried to institute a itinerant church/associational mission plan by encouraging the association to gather money and send out ministers to destitute churches within their bounds."
Oh yes! let us be thankful for the Hardshells opposing all efforts to preach the Gospel to those who have never heard it! Let us praise the Hardshells who have done a better job at taking the Gospel to those who have never heard! Also, as far as associations being involved in mission work, we will see in our next series how the Philadelphia Association, the oldest in America, was involved in mission work in the 18th century. We will also see how the London brethren who authored and endorsed the 1689 confession, also formed associations to promote mutual support of missionaries.
McKee continued:
"This plan found strong objections among the Kuhukee (sic) assc. Members and was not generally implemented until the cry of works! Works! Works! (Spread the Gospel) far exceeded the sounds of alarm and many timid souls halted between two opinions and became polluted by designing men. The exact situation now exists among the Primitive Baptists in America. Many good Old Baptists have been captured by the "syren song of "No danger"; be not deceived; it leads to destruction..."
In regard to the Kehukee Association, it will be seen how she herself was formed into a Regular or Calvinistic Association by the missionary efforts of John Gano, who was sent out as a missionary by the Philadelphia Association! Also, for many years the Kehukee Association supported missionary work until the rise of the Hardshells.
Oh yes! it leads to "destruction" for a church or group of churches to be involved in supporting missionaries who go forth to preach the Gospel! But, the history of the Hardshell church shows that it was their opposition to missions that have rather destroyed them, not the supporters of missions. The Hardshells today are not a hundredth percent of what they were when they first began. Yet, mission Baptists have steadily grown throughout the years.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Hardshells & Mission Opposition XX
Chapter 163
In writing against some of the Hardshells who today are part of what is called the "liberal movement," Elder Claud McKee has an Internet article titled "Today's Primitive Baptist Missionary Movement" (see here) in which he tries to show how those involved in this movement, in sponsoring missions to foreign countries, are violating the principles of the Black Rock Address. At this time I want to analyze some of the things McKee says. In the first paragraph he writes (emphasis mine):
"Would the Brethren who wrote or supported the Black Rock address support today's Primitive Baptist Missionary movement? Even though some in today's movement have implied their compatibility with those Brethren, the truth is that the present movement among us has very similar markings to the early 1800's movement, which the Black Rock brethren opposed and finally declared against. The similar marks are: Soliciting funds through various sales schemes (today tapes and books); emphasizing the spread of the gospel and outreach ministries; perverting the teachings on giving (tithing) to gain monetary support; teaching that the commandments commonly referred to as the great commission was given to the church rather than to the Apostles; having ministers conferences and meetings to train their followers. Basically these same marks re-appeared around 1900 in the progressive movement. Both the 1800 and 1900 movements culminated into further departures from the faith and practices and gave faithful brethren of that time no other course but to oppose the departures."
Whether or not today's Hardshells are violating the principles of the Black Rock Address should not be of concern. Rather, the greater question is whether they are violating the Scriptures. And secondarily, are they in keeping with the practice of the first Particular Baptists in England and America? But, this will not be sufficient to such men as Elder McKee who puts the Black Rock Address on a par with Scripture.
It is a good thing that some Hardshells are seeing the truth about the Great Commission. Remember that Elder Watson confessed that the Hardshells had violated their commission. Further, the missionary movement of the early 19th century was not a new thing among Baptists, as we shall see, but it was a great expansion. Also, the Progressive movement was simply another attempt to bring the Hardshells back to the place from which they had departed, to bring them out of their extremist position. I plan to have a chapter towards the end of this book on various reform movements among the Hardshells which have tried to bring the "Primitive Baptist" church back to the Old Baptist position. Also, it is good that some Hardshells are seeing the error of denying that the church is under the Great Commission. In my series on the Great Commission I fully show that the church was indeed given the commission to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and to baptize or make disciples.
What can possibly be wrong with selling items and giving the money to the work of the Lord? Is this not what the early Christians did? Luke wrote:
"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4: 34-35)
I can see very little difference in selling tapes and books and selling lands and houses. Granted, the monies raised were to support the poor saints, but the Scriptures also show that the churches supported missionaries as well as the poor. Luke also mentions a Christian woman named Dorcas and, at her funeral, those in attendance showed Peter the "coats and garments which Dorcas made." (Acts 8: 39) It may well be that Dorcas sold some of these clothes and donated the money to the church for support of the poor and of the missionaries.
Further, as I have already mentioned, some Hardshell churches have raised money to build meeting houses by selling items and through various fund raising enterprises. Will McKee condemn these also? Or, is it that he thinks it is okay to sell items to build meeting houses, and to pay for radio preaching, but not to support missionaries? And remember, such opposition to using funds raised by selling tapes, for support of Gospel missionaries, does not mean that the Hardshells are opposed to spreading the Gospel!
Further, throughout the years Hardshell editors of periodicals have frequently "solicited" funds for the support of their papers. Hardshell preachers have also solicited support for radio programs. Of course, men like McKee may find fault with this also, but most Hardshells would not. Thus, all solicitation of funds cannot be an evil. However, Jesus said - "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." (Matt. 5: 42) I see no difference between "asking" for money and "soliciting" for money. But, Hardshells are famous for calling anyone who asks for money for missionary support "beggars." The early periodicals of the 1830s are filled with Hardshells calling all preachers who asked for money for mission work as "beggars" and denounced them as being covetous, preachers for filthy lucre, and "hirelings."
Paul also taught the early Christians to be givers. He wrote:
"Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. " (Eph. 4: 28)
Is it wrong for preachers and other Christians to stand up in a gathering of Christians and inform them of needs and request that any who could help to do so? Most Hardshells would not find it wrong to do so when it came to helping a member who was suffering from lack of necessities, or to help with a radio ministry. But, they will think it the worst evil to request money to help preachers out on the mission field.
