Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Awakened Sinners II
In "The Warnings of Scripture are in the Best Manner Adapted to the Awakening and Conversion of Sinners" by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) we have some statements of Edwards regarding those called "awakened sinners." (see here)
Wrote Edwards (emphasis mine):
"The warnings of God’s Word are more fitted to obtain the ends of awakening sinners, and bringing them to repentance, than the rising of one from the dead to warn them."
What is important about these words is the fact that Edwards does not exclude God's use of the word in the awakening of sinners, in that work of preparing hearts for reception of the Gospel. To fail to see this has led Hardshells to think that means may be used by God after awakening but not in awakening itself. Preaching is God's means of getting the attention of sinners, of stirring their minds and consciences.
Edwards wrote:
"But God, who knows our nature and circumstances, knows what is most adapted to them. He who made the faculties of our souls, knows what will have the greatest tendency to move them, and to work upon them. He who is striving with us, to bring us to repentance and salvation, uses the fittest and best means. In contriving and appointing the means of our salvation, he chooses better for us than we should for ourselves...God is infinitely wise, and knows better how to speak to us so as to persuade us, than one risen from the dead. He perfectly knows our nature and state, and knows how to adapt his instructions and warnings to our frame and circumstances in the world. And without doubt that method which God has chosen, is agreeable to his infinite wisdom, and most adapted to our nature."
But, our Hardshell brethren do not believe that God uses his word to "awaken" the hearts, minds, and consciences of sinners. To them God must first awaken the sinner, apart from the word of God, before the sinner has either the ability or warrant to believe, repent, and convert to Christ. I dare say that this is probably why very few who attend Hardshell churches experience any "awakenings." They certainly are taught not to expect any such effects of their preaching, having no faith in its use or effectiveness in the Spirit's hand to produce it.
Edwards wrote:
"The Scripture is full of instances, sufficient to convince us, that if the Word of God will not awaken and convert sinners, nothing will."
If the Scriptures are so replete with evidence to show that God uses his word to awaken sinners, then how can the Hardshells miss it? And, how can they be so arrogant about their supposed special and unique knowledge on this subject? Oh yes, our Hardshell brethren are wiser than President Edwards in the interpretation of the Scriptures! Wiser than Spurgeon also, as we shall see.
Spurgeon in his famous sermon "THE WARRANT OF FAITH" (see here) said:
"The warrant for a sinner to believe in Christ is not in himself in any sense or in any manner, but in the fact that he is commanded then and there to believe on Jesus Christ! Some preachers in the Puritan times, whose shoe laces I am not worthy to unloose, erred much in this matter. I refer not merely to Alleine and Baxter, who are far better preachers of the law than of the gospel, but I include men far sounder in the faith than they, such as Rogers of Dedham, Shepherd, the author of The Sound Believer, and especially the American, Thomas Hooker, who has written a book upon qualifications for coming to Christ. These excellent men had a fear of preaching the gospel to any except those whom they styled, “sensible sinners,” and consequently, kept hundreds of their hearers sitting in darkness when they might have rejoiced in the light of God! They preached repentance and hatred of sin as the warrant of a sinner’s trusting to Christ. According to them, a sinner might reason thus—“I possess such-and-such a degree of sensibility on account of sin, therefore, I have a right to trust in Christ.” Now, I venture to affirm that such reasoning is seasoned with fatal error! Whoever preaches in this fashion may preach much of the gospel, but the whole gospel of the free grace of God in its fullness, he has yet to learn! In our own day, certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe. This also is false! It takes away a gospel for sinners, and offers us a gospel for saints! It is anything but a ministry of free grace!"
Yes, in the mid to late nineteenth century, when Spurgeon uttered these words, there were Hardshells, people who "assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ." And, what does he say of this aberrant novel view among Baptists? He says "it takes away a gospel for sinners."
Spurgeon said:
"I lay down, this morning, with great boldness—because I know and am well persuaded that what I speak is the mind of the Spirit—this doctrine that the sole and only warrant for a sinner to believe in Jesus is found in the gospel itself, and in the command which accompanies that gospel, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” I shall deal with that matter first negatively, and then positively."
Hardshells today do not believe that the warrant to believe is to be found in the Gospel itself, or in the word of God, and that all men are responsible with what they do with the Gospel
Spurgeon said:
"My opponents will say, “The sinner must have an awakened conscience before he is warranted to believe on Christ.” Well, then, if I trust Christ to save me because I have an awakened conscience, I say again, the most important part of the whole transaction is the alarm of my conscience, and my real trust hangs there. If I lean on Christ because I feel this and that, then I am leaning on my feelings and not on Christ alone—and this is legal, indeed! No, even if desires after Christ are to be my warrant for believing—if I am to believe in Jesus not because He bids me, but because I feel some desires after Him—you will again, with half an eye, perceive that the most important source of my comfort must be my own desires. So that we shall be always looking within, “Do I really desire? If I do, then Christ can save me. If I do not, then He cannot.” And so my desire overrides Christ and His divine grace! Away with such legality from the earth!"
I have studied Hardshell experiences for forty five years and one of the things that Hardshells look to as the chief evidence that they are born again, or of the elect, is the fact that they have convictions of conscience. That is why they sing "Tis a point I long to know, am I his or am I not?" As Spurgeon said, these are "always looking within."
Spurgeon said:
"Again, any other way of preaching than that of bidding the sinner believe because God commands him to believe, is a boasting way of faith. For if my warrant to trust in Jesus is found in my experience, my loathing of sin, or my longings after Christ, then, all these good things of mine are a legitimate ground of boasting, because though Christ may save me, yet, these were the wedding dress which fitted me to come to Christ."
The Hardshells and Hyper Calvinists guilty of "a boasting way of faith"! How does a Hardshell come to know that he is elect and called? Why, by his feelings of "loathing of sin"!