It is astounding that McKee would condemn others for "emphasizing the spread the Gospel"! He says this is what the Black Rock Address condemned! And, in spite of such condemnation, we are not to believe that Hardshells are against preaching the Gospel! McKee condemns "outreach ministries." Would that not condemn all Hardshell periodicals and other printed media? Would it not condemn all radio preaching? Paul commended the church at Thessalonica for their outreach ministry and their desire to spread the Gospel, saying "for from you sounded out the word of the Lord," and that "in every place," so that the Gospel was "spread abroad." (I Thess. 1: 8)
McKee also thinks that it is a great departure from the faith, and worthy of declaring non-fellowship, that some teach tithing, which he says is "perverting the teachings on giving (tithing) to gain monetary support." Now, I am not saying that tithing is the new testament way, but I am saying that it is wrong to condemn other preachers for teaching it. If God thought 10% was a good rule for the old testament saints, under the law, it ought to be good for Christians to give at least this much, if not more, under the new testament or under grace. But, what McKee chiefly objects to is teaching the people about the importance of giving to the support of the ministry.
McKee also condemns preachers having meetings where they help each other learn more about how to be effective pastors and teachers! He says that this is against the Black Rock Address. But, we have already shown how the Black Rock Address went to an extreme in their condemnation of all biblical schooling, whether it be Sunday schools or seminaries.
McKee wrote:
"Some of those supporting today's movement claim harmony with the supporters of the Black Rock Address, indicating that the errors made in 1832 are being avoided by closely following historical and scriptural precedence. "Great effort was made to build these churches while following historical and biblical precedence. Historical study was made of the Baptist division of 1832 so that the errors of that day would not be repeated" (Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan 1997)."
Here are some Hardshells who want to be obedient to the Great Commission and in such a way as to keep the local church the base of operations and yet this is still not acceptable to the general body of Hardshells, to such men as Elder McKee. It becomes quite apparent that the Hardshells just do not want to do anything to help take the Gospel to those who have never heard it.
And, in spite of such opposition as McKee shows, we are to believe that he is not against preaching or spreading the good news!
To show what the Hardshell mentality is in regard to supporting preachers who desire to act as missionaries in preaching the Gospel in foreign lands, let us recall these words from the Mt. Carmel Church Trial (part 4 - see here). A Hardshell is being questioned about supporting preachers who have a burden to go and preach to those who have never heard the Gospel.
Q. Now, Mr. Compton, you are some sort of a missionary Baptist, aren’t you?
A. Well, I don’t know about that.
Q. You heard Brother Dalton’s deposition with reference to missions. Do you endorse Brother Dalton’s views?
A. Well, I would say this: so far as the bible directs missions, I am a missionary; but no further.
Q. You are a missionary Baptist on bible plans?
A. I don’t like to be called a Missionary Baptist.
Q. But you believe in missions on the bible plan?
A. I believe that if a minister of the gospel feels a call, a spiritual call, to go out and preach the gospel anywhere at all, it is his duty to go. Now, if you call that missions, why, then I am.
Q. Well, suppose one of your ministers would feel himself to be called to go into foreign lands and preach the gospel, would you believe that he ought to go?
A. Yes; if he felt like he ought to go.
Q. Would you believe that he ought to be encouraged in that?
A. No; I wouldn’t encourage him at all.
Q. You wouldn’t encourage him, even though you thought he felt in his heart---
A. If he felt like going anywhere at all, let him go. Let him go like he is directed by the bible, go without purse or scrip.
Q. But you would not encourage him in it?
A. No.
This is a good example of Hardshell opposition to supporting those who go forth to preach the Gospel. All who are outside of the cult will recognize this stubborn opposition for what it is.
McKee continued:
"The present day movement has alluded to this quote to emphasize that the ministers involved in the Philippine endeavor worked out of local churches and not out of distinct separate societies or "outside boards". The impression is left that all is well because the new movement is working out of local churches. "We did not form mission boards but worked out of local churches"(Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan. 1997)."
Next, McKee cites the following words of Elder Bradley who is also involved in mission work.
"Obviously for a people who had always believed that the church is the highest ecclesiastical organization on the earth, the idea of having ministers approved, sent and sponsored by an outside "Board" was cause for alarm." (Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. Baptist witness, Nov. 1996)"
Of course, as we shall see, none of this was acceptable to the extremists.
McKee cites Bradley again, who wrote:
"Did some fail to rejoice when the Lord opened a door in the Philippines and a number of our brethren went there preaching without the direction or support of man made societies but with the approval of their own local churches?" (Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. Baptist Witness, Nov. 1996)
Not only did some fail to rejoice, but most Hardshells got angry at such news! It is more proof that the Hardshells are against preaching the Gospel, no matter what they may say. Thus, as has been said, it is not a question of which way to support missionaries, but whether to support them at all!
The Hardshells of today obviously do not share the view of Elder C.B. Hassell, one of the founding fathers of Hardshellism, for he wrote:
"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)
The Hardshells of today either do not value the Gospel and therefore lack any desire to see that others have what they have, or else they will have to admit that others besides themselves have been sent of the Lord to give the Gospel to those who have never heard a Hardshell preacher. Those in destitute areas of the world who now have the blessing of hearing the good news owe no thanks to the Hardshells.
McKee wrote:
"In the Black Rock address it is stated:
"...the Lord has manifestly established the order, that his ministers should be sent forth by the churches. But the mission plan is to send them out by a mission society."
After citing these words, McKee then cites Elder Gus Harter, one who is involved in mission work.
McKee then wrote these words as a rebuttal to the practice.
"The Black Rock brethren's opposition was to a man made system (any men, churches included) implementing a money based mission society (in or out of the church) that departs from the order the Master commanded. They stated "But we at the same time contend, that we have no right to depart from the order which the Master himself has seen fit to lay down, relative to the ministration of the word". In their address concerning missions they clearly emphasized the belief that the Spirit of God should be the guiding influence in determining where a minister labors and gave no indication that it should be part of a churches duty to sponsor any outreach mission program. The Black Rock brethren's statement "ministers should be sent forth by the churches" is expanded and clarified as to their meaning by re-emphasizing where the ministers were to be sent. "Again, each gospel church acts as the independent kingdom of Christ in calling and sending forth its members into the ministry." [Not into the mission field or on mission trips but into the ministry to be guided by the Spirit of God!]"
It is interesting that McKee left out these words from the Black Rock Address:
"We also believe it to be the duty of individuals and churches to contribute according to their abilities, for the support, not only of their pastors, but also of those who go preaching the gospel of Christ among the destitute."
Why would he omit this? Is it not because it overthrows his interpretation of the Black Rock Address? Is this a "money based" system? Do the preachers not depend on the financial support of the churches?
McKee judges that the Holy Spirit was not guiding Bradley, Harter, and other ministers in their efforts to preach the Gospel in foreign lands. But, how can he set himself up as a judge in this matter? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit was rather guiding McKee to denounce their efforts? Further, why would the Holy Spirit put it in the hearts of such ministers to preach the Gospel in foreign lands but not also put the same desire into the hearts of churches to support them?
McKee then tries to defend the idea that the Black Rock Address does not condone a church giving any support to missionaries, or for ever sending out an already ordained preacher to preach in a certain area. But, we have already seen how the Address speaks of churches supporting missionaries. McKee takes umbrage at the thought that churches can be involved in the decision where missionaries ought to go, that the minister should do this without any advice from the churches. Does McKee think that the church cannot have any thoughts on the matter? The example from Acts 13 has already been cited as proof that a church may send out missionaries.
In chapter 66, in the first chapter on the series "The Great Commission," I cited Hardshells who wrote:
"We find no scriptural basis for the belief that the "great commission" was given to the church and that the church is responsible for the spread of the gospel in the world today...We stand with our Baptist forefathers in rejecting the heresy that the "great commission" was given to the church body."
It is obvious that the only ones who are supposed to have a burden to see that others hear the good news are Hardshell preachers, and the overwhelming majority of them only go preaching it to those in existing Hardshell churches. What spirit is motivating such an opposition to seeing that those who have never heard the Gospel get an opportunity to hear it? They must not care much for the Gospel nor want to share it with those who have never heard it!
McKee wrote:
"The scriptures teach that churches should recognize God called men among their membership by ordaining and sending them into the Ministry. God does the calling and the Holy Spirit still influences/guides the minister into his field of labor. A minister's field of labor should not be under direct control of the church or any other set of men. This is not to say the church has no rights of discipline concerning where a minister labors. A minister has no authority to take part in the services of churches not in fellowship with his home church without ample evidence of God's Spirit moving and a general support or willingness of orderly brethren to try the spirit and see if the Lord is truly in the matter. Neither should he generally visit and fellowship those that clearly entertain unscriptural practices in their services.
I find this highly inconsistent. A church can condemn a preacher for going to certain places to preach but has no authority to tell him where he can go preach?! McKee wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that a minister's field of labor is his own decision, but here he wants to say that a church does in fact have some say. They cannot tell him where to go, but they can tell him where not to go?
The subject of the above words of McKee really concerns the relationship of a minister to a church or churches. I have thought that this might be worth having a separate chapter as the Hardshells entertain errors regarding this relationship. From the words of McKee, the church is the organization or society that determines whether a man is given the credentials of an elder or minister of the Gospel. Also, Hardshells will acknowledge that the church judges of a minister's calling and gift. Generally this is done by giving a person opportunities to preach or teach in the church for a time and to see whether this person is truly called and gifted. This is a good and long standing practice in the Baptist church and is based upon Paul's instruction regarding prospective gifts. He said that they should first be "proved" or tested prior to being officially ordained. (I Tim. 3: 10) This time of proving is also a time for the newly called minister to develop his gift, a kind of qualifying of him. This is interesting because the Hardshells, in condemning seminaries for supposedly "qualifying" such men to preach, actually do the very thing that they condemn. The only difference is that the church oversees the developing of the young gift, or his becoming qualified, but in the latter case it is done by a theological school. In many Hardshell churches, there is at least one elder in the church where the young gift begins to "exercise" himself in preaching.
In writing against some of the Hardshells who today are part of what is called the "liberal movement," Elder Claud McKee has an Internet article titled "Today's Primitive Baptist Missionary Movement" (see here) in which he tries to show how those involved in this movement, in sponsoring missions to foreign countries, are violating the principles of the Black Rock Address. At this time I want to analyze some of the things McKee says. In the first paragraph he writes (emphasis mine):
"Would the Brethren who wrote or supported the Black Rock address support today's Primitive Baptist Missionary movement? Even though some in today's movement have implied their compatibility with those Brethren, the truth is that the present movement among us has very similar markings to the early 1800's movement, which the Black Rock brethren opposed and finally declared against. The similar marks are: Soliciting funds through various sales schemes (today tapes and books); emphasizing the spread of the gospel and outreach ministries; perverting the teachings on giving (tithing) to gain monetary support; teaching that the commandments commonly referred to as the great commission was given to the church rather than to the Apostles; having ministers conferences and meetings to train their followers. Basically these same marks re-appeared around 1900 in the progressive movement. Both the 1800 and 1900 movements culminated into further departures from the faith and practices and gave faithful brethren of that time no other course but to oppose the departures."