Spurgeon said:
"It is false, my brothers and sisters, it is as false as God is true, that anything in a sinner can be his warrant for believing in Jesus! The whole tenor and run of the gospel is absolutely contrary to it. It must be false, because there is nothing in a sinner until he believes which can be a warrant for his believing. If you tell me that a sinner has any good thing in him before he believes, I reply, impossible—“Without faith it is impossible to please God.” All the repenting, and humbling, and convictions that a sinner has before faith, must be, according to Scripture, displeasing to God! Do not tell me that his heart is broken, if it is only broken by carnal means, and trusts in its brokenness—it needs to be broken over again! Do not tell me he has been led to hate his sin; I tell you he does not hate his sin, he only hates hell! There cannot be a true and real hatred of sin where there is not faith in Jesus. All the sinner knows and feels, before faith, is only an addition to his other sins, and how can sin which deserves wrath be a warrant for an act which is the work of the Holy Spirit?"
I think these words are a powerful antidote to the Hardshell heresy. Spurgeon points out one of the great errors of those who put faith anywhere but in the first place in Christian experience. If faith is needed to please God, then whatever a man does before faith is displeasing to God. But, such an admission is deadly to the born again before faith error of the Hardshells.
Compare "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11: 6) with "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14: 23). Do these verses not affirm that whatever a man does before faith in Christ is not acceptable or pleasing to God? Further, the implied converse teaching of Rom. 14: 23 is - "all is by faith." But, this is what is denied by the Hardshells. Is salvation "of faith"? Is purification of heart by faith?
Spurgeon said:
"How dangerous is the sentiment I am opposing. My hearers, it may be as mischievous as to have misled some of you. I solemnly warn you, though you have been professors of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for 20 years, if your reason for believing in Christ lies in this, that you have felt the terrors of the law, that you have been alarmed and have been convicted—if your own experience is your warrant for believing in Christ—it is a false reason, and you are really relying upon your experience and not upon Christ!"
Here Spurgeon attacks the Hardshell view of the awakened sinner, and rather than giving him Hardshell counsel (telling him he is okay, already saved), he is told that he is still lost, and he is ordered to receive Christ and to look to him for salvation. Hardshell counsel to convicted sinners is indeed "dangerous" as Spurgeon said. I dealt with this at length in my series on "Conviction of Sin" in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult." Spurgeon warned these Hyper Calvinists to "Take care of resting in your own experience." Good advice.
Spurgeon said:
"I believe that the tendency of that preaching which puts the warrant for faith anywhere but in the gospel command, is to vex the true penitent, and to console the hypocrite..."
Is that not what Hardshell preaching does? Rather than bringing salvation's joy to the penitent, it rather vexes him. And, it gives hope and consolation to the hypocrites. That is indeed dangerous.
Monday, December 7, 2015
John Leland and Duty Faith
In writing upon the subject of "faith" in its relation to salvation, John Leland (whom Hardshells claim as a believer in "anti means" or as one of them) wrote (emphasis mine): (See here)
"...that men are under the strongest obligations to hear and believe all that God reveals, admits of no doubt..."
Not only did Leland believe in duty faith, in the responsibility of all men to believe what God reveals, but so did leading Hardshell founding fathers, Elders Samuel Trott and James Osbourn. It is sad that today's Hardshells have "gone off the deep end" on this issue and no longer believe as did their forefathers.
Notice also these words of Leland:
"Nothing is here intended to chill the burning zeal of those, who so pathetically call on all to repent and believe the gospel, and deal out the vengeance of God and the wrath of the Lamb to unbelievers: but let them at the same time remember, that there is a faith superior to all duty, called, sometimes, the spirit which God pours out upon them; at other times, the water of life; an unction from the Holy One; the word of God which liveth and abideth in the saints; Christ in them the hope of glory, &c. This kind of faith, Adam, in innocency, had not; this faith came not by Abraham or Moses, but by Jesus Christ, and is life eternal." (pages 428-30)
Leland was an evangelistic Calvinist and would be condemnatory, were he alive today, of the lack of preaching to the lost that characterizes the stale Hyper Calvinism of our modern Hardshell brethren.
"...that men are under the strongest obligations to hear and believe all that God reveals, admits of no doubt..."
Not only did Leland believe in duty faith, in the responsibility of all men to believe what God reveals, but so did leading Hardshell founding fathers, Elders Samuel Trott and James Osbourn. It is sad that today's Hardshells have "gone off the deep end" on this issue and no longer believe as did their forefathers.
Notice also these words of Leland:
"Nothing is here intended to chill the burning zeal of those, who so pathetically call on all to repent and believe the gospel, and deal out the vengeance of God and the wrath of the Lamb to unbelievers: but let them at the same time remember, that there is a faith superior to all duty, called, sometimes, the spirit which God pours out upon them; at other times, the water of life; an unction from the Holy One; the word of God which liveth and abideth in the saints; Christ in them the hope of glory, &c. This kind of faith, Adam, in innocency, had not; this faith came not by Abraham or Moses, but by Jesus Christ, and is life eternal." (pages 428-30)
Leland was an evangelistic Calvinist and would be condemnatory, were he alive today, of the lack of preaching to the lost that characterizes the stale Hyper Calvinism of our modern Hardshell brethren.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Hardshell Evolution in Doctrine I
In my many years of research into the history of that group that today calls itself "Primitive Baptists," I have discovered many things about the evolution in doctrine that occurred within this denomination. Today's Hardshells generally do not know that there has been any change in doctrine over the past 181 years since the Black Rock Address (1832). They unknowingly believe that what they believe today is exactly what the first Hardshells believed in the early 19th century.
When I was a young Hardshell preacher, and just beginning to be schooled by the veteran Hardshells about their history, I was told many things that I later found out to be false. This is also true concerning the numerous Hardshell histories that I had begun to read.
The first falsehood I was told was that the division among the Baptists that occurred in 1832, as a primary result of the "Black Rock Address," was because the Baptists at that time began to believe things that were new, things that Particular Baptists had not believed before, and that this forced those who supposedly adhered to the old views to declare non-fellowship with them, which created two groups, styled "Missionary" and "Primitive" Baptists.
Another falsehood that I was told is that all the Baptists were united in their beliefs, and that they all were anti missionary and all believed in Spirit alone or immediate regeneration or regeneration apart from faith via the Gospel.
Another falsehood that I was told was that missionary organizations, theological schools, and special religious education for the young, were all new things among the Old Baptists.
Another falsehood that I was told was that the division, or separation of the Hardshells from the general Baptist family, was doctrinal, over the issue of the means question (in regeneration) and over the extent of the atonement (over "Fullerism").
A few years ago I was shocked to find out that one of the more popular views among the first Hardshells of the early 19th century was the view that saw the new birth as being exactly like natural/physical birth, and that as physical birth has stages, so does spiritual birth. There is first the implantation of the seed, the origin of the child, then there was the time of growth in the womb, and then finally the birth of the child from the womb. This view I have learned is still the teaching of the old Regular Baptists and some Presbyterians, and was also the teaching of A.W. Pink. In chapter 52 under the title "Beebe-Trott Model" and chapter 57 under the title "The Original Paradigm" I documented how this view was an accepted view among many of the first generation Hardshells.
This view sees "regeneration" as corresponding to the implantation of the seed, the time in growth in the womb as corresponding to the time when a regenerated soul is under conviction of sin, yet in darkness, without Gospel hope, without conversion to Christ. Finally, there was the "birth," corresponding to the time when the soul is "delivered" from the womb of conviction and darkness and brought forth into the light of the Gospel, when the soul believes in Christ and is converted.
This view was promoted by elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, mainly in only one of the four Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, in the "Signs of the Times." A few writers in the other three Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s also promoted this view. Elder William Conrad of Kentucky held this view and he was a close associate of Elder Wilson Thompson who also seems to have held this view. Thompson was a close associate of Beebe and Trott and frequent writer to the Signs of the Times periodical. Further, in chapter 50 under the title "From Law to Grace?" I showed how this seemed to be the view of Thompson. This view of things was put forth well into the 1850s.
This view of regeneration and the new birth led some Hardshells of the 1830s to reason regeneration was immediate, apart from faith via the Gospel, while the new birth was mediate, through faith via the Gospel. Knowing this about the first Hardshells is important. Just because a writer of the 1830-1860 period may have affirmed that regeneration was immediate, does not mean that he denied that the new birth was likewise immediate, nor does it mean that he denied that one had to be converted as well as regenerated to be finally saved in heaven. In fact, as I have shown in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," the oldest articles of faith of the Hardshell churches all say that they believe that all the elect will be "regenerated AND converted."
In the other periodicals, especially that of "The Primitive Baptist," however, this view does not appear to be generally promoted, the writers in this periodical generally making no distinction between regeneration and conversion, and affirming that regeneration was accomplished through the means of the Gospel. Elder John Watson, who helped put out and write for the "Old Baptist Banner" seemed to believe as did the writers in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical. Further, the writers in "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" also seemed to identify conversion with regeneration.
These historical discoveries led me to do further research into exactly how and when the Hardshell denomination took on its present doctrinal stand, when it comepletely denied that regeneration or the new birth was accomplished by the Gospel, and denied that faith in Christ was necessary to be finally saved in heaven.
Around 1890 there was a watershed event dealing with this question of means in regeneration and the new birth. The Mt. Carmel Old School or Regular Baptist church (Luray, Virginia) divided over this question along with the issue of having bible classes and Sunday Schools. This division occurred at the time of Elder John Clark's death who lived in the area and who was editor (since its beginning in 1852 or 1854) of the Hardshell periodical "Zion's Advocate." He lived in Luray. He was a major leader among the Hardshells, and outspoken opponent of Beebe and Trott, who he opposed for holding to Sabellianism, Arianism, and to the eternal children doctrine of Daniel Parker, as well as some of their other errors.
Elder Clark's writings are generally not available on the Internet today as are the old issues of the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s. Hopefully they will be reviewed by me sometime in the future. However, it is clear to me that Elder Clark believed that regeneration was accomplished by the means of the Gospel. He was a frequent writer to the "Primitive Baptist" and never wrote to that periodical to disagree with their oft advocating the means view. Further, I have presented evidence that Elder Clark affirmed the Gospel means position in the very first issue of "Zion's Advocate." However, I have seen some Hardshell web pages where Clark is cited as supposedly affirming that means were not used in regeneration. Now, something is amiss here. Did Clark contradict himself? Or, did he believe in the three stage model of the new birth, as Beebe, Trott, Conrad, and Thompson, and therefore advocated that initital regeneration was apart from means, but that the birth, or complete regeneration, was by means? Or, as I suspect, the citations that these Hardshells give wherein Clark supposedly denied the use of means have the infamous Hardshell ellipsis, of which I have written about in a previous post (see here). I therefore suspect that the omissions in these citations are intended to cover up the real views of Clark on this issue.
It must be remembered that Elder Burnam, who was advocating the means view, and who was one of the leaders involved in the split in the Mt. Carmel church, and one of the persons testifying in the Mt. Carmel church trial that happened many years later concerning this division, was an associate editor with Clark on "Zion's Advocate." It seems unlikely that Clark would have him on his editorial staff if he disagreed with Burnam regarding means. Further, Burnam testified in the trial that he had proof from writings in the Advocate that showed that Clark believed in means. This was denied, however, by those on the other side, men like Elders Dalton and Waters. Dalton became editor of the Advocate when Clark died. Further, Elder Clark was a close friend to elders Watson and Osbourn who clearly taught regeneration by the means of the Gospel.
In the trial Elder Burnam said:
"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."
Is Burnam saying that the no means view of regeneration/new birth was not promoted at all prior to the last quarter of the 19th century? Surely this change in doctrine did not occur in a vacuum or instantly, but probably had its advocates prior to this time. I was anxious to find out, to discover the causes of this evolution in doctrine.
There is little doubt in my mind that it was in the time period mentioned by Burnam when the anti means faction became the majority view and this led to a formal division between those who still held to the old view, the means view, and those who grabbed hold of the new anti means view.