Whether or not today's Hardshells are violating the principles of the Black Rock Address should not be of concern. Rather, the greater question is whether they are violating the Scriptures. And secondarily, are they in keeping with the practice of the first Particular Baptists in England and America? But, this will not be sufficient to such men as Elder McKee who puts the Black Rock Address on a par with Scripture.
It is a good thing that some Hardshells are seeing the truth about the Great Commission. Remember that Elder Watson confessed that the Hardshells had violated their commission. Further, the missionary movement of the early 19th century was not a new thing among Baptists, as we shall see, but it was a great expansion. Also, the Progressive movement was simply another attempt to bring the Hardshells back to the place from which they had departed, to bring them out of their extremist position. I plan to have a chapter towards the end of this book on various reform movements among the Hardshells which have tried to bring the "Primitive Baptist" church back to the Old Baptist position. Also, it is good that some Hardshells are seeing the error of denying that the church is under the Great Commission. In my series on the Great Commission I fully show that the church was indeed given the commission to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and to baptize or make disciples.
What can possibly be wrong with selling items and giving the money to the work of the Lord? Is this not what the early Christians did? Luke wrote:
"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4: 34-35)
I can see very little difference in selling tapes and books and selling lands and houses. Granted, the monies raised were to support the poor saints, but the Scriptures also show that the churches supported missionaries as well as the poor. Luke also mentions a Christian woman named Dorcas and, at her funeral, those in attendance showed Peter the "coats and garments which Dorcas made." (Acts 8: 39) It may well be that Dorcas sold some of these clothes and donated the money to the church for support of the poor and of the missionaries.
Further, as I have already mentioned, some Hardshell churches have raised money to build meeting houses by selling items and through various fund raising enterprises. Will McKee condemn these also? Or, is it that he thinks it is okay to sell items to build meeting houses, and to pay for radio preaching, but not to support missionaries? And remember, such opposition to using funds raised by selling tapes, for support of Gospel missionaries, does not mean that the Hardshells are opposed to spreading the Gospel!
Further, throughout the years Hardshell editors of periodicals have frequently "solicited" funds for the support of their papers. Hardshell preachers have also solicited support for radio programs. Of course, men like McKee may find fault with this also, but most Hardshells would not. Thus, all solicitation of funds cannot be an evil. However, Jesus said - "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." (Matt. 5: 42) I see no difference between "asking" for money and "soliciting" for money. But, Hardshells are famous for calling anyone who asks for money for missionary support "beggars." The early periodicals of the 1830s are filled with Hardshells calling all preachers who asked for money for mission work as "beggars" and denounced them as being covetous, preachers for filthy lucre, and "hirelings."
Paul also taught the early Christians to be givers. He wrote:
"Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. " (Eph. 4: 28)
Is it wrong for preachers and other Christians to stand up in a gathering of Christians and inform them of needs and request that any who could help to do so? Most Hardshells would not find it wrong to do so when it came to helping a member who was suffering from lack of necessities, or to help with a radio ministry. But, they will think it the worst evil to request money to help preachers out on the mission field.
It is astounding that McKee would condemn others for "emphasizing the spread the Gospel"! He says this is what the Black Rock Address condemned! And, in spite of such condemnation, we are not to believe that Hardshells are against preaching the Gospel! McKee condemns "outreach ministries." Would that not condemn all Hardshell periodicals and other printed media? Would it not condemn all radio preaching? Paul commended the church at Thessalonica for their outreach ministry and their desire to spread the Gospel, saying "for from you sounded out the word of the Lord," and that "in every place," so that the Gospel was "spread abroad." (I Thess. 1: 8)
McKee also thinks that it is a great departure from the faith, and worthy of declaring non-fellowship, that some teach tithing, which he says is "perverting the teachings on giving (tithing) to gain monetary support." Now, I am not saying that tithing is the new testament way, but I am saying that it is wrong to condemn other preachers for teaching it. If God thought 10% was a good rule for the old testament saints, under the law, it ought to be good for Christians to give at least this much, if not more, under the new testament or under grace. But, what McKee chiefly objects to is teaching the people about the importance of giving to the support of the ministry.
McKee also condemns preachers having meetings where they help each other learn more about how to be effective pastors and teachers! He says that this is against the Black Rock Address. But, we have already shown how the Black Rock Address went to an extreme in their condemnation of all biblical schooling, whether it be Sunday schools or seminaries.
McKee wrote:
"Some of those supporting today's movement claim harmony with the supporters of the Black Rock Address, indicating that the errors made in 1832 are being avoided by closely following historical and scriptural precedence. "Great effort was made to build these churches while following historical and biblical precedence. Historical study was made of the Baptist division of 1832 so that the errors of that day would not be repeated" (Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan 1997)."
Here are some Hardshells who want to be obedient to the Great Commission and in such a way as to keep the local church the base of operations and yet this is still not acceptable to the general body of Hardshells, to such men as Elder McKee. It becomes quite apparent that the Hardshells just do not want to do anything to help take the Gospel to those who have never heard it.
And, in spite of such opposition as McKee shows, we are to believe that he is not against preaching or spreading the good news!
To show what the Hardshell mentality is in regard to supporting preachers who desire to act as missionaries in preaching the Gospel in foreign lands, let us recall these words from the Mt. Carmel Church Trial (part 4 - see here). A Hardshell is being questioned about supporting preachers who have a burden to go and preach to those who have never heard the Gospel.
Q. Now, Mr. Compton, you are some sort of a missionary Baptist, aren’t you?
A. Well, I don’t know about that.
Q. You heard Brother Dalton’s deposition with reference to missions. Do you endorse Brother Dalton’s views?
A. Well, I would say this: so far as the bible directs missions, I am a missionary; but no further.
Q. You are a missionary Baptist on bible plans?
A. I don’t like to be called a Missionary Baptist.
Q. But you believe in missions on the bible plan?
A. I believe that if a minister of the gospel feels a call, a spiritual call, to go out and preach the gospel anywhere at all, it is his duty to go. Now, if you call that missions, why, then I am.