It is clear that it was the overwhelming majority view of the Hardshells up to the time period mentioned by Burnam that all the elect would be converted, via evangelical faith. It is true that some Hardshells prior to this time were advocating that initial regeneration was immediate, without means, but nevertheless held that conversion was necessary for final salvation and was accomphished by evangelical faith. I suspect that it was the teaching that initial regeneration was immediate that led later Hardshells to deny a distinction between regeneration and conversion and to believe that conversion was not necessary to be born again or finally saved.
It must be remembered that the debate over mission organizations, Sunday Schools, theological schools, tract organizations, protracted meetings, etc., all came down to the question of the condition of the heathen who have no knowledge of the Gospel. How can they be saved if they do not hear the Gospel? This question was a problem for the first generation of Hardshells to deal with as they tried to give a defense for their opposition to mission operations. At first, they did not generally argue that they could be saved whether they ever heard the Gospel, but simply attacked the methods being advocated to bring the Gospel to the heathen. But, after a period of time, their arguments wore thin, and it became apparent to many of them that they would have to come up with a better apology in their fight against missionary operations. This they later decided to do by denying that anyone had to have evangelical faith, or to hear the Gospel, to be regeneration, born again, or finally saved.
In middle Tennessee Dr. R.B.C. Howell put out a paper called "The Baptist" (which was later taken over by Dr. J.R. Graves and who later called it "The Tennessee Baptist"). In this periodical Howell fought against Daniel Parker and his followers, who were strong in his area, and against his neighbor, John Watson. (Note: Watson also battled against the Parkerite faction of the newly formed Hardshell denomination) In Howell's paper, in the 1830s, Howell mentions how the Parkerite Hardshells were responding to the case of the heathen, and of their need to take the Gospel to them. Howell says that they were saying that they would be saved because they were ignorant of the Gospel, and since they never heard it, it was not necessary for them to hear it. If one heard the Gospel, reasoned the Parkerites, then of course they would have to believe it to be finally saved. Howell argued that such reasoning amounts to the heathen being saved by their ignorance, would force one to believe in wholesale heathen salvation, and that it would be better not to preach the Gospel to them at all.
Thus, it seems that the first ones to assert salvation apart from hearing the Gospel were the small Parkerite faction. This is substantiated also by elders John Watson and Hosea Preslar. Watson indicates that this novel view began with some among the followers of Parker, and Preslar, in his book "Thoughts on Divine Providence," as I have cited before, and who moved to middle Tennessee from North Carolina, in the time in question, also intimates that the anti means view as a peculiar view of the Parkerites.
When I was a young Hardshell preacher, and just beginning to be schooled by the veteran Hardshells about their history, I was told many things that I later found out to be false. This is also true concerning the numerous Hardshell histories that I had begun to read.
The first falsehood I was told was that the division among the Baptists that occurred in 1832, as a primary result of the "Black Rock Address," was because the Baptists at that time began to believe things that were new, things that Particular Baptists had not believed before, and that this forced those who supposedly adhered to the old views to declare non-fellowship with them, which created two groups, styled "Missionary" and "Primitive" Baptists.
Another falsehood that I was told is that all the Baptists were united in their beliefs, and that they all were anti missionary and all believed in Spirit alone or immediate regeneration or regeneration apart from faith via the Gospel.
Another falsehood that I was told was that missionary organizations, theological schools, and special religious education for the young, were all new things among the Old Baptists.
Another falsehood that I was told was that the division, or separation of the Hardshells from the general Baptist family, was doctrinal, over the issue of the means question (in regeneration) and over the extent of the atonement (over "Fullerism").
A few years ago I was shocked to find out that one of the more popular views among the first Hardshells of the early 19th century was the view that saw the new birth as being exactly like natural/physical birth, and that as physical birth has stages, so does spiritual birth. There is first the implantation of the seed, the origin of the child, then there was the time of growth in the womb, and then finally the birth of the child from the womb. This view I have learned is still the teaching of the old Regular Baptists and some Presbyterians, and was also the teaching of A.W. Pink. In chapter 52 under the title "Beebe-Trott Model" and chapter 57 under the title "The Original Paradigm" I documented how this view was an accepted view among many of the first generation Hardshells.
This view sees "regeneration" as corresponding to the implantation of the seed, the time in growth in the womb as corresponding to the time when a regenerated soul is under conviction of sin, yet in darkness, without Gospel hope, without conversion to Christ. Finally, there was the "birth," corresponding to the time when the soul is "delivered" from the womb of conviction and darkness and brought forth into the light of the Gospel, when the soul believes in Christ and is converted.
This view was promoted by elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott, mainly in only one of the four Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s, in the "Signs of the Times." A few writers in the other three Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s also promoted this view. Elder William Conrad of Kentucky held this view and he was a close associate of Elder Wilson Thompson who also seems to have held this view. Thompson was a close associate of Beebe and Trott and frequent writer to the Signs of the Times periodical. Further, in chapter 50 under the title "From Law to Grace?" I showed how this seemed to be the view of Thompson. This view of things was put forth well into the 1850s.
This view of regeneration and the new birth led some Hardshells of the 1830s to reason regeneration was immediate, apart from faith via the Gospel, while the new birth was mediate, through faith via the Gospel. Knowing this about the first Hardshells is important. Just because a writer of the 1830-1860 period may have affirmed that regeneration was immediate, does not mean that he denied that the new birth was likewise immediate, nor does it mean that he denied that one had to be converted as well as regenerated to be finally saved in heaven. In fact, as I have shown in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," the oldest articles of faith of the Hardshell churches all say that they believe that all the elect will be "regenerated AND converted."
In the other periodicals, especially that of "The Primitive Baptist," however, this view does not appear to be generally promoted, the writers in this periodical generally making no distinction between regeneration and conversion, and affirming that regeneration was accomplished through the means of the Gospel. Elder John Watson, who helped put out and write for the "Old Baptist Banner" seemed to believe as did the writers in the "Primitive Baptist" periodical. Further, the writers in "The Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor" also seemed to identify conversion with regeneration.
These historical discoveries led me to do further research into exactly how and when the Hardshell denomination took on its present doctrinal stand, when it comepletely denied that regeneration or the new birth was accomplished by the Gospel, and denied that faith in Christ was necessary to be finally saved in heaven.
Around 1890 there was a watershed event dealing with this question of means in regeneration and the new birth. The Mt. Carmel Old School or Regular Baptist church (Luray, Virginia) divided over this question along with the issue of having bible classes and Sunday Schools. This division occurred at the time of Elder John Clark's death who lived in the area and who was editor (since its beginning in 1852 or 1854) of the Hardshell periodical "Zion's Advocate." He lived in Luray. He was a major leader among the Hardshells, and outspoken opponent of Beebe and Trott, who he opposed for holding to Sabellianism, Arianism, and to the eternal children doctrine of Daniel Parker, as well as some of their other errors.
Elder Clark's writings are generally not available on the Internet today as are the old issues of the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s. Hopefully they will be reviewed by me sometime in the future. However, it is clear to me that Elder Clark believed that regeneration was accomplished by the means of the Gospel. He was a frequent writer to the "Primitive Baptist" and never wrote to that periodical to disagree with their oft advocating the means view. Further, I have presented evidence that Elder Clark affirmed the Gospel means position in the very first issue of "Zion's Advocate." However, I have seen some Hardshell web pages where Clark is cited as supposedly affirming that means were not used in regeneration. Now, something is amiss here. Did Clark contradict himself? Or, did he believe in the three stage model of the new birth, as Beebe, Trott, Conrad, and Thompson, and therefore advocated that initital regeneration was apart from means, but that the birth, or complete regeneration, was by means? Or, as I suspect, the citations that these Hardshells give wherein Clark supposedly denied the use of means have the infamous Hardshell ellipsis, of which I have written about in a previous post (see here). I therefore suspect that the omissions in these citations are intended to cover up the real views of Clark on this issue.
It must be remembered that Elder Burnam, who was advocating the means view, and who was one of the leaders involved in the split in the Mt. Carmel church, and one of the persons testifying in the Mt. Carmel church trial that happened many years later concerning this division, was an associate editor with Clark on "Zion's Advocate." It seems unlikely that Clark would have him on his editorial staff if he disagreed with Burnam regarding means. Further, Burnam testified in the trial that he had proof from writings in the Advocate that showed that Clark believed in means. This was denied, however, by those on the other side, men like Elders Dalton and Waters. Dalton became editor of the Advocate when Clark died. Further, Elder Clark was a close friend to elders Watson and Osbourn who clearly taught regeneration by the means of the Gospel.
In the trial Elder Burnam said:
"It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ."
Is Burnam saying that the no means view of regeneration/new birth was not promoted at all prior to the last quarter of the 19th century? Surely this change in doctrine did not occur in a vacuum or instantly, but probably had its advocates prior to this time. I was anxious to find out, to discover the causes of this evolution in doctrine.
There is little doubt in my mind that it was in the time period mentioned by Burnam when the anti means faction became the majority view and this led to a formal division between those who still held to the old view, the means view, and those who grabbed hold of the new anti means view.
It is clear that it was the overwhelming majority view of the Hardshells up to the time period mentioned by Burnam that all the elect would be converted, via evangelical faith. It is true that some Hardshells prior to this time were advocating that initial regeneration was immediate, without means, but nevertheless held that conversion was necessary for final salvation and was accomphished by evangelical faith. I suspect that it was the teaching that initial regeneration was immediate that led later Hardshells to deny a distinction between regeneration and conversion and to believe that conversion was not necessary to be born again or finally saved.
It must be remembered that the debate over mission organizations, Sunday Schools, theological schools, tract organizations, protracted meetings, etc., all came down to the question of the condition of the heathen who have no knowledge of the Gospel. How can they be saved if they do not hear the Gospel? This question was a problem for the first generation of Hardshells to deal with as they tried to give a defense for their opposition to mission operations. At first, they did not generally argue that they could be saved whether they ever heard the Gospel, but simply attacked the methods being advocated to bring the Gospel to the heathen. But, after a period of time, their arguments wore thin, and it became apparent to many of them that they would have to come up with a better apology in their fight against missionary operations. This they later decided to do by denying that anyone had to have evangelical faith, or to hear the Gospel, to be regeneration, born again, or finally saved.
In middle Tennessee Dr. R.B.C. Howell put out a paper called "The Baptist" (which was later taken over by Dr. J.R. Graves and who later called it "The Tennessee Baptist"). In this periodical Howell fought against Daniel Parker and his followers, who were strong in his area, and against his neighbor, John Watson. (Note: Watson also battled against the Parkerite faction of the newly formed Hardshell denomination) In Howell's paper, in the 1830s, Howell mentions how the Parkerite Hardshells were responding to the case of the heathen, and of their need to take the Gospel to them. Howell says that they were saying that they would be saved because they were ignorant of the Gospel, and since they never heard it, it was not necessary for them to hear it. If one heard the Gospel, reasoned the Parkerites, then of course they would have to believe it to be finally saved. Howell argued that such reasoning amounts to the heathen being saved by their ignorance, would force one to believe in wholesale heathen salvation, and that it would be better not to preach the Gospel to them at all.
Thus, it seems that the first ones to assert salvation apart from hearing the Gospel were the small Parkerite faction. This is substantiated also by elders John Watson and Hosea Preslar. Watson indicates that this novel view began with some among the followers of Parker, and Preslar, in his book "Thoughts on Divine Providence," as I have cited before, and who moved to middle Tennessee from North Carolina, in the time in question, also intimates that the anti means view as a peculiar view of the Parkerites.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Romans 3 and Hyper Calvinism
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one...And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes." (9-12, 17-18)
Here are the Facts
1. Paul is proving that all men are "under sin," and "guilty before God" and that God's judgment is upon men for their numerous sins.
2. Paul is proving that this judgment of God is just and righteous and that men are responsible or accountable for their numerous examples of "hamartia."