Q. Well, suppose one of your ministers would feel himself to be called to go into foreign lands and preach the gospel, would you believe that he ought to go?
A. Yes; if he felt like he ought to go.
Q. Would you believe that he ought to be encouraged in that?
A. No; I wouldn’t encourage him at all.
Q. You wouldn’t encourage him, even though you thought he felt in his heart---
A. If he felt like going anywhere at all, let him go. Let him go like he is directed by the bible, go without purse or scrip.
Q. But you would not encourage him in it?
A. No.
This is a good example of Hardshell opposition to supporting those who go forth to preach the Gospel. All who are outside of the cult will recognize this stubborn opposition for what it is.
McKee continued:
"The present day movement has alluded to this quote to emphasize that the ministers involved in the Philippine endeavor worked out of local churches and not out of distinct separate societies or "outside boards". The impression is left that all is well because the new movement is working out of local churches. "We did not form mission boards but worked out of local churches"(Elder Gus Harter, Atlanta Newsletter Jan. 1997)."
Next, McKee cites the following words of Elder Bradley who is also involved in mission work.
"Obviously for a people who had always believed that the church is the highest ecclesiastical organization on the earth, the idea of having ministers approved, sent and sponsored by an outside "Board" was cause for alarm." (Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. Baptist witness, Nov. 1996)"
Of course, as we shall see, none of this was acceptable to the extremists.
McKee cites Bradley again, who wrote:
"Did some fail to rejoice when the Lord opened a door in the Philippines and a number of our brethren went there preaching without the direction or support of man made societies but with the approval of their own local churches?" (Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. Baptist Witness, Nov. 1996)
Not only did some fail to rejoice, but most Hardshells got angry at such news! It is more proof that the Hardshells are against preaching the Gospel, no matter what they may say. Thus, as has been said, it is not a question of which way to support missionaries, but whether to support them at all!
The Hardshells of today obviously do not share the view of Elder C.B. Hassell, one of the founding fathers of Hardshellism, for he wrote:
"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)
The Hardshells of today either do not value the Gospel and therefore lack any desire to see that others have what they have, or else they will have to admit that others besides themselves have been sent of the Lord to give the Gospel to those who have never heard a Hardshell preacher. Those in destitute areas of the world who now have the blessing of hearing the good news owe no thanks to the Hardshells.
McKee wrote:
"In the Black Rock address it is stated:
"...the Lord has manifestly established the order, that his ministers should be sent forth by the churches. But the mission plan is to send them out by a mission society."
After citing these words, McKee then cites Elder Gus Harter, one who is involved in mission work.
McKee then wrote these words as a rebuttal to the practice.
"The Black Rock brethren's opposition was to a man made system (any men, churches included) implementing a money based mission society (in or out of the church) that departs from the order the Master commanded. They stated "But we at the same time contend, that we have no right to depart from the order which the Master himself has seen fit to lay down, relative to the ministration of the word". In their address concerning missions they clearly emphasized the belief that the Spirit of God should be the guiding influence in determining where a minister labors and gave no indication that it should be part of a churches duty to sponsor any outreach mission program. The Black Rock brethren's statement "ministers should be sent forth by the churches" is expanded and clarified as to their meaning by re-emphasizing where the ministers were to be sent. "Again, each gospel church acts as the independent kingdom of Christ in calling and sending forth its members into the ministry." [Not into the mission field or on mission trips but into the ministry to be guided by the Spirit of God!]"
It is interesting that McKee left out these words from the Black Rock Address:
"We also believe it to be the duty of individuals and churches to contribute according to their abilities, for the support, not only of their pastors, but also of those who go preaching the gospel of Christ among the destitute."
Why would he omit this? Is it not because it overthrows his interpretation of the Black Rock Address? Is this a "money based" system? Do the preachers not depend on the financial support of the churches?
McKee judges that the Holy Spirit was not guiding Bradley, Harter, and other ministers in their efforts to preach the Gospel in foreign lands. But, how can he set himself up as a judge in this matter? Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit was rather guiding McKee to denounce their efforts? Further, why would the Holy Spirit put it in the hearts of such ministers to preach the Gospel in foreign lands but not also put the same desire into the hearts of churches to support them?
McKee then tries to defend the idea that the Black Rock Address does not condone a church giving any support to missionaries, or for ever sending out an already ordained preacher to preach in a certain area. But, we have already seen how the Address speaks of churches supporting missionaries. McKee takes umbrage at the thought that churches can be involved in the decision where missionaries ought to go, that the minister should do this without any advice from the churches. Does McKee think that the church cannot have any thoughts on the matter? The example from Acts 13 has already been cited as proof that a church may send out missionaries.
In chapter 66, in the first chapter on the series "The Great Commission," I cited Hardshells who wrote:
"We find no scriptural basis for the belief that the "great commission" was given to the church and that the church is responsible for the spread of the gospel in the world today...We stand with our Baptist forefathers in rejecting the heresy that the "great commission" was given to the church body."
It is obvious that the only ones who are supposed to have a burden to see that others hear the good news are Hardshell preachers, and the overwhelming majority of them only go preaching it to those in existing Hardshell churches. What spirit is motivating such an opposition to seeing that those who have never heard the Gospel get an opportunity to hear it? They must not care much for the Gospel nor want to share it with those who have never heard it!