3. Some of the specific "sins" Paul gives as examples are highlighted above, such as "not being righteous," and "not understanding," and "not seeking God," and not "doing good," and finally, having "no fear of God."
Here Are The Consequences for Hyper Calvinists
and for those who deny duty faith and repentance
1. They cannot say that God condemns men for not seeking him if it be not their duty to seek him.
2. They cannot say that God condemns men for not understanding or knowing him if it be not their duty to do so.
3. They cannot say that God condemns men for not fearing God if it be not their duty to do so.
4. Etc.
Here are the Facts
1. Paul is proving that all men are "under sin," and "guilty before God" and that God's judgment is upon men for their numerous sins.
2. Paul is proving that this judgment of God is just and righteous and that men are responsible or accountable for their numerous examples of "hamartia."
3. Some of the specific "sins" Paul gives as examples are highlighted above, such as "not being righteous," and "not understanding," and "not seeking God," and not "doing good," and finally, having "no fear of God."
Here Are The Consequences for Hyper Calvinists
and for those who deny duty faith and repentance
1. They cannot say that God condemns men for not seeking him if it be not their duty to seek him.
2. They cannot say that God condemns men for not understanding or knowing him if it be not their duty to do so.
3. They cannot say that God condemns men for not fearing God if it be not their duty to do so.
4. Etc.
Are The Thirsty Saved or Lost?
"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55: 1-3)
"You all come to the waters!" That is an invitation, gracious and merciful, and it is extended to all who are "thirsty." Further, all men are "thirsty," in the sense of this text, whether they know it or not.
Some Hyper Calvinists say that the "thirsty" mentioned here in the text are they who are already spiritually alive because "thirst" is an evidence of "life." Dead men do not thirst, it is argued. But, an investigation of the scriptures relative to this "thirst" will show them that spiritual death, not spiritual life, is what is alluded to by the descriptive word "thirsty."
"Thirsty" is a term denoting our condition outside of Christ, our condition in sin and death, our condition before coming to Christ. Regeneration, or being born again, on the other hand, is described as a being saved from thirst. Notice these words of Christ:
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." (John 4: 14)
"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6: 35)
Notice how Jesus associated being made spiritually alive with drinking the water of life, and with being saved from "thirst," or a "thirsty condition." Salvation is to partake of Christ, his flesh and blood, the bread of life, the water of life. And, how does one drink? Is it not when he believes? When he has Christ and truth revealed to him?
This invitation to the thirsty to come and drink Christ is an invitation to salvation. It is a call to those who have not drunk Christ, and who are therefore lost, to come and drink Christ in order that they may have life.
Thirsty land is dry land, land where there is no moisture, and where there is no moisture there is death and barrenness. The heart that is thirsty has not come to the waters and drank. They are parched in heart and soul. Their mental life is a desert wilderness. The spiritually and morally dead sinner dwells, mentally and emotionally, in "a dry and thirsty land, where no water is." Notice these words of the prophet.
"Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst." (Hosea 2: 3)
How are sinners "in the day they are born"? Are they not born children of wrath (Eph. 2: 3) and born in sin (Psalm 51: 3)? Is being naked (unclothed), alone (in a desolate place), dying of hunger and thirst, having no food or water, a picture of regeneration and spiritual life or a picture of non-regeneration and spiritual death? Notice these worthy comments from Albert Barnes.
Barnes Commentary
“There is an outward visible nakedness and an inward, which is invisible. The invisible nakedness is, when the soul within is bared of the glory and the grace of God.”
“as in the day that she was born,” i. e., helpless, defiled, uncleansed, uncared for, unformed, cast out and loathsome. Such she was in Egypt, which is in Holy Scripture spoken of, as her birthplace Ezekiel 16:4; for there she first became a people; thence the God of her fathers called her to be His people. There she was naked of the grace and of the love of God, and of the wisdom of the law; indwelt by an evil spirit, as being an idolatress; without God; and under hard bondage, in works of mire and clay, to Pharaoh, the type of Satan, and her little ones a prey. For when a soul casts off the defense of heavenly grace, it is an easy prey to Satan.
And make her as a wilderness, and set her as a dry land, and slay her with thirst - The outward desolation, which God inflicts, is a picture of the inward. Drought and famine are among the four sore judgments, with which God threatened the land, and our Lord forewarned them, “Your house is left unto you desolate” Matthew 23:38; and Isaiah says, “Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee” Isaiah 60:15. But the prophet does not say, make her a wilderness, but make “her as a wilderness.” The soul of the sinner is solitary and desolate, for it has not the presence of God; unfruitful, bearing briars and thorns only, for it is unbedewed by God‘s grace, unwatered by the Fountain of living waters; athirst, “not with thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord,” yet also, burning with desire, which the foul streams of this world‘s pleasure never slake. In contrast with such thirst, Jesus says of the Holy Spirit which He would give to them that believe in Him, “Whosoever drinketh of the water, that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water, that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life” John 4:14; John 7:38-39."
Thirst - Come - Drink - Quench
Thirst = lost condition
Coming to Christ = The means or remedy
Drinking = The means or remedy
Quench = Deliverance or cure
"You all come to the waters!" That is an invitation, gracious and merciful, and it is extended to all who are "thirsty." Further, all men are "thirsty," in the sense of this text, whether they know it or not.
Some Hyper Calvinists say that the "thirsty" mentioned here in the text are they who are already spiritually alive because "thirst" is an evidence of "life." Dead men do not thirst, it is argued. But, an investigation of the scriptures relative to this "thirst" will show them that spiritual death, not spiritual life, is what is alluded to by the descriptive word "thirsty."
"Thirsty" is a term denoting our condition outside of Christ, our condition in sin and death, our condition before coming to Christ. Regeneration, or being born again, on the other hand, is described as a being saved from thirst. Notice these words of Christ:
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." (John 4: 14)
"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6: 35)
Notice how Jesus associated being made spiritually alive with drinking the water of life, and with being saved from "thirst," or a "thirsty condition." Salvation is to partake of Christ, his flesh and blood, the bread of life, the water of life. And, how does one drink? Is it not when he believes? When he has Christ and truth revealed to him?