McKee wrote:
"The scriptures teach that churches should recognize God called men among their membership by ordaining and sending them into the Ministry. God does the calling and the Holy Spirit still influences/guides the minister into his field of labor. A minister's field of labor should not be under direct control of the church or any other set of men. This is not to say the church has no rights of discipline concerning where a minister labors. A minister has no authority to take part in the services of churches not in fellowship with his home church without ample evidence of God's Spirit moving and a general support or willingness of orderly brethren to try the spirit and see if the Lord is truly in the matter. Neither should he generally visit and fellowship those that clearly entertain unscriptural practices in their services.
I find this highly inconsistent. A church can condemn a preacher for going to certain places to preach but has no authority to tell him where he can go preach?! McKee wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that a minister's field of labor is his own decision, but here he wants to say that a church does in fact have some say. They cannot tell him where to go, but they can tell him where not to go?
The subject of the above words of McKee really concerns the relationship of a minister to a church or churches. I have thought that this might be worth having a separate chapter as the Hardshells entertain errors regarding this relationship. From the words of McKee, the church is the organization or society that determines whether a man is given the credentials of an elder or minister of the Gospel. Also, Hardshells will acknowledge that the church judges of a minister's calling and gift. Generally this is done by giving a person opportunities to preach or teach in the church for a time and to see whether this person is truly called and gifted. This is a good and long standing practice in the Baptist church and is based upon Paul's instruction regarding prospective gifts. He said that they should first be "proved" or tested prior to being officially ordained. (I Tim. 3: 10) This time of proving is also a time for the newly called minister to develop his gift, a kind of qualifying of him. This is interesting because the Hardshells, in condemning seminaries for supposedly "qualifying" such men to preach, actually do the very thing that they condemn. The only difference is that the church oversees the developing of the young gift, or his becoming qualified, but in the latter case it is done by a theological school. In many Hardshell churches, there is at least one elder in the church where the young gift begins to "exercise" himself in preaching.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Hardshells Make The Spirit A Liar
In chapters 54-56 of my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," I deal with the Hardshell view on the Spirit's work of conviction of sin. The Hardshells believe that conviction of sin is what results from regeneration or the new birth, but I show how this is an error. One of my arguments is one that the Hardshells never choose to deal with, but ignore it because they cannot overcome it. If a sinner under conviction is being witnessed to by the Holy Spirit and that witness is to convict the sinner of his condemned state, then the Spirit is lying to that sinner if that sinner is really already saved and justified. The fact that the Spirit bears witness to a sinner that he is lost and ruined, and on his way to Hell, is proof that conviction of sin is no proof of a gracious state. When the Spirit thus testifies, he is bearing witness to the true condition of the sinner. Our Old Baptist forefathers understood this and is why they taught that mere conviction of sin was no evidence of regeneration, but was rather, in many cases, a preparation for regeneration.
The Name "Hardshell" III
Elder C.C. Morris and other Hardshells of the "Absoluter" faction have a web page (see here) in which they have this at the heading:
"Welcome to the Primitive Baptist Web Site! This site is dedicated to the Old School, Hardshell, Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptist beliefs."
Thus, here is further evidence that not all Hardshells consider the name "Hardshell" to be a derogatory term. Thus far, we have seen that the first Hardshells did not object to the label, and even embraced it. We saw how an old sister who had been in the Hardshell church for fifty years, and who was the daughter and wife of Hardshell preachers, did not shun to declare herself to be a Hardshell Baptist.
So, to those Hardshells who think we are using derogatory language with malicious intentions, we put this evidence forth. Also, as I have elaborated upon in the early chapters of my book on the Hardshells, many others accept the name with pride. However, I have used the term as others, to denote the stubbornness of the Hardshells to listen to reason.
"Welcome to the Primitive Baptist Web Site! This site is dedicated to the Old School, Hardshell, Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptist beliefs."
Thus, here is further evidence that not all Hardshells consider the name "Hardshell" to be a derogatory term. Thus far, we have seen that the first Hardshells did not object to the label, and even embraced it. We saw how an old sister who had been in the Hardshell church for fifty years, and who was the daughter and wife of Hardshell preachers, did not shun to declare herself to be a Hardshell Baptist.
So, to those Hardshells who think we are using derogatory language with malicious intentions, we put this evidence forth. Also, as I have elaborated upon in the early chapters of my book on the Hardshells, many others accept the name with pride. However, I have used the term as others, to denote the stubbornness of the Hardshells to listen to reason.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
The Name "Hardshell" II
In the "Primitive Baptist" periodical of July 13, 1839 we read these words:
"Dear Brethren Editors: I have taken the present opportunity to let you all know, how matters of religion are going on in our part of the country. There are various sorts of religion in our country, and I do not wonder at any and every person getting religion, for they can have any sort they choose, as brother Thomas Trice said in the Primitive, No. 7, vol. 4th p, page 109, from the real old hard shell down to no shell at all."
Thus, this is more evidence that the oldest Hardshells did not think that referring to themselves as "Hardshells" was any kind of defamatory speech.
"Dear Brethren Editors: I have taken the present opportunity to let you all know, how matters of religion are going on in our part of the country. There are various sorts of religion in our country, and I do not wonder at any and every person getting religion, for they can have any sort they choose, as brother Thomas Trice said in the Primitive, No. 7, vol. 4th p, page 109, from the real old hard shell down to no shell at all."
Thus, this is more evidence that the oldest Hardshells did not think that referring to themselves as "Hardshells" was any kind of defamatory speech.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Hardshell Ad Hominems
A person, probably a Hardshell, recently left this comment on my blog posting Another Visit with the Hardshells:
"Respectfully sir, you sound like an angry, bitter old man who was scorned and seeking vengeance. All the serious issues in Christendom today, and you think a grave threat is a little group of 35 to 40 thousand in the Southeast US."
This person appears to be a member of one of the churches in the Bear Creek Association and knows of my time there in the mid and late 70s. I responded with a couple comments to this person but feel like more needs to be said in response, and feeling that it will be of benefit for all who read this blog, I am adding some more of my thoughts to the comment.
Of course, it is an accusatory comment given without any proof and was obviously intended to bias the minds of readers. This is a tradition with the Hardshells as they have been denouncing and scorning all Baptist groups, and others, since their formation in the 1830s. I have numerous citations in my ongoing book that prove this to be true. Also, if anyone will simply read the four Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, he will see how scorn for mission Baptists is plentiful. The author of the comment commits a number of logical fallacies. One, he attempts to "poison the well" in regard to my writings. What does it mean to "poison the well"? According to fallacyfiles.org, "Poisoning the Well is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy since it is not a type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the unwary audience into committing an ad hominem fallacy. As with all forms of the ad hominem, one should keep in mind that an argument can and must stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it." It is basically an attempt to create a bias against a person's character with the intent that such a character cannot possibly be stating a truth. It is indeed a kind of "ad hominem" attack. What is that?
"Ad hominem" is defined as
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
In all the years I have been writing against Hardshellism, all the Hardshells, except one, have responded, not by refuting our arguments and evidence, but by making ad hominem attacks. What does this show? I need not answer the question because any reasonable person knows what it shows.
The commenter mentions the fact that I was "scorned" by the Hardshells. The truth is that I was indeed scorned by a few in the Bear Creek Association. But, I was warmly received by the large majority, preaching often in some of the churches, and having a regular monthly appointment at Bethel church where my membership was until I resigned to become pastor of two independent churches, which I served till my marriage fell apart in the early 80s, having found out that my wife had committed adultery. The "scorn" from the few was, to my mind, nothing in me personally, but was due to hatred for my father, which hatred stemmed from his views on the origin of Satan and on the story of the rich man and Lazarus. I remember preaching at Union Grove on Sunday morning and a Hardshell and his wife got up and walked out, and it was apparent to all that it was to show contempt for me. Everyone told me afterward that they thought it was wrong for this man to act like that. I was also scorned some at my home church in Bethel by two elders there, who threatened me about teaching that Satan was an angel fallen from heaven, and teaching that the story of the rich man and Lazarus showed what happens to people when they die.
Looking back on some of this scorn, I remember reacting as did Job who said - "My friends scorn me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God." (Job 16: 20) I did not return evil for evil, scorn for scorn, but patiently endured it. What does it mean to scorn someone? "Scorn" (noun) is defined as "the feeling or belief that someone or something is worthless or despicable; contempt." "Scorned" (verb) is defined as "feel or express contempt or derision for."
I recall how the first Psalm says that the "blessed" man is one who does not sit in "the seat of the scornful." (vs. 1) There are "scorners" who "delight in their scorning." (Prov. 1: 22) I have seen this in my recent reading of the old Hardshell periodical "The Primitive Baptist" of the 1830s. Those Hardshells delighted in scorning missionaries, supporters of Sunday and theological schools, etc. But, consider the words of the Psalmist who said that Lord God "scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly." (Prov. 3: 34) There are a lot of other useful things said about scorners in the Scriptures and we all need to consider those things.
The commenter also said that I "sound like an angry, bitter old man." I would like to know how he came to this judgment? Was it based upon anything I said? The choice of words that I have used in talking about the Hardshells? Other Hardshells have accused me of having "an axe to grind."
I have searched my heart and memory for evidence that I have written in anger against any Hardshell. I cannot find it. In fact, the opposite is true. I have a deep love and concern for the Hardshells, believing that there are many good and honest Christians among them. I have written forcefully against the false views and the hypocrisy of the Hardshells and I think some Hardshells interpret this as being anger and bitterness. Job said - "How forcible are right words!" (Job 6: 25) I believe my words against Hardshellism have been right words and forcible and this accounts for there being none, except one, who has attempted to refute them, and for some thinking that the force of my words and arguments imply anger and bitterness.
Bitterness? What can I say? There are indeed warnings in Scripture about bitterness. For instance, we are warned of it in these words - "lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled." And, Paul said - "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice." (Eph. 4: 31) But, there is a natural "bitterness of soul" that those in suffering know. (See I Sam. 1: 10; Job 7: 11, 9: 18, 10: 1, 21: 25, etc.) Certainly I felt some of this bitterness of soul when I was scorned by a few Hardshells. It was painful and hard to bear at times. In fact, I think it helped to alienate my wife from me, who could not bear the scorn.
Now, I do not think that I am writing against Hardshellism because I am out for vengeance. Vengeance belongs to the Lord. But, should we not expect that those in cults will personally attack those who write against them? Will the Mormons not say evil things against those who write against them? Will the Catholics not do the same? Will the Jehovah's Witnesses not also do the same? Why should I be surprised when members of the Hardshell cult attack me personally rather than respond to the arguments and evidence I present in refutation of their errors?
Again, let me say, that I only want to see people kept from the pernicious errors of Hardshellism. I would love to see many of them repent of their errors and become real Old Baptists, and not ones in name only. Further, it won't be long till I am finished with my book on the Hardshells. It has been an exhausting work but I believe it will prove to be beneficial for many, even after I have gone to be with the Lord. I expect to be finished by the end of the year and look forward to getting back to my other books that I have already done much to write, such as a book on the weak and strong brothers mentioned by Paul in Corinthians and Romans, the Book of Esther, the book on the character Job, etc. Lots of books have been written on the "Primitive Baptist" church, and I simply add mine to the list. I do believe that mine is the most exhaustive and is written not only as a history, but also as a refutation of their errors.
"Respectfully sir, you sound like an angry, bitter old man who was scorned and seeking vengeance. All the serious issues in Christendom today, and you think a grave threat is a little group of 35 to 40 thousand in the Southeast US."