This invitation to the thirsty to come and drink Christ is an invitation to salvation. It is a call to those who have not drunk Christ, and who are therefore lost, to come and drink Christ in order that they may have life.
Thirsty land is dry land, land where there is no moisture, and where there is no moisture there is death and barrenness. The heart that is thirsty has not come to the waters and drank. They are parched in heart and soul. Their mental life is a desert wilderness. The spiritually and morally dead sinner dwells, mentally and emotionally, in "a dry and thirsty land, where no water is." Notice these words of the prophet.
"Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst." (Hosea 2: 3)
How are sinners "in the day they are born"? Are they not born children of wrath (Eph. 2: 3) and born in sin (Psalm 51: 3)? Is being naked (unclothed), alone (in a desolate place), dying of hunger and thirst, having no food or water, a picture of regeneration and spiritual life or a picture of non-regeneration and spiritual death? Notice these worthy comments from Albert Barnes.
Barnes Commentary
“There is an outward visible nakedness and an inward, which is invisible. The invisible nakedness is, when the soul within is bared of the glory and the grace of God.”
“as in the day that she was born,” i. e., helpless, defiled, uncleansed, uncared for, unformed, cast out and loathsome. Such she was in Egypt, which is in Holy Scripture spoken of, as her birthplace Ezekiel 16:4; for there she first became a people; thence the God of her fathers called her to be His people. There she was naked of the grace and of the love of God, and of the wisdom of the law; indwelt by an evil spirit, as being an idolatress; without God; and under hard bondage, in works of mire and clay, to Pharaoh, the type of Satan, and her little ones a prey. For when a soul casts off the defense of heavenly grace, it is an easy prey to Satan.
And make her as a wilderness, and set her as a dry land, and slay her with thirst - The outward desolation, which God inflicts, is a picture of the inward. Drought and famine are among the four sore judgments, with which God threatened the land, and our Lord forewarned them, “Your house is left unto you desolate” Matthew 23:38; and Isaiah says, “Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee” Isaiah 60:15. But the prophet does not say, make her a wilderness, but make “her as a wilderness.” The soul of the sinner is solitary and desolate, for it has not the presence of God; unfruitful, bearing briars and thorns only, for it is unbedewed by God‘s grace, unwatered by the Fountain of living waters; athirst, “not with thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord,” yet also, burning with desire, which the foul streams of this world‘s pleasure never slake. In contrast with such thirst, Jesus says of the Holy Spirit which He would give to them that believe in Him, “Whosoever drinketh of the water, that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water, that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life” John 4:14; John 7:38-39."
Thirst - Come - Drink - Quench
Thirst = lost condition
Coming to Christ = The means or remedy
Drinking = The means or remedy
Quench = Deliverance or cure
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Dr. Hymers on "Awakened" Sinners
In an Internet article titled "AWAKENING – BEFORE CONVERSION," by Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr., (see HERE) whom I have cited before and received comment, wrote the following concerning what the old writers referred to as "awakening" in Christian experience. The Hardshells went into error concerning this experience, wrongly seeing it as an evidence of regeneration rather than what is preparatory to it. But, Hymers gives the correct view, the one in line with writers of former centuries and with the holy scriptures. Further, in this article, Hymers uses the word "conversion" for "regeneration" or the "new birth" as did the old writers.
Hymers wrote (emphasis mine):
"Awakening is not conversion. Awakening prepares the heart for conversion. It comes before conversion.
what is awakening?
Awakening is when you begin to think very seriously about the salvation of your soul. Here is what great Spurgeon said about awakening:
"Great numbers of persons have no concern about eternal things. They care more about their cats and dogs than about their souls. It is a great mercy to be made to think about ourselves, and how we stand before God and the eternal world. This is [very] often a sign that salvation is coming to us. By nature we do not like the anxiety which spiritual concern causes us, and we try, like sluggards, to sleep again. This is great foolishness; for it is at our great peril that we trifle when death is so near, and judgment is so sure… If we are sensible, we shall pray that our anxiety about our souls may never come to an end till we are really and truly saved…It would be an awful thing to go on dreaming down to hell, and there to lift up our eyes with a great gulf fixed between us and heaven. It will be equally terrible to be aroused to escape from the wrath to come, and then to shake off the warning influence, and go back to our insensibility. I notice that those who overcome their convictions and continue in their sins are not so easily moved the next time: every awakening which is thrown away leaves the soul more drowsy than before, and less likely to be again stirred to holy feeling. Therefore our heart should be greatly troubled at the thought of getting rid of its trouble in any other than the right way. One who had the gout was cured of it by a quack medicine, which drove the disease within, and the patient died. To be cured of a distress of mind by a false hope, would be a terrible business: the remedy would be worse than the disease. Better far that [your] tenderness of conscience should cause [you] long years of anguish than that we should lose it, and perish in the hardness of our hearts." (C. H. Spurgeon Around the Wicket Gate)
These are the essentials of true awakening: you see that you are a lost sinner. You see that you deserve to be punished for your sins. You see that you are in great danger. You see that your sins must be punished – or God is not just. Those are the essentials of true awakening. Until a person feels these things, he is not going to be converted.
These examples show that it is not the length of the awakening that matters. Spurgeon said:
Awakening is not a thing to rest in, or to desire to have lengthened out month after month. If I [wake] up in a fright, and find my house on fire, I do not sit down at the edge of the bed, and say to myself, “I hope I am truly awakened!”… No, I want to escape from threatened death, so I [hurry] to the door or to the window, that I may get out, and…not perish where I am. It would be [no good] to be [awakened], and yet not escape from the danger. Remember, awakening is not salvation.
I publish this as an introduction to further writings upon this subject for it is one in which the Hardshells have greatly erred. I covered this a great deal under a series in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" book under the title "Hardshells and Conviction of Sin."
Hymers wrote (emphasis mine):
"Awakening is not conversion. Awakening prepares the heart for conversion. It comes before conversion.
what is awakening?
Awakening is when you begin to think very seriously about the salvation of your soul. Here is what great Spurgeon said about awakening:
"Great numbers of persons have no concern about eternal things. They care more about their cats and dogs than about their souls. It is a great mercy to be made to think about ourselves, and how we stand before God and the eternal world. This is [very] often a sign that salvation is coming to us. By nature we do not like the anxiety which spiritual concern causes us, and we try, like sluggards, to sleep again. This is great foolishness; for it is at our great peril that we trifle when death is so near, and judgment is so sure… If we are sensible, we shall pray that our anxiety about our souls may never come to an end till we are really and truly saved…It would be an awful thing to go on dreaming down to hell, and there to lift up our eyes with a great gulf fixed between us and heaven. It will be equally terrible to be aroused to escape from the wrath to come, and then to shake off the warning influence, and go back to our insensibility. I notice that those who overcome their convictions and continue in their sins are not so easily moved the next time: every awakening which is thrown away leaves the soul more drowsy than before, and less likely to be again stirred to holy feeling. Therefore our heart should be greatly troubled at the thought of getting rid of its trouble in any other than the right way. One who had the gout was cured of it by a quack medicine, which drove the disease within, and the patient died. To be cured of a distress of mind by a false hope, would be a terrible business: the remedy would be worse than the disease. Better far that [your] tenderness of conscience should cause [you] long years of anguish than that we should lose it, and perish in the hardness of our hearts." (C. H. Spurgeon Around the Wicket Gate)
These are the essentials of true awakening: you see that you are a lost sinner. You see that you deserve to be punished for your sins. You see that you are in great danger. You see that your sins must be punished – or God is not just. Those are the essentials of true awakening. Until a person feels these things, he is not going to be converted.
These examples show that it is not the length of the awakening that matters. Spurgeon said:
Awakening is not a thing to rest in, or to desire to have lengthened out month after month. If I [wake] up in a fright, and find my house on fire, I do not sit down at the edge of the bed, and say to myself, “I hope I am truly awakened!”… No, I want to escape from threatened death, so I [hurry] to the door or to the window, that I may get out, and…not perish where I am. It would be [no good] to be [awakened], and yet not escape from the danger. Remember, awakening is not salvation.
I publish this as an introduction to further writings upon this subject for it is one in which the Hardshells have greatly erred. I covered this a great deal under a series in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" book under the title "Hardshells and Conviction of Sin."
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
John Ryland Sr. a Hardshell?
In my discussion with Hardshell apologist Jason Brown, I refuted Brown's assertion that John Ryland Sr. was Hardshell on the new birth. See that posting HERE.
Preaching at the time of the devastating 18th century eruption of Mount Aetna, Ryland said (emphasis mine):
“Some high Calvinists neglect the unconverted; but Paul left no case untouched. He spoke properly and suitably to Felix, as well as to Timothy. Some neglect to preach the law, and tell their hearers to accept Christ. O sinners, beware! If Christ says, “Depart,” ‘tis all over. Depart into a thousand Aetnas, bursting up for ever and ever. Your souls are now within an inch of damnation. I am clear of your blood. If you are condemned, I’ll look you in the face at judgment, and say, “Lord, I told that man – I told those boys and girls, on the 29th of August, 1790 – I warned them – they would not believe – and now they stand shivering before the bar!”
Now, does that sound like Hardshellism?
Preaching at the time of the devastating 18th century eruption of Mount Aetna, Ryland said (emphasis mine):
“Some high Calvinists neglect the unconverted; but Paul left no case untouched. He spoke properly and suitably to Felix, as well as to Timothy. Some neglect to preach the law, and tell their hearers to accept Christ. O sinners, beware! If Christ says, “Depart,” ‘tis all over. Depart into a thousand Aetnas, bursting up for ever and ever. Your souls are now within an inch of damnation. I am clear of your blood. If you are condemned, I’ll look you in the face at judgment, and say, “Lord, I told that man – I told those boys and girls, on the 29th of August, 1790 – I warned them – they would not believe – and now they stand shivering before the bar!”
Now, does that sound like Hardshellism?
Philadelphia Confession = Hardshellism?
In his debate with Dr. W. P. Thorgmorton on the question "Who Are The Primitive Baptists," Elder Lemuel Potter said:
"He (Throgmorton) says we have not the Philadelphia confession of faith in any of our churches or associations. He says they have. It is not so much a matter of concern with me as to who have it, but as to who believe it and preach it. That is the question we are here to settle. We are here to identify each other by what we preach and teach; to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists on that subject. Remember, that although the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a “Hardshell” Baptist document some of the Missionary Baptist associations fight it. That is, the doctrine it contains. Not only a few of them, but take the country over, a majority of their ministers today preach the doctrine of Arminianism, the very thing that this London confession of faith denied when it was first gotten up." (see here)
Is there any Hardshell apologist today who wants to come to a serious discussion as to whether today's "Primitive Baptists" believe and preach the doctrines of the Philadelphia Confession? If it can be shown that today's Hardshells reject the teachings of that confession, though once accepted by their ancestors, does it not prove that they are not "original" as they claim?
"He (Throgmorton) says we have not the Philadelphia confession of faith in any of our churches or associations. He says they have. It is not so much a matter of concern with me as to who have it, but as to who believe it and preach it. That is the question we are here to settle. We are here to identify each other by what we preach and teach; to identify ourselves with the Old Baptists on that subject. Remember, that although the Philadelphia confession of faith is still a “Hardshell” Baptist document some of the Missionary Baptist associations fight it. That is, the doctrine it contains. Not only a few of them, but take the country over, a majority of their ministers today preach the doctrine of Arminianism, the very thing that this London confession of faith denied when it was first gotten up." (see here)
Is there any Hardshell apologist today who wants to come to a serious discussion as to whether today's "Primitive Baptists" believe and preach the doctrines of the Philadelphia Confession? If it can be shown that today's Hardshells reject the teachings of that confession, though once accepted by their ancestors, does it not prove that they are not "original" as they claim?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)