This person appears to be a member of one of the churches in the Bear Creek Association and knows of my time there in the mid and late 70s. I responded with a couple comments to this person but feel like more needs to be said in response, and feeling that it will be of benefit for all who read this blog, I am adding some more of my thoughts to the comment.
Of course, it is an accusatory comment given without any proof and was obviously intended to bias the minds of readers. This is a tradition with the Hardshells as they have been denouncing and scorning all Baptist groups, and others, since their formation in the 1830s. I have numerous citations in my ongoing book that prove this to be true. Also, if anyone will simply read the four Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, he will see how scorn for mission Baptists is plentiful. The author of the comment commits a number of logical fallacies. One, he attempts to "poison the well" in regard to my writings. What does it mean to "poison the well"? According to fallacyfiles.org, "Poisoning the Well is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy since it is not a type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the unwary audience into committing an ad hominem fallacy. As with all forms of the ad hominem, one should keep in mind that an argument can and must stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it." It is basically an attempt to create a bias against a person's character with the intent that such a character cannot possibly be stating a truth. It is indeed a kind of "ad hominem" attack. What is that?
"Ad hominem" is defined as
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
In all the years I have been writing against Hardshellism, all the Hardshells, except one, have responded, not by refuting our arguments and evidence, but by making ad hominem attacks. What does this show? I need not answer the question because any reasonable person knows what it shows.
The commenter mentions the fact that I was "scorned" by the Hardshells. The truth is that I was indeed scorned by a few in the Bear Creek Association. But, I was warmly received by the large majority, preaching often in some of the churches, and having a regular monthly appointment at Bethel church where my membership was until I resigned to become pastor of two independent churches, which I served till my marriage fell apart in the early 80s, having found out that my wife had committed adultery. The "scorn" from the few was, to my mind, nothing in me personally, but was due to hatred for my father, which hatred stemmed from his views on the origin of Satan and on the story of the rich man and Lazarus. I remember preaching at Union Grove on Sunday morning and a Hardshell and his wife got up and walked out, and it was apparent to all that it was to show contempt for me. Everyone told me afterward that they thought it was wrong for this man to act like that. I was also scorned some at my home church in Bethel by two elders there, who threatened me about teaching that Satan was an angel fallen from heaven, and teaching that the story of the rich man and Lazarus showed what happens to people when they die.
Looking back on some of this scorn, I remember reacting as did Job who said - "My friends scorn me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God." (Job 16: 20) I did not return evil for evil, scorn for scorn, but patiently endured it. What does it mean to scorn someone? "Scorn" (noun) is defined as "the feeling or belief that someone or something is worthless or despicable; contempt." "Scorned" (verb) is defined as "feel or express contempt or derision for."
I recall how the first Psalm says that the "blessed" man is one who does not sit in "the seat of the scornful." (vs. 1) There are "scorners" who "delight in their scorning." (Prov. 1: 22) I have seen this in my recent reading of the old Hardshell periodical "The Primitive Baptist" of the 1830s. Those Hardshells delighted in scorning missionaries, supporters of Sunday and theological schools, etc. But, consider the words of the Psalmist who said that Lord God "scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly." (Prov. 3: 34) There are a lot of other useful things said about scorners in the Scriptures and we all need to consider those things.
The commenter also said that I "sound like an angry, bitter old man." I would like to know how he came to this judgment? Was it based upon anything I said? The choice of words that I have used in talking about the Hardshells? Other Hardshells have accused me of having "an axe to grind."
I have searched my heart and memory for evidence that I have written in anger against any Hardshell. I cannot find it. In fact, the opposite is true. I have a deep love and concern for the Hardshells, believing that there are many good and honest Christians among them. I have written forcefully against the false views and the hypocrisy of the Hardshells and I think some Hardshells interpret this as being anger and bitterness. Job said - "How forcible are right words!" (Job 6: 25) I believe my words against Hardshellism have been right words and forcible and this accounts for there being none, except one, who has attempted to refute them, and for some thinking that the force of my words and arguments imply anger and bitterness.
Bitterness? What can I say? There are indeed warnings in Scripture about bitterness. For instance, we are warned of it in these words - "lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled." And, Paul said - "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice." (Eph. 4: 31) But, there is a natural "bitterness of soul" that those in suffering know. (See I Sam. 1: 10; Job 7: 11, 9: 18, 10: 1, 21: 25, etc.) Certainly I felt some of this bitterness of soul when I was scorned by a few Hardshells. It was painful and hard to bear at times. In fact, I think it helped to alienate my wife from me, who could not bear the scorn.
Now, I do not think that I am writing against Hardshellism because I am out for vengeance. Vengeance belongs to the Lord. But, should we not expect that those in cults will personally attack those who write against them? Will the Mormons not say evil things against those who write against them? Will the Catholics not do the same? Will the Jehovah's Witnesses not also do the same? Why should I be surprised when members of the Hardshell cult attack me personally rather than respond to the arguments and evidence I present in refutation of their errors?
Again, let me say, that I only want to see people kept from the pernicious errors of Hardshellism. I would love to see many of them repent of their errors and become real Old Baptists, and not ones in name only. Further, it won't be long till I am finished with my book on the Hardshells. It has been an exhausting work but I believe it will prove to be beneficial for many, even after I have gone to be with the Lord. I expect to be finished by the end of the year and look forward to getting back to my other books that I have already done much to write, such as a book on the weak and strong brothers mentioned by Paul in Corinthians and Romans, the Book of Esther, the book on the character Job, etc. Lots of books have been written on the "Primitive Baptist" church, and I simply add mine to the list. I do believe that mine is the most exhaustive and is written not only as a history, but also as a refutation of their errors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)